Minnesota State Senator Omar Fateh has ignited fresh controversy by publicly proclaiming a heavily Somali neighborhood in Minneapolis a no-go zone for certain Americans, raising serious constitutional and public-order concerns in a city already battered by left-wing unrest and anti-ICE agitation.
According to RedState, Fateh a Democrat and failed mayoral candidate in a city long dominated by progressive leadership chose to escalate tensions rather than calm them, boasting online that the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood, often referred to as Little Mogadishu, is effectively closed to those he labels white supremacists. The area has been a flashpoint for anti-ICE demonstrations, drawing everyone from white Democrat women to paid agitators to Somali residents, to various other ne'er-do-wells, and Fatehs latest stunt appears tailor-made to inflame, not resolve, the ongoing turmoil.
Over the weekend, Fateh and two associates posed in front of the Cedar-Riverside towers and posted the image on X, accompanied by the caption: Cedar Strong. White Supremacists arent welcome here. We protect our own. When journalist David Marcus challenged him, writing, You dont decide who is and isnt welcome anywhere. We dont allow 'no-go zones,' Fateh did not back down but instead doubled down, replying: This is a No-Go zone for white supremacists.
The senators rhetoric is not merely provocative; it brushes up against fundamental constitutional principles and the basic rule of law. Declaring a public neighborhood a no-go zone for any category of law-abiding citizens is incompatible with American legal norms, and certainly with any serious notion of equal protection and free movement.
Neither a state official nor some random radicalized failed mayoral candidate has the authority to decide which lawful citizens may enter a public neighborhood and which may not. The notion that a local politician can unilaterally carve out an enclave where disfavored political opponents are told they are not welcome is precisely the kind of identity-based balkanization conservatives have long warned against.
Fatehs phrase We protect our own is being hailed by some on the left as a show of community solidarity, but it carries a darker implication that should trouble anyone who believes in a single standard of law for all Americans. That We take care of our own thing is not only laughable; it's both frightening and incompatible with the laws of this country. Americans have a right to travel and move freely within their own country. Period.
The irony, of course, is that Fateh attempts to posture as an opponent of supremacy while openly endorsing a form of racial and ideological segregation. As the original commentary notes, The supremacists, here, Omar, are you and your pals melanin content notwithstanding, underscoring the hypocrisy of denouncing bigotry while promoting exclusion based on race and politics.
The term no-go zone itself is not accidental; it is loaded with European precedent and controversy. As the piece explains, No-go zone is a term popularized in Europe that refers to Muslim-majority neighborhoods where it is not safe for White people to go, and The term no-go zone is commonly used to describe migrant or Muslim-majority districts where police rarely enter and outsiders are effectively discouraged from going.
Cities such as Paris, Malm, Cologne, and parts of Brussels have all been accused of harboring such areas, where failed integration, gang violence, and parallel justice systems undermine national sovereignty and public safety. Importing that model into an American city and doing so with the blessing of an elected official is precisely the kind of multicultural experiment conservatives have long argued would erode civic unity and the equal application of the law.
Beneath the rhetoric lies a more pointed question: whom does Fateh actually mean by white supremacist? The article notes that Omar Fateh is not talking about the Ku Klux Klan or even the Proud Boys here. He is almost certainly talking about anyone who supports President Donald Trump and the operations of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Twin Cities.
If white supremacist is simply a slur for Trump voters, ICE supporters, or anyone who backs immigration enforcement, then Fatehs no-go zone is not about public safety but about criminalizing dissent. The first and obvious question here is, what does Fateh mean by white supremacist. But before we get to that, lets be clear, if somebody wants to don full Nazi regalia and walk up and down the sidewalk in Little Mogadishu, Minnesota, while doing the John Cleese funny Hitler walk, they can.
That deliberately extreme example underscores a basic constitutional reality: in America, even the most odious speech is protected, and public streets do not become private fiefdoms because a local politician dislikes the views of those who walk them. To pretend otherwise is to invite the kind of selective enforcement and mob rule that has already plagued Minneapolis in recent years.
The lingering concern is whether Fatehs rhetoric is merely performative or part of a broader strategy to escalate tensions and provoke confrontation. As the piece speculates, You don't suppose Fateh thinks his ridiculous declaration is going to further enflame the Somali community, along with the previously mentioned protesters, and lead to further violence, in hopes of goading ICE into harsher confrontations, leading to unforeseeable fodder for the left-wing media sock puppets, do you?
Whether or not that is his intent, the effect of such language is to deepen division, normalize lawless enclaves, and vilify ordinary Americans who support border enforcement and the rule of law. For a city already out-of-control under progressive governance, the last thing Minneapolis needs is a state senator flirting with the European-style no-go zone model and signaling that some citizens, based on their politics and skin color, should think twice before exercising their right to walk down an American street.
Login