Pompeo: ISIS wife can't return because she's not American, contradicting her family, lawyer
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claimed Wednesday that an American woman who was the bride of an Islamic State fighter and now wants to come home is not an American citizen.
Hoda Muthana traveled to Syria and married and had a child with an ISIS fighter and now wants to face the U.S. justice system.
Pompeo's assertion that Muthana "does not have any legal basis, no valid U.S. passport, no right to a passport," contradicts statements by her family and her Florida-based lawyer, who said she was born in Hackensack, New Jersey, in 1994.
Muthana, who was raised in Alabama, left the United States to join ISIS four years ago at age 19. In Syria, she called for Americans to be attacked, and she spread the group's propaganda online.
She is one of about 1,500 foreign women and children – the spouses and children of Islamic State militants – held in a Kurdish-run detention camp in northern Syria.
Tags
Who is online
61 visitors
If she has a New Jersey birth certificate she's an American citizen
Nope. That's not how the law works. Sorry not sorry.
You are not the end all and be all of knowledge. You don't know and neither do I
Why does this Administration speak when nothing is gained by doing so?
If the family has an original birth certificate from The city of Hackensack ( ) then she's an American citizen.
Pompeo is going to try to hang this on the fact that one of her parents was purportedly a diplomat in 1994, but the family claims she was born months after he left that position.
So Pompeo is asserting that she was not subject to the juridiction of the USA as a new born because the farther was formerly a diplomat,
In spite of her birth certificate, Social Security number and USA Passport.
Nope. Being born in this country to a foreign agent doesn't count.
She was born in Hackensack NJ according to reports. Thus she is a citizen, (birthright) but, there seems to be a claim that her father was a diplomat so there are exceptions to the birthright citizenship according to some legal experts.
Until the diplomat father is cleared up, everything, IMO, is up in the air.
So, no. She's not an American. She's a war criminal.
Your legal expertise not withstanding at this point you nor I know if she is or isn't a US citizen.
You do know that US Citizens have been tried and convicted of being spies/traitors etc and have executed in the past don't you.
The Rosenbergs.....but I doubt too many people know who they are. I know you do because you know your history.
Julius clearly was, but Ethel? I have my doubts.....
I know at least one American citizen was executed by executive order without benefit of trial. I'm not sure how any of thus is relevant.
I'm not really sure she was guilty, either.
Just pointing out for your edification since your comment was, she's not American she a war criminal.
That Americans can and have been a various number of things that are involved in spying/treason/desecration/war crimes..
So there ya go.
I think it is possible that Ethel was just along for the ride as Julia's wife. They were also both reputed to be committed communists but there has been so much written about them over the years, who can truly say?
If America is such a terrible racist place, why is a Muslim fighting to get into one of our prisons?
When the diplomat situation is settled, and she is proven to be a US citizen she is entitled to due process. It's really that simple. Whether you like/agree/hate/despise her is of little consequence.
If she is found guilty in a trial then the sentencing will be, IMO, severe and she could be spending decades if not life in prison. It's no more complicated than that.
I believe that if she is a US citizen then she is entitled to a trial and must face the consequences of her action whatever they may be.
She may not get any due process. Obama set that drone precedent.
I understand that Obama "set that drone precedent."
I was against Obama (and Bush's) extra judicial drone killings in general; and vehemently against Obama's killings of two US citizens in Yemen- even if they were members of Al Qaida w/o trial.
This person no longer represents a direct threat to the US. She is in Kurdish detention now. She also has a child with her. While I have no problem letting her rot there; the child at least deserves a chance to prove it can become more (meaning better) than the mother or father. There is family within the US that I can only assume is willing to take responsibility for the child.
If it is proven that she is a US citizen then we must follow due process and let the system run it's course. If for no other reason than for the sake of the child; and to prove we are better than those we are fighting.
Then so is her child.
Not so Dulay. Her child was not born in the U. S. nor was she an employee of the diplomatic corps nor the U. S. military.
3. Child of U.S. Citizen Parent and Foreign National Parent [9]A child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if at the time of birth:
•One parent is a foreign national and the other parent is a U.S. citizen; and
•The U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States for at least 5 years, including at least 2 years after 14 years of age.
Time abroad counts as physical presence in the United States if the time abroad was:
•As a member of the U.S. armed forces in honorable status;
•Under the employment of the U.S. government or other qualifying organizations; or
•As a dependent unmarried son or daughter of such persons.
USCIS tasking officer would have to make a determination as to whether or not to accept the application of citizenship for the child.
To lose U.S. Citizenship, she would have had to -
Committing any of the following acts will create a presumption that it was performed voluntarily with the idea of giving up U.S. citizenship, although the person may later be able to rebut (disprove) this presumption:
ISIS is considered another country that is actively engaged in hostilities against the U.S., and, as such, the DOS can void her citizenship. The denial can be appealed - however, there is no process at the moment in DOS to accomplish the appeal process as of 6/17/2017.
So 1st. Your own block quote proves it.
So presuming that she IS a US citizen:
She was BORN here and didn't leave until she was 19 so she meets that standard.
Her child is a US citizen.
Another twisting here.... Actually ignorance of the law also...
Your correct as far as you go. and can only be correct if you ignore what she has done....
She joined Isis.... who is an enemy combatant in active combat against the US....
Therefore as 1st pointed out she lost her citizenship by...
The Department of State upon request to re-enter the country can void her citizenship claim based upon her admitted actions against the United States.....
Her child? He was born after she after she joined Isis and after she gave up her citizenship........
Hence he is not a US citizen.....
That's not only logic, it's the law....
Thought that's what I said
Which law are you claiming I am ignorant of NWM? Please be specific.
You pretend to be arguing THE LAW yet both you and 1st fail to actually cite THE LAW.
First of all, how can SHE have joined a military force that doesn't allow women in their ranks?
Secondly, ISIS in NOT a country.
Another proclamation. Cite the LAW.
Which merely makes you both wrong.
Dulay - I really don't understand how you can or even what you are trying to prove. I've cited both REGULATIONS that are BASED ON THE LAW.
Do you have problems reading regulations and understanding them?
1st LAW - U. S. Code 8 USC 1401, SEC 301(g)
2nd LAW - Title 8 → Chapter I → Subchapter C → Part 316 → §316.10
Since when?
Who has recognized it for anything more than a criminal/terrorist group?
Has the UN recognized ISIS borders?
Has anyone, besides ISIS?
I have already proven that YOUR interpretation of the policy that you did cite was inaccurate and I used the exact wording of the policy to do so.
1st, I can post my INTERPRETATION of a regulation BASED ON THE LAW and based on past experience, NONE of YOU would accept MY INTERPRETATION.
POST the ACTUAL LAW and argue it on it's MERIT.
Past experience should have taught you better than to ask me that question 1st.
Oh and BTFW, you didn't cite any REGULATIONS for me to read or understand. You posted a link to 'General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth' that has hyperlinks to ACTUAL LAWS.
As for your nolo link, you misinterpreted even the 'crib notes' 1st.
READ THE ACTUAL LAW and follow the links to the LEGAL definitions.
This is absolutely the LAST time I will do your research for you.......
§1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
And
§1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
Her actions in joining and support of ISIS make for a renunciation of her citizenship, as established by the DOS revoking her passport when she left. And that was done during the Obama Administration......
Her child is therefore a child of a non US Citizen.
Of course the can apply for citizen status, she has the presumption of not giving up her citizenship, but she has to prove that she didn't.
Her clear and unambiguous statements clearly show that she did fully intend such by her actions calling for terrorist acts within the United States and proclaiming her support for an enemy combatant on the internet....
Now just to be clear, just because we do not specifically post the actual cite does not make what we state false, which is what your alluding to with your demands for proof.....
We have already done the research, you claim we are wrong, you do your own research and prove us wrong.....
Remember the person making the claim has the burden to prove their claim....
Citing the law or the content of the law is not making a claim, alluding that we are wrong without a cite is making a claim subject to burden of proof. It is incumbent on you to prove your claim, we had a long long article on that exact subject didn't we, you've cited that article in defense of your tactic several times haven't you......
YOU DO YOUR OWN DAMN RESEARCH!
It fairly easy, and not doing it is pure laziness and represents someone that is only trying to stir the crap with unproven allusions. A weak illogical argument...... Besides doing what you do is a long understood tactic of the internet troll..... Nothing to really offer except flat denials or unfounded accusations of incorrectness.
And your analysis of 1st's statements?
He doesn't cite the chapter and verse, but he does use the actual text of the law..... so your claim that he doesn't understand is vacuous at best, and a downright lie at worst. anyway it is an unfounded attack based upon the clear law as written......
And that does establish your intent to discredit your debate opponent by casting invalid allusions not based upon any actual research on your part.....
You are not a worthy debate opponent......
You aren't doing MY research NWM.
Any cogent reading of those statues bolsters my comment. Thanks.
Then you go on to make a claim that isn't enumerated ANYWHERE in either of those statutes.
She cannot 'JOIN' a force that doesn't allow FEMALES in their ranks. It would also behoove you to review what the LAW defines as 'support'. WORDS are not listed.
Oh and I LOVE the title of your second statute:
Former citizens losing citizenship by entering armed forces of foreign countries during World War II
Your first link proves my point and your second link cracks me up:
Former citizens losing citizenship by entering armed forces of foreign countries during World War II
BTW, 1st the second statute actually cites DATES. Sheesh.
I don't know what you looking at this is what I'm looking at....
8 USC 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
Text contains those laws in effect on February 25, 2019
AND:
8 USC 1481: Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
Text contains those laws in effect on February 25, 2019
Directly from the House's online listing of the current US Code of Federal Regulations. (specific code cited last updated 1988)
USCODE.HOUSE.GOV
Says nothing AT ALL about WWII.
Which only proves my contention, your a very poor debate opponent only trying to disparage an argument without any real substance......
I posted the CURRENT LAW! your claim is bogus and represents a denigration of an argument without proof. YOU DIDN'T DO ANY ACTUAL RESEARCH, and if you did, (no links to prove it) your showing a complete lack of understanding on how to research the law, what is important in researching the law, and where to find the current law....
Like I said an unworthy debate opponent.....
Having your ass handed to you again, what an embarrassment....
Well gee NWM, you said:
so I presumed that you were supporting 1st link too…
Under the LAW, ISIS doesn't qualify as a 'foreign state' of the 'the government of a foreign state'. This is ESPECIALLY true in this case since she was in SYRIA that IS a 'foreign state' and Assad is the President of 'the government of that foreign state'.
So now, tell me WHAT she did that qualifies as an:
BTW, you may want to review the cases of those that have ALREADY been prosecuted in the US for terrorism because of their actions in support of ISIS. NONE of them were prosecuted for treason, even though most of them conspired to actually take up arms against the US, not just TALK.
Since we have disposed of the law argument regarding her citizenship status, we now go to nationality status.
Only a US citizen can be tried for treason. Since they fell under a different section of the law, it is logical (and safe) to assume (no research done but will if needed) that they were not considered US citizens.
Which, if true, goes to prove our contention rather than yours..... (have you ever heard of a "Stateless Person", look it up)
Your claim, you prove it. With links this time.
well I do need to correct the error, generally citizenship is required to commit treason. But, (always an exception isn't there) any person residing in the nation, owing the nation allegiance, can commit treason against it.
SO resident aliens can, naturalized citizens can, foreigners in the service of the United States can also......
But once said people have left the country, their debt of allegiance disappears also....
Just to clarify...
Subject person, not being a citizen, owes no allegiance and cannot be charged with treason....
We will have to wait for that determination....
Pick up the flag, no real violation of the rules actually occurred. {chuckle}
Exactly, if she was born here, she is a citizen and so his her child.
I presumed that you'd understand that I was talking about citizens prosecuted in the US for terrorism. There are MANY cases on record, all available online for review and NONE of those CITIZENS were prosecuted for treason...
You're deflecting NWM.
You stated that:
prove that she gave up her citizenship.
YOU chose and cited the statute that you claim supports that posit.
So AGAIN, tell me WHAT she did that qualifies as an:
Because I see NOTHING in that would indicate that her statements, no matter HOW abhorrent, were an act of expatriation under that statute.
You pretend to want to debate based on the LAW, then make your argument based on the LAW. You pretend, ad nauseam, that I'm somehow less capable of READING and understanding statutes than you.
So PROVE IT and quote the part of the statute that YOU CHOSE, that states that her statements, as you characterized them, constitute expatriation.
Pretend? YOu keep claiming that we are arguing statute, when we aren't, we are arguing the Code of Federal Regulations. They are not statutes, but they do carry the force of law. That is why the House keeps a listing of the current code....
Since you apparently do not know the difference you cannot claim to understand them, their purpose, or even how they come into being.
Since you plainly do not even understand the basics of the law your interpretation of said laws has to be deemed weak if not faulty altogether.... ALL of your arguments tend to prove the point.
She is a stateless person so expatriation is irrelevant to her status.....
I again suggest you take a course or two and learn what your talking about so there is a common basis of understanding cause clearly you lack the requisite knowledge to cogently discuss the situation.......
I've already proven what is necessary, your claims of the opposite notwithstanding.....
Your turnaboutism fails on that basis......
Trolling doesn't work with me....
We are now into mere repetition of your failed argument, repetition does not make veracity.
All that is left is the insultative portion of your position....
You lost, again, deal with it.
CALL it whatever the fuck you want to NWM.
I asked you to:
YOU CHOSE:
So STOP DEFLECTING and tell me WHAT she did that qualifies as an:
Lets post the actual code......
Are you going to argue her actions were forced? She has the burden of proof.....
Given her own public admissions freely given I think it is a slam dunk..... She will have her day in court, if she is allowed to return....
Nuff said about your ability to research laws & codes... You still don't know the difference in them....
The embarrassment is getting worse.....
I presume that you are claiming that she violated the part that first part you highlighted in red.
So I'll post THAT part of the code:
I thought you were a pro at this.
Since she WAS in Syria, which is NOT 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' when she made the statements that you characterized, she did NOT violate that code.
Got anything else NWM?
Under the code I'm citing, it points to the acts contained in the other law as the conditions specified, which means if the acts which she committed would be charged as a US citizen, ALSO apply as a stateless person....
The code I'm citing is inclusive of the conditions of the other law.....
THAT IS THE PART YOU REFUSE TO ACCEPT!!!!
And that is because you haven't a clue how the law is supposed to be applied.... You have ZERO legal training.....
And that is all that is being revealed here, your cluelessness....
Your interpretation would have one law canceling out the other, and the LAW DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! they have to be interpreted together to effectuate their purpose otherwise they are both pointless.....
Clueless is the only explanation for your position and argument.
I posted the code you highlighted in red NWM. If it's another code post the fucking thing and stop blathering.
You cited 8 USC 1481 and highlighted #7 limited to section 2384 of title 18 which I posted in full.
I highlighted in bold the proviso of section 2384 of title 18, I.E. it's gotta be perpetrated in the US NWM.
Then I cogently stated WHY it doesn't cover her.
So save your supercilious bullshit for someone who is impressed by it and tell me WHAT she did that qualifies as an:
Last chance...
And your absolutely WRONG and haven't a clue as to why. But I'm sure that you consider yourself right no matter the absolute display of your pure ignorance....
There is no help for you....
Your damned funny.....
Gone Girl: An Interview With An American In ISIS
Why would an American college student run away to Syria and join ISIS? Meet Hoda, a 20-year-old woman from Alabama — and the devastated father she left behind.
That's about her specifically in her own words......
She is a traitor pure and simple...... Any rights she had as an american citizen she willingly gave up.....
No recovery from that....
Yet you are incapable of PROVING that aren't you NWM?
Your proclamations, blathering and self aggrandizement doesn't cut it.
You haven't and cannot prove it based on the LAW that YOU CHOSE and pretend to be so fucking superior at arguing.
And this is exactly what it is about, you wishing to embarrass me.
I've already proven your ignorant of the law, now you want me to prove your ignorance about judicial procedures and the rules of statuary interpretation also...
I'm not your fucking teacher, like I've said take a course, your embarrassing yourself to any one with even a little actual knowledge of the law.
But c'est la vie, It really doesn't matter to me and your beginning to bore me.....
That being said,
Keep on coming, your only doing it to yourself.....
Obtuse.
Yeah I knew you were running out of arguments, when that happens people who practice trollish behavior usually get around to insulting behavior whence they run out of bullshite...
I usually take that as an admission they've lost the debate.....
Thank you.
Twice now....
After reading the entire exchange, it looks to me that the left is going to go all out to defend this woman and insist, not only is she a US citizen, but she should be let back in what a simple slap on the wrist.
2020 is going to be hell for Democrats.
I usually take supercilious self aggrandizement as a lack of a cogent argument and nothing you've posted dissuades me from that judgment.
Really? This democrat wants to see her punished as far as the law allows.
Partly made my point. She should not even be let back into the country TO be punished by our laws. She will only be punished if she returns here.
If she's not a citizen then she can't come back but if she is, then.....
We don't all think alike, ya know
So she gets off scott free? If she committed some heinous crimes and were a citizen, we wouldn't try to extradite her
and bring her back for her just deserts?
She's either a citizen who needs to face the music
or she's not, and not worthy of one word typed here.
The ultimate punishment would be if she was not a citizen but grew up here and not let back in. I read somewhere a couple of weeks ago she was the daughter of a diplomat. Children of diplomats are not automatically US citizens if born here.
I honestly don't think we have an extradition treaty with Syria.
Wasn't meant too......
You dug your own hole, now live in it.... All your trying to do here is reclaim the intellectual integrity you lost with your pedantic insistance on being right when you were clearly wrong.... you want to effectuate you intellectual credibility by.....
wait for it.....
wait for it.....
Wait for it.....
INSULTING SOMEONE AGAIN!.......
I for one could never understand how insulting the other side in any way increases the intelligent quotient on my side... But obviously you think it does.... reveals that emotions override logic.... A very weak debate position.
We see that a lot from the liberal side nowadays..... Weak emotional arguments, it's their hallmark.
Yet you do it prolifically nonetheless.
Yet you give a perfect textbook example of it almost every time you lose a debate.....
She would have to be an acknowledged US Citizen to even consider extradition.
This has been explained a multitude of times by myself and others, but one more time won't kill me.
In order to get a passport for he woman when she was a child, the father had to prove, with documentation from the UN that he had been dismissed by the
constantly changing government of Yemen, prior to her birth in New Jersey, and while he and his wife were getting permanent resident status.
When Hoda's original passport expired her father had to repeat the process, and the passport was renewed.
(There is a story floating about that the Obama Administration revoked her passport due to the ISIS recruiting she was involved in.)
For the time being she can stay in the Kurdish camp until her father's lawsuit winds its way through court. He filed suit last Friday to bring her and his grandson back.
He obviously wants his grandson, he says she has to pay the price for her decisions.
Glad you recognize how rare that is...and NEVER against you.
IMPASSE
[deleted]
[Impasse]
[An impasse may be called in a thread during a heated discussion by making a comment that contains one and only one word: ‘IMPASSE’.] [An impasse call ends the thread for everyone - no other comments are allowed by anyone on the thread.]
[deleted]
deleted
Note to the community: Please only declare an impasse once someone has said something to you. Otherwise, it looks like you are trying to get the last word in and the mods have no way of knowing otherwise.
I followed the CoC. I recognizing a dead end heated debate called an IMPASSE. Isn't that what the IMPASSE rule is for?
Oh and I note that you presume that I acted in bad faith. Thanks for that public show of support Perrie.
you slung an insult then called an impasse to prevent a response, a clear misapplication of the rule, but a mod backed up your impasse, she has to back the mod so she let it stand with a warning not to do it again.
I know this cause I have done it before as have several others especially when the impasse rule was first established. Now it is old history and long held you cannot throw an impasse out there to get the last barb in or use it to control the other persons ability to respond....
You did act in bad faith..... The proper way to use impasse is as a single response, one word to a comment directly in first response to a comment of mine, not as the second comment after responding to my comment..... The first way stops the conversation, the second way is used to deliberately prevent a response.
You don't get to force the last word...... especially when it is nothing but a worthless insult.
Hold on there NWM. First I see no insult slung here. That was not the issue. You did the exact same thing. Two comments in a row to Dulay. One with a full comment and the other with OH Yeah, Impasse", which invalidates the impasse, since she never replied to you either. You can not call what she did in bad faith unless you are willing to admit the same thing yourself. Now get this clear, there will be no more comments.
This thread is dead. Any comments here will lead to a vacation.
[deleted]
This woman made a choice to leave the United States to join ISIS four years ago. She chose three ISIS fighters as husbands during that time. If she wasn't being held in a Kurdish run detention camp...would she even be asking to be returned to the United States?
I would say no she would not be asking to return.
The only way she should be allowed back into this country is to a prison cell with her child for the rest of her life.
She is a traitor.
I agree - it's only because of her current circumstances that she wishes to be returned to the US.
I will agree with that part so long as you scratch the child part. The child has nothing to do with the decisions/actions of either the mother or father. The child is not old enough to make those types of decisions.
Absolutely and she deserves to be held accountable for actions under US law if she is proven to be a US citizen. The child doesn't deserve that same fate, no matter what the crimes of the mother and father were/are.
She can only be charged with treason if, she is declared to be a citizen, which seems to be the basis for Pomeo's premature exclamation.
I don't care what she can be charged with as long as her ass stays out of this country or gets put in a deep dark cell.
We're not real lawyers but we play them on NT?
Actually there is a real lawyer on NT, but he's not an American.
And not only that, he retired from practice about 16 years ago.
And although he may have forgotten a lot of what he once knew, he will never forget that there are at least two sides to every story.
BF, assuming that she IS a citizen, do you realize that you are suggesting that she be detained in Guantanamo for practicing her 1st Amendment rights?
Lol well as she was a muslim women within ISIS I doubt choice had a lot to do with her husbands, sounds more like she was handed around like a piece of meat
On a more serious note I know for diplomats and military that children of US citizens born outside the US are still considered citizens, but does the same apply to children of regular citizens?
She was a muslim woman before she left for ISIS...she became a jihadi and she made that choice. After the death of her first husband she tweeted : “Americans wake up! Men and women altogether. You have much to do while you live under our greatest enemy, enough of your sleeping! Go on drivebys, and spill all of their blood, or rent a big truck and drive all over them. Veterans, Patriots, Memorial, etc day … Kill them.” Are those the words of a 'piece of meat' or an angry widow?
At question is her citizenship . Diplomats children do not become US citizens simply because they are born here. That question can be answered by the courts...meanwhile she stays where she is.
Relax. that comment was a joke about how her life turned out. I could not care less how many husbands she was passed around to, willing or not.
Duhhh
I completely agree
Just send a drone and eliminate the legal arguments. The Obama protocol
Pompeo provided the information of Hoda being born to a diplomat in a recent interview .. thus not having a right to a US citizenship - not vouching for the source .. but the Secretary of State seems to agree with the information below, as did the Obama administration .. take from it what you will....
And the father, who has already filed suit,
claims that he had to provide written proof from the UN in order to get Hoda a passport as a child, and again last year when he sought to renew the passport.
It was good enough twice for the girls passport.
The Obama Admin revoked it because of her participation in ISIS recruiting.
Let the courts decide it.
More than happy to let the courts decide, I am not here to argue Split Personality... I happen to be one that thinks she was not a US citizen when she left, sooo...…. Defend Hoda, do not defend Hoda .. that is up to each individual to decided for themselves - I feel bad for her, she made some real crappy choices .. but returning to the US should not be an option for her, in my opinion..
I am quite aware of the twist and turns of the issues .. the father claims etc ….. as to why the Obama administration revoked the passport and 'decided' she was not a citizen, may have to do with Daesh recruiting .. but I believe part also had to do with not accepting a US Mission letter to the UN stating he [the father] had denounced his diplomatic status before his daughters birth in '94 ….
Guess I missed the outcry over the 2015 decision ……. ?
Take care Split Personality …. later!
I am of the idea that she chose this path. She willingly slammed (denounced) the US and decided to join a terrorist organization.
Now after being left in a refugee camp she wants the country she denounced and was against, to come to her rescue.
I say she chose her lot in life, she willingly made her decisions. Let her stay there.
Honestly I wouldn't trust bringing her back here with what her son has been being taught or would continue to be taught.
Agreed Ender …
I, like you think there is reason to not trust her .. she has flown her true colors / shared her true feelings about the US. Now she is looking for safety in the US with mom and dad … so sorry her 3 husbands died, but she is right where she chose to be - I certainly would not want her living in my neighborhood....
Slamming or denouncing the US isn't a crime, nor does one doing so affirmatively relinquish one's citizenship. As I pointed out before, none of the US citizens that have been prosecuted in the US for joining ISIS have been expatriated or prosecuted for treason even though they were found to have intended to take up arms against the US. In fact, a young woman just like the one in the seed got 4 years + probation and she was actually planning an attack in the US.
We have a thingy called 'equal protection of the law'.
On CBS this morning Norah introduced the intro to this story as her being exiled for 5 years....Why are they even giving this Bitch air time?