Sadly, I do my utmost to be a walking stereotype. At least on the internets

As far as I know, there’s broad, legal discretion for the DHS or Attorney General to stop a deportation if they feel like it or for Congress to pass a private bill to legalize or terminate immigration proceedings against a particular person (or persons). So the distinction between legal and political here is largely irrelevant, as far as I know (e.g. the Bangladeshi 16 year old that was forced to accept “Voluntary Departure” last year could have been allowed to stay at any point if the DHS or DOJ had used it’s discretion).

The point about using this as a tactic to call attention to the hypocrisy inherent in opposition to immigration among some is a good one. It also highlights how much of opposition to “immigration” has to do with race.

I see that my inquiries (see #71, #82) as to whether legal recourse may effectively take care of ex-illegal aliens like Arnold has led us to nowhere.

If taking legal action is not an option, what is?

Maybe if we put the Minutemen on him?

I didn’t think that was the case but perhaps I’m wrong. Demjanjuk naturalized in 1958, and denaturalization proceedings weren’t initiated until the 1980s, I think.

From a nolegal standpoint i agree, but i think from a legal framework it was not as there was no Schwartzeneger Vs Gonzalez ruling.

Ennis, I don’t think that you would disagree with this, but as is implicit in Ms Fink Nottle’s comment, I assume that many of us don’t actually want to see him denaturalized or deported, given the ways in which the threat of denaturalization and deportation are more routinely used so unjustly. (Though it would be so deliciously satisfying to see him sitting before a hanging immigration judge.) At least speaking for myself, all I want is explicit recognition of the gross double standard involved in all of these arguments to excuse him, as well as a recognition that these kinds of immigration violations should indeed be excused more easily and more frequently — and for everyone, not just rich Hollywood bimbotrons — than they are now. (Though maybe that does require a leveling a credible threat against him.) As Mae Ngai has argued, we should have a statute of limitations on deportation, and we should restore the avenues for discretionary relief from deportation that were available to many non-citizens for decades before 1996. There isn’t a limitations period on denaturalization, either, and probably should be as well.

But at the end of the day, I hope for is a way to use his immigration record as an effective argument against these sweeping and punitive immigration proposals.

I think it’s a political non-starter, agreed. However, if there was political will, there might be the legal material to do so. Why? Because even now his lawyers wont acknowledge that he violated his visa, which means that he probably didn’t tell the INS when he got his greencard, which might constitute fraud.

Also, as I mentioned, his bricklaying business involved fraud – they would weaken structures so that they could rebuild them. He admitted this freely back in the day. While the statute of limitations on this offense is long up, involvement in fraudulent activity back then might also get him into trouble.

However, I’m not an immigration lawyer, and this will never go anywhere. It’s just funny/sad in light of his statements about illegal immigrants.