US Says Alabama Jihadist Cannot Re-Enter US Because Automatically Loses Citizenship

[James_Madison_Lives]

An enemy combatant is still a citizen. Next it will be anyone framed up as "associated with terrorism" like the NDAA military detention of US citizens. She still has rights until tried, even if just the right to a trial and jail.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-6726455/US-refuses-entry-Alabama-jihadist.html


Washington (AFP) - The United States said Wednesday it would refuse to take back a US-born Islamic State propagandist who wants to return from Syria, saying that she is no longer a citizen.

The refusal to admit 24-year-old Hoda Muthana could set precedent and face legal challenges as it is generally extremely difficult to lose US citizenship.

[euphemia]

Okay open borders people. Where are you?

[Superfluous Man]

Okay open borders people. Where are you?

Here.

It looks like the OP covered this pretty well already.

What are you getting at? Do you honestly think the executive branch should be able to just take away any of our citizenships by declaring us enemy combatants according to its own criteria without any due process?

[TER]

An enemy combatant is still a citizen. Next it will be anyone framed up as "associated with terrorism" like the NDAA military detention of US citizens. She still has rights until tried, even if just the right to a trial and jail.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-6726455/US-refuses-entry-Alabama-jihadist.html

I agree. She has rights as a citizen. Unless it is an active war zone and she is imminently a danger, she should retain her rights as a citizen. If she wants to return, she should stand trial and face judgment for assisting the monsters who bedheaded innocent people and setting others on fire while alive.

[Brian4Liberty]

She renounced her citizenship when she joined ISIS. Legally, she is better off being treated as a member of ISIS.

If she is still considered a citizen, she is guilty of treason and quite a few other crimes. She could be executed.

And as a member of ISIS, her status as an immigrant to the US is to stand in the same line as other members of ISIS.

[Brian4Liberty]

I agree. She has rights as a citizen. Unless it is an active war zone and she is imminently a danger, she should retain her rights as a citizen. If she wants to return, she should stand trial and face judgment for assisting the monsters who bedheaded innocent people and setting others on fire while alive.

Which means that life in prison is the best she could hope for if she came back.

[TER]

Which means that life in prison is the best she could hope for if she came back.

Exactly.

It would be the last time such a ridiculous request was made by such a traitor and hopefully give pause to any other deranged soul who decides to join such a group of monsters in the future.

[Swordsmyth]

She renounced her citizenship when she joined ISIS. Legally, she is better off being treated as a member of ISIS.

If she is still considered a citizen, she is guilty of treason and quite a few other crimes. She could be executed.

And as a member of ISIS, her status as an immigrant to the US is to stand in the same line as other members of ISIS.
If she renounced her citizenship the she doesn't have it any more and she has no right to come here.

[Superfluous Man]

She renounced her citizenship when she joined ISIS.

Source?



If she is still considered a citizen, she is guilty of treason and quite a few other crimes. She could be executed.


That would require due process.

[Brian4Liberty]

Source?

Eminent legal scholar Mark Levin (https://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/michael-morris/mark-levin-americans-joining-isis-relinquish-their-us-citizenship):


Levin went on to explain the foundation for his suggestion that U.S. citizens fighting for ISIS have “relinquished their United States citizenship.”

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 8 U.S.C. 1481 as amended is that foundation, and it explains how citizens are subject to losing their citizenship if they, voluntarily and with the intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship, perform at least one of seven specified acts.

Levin then stated, “[B]y their acts, in joining the Islamo-Nazis, we should use common sense, and certainly, interpret that to mean an intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship.”

The two specified acts that Levin says matter the most to him are as follows:

(1) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(2) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or noncommissioned officer.



That would require due process.

She could return and be duly arrested, charged, tried and hung.

[Superfluous Man]

Eminent legal scholar Mark Levin (https://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/michael-morris/mark-levin-americans-joining-isis-relinquish-their-us-citizenship):


Sarcasm?

[Anti Federalist]

Yah, I have to side with precedent on this:

The FedGov never revoked citizenship of the Communist that fought for Stalin in the Spanish Civil War.

[Brian4Liberty]

Yah, I have to side with precedent on this:

The FedGov never revoked citizenship of the Communist that fought for Stalin in the Spanish Civil War.

Relevant law (The Expatriation Act of 1954) was not passed until 1954...

Update: Upon further review, it was a revision of a previous version, and has been updated several times since, mostly to allow Vietnam era draft dodgers to retain their citizenship.

I assume that Levin was referring to the latest iteration of the law and State Department policy.

[Swordsmyth]

Yah, I have to side with precedent on this:

The FedGov never revoked citizenship of the Communist that fought for Stalin in the Spanish Civil War.
The US was not a participant in the Spanish Civil War.

[euphemia]

Here.

It looks like the OP covered this pretty well already.

What are you getting at? Do you honestly think the executive branch should be able to just take away any of our citizenships by declaring us enemy combatants according to its own criteria without any due process?


Not even a little bit. But that’s the threat right now. An American citizen who committed no crime on American soil traveled abroad said a few things, and now the ptb don’t want to let her come back.

[euphemia]

She renounced her citizenship when she joined ISIS. Legally, she is better off being treated as a member of ISIS.

No offense, but I did not read that in the article.

[spudea]

I read she was never a US citizen, as she was born to foreign diplomats while temporarily in Alabama, diplomatic immunity and all that, she was never subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.

[Zippyjuan]

Eminent legal scholar Mark Levin (https://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/michael-morris/mark-levin-americans-joining-isis-relinquish-their-us-citizenship):





She could return and be duly arrested, charged, tried and hung.

"With the intent of giving up their citizenship". Meaning you could perform one of the acts listed and not forfeit your citizenship. It is not automatic "do this and you are no longer a citizen."


Levin went on to explain the foundation for his suggestion that U.S. citizens fighting for ISIS have “relinquished their United States citizenship.”

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 8 U.S.C. 1481 as amended is that foundation, and it explains how citizens are subject to losing their citizenship if they, voluntarily and with the intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship, perform at least one of seven specified acts.

Levin then stated, “[B]y their acts, in joining the Islamo-Nazis, we should use common sense, and certainly, interpret that to mean an intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship.”

The two specified acts that Levin says matter the most to him are as follows:

(1) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(2) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or noncommissioned officer.

[Zippyjuan]

I read she was never a US citizen, as she was born to foreign diplomats while temporarily in Alabama, diplomatic immunity and all that, she was never subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.

Maybe. Maybe not.

https://www.justsecurity.org/62659/unpacking-some-of-issues-surrounding-hoda-muthana/


This, of course, is the big question. The government apparently does not dispute that Muthana was born in the United States. Instead, the argument against her citizenship appears to be that her father was a Yemeni diplomat posted to the United Nations, and that children of officially accredited foreign diplomats born in the United States are not entitled to birthright citizenship under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

As a matter of law, that claim is correct. The key here is a question of fact: Was Muthana’s father in fact a Yemeni diplomat at the time of her birth. Rukmini Callimachi has reported, for example, that her father’s U.N. posting terminated one month prior to Muthana’s birth. There’s little gray area here; in order to decide whether individuals are entitled to diplomatic immunity, U.S. law has historically taken a bright-line approach to the question of diplomatic status. If the father’s posting had in fact terminated prior to Muthana’s birth, then it should follow that she is, indeed, a US citizen.

Moreover, Callimachi also reports that, when Muthana previously applied for (and received) a US passport, “her father was asked to produce proof that he had been discharged from his diplomatic post.” Thus, not only does it appear that she was entitled to citizenship at the time of her birth, but that the State Department itself so concluded as recently as 2014.

The State Department’s prior determination is not necessarily conclusive. But it is deeply suggestive of the conclusion that Muthana’s father was, as a matter of law, no longer entitled to diplomatic immunity at the time of her birth, and so her birth on U.S. soil entitled her to birthright citizenship.

More information:


II. Can Muthana’s Citizenship Be Revoked?

That Muthana was lawfully a citizen does not mean the government lacks the power to revoke her citizenship. But expatriation is limited to a hyper-specific set of cases spelled out at 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a), and none of those categories seem to apply here. Even 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(7), which allows expatriation of those who commit treason or other hostile acts against the U.S. government, requires that they be “convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction” before they can be expatriated. Needless to say, that hasn’t happened here.

More to the point, as I’ve written before, the Supreme Court has held, over and over again, that expatriation is not a punishment, but rather a step the government may only take with the voluntary involvement of the (ex-)citizen. That is to say, the Constitution requires that the individual in question voluntarily and overtly relinquish their citizenship. Whatever missteps Muthana may have taken, and whatever crimes she may have committed, it’s hard to see the kind of voluntary intent the Supreme Court has previously required on the facts as they’re currently known.

III. If Muthana Is a Citizen, Does She Have a Right To Return to the United States?

The Supreme Court has held that the government is allowed to revoke passports for national security or foreign policy reasons, so long as it provides due process. But revoking a passport (to deny a right to travel abroad) is not the same thing as refusing the right of a citizen to return home. Although the Supreme Court has never squarely been presented with such a case, it seems likely that, in an appropriate case, the Court would recognize that someone who is lawfully a citizen has the right to return to the United States. At the very least, it should have to follow from the passport cases that, even if the government has the right to prevent a citizen from returning to the United States, it must provide a significant amount of process in such cases.

And that leads to the most important point here: Although the State Department’s own Manual and regulations clearly outline a process for resolving disputes over citizenship, there is no indication that any of those procedures have been followed here. Wish though they might, neither the Secretary of State nor even the President of the United States have the power to determine an individual’s citizenship by fiat. (Imagine if it were otherwise.)

Thus, although there is a factual dispute to be resolved over Muthana’s citizenship, and, if she is a citizen, a legal dispute to be resolved over whether she has a right to return to the United States, perhaps the most important takeaway from all of this is the extent to which the process is going to matter. Of course, folks may have a hard time feeling especially sympathetic to Muthana. But as Justice Frankfurter rightly put it, “the history of liberty has largely been the history of the observance of procedural safeguards.”

1098327855145062411


Wish though they might, neither the Secretary of State nor even the President of the United States have the power to determine an individual’s citizenship by fiat. (Imagine if it were otherwise.[/B])

[Brian4Liberty]

"With the intent of giving up their citizenship". Meaning you could perform one of the acts listed and not forfeit your citizenship. It is not automatic "do this and you are no longer a citizen."

She burned her US passport on YouTube. Of course one could argue that was purely a symbolic statement of her desire to see the US destroyed and Americans dead, and was not evidence of intent to no longer be a US citizen...

[Swordsmyth]

She burned her US passport on YouTube. Of course one could argue that was purely a symbolic statement of her desire to see the US destroyed and Americans dead, and was not evidence of intent to no longer be a US citizen...
If the US was destroyed then she would no longer be a citizen of the nonexistent US.

[timosman]

Trump could give her Obama's Awlaki treatment.

[RonZeplin]

President Trump should be deported to Riyadh.

https://www.dzbreaking.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Summit.jpg
https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ORB.jpg?w=320
Pledged to forever jihad

[enhanced_deficit]

This won't apply to Congress members/christian evanglicals who may have joined extremist Islamist Jihad against infidels, would it?



US Congressman caught on camera waging Islamist Jihad against Infidels

http://i.tyzhden.ua/content/photoalbum/2018/01_2018/31/1/352/5b.jpg
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher




https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth255278/m1/1/med_res/
Congressman Charlie Wilson

https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00652/news-graphics-2007-_652825a.jpg

[angelatc]

She renounced her citizenship when she joined ISIS. Legally, she is better off being treated as a member of ISIS.

If she is still considered a citizen, she is guilty of treason and quite a few other crimes. She could be executed.

And as a member of ISIS, her status as an immigrant to the US is to stand in the same line as other members of ISIS.

I also think that this could be an interesting test to eventually limit birthright citizenship. I don't have the details, but the outlet I saw was reporting that she was born to a diplomat, albeit a couple of months after he left the post. Children born to diplomats don't get citizenship. If he was still here on his diplomatic visa, that will make an interesting court case.

I am really pissed that the same people who were ready to lynch a high school boy are going all in for this traitorous wh*re. (She's 24, been married 3 times. So yeah.)

[Superfluous Man]

If the US was destroyed then she would no longer be a citizen of the nonexistent US.

There are many Americans, myself included, who think that the Anti-federalists were right, that the creation of the federal government as we know it was a mistake from the beginning, would love to see that federal government eliminated, such that there would no longer be any such thing as US citizenship, and will say so publicly. This does not give that same regime the right to revoke our right to live here and be left alone. In fact, the First Amendment prohibits that regime from punishing us for saying that.

[Superfluous Man]

This won't apply to Congress members/christian evanglicals who may have joined extremist Islamist Jihad against infidels, would it?



US Congressman caught on camera waging Islamist Jihad against Infidels

http://i.tyzhden.ua/content/photoalbum/2018/01_2018/31/1/352/5b.jpg
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher




https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth255278/m1/1/med_res/
Congressman Charlie Wilson

https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00652/news-graphics-2007-_652825a.jpg

Don't forget this one.

https://i1.wp.com/theduran.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/McCain-and-ISIS-team.jpg?w=600

[Superfluous Man]

She burned her US passport on YouTube. Of course one could argue that was purely a symbolic statement of her desire to see the US destroyed and Americans dead, and was not evidence of intent to no longer be a US citizen...

Any motive at all would be tough to prove, which is part of due process (and I think we're all still agreeing that due process is necessary, right?). I don't see a difference between burning her passport and burning an American flag. Due you favor similar punishments for people who do that?

[Stratovarious]

Any motive at all would be tough to prove, which is part of due process (and I think we're all still agreeing that due process is necessary, right?). I don't see a difference between burning her passport and burning an American flag. Due you favor similar punishments for people who do that?
Due Process, is she US Citizen?

[Superfluous Man]

Due Process, is she US Citizen?

Yes. Or at least that is precisely the question. She has not gone through the normal process or relinquishing her citizenship. And in order to say that she has done that by way of some criminal act that she denies, that would need to be proven. I.e. due process.

That said, I hope that you don't actually approve of the idea that due process is only for US citizens, such that I have a right to go out and violate someone else's rights on the pretense of punishing them for some crime, without due process, as long as they're not a US citizen. I have no such right, and inasmuch as I don't have it, I can't delegate to any government to do that on my behalf. And it happens to be a fact that nowhere in the Constitution is any authority delegated to the federal government to go out into the world violating people's rights on the pretense of some crime they are charged with without actually proving them guilty first. The federal government has no constitutional authority at all to punish anyone, citizen or not, for any crime without due process.

If that power does belong to the federal government, then we're right back at what I said initially. The regime can simply charge you with a crime that entails relinquishment of your citizenship (if you are one) and then punish you on top of that without proving you guilty, since due process would only be for citizens. And of course, this is only part of the problem, since the punishment of anyone at all without due process is obviously unethical.

[Stratovarious]

Yes. Or at least that is precisely the question. She has not gone through the normal process or relinquishing her citizenship. And in order to say that she has done that by way of some criminal act that she denies, that would need to be proven. I.e. due process.

That said, I hope that you don't actually approve of the idea that due process is only for US citizens, such that I have a right to go out and violate someone else's rights on the pretense of punishing them for some crime, without due process, as long as they're not a US citizen. I have no such right, and inasmuch as I don't have it, I can't delegate to any government to do that on my behalf. And it happens to be a fact that nowhere in the Constitution is any authority delegated to the federal government to go out into the world violating people's rights on the pretense of some crime they are charged with without actually proving them guilty first. The federal government has no constitutional authority at all to punish anyone, citizen or not, for any crime without due process.

If that power does belong to the federal government, then we're right back at what I said initially. The regime can simply charge you with a crime that entails relinquishment of your citizenship (if you are one) and then punish you on top of that without proving you guilty, since due process would only be for citizens. And of course, this is only part of the problem, since the punishment of anyone at all without due process is obviously unethical.


Yes , I advocate DUE PROCESS for US Citizens exclusively.
A Jihadi that sneezes has no right to be in the US.

The Patriot Act eliminated Due process for
US Citizens, that is is what we should be focusing on.

[specsaregood]

If she renounced her citizenship the she doesn't have it any more and she has no right to come here.

I thought you couldn't get rid of your citizenship without paying nowadays. Did she pay the exit tax?

[osan]

An enemy combatant is still a citizen. Next it will be anyone framed up as "associated with terrorism" like the NDAA military detention of US citizens. She still has rights until tried, even if just the right to a trial and jail.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-6726455/US-refuses-entry-Alabama-jihadist.html

No problem with the measure in principle. In reality, though, I have lots of problems with it because humans.

[Superfluous Man]

Yes , I advocate DUE PROCESS for US Citizens exclusively.
A Jihadi that sneezes has no right to be in the US.


So being a jihadi (whatever that vague and infinitely stretchable label entails) means someone is not a US citizen? OK. And then when the regime accuses a US citizen, say, you, for example, of being a jihadi, so that you are no longer a citizen, should they have to prove that you actually did something criminal to warrant that? Or does that fact that their labeling you a jihadi removes your citizenship mean they get to skip that step?

[angelatc]

Any motive at all would be tough to prove, which is part of due process (and I think we're all still agreeing that due process is necessary, right?). I don't see a difference between burning her passport and burning an American flag. Due you favor similar punishments for people who do that?

Her motive isn't hard to prove at all. Her Youtube channel has hundreds of hours of her explaining her motivation. FFS - she joined ISIS.

[angelatc]

No problem with the measure in principle. In reality, though, I have lots of problems with it because humans.

The best that that can come out of this case is the reminder to the left that the birthright citizenship has already been modified with legislation, and can be again.

But I'm not a fan of tinkering with that document, so I say let's just hang her as per the constitution.

[Superfluous Man]

Her motive isn't hard to prove at all. Her Youtube channel has hundreds of hours of her explaining her motivation. FFS - she joined ISIS.

How does that prove an intention to relinquish the benefits of US citizenship?

And what does "join ISIS" actually mean anyway, specifically? What does one do to "join ISIS"? Did she replace her US passport with an ISIS passport? Is there even an objective way to define who is in ISIS and who isn't? Or is it like the way the label "Al Qaeda" used to get thrown at anything it would stick to, so that the regime would have the excuse it needed to assassinate and torture whomever it wanted? Does "joining ISIS" even have anything to do with citizenship anywhere at all? Does "joining ISIS" entail commission of any specific crimes or participation in conspiring to commit any specific crimes?

Or does this all just boil down to wanting to punish the wrong opinions she uttered in her exercise of freedom of speech?

If the latter, then again I don't see how this differs from flag burning.

And even if it is easy to prove that she intended to relinquish her citizenship, that process of proving it still should happen. It can't be that the charge alone is all it takes to lose citizenship.

[Stratovarious]

So being a jihadi (whatever that vague and infinitely stretchable label entails) means someone is not a US citizen? OK. And then when the regime accuses a US citizen, say, you, for example, of being a jihadi, so that you are no longer a citizen, should they have to prove that you actually did something criminal to warrant that? Or does that fact that their labeling you a jihadi removes your citizenship mean they get to skip that step?

Martians get the same rights as Jihadis' , ziltch, gtfo , go home.

So Gibberish man why did you not address (NO) DUE PROCESS for US citizens...


:frog:

[Superfluous Man]

So Gibberish man why did you not address (NO) DUE PROCESS for US citizens...


I already addressed that, and you already replied to my post doing so.

Do you have a specific question about that that I didn't answer?

In case I wasn't clear enough, I totally disagree with the idea that if someone isn't a US citizen the regime is authorized to punish them for crimes without due process. Neither the Constitution nor the Creator's laws permit that.

Incidentally, I'm in good company here.
https://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/05/ron-paul-pushes-measure-to-guarantee-due-process-to-detainees-u-s-citizen-or-not/

[angelatc]

How does that prove an intention to relinquish the benefits of US citizenship?





Go to Syria and ask her what the benefits are.

In her latest video she admits she went to Syria to join ISIS and fight against the USA. You can stop trying to being coy about that. Those words came right out of her own mouth.

All I know is that she is a radicalized Muslim, who renounced a her citizenship while ranting things about death to America and infidels while on her own camera. She burned her passport on camera while doing so. She married at least 2 different Islamic fighters, providing support and comfort for the enemy, but now wants to come home because she's tired of living in a tent?

I'm ok with bringing her home, but I want her hung.

[Superfluous Man]

All I know is that she is a radicalized Muslim, who renounced a her citizenship while ranting things about death to America and infidels while on her own camera.

Can you link to the video where she renounced her citizenship?


She married at least 2 different Islamic fighters, providing support and comfort for the enemy

What kind of support? Did these fighters actually fight anyone? Or just express opinions like her? And what involvement can you prove she had in whatever crimes you can prove they committed?


I'm ok with bringing her home, but I want her hung.

Without a trial?

[angelatc]

Can you link to the video where she renounced her citizenship?

If you mean the video where she burned her passport while encouraging people to take up arms and murder people like you and I, I could yesterday but it's gone now. I have to leave - I'll try to find it later.




What kind of support? Did these fighters actually fight anyone? Or just express opinions like her? And what involvement can you prove she had in whatever crimes you can prove they committed? Jesus Fucking CHrist - never mind. She literally joined ISIS. They are a radical Islamic cult that slaughters non-believers. And you're pretending they don't exist? Even her lawyer hasn't gone that far away from reality. You're off the plantation, son.

Constitutionally, providing aid and comfort is the crime. I don't have to go any farther.

Never mind. I won't be looking for the video. You're just trolling at this point. When I find it again, you'll just say the CIA concocted it.



Without a trial?

Same type trial ISIS gave the people they beheaded in the name of Allah.

I'd make her kid watch.

[osan]

The best that that can come out of this case is the reminder to the left that the birthright citizenship has already been modified with legislation, and can be again.

But I'm not a fan of tinkering with that document, so I say let's just hang her as per the constitution.

I'm a pretty decent cabinet maker. If someone will provide the lumber, I will build the gallows... or guillotine.

[Superfluous Man]

Jesus $#@!ing CHrist - never mind. She literally joined ISIS.

What does litarally joining ISIS involve, specifically? Something more than speech?


They are a radical Islamic cult that slaughters non-believers.

Notice the steps you are taking here. It's not that you believe it could be proven that she slaughtered anyone, or did anything at all to help anyone else slaughter anyone. But she used a label for herself that's the same label that other people who slaughter people use for themselves, so she is guilty by association of whatever they're guilty of.


Never mind. I won't be looking for the video. You're just trolling at this point. When I find it again, you'll just say the CIA concocted it.

Right. Because I'm sure you've seen me say stuff like that before.



Same type trial ISIS gave the people they beheaded in the name of Allah.

I'd make her kid watch.

Gotcha.

If that's your example of the kind of due process you support, I think it's you who's trolling here.

[Stratovarious]

So being a jihadi (whatever that vague and infinitely stretchable label entails) means someone is not a US citizen? OK. And then when the regime accuses a US citizen, say, you, for example, of being a jihadi, so that you are no longer a citizen, should they have to prove that you actually did something criminal to warrant that? Or does that fact that their labeling you a jihadi removes your citizenship mean they get to skip that step?

Wait a minute dipshit, was she a US Citizen fk no, you must know by know why
your new moniker is Gibberish Man , it should probably be changed to Dipshitman.

[Superfluous Man]

Wait a minute dip$#@!, was she a US Citizen fk no.

That's the whole point of dispute.

She was a natural-born US citizen. She didn't relinquish her citizenship the normal way. She is accused of relinquishing it by way of joining ISIS under the law cited above. But if so, it has to be proven that she intended to relinquish her citizenship. Even if it's obvious and easy to prove, it still needs to be done.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that that step should be skipped, because the mere accusation of being a jihadi entails a loss of citizenship, and thus loss of due process. Is that not what you're saying?

If that is not your position, then please clarify. If it is, then we're back to the question that seems to offend you so much, which is whether or not the regime that you want to have this power to use against one US citizen should also have the same power to use against you.

[Superfluous Man]

Wait a minute dip$#@!, was she a US Citizen fk no, you must know by know why
your new moniker is Gibberish Man , it should probably be changed to Dipshitman.

Wait a second! I think I just realized who you are! You're speciallyblend aren't you?

[Stratovarious]

Wait a second! I think I just realized who you are! You're @speciallyblend (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=2873) aren't you?

Wut, I have no idea what you are referring too.
I have never been anything but Stratovarious on this site, never even heard of speciallyblend anything, anywhere.

[Stratovarious]

That's the whole point of dispute.

She was a natural-born US citizen. She didn't relinquish her citizenship the normal way. She is accused of relinquishing it by way of joining ISIS under the law cited above. But if so, it has to be proven that she intended to relinquish her citizenship. Even if it's obvious and easy to prove, it still needs to be done.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that that step should be skipped, because the mere accusation of being a jihadi entails a loss of citizenship, and thus loss of due process. Is that not what you're saying?

If that is not your position, then please clarify. If it is, then we're back to the question that seems to offend you so much, which is whether or not the regime that you want to have this power to use against one US citizen should also have the same power to use against you.
If 'she' is a US Citizen , then she should be availed to Due Process, by all means.

[Superfluous Man]

If 'she' is a US Citizen , then she should be availed to Due Process, by all means.

Then what did I say in post 34 that you disagreed with so strongly?

[Brian4Liberty]

I also think that this could be an interesting test to eventually limit birthright citizenship. I don't have the details, but the outlet I saw was reporting that she was born to a diplomat, albeit a couple of months after he left the post. Children born to diplomats don't get citizenship. If he was still here on his diplomatic visa, that will make an interesting court case.

I am really pissed that the same people who were ready to lynch a high school boy are going all in for this traitorous wh*re. (She's 24, been married 3 times. So yeah.)

There was no doubt from the first minute that this was reported, it was being framed and pushed as a SJW cause. SJW correct think spin was baked into the story right from the start.

[angelatc]

Wut, I have no idea what you are referring too.
I have never been anything but Stratovarious on this site, never even heard of speciallyblend anything, anywhere.

He was an active poster who died in a 4 wheeler accident a few years ago. I guess Superfluous thinks he's so righteous he's brought back the dead.

[Superfluous Man]

He was an active poster who died in a 4 wheeler accident a few years ago. I guess Superfluous thinks he's so righteous he's brought back the dead.

I had no idea about that.

[Stratovarious]

Then what did I say in post 34 that you disagreed with so strongly?
I not going back there, probably not much, if anything, the point is (imv) that if she is in fact
a US Citizen then we probably agree in everyway.
Where we may differ is that I don't want to see any NON US citizen afforded constitutional rights,
they just need to be deported and let their own country deal with whatever issues may 'be' .

[Stratovarious]

Jesus returns??

[Stratovarious]

He was an active poster who died in a 4 wheeler accident a few years ago. I guess Superfluous thinks he's so righteous he's brought back the dead.

I'm sorry to hear that, I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

[angelatc]

There was no doubt from the first minute that this was reported, it was being framed and pushed as a SJW cause. SJW correct think spin was baked into the story right from the start.

The Canadian Real Housewives of ISIS is better. One of them was apparently actually involved in a beheading.

This article says it best;
Of course they want to return to Canada. They decided to side with ISIS – a horrific terrorist organization that sold women into slavery, burned prisoners alive, beheaded people, threw gay people off of buildings, drowned people in cages – and more awful crimes. Then, ISIS lost, leaving them on the losing side and at the mercy of those who ISIS so brutally oppressed.

[Superfluous Man]

Where we may differ is that I don't want to see any NON US citizen afforded constitutional rights,
they just need to be deported and let their own country deal with whatever issues may 'be' .

You're right that we disagree about that. But that wasn't the point of the post that offended you so much.

On this point, the way you use the phrase "constitutional rights" indicates that you misunderstand the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't give anyone our natural rights, like the right not to be punished for crimes without due process. The Constitution forbids the government to do things or authorizes it to do things. According to the 10th amendment, the federal government only has those powers that the Constitution delegates to it. The Constitution does not delegate to the federal government any power to punish anyone at all, whether US citizen or not, for any crime without due process. Also, the Fifth Amendment expressly forbids the federal government from depriving any person--not just US citizens--of life, liberty, or property, without due process.

According to the Constitution itself, it is not the case that a person is born into this world with no rights until they are given those rights by the Constitution. Rather, people have natural rights, and the Constitution is supposed to forbid the federal government from violating those natural rights that everyone already has.

[shakey1]

Yes , I advocate DUE PROCESS for US Citizens exclusively.
A Jihadi that sneezes has no right to be in the US.

The Patriot Act eliminated Due process for
US Citizens, that is is what we should be focusing on.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Stratovarious]

You're right that we disagree about that. But that wasn't the point of the post that offended you so much.

On this point, the way you use the phrase "constitutional rights" indicates that you misunderstand the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't give anyone our natural rights, like the right not to be punished for crimes without due process. The Constitution forbids the government to do things or authorizes it to do things. According to the 10th amendment, the federal government only has those powers that the Constitution delegates to it. The Constitution does not delegate to the federal government any power to punish anyone at all, whether US citizen or not, for any crime without due process. Also, the Fifth Amendment expressly forbids the federal government from depriving any person--not just US citizens--of life, liberty, or property, without due process.

According to the Constitution itself, it is not the case that a person is born into this world with no rights until they are given those rights by the Constitution. Rather, people have natural rights, and the Constitution is supposed to forbid the federal government from violating those natural rights that everyone already has.
WUT did I just get through saying 10 times, deport non US Citizens , send their sht with them.

[Stratovarious]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thanks Shakey, but I think we are on shaky ground with GM's inverted reality,
no cure.

I can't point to any Gibberishman post where he talks up 'Due Process' for US Citizens.

We have lost that , and his career here appears to obsess with people that do not belong here/
:frog:

[euphemia]

Yes , I advocate DUE PROCESS for US Citizens exclusively.
A Jihadi that sneezes has no right to be in the US.

The Patriot Act eliminated Due process for
US Citizens, that is is what we should be focusing on.

You have a point there.

[Superfluous Man]

WUT did I just get through saying 10 times, deport non US Citizens , send their sht with them.

I get that you're saying that.

I just saw it as a teaching opportunity and wanted to do what I could to disabuse you of your misconceptions about the Constitution and ethics.

[angelatc]

I had no idea about that.

You know what's really odd about this is that he died a few months before you joined so it is weird you'd be comparing Strat's posting style to his. What's up with that?

[Superfluous Man]

I can't point to any Gibberishman post where he talks up 'Due Process' for US Citizens.


I just did in post 34 and others in this thread. You didn't like it. Remember?

[jmdrake]

Okay open borders people. Where are you?

Open borders has nothing to do with this. By giving aid and comfort to the enemy she became, by constitutional definition, a traitor. She should be arrested and tried as such. So....what's your point?

[jmdrake]

Yes , I advocate DUE PROCESS for US Citizens exclusively.
A Jihadi that sneezes has no right to be in the US.

The Patriot Act eliminated Due process for
US Citizens, that is is what we should be focusing on.

And Justice Antonin Scalia (may he rest in peace) would fully agree with your position. On the Guantanomo Bay cases his position was full due process for U.S. citizens and no due process for anybody else. The phony liberals on the Supreme Court endorsed a quasi due process for everybody.

[Stratovarious]

I just did in post 34 and others in this thread. You didn't like it. Remember?
You said 30 before you changed it to 34 , I think 30 was pretty good, yea , you got it right bro.
However I'm still for expelling any non US Citizen that isn't here with documentation, they can take
their sht with them.
Which brings us to Asset forfeiture, total insult and usurpation.

[Stratovarious]

And Justice Antonin Scalia (may he rest in peace) would fully agree with your position. On the Guantanomo Bay cases his position was full due process for U.S. citizens and no due process for anybody else. The phony liberals on the Supreme Court endorsed a quasi due process for everybody.
We have always touted our high morality in that 'we' are against torture
and 'don't negotiate with terrorists' , well I believe we've done both since
WWII if not earlier.
In fact we finance terrorists.

[Superfluous Man]

You said 30 before you changed it to 34 , I think 30 was pretty good, yea , you got it right bro.
However I'm still for expelling any non US Citizen that isn't here with documentation, they can take
their sht with them.
Which brings us to Asset forfeiture, total insult and usurpation.

Both 30 and 34 were good examples that should have stopped you from saying I never defended due process for citizens. I changed it to 34 when I realized that was the post you objected to so strongly.

[jmdrake]

We have always touted our high morality in that 'we' are against torture
and 'don't negotiate with terrorists' , well I believe we've done both since
WWII if not earlier.
In fact we finance terrorists.

I agree. We have done a lot of things wrong as a nation. But we have tried to at least maintain an illusion that citizenship means something. And one thing it means is due process.

[jmdrake]

If she renounced her citizenship the she doesn't have it any more and she has no right to come here.

1) "If". I have seen no evidence that she actually did.

2) How exactly do we ask for extradition and prosecution of people for treason if all they have to do to be out from under the definition of treason is to commit treason and thus "renounce U.S. Citizenship?"

[Philhelm]

§1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality-

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or

(4)(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or

(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or

(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

There would need to be due process in order to convict her of treason. This might be a different legal question than whether a U.S. citizen can be allowed to return to the U.S. under such circumstances though. Perhaps Trump just wants the Democrats to look bad by defending her.

[Stratovarious]

Both 30 and 34 were good examples that should have stopped you from saying I never defended due process for citizens. I changed it to 34 when I realized that was the post you objected to so strongly.

'' we have to pass it so we can see what's in it''
What on earth gives you the impression I can read......:frog:

[Stratovarious]

I agree. We have done a lot of things wrong as a nation. But we have tried to at least maintain an illusion that citizenship means something. And one thing it means is due process.
Right, I agree.
I exaggerate, on the street we still have a semblance of due process, but
with a 'word' they can do anything to us.......'terrist' , that is the 'slippery slope'
of the Patriot Act.

[angelatc]

You have a point there.

She renounced her citizenship.

https://i.imgur.com/LaMmAmg.png

[Anti Federalist]

Open borders has nothing to do with this. By giving aid and comfort to the enemy she became, by constitutional definition, a traitor. She should be arrested and tried as such. So....what's your point?

Really quite simple.

[Swordsmyth]

1) "If". I have seen no evidence that she actually did.

2) How exactly do we ask for extradition and prosecution of people for treason if all they have to do to be out from under the definition of treason is to commit treason and thus "renounce U.S. Citizenship?"
I said "If" because I don't know much about the case and people said that she had renounced her citizenship.

[Swordsmyth]

I thought you couldn't get rid of your citizenship without paying nowadays. Did she pay the exit tax?
If she didn't then they can charge her with that too.

[spudea]

Muthana is not entitled to U.S. citizenship and the media is burying this, her father was registered as a diplomat until February 1995 with the Department of State; She was born on 10/22/1994. Her father, Ahmed Ali, apparently surrendered his diplomatic privileges on 6/2/1994 at the request of the Republic of Yemen. At the time however, Yemen was embroiled in a civil war and split into two factions, making the claim seem even more dubious. Even so his failure to inform the Dept. of State of the loss of his diplomatic privileges makes this his problem, no ours.

From the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services:

USCIS confirms with the Department of State whether the applicant’s parent(s) was on the Blue List at the time of the child’s birth. If an applicant did not have a parent on the Blue List at the time of his or her birth in the United States, then the applicant is a U.S. citizen because the applicant did not have full diplomatic immunity and was therefore subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of birth.

https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/Print/PolicyManual-Volume7-PartO-Chapter3.html

Since Ahmed Ali was still listed on Dept. of State's Blue List at the time, he still had diplomatic privileges in the US although his status had been 'revoked' in Yemen, so he exploited the fact that Yemeni government was dysfunctional at the time and lived under diplomatic privileges for over a year. Since he was still here under diplomatic privilege his daughter has no right to US citizenship, she is a Yemeni citizen, as per their citizenship laws, since her father was a citizen at the time, citizenship was automatically conferred to her.

This is not the first time her citizenship has come into question, as the Dept. of State under the Obama Administration had reviewed her claim to citizenship and had decided she was not a citizen, her U.S. passport was then revoked following this decision which took effect in January of 2016. Thus, Hoda’s claim to citizenship was already decided over 3 years ago, contrary to what the MSM would have you believe.

[Brian4Liberty]

They are pushing this as the latest SJW cause, no doubt about that.

[unknown]

Open borders has nothing to do with this. By giving aid and comfort to the enemy she became, by constitutional definition, a traitor. She should be arrested and tried as such. So....what's your point?

Seems like the lawful route.

Too bad the rule of law means shit.

[Swordsmyth]

For the record, it was the Obama Admin who determined Miss ISIS bride was not a US citizen and couldn’t come back to the US. (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/02/25/reminder-the-obama-administration-determined-isis-bride-isnt-an-american-n2542152)

[unknown]

For the record, it was the Obama Admin who determined Miss ISIS bride was not a US citizen and couldn’t come back to the US. (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/02/25/reminder-the-obama-administration-determined-isis-bride-isnt-an-american-n2542152)

Which should come as no surprise.

As though Obama cared about rights and protections.

[Swordsmyth]

Which should come as no surprise.

As though Obama cared about rights and protections.
She isn't entitled to citizenship because her father was here as part of a diplomatic mission.

[The Rebel Poet]

Eminent legal scholar Mark Levin
https://media.tenor.com/images/761e3eeef11d96c415200120b0713a02/tenor.gif

[TheCount]

She isn't entitled to citizenship because her father was here as part of a diplomatic mission.
She had a passport.

[Swordsmyth]

She had a passport.
That was an error, she was benefiting from confusion about her status, when she joined ISIS it caused her status to be examined and it was determined that she was not a citizen because her family was here as part of a diplomatic mission.

[Stratovarious]

I get that you're saying that.

I just saw it as a teaching opportunity and wanted to do what I could to disabuse you of your misconceptions about the Constitution and ethics.
You have ethics? , What are they , let me guess;
Open Borders is 'ethics' ?
lmao

[Stratovarious]

That was an error, she was benefiting from confusion about her status, when she joined ISIS it caused her status to be examined and it was determined that she was not a citizen because her family was here as part of a diplomatic mission.


''You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Swordsmyth again.''

[Stratovarious]

She had a passport.

A passport is US 'Citizenship' ?

[TheCount]

A passport is US 'Citizenship' ?

Yes.

[Stratovarious]

Yes.


: )

[TheCount]

That was an error

Well then I'm sure that there was due administrative process done in correcting that error. Like any other federal process, the results of that process can be appealed in court.

[Swordsmyth]

Well then I'm sure that there was due administrative process done in correcting that error. Like any other federal process, the results of that process can be appealed in court.
And she will lose, in the meantime she doesn't get to come back.

[TheCount]

And she will lose, in the meantime she doesn't get to come back.

That's certainly plausible in bizarro Swordsmyth land, a place where your citizenship can be 'corrected' by the government while you're outside the country via a process in which you are not contacted, are provided no opportunity to defend yourself, and aren't even informed that you've been made a stateless person.


That takes us rather neatly back to the OP's point, doesn't it?

[Swordsmyth]

That's certainly plausible in bizarro Swordsmyth land, a place where your citizenship can be 'corrected' by the government while you're outside the country via a process in which you are not contacted, are provided no opportunity to defend yourself, and aren't even informed that you've been made a stateless person.


That takes us rather neatly back to the OP's point, doesn't it?
:rolleyes:

She brought this on herself when she joined the enemy, she should be grateful that we don't bring her back by force and execute her.

[unknown]

:rolleyes:

She brought this on herself when she joined the enemy, she should be grateful that we don't bring her back by force and execute her.

Good point.

Our government does seem to have a bloodlust for killing citizens and non-citizens alike.

Citizen kill lists, preemptive wars of aggression etc.