In an effort to answer my own question, under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, “[w]hen the functions of a person enjoying privileges and immunities have come to an end, such privileges and immunities shall normally cease at the moment when he leaves the country” or after a reasonable period of time but “shall subsist until that time” Article 39(2). Which suggests that immunity continues from discharge until departure. So, if the logic is that a child born in the United States is not entitled to citizenship is they have a parent that has diplomatic immunity, then I would also want to know if her father exited the country (and returned) after his discharge.
The family also claims that she had been issued a US passport at one time. That would be a very quick thing for the State Department to check.
No, she should be allowed back and put on display, so to speak.
“I joined ISIS at nineteen because I was young and stupid. I grew disenchanted with it because <reasons> and came back. Don’t you fall into the same trap I did.”
You’d think someone who plays 4-dimensional chess would consider that.
I agree with this, with the caveat of ‘if she didn’t commit any crimes’. She should definitely be brought in and questioned, but if she didn’t commit any actual crimes then yeah, she could be the poster child for why pulling up stakes and going to live in a tent as an ISIS bride is a bad idea. She could relate her experiences to those who might be thinking of doing similarly stupid things. I understand that a lot of these girls were attracted by basically trolls on internet message boards, saying how great it was and how happy they would be. This would be a good counter message, if the various women who have come back saying how bad it was hasn’t been enough.
I don’t know enough about the case, but if she was given a US passport and her citizenship was already looked at (basically, she was born here and her dad wasn’t a diplomat at the time of her birth), then what Trump et al are doing seems both weak and stupid. If nothing else, let her back in so she can be interrogated and, if she committed crimes let her be tried and sentenced through our system, as any citizen should be.
Do you think it’s wrong in principle that anyone’s naturalized citizenship should ever be revoked? If there are certain things that would have barred you from naturalization, and you are later found out to have lied about something substantial during the naturalization process, it doesn’t seem wrong to me that the potential exists to have naturalization revoked.
Of course, that begs the question of what would be serious enough to justify revocation, and it sounds highly dubious whether this is really applicable in this case. There should still be adequate due process - I’m not advocating that the government should be able to revoke on a whim for ulterior motives. But if someone were found to have lied about a serious criminal history?
In any event, it certainly seems wrong that a naturalized citizen could have citizenship revoked because of actions they took after naturalization. They should have the same right to due process as all citizens.
I dunno. The state departments pretty clear that one can lose ones US citizenship by either swearing allegiance to another nation or taking up arms for another nation without seeking permission first.
If she did either of those things with the caliphate then there’s a legal case to be made against her.
I agree that we don’t have enough data to really make a ruling here. I’m sympathetic to her, sure. But she is an adult. And on some things you don’t get take backs.
Are women allowed to swear oaths of allegiance to ISIS? I have no idea but seems like it wouldn’t be a thing for them. And you are right…if she did those things then that’s definitely an issue. That doesn’t seem to be what Trump et al are using to stop her though, unless I’m misunderstanding what they are asserting.
I think a conviction for treason and an execution sends basically the same message, but more emphatically.
Can you offer a “pretty clear” cite for that? Because we’ve already had it asserted that it takes a deliberate act of renunciation of one’s citizenship to lose it.
ETA: From the NOLO link provided by asahi:
Is this applicable to all citizens, or specific to naturalized citizens?
It was linked upthread. Hell, I remember that being clearly stated on my first passport application as a kid. I was 11 or 12 and they still made it all clear.
From the link:
Emphasis mine.
Yes, there’s a legal case. You may (or may not) be able to demonstrate that she has renounced her citizenship in a legal setting, through legal procedures, and then let the chips fall where they may.
Or, you can treat her as a citizen and prosecute as such.
The President and Secretary of State proclaiming that they’re simply blocking her re-entry doesn’t seem to satisfy any legal procedure. What a shock – this administration feels no obligation to act under the rule of law.
I’d be more worried of a conviction than deportation.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I think the issue is that the president and DoS can’t just assert that someone is or isn’t a citizen - that gets litigated. A US citizen, particularly one who is born here, has the right to due process. I think that’s the rub - Trump and Pompeo are trying to deny her due process.
To be frank, I’m not sure she’s going to like due process once Trump’s justice department is finished with her, but the real problem isn’t so much that they could make the legal claim that she’s no longer a citizen - they absolutely could. The problem I see, and I’m guessing others here see it as well, is the possibility that Trump may just say ‘screw the courts’. Moreover, this isn’t just punishing an individual; denying her citizenship seems to be inching ever closer to punishing a family, and it could even be perceived by Muslim Americans or Americans of Middle Eastern descent as community punishment as well, which is serious business, IMO.
Only if it’s a hostile nation. If you join the military of a friendly nation (and especially, if it’s by conscription as opposed to your own free will - i.e., Israel, Taiwan or Finland) - then you are OK.
But none of that applies to this case.
That would be the smart move. I’m too lazy to Google at the moment, but from what I recall in reading and researching the topic several years ago, the body of research out there, including some conducted by our own military, seems to indicate that it’s observably more effective to rehabilitate and reintroduce alienated people back into society than it is to inflict misery.
This instead seems to have Stephen Miller’s fingerprints all over it. This is an attempt to use an Arab American as a “foreign scum” poster child.
What she did by leaving the country and experimenting with ISIS is scummy, but she was also young and she appears to be showing remorse. Moreover, we don’t really know what she actually did, and whether the worst of what she may have done was done on her own volition or whether she was coerced.
I rarely agree with you given our different political views, but here I’m in complete agreement. Have her return, arrest her, and charge her with treason. From what I gather the evidence is pretty solid. Unless her argument is that she is not an American the case seems like it would be a slam dunk.
No, that sends the message “if you screw up and realize you did, don’t ever set foot in the US again” combined with “Uncle Sam is scared of stupid little teenagers”.
…and then execute her? Pour encourager les autres?