IDK, if a woman marries a bank robber does that make her a bank robber too?
She left to marry an ISIS guy. Did she denounce her citizenship? Has she committed any acts of terrorizm?
I would let her in, but surely keep an eye on her.
If a woman marries a man knowing he's a bank robber, that's intent and would be guilty in a court of law as a accessory to or depending on the state;
i.g. STATE of GEORGIA, has addressed such issues with [had to relook it up] O.C.G.A. 16-2-20 which provides that:
(a) Every person concerned in the commission of a crime is a party thereto and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime.
(b) A person is concerned in the commission of a crime only if he:
- (1) Directly commits the crime;
- (2) Intentionally causes some other person to commit the crime under such circumstances that the other person is not guilty of any crime either in fact or because of legal incapacity;
- (3) Intentionally aids or abets in the commission of the crime; or
- (4) Intentionally advises, encourages, hires, counsels, or procures another to commit the crime.
I can tell you based on my reading and some researching that most people get in trouble based on subsections (3) and (4) in the STATE of GEORGIA but there are other STATES with similar Statutes/laws. These elements can be/are very broad and almost can be a basis to convict based solely on "guilt by association".
The Georgia Court of Appeals has also explained the definition of party to a crime in the case of Jordan v. State, 281 Ga. App. 419 (2006). The Court held that "A participant to a crime may be convicted although he is not the person who directly commits the crime. A person who intentionally aids or abets in the commission of a crime or intentionally advises, encourages, hires, counsels, or procures another to commit the crime may be convicted of the crime.
Considering this would be most related to (a)renouncing of Citizenship, you don't just get that back in any country, especially here in the US. And in the US there is a significant difference between being a US Citizen, and an American when it comes to legal definitions and Status. You do NOT want to be anything of a "Citizen" You want to be an American, An Italian, A Greek, A Cambodian, A Equadorian.. etc
Breaking down what a citizen is in much of Europe and North America is far simpler in the westernized world. Despite opposition of popular opinions; the United States Of America is still a British colony, and under Roman Catholic laws and judicial cannons.. And under Roman Catholic Law definitions of a Citizen - is a member of a body of politic that pledges their allegiance in exchange for protection.
I don't know how you or other folks reading this post feel about it but that seems rather reciprocal in nature to me. Right? Here's where it the Citizenry starts to fall apart for me and many others.
Since 1858 in the U.S. Not one but all of the supreme courts have ruled that the police have no "statutory duty", which means it's NO WHERE in their job description whatsoever, to protect the citizens [you and I], from murderers and marauders despite how monstrous that may seem. Their job is to protect the establishment and enforce the rule of law. Full Stop.
That pretty much ends the STATES role to protect you. Which if they have no duty to protect you.. are you really a "Citizen". And without any Citizens, does an actual "Body of Politic" actually exist at that point?
The most recent accounts of these rulings that have been upheld is as recent as 1987 and I believe 1992. and again in 2004.
So in my mind, i'd ask you and anyone else who feels like being a Citizen?
I knew this topic would get more interesting
