What should happen to the ISIS Brides?

[Tom Sawyer]

Once again Trump and his band of criminals are proudly violating US law and getting cheers from the authoritarians who ironically pretend they are patriots.

She is a citizen and should return, and then should go to prison. And it isn't merely following the law that is important, but it is our obligation to take responsibility for our own citizens, especially when they criminals, and not foist them onto other nations.

It's not just Trump. Britain is doing the same thing and is just as wrong.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47299907

 

[jonatha]

I'm not up to speed on this.

Are these including kids who were born in the USA and grew up there and then went over to ISIS? And now they want to strip their citizenship rather than make them stand trial back home? Do I have that right?

If so, what is the basis for that? You can just strip citizenship from people? They become a citizen of nowhere? That seems rather nuts to me. They are criminals and terrorists maybe, but they are still citizens.

It seems a naturalized citizen can have their citizenship stripped for a few reasons one of which is cavorting with terrorists but a birth right citizen can not.

A birth right citizen can only lose their citizenship by renouncing it.

Under 8 U.S.C. 1481 it doesn't matter whether a person is a U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization, they can lose their citizenship by joining any armed force that is engaged in hostilities against the U.S. Here's the appropriate section of law:

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8-section1481&num=0&edition=prelim

"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"

 

[dismal]

That’s perhaps not actually true. She was born in the US after her father left his diplomatic post. Children born in the US to diplomats are not citizens. However she was born AFTER her father was a diplomat. It’s an unusual case. Trump’s administration is claiming that she is not a citizen. I’m not sure that is actually true.

Correct. It would be an unusual case. It would depend upon how he left his post. If his country simply reassigned him to a non-diplomatic post, but one in which he would still be able to maintain his diplomatic immunity then he could have still been recognized as diplomat. In many cases, the U.S. recognizes "honorary diplomats" who hold at least some degree diplomatic immunity. We would probably have to go case law to decide something like that.

- - - Updated - - -

Under 8 U.S.C. 1481 it doesn't matter whether a person is a U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization, they can lose their citizenship by joining any armed force that is engaged in hostilities against the U.S. Here's the appropriate section of law:

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8-section1481&num=0&edition=prelim

Hmm, maybe the article I read was wrong. Also, maybe this has not been tested in court. A congressional statute can't trump the Constitution if the two are in conflict.

They're not in conflict. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the full power to enact laws of citizenship and nationality.

Try looking at Amendment the 14th.

 

[ronburgundy]

But we do have precedent on saying "that person is no longer a citizen".  Anwar al-Awlaki and, worse,  Abdulrahman al-Awlaki

Not quite. Yes, 18 Republican Congressmen introduced a bill to violate US law and strip a person of citizenship, but the bill did not go anywhere. There is no precedent of a US president simply declaring by dictatorial fiat that a person is no longer a citizen. When Obama made the decision to order those drone strikes against an Al-Quada recruiter who was in direct contact with the 9/11 hijackers, it was done with specific attention to the legal requirements for ordering such a strike against a US citizen. If Trump had been in office, there would have been no attention to law, just "He's not a citizen b/c I said so, now kill him."

 

[dismal]

Once again Trump and his band of criminals are proudly violating US law and getting cheers from the authoritarians who ironically pretend they are patriots.

She is a citizen and should return, and then should go to prison. And it isn't merely following the law that is important, but it is our obligation to take responsibility for our own citizens, especially when they criminals, and not foist them onto other nations.

It's not just Trump. Britain is doing the same thing and is just as wrong.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47299907

I'm not sure it's necessarily wrong to strip someone who effectively declares war against a country of their citizenship, but the extent it is illegal it shouldn't be done.

 

[ronburgundy]

I'm not up to speed on this.

Are these including kids who were born in the USA and grew up there and then went over to ISIS? And now they want to strip their citizenship rather than make them stand trial back home? Do I have that right?

If so, what is the basis for that? You can just strip citizenship from people? They become a citizen of nowhere? That seems rather nuts to me. They are criminals and terrorists maybe, but they are still citizens.

It seems a naturalized citizen can have their citizenship stripped for a few reasons one of which is cavorting with terrorists but a birth right citizen can not.

A birth right citizen can only lose their citizenship by renouncing it.

Under 8 U.S.C. 1481 it doesn't matter whether a person is a U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization, they can lose their citizenship by joining any armed force that is engaged in hostilities against the U.S. Here's the appropriate section of law:

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8-section1481&num=0&edition=prelim

Yes, but first it must be proven in formal legal process that they are guilty of these things. Trump has no authority to decide who is and who is not a citizen.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

But we do have precedent on saying "that person is no longer a citizen".  Anwar al-Awlaki and, worse,  Abdulrahman al-Awlaki

Not quite. Yes, 18 Republican Congressmen introduced a bill to violate US law and strip a person of citizenship, but the bill did not go anywhere. There is no precedent of a US president simply declaring by dictatorial fiat that a person is no longer a citizen. When Obama made the decision to order those drone strikes against an Al-Quada recruiter who was in direct contact with the 9/11 hijackers, it was done with specific attention to the legal requirements for ordering such a strike against a US citizen. If Trump had been in office, there would have been no attention to law, just "He's not a citizen b/c I said so, now kill him."

I never saw the court case that verified he was guilty.

 

[ronburgundy]

But we do have precedent on saying "that person is no longer a citizen".  Anwar al-Awlaki and, worse,  Abdulrahman al-Awlaki

Not quite. Yes, 18 Republican Congressmen introduced a bill to violate US law and strip a person of citizenship, but the bill did not go anywhere. There is no precedent of a US president simply declaring by dictatorial fiat that a person is no longer a citizen. When Obama made the decision to order those drone strikes against an Al-Quada recruiter who was in direct contact with the 9/11 hijackers, it was done with specific attention to the legal requirements for ordering such a strike against a US citizen. If Trump had been in office, there would have been no attention to law, just "He's not a citizen b/c I said so, now kill him."

I never saw the court case that verified he was guilty.

The law doesn't require a court case when the foreign location of the person makes capture, extradition, and thus a court case implausible. So, unlike Trump, Obama obeyed the law.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Once again Trump and his band of criminals are proudly violating US law and getting cheers from the authoritarians who ironically pretend they are patriots.

She is a citizen and should return, and then should go to prison. And it isn't merely following the law that is important, but it is our obligation to take responsibility for our own citizens, especially when they criminals, and not foist them onto other nations.

It's not just Trump. Britain is doing the same thing and is just as wrong.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47299907

I'm not sure it's necessarily wrong to strip someone who effectively declares war against a country of their citizenship, but the extent it is illegal it shouldn't be done.

And I think that it is wrong to strip them of it. If some dipshit turd goes to a compound in Montana declares war against the United States because he read a book which told him that the government was poisoning the water in order to turn the population into a bunch of commie faggots and he needs to fight back against that, he is an American criminal who deserves to be treated as an American simply by the right of his birth. If some other dipshit turd goes to a compound in Syria declares war against the United States because he read a different book which told him another set of idiotic garbage and he needs to fight back against that, he deserves the same treatment for the same reason.

 

[ronburgundy]

I'm not sure it's necessarily wrong to strip someone who effectively declares war against a country of their citizenship, but the extent it is illegal it shouldn't be done.

And I think that it is wrong to strip them of it. If some dipshit turd does to a compound in Montana declares war against the United States because he read a book which told him that the government was poisoning the water in order to turn the population into a bunch of commie faggots and he needs to fight back against that, he is an American criminal who deserves to be treated as an American simply by the right of his birth. If some other dipshit turd goes to a compound in Syria declares war against the United States because he read a different book which told him another set of idiotic garbage and he needs to fight back against that, he deserves the same treatment for the same reason.

I think the moral obligation is at least as much about our obligation to deal with our own assholes and not make other countries do it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think the moral obligation is at least as much about our obligation to deal with our own assholes and not make other countries do it.

Exactly. If one of your dogs gets out of the yard and shits on your neighbor's property, it is your responsibility to go over there with a plastic bag and pick it up. If you turn off the lights and ignore his pounding on your door until he gets fed up and goes away to do it himself, you're the dick.

It doesn't matter how much you hate that fucking dog or how happy you're going to be about drowning him in the toilet the next time you see the little fucker. It was your dog who took the shit, so it's up to you to pick up that shit.

 

[TSwizzle]

I think the moral obligation is at least as much about our obligation to deal with our own assholes and not make other countries do it.

Exactly. If one of your dogs gets out of the yard and shits on your neighbor's property, it is your responsibility to go over there with a plastic bag and pick it up. If you turn off the lights and ignore his pounding on your door until he gets fed up and goes away to do it himself, you're the dick.

It doesn't matter how much you hate that fucking dog or how happy you're going to be about drowning him in the toilet the next time you see the little fucker. It was your dog who took the shit, so it's up to you to pick up that shit.

It's more akin to a pitbull jumping the fence and mauling a toddler to death but the principal still applies I suppose.

 

[dismal]

I'm not sure it's necessarily wrong to strip someone who effectively declares war against a country of their citizenship, but the extent it is illegal it shouldn't be done.

And I think that it is wrong to strip them of it. If some dipshit turd goes to a compound in Montana declares war against the United States because he read a book which told him that the government was poisoning the water in order to turn the population into a bunch of commie faggots and he needs to fight back against that, he is an American criminal who deserves to be treated as an American simply by the right of his birth. If some other dipshit turd goes to a compound in Syria declares war against the United States because he read a different book which told him another set of idiotic garbage and he needs to fight back against that, he deserves the same treatment for the same reason.

I'm not sure that amounts to an argument. We have a justice system that aspires to have punishments fit the crimes. Stripping someone of their citizenship as a punishment for taking up arms against the country seems reasonably just. Fairly minor even compared to stripping them of their life or their freedom.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I never saw the court case that verified he was guilty.

The law doesn't require a court case when the foreign location of the person makes capture, extradition, and thus a court case implausible. So, unlike Trump, Obama obeyed the law.

There was no court case that determined anything about him, so we go straight to execution and that is considered obeying the law.

I suppose you've never heard of "tried in absentia". A lot of the time the suspect isn't at the hearing when the state requests a warrant.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm not sure it's necessarily wrong to strip someone who effectively declares war against a country of their citizenship, but the extent it is illegal it shouldn't be done.

And I think that it is wrong to strip them of it. If some dipshit turd goes to a compound in Montana declares war against the United States because he read a book which told him that the government was poisoning the water in order to turn the population into a bunch of commie faggots and he needs to fight back against that, he is an American criminal who deserves to be treated as an American simply by the right of his birth. If some other dipshit turd goes to a compound in Syria declares war against the United States because he read a different book which told him another set of idiotic garbage and he needs to fight back against that, he deserves the same treatment for the same reason.

I'm not sure that amounts to an argument. We have a justice system that aspires to have punishments fit the crimes. Stripping someone of their citizenship as a punishment for taking up arms against the country seems reasonably just. Fairly minor even compared to stripping them of their life or their freedom.

Except that involves the country abdicating their responsibility. Having someone else clean up your dog's shit in their yard is fairly minor as compared to beating the dog for shitting in someone else's yard, but that's not an excuse to have your neighbour pick up your dog's shit. It's your fucking dog, so you deal with it. You don't get to say that you don't like that dog so therefore he's someone else's problem.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the moral obligation is at least as much about our obligation to deal with our own assholes and not make other countries do it.

Exactly. If one of your dogs gets out of the yard and shits on your neighbor's property, it is your responsibility to go over there with a plastic bag and pick it up. If you turn off the lights and ignore his pounding on your door until he gets fed up and goes away to do it himself, you're the dick.

It doesn't matter how much you hate that fucking dog or how happy you're going to be about drowning him in the toilet the next time you see the little fucker. It was your dog who took the shit, so it's up to you to pick up that shit.

It's more akin to a pitbull jumping the fence and mauling a toddler to death but the principal still applies I suppose.

Ya, what the dog does is moot. The point is that it's your fucking dog, so you can't just say "Hey, it's not in my yard right now, so somebody else can be responsible for the dog".

 

[dismal]

I'm not sure that amounts to an argument. We have a justice system that aspires to have punishments fit the crimes. Stripping someone of their citizenship as a punishment for taking up arms against the country seems reasonably just. Fairly minor even compared to stripping them of their life or their freedom.

Except that involves the country abdicating their responsibility. Having someone else clean up your dog's shit in their yard is fairly minor as compared to beating the dog for shitting in someone else's yard, but that's not an excuse to have your neighbour pick up your dog's shit. It's your fucking dog, so you deal with it. You don't get to say that you don't like that dog so therefore he's someone else's problem.

Not really. I'm not saying we don't punish them fully for their crimes. You give them the full punishment and send them on their way. No other country has to deal with them if they don't want to.

And frankly if you don't want to lose your citizenship and risk trying to find a country that will take you there's an easy fix: don't take up arms against your country.

 

[TSwizzle]

It doesn't matter how much you hate that fucking dog or how happy you're going to be about drowning him in the toilet the next time you see the little fucker. It was your dog who took the shit, so it's up to you to pick up that shit.

It's more akin to a pitbull jumping the fence and mauling a toddler to death but the principal still applies I suppose.

Ya, what the dog does is moot. The point is that it's your fucking dog, so you can't just say "Hey, it's not in my yard right now, so somebody else can be responsible for the dog".

But what if it's not your dog ? What if the dog belonged to someone who had been visiting your house and the actual dog owner lived in the next county and they have since fucked off when they realized the dog had mauled a toddler ?

 

[Terrell]

Punish them for whatever laws they've broken. I'm not sure if they should lose their citizenship for what they've done, but I cannot sympathize with them if that's the result of their actions.

 

[ronburgundy]

don't take up arms against your country.

To be clear, what Hoda did is far less treasonous than what all confederate soldiers and their supporters did.
Her traitorous mentality isn't much different than that of every Dixie loving, Confederate-flag waiving, Robert E Lee statue-protecting traitor out there today.

But what if it's not your dog ?

She was born and raised in the US and correctly granted citizenship under US law. That makes her, by definition, our dog. Lying after the fact that she was never our dog is just cowardly irresponsible asshole behavior.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, what the dog does is moot. The point is that it's your fucking dog, so you can't just say "Hey, it's not in my yard right now, so somebody else can be responsible for the dog".

But what if it's not your dog ? What if the dog belonged to someone who had been visiting your house and the actual dog owner lived in the next county and they have since fucked off when they realized the dog had mauled a toddler ?

Well then it wouldn't be your problem. If, however, that happened when the dog was a puppy and you treated the dog as your pet for its entire life until it went and jumped over the fence, then you can't suddenly decide that it was always some other dude's dog.