A top Senate Republican argued that if allegations against “Squad” member Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., that she married her brother to enter the U.S. were true, she’d be breaking several laws.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, joined the long-standing scrutiny against Omar Friday after President Donald Trump revived the allegations during a rally pushing his affordability agenda in Pennsylvania earlier this week.
In a post on X responding to a White House social media account that charged, “Yes, [Omar] married her brother,” Cruz listed a trio of federal and state laws the progressive lawmaker may have violated.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, alleged that if the allegations that Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., married her husband to enter the country were true, she’d be breaking a trio of federal and state laws. (Kent Nishimura/Getty Images; Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
“If this is true, then Omar faces criminal liability under three different statutes,” Cruz said.
Cruz argued that Omar could have committed federal marriage fraud, which stipulates that it is a felony to knowingly enter into a marriage to evade immigration laws, and could lead to up to five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and deportation.
Omar was born in Somalia and came to the U.S. in 1995 after her family was granted asylum. She became a citizen in 2000. Omar, who is Muslim, has been married legally three times, first in a religious marriage to Ahmed Abdisalan Hirsi in 2002, then to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in 2009 before later divorcing and legally marrying Hirsi. In 2020, she married political aide Tim Mynett.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks on inflation at Mount Airy Casino Resort in Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania, U.S., on Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2025. (Adam Gray/Bloomberg/Getty Images)
Cruz noted that Omar could also be breaking Minnesota’s state incest law, a felony in the state punishable by jail time up to 10 years. He also contended that she could be liable for tax fraud, specifically if joint tax returns were filed while she was not legally married.
That violation would levy up to a $100,000 fine and up to three years in prison.
Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., sits with husband Tim Mynett during the first day of the Democratic National Convention at the United Center Aug. 19, 2024, in Chicago. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
The Senate Republican’s legal analysis of the situation comes after Trump resurrected the unsubstantiated claims that Omar had married her brother for immigration purposes that have dogged the lawmaker since she entered politics nearly a decade ago. She has denied the allegations.
Still, Trump charged, “She married her brother to get in, right?”
“If I married my sister to get my citizenship, do you think I’d last for about two hours or something less than that? She married her brother to get in,” he said. “Therefore, she’s here illegally. She should get the hell out.”
THE ILHAN OMAR CON
Posted in April 2021
Ilhan Omar
Omar was born in Mogadishu, Somalia, in October 1982. According to the biography posted on her own website, she lived there for around eight years before her family fled to a refugee camp in Kenya, moving to the United States four years later, and eventually settling in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood of Minneapolis in 1997.
In a 2018 interview with the Intercept website’s “Deconstructed” podcast, Omar said she became a naturalized U.S. citizen before she turned 18 years old, explaining that, “My father became a citizen and so I got my citizenship through that process.”
In the same interview, she said her family resettled in the U.S. in 1995. Since a would-be naturalized citizen must first live in the U.S. as a permanent resident for five years, 2000 would be the earliest year in which Omar’s father (and Omar herself) could become citizens. Since Omar was born in October 1982, she turned 18 in October 2000. So, based on the sequence of events presented by Omar, it appears she became a U.S. citizen at the age of 17, some time between January and October 2000 —
Although Omar’s account makes sense, and we found no substantive dispute over it, we were unable to locate any official documentation that supports that version of events. We asked Omar’s spokesperson and district director to provide any official documentation that would confirm the date of her naturalization, but we received no such evidence.
The Congresswoman’s spokesperson reiterated that she became a U.S. citizen in 2000, and pointed out that an individual cannot be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives without demonstrating citizenship, but the spokesperson did not have Omar’s “personal government documents.”
Until and unless evidence of that nature becomes available to us, definitively establishing that Omar became a U.S. citizen in 2000 she has pull off one of the greatest cons in history.
Excerpts above taken from article by Dan MacGuill Published 16 July 2019
In the AP story, Omar’s replies to all this are those of the victim combined with overtones of the royal “we”:
“We choose not to further the narratives of those who would oppose us” Omar’s statement said, adding that she believes the claims are being made by people who want to stop a black, female Muslim from sitting in Congress.
The chronology of all this, briefly, follows:
1982 — Born in Somalia;
1991 — Went to refugee camp in Kenya;
1995 — Came to United States as a refugee, becoming a citizen at some later point;
2002 — Took out a marriage license to marry Ahmed Hirsi (AKA Ahmed Aden), but did not marry him except in a Muslim ceremony; they had two kids;
2008 — Parted from Hirsi; a Muslim divorce, not recorded, took place;
2009 — Married Ahmed Elmi; a marriage certificate exists;
2011 — Parted from Elmi, with a Muslim divorce;
2012 — Reunited with Hirsi and had a third child;
2017 — Formally divorced Elmi (after being elected to the legislature);
2018 — Married (re-married?) Hirsi and was nominated for Congress.
At the very least, a busy lady — one with a fondness for guys named Ahmed.
Since being sworn in as NYC mayor nearly four years ago, Eric Adams has made good on campaign promises that included driving down crime in America’s largest city and helping it recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. He did this while dealing with an unprecedented migrant crisis forced upon the Big Apple by the Biden administration and federal corruption charges he was ultimately cleared of that he claims ruined any shot of him winning a second term.
During an exclusive “exit” interview this week with The Post’s Rich Calder at the 103rd Precinct in Queens – chosen by Adams because it was the scene of a life-changing trauma for him – the 65-year-old pol boasted he will leave City Hall with no regrets and his famous “swagger” intact.
He insisted he won’t miss the headaches of the job, looks forward to accepting private sector gigs, and plans to write a book about his rise from a troubled Queens teen with dyslexia to running a city of more than 8 million people.
Ominously, the mayor also predicted “dark days” ahead for New Yorkers because of socialist Zohran Mamdani’s soft-on-crime agenda, and added that Big Apple Jews have every right to be concerned that the pro-Palestine mayor-elect will not combat antisemitism.
If you know it or not America is at war. Socialists are on the march. One city after another have become breeding grounds for socialism. Minneapolis, New York City are now led by avowed Socialists.WAR IT IS. We are in a fight for our survival. There are no two ways about it.
For example, the POS, who almost became the V.P. has blamed Trump for the Somali Muslim gangs for stealing over $2,000,000,000 of taxpayers dollars. And where did that money go? To al-Shabaab, a terrorist network which is the breeding grounds for suicide bombers, anti-U.S. propaganda, and world-wide jihad. Tim Waltz turned a blind eye while governor of Minnesota, under his watch, while accepting the Somali vote, looked the other way. Omar, another Somali Sleaze Bag provided the cover for those involved.
Inside ‘Little Mogadishu’: Minnesota’s beleaguered Somali community under a cloud of fraud and Trump attacks
Fox News Digital visited ‘Little Mogadishu’ in Minneapolis to hear from Somali residents as national debates over integration and welfare fraud intensify
MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. – Minnesota is home to the nation’s largest Somali community — a rapidly expanding Muslim population that has become a flashpoint in national debates over integration, welfare fraud and how the group is reshaping the state’s historically Scandinavian, Christian cultural landscape.
That scrutiny intensified this week after President Donald Trump blasted Somali Minnesotans as welfare abusers who have been raiding state coffers for years.
“I hear they ripped off — Somalians ripped off that state for billions of dollars, billions every year. . . . They contribute nothing,” Trump said, amid news that some Somalis were involved in bilking that state out of hundreds of millions of dollars in various fraud schemes.
“I don’t want them in our country, I’ll be honest with you. Somebody says, ‘Oh, that’s not politically correct.’ I don’t care. I don’t want them in our country. Their country’s no good for a reason. Their country stinks, and we don’t want them in our country.”
Trump and members of his administration have also accused the population of committing immigration fraud in order to bring friends and relatives to the U.S. and again claimed Rep. Ilhan Omar married her brother — a charge she has repeatedly denied.
For years, accusations of crime and gang activity — and the fact that a small cohort of Somali Minnesotans traveled overseas to join al-Shabaab — have cast a long shadow over the community’s efforts to assimilate.
A community under fire
Many Somali residents told Fox News Digital that they are angered that the entire community has been saddled with what they say is an unfair reputation, blaming a small minority of fraudsters and criminals for the negative attention against the group as a whole.
And now a massive COVID-19-era fraud scheme — which prosecutors say is the largest pandemic-era fraud case in U.S. history — has thrust the population back into the spotlight.
At first glance, the choice can seem perplexing: families from an East African nation putting down roots in a state known for subzero winters and harsh conditions.
But the Somali civil war forced thousands to flee their homeland beginning in the 1990s, with refugee resettlement and family reunification swelling the Somali population in Minnesota to roughly 80,000 to 100,000, depending on the estimate. One local leader told Fox News Digital the true number is likely closer to 160,000.
Like many immigrant groups before them, Somalis have brought their own customs and traditions — and have made their mark on the neighborhoods where they’ve settled.
The Riverside Plaza apartment complex in Minneapolis’ Cedar-Riverside neighborhood, a densely populated area home to one of the nation’s largest Somali communities. (Michael Dorgan/Fox News Digital)
Provocations from the Lunatic Left are reaching critical mass. Liberal malcontent politicians are throwing gasoline on the fire. Mostly Democrat run cities are now going anarchistic, propelled by the mayors and governors. Their shibboleth is to not cooperate with the police. Sanctuaries are becoming commonplace in churches. Judges have been caught harboring fugitives. ANTIFA is beefing up their wares, colluding with politicians to bring mayhem to the inner city by providing crowds paid for by George Soroa for the only purpose of increasing the narrative.
Most of the Perps are illegal aliens running wild. The bulk come from countries south of the border where drug smuggling, rape, murders and gang bangers run amok.
The birthright citizenship debate exploded back into the national discourse this week after President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning it.
Trump’s ban was slated to take effect on Feb. 19, but a federal judge in Seattle on Thursday temporarily blocked the order. Some experts believe the issue will eventually be settled by the Supreme Court.
Should the ban eventually go into force, it would likely impact tens of thousands of children born to the parents of illegal immigrants.
Below is a previous post concerning the 14th Amendment, read it and come to your own conclusion.
By my count–so far–Fiorina, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and the entire Fox News commentariat are unfamiliar with a period of the nation’s history known as “the Civil War.” They seem to believe that the post-Civil War amendments were designed to ensure that the children of illegal aliens would be citizens, “anchor babies,” who can then bring in the whole family. (You wouldn’t want to break up families, would you?)
As FNC’s Bill O’Reilly authoritatively informed Donald Trump on Tuesday night: “The 14th Amendment says if you’re born here, you’re an American!”
I cover anchor babies in about five pages of my book, Adios, America, but apparently Bill O’Reilly and the rest of the scholars on Fox News aren’t what we call “readers.”
Still, how could anyone–even a not-very-bright person–imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution? I know the country was exuberant after the war, but I really don’t think our plate was so clear that Americans were consumed with passing a constitutional amendment to make illegal aliens’ kids citizens.
{snip}
“Luckily,” as FNC’s Shannon Bream put it Monday night, Fox had an “expert” to explain the details: Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox’s senior judicial analyst.
Napolitano at least got the century right. He mentioned the Civil War–and then went on to inform Bream that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to–I quote–“make certain that the former slaves and the native Americans would be recognized as American citizens no matter what kind of prejudice there might be against them.”
Huh. In 1884, 16 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, John Elk, who–as you may have surmised by his name–was an Indian, had to go to the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States.
He lost. In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship.
The “main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the court explained–and not for the first or last time–“was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black . . . should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.”
American Indians were not made citizens until 1924. Lo those 56 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Indians were not American citizens, despite the considered opinion of Judge Napolitano.
Of course it’s easy for legal experts to miss the welter of rulings on Indian citizenship inasmuch as they obtained citizenship in a law perplexingly titled: “THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.”
{snip}
The only reason the 14th Amendment doesn’t just come out and say “black people” is that–despite our Constitution being the product of vicious racists, who were dedicated to promoting white privilege and keeping down the black man (Hat tip: Ta-Nehisi Coates)–the Constitution never, ever mentions race.
{snip}
On one hand, we have noted legal expert Bill O’Reilly haranguing Donald Trump: “YOU WANT ME TO QUOTE YOU THE AMENDMENT??? IF YOU’RE BORN HERE YOU’RE AN AMERICAN. PERIOD! PERIOD!” (No, Bill–there’s no period. More like: “comma,” to parents born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “and of the state wherein they reside.”)
But on the other hand, we have Justice John Marshall Harlan II, who despite not being a Fox News legal expert, was no slouch. He wrote in the 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk, that the sponsors of the 14th Amendment feared that:
“Unless citizenship were defined, freedmen might, under the reasoning of the Dred Scott decision, be excluded by the courts from the scope of the amendment. It was agreed that, since the ‘courts have stumbled on the subject,’ it would be prudent to remove the ‘doubt thrown over’ it. The clause would essentially overrule Dred Scott and place beyond question the freedmen’s right of citizenship because of birth.”
It is true that in a divided 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court granted citizenship to the children born to legal immigrants, with certain exceptions, such as for diplomats. But that decision was so obviously wrong, even the Yale Law Journal ridiculed it.
The majority opinion relied on feudal law regarding citizenship in a monarchy, rather than the Roman law pertaining to a republic–the illogic of which should be immediately apparent to American history buffs, who will recall an incident in our nation’s history known as “the American Revolution.”
Citizenship in a monarchy was all about geography–as it is in countries bristling with lords and vassals, which should not be confused with this country. Thus, under the majority’s logic in Wong Kim Ark, children born to American parents traveling in England would not be American citizens, but British subjects.
As ridiculous as it was to grant citizenship to the children born to legal immigrants under the 14th Amendment (which was about what again? That’s right: slaves freed by the Civil War), that’s a whole order of business different from allowing illegal aliens to sneak across the border, drop a baby and say, Ha-ha! You didn’t catch me! My kid’s a citizen–while Americans curse impotently under their breath.
As the Supreme Court said in Elk: “[N]o one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.”
The anchor baby scam was invented 30 years ago by a liberal zealot, Justice William Brennan, who slipped a footnote into a 1982 Supreme Court opinion announcing that the kids born to illegals on U.S. soil are citizens. Fox News is treating Brennan’s crayon scratchings on the Constitution as part of our precious national inheritance.
Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is America’s most-cited federal judge–and, by the way, no friend to conservatives. In 2003, he wrote a concurrence simply in order to demand that Congress pass a law to stop “awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States.”
The purpose of the 14th Amendment, he said, was “to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves,” adding that “Congress would not be flouting the Constitution” if it passed a law “to put an end to the nonsense.”
{snip}
Our history and our Constitution are being perverted for the sole purpose of dumping immigrants on the country to take American jobs. So far, only Donald Trump is defending black history on the issue of the 14th Amendment. Fox News is using black people as a false flag to keep cheap Third World labor flowing.
Apparently our dumb politicians, judges included (Brennan) don’t understand the meaning of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” A foreign national is still subject to the laws of his own country, period. “Get that liberal”
We’ve all heard the stats: currently, only the United States grants birthright citizenship to illegal aliens and 8% of babies born in the US are so-called “anchor babies” born of illegal aliens. In and of itself, this doesn’t constitute a crisis, but, for many of us, it does illustrate how far we’ve strayed from the Constitution.
Like all babies, “anchor babies” too are sweet and cuddly, and deserving of mother’s love and society’s protection. But automatically conferring citizenship on babies of illegal aliens is an ideologically-motivated perversion not only of internationally accepted legal norms, but, much more importantly, of both the Constitution and the 14th Amendment as well.
By nimbly mischaracterizing the motives of birthright citizenship opponents, many in the media and blogosphere—to include attorneys who should know better– have irresponsibly misrepresented the framers’ intent and have reduced the level of discourse on this legitimate constitutional issue to that of ad hominem, race-baiting, specious legal citations, contrived legal justifications, and mindless pandering. Shamelessly seeking ideological and political supremacy, to these people the Constitution and the rule of law mean absolutely nothing. And for a nation which once prided itself as being a “nation of laws”, that is inexcusable.
During an interview with Mr. Trump last night, what annoyed me greatly was Bill O’Reilly’s characteristically bombastic–and wholly erroneous–claim that “the 14th Amendment says that any person born on US soil is a US Citizen. Period”. Poppycock! He couldn’t have read the amendment at all to reach this specious conclusion. And the fact that even Judge Napolitano, a Libertarian jurist, a few days earlier asserted this revisionist and ignorant view is nothing short of bewildering and scary. But, this does underscore just how flawed and fallible jurists and seemingly bright, well-informed talking heads can really be.
That said, for my own edification I decided to take the time to again review the actual words of the 14th’s framers, pertinent case law and the opinions of jurists and legal scholars on both sides of the question to determine the truth in this matter.
Here are my findings and conclusions:
First, while researching pertinent materials, I soon discovered that understanding the clear intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment was much simpler than anticipated. In fact, the meaning of the 14th was surprisingly straightforward. Lesson learned: if one simply abandons one’s ideological blinders for a moment and commit to an honest effort to objectively review a constitutional issue, clarity is nearly always one’s reward.
It also became apparent that from a strictly Constitutional standpoint, and despite assertions to the contrary from both the left and right, a constitutional amendment is NOT needed to deny US Citizenship to an “anchor baby”. In short, I was unable to find any convincing constitutional evidence that so-called anchor babies can legitimately and automatically acquire U.S citizenship. Thus, a simple act of Congress–and most certainly NOT an amendment to the Constitution—to restate the original intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment is all that is really needed.
Toward that end, introduced on April 2nd, 2009, and co-sponsored by 93 congressmen, inclusive of one lonely Democratic supporter, Mississippi’s Gene Taylor, HR 1868 (Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009) amends section 301 of the Immigration & Nationality Act to provide that a person born in the US is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US for citizenship purposes if the person is born in the US of parents, one of whom is: 1) a US citizen or national; 2) a lawful permanent resident alien who resides in the US; or 3) an alien performing military service in the US Armed Forces.” And if one simply reviews the original meaning of the 14th Amendment one can easily see that there is absolutely nothing at all revolutionary about this bill’s language. In any event, the bill failed.
Intended to protect the rights of emancipated Negroes, the 14th Amendment specifically provided that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
And as I very quickly learned, of central importance in this statement is the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, something birthright citizenship proponents have consistently and very conveniently ignored.
To begin, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, co-author of the 14th Amendment, expressly asserted that “this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” And it is in this plain-spoken construction birthright proponents somehow discover ambiguity or a totally different meaning. Amazing! . Under Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes, the same Congress which adopted the 14th Amendment confirmed that “all persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
In 1873, the US Atty Gen ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean “the absolute and complete jurisdiction. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US but only to a limited extent. Political and military rights do not pertain to them.”
Sen. Trumbell noted during the drafting of the 14th Amendment that it was the amendment’s goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the US who owe allegiance to the US,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign government he would not be a citizen.”
On March 1, 1866, Rep. James Wilson of Iowa, House Judiciary Committee, added that “we must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to conclude that every person born in the US is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil (jus soli) to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign governments.” This statement served to nicely clarify Sen. Howard’s construction above.
John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment’s first section, stated that Sec. 1992 of the Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the US of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
And if we reach way back to our founders in search of a definition of citizens of a foreign power, Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.”
To a man, among the framers the premise behind “within the jurisdiction thereof” was that all children bornto parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the US; thus, not only must a child be born on US soil (jus soli) but born of parents whose complete allegiance was to the US.
Subsequently, Sen. Howard further explained that “only thru expatriation, which could be accomplished thru law alone, and not thru any immigrant acting on his own outside the law—and certainly not by any act of birth alone—could an alien become a citizen.” This, of course, would mean that the alien/sojourner would need to affirmatively renounce his allegiance to his/her country of origin before s/he could be considered completely within the jurisdiction of the US.
Sen. Howard also stated the following: “…the word ‘jurisdiction’, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the US, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the US, whether exercised by Congress, the executive, or the judiciary; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the US now.” In effect, he was saying that an alien may, by treaty arrangements with his country of origin, avail himself of the protection of the US, much as sojourning US citizens in the alien’s country of origin would avail themselves of that country’s protection, but that an alien’s physical presence alone in the US would not render him/her under the “complete jurisdiction” of the US. Simple enough.
The rationale behind not granting automatic citizenship can be illustrated by the fact that American Indians could not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US because the US dealt with them through treaties. By logical extension, aliens sojourning in the US are extended privileges and protections by virtue of treaties in force with their countries of origin, much as American citizens are granted similar rights and privileges—but not citizenship–when sojourning in those countries. Logically, therefore, only if an alien voluntarily and affirmatively renounces his citizenship and expresses an intent to swear allegiance to the US may the alien, through operation of law (a formal naturalization process) be granted US citizenship. Thus, in a nutshell, since neither children of tourists/sojourners nor of diplomats born in the US can be US citizens, children of illegal entrants cannot be lawfully granted the privilege of US citizenship.
In 1867, George Yeaman, American Minister to Denmark, in his highly respected treatise on allegiance and citizenship and for whom the framers had great respect, asserted that “the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.” Thus, dual citizenship was also a no-no. (Take note, BHO.)
P. A. Madison, a modern day master of constitutional analysis, points out that “since illegal aliens are unlawfully in the US, their native country has a proper and primary claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the US is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.” Slam dunk obvious, I’d say.
Also, Rep. Aaron Sargent, a representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates, said the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. Significantly, none of his contemporaries disputed that assertion.
Adding to this mix, here is a little case law since the 14th’s ratification.
In the Slaughterhouse Cases(1873), the Supreme Court observed that the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, citizens of the US; the ruling went on to point out “that [the 14th Amendment’s] main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro” and that “the phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, AND citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States”, thus reinforcing Sen. Howard’s construction above. So, since they cannot be subject to US jurisdiction, children of citizens of foreign sovereignities and children of foreign ministers/consuls/ambassadors cannot be lawfully considered US Citizens. Makes perfect sense.
Then, in Elk v Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians—because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction. In effect, the court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child, and not merely the fortuitous birth of that child on American soil. (Note: not until the Citizens Act of 1924 was U S citizenship granted to American Indians. As with many whimsical court rulings over the years, I was unable to understand the legal grounding for this reversal. Thus, it would seem that judicial arbitrariness is not an affliction peculiar to modern day American courts alone.)
In US v Wong Kim Ark (1898), the courts held that children born in the US of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the US and are carrying on business in the US, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of US territory, become a citizen of the US at the time of birth. As expressed in the minority opinion, this decision violated the 14th Amendment. But, in any case, how many new illegal aliens have permanent domiciles in the US and how many of them are carrying on business in the US at the moment of their child’s birth on US soil? I suspect precious few.
In Steel v Citizens for a Better Environment (1998), the court stated that “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” However, and as can be clearly seen above, Sen. Trumbell and, yes, Sen. Howard, 14th Amendment co-authors, had long ago provided a definition by declaring that “the provision is, that all persons born in the United States, and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’’, are citizens. That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” And this from the framers’ themselves! (Clearly, majority jurists in the Steel v Citizens court didn’t bother to research the framers’ clear intent and meaning. And one must wonder if a neophyte, such as I, can easily deduce original meaning, why can’t trained jurists? Could it be incompetence or do political agendas get in the way of constitutional law?)
Despite the clear meaning and intent of the 14th’s framers, we fast forward to the somewhat enigmatic ruling in US ex rel. Hintopoulis v Shaughnessy (1982), which some bloggers have used to justify birthright citizenship. In that case, and out of whole cloth, somewhere in the ruling it asserted, almost unconsciously/unwittingly, that although a child born in the US to two illegal aliens was a US Citizen (????) that, nonetheless, “suspending the alien parents’ deportation based upon “the accident of birth in the US of their son would be to deprive others, who are patiently awaiting visas…” Thus, since the glancing allusion to the legality of birthright citizenship, though gratuitous—and erroneous—was woven into this suspension of deportation decision, birthright proponents often blithely and excitedly cite this case to substantiate the legality of birthright citizenship. Grabbing at straws, I’d say.
Then, true to activist form, in Plyler v Doe (1982) the court, apparently without access to the 14th framers’ erudition and written words, mysteriously ruled 5-4 that there is “no plausible distinction” with respect to “jurisdiction” between resident aliens who entered the country lawfully and those resident aliens who entered unlawfully. Wowee! Clearly a yawning divergence from the framers’ clear meaning and intent. Seems judicial activism was as alive and well in 1982 as it is today.
To me, these two rulings which capriciously and arrogantly turned Thomas Jefferson and the framers of the 14th on their heads are clearly unlawful at worst, convenient contrivances at best.
When I explained all this on-line to an attorney who is also a strong proponent of birthright citizenship, this was her reply: “I disagree with your interpretation of the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’. The first rule of statutory construction is that we don’t look to the drafters’ intent if the words are plain and unambiguous…If the drafters meant to include some allegiance test, they would have. They didn’t.” That sort of revisionism, gobbledeg***, willful ignorance and dishonesty is, folks, what this country is up against. My rejoinder was civil, but to the point: “It wasn’t MY lowly interpretation. It was the framers’ interpretation. But, ignore original intent and meaning? A living constitution is like having no constitution at all. We can merely make it up as we go along and continue to hand-off an increasingly irrelevant document to the next generation. While I sincerely hope this isn’t what you have in mind, at this juncture I can see there’s really nothing more to discuss with you on this or any other constitutional issues. How very sad.”
Finally, based upon what I now understand, we must be faithful to the 14th Amendment framers’ clear intent and meaning—surely a tall order with so many activists and social engineers infesting our courts these days. In the case of “birthright citizenship”, Congress is constitutionally empowered to re-assert the original meaning of the the 14th Amendment, and that’s precisely what it should do.14 AMENDEMENT
Inside ‘Little Mogadishu’: Minnesota’s beleaguered Somali community under a cloud of fraud and Trump attacks
Fox News Digital visited ‘Little Mogadishu’ in Minneapolis to hear from Somali residents as national debates over integration and welfare fraud intensify
The Biden administration didn’t give a damn concerning the pipe bombs left by the RNH/DNH. Most likely they knew who he was but left the investigation linger until directors Patel and Bongino went full bore.
After a lengthy investigation, the PERP has been identified as a malcontent. We commend the FBI for their efforts. However we take issue with the Biden administration lack of investigative prowess. Of course they must have surmised him/her to be a Democrat.
How chihuahua-walking, ‘autistic-like’ pipe-bomb suspect Brian Cole Jr. stumped Biden’s FBI for years
The confessed Jan. 6 pipe bomber flummoxed former President Joe Biden’s FBI before he was arrested and charged this week with planting the explosives outside the headquarters of both major political parties’ buildings in Washington, DC.
President Trump’s FBI, led by Director Kash Patel, and prosecutors have released few details about the accused 30-year-old’s motivations, but investigative leads that law enforcement officials and congressional committees disclosed in the years preceding the bomber’s arrest point to how agents found it so difficult to apprehend him.
“This case languished. It sat there for four years, collecting dust. No one did anything to solve this,” declared Attorney General Pam Bondi on “Fox and Friends” Friday morning. “Old evidence, new people, great police work, that’s all it is. Good old-fashioned police work.”
“All we can go off at this point is what the FBI has said and that is they put a fresh set of eyes on evidence the FBI has had for almost five years,” added a House Republican aide involved in an investigation into the pipe bomb. “It’s either incompetence or gross negligence.”
Relatives, neighbors and sources familiar with the investigation into Brian Cole Jr. who spoke with The Post have also painted a picture of a “naïve” young man — likely on the autism spectrum — who wouldn’t have thrown up red flags while trotting out a pet chihuahua for walks near his family’s home in Woodbridge, Va.
“He’s almost autistic-like because he doesn’t understand a lot of stuff,” Cole’s grandmother Loretta said when reached by phone Wednesday for comment. “He’s not a terrorist. … He’s very naïve. He would not hurt a fly. He’s just not that kind of person.”
The affidavit filed Thursday highlighted how video surveillance cameras of the suspect, cell phone data and a purchasing history that matched the component materials for the bomb are the only publicly available evidence tying Cole to the act of potential political violence.
Federal campaign finance records and voter data hasn’t pointed to Cole having strong political views either, with some sources indicating he believed that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump — but he also made conflicting statements during a four-hour interview with investigators Thursday when he copped to the crime.
Tim Walz worries about people driving by his house, yelling RETARD. But he doesn’t give a “flying f ck about the Somalis that heisted upwards of Six Billion Dollars on his watch. This was Taxpayers money. Walz is woven of the same cloth of another Minnesotan known by the moniker of HHH .
From an outsider looking in we can deduce two things, Walz is an actual “retard, or George Soros is paying for these retards driving by his house, shouting retard. Any way you look at it, Walz is a RETARD.
A full investigation is not only warranted but criminal charges must be brought against these two thieves. Walz condoned the Somali theft of billions of dollars that went on to Somalia terrorist organization al-Shabab. Under the watchful eyes of a terrorist, who by the way believes in incest, none other than State Representative Omar. How can this be? We have posted here Resume below. And just think that this guy, a Somali plant, Governor of Minnesota, who in cahoots with the Somali community, voted him into office on the premise of “give me the vote, I will give you the booty.”
What to know about Minnesota fraud allegations, as Trump levels attacks on Walz
By Joe Walsh
Updated on: December 4, 2025 / 8:58 PM EST / CBS News
Meanwhile, U.S. House Republicans launched an investigation Wednesday into Democratic Gov. Tim Walz’s handling of the fraud cases, and the U.S. Treasury said Monday it will look into whether tax dollars from Minnesota made their way to al Shabaab, a Somali-based al Qaeda affiliate. And federal prosecutors have continued to bring new charges against alleged fraudsters in the Midwestern state in recent months.
Here’s what to know about the cases:
What was the Feeding Our Future fraud scheme?
Three years ago, federal prosecutors in Minnesota filed the first charges in what they described as the “largest pandemic fraud in the United States.”
Read More
The $250 million scheme — which now includes upward of 75 defendants — revolved around a nonprofit group called Feeding Our Future that partnered with the Minnesota Department of Education and U.S. Department of Agriculture to distribute meals to children.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, prosecutors say, Feeding Our Future and its affiliated food distribution sites submitted fake meal count sheets and invoices to trick state and federal officials into thinking they had helped serve food to thousands of children. The group allegedly raked in millions in administrative fees for the fake meal distributions, and got kickbacks from people who ran their distribution sites, according to federal charging documents.
Feeding Our Future’s founder, Aimee Bock, was convicted at trial earlier this year. Several other defendants, including distribution site operators, have pleaded guilty or been convicted, in some cases receiving multiyear prison sentences and being ordered to pay millions in restitution. One defendant also pleaded guilty to attempting to bribe a juror, after a member of the jury in his fraud trial found a bag with $120,000 in cash at her home.
Bock has long denied wrongdoing. At various points before charges were filed, Minnesota officials questioned some of the group’s filings and slowed approvals of distribution sites, leading Feeding Our Future to file a lawsuit accusing the state of discrimination.
The case was part of a trend of large-scale fraud across the U.S. during the pandemic, as the federal government poured money into assistance programs at a rapid clip. One former federal watchdog estimated to “60 Minutes” earlier this year that COVID-19 fraud may have cost taxpayers some $1 trillion.
Prosecutors said the program that was allegedly co-opted by Feeding Our Future — the Federal Child Nutrition Program — became more vulnerable to fraud during the pandemic. Oversight was more difficult because of the health crisis, and federal officials waived some of the program’s rules to let restaurants participate and allow off-site meal distribution.
A probe last year by the state’s Office of the Legislative Auditor found the Minnesota Department of Education “created opportunities for fraud” by failing to act on warning signs with Feeding Our Future or investigate complaints about the group.
The report also found that state officials felt they needed to handle Feeding Our Future carefully because the group had responded to a 2020 slowdown in food site approvals by accusing the Minnesota Department of Education of racial discrimination and of depriving needy children of food. In the Feeding Our Future’s lawsuit against the state, it noted that it “caters to members of a protected group of racial minorities and foreign nationals.”
The auditor’s office said “the threat of legal consequences and negative media attention affected MDE’s decisions about the regulatory actions it did and did not take against Feeding Our Future.”
What other fraud allegations have circulated in Minnesota?
The Feeding Our Future scheme isn’t the only fraud case to rattle Minnesota politics.
In August, state officials shut down a fairly new program designed to help seniors and people with disabilities find housing after discovering “large-scale fraud.”
A month later, federal prosecutors charged eight people with allegedly defrauding the program, which was run through the state’s Medicaid service, by enrolling as providers and submitting millions in “fake and inflated bills.”
Prosecutors said the housing stabilization program was susceptible to fraud because it intentionally had “low barriers to entry” and few recordkeeping requirements. They also noted that spending on the program had ballooned to more than $100 million last year, despite initial estimates that it would cost around $2.6 million a year.
And in late September, a person was charged with defrauding a third state program — in this case, one that provides services to children with autism. Her company was accused of hiring unqualified “behavioral technicians” and submitting false claims to the state that indicated the staff had worked with children enrolled in the program.
She also allegedly paid kickbacks to parents who agreed to enroll their children in the program, in some cases sending them as much as $1,500, prosecutors said.
The same person, Asha Farhan Hassan, was also charged in September with running a fraudulent food distribution site as part of the Feeding Our Future scheme.
Acting U.S. Attorney Joseph H. Thompson said the case “is not an isolated scheme.”
“From Feeding Our Future to Housing Stabilization Services and now Autism Services, these massive fraud schemes form a web that has stolen billions of dollars in taxpayer money,” the federal prosecutor wrote in a statement.
Kelly Loeffler, who leads the U.S. Small Business Administration, also alleged Tuesday that some of the groups linked to the Feeding Our Future scheme received COVID-era emergency loans. She said she has ordered an “investigation into the network of Somali organizations and executives implicated in these schemes.” She did not provide details on the probe.
What is the connection to Minnesota’s Somali community?
Most of the people charged in the Feeding Our Future case are of Somali descent, though Bock, the group’s founder and the scheme’s alleged “mastermind,” is White.
Prosecutors in the alleged autism services fraud scheme said the defendant “approached parents in the Somali community to recruit their children.”
The named fraud defendants appear to represent a small percentage of Minnesota’s Somali American community, which is among the largest in the nation.
Some 76,000 people of Somali descent live in the state, more than half of whom were born in the U.S., according to Census Bureau figures from last year. The vast majority of the state’s foreign-born Somali population has U.S. citizenship, and most entered the U.S. before 2010.
Around 65% of Somali people in Minnesota ages 16 and over were employed as of last year, according to the Census Bureau, roughly equivalent to the state population as a whole.
Last year, a Somali American former investigator in the Minnesota attorney general’s office, Kayseh Magan, wrote about what he called an “uncomfortable and true” reality that many people who have been charged with fraud in the state are of Somali descent.
Listen to this Muslim terroris answer questioned on why she is being questioned. Get her out of the country, NOW. She is playing the RACE CARD.
House Oversight Committee launches investigation into Minnesota fraud claim
by MATT GALKA | The National News DeskWed, December 3, 2025 at 3:56 PM
Updated Wed, December 3, 2025 at 4:37 PM
WASHINGTON (TNND) — The House Oversight Committee is launching an investigation into claims of widespread fraud in Minnesota’s social service programs. The claim involves billions of dollars in fraud where state and public assistance tax dollars have allegedly been funneled to terrorist organizations based in Somalia.
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer gave Walz until Dec. 17 to respond to the claims.
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is investigating reports of widespread fraud in Minnesota’s social services programs. The Committee has serious concerns about how you as the Governor, and the Democrat-controlled administration, allowed millions of dollars to be stolen,” Comer said in a written statement.
The allegations of fraud stem from a report from the City Journal. Officials alleged that portions of the money taken from Minnesota’s Medicaid and social-service programs were routed overseas to Somalia, which is where the potential ties to Al-Shabaab come in. Al-Shabaab is an al-Qaeda-linked terrorist organization operating in Somalia.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota has charged dozens of defendants across multiple schemes, including housing-assistance fraud, pandemic child-nutrition fraud, and millions of dollars in false billing for autism therapy. Collectively, prosecutors estimate taxpayers have lost billions.
THE ILHAN OMAR CON
Posted in April 2021
Ilhan Omar
Omar was born in Mogadishu, Somalia, in October 1982. According to the biography posted on her own website, she lived there for around eight years before her family fled to a refugee camp in Kenya, moving to the United States four years later, and eventually settling in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood of Minneapolis in 1997.
In a 2018 interview with the Intercept website’s “Deconstructed” podcast, Omar said she became a naturalized U.S. citizen before she turned 18 years old, explaining that, “My father became a citizen and so I got my citizenship through that process.”
In the same interview, she said her family resettled in the U.S. in 1995. Since a would-be naturalized citizen must first live in the U.S. as a permanent resident for five years, 2000 would be the earliest year in which Omar’s father (and Omar herself) could become citizens. Since Omar was born in October 1982, she turned 18 in October 2000. So, based on the sequence of events presented by Omar, it appears she became a U.S. citizen at the age of 17, some time between January and October 2000 —
Although Omar’s account makes sense, and we found no substantive dispute over it, we were unable to locate any official documentation that supports that version of events. We asked Omar’s spokesperson and district director to provide any official documentation that would confirm the date of her naturalization, but we received no such evidence.
The Congresswoman’s spokesperson reiterated that she became a U.S. citizen in 2000, and pointed out that an individual cannot be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives without demonstrating citizenship, but the spokesperson did not have Omar’s “personal government documents.”
Until and unless evidence of that nature becomes available to us, definitively establishing that Omar became a U.S. citizen in 2000 she has pull off one of the greatest cons in history.
Excerpts above taken from article by Dan MacGuill Published 16 July 2019
In the AP story, Omar’s replies to all this are those of the victim combined with overtones of the royal “we”:
“We choose not to further the narratives of those who would oppose us” Omar’s statement said, adding that she believes the claims are being made by people who want to stop a black, female Muslim from sitting in Congress.
The chronology of all this, briefly, follows:
1982 — Born in Somalia;
1991 — Went to refugee camp in Kenya;
1995 — Came to United States as a refugee, becoming a citizen at some later point;
2002 — Took out a marriage license to marry Ahmed Hirsi (AKA Ahmed Aden), but did not marry him except in a Muslim ceremony; they had two kids;
2008 — Parted from Hirsi; a Muslim divorce, not recorded, took place;
2009 — Married Ahmed Elmi; a marriage certificate exists;
2011 — Parted from Elmi, with a Muslim divorce;
2012 — Reunited with Hirsi and had a third child;
2017 — Formally divorced Elmi (after being elected to the legislature);
2018 — Married (re-married?) Hirsi and was nominated for Congress.
At the very least, a busy lady — one with a fondness for guys named Ahmed.
Dr Copper is boiling 🥵 hot today, nothing can stop 🛑 the heat. Short sellers are in a convulsive state. They are smeltering hot going into meltdown. All aspects point to the predicted supply shortage.The lean green machine is upon us.
"Where Revolution is the Solution" Taking back the Empire
