UnAmerican “American” wants to come back

To what purpose does Hoda Muthana really want readmittance to the United States? To live the good life or to do her part to undermine the government that guarantees it? Once a person claiming citizenship abandons their claim by joining forces (literally) with an enemy, they have renounced any possible privilege of returning to that nation. And this is precisely where the “ISIS bride” stands. To begin with, Muthana, although born in New Jersey to a foreign national who, at the time, was just released from the Yemeni diplomatic corps, and her attorney are under the misapprehension that she was ever a bona fide U.S. citizen.

The straightforward answer to any claim about “birthright citizenship” is that such a thing doesn’t actually exist, despite the fraudulent bestowing of such a title to millions of individuals delivered from their foreign national mother’s womb while on U.S. soil. The whole birthright citizenship hoax has come about from a misreading of the 14th Amendment that continues to fuel a faux argument even to the point of an enemy combatant requesting (re)patriation to the United States. The so-called birthright citizenship interpretation of the 14th Amendment has been solidly refuted by eminent legal minds as well as common sense laypeople. It doesn’t take genius to understand the plain language of the mid-19th century. Though it does take someone who has been publicly educated to believe whatever leftist, socialist media and politicians have spread far and wide with the fecundity of a heavy layer of manure. If that metaphor didn’t work, let’s try this… Fifty or 60 years of reconstituting the Constitution has created a legal cadre that is direly misinformed to the point of illiteracy regarding English. Words and phrases have been re-engineered to mean something different from their original intent and the 14th Amendment (not to mention the 1st and 2nd Amendments, but that’s another column) is no exception. No need to get into details as it’s well explained here in the fifth paragraph.

---

The initial argument for not allowing Muthana to return is that she, being of age and with sound mind (no matter her argument for borderline brainwashing - as we could say the same for those advocating birthright citizenship), decided to leave her residence in the United States in order to join an enemy terrorist organization that claimed it’s own nationality. By so doing, she renounced any claim to citizenship, credible or not. Because of the circumstances under which Muthana left U.S. soil, supposedly as a U.S. citizen pledging allegiance to a combatant ‘nation,’ were she to return to the United States it would likely be to confront a tribunal as a traitor. This is where her counsel doesn’t seem to get it. If Muthana had ever been a U.S. citizen but she claimed loyalty to an enemy of this country, then the only way she would re-enter our borders is to be tried for treason or, at the very least, aiding and abetting the enemy. Simply because one is raised with a ridiculous sense of entitlement that any harmful, illegal actions they might take should be erased, expunged and forgiven is no reason to allow a potential enemy entry to the country. How many times do fools and their representatives need to be told that, “you can’t have it both ways?”