We shouldn’t let the ISIS bride come back to America

[AUDub 11,147]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

 

Her status as a citizen, even through jus soli, does not shield her. The issue will be intent - but that will have to be determined in an adversarial forum. Furthermore, voluntariness under (a) is a rebuttable presumption. It is important to bear in mind that Congress has Plenary Power over immigration policy, thus common notions of Constitutional law can be tricky. 

§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.

In rebuttal, UT Law professor Steve Vladeck:

https://www.justsecurity.org/62659/unpacking-some-of-issues-surrounding-hoda-muthana/

 

Quote

II.  Can Muthana’s Citizenship Be Revoked?

Even if Muthana was lawfully a citizen, that would not necessarily mean the government lacks the power to revoke her citizenship. But expatriation is limited to a hyper-specific set of cases spelled out at 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a), and none of those categories seem to apply here. Even 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(7), which allows expatriation of those who commit treason or other hostile acts against the U.S. government, requires that they be “convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction” before they can be expatriated. Needless to say, that hasn’t happened here.

More to the point, as I’ve written before, the Supreme Court has held, over and over again, that expatriation is not a punishment, but rather a step the government may only take with the voluntary involvement of the (ex-)citizen. That is to say, the Constitution requires that the individual in question voluntarily and overtly relinquish their citizenship. Whatever missteps Muthana may have taken, and whatever crimes she may have committed, it’s hard to see the kind of voluntary intent the Supreme Court has previously required on the facts as they’re currently known.

 

[AUDub 11,147]

6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I also see that you referenced the exact statute as well..... 

How do you conclude that she cannot be denied entry?

Because there’s a significant amount of process involved. Let her come, be arrested, tried and thrown in a hole for all I care. She’s certainly earned it. Just make sure the process is properly carried out. 

[AUDub 11,147]

And just to be clear, I have absolutely zero sympathy for this woman. She was an adult, is an adult, and she made her bed. I would like for her child to be able to come to Birmingham with his grandparents, but that’s about as charitable as I’m willing to be.

What is very disconcerting for me is the President and his SOS declaring her citizenship status null by simple proclamation.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

15 minutes ago, AUDub said:

In rebuttal, UT Law professor Steve Vladeck:

https://www.justsecurity.org/62659/unpacking-some-of-issues-surrounding-hoda-muthana/

 

 

What does that rebut? 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

23 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Because there’s a significant amount of process involved. Let her come, be arrested, tried and thrown in a hole for all I care. She’s certainly earned it. Just make sure the process is properly carried out. 

I missed what you were saying from the get-go. My apologies. 

[PUB78 1,358]

1 hour ago, ArgoEagle said:

Yes, anything we could get other than just giving it away is a win for us.😉

And sell/give New York to Canada. These two states probably produce 75% of the lunacy in our country today.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

2 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

And sell/give New York to Canada. These two states probably produce 75% of the lunacy in our country today.

Cali says hello.

[AUDub 11,147]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

What does that rebut? 

I bolded the wrong portion, my apologies.

It’s a stretch to apply 1481. The issue is whether she's a citizen by birth. The statute cited has absolutely nothing to do with the reason that she's being denied reentry the United States. If they'd like to strip her citizenship, which they haven't, there is a process for that which the government hasn’t started.

[ArgoEagle 1,775]

10 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

And sell/give New York to Canada. These two states probably produce 75% of the lunacy in our country today.

Let's throw Massachusetts in on a 2 for 1 deal. I'm with you.

[Mikey 16,578]

Haul her sorry ass to Gitmo and try her for treason in a military court. I hear the palm tree trunks common to the area make a fine gallows.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

13 hours ago, AUDub said:

I bolded the wrong portion, my apologies.

It’s a stretch to apply 1481. The issue is whether she's a citizen by birth. The statute cited has absolutely nothing to do with the reason that she's being denied reentry the United States. If they'd like to strip her citizenship, which they haven't, there is a process for that which the government hasn’t started.

1481 is applicable because that’s the avenue whereby one who is a citizen by birth (hence, “jus soli”) can lose citizenship.

But again, in the context of your argument, the statute in no way grants the State authority to deny entry in the literal sense of physically coming to the US. You are correct in that she is likely entitled to process. 

My confusion was what you meant by “entry.” As I’m sure you are aware, that is a term of art in immigration.

[AUDub 11,147]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

1481 is applicable because that’s the avenue whereby one who is a citizen by birth (hence, “jus soli”) can lose citizenship.

But again, in the context of your argument, the statute in no way grants the State authority to deny entry. You are correct in the sense that she is likely entitled to process. 

My confusion was what you meant by “entry.” As I’m sure you are aware, that is a term of art in immigration.

We’re on the same page.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, AUDub said:

We’re on the same page.  

Ha Even though my initial comments seemingly contradict myself. 

[japantiger 4,051]

Just say no....

[AUloggerhead 2,229]

More facts from the father's lawsuit:  Link

Quote

 

18. Prior to his daughter’s birth, Ahmed Ali Muthana worked as a diplomat for the United  Nations. Declaration of Ahmed Ali Muthana, attached hereto as Exhibit A. On June 2, 1994, the Yemeni Ambassador Al-Aashtal required Mr. Muthana to surrender his diplomatic identity card.

19.  Anticipating the loss of diplomatic status, Mr. Muthana’s wife (Ms. Muthana’s mother) applied for permanent residency status in the United States in early 1994, based on her own father’s United States citizenship. She was granted admission to the United States on July 7, 1994, pending  permanent residency. Her permanent residency, along with Mr. Muthana’s, was subsequently granted.

20.  Hoda Muthana was born in the state of New Jersey on October 28, 1994.  See  Ex. B. 21.  Utilizing his daughter’s birth certificate, Mr. Muthana applied for a passport for his minor daughter Hoda Muthana in 2004. After receiving this application, officials from the United States State Department initially questioned whether Ms. Muthana was eligible for a U.S. passport, based on their records showing her father’s diplomatic status remained in effect until February 6, 1995. In response, Ahmed Ali Muthana provided the government with Exhibit C, a letter from the United States Mission to the United Nations, signed by Russell F. Graham, Minister Counselor for Host Country Affairs, and addressed to Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, which confirms that the diplomatic status he had due to his employment at the U.N. was terminated prior to the time of Ms. Muthana’s birth. The United States accepted this documentation and issued Hoda Muthana the requested passport on January 24, 2005. Exhibit D. The United States also later renewed Ms. Muthana’s passport on February 21, 2014.

 

I'm not questioning whether she was ever issued a passport.  I'm wondering if it was issued in error?  The father was under diplomatic immunity almost 4 months after her birth.  Yes, he was notified in June 1994 that his diplomatic ID card would have to be surrendered, but under the Vienna Protocol, diplomatic immunity doesn't switch off immediately like a light switch.  Diplomats are afforded "reasonable" time to exit the country when their diplomatic mission comes to an end.  In this case, the mother's pregnancy at the time of diplomatic mission termination probably precluded her from flying.  Again ... I think there is plenty of gray area surrounding this case. 

 

 

[AUloggerhead 2,229]

Thought we should revisit this since a federal judge ruled she's not a US citizen:  Game over, Grrl?

I'm sure her lawyers will try an appeal or two, but right now it's looking like an uphill climb in loose rock.  The really sad part about this case is if she just would have shut up & continued her studies at UAB, no one would have ever looked that deeply into her situation and she'd be a passport-holding US citizen today by default.