Although a person’s service in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, such action could serve as a predicate act for the relinquishment of U.S. citizenship under 349(a)(3) of the INA [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] under two circumstances. Section 349(a)(3) provides for loss of U.S. nationality if a U.S national voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. nationality enters or serves in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign state as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer.
Note that the administrative presumption of intent to retain nationality does not apply to voluntary service in the armed forces of a state engaged in hostilities against the United States, and thus such action could be viewed as indicative of an intention to relinquish U.S. nationality, although each case is examined on its own with a view to the totality of the circumstances. Military service in a foreign country is not an expatriating act if service is as a soldier who is not an officer, unless the foreign military is engaged in hostilities with the United States.
Further, foreign military service usually does not cause loss of nationality since an intention to relinquish nationality normally is lacking. In adjudicating loss of nationality cases, the Department has established an administrative presumption that a person serving in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities against the United States does not have the intention to relinquish nationality. One who voluntarily serves as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the military of a country not engaged in hostilities with the United States will lose one’s U.S. citizenship only if one intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship when he/she served in the armed forces of a foreign state.
The issue in this case seems to be the fact that she was born to a foreign diplomat (Yemen). Children of foreign diplomats are usually excluded from U.S. citizenship, even if they are born in the U.S.
She is excluded from anchor baby staus.
I appreciate the lesson in administrative law, however, you are missing one important fact; she did not serve in a foreign military, she was directly involved in a terrorist organization.
Those born in the US of foreign diplomats while those diplomats are in the US are citizens of the country of origin of the diplomat, not the US.