Schmitt Explodes At Hirono During Denaturalization Hearing: 'Nothing But Fear-Mongering'

[0:00] more than astounding. It should be unconstitutional. Thank you. Thank you. [0:06] Speaking of astounding, your comments are astounding, Senator. You mentioned a few [0:12] words, horrific. I think to the American taxpayer that's been ripped off by [0:18] people who came to this country, to rip them off, that's horrific. You talk about [0:22] bizarre. No, no, no, it's my time now. It's my time. You went over time. It's my [0:26] time. Bizarre is the idea that you would be here in this committee defending [0:32] violent murderers from being deported, that you would be defending violent [0:37] rapists from being deported, that you would defend people who took advantage of [0:41] the good people of this country with their taxpayer dollars. That is bizarre. A [0:46] terrorist who kills American citizens, you know what's bizarre is your defense of [0:51] that. So forgive me if your 24 million Americans should be, or [0:58] naturalized citizens should be afraid. That's ridiculous. You have nothing, no, no, [1:01] you have nothing but fear mongering here. What I'm saying in this bill is if you do [1:07] those things, the American people, if you take advantage of taxpayers, you're not [1:12] recognized. If you commit a terrorist act, if you commit wholesale welfare fraud, [1:19] within 10 years, you're damn right we're deporting you. If you're convicted, it's not [1:24] being accused of anything. If you are convicted in a court of law of these crimes, [1:28] absolutely we should not only convict you, but we should deport you. Gone. And if you [1:35] think that's some sort of like negative assertion towards me, I'll take it. I love [1:39] it. That's what we should be doing more of in this country. Because people are [1:42] coming here and they're ripping off taxpayers. And I for one don't want to see [1:46] it anymore. And if you want to have that debate in public, we can do it. But that's [1:49] what this hearing is about, to examine the scam act. So I'd just like to expose a few of [1:53] your lies in your most recent dissertation on the dais here. So, Mr. Cuccinelli, I want [1:59] to ask you, federal naturalization law requires prospective citizens to show good moral character, [2:05] attachment to the Constitution, and a disposition towards the good order and happiness of the [2:09] United States, correct? That is correct. Okay. So a naturalized citizen who later [2:13] joins ISIS, spies for our enemies, joins a cartel, or steals millions from American taxpayers [2:20] through fraud, raises the simple question of whether that person actually met the requirements [2:25] for citizenship, right? It does, yes. And really, on many of these instances, [2:30] you're building on the five years to ten years, right? I mean, within five years, you can- [2:34] That's right. That's the biggest difference. That's the biggest difference here. [2:37] Plus adding the fraud pieces. So I want to use, with the time that I have, let's make this [2:44] a little bit more concrete. And you referenced this individual. I want to start by addressing the [2:49] case of Mir Saad Ramich. Mir Saad Ramich was approved for naturalization in 2009, [2:56] but refused the oath, refused to cite the oath of allegiance at his naturalization ceremony, [3:03] and instead recited the Islamic, and Islamic oath, and cursed all non-Muslims. Is that correct? [3:08] Yes. Okay. Do you think that Mr. Ramich, at that point, was attached to the principles of the [3:14] Constitution and well-disposed of the good order and happiness of the United States? [3:17] Quite the opposite. Okay. But he was allowed to be naturalized anyway, correct? [3:21] He was. Okay. Factory-line fashion, undoubtedly. Yes. So Ramich later joins ISIS and participates in [3:28] atrocities that killed more than 100,000 people. Is that correct? He did participate in ISIS battles, [3:34] yes. Okay. Do you think that Mr. Ramich, joining ISIS and engaging in terrorism with a few years of [3:41] becoming a citizen, is evidence that he was not attached to the principles of the Constitution at the [3:47] time of his naturalization? It certainly is, yes. Okay. So I want to talk about the terrorists at Old [3:54] Dominion. This man was born in Sierra Leone and became a naturalized citizen. He was then convicted [4:04] of attempting to carry out an attack on behalf of ISIS, but he was released from prison back onto the [4:10] streets of the United States rather than denaturalized and deported, correct? That's right. Okay. And the [4:15] consequence of the U.S. legal system allowing him to roam free in our country rather than denaturalizing [4:21] him and deporting him was that he was able to commit a terrorist attack involving an ROTC program in [4:27] Virginia killing a lieutenant colonel. Is that correct? Yes. Yeah. This is just the absurdity. I actually think [4:34] this is sort of a common sense solution here, but that's where we are. Mr. Fishman, I want to ask you, [4:41] under current law, joining a terrorist organization is grounds for denaturalization, but only if that [4:46] occurs within five years, correct? Five years of the naturalization? Yes. And it's also a rebuttable [4:52] presumption that the naturalized citizen is free to present evidence that no, in fact, he did support [4:59] the Constitution at, you know, in the trial. So, but in this instance, Jallo joining ISIS occurred more [5:09] than five years after his naturalization. So denaturalization, current law wouldn't cover him, [5:15] correct? Under current law. Correct. And even if he had been denaturalized, the Supreme Court has [5:20] interpreted the immigration statutes to not permit that conduct as deportable offense, correct? Yes. Okay. [5:26] Okay. But that was this, but that was a statutory holding by the court. So Congress, and this is the [5:32] point, Congress is free to change that, correct? Well, Congress, the courts indicated Congress is free [5:38] to lower the government's burden of proof in these cases. The question of how long post-naturalization, [5:46] you know, an act can occur and still relate back, we'll have, that will be the Supreme Court telling us. Correct. [5:56] Um, and that's why I think it's important to note that the scam act includes a provision that abrogates [6:00] that erroneous holding it when ensured that terrorists like Jallo are denaturalized, uh, and deported. [6:06] I want to, uh, now recognize. Could I, could I comment, Senator? Sure. Yeah, absolutely. Uh, just, uh, Mr. [6:13] Fishman noted correctly the rebuttable presumption. I think you, post-naturalization, [6:19] anything you do will be subject to a rebuttable presumption based on the Supreme Court's [6:25] history of rulings in this area. I do not think you'll ever have the, uh, constitutional authority [6:33] like you do on the front end of naturalization, Congress has near plenary power, um, to, uh, to not [6:41] give an individual the opportunity to rebut the presumption raised within the law, just based on the [6:49] existing long time really Supreme Court precedent. Yep. Senator Welch.