Connect with us

Nation

Rep. Ilhan Omar wants to create a ‘pathway to citizenship’ for all illegal immigrants

Published

on

ilhan omar d mn

Rep. Ilhan Omar says the Biden Administration “must create a pathway to citizenship for all undocumented people living” in the United States. Omar’s stance isn’t surprising. She is a far leftest congressional member that has been repeatedly accused by opponents of being anti-Semitic and her push to support extreme immigration agendas is highly politically motivated. If not, calculated.

Omer met with CHIRLA activists that have fasted for five plus days to draw attention to their demands. According to its Twitter account “CHIRLA was formed in 1986 to advance the human and civil rights of immigrants and refugees. Educate, Organize, & Advocate.”

“Met with activists with @Chirla, who have been fasting for days to push for a pathway to citizenship,” Omar said in a tweet. “Immigrants get the job done.”

It’s hard to believe that Omar doesn’t realize there is already a legal pathway to citizenship. In fact, her family, as did mine and many others, have benefited from this great immigration system. There is no doubt that immigrants “get the job done.” They have done so since the founding of this nation but that doesn’t mean the United States has to give every undocumented person who entered the nation illegally citizenship. After all, their first act in the U.S. was to break the law.

Making matters worse, it’s the Democrats failed border policies that have led many of these immigrants to not only break the law, but to put their lives in danger on the journey to the U.S. border with Mexico.

It is true that we are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a sovereign nation of laws and those immigrants who came here legally and abided by the process under this.

You can follow Sara A. Carter on Twitter @SaraCarterDC

Continue Reading

Elections

BREAKING: Trump ordered to pay over $350M, barred from operating his business in NY in civil fraud case ruling

Published

on

Former President Donald Trump and his business empire faced a significant setback as a New York judge ruled against them in a civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The 92-page ruling, handed down by Judge Arthur Engoron, barred Trump from operating his business in New York for three years and imposed over $350 million in damages.

The case, which unfolded over months of trial proceedings, stemmed from allegations that Trump inflated his assets and engaged in fraudulent practices. Engoron’s ruling cited a litany of charges, including persistent fraud, falsifying records, issuing false financial statements, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

Moreover, the judge imposed restrictions on key figures within the Trump Organization, including Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, barring them from serving in certain corporate roles in New York for a specified period.

Engoron’s scathing assessment of Trump’s testimony during the trial further undermined the former president’s credibility. The judge criticized Trump for evasive responses and irrelevant digressions, highlighting the detrimental effect on his credibility.

In response to the ruling, Trump’s attorney, Christopher Kise, lambasted the court’s decision, alleging political bias and a disregard for established legal principles. Kise argued that the evidence presented during the trial failed to support the allegations of fraud and emphasized Trump’s substantial net worth.

Kise’s assertions were echoed by Alina Habba, another attorney representing Trump, who denounced the verdict as a “manifest injustice” resulting from a politically motivated witch hunt.

Throughout the proceedings, Trump consistently dismissed the trial as politically motivated, accusing both Engoron and James of partisan bias. His legal team also criticized the absence of a jury in the trial, questioning the fairness of the proceedings.

Attorney General Letitia James, who spearheaded the lawsuit against Trump and his organization, portrayed the ruling as a victory for accountability and transparency in business practices. The lawsuit alleged fraudulent conduct and sought substantial financial penalties, a portion of which would contribute to the state treasury.

The fallout from the case extends beyond Trump and his business interests, with implications for the broader business community and the rule of law. The contentious nature of the trial and its outcome underscored deep divisions and raised questions about the integrity of the legal system.

Trump vows to appeal the decision.

Continue Reading

Trending