President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#16,426
#16,426
Orange_Crush said:
The point is, it doesn't sound like that's what they've filed. From what I can tell, they've used a 50s-era law that gives the SoS the ability to deport someone if the SoS deems them a threat to *foreign policy*. They're claiming that current foreign policy is to stamp out antisemitism globally, and his fomenting of antisemitism here is detrimental to that.

That's a HUGE stretch (IMHO) and I suspect it won't hold up--even in immigration court.

As an LPR, with a US wife (and I think a kid on the way), they'll need to prove much more than that, I suspect. I also suspect that if they had that proof, they would have led with that. However, if they thought him merely on a student visa, they may not have thought they'd need to build a stronger case. Maybe they can and will now that they have to. Who knows?
Click to expand...

WTH knows...?

 
#16,435
#16,435
Majors said:
Some can’t get past 2016. But you’re right, they are having a hard time with being in the minority now with no leadership or message.
Click to expand...
Oh they have a message all right. It just isn’t a winning message. It can be summed up as „we are the most virtuous people in the world and everyone who disagrees with us on any point is evil“. The public finally realized this in 2024.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dovervolz
#16,436
#16,436
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#16,440
#16,440
n_huffhines said:
Unfortunately for your argument, in America, one of our core values and protected rights is free speech. People with green cards enjoy the bill of rights.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for your argument, that simply isn't categorically true. Non-citizens, even legal ones, simply have not been upheld by the court to share the expansive speech rights as citizens. Nor should they ever.

Khalil is described as the negotiator for CUAD, a coalition of insurrectionist jihadi and Marxist groups who advocate for Islamist terrorist violence here to bring about the destruction of America, Western civilization, Israel, and is essentially a Hamas propagandist co-opted by intersectionalist Marxists. CUAD has been at the center of violent demonstrations, occupations, and the intimidation and assault of Jewish teachers and students.

=============================================================================

CAN THE GOVERNMENT TURN AWAY ANARCHIST IMMIGRANTS? (1904)​

The Immigration Act of 1903, also called the Anarchist Exclusion Act, sought to deport immigrants with anti-government views. John Turner, from England, was one such anarchist who advocated for union organizing. Lawyers for Turner argued his views were political speech protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court (U.S. ex rel. Turner v. Williams) disagreed, saying Turner held views seeking to overthrow the U.S. government, and Congress has broad power to deport non-citizens. The legal standard for limiting anti-government views for U.S. citizens is higher.

CAN THE GOVERNMENT DEPORT SOMEONE OVER COMMUNIST PARTY MEMBERSHIP? (1954)​

At the height of the anti-communist era, Congress passed laws effectively outlawing the Communist Party in the country and making it legal to deport non-citizens who were members. The case Galvan v. Press centers on Robert Galvan, who was born in Mexico and came to the U.S. in 1918 at age seven. His wife and four children were all U.S. citizens. When questioned by immigration officials, he said he had been a member of the Communist Party for two years in the 1940s, before Congress passed its anti-communist laws. The government tried to deport Galvan, and lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court, citing his First Amendment right to political speech and association. The court sided with the government's decision to deport Galvan.

Justice Hugo Black, joined by William O. Douglas, dissented, saying it was possible the deportation did not violate the First Amendment. But Black disagreed that Galvan should be punished for being a member of a political party that was "perfectly legal" when he was a member.

DOES THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO RECEIVE INFORMATION OUTWEIGH IMMIGRATION CONCERNS? (1972)​

Known as the "Belgian Socialist" case, this Supreme Court ruling (Kleindienst v. Mandel) affirmed that while First Amendment interests are important, they do not overrule federal authority to deny people legal entry into the country. Belgian journalist Ernest E. Mandel led a socialist publication and sought entry into the U.S. to lecture at Stanford University. He was denied, and faculty and students sued, saying the government violated their First Amendment rights (though Mandel spoke to them by telephone). The court said those First Amendment concerns were valid, but the federal government has broad power to decide who is allowed to enter the U.S.

CAN THE GOVERNMENT SELECTIVELY ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAWS BASED ON POLITICAL VIEWS? (1999)​

The federal government sought to deport eight people who were members of a U.S.-based Palestinian liberation group. They were legal U.S. residents but not full citizens. The group claimed they were being targeted with selective enforcement because of their political views and appealed to the Supreme Court (Reno v. American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee). When challenged, the government backed off the political grounds for deportation but proceeded on technical violations of immigration law. In his majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia addressed claims of First Amendment violations, saying, "An alien unlawfully in this country has no constitutional right to assert selective enforcement as a defense against his deportation."

The bottom line on First Amendment freedoms and non-citizens​

The question of whether the First Amendment applies to non-citizens isn't easily answered with a satisfying yes or no. The Constitution leaves room to interpret that question, especially as it applies to unauthorized immigrants. The Supreme Court has not ruled in a direct way that neatly resolves it.

And the First Amendment itself does not make clear whether "the people" given the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition are a narrow group of citizens or a broader category, some of whom come to the United States to visit, learn and work in a country that prevents governments from restricting these five freedoms.
non-citizens-protected-first-amendment
 
#16,441
#16,441
swampfoxfan said:
Back to Donnie.

Tell me how tariffs are not taxes affecting lower income Americans disproportionately.
Click to expand...
Let’s make it simple …..

If I am buying a product and one costs more (because it has a tariff) and one is less because it is manufactured in the US so there is no tariff. If I buy the US product, I am not paying the tariff.

Additionally, it is not forced like property TAX, income TAX, and sales TAX.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#16,443
#16,443
  • Like
Reactions: Buddy’s Bandit
#16,445
#16,445
rekinhavoc said:
www.breitbart.com

Hollywood Celebrities Rip Schumer for Caving on GOP Spending Bill: 'He's Bought. He's Gotta Go'

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is getting ripped from Washington, D.C., to Hollywood after he caved this week and announced he would vote for cloture on the Republicans’ bill to fund the government and avoid a shutdown.
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com
View attachment 727922

Oh look, the political arm of Mensa ( also known as washed up actors and actresses) is upset with Chuck.
Click to expand...
"you either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain"- Batman
 
  • Like
Reactions: rekinhavoc
#16,446
#16,446
lawgator1 said:
www.nbcnews.com

Trump takes his plan to end birthright citizenship to the Supreme Court

The administration wants the court to limit the scope of lower court rulings against his executive order that would end automatic birthright citizenship.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

Trump administration going to the Supremes to try to make headway on the birthright citizenship issue.

Its really hard not to view this position as reflecting a racial bias against Latinos. While you can argue that illegal immigrants coming into the country should be deported because they are here illegally, and the administration may claim some illegal immigrants have criminal histories, a child born here is not at fault, at any level, nor has he/she committed a crime.

It just seems designed to penalize young people for something over which they have no control.
Click to expand...
I’m beyond sick of this issue.
The real problem is the absolute impossibility of coming here legally. Neither party is interested in solving the actual problem. That might take away a solid campaign issue
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad and hog88
#16,447
#16,447
Orangeslice13 said:
I’m beyond sick of this issue.
The real problem is the absolute impossibility of coming here legally. Neither party is interested in solving the actual problem. That might take away a solid campaign issue
Click to expand...

100% agree but birthright citizenship as we know it needs to end along with allowing dual citizenship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush, SpaceCoastVol and whodeycin85
#16,449
#16,449
Buddy’s Bandit said:
Let’s make it simple …..

If I am buying a product and one costs more (because it has a tariff) and one is less because it is manufactured in the US so there is no tariff. If I buy the US product, I am not paying the tariff.

Additionally, it is not forced like property TAX, income TAX, and sales TAX.
Click to expand...

that_not_how_this_works.jpg

In reality, when a tariff is imposed on a commodity like steel or aluminum, domestic firms generally just raise their prices proportionately - or slightly less - and simply reap the benefit of higher margins. Why wouldn't they? Who pays for that? We consumers do. And this is obviously inflationary in nature.

It's a zero-sum game. Potentially negative overall, in fact.

Further, this is going to come to roost in Tennessee. Firms like Jack Daniels have already been caught up in the trade war. The EU just set a date for the imposition of an additional 50% tariff on liquor imported from the US. This will definitely cause a major loss in sales for JD... just like it did when the same thing happened during Trump's first term.

This is why most economists agree that most tariffs simply don't work.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: swampfoxfan
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top