Zohran Mamdani 'needs to be deported': Republicans over NYC mayoral candidate's anti-ICE stance
Calls for the deportation of New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani are growing louder among Republicans. While Mamdani himself has vowed to expel the 'fascist' US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) out from the city properties. President Donald Trump's Border Czar Tom Homan warned against it, saying, 'Good luck with that.' New York mayoral candidate, State Rep. Zohran Mamdani (D-NY) speaks to supporters during an election night gathering at The Greats of Craft LIC on June 24, 2025 in the Long Island City neighborhood of the Queens borough in New York City. (AFP)
'It's game on,' Homan told Fox News, a day after Mamdani declared victory over former governor Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic mayoral primary.
Mamdani, a 33-year-old state assemblyman from Queens and a Democratic socialist, had made immigration reform a central part of his campaign. His platform promises to 'kick the fascist ICE out' and strengthen New York's sanctuary city protections by cutting off cooperation with federal agents, boosting legal aid, and safeguarding immigrants' data.
'Zohran Mamdani will fight Trump's attempts to gouge the working class and deliver a city where everyone can afford a dignified life,' reads a statement on his campaign website.
Homan responded by saying Mamdani's proposals carry no legal weight.
'Good luck with that, federal law trumps him every day, every hour of every minute,' Homan said. 'We're going to be in New York City, matter of fact, because it's a sanctuary city and President Trump made it clear a week and a half ago — we're going to double down and triple down on sanctuary cities.'
According to Homan, ICE operations will increase in New York due to concerns about public safety and national security. He said more agents would be deployed and worksite enforcement would be expanded 'tenfold.'
Homan also compared New York to Florida, claiming that cooperation with ICE is smoother in Republican-led states. 'We don't have that problem in Florida, where the sheriffs work with us,' he said. 'So we're going to double up and triple up on New York.'
He added, 'Not only are we going to send more agents to the neighborhood, we are going to increase worksite enforcement tenfold.' 'Little Muhammad' needs to be deported
In the latest, Tennessee Republican Congressman Andy Ogles ignited a political firestorm this week after referring to New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani as 'little Muhammad' and calling for his deportation.
'He needs to be DEPORTED,' Ogles wrote on X (formerly Twitter). 'Which is why I am calling for him to be subject to denaturalisation proceedings.'
In the same post, Ogles labeled Mamdani 'an antisemitic, socialist, communist who will destroy the great City of New York.'
The congressman escalated his rhetoric with a formal letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, urging the Department of Justice to investigate whether Mamdani gained U.S. citizenship through fraud. He cited a 2017 rap lyric by Mamdani referencing the 'Holy Land Five' — individuals who led a Muslim charity shut down for illegally funding Hamas in 2008. Curbing ICE, Mamdani's one of many plans for New York
While his pledge to remove ICE from city facilities has drawn national attention, it is just one part of a broader agenda. Mamdani's campaign also promises to establish city-run grocery stores, freeze rent hikes in rent-stabilised apartments, and make city buses free for all. He says these proposals would be funded through a $10 billion tax increase on large businesses and wealthy residents.
Since 2021, Zohran Mamdani has served as a state assemblyman representing Astoria, Queens. His recent win in the Democratic mayoral primary suggests growing public support for his progressive platform in New York City.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
Birthright citizenship case: US Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions – what it means for immigrants
The US Supreme Court has curtailed the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, clearing the way for President Donald Trump's controversial order to end birthright citizenship to take effect in over half the country. The ruling does not address whether the order is constitutional but allows it to be enforced in 28 states that had not challenged it, while keeping it temporarily blocked in 22 Democratic-led states. Immigrant rights groups have warned the decision could result in stateless newborns and a chaotic patchwork of laws across the US. The 6–3 decision came in response to President Donald Trump's controversial executive order ending birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented or temporary visa holders on US soil. The ruling was immediately hailed by Trump as a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' while immigrant rights groups and Democratic leaders voiced concern that it could lead to a patchwork of legal standards across the country and leave some newborns stateless. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo Although the policy remains blocked in 22 Democratic-led states that sued to stop the order, the Supreme Court imposed a 30-day delay before it can take effect in the rest of the country. That window gives immigrant rights groups time to regroup and possibly file new challenges as class-action lawsuits. But with the door now open for selective enforcement, immigration advocates warn that confusion and legal uncertainty could have devastating consequences for vulnerable families. What Is Birthright Citizenship? Birthright citizenship is a constitutional right enshrined in the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War to ensure citizenship for formerly enslaved people. It states, 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' The principle was reinforced in the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case *United States v. Wong Kim Ark*, where the court ruled that a man born in the US to Chinese parents was a citizen, regardless of his parents' immigration status. Since then, birthright citizenship has been a cornerstone of US constitutional law. Exceptions have been extremely limited, such as children born to foreign diplomats. Trump's order seeks to broaden those exceptions dramatically. Trump's executive order and the legal backlash Signed in January, Trump's executive order attempts to end automatic citizenship for babies born to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders. He has described the policy as a 'magnet for illegal immigration,' arguing that the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' in the 14th Amendment justifies excluding these children from citizenship. Lower federal courts, however, repeatedly blocked the order from taking effect. 'This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' said US District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle. In Maryland, Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's view of the 14th Amendment. Despite these rulings, the Supreme Court declined to weigh in on the constitutionality of the order itself, focusing instead on the scope of the injunctions issued by the lower courts. The Supreme Court's ruling: what it changes The court's conservative majority, led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, ruled that federal district judges do not have the authority to block a presidential policy nationwide. 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch,' Barrett wrote. The decision sends the current challenges back to the lower courts, instructing them to narrow their injunctions to only cover plaintiffs with standing in the 22 states that sued. In the remaining 28 states — including Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas — Trump's order could go into effect after the 30-day delay. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the dissent, called the decision 'nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution.' What comes next for immigrants? Immigrant rights groups are already adjusting their legal strategies, preparing class-action lawsuits in states like Maryland and New Hampshire. However, legal experts warn that such efforts face numerous procedural hurdles. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem,' said Suzette Malveaux, a law professor at Washington and Lee University. The immediate concern is for babies born during the transition period. In the 28 states where the order may soon apply, children born to undocumented or temporary residents may be denied citizenship, risking statelessness and potential deportation. Sotomayor urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly' in adjudicating new challenges to the executive order, while Trump indicated he would move quickly on a broader slate of policies that had previously been blocked by nationwide injunctions. 'This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law,' Trump declared at the White House, flanked by Attorney General Pam Bondi. 'We can now promptly proceed with numerous policies, including birthright citizenship.'
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Many South Asians, Muslims in NYC and beyond electrified by Mamdani's mayoral primary triumph
The success of Zohran Mamdani in New York City's Democratic primary for mayor is euphoric for Hari Kondabolu, a stand-up comedian who's been friends with the candidate for 15 years. Mamdani stunned the political establishment when he declared victory in the primary on Tuesday, a ranked choice election in which his strongest competition, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, conceded defeat. When he launched his campaign, the unabashed democratic socialist ranked near the bottom of the pack. Now, the 33-year-old state assemblyman has a chance to be New York City's first Asian American and Muslim mayor. Mamdani's family came to the United States when he was 7, and he became a citizen in 2018. He was born to Indian parents in Kampala, Uganda. For Kondabolu, this moment is not just exciting, but emotional. 'I think so many of us have had those experiences in New York of being brown and in a city that has always been really diverse and feels like ours. But after 9/11, like you start to question it like, is this our city too,' Kondabolu said. 'And 25 years later ... it's surreal, like this is the same city but it's not because we've elected this person.' Mamdani's campaign has piqued the interest of many Indian, Pakistani and other South Asian Americans, as well as Muslims — even those who may not agree with Mamdani on every issue. Despite that opposition, some still see his rise as a sign of hope in a city where racism and xenophobia erupted following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. South Asians and Muslims riveted by primary in New York, and beyond Many of New York City's over 300,000 South Asian residents have been inspired by Mamdani's extraordinary trajectory. 'My mom was texting her friends to vote for him. I've never seen my mother do that before,' Kondabolu said. 'So the idea that it's gotten our whole family activated in this way — this is, like, personal.' Snigdha Sur, founder and CEO of The Juggernaut, an online publication reporting on South Asians, has been fascinated by the response from some people in India and the diaspora. 'So many global South Asians ... they're like, 'Oh, this guy is my mayor and I don't live in New York City,'' Sur said. At the same time, some are also concerned or angered by Mamdani's past remarks about Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who he publicly called a 'war criminal.' In Michigan, Thasin Sardar has been following Mamdani's ascent online. When he first heard him, he struck him as 'genuine' and he felt 'an instant connection,' he said. 'As a Muslim American, this victory puts my trust back in the people,' said Sardar, who was born and raised in India. 'I am happy that there are people who value the candidate and his policies more than his personal religious beliefs and didn't vote him down because of the color of his skin, or the fact that he was an immigrant with an uncommon name.' New York voter Zainab Shabbir said family members in California, and beyond, have also excitedly taken note. 'My family in California, they were very much like, 'Oh, it's so nice to see a South Asian Muslim candidate be a mayor of a major city,'' she said. A brother told her Mamdani's rise is a great example for his kids, she said. But the 34-year-old — who donated, voted and canvassed for Mamdani — said it was his vision for New York City that was the draw for her. She and her husband briefly chatted with Mamdani at a fundraiser and she found him to be 'very friendly and genuine.' She suspects that for some who aren't very politically active, Mamdani's political ascent could make a difference. 'There's a lot of Muslim communities like my parents' generation who are focused a lot more on the politics back home and less on the politics here in America,' said Shabbir. 'Seeing people like Zohran Mamdani be in office, it'll really change that perspective in a lot of people.' Embracing Indian and Muslim roots Supporters and pundits agree that Mamdani's campaign has demonstrated social media savvy and authenticity. He visited multiple mosques. In videos, he speaks in Hindi or gives a touch of Bollywood. Other South Asian American politicians such as Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna praised that. 'I love that he didn't run away from his heritage. I mean, he did video clips with Amitabh Bachchan and Hindi movies,' Khanna said, referencing the Indian actor. 'He shows that one can embrace their roots and their heritage and yet succeed in American politics.'
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court wraps up its term
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The U.S. Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its current term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that may make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Friday curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called "universal" injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship The court's decision has "systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion," said Paul Rosenzweig, an attorney who served in Republican President George W. Bush's ruling said that judges generally can grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions. The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Trump appointed during his first term in office from has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian court also permitted implementation of Trump's ban on transgender people in the military, let his administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labor boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes.'A BULLY PULPIT'"President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases," George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said."Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency," Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions. "It recognizes that the executive branch is a bully pulpit with a wide range of authorities to implement the promises of a campaign platform."Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rulings in favor of Trump illustrate that "the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts Court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence," Luther cases involving Trump administration policies this year came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found that it was likely unconstitutional."One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers," Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons other cases during the nine-month term, the court sided with a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, endorsed South Carolina's plan to cut off public funding to reproductive healthcare and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, and made it easier to pursue claims alleging workplace "reverse" court also spared two American gun companies from the Mexican government's lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels, and allowed parents to opt elementary school children out of classes when storybooks with LGBT characters are read.'NOT THE COURT'S ROLE'In several cases involving federal statutes, the message from the justices is that people unhappy with the outcome need to take that up with Congress, according to Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson."The court is implicitly saying, 'That's Congress' problem to fix, and it's not the court's role to solve those issues,'" Levinson is the second straight year that the court ended its term with a decision handing Trump a major victory. On July 1, 2024, it ruled in favor of Trump in deciding that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken in office. It marked the first time that the court recognized any form of presidential immunity from Supreme Court's next term begins in October but Trump's administration still has some emergency requests pending that the justices could act upon at any time. It has asked the court to halt a judicial order blocking mass federal job cuts and the restructuring of agencies. It also has asked the justices to rein in the judge handling a case involving deportations to so-called "third countries."Recent rulings "have really shown the court for what it is, which is a deeply conservative court," Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis court's jurisprudence reflects a larger shift in the national discourse, with Republicans feeling they have the political capital to achieve long-sought aims, Kreis court's conservative majority, Kreis said, "is probably feeling more emboldened to act."
