Donald J. Trump (For everyone else except Victor)
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
We're encroaching into some Hollywood "generic middle eastern bad guys" territory with the optics on this.
For run-of-the-mill illegals, if their country refuses to take them, I'm even cool with dropping them out of a plane with a parachute over simply leaving them to rot in a Cuba detention center. At least the parachute thing is a bucket list item they can scratch off.
Catch them again if they try to sneak back in and THEN ship them to Gitmo.
I think everyone deserves a "One Time".
If these are actual cartel gang members picked up by US authorities, then the actual prison at Gitmo is fine as well. Don't give those guys the comfort of the detention center cots.
It's rare that you see one of them even slightly crack the door into the "I might be on the wrong side of this thing" but it looks like that's what's happening. ^^
Keep asking questions. You're starting to see what most of us see. Next ask yourself why they pushed the "THEY'RE EATING THE DOGS" thing so hard.
It's rare that you see one of them even slightly crack the door into the "I might be on the wrong side of this thing" but it looks like that's what's happening. ^^
Keep asking questions. You're starting to see what most of us see. Next ask yourself why they pushed the "THEY'RE EATING THE DOGS" thing so hard.
I thought it was the cats
agreed, parachuting does seem like something trump would do because he'd love the optics of it
If they do not speak the language it makes it difficult to teach them and they take the attention away from the teacher with the rest of the kids .
My sister is a retired Vice Principal and that is the policy here in my old province of Alberta
Your sister teach you about brain plasticity?
Kids acquire language, any language, incredibly fast. And English is a really stupid language in the context of how many irregularities it contains. As an example, Google irregular verbs.
I have about a dozen years' teaching experience. I have 3 certifications, 1 being ESL. ESL stands for English Second Language.
We cherish our ESL students. They bring variety to the classroom environment. We relish the opportunities to learn simple conversational elements from their native languages. And I encourage my students to NEVER discontinue speaking in their native tongue. Had my grandparents' parents not been so fearful to be associated with Nazi Germany, I'd probably be able to speak German.
As our city provides some of the best cancer treatment in the world, we're regularly receiving students from all over while their parents/relatives are in-town for treatment.
There are about 145 languages spoken in our metroplex. Our schools already have the infrastructure for ESL learning.
Oh, and your correlation between misbehavior and spoken language is rather embarrassing. Your anecdotal evidence is a self-report on your own ignorance.
More languages = more neural pathways = greater intelligence. These are just the facts.
I belive it's actually a disservice to native English speakers that they are not receiving instruction in a 2nd language. But that won't happen in my state because the administration is xenophobic as hell, and these folks are always incorrectly asserting that English is the official language of the U.S.A. (and to them I always quip, "God Save the King!")
Today, the df administration rescinded the order to half federal funding. Then the df press secretary seemed to indicate that it was still in effect. This prompted a second federal judge to consider stepping in and issue a second stay on the order due to the ambiguity.
This df administration has no idea what they are doing and there is no rhyme or reason to their actions. Again, it appears that sheer incompetence might help save our country in the end.
It's rare that you see one of them even slightly crack the door into the "I might be on the wrong side of this thing" but it looks like that's what's happening. ^^
Keep asking questions. You're starting to see what most of us see. Next ask yourself why they pushed the "THEY'RE EATING THE DOGS" thing so hard.
Is it because people love their dogs?
Not to mention the idiotic df press secretary trying to tell us with a straight face that we were about to send 50 million dollars to pay for condoms in Gaza. They'd laugh this out of the writing room in a show about a school of actual clowns running the country.
I wonder if this is the df-in-chief not knowing what the word prophylactic means like when he thought asylum seekers were from mental hospitals.
So the courts determined that the obviously unconstitutional funding freeze was obviously unconstitutional, right?
no it's not - it's exactly on point
we've had our chance to fix things with clinton and obama having control of both house and senate but nothing came of it specifically because they were scared of causing too much short term pain and getting this exact kind of outrage so the problems remained untouched and allowed to fester
we could have done it so much better but we passed on that opportunity because we're a party of cowards
i'd rather a buffoon do it now (or at least tear it all down so his much
Totally agree with the beginning. Decades of failure, cowardice and lack of principle are now coming home to roost across the western world.
The bit I strongly didsagree with the idea that needing radical change means any radical change is positive. We are facing a catastrophe - for some it's already started.
Crossnerds posts (among much else) are so depressingly sad. fwiw I'd never heard of head start either.
I am curious what the odds were on the courts rescinding that order. I still have faith in that dept which seems both strange that Trump would attempt something like that with it both looking bad on his end if it fails, and the likelihood of it doing so. We are still a collective body of citizens.
Level 1 thinkers don't consider the fact that there's an interrelationship between building a great society, and immigration, both legal and illegal. The better the society, the more illegal immigration... unless we want to discuss utopian societies that can't exist. Part of a great society is welcoming immigration (ideally, legally). And since you're never going to stop illegal immigration entirely, it's in the best interest, for both public health and safety, to provide healthcare and educatio
A non zero number of illegals will almost always exist (in particular because of visa overstayers) but to claim that current numbers are somewhat inevitable is gaslighting.
Trespassers should be shot for example, it should be the norm to shoot to kill on the border, and shoot to sink boats that enter your territorial water without being authorized to do so.
And the rest for illegals when in the country (including significant criminal penalties to people who hire them or rent them houses and so on). Everywhere IDs are needed for a transaction, they should include citizenship/legal residence status.
And very severe penalties should be associated to do business with illegals , same as you would use severe penalties for criminal conspiracies.
Now given nothing remotely or vaguely close to this reasonable, pragmatic approach exists, it's heavily disingenuous to claim mass amounts of illegal immigration are to be expected no matter what.
Just try to clamp it down as if the very fabric of society would collapse if you don't doing literally everything in your power allowed under the constitution to do so THEN we discuss what to do given the "ineliminabile" residuale amount of illegals that still get/stay in.
We don't have tools to estimate how many they would be because we aren't even doing 1% of what we could to tackle the problem. Maybe with trump we will see that happens with 3-5% enacted but I doubt even Trump would even come close to the no-nonsense approach I outlined
Today, the df administration rescinded the order to half federal funding. Then the df press secretary seemed to indicate that it was still in effect. This prompted a second federal judge to consider stepping in and issue a second stay on the order due to the ambiguity.
This df administration has no idea what they are doing and there is no rhyme or reason to their actions. Again, it appears that sheer incompetence might help save our country in the end.
Because they didn't rescind the order, they rescinded a memo written to tell agencies what to do given the order
I am curious what the odds were on the courts rescinding that order. I still have faith in that dept which seems both strange that Trump would attempt something like that with it both looking bad on his end if it fails, and the likelihood of it doing so. We are still a collective body of citizens.
when in doubt check polymarket
I am curious what the odds were on the courts rescinding that order. I still have faith in that dept which seems both strange that Trump would attempt something like that with it both looking bad on his end if it fails, and the likelihood of it doing so. We are still a collective body of citizens.
Alito and Clayton Bigsby 100 times out of 100 side with trump and giving him absolute power. Gorsuch, maybe. Coney Barrett I can see going either way. Roberts and Kavanaugh I don’t see going along with it so that ends that
I am curious to see at what point trump tries to pack the court so he can throw Cannon and some other bootlicker on the court and never have to worry about that again
A non zero number of illegals will almost always exist (in particular because of visa overstayers) but to claim that current numbers are somewhat inevitable is gaslighting.
Trespassers should be shot for example, it should be the norm to shoot to kill on the border, and shoot to sink boats that enter your territorial water without being authorized to do so.
And the rest for illegals when in the country (including significant criminal penalties to people who hire them or rent them houses and so on)
Mass murder to defeat illegal immigration?
You're the most uncool.
Here is the link to government brief that lost the TRO regarding birthright citizenship that the judge blasted as blatantly unconstitutional.
I guess this is one side effect of this presidency that is kind of enjoyable. Watching Trump's nonsense get literally laughed out of court nearly every day.
Here is the link to government brief that lost the TRO regarding birthright citizenship that the judge blasted as blatantly unconstitutional.
The government lawyers made the best arguments available to them, but they didn't have much to work with.
A non zero number of illegals will almost always exist (in particular because of visa overstayers) but to claim that current numbers are somewhat inevitable is gaslighting.
Trespassers should be shot for example, it should be the norm to shoot to kill on the border, and shoot to sink boats that enter your territorial water without being authorized to do so.
And the rest for illegals when in the country (including significant criminal penalties to people who hire them or rent them houses and so on)
Would be lovely to have a problem and having to redirect into territorial water and being sunk.
Or redirect a flight and get shot.
Also would be pretty funny to see your own citizens get shot by another country and says it's fine.
Lucy in the sky with diamonds
The government lawyers made the best arguments available to them, but they didn't have much to work with.
That may be true but I am still waiting for our Italian legal team to explain what novel point of law is in the executive order that remains undecided by the courts.
Admittedly, I am starting to come around on this Luciomtopia ideal of jailing, banning from office and executing any politician who violates our constitutional law. I think I missed some of the merits of his final solution the first time it was proposed.
Constitutional law is whatever a few 'wise men' can butcher a very old piece of paper to mean
That may be true but I am still waiting for our Italian legal team to explain what novel point of law is in the executive order that remains undecided by the courts.
Admittedly, I am starting to come around on this Luciomtopia ideal of jailing, banning from office and executing any politician who violates our constitutional law. I think I missed some of the merits of his final solution the first time it was proposed.
I know you are ironic but imagine HOW BETTER the system would be if instead of signing an EO defying what scholars consider settled law the government could just *ask SCOTUS for an official clarification with merit* about the exact meaning of "under the jurisdiction of", without anyone being touched while SCOTUS takes its time to answer.
The idea that constitutional interpretations have to be "discovered" in litigation with interests (both public and private) being maimed in the meanwhile is just insane. Not everytime orders or laws with unconstitutional elements get stayed immediatly.
Anyway i think the status of children of 2 parents both illegally in the USA (or in the USA only for short temporary stays) isn't answered directly and clearly by any SCOTUS decision. I think it's fair to claim that it's very plausible to think it was implicitly but it wasn't explicitly, so i think it would be good if SCOTUS answers definitively about tourists and illegals children.
I know you think it will be a slam dunk, perhaps an easy 9-0, and you might be right, but what's the problem with it happening, especially given the order is frozen and ineffective in the meanwhile?
So just get rid of that annoying justiciable controversy requirement and allow advisory opinions?
So just get rid of that annoying justiciable controversy requirement and allow advisory opinions?
yes, or at the very least allow any citizen (or legal resident) to have standing as virtue of being citizen for constitutional matters under the lens of "the existence of an unconstitutional provision in the country is BY ITSELF a cause of irreparable harm for every citizen if not addressed promptly".
Btw my previous attempt to punish passing unconstitutional provisions was not just to "allow", but basically to make it a routine requirement, to get advisory opinion on the constitutionality of anything you pass which has even a shadow of doubt of being unconstitutional in any part, because the penalty of failing to do so and getting "caught in the act" are horrendous.
The system should err on "even the slightest chance of an unconstitutional provision becoming the law even temporarily and constitutional rights being damaged" is one of the worst possible things government can do and so avoiding 1 of those is well worth delaying 100 or 1000 provisions from being enacted.
You though need to agree with me that something unconstitutional happening is indeed an exceptionally bad thing, and that in the vast majority of cases we don't need new rules or laws about anything anyway so delaying most of them from enactment isn't even a cost most of the times.
If you aren't willing to bet your life literally that what you are doing when serving the government is perfectly constitutional, don't even think of doing it. That should be the mantra
