New York mayor’s speech cut ideological counterpoint to policies of president, who will deliver his own remarks later today

New York’s mayor, Zohran Mamdani, exalted the city’s legacy of immigrants on Friday in a historically laden, ideological counterpoint to a US semiquincentennial address that was expected later in the day from Donald Trump – who has sought to deport immigrants en masse throughout his second presidency.

Speaking from behind a desk at New York’s city hall that belonged to the US’s first president, George Washington, and which itself is a century older than the Resolute desk in the White House, Mamdani was surrounded by naturalized citizens like himself as he listed the waves of immigrants who shaped the city.

“Hundreds of thousands of Irish immigrants arrived with stomachs aching from a famine manufactured by imperial cruelty,” Mamdani said. “Chinese sailors settled in what is today Chinatown. Millions more traveled under the Statue of Liberty and through Ellis Island. Jewish people escaping pogroms, Italians fleeing poverty. Syrians seeking economic opportunity.

  • OwOarchist@pawb.socialEnglish
    13·
    3 days ago

    Definitely setting himself up for a future presidential (or at least Congressional) run.

    And given his track record so far, I’d be happy to see that. Too bad the DNC will stop at nothing to prevent it from happening.

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      8·
      3 days ago

      Sadly, he can’t be president under the current constitution. But he would be far superior to any current and upcoming candidates.

      • crusa187@lemmy.ml
        62·
        3 days ago

        I don’t agree with that interpretation, and many scholars would argue it needs to be deliberated by scotus (but not this one) to settle things once and for all.

        The 14th amendment is quite clear, naturalized citizens are US citizens. And article 2 says US citizens can be president.

        • OwOarchist@pawb.socialEnglish
          1·
          2 days ago

          Well, unfortunately, the text of the 14th Amendment and the text of Article 2 are a bit different. Here’s Article 2’s pertinent part:

          No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

          You have to be a ‘natural born’ citizen, not naturalized. And ‘natural born’ is pretty much universally taken to mean being a US citizen when born.

            • ImgurRefugee114@reddthat.com
              3·
              3 days ago

              There’s been some debate on what constitutes natural-born, mostly related to parental citizenship and territories in particular; but the language (and consensus over the last few two centures) is quite clear…

              The 14th amendment is quite clear, naturalized citizens are US citizens

              And being a citizen is not enough.

              • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
                2·
                3 days ago

                The SC has been diverging from precedent and ignoring the prevailing interpretation of the constitution for a while. It’s just a political branch now, thanks to the republicans. Once the democrats take back control, they can do the same.

              • crusa187@lemmy.ml
                21·
                3 days ago

                Ok but why is that the consensus interpretation? Do you think there might be some racial bias there which should be reexamined by the courts? I do.

                I’m glad you agree with my interpretation of the 14th, because that is actually the part that is considered more up for debate.

                I still don’t think you’ve read the relevant portion of article 2, so let me provide it for you here:

                1.5 No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;

                …

                a citizen of the United States

                Can you explain to me why this “isn’t enough”?

                • benjirenji@slrpnk.net
                  3·
                  3 days ago

                  or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

                  Mamdani has not been a citizen when the constitution was adopted.

                  • crusa187@lemmy.ml
                    5·
                    2 days ago

                    This is why it needs further consideration imo. To me, that comma means that these are the criteria for presidency once the constitution is adopted.

                    If it means citizen at the time of adoption, would they not have omitted the comma to make it more clear?

                    You know what, I stand corrected and learned more about this today. There was a case Hassan v. State of New Hampshire (2012) which already examined this and established natural born isn’t repealed by the 14th, plus some debates by Congress around the time the 14th passed that firms up that interpretation. I still think that comma is sus though.