I am not sure if ocho cinco's argument is based on a accurate understand of the facts... but on first blush his argument seemed solid. I know If I were the administration I would follow the law as conservatively as possible. If you had any right at all I would let her in... find relatives for the child and take her into custody pending a trial. I would charge her with everything. However, for her kids sake I might tell her this is what will happen if she steps foot on our soil. Including our embassy in a country which would let us take her to the airport. ( I would have to think about the warning.) I would not want some lefty judges... turning this women into a divide the country kind of case. I would give her no constitution based arguments.. She has to be wrong on the facts and the law and the constitution. No chances taken for expediency or politics.
Trump on muslim citizens: she said terrible things and slept with the enemy, terrorist! Trump on rich muslims (MBS): he's a nice guy and has issued strong denials, I think the CIA is wrong.
If she has a US Passport, then she is US citizen. I dont see what big deal is. This is no different than Johnny Walker. Bring her back, she will do some jail time, then they will release her, just like Johnny Walker.
I heard a former DOJ pundit guy on the tube earlier say that "we would think that those factors would apply" but unfortunately our supreme courts has taken a different position." Indeed, I stand by my position that it is not slam dunk by reading statutory chapter and versue, but it is much more complicated than that and intent becomes a critical factor. And that you must establish that a person who voluntarily performed those actions also intended to relinquish citizenship as an element of so doing. As I said, yesterday, take the case of a person leaving the country and committing treason. The statute allows the presumption that they have volantarily relinquished their citizensship, but is rebuttable if the person says otherwise or denies that intent. And I gave the example of a person who also committed treason but went to prison for twenty years but continue to assert that he wanted to be a citizen. No one is going to be removing his citizenship even though he falls within one of the listed presumptive factors because intent was not established. Bottom line: It's complicated. Of interest from some article listed on Quora: The Supreme Court ruled in Afroyim v. Rusk that, by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US constitution, a person born or naturalized in the United States cannot be involuntarily deprived of their US citizenship. The Court later clarified in Vance v. Terrazas that even if an individual voluntarily performs an act that, according to statute (see 8 USC ยง1481), causes automatic loss of US citizenship, the person does not lose US citizenship unless the intent to lose US citizenship is established separately from the voluntary performance of the act itself. Therefore, a US citizen can always choose to retain their US citizenship as long as they intend to retain it, regardless of their actions.
It looks like Pompeo needs to understand his own agencies policies. Its pretty cut and dry. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/requirements/citizenship-evidence.html Citizenship Evidence When applying on Form DS-11, you must submit primary evidence of U.S. citizenship: If you cannot provide primary evidence, you must submit secondary evidence of U.S. citizenship. Examples of primary and secondary citizenship evidence are listed below.
A poster asked yesterday "how can a person have a passport if they are not a citizen." as if that is proof of citizenship. The answer is: yes, you can have a passport if you answered questions untruthfully. And that needs to be reviewed. Since she had a U.S. birth certificate it would be very easy to obtain a passport because that is the Holy Grail of getting one. However, that requires one to accept the fact that the passport application did not ask anywhere about whether her parents were diplomats or if she currently held any other form of travel visa issued by the United States, etc. etc. It has been a long time since I applied for a passport the first time so I dont remember all the questions or know about the changes since. - but my point remains the same- ie. the State Department knows that being a diplomats child is a determining factor so I presume that that is asked about somewhere, and the question arises as to how she answered it, or whether it was answered by her parents because they got her passport for her when she was younger and so on. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO ANY OF THIS. I am just saying. You can get a passport by lying on the application if their computers do not pick it up. But having that passport does not confirm that you are a citizen if it does not hold up under scrutiny.
There are many examples of people who are not U.S. citizens who managed to obtain a passport. Many times these fall into the diplomatic category in terms of applicants/families/etc.