What is the "Mamdani Act"? GOP bill would ban socialists, Marxists from US
The Mamdani Act would amend existing immigration law to prohibit the admission and naturalization of any noncitizen who is or was a member of, affiliated with, or advocates for a Chinese communist, communist, socialist, Islamic fundamentalist or other totalitarian party—or any organization that advocates those ideologies. Under its deportation provisions, a noncitizen already in the United States could be removed if they engage in advocacy for socialism, communism, Marxism or Islamic fundamentalism, distribute or publish material promoting those ideologies or hold membership in affiliated organizations at any point after admission.
You know he is a much needed anti-toxin, especially when they name a bill after him. Let the healing begin.
https://www.newsweek.com/what-is-the-mamdani-act-gop-bill-banning-socialists-marxists-from-us-11855151Open linkView original on lemmy.world628
Comments183
We MUST deport ANYONE who DOESNT like having Sex With Children!
-Republicans!
You say that like someone isnt going to immediately jump in and point out that Aisha was 9 years old.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha?wprov=sfla1
We live in a fucked up world, and it turns out we always have. Sad stuff, man.
What the fuck did I just read? She was 6 at the time of marriage and 9 when it was "consummated".
🤮
Yup. Maybe someone from that religion can explain to you how they make it OK in their head, if they want to. Of course, nobody has to defend their religious beliefs to anybody else, so i hope it doesnt come across like im pressuring anyone.
I'm sure there are a lot of people in that religion that don't find that acceptable.
I meant "make it OK" like how I was raised Roman Catholic and the church abused/raped children and lied about it, but many of my fellow roman catholics still believe the church to be "of God." They dont condone the abuse, but despite knowing how systemic it all was, they still remain devout. They somehow make it OK to continue being Catholic.
I can shed some light as an ex-Muslim. There are a bunch of common, disgusting excuses: "times were different", "girls used to mature faster", "it was common back then".
There're more interesting possibilities though. It's true that it was a political marriage that was basically forced onto Muhammed. But an extension of that reasoning is that the consummation never happened either.
It's been a while since I looked at this stuff but I remember that there's actually also a surprisingly compelling case against her ages being 6 and 9. But it would still be 13 to 16 IIRC. The historical side of this is pretty interesting (like how hadith was compiled vs the quran), but not really worth discussing here.
Anyway, yeah, like every other religion, just a cult that grew too large. Anything but admitting that they're wrong.
Thanks for the perspective. It's interesting that the disgusting excuses still exist alongside the "consummation never happened" and "they got the ages all wrong here" excuses. Zealots be zealoting in every religion.
It's a bit weird in Islam. So some important context first.
Basically all of Islam's rules/laws and stories come from two sources: the Quran and Hadith. You probably already know of the Quran but it's what they believe to be God's words verbatim. Hadith, on the other hand, is basically everything the prophet said or did, as recorded by different people.
The Quran was compiled almost immediately after Muhammed died. But Hadith was compiled 2 centuries after that.
To get to the more positive conclusions, you would need to deny a very specific Hadith narrated by Aisha herself. But we only know that she said that because her nephew said so to his students, who then said so to others... So it's a matter of the verifiability of that chain of trust. But if you believe that Hadith to be false, it would cast doubt on the rest of Hadith and people are not a fan of that idea.
So instead, most Muslims just accept that he's a pedophile but get offended when you call him a pedophile.
The youngest royal brides in history
https://www.theroyalforums.com/threads/the-youngest-royal-brides-in-history.17081/
That means this bill has to define socialism. Good luck with that one bucko, if you have 10 socialists in a room, you get 11 definitions /s
I'm genuinely curious how it gets defined. I'm wondering if it can be sidestepped with a simple word change
It's reds under the bed. If anyone in a position of power says you're a socialist then you're a socialist and you get made stateless and dumped in Nigeria.
Yea this is absolutely red scare bs, but I'm morbidly curious about this thought crime
It's not meant to have a definition. That's why the proposed law denies judicial review. The "definition" is supposed to be whatever the ICE
Officer(s)Gestapo wants it to be.That's not an issue with the law, it's a feature. They don't need to prove you fit a definition. They only need to prove that they can call you a socialist. Anyone to the left of whatever positions they don't like are in danger of this law. It doesn't matter if you'd call yourself a socialist, only if they would.
The law states tge process has no legal review, so its whatever definition ICE wants to use, since no judge can say its wrong.
A law designed to break multiple laws.
?? whom ever is head of Immigration says it is.. it will be deliberately nebulous so you can say "banned because they are a socialist " if you have dark skin and don't wear Kirkland pants to the interview.
there's laws about terrorists without that being defined. they'll manage without one.
Probably would include someone who says "I am a socialist." Hence calling it the Mamdani act.
I mean, every Anti-Woke person got a full on definition from Republicans which is described as an awareness of social inequalities within racial, gender, and workplace environments.
So basically, all the right wing nut jobs wanted to "get rid of 'woke'" is perfectly okay with the idea of having rights for me, not for you, that women, POC and LGBTQ+ people should have less rights than cis white men.
They can define socialism all they want and the frothing low-IQ dipshits will still vote for it, even if the definition of socialism straight up tells them their lives would be better under it.
It's never about the definition. It's never about any of it. It's entirely about their own slice of pie. Anyone else getting any semblance of good will means less to them.
It's why they're against gay marriage. If two men get married, it somehow makes his marriage to a woman invalidated.
They would kill Jesus himself
It isn't a real Jesus unless it comes from the crucifixion region in Jerusalem, otherwise its just sparkling hispanic
Donald Trump IS Jesus, obviously
Pretty sure Donald Trump is the antichrist
Just a doctor.
What did they think the J stood for, Jessica?
So he’d have deported Einstein, then?
Without a doubt these pieces of shit would've deported him, ur watching the same bad movie with an orange rapist as the lead actor, arent u, lol?
First amendment lawyers are gonna have a FIELD DAY with this one 😭
Watch the Trump admin revoke their licences.
Barr licenses are provided by states individually.
Silly you, thinking laws and rules mean anything
I mean where have you been? If laws and rules no longer had any meaning then why is the administration being forced to give back the tariff money and repeal them? Why was the admistration forced to re-hire thousands of federal employees it illegally terminated? Why was the national gaurd forced to leave several cities?
These were all decided by the courts and the administration complied. I'm not saying compliance is perfect, and I'm not saying the administration isn't trying to do very undemocratic things. But clearly there is still some rule of law.
The prevailing sentiment from the Lemmy community is that Trump is completely unstoppable and we should all just give up and accept his tyranny.
People love running propaganda for MAGA like that.
Or perhaps sentiment is that the institutions empowered to stop him are unwilling to do so because they are captured by capital.. and that we all need to put people into power who won't betray the people and who are willing to do something with that power to help everyone else... and perhaps work to restructure things so that the system works in favor of the working class instead of incrementally submitting to the will of capital until we are all wage slaves begging for table scraps from gold leafed shit stains like Musk and Bezos.
Clearly, they don't. As arrow74 has explained.
The prevailing sentiment is that they're extremely dangerous, do a lot of evil, and need to be stopped. The prevailing answer to that is "Oh, you're overreacting, they're perfectly stoppable, so you don't need to worry about anything. Don't forget to never vote under any circumstances because voting is useless and doesn't work"
"Some rule of law" is a bit of an oxymoron, no?
The Trump regime literally loses in court daily.
And what difference does it make? They don't uphold your silly court orders with every opportunity they get, and having full hold on power, they have a lot of those opportunities.
Got any examples or are you just a useful idiot spreading hopelessness? It sounds like you don't actually follow court cases in the USA, or don't understand how our legal system works.
Just assume the people who drink the Kool aid are propagandists or bots serving the same purpose.
If not, they're just useful idiots.
Your siting president was convicted 37 times, and instead of serving time, he's braking more laws by illegally bombing other countries. I don't know what other examples you need, really, but if you want some, listen to Opening Arguments, they do deep dives into a lot of specifics.
Very land of the free
It's never been that in its totality. It has always had an unspoken "for some" implied after "land of the free".
Mamdani is a centrist, he isn't left. But since the Republicans are alt right and the Democrats are right, they consider everything else to be far left and label anything that isn't right as communist. They don't know what communism is. Even Trump labeled people communist nazis. Communists and nazis are the opposite of eachother. Americans are so, so fucking dumb.
He might not be as left as you'd like, but calling Mamdani a centrist is just ignorant
Par the course for anarchists.
Not to people outside the US it isn’t
Yes to people outside the US.
The Democratic party is centrist by pretty much every measure (especially outside the US), but Mamdani is a leftist.
If he would be a politician in my country he would he centrist, maybe a fraction on the left of the centre. But if the rest in the US is either right or alt right, I get that he looks really left. But his political views are similar to our centrist politicians.
Not even communist seems to know what communism is anymore considering China has went full on fascist as well as being an oligarchy for the last 70 years.
Mate, the USSR wasn't even communist. Because communism doesn't have a government run by elites and a dictator as a sole leader. It's a wrong interpretation of what communism actually is, because bad people see a way to abuse the system to gain wealth and power. This is what happens everywhere. Rotten apples do not play fair and because of that always have an advantage in gaining positions of power. This happens everywhere. The USSR, China, modern day Russia, the US, etc.
Yes, that makes complete sense. Almost like democracy/socialism/communism is really just rhetoric for power and control.
No it's not. They are concepts of how to have a society. They are different structures. The biggest issue with them is that in most cases they didn't take into account the systems can be abused. Its hard to avoid abuse and corruption, as the systems are very complex. The more complex, the more opportunities there are for people to exploit.
I can't remember who it was. But some wise person said that people applying for jobs that hold power, should automatically be rejected. The only people who should have those jobs should be dragged against their will and put there, and should only be allowed to leave when they did good.
Next to that I believe people with those jobs should have proper background checks, psychological tests and IQ tests. And they should always be held accountable for their actions.
I think this is necessary to have systems like communism and democracy work somewhat decently, with a reduced chance of abuse of power. But I prefer anarchism, where there are no country borders, no huge huge governments who dictate their rules but small communities who manage themselves the way that works best for them.
I think we are splitting hairs here. I get you believe these concepts exist outside of reality as an ideal. I just don't see it that way anymore. They are just excuses powerful and well connected people use to create the consent of the governed. The propaganda if you will.
We are "democratic socialist state" or we are "unitary communist state" is inconsequential to the reality of policy and how the government(s) actually work.
I agree with the reasoning that those who want power should not have it and those who don't want power generally make better leaders as far as creating policies that benefit society as a whole. As opposed to just special interest groups.
We would have to create an new form of government that was designed to resist corruption instead of embracing it to change this all to common dynamic.
Having a pool of qualified and randomly selected individuals for representation is one idea I have heard. I think we need a truly radical approach to shake off the olgiarchies that the world is currently controlled by.
Just like democracy, communism, socialism, anarchism, etc these ideals are just that. Unless we can translate these ideals to actual passed and enforced policies they are nothing but lip service.
Call me jaded, but with the ever increasing worldwide wealth gaps no system has any answers and the few examples of anarchism, such as Rojava, have already been absorbed by the state.
It seems anarchism could only exist in a vacuum which points out the need to develop a real set of enforceable and attainable policies to make it work alongside a state actor.
That might be true in Europe, but it's complete bullshit in the USA.
If the only 2 parties are both right, anything else looks left. It's a matter of contrast. But Mamdani is centre on the political spectrum, maybe slightly on the left but definitely not far.
Mamdani is the closest thing to a left wing politician America has been exposed to (to my European eyes he seems center-left), and the whole of the US is going completely ballistic about it.
The rich/racists are going ballistic, but many see him as a ray of hope.
A fortnightly somewhat comedic podcast also recommended that progressive politicians should follow his campaign style, focusing mostly on economic policies to help everyday policies. I wouldn't call them experts or anything, but they claimed a few other politicians doing the same thing had promising results (they didn't state specific examples).
But yeah, lots of Americans do like at least some of what he's doing, but those usually aren't anyone near power.
Freedom of speech, unless it's speech we don't like
The GOP is full of idiots
EVIL idiots
Evil idiots with POWER.
Power the evil people handed to them.
Remember MCarthyism? It's back - in redneck form!
I got a better bill idea.
The Trump-Epstein act: which mandates the death penalty for pedophiles.
"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?"
Mccarthyism round two, let's go! Screw learning from your mistakes!
"I have here in my hand a list of 205 that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department."
"Or maybe it's 57... or 10... maybe."
Oh they learned, hence why we have Fox News and half of the government that will refuse to hold the worst US President ever accountable for his blatant acts of fraud and embezzlement.
They see McCarthy's mistake was giving up.
Not just "giving up", there are large portions who think McCarthy's mistake was not simply murdering everyone who appeared before HUAC. My own father-in-law doesn't really want these to be any form of actual "we wanna know what's going on" trials, he just wants this to be all but a summary execution.
Reminder for anyone still confused. American conservatives are actual, real-life fascists.
Yeah, no. I'd much rather have all the MAGA deported. It would really make this country 10 times better overnight. Much less murder and crime instantly.
How about we get a bill that bans conservatives from the US?
IT'S GUILLOTINE AND JUSTICE TIME!
GUILLOTINE AND JUSTICE TIME!
GUILLOTINE AND JUSTICE WITH A BASEBALL BAT!
This is the best, thanks
Fuck this regressive shithole of a country! Goddam!
I hate living here.
This is going hard in the direction of the Nazi Germany "Enabling Act" of 1933.
Or McCarthyism. Don't forget that one. Another classic.
Yay! Free violations of the first amendment!
"any organization that advocates those ideologies" is so god damn unconstitutional, it is not even funny
-Republicans
If it applies to Islamic fundamentalists, does it also apply to Christian nationalists?
It turns out McCarthyism 2.0 is going to be even worse.
Don't pay attention to this, it's going nowhere, it's weak propaganda to distract from the Epstein Files and the ArmerIsraeli War®.
Chip Roy is running for AG in Texas. It's less "weak propaganda" and more "a policy he would like to implement if elected to statewide office." If I was a Muslim in Texas, I'd be keenly aware of what he was proposing.
Fortunately, even the corrupted judges seem to have trouble assailing the First Amendment directly so far. What would really be nice, though, would be if these laws could be stopped on the drawing board rather than having to be challenged in court every time. If a high schooler could win the court case, it should not have to be one.
I dunno, seems kinda like something to pay attention to. Do you guys do anything? Or is sitting on your hands making up reasons to ignore shit like this just more fun than I thought it to be?
Can we ban fascists, theists, and other right wing boot-lickers from the US? We seem to have an infestation.
Banning socialists is some real commie shit these fucking pinko politicians
Not just socialists, "Islamists". This guy is running for AG in a state with Muslims making up around 2% of the population. Many of them are highly educated professionals looking to form full blow communities of like-minded people.
Unless the Commies themselves are socialists
I know literacy is not their strong suit, but current immigration law already prohibits being a member of a communist or totalitarian party. There are exceptions, of course.
Chip fails to realize that Krasnov's father-in-law would be deported, he was a f'n Yugoslavian Communist Party member. Preventing pedophiles, rapists and felons from public office would be a better bill.
Be very careful with "let's bar all felons from office", because then, all one would have to do is Trump up charges against their political rivals (something made far easier when the entire justice department is at your beck and call).
Oh, so that's where Melania comes from...
Who wants to dig McCarthy up, stick him up on a cross and prop him up in this guy's front yard?
McCarthy is buried in St Mary's Parish in Appleton, Wisconsin. Get digging!
George Wallace too please.
Does this encroach on first amendment or can they just ban whoever they don't like under the guise of national security?
It does encroach, but they'll still go for the ban.
It'll go to court and the cowards on the SCOTUS will uphold it and receive a completely undisclosed bag of money at their home.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_raids?wprov=sfla1
It's my understanding that the first amendment (and presumably others) doesn't apply to non-citizens who are outside the US.
well considering they already asked me these questions when I applied for my residency and my green card and will again if I become a citizen I doubt it
This might be a silly question but as a non-citizen do you have 1st amendment rights? I feel like you should but college students critical of Israel are being kidnapped by the government so idek at this point.
first amendment says "right of the people" so I am covered under people/person(s) language other law may vary.
They can prevent new immigration, yes, but even foreign nationals in the US are afforded bill of rights protections.
Authoritarianism is an admission of abject weakness.
White supremacists are the weakest and most brittle snowflakes.
We need 100 years of McCarthyism towards right wingers and fascist ideologies
Revenge would be sweet.
Yea a COINTELPRO reverse uno but it would also literally make our country a better place
What about Nazis? They're pretty bad. No? Huh. I wonder why.
The name of this bill is how you know they are terrified of him.
Hell yeah, we’re bringing thought crime back!
Third Red Scare, baby! What's old is new again!
We are so back, baby! [to one of the worst times in modern human history]
fascists welcome though. Related story, we're only letting in white south africans now.
https://www.visahq.com/news/2026-04-11/us/refugee-admissions-plunge-as-99-of-arrivals-now-originate-from-south-africa/#%3A%7E%3Atext=United+States+of+America%2Cnow+originate+from+South+Africa
Chip Roy wouldn’t have a job without gerrymandering.
How do I sign myself up to be deported?
You need only inform your nearest law enforcement officer that you favor China's government. Of course, deportation will not involve sending you to your Earthly country of origin. It will instead involve sending you to God directly, for judgement. But only after you reveal all you know to the uh, presiding cops looking over you. Naturally.
Eventually, this comment will be sufficient. Probably sooner than you'd expect.
Problem is, that you probably will be sent to a
gulagconcentration campprocessing center first .this is what you get for not hanging your fascists
“cynically used to disadvantage American workers' competitiveness in favor of mass-importing the third world.” Seems to me Socialists aren’t the ones who have been exporting American jobs to “third world countries”… seems like more of a Republican, Billionaire Epstein class kind of thing. Perhaps we need to review who really needs to be denaturalized and deported.
"If only, if only," the woodpecker sighs . . ..
So republicans are Publicly trying to end social security. Got it. start running those ads.
The Democrats won't because their donors won't let them
So if I’m an American citizen who also is a socialist, where do I get sent?
You're not going to believe this but straight to Alligator Alcatraz
Son of a bitch
We're back in the red scare and McCarthyism lol
Chip Roy can go Hitler himself
Fascists 100 years ago: concerned with Judeo-Bolshevism taking over the world.
Fascists today:
"Devastated europe"... Looks at Europe
A lot of people in North America see that and have a laundry list of complaints based entirely on their feelings and their inability to think for even a moment.
Damn, where's my Hummer going to fit in there?!?
“Cars are bigger here!” Is definitely one of the worst ones. Especially when we largely have the same cars and the truly big ones won’t work.
I had a really weird dream lastnight where I almost got a Challenger Hellcat for basically free but I’d have to trade my BRZ for it. I don’t drive much as it is, because I live in a city with transit, but I’m very proud that dream me refused the trade in the end because it would have been a nightmare to find parking. Also they’re automatic, but that is unrelated.
All this shit does is encourage me to join left-wing organizations to grow their numbers by one.
There should be a negative consequence for proposing obviously unconstitutional bullshit with no chance of passing just for publicity
Yeah, I'm sure immigration agents just, "know a commie when they see one."
Another performative bill that can't pass, just like the freshly failed SAVE Act.
Nuremberg 2.0 is coming.
I really hope with the same results for all who are in the regime. There is only one justice for this type of evil.
Isn't socialism and communism the opposite of totalitarianism- more or less? So basically "we're going to reject anyone who can't think like a Capitalist and give them all your money, cuz they definitely deserve it"...
throws down newspaper "That's it! I'm running for president!" I'm going to campaign on the mentality of FOSS and advocate for privacy, not big brother and capitalism. I just can't listen to this ludicrous bs anymore.
Yeah, if it went as Marx predicted, and socialism emerged from the contradictions in mature capitalist societies. That has partially happened in a few places on the Nordic tier. But human nature being what it is, some self-described communist parties have instead been totalitarian state-capitalist entitties with strong nationalist features. That applies to the two empires that attempted to leap-frog from feudalism to socialism without an intervening capitalist stage: Russia and China. Both instead recreated the industrial revolution at gunpoint, with no worker control of the means of production. Post-Gorbachev, Russia has abandoned the pretense of socialism entirely and is now a kleptocractic plutocracy. China has doubled down on a form of mercantilist state capitalism. Both retain imperialist tendencies and oppress minority ethnicities within their borders.
Xi, Putin, and Stalin would like a word.
You can "that's not real communism" all you like but it's a common outcome.
None of them were communist at all. You not knowing what the word means isn't other people's problem.
Putin doesn't even call himself a communist wtf lmao?
This is just empty suit posturing. The US already deports whomever for whatever reason. This is just a douchebag trying to stand out in a field of douchebags. Sit down and shut up forever, Chip.
First amendment is very clear you cannot make any law that would limit speech
Sort of.
SCOTUS generally allows for time, place, and manner restrictions so long as there is reasonable alternatives provided. So, governments can restrict speech with noise ordinances at a reasonable hour (can't be blaring an anti-war protest at 2:30 a.m. in a residential neighborhood or can't block fire exits with a crowd of protesters) if the person(s) protesting is/are given a viable alternative. Also, child porn doesn't enjoy the same First Amendment protections as regular pornographic materials.
But, other than that, you're generally correct.
Only fascists allowed? Sounds like the constitution only matters when it benefits conservatives.
Okay then let's deport Trump.. His policies are funneling borrowed money into the hands of the world's richest men.
Straight up anticompetitive. And so obviously going to lose even the first wiff of a 1A legal challenge.
I think it wouldn't stand an Article III challenge because it denies the courts' ability to hear the cases and controversies that arise out of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments.
It's so on the nose. You have to wonder how it's real.
Fine then, convince somewhere else to take me then.
MAMDANI*
And who defines socialist and Marxist? Oh right, the same people who enforce the ban.
we're already here dumbass.
If you want to pay for me to leave, thats fine,. Can I choose the country I'm deported to?
I'm pretty sure they're using "deport" in the same way the Nazis did with Dachau.
Oh shit, I had no idea this guy was a .world mod! /s
Now if we could just get them to very clearly define those ideologies as autocratic, and strike off "advocates for" as it would obstruct freedom of speech, then we could weaponize it against Trump supporters and also fight the CCP as an added bonus. Win - Win.
Believe me, it really seems that this bill demonstrates that the only good Republican is a dead Republican. But, they're running the show without much of a violent push-back. So, it's best not to give them ideas.
Also, weaponizing a federal law against Trump supporters at the federal level implies that he's going to give up power. We saw how that went last time.
We're already weaponizing tons of laws against Trump supporters, from redistricting California to the countless court decisions against him. Trump and the law have thus far been inherently opposed to each other. By making autocratic and authoritarian ideologies grounds for expulsion we could expel Trump supporters on the very same grounds.
Trump really is Americas most socialist leader. Gulags for ideological differences thats right up their alley. But there is no chance this passes? It would be so beyond the pale it might start a revolution.
They're already building the camps. They won't be just for immigrants for long. They're so big and there's so many. You don't make that kind of a long-term investment for a short-term problem. They'll round up their other undesirables to put in them too.
The people in the camps are already doing manual labor, as well.
To be fair, I'm not convinced these people think long term. They might well have just made a place to "store" people while they wait to legally deport them. Not that it actually makes a difference given the horrific conditions they're placing people in, but as always with MAGA it's difficult to distinguish malice and stupidity.
That's actually what the Nazis' extermination camp started as. Dachau (opened 22 March 1933) was origionally a deportation camp. As things progressed (they couldn't find anywhere to deport the Jews to and the war was taking a turn against them on the Eastern Front) they evolved into extermination camps after the Wannsee Conference in '41. It's why it was called the FINAL Solution.