Homan Says Loomer Probably Tipped ICE, While Milo’s Court Fight Reveals a Green Card Problem

New statements from Trump border czar Tom Homan and newly reported court records fill in two pieces of the Milo Yiannopoulos deportation puzzle, but they still do not answer the most important due process question.

By Peter Boykin
GoRightNews.com

The story surrounding Milo Yiannopoulos’s deportation has moved beyond the original question of why ICE arrested him at a New Orleans airport.

Two new developments give us a clearer picture of what happened before and during his removal.

First, White House border czar Tom Homan has now publicly addressed Laura Loomer’s claim that she helped get Milo deported.

His answer was revealing.

Homan acknowledged that Loomer probably was among the people who contacted ICE about Milo, but said that ultimately did not matter because an immigration judge had already ordered Milo removed.

Second, court records from Milo’s bitter dispute with his estranged American husband, John Campbell, shed new light on something that was unclear when this story first broke.

Milo appears to have been attempting to obtain permanent residency through his marriage.

According to Milo’s own allegations in those court proceedings, that process became entangled in the collapse of his marriage.

Together, these developments help explain parts of this story.

They still do not answer everything.

And perhaps most importantly, they still do not settle whether Milo properly received notice of the immigration hearing he failed to attend.

That distinction matters.

Homan: Loomer “Probably Was” One Of The People Who Contacted ICE

Laura Loomer has been anything but shy about taking credit for Milo’s removal.

After his arrest, Loomer publicly said she had reported his immigration situation to federal authorities.

Now the administration has responded.

During an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, Homan was directly asked whether Loomer tipped ICE about Milo.

Homan said many people contact ICE with information and added that Loomer, who says she contacted the agency, “probably was” one of them.

But Homan immediately separated that tip from the legal basis for Milo’s deportation.

His position was simple: Milo had already been ordered removed, and ICE’s job was to execute the order.

Homan also rejected suggestions that the administration deported Milo because of his political affiliations.

“We don’t deport people based on political affiliation,” Homan said.

He similarly denied that Milo received special treatment because he was deported only about a day after his arrest. Homan said the administration has been trying to shorten the amount of time people with final removal orders remain in detention, both to reduce costs and free detention space. (CNN Transcripts)

That gives us an important distinction.

Laura Loomer may have helped ICE locate Milo.

There is still no substantiated evidence that Laura Loomer caused an immigration judge to issue Milo’s removal order.

There is also no substantiated evidence that the Trump administration ordered Milo deported because Loomer disliked him or because Milo had become politically inconvenient.

CNN similarly reported that there was no indication Loomer’s report was connected to the arrest itself. (KQ2 News)

That doesn’t make Loomer’s role irrelevant.

It just means we need to describe it accurately.

A tip can lead law enforcement to someone.

A tip is not the same thing as the legal authority to deport them.

Homan Says Milo Had Due Process. That Still Leaves One Question.

Homan characterized Milo’s case as straightforward.

Milo overstayed.

He was ordered to immigration court.

He didn’t appear.

An immigration judge ordered him removed.

ICE executed the order.

Homan said Milo “had his due process.”

But that last sentence is a conclusion from the administration.

It does not independently settle the unresolved question surrounding notice.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review says an immigration judge can enter an in absentia removal order when someone fails to appear.

But immigration law also specifically provides a mechanism for challenging such an order.

If someone claims they never received proper notice of the hearing, a motion to reopen an in absentia removal order can be filed without the ordinary 180-day deadline that applies to certain other excuses for missing court. (Department of Justice)

There is another important point.

Board of Immigration Appeals precedent says departure from the United States does not necessarily prevent an immigration judge from considering a motion to reopen an in absentia removal order when the challenge is based upon lack of notice. (Department of Justice)

So being back in Britain does not automatically make the notice question disappear.

What we still do not publicly have is evidence establishing that Milo didn’t receive notice.

We also do not have public documentation conclusively showing precisely how notice was served.

That leaves the responsible position somewhere between two competing narratives.

Homan says the process was completed and ICE simply executed the judge’s order.

Critics have raised the possibility that Milo did not properly receive notice.

Until the immigration record or Milo’s lawyers establish otherwise, the administration’s explanation remains the official account, while the notice problem remains an unanswered possibility rather than a proven defect.

Now We Know More About The Green Card Question

The second development may answer one of the biggest mysteries from our original reporting.

Why did someone married to an American citizen remain without permanent residency years later?

Milo married John Campbell, an American citizen, in 2017.

Milo publicly acknowledged in 2019 that the marriage potentially gave him a route toward a green card.

Marriage to a citizen, however, does not automatically transform a foreign spouse into a permanent resident.

USCIS requires an immigration process involving petitions and, when applicable, an adjustment-of-status application.

USCIS guidance says an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen who entered lawfully may potentially file the family petition and adjustment application together if otherwise eligible. (USCIS)

Now newly reported court records give us more information about what Milo says happened.

According to court documents filed in his dispute with Campbell and obtained by TMZ, Milo alleged that his green card status depended on the continuation of their marriage.

Milo further alleged that Campbell refused to attend immigration-related appointments unless financial demands were met, delaying Milo’s immigration application.

Milo also alleged that Campbell threatened to contact ICE and have him deported. (TMZ)

Those are important claims.

They are also Milo’s allegations.

They have not been established as fact by a court.

But they do tell us something that was previously unclear.

According to Milo’s own court filings, there apparently was a marriage-related immigration process underway, and he believed the deterioration of the marriage was interfering with it.

That substantially changes the picture.

The question is no longer simply:

“Why didn’t Milo ever try to get a green card?”

A better question is:

How far did the application get, what immigration benefit was actually pending, and why was it never completed before his immigration case reached a removal order?

The Marriage Dispute Gets Even Messier

Campbell’s side of the marital litigation creates another complication.

Separate court materials reportedly contain messages attributed to Milo suggesting he had used Campbell to obtain a green card.

If authentic, statements like that could obviously raise serious questions about the legitimacy of a marriage-based immigration case.

But Milo disputes the authenticity of at least some of the communications presented against him.

He has alleged that Campbell fabricated messages or used Milo’s phone to create communications that appeared to come from him. (TMZ)

That means those disputed messages should not be presented as proof that Milo committed marriage fraud.

An accusation in hostile divorce litigation is not a federal immigration finding.

The marriage appears to have become extremely contentious, with serious accusations going in both directions.

Until a judge makes findings or immigration authorities produce evidence, the responsible description is exactly what it is:

A disputed allegation.

That matters because politics makes people impatient.

People who dislike Milo may want the alleged green card statement to automatically prove fraud.

People defending Milo may want every allegation dismissed as fabricated.

Neither approach is journalism.

The documents deserve scrutiny.

So do Milo’s denials.

Could His Husband Have Actually Stopped The Green Card Process?

Potentially, depending upon exactly where the case stood.

Marriage-based immigration is not simply a matter of showing a marriage certificate.

The American spouse generally plays a direct role by filing a family petition, submitting documentation and potentially appearing during the adjudication process.

USCIS then determines whether the relationship qualifies and whether the foreign spouse satisfies the requirements for permanent residence. (USCIS)

If a marriage falls apart while that process is underway, the consequences can become complicated very quickly.

That does not establish that Campbell intentionally sabotaged Milo’s application.

It does make Milo’s allegations legally relevant.

And it may explain something we couldn’t explain when the deportation story initially broke.

Milo may not have simply ignored a marriage-based route to legal permanent residency.

He says he was pursuing one.

Apparently, it never reached the finish line.

So What Do We Actually Know Now?

The picture has become considerably clearer.

Milo legally entered the United States in May 2019, according to DHS.

The government says he overstayed that admission.

He later failed to appear for immigration court.

An immigration judge issued a final removal order.

ICE arrested him at the New Orleans airport and quickly deported him to Britain. (Reuters)

Laura Loomer says she reported Milo.

Tom Homan now says she probably did.

But Homan says many people provide tips and that Loomer’s involvement did not determine the legal outcome because the immigration judge’s removal order already existed. (CNN Transcripts)

Separately, Milo’s own court filings indicate that he believed his immigration status was tied to his marriage and that he was pursuing a green card process.

He alleges that his estranged husband interfered with that process and threatened to report him to ICE.

Those claims remain allegations. (TMZ)

And there is still one piece of evidence that could change our understanding substantially.

The notice record.

Who was notified about Milo’s immigration hearing?

When?

How?

And did Milo or his attorney actually receive it?

That is where this story should go next.

---

A Tip Can Find You. It Shouldn’t Decide Your Fate.

The Go Right with Peter Boykin Perspective

This latest information actually makes me more convinced that we need to stop treating this story like professional wrestling.

Milo versus Laura.

Laura versus Milo.

Pick your fighter.

Cheer when somebody gets thrown out of the ring.

That’s entertaining.

It isn’t how government power should work.

Laura Loomer has every right to call ICE.

John Campbell, if Milo’s allegation about him threatening to contact ICE is accurate, had the right to contact immigration authorities too.

You have the right to report suspected violations of the law.

So do I.

The constitutional problem doesn’t begin with someone making a telephone call.

The real question is what government does after receiving it.

If ICE receives information saying that somebody has an outstanding final removal order, checks its records, verifies that order, locates the individual and executes it according to law, then the identity and politics of the person providing the tip shouldn’t matter very much.

That’s ordinary law enforcement.

But if somebody can call Washington because they have political influence, identify an enemy, and get federal agencies mobilized against that enemy when similarly situated people would not receive the same treatment, then we have a different problem.

We currently do not have evidence proving that happened to Milo.

Tom Homan explicitly denies it.

And that matters.

Homan’s answer should be included in any fair assessment of this case.

But asking the question isn’t anti-Trump.

It’s pro-Constitution.

I’ve said repeatedly that I support immigration enforcement.

A country that refuses to enforce its own immigration laws eventually stops having meaningful immigration laws.

Milo himself demanded strong enforcement.

If those laws ultimately caught up with him, that is not automatically hypocrisy by the government.

It may simply be equal enforcement.

But there is another half of the equation.

Government doesn’t get to say “trust us” and end the conversation.

If Milo missed immigration court, I want to know why.

If he received proper notice and chose not to appear, that’s on him.

If his attorney received the notice, that’s important.

If Milo moved without properly updating immigration authorities, that could matter too.

But if the government cannot establish proper notice, the law itself provides a mechanism for challenging an in absentia order.

That’s not a loophole.

That’s due process.

And here’s where the marriage story becomes equally important.

For days people have asked something that sounds reasonable:

How does somebody married to an American citizen remain in immigration limbo for this long?

Now we have at least part of an answer.

According to Milo’s own previous court filing, he was trying to resolve his status through the marriage.

He claims the process fell apart partly because his marriage fell apart.

Maybe he’s telling the truth about that.

Maybe Campbell has a very different story.

Maybe the eventual court record proves one of them wrong.

That’s why we distinguish allegations from facts.

There are also disputed messages that could look very damaging to Milo if authenticated.

But I’m not going to pronounce someone guilty of marriage fraud because TMZ found contested text messages in a nasty marital case.

That’s not how evidence works.

If immigration authorities believe there was marriage fraud, prove it.

If Campbell fabricated evidence, prove that.

If Milo knowingly abused immigration law, prove that too.

One standard.

That’s what I keep coming back to.

I don’t have a personal obligation to rescue Milo Yiannopoulos.

Milo and I have disagreed.

He blocked me on X.

He’s said plenty of offensive things.

And none of that changes anything I’m saying here.

Because rights don’t belong only to people who behave nicely.

Due process doesn’t belong only to people we consider sympathetic.

And immigration law doesn’t apply only to poor migrants nobody has ever heard of.

Milo doesn’t get immunity because he’s Milo.

Laura doesn’t get control over the machinery of government because she’s Laura.

And political connections should never decide who receives justice.

That is how I can believe in strong immigration enforcement while still wanting every question answered.

It’s not contradictory.

It’s constitutionalism.

And there is another irony here.

Milo spent years calling for stronger deportation policies.

Now those policies have reached him.

There is a lesson in that for everybody who celebrates government power when it is aimed at someone else.

Be careful what power you build.

Be careful what shortcuts you normalize.

Be careful what standards you abandon because the current target happens to be somebody you dislike.

Tomorrow’s target changes.

The power remains.

I want secure borders.

I want immigration laws enforced.

I want people ordered removed after proper legal proceedings to actually be removed.

But I also want the government to prove that those proceedings were proper.

Those ideas belong together.

Enforcement without due process becomes arbitrary power.

Due process without enforcement becomes an empty legal exercise.

Liberty requires both.

So let’s get the records.

Let’s find out what happened with Milo’s green card application.

Let’s establish what became of the asylum claim he once discussed.

Let’s establish what notice was provided for the immigration hearing.

Let’s find out whether Milo files a motion to reopen from Britain.

And let’s see whether Laura Loomer’s tip simply helped ICE locate somebody with an existing order or whether evidence eventually shows something more.

Until then, I’m not joining either cheering section.

I’ll stick with the same standard I would want applied to anyone else.

Facts first. Law second. Politics last.

That’s how equal justice is supposed to work.

And that’s how a government with enormous power should always be judged.

---

Tom Homan now says Laura Loomer “probably” was among those who tipped ICE about Milo Yiannopoulos, while newly reported court records indicate Milo was pursuing a green card through his American husband before their marriage collapsed. Together, the developments answer some questions about Milo’s deportation while leaving the biggest one unresolved: did he properly receive notice of the immigration hearing he missed?

#MiloYiannopoulos, #MiloDeportation, #LauraLoomer, #TomHoman, #ICE, #DHS, #Immigration, #ImmigrationLaw, #GreenCard, #MarriageImmigration, #DueProcess, #ImmigrationCourt, #RemovalOrder, #FreeSpeech, #RuleOfLaw, #EqualJustice, #BorderSecurity, #LegalImmigration, #GovernmentPower, #Constitution, #ConstitutionalRights, #GoRight, #GoRightNews, #PeterBoykin, #ConstitutionalistForLiberty

Sources

CNN State of the Union transcript: Tom Homan discusses Milo, Loomer and ICE

Reuters: Milo Yiannopoulos deported to the United Kingdom

Associated Press: Yiannopoulos deportation and DHS timeline

TMZ: Milo alleges estranged husband threatened to call ICE and interfered with green card process

DOJ EOIR: Motions to reopen in absentia removal orders

USCIS: Filing for permanent residence based on a family petition

DOJ EOIR: Precedent concerning reopening after departure when lack of notice is alleged