Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) could lose her U.S. citizenship and face criminal charges as two separate federal investigations swirl around the Minnesota congresswoman, and a former immigration judge just explained exactly how bad it could get.
Nathan Hansen, a veteran attorney with 23 years of experience who was appointed to the immigration bench by former Attorney General Pam Bondi and served four months as an immigration judge, told Fox News Digital that denaturalization is very much on the table, though it would require its own civil proceeding separate from any criminal case. Investigators are reportedly looking at whether Omar or her late father provided fraudulent information during the original citizenship process. Federal agents reportedly raided Omar’s Washington, D.C., home on October 12, seizing her passport, cellphone, and computer. Authorities have also reportedly obtained her DNA.
Hansen was careful to note that a criminal conviction alone wouldn’t automatically cost Omar her citizenship. “If somebody who’s a naturalized citizen, which I believe Ilhan Omar is, is convicted of a crime, that doesn’t automatically mean that they face denaturalization or anything like that,” he said. “They would be handled by any type of other normal punishment that would come from the court.” So she can breathe easy on that one, for now.
But here’s where it gets more interesting. Hansen said the government could still pursue a completely separate civil denaturalization proceeding. Ilhan Omar immigration fraud investigation “A denaturalization proceeding, or somebody to strip somebody of their naturalization, is another proceeding, which would be a civil proceeding brought by the Department of Justice, presumably maybe on behalf of the Department for Homeland Security, who handles most of these things,” he explained. And if prosecutors can tie the alleged fraud directly to how Omar obtained citizenship in the first place, Hansen said that connection would make denaturalization more likely.
There’s also the question of whether the statute of limitations has run out on any older alleged misconduct. Hansen isn’t worried about that argument, though. “My view of that is generally that fraud stops any statute of limitations. In other words, if something isn’t disclosed or something’s hidden, then it would be unfair to the other party to toll a statute of limitations against them,” he said. “That’s just sort of a general principle of law.” Whether that principle holds up in court will depend on the specific charges and applicable federal law, but it’s not the easy escape Democrats might be hoping for.
The second investigation involves Omar’s financial disclosures, which apparently showed a dramatic swing in reported assets over a single year. Nothing to see here, folks. Just a congresswoman who claimed to be broke one moment and then, well, wasn’t.
Hansen also used the interview to describe the broader immigration disaster he witnessed on the bench, including a backlog of 20,000 to 30,000 pending removal cases in Minnesota alone with no scheduled court dates. He said he personally saw asylum applications that “just totally didn’t add up” and supporting documents that were “clearly fake.” One case that stuck with him involved someone who claimed asylum because people in their home country had insulted them. Hansen’s response was priceless: “Your country probably provides more protection against insults than the United States. In the United States, we have freedom of speech, and for the most part, you can be as rude as you want to someone and insult them, and it’s not a crime.”
Both investigations are ongoing. Whether the Justice Department pursues criminal charges, a civil denaturalization case, or both will ultimately be a discretionary call from the people running DOJ. Given that those people are no longer Obama-era appointees looking the other way, Omar might want to lawyer up, if she can afford it.
