logo
Op-Ed: Bigoted MAGA Republican Wants To Deport NYC Mayoral Nominee Zohran Mamdani, Calling Him ‘Little Muhamaad'

Op-Ed: Bigoted MAGA Republican Wants To Deport NYC Mayoral Nominee Zohran Mamdani, Calling Him ‘Little Muhamaad'

Black America Web21 hours ago

Source: Pool / Getty
White conservatives have often claimed they're fine with immigrants so long as they come to the U.S. 'the right way,' meaning legally. This has always been a lie, and now they're revealing that truth to anyone who didn't already know it. If the notion that conservatives only objected to immigrants residing in the U.S. when their paperwork wasn't in order wasn't a big, fat lie, Republican voters would be far more outraged that their leaders are now calling on President Donald Trump to denaturalize and deport Zohran Mamdani.
As we previously reported, MAGA supporters across the MAGA-net , including GOP leaders, had gone into full meltdown mode over news that Mamdani had clinched the Democratic nomination in New York City's mayoral race, defeating former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and, apparently, pissing in the Cheerios of Islamaphobic bigots across America. Well, the frantic attacks on Mamdani have increased exponentially since — *checks notes* — Tuesday, and now even lawmakers, who should know there's no precedent, cause or logic behind it, are calling for Mamdani, who was 7 years old when he and his parents migrated to the U.S., to be stripped of his citizenship.
On Thursday, Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) posted on X: '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.' Attached to his post was a screenshot of a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, urging her to open an investigation into Mamdani.
Before we get to how far and wide Ogles is reaching in suggesting a legal reason to deport Mamdani, let's take a look at the way the congressman began his tweet with explicit racism, right before accusing the presumptive Democratic nominee of being antisemitic.
Who the hell is 'little Muhammad?'
Mamdani is Muslim, and, as mentioned earlier, white conservatives have not been shy about making his faith and ethnicity the central focus of their objection to him. 'Little Muhammad' isn't some cute nickname he came up with for himself, and he's never been referred to as such in the media or by anyone else publicly. So, it appears that Ogles is quoting himself in a reference to the Muslim Prophet Muhammad, which would make 'little Muhammad' an ethnic slur, not that it would matter to xenophobic hypocrites who are only pretending to care about antisemitism to mask their own bigotry.
Another thing to note is that, like many MAGA Republicans, including Trump himself, Ogles has blindly accused Mamdani of being a communist, an allegation that is substantiated by absolutely nothing, but bolstered by the fact that your average MAGA conservative has no damn clue what communism actually is.
From Al Jazeera:
Mamdani's platform calls for making transportation, housing and groceries more affordable, but experts say he hasn't espoused key tenets of communism, such as government takeover of industry and private property.
'Mamdani is NOT a communist,' wrote Anna Grzymala-Busse, Stanford University professor of international studies, in an email to PolitiFact. 'Communism involves a centrally planned economy, with no market forces. Prices and quantities are set by a central government authority. There is no democratic political competition, and instead a single party rules the country. He is not calling for any of this.'
Unsurprisingly, Ogles believes Bondi can legally denaturalize and deport Mamdani, not because he has committed a crime — because he hasn't — but because, eight years ago, he expressed views that anti-Palestine conservatives might find offensive. Ogles cited a chapter from the U.S. Code that outlines the revocation of citizenship for individuals who willfully misrepresent or conceal material support for terrorism.
From The Hill:
'According to public reports, including a June 21, 2025 New York Post article, Mr. Mamdani expressed open solidarity with individuals convicted of terrorism-related offenses prior to becoming a U.S. citizen. Specifically, he rapped: 'Free the Holy Land Five / My guys,'' Ogles wrote in the letter.
The Holy Land Foundation is a U.S.-based Muslim charity. Five of its leaders were convicted of funneling money to Hamas in support of Palestine in 2008.
'Publicly praising the Foundation's convicted leadership as 'my guys' raises serious concerns about whether Mr. Mamdani held affiliations or sympathies he failed to disclose during the naturalization process,' Ogles wrote.
The Trump administration cited similar obscure legislation to justify the detention and deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University student and pro-Palestinian activist who also had not committed a crime. Khalil still faces a formal trial, but a federal judge ruled that he can't be deported without due process just because the White House doesn't agree with his views.
Even Ogles seems to be aware that what he's trying to do violates the First Amendment, but as Trump supporters across the nation have shown, the Constitution ends where their unbridled xenophobia begins.
'While I understand that some may raise First Amendment concerns about taking legal action based on expressive conduct, such as rap lyrics, speech alone does not preclude accountability where it reasonably suggests underlying conduct relevant to eligibility for naturalization,' Ogles wrote.
Again, this man is going to pull every muscle in his body with that reach.
It would be nice if Ogles and all the other Republican leaders and groups who are calling for Mamdani's deportation would just admit they're doing it for the same reason every conservative justice on the U.S. Supreme Court voted Friday to aid Trump in his war against birthright citizenship.
It was never about the legality of Black and brown migrants living here. It was always about reinforcing white nationalism; they prove it every day!
SEE ALSO:
MAGA Racists Predictably Melt Down Over Muslim NYC Mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani's Win
After Winning NYC's Democratic Mayoral Primary, Zohran Mamdani Reaffirms Support For Reparations
SEE ALSO
Op-Ed: Bigoted MAGA Republican Wants To Deport NYC Mayoral Nominee Zohran Mamdani, Calling Him 'Little Muhamaad' was originally published on newsone.com

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Mary Trump Gives 'Miserable' Don Jr. A Brutal Lesson On The Only Thing He's Accomplished
Mary Trump Gives 'Miserable' Don Jr. A Brutal Lesson On The Only Thing He's Accomplished

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Mary Trump Gives 'Miserable' Don Jr. A Brutal Lesson On The Only Thing He's Accomplished

Mary Trump blasted Donald Trump Jr. this week over his response to New York Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani's win in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary. Donald Trump's niece slammed her cousin, the president's eldest son, as 'a vile human being who's accomplished nothing in his meaningless, miserable little life.' Mamdani, a democratic socialist and Muslim American, has been the target of a wave of right-wing attacks following his victory. If elected, he'll become New York City's first Muslim mayor. Trump Jr. reposted a viral comment on X, formerly Twitter, that read, 'I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it,' with the caption: 'New York City has fallen.' Speaking with radio host Dean Obeidallah, Mary Trump tore into her cousin and said that 'one of the things I most resent about Donald, my uncle' is how he's subjected people to those like his son 'not because their opinions matter but because millions of people listen to them because they have a platform by virtue of their relationship with Donald.' Mary Trump, who has been a fierce critic of her uncle for years, warned the attacks on Mamdani are 'extraordinarily dangerous' and predicted the vitriol will only get worse as the mayoral race becomes 'nationalized in a way we may not have seen happen before.' Watch the exchange here: Trump Family Member Reportedly 'Seriously Considering' Run For Senate Trump's Self-Congratulatory Rant On Fox News Gets Roasted In Real Time

Trump is unsuitable for office. But he was right to bomb Iran.
Trump is unsuitable for office. But he was right to bomb Iran.

USA Today

time38 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Trump is unsuitable for office. But he was right to bomb Iran.

Do you think Trump was right to bomb Iran? Do you think he should have waited for approval from Congress? Are you concerned about the threat of nuclear war? Here's what readers told us. It's been more than a week since the United States entered the conflict between Iran and Israel on June 21, dropping more than a dozen 30,000-pound "bunker buster" bombs on Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Iran retaliated on June 23 with an attack on a U.S. military base in Qatar. The days that followed have brought with them a fragile ceasefire, first announced on Truth Social – and seemingly without the approval of Iran and Israel – by President Donald Trump. Since then, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and others in the Trump administration have been engaged in a back-and-forth about how much damage those bombs really did to Iran's nuclear capabilities – and while the world is breathing a little easier than it was nine days ago, tensions in the Middle East remain high. We wanted to know what you thought about all this. So, we asked. Do you think Trump was right to bomb Iran? Do you think he should have waited for approval from Congress? Are you concerned about the threat of nuclear war? Hundreds of readers wrote in for this installment of USA TODAY's Opinion Forum, sharing their opinions from across the country and political spectrum. Here's what they said. Trump is immoral and unsuitable for office. But bombing Iran was right. The air strikes were the right decision. Iran cannot be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. We should believe its leaders when they say 'Death to America." I should also mention that I normally vote Republican, but I've never voted for Donald Trump. I believe him to be an immoral, intemperate man unsuited for any public office. Presidents have been ordering military actions without congressional authorization for some time. However, that doesn't make it right. Still, as divided as Congress is, I don't believe he would have gotten the green light and we very much needed to act. Further retaliation by Iran is always a possibility. One has to know that once the act is completed, the other side may retaliate. Sometimes, however, the risk must be taken. While the U.S. intelligence community said Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon, the intelligence community has been wrong before. Trump is going to do whatever he wants to do. He is a bit of a loose cannon. — Kevin O'Grady, Columbus, Ohio Trump said he'd think about it for 2 weeks, then bombs! I do not think Trump made the right decision in bombing three Iranian nuclear sites. There was no emergency and no reason to do it. He said on June 19 he was going to consider it for two weeks and then, two days later, bombs! He has no idea what that little stunt costs – to deploy those types of weapons. He did it to show that he was powerful enough to do it. He has no idea what could result from it. He is an ignoramus! I think the fact that he acted on his own, without authorization from Congress, is a good reason to impeach him. He has already walked all over Congress and the court systems, doing things he does not have the authority to do. He should be impeached. In terms of him saying Iran was close to developing a nuclear weapon, the U.S. intelligence community said otherwise. I think Trump is dumb and has no idea what the truth is. I am slightly concerned about Iran's nuclear capabilities or the possibility of them receiving nuclear weapons from an ally. And I am slightly concerned about the threat of nuclear war. — Diane Whitlock, Waynesville, North Carolina Iran strikes are better than kumbaya attitudes in Congress I absolutely think Trump made the right decision in bombing the Iranian nuclear sites. Iran and many other bad state actors, and their proxies, represent existential threats to the U.S. Bad behavior must not be tolerated. We are neither empire building, nor are we regime changing in our defensive actions. I'm not in the least concerned about Trump ordering the strikes without congressional authorization. He was elected by a majority of American voters to stop the passive, kumbaya attitudes prevailing in the White House and Congress. Congress needs term limits, because the polarization is cause and effect of lobbyists being catalysts for wealth and power acquisition through longer seniority. As for the intelligence community's different assessment than Trump about how close Iran was to developing a nuclear weapon, who cares? When your public posture and oft-stated goals are the destruction of America, the degree of 'close to having' is a euphemism for panty waists to wring their hands and experience angst until it's not close, but NOW. — Robert Jarrard, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts Israel goaded Trump into military action This administration is the least equipped to make complex foreign policy decisions than any other one in this history of the U.S. At least in the first Trump administration there were some competent Cabinet officers and advisers, but now there is nobody to stop him from his worst impulses. Israel very effectively goaded Trump into this war action and it helped Trump domestically, at least in the short run, by taking attention away from his low approval ratings, the unlawful immigration raids, the protests and the lack of any tariff deals. It concerns me that Trump did not get congressional approval before the strikes. There was no urgency or exigency to having to make this decision. Even though the GOP Congress might well have rubber-stamped his decision, Trump is taking every avenue to consolidate his executive power, and Congress is aiding and abetting this by not asserting its constitutional rights. Iran has already performatively fired missiles at U.S. military installations in Qatar, with pre-warning. The supreme leader of Iran has to save face, and this might well be enough for him. I am more concerned that Trump is a loose cannon, and if he feels that his power is slipping he will escalate this to try to get a "rally round the flag" approval bump. In short, I simply do not trust him to act in the best interest of anyone but himself, certainly not in the interest of the American people. Israel has a vested interest in making it seem like a nuclear weapon is imminent. I believe the U.S. intelligence community on this. Trump notoriously refuses to hear briefings or pay any attention to actual facts, but instead relies on "his instincts," which are basically messages from Fox News. — Patricia Gotschalk, Wailuku, Hawaii Limits on bombing helped make it acceptable I do think President Trump made the right decision in bombing the three Iranian nuclear sites. It seems like it was limited in scope to only neutralizing the nuclear threats. And I'm not concerned about him acting on his own presidential authority, without authorization from Congress. There's a long history of presidents launching attacks like this one. As for additional retaliation by Iran, I'm not concerned because it's too far away and it's not a military power. With Trump's disagreement with the the U.S. intelligence community about whether Iran was close to developing a nuclear weapon, I think its nuclear program exceeds civilian use. Why have it secluded in the mountains unless it's to weaponize it? And while I'm slightly concerned about Iran's nuclear capabilities and the possibility it could receive nuclear weapons from an ally, I'm not at all concerned about the threat of nuclear war. — Scott Forrester, Phoenix, Arizona

I'm Not the Person You'd Expect to Oppose a Ban on Transgender Troops
I'm Not the Person You'd Expect to Oppose a Ban on Transgender Troops

New York Times

timean hour ago

  • New York Times

I'm Not the Person You'd Expect to Oppose a Ban on Transgender Troops

I enlisted in the United States Army in 2006 and have been an officer since 2013, serving in a variety of leadership positions. I am proud of my service and I care deeply about the Army. But this month I began the process of resigning in protest of President Trump's executive order barring transgender people from the military. The president issued the order in January and the Supreme Court last month allowed the administration to start enforcing it. The order may be legally sound, but it is neither moral nor ethical. I believe that it is my duty as an officer to dissent when faced with such an order. I may not be the sort of person you would expect to oppose a ban on transgender troops. I am a conservative evangelical Christian and a Republican. Though I have deep compassion for people who feel they are in the wrong body, I do not think that transitioning — as opposed to learning to love and accept the body God gave you — is the right thing to do in that predicament. But my views are irrelevant to the issue of transgender troops. Having served under several presidential administrations, I understand that new leadership often entails changes to military policy. Some changes, such as the repeal in 2011 of 'don't ask, don't tell,' I have disagreed with. But I have never before concluded that I need to resign. This situation is different. The ban on transgender troops is blatantly discriminatory. It has nothing to do with the policy's stated justification of military readiness. The Department of Defense, when imposing the ban in February, claimed that the 'medical, surgical and mental health constraints' on transgender people 'are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.' This is untrue, and the department should know it. A study from 2016 conducted by the RAND Corporation for the Department of Defense found that military policies in other countries that permit transgender people to serve openly have 'no significant effect on cohesion, operational effectiveness or readiness.' The American Psychological Association noted in 2018 that 'substantial psychological research' demonstrates that gender dysphoria does not itself prevent people from working at a high level, 'including in military service.' Indeed, since 2016, when the Pentagon announced that transgender Americans could serve openly, transgender troops have been deployed to combat zones, provided vital support to combat operations and filled critical roles in the armed forces. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store