A Judge Has Ruled That A Woman Who Left The US For ISIS Is Not An American Citizen

I don’t have a link to the Opinion of the Court yet.

Senior United States District Judge Reggie Walton of the District of Columbia ruled that Hoda Muthana is not an American Citizen by birth. Her father was a registered Yemeni Diplomat in the United States on a diplomatic passport when she was born. Under international diplomatic law, that cancels out the fact that she was physically born in the United States.

Both the Obama and the Trump administrations views on this matter have thus been upheld, as both administrations denied her attempts to return to the United States.

I believe the court correctly interpreted diplomatic law in this matter and this was the correct decision.

3 Likes

BAM! That is an excellent ruling!!!

1 Like

What does US law say?

As the United States has ratified the particular Treaties that define international law in this matter, for all intents and purposes, United States law and international law are identical in this matter. Not to mention that the Constitution declares that ratified Treaties are the law of the land of the United States.

The above link is the text of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, ratified by the United States. The Convention specifies that diplomats and their families are not subject to the personal jurisdiction of the receiving State.

Title 8 §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;

Children of diplomats, not being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are not citizens at birth of the United States, but are considered citizens of the country sending the diplomat, in this case Yemen. So Muthana needs to go to Yemen.

1 Like

Ok, I’ll accept your jurisdiction argument. Not because of a treaty, because of the 14th.

Why would she want to live here? The land of islamophobia?

I would note that the Treaty creates the condition (not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) that denied her birthright citizenship. You can’t discount the Treaty. It, along with the 14th, work together to deny her citizenship.

As an aside.

If she had been ruled to be a citizen and had actually returned, she can and should have been prosecuted for joining ISIS.

But because she is not a citizen, I do not believe she has committed an act for which the United States can prosecute her. While she joined ISIS, it was essentially as a bride. No evidence she ever committed any hostile act against U.S. forces.

As a citizen, she could have been prosecuted for the mere act of joining ISIS. As a non-citizen, she cannot be prosecuted, except perhaps by Yemen.

I do reject the treaty.

How and why???

It was duly ratified by the United States and the Constitution says:

Article VI

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.

The Constitution is pretty clear that along with the Constitution itself and the laws of the United States, that Treaties are also the Supreme Law of the Land.

I am not sure how you can reach your conclusion.

1 Like

I don’t like treaties.

They like using treaties once ratified to circumvent our Constitution…even thou our Constitution allows it.

That’s how I see it…but I’m open to alternatives theories/philosophy.

1 Like

:smile:

Ok.

In this case, the Treaty is consistent with the Constitution and long standing diplomatic principles.

Yes I understand that but are you deny that “some” likes to use treaties to circumvent our laws?

We are venturing into quite complicated territory here.

The link above explores the matter in depth.

The relationship of Treaties to United States law is complicated and understand that any explanation I give below is necessarily incomplete.

However, it is 100% undisputed that Treaties override all State and local laws to the contrary and that State courts must adhere to Treaties 100% without question. That has long been settled.

As far as Congress and Treaties go, it is more nebulous and the courts are STILL working out the limits to the present day.

However, in this particular matter, as relates to diplomatic relations, the Treaty is 100% consistent with United States law.

But as to the claim you make taken in a much broader context, I can’t really give an answer that would be satisfactory, as courts are still working it out in the present day.

Thank for your honest reply.

It’s just through these years of following politics, I observed a pattern here where they attempt to override American Constitution and yes even BoR’s to some degree.

1 Like

So what does that mean about Anwar al-Awlaki? He was born to Yemeni parents on student visas in New Mexico and later became a leader of al-Qaeda.

Did Obama drone a citizen or a non-citizen?

Citizen.

al-Awlaki was born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

1 Like

It means Obama authorized the extra-judicial assassination of a US citizen. Twice. And maybe 3 times.