Immigration news from North America
> On this page <
> Undocumented immigrants do not drive crime
> Judge protects pro-Palestian students from depotation
> Department of Homelnd Security targets 200,000 asylum seekers
> Trump defies US Supreme Court over birthright citizenship
Research covering more than 100 US cities found no evidence that areas with a high number of undocumented immigrants had higher rates. In fact, the opposite may be true.
USA / CRIME
Undocumented immigration in the US does not drive violent crime; on the contrary
September 2026: Increases in undocumented immigration do not lead to higher rates of violent crime in American communities, according to a sweeping, decade-long analysis of thousands of US neighbourhoods, reviewed by the science journal Nature in August 2026.
The research, led by criminologists at the University of California, Irvine, tracked crime trends across 11,500 neighbourhoods in more than 100 cities, representing roughly 46 million residents, between 2010 and 2018. It is the most geographically comprehensive analysis to date of the link between unauthorised immigration and local crime levels.
Contrary to prevailing political rhetoric portraying undocumented migrants as a primary driver of urban violence, the authors found that neighbourhoods experiencing an influx of undocumented immigrants saw no significant change in overall violent crime rates, alongside notable declines in property offences.
"Consistent with the broader research base, unauthorised immigration does not drive crime rates in US neighbourhoods," lead author Charis E. Kubrin, a professor of criminology, law, and society at UC Irvine, stated regarding the findings.
The report, initially published in the Journal of Urban Affairs and reviewed in a Nature August report, evaluated both violent crimes, such as homicide, rape, and aggravated assault, and property crimes, including burglary and motor vehicle theft.
While previous academic studies have evaluated immigration and public safety primarily at the state or metropolitan levels, researchers noted that broad macro-level data can obscure local neighbourhood dynamics. By narrowing the scope to the Census tract level, the team sought to address longstanding methodological limitations in the debate.
The findings showed that areas with rising numbers of people without authorisation saw steeper reductions in property crime and significant drops in aggravated assault than national averages.
Robberies were the only category in which rates rose. However, criminologists attributed that uptick to victimisation by migrants rather than to criminal perpetration, a recognised sociological trend known as the "walking ATM" phenomenon.
Because undocumented immigrants frequently face systemic barriers to opening bank accounts, many rely heavily on cash transactions. Compounded by fears that reporting incidents to local police could lead to detention or deportation, undocumented residents become vulnerable to local street crime.
"An increase in robberies, despite decreases in all other crime categories, would be consistent with the idea that undocumented immigrants are disproportionately likely to be robbery victims, given their greater involvement in the cash economy," co-author John Hipp of UC Irvine noted.
The study’s release comes amid an intensely polarised national debate over U.S. border enforcement, mass deportations, and municipal sanctuary policies. Public opinion surveys continue to show that substantial portions of the electorate view unauthorized migration as a direct threat to public safety, a perception frequently reinforced on the political campaign trail.
Kubrin and her co-authors, Derek Christopher of Stanford University, Cheyenne Hodgen of UC Irvine, and Xiaoshuang Iris Luo of the University of Akron, argued that federal and local enforcement strategies premised on curbing crime through aggressive deportation regimes are empirically unfounded.
"It’s long overdue to rethink immigration enforcement in this country," Kubrin said. "These policies are largely ineffective at enhancing public safety and may do more harm than good."
Criminologists emphasise that the findings mirror historical precedent, noting that independent analyses dating back nearly a century, including the landmark 1931 Wickersham Commission report, have consistently shown that foreign-born populations have lower rates of criminal involvement than native-born citizens.
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​​
COMMENT
​
​
USA
US judge rules Trump's deportation drive against pro-Palestinian students unconstitutional
September 2026: A US federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration acted unconstitutionally when it invoked immigration law to cancel the visas of, and initiate deportation proceedings against, non-citizen college students for their pro-Palestinian advocacy and criticism of Israel. Judge Noël Wise of the Northern District of California, in a 90-page opinion issued on 28 August, found that the administration's use of the statutes amounted to viewpoint discrimination barred by the First and Fifth Amendments. She ruled in favour of The Stanford Daily student newspaper on six of its eight claims.
The lawsuit, Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation v. Rubio, was filed in August 2025 against Secretary of State Marco Rubio and then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The plaintiffs, the student paper and two anonymous non-citizen students, were represented pro bono by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). They argued that international students had stopped writing or speaking on the record about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for fear of losing their immigration status.
The case referenced earlier was followed by higher-profile actions, including the months-long detention of Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil and the deportation of Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk. Both were pursued under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that permits deportation when the Secretary of State determines that a noncitizen's presence carries serious adverse foreign policy consequences.
Judge Wise concluded that the government's enforcement record showed a discernible pattern: it revoked the visas of non-citizens critical of the government, or of causes and people it favoured. She pointed to revocations targeting critics of Israel's campaign in Gaza, reactions to conservative commentator Charlie Kirk's killing, and critics of a prospective US-Iran peace deal. In her ruling, Wise wrote that free speech "belongs to the people," not the state.
The decision is the second of its kind to challenge the administration's campus enforcement campaign. Boston-based Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, ruled in September 2025 that the administration had unconstitutionally adopted a policy to revoke visas and detain students and faculty for pro-Palestinian speech. Separately, Judge Michael Farbiarz in New Jersey found the specific provision used against Khalil unconstitutionally vague.
Neither ruling is likely to be the final word. The administration has consistently defended its approach as security-driven rather than political; Rubio has said that tens of thousands of visas have been revoked since 2025 for various reasons. Appeals are expected in both cases, and a June 2025 Supreme Court ruling curbing the scope of nationwide injunctions may limit how far any final order can extend beyond the named plaintiffs.
Wise cautioned that, if left unchecked, the pattern could widen indefinitely, and that future targets could ultimately include anyone whose speech officials simply dislike.
Sources: Reuters; The Stanford Daily; Al Jazeera; The Hill; JNS; court filings via the Clearinghouse civil rights litigation database.
The Immigrant Times' terminology: 'Non-citizen' refers to any person lawfully or unlawfully present in the US who is not a US citizen, including lawful permanent residents and visa holders. It is not synonymous with 'irregular' or 'undocumented,' terms this publication reserves for those without valid immigration status. 'Deportation' and 'removal' are used interchangeably to describe formal proceedings to expel a non-citizen from the US.
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​​
COMMENT
​
​
USA / ASYLUM SEEKERS
US prepares largest mass visa revocation in its history, targeting 200,000 asylum seekers
August 2026: The Trump administration is preparing to revoke the business and tourism visas of up to 200,000 people who entered the United States as short-term visitors and later filed for asylum, a move that, if carried out, would be the largest single mass visa revocation in American history.
The State Department is expected to announce in the coming weeks the cancellation of B-1 and B-2 visas issued between 2016 and 2026 for holders who have sought or are seeking asylum, according to State Department documents obtained by the Associated Press and two US officials. The action will be taken in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). B-1 visas are issued for business trips; B-2 visas for tourism, family visits, or medical care.
"We are coordinating with DHS to identify and revoke the non-immigrant visas of foreigners who have entered the United States claiming to be short-term visitors, but then file for asylum to remain here permanently," State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said, adding that revocations would be carried out on a rolling basis.
Critically, revocation would not necessarily result in immediate deportation. Most of those with asylum cases currently pending would be re-categorised and would lose their status as business or tourism travellers, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the revocations are not yet final.
The measure fits within a broader and accelerating pattern of visa cancellations. Over the past 18 months, the State Department has revoked approximately 175,000 visas held by people convicted or accused of crimes ranging from drink-driving to rape and robbery, as well as those who have spoken out publicly against US policies, particularly regarding the Middle East.
Since taking office, the administration has also steadily tightened the visa application process, demanding detailed social media histories, requiring the posting of expensive bonds, and outright banning visa issuance for citizens of certain countries.
Current applicants for B-1 and B-2 visas must affirm that they will not seek asylum in the United States and demonstrate their intention to return home. State Department documents indicate that screening of existing holders began after the department received information from US Citizenship and Immigration Services about asylum requests.
Immigration lawyers have been quick to challenge the administration's framing of the planned revocations as a significant enforcement step. Immigration attorney Nicolette Glazer described the announcement as an 'empty effort' with no practical consequences. If a visitor has already overstayed their short-term visa, they are in breach of the law regardless. Revoking a visa that is already invalid does not make deportation any easier.
However, one category could face real consequences. The policy could affect people who have lived in the United States for many years and have established deep roots, including those with US citizen children, a situation that connects directly to the administration's simultaneous push against birthright citizenship.
Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau cited the case of Beto Coral, a Colombian activist who entered the United States in 2015 on a tourist visa and applied for asylum shortly before his permitted stay expired. Coral had supported a leftist Colombian presidential candidate and spoken out against the right-wing candidate Abelardo de la Espriella, now Colombia's president and backed by the Trump administration. Coral was deported to Colombia in July 2026. "People in the US and all over the world are fed up with bogus asylum claims," Landau wrote on social media. "Asylum isn't supposed to be a loophole to circumvent immigration law."
Critics noted that the case raises a different concern: that visa and asylum decisions are being shaped by the political alignments of foreign governments rather than by the merits of individual protection claims. Legal challenges to the planned revocations are widely anticipated.
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​​
COMMENT
​
​
USA / INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS
Under Trump, overseas students are no longer regarded as an asset to the US
August 2026: The United States has introduced the most significant changes to its student visa system in decades, imposing a fixed four-year cap on study periods, shortening post-graduation grace periods, and adding layers of bureaucratic requirements that immigration lawyers and universities say will deter foreign students and damage American higher education's global standing.
The Department of Homeland Security issued its final rule on 16 July 2026, with the changes taking effect on 15 September 2026. The rule ends the longstanding policy known as ‘duration of status’ (D/S), under which international students on F-1 and J-1 visas were permitted to remain in the United States for the full length of their academic programme without a fixed expiry date on their stay.
News rules particularly hard on doctoral students
Under the new rules, stays are limited to four years. Students enrolled in longer programmes, especially doctoral students, for whom a four-year PhD is often a minimum rather than a maximum, will need to formally apply for extensions, provide biometric data, and go through a process that was not previously available to them.
The post-graduation grace period, during which students can stay in the country to make arrangements before leaving or changing visa status, has been reduced from 60 days to 30 days. Switching between degree levels or changing courses of study now encounters significantly stricter bureaucratic restrictions. The rules apply to both new entrants and students already in the United States as of 15 September.
Overseas students contribute billions to the US economy
US colleges and universities hosted 1.2 million international students in the 2024/25 academic year, a five-per-cent increase from the previous year. International students accounted for six per cent of the total US higher education population and contributed nearly $55 billion to the US economy, supporting more than 355,000 jobs.
India is the largest source country, with 363,019 students, followed by China with 265,919. Among the universities most heavily reliant on international enrolment are New York University, Carnegie Mellon, the University of Southern California, Northeastern, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where international students in some programmes constitute the majority of graduate enrolments.
More than half of all international students study STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) fields, accounting for 80 per cent of full-time graduate students in computer and information sciences and 75 per cent in electrical and computer engineering.
US universities will face stronger competition for overseas students
University administrators have expressed concern. International students pay full tuition fees, usually at out-of-state or international rates that are considerably higher than those charged to domestic students, and many institutions rely on that income to cross-subsidise domestic programmes and financial aid.
The Association of American Universities has cautioned that the rule creates uncertainty, which could cause prospective students to seek alternative destinations. The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Germany have all expanded their international student programmes in recent years and now actively compete with the United States for the same talent pool. Research universities have also observed that doctoral programmes often take more than four years, and that requiring mid-study extension applications introduces costs, delays, and the risk of status errors that could jeopardise a student's entire academic journey.
International students may have to pay for postgraduate internships
The new duration-of-status rule is not the only measure being considered that could affect international students. The Trump administration is reportedly contemplating a $100,000 fee for Optional Practical Training (OPT), the programme that allows international students to work in the United States for 12 months after graduation, or 36 months for STEM graduates. The fee is still under discussion at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It remains unclear whether the White House will approve it, or who would bear the cost—the student or the employer.
Whether the employer or the student pays, it would effectively act as a ban. Students cannot afford $100,000 to work as interns, and few companies would cover such a fee for 12 to 36 months of work authorisation.
A $100,000 H-1B fee imposed by the administration in September 2025 was struck down by a federal court in June 2026 on the grounds that it was an unconstitutional tax not authorised by Congress, a ruling that casts serious doubt on the legality of any equivalent OPT fee.
Nearly one in four US billion-dollar companies has a founder who initially arrived in the country as an international student. US billion-dollar companies founded by international students have generated an average of 1,123 jobs per company.
Sources: Department of Homeland Security; Forbes / Stuart Anderson; Open Doors 2025 Report (IIE); NAFSA; American Immigration Council; US News & World Report.
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​​
COMMENT
​
​
USA / BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP
Defying the Supreme Court, Trump signs two new executive orders targeting birthright citizenship
August 2026: Five weeks after the United States Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 majority that the Constitution guarantees automatic citizenship to all children born on American soil, President Trump has signed two new executive orders seeking once again to limit that right. Legal experts and civil liberties groups have described the orders as unconstitutional and predicted they will fail in court.
The Supreme Court's ruling on 29 June 2026, covered by The Immigrant Times, struck down Trump's original executive order of January 2025, which would have denied citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented parents or those on temporary visas. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, based the decision firmly on the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, which states that all persons born or naturalised in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. The 6-3 vote was close enough to encourage the administration to attempt again.
The first of the two new orders, signed on 6 August 2026, broadens the definition of those the administration considers ineligible for birthright citizenship to include ‘alien enemies of the United States, members of foreign terrorist organisations’, and wide-ranging categories of people who lobby or act on behalf of foreign governments. The second targets ‘birth tourism’, the practice of travelling to the United States specifically to give birth so that a child acquires American citizenship, by seeking to deny entry to those who do so.
Signing the orders in the Oval Office, Trump described them as adjustments made necessary by the Supreme Court's refusal to uphold his original order. "We had a very unfortunate decision in the Supreme Court concerning birthright. It was close, but a very, very unfortunate decision," he said. Asked whether he was confident the new orders would survive legal scrutiny, Trump said, "I think it will," before deferring to White House counsel.
Standing beside the president, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller cited the June Supreme Court ruling as providing authority for the new approach, a claim that directly contradicts the court’s actual decision. The June ruling reaffirmed birthright citizenship; it did not establish new grounds to restrict it.
The legal reaction was swift. "The Supreme Court already decided this issue: birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution. No additional executive order can change the meaning of the Constitution. Any executive order that tries to rewrite birthright citizenship will meet the same fate as the last one," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project.
Legal analysts observe that the new orders encounter the same fundamental obstacle as the original: the Fourteenth Amendment is a constitutional provision that cannot be overridden by executive action. The exception for children of foreign diplomats, who are already excluded from birthright citizenship because they are not considered subject to US jurisdiction, is well established in law. However, courts have consistently rejected attempts to expand that exception through executive order rather than constitutional amendment.
Regarding birth tourism, Chief Justice Roberts indicated during oral arguments in the Supreme Court case earlier this year that the practice did not concern him legally, a strong sign that a ban centred on it is unlikely to withstand judicial review.
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​​
COMMENT
​
​
USA / MEXICO / ICE shootings
​Mexico files criminal charges in the US over the deaths of 17 Mexican nationals in ICE operations
July 2026: Mexico has intensified its response to the deaths of 17 of its citizens during US immigration enforcement operations, progressing from diplomatic protests to filing criminal complaints and civil lawsuits directly within the American legal system. The action, announced by President Claudia Sheinbaum on 9 July and enacted the following week, signifies a notable hardening of Mexico's stance towards Washington on immigration.
Of the 17 Mexican nationals who have died since May 2025, 14 died in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, and three died during ICE operations, according to Mexico's Foreign Minister Roberto Velasco. The most recent was Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, the 52-year-old line cook shot dead by an ICE agent in Houston on 7 July, a case covered in The Immigrant Times last week.
On 13 July, Mexican Ambassador to the United States Roberto Lazzeri lodged 20 criminal complaints, eight with state prosecutors and 12 with county prosecutors, in the jurisdictions where the deaths occurred, covering Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, and Texas. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated the complaints are "a preliminary step essential for the exercise of legal actions that proceed in accordance with the law."
Mexico has simultaneously referred the cases to international bodies. The government submitted a request to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to investigate the deaths and analyse their compatibility with international legal obligations.
It has also lodged complaints with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and sent cease-and-desist letters to the private companies managing the US detention centres where Mexican nationals have died. The first letter was addressed to the Adelanto Detention Centre in California, where four Mexican nationals have died. The letters cite lack of access to timely and efficient medical care and sub-standard medical policies as causes of death.
The scale of deaths in ICE custody during Trump's second term is striking. Nineteen immigrants of all nationalities died in ICE custody in 2026 alone, and 31 in 2025. In comparison, ICE reported 26 total deaths across President Biden's four-year term. The Department of Homeland Security has pushed back on these figures, telling Axios that there has been "NO spike in deaths" and that death rates as a proportion of the detained population are consistent with data over the past decade. Critics note that the detained population itself has expanded dramatically, making proportional comparisons potentially misleading.
The legal escalation increases pressure on a bilateral relationship already under considerable strain. On 1 July, the United States announced its refusal to renew a trade deal that Mexico had tried to uphold. The two governments have worked closely on migration. Mexico's enforcement of its southern border has been a key factor in the significant decrease in US border encounters recorded in 2025 and 2026, but the deaths of Mexican citizens in American custody are testing the limits of that cooperation.
Sheinbaum has so far maintained a careful balance, continuing enforcement cooperation with Washington while increasing legal pressure over the deaths. "We cannot turn a blind eye to the Mexicans who have died in ICE operations or who were detained in detention centres operated by private companies contracted by ICE," she said. "That is why we are pressing for more action."
It remains uncertain whether US prosecutors will act on Mexico's criminal complaints. The Department of Justice, which is part of the Trump administration, would need to investigate agencies under the same administration — a conflict of interest that Mexico's legal team will be well aware of. The referral to the UN and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights indicates that Mexico is preparing for that possibility.
Sources: UPI; CNN; Courthouse News; JURIST; PBS NewsHour; Axios; Al Jazeera.
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​​
COMMENT
​
​
USA / ICE shootings
Trump overrules his own officials and orders controversial ICE traffic stops to continue
July 2026: Although both Democrats and Republicans have condemned the recent deadly shooting of two immigrants by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, President Trump has insisted on social media that controversial, suspicionless traffic stops will continue.
On 7 July, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a 52-year-old Mexican national and line cook, was shot and killed by ICE agents in Houston, Texas, after they attempted to stop the van he was driving. Six days later, on 13 July, Joan Sebastian Durán Guerrero, a 25-year-old Colombian, was shot dead by an ICE agent in Biddeford, Maine, a coastal city of around 23,000 people south of Portland. Neither man was the target of the operations during which they were killed.
Durán Guerrero had been authorised to work in the US and had been given a Social Security number, according to the Maine Immigrants' Rights Coalition. Surveillance footage obtained by the Associated Press appears to show a white sedan, believed to be his car on the way to work, driving near an intersection before an unmarked vehicle blocks its path.
The Department of Homeland Security stated that the driver had tried to flee and that an officer fired ‘fearing for public safety’, but provided no evidence to support this claim. In an early contradiction, Senator Angus King of Maine said he was told by the DHS Secretary that Durán Guerrero was the target of a warrant; King's office later clarified he was not.
Durán Guerrero's wife and their three-year-old daughter were present at the scene after the shooting. Protests and memorial gatherings appeared across Biddeford within hours.
In Houston, protests took place outside City Hall.
Between early June and early July, ICE arrests in Maine had increased more than fourfold to about 70 per day, according to internal ICE data.
The two killings are the latest in a series of deaths linked to ICE enforcement operations. In January 2026, federal agents shot and killed two US citizens in Minneapolis, Renée Good and Alex Pretti, sparking nationwide protests and a 76-day partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security.
The Wall Street Journal has documented over a dozen incidents between July 2025 and January 2026 where federal immigration officials fired at individuals inside vehicles.
The political fallout was swift and, unusually, crossed party lines. Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine, seeking re-election in a race that could tip Senate control, called for suspending traffic stops until investigations are completed, saying ICE cannot investigate itself.
Her colleague, independent Senator Angus King, echoed the demand. On 15 July, the administration announced a temporary pause on most ICE vehicle stops. However, a day later, President Trump overruled his own officials. "We CANNOT give up one of ICE's most important and effective Crime Fighting tools, THE TRAFFIC STOP!" he wrote on social media.
The absence of body camera footage from either incident has become a major point of criticism. Border chief Tom Homan recently announced that ICE would require officers to record vehicle stops with body cameras, stating he wanted the American people to see what officers observed when they took action. He acknowledged that funding for the cameras had been delayed during the partial government shutdown earlier in the year.
Both the Colombian and Mexican governments have responded formally. The Colombian Embassy confirmed it was in contact with US authorities and providing consular assistance to Durán Guerrero's family. The Senate of the Republic of Mexico condemned incidents related to the deaths of 17 Mexican citizens at the hands of US immigration authorities, including Salgado Araujo, and the Mexican consulate sought humanitarian parole for three men detained during the same Houston operation.
Multiple investigations are currently ongoing. In Maine, the state attorney general, the FBI, and the DHS Office of Inspector General are all reviewing the shooting. In Texas, the Harris County District Attorney has issued nearly 20 subpoenas, and the Houston Police Department has asked the Texas Department of Public Safety to lead an independent inquiry.
Sources: CNN; NPR; PBS NewsHour; CBC News; Al Jazeera; Euronews; Associated Press; Reuters.
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​​
COMMENT
​
​
USA / NEW YORK CITY
New York Mayor uses America's 250th anniversary to praise immigrants' role in the nation's history
July 2026: New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani delivered a 15-minute address at City Hall yesterday, 3 July 2026, on the eve of the United States' 250th anniversary, emphasising immigration as a central theme in American history and implicitly challenging the Trump administration's policies on undocumented migrants.
Mamdani delivered the speech seated behind a desk once used by George Washington, flanked by ten recently naturalised American citizens holding US flags. The setting was deliberate: City Hall stands yards from the site where the Declaration of Independence was first read aloud to the Continental Army in 1776.
Mamdani portrayed American history as a series of immigrant waves, each initially faced with hostility and later integrated into the national narrative. "For generation after generation, we have been told that when the world has sent its people to our shores, it has not sent its best," he said, listing religious minorities, peasants, and economic migrants who have shaped the country. "The truth, my friends, is that America is exceptional because here, nothing is fixed into place.”
He was pointed in his criticism of current immigration enforcement. "We see masked agents terrorising our streets, eating food cooked by our undocumented neighbours before spiriting them away in unmarked vans," he said, without naming the president or federal agencies directly.
Mamdani also referenced the history of New York's immigrant communities, including Irish, Chinese, Jewish, Italian, and Syrian newcomers from the 19th and early 20th centuries, noting that each generation faced legal exclusion, labour exploitation, and social hostility before becoming part of the city's fabric. "Despite laws enacted by the federal government to prevent their entry, despite sweatshop fires that killed hundreds of women, despite riots aimed at their very existence, immigrants made homes here in New York City, and they helped to make New York City," he said.
He concluded by framing dissent as a form of patriotism. "Patriotism has never been about pretending our nation is without flaws," he said. "Patriotism is every act of righteous dissent."
Mamdani, born in Kampala, Uganda, in 1991 to parents of Indian descent, moved to New York at the age of seven. He became a naturalised US citizen in 2018 and was elected Mayor of New York City in November 2025, making history as the first Muslim and the first African-born individual to hold the office. His parents are the scholar Mahmood Mamdani and the filmmaker Mira Nair. Before his mayoral campaign, he represented Astoria in the New York State Assembly, building a political base in Queens focused on policies of social housing, worker protection, and immigrant rights.
Under the US Constitution, Mamdani is ineligible for the presidency or vice-presidency as he is not a natural-born citizen. He has rejected proposals for a constitutional amendment to alter this, stating last week that the Constitution "looks good just the way it is."
The speech was timed to contrast with President Trump's planned address at Mount Rushmore later that day. Mamdani, who has met Trump twice at the White House, did not refer to the president by name.
Further reading from The Immigrant Times: Immigrant Zohran Mamdani elected NYC Mayor
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​​
COMMENT
​
​
USA / BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP
US Supreme Court affirms birthright citizenship, dismissing Trump’s executive order
July 2026: The United States Supreme Court ruled on 29 June 2026 that the US Constitution guarantees automatic citizenship to children born on American soil, striking down an executive order signed by President Trump on his first day back in office in January 2025. The 6-3 decision is the third significant Supreme Court defeat for the Trump administration in recent months.
Trump's executive order aimed to limit citizenship to children born to parents who are either US citizens or lawful permanent residents with established domicile in the country. It would have abolished automatic citizenship for children born to parents who are undocumented or present in the US on temporary visas. According to the Migration Policy Institute, an estimated 255,000 children born each year to non-citizen parents would have lost legal status under the order. Some faced the prospect of statelessness, unable to acquire citizenship in any country. Every lower court that examined the order blocked it before it could take effect.
Birthright citizenship has been enshrined in the US Constitution since 1868, when the states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment following the Civil War. It reflects the principle of jus soli, the right of the soil, extending citizenship based on place of birth, regardless of the immigration status of the parents.
The Supreme Court affirmed this principle over a century ago in the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, ruling that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents was a US citizen. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, noted that the arguments advanced by Trump and the dissenting justices echo those made by the losing side in that case.
Five justices held that the executive order violated the Fourteenth Amendment. A sixth, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, held that it violated federal law but did not reach the constitutional question. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the men who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment deliberately defined citizenship broadly, rejecting attempts to limit it. "Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights," he wrote. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the three dissenting conservatives, stated: "The Court has made a serious mistake."
Trump described the ruling as "too bad for our Country" and urged Congress to legislate an end to birthright citizenship, stating that no constitutional amendment would be needed. "Congress should start TODAY," he wrote on Truth Social.
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​​
COMMENT
​