Latest news with #14thamendment
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Melania should be on first boat: Deportation calls for US' First Lady gains traction amid Trump's immigration crackdown
Petition calling for Melania's deportation Live Events Melania Trump visa controversy (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Americans have started a petition asking the US government to deport Melania Trump, her parents and Barron Trump amid the President's plan to target naturalised citizens for deportation. A petition on MoveOn has gained traction online demanding that US First Lady Melania Trump her son Barron, and her parents also be deported, reports The Irish petition says that since the President wants to deport naturalized citizens, "it's only fair that Melania and her parents are on the first boat out." This comes as the Department of Justice began to prioritize stripping naturalized Americans of their citizenship when charged with petition claims that since Melania Trump is a naturalised citizen, she and her family should be 'on the first boat out' if Trump's proposals are applied also refers to Barron Trump as an 'anchor baby' and cites the birth of Melania's mother outside the US as part of the criteria Trump's policy reportedly Anchor Baby is a term used to refer to a child born to a non-citizen mother in the US, especially when viewed as providing an advantage to family members seeking to secure citizenship or legal residency.'Since Trump wants to deport naturalized citizens, I believe it is only fair that Melania and her parents are on the first boat out,' the page reads. 'In addition, Melania's anchor baby, Baron, should be forced to leave as well because we know that his mother's mother was born in a different country. That is part of the criteria that Trump is putting into place. Your mother's mother has to have been born in the United States and we know Melania's mother was born elsewhere. If it's good for one, it's good for all! There should be no exceptions! On the first boat or flight out!'The petition further argued that the move would prevent perceptions of favoritism, adding, "If this is truly about national security, then Melania needs to go!" The remarks reflected growing public frustration over what many viewed as double standards in Trump's deportation though the petition was launched five months ago, it has gained popularity over the last few months, going from 100 signatures two days ago to over 3,300 at the time of publication. Earlier this year, Congresswoman Maxine Waters called for the deportation of Melania, saying Trump should "first look at Melania's records.' Waters' remarks came after Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office seeking to restrict birthright citizenship by reinterpreting the 14th amendment. The order is currently under judicial review."When he [Trump] talks about birthright, and he's going to undo the fact that the Constitution allows those who are born here, even if the parents are undocumented, they have a right to stay in America. If he wants to start looking so closely to find those who were born here and their parents were undocumented, maybe he ought to first look at Melania," Waters was seen saying from the stage, various videos posted on social media showed, Fox News added, "We don't know whether or not her parents were documented. And maybe we better just take a look." According to Fox News, her remarks were met with loud cheers from protestors at the rally, which focused on opposing Trump's federal government downsizing Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett turned her sights on First Lady Melania Trump over her visa."We don't know whether or not her parents were documented. And maybe we better just take a look," Waters said at a rally. 'If he wants to start looking so closely to find those who were born here and their parents were undocumented, maybe he ought to first look at Melania.''The first lady, a model—and when I say model, I'm not talking Tyra Banks, Cindy Crawford, or Naomi Campbell-level—applied for and was given an EB-1 visa,' Crockett said.'Let me tell you how you receive an Einstein visa,' she said, 'you're supposed to have some sort of significant achievement, like being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize or a Pulitzer, being an Olympic medallist, or having other sustained extraordinary abilities and success in sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. Last time I checked, the first lady had none of those accolades under her belt. It doesn't take an Einstein to see that the math ain't mathin' here.'Melania was born in Slovenia in 1970 and moved to New York in 1996. She is the first Lady of the United States to become a naturalized citizen. She was a Slovenian model living in New York when she applied for the EB-1 in 2000. The visa was approved in 2001, and she became a US citizen in 2006. That citizenship later allowed her to sponsor her parents for green about her immigration status before she got her green card in 2001 have remained unclear, often kicking off conspiracy theories about whether or not she had maintained legal immigration 2018, The New York Times reported that Melania sponsored her parents, Viktor and Amalija Knavs, for green cards and later citizenship. Amalija Knavs passed away in 2024, while Viktor Knavs has been seen at recent public events with the Trump familyHowever, Robert Scott, an immigration attorney based in New York, told Fact Check last year: 'There's really no sound argument that any of Donald's children are not U.S. citizens.' The 14th Amendment states, 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.'
Time of India
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
‘On the first boat out': Viral petition seeks Melania's deportation; says Trump's policy must apply to all
ANI photo As criticism grows over US president Donald Trump's reported plan to target naturalised citizens for deportation, a petition on MoveOn has gone viral, demanding that US first lady Melania Trump, her son Barron, and her parents also be deported. The petition claims that since Melania is a naturalised citizen, she and her family should be 'on the first boat out' if Trump's proposals are applied fairly. It also refers to Barron Trump as an 'anchor baby' and cites the birth of Melania's mother outside the US as part of the criteria Trump's policy reportedly targets. 'If it's good for one, it's good for all. There should be no exceptions,' the petition reads. It adds that removing the first lady would prevent any perception of double standards, saying, 'If this is truly about national security, then Melania needs to go.' According to Fox News, the petition surfaced soon after Congresswoman Maxine Waters, speaking at an anti-DOGE protest in Los Angeles on 25 March, questioned Melania Trump's immigration history. 'Maybe he ought to first look at Melania,' she said, referring to Trump's comments about changing birthright citizenship. Waters also said it was unclear whether Melania's parents were documented when they came to the US. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng CFDs với sàn môi giới tin cậy IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo Melania Trump was born in the former Yugoslavia and became a US citizen in 2006. She is the first US first lady to be naturalised and only the second to be born outside the country. The New York Times reported in 2018 that she sponsored her parents for green cards and later citizenship. Her mother, Amalija Knavs, died in 2024. Her father, Viktor Knavs, has recently appeared at public events with the Trump family. Waters' remarks came after Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office seeking to restrict birthright citizenship by reinterpreting the 14th amendment. The order is currently under judicial review. Waters' comments were met with loud cheers at the protest, where hundreds marched against Trump's federal downsising agenda. She also criticised Trump ally Elon Musk, saying, 'We are not going to let Trump, or Elon Musk, or anybody else take the United States constitution down.'
Mint
2 days ago
- Politics
- Mint
A blow to judicial power and a win for Donald Trump
A year ago John Sauer, then Donald Trump's personal lawyer, persuaded six justices to hand the presidential candidate sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution. On June 27th Mr Sauer, now Mr Trump's solicitor general, notched another huge victory for his boss—one that will enhance the power of future presidents, too. Whereas Trump v United States articulated a capacious standard of presidential immunity and cleared the way for Mr Trump to complete his campaign free of legal jeopardy, Trump v CASA liberates him from nationwide injunctions—the most potent tool judges have been using to thwart his agenda. It was, as Mr Trump wrote on social media, a 'GIANT WIN'. On the surface, Trump v CASA was about Mr Trump's executive order denying citizenship to babies born to undocumented immigrants and temporary-visa holders. That proclamation, issued on his first day back in office, departed from more than 125 years of understanding that the 14th amendment promises citizenship to 'all persons born or naturalised' in America. Three district courts issued nationwide injunctions blocking the order, with one judge (appointed by Ronald Reagan) calling it 'blatantly unconstitutional'. But when the Department of Justice (DoJ) approached the Supreme Court, it did not request a wholesale reversal of any of these decisions—an apparent recognition that the justices, too, would likely see the order as unconstitutional. Instead the DoJ asked the justices to limit the injunctions to the litigants who brought the cases: a group of pregnant women, the members of two immigrants-right organisations and 22 states, plus San Francisco and the District of Columbia. By doing so the DoJ invited the justices to turn from the question of 'birthright citizenship' to the broader question of district judges usurping executive power by issuing nationwide or 'universal' injunctions. The tack may have been cynical, but it was effective. Justice Amy Coney Barrett's 26-page majority opinion is an indictment of such injunctions. The trend of individual district-court judges blocking presidential actions has held 'across administrations', wrote Justice Barrett. During the first 100 days of the second Trump administration, the tool was used about 25 times. Congress has granted judges 'no such power', she argued, and universal injunctions are not a valid application of the judicial role. The practice was unheard of until the 20th century. 'No one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law,' she wrote. 'But the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation'. The three liberal justices dissented vigorously. Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that '[n]o right is safe in the new legal regime' of Trump v CASA. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the majority's decision gives the president authority 'to violate the constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued', posing 'an existential threat to the rule of law'. Soon, she cautioned, 'executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional republic will be no more'. To this, Justice Barrett had a rejoinder: 'When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.' The blast zone from Trump v CASA could be wide. As the majority noted, judges across America have been issuing nationwide injunctions to stymie a host of Mr Trump's policies, from eliminating foreign aid appropriated by Congress to imposing new voter-identification rules. The DoJ is expected to promptly file motions to lift the injunctions. Moving forward, America's 677 district-court judges will be deprived of a particularly powerful tool. But there are other ways that the judicial system can deal with broad violations of the constitution or individual rights. One is class-action lawsuits, whereby one or several named plaintiffs, or an organisation, sue on behalf of similarly situated plaintiffs across America. All pregnant women without legal status, for example, could be a 'class' that courts recognise as entitled to relief from Mr Trump's birthright-citizenship proclamation. But this form of litigation has high procedural hurdles and classes can take months to certify—a process the Supreme Court has made increasingly difficult in recent years. In the case of birthright citizenship, there is another possibility that Justice Barrett's opinion explicitly leaves open to the lower courts. The cost and administrative burden of tracking the immigration status of babies traveling around the country, for example, could make anything less than a comprehensive bar on Mr Trump's policy unworkable for the 22 states seeking relief. So these states have a plausible argument that the only injunction that can ease their burden is one that blocks Mr Trump's executive order everywhere. Justice Barrett closed her opinion by delaying implementation of the court's decision for 30 days. That gives the plaintiffs until July 27th to hasten back to district courts to file class-action cases or argue that a blanket injunction against Mr Trump's policies is required to grant the suing parties 'complete relief'. If neither of these efforts is successful, the country could be left with a patchwork of rules that grants citizenship to the baby of an undocumented mother born in Minnesota, but not one born in Mississippi (at least until the constitutionality of Mr Trump's executive order is decided by the high court). The 6-3 split in Trump v CASA reveals a court that remains deeply divided over executive power. For those hoping to challenge the president's more aggressive policies, the courthouse doors remain open—but the path to meaningful relief is considerably narrower.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
US supreme court limits judges' power on nationwide injunctions in apparent win for Trump
The US supreme court has supported Donald Trump's attempt to limit district judges' power to block his orders on a nationwide basis, in an emergency appeal related to the birthright citizenship case but with wide implications for the executive branch's power. The court's opinion on the constitutionality of whether some American-born children can be deprived of citizenship remains undecided and the fate of the US president's order to overturn birthright citizenship rights was left unclear. The decision on Friday morning, however, decided six votes to three by the nine-member supreme court bench, sides with the Trump administration in a historic case that boosts tested presidential power and judicial oversight in the second Trump administration. The conservative majority wrote that 'universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts', granting 'the government's applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue'. The ruling, written by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not let Trump's policy seeking a ban on birthright citizenship go into effect immediately and did not address the policy's legality. The fate of the policy remains imprecise 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. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a scathing dissent, writing: 'The court's decision to permit the executive to violate the constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law. Given the critical role of the judiciary in maintaining the rule of law ... it is odd, to say the least, that the court would grant the executive's wish to be freed from the constraints of law by prohibiting district courts from ordering complete compliance with the constitution.' Barrett delivered a particularly sharp rebuke directed at Jackson in the majority opinion, writing: 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the constitution itself.' Speaking from the bench, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the court's majority decision 'a travesty for the rule of law'. The court's ruling in Trump v CASA, Inc will boost Trump's potential to enforce citizenship restrictions, in this and other cases in future, in states where courts had not specifically blocked them, creating a chaotic patchwork. Trump's January executive order sought to deny birthright citizenship to babies born on US soil if their parents lack legal immigration status – defying the 14th amendment's guarantee that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States' are citizens – and made justices wary during the hearing. The real fight in Trump v CASA Inc, wasn't about immigration but judicial power. Trump's lawyers demanded that nationwide injunctions blocking presidential orders be scrapped, arguing judges should only protect specific plaintiffs who sue – not the entire country. Three judges blocked Trump's order nationwide after he signed it on inauguration day, which would enforce citizenship restrictions in states where courts hadn't specifically blocked them. The policy targeted children of both undocumented immigrants and legal visa holders, demanding that at least one parent be a lawful permanent resident or US citizen. The 14th amendment to the US constitution's citizenship clause overturned the 1857 Dred Scott ruling that denied citizenship to Black Americans. The principle has stood since 1898, when the supreme court granted citizenship to Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents who could not naturalize. Reuters contributed reporting.
Yahoo
19-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
US supreme court upholds Tennessee ban on youth gender-affirming care
A Tennessee state law banning gender-affirming care for minors can stand, the US supreme court has ruled, a devastating loss for trans rights supporters in a case that could set a precedent for dozens of other lawsuits involving the rights of transgender children. The case, United States v Skrmetti, was filed last year by three families of trans children and a provider of gender-affirming care. In oral arguments, the plaintiffs – as well as the US government, then helmed by Joe Biden – argued that Tennessee's law constituted sex-based discrimination and thus violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Under Tennessee's law, someone assigned female at birth could not be prescribed testosterone, but someone assigned male at birth could receive those drugs. Tennessee, meanwhile, has argued that the ban is necessary to protect children from what it termed 'experimental' medical treatment. During arguments, the conservative justices seemed sympathetic to that concern, although every major medical and mental health organization in the US has found that gender-affirming care can be evidence-based and medically necessary. These groups also oppose political bans on such care. All six of the supreme court's conservative justices joined in at least part of the decision to uphold the law, although several also wrote their own concurring opinions. In his majority decision, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that the ruling primarily rested on the justices' finding that the law did not violate the equal protection clause, rather than on an ideological opposition to trans rights. 'This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound,' Roberts wrote. He added: 'We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' In recent years, the question of transgender children and their rights has consumed an outsized amount of rightwing political discourse. Since 2021, 26 states have passed bans on gender-affirming care for minors, affecting nearly 40% of trans youth in the US. Twenty-six states have also outlawed trans kids from playing on sports teams that correspond with their gender identity. Many of these restrictions have been paused by court challenges, but the supreme court's decision could have vast implications for those lawsuits' futures. A study by the Trevor Project, a mental health non-profit that aims to help LGBTQ+ kids, found that anti-trans laws are linked to a 72% increase of suicide attempts among trans and nonbinary youth. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority opinion, alongside Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. Because the law discriminates on the basis of sex, Sotomayor argued in her dissent, it should face higher legal scrutiny than the majority decided to give it. 'Male (but not female) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like boys, and female (but not male) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like girls,' Sotomayor wrote. 'By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.'
