General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHoda 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/
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)another country against the US has renounced their citizenship.
struggle4progress
(118,280 posts)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)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)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)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)Is there any precedent? I would think that would make her a citizen - shes born here and is subject to the jurisdiction - right?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)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)even at one point had a bill before Congress to allow the Administration to revoke people's citizenship
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Problem?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)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)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. 87301, § 19, Sept. 26, 1961, 75 Stat. 656; Pub. L. 94412, title V, § 501(a), Sept. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1258; Pub. L. 95432, §§ 2, 4, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046; Pub. L. 97116, § 18(k)(2), (q), Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1620, 1621; Pub. L. 99653, §§ 18, 19, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3658; Pub. L. 100525, §§ 8(m), (n), 9(hh), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2618, 2622.)
ripcord
(5,349 posts)They said her passport had been issued in error.
struggle4progress
(118,280 posts)Arazi
(6,829 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)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)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)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)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.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)https://utexas.app.box.com/s/qrmxb0xbpkoks6zw9uhh9klxb1696tx5
But you go back to thinking of an infant child as a "piece of shit".
eissa
(4,238 posts)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)But it is still worth our effort to stand for the principle that the President cannot revoke citizenship on his whim
PTWB
(4,131 posts)Bring her back, prosecute her and be done with it.
This is how it is done...Rule of law, due process.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)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).
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)proofread the Complaint
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)which he and his enablers hsve set out to destroy
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)in vain as it turns out...
struggle4progress
(118,280 posts)maxsolomon
(33,310 posts)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.