Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

struggle4progress

(118,280 posts)
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 05:00 PM Feb 2019

Hoda Muthana's family files lawsuit

Kim Hjelmgaard, USA TODAY
Published 9:05 a.m. ET Feb. 22, 2019
Updated 12:17 p.m. ET Feb. 22, 2019

The father of a woman who traveled from her home in Alabama to marry an Islamic State fighter filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump's administration as part of an effort to get her and his 18-month-old grandson returned to the United States.

Lawyers acting for Ahmed Ali Muthana, a former diplomat at the United Nations for Yemen who is a naturalized U.S. citizen and lives in Alabama, argue in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington D.C. late Thursday that remarks by Trump and other senior White House officials claiming that Hoda Muthana, 24, is no longer a U.S. citizen – thus barring her and her son from re-entering the USA – are unconstitutional.

Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr are named as defendants in the case. Trump said Wednesday he had instructed Pompeo to deny Muthana re-entry. Pompeo said she was not a U.S. citizen and has no "legal basis" to be brought back to American soil from the Kurdish-run refugee camp in northern Syria where she is being held with her young son, named in the suit as John Doe Muthana ...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/02/22/hoda-muthana-isis-brides-family-file-lawsuit-against-trump-pompeo/2948575002/

41 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hoda Muthana's family files lawsuit (Original Post) struggle4progress Feb 2019 OP
I think the general idea being challenged is that a US citizen who voluntarily takes up arms for okaawhatever Feb 2019 #1
The underlying issue IMO is the continuing conservative attack on the civil war amendments struggle4progress Feb 2019 #4
I agree that Trump's opinion on this means nothing. There is clear legal precedent supporting the okaawhatever Feb 2019 #7
Excuse my ignorance but I thought that she wasn't a citizen? PTWB Feb 2019 #8
It's more complicated than that jberryhill Feb 2019 #9
That's really interesting. PTWB Feb 2019 #11
Is there any precedent? jberryhill Feb 2019 #12
IIRC the right wing pushed this idea during the W years and struggle4progress Feb 2019 #18
Agreed; it's pretty sad. LongtimeAZDem Feb 2019 #40
I'm fine with getting rid of birthright citizenship for enemy combatants... Blue_Tires Feb 2019 #22
So, anyone the President declares to be an enemy can be banished? jberryhill Feb 2019 #34
No, her actions either de facto or proven in a court of law make her an "enemy combatant" Blue_Tires Feb 2019 #36
It was the Obama administration that declaredt she wasn't a citizen in 20q6 ripcord Feb 2019 #38
That question of fact can be litigated. But it shouldn't reduce to Presidential declaration struggle4progress Feb 2019 #39
+1 Arazi Feb 2019 #41
DU members have already decided this case jberryhill Feb 2019 #2
:cry: struggle4progress Feb 2019 #6
Paul Scofield! 11 Bravo Feb 2019 #10
+1 Blue_Tires Feb 2019 #16
She's not a US citizen because US law says she isn't eissa Feb 2019 #13
No, he wasn't a diplomat when she was born jberryhill Feb 2019 #14
She was not an infant when she joined ISIS eissa Feb 2019 #17
Nothing guarantees that US citizens will be wonderful people struggle4progress Feb 2019 #20
She's a citizen like any other. PTWB Feb 2019 #24
This sdfernando Feb 2019 #37
No but according to the Complaint COLGATE4 Feb 2019 #31
snort jberryhill Feb 2019 #33
So much for having someone COLGATE4 Feb 2019 #35
Oh, so you'd just let her in and let bygones be bygones, right?? Blue_Tires Feb 2019 #21
I did not say that jberryhill Feb 2019 #29
That's not my "wish" and please stop putting words in my mouth Blue_Tires Feb 2019 #30
Then why did you put words in mine? jberryhill Feb 2019 #32
The nerve eissa Feb 2019 #3
I don't believe her either. She's not credible in interviews and she was an ISIS propagandist Arazi Feb 2019 #5
Nope... Blue_Tires Feb 2019 #15
The first question is not whether she deserves sympathy or not: it's whether struggle4progress Feb 2019 #19
Cool... By all means, put her ass on trial Blue_Tires Feb 2019 #23
In the age of Trump, our first concern should be to try to save our system of government struggle4progress Feb 2019 #26
Don't look at me, I spent all of 2015-16 trying to warn folks Blue_Tires Feb 2019 #27
I know it often feels like a thankless task struggle4progress Feb 2019 #28
Did she "take up arms against the US"? Not really. maxsolomon Feb 2019 #25

okaawhatever

(9,461 posts)
1. I think the general idea being challenged is that a US citizen who voluntarily takes up arms for
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 05:08 PM
Feb 2019

another country against the US has renounced their citizenship.

struggle4progress

(118,280 posts)
4. The underlying issue IMO is the continuing conservative attack on the civil war amendments
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 05:24 PM
Feb 2019
All persons born .. in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens ...

A naturalized citizen can lose citizenship through legal process. A citizen who takes up arms against the US might be found guilty of treason, using the constitutional definition; and certainly a conviction for a serious crime can be a reason for stripping citizenship from a naturalized citizen. But a born citizen cannot lose US citizenship, except by voluntarily renouncing it

Declarations of the President are, in any case, inadequate to determine citizenship questions. These questions must be resolved by due process, not by the arbitrary declarations of a potential tyrant

okaawhatever

(9,461 posts)
7. I agree that Trump's opinion on this means nothing. There is clear legal precedent supporting the
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 05:42 PM
Feb 2019

14th Amendment. I didn't realize that was the tactic the Trump administration was using to deny her re-entry. I thought they were trying to use the "take up arms against the country is considered renouncing one's citizenship" claim.


Also, she was the child of a diplomat, which would exempt her from birthright citizenship in certain instances but I don't think they applied here.

 

PTWB

(4,131 posts)
8. Excuse my ignorance but I thought that she wasn't a citizen?
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 05:46 PM
Feb 2019

While she was born here, she was born to a diplomat and not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states, and thus not a citizen? It was my understand that is the procedure for all children born here of diplomats.

If that is NOT the standard procedure then she should be considered a citizen ... do you have more info or clarification?

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
9. It's more complicated than that
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 05:55 PM
Feb 2019


The full filing is here:

https://utexas.app.box.com/s/qrmxb0xbpkoks6zw9uhh9klxb1696tx5

According to the filing, he was no longer a diplomat at the time she was born.

This is something of a lost cause, at least at DU, since the overwhelming majority of DUers are fine with getting rid of birthright citizenship.

The rest of the 14th Amendment will follow in due course, but given the support here for getting rid of the citizenship provisions of the 14th Amendment, it should be no problem.

Their other children are naturalized citizens. Had there been any doubt as to her status, they would have gone the same route.
 

PTWB

(4,131 posts)
11. That's really interesting.
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 05:57 PM
Feb 2019

Is there any precedent? I would think that would make her a citizen - she’s born here and is subject to the jurisdiction - right?

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
12. Is there any precedent?
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 05:59 PM
Feb 2019

Why yes. Millions.

Do you think you can travel abroad and have your US citizenship unilaterally revoked by President Trump, thus preventing your right to return to the US?

Before this administration, this entire scenario was UNTHINKABLE.

Now, we have supposed Democrats cheering it on.

struggle4progress

(118,280 posts)
18. IIRC the right wing pushed this idea during the W years and
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 06:12 PM
Feb 2019

even at one point had a bill before Congress to allow the Administration to revoke people's citizenship

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
34. So, anyone the President declares to be an enemy can be banished?
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 07:26 PM
Feb 2019

The "problem" is that you will have to amend the Constitution to give Trump that power.

If you don't give a shit about the Constitution, then, sure, no problem. Trump doesn't either and has been eager to have this power for a long time.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
36. No, her actions either de facto or proven in a court of law make her an "enemy combatant"
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 07:31 PM
Feb 2019

I'm no attorney, but does it say something like that here?


8 U.S. Code § 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(4)(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 3, § 349, 66 Stat. 267; Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1256, § 2, 68 Stat. 1146; Pub. L. 87–301, § 19, Sept. 26, 1961, 75 Stat. 656; Pub. L. 94–412, title V, § 501(a), Sept. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1258; Pub. L. 95–432, §§ 2, 4, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046; Pub. L. 97–116, § 18(k)(2), (q), Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1620, 1621; Pub. L. 99–653, §§ 18, 19, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3658; Pub. L. 100–525, §§ 8(m), (n), 9(hh), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2618, 2622.)

ripcord

(5,349 posts)
38. It was the Obama administration that declaredt she wasn't a citizen in 20q6
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 07:45 PM
Feb 2019

They said her passport had been issued in error.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
2. DU members have already decided this case
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 05:10 PM
Feb 2019

I don't see the point in having a court decide a legal dispute, when we have so many well-qualified persons here who have already decided the outcome.

She is not a US citizen because she is a bad person. Case closed.

struggle4progress

(118,280 posts)
6. :cry:
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 05:30 PM
Feb 2019


Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

11 Bravo

(23,926 posts)
10. Paul Scofield!
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 05:55 PM
Feb 2019

To my mind, his performance in A Man for All Seasons is on the short list for the best performance by an actor in ANY movie. EVER!

eissa

(4,238 posts)
13. She's not a US citizen because US law says she isn't
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 06:03 PM
Feb 2019

She was born while her father was a diplomat. He has filed suit contesting this, but until that's resolved, that terrorist piece of shit is fucked.

eissa

(4,238 posts)
17. She was not an infant when she joined ISIS
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 06:10 PM
Feb 2019

therefore, she's a GIANT piece of shit.

Do you know how many lives have been affected by the actions of that genocidal cult? Literally millions. Not just those of the Syrians who have fled for their lives (including my in-laws, now living in refugee camps, at the mercy of any nation willing to take them) but their family members in the diaspora who have been through hell and back these past seven years trying to assist them. Countries are dealing with massive waves of migration, ancient communities have been uprooted, the future of an entire generation has been thrown away. And this fucking asshole thinks she can just say "oooppss!" and come back? I see no remorse whatsoever, nor any indication that her views have changed one iota.

Fuck her.

struggle4progress

(118,280 posts)
20. Nothing guarantees that US citizens will be wonderful people
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 06:25 PM
Feb 2019

But it is still worth our effort to stand for the principle that the President cannot revoke citizenship on his whim

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
31. No but according to the Complaint
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 07:10 PM
Feb 2019

she seems to have been dead: "At the time of her surrender, Ms. Muthana identified herself and her son as United States citizens. Despite this identification, she was not interred with other persons believed to be United States citizens." (Compaint @ 32).

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
21. Oh, so you'd just let her in and let bygones be bygones, right??
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 06:29 PM
Feb 2019

Playing this game is fun, isn't it?

Sorry, but I'm not seeing a hell of a lot of contrition on her part. She wasn't kidnapped like Patty Hearst, she went on her own volition, she called for attacks on the U.S., she tried to recruit other western women to join her, and she stood in the crowd cheering while those psychopaths performed god knows how many public beheadings of innocents... The *ONLY* reason why she's playing her "helpless victim" role is because she's on the run... And she has the unmitigated gall to say that some "therapy sessions" are the only penance she plans to pay?? I'd just as soon save us the time and trouble and leave her over there to the fate of Assad's death squads or maybe she can join up with whatever new terrorist organization emerges from the ashed of ISIS... Sorry, I just have a huge fuckin' problem with "Death to America!!" one day and "Save me, protective shield of American Law!!" the next.

Having said that, I'm more than happy to put her ass on trial because she won't have a prayer... Let her sit inside for a decade and THEN officially strip her citizenship the proper way since Trump and Pompeo already half fucked up the case by declaring her a noncitizen by fiat...

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
29. I did not say that
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 06:59 PM
Feb 2019

She can certainly be charged and tried for any crime she has committed.

She was born in the US to a person who was not a diplomat at the time of her birth.

You can agree that the correct side won the civil war, or you can argue about that I guess. But the 14th amendment is pretty clear.

Yes, given the sentiment here at DU, I have every expectation that Trump, and DU, will get their wish of unilaterally revocable birthright citizenship.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
30. That's not my "wish" and please stop putting words in my mouth
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 07:07 PM
Feb 2019

I'm more than happy to let the law handle this... Because I want a front row seat to this shit -- I only wish I could question her myself.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
32. Then why did you put words in mine?
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 07:13 PM
Feb 2019

Did you or did you not say "you'd just let her in and let bygones be bygones"?

Had I said that?

No.

Please don't expect others to abide by rules which you are not willing to abide by yourself.

That's a fairly simple concept.

eissa

(4,238 posts)
3. The nerve
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 05:13 PM
Feb 2019

Honestly, what pieces of shit. I don't believe for one second that this woman has changed her views, she just wants electricity and hot water.

Once again, fuck her.

Arazi

(6,829 posts)
5. I don't believe her either. She's not credible in interviews and she was an ISIS propagandist
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 05:29 PM
Feb 2019

Her social media posts for ISIS are utterly reprehensible. She joined a sadistic death organization as a 20 year old. She willingly married 3 ISIS fighters -- she was ALL in.

That said, if she's a US citizen she deserves to come back and face justice (which preferably means the rest of her life in a federal penitentiary).

Her son should be adopted out. Murthana's family was happy when she went all fundamentalist here in the US (until she took it TOO far and joined ISIS) so I don't think her son should be placed back with them

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
15. Nope...
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 06:07 PM
Feb 2019

She hated the west, she wanted to fight against the west, she recruited other western women to the cause, so she does not get to make herself into a sympathy case just because Assad's troops were closing in and she needed an exit plan

struggle4progress

(118,280 posts)
19. The first question is not whether she deserves sympathy or not: it's whether
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 06:17 PM
Feb 2019

she was born a US citizen

And if she was, then it's important to take the stand that Trump can't revoke her citizenship -- unless you want him to be able to revoke the citizenship of anyone, at his discretion, which would be contrary to the notion of due process and rule of law

Of course, if she is a US citizen, she may be guilty of serious crimes, for which she could be prosecuted

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
23. Cool... By all means, put her ass on trial
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 06:32 PM
Feb 2019

and let twelve good men and women sort it out double-quick...

I'm just seeing all this talk from her camp that she shouldn't face trial at all and I got an issue with that.

struggle4progress

(118,280 posts)
26. In the age of Trump, our first concern should be to try to save our system of government
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 06:44 PM
Feb 2019

which he and his enablers hsve set out to destroy

maxsolomon

(33,310 posts)
25. Did she "take up arms against the US"? Not really.
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 06:44 PM
Feb 2019

She "took up arms" against the Syrian or Iraqi Governments.

John Walker Lindh never directly fought against US troops, IIRC. He fought against non-Taliban Afghan militias we were providing bombing runs to. He was brought back, and took a 20-year plea deal (which might be over before our War in Afghanistan is).

Have US troops even engaged Isis directly in Iraq or Syria? Does getting bombed by the US count as "taking up arms"?

Pompeo/Trump/US Govt is wrong and the courts will back the father up. If she was born in the US to a US resident, she's a citizen. Let her come back (and face charges if appropriate), let her US CITIZEN child come back.


Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Hoda Muthana's family fil...