American ISIS bride who left for Syria now wants to come home
Hoda Muthana and son
Honda Muthana is one of a small number of U.S. citizens who’ve joined ISIS, but America’s Syrian allies are thought to be holding around 800 foreign ISIS fighters along with their wives and children.
Muthana has expressed remorse and the U.S. government hasn’t said what will happen to her and her son. The U.S. takes its nationals home from Syria, where they then can be arrested. President Trump has encouraged European countries do the same, even though some governments are reluctant.
A middle road may be sort of a half-way house, where small groups of American women can slowly ease themselves back into society.
Like this.
Hat tip to the Master Chief for the link.
Category: "Teh Stoopid", Big Army, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900056641/us-says-alabama-woman-who-joined-islamic-state-cant-return.html
Half way house, Gitmo sounds good.
Half way across the ocean sounds better.
Or at the bottom of the ocean, perhaps.
Therapy at GITMO!
Thanks for hat tip. I need anything I can get these days. That friggin’ Marine called Dave won’t even call me anymore. Ha!
Heh. You want to let them know, or shall I?
*grin*
No, when he needs me he will call me. Or he attempting to minimize the possibility of Russian Collution between me and the “Soviet”.
That’s a vote for Bernie.
OR O’crazy-Cortex!
Hmm, seems to me that by joining a foreign power engaged in combat with the US, she made a constructive renunciation of her citizenship,and as such, can rot in hell (or syria, not that there’s much difference..)
Probably not, since it appears that renunciation of US citizenship must be done formally and in writing.
However, she may have a problem with Federal law regarding support for terrorist organizations – and with Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution as well.
I thought that one could also do so by joining a foreign military force, engaged in action against the US.. Ok, the article of the Constitution you cited was what I was thinking of. Thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow Hondo!
Might have been the law years ago, but if memory serves the SCOTUS has ruled that natural-born citizenship CANNOT be revoked by law since it’s granted by the Constitution itself. One of our lawyer commenters can probably cite the case(s) if it’s needed; I’m not feeling up to researching that again tonight.
Different story for naturalized citizenship – there are indeed circumstances where a naturalized citizen can be stripped of their citizenship due to their actions without formally renouncing same. And since the Constitution grants Congress the power to naturalize, Congress can also specify condtions under which naturalized citizens by law forfeit their naturalization.
Paragraph 25 of the suit by her father states “On January 15, 2016, the United States issued a letter addressed to Ms. Muthana at her parents’ residence, purporting to revoke her passport under 22 C.F.R. 51.7 and 51.66. Exhibit D.
In the revocation letter, the government again acknowledged that her father’s diplomatic position ended on September 1, 1994, but now asserted for the first time that because the U.S. Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Host Country Affairs Section, had not been officially notified of his termination until February 6, 1995, she was not “within the jurisdiction of the United States” at the time of her birth, and therefore not a United States citizen pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.”
Who was the resident of that big white house in D.C. on January 15, 2016???
PDF link to suit: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000169-133a-d847-abe9-b3fa54f60001
Think this will end up at that BIG courthouse in D.C… If the father ended his diplomatic duties 1 Sep 94 why didn’t he pack his bags and he and the family head back to Yemen.
Are the parents naturalized citizens? They where here in a diplomatic mission, when that ended they stayed in the United States. So, I would think they are, or are they allowed to stay because they are here on a visa of some type. On that, if they send their daughter money so she can return, would that not also be aiding a terrorist, which could cause the parents to lose their naturalized citizenship or visa? And back to Yemen they go….. and the she would follow them to Yemen.
OK, I just read the suit. Never mind the above. Thoughts running through the mind and they were all answered in the suit.
Screw her. She made her bed, let her sleep in it.
My understanding is that she is the child of a diplomat.
https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/born-in-us-to-foreign-diplomat
Yes. That is the central question. Her parents claim they had left the diplomatic service before her birth.
Even if the parents DID leave the diplomatic service, they were STILL foreign citizens, NOT US citizens, therefore the 14th Amendment still applies, and she is NOT a US citizen.
Doesn’t matter. In this case she’d be no different than Anchor Babies that are born to the illegals from other countries.
Born in the US is automatic citizenship unless you were representing foreign government.
Seems to me a diplomat’s status starts when the host government is notified of his/her appointment and terminated similarly? Otherwise, every trip home for them would trigger another accreditation process. Would seem to me that he was a diplomat until the US government was otherwise notified. Bet if he was given a parking ticket in that time or arrested he would have been howling ‘diplomatic immunity’ to the skies. Perhaps that would be a worthwhile search for some State Department functionary…
Bet the same people what could care less about free speech or gun rights under the Constitution will parse every word and phrase in the relevant articles under this case.
Much as I revile what she did, I think the protection of Citizenship is a higher priority. You may recall what happened when we allowed the Government to say folks born here weren’t Americans.
Anyone -not- recall where that took us?
Once we open the door to un-personing folks for acts, do you not see how fast your political opponents will un-person -you- for your sins, real or imagined?
No. Never again.
She is still one of us, unless and until someone proves either 1) she renounced it formally, per the statute, or 2) someone proved her parents were still on diplo status, per the statute, when she was born.
I assure you, there are some insanely-ugly things lurking in our politics that will make no end of evil with the power to un-person “undesirables”.
Try her ass. Drop the Hammer. But undo a birthright citizenship?
No.
Strange how it’s all “death to America” and “behead the infidels” until the Kurds come in and then it’s “God bless the USA!”
This is going to piss off a lot of people but here it goes… This ENTIRELY comes down to whether she is an American citizen or not. The US government cannot revoke the citizenship of any natural born citizen (even for treason) AND the US government cannot deny entry of any US citizen once their identity as a US citizen is determined. To be a natural born citizen and thus the one liable right to US citizenship you need to be born on US territory subject to the jurisdiction of the US and be subject to the jurisdiction of the US yourself. So is she a citizen? He is what we know… She was born in New Jersey in 1994 (not disputed). Her parents WERE originally here in the US under a diplomatic visa. And thus not subject to “the jurisdiction of the US”. (Not disputed). She was issued a passport that says she is an American citizen (not disputed). However, The position of the Trump administration as presented by Pompeo is that the passport was issued in error because she was not a US citizen since she was born to parents who were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US and thus their children and not automagically natural born citizens of the US – even if born here. She and he family are arguing that her parents had left the diplomatic service before her birth and thus were subject to the jurisdiction of the US and thus she was subject to the jurisdiction of the US and since she was born here and subject to the jurisdiction of the US she is a natural born citizen. So this will be settled in court but if her parents are telling the truth and they can prove it she will very likely be regarded as a US citizen. There also probably some other legal questions being raised by both sides but what I outlined is the fundamental issue at hand. Now that does mean they should let her back and move on. No they can and will prosecute her for… Read more »
Inalienable not “one liable”
Note: assuming Citizenship, we do not -owe- her transportation.
Personally, I would transport her, in handcuffs by US Marshals, to face charges. But otherwise, she is on her own.
I agree. My post if really concerning her making it to a port of entry. I heard she is in a refugee camp.
A well reasoned and stated argument Lars.
Gotta agree, that was good. Bravo!
Indeed.
Even if the parents HAD left the diplomatic service prior to her birth, AFAIK, the parents were still foreign citizens, NOT US citizens, naturalized or otherwise. To me, that says she is not a US citizen.
Just like all the anchor babies of illegals are not US citizens, and the entire famn damily of illegals aqshould be treated as such.
And before you all get mad that I am “defending” the “terrorist traitor”…
I am not. I think her citizenship should be determined and then she should be charged and prosecuted.
However, I am absolutely opposed to even given a tiny sliver of a chance of enabling the US government the ability to revoke the citizenship of natural born citizens. That is a power we should not take lightly and should never put in the hands in the kinds of people that typically run for office.
Ya know Lars, when you leave out the personal insults and vitriol you actually do contribute something to the discussion.
Thanks
Not sure I agree fully, though I do agree in part. IMO there are a small number of things an individual can do that would demonstrate conclusively they no longer deserve to hold US citizenship.
In particular, voluntarily applying for and successfully acquiring citizenship in another country IMO should result in loss of US citizenship, whether the individual is native-born or naturalized. Conviction of the crime of treason would IMO be another such act warranting loss of US citizenship.
Applying for foreign citizenship, presuming written, I believe would meet the Renunciation statute.
If I am not mistaken SCOTUS already said Treason can’t cancel citizenship. Even if we change the statute, it wouldn’t apply ex post facto.
I have would prefer not to damage our overall citizenship process to spite one asshole.
But even if she -is- a citizen, we do not have to rescue her from her stupidity. She can get here, or not, on her own.
And then arrest her and try her, and if convicted of Treason, drop the Hammer.
See my comment elsewhere citing the controlling SCOTUS cases.
Yes, under current SCOTUS decisions neither treason nor voluntarily applying for and receiving foreign citizenship alone can cause loss of US citizenship. IMO the SCOTUS “got that wrong”, and both of those in a rational world would indeed subject the individual concerned to loss of US citizenship.
The reason treason should cause loss of citizenship should be obvious. Regarding acquiring foreign citizenship, the rational is best expressed by the principle that “No man can serve two masters.”
With all due respects, I distinctly remember reading in my first US Passport that US Citizenship CAN be annulled via either 1. Renouncing one’s US Citizenship in front of Embassy or Consular Personnel overseas or 2. Serving in a Foreign Military. Given that she indeed went overseas and swore her allegiance to ISIS I say SCREW HER and she can stay in the hands of her Kurd captors. She thought she was going to be some mega-victorious superjihadi and since she has so thoroughly shit in her bed I say she should be made to lay in it!
This made a questycome to mind regarding the service in a foreign military.
is that any foreign military or only militaries hostile to the US?
The reason I began to wonder, was thinking back to honorable Americans that served in the Canadian, British, French Foreign Legion. Etc. they fought for causes they held convictions for, but remained true Americans and returned home later.
Just curious about that. I think I know the answer, but would like to see what you all say on it.
It is any military hostile to the US in any capacity.
Or any military at all if you served as an officer.
Do you know if that was changed since WWII? All the pilots that served with Canadian and British Air Forces prior to the US getting into the war certainly violated that statute, if it existed at the time. It’d be interesting to know if it wasn’t in place, or just ignored during that timeframe.
It indeed existed during World War II – that was the Nationality Act of 1940. And it’s been held to be unconstitutionnal by a series of SCOTUS cases since World War II (see my comment below for the latest three, which appear to be controlling decisions today).
Thanks for the info!
Actually it turns out you can lose your citizenship for being convicted of treason.
You can also lose it for becoming a citizen of a foreign country. Though that really is part of the voluntary renunciation thing.
Also serving in the military of a hostile power or any foreign military as an officer. But again; seen as voluntary.
Here is a few interesting questions…
Was ISIS ever a state and thus she a citizen of a foreign state? That may be an argument. I am not sure it matters if the US formally recognized the foreign state since the question is her intent to become a citizen of a foreign state she recognized.
Additionally, the question of serving in a foreign military. ISIS did often wear distinctive items and carry open arms qualifying them for protections as enemy combatants. Though I am not sure she was involved in any armed actions against the US so perhaps it would not apply anyway.
Here is the interesting part
She can’t be convicted of treason because under US law there has to be a live witness to give testimony of her “treason.” The only viable charge is giving aid, comfort and support to an armed enemy or terrorist organization. Who is going to even give that testimony? She has already denied her online comments were made by her. But since she says she wants therapy, how about we move her and her kid in with you and you can teach her how to be a loyal citizen, what with all your Berzerkely smartz.
Two witnesses to the same overt act, actually – or admission by the accused in open court that they “did the deed”. Holds true for all forms of treason defined in the Constitution if I recall correctly.
Let’s assume she IS a citizen. Drone/hellfire her ass and call it a day. There IS precedent! Thanks Obama!
Actually, Poodle, you were right the first time. Y’all forced me to research it, but in Affroym v. Rusk (1967) the SCOTUS ruled that a US citizen cannot be involuntarily deprived of US citizenship. This overturned the remaining portions of the Nationality Act of 1940 that had not yet been invalidated by other SCOTUS cases. The provisions you (and others) cited – voting in a foreign election, serving in a foreign military, etc . . . – were specified in that act as causing loss of US citizenship. Affroym v. Rusk struck that down. The only way a natural-born US citizen can lose their citizenship today is to voluntarily renounce same. From the majority opinion: “Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof.” Affroym v. Rusk initially covered both natural-born and naturalized citizens. That changed in 1971 with Rogers v. Belli. In that case, the SCOTUS effectively held that naturalized citizens – having been granted citizenship by Congress through authority granted Congress by the Constitution – could indeed be stripped of US citizenship involuntarily by law. It thus held that Affroym v. Rusk only applied to native-born US citizens. The SCOTUS further clarified the situation re: renunciation of citizenship in Vance v. Terrazas (1980). In that case, the SCOTUS held that a US citizen by birth must have acted “with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality” in order for loss of US citizenship to occur. It further indicated that the standard of proof of such intent required was “clear and convincing evidence” vice “preponderance of evidence” (e.g., “more likely than not”). Bottom line: without clear and convincing evidence of intent to renounce US citizenship, a native-born citizen has not renounced US citizenship. Merely applying for and receiving foreign citizenship, or even swearing allegience to another nation, alone isn’t sufficient. Specific intent to renounce US citizenship must also exist and be provable. And claiming duress or coersion may be adequate to retain US citizenship even in the presence of a signed document stating exactly that. The Wikipedia… Read more »
Makes one wonder if celebs making such pronouncements in/on nationally broadcast media would be a considered “clear, voluntary oral statement of intent.” Hmmm. There certainly would be plenty of witnesses.
Sure let her come back home. And let me and 11 others from this hangout be on the jury. Easy peasy.
Oh, and Dave Hardin as the Judge.
And her defense attorney can be the Berzerkekly idjit, since he is a major authority on law and is quite sympathetic to her position.
In defense of my qualifications; I did study for the LSAT once.
Presumably so did a certain individual who just over a year ago proved to be just as good a pilot as he was a “lawer”.
Ouch.
That is all.
carry on
Just drone her…She can never be trusted…
If the whore is not a US citizen, then she doesn’t have a leg to stand on regarding repatriation. If she is, give her a fair trial and an efficient hanging.
Her parents are presumably lying, upon advice from attorneys. How convenient for them to understand the technical workarounds for US citizenship ?
Yep. Funny how he suddenly resigned his ambassadorship Sep 1 and she was born a few weeks later. What was their legal status at that time.
It’s perfectly acceptable to lie to the Kuffar, according to koran…
He may well have actually done so, recognizing the value of having a kid with inviolable US citizenship.
Plan ahead (for regime change) and all that.
Can we gift her a beautiful bouquet of claymores? Surely there is a patreon for that. 😂
All ISIS rats should be tried and sentenced to death just like the Nazis were after they lost.
Look up “operation paper clip”
Recall the guy that produced for us the Saturn moon rocket? Werner von Braun?
Nazi. But useful to us, so overlooked. There were others. The Russians played that game, too.
Read up. You are going to be a bit … troubled.
You are going to be a bit … troubled.
Nothing like selective morality based on “national security” to test your ability to work in the gray areas of right and wrong.
This is why when I discuss things like gun control, free speech infringements, civil asset forfeiture, government spying on all citizens I use the term “Good German” a lot.
When the shit hits the fan your neighbors will prove far more likely to be statists than revolutionaries. They will be the Good Germans who rat your ass out to the cops, and those cops who were your friends will come to arrest or kill you as needed. Because when the shit hits the fan most people will prove to be cowards instead of rebels.
We sell the rebel image in this country to make a profit off of the pretenses of the cowardly mass of the public…we’ve long since however given up our actual freedoms to sit safely inside our homes watching the propaganda fed to us by a few corporate news organizations. All of which is designed to keep you pissed off at some single mom on welfare who had the audacity to buy some shrimp on Food Stamps because that purchase will bring down the nation.
Sitting back and observing both parties as a truly disinterested third party I see the dog whistles rather clearly, it’s easy to make people bark. You see it here regularly, and you can see it every day on other social media outlets. We are more trained pups than sheep, eager to please our masters and bark and dance on command, never doing anything without masters permission.
The Republic dies, not with a bang but the whimper of a sad pup.
VOV since you so frequently and skillfully express your opinion here on a wide variety of topics, but usually political, I find it a bit amusing to see you characterize yourself as “a truly disinterested third party.”
You’re certainly one of the more opinionated persons of disinterest I’m aware of. It’s not just elections that have consequences–so do words, especially your own.
Heh…
I wouldn’t care if she were born in the Oval Office. I would do everything possible to deny her return to the U.S.
In a 20FEB19 article in The Daily Mail, the headline is:
“ISIS bride from Alabama says she wants US to pay for her therapy if she comes home and doesn’t want to go to prison as she recalls picking her three jihadi fighter husbands from a list of men along with ‘200’ other girls”
It seems to be the muzzie equivalent of Match.com. It probably has sections for those seeking a relationship with a goat or mule. She also said there was almost no food and she had to fry and eat grass.
Tell ya what, she falls right in there with the Mercs that fight for those countries. If found out, they loose their citizenship and are banned from EVER entering the US.
This twit is nothing more than an ISIS plant in this country, she has cast her die with the ISIS, let her stay there.
I agree 100% BP, with your statement that she’s a plant. I don’t for a second believe that she is sorry about what she did, she’s just trying to come back and bring the fight to us. IF she is allowed back in the country, it should be directly to a prison cell.
Alright, I’ll be the devil and go where none else have…
While y’all are aptly and intelligently discussing the nuances of the citizenship questions, a few have previously posted here and elsewhere about the innocence of the kid. So, it is to the kid I’ll direct your attention.
Cute kid and all but…
there’s something off about the facial features. High and wide forehead, wide-spaced eyes, lack of (apparently in the picture, not sure) a nasal philtrum, short nose, thin upper lip, under-developed (again, apparently at least in this pic) chin…
Could be Williams Syndrome or one of a few other genetic abnormalities. Can be random or inherited, or close kinship of the parental gene pool, occasionally environmental (if it were Fetal Alcohol, drugs, etc.), usually includes developmental and learning disabilities. Could also be one of a few other things as well, impossible to tell without a genetic test.
So, we’re going to bring in a momma who we suspect is an ISIS plant, with her genetically compromised kid, who the culture devalues. You ever notice how few genetic deformations there are in that part of the world? Particularly in light of the rate of intermarriage within families and clans? Yeah, that’s because such babies generally aren’t allowed to live.
So, we now have another motive for momma to want to come home with her baby…it is shame and dishonor to have a deformed child. It is a punishment and indictment of the parents and the whole family by Allah. What better way to expiate that sin than proffering the child as a sacrifice that also kills many infidels?
Cellphone camera is generally a “fisheye” type. (Opposite of “telephoto”, magnification les than 1 to 1). The one used is a cheapo. The kid is close, much closer than the mother, and leaning towards the lens. This produces some very noticeable distortion.
Ex-PH2 can explain the effects in more detail, but basically the kids’s features are markedly distorted by the shot.
He still looks like Yassar Arafat
Happily a Muslim, don’t she belong to her husband(s) family now that they are all dead? Let them take care of her.
Interesting that the news article claims that her birth certificate is post-dated about 2 months after her actual birth, when maybe the parents were actually off diplomatic status.
Smell like fraud all around.
John W
These people are dangerous. They are involved with assects of terrorism such as bomb making alongside their husbands.
This is going to go to the high court no doubt. But it also comes down to when the Parents left their diplomatic post. The Obama Administration already stated that she was not a citizen because her parents were still on Diplomatic Status. So that will have to be resolved.
If they determine that she is a citizen, then she should come back, on her own and face prosecution. I most definitely do not think therapy is needed. A good 5 to 7 years in prison should do nicely. Her parents should also be investigated and not given custody of her child. She apperently learned her jihadist sympathies there.
She has not changed one bit. Hardcore extremist rarely if ever give up their core beliefs. They may say that to satisfy some authority figure but if she is given a chance she will be right back at her old ideas.
I don’t want her back, no sane person in this country would, but if she can get here, fine, prosecute her to the full extent of the law. Stripping people of their citizenship is a slippery slope I don’t want to see started, especially in the current political climate. I can see this being used by some unsavory people to settle political scores.
This applies not to this non-citizen ISIS bride with offspring:
A quick fix for future returning USPERS who were ISIS fighters, brides or supporters, simply charge them with treason as the penalty can several ways … death and or revolution of citizenship.
With revocation of citizenship, we can send them to say … um … Poland where a .22 cal. round can find a new home behind a left or right ear of the offender.
Just a thought.
Revocation …
Yes, determining citizenship is the first step. Absolutely. And that can only be done via the courts.
Being one of those folks who was born abroad of US citizens who were where they were ordered to be by the same country whose citizenship I claim, I can tell you first hand that this is a more than complicated issue because you not only have our laws to wade through but all the laws of every other country in the world to wade through. Every one of those countries, and our own, changes their laws and their policies all the time.
For instance: at the time I was born, all my parents had to do was file the proper papers with the proper agencies and all those papers were attached to my birth certificate. I was automatically a natural born US citizen. The country in which I was born also afforded me the opportunity of my claiming dual citizenship when I turned 18 but I had to take specific steps to claim it. That option no longer exists by mutual agreement between the countries although the two countries are still allies. It’s even dicier among countries at odds with each other.
All just to say that what appears to be complicated most definitely is and what we are seeing is only the tip of the iceberg.
So much debate and discussion. Make it easy. The answer is ‘No. You can’t come back.’ There. Done.
An Obama appointed federal judge is likely to order otherwise, anyway in the first instance. Later, a Court of Appeals will rule on it before it goes to the Supreme Court in about four years.
Let her cool her heels for a few years with the muzzies she once loved so much, until the Supremes take up the issue. By then the problem may have been solved if they decide to see if she can fly. I’m thinking they aren’t overjoyed with the thought of her wanting to leave utopia. That or they’re jealous they can’t come with her. Nah, that can’t be it. Who would want to leave that shithole? She says there is so little food, she had to fry and eat grass.
Fuck. Her. The only innocent in this matter is the child.
I do feel sorry for the kid. If raised by a good couple (not her or anyone related to her), he might stand a chance. Children are our most precious resource…I hate the whole “sins of the father”, but I do understand the world is a terrible place. BTW, I have no sympathy for her…none what so ever, but they boy didn’t ask for this situation.