Alan Dershowitz Says Ilhan Omar Citizenship Probe Could Raise 'Continuing Crime' Question

Federal agents searched Ilhan Omar's Washington, D.C., home and seized her mobile phone as part of a criminal inquiry into her immigration and citizenship records, and now Alan Dershowitz says the probe could raise a 'continuing crime' question if investigators conclude she repeatedly gave a false birth date.

The Harvard Law School professor emeritus has argued that such conduct, if proved, could affect whether prosecutors face statute-of-limitations barriers.

Speaking on NewsNation's On Balance, Dershowitz said repeated misrepresentations might carry legal consequences even if the original alleged misconduct occurred decades ago. His comments come as federal authorities examine the Minnesota congresswoman's immigration history and how she obtained US citizenship.

Omar denies wrongdoing and has not been charged with any offence.

Dershowitz Floats 'Continuing Crime' Theory on Time Limits

Dershowitz's central argument concerns whether repeated false statements could allow prosecutors to pursue allegations involving immigration records that might otherwise be too old to support criminal charges.

'If she continues to lie, if she continues to give her birth date wrongly, even though she did it in the past, and the past may be beyond the statute of limitations, this may constitute what's called a continuing crime,' he said. 'And so the statute of limitations may be satisfied.'

The statute of limitations generally restricts how long prosecutors have to bring criminal charges after an alleged offence. Certain offences, however, can be treated as continuing violations, potentially affecting when that period begins.

Under US Justice Department guidance, courts interpret continuing offences narrowly. Repeated allegedly false statements do not automatically establish a continuing crime, and whether that classification applies depends on the relevant federal statute and the nature of the alleged conduct.

Dershowitz's interpretation remains a legal theory rather than a confirmed prosecutorial position. Authorities have not publicly established that Omar repeatedly supplied false information or indicated that they are pursuing a continuing-offence argument.

The lawyer nevertheless suggested that investigators might possess information that has not been disclosed publicly.

'This is not the normal case of a judge just signing off,' Dershowitz said. 'And so I suspect there's a lot more than we now know publicly.'

His assessment went beyond the legal issues. Dershowitz also described Omar as 'a horrible, horrible human being' and said, 'And I hope she has to go to jail.'

Federal Inquiry Focuses on Immigration and Citizenship Records

The federal inquiry centres on allegations that Omar or her late father may have provided inaccurate information in immigration documents used to obtain legal status and eventually US citizenship.

Omar arrived in the United States from a Kenyan refugee camp in 1995 after her family fled Somalia's civil war. She became a US citizen in 2000.

Investigators are examining questions about her recorded birth date and information allegedly provided by her late father during the immigration process. Whether either submitted materially false information remains unproven.

According to NewsNation's reporting, federal prosecutors have issued more than 15 subpoenas, including to Omar's relatives. The figure was attributed to a source familiar with the criminal investigation.

The inquiry has also involved a search of Omar's Washington, D.C., home on 12 October. Federal agents seized her mobile phone, while grand jury subpoenas sought evidence relating to the immigration allegations.

Dershowitz suggested that the circumstances surrounding the search indicated that the investigation could be more substantial than publicly disclosed. However, the authorisation of a search warrant does not establish guilt or mean prosecutors have gathered sufficient evidence to bring charges.

Omar Rejects Claims as Earlier Federal Review Resurfaces

Omar has repeatedly denied allegations of immigration fraud and maintained that documents support her account of how she obtained citizenship.

Questions about her immigration history emerged publicly in 2019, when A.J. Kern, a former Minnesota congressional candidate who challenged Omar, raised allegations concerning her citizenship records.

Similar issues were examined by federal immigration officials during President Donald Trump's first administration. According to an account of that earlier review, Homeland Security Investigations found insufficient evidence of wrongdoing to justify pursuing a full investigation.

That review reportedly examined questions about Omar's birth date and her father's background, some of which have resurfaced in the current inquiry.

Omar's lawyers have also challenged the 12 October search of her residence, alleging that federal authorities failed to comply with judicial restrictions and demanding the return of seized property. The Justice Department has maintained that the search followed legal procedures.

The investigation comes as Omar, a Democrat representing Minnesota's 5th Congressional District, campaigns for a fifth term in the 3 November midterm elections. She has characterised the renewed scrutiny as politically motivated.

Dershowitz Flags Possible Citizenship Challenge if Fraud Is Proved

Beyond the possibility of criminal prosecution, Dershowitz suggested that Omar could face proceedings challenging her citizenship if investigators establish that it was obtained through fraud.

He argued that authorities would need evidence showing that Omar submitted false information or that inaccurate statements made on her behalf materially affected the citizenship process.

'We don't know how deep the trouble is. But at the very least, if it turns out that she lied or that her citizenship was obtained through fraud, whether it's her fraud or her father's fraud, she has great vulnerability to being denaturalized.'

Denaturalisation is a legal process through which citizenship obtained by naturalisation may be revoked under specified circumstances.

Any attempt to challenge Omar's citizenship would depend on how she acquired it, the applicable legal provisions and evidence establishing grounds for such action. Fraud alleged against a family member would not, by itself, automatically establish grounds to revoke her citizenship.

Criminal prosecution and proceedings challenging citizenship also involve different legal requirements. Dershowitz's argument about a continuing offence therefore does not establish that prosecutors could overcome every potential legal obstacle or that Omar would necessarily face denaturalisation.

The investigation could ultimately result in criminal charges, separate proceedings concerning citizenship or no further legal action. Federal authorities have not publicly established that Omar committed fraud, and the existence of subpoenas and a search warrant should not be interpreted as proof of wrongdoing.

For now, Dershowitz's 'continuing crime' argument remains an untested interpretation of how the law might apply if investigators uncover evidence of repeated false statements.

Omar continues to deny wrongdoing and has not been charged, leaving the allegations, the possible application of the statute of limitations and the investigation's eventual outcome unresolved.