Congress members split over US attack on Iran
WASHINGTON: Republican and Democratic members of the US Congress delivered swift reactions to US bombings of Iranian nuclear facilities early on Sunday.
The following are statements from key lawmakers:
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, a Mississippi Republican, applauded the operation but cautioned that the United States now faced "very serious choices ahead."
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim Risch, Republican of Idaho, said, "This war is Israel's war, not our war, but Israel is one of our strongest allies and is disarming Iran for the good of the world." Risch added, "This is not the start of a forever war. There will not be American boots on the ground in Iran."
"This is not constitutional," conservative Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky said on social media. He was referring to the power of Congress to declare war on foreign countries.
US House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican of Louisiana, said, "The president gave Iran's leader every opportunity to make a deal, but Iran refused to commit to a nuclear disarmament agreement."
"The president's decisive action prevents the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, which chants 'Death to America,' from obtaining the most lethal weapon on the planet."
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said, "I stand with President Trump."
Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, a daughter of Palestinian immigrants: "President Trump sending US troops to bomb Iran without the consent of Congress is a blatant violation of our Constitution. The American people do not want another forever war. We have seen where decades of endless war in the Middle East gets us - all based on the lie of 'weapons of mass destruction.'"
Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia said the US public "is overwhelmingly opposed to waging war on Iran" and said Trump displayed "horrible judgment."
Max Rose, a former Democratic member of Congress who now is a senior adviser to the progressive veterans' group "VoteVets," said, "Trump's decision to launch direct strikes against Iran without congressional authorisation is illegal." Rose added, "This conflict is his and the Republicans who have abrogated all their responsibilities." - Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -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 wondersabout 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?" (Reporting by Ted Hesson in Washington and Kristina Cooke in San Francisco; Editing by Amy Stevens and Sam Holmes)
The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may yet lose on birthright citizenship
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called "universal" injunctions. But the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief, left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out. "I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect," said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work the court's majority cited extensively in Friday's ruling. Trump's executive order directs 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. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an "imperial" judiciary. Judges can provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. A HOST OF POLICIES That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on U.S. soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in "class-protective" injunctions. "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal," Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference," said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. "We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed." The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. STATES CHALLENGE DIRECTIVE The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. "As the majority recognizes, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups," Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, "recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case." Platkin committed to "keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War" of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. "The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as U.S. citizens," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Additional reporting by John Kruzel, Nate Raymond, Jan Wolfe and Trevor Hunnicutt; Editing by Will Dunham)
The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
Singapore has increased its security posture amid rising tensions from Iran-Israel conflict, says national security minister
SINGAPORE (The Straits Times/ANN): Singapore has increased its security posture amid rising tensions from the Iran-Israel conflict, said Coordinating Minister for National Security K. Shanmugam. Speaking to the media on the sidelines of a community event in Nee Soon on June 28, he said: 'There is a ceasefire, but we don't know exactly what will happen after this.' People in this region, other regions, or extremist organisations might want to make a point against Israeli, American or other Western assets, he said, adding that there could be attacks from the far right on Muslim assets. If Singapore is ever attacked, it will make international headlines, he said. There is a possibility of attacks on both sides, he said, either by the far right attacking Muslims, or representative of Muslim countries including Iran, and attacks on Western assets – American, European, Israeli. 'So we have increased our security posture, working off different scenarios, but you know, you can never be absolutely sure,' he added. When asked by the media if there have been more suspicious activities or extreme activities since the US air strikes on Iran nuclear facilities, Shanmugam, who is also Home Affairs Minister, said the authorities have not detected anything here yet. 'But they need to succeed only once,' he said, adding that security is a joint responsibility and Singaporeans will need to be more aware of potential security threats. Addressing the conflict between Iran and Israel, Minister for Defence Chan Chun Sing recently also told media on June 25 that retaliation from Iran may not be limited to targets in America or Israel. Chan said that the retaliation could be anywhere else, and could stoke up emotions in the region. These conflicts have resulted in greater security concerns, he had said. Shanmugam on June 28 also said that the Government is looking at the possible 'outflows' to Singapore, in response to Thailand recently recriminalising cannabis. 'The nexus between drugs and crime, and terrorism, also needs to be looked at.' 'We try to maintain our openness and our connectivity, and our business-friendly environment,' he said. 'It is a bit early to say what is going to happen, but we have to be more careful.' Thailand's health ministry on June 24 issued an order prohibiting the sale of cannabis for recreational use and requiring a doctor's prescription for any retail purchase. Shanmugam said that when Thailand decriminalised cannabis previously, there were many people with more liberal views who asked if Singapore was going to change as well. 'I said the Singapore Government decides not based on what other countries do. We take a hard look, we look at the science, we look at the social impact, and the actual impact and we run the government of Singapore and the policies in the best interests of Singaporeans,' he said. 'And I am absolutely convinced, the Cabinet is absolutely convinced that the right policy is to be strict on drugs, and you can see, the people who asked for liberalisation, are shutting their eyes deliberately to what is happening around the world and the immense harm.' 'We work in the best interests of Singaporeans, and it was the right policy to keep it criminalised, not soften our stance, and that remains the right policy,' he added. - The Straits Times/ANN
