Happy Wednesday, all! Another awesome post from Stephen!!! Thank you, Stephen. As always.
Recently, at a campaign rally for Pres. Trump, members of the audience in reference to a certain congresswoman, Rep. Ilhan Omar, chanted “Send her back”. This was immediately followed by the expected ubiquitous leftist cries of “racists” and “orange man bad” comments from the usual suspects.
Followed, just as predictably with some apologists on the right acceding that it was rude, uncalled for, and they should not have done that, while other apologists stating that they really did not mean “send her back” literally but that it was merely a show of their collective disdain and loosely referencing a recent tweet from the president.
All of which to my mind called the natural question, “Could we actually send her back?” I mean, understanding that she is a thoroughly reprehensible, un-American, undesirable, but would it actually be legally possible and plausible to effect that which has been so flippantly suggested by those less educated in the law?
Rita Panahi, @RitaPanahi, opined, “Tend to agree, once you’re a citizen you’re entitled to be as anti-American as you like without fear of deportation. Ilhan Omar is protected by the first amendment just like every other American.”
It is this logical fallacy which tends reflexively to equate a “naturalized citizen” unequivocally with the “natural born citizen”, prompted the previous question to appear in my mind. These two things are not identical, there are differences both practical and real which are reflected in the legal standing of the two classes of citizen.
“A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if the person becomes a member of, or affiliated with, the Communist party, other totalitarian party, or terrorist organization within five years of his or her naturalization. In general, a person who is involved with such organizations cannot establish the naturalization requirements of having an attachment to the Constitution and of being well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.” https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-l-chapter-2
It would appear that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services disagrees with Rita’s assessment that any naturalized citizen is “entitled to be as anti-American” as they like. Contrary to Rita’s assertion the first amendment does not protect the naturalized citizen just like every other American as there are different limits to certain types of speech and actions of the naturalized citizen, specifically when it comes to being anti-American.
In this specific instance of Rep. Ilhan Omar, however, it would appear, on the surface, that this specific provision which so contradicts Ms. Panahi’s bold assertion does not apply to this case. Ms. Omar became a naturalized citizen in the Year of our Lord, 2000, at the age of 17. That being about nineteen years ago, it is well past the five year provision of the regulations of the USCIS, so it looks like she is in the clear.
Unlike the natural born citizen, every naturalized citizen is required to take the following oath: “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.” (Emphasis added.)
As with all regulation, one must understand that such regulation is merely the bureaucracy’s guidelines as to how they intend to attempt to implement the actual law according to their stated interpretation and that such regulation is not the law itself but merely the interpretation of the agency employees of the actual law. So what does the law actually say about the matter?
“. . . [N]o person shall hereafter be naturalized as a citizen of the United States . . . (1) who is [an anarchist] or (2) who is a [communist or member of any] other totalitarian party . . . [or] (3) . . . advocates the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship . . . .” 8 USC §1424. Prohibition upon the naturalization of persons opposed to government or law, or who favor totalitarian forms of government.
In light of this prohibition, it is only natural to look at the possibility of fraud in the applicant for naturalization as a grounds for revoking their granted citizenship, where a natural born citizen is not subject to having their citizenship revoked.
“If a person who shall have been naturalized . . . shall within five years . . . become a member of or affiliated with any organization . . . which at the time of naturalization would have precluded such person from naturalization . . . it shall be considered prima facie evidence that such person was not attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and was not well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States at the time of naturalization, and, in the absence of countervailing evidence, it shall be sufficient . . . as having been obtained by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation . . . .” 8 USC §1451(c).
I am always wary of the writing of a presumption or prima facie evidence, which is generally a judicial standard, into a legal codex. Just as it is unsavory for a judge to attempt to legislate from the bench, it is troubling when a legislator attempts to adjudicate from the gallery.
For those unfamiliar with law, such a prima facie case is merely the creation of a rebuttable presumption, a lazy shortcut to say that the prosecution has met their burden of proof and the ball is now in the defendant’s court, so to speak. It does not set the standard of proof, just states that if X occurs, then that is sufficient and the court need look no further.
The five year automatic presumption, in the hands of agency bureaucrats becomes an artificial litmus test so that if one joins such an organization after six years, the naturalized citizen is home free and the bureaucracy will not bother to pursue the matter.
In Omar’s situation, it has been nineteen, not five years, though many of her associations appear to go back to about the time she was graduating college in 2011, which would still have been over ten years from her naturalization. The further removed in time she becomes, the harder it would be to prove that she did not have such affinity towards the US at the time of becoming a citizen.
However, the law does not actually place a time limit upon such affiliation, just addresses the circumstance that such affiliation is evidence that one’s citizenship was obtained through the fraud of denying one’s political beliefs which would have otherwise disqualified the individual.
So, does Rep. Ilhan Omar have such connections to terrorist, communist, or anarchist groups? It has been shown that she does have some connections to such Muslim Brotherhood https://www.dailywire.com/news/45517/ilhan-omar-urges-release-jailed-muslim-brotherhood-ryan-saavedra, affiliated Islamic terrorist group al-Shabab and has advocated leniency for ISIS https://www.libertynation.com/rep-ilhan-omars-troubling-ties-to-extremism/, and CAIR https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/17/ilhan-omar-cair-fundraise/.
However, those affiliations are often fairly tenuous, through family members, fund raisers, and public appeals for legal leniencies, they are not so closely tied as to rise to the level of membership, though they are many and varied throughout her life and her close associates.
I’ll say that with what has come to light so far, there is no where near a sufficient amount of evidence to connect her directly to such anti-American organizations. After all, if you cannot connect CAIR sufficiently to Hamas, you cannot connect someone merely associating with CAIR to Hamas.
Now there are many out there who are attempting to connect Mrs. Omar to naturalization fraud due to some strong potential that she married her brother while married to another man in order to aid in her brother’s application for citizenship. (There are some unsavory and unwarranted allusions to an incestuous relationship, but I hardly believe such is either warranted, evidenced, or in good taste.)
However, even if she engaged in such fraud, it would not affect her citizenship status as the alleged fraud would only be related to his naturalization as she was already a citizen. While there may well be criminal activity associated with this, it would not legally affect her own citizenship.
Interestingly, the Congressional Oath of Office parallels the Oath of Allegiance for naturalization: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” https://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/the-congressional-oath-of-office/
This is not to say that there are not some serious questions regarding Ms. Omar’s citizenship status in addition to the affiliations touched upon in this post on the basis that she was not a refugee at the time she came to America as asserted. https://www.alipac.us/f9/ilhan-omar-u-s-illegally-serious-lawsuit-seeks-answer-372352/ Their questions relating to her actual age and her citizenship application. https://thirdrailtalk.com/evidence-of-ilhan-omar-citizenship-fraud/
The title to this post is phrased as a question, and many facts around this US Representative remain in question. There are those who say that her vote is merely one out of 435 representatives so what does it matter. The law has to matter.
