Washington – An Alabama woman who joined the Islamic State on Monday lost a first round in a legal fight to return to the U.S. with her toddler son, even as a judge seemed to support at least one argument made by her lawyer for her U.S. citizenship.
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton denied a request for “expedited” proceedings for Hoda Muthana, whose lawyers sought to have her lawsuit litigated on an emergency schedule so she could get out of a refugee camp in Syria and back to the U.S.
Walton said Muthana’s lawyers failed to establish that the woman and her 18-month-old son face imminent danger in allied custody as the U.S. prepares to withdraw most of its forces from the fight against the Islamic State in Syria.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a radio interview that she is not a citizen, and it would be a “risk” to let her back into the United States.
“In fact, she’s a terrorist, and we shouldn’t bring back foreign terrorists to the United States of America,” Pompeo said in an interview with WOC Radio in Iowa.
Muthana, who married three Islamic State fighters during her time with the group, says she now regrets joining and wants to return to the U.S. for the sake of her child, even if that means facing criminal charges.
The U.S. has determined that the 24-year-old Muthana isn’t a citizen because her father was a Yemeni diplomat to the United Nations when she was born in New Jersey. Children of diplomats are not entitled to birthright citizenship because they and their parents aren’t subject to U.S. law.
Her lawyers argue that her father’s diplomatic status ended before her birth in October 1994 and, therefore, she was automatically a citizen at birth. The U.S. says it wasn’t notified that his status had changed until February 1995, apparently because of a delay in reporting it by the U.N., and therefore he was still a diplomat.
The government determined her U.S. passport was issued by mistake and revoked it while she was abroad in January 2016, under President Barack Obama.
Attorney Charles Swift told Walton that diplomatic status should end when a country decides it has ended, not when the U.S. gets around to recognizing it. Otherwise it would create a scenario in which a person could commit a crime and be protected by diplomatic immunity even after the sponsoring country had revoked the status. He suggested a hostile country could use this uncertainty to commit espionage.
The judge called this a “valid argument,” but did not indicate how he would rule on overall question of her citizenship.
Swift later told reporters he was “very encouraged” by this response and expects a decision in the case as early as this summer. “The judge’s comments certainly foreshadow the ultimate outcome of this case,” he said.
She is an American. Reentry into the United States is an absolute right for Americans.
Keep her in Syria or send her to Tehran – DO NOT LET TERRORISTS gain access to the United States – lest you want to be like France or other European cities
Looks like ilhan omars twin sister, let her stay in the muslim contry she loves, these trash terrorists hate this country we dont need em here… if she were to come back to US she would be jailed for 20 years at the taxpayers expense anyway…. let her go to her 10 terrorist husbands… they can take care of her…. send ilhan omar with her she hates this country as much if not more….
MOSHIACH NOW
She has the experience now (and good looks) to run for congress as our newest representative for the Muslim and liberal peoples….
I say that she should be allowed back into the United States, because she is a U.S. citizen, assuming that it can be proven that her Father’s diplomatic status ended before she was born, in the USA. That being said, once she comes back to the USA, she should be arrested, and prosecuted, for providing aid and comfort to the enemy, which is a violation of federal law. I would not sentence her to more than 12 years; hwever, upon her release from prison, I would place her on parole for 10 years, with strict restrictions. Since Jonathan Pollard has been placed on very strict parole conditions (for five years), after serving 30 years in prison, then this ISIS supporter can also service time in prison, with strict parole conditions. I feel sorry for her baby, and hopefully, he can be turned over to her family in the USA.
> Attorney Charles Swift told Walton that diplomatic status should end when a country decides it has ended, not when the U.S. gets around to recognizing it. Otherwise it would create a scenario in which a person could commit a crime and be protected by diplomatic immunity even after the sponsoring country had revoked the status.
That is contrary to everything shown on TV. Diplomatic immunity does not mean that the person has not committed a crime. It means the person cannot be arrested for the crime. So even if the crime is committed while legitimately under diplomatic immunity, the diplomat’s country (or even the diplomat him/her self as well) can revoke the immunity even after the crime is committed and thus be arrested and imprisoned. So in terms of punishment for a crime, it does not matter whether the U.S. knew or didn’t know that the diplomatic immunity had been revoked at the time the crime was committed. The question is whether the sponsoring country grants diplomatic immunity at arrest time.
The interesting part is left out of the story. Vox states that under Obama, in 2016, the Obama administration found out they were misled. Originally they were given a letter allegedly by the UN claiming that the father’s diplomatic (U.N.) status had been revoked before the birth. However, in 2016, the Obama administration contacted the U.N. records (instead of relying on the alleged letter) and were informed that the U.N. records show that the father’s diplomatic (U.N.) status was revoked *after* the birth. Now, at the time, this could have been legally challenged if anyone bothered to challenge it. But also, at the time, she was with ISIS and posted a video showing her (and others) burning their passports and saying words that gives the impression of waiving their citizenship. So obviously she never challenged the ruling so implicitly she has waived any right to challenge.
Garbage in, garbage out.