'Not everybody could marry Donald Trump': What's the row over Melania Trump's Einstein Visa?
Melania Trump's Einstein visa is at the center of a fresh controversy.
The Einstein visa, officially known as the EB-1 visa (Employment-Based First Preference visa), is a US immigrant visa for individuals with extraordinary ability in fields like science, arts, education, business, or athletics.
It's for those who demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements are recognized through extensive documentation. First Lady Melania Trump was on an Einstein visa in the US before she became a citizen. Democratic representative Jasmine Crockett raised the issue and asked how Melania Trump, being a model, was granted this category of visa.
'Not everybody could marry Donald Trump'
Speaking during a House Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, Crockett called out Republican's double standard on visas.
"Why aren't we talking about integrity when it comes to the president's family's visas?" she asked.
"Let me tell you how you receive an Einstein visa," Crockett said. "You're supposed to have some sort of significant achievement, like being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize or a Pulitzer; being an Olympic medalist; or having other sustained extraordinary abilities and success in sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics.
Last time I checked the first lady had none of those accolades under her belt."
"Melania, the first lady, a model—and when I say model I'm not talking about Tyra Banks, Cindy Crawford or Naomi Campbell-level—applied for and was given an EB1 visa."
"It doesn't take an Einstein to see that the math ain't mathin' here," Crockett said.
The Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh, who also testified during the House hearing, responded and said not everybody could marry Donald Trump.
"And I think that's quite an achievement, so I think she deserves credit for that. Nobody up here could have done it!" Alex said.
"You sure are right, I couldn't have done it," Crockett said.
Born in Slovenia, Melania Trump came to the US in 1996 on a tourist visa which converted into a work visa as she started started pursuing her modeling career in New York. She received her Einstein Visa in 2001, four years before their marriage in 2005.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
31 minutes ago
- Time of India
Senate Republicans seek to end EV tax credit by September 30
US Senate Republicans late Friday released a revised tax and budget bill that would end the $7,500 tax credit on new electric vehicle sales and leases on September 30 as well as the $4,000 tax credit for used EVs. The prior version would have ended the credit for new sales 180 days after the bill was signed into law, 90 days for used vehicles and immediately ended the credit for leased vehicles not assembled in North America and meeting other requirements. Republicans have taken aim at EVs on a number of fronts, a reversal from former President Joe Biden's policy that encouraged electric vehicles and renewable energy to fight climate change and reduce emissions. The House of Representatives version would allow the $7,500 new-EV tax credit to continue through the end of 2025, and through the end of 2026 for automakers that have not yet sold 200,000 EVs before killing it. The Senate bill also includes a provision to eliminate fines for failing to meet Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules in a move aimed at making it easier for automakers to build gas-powered vehicles. The Republican bill exempts interest paid on auto loans from taxes for new cars made in the US through 2028, but phases it out for individual taxpayers making more than $100,000 annually. Senate Republicans dropped a bid to force the US Postal Service to scrap thousands of electric vehicles and charging equipment in the bill following a ruling from the Senate parliamentarian. The US Postal Service has 7,200 electric vehicles, made up of Ford e-Transit and specially built Next Generation Delivery Vehicles built by Oshkosh Defense and warned scrapping its EVs would cost it $1.5 billion. President Donald Trump this month signed a resolution approved by Congress to bar California's landmark plan to end the sale of gasoline-only vehicles by 2035, which has been adopted by 11 other states representing a third of the US auto market.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling
* Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling Supreme Court ruling causes confusion over birthright citizenship * Lawyers and advocates field calls from anxious clients * Uncertainty remains on policy across different states By Ted Hesson and Kristina Cooke WASHINGTON, - The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on Friday granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status. Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. "There are not many specifics," said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. "I don't understand it well." She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. "I don't know if I can give her mine," she said. "I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality." Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating "an extremely confusing patchwork" across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. "Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?" she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. "Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason," he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. WORRIED CALLS Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. "He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution," she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. "It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights," said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. "That is really chaotic." Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. "I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born," she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. "She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen," she said. "If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?" This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
How US Supreme Court's ruling that curbs judges' power benefits Trump
The US Supreme Court has limited the ability of federal judges to grant nationwide injunctions. President Donald Trump has hailed the verdict as a 'tremendous win'. The Friday decision will expand the powers of the Republican president and have wider ramifications on his controversial policies, like the bid to end birthright citizenship read more US President Donald Trump speaks to the media in the Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington DC, June 27, 2025. Reuters The United States Supreme Court has handed a 'giant win' to President Donald Trump by curbing the authority of individual judges. In a ruling that will have a major impact on the Trump administration's move to end birthright citizenship, the top court on Friday (June 27) made it easier for the Republican leader to implement his contentious policies. The ruling curbs the ability of lone judges to block Trump's powers nationwide. We take a look at how the US Supreme Court's verdict has broadened the powers of the president. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD What did US Supreme Court rule? The US Supreme Court, in a 6-3 majority, ruled that federal judges do not have the authority to grant nationwide injunctions. This effectively curbs the lower courts' ability to block executive orders. The case stems from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship , a constitutional right in the US. At the White House briefing on Friday, Trump called the verdict a 'tremendous win'. He said the US administration is 'very happy about' the 'big, amazing decision'. It was a 'monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law', the US president added. American Attorney General Pam Bondi, who flanked Trump at the podium, said the ruling will put an end to 'rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation.' Democrats rebuked the Supreme Court's decision, with Senate Leader Chuck Schumer calling it a 'terrifying step toward authoritarianism.' Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, wrote the majority opinion. 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch,' she said. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who authored the dissent opinion for the three liberal justices, called the ruling 'nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution.' Trump said he will move ahead with 'so many policies' that had been 'wrongly' blocked, putting into focus his administration's bid to end birthright citizenship. He also rejected concerns that the high court's ruling would lead to the concentration of power in the White House. 'This is really the opposite of that. This really brings back the Constitution,' Trump said. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD What is birthright citizenship? Birthright citizenship makes any person born on US soil an American citizen, including children born to parents who illegally entered the country. 'All persons born or naturalised in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' according to the US Constitution's 14th Amendment. The right has been an integral part of the US law for over a century. Trump has long taken exception to birthright citizenship, describing it as a 'hoax'. After Friday's ruling, he said the decision would prevent 'scamming of our immigration process'. Mairelise Robinson, a pregnant US citizen, attends a protest in support of birthright citizenship, outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, May 15, 2025. File Photo/AP In January, soon after returning to the White House, Trump signed an executive order to deny citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary residents and visitors. The executive order read, 'the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.' Immigrant rights groups, representing American newborns and their migrant parents, sued the Trump administration. As many as 22 states also urged federal judges to block Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. Three federal district court judges separately blocked Trump's order and issued universal injunctions that prevented the enforcement of the order across the nation. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The US administration then approached the Supreme Court to block universal injunctions altogether. How Supreme Court's ruling expands Trump's power The top court has expanded the authority of the US president with its ruling, which is set to limit the power of lower court federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This will have wider ramifications for not just the birthright citizenship case but also other controversial policies that the Trump administration wants to push. Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, told AFP that the court's ruling 'sharply undermines the power of federal courts to rein in lawless actions by the government.' Lower courts have blocked Trump's cuts to foreign assistance, diversity programmes, stopped funding for transgender people, limited the president's ability to terminate government employees, and paused his other immigration reforms. Now, the new ruling has put the US administration at an advantage, allowing it to ask courts to go ahead with many of these orders. The court's decision has 'systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion,' Paul Rosenzweig, an attorney who served in Republican President George W Bush's administration, told Reuters. The apex court's verdict means it is effectively the only check on presidential authority. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD As per the Friday ruling, judges can typically grant relief only to the individuals or groups that brought a particular lawsuit. Now, the birthright citizenship case will return to lower courts, where judges will have to issue orders in compliance with the high court ruling, as per Associated Press (AP). The courts have 30 days to review their nationwide injunctions. Notably, Friday's ruling did not directly address the constitutionality of Trump's birthright citizenship order. So, the case is likely to come before the top court at a later date, noted BBC. Not just Trump, but the Supreme Court's ruling will have ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein in even future US presidents. With inputs from agencies
