Federal Judge Reportedly Rules Hoda Muthana Not US Citizen

[US-SSR]

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.

Reportedly the judge concluded that he didn't have the ability to question the State Department's assertion that neither Hoda nor her father were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" between the time he left his post at the Somali mission to the UN, before she was born, and the time the US mission to the UN was notified he had left his post, afterwards. We shall see.

[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.

Reportedly the judge concluded that he didn't have the ability to question the State Department's assertion that neither Hoda nor her father were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" between the time he left his post at the Somali mission to the UN, before she was born, and the time the US mission to the UN was notified he had left his post, afterwards. We shall see.

Was Hoda born in US territory? Yes or no? That answer is the same answer to the question "is hoda a US citizen"?

Anything else is politics. Let that sink in.

[Thermodolia]

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

a diplomat from where?

Yemen. Her father was a Yemeni diplomat

[Thermodolia]

Reportedly the judge concluded that he didn't have the ability to question the State Department's assertion that neither Hoda nor her father were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" between the time he left his post at the Somali mission to the UN, before she was born, and the time the US mission to the UN was notified he had left his post, afterwards. We shall see.

Was Hoda born in US territory? Yes or no? That answer is the same answer to the question "is hoda a US citizen"?

Anything else is politics. Let that sink in.

She’s not. Children of diplomats are not automatically US citizens per US v Wong Kim Ark

[Galloism]

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.

You must interpret in light of English common law.

Here’s the wiki summary because I’m on a tablet and quoting is hard.

Upholding the concept of jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth),[121] the Court held that the Citizenship Clause needed to be interpreted in light of English common law,[1] which had included as subjects virtually all native-born children, excluding only those who were born to foreign rulers or diplomats, born on foreign public ships, or born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.[3][122][123] The court's majority held that the subject to the jurisdiction phrase in the Citizenship Clause excluded from U.S. citizenship only those persons covered by one of these three exceptions (plus a fourth "single additional exception"—namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction).[2][63] The majority concluded that none of these four exceptions to U.S. jurisdiction applied to Wong; in particular, they observed that "during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China".[124]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ng_Kim_Ark

You’re welcome to look at the scotus decision in particular though.

[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.

You must interpret in light of English common law.

Here’s the wiki summary because I’m on a tablet and quoting is hard.

Upholding the concept of jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth),[121] the Court held that the Citizenship Clause needed to be interpreted in light of English common law,[1] which had included as subjects virtually all native-born children, excluding only those who were born to foreign rulers or diplomats, born on foreign public ships, or born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.[3][122][123] The court's majority held that the subject to the jurisdiction phrase in the Citizenship Clause excluded from U.S. citizenship only those persons covered by one of these three exceptions (plus a fourth "single additional exception"—namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction).[2][63] The majority concluded that none of these four exceptions to U.S. jurisdiction applied to Wong; in particular, they observed that "during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China".[124]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ng_Kim_Ark

You’re welcome to look at the scotus decision in particular though.

So I did, and that's interesting! Did the judge cite that particular case in their ruling? If the judge did, then hoda isn't a citizen, per politics. if the judge didn't, according to US-SSR's post -

Reportedly the judge concluded that he didn't have the ability to question the State Department's assertion that neither Hoda nor her father were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" between the time he left his post at the Somali mission to the UN, before she was born, and the time the US mission to the UN was notified he had left his post, afterwards. We shall see.

- then the constitution takes supremacy, since the state department's will is subservient to the constitution at any time. I'd hazard that the scotus case of 1898 is subservient to the constitution as well.

The reason why the founding fathers wrote "persons" instead of "men" was to placate slave owners and racial supremacists of the time period, whom formed a chunk of the backbone for the american resistance movement in the revolutionary war. Slaves were not persons back then, they were property. But they were recognized as human nonetheless, and would have been freed unless the constitution went with the legal "persons" in it's writing.

Politics being the thing it currently is, the republican majority of the supreme court would not allow the judge's ruling/conclusion to be reversed. Despite for decades that anybody born in my country was given citizenship, now suddenly that's not the case anymore. Fuck politics.

EDIT: question, how did galloism or thermodolia find that particular 1898 court case? Was it brought up in Hoda's court case, or did this crop up from the internet?

[Galloism]

You must interpret in light of English common law.

Here’s the wiki summary because I’m on a tablet and quoting is hard.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ng_Kim_Ark

You’re welcome to look at the scotus decision in particular though.

So I did, and that's interesting! Did the judge cite that particular case in their ruling? If the judge did, then hoda isn't a citizen, per politics. if the judge didn't, according to US-SSR's post -

Reportedly the judge concluded that he didn't have the ability to question the State Department's assertion that neither Hoda nor her father were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" between the time he left his post at the Somali mission to the UN, before she was born, and the time the US mission to the UN was notified he had left his post, afterwards. We shall see.

- then the constitution takes supremacy, since the state department's will is subservient to the constitution at any time. I'd hazard that the scotus case of 1898 is subservient to the constitution as well.

The reason why the founding fathers wrote "persons" instead of "men" was to placate slave owners and racial supremacists of the time period, whom formed a chunk of the backbone for the american resistance movement in the revolutionary war. Slaves were not persons back then, they were property. But they were recognized as human nonetheless, and would have been freed unless the constitution went with the legal "persons" in it's writing.

Politics being the thing it currently is, the republican majority of the supreme court would not allow the judge's ruling/conclusion to be reversed. Despite for decades that anybody born in my country was given citizenship, now suddenly that's not the case anymore. Fuck politics.

EDIT: question, how did galloism or thermodolia find that particular 1898 court case? Was it brought up in Hoda's court case, or did this crop up from the internet?

I mean, children of diplomats have never been considered citizens as far as I can recall. It doesn’t come up often, but I can’t recall any diplomat having a kid that became a us citizen via jus soli.

And while scotus is subservient to the constitution, it also interprets the constitution, and based on its 120 year old ruling, it would appear that kids of diplomats are excluded.

Also, we’ve discussed this case on NS before.

[Prismos]

The US should take responsibility for its own extremists.

She is not Syria’s problem (she came to Syria as a foreign invader from the US) nor is she Yemen’s responsibility, her father’s place of birth.

[Loben The 2nd]

The US should take responsibility for its own extremists.

She is not Syria’s problem (she came to Syria as a foreign invader from the US) nor is she Yemen’s responsibility, her father’s place of birth.

why is she our problem?

[Prismos]

The US should take responsibility for its own extremists.

She is not Syria’s problem (she came to Syria as a foreign invader from the US) nor is she Yemen’s responsibility, her father’s place of birth.

why is she our problem?

Because for the most part she’s lived in the US.

Imagine the outrage if the US wanted to deport an extremist and Syria and Yemen turned around saying “they’re your problem now”.

It’s this nimby double standards that irritates me about Americans.

[Kaystein]

why is she our problem?

Because for the most part she’s lived in the US.

Imagine the outrage if the US wanted to deport an extremist and Syria and Yemen turned around saying “they’re your problem now”.

It’s this nimby double standards that irritates me about Americans.

They're a shitposter, don't bother.

[Prismos]

Because for the most part she’s lived in the US.

Imagine the outrage if the US wanted to deport an extremist and Syria and Yemen turned around saying “they’re your problem now”.

It’s this nimby double standards that irritates me about Americans.

They're a shitposter, don't bother.

Who is?

[Sovaal]

I'd rather we try, and execute, her for treason. Same for any other Americans who joined the IS.

[Sovaal]

why is she our problem?

Because for the most part she’s lived in the US.

Imagine the outrage if the US wanted to deport an extremist and Syria and Yemen turned around saying “they’re your problem now”.

It’s this nimby double standards that irritates me about Americans.

I don't think you've actually met many Americans.

Anyway, if there was an extremist that had attacked America we would be overjoyed at the prospect of trying them and the source nation not caring.
I mean we literally invaded Afghanistan to track down extremists that had attacked us.

[Prismos]

I'd rather we try, and execute, her for treason. Same for any other Americans who joined the IS.

A lovely way to imitate Islamist values as opposed to Western liberal ones

[Sovaal]

I'd rather we try, and execute, her for treason. Same for any other Americans who joined the IS.

A lovely way to imitate Islamist values as opposed to Western liberal ones

Plenty of traitors in the West have been executed for treason. And she supported a "nation" hostile to the US, which last I checked was how our constitution defined treason.

I don't usually support execution but in cases where they supported such a despicable cause I can't come up with any objections.

[Prismos]

Because for the most part she’s lived in the US.

Imagine the outrage if the US wanted to deport an extremist and Syria and Yemen turned around saying “they’re your problem now”.

It’s this nimby double standards that irritates me about Americans.

I don't think you've actually met many Americans.

Anyway, if there was an extremist that had attacked America we would be overjoyed at the prospect of trying them and the source nation not caring.

I’ve been to the US many times.

My point is if a nation tried to push extremists onto yours, it would be an entirely different story.

Wasn’t it Trump who said the UK needs to deal with its own extremists like Shamima Begum, and here you are now not dealing with yours?

[Gormwood]

And the question nobody wants to answer: What exactly did Hoda Muthana do in ISIS?

[Gormwood]

I don't think you've actually met many Americans.

Anyway, if there was an extremist that had attacked America we would be overjoyed at the prospect of trying them and the source nation not caring.

I’ve been to the US many times.

My point is if a nation tried to push extremists onto yours, it would be an entirely different story.

Wasn’t it Trump who said the UK needs to deal with its own extremists like Shamima Begum, and here you are now not dealing with yours?

Donnie was the one who also said all the ISIS fighters that were kept locked up by the Kurds before he fucked them in the ass would run to Europe.

[Sovaal]

And the question nobody wants to answer: What exactly did Hoda Muthana do in ISIS?

If they had joined a far right white extremist terrorist group fighting a war and slaughtering thousands of people would we ask what they did in said organization?

[Prismos]

A lovely way to imitate Islamist values as opposed to Western liberal ones

Plenty of traitors in the West have been executed for treason. And she supported a "nation" hostile to the US, which last I checked was how our constitution defined treason.

I don't usually support execution but in cases where they supported such a despicable cause I can't come up with any objections.

I find executions and death, just satisfying Daesh. Part of the reason why the hate us is our Western values is because we are liberal and many Western nations don’t have the death penalty. We shouldn’t go down to their level.

[Sovaal]

I don't think you've actually met many Americans.

Anyway, if there was an extremist that had attacked America we would be overjoyed at the prospect of trying them and the source nation not caring.

I’ve been to the US many times.

My point is if a nation tried to push extremists onto yours, it would be an entirely different story.

Wasn’t it Trump who said the UK needs to deal with its own extremists like Shamima Begum, and here you are now not dealing with yours?

Thing is in a reversed scenario these extremists would have killed thousands of Americans.

Anyway, I'm all for us dealing with her, and any other American supporter of ISIS. Plenty of jail cells and courtyards.

[Gormwood]

And the question nobody wants to answer: What exactly did Hoda Muthana do in ISIS?

If they had joined a far right white extremist terrorist group fighting a war and slaughtering thousands of people would we ask what they did in said organization?

Because despite what you clap your hands to believe, there's a difference between being a front line fighter or planner and being a war bride.

[Balican]

And the question nobody wants to answer: What exactly did Hoda Muthana do in ISIS?

Why does this matter?

[Galloism]

And the question nobody wants to answer: What exactly did Hoda Muthana do in ISIS?

Recruiter, iirc.