• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Should Hoda Muthana be allowed to return to the United States? (With Poll!)

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Should hoda be allowed back?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 10.3%
  • No

    Votes: 26 89.7%

  • Total voters
    29
I hear you. But I don't want citizenship based on someone "giving her a pass". I think having birth right citizenship (since there are protected rights that flow from it) should be clear and clearly defined and not prone to someone else's will in either direction. And the fact that the US gave her TWO passports should put the ones on the US.

Birthright does not apply to foreign diplomatic mission personnels. Besides, her father was part of the mission to UN, not even USA.
 
If the US wants to put you on trial and you are convicted of treason, then and only then can they "take away" your citizenship. If you are arguing that you are arguing the basis of the Judicial system that a person is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers. My point is that a US governmental employee/agency/president shouldn't be able to willy nilly decide you are not a citizen. All seriousness should be afforded to that word and anyone it represents. I'm surprised how many people are willing to give up their rights on the say so of an administration.

The UK did the right thing erred on the side of caution, and as all things Trump this seems petulant or useful to propagate some greater policy (ending birthright citizenship all-together). It's embarrassing.
dude, while in principle i agree with you, enlisting in an enemy army and shooting at US troops makes a trial redundant. There is no misunderstanding finding you in an enemy uniform. A trial is a very nice and useful thing, used to determine if you maybe are not an enemy. There is no possibility at all of this happening if you are caught actively fighting in a war. And let's be clear, this wasnt some office clerk abusing power - like that horrible woman who refused to wed a gay couple. There is no chance of finding that accepting this then turns into something that could affect you; it needs to be very much deliberate to act in such a way that your citizenship is revoked.

Although, i gotta say, if she was to come back it would only be to go to jail forever, but i'd rather that she died in the desert.

By the way, there *is* such a thing as renouncing citizenship. And while she may not have formally requested it, her actions are more than enough for the government to "assume" she was ok with that.
 
dude, while in principle i agree with you, enlisting in an enemy army and shooting at US troops makes a trial redundant. There is no misunderstanding finding you in an enemy uniform. A trial is a very nice and useful thing, used to determine if you maybe are not an enemy. There is no possibility at all of this happening if you are caught actively fighting in a war. And let's be clear, this wasnt some office clerk abusing power - like that horrible woman who refused to wed a gay couple. There is no chance of finding that accepting this then turns into something that could affect you; it needs to be very much deliberate to act in such a way that your citizenship is revoked.

Although, i gotta say, if she was to come back it would only be to go to jail forever, but i'd rather that she died in the desert.

By the way, there *is* such a thing as renouncing citizenship. And while she may not have formally requested it, her actions are more than enough for the government to "assume" she was ok with that.


You do understand that there are no claims that she ever took up arms or was active in the movement in any way. She married a guy who was Daesh, had a kid and apparently tweeted some rather nasty shit about killing Americans and that seems to be about it.
 
dude, while in principle i agree with you, enlisting in an enemy army and shooting at US troops makes a trial redundant. There is no misunderstanding finding you in an enemy uniform. A trial is a very nice and useful thing, used to determine if you maybe are not an enemy. There is no possibility at all of this happening if you are caught actively fighting in a war. And let's be clear, this wasnt some office clerk abusing power - like that horrible woman who refused to wed a gay couple. There is no chance of finding that accepting this then turns into something that could affect you; it needs to be very much deliberate to act in such a way that your citizenship is revoked.
"A trial is very nice".. I don't blame your view on this, since it seems you don't understand the protections afforded by our constitution like the purpose of a trial.
 
I'm guessing she is either naive or thinks she has sufficient public support to receive no or a light sentence if allowed back. We've already got folks in this thread assuming the court's ruling that she is not a citizen is some how wrong or bias. Since I'd hate to see her used as a political tool, and at least if she isn't allowed back she won't have to go to prison, I voted no. Because I am a nice guy.

AM I NOT MERCIFUL!!!
 
She should be allowed back in order to stand trial for treason. I do not believe the US has the right or authority to do secret prisons outside of the USA.
 
Yes, and my point being, she won't have a job unless it has to do with making license plates. Which is why I'm not sure why she wants back in. Maybe she thinks they'll take pity on her and give her a light sentence.
Maybe she is getting exactly what she wanted in the first place. Fame.
 
Back
Top