Sexual assault charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn were dismissed yesterday because, as the prosecution put it, "If we do not believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, we cannot ask a jury to do so." Now, because of her lies to a grand jury, the prosecution, and the federal government, it's possible that Nafissatou Diallo will face deportation hearings. "Lying on sworn statements is almost a guarantee the case will be reopened," one lawyer tells the Daily News. Another immigration attorney says, "With all the press attention, my educated guess is that they are going to look at her case again."

In an editorial in today's New York Post that advocates for Diallo's deportation, the paper's editorial board claims that the correct dismissal of the charges against Strauss-Kahn "leaves unsettled the fate of a woman who has forfeited the privilege of American residency. She needs to go."

In support of their position that would kick out the mother, who by the accounts of her former employers was a hard working and valuable employee, the Post points to her lies "about her interest in making money of the case," lies "on her tax form, claiming a fictitious second child as a dependent," and other falsehoods. They also list how she "lied to get into the country, claiming on her asylum bid that she’d been gang-raped in her native Guinea." However in that last claim, the Post is flat-out wrong. Diallo in fact lied to prosecutors about placing the rape account in her asylum application. It was never there.

Plenty of people lie on their asylum applications, and even claims that are legitimate to the public face intense scrutiny from immigration officials. Does the United States have a compelling interest in deporting Nafissatou Diallo and her 15-year-old daughter back to Guinea?