Republicans call for Zohran Mamdani's deportation, question his citizenship over NYC mayoral candidate's anti-ICE stance
As Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic socialist, was announced winner over former governor Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic mayoral primary, Republicans have called for his deportation and sought probe into his citizenship status over NYC mayoral candidate's 'fascist' Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) stance. Zohran promises to expel it from the city properties.
US President Donald Trump's Border Czar Tom Homan responded, stating, 'Good luck with that. It's game on', according to Fox News.
Zohran's platform vows to 'kick the fascist ICE out' and bolster New York's sanctuary city protections by slashing cooperation with federal agents, increasing legal aid, and safeguarding immigrants' data. A statement on his campaign website reads, 'Zohran Mamdani will fight Trump's attempts to gouge the working class and deliver a city where everyone can afford a dignified life.'
'Good luck with that, federal law trumps him every day, every hour of every minute. '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," Homan warned him against it.
Tennessee Republican Congressman Andy Ogles has requested the federal government to revoke New York City mayoral candidate Mamdani of his US citizenship and begin deportation proceedings. Ogles posted images of a letter he sent to US Attorney General Pam Bondi, in which he urged the Department of Justice to investigate whether Mamdani's citizenship was obtained through "wilful misrepresentation or concealment of material support for terrorism"
'He needs to be DEPORTED. Which is why I am calling for him to be subject to denaturalisation proceedings," Ogles posted on X. He called Zohran 'an antisemitic, socialist, communist who will destroy the great City of New York'.
Homan believes ICE plans to ramp up operations in New York in response to concerns over public safety and national security. He stated that additional agents will be deployed and worksite enforcement efforts will be expanded 'tenfold'.
Homan also drew a comparison between New York and Florida, asserting that collaboration with ICE is more effective in Republican-governed states. 'We don't have that problem in Florida, where the sheriffs work with us. So we're going to double up and triple up on New York. Not only are we going to send more agents to the neighborhood, we are going to increase worksite enforcement tenfold,' he added.
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
Why the Trump Justice Department is demanding the University of Virginia president resign
Trump DOJ demands UVA president resign over DEI policy investigation. (AP Photo) In a move described by legal experts as highly unusual, the US Justice Department under President Donald Trump has privately demanded the resignation of University of Virginia (UVA) President James E. Ryan as a condition for resolving a civil rights investigation into the university's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices. According to a report by The New York Times, the demand was issued several times in recent weeks by Gregory Brown, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, who is also a UVA graduate and previously sued the university as a private lawyer. The pressure is part of a broader campaign led by the Trump administration to dismantle DEI initiatives in higher education institutions across the country. Push to reshape higher education through federal influence The Justice Department has told UVA officials that hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding are at risk due to what the department alleges is the university's failure to comply with federal civil rights law. According to The New York Times, the department claims that President Ryan has not dismantled UVA's DEI programs and has misrepresented the university's efforts to comply with executive orders issued by the administration. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo This is the first known instance in which the federal government has tied the outcome of a civil rights investigation to the removal of a university leader. Legal scholars told The New York Times that such tactics are more commonly associated with corporate investigations involving serious wrongdoing, rather than with educational institutions. Behind the resignation demand: politics, DEI, and Trump's agenda President Trump's administration has increasingly focused on reshaping the ideological direction of US universities, which it views as bastions of liberal thought. The push against DEI efforts is part of a broader initiative that began with an executive order targeting such programs across federal agencies, schools, and private companies. The order did not define DEI practices clearly, resulting in inconsistent institutional responses. President Ryan, who became UVA's ninth president in 2018, has emphasized diversity and service as central to the school's mission. He previously served as dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education and has been praised for his commitment to inclusive academic environments. However, these values have put him at odds with conservative alumni and Republican-appointed board members, who accuse him of promoting a 'woke' agenda, as reported by The New York Times. Ties to America First Legal and conservative pressure Much of the political momentum behind this pressure campaign has been attributed to America First Legal, a group founded by Trump adviser Stephen Miller. The group accused UVA of merely rebranding its DEI programs and called on the Justice Department to 'hold UVA accountable.' Attorney Megan Redshaw, representing the organization, stated in a release quoted by The New York Times, 'Rebranding discrimination does not make it legal. ' Justice Department civil rights chief Harmeet K. Dhillon, who attended UVA Law School alongside Ryan, has also been directly involved in the negotiations, according to The New York Times. Discussions have included members of the university's oversight board, several of whom were appointed by Republican Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin. A broader strategy targeting elite institutions This move fits a larger pattern. The Trump administration has already stripped billions in federal funding from elite universities, including Harvard, and has initiated investigations through multiple federal agencies. The case of UVA is seen as a new frontier—targeting not only DEI practices but also university leadership itself. A UVA spokesperson declined to comment on President Ryan's status, as reported by The New York Times. The Justice Department also did not respond to media inquiries. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
What's next for birthright citizenship as US Supreme Court's ruling expand Trump's power
The legal battle over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite the Republican administration's major victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. Donald Trump's executive order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. (AFP) Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with more than a century of precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of the president's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next. What does birthright citizenship mean? Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution's 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship. 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump has long said he wants to do away with birthright citizenship Trump's executive order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. It's part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a 'magnet for illegal immigration.' Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' – saying it means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true, and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. 'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing earlier this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. Is Trump's order constitutional? The justices didn't say The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued want to usurp the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities around immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. 'The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,' said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is 'very confident' that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. Questions and uncertainty swirl around next steps The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review" in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century," said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.'
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
After US Supreme Court ruling over Trump's order, what next for birthright citizenship?
The legal battle over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite the Republican administration's major victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. The US Supreme Court did not address the merits of President Donald Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order.(AFP) Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with more than a century of precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of the president's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next. What does birthright citizenship mean? Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution's 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship. 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump has long said he wants to do away with birthright citizenship Trump's executive order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. It's part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a 'magnet for illegal immigration.' Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' – saying it means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true, and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. 'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing earlier this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. Is Trump's order constitutional? The justices didn't say The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued want to usurp the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities around immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. 'The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,' said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is 'very confident' that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. Questions and uncertainty swirl around next steps The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review" in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century," said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear."
