There are a few posts that IMHO seem to express some sympathy for her, although I could be misinterpreting the posters comments in post #39 and #40. I do agree she deserves due process, but in her case that is likely to lead to a conviction with a long prison term or death sentence.
As far as sympathy, I would have more if she really had been merely a “confused teenager.” She may have been that, but she was a lot more as well. To me a confused teenager who makes a mistake means things like experimenting with drugs or alcohol, dropping out of school, getting (or getting someone) pregnant unintentionally, etc. I do have a lot of sympathy for kids who do that sort of thing. Going off to a foreign country to join a terrorist organization hoping to kill your fellow countrymen is a whole different ballpark.
I am sympathetic in this way: I believe Hoda Muthana is a US citizen who is being denied her citizenship without due process and I think that is wrong. I think it is more than “wrong” actually; I think it is heinous, craven and criminal. I’d like to see unilateral and illegal declarations from the President, Secretary of State and any other government official stopped now, before this sets a precedent that allows the same thing to happen to someone else. So yeah, count me as sympathetic to that aspect of Ms. Muthana’s plight.
A lot of confused teenagers also become Neo-Nazis; some later regret it. Some confused teenagers join oppressive religious cults and later regret it. Do you have any sympathy for them?
For those who actually do regret it, yes. I’ve posted many times on this board about Robert Byrd, for example, as someone who turned his life around and led a good life. IMHO, however, those whose “mistakes” include violent behavior and supporting violent ideologies are a lot less likely to regret it later, and many of those who say they do turn out to be lying so that they can get lighter prison sentences.
ETA. I also recognize a difference between those who are born into violent situations and those who come from a seemingly stable and comfortable middle or upper class background and then turn to violence later. I am a lot less sympathetic toward the latter.
I thought about this issue today and, while I can’t say whether or not the government’s arguement is factually correct or right as an interpretation of the law, I think there’s another element that most of the Dopers have not considered. I am in no way, shape or form an expert on embassies or diplomats or citizenship. But here goes:
I see the argument made here that, obviously if Mrs. Muthana’s father (or mother, really, it wouldn’t matter) wasn’t a diplomat or on an official foreign diplomatic mission when she was born then she must be a citizen. But I think that’s incorrect. My understanding is that diplomatic personnel would normally only lose their official status in the host country once they left, or if they refused to go or something and had to be kicked out. They are required to leave although they don’t have to race desperately to flee or anything, and the United States wouldn’t really know or care until they updated the official diplimatic rolls later on.
In this case, wouldn’t Hoda Muthana have citizenship only if her parents were admitted to the United States after losing their diplomatic status and leaving, providing that they did not re-enter on diplomatic credentials (valid or otherwise)? If they did re-enter on diplomatic credentials, even if those credentials had been revoked by the home country, then Hoda Muthana would not normally be eligible for citizenship.
Anyway, I can’t actually tell what the situation was and have no opinion on it, nor of Mrs. Muthana’s personal character, and don’t really care. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I make no statement, judgement, or opinion on the situation, morally, ethically, or politically.
Well, if her father was a Diplomat she was never a US citizen in the first place.
That seems to be what they are saying. In that case the Constitution had been modified, legally, by US laws passed as to what defines “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.” If she was the child of a Diplomat she was not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
If you voluntarily give up your citizenship, thru several acts that you are also not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof’. Congress gets to decide what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and in this case they agree with International law going back centuries that a Diplomat is not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
Passports can be, and are, issued erroneously. I once had a client who had been adopted as an infant and genuinely thought that she was a U.S. citizen by operation of law, but the timing wasn’t right for her to qualify under the Child Citizenship Act. She had previously been issued multiple U.S. passports. But finally when she applied to renew her passport again, the State Department picked up on its previous mistakes and refused to renew it.
From further reading it appears as long as they hold their “A visa” , they are still a diplomat, even if their position has ended. So it would appear the Secretary of State is correct. Further facts are needed.
So is there a cite that she actually engaged in any combat or terrorist activities? As far as I can see in the OP’s link, she was only married to a couple guys who did.
It may be that she’s not a citizen, and obviously she doesn’t engender a lot of sympathy, but I still think it would be kind of a raw deal, in that her parents would have included her in their permanent residency application (which would have gotten her citizenship when they were naturalized assuming they did it when she was still a child and living with them) had the State Department not made the initial error of giving her a passport. It reminds me of some of the BS that adoptees have been put through.
I think it’s worth noting that on post #58 her lawyer is quoted as saying:
“Shibly, however, claims her dad had ceased working as a diplomat months before she was born in Hackensack”
Which is not the same as saying her father was no longer in the US under diplomatic credentials, a fine but very important point that is not addressed by the lawyer from what I’ve read here.
So yeah, unless there are blatant falsehoods in that filing, it definitely seems like Trump doing one his signature “taking a dump on the constitution” moves to me. If they had not just given up their diplomatic status, but also been granted green cards, before her birth, it doesn’t seem the government has a leg to stand on saying they have diplomatic immunity.
Not everyone who is actively fighting holds guns. It is not against the rules of war to blow up people working in ammunition dumps behind the lines, for example. And I didn’t mean that she should have been targeted - just that in some cases there are innocent people killed by things like drone strikes, but this wouldn’t be one of them. She purposely put herself near those who did carry guns, and so chose to suffer their fate. If that had happened.
BTW from what I’ve read she is still a citizen.Whatever she did doesn’t change that without due process.
Whether she is a citizen or not depends on the details of what constitutes being a diplomat for purposes of birthright citizenship. Is it the job? Is it the visa? I don’t know. The issue was whether she was a child of a diplomat when she was born.
But you are well aware that is not what I’m complaining about. That gets resolved by due process - the very thing you seemed to want to trash.
Was that a rash statement you want to retract? I’d be fine with that.
My impression was that she was living in the camp, and I doubt she was saying “I’ll do my nails while you boys go off and fight the infidels.” Not the same as if she was living elsewhere.
One interesting thing from the complaint at that link is that the letter from the State Department purporting to revoke her passport because of her father’s diplomatic status was dated January 15, 2016. So, more accurately, it was Obama doing one of his signature “taking a dump on the constitution” moves.
Somewhat more interestingly, I don’t think it does allege that they had green cards at the time of her birth. It says they applied prior to her birth and that it was “subsequently granted.” If it was granted before her birth, the date would be included. We also learn that the State Department records showed the father having immunity until February 1995 (after the birth). But that the US has taken somewhat inconsistent positions on when immunity actually ends (although I think the Vienna Convention is pretty clear).
Most interestingly, if the father was in the country as a diplomat (which seems true) but the mother entered the country as a private citizen (which seems to be alleged), I don’t know what happens to the citizenship. I guess I wonder what would happen if a diplomat impregnated a US citizen while here. I would think you get citizenship?
Sure, if all you’re interested in is revenge for betraying the US but I’m thinking of those who are now in her shoes she was in then: Impressionable young in the process of becoming radicalized. Which message do you think would better change that course?
That ISIS are the bad guys and are evil and if you go fight for them that makes you one of the bad guys and evil. For the most part these are not kids who grew up on the rough streets of Baghdad or Kabul. They were largely raised in comfortable western backgrounds.