Enemy Expatriation Act H. R. 3166

H.R. 3611 and its sister in the senate, S 1698 will close the loopholes in NDAA and put at risk, the citizenship of every single American.
The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service:
10/12/2011--Introduced.
Enemy Expatriation Act - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to include engaging in or purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which U.S. nationals would lose their nationality. Defines "hostilities" as any conflict subject to the laws of war.
This article, from the conservative magazine American Thinker, sums it up:
“Introduced as S. 1698 in the Senate and as H.R. 3166 in the House of Representatives, the Enemy Expatriation Act is expressly designed to ‘add engaging or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.’
“These bills are inconsistent with current law and Supreme Court precedent. They appear to be tailored to cow the American people, without regard for the 14th-Amendment guarantee prohibiting Congress from divesting an American citizen of his citizenship.
“On their face, S. 1698 and H.R. 3166 make it appear that any citizen ‘engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States’ would lose his citizenship. This is unlike current law, which also requires proof that the citizen does so ‘with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality.’ Thus, the new bills would make it much easier for the government to strip a dissenting citizen of his citizenship.
“Six of the seven expatriating acts in the current law require proof of formal actions — either a direct renunciation of citizenship, or a similar act unmistakably demonstrating a change of allegiance to another country. These bills would require neither. Rather, they describe a newly minted offense, the commission of which may give rise to the inference of an intent to renounce citizenship, but without requiring any direct evidence of such an intent.
“To be sure, current law provides that the commission of treason or other serious acts may justify an inference of renunciation of citizenship. However, before such an inference can be made, the person previously must have been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of one or more specified criminal acts. Under the proposed bills, the government could take away a person’s citizenship in a civil action without that person having been previously convicted of a crime in a court governed by traditional procedural safeguards of trial by jury, confrontation of witnesses, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”