'Deport Melania': Petition Calls for First Lady's Deportation Amid Trump's Immigration Crackdowns
The petition, which collected nearly 3,000 signatures, argued that if Trump was serious about targeting naturalized citizens and immigration loopholes, the same rules should apply to his wife and her family. "If it's good for one, it's good for all," the petition stated, criticizing what it perceived as hypocrisy in Trump's policies.
Melania Trump, originally born as Melanija Knavs in Slovenia, moved to the United States in the 1990s to pursue a modeling career. She was granted a green card in 2001 and became a U.S. citizen in 2006, shortly before marrying Donald Trump. She is the second First Lady in U.S. history to be born outside the country and the only one to have become a naturalized citizen.
Critics have previously questioned the transparency around Melania's early visa status. Reports during Trump's presidency highlighted concerns that she may have worked in the U.S. before obtaining legal authorization. These questions resurfaced alongside the petition, amplifying debates around immigration policy and double standards.
Adding fuel to the controversy, Congresswoman Maxine Waters had earlier raised concerns during a rally in Los Angeles, questioning the documentation status of Melania's parents. "We don't know whether or not her parents were documented," Waters said, suggesting that Trump's own family history be examined under the same lens used to scrutinize others.
The petition emphasized that if national security and legal immigration were true concerns, then no one—including the president's family—should be above the law. "There should be no exceptions," the petition said. "This should not be about favoritism."
This backlash emerged as a form of protest against Trump's immigration rhetoric, which critics say disproportionately targeted immigrants from specific countries while overlooking similar cases within his own circles.
Melania's immigration journey gained further attention due to her use of the EB-1 visa, often called the "Einstein visa," meant for individuals with extraordinary abilities. Critics questioned whether her modeling credentials qualified her for the category, especially during a period when the Trump administration was tightening eligibility standards.
While the petition may not carry legal weight, it has reignited public discourse around fairness in immigration enforcement. It also highlights the symbolic divide between Trump's policy stance and his personal life, underlining ongoing tensions in America's immigration debate.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
an hour ago
- Business Times
Trump aims to shut trade loopholes China uses to evade tariffs
[WASHINGTON] US President Donald Trump's two-tiered trade deal with Vietnam aims squarely at practices China has long used to skirt US tariffs: The widespread legal shifting of production to South-east Asian factories and the murkier and illegal 'origin washing' of exports through their ports. The agreement slaps a 20 per cent tariff on Vietnamese exports to the US and a 40 per cent levy on goods deemed to be transshipped through the country. With details still scarce, economists said much will hinge on the framework Washington establishes to determine what it sees as 'Made in Vietnam' and what it sees as transshipments. Complicating matters is the fact that Chinese businesses have rushed to set up shop across South-east Asia since Trump launched his first trade war back in 2018. The lion's share of Vietnam's exports to the US are goods like Airpods, phones or other products assembled with Chinese components in a factory in Vietnam and then shipped to America. That's not illegal. 'A lot will depend on how the 40 per cent tariffs are applied. If the Trump administration keeps it targeted, it should be manageable,' said Roland Rajah, lead economist at the Lowy Institute in Sydney. 'If the approach is too broad and blunt, then it could be quite damaging' for China, Vietnam and for the US, which will have to pay higher import prices, he said. The think tank estimates that 28 per cent of Vietnamese exports to the US were made up of Chinese content in 2022, up from 9 per cent in 2018. Pham Luu Hung, chief economist at SSI Securities in Hanoi, said a 40 per cent levy on transshipped goods would have limited impact on Vietnam's economy because they are not of Vietnamese origin in the first place. Re-routed exports accounted for just 16.5 per cent of Vietnam's shipments to the US in 2021, a share that's likely declined over the past couple of years amid stronger enforcement actions by both governments, Hung said. A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU Friday, 8.30 am Asean Business Business insights centering on South-east Asia's fast-growing economies. Sign Up Sign Up 'An important caveat is that the rules of origin remain under negotiation,' Hung said. 'In practice, these rules may have a greater impact than the tariff rates themselves.' Devil in details Duncan Wrigley, chief China economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said he's sceptical the latest deal will be effective in stamping out Chinese exports via Vietnam to the US. 'The devil is in the details, but I think China's exports will either go via other markets to the US, or some value-added will be done in Vietnam so the product counts as made in Vietnam, rather than a transshipment,' he said. As officials across Asia rushed to negotiate lower US tariff levels with their US counterparts this year, Chinese businesses have been just as quick to ramp up their exports through alternative channels in order to skirt punitive US levies. Shipments from China to South-east Asia have reached record highs in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam this year. And there's been a 'significant increase in correlation' to the region's increase in exports to the US during the same period, Citigroup economists said in a recent report. Much of that is likely due to the shifting of legitimate production across the region. Goods destined for the US market may be sent from their factories in South-east Asia, and what they make in their factories in China will be sent to the rest of the world, said Derrick Kam, Asia economist at Morgan Stanley. 'If you try to represent that in the trade data, it will look exactly like rerouting, but it's not,' Kam said. 'It's essentially the supply chain working itself out.' But it's transshipment that's been a major concern for Trump's top trade advisers including Peter Navarro, who described Vietnam as 'essentially a colony of communist China' during an April interview with Fox News. And it has not just been happening in Vietnam. Not long after Trump unveiled his 'Liberation Day' tariffs on Apr 2, garment makers in Indonesia started receiving offers from Chinese companies to be 'partners in transshipment,' said Redma Gita Wirawasta, chairman of the Indonesian Filament Yarn and Fiber Producers Association. Chinese products would be rerouted to Indonesia, undergo minimal processing like repacking or relabelling, then secure a certification that they were made in the South-east Asian country, Wirawasta said. When the goods are then exported to the US, they'd be subject to the 10 per cent universal levy that Trump has imposed on nearly all countries, instead of the tariff for China that still equates to an effective level of over 50 per cent, even after a recent 'deal' that lowered levies from a peak of 145 per cent. With the huge scope for arbitrage, coupled with little policing, that process will prove tough to stamp out. 'Chinese exporters and their affiliates and partners in South-east Asia are highly skilled at adapting to changing rules, identifying loopholes, and sometimes overstating the extent of value-add by non-China countries,' said Gabriel Wildau, managing director at advisory firm Teneo Holdings in New York. Some final assembly or transshipment may shift to rival South-east Asian transshipment hubs like Cambodia, Thailand and Singapore, or farther afield to Turkey, Hungary or Poland, Wildau said. 'Another possibility is that the definitions and enforcement mechanisms are fuzzy, rendering the latest deal cosmetic and toothless,' he said. 'Rigorous enforcement would also require a significant boost of resources to enable US customs to verify compliance with the tougher rules of origin.' There have been efforts across the region to at least be seen to be making an effort to curb the practice. Indeed, Vietnam has made a big deal about cracking down on trade fraud and illegal activity in recent months. In April, South Korea said it seized more than US$20 million worth of goods with falsified origin labels – the majority of which were destined for the US. The Airfreight Forwarders Association of Malaysia issued a warning in May as Chinese brokers promoted illegal rerouting services on social media. Malaysia has centralised the issuance of certificates of origin with its Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry, while tapping its customs agency to help curb transshipment. Thailand has expanded its watch list for high-risk products, including solar panels, cars and parts, and is mulling stricter penalties for violators. Red tape Casey Barnett, the president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Cambodia, is already seeing the changes in action. One factory that exports to major US retailers, including Walmart, Home Depot and Lowe's, said that customs officials were very carefully reviewing their products before being sent to the US, he said. 'It's creating some additional paperwork and a little bit of red tape here,' Barnett said. A senior manager at a logistics company in Cambodia, who asked not to be identified because the matter is sensitive, said export processing time has now stretched to as much as 14 working days – double what it was before. But in Indonesia, getting a certificate of origin is fairly quick and painless when goods are marked for export, often just requiring a product list and a letter to the provincial trade office, according to Wirawasta. Authorities prioritise checking products that enter the country to ensure they pay the right duties and comply with regulations, he explained. It's rare for them to inspect factories where an export good was supposedly made. So much so that sometimes, Chinese companies don't even need to muster up some local processing. 'The T-shirt could be finished in China, with a 'Made in Indonesia' label already sewn on,' Wirawasta said. 'Some traders won't even bother to unload the goods from the shipping container,' he added. 'Unloading costs money.' BLOOMBERG
Business Times
an hour ago
- Business Times
Expect more US politicians to sue the news media
PARAMOUNT Global announced on Tuesday (Jul 1) that it would pay US President Donald Trump US$16 million to settle what many legal experts had dismissed as a frivolous lawsuit over a CBS 60 Minutes interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump claims it was deceptively edited. This comes after a similarly controversial US$15 million settlement by ABC, following host George Stephanopoulos' on-air statement that Trump was found civilly liable for rape, rather than for sexual abuse. We may have officially entered a troubling era in which politicians of both parties use lawsuits against media outlets as a weapon in the war to control the narrative in an increasingly fractured information environment. Consider that last week, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced he was suing Fox News and network host Jesse Watters for defamation. What a difference two years can make. Back then, Fox News host Sean Hannity made Newsom an offer he apparently couldn't refuse: Sit down for a primetime interview. Sure, the network was known for pushing wild conspiracy theories about elections, and for fearmongering about crime and homelessness in blue states. Democrats, Newsom had reasoned then, had to stop playing it safe, and enter what his advisers have called the 'lion's den' to make their own case to Republican voters. That Newsom is now suing Fox News rather than sitting down for another interview – this time related to the recent Los Angeles protests – is a sign of just how much has changed. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up This won't be particularly good for democracy or for press freedom. Nevertheless, 'we have crossed over into a new world', as Lee Levine, a retired First Amendment attorney, recently told the Los Angeles Times. 'Everybody has taken note and tried to position themselves the best that they can.' Newsom, it seems, is borrowing a page from the president's litigious playbook. Also this week, Trump decided to push forward with a legally questionable lawsuit against Iowa pollster Ann Selzer and The Des Moines Register, moving it from federal court to state court to allege fraud over a poll predicting that he could lose the state in last year's presidential election. (He ended up winning Iowa handily.) The newspaper has said it would 'continue to resist' Trump's 'litigation gamesmanship'. Meanwhile, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, in Florida to tour the new detention centre for migrants rounded up under enforcement action, said the Trump administration might prosecute CNN for reporting the existence of an app that helps Americans track immigration raids. 'What they're doing is actively encouraging people to avoid law enforcement operations,' she told reporters, prompting Trump to again threaten to sue the network, as well as The New York Times, over reporting about the US airstrikes in Iran. (CNN and the Times have defended their reporting.) And who can forget Trump's beef with the Associated Press over its refusal to adopt his renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the 'Gulf of America'? And now there's Newsom. The governor, a likely presidential candidate in 2028, sued Fox News on Friday, alleging the network defamed him by implying that he had lied about phone calls with Trump related to last month's deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles. Watters aired a video that was deceptively edited to intentionally mislead viewers, Newsom and his lawyers argue. Sound familiar? And in what surely isn't a coincidence either, the governor's US$787 million demand for damages is nearly identical to what Fox News paid Dominion Voting Systems to settle a defamation lawsuit in 2023. Newsom has said: 'I believe the American people should be able to trust the information they receive from a major news outlet. Until Fox is willing to be truthful, I will keep fighting against their propaganda machine.' In a statement, Fox News called the lawsuit a 'publicity stunt'. And it is – one of many that the ambitious Democrat has pulled in his political career, from legalising same-sex marriage as mayor of San Francisco to starting a podcast to interview right-wing influencers as governor. But unlike Trump, who has a track record of using lawsuits to settle old scores and punish perceived enemies, Newsom has said he'll drop his lawsuit if Fox News issues a retraction and Watters apologises. That's a sign the governor is trying to make a broader point about misinformation – not just to collect millions of dollars in damages. And misinformation has become a real problem. Left unchecked, it is warping reality – and, by extension, policy decisions and Americans' lives – at a speed that seems to increase with each news cycle. As governor, Newsom has had to deal with this first-hand this year. During the Los Angeles fires in January, a string of false and exaggerated narratives took hold about California's water supply, culminating with Trump justifying wasteful releases from a dam hundreds of miles away in the state's Central Valley. Then last month, when the Trump administration deployed the National Guard to LA, Newsom's office had to counter the popular fiction that violent riots had overtaken the city in a 'rebellion'. To be effective in such situations, and to prevent negative narratives from morphing into negative policies, Newsom has had to split his time between battling misinformation and doing the job Californians elected him to do. Reality matters. But what people believe is reality matters too. For that reason, we'll probably see more politicians doing what Newsom is doing: trying to get a bigger megaphone by any stunt necessary, including by suing traditional media outlets. Still, that may not be as effective as they hope. Most Americans now get their news from social media, reported Oxford's Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism in its latest Digital News Report. This is undoubtedly why Newsom also has made a point of throwing some red meat to left-wing influencers, including talking about his lawsuit with YouTuber Brian Tyler Cohen. The governor told Cohen last week: 'Remember, this is the largest news organisation – cable news organisation – in the United States.' Perfect for weaponisation. BLOOMBERG
Business Times
an hour ago
- Business Times
US House Republicans head toward final vote on Trump's sweeping tax-cut Bill
[WASHINGTON] Republicans in the US House of Representatives advanced President Donald Trump's massive tax-cut and spending Bill towards a final yes-or-no vote early on Thursday (Jul 3) morning, appearing to overcome internal party divisions over its cost. During a marathon overnight session, lawmakers cleared a final procedural hurdle needed to begin debate on the Bill in a 219-213 vote at around 3.30 am ET (0730 GMT). It was not clear when they would hold a final vote. As dawn broke in Washington, the top House Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries, was well into what was turning into an hours-long speech, calling out Republican lawmakers by name as he blasted the package as a giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. 'This one big, ugly Bill-this reckless Republican budget – this disgusting abomination is not about improving the quality of life of the American people,' he said, a scathing reference to Trump's name for his signature legislation: One Big Beautiful Bill. 'The focus of this Bill, the justification for all of the cuts that will hurt everyday Americans is to provide massive tax breaks for billionaires.' His remarks had echoes of Democratic Senator Cory Booker's record-setting April speech that accused Trump of 'recklessly' challenging the nation's democratic institutions. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Democrats are united in opposition to the bill, but on their own lack the votes to stop the Bill in the chamber, which is controlled 220-212 by Trump's Republicans. Republicans can afford no more than three defections to get a final Bill passed. The past two weeks have shown deep Republican divides on the bill, which would add US$3.4 trillion to the nation's US$36.2 trillion in debt and make major cuts to social programmes including Medicaid. Republican lawmakers have long railed against the growth of the debt, which has continued over the past two decades regardless of which party was in control in Washington. A handful of Republican holdouts have objected to the Bill. One, Senator Thom Tillis, opted not to seek re-election after voting against it. Nonetheless, Trump has succeeded in getting the votes to advance the legislation at each step of the way. Votes in the House were held open for hours on Wednesday during the day and overnight as House Speaker Mike Johnson and the White House talked with reluctant members. Johnson expressed optimism on Wednesday night, saying lawmakers had a 'long, productive day' discussing the issues. He praised Trump for making phone calls to the holdouts through the early hours of Thursday morning. 'There couldn't be a more engaged and involved president,' Johnson told reporters. Senate passage The Senate passed the legislation by the narrowest possible margin on Tuesday after intense debate on the Bill's hefty price tag and US$900 million in cuts to the Medicaid healthcare programmes for low-income Americans. Any changes made by the House would require another Senate vote, which would make it all but impossible to meet Trump's self-imposed deadline of getting the legislation approved by the Jul 4 holiday. The Bill would raise the nation's debt ceiling by US$5 trillion, a necessary step to avoid a devastating default later this summer. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that almost 12 million people could lose health insurance as a result of the Bill. The legislation contains most of Trump's top domestic priorities. It would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, cut health and food safety net programmes, fund Trump's immigration crackdown, and zero out many green-energy incentives. It also includes a US$5 trillion increase in the nation's debt ceiling, which lawmakers must address in the coming months or risk a devastating default. REUTERS
