Republican Senator Mullin says babies born in US should be deported if parents are
June 29 (Reuters) - Republican U.S. Senator Markwayne Mullin said on Sunday he believes babies born in the United States to immigrants living in the country illegally should be deported alongside their parents if the adults are removed.
Mullin's comments on NBC's "Meet the Press" came in response to questions about a U.S. Supreme Courtdecision on Friday that paved the way for President Donald Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship to go into effect soon in some states.
The court's ruling did not address the legality of Trump's order, which would upend the historic practice of granting U.S. citizenship to anyone born in the country regardless of their parents' immigration status.
NBC's Kristen Welker asked Mullin what should happen to babies born in the United States whose parents are deported, given that the children are U.S. citizens under current law.
"Well, they should go where their parents are," said Mullin, of Oklahoma. "Why wouldn't you send a child with their parents? I mean, why would you want to separate them?"
Friday's court decision caused confusion among immigrants and advocates, who scrambled to understand the practical effects if birthright citizenship applies to babies born in some states but not in others.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
41 minutes ago
- The Sun
Hospitals and unis MUST follow new rules on trans toilets and changing rooms, demands Starmer after landmark court case
SIR Keir Starmer has ordered hospitals, universities and public bodies to follow new rules on trans toilets and changing rooms. The PM said they must observe the Supreme Court's landmark ruling on single-sex spaces after complaints some were reluctant to act. It comes after critics warned some NHS trusts, universities and government departments are dragging their feet on implementing the decision. Asked if they need to get on with it, Sir Keir told reporters: 'We've accepted the ruling, welcomed the ruling, and everything else flows from that as far as I'm concerned. 'And therefore, all guidance of whatever kind needs to be consistent with the ruling and we need to get to that position as soon as possible.' In April, Britain's top judges ruled the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex, not self-declared gender identity - even for those with a Gender Recognition Certificate. The landmark judgment confirmed single-sex spaces like toilets, changing rooms and hospital wards can legally be reserved for biological women only. The ruling dealt a major blow to campaigners who had pushed for trans women to access female-only spaces, even after legally changing their gender on paper. Keir says 'woman is an adult female' & insists he's 'pleased' by court trans ruling after years of woke dithering 1
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Most voters already deeply distrust Starmer – which is why this week's admission about migration was so toxic
'I HEARD you want your country back. Ha. Shut the f*** up.' So went the lyrics spewed at Glastonbury by Pascal Robinson-Foster, a vegan poet from Ipswich who now raps as part of the hilariously named duo 'Bob Vylan'. 3 Not even the most controversial part of the set, but a sentiment strangely echoed from the heart of Downing Street this weekend. As part of a fairly miserable apology and U-turn tour to mark his first year in No10, Sir Keir Starmer was characteristically more long-winded. Yet in abandoning and apologising for his landmark speech on immigration given just last month, he might as well have put it like bile-filled Bob. 'It was just a case of reading the words out,' Starmer actually admitted in a soft-soap interview with his bestie turned biographer, anti- Brexit campaigner Tom Baldwin. I cannot remember a more toxic admission from a premier who most voters already deeply distrust and suspect holds very few views of his own. Smell blood Many saw May's speech as a desperately needed sign the PM had woken up to how immensely naffed off the country that elected him really is with the border farce, and his immigration clampdown was widely welcomed. For a moment it had looked like Sir Keir had finally got it, only for him to now admit he was simply parroting a line. At the time, bad faith critics on the left and within Labour's ranks leapt on his phrase that 'we risk becoming an island of strangers', as Enoch Powell once said Britons 'found themselves made strangers in their own country'. It was an absurd row, and Starmer rightly rejected the criticism then and sent his Cabinet out to do the same. Yet now with his clearly unquenchable thirst for U-turns, he now bleats: 'I wouldn't have used those words if I had known they were, or even would be interpreted as an echo of Powell . . . Keir Starmer 'to BACK DOWN' on benefits cuts as he faces major revolt from MPs 'I had no idea — and my speechwriters didn't know either, but that particular phrase — no — it wasn't right. I'll give you the honest truth: I deeply regret using it.' While he explained that he wished he had read the speech more closely, but was reeling from shock on the morning it was given due the firebombing of his old house, I suspect Starmer may come to regret this about-turn as much as he appears to regret giving the speech in the first place. In accepting the premise of the Powell row he has handed his enemies an undeserved victory — and they already smell blood as Labour haemorrhages support on their left flank. And to those that liked the speech and its content, the PM wishing that he had 'held it up to the light a bit more' will only cement the feeling he was once again speaking with a forked tongue. Not least as he appears to admit he was only handed the speech the morning it was given to him to read out, which hardly screams leadership. If he regrets the language he used, then what were the problems around uncontrolled immigration that he was trying to highlight? The point was either correct or it was not. Did he even believe a word of it at the time? Or is he just incapable of sticking to anything for more than a few weeks? Well, clearly not, given the immigration row was not the only humiliating climbdown this weekend. Starmer took to the Sunday Times to insist he was again too distracted — this time by world affairs and summit-hopping — to notice that the left of his party were up in arms about benefits cuts. With the prospect of losing a vote this Tuesday, despite his massive 160 majority, most of the £5billion cuts to the mammoth benefits bill were chucked out the window on Friday. When I asked Starmer in an interview in January whether he really had the balls to take on the left and cut benefits, he insisted he 'loved fights'. So we can chalk that up to another reverse ferret, but this one comes with danger beyond Westminster. With long-term government borrowing already more expensive than at the height of the Liz Truss fandango, it's a very dangerous message to send to the bond markets. Doom loop If Starmer can't even get a salami slice of cuts through with his massive majority, how on earth is he expected to stop the ballooning benefits bill, NHS black hole, more defence cash needs and mounting debt interest payments pushing the country into a doom loop? City types I'm talking to warning buyers of UK government debt may well make their views on this all known in the starkest way possible this week when markets open. That should solve any distraction problems the PM is currently suffering. Just one year in and things are looking very bleak for this administration. A fairly grim milestone, where No10 appears to be lighting bin fires everywhere rather than candles on cakes. In a series of interviews to mark the unhappy birthday, the PM has stressed communication problems have blighted the 'story' his Government is trying to get across. But there can be no story or a narrative when there is an utter lack of coherency from the very centre: Himself. No amount of resets, or changes of spin doctor or advisers, are going to be able to hide the simple fact there appears to be very little behind the curtain. SIR Keir is not the only one suffering with vision problems. Meeting troops at Carver Barracks in Essex on Friday to mark Armed Forces Day, under-fire opposition boss Kemi Badenoch posed for photos squinting down a telescopic rifle sight. 3 Only after it was posted online by the Conservatives – and hastily deleted – did anyone notice the protective cover was still on the scope. Hardly the only Tory to be staring into the dark these days.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
ALEX BRUMMER: 'Genius Act' in US compared to Free Banking Era
There long has been something of the Wild West about American banking. The Bank of England has been the backstop for Britain's monetary system since it was founded in 1694. The Federal Reserve only came into being in 1913 to avert banking and financial panics and bring order to a chaotic dollar issuance. Donald Trump and free market advocates are not fond of a monetary system which imposes the same rules across all 50 states and is the sole source of fiat money backed by the government. It offends the idea of a libertarian commonwealth. Enthusiastic backing for crypto currencies, despite the susceptibility to fraud, is part of the mantra. Entryism by bitcoin into the investment firmament, through exchange-traded funds and the creation of the Trump family's own crypto currency, reflect dissonance with central controls. At present, Wall Street eyes are on the struggle over succession at the Federal Reserve when Jay Powell's term ends next year. On the horizon is a challenge for US central banking which reaches far beyond the next leader of the Fed. The 'Genius Act', currently before Congress, seeks to supplement the dollar through the creation of stable coins which would enable American firms to issue their own currencies. The US would be a place where there were dozens of stable coins, issued by the likes of Walmart, Amazon and Starbucks competing against each other. The plan is that a stable coin, tethered in some way to the dollar, also could be issued by federally insured banks such as JP Morgan Chase. Firms or banks issuing less than $10billion of stable coins would be regulated by each of the states of the union. Issue more, and federal regulators would be in charge. The outcome has been compared by Berkeley economics professor Barry Eichengreen to the Free Banking Era between 1830 and the US Civil War. An America deeply sceptical of elites allowed any person or business with surplus funds to open their own bank and issue their own dollars. Some 18 US states issued their own bank notes and triggered mayhem, with shopkeepers unsure of which dollars were safe to accept. In 21st-century Britain, there is a reluctance of merchants and consumers down South to accept the Scottish pound, even though it is fiat money accepted and backed by the Bank of England. Imagine then the bedlam in the 21st-century United States if there were dozens, or even hundreds, of stable coins circulating and no one was quite sure of the bona fides of issuers. How any central bank could be expected to control monetary policy or protect banks from failure is impossible to know. The Genius Act is not fanciful. MAGA Republicans on Capitol Hill might have the votes to pass it, or something like it, into law. The prospect is scary enough for the Bank for International Settlements in Basel to warn against the rise of stable coins, linked to the dollar, arguing they should not be permitted to become part of the global monetary system. It also notes that crypto assets, hidden in secret wallets, facilitate illicit use. Backers of the Genius Act are warned. The concern must be that libertarian fervour and distrust of global institutions is so embedded in American culture that caution will be thrown to the wind.
