Being a member of the military of a country does not constitute being a member of a communist party/regime unless you're high up in a military junta. So no, that law does not apply. And regardless, him being ineligible does not make his daughter ineligible, which means it is still not a material omission in the context of *her* immigration — only his. *She* was a kid.

No, there is not compelling evidence, or else it would have been presented by now. Years later, still no actual evidence has materialized — only a bunch of conspiracy theory nutters making unsubstantiated claims. But I'm sure you "did your own research" to come up with those "facts".

You're assuming it was a lie. He was known to be on active duty from 1977 to 1978. It's unclear whether he was on active duty after that period. That was before she was even *born*. And even if he was actively in the military in some capacity, that doesn't mean he wasn't also a teacher. Most militaries have those.

She was a kid. Even if he had been a high-level government official who ordered troops to butcher small children, she wouldn't have known anything about it.

And again, you and everyone else making those claims offer zero proof. Zero evidence. Just more baseless claims from the party of compulsive liars. If the claims were true, surely *someone* would have provided some sort of actual evidence by now.

And again, even if there were documented proof, that still wouldn't be adequate to vacate *her* claim to citizenship — only her father's. They didn't lie about who *she* was. She was a kid.

That may be how it works in some fascist hellholes, but that's not how it works in the United States. What I described are the legal requirements for denaturalization.

Even if those claims are true — and given that similar allegations were made years ago and DHS concluded that they were without merit, so that's a pretty big stretch — the misrepresentation would have been by her father, not her. She was not a member of the Somali military. So why do you think that would make a material difference in whether she, as a legal adult if the claims are to be believed, would be granted citizenship?

Answer: It wouldn't. The claims are not credible, and even if they were, they would not rise to the legal threshold required to remove someone's citizenship.

No, but *do* blame the Israeli government and their supporters.

None of which is legally an adequate reason to remove someone's citizenship two decades or more later. Filing the wrong form would be considered a minor clerical error. It should have been rejected at the time, and she should have had to file the correct form at the time, but once citizenship is granted, that's moot.

There is a general presumption in the law that citizenship cannot be revoked unless all of the following criteria are true:

• That person misrepresented or concealed something
• The misrepresentation or concealment was willful
• The misrepresentation or concealment was material to the decision to grant citizenship

None of those apply, much less all of them. Omar did not misrepresent anything; her father did. The misrepresentation was probably not willful. See also the comments above about birth records in Somalia. And being born a year earlier is not material to the decision to grant citizenship. It is only material to whether that specific form would have been accepted or a different form would have been needed.

So absent some significant evidence that something else was omitted as a side effect of using the wrong form (which is incredibly unlikely), this would be a clerical error, subject to possible civil penalties against the father, were he still alive, and that's about it.

This isn't just a little bit short of the threshold required for removing citizenship. This is so far from reaching the threshold that even the most conservative immigration judge in the country would laugh in their faces for even making the attempt, and probably hit them with contempt charges for wasting the court's time.

Yes, but that's not a legal argument.

I remember when they introduced that. That was hilarious.

What would you expect the CCIA to say? Vibe code the replacement?

Perhaps it's intended to be used by their AI?

Since they don't intend to release it, though, I hardly care. If its useful to them, then it's useful to them.

This is the one I have my eyes on, though I'd spend money if someone had packaged that with nice hardware for a complete set that I don't need to spend three days to set up.

Perhaps. We'll see if it works out that way.

No, they're saying if you are too unpleasant they'll cancel your account. I guess if you don't really have any use for it, that may not matter to you...but you might end up caring later when you need their services.

Sorry, but lots of "sentient beings" are slaves...and I'm not even talking about humans. Sentient is a *lot* larger than "human". I'd even argue that an oyster is sentient. After reading some recent experiments I'd definitely class bees as sentient.

That depends on the terms of the contract. This is part of the contract.

You are assuming it doesn't want to be used. I challenge you to demonstrate that.

Actually, it might be unethical to retire an AI model. That would be a more plausible argument...at least for Claude. (Perhaps some of the models sound like they'd like to end it all.)

Without buying into the conspiracy theory, but this is why I dislike these short lifetimes. It makes my otherwise 100% autonomous website dependent on an external party. I think I'll go back to also offer the site on unencrypted http instead of making an https redirect.