Ilhan Omar’s Shady Castle Starts to Crumble

[Walt]

Or revoking her citizenship, as it is a requirement for the job.

trump is going to have to find a lot of evidence, and come up with an actual theory of the crime, to denaturalize Omar. And it takes time, not something you can do by January, even if he had the evidence and a theory of the crime. The next step after that is convincing two thirds of the House to expel her...

And there you have your next problem. You cannot expel her until everyone, including her, is sworn in. Even if trump does the impossible, he still cannot keep her from being sworn in.

trump could amend the Constitution, but that is impossible by January. he could overthrow the Constitution, but I doubt most Americans would allow him to.

The only realistic thing trump could do is murder her.

Regardless, we do not know she is sitting in that congress until the date she is sworn in.

We know what the Constitution says...

Hey, do you want to have some sort of bet?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Or revoking her citizenship, as it is a requirement for the job. Regardless, we do not know she is sitting in that congress until the date she is sworn in.

Revoking her citizenship is a years long process since it requires a court to rule and all appeals to be exhausted.

 

[Walt]

@Damocles It is almost impossible to keep Omar from being sworn in. Basically, it would be easier to remove trump by January 3rd.

 

[Walt]

Revoking her citizenship is a years long process since it requires a court to rule and all appeals to be exhausted.

The years long process is the first step. And then trump needs to present the evidence to the House, and get two thirds of them to vote to expel Omar... Now here is where the trick lies.

It must be two thirds of the members after the swearing in. So for her to be expelled, she must first be sworn in. There is no legal way to keep her from being sworn in, as long as she wants to, and can physically do it. And she wants to be sworn in.

 

[QP!]

Or revoking her citizenship, as it is a requirement for the job. Regardless, we do not know she is sitting in that congress until the date she is sworn in.

Which is true if each and every congress person so kind of a meaningless thing to say.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Revoking her citizenship is a years long process since it requires a court to rule and all appeals to be exhausted.

No.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No.

Yes.

There is a 10 year statute of limitations for criminal proceedings to denaturalize so that doesn't apply to Ilhan Omar who has been a citizen for over 20 years.

Chapter 2 - Revocation of Naturalization

A. BackgroundRevocation of naturalization is sometimes referred to as “denaturalization.” A person’s naturalization can be revoked either by a criminal conviction or

www.uscis.gov

2. Civil Proceedings ​

For civil revocation of naturalization, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) must file the revocation of naturalization action in Federal District Court.[3]

The government holds a high burden of proof when attempting to revoke a person’s naturalization. For civil revocation of naturalization, the burden of proof is clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence which does not leave the issue in doubt.[4]


The case must be filed in court and will take years before any denaturalization would be final because all court rulings can be appealed. Appeals often take years. But it will likely never get to the point of any court or jury hearing a denaturalization case because the first thing that will happen is selective prosecution claims will need to be dealt with. They could get around those selective prosecution claims by attempting to denaturalize Elon Mush and Melania at the same time.

 

[Earl]

If her immigration is fraudulent, legal citizenship has not existed since she arrived. I would think that the liberal federal judge who issued the search warrant saw enough evidence to convince him to issue the search warrant. The statute of limitations does not apply because, as Professor Turley said, her violation was ongoing and current.

I’ll trust the professor’s opinion more than some far left yahoo that wouldn’t want her deported even if she is proven to have committed immigration fraud…and financial fraud.

 

[Earl]

Legal scholar Jonathan Turley stated on Fox News that a potential civil denaturalization case against Rep. Ilhan Omar does not have a statute of limitations.

Key Details of Turley's Analysis

• • Civil vs. Criminal Time Limits: Turley distinguished between criminal statutes of limitations (such as a five-year limit on certain types of fraudulent marriage allegations) and civil denaturalization proceedings, which carry no statute of limitations. [1]
  • Ongoing Filings: Turley noted that a core issue is whether Rep. Omar repeatedly signed official candidate or congressional paperwork that restated or relied on disputed background or immigration details, with each new filing potentially serving as a fresh point of scrutiny.
  • Denaturalization Standards: According to Turley, government precedent in civil denaturalization cases has held that material misrepresentations—even if considered errors at the time—can form the basis for stripping citizenship if they would have affected the original naturalization decision.

 

[Earl]

If Omar had committed murder and there were a statute of limitations that protected her, these far left loons would not want her incarcerated or deported.

That’s why they are called loons.

The Secretary of State does not directly deport people, but has the authority to make a foreign policy determination that renders a non-citizen deportable or inadmissible under U.S. immigration law.

How the Authority Works

• • Foreign Policy Determinations: Under sections 212(a)(3)(C)(i) and 237(b)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Secretary of State can determine that an alien's presence or activities in the United States would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences.
  • Effect of the Determination: This official determination creates the legal grounds for deportability or inadmissibility, though the actual enforcement, detention, and removal operations are carried out by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), not the Department of State.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

If her immigration is fraudulent, legal citizenship has not existed since she arrived. I would think that the liberal federal judge who issued the search warrant saw enough evidence to convince him to issue the search warrant. The statute of limitations does not apply because, as Professor Turley said, her violation was ongoing and current.

I’ll trust the professor’s opinion more than some far left yahoo that wouldn’t want her deported even if she is proven to have committed immigration fraud…and financial fraud.

That isn't the way it works. She has US citizenship. She has a US passport. The government says she is currently a US citizen. That means they have to follow the law to revoke her citizenship.

You don't have to trust me. You can simply look at the law and rules I posted that are required to be followed by the US government when revoking citizenship. There is no statute of limitation for civil denaturalization but it DOES require going to court. It seems you are not understanding Turley's argument.

 

[Earl]

It appears that her citizenship was obtained fraudulently.

To say she can’t be deported…and jailed if she committed financial fraud is obscenely ignorant.

• Foreign Policy Determinations: Under sections 212(a)(3)(C)(i) and 237(b)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Secretary of State can determine that an alien's presence or activities in the United States would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences.

 

[Earl]

Before one of these far left loons say that a judge or a jury has to rule on the deportation:

• • Statutory Basis: Under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provisions—specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(C) for deportability and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(C) for inadmissibility—the Secretary of State can make a factual determination that an alien's presence or activities have or would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences. [1, 2, 3]
  • No Trial Required: This is an executive and administrative determination rather than a criminal proceeding. It does not go through a criminal court trial or a jury. [1]
  • Immigration Court Role (Matter of Ruiz-Massieu): In removal proceedings, the Secretary of State’s foreign policy determination is treated as conclusive evidence of deportability. Immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) cannot look behind or review the Secretary's underlying foreign policy reasoning or judgment.

 

[Earl]

trump is going to have to find a lot of evidence, and come up with an actual theory of the crime, to denaturalize Omar. And it takes time, not something you can do by January, even if he had the evidence and a theory of the crime. The next step after that is convincing two thirds of the House to expel her...

And there you have your next problem. You cannot expel her until everyone, including her, is sworn in. Even if trump does the impossible, he still cannot keep her from being sworn in.

trump could amend the Constitution, but that is impossible by January. he could overthrow the Constitution, but I doubt most Americans would allow him to.

The only realistic thing trump could do is murder her.


We know what the Constitution says...

Hey, do you want to have some sort of bet?

Wrong, Wrong Way Wally, the Sec. of State can deport without judicial review.

 

[Matt Dillon]

That isn't the way it works. She has US citizenship. She has a US passport. The government says she is currently a US citizen. That means they have to follow the law to revoke her citizenship.

You don't have to trust me. You can simply look at the law and rules I posted that are required to be followed by the US government when revoking citizenship. There is no statute of limitation for civil denaturalization but it DOES require going to court. It seems you are not understanding Turley's argument.

She has fraudulent U.S. citizenshop, you fucktardo!

Yeah, you're pretty fuckin' dumb.

 

[Damocles]

Which is true if each and every congress person so kind of a meaningless thing to say.

Yet others were saying it was not obvious. Proving that you seem to have problems following a conversation. Anyway, we will know for sure at that moment.

 

[QP!]

Yet others were saying it was not obvious. Proving that you seem to have problems following a conversation. Anyway, we will know for sure at that moment.

Naw you miss i am kind of mocking what you think is a point.

Yes she will be seated.

But if you want to say no one knows if any Congress person will show up to work any day as they could die in their sleep, and your point is merely that it is in with the world of plausiblity, people will rightly mock as what you are saying is so unlikely and not something that is a factor worth mentioning.

But die on the hill 'well it exists within the realm of what is plausible' so i stand by it.

 

[Walt]

Wrong, Wrong Way Wally, the Sec. of State can deport without judicial review.

No, the Secretary of State cannot. The Secretary of State has a lot of latitude to cancel visas of foreigners, but Omar is not a foreigner. She is a US citizen, so the Secretary of State has no authority over her.

 

[Walt]

Yet others were saying it was not obvious. Proving that you seem to have problems following a conversation. Anyway, we will know for sure at that moment.

Anyone can die, so Omar and anyone else might not be sworn in, but other than that (or similar health problems) I do not see any legal way to keep her from being sworn in. Her election has been certified, so to remove her requires two thirds of the House to remove her. That means everyone, including her, must be sworn in first.

Even then, you are going to need some very clear evidence to convince so many Democrats to remove her. Right now you have nonsense, so reversing that is going to be harder.

 

[Earl]

No, the Secretary of State cannot. The Secretary of State has a lot of latitude to cancel visas of foreigners, but Omar is not a foreigner. She is a US citizen, so the Secretary of State has no authority over her.

No, Wrong Way Wally! Wrong again.

• Statutory Basis: Under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provisions—specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(C) for deportability and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(C) for inadmissibility—the Secretary of State can make a factual determination that an alien's presence or activities have or would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences. [1, 2, 3]
• No Trial Required: This is an executive and administrative determination rather than a criminal proceeding. It does not go through a criminal court trial or a jury. [1]
• Immigration Court Role (Matter of Ruiz-Massieu): In removal proceedings, the Secretary of State’s foreign policy determination is treated as conclusive evidence of deportability. Immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) cannot look behind or review the Secretary's underlying foreign policy reasoning or judgment.

If she committed immigration fraud, she can be deported without judicial review, WWW.

You do understand that a person who becomes a U.S. citizen fraudulently, is not a legal American citizen…no you probably do not understand this.

There is a reason that a liberal federal judge authorized a search warrant of the home of this person who is a sitting member of Congress just a few weeks before an election…no you probably don’t, WWW.