Denaturalizing natural-born citizens – volokh conspiracy gas up yr hearse


In the aftermath of Muthana joining ISIS in Syria in 2014, the position of the U.S. government is not only that Muthana is not only that she is not a U.S. citizen, but that she was never one. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has stated on the record that she is not a citizen and has no right to enter the United States, which President Trump tweeted j gastroenterol hepatol impact factor conforms to his instructions to Pompeo not to allow her in. As a result, she and her young son are stuck in a Syrian refugee camp even though she is willing to face legal consequences in the United States for her role in ISIS. More details about the timeline can be found here. Her father has filed a complaint on her behalf, which is here.

My coauthor Cassandra Robertson and I have expressed concerns about denaturalizations and denationalizations in the United States for some time. In an article that is forthcoming in the New York University Law Review, we pointed out that the Trump administration’s attempts to take away citizenship gas 76 station are unlikely to stop with naturalized citizens. Hoda Muthana’s case further confirms our fears.

One issue worth highlighting beyond these informative posts is that of equitable estoppel. Hoda Muthana’s father’s complaint argues that if there had been lingering problems with the father’s diplomat status when Hoda Muthana was born, the government had an obligation to say so at the time. Had it done that, the family would have applied for permanent residence gas refrigerator not cooling for Muthana (as opposed to birthright citizenship) the same way it had done for her older siblings. The complaint states:

It would be difficult to deny that these facts meet the three prongs for equitable estoppel (which are definite representation, reliance, and reasonableness of reliance). The Trump administration’s run-ins with principles of estoppel in this area are not limited to alleged terrorists. The government has recently sought to denationalize (at times middle-aged) U.S. citizens born near the border to Mexico by claiming that they lied about which side of the border they were born. In one case, a woman born in a farmhouse in the gas density and molar mass 1970s as far away from the border as Kansas was recently denied a passport because her birth certificate was not deemed sufficient documentation of her citizenship.

The courts need to draw a line as to how long the government has to question the validity of a birth certificate or passport. Birthright citizenship does not cease to exist because someone committed a crime or became inconvenient to the state for any other reason. And if the government wishes to remove citizenship on rare grounds such as treason, it can only do so with the due process of law–rather than fiat by tweet.

saying they made a mistake, and actually having made a mistake, are not necessarily correlated is a small exaggeration. They’re clearly correlated – people, including the government, are much more likely to admit to a mistake when the’ve actually made one, than when they haven’t. But the corrlation is statistical, not a one to one electricity videos for students mapping. But I’ll grant you the general idea. But for exactly the same reason, the fact that it may be convenient for the government to admit to this mistake doesn’t map one to one, to it being a fake mistake.

But that is mere obiter. Your fundamental error is in concluding that a dispute over citizenship should be resolved by trying the alleged citizen for crimes unrelated to the question of citizenship. A verdict on the crimes would prove nothing. The way to resolve legal questions about her citizenship is to have a court case in which she contests the removal of her passport, on the basis that she is a citizen, and the government defends it on the basis that she is not.

As you say, you’re being presented with one side of the story. I followed the link you provided below to the Shaub piece. Mysteriously, it doesn’t analyse this question of the grade 9 electricity module key date (ie the date the UN diplomatic position ended vs. the date the US was officially notified of that ending.) So one is left with the impression that the government’s reasoning is, as you say, pretty damn weak. But when you actually go to the relevant regulation, here is what you find :

Definition of foreign diplomatic officer. Foreign diplomatic officer means a person listed in the State Department Diplomatic List, also known as the Blue List. It includes ambassadors, ministers, chargés d’affaires, counselors, secretaries and attachés of embassies and legations as well as members of the Delegation of the Commission of the European Communities. The term also includes individuals with youtube electricity comparable diplomatic status and immunities who are accredited to the United Nations or to the Organization of American States, and other individuals who are also accorded comparable diplomatic status.