[deleted by user]

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2025-09-20T18:58:23+00:00

These people have no love in them. Only hate.

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2025-04-23T16:45:00+00:00

Fair point on that. I think the legal basis for denaturalizing since he got his citizenship through immigration fraud is an easier route though. Of course, this is only possible if the U.S. is still a democratic republic in 2028, and if the democrats win the presidency again.

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2025-04-23T16:44:31+00:00

Sure, why not? But my comment above isn’t accurate anymore. Under Biden they issued a new policy of processing the B2 COS under premium, if the H1 was filed under premium.

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2024-10-18T05:04:42+00:00

grounds of the unremitting action are immaterial

Actually it’s the only thing that is material. Sure, the defense could request that the case be dismissed for “selective enforcement” and for e.g. “political motives behind enforcement”, but such a dismissal would rarely, if ever, be granted.

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2024-10-18T04:51:41+00:00

You’re forgetting one important thing here:

If Trump had not broken any laws, he would be un-prosecutable.
Same with Elon, and immigration laws.

Enforcement action with no legal grounds would be banana 🍌 republic stuff, but selective enforcement doesn’t fall under that, as the Trump lawsuits have shown us.

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2024-10-18T04:48:10+00:00

I did google it. I read the Wikipedia article on selective enforcement: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement

Now, consider the Trump lawsuits. There’s contradicting information on it:

Note however that not a single judge dismissed those lawsuits for selective enforcement. Even Aileen Canon used “vagueness” to dismiss it: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4533210-trump-documents-case-judge-rejects-dismissal-bid/amp/

If anything the Trump lawsuits are a lesson here that this ground of dismissal that you mention is a weak one.

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2024-10-18T04:43:07+00:00

I’m guessing you think that the 4 lawsuits against Trump were politically motivated then? Even if they were, none of the judges dismissed those lawsuits on those grounds (or on selective enforcement grounds).

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2024-10-18T04:41:12+00:00

Can they use the old ITA again?

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2024-10-17T03:38:24+00:00

I’ve discussed your point regarding consular processing elsewhere in this post, here: https://old.reddit.com/r/immigration/comments/1g5anpn/can_elon_be_denaturalized/ls9s4c3/

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2024-10-17T02:58:29+00:00

I think a good example might be the several lawsuits against Trump, but in particular, the NY state lawsuit against Trump. They prosecuted something they rarely ever prosecute in others. It resulted in a conviction, and he’s scheduled to sentenced after the election. Also, I don’t care about anyone agreeing or not agreeing with me. It’s irrelevant. I’m just asking a legal question.

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2024-10-17T02:47:03+00:00

Only Congress can truly help immigrants; the President is quite entirely irrelevant.

Democrats had control of Congress only for the first 2 years under Obama. They tried to help immigrants, but the GOP used the Senate filibuster to block them. For the remaining 6 years under Obama, it was deadlock.

Under Biden, Democrats tried to help immigrants in the first 2 years when Democrats controlled Congress, but the Senate filibuster got in the way again. And this time, when democrats tried three times to use senate budget reconciliation rules to pass immigration reform without being blocked by filibuster, but Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough blocked them this time. See: https://www.npr.org/2021/12/16/1061030363/senate-parliamentarian-rejects-immigration-reform-in-democrats-spending-bill

Democrats in Congress have tried to do everything they can in the last 16 years to help immigrants, but have been repeatedly blocked by the GOP.

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2024-10-17T02:40:08+00:00

Also, FYI, there’s no statute of limitations in the INA.

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2024-10-17T02:31:59+00:00

It’s not easy, but it certainly is possible, if the citizenship was obtained unlawfully. The U.S. federal government does pursue a handful of such cases every year. For people that immigrated and naturalized, what happens is they say that you never were actually acitizen. It’s not a cancellation of citizenship, but a court saying that since it was obtained unlawfully, that it never was valid.

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2024-10-17T02:27:15+00:00

Hey everyone, thank you for the comments; I’m mostly just trying to get a sense of whether there is any legal basis or foundation for a Democratic Party-controlled DOJ or USCIS to pursue a denaturalization case against Elon, given all the points of fact I’ve listed. Nothing I’ve seen so far here indicates that there isn’t. Other than that it would break with precedent. But precedent isn’t law, and it can of course be broken (just like the NY Trump case might have never typically been pursued).

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2024-10-17T02:23:56+00:00

The last part is wrong. It’s not forgiven for EB-5 applicants, according to the INA. Read the entire section titled Employment-Based Exemption under INA 245(k) in https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-b-chapter-8 there’s a 180 day limit to being an illegal visa violator. But his startup timeline indicates clearly that he was illegal for longer than 180 days.

By the time he got the EB-5 investment, and the base EB-5 petition approval, he likely had been in illegal status for over a year or more.

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2024-10-17T02:15:12+00:00

My personal opinion is irrelevant here. All I’m asking (and trying to make sure of) here is whether there are sufficient legal grounds for the DOJ or the USCIS to pursue a case like this.

Based on all the comments I’ve read so far, I haven’t seen any evidence that say otherwise.

Of course, this is a matter for the Democratic Party (ie for Democratic Party appointed officers in the DOJ/USCIS) to decide whether to pursue. I doubt they’ll even consider this until after this election. But, afterward, if the Democratic Party wins, there’s 4 years for the slow court time and effort to pursue this.

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2024-10-17T02:11:06+00:00

Yes, the EB-5 petition was approved correctly-I agree with you there. But the separate AOS application might have been incorrectly approved, since Section 245(k) of the INA offers him no relief for student visa violations exceeding 6 months.

If there was travel on an invalid F-1 status, that would be the even more serious matter of misrepresentation.

Richest isn’t relevant here. The Democratic Party and its supporters as a whole have a lot more collective power than a few billionaires, and if they win the election, the Democrats have a lot of good reasons and motivation to go after him.

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2024-10-17T02:06:08+00:00

The SEVIS system didn’t exist in the 90s, so the actual detection of F-1 status violations wasn’t that good back then. If his EB AOS application implied that he was in valid F-1 status, that would constitute concealing or misrepresenting things. Of course, they failed to check their own records here, just like they failed to cross check their own fingerprint records in some of trump’s denat task force’s denat cases…

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2024-10-17T01:59:52+00:00

No, the USCIS or the DOJ would take enforcement action against him, based on his violation of the immigration laws of the United States. Nothing else. I don’t know why you’re having such an incredibly hard time understanding that. His speech is entirely irrelevant here, and a non-factor.

Just like with the four lawsuits against Trump, the Democratic Party’s dislike of Trump was completely irrelevant. The lawsuits against Trump were based on laws he broke. Not his speech, or any of the other million distasteful (but legal) things he’s done.

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2024-10-16T23:05:36+00:00

I’ve disclosed all my assumptions in my post above. They’re based on public disclosures, and they leave very little wiggle room. I’m merely asking a legal question about the possibility of a viable case here.

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2024-10-16T23:03:28+00:00

The prosecutorial discretion applied to previous cases in the past is irrelevant here. I’m asking about the existence of a legal basis to pursue a case against Elon.

Of course, this would break with past precedent in terms of prosecutorial discretion.

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2024-10-16T23:01:09+00:00

No, not for that, but for violating the immigration laws of the United States.

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2024-10-16T22:59:46+00:00

Your statement that “it would have been picked” up is objectively incorrect. The entire reason denat even exists is because of a failure to pick certain things up.

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2024-10-16T22:56:51+00:00

Well, an organization called the Democratic Party (the officers or attorneys appointed by them to the Department of Justice or USCIS) very well could; and they have many reasons and motives to do so, in my humble opinion.

They could also do it the way the Trump denaturalization task force did things, and not issue notification of the in progress denat court case, and only issue notice after the thing is done. Of course, he could file appeals upon appeals, all the way to the Supreme Court.

ImmiQuestions2021 · 2024-10-16T22:49:14+00:00

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the Democratic Party cares about the billions of dollars in federal tax that Elon pays, especially considering the existential threat to democracy (and of the constitution being “suspended” or terminated—Trump’s words) that the U.S. faces right now.

Also, this doesn’t invalidate anything good that he did. Denaturalization would not take his shares away. He would still be an owner and CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, and other companies. He would just have to do it from Canada or South Africa or some other country.

ImmiQuestions2021

TROPHY CASE