Originally posted by MythLord
If this is the pregnant woman who wants her child to not be a part of ISIS(I believe that's the UK thing) let her back, have her give birth to the child, then lock her up.If this is some other woman who openly supported ISIS, but now doesn't and wants to return... Yeah, sure, return her. Just keep her under surveillence and if she broke any laws have her face penance for them.
This is a US thing, though she does have an infant son.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You lose your citizenship, usually.https://www.usa.gov/renounce-lose-citizenship
Rebellion and joining enemy militaries is probably an act of treason under most reasonable definitions.
But the habeas corpus issues are generally not at all applicable to these scenarios - you lose many rights when you commit crimes and you lose all rights when committing treason.
Okay, then.
Was aware that you lose rights when convicted of a felony (eg voting) and even lose them while on probation. Wasn't aware losing your citizenship was one though in regards to treason.
Originally posted by SquallX
Why be clueless just to be clueless?It doesn’t take a genius to know that if you willingly join your countries enemy, you are now considered a traitor.
While I'm aware that someone can be labelled a traitor and treason can be punishable by up to death, I was unaware that the person loses their citizenship.
Good to know though for future acts of treason that may come up :0
Originally posted by Robtard
While I'm aware that someone can be labelled a traitor and treason can be punishable by up to death, I was unaware that the person loses their citizenship.Good to know though for future acts of treason that may come up :0
I understood that about your position which is why I included sources. No harm in not knowing obscure nuance in the US Constitution...and now you'll never forget it because of your memory. 👆
This girl was on shaky footing to begin with as far as citizenship is concerned due to bureaucracy.
Muthana, the daughter of a former Yemeni diplomat, was born in Hackensack, New Jersey, in October 1994. Her father reportedly stepped down from his post as a diplomat just before her birth; however, the United Nations did not notify the relevant authorities until the following year, effectively pushing back the date when his diplomatic status ended.Under the provisions of the 14th Amendment, anyone born in the US is entitled to citizenship. However, this does not apply to children of individuals under the diplomatic protections of another country.
IMO it would be better to let her back and try her in a court of law then pull more political shenanigans.
We surely have plenty of decent people who have been waiting a while to immigrate to the US legally who have never joined ISIS.
We don't hold the standard that any non-citizen is entitled to be in our country, it's a privilege we as a sovereign state extend, and frankly a privilege others are more deserving of than someone who joined ISIS.
If somebody actually believes in open borders, that's one thing, if not and you hold the traditional view that the sovereign state extends immigration as a privilege rather than a right, then this seems logically indefensible to me.
@DDM perhaps it's not cut and dried and perhaps I will be proven correct.
We'll see
Originally posted by Putinbot1
@DDM perhaps it's not cut and dried and perhaps I will be proven correct.We'll see
Actually, no, there is no alternative outcome:
Originally posted by dadudemon
This is the most important part of the case:She has no right to citizenship from both angles:
1. Birthright citizenship - she does not have it because her father still enjoyed diplomatic privileges until after her birth (see above).
2. US Citizenship - she lost it, even if she had it, when she committed treason by joining ISIS. She no longer gets to enjoy habeas corpus and her citizenship rights are lost.
She can apply for refugee status, possibly. But it will most likely get denied.
This thread is done unless you guys want to talk more about this scenario.
She either had citizenship and lost or it she never had citizenship. There's no third option. In my example, she's already robbed the bank and blazed a trail of evidence and did it all very proudly.
Really, the thread is over. There's nothing left to debate because there is no debate. It's just the inevitable wait until every angle is shot done by US Courts while her lawyer(s) try to appeal to emotion angle with her son.
I find one of the arguments funny in that countries supposedly can't revoke citizenship because it's against international law to make someone "stateless".
Because...well...the clue is in the name. Islamic STATE.
**** them. Let them rot in their chosen third world hellhole.
Or better yet. Get a nice luxury plane chartered for them all to fly them back home then blow it out the sky over the middle of the ocean.
Originally posted by dadudemon“It is inconceivable to me that the government is unaware of its own records and letters,” Swift said. “They may not have been aware that Mr. Muthana had saved them.”
Actually, no, there is no alternative outcome:She either had citizenship and lost or it she never had citizenship. There's no third option. In my example, she's already robbed the bank and blazed a trail of evidence and did it all very proudly.
Really, the thread is over. There's nothing left to debate because there is no debate. It's just the inevitable wait until every angle is shot done by US Courts while her lawyer(s) try to appeal to emotion angle with her son.
The contest over the young mother’s citizenship — and the disputed timeline on which it turns — is at the nub of the case, said Stephen I. Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. If the family’s lawyers win their argument that she enjoys the protections of citizenship, any defense mounted by the government would unfold on “novel territory,” he told The Post.
“I’m not familiar with a prior episode in which the government refused to allow a U.S. citizen to enter the United States,” he said. “I really don’t think the government would want to argue that it has the power to maroon citizens overseas.”