Originally posted by Putinbot1
“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.”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.”
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.