By Andrew C. McCarthy
Thursday, February 21, 2019
I had a column in the New
York Post yesterday morning about the so-called “ISIS bride,” Hoda Muthana,
who is detained in a Syrian refugee camp and now pleading to come back home to
her family in Alabama. I argued that, despite the fact that she has
treasonously waged war against our country, she had a right to be readmitted if
she tried to enter because she was — according to the facts available at the
time — a natural-born American citizen.
Now Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has announced that
Muthana will not be allowed to reenter the U.S. because she is not an American citizen: While born in
America, she was the daughter of a diplomat and thus not subject to the
jurisdiction of the U.S. As the secretary put it in his statement, “Ms. Hoda
Muthana is not a U.S. citizen and will not be admitted into the United States.
She does not have any legal basis, no valid U.S. passport, no right to a
passport, nor any visa to travel to the United States.”
This conclusion is disputed by Muthana’s family and
allies, and they may have a case. I would strongly urge the Justice Department
to file an indictment against Muthana for treason, material support to
terrorism, and any other readily provable offenses. She is less likely to press
the issues of citizenship and right to enter if she understands that she faces
prosecution and, very likely, lengthy imprisonment if she succeeds in coming
here.
But it’s worth taking a closer look at the citizenship
question itself. To my mind, the concept of citizenship implies not just the
benefits of being a full-fledged member of the body politic, but also a duty of
fealty to the nation. In a rational world, then, a citizen who made war against
the United States would be stripped of citizenship.
Alas, that is not the law. As I related in the Post column, Supreme Court precedent
holds that natural-born citizens may not have their citizenship revoked without
their consent. (This is in contrast to naturalized citizens, who may have their
citizenship revoked if they join a subversive organization within five years of
being naturalized, but this is not relevant to Muthana’s case.)
Reports indicate that Muthana, the daughter of Yemeni
immigrants, was born in New Jersey in 1994. For the most part, she appears to
have grown up in Alabama, attending high school and starting college there. As noted
at National Review when the issue is
debated from time to time, the prevailing interpretation of the 14th Amendment
generally provides for birthright citizenship: If you were born here, you are a
citizen, regardless of whether your parents were citizens — even regardless of
whether your parents were legally in the United States. But there is an
exception, and the State Department is seizing on it here.
According to the New
York Times, government officials contend that Muthana’s father was not
merely a Yemeni immigrant but a diplomat
of that country. Children born of diplomats are deemed to be citizens of the
diplomat’s sovereign. Apparently, Muthana’s camp concedes that Muthana père was a Yemeni diplomat, but contends
that she was born 30 days after Yemen discharged him from his diplomat
position. We are not told what his immigration status supposedly was at that
point, or if he had a legal status. But Muthana would no doubt argue that even
if she was an illegal alien, she’d be as entitled to birthright citizenship as
any other child of an illegal alien born in the U.S.
Pompeo emphasized that Muthana does not have a valid U.S.
passport or a visa to travel to the U.S. That is true, but probably irrelevant.
Passports and visas are just forms of travel authorization. They have no
bearing on whether an American citizen may be denied entry into her own
country. If an American citizen presents herself at a port of entry, the
government has no authority to bar the citizen from entering (although the
citizen may, of course, be detained while the authorities make certain that she
is who she claims to be; and she may be prosecuted for violating travel
regulations).
The Times
further reports that Pompeo is taking a hard-nosed position here because
President Trump has directed him “not to allow Hoda Muthana back into the
Country” — as the president put it on Twitter. It is entirely appropriate for
the official constitutionally responsible for protecting the nation from
foreign threats to direct his subordinates to take all legal steps to prevent a
terrorist enemy combatant from entering the country. But, to reiterate, if
Muthana is an American citizen, she has the right to enter the U.S. if she
presents herself at a port of entry; she may not be barred just because the
president wants her turned away.
Again: If the president and the secretary do not want
Muthana to try to come back to the United States, the best strategy is to have
the Justice Department indict her on serious felony charges. She may seek
another alternative if she knows the risk of coming back here is decades of
imprisonment. Of course, Muthana may decide to come anyway. After all, (a) she
might see life in an American prison as better than her other alternatives, and
(b) if she is an American citizen, there is a good argument that her young son
is a citizen, too — he’d have a more promising chance of survival and a decent
life here than in Syria (or wherever else in that godforsaken region they could
end up).
In any event, the State Department has made its decision.
Now it is up to Muthana’s supporters to establish her citizenship if they can,
and for the Trump administration to indict her if it chooses.
No comments:
Post a Comment