We shouldn’t let the ISIS bride come back to America

[PUB78 1,354]

Married three times and only 24.

[homersapien 11,352]

3 hours ago, japantiger said:

Bring her to the white house for a beer summit....have a confab with her, Bergdahl, Manning....you know, the dream team....

I would go for that.  Especially if no one briefed Trump beforehand.

[AUDub 11,131]

19 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Of course...an attorney would never lie to help his client....and JMO that was a timely dismissal to assure the child would have US citizenship but might be legal.  .

US verified it, but nice try. 

Quote

But of course there is this and there is plenty to put here in jeopardy under the expatriation provisions.  :  

INA § 349 states that a citizen, whether a U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing certain acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality. The fact of intention is critical; it is not the mere performance of the actions mentioned in § 349. Seven types of conduct are currently listed in the INA as expatriate. The potentially expatriating acts are: (1) applying for and obtaining naturalization in a foreign country, provided the person is at least 18 years old;

Strike that one 

Quote

(2) making an oath of allegiance to a foreign country, provided the person is at least 18 years old;

Strike 2

Quote

 

(3) serving in the military of a foreign country as a commissioned or noncommissioned officer or when the foreign state is engaged in hostilities against the United States;

Strike 3

Quote

(4) serving in a foreign government position that requires an oath of allegiance to or the nationality of that foreign country, provided the person is at least 18 years old;

Strike 4

Quote

(5) making a formal renunciation of U.S. citizenship to a consular officer outside of the United States;

Strike 5

Quote

(6) making a formal renunciation of citizenship while in the United States and during time that the United States is involved in a war; and

Strike 6

Quote

(7) conviction for treason or attempting by force to overthrow the U.S. government, including conspiracy convictions..

Strike 7

Quote

JMO...She might be better off not being a citizen.....would avoid imprisonment for her recruitment actions on behalf of ISIS if she just stayed where she is or gets asylum in Europe.  . 

US citizenship is her saving grace right now. Without it, she is effectively stateless. 

And it is very hard to **** up badly enough to have that yanked. 

[DKW 86 7,410]

1 hour ago, PUB78 said:

Married three times and only 24.

Yep, she's from Alabama alright...Roll Tide!

[Strychnine 1,802]

11 hours ago, alexava said:

I admit I don’t know if she is a citizen or not. It certainly matters but I don’t care. If she makes her way back here she should face charges for treason or something related to joining a US enemy ( terror network) and actively recruiting for them. 

She might be better off finding a peaceful are in the Middle East to raise her child. If she comes here there should be consequences. 

 

Everything I have read about her indicates that she expects to face justice in the United States.  I think fear for her fate (and her child's fate) by remaining in the Middle East is one of the main reasons she wants to return to the United States.  Iraq has been executing women like her.  Syria is likely to do the same when they can get around to it.  Other countries in the region are unlikely to be sympathetic to her.  When faced with the prospect of execution or life imprisonment in various Middle East countries, desiring to spend the rest of your life as a ward of the Federal Bureau of Prisons is an easy choice, especially given that her child is likely placed in the custody of her parents in that case.

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, Strychnine said:

 

Everything I have read about her indicates that she expects to face justice in the United States.  I think fear for her fate (and her child's fate) by remaining in the Middle East is one of the main reasons she wants to return to the United States.  Iraq has been executing women like her.  Syria is likely to do the same when they can get around to it.  Other countries in the region are unlikely to be sympathetic to her.  When faced with the prospect of execution or life imprisonment in various Middle East countries, desiring to spend the rest of your life as a ward of the Federal Bureau of Prisons is an easy choice, especially given that her child is likely placed in the custody of her parents in that case.

I agree with all of this...except once back in the US she will find much sympathy for her plight and I predict she would never spend a night in a real prison.  

And the other side I guess....why should taxpayers spend some huge amount every year to take care of her in a prison environment when her biggest crime was being stupid....and she is likely no danger to anyone in this country in the future.?    Her worst punishment would be to leave her where she is. 

[alexava 6,973]

1 hour ago, Strychnine said:

 

Everything I have read about her indicates that she expects to face justice in the United States.  I think fear for her fate (and her child's fate) by remaining in the Middle East is one of the main reasons she wants to return to the United States.  Iraq has been executing women like her.  Syria is likely to do the same when they can get around to it.  Other countries in the region are unlikely to be sympathetic to her.  When faced with the prospect of execution or life imprisonment in various Middle East countries, desiring to spend the rest of your life as a ward of the Federal Bureau of Prisons is an easy choice, especially given that her child is likely placed in the custody of her parents in that case.

This is one reason I agreed with trump when he suggested we should profile Muslims in the US. Actually I suggested it before trump was ever a candidate. I would want to thoroughly vet her parents and everyone she was associated with here. To make sure absolutely sure there was no sleeper cell influences on her. I would be shocked if they didn’t go beyond what the law allows anyway. And god forbid if she does come back and avoids prison, you gotta watch her every move from now on. Just in case she flips back. It’s not worth it. But I agree that she might face a better life in us custody than the Middle East.  

[homersapien 11,352]

Well, if we really want to be practical, maybe we should start profiling people who are ardent supporters of Trump.  Maybe cross reference them with white supremacy groups

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/29/opinions/domestic-terrorism-legal-limitations-rafia-zakaria/index.html

[DKW 86 7,410]

sniff sniff...did i just get a whiff of whataboutism?

[AUloggerhead 2,225]

18 hours ago, AUDub said:

The idea of the 9th circuit “validating her citizenship” is laughable. She’s a citizen. Any court that would dispute that isn’t worth its salt, no matter the venue. Nothing she did changes that. We literally can not deny her entry if she can make her way here.

That being said, I don’t care to waste the resources to bring her here. Let her make her own way. 

Her citizenship is currently in dispute.

Quote

... “Ms. Hoda Muthana is not a U.S. citizen and will not be admitted into the United States,” Pompeo said in a statement. “She does not have any legal basis, no valid U.S. passport, no right to a passport, nor any visa to travel to the United States. We continue to strongly advise all U.S. citizens not to travel to Syria.”  ...

Maybe this is an attempt to bring the whole "anchor-baby" issue before the courts, even possibly up to SCOTUS.  Her situation regarding being born into the US demands a legal review:  Parents had diplomatic immunity being here just months before the mother birthed her in Hackensack, NJ.  Had the father continued to be a UN diplomat, her status would have been a citizen not of the US, but of the country he was representing.  The fact that he stopped being the UN representative literally just before her birth ... ... does that automatically grant US citizenship?  I don't know -- seems a stretch to think that was the intent of the 14th amendment as it was written.   

[Strychnine 1,802]

2 hours ago, AU64 said:

I agree with all of this...except once back in the US she will find much sympathy for her plight and I predict she would never spend a night in a real prison.  

And the other side I guess....why should taxpayers spend some huge amount every year to take care of her in a prison environment when her biggest crime was being stupid....and she is likely no danger to anyone in this country in the future.?    Her worst punishment would be to leave her where she is. 

 

Sympathy for her plight, as far as facing justice here in the United States goes, would have a hard time gaining traction.  One of the few things basically all Americans agree on is that they have no love for ISIS, and our courts are not generally known for handing out lenient sentences to people convicted of anything related to terrorism.

She did not fall in with the wrong crowd and end up heading downtown to protest with her buddies while flying some ISIS banners.  She made a conscious choice to fly to Vancouver, then to Istanbul, only to sneak into Syria, expecting to eventually marry an ISIS fighter.  She lied to her parents about why she was going to Turkey.  Once there in Raqqa, she campaigned and recruited for ISIS (including calling for attacks on Americans) on Twitter while her husband was off during the day doing martyr things.  When he was killed, she married another.  When the second husband was killed, she married a third.  As a 20-year-old UAB student when she left, she was certainly old (and intelligent) enough to know better than to travel to the Middle East to join a terrorist organization that was openly broadcasting its atrocities for everyone to see.  She was a true believer.  What she is not, is a victim.

She regrets joining ISIS now, after it has effectively collapsed.  She wants to return to the United States now, after she finds herself in a country that will be unmerciful to anyone from ISIS, and she is surrounded by equally unmerciful countries.  She may have not slit throats, beheaded anyone, or shot anyone, but she willingly flew halfway across the world to join, support, and work with those that did.  I am not convinced that is no danger to anyone.  Involvement in ISIS is not something you walk away from after saying "I regret it, I will try to do better next time".  Whether she is a citizen or not is a matter for our courts to decide.  If she is a citizen, then she should be tried for her crimes.

[AUDub 11,131]

Just now, AUloggerhead said:

Her citizenship is currently in dispute.

Pompeo's ipse dixit claim doesn't hold much sway with me.

Just now, AUloggerhead said:

Maybe this is an attempt to bring the whole "anchor-baby" issue before the courts, even possibly up to SCOTUS.  Her situation regarding being born into the US demands a legal review:  Parents had diplomatic immunity being here just months before the mother birthed her in Hackensack, NJ.  Had the father continued to be a UN diplomat, her status would have been a citizen not of the US, but of the country he was representing.  The fact that he stopped being the UN representative literally just before her birth ... ... does that automatically grant US citizenship?  I don't know -- seems a stretch to think that was the intent of the 14th amendment as it was written.    

In concert with his application for legal permanent resident status, yes. The moment he was no longer subject to diplomatic immunity, he was under US jurisdiction.

[McLoofus 35,182]

5 hours ago, AU64 said:

I agree with all of this...except once back in the US she will find much sympathy for her plight and I predict she would never spend a night in a real prison.  

You severely misunderstand the Left.

 

[ArgoEagle 1,767]

22 hours ago, AU64 said:

Too late....DT has already denounced her so the best TV choice are the women's shows on afternoon TV, GMA and feel good shows where she could show off her baby and discuss her dream for America.  

The dems will hop all over that and the 9th Circuit judges will vote unanimously to validate her citizenship and give her sanctuary in one of their cities.   If her attorney is any good at all, it should be a piece of cake.....all they have to do is figure out how to sneak her into California. 

Is California still part of the US? I thought we sold it to Mexico for an unlimited supply of tequila for Texans.

[augolf1716 21,096]

22 hours ago, PUB78 said:

Married three times and only 24.

Sometimes its hard to be a woman......poor thing and bless her heart

 

[bigbird 60,368]

2 hours ago, ArgoEagle said:

Is California still part of the US? I thought we sold it to Mexico for an unlimited supply of tequila for Texans.

Good trade!

[ArgoEagle 1,767]

27 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Good trade!

Yes, anything we could get other than just giving it away is a win for us.😉

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 2/20/2019 at 7:09 PM, AUDub said:

The idea of the 9th circuit “validating her citizenship” is laughable. She’s a citizen. Any court that would dispute that isn’t worth its salt, no matter the venue. Nothing she did changes that. We literally can not deny her entry if she can make her way here.

That being said, I don’t care to waste the resources to bring her here. Let her make her own way. 

Completely inaccurate. Read the INA.

[AUloggerhead 2,225]

3 hours ago, AUDub said:

Pompeo's ipse dixit claim doesn't hold much sway with me.

In concert with his application for legal permanent resident status, yes. The moment he was no longer subject to diplomatic immunity, he was under US jurisdiction.

And I can agree with that statement on face value.  The problem comes because there is some gray area as to just when the father "was no longer subject to diplomatic immunity."  I can only relate what's been reported on this issue and I haven't come across too much detail as to the reasons why the father no longer was Yemen's UN representative.

But I did search around and found the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961.  Article 39 states this, 

Quote

 

1.Every person entitled to privileges and immunities shall enjoy them from the moment  he enters the territory of the receiving State on proceeding to take up his post or, if already in its territory, from the moment when his appointments notified to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs or such other ministry as may be agreed.

2. When the functions of a person enjoying privileges and immunities have come to an end, such privileges and immunities shall normally cease at the moment when he leaves the country, or on expiry of a reasonable period in which to do so, but shall subsist until that time, even in case of armed conflict.  However, with respect to acts performed by such a person in the exercise of his functions as a member of the mission, immunity shall continue to subsist. 

 

The reporting on this issue has listed "months" before the birth for the time the father no longer was a UN rep, and I have seen it also been reported as "1 month." So putting 2 & 2 together, I assume the time period was probably a little over 1 month.  Either way, 1 month or 2, it could be argued that the former Yemen UN rep still had diplomatic immunity at the time of her birth.  If so ... ... that would make her a Yemeni citizen.  

[AUDub 11,131]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Completely inaccurate. Read the INA.

Elucidate. 

[AUDub 11,131]

4 minutes ago, AUloggerhead said:

And I can agree with that statement on face value.  The problem comes because there is some gray area as to just when the father "was no longer subject to diplomatic immunity."  I can only relate what's been reported on this issue and I haven't come across too much detail as to the reasons why the father no longer was Yemen's UN representative.

But I did search around and found the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961.  Article 39 states this, 

The reporting on this issue has listed "months" before the birth for the time the father no longer was a UN rep, and I have seen it also been reported as "1 month." So putting 2 & 2 together, I assume the time period was probably a little over 1 month.  Either way, 1 month or 2, it could be argued that the former Yemen UN rep still had diplomatic immunity at the time of her birth.  If so ... ... that would make her a Yemeni citizen.  

Hence why I mentioned his application to be a permanent resident. If he applied for permanent resident status, it becomes a lot less gray. 

[AUFAN78 3,889]

Somewhat torn on this issue. I'll just add that at 19 most are extremely impressionable and make mistakes. 

Still contemplating.

[SaltyTiger 7,761]

26 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Completely inaccurate. Read the INA.

I understand. Pretty clear here.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Elucidate. 

 

Her status as a citizen, even through jus soli, does not shield her. The issue will be intent - but that will have to be determined in an adversarial forum. Furthermore, voluntariness under (a) is a rebuttable presumption. It is important to bear in mind that Congress has Plenary Power over immigration policy, thus common notions of Constitutional law can be tricky. 

§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.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

27 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Elucidate. 

I also see that you referenced the exact statute as well..... 

How do you conclude that she cannot be denied entry?