Revoking Citizenship on Grounds of Disloyalty to the State


	Date Published: 8/7/2008	Last Updated: 8/10/2008
	Category: Breaking the News

A bill to revoke the citizenship of those who collaborate with terrorists will soon reach the final stages of legislation. A new study by Efrat Rahaf opposes this bill and recommends annulling the power to revoke citizenship on grounds of disloyalty to the state. The 11th clause of the Nationality Law authorizes the Minister of Interior to revoke the citizenship of a person who "has committed an act of disloyalty towards the State of Israel," and also states that citizenship shall be revoked for unlawfully visiting an enemy state. This study proposes a critical analysis of these stipulations and, among other things, discusses MK Gilad Erdan's proposal to amend the clause in order to enable increased use of these powers, which until recently were considered to be a "dead letter."

Some of the main findings and conclusions are as follows:

A citizen's immunity against deportation is a fundamental right of their citizenship, and revoking citizenship is meant first and foremost to allow deportation from the State of Israel.
International law limits the revocation of citizenship and forbids altogether revoking the citizenship of a person or group of people on racial, ethnic, religious or political grounds.
The power to revoke citizenship for subversive activity usually characterizes non-democratic regimes. In most democratic countries treason and terrorism are dealt with solely under criminal law. In the famous words of US chief justice Earl Warren, "citizenship is not a license that expires upon misbehavior."
Israeli law is incompatible with international legal principles and with democratic legal systems, for several reasons: (1) The definition of the actions that constitute "disloyalty" is unacceptable as well as overly vague; (2) The law does not establish an exception for the revocation of citizenship that would result in statelessness; (3) The power is given to a minister and not to the court.
The provision regarding the revocation of citizenship on the grounds of visiting an enemy country is also unconventional. This provision, which was proposed by MK Dov Shilansky, was passed in 1980 without any real discussion in the Knesset. There is no justification for viewing a visit to an enemy state as disloyalty no matter the circumstances, and moreover, there is no correlation between the severity of the act (punishable by up to 4 years incarceration) and this draconian result.
The practical benefit of revoking one's citizenship is quite minimal. For example, a study of the first Intifada showed the ineffectiveness of deportation. Criminal law, on the other hand, deals with conducts of treason or terror by casting an aspersion on the perpetrator as well as incarceration.
Moreover, the Minister of Interior's power to revoke citizenships is very risky, especially due to the possibility of selective enforcement through discrimination against Arabs. Maintaining Israel's Jewish character by means of Jewish symbols and the right of return cannot undermine equality before the law.
The argument of "defensive democracy" does not justify the mentioned power, and its benefit to the war on terror is questionable.
Granting this power to the court shall be an improvement on the current situation, but it will not remove the risks involved, which are too high.
In light of all of the above, it is recommended to abolish clauses 11(a) and 11(b) from the Nationality Law. However, it is possible to consider legislation allowing the courts to revoke citizenship rights for a limited time, as an additional punishment to the main sentence for high treason.