Federal Judge Reportedly Rules Hoda Muthana Not US Citizen

[Hakons]

Foreign volunteers for the IS should not be allowed to return. They committed high crimes in Syria or Iraq and should thus be tried according to the laws and judiciary of Syria or Iraq.

[US-SSR]

Foreign volunteers for the IS should not be allowed to return. They committed high crimes in Syria or Iraq and should thus be tried according to the laws and judiciary of Syria or Iraq.

Syria, Iraq, New Zealand or the Federated States of Micronesia are perfectly within their rights to try any US citizens they believe have committed crime in their jurisdictions under their laws. But no one can prevent any US citizen not in foreign custody from returning to the US. No one.

[Loben The 2nd]

Foreign volunteers for the IS should not be allowed to return. They committed high crimes in Syria or Iraq and should thus be tried according to the laws and judiciary of Syria or Iraq.

Syria, Iraq, New Zealand or the Federated States of Micronesia are perfectly within their rights to try any US citizens they believe have committed crime in their jurisdictions under their laws. But no one can prevent any US citizen not in foreign custody from returning to the US. No one.

Homeland security?

[Greed and Death]

Foreign volunteers for the IS should not be allowed to return. They committed high crimes in Syria or Iraq and should thus be tried according to the laws and judiciary of Syria or Iraq.

Syria has sentenced them to deportation to where they came from.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's not for the US to decide. If she is wanted for crimes in Syria, it is Syria's to decide. If she is deported by Syria, she has to be deported somewhere.

[Hakons]

Foreign volunteers for the IS should not be allowed to return. They committed high crimes in Syria or Iraq and should thus be tried according to the laws and judiciary of Syria or Iraq.

Syria has sentenced them to deportation to where they came from.

Welp, didn't know that. Since that is the case, it follows that they should be admitted under guard and tried for terrorism under US Law.

[Gormwood]

So does anyone know what she exactly did in ISIS?

[Genivaria]

Foreign volunteers for the IS should not be allowed to return. They committed high crimes in Syria or Iraq and should thus be tried according to the laws and judiciary of Syria or Iraq.

Doesn't INTERPOL take jurisdiction here?

[The East Marches II]

Foreign volunteers for the IS should not be allowed to return. They committed high crimes in Syria or Iraq and should thus be tried according to the laws and judiciary of Syria or Iraq.

Doesn't INTERPOL take jurisdiction here?

I honestly don't know. I know the Iraqis hanged a few of those women already and INTERPOL didn't get involved (and over the protests of some European countries).

[Genivaria]

Doesn't INTERPOL take jurisdiction here?

I honestly don't know. I know the Iraqis hanged a few of those women already and INTERPOL didn't get involved (and over the protests of some European countries).

Sounds like it defeats the purpose of having an organization like INTERPOL (who's domain includes terrorism btw) when they aren't going to collect international terrorists and execute them.

[Greed and Death]

Foreign volunteers for the IS should not be allowed to return. They committed high crimes in Syria or Iraq and should thus be tried according to the laws and judiciary of Syria or Iraq.

Doesn't INTERPOL take jurisdiction here?

INTERPOL just facilities police cooperation it is not a police/prosecuting authority in of itself.

[The East Marches II]

I honestly don't know. I know the Iraqis hanged a few of those women already and INTERPOL didn't get involved (and over the protests of some European countries).

Sounds like it defeats the purpose of having an organization like INTERPOL (who's domain includes terrorism btw) when they aren't going to collect international terrorists and execute them.

I'm not sure they would even have that authority given the feelings of our... European """allies""" as they are heavily involved in it. Also I am unfortunately very ignorant to its internal functioning and legal abilities tbh. I'm not sure its more than a cooperation agreement. Perhaps somebody will come along and shed some light on the matter!

[Loben The 2nd]

Doesn't INTERPOL take jurisdiction here?

I honestly don't know. I know the Iraqis hanged a few of those women already and INTERPOL didn't get involved (and over the protests of some European countries).

what is this woman doing right now?

[Australian rePublic]

I have no idea who in the fudge Hoda Muthana is (would habe it killed you to include context in the OP?), but based on the content of the thread, I'll assume she's an American who ran off to join ISIS and has been the denyed the right to return. Good I say. If you join an organisation which is actively going out of its way to shit all over your country, then you have no right to return to your country. Why should you have the right to return to a free country that you actively went out of your way to join an organisation which is trying to destroy it?

Joining a terrorist organization that pillages, rapes, enslaves, and burns people alive in cages is tantamount to treason. Ruling she was never a US citizen, if I understand that that is what has happened, is a moot point as she definitely deserves to lose her citizenship now.

Treason really is a dumb word, no country deserves absolute loyalty.

Is this a f^%king a joke to you? Nobody forced to be loyal to her country, but she decided, out of her own free will, to betray it. If she decided to betray it, why should she be allowed to return? If she hates the USA, she has no right to live there. And we're not talking about something pety like she "betrayed" her sports team or something like that, nor are we talking about something more serious but understandable, e.g. a defector returning to North Korea after the fall of the Kims. She betrayed her democratic country and her democratic right to freedom to join ISIS- a maliglant cancer plaguing society and freedom. If you betray freedom to join a maliglant cancer actively opposed to freedom, then you have no right to return to freedom. Borders are irrelevant at this point. Also, arguing about whether or not she should be loyal to the USA is irrelevant. She obviously wasn't, and decided to join an organisation which actively seeks to destroy. Being allowed to return because she "shouldn't be forced to remain loyal to Organisation X" doesn't change the fact that she actively sook to destroy Organisation X. Arguing about whether or not she should be forced to remain loyal to the USA is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is she didn't and decided to join an organisation actively seeking to destroy it. If she chose to destroy the USA, she shouldn't be permitted back into the USA, irregardless of your philosophical position on loyalty. I mean, if you had to remove a maliglant cancer from your body would you give a shit about whether or not the cells who turned against you were philosophically obligated to remain loyal to you, or would you seek to remove them from your body? And yes, this metaphor is relevant, because, as said earlier, ISIS is a maliglant cancer. However, we aren't talking about cells, we're talking about human beings. I am one to believe in forgiveness. If, and only if, we can prove with absolute certainty that she's 100% indoubtably rehabilited, she should be allowed in. However, since that's impossible...

Until I see the judgement however I'll refrain from making kneejerk assumptions based on the political leanings of the judge.

Who the fuck cares about the judge's political ideology? It's 100% totally, utterly and completely irrelevant. Why is it relevant? Why?

[Thermodolia]

She joined ISIS. Do you not remember what they did?

And? Kangaroo Courts are still kangaroo courts, even if they’re trying Bin Ladin.

This is hardly a kangaroo court. Do you just have a habit of misusing terms to fit your agenda?

[Thermodolia]

She joined ISIS. Do you not remember what they did?

So what exactly did she do in ISIS?

---

Also, are male ISIS fighters that get detained stripped of their citizenships?

In order to be stripped of something you have to have it. She never had US citizenship

[Rojava Free State]

Hoda is such a coward. She fought against our people with an organization that killed Americans and now she wants to come back? Hell no. Leave her in the desert

[Thermodolia]

Well, I can agree with that, but it IS a law that you lose your US citizenship by joining a foreign military. Joining a militant terrorist organization certainly fits, especially since ISIS wishes to create a caliphate, which is for all intents and purposes a theocratic state.

The law is that no US citizen by birth can lose their citizenship unless they intend to do so. As a practical matter that means renunciation overseas before a US consular officer. Plenty of US citizens, naturalized and native born, have served in foriegn militaries without losing their citizenship. F'rinstance Greece for many years demanded compulsory military service from dual nationals, ensnaring many Greek-American young men visiting their grandparents. None of them lost citizenship. Many Jewish Americans have served in the Israeli forces, none lost citizenship.

Here's a good explanation of the legal issues from the Lawfare blog.

As for ISIS, it is not a state, the US is not at war with it and even if it were unless the US could produce two witnesses against her Hoda still couldn't be tried for treason. Once her right to US citizenship is affirmed on appeal, if the US wants to try her for treason, supporting terrorism or allowing her dog to foul the footpath it could go right ahead and do so. But first it would have to let her enter the country of her birth and citizenship.

She’s not a citizen and it won’t be overturned. The appellate courts will uphold the ruling. She’s not going back to the US, Yemen can have her

[Rojava Free State]

The law is that no US citizen by birth can lose their citizenship unless they intend to do so. As a practical matter that means renunciation overseas before a US consular officer. Plenty of US citizens, naturalized and native born, have served in foriegn militaries without losing their citizenship. F'rinstance Greece for many years demanded compulsory military service from dual nationals, ensnaring many Greek-American young men visiting their grandparents. None of them lost citizenship. Many Jewish Americans have served in the Israeli forces, none lost citizenship.

Here's a good explanation of the legal issues from the Lawfare blog.

As for ISIS, it is not a state, the US is not at war with it and even if it were unless the US could produce two witnesses against her Hoda still couldn't be tried for treason. Once her right to US citizenship is affirmed on appeal, if the US wants to try her for treason, supporting terrorism or allowing her dog to foul the footpath it could go right ahead and do so. But first it would have to let her enter the country of her birth and citizenship.

She’s not a citizen and it won’t be overturned. The appellate courts will uphold the ruling. She’s not going back to the US, Yemen can have her

Let the buzzards in the desert have her. No one else wants this cowardly terrorist

[Loben The 2nd]

So what exactly did she do in ISIS?

---

Also, are male ISIS fighters that get detained stripped of their citizenships?

In order to be stripped of something you have to have it. She never had US citizenship

run that by me again?

[Thermodolia]

In order to be stripped of something you have to have it. She never had US citizenship

run that by me again?

She never had US citizenship. Children of diplomats don’t get automatic US citizenship.

[Kaystein]

Were they born in the United States?

[Loben The 2nd]

run that by me again?

She never had US citizenship. Children of diplomats don’t get automatic US citizenship.

a diplomat from where?

[US-SSR]

Were they born in the United States?

Hoda was born in the US some time after her father was dismissed from his position as a diplomat for the Somali mission to the UN. The US is arguing that since the US mission to the UN was not notified of his dismissal until after Hoda was born, as the child of an accredited diplomat she was not born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States as required to obtain US citizenship at birth (see Amendment XIV); this despite the fact that it issued her a US passport earlier.

Note that would mean Hoda's father, had he shot someone dead in the middle of Fifth Avenue between the time he left his job and the time the US learned about it, could not have been arrested or tried. Absurd, no?

Her attorneys argue that, had the US told Hoda she was not a citizen when she originally applied for a US passport, she could have applied for and become a US resident and then a citizen since her mother was a US resident. This is what all her older siblings did. The US would then be equitably estopped from blocking Hoda's entry to the US merely because its earlier passport issuance was in error.

The political background of the judge matters because, the US now being a banana republic, judges of different political backgrounds tend to find different results from the same facts and laws. Not to mention the public statements of both the President and Secretary of State asserting Hoda was not a citizen, long before any judicial proceedings even started.

We await the W judge's written decision. As of early this afternoon it was still not posted to the DC District Court website.

[Kaystein]

Here NS, Hold my beer.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

According to U.S. Code § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;"

um.. let's see, I'm missing something else here..

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

According to the fourteenth amendment of the US constitution, Section 1

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi

Further, according to article six of the US constitution

"All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Underlining "this constitution" which the comma treats it coming first, which matters because it's put as superior to any laws made separately by the United States government that's not an amendment. Underlining "and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding" Because all judges are bound to the constitution first above all when performing their jobs.

---

Therefore, in my understanding the judge's ruling about anybody being born in the United States not having citizenship is rendered null and void. The father being a diplomat doesn't matter; because any and all laws relevant to that is overruled/superseded by the constitution's amendments, 14 and 6.

The person can return here if they wish, and be put promptly into prison. Their innocence isn't a question (they're guilty of war crimes imo). Neither should be their citizenship.