The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Tell me what you think or how you feel. I would think this should be pretty easy but somehow I know it's not.  ;D

No

I'm not familiar with the term.  Is an ISIS bride in this case would be an American citizen that went and married an ISIS fighter, and now wants to return home to America?

The short answer is "No"

Nope, she shouldn't be allowed to enter the country ever again. She made her choice and it didn't work out for her. Too bad for her.

Not a chance


That's exactly what an ISIS bride is

This might be unpopular, but I don't know what grounds you'd deny entrance.  We have a Constitution that protects things like this for a reason, even if they're inconvenient.  I imagine she'd have to be let in, arrested at the border, and given due process rights, had she committed a crime.

The ISIS bride, Hoda Muthana, should be allowed back in the US.  Once on US soil, she should be arrested and charged with treason.   If found guilty of treason, she should be sentenced to death where she can be re-united with her 3 ex-scum-bags of husbands.

I was going to just say no, but this instead. Well said.

I don't know what grounds exist to deny her entry.  If she has committed any crimes (such as treason), then charge her, give her the opportunity to a jury trial and if convicted she can be sentenced.

I think the argument is is that she isn't even a US citizen? Is that still part of the trouble, or has that changed?

That is the claim of Trump.  However, like much of what Trump claims it is not based on facts, but his alternative reality.  She was born in the USA and has birthright citizenship. 

if she's a US citizen i don't see how she can legally be denied entry. Government can't strip citizenship of natural born citizens. The supreme court has already ruled that the rights the 14th amendment provide can't be denied by legislation unless there's an explicit intent to renounce citizenship.

not that i think any of this (law, truth, facts) matters to trump or his lackeys .. they'll just refuse to let her in unless specifically ordered by the supreme court and even then they'll slow walk it until trump is out of office.

If she has committed a crime, admit her and charge her with said crime.*
If you think her citizenship should be revoked, there are mechanisms to do so.
If she is still a legal US citizen, she has the right to enter the country.

The pro-Constitution guys are pretty quick to throw it in the trash any time someone says the word "terrorist."

*Our standard operating procedure with accused terrorists is to throw them in a prison indefinitely with no trial, so I'm not sure why this is even an issue.

Sounds like a plan to me.

I'm also cool with arresting her for treason.  Or don't let her back in at all.  Whichever.

Birthright citizenship is a catch 22.   If her parents were not citizens but just happened to be here when she was born, that is what makes it such a debatable topic.   Same thing applies to children who were born here to illegals.

^ It's not a debateable topic.  If you're born on American soil, you're American.  The laws are very clear about this.

Unfortunately, I have come across women who , while very pregnant, have travelled from their countries of origin to the US, have sought  medical care, and guess what? All of a sudden there's a new US citizen that we all are then responsible for.

100% accurate .. and their citizenship is not revocable

This topic is a trick, by the way.  Everyone knows these things to be true.  But by siding with and understanding the actual Constitution and how rights work, regardless of how you feel about any particular individual, it seems as if you're siding with terrorists.

It's no more of a "trick" than the people who insist on respecting the flag and the anthem while simultaneously flying the flag of defeated traitors to the Constitution.

It's easy to talk about "being a patriot" or "supporting the Constitution." Quite another thing to practice it.

Here we go, time to derail another thread.   ::)

The Constitution is not written in stone. It can be amended.

Actually they aren't. The law was written so that slaves were considered citizens. It wasn't for illegals who had children here. The application of "birthright citizenship" to children of undocumented immigrants remains very controversial.

In fact .... Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment the citizenship of people born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."[9]

United States Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) defines who is a United States citizen from birth. The following are among those listed there as persons who shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

"a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" or
"a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe" (see Indian Citizenship Act of 1924).
"a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States"
"a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person"


You can't revoke citizenship but you can revoke Naturalized citizens. With that said .... I have no issue of arresting her other than she would become a martyr to the fringe left.

I don't know why you assume the fringe left is out supporting ISIS ? if anything . .the fringe left is very ron paul in their lack of enthusiasm for foreign entanglements

A brief article I read on this a few days ago had something to do with this.  I believe the Administration was saying she wasn't a citizen because her father was in the country as a diplomat when she was born, and therefore in their opinion she isn't a citizen of the US.  But, I believe the father is claiming she was born after he stopped being a diplomat.

She made her bed, let her lie in it, in Syria.

Sometimes quite undesired.  

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/accidental-americans-living-abroad-fight-tax-bill-uncle-sam-n867711

That just isn’t right.

It is actually one of the biggest sticking point in USA/Canada relationship. 

This is true in a sense, but not for the reasons implied.  It's because when the 14th Amendment was written, there was literally no such thing as an illegal immigrant.  The first federal law restricting immigration wasn't passed until 1882, 14 years after the 14th Amendment took effect.  There were certainly prior laws restricting who could become a naturalized citizen after immigrating here... but the 14th Amendment is clearly intended to expand qualifications for citizenship.

So if we are taking an originalist viewpoint, the very concept that someone could be an "illegal immigrant" would have been bizarre and foreign to the drafters of the 14th Amendment.  At the time that amendment was passed, it would have been crystal clear (and the explicit intention) that immigrating to this country necessarily put you under its "jurisdiction," and that anyone born to an immigrant would be a citizen.  In other words: it was the express purpose of the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to the children of people who, themselves, could not qualify for citizenship.  It was not an accident.