Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) yesterday called for the denaturalization of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) after a controversial speech was uncovered in which she pledged to put Somalia first in Congress and her work. While I have been a long critic of Omar, her views expressed in this speech are not only protected speech, but they are not a basis for denaturalization.
In the video, Rep. Omar is shown declaring that “We as Somalians we love each other. There are areas of friction that led us to kill each other, but in reality, we are an organized society — brother and sisters, people of the same blood.”
She then goes further into where their loyalties lie: “People who know they are Somalians first, Muslims second, who protect one another, come to each other’s aid and to the aid of other Muslims too.” She assures the audience that the U.S. government will “only do what Somalians in the U.S. tell them to do…They will do what we want and nothing else. They must follow our orders and that is how we will safeguard the interests of Somalia,” she said.
She further declares that “For as long as I am in the U.S. Congress, Somalia will never be in danger,” she said, telling Somalians to “sleep in comfort, knowing I am here to protect the interests of Somalia from inside the U.S. system.”
The speech has led to calls for expulsion from Congress and denaturalization. Neither would be appropriate, in my view.
The speech is clearly protected under the First Amendment. Omar is not advocating imminent violent or criminal conduct. She is expressing her personal priorities and loyalties. The omission of an expression of loyalty to the United States has left many irate and insulted. However, it is still protected speech. Indeed, burning an American flag and condemning America are protected forms of free expression.
Omar was born in Mogadishu, Somalia in 1982 and her family fled the country during the Somali Civil War. After living in refuge camps, the family was given asylum in the United States. The family would eventually move to Minnesota where Omar achieved the extraordinary distinction of becoming the first Somali-American legislator elected to Congress in 2017.
She has remained a controversial figure due to her statements on Israel and other subjects.
The growing calls for denaturalization are disconnected from governing constitutional and statutory standards.
The authority to denaturalize is implied in the language of Article I, Section 8, Clause 4:
“[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States…”
Denaturalization is largely based on the granting of citizenship based on fraudulent or false representations. In Johannessen v. United States, 225 U.S. 227, 241 (1912), the Court held that “[a]n alien has no moral nor constitutional right to retain the privileges of citizenship if, by false evidence or the like, an imposition has been practiced upon the court, without which the certificate of citizenship could not and would not have been issued.” A failure “to comply with any of these conditions renders the certification of citizenship ‘illegally procured,’ and naturalization that is unlawfully procured can be set aside.”
Others can condemn Rep. Omar’s comment, but they cannot strip away her citizenship due to her exercise of free speech.
The greatest disconnect in these calls is that Omar would be stripped of her citizenship for exercising the very right that defines us as citizens.
We are loyal Americans because we are bound by a type of covenant of faith in our Constitution, the commitment to each other that we will fight for the rights of our neighbors regardless of whether we agree with their values or views.
This country is not endangered by a lack of patriotism or even a lack of loyalty in others. It is threatened by allowing our anger to blind us to the denial of the very thing that defines us.
There is one thing that can be done. Someone can run against her in a primary or general election and defeat her. The First Amendment does not protect against view point discrimination by voters at the polls. That is its purpose.
This is a problem, we can lessen these questions of loyalty with the following changes to law and constitution. Limit. all Federal funded benefits and jobs to citizens only. Change naturalization rules. You must be a legal resident for 15 or more years to apply for citizenship. Must be a born citizen to vote in any election or hold federal government position. Ban dual citizenship. Make English our official language. Last, make refugee and asylum stays temporary 7 years max with provision for deportation of any non citizen for disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct. You are a Guest in my home behave accordingly.
Good luck amending the Constitution in the way you wish. /s
You are free to try to get that into law.
But the Truth is that we need to relax our immigration laws – not restriuct them further.
The US needs about 2M LEGAL immigrants per year to deal with demographic problems, if we do not have those – standard of living will decline.
The problem is that it does not matter what changes you make to the law, if the president can disregard those changes.
For a long time presidents of both parties have been law at enforcing immigration law.
But Obama by policy – just ignored SOME immigration law – he actually deported lots of people.
And Biden has trippled down on Obama’s lawlessness.
it does not matter what the law is if the president ignores it.
If we are discussing hypotheticals I have a different one.
Get rid of the entire lottery and assylum and refugee system Get rid of all limits.
Aside from vetting for criminals and terrorists get rid of all governments role in selecting immigrants.
Allow anyone into the country who wants – with a private sponsor.
But make that sponsorship have teeth. If the new immigrant can not support themselves – impose the cost on the sponsor and deport the immigrant.
Individuals can sponsor people. Churches can sponsor people, Greenpeace can sponsor people, Microsoft can sponsor people.
No limits, no national quotas, no lottery, just meaningful responsibility.
The Congress consistently puts corporations first. Biden is putting Ukraine and Israel first. They just don’t say the quiet part out loud. This country has become a land where part of the people are always looking to take away the rights of another part of the people. And it doesn’t matter if you’re on the right or the left. There’s plenty of fascism to go around.
Well said, anon.
I would suggest looking at public choice theory.
This is the economics of government and the economics of rent seeking.
Nearly everything that makes free markets work well functions the exact opposite in goverment.
Regardless there is only one way to diminish outside interests rent seeking in government – that is to reduce the power of government.
You can not rent power government does not have.
Professor, your sentiments are laudable. However, I am quite content to let DeSantis and others take their best shots at this openly avowed enemy of America. And if they win, and she is forced to pursue her legal remedies from outside of our borders, I will applaud, however much you may furrow your brow in disapproval. As has been said before, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
I’m aghast I tell ya! Aghast that most people are totally unaware of the America last populous that inhabits our hierarchy of government. My opinion is that no member of Congress should have dual citizenship with any other country. Omar must go but only with the other members that put any other Nations well being ahead of our own.
Agreed.
“The speech has led to calls for expulsion from Congress and denaturalization. Neither would be appropriate, in my view.” (JT)
I respectfully disagree.
Here is part of the naturalization “Oath of Allegiance” — an Allegiance that she swore to uphold:
“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”
Here is part of the House oath of office — a promise that she swore to act on:
“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.”
The fundamental issue here is *not* her right to free speech. The issue here is that the *content* of her speech, and her *actions*, contradict the two oaths that she promised to uphold.
Free speech is not a defense against fraud.
Please do not make the same mistakes those on the left make.
Fraud requires actual harm.
Is there anything in either Oath Omar has taken that precludes her from saying anything she wants ?
She swore to DO (or NOT DO) a bunch of things.
What has Omar DONE not said that is fraud or is in violation of those oaths.
Trump SAYS many things that if he LITTERALLY DID would be wrong or crimes.
We should take what Trump SAYS seriously – but not litterally.
As an example – no one though Trump meant Mexico would be sending a check for building the Wall.
Speaking of staring at goats:
“We as Somalians we love each other.” (Omar)
So much so that some 500,000 Somalians have been killed, over that past few decades, in a continuous sewer of ethnic and civil wars.
Not to mention the numbers of actual goats lost to, um, ‘lust’.
Again, Mr. Turley clearly demonstrates that the Law has become refuge for those who abuse the spirit of the Law. I seem to remember that the oath sworn by those being naturalized includes a promise to renounce prior national allegiance in favor of a new allegiance to United States. Obviously she expressed her intention to represent Somalia by using her status as a member of Congress. I am sick of the gamesmanship which has made the Law a joke…the laughingstock of the People. The day is coming when lawyers in expensive suits and judges in their black robes will be called upon to relinquish the tyrannical power they have crafted for themselves through manipulation of the Law.
One of the ironies of ‘Free Speech’ is that it is completely within one’s rights to disagree with ‘Free Speech’
The rule of law, conservative textualism, REQUIRE that we read the law NARROWLY with respect to government powers and BROADLY with respect to individual liberty.
Omars remarks are offensive, but within the law and her oath of office.
Steve King was stripped of his committee assignments.
Some speakers of speech are more free than others. Comes down to your Social Justice Score.
You know who your rulers are, by who you not allowed to judge,
In the meantime surveillance video shows Joe’s Illegal’s attacking NYPD officers. Several were later arrested and just as fast released. According to the report one has been arrested 3 times prior and released.
This is going to get a lot worse. Nice going Dems.
We are watching a slow motion train wreck on the left.
I’m hoping that at some point, Professor Turley would give us his opinion on the Laurence Fox decision in England. Wondering if this poses a threat to free speech across the pond.
I come from stock who survived the armpit of Europe and the slaughters of the 20th Century. They saw America as their salvation. They oved it dearly, and the opportunity it gave them for a new life. They lived long and prospered here. Personally, those of you who will live long enough to see this century through to its end will have to deal with this lot. Either throw off their oppressive cloaks, or suffer their divisive sociopolitical, economic, racial and gender ID agendas, and the detritus they leave behind. I’m done with it and leave it to my grandchildren who have been properly schooled as to what America should be to see her through.
What?
“The greatest disconnect in these calls is that Omar would be stripped of her citizenship for exercising the very right that defines us as citizens.
We are loyal Americans because we are bound by a type of covenant of faith in our Constitution, the commitment to each other that we will fight for the rights of our neighbors regardless of whether we agree with their values or views.”
I’m sorry, where, exactly, does omar show any commitment to anything outside of somalia? She is not a loyal American, she is effectively a somali agent. Now, if we could boot the somali agents and the israeli agents and the EU agents and the china agents from congress and the white house and have just loyal Americans, perhaps we would see some moral, ethical, and beneficial to Americans actions from our government.
DO NOT tell me that people like omar are what is defined as an American, DO NOT tell me she should be a US representative – she is clearly somali first, muslim second and the US is simply the host that parasite is feeding on. Wake UP.
Democrats and the media spent almost a decade concocting lie after lie about an imaginary allegiance between Trump and Putin. It was a total fairy tale.
We heard about it almost every day during his presidency. And it was all just a cynical strategy for power. Democrats have conditioned their voters to respond solely to emotion, not logic and reason. So they stoked and inflamed hatred in their voters for Trump to try to turn public opinion against him and help Democrats win back the House in ’18. They hoped Mueller and his gang of high priced, taxpayer funded Democrat lawyers would play along and manufacture a case for impeaching Trump to remove him. But Mueller failed to play their evil, cynical game. So they manufactured an impeachment case based on a phone call. A phone call to ask Ukraine to investigate Biden family corruption there. The impeachment was intended as a theatrical spectacle. They KNEW it would fail. They did not care. The goal was to damage Trump and prevent him from winning the ’20 election.
Their evil schemes worked.
Since Democrats are evil and grossly dishonorable people who only care about winning at all costs, then maybe Republicans should turn Omar into a treasonous villain (whether she deserves it or not) to stoke the hatred of their voters. Accuse her of treason every day. Endlessly investigate her ties to Somalia. Drag anybody close to her into court and force them to deplete their resources defending themselves. That’s how Demoncrats roll. What is the argument against it?
The difference, of course, is that Omar is on tape pledging her allegiance to a foreign country and bragging about how she will put that country’s interests above the interests of American taxpayers and voters who elected her to represent THEIR interests. Where Democrats and their evil media pundits just made up lies about Trump’s allegiance to Russia and Putin.
She has declared that she is doing work for Somalia. Shouldn’t she have to register as a foreign agent?
Some of our greatest fopunding fathers held offensive views – Jefferson, Madison and Washington owned slaves.
Yes, people like Omar define an american.
Should she be a representative ? I do not think so, but the people of michigan say otherwise.
Just as the people of the US elected Wachington, Jefferson and Madison as president.
I think they are great men and great presidents.
I think they are what it means to be american.
They are also deeply flawed.
Trump is deeply flawed – he was a very good president.
Biden is deeply flawed – he is an abysmal president.
From what I understand about Islamic teaching is that one is forbidden to hold allegiance to anything other than the faith.
I noticed the disconnect of her professed faith, and her words and action.
Christianity, calls for putting Christ first before all others.
Mohammad just applies a penalty of death for not putting Allah first.
I respect all faiths. But I do notice when their words and deeds are in conflict.
We can not convert the conflivting duties of groups we claim allegiance to as violations of the oath of office or citizenship.
You have to ACT to violate those oaths. Speech is not sufficient, competing promises is not sufficient.
I agree, but as she is a U.S. member of Congress It was a violation of her congressional oath and she can be censured or expelled from Congress.
When she ACTS out the words she spoke you can remove her.
“brothers and sisters, people of the same blood”. Isn’t this “echoing Hitler”? Shouldn’t she be removed from the ballot? Call Marc Elias.
She’ll now become even more popular with her liberal Minneapolis base.
Also, as to “neither would be appropriate,” the article never returns to discuss why her being expelled from Congress would be inappropriate. That is far from self-evident.
Why not ? Acts not words.
+100
She should be expelled and deported due to her immigration fraud and marriage fraud.
.
Also, there is no constitutional right of free expression. It is free speech, as defined when enacted. Just another case of the Federal Judiciary overstepping its responsibilities and imposing “legislation”.
Her sham marriage is not grounds for expulsion from Congress, because it happened (long) before the current term. And it’s certainly not grounds for deportation, since she is a US citizen. The Supreme Court has been very very clear that US citizenship, once validly obtained, cannot ever be lost involuntarily. The 14th amendment forbids it. There is no such thing as “denaturalization”; either someone was never a citizen and was just pretending to be one, in which case nothing needs to be done to “denaturalize” them, or they were a citizen, in which case they still are one.
@Millhouse…
Not sure about immigration laws… but fraud on her immigration form would be enough to get her citizenship revoked.
And that would force her to be expelled from Congress.
So if you can prove that allegation to be true… it would be enough to revoke citizenship, expel her not just from congress, but also the US and back to Africa.
But the catch is that you need to prove the allegations.
-G
Regarding immigration fraud: Omar was apparently a minor (13 or 14 yo) when she and members of her family were granted refugee-based citizenship. I very much doubt that she completed and signed her own immigration forms; even if she had, as a minor I also doubt that she could be held responsible for oaths, errors, and/or omissions as an adult would be. I despise her positions, and I would be more than happy to see revmoved from Congress by eny legitimate means, after requisite due process, or a forthcoming election. However, I am taken aback by the irrational haters, their knee-jerk reactions, and their eagerness to rescind Consitutional and lawful guarantees for anyone with whom they disagree. To me, they are just as much enemies of the Constitution and a lawful society as is Omar.
“Omar was apparently a minor (13 or 14 yo) [sic] . . .”
You’re conflating when she immigrated with when she took the citizenship (and House) oath.
No, he isn’t. There is no suggestion that she committed any fraud in her naturalization. And that is the only thing that matters.
That would have to be fraud on HER immigration form – not that of her brother/husband.
Fraud on HIS immigration form can get her expelled from congress.
No you do not have to prove the allegation – Santos was expelled without any conviction.
We should not have done that – but we did.
That is not a defense of Santos, only an assertion that congress should wait for conviction before expelling.
Mostly correct. We just explelled Santos for allegedly illegal conduct prior to his term.
Many waid that was an error – I agree, but it happened.
We have “denaturalized” Nazi prison guards who lied on their applications.
They were not pretending to be citizens – they truly wanted to be.
So much so that they lied to get to be.
As I understand it Santos was expelled for his conduct after the election, not for what he did before.
And the nazis were pretending to be citizens. Their naturalizations were obtained by fraud, so they were never valid in the first place. It was exactly as if they had simply claimed to have been naturalized without ever doing it, or as if they had been “naturalized” by an impostor who was not actually an official authorized to do so.
“Denaturalization” is a very misleading term, that should never be used because it doesn’t mean what it sounds like. When someone is discovered to be practicing law without a license we don’t disbar him, because he was never barred in the first place.
PS: There’s no evidence of immigration fraud; it’s simply the most reasonable explanation for the sham marriage. But being a reasonable explanation is not evidence.
But assuming that it is true, that doesn’t help the case for deportation. She’s still a citizen, and that can’t be revoked no matter how much fraud she commits.
She lied when she said this: “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.”
Her citizenship is based on a false pretense and YES it can be revoked:
In general, a person is subject to revocation of naturalization on the following grounds:
A. Person Procures Naturalization Illegally
A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if he or she procured naturalization illegally. Procuring naturalization illegally simply means that the person was not eligible for naturalization in the first place. Accordingly, any eligibility requirement for naturalization that was not met can form the basis for an action to revoke the naturalization of a person. This includes the requirements of residence, physical presence, lawful admission for permanent residence, good moral character, and attachment to the U.S. Constitution.[1]
Discovery that a person failed to comply with any of the requirements for naturalization at the time the person became a U.S. citizen renders his or her naturalization illegally procured. This applies even if the person is innocent of any willful deception or misrepresentation.[2]
B. Concealment of Material Fact or Willful Misrepresentation[3]
1. Concealment of Material Fact or Willful Misrepresentation
A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if there is deliberate deceit on the part of the person in misrepresenting or failing to disclose a material fact or facts on his or her naturalization application and subsequent examination.
In general, a person is subject to revocation of naturalization on this basis if:
The naturalized U.S. citizen misrepresented or concealed some fact;
The misrepresentation or concealment was willful;
The misrepresented or concealed fact or facts were material; and
The naturalized U.S. citizen procured citizenship as a result of the misrepresentation or concealment.[4]
This ground of revocation includes omissions as well as affirmative misrepresentations. The misrepresentations can be oral testimony provided during the naturalization interview or can include information contained on the application submitted by the applicant. The courts determine whether the misrepresented or concealed fact or facts were material. The test for materiality is whether the misrepresentations or concealment had a tendency to affect the decision. It is not necessary that the information, if disclosed, would have precluded naturalization.[5]
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.
C. Other than Honorable Discharge before Five Years of Honorable Service after Naturalization
A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if:
The person became a U.S. citizen through naturalization on the basis of honorable service in the U.S. armed forces;[8]
The person subsequently separates from the U.S. armed forces under other than honorable conditions; and
The other than honorable discharge occurs before the person has served honorably for a period or periods aggregating at least five years.[9]
@milhouse
I wrote my comment above before reading this.
You’re wrong. If you can show that they committed fraud during their immigration… you can revoke citizenship.
There’s a couple of cases, like a certain Pole who lived in Cleveland that turned out to be a Nazi.
He was in his 80’s when he was expelled.
You’re wrong. The nazis were deported because they were ineligible for naturalization, and obtained it only by fraud, so they were never validly naturalized in the first place. There is no suggestion of any fraud in Omar’s naturalization. She was validly naturalized. Therefore no crime she committed after that, including immigration fraud, can affect her citizenship.
What’s the evidence? The fact of her sham marriage doesn’t tell us why she did it. That the purpose was immigration fraud is just a reasonable guess.
Oops, that was meant to be a reply to John Say’s comment just below.
No, it doesn’t clash, but even if it did, an oath doesn’t retroactively become perjury just because you change your mind later. You can’t possibly know what she was thinking when she took the oath, way back when she was 18.
And yes, she does have the freedom to serve two masters; that’s what dual citizenship is, and we have had that since the USA started. There’s nothing the USA can do to prevent it, so it has to deal with it.
LEts stop making the same arguments the left makes.
There is no “proof” of immigration fraud – there is evidence.
I would note that even proof is not binary – it is just a word that indicates conclusion more than evidence does.
There is evidence of immigration fraud.
Whether there is proof is a different quesiton.
There is massive evidence of Biden syndicate corruption.
Whether that is proof depends on your standard of proof.
The immigration and marraige fraud are AFTER the was naturalized.
They are a crime, not a basis to deport.
It seems her allegiance to Somalia clashes with her “oath of allegiance “ to the U S….Yes, she has freedom of speech but not freedom to serve two masters.
And this is why we all cannot get along. Sadly, the days of immigration are gone.
He’s right you know. The best course would be for her constituents to remove her from office, but that will likely never happen. And all this furor is making that more unlikely. Just think of the impact of the Trump indictments
Can’t Congress itself boot her out like it did with Santos?
It could for the speech, if two thirds of the house thinks that’s appropriate. But not for the fake marriage. And if she were expelled she could simply run again in the special election and she’s be very likely to win. Then she couldn’t be expelled again.