My understanding is that there is no claim that she's no longer a citizen - the claim is that she was never a citizen. She was apparently born a month after her father was discharged from his diplomatic post - but I haven't seen anywhere that describes the basis for her parents still being in the US after she was born. If they stayed on non-diplomatic visas or got green cards, she's a citizen. If they stayed here illegally, she's a citizen. But I read somewhere earlier today ( can't find it) that a diplomat who leaves/is removed from his post will retain immunity for some short period of time in order to make necessary arrangements (to move , obtain a visa) - that seems plausible and in that case she would *not* be a citizen.
It is unclear whether the Administration is arguing that she no longer a citizen or that she never was a citizen. But, as I noted above, under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomat (or spouse/family member) retains immunity after the completion of the diplomatic assignment until he leaves the country or for a “reasonable time.” Assuming Muthana was born roughly at term, and was born about a month after the completion of the diplomatic tour, then it seems entirely plausible that her mother would have been seen as too far along to travel and been allowed to remain in the United States for the duration of the pregnancy, while retaining her diplomatic status and privileges. And, by extension, making her child not a United States citizen at birth.
The more I think about this, the more I think that Muthana is not a US citizen and never was. But again, we don’t know what arguing the Administration is making (which, frankly, makes some of the more strident rejections seem a bit premature).
I don’t see how it’s any different than if an American had joined the Vietcong during the Vietnam war, or the Iraqi military during either war with Iraq, or joined the Taliban, etc. No, those weren’t formally declared wars, but I think it’s a losing argument to claim that ISIS is not an enemy of the US.
My understanding (from earlier treason threads) is that “enemy” means people we’re engaged in military hostilities with. That would seem to include ISIS.
It’s interesting to note that the U.S. has not formally declared war on another country since WWII, but we have, indeed, been engaged in military hostilities with a number of countries and groups since then (including a continuous state of this, in various parts of the Middle East, since late 2001).
I don’t think so. We’re not “engaged in military hostilities with” Russia (unless I missed the start of WW3). But you’ve piqued my curiosity: what’s your cite for “they claimed that their interference in our election was an act of war”?
While I occasionally hear an overheated commentator or analyst refer to Russia as “an enemy,” I cringe a bit when I hear that (though I do take very seriously Russia’s continued interference with U.S. elections). More often, I hear the term “adversary” or “rival” used, and I think those are probably technically more accurate.
I can’t find it! Damn. I was really sure that Russia claimed it was an act of war in order to avoid certain economic sanctions that would be triggered, but there was some sort of war exemption (or something like that).
Anyway, before I tuck my tail between my legs, Nikki Haley called it an act of war:
(That’s me moving the goalposts, but if I can find a cite for my original claim, I’ll be back)
I appreciate the good humor contained in this post. Thank you.
Now, regarding your new goal posts. Just because some act may be an “act of war” doesn’t mean we’re actually “at war” / “engaged in military hostilities with” the actor. For a couple of recent-ish examples, we bombed the Chinese embassy and they rammed our Navy’s EP-3. Both could be considered an “act of war”, but we’re not at war with China or “engaged in military hostilities with” them either. They’re more like a geopolitical foe, more or less comparable to our situation with Russia.
I think you are thinking of a response in court by the Russian government to a DNC lawsuit against Russia, Wikileaks, and Trump campaign associates. They basically said that they didn’t do it, but if they did do it that any act of its military is an act of a sovereign nation and they would have sovereign immunity.
Yeah total no brainer IMO. Unless they have some evidence that contradicts the fact her father was no longer a diplomat when she was born, then getting this decision overturned should be an open and shut case.
Bazzilionth example of the trump administration trying to do something blatantly unconstitutional. And everyone hoping the system works and they don’t get away with it.