Zohran Mamdani faces racist smears and calls for citizenship to be stripped
Zohran Mamdani is facing a barrage of racist attacks this week and a call by a Republican lawmaker for him to be stripped of his citizenship after his 24 June victory in the New York City primary election for mayor.
The pro-Palestinian Democratic Socialist won the Democratic nomination for mayor with a clear majority after 93 percent of the votes were counted.
Before his victory, he faced racist attacks from New York City councilwoman Vickie Paladino and Congressman Randy Fine, both from the Republican party, while after the win, Republican Andy Ogles called for Mamdani to be deported and denaturalised.
In a post on X on 26 June, Ogles said: "Zohran 'little muhammad' Mamdani is an antisemitic, socialist, communist who will destroy the great City of New York. He needs to be DEPORTED. Which is why I am calling for him to be subject to denaturalization proceedings.'
Ogles also attached a letter to attorney general Pam Bondi, accusing Mamdani of procuring his citizenship through 'willful mirepresentation or concealment of material support for terrorism'.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
The comments drew condemnation from several of Ogle's colleagues, including Democratic Congressman Shri Thanedar and the House Homeland Security Committee Democrats, as well as Muslim American members of Congress.
'This type of racism has no place in America,' Thanedar said in a post on X on 26 June. 'This type of racism has no place in America. Immigrants make our country great, and I strongly condemn this blatant, anti-immigrant bigotry from Andy Ogles'.
The House Homeland Security Committee Democrats referred to his comments in a 26 June post on X as 'Racist drivel.'
Democratic Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib on Friday posted a statement on X from Muslim American members of Congress condemning Ogle's "anti-Muslim" attacks. "The vile, anti-Muslim and racists smears from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle attacking Zohran Mamdani cannot be met with silence," the statement read. The statement was signed on to by Tlaib, Congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Lateefah Simon, and Congressman Andre Carson.
Corey Saylor, research and advocacy director at the civil rights and advocacy organisation Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair) told Middle East Eye that the attacks on Mamdani were part of an entrenched decades-long perspective on Muslims: 'The anti-Muslim bigotry that has erupted online in the wake of New York City's Democratic mayoral primary is as dishonest as it is dangerous."
Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani fends off hate as he inspires New Yorkers Read More »
He added that it was 'nothing new' to the American-Muslim community.
'The politicians, influencers and hate groups unleashing a wave of irrational Islamophobic talking points are weaponising the same tactics that have been used for decades to manipulate Americans into fearing any Muslims engaged in political life,' he added.
'Islamophobia is the last widely accepted form of bigotry in American political life, and this must change before it leads to more discrimination and threats of violence against American Muslims pursuing public office".
But it wasn't just lawmakers who have been targeting Mamdani since his victory.
Stephen Miller, the White House assistant chief of staff, who is frequently referred to as the architect behind Trump's immigration policies, alluded to Mamdani in a post on X on 25 June, saying that 'NYC is the clearest warning yet of what happens to a society when it fails to control migration'.
Miller himself is the grandson of a Jewish immigrant who fled religious persecution from modern-day Belarus to the United States.
Prior to his election success, Mamdani had already been the target of a smear campaign that painted him as an antisemite, funded to the tune of $25m by a Super PAC called "Fix the City".
He even faced death threats, with his office receiving voicemails including a threat to blow up his car. Mamdani teared up when speaking of the impact of such attacks during his campaign, saying he had received a message saying, 'The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim'.
Mamdani is an Indian-origin Muslim who moved from Uganda to New York City when he was seven years old and became a naturalised citizen in 2018.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
38 minutes ago
- Middle East Eye
UAE top court upholds life terms for 24 convicted in mass trial
The supreme court in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has sentenced 24 people to life in prison after upholding their convictions for "terrorist" links, which had been dismissed following a mass trial criticised by human rights groups. "The Criminal Chamber of the Federal Supreme Court ruled [on Thursday] to partially overturn the judgment issued by the State Security Chamber at the Abu Dhabi Federal Court of Appeal and to reconvict 24 defendants," the official Emirates News Agency (WAM) reported on Friday. The 24 were originally convicted in a mass trial of 84 people in July last year - most of whom, according to human rights groups, had already been imprisoned since a similar mass trial of 94 individuals in 2013. "Following yesterday's ruling... the total number of convicted individuals in this case has risen to 83 out of 84 referred to trial," WAM said. Sixty-seven of them have been sentenced to life imprisonment. "The court sentenced the defendants to life imprisonment for collaborating with the 'Terrorist Justice and Dignity Organisation', and providing funds to the Al-Islah," WAM added, referring to a group with ties to the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Human Rights Watch (HRW) said the convictions were based on "a fundamentally unfair mass trial". 'The UAE's second-largest mass trial case has been justified under the guise of countering terrorism, but it's just part of the Emirati government's relentless efforts to prevent the re-emergence of any independent civil society in the country,' said Joey Shea, UAE researcher at HRW. 'Life in prison for nonviolent activism shows Abu Dhabi's utter contempt for both peaceful criticism and the rule of law.' 'UAE 94' The 2013 trial of the so-called "UAE 94", held at the peak of the Arab uprisings, was widely criticised by rights groups as grossly unfair. Lawyers, professors, activists and students who had petitioned the government for democratic reforms were tried for plotting to overthrow it. In March, the UAE rejected the appeals of 53 individuals who were convicted in the July 2024 trial. UAE 'retaliates' against jailed activist Ahmed Mansoor for exposing abuses Read More » The Abu Dhabi Federal Appeals Court overturned the convictions of the other 24 defendants, but the attorney general sought to reverse that decision, arguing it had been "legally flawed". Prominent activist Ahmed Mansoor and academic Nasser bin Ghaith were among those tried last July, HRW said. Bin Ghaith was sentenced to 10 years in 2017 over tweets criticising Egypt, a key ally of the Gulf state. Authorities said he had published 'photos and articles that are offensive to the state's symbols and values, its internal and foreign policies and its relations with an Arab state', understood to refer to Egypt. The UAE prohibits criticism of its rulers and any speech deemed likely to spark social unrest. Emirati courts have convicted dozens of citizens and Egyptian expats of forming clandestine cells, including al-Islah.
Dubai Eye
3 hours ago
- Dubai Eye
Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court wraps up its term
The US 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 power. With 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 presidents. The 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 administration. Friday's ruling said that judges generally can grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. The 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 2017-2021. Trump 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 grounds. The court also permitted to let Trump's administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labour boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes. "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. 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 rightward. The rulings in favour 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 said. The 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 said.
Gulf Today
12 hours ago
- Gulf Today
In win for Trump, Supreme Court limits judges' power to block birthright citizenship order
The US Supreme Court dealt a blow on Friday to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as the justices acted in a fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, ordering lower courts that blocked his policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. However, the court's 6-3 ruling, authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not let Trump's policy go into effect immediately and did not address the policy's legality. The justices granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. With the court's conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. The ruling thus raises the prospect of Trump's order eventually taking effect in some parts of the country. Federal judges have taken steps including issuing numerous nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The three judges in the birthright citizenship cases found that Trump's order likely violates citizenship language in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. "No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation - in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so," Barrett wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by the court's other two liberal members, wrote, "The majority ignores entirely whether the President's executive order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. Yet the order's patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority's error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case." Trump welcomed the ruling and criticised judges who have issued nationwide orders thwarting his policies. "It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly, and instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation," Trump told reporters at the White House, describing these judges as "radical left." On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. In her dissent, Sotomayor said Trump's executive order is obviously unconstitutional. So rather than defend it on the merits, she wrote, the Justice Department "asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone." Friday's ruling did not rule out all forms of broad relief. A key part of the ruling said judges may provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them. It did not foreclose the possibility that states might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to obtain complete relief. "We decline to take up those arguments in the first instance," Barrett wrote. The ruling left untouched the potential for plaintiffs to also did not a separate path for wider relief through class action lawsuits, but that legal mechanism is often harder to successfully mount. Sotomayor advised parents of children who would be affected by Trump's order "to file promptly class action suits and to request temporary injunctive relief for the putative class." Just two hours after the Supreme Court ruled, lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Maryland case filed a motion seeking to have a judge who previously blocked Trump's order to grant class action status to all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "The Supreme Court has now instructed that, in such circumstances, class-wide relief may be appropriate," the lawyers wrote in their motion. 'ILLEGAL AND CRUEL' The American Civil Liberties Union called the ruling troubling, but limited, because lawyers can seek additional protections for potentially affected families. "The executive order is blatantly illegal and cruel. It should never be applied to anyone," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "The court's decision to potentially open the door to enforcement is disappointing, but we will do everything in our power to ensure no child is ever subjected to the executive order." The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown, whose state helped secure the nationwide injunction issued by a judge in Seattle, called Friday's ruling "disappointing on many levels" but stressed that the justices "confirmed that courts may issue broad injunctions when needed to provide complete relief to the parties." Reuters
