Is Ilhan Omar a U.S. Citizen?

AND WHO HAS “STANDING” TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH?

by Joseph DeMaio, ©2019

By Lorie Shaull – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=52090097

(Jul. 24, 2019) — Recently, the intrepid P&E Editor brought to your humble servant’s attention a post revisiting the question of whether Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) is constitutionally eligible to serve in the House of Representatives.   P&E readers will recall that a similar question was raised here with regard to the eligibility of Representative Tulsi Gabbard.

While Ms. Gabbard is one of the myriad Democrat candidates competing for the right to be crushed in the 2020 general election by President Trump, the issue raised in the prior post was that in addition to being ineligible to the presidency as failing the “natural born Citizen” criterion of Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution, she is also likely ineligible to serve in the House of Representatives.

All members of Congress are subject to the eligibility requirements of Art. 1, § 1, Cl. 2 of the Constitution.  That provision states: “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States….” (Emphasis added).  The issue with regard to Ms. Gabbard is whether because she was born in American Samoa and is by federal statute, therefore, a “U.S. national,” but not a U.S. “citizen,” she meets the eligibility requirements for both the presidency and the House of Representatives.  A substantial body of law indicates that she meets neither requirement.

If despite all of these warning flags, neither the House nor the Congress (nor, for that matter, the Supreme Court) does anything to address the situation and, by some hyper-cruel twist of fate, Gabbard (or, for that matter, Kamala Harris wins in 2020…, yikes… we will have elected our Third Usurper of the United States after Chester A. Arthur, # 1, and Barack Hussein Obama II, # 2.

Is this a great country, or what??!

The situation with Ms. Omar, on the other hand, is more complicated and different than Ms. Gabbard’s, because there is a growing body of evidence that not only is Omar not a “citizen” of the United States, her claim that she is a citizen may be based on fraud and the filing of false documents.   That is the suggestion of the post above brought to your humble servant’s attention by The P&E Editor.  Readers are encouraged to review that post prior to moving on through this offering, as it will put into perspective some of the comments to be made.

Back already?  OK, let us proceed.

First, as the Third Rail Talk post notes, her purported citizenship via “acquisition” is unavailable because neither of her parents were U.S. citizens at the time of her birth in Mogadishu, Somalia (date uncertain).  Moreover, her purported citizenship via her parents through “derivation” is also unavailable because in order for that avenue to apply, a foreign-born child must have turned age 18 on or after February 27, 2001.

Omar’s prior widely-published birthdate of October 4, 1981 was subsequently changed in various places to October 4, 1982 under extremely curious circumstances.  Perhaps Omar will post an image of her Somali birth certificate on the Internet, a tactic that has in the past been used by other usurp…. sorry…, politicians…, in an effort to “prove” their eligibility.  Using her prior documented birthdate of 1981 would mean that she turned 18 in 1999 and 19 one year later, in 2000, rendering her ineligible for derivation citizenship.

Finally, as for the formal naturalization path, under 8 U.S.C. § 1433 governing acquisition of citizenship for children born outside of the United States, Omar’s father would have had to have acquired his own U.S. naturalized citizenship prior to Ilhan Omar’s turning 18.  But because the Omar family arrived here in 1995, and since majority-aged Somali refugees were required to reside here for five years prior to applying for naturalization, her father could not have applied for (or legally received) naturalization for himself until 2000, after Ilhan Omar had herself attained majority.

Moreover, efforts to discover her purported “citizenship” status via the “normal” as opposed to “derivative” naturalization process have been rebuffed.  Federal privacy laws preclude the disclosure of naturalization information about persons other than the requestor absent that person’s permission.  For example, a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request for disclosure of Omar’s naturalization papers would be rejected absent her signing of a waiver of confidentiality. This is much like the looney basis interposed by the Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu when asked to confirm that Barack Hussein Obama II was born there, despite the fact that Obama himself has repeatedly waived any claim of privacy or confidentiality by publicly announcing that he was – purportedly – born there.

Second, the questions about Omar’s citizenship seem to be intertwined with evidence that she married her brother (how… progressive…) as part of a scheme to come to the United States from Somalia under the so-called “P-3 Family Reunification Plan” then being administered by the Department of State under the usurping regime of… wait for it… wait for it… Barack Hussein Obama II.

In this regard as well, the conservative watchdog entity Judicial Watch has just filed an ethics complaint against Omar raising many of these same issues.  The Judicial Watch complaint is compelling, well-crafted and worth reading in full.  It will be interesting to see what, if anything, will come of that complaint, now pending before the House Ethics Committee.  P&E readers’ alert: do not hold your breath for anything substantive from a committee organized and under the control of Nancy Pelosi, although given the feud between Pelosi and the “Squad,” don’t bet the farm that some sort of decision casting Omar in a negative light is impossible.

Third, it might well be that the only effective way of getting to the bottom of the question – Omar herself having no interest in searching out or securing the truth – would be for a candidate to challenge her in the next general election in 2020.  Such a candidate would clearly have “standing” to file suit and be able, through the discovery process, to demand that Omar produce proof of her claimed U.S. citizenship as a constitutional condition of running for that office.

That candidate, of course, would need to bring the action in a timely manner in order to avoid the result suffered by Alan Keyes in Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2011).  Back then, a number of persons – including Ambassador Alan Keyes, as a candidate for the presidency versus Barack Hussein Obama II – challenged Obama’s constitutional eligibility, but did so in an amended complaint filed after Obama was sworn in as the Second Usurper of the United States.

By then, the plaintiffs had missed the deadline for preserving any continuing “standing” to prove a “concrete injury in fact” to fend off a motion to dismiss the complaint, which is what happened.   The legal concept of “standing” – and the typical finding by a cowardly or complicit judiciary that it is “lacking” in a disfavored plaintiff – is the customary refuge of the Ninth Circuit.

Returning to the Omar likely usurpation, absent proof from Omar that she is, in fact, a U.S. citizen, by formal naturalization or otherwise, she would have no basis for claiming any right to be placed on the general election ballot or, for that matter, any right to fill out the remainder of any usurpation of the seat dedicated to Minnesota’s Fifth Congressional District.

The problem, of course, is finding a Republican candidate to go up against Omar in the general election.  And with the concentration of Somali “refugees” now occupying the neighborhoods in Minneapolis and the Fifth Congressional District in Minnesota, the notion of finding a Democrat willing to “step up” and challenge her in a primary election is, as we say, close to an absolute “non-starter.”

And, speaking of Republican challengers to Omar, happily, it appears that one is already on the horizon. Moreover, the fact that Ms. Danielle Stella is already being attacked by the left brings to mind the WWII phrase coined by bomber pilots flying over Germany: “If you’re taking flak, you’re over the target.”  We will watch with interest how her campaign progresses.

Long story short: the status of Omar as a purported U.S. citizen will remain, as she prefers, murky and unresolved unless and until she voluntarily provides proof of same.  As a committed founding member of the Squad, however, the likelihood of that happening in the near (or even distant) future is, shall we say, “remote.”  Thus, the other avenues explored above – the Judicial Watch ethics complaint and/or a court action by a challenger possessed of “standing” – would seem to be the most efficient ways of getting to the truth.

But if the truth of her actual citizenship status is the ultimate goal, do not seek it from Ilhan Omar or her leftist, radical apparatchiks.  Their interests lie elsewhere… like in dismantling the United States from within the halls of Congress.

 

 

3 Responses to "Is Ilhan Omar a U.S. Citizen?"

  1. Robert Laity   Friday, July 26, 2019 at 5:23 AM

    Omar is under investigation for “Illegal procurement of US Citizenship” and she has links to terrorism. Her father is in the US Illegally and is a Somalian Terrorist. Penalty for illegal procurement of US Citizenship is loss of the illegally procured citizenship and deportation. She may face imprisonment before she is deported.

  2. JONATHAN DAVID MOOERS   Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 10:34 AM

    First, “Thank You!” to Sharon and The P&E staff for KEEPING THE LIGHTS ON 08-28-09- TODAY as the world’s premier IN PLAIN SIGHT finger-tip-accessible website/archive for “EVERYTHING nbC” .

    Second, Nikita’s comment above is precisely what I was thinking recently: FOR nbC-VETTING, the Privacy Act et al should be thrown out the window. LET’S NO LONGER CONFUSE “INVASION OF PRIVACY” WITH “INFORMATION PIRACY”.

    Why?

    Because EVERY U.S. CITIZEN HAS AN INALIENABLE NATURAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT (got nbC?) TO KNOW, A PRACTICAL NEED (voting et al) TO KNOW AND A PATRIOTIC DUTY (LTC Lakin’s Thief-in-Chief inquiry, Sheriff Kits, petitions et al) TO KNOW THE FULL IDENTITY AND FULL LIFE HISTORY OF ANY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, AND ANY INCUMBENT PRESIDENT AND ANY EX-PRESIDENT AT ANY TIME.

    “Show me the IDFAX” like CARFAX!

    3. We now know the politically-saturated DNC and RNC will not honestly/Constitutionally vet their politically-preferred presIDential candIDates: REMEMBER 08-28-08 ! >>> https://canadafreepress.com/2009/williams091209.htm

    It is now evident that the U.S. Government works against We the Wee People in covering for one of their own when private folks on Main Street USA challenge the citizenship and eligibility of presidential candidates and Congressional candidates, such as undisclosed islamic infiltraitors, Obama and Omar: see attached P&E article

    What to do?

    A. Make and continuously maintain a list of all minimum required ID and life history elements to be SUBMITTED and VERIFIED and PUBLISHED for all presidential and Congressional candidates. This list to be filled-in by U.S. Government employees but SUPERVISED by PRIVATE (ELECTORAL COLLEGE?) CITIZENS (must have UNOBSTRUCTED Government + Private U.S.-citizen participation).

    B. No Privacy Act hide-behinds allowed for this list compilation due to maximum national security concerns.

    C. Consider all presIDential and Congressional candIDates to be “guilty” until proven “innocent”, in this most-important national security vetting exercise; like vetting “guilty” airline passengers before they all pass through security and enter the aircraft (in that case, all ticket-holders are considered “terrorists” until proven to be “passengers”).

    While we readers herein may blame the U.S. Government for holding public hearings to vet Supreme Court candidates, yet leave the most important presidential vetting as a backroom free-for-all, WE THE PEOPLE, the first three words of the U.S. Constitution, have only ourselves to blame for consenting to this sloppy presidential and Congressional vetting free-for-all today!

    Now, let’s all assume these above-steps are duly ratified and the public will now know EVERYTHING about presidential and Congressional candidates well before their voting begins.

    We can then all fight over another sloppy U.S. Government by-product: U.S. citizenship (anchor born, natural born, naturalized, U.S. national, illegal alien, issuing driver’s licenses to illegals to vote in sanctuary states (i.e., “U.S.-sanctuary citizens”), rights of convicted criminals running for office including fugitive-criminal Hillary RICO Clinton running for president et al)

    But on the “natural born Citizen” vetting, a vetting standard no lower than my own (MADE IN USA 1949), and Donald Trump’s, and UNAMENDED SINCE 1789, has always been and shall remain Constitutionally acceptable going forward: “NATURALLY BORN WITHIN A 100% IRREFUTABLE UNITED STATES JURISDICTION TO 100% IRREFUTABLE NATURAL OR DULY NATURALIZED UNITED STATES CITIZEN-PARENTS AT TIME OF BIRTH.” https://newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams296.htm

    Trump consented power + AG Barr consented power + The P&E archived nbC-knowledge:

    >REVOKE EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489

    >PARDON LTC TERRY LAKIN
    http://24.176.43.43/2019/00003591.mp4

    >ARREST PELOSI-OBAMA II, RELEASE AMERICA

  3. Nikita's_UN_Shoe   Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 10:16 PM

    My two cents: Privacy Act confidentiality should be judicially thrown-out the window by the U.S. Supreme Court if a person runs for any U.S. Constitution job, whether Article I, II, or III. These contestants for Articles I, II, and III should have an open book on their life story for all to see, including the warts. That would give standing to every voting U.S. citizen. If a politician should not want their laundry aired, they should not wash their clothes at the Washington D.C. laundromat.

    Now, concerning Tulsi Gabbard, here is my for-what-it’s-worth painting with a broad brush.

    From an article implying that the subject is an American Samoan national, I have extracted a partial paragraph and a full paragraph of text found within the article.

    Here is the website; https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/u-s-nationals-born-american-samoa-sue-citizenship-n860721

    Here is the partial paragraph extract: American Samoa, a U.S. territory since 1900, is a cluster of islands 2,600 miles southwest of Hawaii perpetually stuck in a legal loophole. People born in the territory are labeled U.S. nationals.

    Here is the full paragraph extract: Those born in the territory, however, can claim citizenship at birth if one of their parents is a U.S. citizen. The same generally holds true for children born abroad to Americans.

    Next, fix your attention on this U.S. government website: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-a-chapter-2

    Focus on the two following paragraphs from the USCIS website:

    1. First USCIS paragraph extract: Persons born in American Samoa and Swains Island are generally considered nationals but not citizens of the United States. [6]

    After reading the text, you may as well flip a coin. This information would be rejected in a technical manual, because it is not clear, concise, nor succinct. “generally considered” Come-on, give me a break with the innuendo and unclear verbiage. The previous paragraph is unclear, because it does not address whether the person born in American Samoa has parents that are both U.S. citizens, both nationals, or whether one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is a national.

    2. Second USCIS paragraph extract: In addition, persons who are born outside of the United States may be U.S. citizens at birth if one or both parents were U.S. citizens at their time of birth. Persons who are not U.S. citizens at birth may become U.S. citizens through naturalization. Naturalization is the conferring of U.S. citizenship after birth by any means whatsoever.

    Footnote [6] is no help. This INA 308 only provides information relative to nationals.

    Since I have more questions than answers, IF American Samoa is not considered “outside of the United States” AND if “Persons born in American Samoa and Swains Island are generally considered nationals but not citizens of the United States. [6]”, THEN Tulsi Gabbard was not born a (U.S.) citizen at birth.

    Clear it up, Tulsi Gabbard. Show us your birth certificate and/or proof of U.S. citizenship; else, you are a foreign national and a fraudulent Article I usurper.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.