Ilhan Omar’s Shady Castle Starts to Crumble
- Thread starter Earl
- Start date
QP!
Verified User
You could just say "you have no answer and are scared" and keep it simple as your argument completely falls apart with that point and you know it.
You are pushing an argument that any SS, by themselves can just declare a citizen is here illegal and then deport them, without having to use a court to make that determination.
Thus you are saying 'yes you are ok with the next Dem SS deporting you as long as they first say you are illegal'.
But because you are stupid you do not see you made that argument.
If I had obtained my citizenship illegally, yes, any Sec. of State could deport me, Wrong Way Wally, or if he/she determined that the person presented a security risk to the US. I’ve already posted all of this, WWW. Pay attention.
That isn’t the case with me though.
Arrival in the United States: She arrived in the U.S. as a refugee at age 12 in 1995, initially settling in Arlington, Virginia, before moving to Minneapolis. [1, 2, 3]
That isn’t the case with me though.
Arrival in the United States: She arrived in the U.S. as a refugee at age 12 in 1995, initially settling in Arlington, Virginia, before moving to Minneapolis. [1, 2, 3]
QP!
Verified User
See Earl because you are daft person, you do not realize SS are not psychic, so they would not just know whether you or Ilhan got your citizenship illegally.
They would need some sort of process to determine that. SOmething... like... a COURT (lol).
And yet, in your stupidity you have been arguing that a court is not necessary and that a SS could deport you or Ilhan with no such determination and just a declaration of that.
You argue that because you lack intelligence.
NO, a SS would FIRST need a court determination that you or Ilhan did in fact get citizenship illegally and only stupid person argues against that.
Thus, carry on.
Do you have anything except ad homs, Wrong Way Wally?
Of course you don’t.
No, wrong again, Wrong Way Wally.
, Ilhan Omar's refugee status and arrival in the United States were not applied for or received when she was 8 years old.
- Fleeing Somalia at age 8: Omar was about 8 years old in 1991 when the Somali Civil War forced her family to flee Mogadishu for a refugee camp in Kenya. [1, 2]
- You are still batting zero, WWW.
Poor Wrong Way Wally.
He has a problem with facts…or one could say that WWW just lies.
QP!
Verified User
QP!
Verified User
See Earl because you are daft person, you do not realize SS are not psychic, so they would not just know whether you or Ilhan got your citizenship illegally.
They would need some sort of process to determine that. SOmething... like... a COURT (lol).
And yet, in your stupidity you have been arguing that a court is not necessary and that a SS could deport you or Ilhan with no such determination and just a declaration of that.
You argue that because you lack intelligence.
NO, a SS would FIRST need a court determination that you or Ilhan did in fact get citizenship illegally and only stupid person argues against that.
Thus, carry on.
Watch everyone as Earl tries to run from this question that completely destroys his point and NEVER tries to explain how the SS can determine if he or Ilhan is illegal just by declaration and not utilizing any court process.
RUN EARL RUN...
The facts:
Former immigration judge and Center for Immigration Studies fellow Art Arthur told The National News Desk Omar’s citizenship status, as described in the “official narrative,” is tied to derivative citizenship through her father’s naturalization.
“So according to the official narrative, Ms. Omar was born in 1982,” Arthur said. He said she came to the United States at age 12 from a refugee camp in Kenya and that her father became a U.S. citizen in 2000.
Under the law at the time, Arthur said, if Omar was living with her father when he naturalized and she had a green card, she would have “automatically derived citizenship through him,” without filing paperwork. But if she was 18 or older when her father naturalized, Arthur said she would have had to file her own naturalization application and complete the naturalization process.
Poor Omar.
I forgot to tell Kewpie Doll Boy that another reason for ignoring him is that he is a moron.
I’m sure he knows that though.
Former immigration judge and Center for Immigration Studies fellow Art Arthur told The National News Desk Omar’s citizenship status, as described in the “official narrative,” is tied to derivative citizenship through her father’s naturalization.
“So according to the official narrative, Ms. Omar was born in 1982,” Arthur said. He said she came to the United States at age 12 from a refugee camp in Kenya and that her father became a U.S. citizen in 2000.
Under the law at the time, Arthur said, if Omar was living with her father when he naturalized and she had a green card, she would have “automatically derived citizenship through him,” without filing paperwork. But if she was 18 or older when her father naturalized, Arthur said she would have had to file her own naturalization application and complete the naturalization process.
Poor Omar.
I forgot to tell Kewpie Doll Boy that another reason for ignoring him is that he is a moron.
I’m sure he knows that though.
Last edited:
QP!
Verified User
Baby steps Earl... baby steps... you are so close that even an idiot should see the gap there. So we hold little hope for you but lets see if i can lead you to water. From your post;
"...if Omar was living with her father when he naturalized and she had a green card..."
"..But if she was 18 or older when her father naturalized.."
Common Earl, prove i do not have to hold your hand entirely through this and tell us what those "IF's" mean there and how one moves from "IF" to a determination where there is no "IF"?
If i say "IF Earl is illegal then the SS can deport him", what Earl, has to be done to establish that "IF".
We have faith in you Earl (not really
) that with your intellect you can bridge that gap.
Last edited:
Otra vez:
Yes, from what Prof. Turley said, it does not matter who committed the fraud for her, she got her citizenship fraudulently.
Past Campaign Finance and Tax Findings: In 2019, Minnesota campaign finance officials ruled that Omar had to pay a $500 fine and repay $3,500 for improper out-of-state travel spending. The review also noted that she had previously filed joint tax returns with a man she was not legally married to at the time.
Tax fraud. Financial fraud.
A fraudster, indeed.
Yes, from what Prof. Turley said, it does not matter who committed the fraud for her, she got her citizenship fraudulently.
Past Campaign Finance and Tax Findings: In 2019, Minnesota campaign finance officials ruled that Omar had to pay a $500 fine and repay $3,500 for improper out-of-state travel spending. The review also noted that she had previously filed joint tax returns with a man she was not legally married to at the time.
Tax fraud. Financial fraud.
A fraudster, indeed.
QP!
Verified User
OMG... Earl is using Prof Turley now as he is stupid and does not know what Prof Turley has EXPLICITLY said prior that destroys Earls argument...
Professor Jonathan Turley emphasizes that a federal court must make the final determination before a naturalized citizen can lose their citizenship. Under U.S. constitutional law, a Cabinet member—such as the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security—cannot unilaterally strip an individual of U.S. citizenship. [1, 2, 3]
When breaking down the legal process required for denaturalization, Turley and other legal experts emphasize the following strict procedural steps:
- The Court's Final Word: Turley has explicitly noted that "the courts will have the final word". For denaturalization to occur, the Department of Justice (DOJ) must file a civil or criminal lawsuit in an Article III federal district court. [1, 2, 3]
- High Burden of Proof: The government faces an exacting standard in court. It must present "clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence" of fraud or material misrepresentation to a federal judge before a citizenship certificate can be legally revoked. [1, 2, 3]
- Due Process and Removal: Only after a federal judge signs an order officially revoking a person's citizenship can the government place that individual into separate deportation or removal proceedings within the immigration court system. [1, 2]
In her dreams.
And so did 6 other rich and powerful men. Because no man can resist the putrid old hag. It was so very sexy when they ravished her (her words).
When there is a real sexual assault - the victim reports it to the police.
Broaderick did.
EEEEEEGENE waited 30 years then wrote a book about how sexy it would be to be ravaged by all these men.
Matt Dillon
Retardium User
It could be they're illegal aliens.
Walter, you're not unintelligent, just lacking in sense.
The Somalian invasion started after Clinton went over there and destabilized their country, numbnuts.
Nashville is home to a vibrant Somali community | Global City
globalcitymission.org
Last edited:
Your Communists have raped and murdered our system of justice.
New York is utterly lawless. Enemies of the party are imprisoned while party members are immune to laws. Pretty much like North Korea.
Matt Dillon
Retardium User
Oh, cupcake, that stuff's been predetermined for a long time.OMG... Earl is using Prof Turley now as he is stupid and does not know what Prof Turley has EXPLICITLY said prior that destroys Earls argument...
Professor Jonathan Turley emphasizes that a federal court must make the final determination before a naturalized citizen can lose their citizenship. Under U.S. constitutional law, a Cabinet member—such as the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security—cannot unilaterally strip an individual of U.S. citizenship. [1, 2, 3]
When breaking down the legal process required for denaturalization, Turley and other legal experts emphasize the following strict procedural steps:
Ultimately, executive branch officials handle the underlying law enforcement investigation and the filing of the lawsuit, but the authority to strip citizenship rests solely with a federal judge, not a Secretary of State. [1, 2, 3]
- The Court's Final Word: Turley has explicitly noted that "the courts will have the final word". For denaturalization to occur, the Department of Justice (DOJ) must file a civil or criminal lawsuit in an Article III federal district court. [1, 2, 3]
- High Burden of Proof: The government faces an exacting standard in court. It must present "clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence" of fraud or material misrepresentation to a federal judge before a citizenship certificate can be legally revoked. [1, 2, 3]
- Due Process and Removal: Only after a federal judge signs an order officially revoking a person's citizenship can the government place that individual into separate deportation or removal proceedings within the immigration court system. [1, 2]
Congress passed something that does that. The S.O.S. absolutely can do that, and according to The Constitution, too.
Federal Judges can kick rocks; That's not in their wheelhouse. No.
QP!
Verified User
Why the thumbs down to that post Matt?OMG... Earl is using Prof Turley now as he is stupid and does not know what Prof Turley has EXPLICITLY said prior that destroys Earls argument...
Professor Jonathan Turley emphasizes that a federal court must make the final determination before a naturalized citizen can lose their citizenship. Under U.S. constitutional law, a Cabinet member—such as the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security—cannot unilaterally strip an individual of U.S. citizenship. [1, 2, 3]
When breaking down the legal process required for denaturalization, Turley and other legal experts emphasize the following strict procedural steps:
Ultimately, executive branch officials handle the underlying law enforcement investigation and the filing of the lawsuit, but the authority to strip citizenship rests solely with a federal judge, not a Secretary of State. [1, 2, 3]
- The Court's Final Word: Turley has explicitly noted that "the courts will have the final word". For denaturalization to occur, the Department of Justice (DOJ) must file a civil or criminal lawsuit in an Article III federal district court. [1, 2, 3]
- High Burden of Proof: The government faces an exacting standard in court. It must present "clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence" of fraud or material misrepresentation to a federal judge before a citizenship certificate can be legally revoked. [1, 2, 3]
- Due Process and Removal: Only after a federal judge signs an order officially revoking a person's citizenship can the government place that individual into separate deportation or removal proceedings within the immigration court system. [1, 2]
I am only quoting Prof Turley. Those are not my points.
@Earl actually thought using Prof Turley to try and support his point helped him when it is the exact opposite and Prof Turley has explicitly said how very difficult the court process would be to remove Ilhan or any citizen accused of being in the US illegally. That no SS could just declare it and then do it.
This was an epic level citation fail, in using Turley, to the levels we usually only see with @T. A. Gardner who often provides citations that destroy his arguments while dumbly thinking they help him.