Ilhan Omar Appears In Court - Judge's Decision Stuns Everyone
A former immigration judge says the legal question at the center of the investigation into Rep. Ilhan Omar is whether records support her account of how she became a U.S. citizen.
Art Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, told The National News Desk that if evidence establishes Omar was 18 or older when her father became a citizen in 2000—and that she never naturalized independently—her citizenship claim could face a serious challenge.
Omar has said she derived citizenship through her father before turning 18. Arthur explained that someone who was already 18 would have needed to pursue naturalization on their own.
“If those conditions were proved,” Arthur said, “She never actually had citizenship to begin with.”
He said a court ruling against Omar’s claim could leave her with lawful permanent resident status, a different outcome from an immediate deportation order. That remains a hypothetical assessment; no court has ruled against Omar’s citizenship.
Arthur also cautioned against reaching conclusions before the evidence is presented.
“Never judge a case before you hear the evidence,” he said.
Federal agents searched Omar’s Washington residence on October 12. Reuters reported that investigators are examining whether Omar or members of her family provided false information during immigration and citizenship proceedings. The warrant identified conspiracy, immigration fraud and false statements as potential offenses under investigation, according to Reuters.
Omar arrived in the United States with her family in 1995 after fleeing Somalia’s civil war and living in Kenya. She denies wrongdoing and has described the investigation as political intimidation. The evidence used to obtain the search warrant has not been fully disclosed publicly.
A New York Post report published Monday added a new, unverified claim: sources told the newspaper that federal prosecutors had obtained DNA evidence and were weighing it alongside government records and information from whistleblowers. One source linked the genetic evidence to allegations concerning Omar’s 2009 marriage to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, whom critics have alleged is her brother. Omar has denied that allegation.
The Post did not publish laboratory findings establishing a family relationship, and its sources differed over how investigators obtained the material. The report also did not establish that the alleged DNA evidence proves fraud. Those are important limits: a report that investigators possess evidence is not the same as a public forensic result or a judicial finding.
The marriage allegation and the citizenship question also concern different events and legal issues. Evidence relating to one would have to be connected to the specific elements of any charge prosecutors pursue. The case will ultimately turn on records and admissible evidence—not political claims about what investigators may have found.
Omar’s attorneys have challenged the search as well as the investigation. The Associated Press reported that they asked for seized property to be returned and requested preservation of recordings made during the search. Her lawyers alleged that investigators failed to follow safeguards set by the judge who approved the warrant. The Justice Department denied those claims and said personnel complied with court orders and legal obligations.
The inquiry therefore faces scrutiny on two fronts: what the immigration records establish and whether investigators followed the rules governing the search. Omar’s public office does not exempt her from a lawful investigation, while the existence of an investigation does not establish that she committed a crime.