Tag: immigration

Somali Mayor of City in Minnesota Wants to Solve Problem of Somali Gang Violence by Banning Guns

Nadia Mohamed is the Somali mayor of the city of St. Louis Park in Minnesota. In a recent video, which you can view below, she suggests that the way to end Somali gang violence is to ban guns outright.

Is she familiar with the United States Constitution?

You will notice that she spends the first part of the video trying to equivocate and gloss over who is committing these violent crimes by saying crime is crime and it doesn’t really matter who is doing it.

The Daily Wire has details:

St. Louis Park, Minnesota, Mayor Nadia Mohamed, the first Somali elected mayor in the United States, called for a gun ban after a shooting linked to Somali gangs forced a high school to cancel its homecoming dance.

Minnesota’s Eden Prairie High School, which is just southwest of St. Louis Park, canceled its homecoming dance after a shooting that authorities believe involved Somali gangs left two people injured outside the school’s football stadium Friday night.

“We can definitely talk about this issue without making it a Somali issue,” Mohamed said. “Without making it all about Somalis, and how Somali gangs, and Somali this, and Somali that. … The rhetoric that you are pushing at best is irresponsible, at worst is dangerous.”

“You may be wondering, ‘Hey mayor, how can we solve for this?’ … The answer is easy, ban guns,” she added.

Mohammad’s policy suggestion is what she is hoping other people begin to do. “To pick on a community that is already revealing from anti-Somali rhetoric is low-hanging fruit,” she said. “Let’s talk about policy.”

Keep reading

Another ISIS Sympathizer in Tim Walz’s Minnesota: FBI Arrests an 18-Year-Old Somali Suspect at Gunpoint After Plotting a Mass-Casualty Attack at Mall of America

Federal agents arrested Sheikhdoon Abdullahi Mohamud at gunpoint in the Twin Cities after he allegedly took possession of a rifle and ammunition he intended to use in a terrorist attack at the Mall of America.

According to Alpha News, which covered a U.S. Attorney announcement of a significant counterterrorism action in Minnesota on Wednesday, federal authorities have charged Mohamud with plotting a mass-casualty attack in support of ISIS at the Mall of America later this month. He allegedly hoped to kill “30 to 60 people.”

Reports of the federal case identify Mohamud as an 18-year-old Somali “American.”

The criminal complaint and 23-page affidavit of FBI Special Agent Keegan Rupenthal were unsealed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Minnesota.

Mohamud is charged under 18 U.S.C. § 924(h) with knowingly receiving a firearm and ammunition on or about October 6, 2026, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe they would be used to commit a felony and a federal crime of terrorism, including providing, attempting to provide, and conspiring to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.

The weapon listed in the complaint is a Norinco AK-47, model Mac-90 Sporter, serial number 94145360, plus roughly 200 live rounds of 7.62×39 ammunition. The FBI rendered the rifle inert before the handoff. The ammunition was live. He never got the chance to use either.

According to the affidavit, the Minneapolis Joint Terrorism Task Force opened the case in December 2024 after Mohamud began trading hundreds of messages with a confidential human source on Telegram, Signal, Discord, TikTok, and later SimpleX. Handles included “@misterdoon,” “Mister Miser,” “mistermister,” “misterman240,” and a Discord account named “baaqiyah_31485,” “baaqiyah” being an ISIS slogan meaning the caliphate remains.

Keep reading

DOJ Moves to Strip Citizenship from Criminals in ‘Largest Denaturalization Effort in Modern History’

The Department of Justice announced on Monday that it had filed denaturalization actions against 40 people accused of serious crimes or acting as agents for foreign governments.

The actions were filed in various U.S. district courts, with one individual being accused of committing aggravated sodomy against a special needs man, according to a Justice Department news release.

The DOJ’s Office of Public Affairs said the complaints, filed between Aug. 21 and Oct. 2, 2026, amount to “the largest volume of complaints submitted in a single period under the Trump administration.”

“Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a naturalized U.S. citizen’s citizenship may be revoked, and certificate of naturalization canceled, if the naturalization was illegally procured or procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation,” the release noted.

Attorney General Todd Blanche said, “Today’s announcement marks the largest denaturalization effort in modern history.”

“From an individual convicted of espionage to others convicted of sexual offenses against minors, these defendants concealed critical facts from the U.S. government and represent serious criminal offenders,” he continued.

Blanche added, “Under President Trump’s leadership, the Department of Justice will continue to employ the denaturalization process to maintain our national security and protect the American people.”

Keep reading

To Limit Immigration, Japan Hikes Residency App Fee 20-Fold, Requires Incomes Higher Than National Average

Japan has raised the fee for permanent residency applications twentyfold and imposed stricter income, pension and language requirements on foreigners seeking to settle long-term, as Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s government moves to curb growth in the foreign resident population.

The move is being presented as a tool to protect public finances and social cohesion.

The fee for permanent residency rose from 10,000 yen to 200,000 yen (about $1,270) on Oct. 1, the Immigration Services Agency reported. Charges to change or extend other residence statuses, long fixed at 6,000 yen, now scale with the length of stay and reach 75,000 yen for permits of five years or more. Reduced rates remain available for applicants facing severe hardship who also qualify for humanitarian consideration.

The adjustments arrive after the foreign resident population reached a record 4.12 million at the end of 2025, up 9.5% in a single year. Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has framed the tighter rules as a way to keep acceptance orderly.

“The government acknowledges that some citizens feel anxious or a sense of unfairness due to the rising number of foreign residents,” Takaichi wrote on X. The changes, she said, are meant to “ensure order” and allow “both citizens and foreign nationals to live safely and securely.”

Keep reading

The Government’s WAR Against American Doctors

After earning a medical degree, who gets the residency, the citizen or the foreigner?

We tell our children to study hard. Get the education. Earn the degree. Prepare for a profession where they can make a difference. Suppose Johnny does all of that.

He graduates from medical school. He has the degree. But on the usual path toward independent medical practice, there is another essential step: postgraduate clinical training, usually through residency training. And without a residency selection, a student’s medical career is effectively on hold, as residency training is required to obtain a full medical license and practice independently.

So, now Johnny needs a residency. And that brings me back to the question we asked in my last article: When does the system give American applicants First Consideration? The ANSWER – it doesn’t. It rewards Foreign Trained Physicians with VISA preferences to overcome Medicare Reimbursement CAPS on U.S. Doctors.

A controversy involving Rochester General Hospital in New York brought that question into sharp focus. A viral post alleged that 80 of 82 resident physicians were foreign-trained working under H‑1B or J‑1 VISAS, leaving only two positions for Americans.

That is a serious allegation. It also remains unverified. Medical-school rosters do not establish citizenship or VISA status, and the hospital’s published response did not provide that breakdown. Still, the questions deserve answers.

How many American applicants applied? How many were interviewed? How were applicants selected? And what role did VISA sponsorship play?

Before we can answer those questions honestly, we need to understand three things: 1. How residency selection works; 2. How H‑1B and J‑1 differ; and 3. What the numbers actually tell us.

A country concerned about having enough doctors should also be concerned about whether qualified Americans have a fair opportunity to complete their training.

Keep reading

Clinton-Era Laws Passed 30 Years Ago Enabled Trump’s Anti-Immigrant Agenda. Here’s How We Turn the Page.

The more the American public sees of President Donald Trump’s hardline, anti-immigrant policies in action — the deaths, military-style invasions of neighborhoods, and mass detention and deportations — the more his approval on the issue drops.

If this trend sounds familiar, it’s because a similar wave of disapproval played out in Trump’s first term. Despite that backlash, Trump returned to office embracing even more extreme measures.

We must finally confront and uproot the core of the U.S.’s anti-immigrant underbelly, which is largely reflected in the racially motivated notion of criminalization.

Trump was not the first politician to exploit the concept of criminality, and he certainly won’t be the last. Criminalizing narratives are deeply planted in the American psyche, and they have commonly acted as the vessel through which white supremacist rhetoric and policy are ingrained into our culture and laws.

In the late 1980’s, criminalization went mainstream in the form of racist dog whistles, particularly those hinging on vile anti-Blackness deployed by politicians seeking to activate white voters. In the decades since, conservative and liberal leaders alike more purposefully extended this criminality framework to immigration — so much so that it’s now perhaps the primary driver of the public immigration debate.

Consider how Americans of all political stripes are often presented with the binary choice of supporting the “right” type of immigrant. In this oversimplification, immigrants fall into categories like “good” or “bad,” “legal” or “illegal,” “deserving” or “undeserving.”

Trump did not invent these narratives. They’ve underpinned both major parties’ politics of immigration for several decades, despite their basis in fiction and fear-mongering rather than evidence and compassion, or the fact these narratives are weaponized against non-white immigrants who for centuries have disproportionately faced restrictive and punitive policies for the act of seeking relief in this country.

But Trump’s partisan opposition, despite its massive opportunities in the face of unpopular, hardline policies, has repeatedly failed to capture the public’s long-term support on immigration. Too often, Democrats repackage the same old criminalizing narratives — often in softer terms, but always in line with the oversimplified good-or-bad thinking. This lack of imagination is reflected in the nearly annual bipartisan votes to increase funding for federal enforcement agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection, as well as Democratic leaders’ messaging and policies.

Take, for example, former President Barack Obama’s push to deport “felons, not families”; Joe Biden squandering his mandate to reverse the cruelty of Trump’s first term by continuing many Trump policies, like Title 42 and the backing of for-profit immigrant detention; or Kamala Harris, in her presidential bid, focusing much of her immigration rhetoric on “securing” the border.

It’s a toxic cycle: The public rightfully disapproves of the atrocities of anti-immigrant policies; in response, liberals roll out unimaginative plans hinged on outdated narratives; and finally, in the vacuum created by the lack of any tangible, pro-immigrant vision, the right recaptures the public’s attention with fear mongering and a sensationalist focus on crime and the border.

Keep reading

40 Percent Error Rate Found In Afghan Refugee Vetting Samples, Inspector General Finds

A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General review has found errors in 40 percent of sampled asylum files for Afghan nationals who entered the United States under a Biden-era refugee program.

The report analyzed data from Operation Allies Welcome, which was initiated in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 and aimed to resettle roughly 97,000 Afghan nationals in the United States.

The DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) analyzed a sample of 678 applications from 13,682 adjudicated applications filed by Afghan nationals resettled in the United States under the program.

The analysis identified a 40 percent error rate in adjudicating asylum files, including 303 missed aliases, 45 unresolved records, 23 missing security checks, and 115 other documentation issues, the OIG said in a Sept. 23 report.

“Most errors resulted from missed aliases or incomplete documentation, including two cases related to potential inadmissibility on terrorism-related grounds,” the report states.

One of the terrorism-related errors involved an asylum officer failing to include an applicant’s Terrorism-Related Inadmissibility Grounds worksheet in the case file. The second error involved officials failing to indicate whether they approved or disapproved an asylum officer’s analysis of an applicant subject to Terrorism-Related Inadmissibility Grounds.

In a Sept. 29 statement, DHS said that Operation Allies Welcome led to many criminal immigrants being released into the United States, including those accused of sexual battery, kidnapping, drug possession, hit-and-runs, and lewd or lascivious acts with a minor.

For instance, in November 2025, DHS assisted the FBI in arresting an Afghan national who was charged with threatening to kill Americans. He was in the United States as part of Operation Allies Welcome.

In December 2025, a member of the ISIS terrorist group’s Afghanistan affiliate who entered the United States under the operation was arrested. And in March this year, an Afghan national allowed into the country under the program who previously was convicted of indecent exposure to a minor was arrested.

In a June 2022 statement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), under the Biden administration, had announced that Afghans who have supported and worked with the United States in Afghanistan and have undergone rigorous vetting could qualify for protection and other immigration benefits.

Then-DHS Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas said in the statement that this would “allow eligible individuals who pose no national security or public safety risk to receive asylum, refugee status, or other legal immigration status, demonstrating the United States’ continued commitment to our Afghan allies and their family members.”

Keep reading

COMMIES IN THE COURT: Biden Judge Rules Law That Makes It Illegal for NONCITIZENS to Vote Is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Biden commie Judge David Leibowitz from Florida ruled in favor of a Jamaican national because it was federal prosecutors who brought the case under a federal statute against non-citizens voting.

Leibowitz claims only states can decide whether noncitizens can vote. WTH?

The dirty communists are out of control in America today!

They know they need the illegal votes or Democrats CAN’T WIN!

U.S. District Judge David Leibowitz (Southern District of Florida, nominated by President Biden) dismissed a federal criminal case on October 1, 2026, against Chelsea Cox, a Jamaican national, ruling that the federal statute criminalizing noncitizen voting in federal elections is unconstitutional.

Cox entered the United States as a tourist in 1999 and remained after her visa expired the following year. She used a fraudulent U.S. Virgin Islands birth certificate to obtain a Florida driver’s license and registered to vote in 2012. She cast ballots in federal elections from 2012 through 2020.

Only the 2020 vote fell within the statute of limitations when she was charged in October 2025 under 18 U.S.C. § 611 (“voting by an alien”), a 1996 law that makes it a misdemeanor for a noncitizen to vote in elections for president, vice president, or members of Congress.

Biden Judge Leibowitz held that the Constitution assigns the power to set voter qualifications to the states, not Congress.

He wrote that Florida already prohibits and can punish the conduct at issue under state law, and that it is for Florida—not the Department of Justice—to enforce that requirement.

The opinion states: “Can the State of Florida prohibit and punish the exact conduct Defendant Cox allegedly engaged in here? This has already been decided elsewhere and is not addressed here: Florida can and does.” He concluded that “the Constitution does not authorize Congress to legislate voter qualifications for federal elections.”

Cox’s attorney welcomed the dismissal. Of course.

Keep reading

DOJ Files Charges Against Minnesota Judges Who Launched ‘Unethical Partisan Press Tour’ to Attack Trump’s Immigration Agenda

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has formally filed a misconduct complaint against the Minnesota federal judges who admitted to the New York Times that they are using their power as judges to obstruct the Trump administration’s agenda.

Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter told followers on X that the DOJ is targeting the judges for engaging in an “unethical partisan press tour on immigration cases.”

“Judges who covet publicity undermine public confidence in the rule of law,” McCotter added.

Attorney General Todd Blanche blasted the clearly biased judges, saying that the U.S. government has a right, “just like every litigant in court, to have a judge that will be fair and impartial,” Blanche said. “We have no choice but to act.”

The complaint comes after the New York Times published a story early in September featuring Judge Patrick Schiltz and five of the seven judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit who spoke to the paper to reveal their experiences over the president’s crack down on illegal immigration.

The judicial misconduct complaint names Judge Schiltz, who was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton-appointed Judge John Tunheim, both of whom have openly criticized Trump’s immigration policies.

Tunheim, for instance, told the Times that ICE was not arresting the right migrants, and said, “They weren’t arresting, in my view, people who were dangerous criminals on the street.”

The DOJ, though, says the judges’ public conduct “is particularly egregious” and that they “flagrantly violated the Code of Judicial Conduct with their improper and unethical comments.”

The complaint added that Schiltz’s comments were “overly political and concern matters that are pending” before the court, and that Tunheim’s comment was “less verbose” but “equally unethical.”

“If anything is a ‘grave threat to the rule of law,’ it is judges who repeatedly and brazenly exceed their authority then launch a partisan press campaign that includes criticizing the government for filing an emergency appeal when a judge refused to rule on a search warrant application,” McCotter said.

The DOJ is requesting that the court order both judges to recuse themselves from cases involving DHS and its departments, including ICE. The complaint also wants an investigation into “improper conduct” of the Minnesota judges who “‘covet publicity” rather than adhering to the rule of law by adjudicating cases or controversies.

Schiltz has already issued a statement proclaiming his innocence. “As legal-ethics experts have confirmed, I was acting well within the ethical rules that apply to federal judges in speaking to the New York Times,” he said, and citing the Judicial Conference guidelines for what judges can say in public, he added, “that is exactly what I did.”

The 8th Circuit Court also averred that the judges who spoke to the Times acted “well within” the ethics rules.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Reinstates Database for Voter Citizenship Verification – Ketanji Brown Jackson Fumes

The US Supreme Court on Friday reinstated President Trump’s database for voter citizenship verification.

In an unsigned order, the high court, in a 6-3 decision, allowed the Trump Administration to use an expanded database that contains citizenship information.

Liberal Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented.

“[The] harm caused by burdening or disenfranchising even a few lawful voters outweighs the nonexistent harm that the government experiences when it is prevented from taking an action that it likely lacks the authority to take,” Jackson wrote.

Excerpt from NBC News:

The Supreme Court on Friday permitted the Trump administration to use an expanded federal database containing citizenship information, as the president encourages states to purge people from voter rolls.

The justices, divided 6-3 on ideological lines with conservatives in the majority, granted an emergency request filed by the government after lower courts ruled that the Trump administration’s changes to the database were likely unlawful.

But the court noted in its unsigned ruling that the National Voter Registration Act bars the broad purging of voter rolls in the weeks leading up to an election, which “limits the potential impact” of the decision this year. States can still make individualized queries about voters.

Last March, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at preserving and protecting the integrity of US elections.

“Free, fair, and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion are fundamental to maintaining our constitutional Republic. The right of American citizens to have their votes properly counted and tabulated, without illegal dilution, is vital to determining the rightful winner of an election,” Trump’s executive order said.

Keep reading