President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#10,755
#10,755
walkenvol said:
Guess you can have the opinion that being in the US without properly following the legal process isn’t a crime, but it’s clearly breaking US law which to most people makes it a crime.
Click to expand...
I agree they broke the law coming here . I am talking about additional criminal activity once they are here. Drugs, murder, rape, etc.
 
#10,756
#10,756
Ritzwatch said:
If Ukraine does not want peace with Russia, and the EU supports the Ukrainians in their war, are they not able to continue with the conflict regardless of what the Trump administration wants?

Even if the premise that Trump is appeasing Putin is correct (which has not yet been demonstrated), surely the EU and Ukraine don't have to join him, do they?
Click to expand...

"Want" ?????!!!!!!???

Of course they want peace but they don't want peace at the cost of giving up 20 percent + of their land to get it. Especially when we all know that wouldn't be the end of it.

And it's pretty obvious that Trimp is signaling a general withdrawal of the US from Europen security. And you know who is watching??

China.
 
#10,757
#10,757
lawgator1 said:
"Want" ?????!!!!!!???

Of course they want peace but they don't want peace at the cost of giving up 20 percent + of their land to get it. Especially when we all know that wouldn't be the end of it.

And it's pretty obvious that Trimp is signaling a general withdrawal of the US from Europen security. And you know who is watching??

China.
Click to expand...
Actually, we want to scale back on the Euro continent to focus on China.


Why should the US pick up half the tab for European defense of their own continent? All the while for decades not meeting their commitments and promises.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN-POSSUM, CagleMtnVol, walkenvol and 6 others
#10,760
#10,760
lawgator1 said:
"Want" ?????!!!!!!???

Of course they want peace but they don't want peace at the cost of giving up 20 percent + of their land to get it. Especially when we all know that wouldn't be the end of it.

And it's pretty obvious that Trimp is signaling a general withdrawal of the US from Europen security. And you know who is watching??

China.
Click to expand...
Objection! Non-responsive to the question.

Do Ukraine and the EU have to agree to do whatever Trump decides, or not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCFisher
#10,763
#10,763
#10,766
#10,766
lawgator1 said:
I'd say Ukraine does.
Click to expand...
Well, now we have defined what makes one country a "puppet" of another.

If Ukraine and the EU don't like it, they can always learn to pay their own bills.

I, for one, would like those billions back for my neighbors in WNC who are still reeling from last autumn's storms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: walkenvol, marcusluvsvols, Smallvol#1 and 1 other person
#10,768
#10,768
Seems the DOE may withhold funds for states that dont discard DEI.. now the shoe is on the other foot.

Maybe just maybe the Dems will let the power go back to the states.
 
#10,770
#10,770
lawgator1 said:
And it's even more brazen now. Trump managed to get away with it round 1, and he's firing anyone who can warn us in round 2.
Click to expand...

Okay... questions...

Has it been proven, probably beyond a single doubt, of the ability of the West and NATO to stop the Russian Military even with older generation weapons?

Furthermore, even with the drawdown of European militaries (with the exception of a few) wouldn't it be safe to say the "threat" of Russia invading in almost laughable at this point and they would be beaten back handedly?

Moreover, Trump knows the big bad romping, stomping Red Army got their ass handed to them by older millennials and grumpy Gen X Ukrainians... with second hand US and NATO weapons. Shouldn't this failure mean the US can (and should) focus on other theaters instead like Asia since the Russian threat has been proven false?

Global chess, biscuit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CobbVol
#10,771
#10,771
lawgator1 said:
"Want" ?????!!!!!!???

Of course they want peace but they don't want peace at the cost of giving up 20 percent + of their land to get it. Especially when we all know that wouldn't be the end of it.

And it's pretty obvious that Trimp is signaling a general withdrawal of the US from Europen security. And you know who is watching??

China.
Click to expand...

Better than 100%
 
#10,773
#10,773
Orangeburst said:

Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship​

Click to expand...
Key excerpts, though I'd urge reading the entirety:

In Wong Kim Ark, the leading case on birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court explained that “jurisdiction” referred to being born “within the allegiance” of the sovereign. The court held that a child born of parents with a “permanent domicile and residence in the United States” was a birthright citizen. Wong Kim Ark’s parents, as persons who came in amity, had entered into the social compact and were entitled to all the benefits of that compact, including not only the protection of the laws but also the benefits of citizenship for their children. Under the common law, the court observed, “such allegiance and protection were mutual.”

This is also why, as prominent editions of Blackstone’s commentaries explained, invading armies were excluded. “It is not cœlum nec solum” — it is neither the climate nor the soil — that makes a natural-born subject, “but their being born within the allegiance and under the protection of the king.”

Have Unlawful Entrants Given Allegiance?​

Which brings us to the children of people who are present in the United States illegally. Has a citizen of another country who violated the laws of this country to gain entry and unlawfully remain here pledged obedience to the laws in exchange for the protection and benefit of those laws?
Clearly, the parents are not enemies in the sense of an invading army, but they did not come in amity. They gave no obedience or allegiance to the country when they entered — one cannot give allegiance and promise to be bound by the laws through an act of defiance of those laws. Such persons can even be summarily removed from the country without judicial procedures of the sort that would protect citizens. If the allegiance-for-protection view informed the original meaning of the text, then they and their children are therefore not under the protection or “subject to the jurisdiction” of the nation in the relevant sense.
The executive order’s exclusion of children born to mothers who are “lawful but temporary” residents is a more complicated question not addressed here. And whether Congress ought to grant naturalized citizenship to children born to those illegally present in the United States is a policy issue distinct from whether the 14th Amendment has already done so. The Supreme Court has, in a footnote, presumed that the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional phrase applied equally to people who are here illegally, but the issue was neither briefed nor argued in that case; nor was it material to its outcome.

When they finally consider this question, the justices will find that the case for Mr. Trump’s order is stronger than his critics realize.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, InVOLuntary, whodeycin85 and 2 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top