New York Times Breaks Taboo On Mentioning That Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother

/
New York Times Breaks Taboo On Mentioning That Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother

  • It must be good to be a black, Muslim woman, the first such to get elected to Congress and, not incidentally, a Democrat and an avowed hater of the United States and of Israel. If you can check all those boxes, then you can commit the most overt and obvious frauds and scams, and the mainstream media will act in lockstep to cover up, suppress and minimize your wrongdoing.

  • But at some point the brazenness can become too much even for the New York Times. That appears to have happened in the past couple of days in the case of Ilhan Omar, Congresswoman from Minnesota.

  • Two plus weeks ago, on October 12, federal agents executed a search warrant on Omar’s house in Washington, D.C. The authorities have been rather tight-lipped about the nature of the underlying investigation, but numerous news outlets, both liberal and conservative, have had pieces citing multiple sources (generally anonymous) who indicate that the investigation relates in some way to immigration and/or marriage fraud committed by Omar.

  • One of those outlets is the New York Times.

Read More

ICE Arrest In Far Uptown Manhattan Ends In Shooting: Two Versions Of The Story

/
ICE Arrest In Far Uptown Manhattan Ends In Shooting: Two Versions Of The Story

  • On Thursday afternoon, October 8, a guy named Oscar Belgal was shot by ICE agents in the very most northern neighborhood of Manhattan known as Marble Hill. Belgal suffered a non-life-threatening injury to his neck, and received treatment at the uptown campus of the New York Presbyterian Hospital. Here is a picture of Belgal from the New York Post:

  • The shooting immediately set off a round of protests from local activists, calling for abolition of ICE as well as various other of the usual demands.

  • In the two days since the event took place, both the New York Post and the New York Times have provided extensive coverage. The contrast between the coverages of the two papers could not be more dramatic.

Read More

The World View Of The Supreme Court's Liberal Bloc

/

  • Over the course of the past week, the Supreme Court has released a group of the most important decisions of this year’s term. Most of those decisions involved the federal government/Trump Administration as a party.

  • As you probably have seen, the government won the majority of those decisions (ability of President to fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, ability of President to end “Temporary Protected Status” for certain migrants, ability of government to refuse to consider asylum applications from those who have not entered the U.S.), but also lost a few (birthright citizenship, ability of President to fire Federal Reserve Board Member Lisa Cook).

  • Many things about these cases are interesting and worth commenting on, but to me one thing is particularly fascinating: the three “liberal” justices (Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson) voted as a unified bloc in every case.

Read More

There Is Much More To The Immigration Issue Than Just The GDP Effect

/

  • A couple of years ago, in July 2023, I participated in a debate at the Soho Forum on the subject of immigration. The resolution for the debate was: “Resolved: The U.S. should have free immigration except for those who pose a security threat or have a serious contagious disease.” Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute took the affirmative. I took the negative.

  • Nowrasteh, a Senior Vice President for Policy at Cato, is known as a free immigration absolutist. And to his credit he had some good points to make. The most important one was that nothing increases world GDP so much and so fast as letting poor people immigrate into rich countries. Even working at the lowest-paid jobs in the U.S., their incomes immediately multiply by factors of five or ten or more. How could anyone be against that?

  • At the time of the debate in 2023, the Somali frauds in Minnesota had begun to come to light, but only to those paying close attention.

Read More

Birthright Citizenship: Interpreting The Phrase "Subject To The Jurisdiction Thereof"

/

  • Birthright citizenship — the idea that anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen, with full right to receive all benefits and vote when they come of age — has been a fixture of the administration of the laws in this country for my entire lifetime.

  • But does the text of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution make the birthright citizenship rule apply to all cases, even the most extreme?

  • Under the 14th Amendment, properly interpreted, do children born of illegal aliens subject to a deportation order really qualify for birthright citizenship? How about children born of an illegal entrant who has snuck across the border for a few hours just to have the baby and then immediately go home? How about children born of a Chinese billionaire who has hired surrogates in the U.S. to produce dozens of babies? Under the version of “birthright citizenship” implemented by the federal government for the last hundred years or so, all of these examples, and plenty more, qualify.

  • Advocates for the position that all of these extreme cases should qualify for birthright citizenship generally think that their position is exceedingly simple and obvious, so much so that anyone arguing the contrary, or for any exceptions or limits, must be either dishonest or crazy.

Read More

Birthright Citizenship? I Think It's An Open Question

/

  • On his first day in office in his second term, January 20, 2025, President Trump issued a collection of Executive Orders. One of those was number 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”‍ ‍EO 14160 seeks to do away with the long-standing practice of various U.S. agencies of recognizing U.S. citizenship of anyone born in the United States, even if that person’s parents were not legal residents or otherwise legally in the country at the time of the birth.

  • Following issuance of EO 14160, multiple lawsuits were brought in courts around the country seeking injunctions to compel the government to recognize the citizenship of various individuals born here to illegal aliens. Several courts promptly issued injunctions blocking Trump’s Order, all of them on a nationwide basis as far as I can determine.

  • In June, three of those cases, consolidated under the name Trump v. CASA, came before the Supreme Court on the question of whether a District Court could issue a nationwide injunction to block the Order everywhere. The Supreme Court invalidated the nationwide aspect of the injunctions. However, the Court did not consider the merits of whether President and executive agencies could refuse to recognize citizenship of children born here to illegal aliens.

  • But now there are petitions before the Supreme Court asking it to consider this question of so-called “birthright” citizenship on the merits. The Court is widely expected to take up the issue in its current term. So, what is the right answer?

Read More