While liberal media might be hoping Trump Derangement Syndrome would dispose at least some Democrats to stand opposed to Trump about literally anything, even as ridiculous and dangerous as accepting ISIS brides back into the country, I believe that the issue of ISIS brides is in fact just a litmus test for birthright citizenship with even more sinister implications.

I've read through thousands and thousands of comments on the most cancerous news sites (looking at you, Vice and The New York Times), trying to find someone, anyone, who sympathizes with the ISIS brides returning home.  I am glad to say I have failed.  Even Trump's staunchest opposers recognize that he did the right thing by not letting the thrice-widowed terrorist bride, Hoda Muthana, back into the country.  Though some may suggest she should return but face punishment for her crimes, nobody is actually buying the story the mainstream media are selling that she's remorseful and deserves another chance.  This left me to figure out why this narrative exists and is being pushed so hard, being rejected by all those it is meant to influence.

On Wednesday, secretary of state Mike Pompeo made a statement that Hoda Muthana is not a U.S. citizen and therefore will not be allowed to return to the United States.  Her family and lawyers produced her birth certificate and declared that "Trump is undermining birthright citizenship."  As of late Thursday, Muthana's father, Ahmed Ali Muthana, with legal representation from CAIR, officially filed a civil suit against President Trump for the U.S. government to recognize the birthright citizenship of Hoda. 

In order for someone to have birthright citizenship, he must meet certain thresholds.  The Fourteenth Amendment lays out that if someone was born here, regardless of his parents' status, and is also subject to U.S. jurisdiction, then he is rightfully an American citizen.  However, three notable exceptions do exist.

The first is if said-person's parents are foreign sovereigns, ministers, or diplomats.  Since these persons have diplomatic immunity, they are not subject to the laws of the land or U.S. jurisdiction.  This was first assumed to be the grounds on which Secretary Pompeo and President Trump are denying Muthana's cries to come back to American soil.  Some sources say her father was a Yemeni diplomat, while other records show that his post was terminated shortly before her birth.

The second exception is if they were born on a vessel, or ship, even if stationed in U.S. waters or ports.  Since Hoda was born in a hospital in New Jersey, this doesn't seem to apply to her.

The third exception comes from a late 19th-century landmark case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, and declares that this natural right of citizenship does not extend to "enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory."

This third exemption has me the most interested, because in April of 1994, just six months before Hoda Muthana was born, a civil war broke out in Yemen.  Following bloody battles between the North and South, the southern faction declared the Democratic Republic of Yemen in late May.  A few weeks later, the U.N. Security Council called for Resolution 924, a ceasefire, which was honored for all of six hours.  Fighting continued.  The U.S. removed virtually all of its military support and humanitarian aid from Yemen and, like every other country, did not recognize the legitimacy of the Democratic Republic of Yemen.

Just a few weeks before Hoda's birth, the south was officially defeated, and three days before her birth date, Yemen's Parliament elected a new president.  This is probably why Muthana's father's diplomatic post was dissolved; he was supporting the losing side and not recognized by the U.S.  Even if Muthana's parents were no longer serving in an official diplomatic capacity at the hour she was born, it could be argued that they were still subjects of a foreign sovereign, not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and thus represented a hostile government residing in United States territory.  Therefore, birthright citizenship would not automatically extend to children they had who were born here.  

You might be wondering how this history relates to any current and covert motives the Left may have.  I believe that it is a determinative for testing birthright citizenship on a broader scale.  And who among our country might benefit from masses of Democrats sympathetic to the plights of foreign nationals who represent a hostile enemy residing in the U.S.?  If the Left can get its base to support stateless ISIS brides, something so egregious that even presenting it as anti-Trump isn't currently rallying the Democratic base, then accepting "anchor babies" from another invading force representing drug- and human-traffickers will be a walk in the park.

President Trump awoke anxieties in Democrats when he outwardly challenged the caravans and hordes of illegal aliens crossing our southern border, even actively calling them an "invasion":

Pundits like to point out that despite the Democratic narrative that border crossings are done by "families," actual data offer a different picture.  Some conservative estimates say upwards of 70% of illegal crossings at our southern border are by military-age men.  Judicial Watch went to meet a few of these caravans and "observed that the popular mainstream media narrative of desperate migrants — many of them women and children — seeking a better life is hardly accurate."

This could also be fueling the panic over the 2020 Census.  Democratic plaintiffs recently challenged an attempt to put a citizenship question on the next Census.  Their argument is that the question may "frighten immigrants and Latinos," but I am willing to bet it's a bit more nefarious than that.

If the most accurate data our government is able to gather by this Census prove without a doubt that illegal alien counts are not only much higher than previously estimated, but comprise a majority of males between the ages of 17 and 44, as predicted, Trump has a good argument for his declarations calling illegal Mexico-border crossings an "invasion."

It would be terrible for the Democrats — not just because they count on this exact demographic to increase their federal funding, House representation, and electoral votes, but because the president would be justified using military at the border.  As commander-in-chief, he wouldn't need Congress's approval for military force, even without a formal declaration of war.  Further, if southern illegal aliens can be classified as hostile enemies occupying parts of the United States, then the children they have here would not be granted automatic birthright citizenship as it is now.  This is even more applicable if these foreign nationals' allegiances are to violent gangs or cartels that result in thousands upon thousands of American deaths each year.

So either Hoda Muthana's challenge is a birthright citizenship litmus test with larger implications or liberal media are so ignorant that they believe that the American people will forgive their enemies if they are framed right.

Connect with Taylor Day on Facebook and Twitter.