PETITION SEEKS DEPORTATION FOR ILHAN OMAR

WND ^ | 3/7/2019 | ADMIN

[bitt]

Minnesota congresswoman accused of violating immigration law

Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota, a Muslim and a newcomer to Congress, already is causing controversy, with a series of anti-Semitic comments, her defense of al-Qaida, her explosions at reporters and her alignment with an extreme left faction in the Democratic Party.

She’s already the target of a petition demanding her resignation.

Now, the Department of Homeland Security is being urged to investigate her and begin deportation or other removal proceedings.

The petition was submitted to DHS by former Justice Department prosecutor Larry Klayman, who this week added a demand that the House of Representatives “investigate, consider and take remedial action” on the issue.

The latest controversy was explained by Siraj Hashmi in a commentary in the Washington Examiner.

Hashmi said the Democrats face “a political crisis” with a handful of new lawmakers having drawn “the ire from both sides about their position on the U.S.’s relationship with Israel.”

Omar, along with fellow Muslim Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., were criticized for “remarks about Israel that were rooted in anti-Semitism.”

Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2019/03/petition-seeks-deportation-for-ilhan-omar/#Wt0mFVS5PqWXf1JA.99

[Liz]

Fat chance......they’d help her and give directions to the Republic cloak room.

[Candor7]

Deport her and her fake marriage to her brother to gain entry ,into the dust bin of history

[philman_36]

Yea and what is 'petitioning' the DHS?

See 1st Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom of Petition Overview October 10, 2002
Although a petition is only as meaningful as its response, the petitioning right allows blocs of public interests to form, harnessing voting power in ways that effect change. The right to petition allows citizens to focus government attention on unresolved ills; provide information to elected leaders about unpopular policies; expose misconduct, waste, corruption, and incompetence; and vent popular frustrations without endangering the public order.

[philman_36]

The only way to loose your citizenship is if you committed fraud in obtaining it or if you willfully renounce it.

Since we're talking about an alien to whom citizenship has been granted...
Volume 12 – Citizenship & Naturalization, Part L – Revocation of Naturalization
Chapter 2 – Grounds for Revocation of Naturalization
2. Membership or Affiliation with Certain Organizations
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. [6] 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. [7]
The fact that a person becomes involved with such an organization within five years after the date of naturalization is prima facie evidence that he or she concealed or willfully misrepresented material evidence that would have prevented the person’s naturalization.

Would you care to revise your previous assertion?

[metmom]

She has spoken about being bullied for wearing a hijab during her time in Virginia, recalling classmates sticking gum on it, pushing her down stairs, and jumping her when changing for gym class.[9] Omar remembers her father’s reaction to these incidents, “They are doing something to you because they feel threatened in some way by your existence.

I call BS.

[Does so]

Depending on how USA defines its enemies, Rep. Ilhan Omar, previously as a state lawmaker, allegedly gave comfort to enemies of the USA.

One could say the same thing about the Congresswoman from Idaho who voted AGAINST declaring war on Japan in 1941.

[mabarker1]

I say LOCK her UP at Gitmo until a Firing Squad is formed then Clean up the rest of them the same way.

[Chode]

wonder if it's related to this one?

[Amendment10]

"One could say the same thing about the Congresswoman from Idaho who voted AGAINST declaring war on Japan in 1941."

Yes, the intent of these people needs to be considered imo.

Regarding Section 3 of 14th Amendment (14A), my main concerns about Rep. Omar is not only her asking the judge for compassion for the men who had planned to join ISIS, but also the note in this thread about her support for al-Qaida.

Both ISIS and al-Qaida arguably have “representative" in Congress with Rep. Omar. And I think that it was the intent of the drafters of Section 3 of 14A to prevent situations like this.

[Carriage Hill]

✔

[BuffaloJack]

The whore married her own brother. That’s incest. It’s also grounds for perjury for lying on her immigration papers. She needs to have her citizenship revoked and then get deported.

[bitt]

sing it, brother!

[bitt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h5iv6sECGU

take a look at thi:’’Who is behind AOC”

tweeters: please place this all over..

[usurper]

Would you care to revise your previous assertion?

Thanks for posting some interesting info. However I don't see how it would apply in this case.

No one is claiming she is removable for an affiliation with the communist party. Whats at issue here is can she be striped of citizenship for immigration fraud not related to HER entry as a legal immigrant and subsequent naturalization.

There is no special provision for immigration fraud that I can find. It would be treated as any other crime committed by a naturalized citizen. Prison time sure, but its not something that can strip you of citizenship.

I have never heard of someone being striped of citizenship for crimes committed after naturalization.

So I am unable to revise my previous assertion.

[philman_36]

The only way to loose your citizenship is if you committed fraud in obtaining it or if you willfully renounce it.

Your use of "only" was what I was addressing, nothing more.

[philman_36]

Volume 8 – Admissibility, Part J – Fraud and Willful Misrepresentation
Chapter 2 – Overview of Fraud and Willful Misrepresentation
Additionally, misrepresentation of a material fact may lead to other adverse immigration consequences. For example, if the beneficiary commits marriage fraud, it may have adverse immigration consequences for both the petitioner and the beneficiary.

[usurper]

It may have adverse immigration consequences for both the petitioner and the beneficiary.

LOL we are in agreement but talking past each other.

In this case adverse immigration consequences would refer to a lawfully admitted permanent resident fraudulently petitioning for a wife or husband.

Such a person could face criminal prosecution and or deportation but it would probably require an actual conviction to result in a removal. A US citizen can't face adverse administrative immigration consequences (removal) because they are not aliens and not subject administrative immigration proceedings.

Again US citizens are still on the hook for any criminal violations.

The law makes little distinction between a natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen. That is why the dems are always pushing for an automatic path for illegal aliens to obtain US citizenship, they don't want their voters removed for any reason.

Good discussion thanks.

[philman_36]

The law makes little distinction between a natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen.
Which law?

[philman_36]

The law makes little distinction between a natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen.
Are you talking about Title/USC 8?

[philman_36]

A US citizen can't face adverse administrative immigration consequences (removal) because they are not aliens and not subject administrative immigration proceedings.
A naturalized U. S. citizen sure as hell can be removed and they in fact are subject to immigration proceedings if fraud was committed after they have been granted citizenship.

The very link I provided above disproves your assertion.
Here is another...
Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
CHAPTER 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
SUBCHAPTER III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
Part II - Nationality Through Naturalization
Sec. 1451 - Revocation of naturalization

(a) Concealment of material evidence; refusal to testify
It shall be the duty of the United States attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any district court of the United States in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing suit, for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground that such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured or were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation, and such revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such person to citizenship and such canceling of certificate of naturalization shall be effective as of the original date of the order and certificate, respectively: Provided, That refusal on the part of a naturalized citizen within a period of ten years following his naturalization to testify as a witness in any proceeding before a congressional committee concerning his subversive activities, in a case where such person has been convicted of contempt for such refusal, shall be held to constitute a ground for revocation of such person's naturalization under this subsection as having been procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation. If the naturalized citizen does not reside in any judicial district in the United States at the time of bringing such suit, the proceedings may be instituted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or in the United States district court in the judicial district in which such person last had his residence.

Just saying something "is so" won't work. Show me "the law" itself that supports your argument.