Trump’s Day One: A Bold Agenda to Reclaim America
Quinnipiac poll today...
64% say they prefer giving most undocumented immigrants in the United States a pathway to legal status, while 31 percent say they prefer deporting.
56% disapprove of the way U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE, is doing its job.
55% disapprove of Trump's decision to send National Guard troops to respond to protests in Los Angeles.
60% disapprove of Trump's decision to send U.S. Marines to respond to protests in Los Angeles.
41% of voters approve of the way Trump is handling his job as president, while 54 percent disapprove.
Given a list of nine issues and asked which is the most urgent one facing the country today, preserving democracy in the United States (24 percent) ranks at the top, followed by the economy (19 percent), immigration (18 percent), and international conflicts (15 percent). No other issue reached double digits.
https://share.google/Or7HRS9f2zfLgnGRkThat says it all, doesn't it. It is good to see that 64% of Americans want a rational, economy saving outcome.
I am, however, disappointed that only 55% disapprove of sending in the National Guard at the drop of the hat. The way the California Supreme Court left things is that a president, on his own authority, can override a State and activate the Guard when a SINGLE anarchist defaces a SINGLE federal building.
It is good to see that preserving democracy in America is still important (although I suspect many of those are MAGA expressing their opinion that democracy = Trump being be King - or as HE likes to say "RULER")
That is true authoritarianism in my book!I think this is as a result of who is to do the 'dirty' works the average Americans turn down.
Well, Republican and Democrat Senators agree - TRUMP LIED about "obliterating" Iran's nuclear stockpile and capability. They just disagree on how long it will take Iran to reconstitute. Rs say years, Ds say months. Given the required political spin, I would go with 10 - 15 months.
“President Trump said that the nuclear stockpile was completely and totally obliterated. I did not receive an adequate answer to that question,” Schumer told reporters, accusing the White House of having “no coherent strategy, no end game, no plan” for preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon in the future." - We know the bolded part to be true because Trump has told us that many times.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/26/poli … end_recircUpdate to the Big Bold Initiative to denude America of a significant portion of our workforce:
How Many Have Been Deported to Date?
As of April 2025, the Trump administration claimed around 140,000 deportations This figure was later revised; by June 10, 2025, DHS told Time the total exceeded 207,000 migrants deported since January
Job Market & Economic Impact
1. Labor Shortages in Key Industries -
- ICE raids have triggered panic-driven absenteeism among undocumented workers—especially in agriculture, food processing, construction, hospitality, and elder care
- Texas dairy farms and Florida construction sites reported major disruptions due to missing workers .
- Employers across multiple sectors voiced that legal replacements are hard to find or unwilling, pushing up costs and delaying projects
2. Reduced Job Growth and Economic Drag
- Barclays economists warn that reduced immigration and deportations could cut U.S. monthly non-farm private payroll growth from over 100,000 to below 10,000 by late 2026 .
- Brookings, PIIE, and Peterson Institute estimate that large-scale deportations (e.g., 1.3 million removals) could reduce GDP by 1.2% and employment by 1.1% by 2028; in severe scenarios (~8 million removals), GDP could drop 7.4% and employment 7.0% - REMEMBER, Trump promised to deport 20 million!!.
- Another analysis suggests that for every million deported, 88,000 U.S. jobs disappear—mainly low-skilled positions—counter to the idea of opening those jobs to Americans .
3. Wider Economic Consequences
- Consumer spending in Hispanic and immigrant-heavy communities fell sharply, affecting retail, restaurants, and service sectors—outside disruptions of workforce
- Federal budgets and local economies are impacted: deported workers leave behind lost tax revenue, reduced housing demand, and weaker small businesses—total foreign-born share of GDP was ~18% in 2023
- UCLA Anderson Forecast cautions Trump-era deportations (plus tariffs and job cuts) could risk a recession, noting that deportation-driven labor shortages and spending cuts would slow growth and earnings
How Stupid can one man be to want to inflict this on America?This is nothing compared to the millions deported under obama as well as clinton.
Everything will be fine as it was when millions were deported under other presidents.And yet the leftists here post polls (probably about as accurate as those polls showing Hilary was going to be Trump in a landslide) showing Americans are overwhemlmingly against ICE. Where was all of this outrage when all of the other presidents before Biden were doing this?
I noted that I wish they would respect my thread and create a new thread where their issues could be discussed. There are rules, but some feel rules are made to be broken. This thread's subject is all about Trump's agenda to reclaim America. A thread to post accomplishments. I am ignoring those that I find are baiting and disruptive of the thread's subject. I hope others will do the same; in my view, no O2 is the best way.
Sharloo01, sorry that your 'thread' is hijacked for a long time.
You are talking about Trump, right? I doubt there isn't a rule he hasn't broken at one time or another.
Not sure which polls your are referring to about Clinton, but a careful reading of them had the race neck-and-neck going into voting day.
Where is all the outrage you ask? Maybe there was none because they 1) did it legally and 2) targeted mainly real criminals and not their spouses and children like Trump does.Kinder and gentler? WHo do you think built all the cages on the border? I guess he needed to take a break after bombing Libya, Somalia and all those other countries without congresses approval.
No, Obama. That pôster thinks Obama deported 3000000 people but only men. Obama also killed more than any other president dropping 26000 bombs. All dropped without congressional approval. He also built the cages to hold immigrants.
Seems some have a very selective memory. It is also odd that they can simply not address the issue of the hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied migrant children the Biden administration misplaced, and now the Trump administration is working on finding them. The stats are hugely, but I added the stats from Trumps first administration to show non bias stats. I think the stats speak pretty loudly on there own. Many media article just add that Trump was also responsible for the huge issue--- one can truly see when all got much worse.
81% of the ~448,000 releases (≈ 366,000) occurred under Biden (FY 2021–23)
The remaining ≈ 82,000 occurred during Trump’s term (Oct 2018–Jan 2021).
If we apply the same proportions:
Under Biden (81% of the figures):
NTAs not issued: ~236,000
Failed appearances: ~26,000
Total "untracked": ~262,000
Under Trump (19% of the figures):
NTAs not issued: ~55,000
Failed appearances: ~6,000
Total "untracked": ~61,000
Key Takeaways, Both administrations had children who didn’t receive court notices or missed hearings.
But the majority (~80%) happened under Biden, coinciding with higher arrivals.
Trump-era figures are significantly smaller in comparison.
And yes, Obama built chain-link cages to house families.
And there we have it, true to form...What aboutism that Trumpers brig up when there is nothing else they can say.
Donald Trump’s current immigration policies are significantly more aggressive and expansive than those under Clinton or Obama.
While Clinton introduced **expedited removal** and Obama prioritized deporting individuals with criminal records, Trump has pledged **mass deportations** on a scale not previously attempted. His administration has:
- **Expanded workplace raids** by ICE and increased the number of federal employees focused on deportation.
- **Used military force**, including deploying Marines and National Guard troops to assist with immigration enforcement in cities like Los Angeles.
- **Revoked legal status** from over a million immigrants who had entered legally under programs like CHNV parole, effectively making them undocumented and eligible for deportation.
- **Proposed deporting immigrants to prisons in El Salvador**, a move that has drawn widespread criticism.
Trump’s approach has also included **stripping work authorization** from migrants and **targeting non-criminals**, which critics argue contradicts his stated focus on deporting “criminals”. Public opinion is deeply divided: while many Republicans support these measures, a majority of Democrats and independents disapprove.
So, compared to Clinton and Obama, Trump’s policies are **broader in scope**, **harsher in execution**, and **more controversial** in public discourse.PeoplePower, I think it’s important to be aware of what Trump plans to accomplish for migrant workers. He clearly understands that the U.S. needs many migrant workers across a variety of fields. At the very least, it’s worth remembering that we have immigration laws in place, laws that Trump respects and follows.
We have excellent visa programs (which I will list below) that allow migrants from virtually every profession to enter the U.S. legally and work here. Migrants should support these laws, and it makes sense that Americans should also understand and back these immigration work policies.
If someone wants to work in America, they generally can, as long as they follow the visa and work regulations. There’s no need to live or work in the shadows if they comply with our legal process. I often wonder why some don’t realize this before claiming unfairness toward migrants seeking to come here and work legally.
Trump has verbally expressed support for allowing legal immigration of workers when it serves American economic interests, particularly in areas where there are labor shortages. His position is generally focused on merit-based immigration and temporary work programs, rather than open-ended or permanent immigration. Here’s how Trump approaches legal migrant labor.
What Trump Proposes:
Tight border control and illegal immigration enforcement.
Support for legal, merit-based immigration, including temporary work programs.
Ensuring that American workers come first, but also that businesses have access to legal migrant labor when needed.
Reforming current visa systems to ensure they are not abused and truly fill workforce gaps (especially in agriculture, tech, and seasonal jobs).
I might add, In speeches and policy documents, he has suggested streamlining legal pathways for:
Seasonal agricultural workers,
Highly skilled professionals,
And potentially expanding guest-worker programs that meet the nation's labor needs without encouraging permanent settlement.
Visa Programs already on the books that support legal migrant work:
Here are key visa types already in place that allow migrants to come in legally to work:
H-2A Visa – Temporary Agricultural Workers
For seasonal agricultural work (like farming or harvesting).
Employers must show that not enough U.S. workers are available.
These are common for legal migrant workers from Latin America.
H-2B Visa – Temporary Non-Agricultural Workers
For seasonal or peak-load work outside of agriculture (e.g., landscaping, hospitality, construction).
Often used for jobs in resort areas or during peak tourism seasons.
H-1B Visa – Specialty Occupations
For highly skilled workers in fields like tech, engineering, and finance.
Applicants must have at least a bachelor’s degree.
Employers must prove the position requires specialized knowledge.
TN Visa – NAFTA Professionals (Canada & Mexico only)
For certain professional jobs under the USMCA (formerly NAFTA).
Covers professions like accountants, engineers, scientists, etc.
J-1 Visa – Exchange Visitors
Includes some seasonal work programs like summer camps, interns, and au pairs.
Often used by students or recent graduates temporarily.
We have laws, and is it not wise to use them to prevent problems?
I can’t speak to every migrant-related concern, but I fully support the deportation of anyone who is in the country illegally. Migrants are given due process through immigration court hearings, and if the court rules for deportation, I believe that decision should be respected. So far, I haven’t seen any serious issues with how deportations are being carried out. A few migrants have filed legal challenges, and I trust our judicial system to handle those appropriately. I don’t think it’s productive to get worked up over media reports that often stir emotion without full context.He's already flip flopped on that... who knows what the immigration plan is today...
That's hunky dory. But, my reply was to Read Mike Now and his statement about Clinton and Obama deporting more people than Trump and that makes what Trump is doing O.K..
What he is doing and the way Stephen Miller is going about it does not preclude how ICE is treating immigrants especially in Los Angeles. Where I live.
We have Mexican friends who were going to have a family get together this weekend to celebrate their parents 50th. The park they were going to has been barricaded. So they went to another one and it was barricaded as well. All the people in that group are all legal citizens and have been here for years.
It's a very cruel thing that Stephen Miller and his gang of deputized "want to be" enforcement people are doing. It's as close as you can get to being in Nazi Germany. These people have to carry their proof of citizenship with them no matter where they go. In Nazi Germany, the Gestapo would stop people on the streets and ask them for their papers.Had Congress, and more importantly past Presidents, fulfilled their duty and closed our borders instead of opening them we would not be in the position we are.
Put the blame where it belongs.The fact is that any brown person (even if they are white and have a good tan) need to live in fear of America's version of the Gestapo or Putin's FSB.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/27/us/a … mmigration
I think the current data shows ICE arresting 1 real criminal for every 10 they detain.
Lack of context makes your comment wrong on its face.
The Trump administration is actively working to root out corruption, crack down on fraud, and hold lawbreakers accountable within our government agencies
Four individuals, including Watson, have pleaded guilty to charges related to the fraud. The fraud uncovered at USAID was a bribery and kickback scheme, which falls under the broader category of contracting fraud, specifically public corruption involving federal procurement.
After the exposure of a wide-ranging bribery scheme within USAID, the Small Business Administration (SBA) is taking significant steps to clean house. SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler has ordered a comprehensive audit of all federal contracting officers who have held grant-awarding authority under the agency’s business development program dating back to 2010. In a letter obtained by Fox News Digital, Loeffler described the USAID scandal as a clear sign of deep-rooted oversight failures and emphasized that this was not an isolated case.
In response to the findings, Loeffler directed SBA Associate Administrator Tre Pennie to take immediate and decisive action. She reminded him that the role of a federal contracting officer carries tremendous responsibility and is not to be abused for personal enrichment. Contracts, she said, must be awarded based on merit, not favoritism or corruption.
The scandal that triggered this sweeping review centered around USAID official Roderick Watson, who pleaded guilty to taking bribes in exchange for favorable contracting decisions. Watson, now 57, admitted to accepting more than $1 million in kickbacks since 2013. The scheme involved two contractors, Walter Barnes, owner of Vistant, and Darryl Britt, owner of Apprio, who used a subcontractor, Paul Young, to funnel the bribes to Watson. In total, four individuals, including Watson, have pleaded guilty to charges related to the fraud.
According to the Department of Justice, the bribes came in many forms: cash, electronics, NBA suite tickets, a country club wedding, home down payments, phones, and even jobs for Watson’s relatives. The payments were often hidden through fake invoices, shell companies, and fraudulent payroll records.
Despite concerns about Vistant’s conduct, the company was awarded a contract worth up to $800 million in 2023. The contract, part of a joint venture, was aimed at addressing the root causes of migration from Central America, an effort publicly linked to Vice President Kamala Harris during her time in office. Although the contract was canceled after questions were raised about Vistant’s integrity, the company successfully sued to be reinstated and was re-awarded the contract in 2024, along with a $10,000 settlement.
Loeffler expressed outrage that such a contract had been granted, calling it a failure of internal controls and a serious breach of public trust. She slammed the Biden administration for allowing a firm with known ethical issues to manage such a large project, saying it reflected a total breakdown in the federal contracting process.
The SBA’s audit will begin with high-dollar contracts that involve limited competition, often the most vulnerable to abuse. Loeffler stated that any individuals or companies found to have violated ethical or legal standards will be referred to the Office of Inspector General and the Department of Justice. She assured that the SBA would assist fully in efforts to recover any misappropriated funds.
“We won’t sit by while taxpayers and small businesses are cheated,” Loeffler said. “This agency has the authority, and now the mandate, to fix this system. We owe it to small business owners and the American public to make sure trust is restored and upheld.”When will the investigation began to root out the corruption of Trump's 3 billion dollar gain in worth since he took office? Along with the investigations of all of his children we should revisit all of the posts on these forums about prosecuting Hunter Biden and apply them to the Trump children...lol
Well, since Trump has DOJ totally in his pocket and tells them what they can and cannot do, it certainly won't be them.
The conservatives on the Supreme Court insulated him from paying for wrong doing on the job and Trump made doubly sure he will stay out of jail by totally subverting DOJ's independence.
MAGA has got to love this in-your-face corruption by Trump.Well, since Trump has DOJ totally in his pocket and tells them what they can and cannot do, it certainly won't be them.
The conservatives on the Supreme Court insulated him from paying for wrong doing on the job and Trump made doubly sure he will stay out of jail by totally subverting DOJ's independence.
MAGA has got to love it.
Then why doesn't Trump the Felon "root himself out"?
How about all those kickbacks Trump is taking for pardons?
How about speaking to these Trump associates who were found guilty of one crime or another during Trump 1.0:
Michael Flynn
Steve Bannon
Peter Navarro
Paul Manafort
George Papadopoulos
Roger Stone
Chris Collins
Duncan D. Hunter
OR, since we are talking about contracting, how about this well known scandal under another Republican president.
[i]Darleen Druyun, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition and Management. The events took place during the late 1990s (Clinton) to early 2000s, but the investigation and fallout occurred in 2003–2004, under President George W. Bush. Druyun steered contracts worth billions of dollars to Boeing, including a controversial $23 billion plan to lease Boeing KC-767 tankers. In exchange, she secured a high-paying executive job at Boeing—for herself and arranged jobs for her daughter and son-in-law. She admitted to favoring Boeing in contract negotiations even before formal employment talks began.
I remember briefing her on occasion. She looked like a real nice lady, lol.
The point is, USAID is not the only gov't organization (which in this instance occurred under Trump and Biden) as is trying to be painted here, but is a constant to be watched out for regardless of the administration.
Make America Healthy Again
Can't keep up --- Today’s Supreme Court ruling in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. is a clear win for Trump’s administration. The Court ruled 6–3 that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force members are properly appointed “inferior officers” under the Constitution. This decision preserves the Affordable Care Act’s rule requiring insurers to cover important preventive services like cancer screenings, statins, and HIV-prevention medications without any cost to patients. The Trump Department of Justice defended the Task Force’s appointment during the case, so this outcome supports their position. It also reinforces executive power by upholding the legality of agency appointments, a key principle both Trump and Biden administrations rely on. Overall, this ruling ensures millions of Americans keep access to free preventive healthcare and stands as another important victory for Trump’s team.Make America healthy? Have you seen what juniors been doing.... With all of the other chaos, this lunatic is flying under the radar.
I wonder how many dead people RFK Jr. will be responsible for in the next 30 years. (It will take that long to undo the damage he is causing today.)
Looks like dear leader will have a presser soon.. more slurring, sucking and gasping for air and the usual lying...
Breaking once again, the wind is at Trump's back --- another positive Supreme Court ruling.
Great win—Trump is truly making history by using the courts to protect a president’s power to carry out their agenda without getting bogged down in years of legal roadblocks. Gosh, he makes me wonder why no one before him thought to do this. He is as I have always said, a problem solver.
This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a major decision that could change how lower courts handle big national lawsuits. In a 6–3 ruling in the case Trump v. CASA, the Court said that lower federal courts don’t have the power to block government policies for the whole country, only for the people or groups directly involved in the case.
Judges' hands are tied to rule statewide---
This is important because in recent years, judges have often stopped nationwide policies with what’s called a “nationwide injunction,” and this decision pushes back on that. The case involved President Trump’s executive order about birthright citizenship. The Court didn’t rule on whether Trump’s order is legal or not; it just said that only the people who sued can be protected by the court's order for now. So the policy is still blocked for them, but not necessarily for everyone else. The bigger question, whether the president can change who gets citizenship under the 14th Amendment, will be decided in a future case.
This Supreme Court ruling is a huge win for all future presidents. It means lower courts can’t block a president’s policy nationwide just because one group sues—they can only block it for the people directly involved. So if a president signs an executive order, it won’t be automatically stopped across the whole country just because one judge objects. This gives presidents more freedom to carry out their policies while legal battles continue. We might see different parts of the country under different rules until the Supreme Court makes a final decision.
In past years, some lawsuits, often seen as frivolous or politically motivated, managed to slow down or even completely block presidential executive orders before they could take effect nationwide. These lawsuits frequently led to “nationwide injunctions,” where a single judge would halt a policy across the entire country, even if only a small group was involved in the case. Because of that, many executive orders never fully saw the light of day or were tied up in courts for years, delaying the president’s agenda. This new Supreme Court ruling aims to stop that by limiting injunctions to only affect the actual parties in the lawsuit, which should help prevent such widespread blockades in the future. Yeah!It's not a win that people's rights continue to be violated while a case makes its way through the system. Hey what will be good for the goose will be good for the gander right? Hoping to collect all of y'all's weapons in the future. A real win-win! Gosh, the possibilities are endless aren't they? An executive order ending abortion bans in all states... Oh yes, let individual people sue for their very own rights in their very own personal cases...love it. The Pandora's box has been opened.
Actually, that is not true. If a group can establish a class, say all pregnant women who were undocumented immigrants or the father was, or both, file as a class. then the children of that whole group will be protected.
But back to what really matters...
Trump’s economy gets disastrous update
– Core inflation SPIKES to 2.7% in May, worse than expected
– Income FALLS 0.4%
– GDP SHRINKS 0.5% in Q1
- Consumer spending DROPS 0.1%
And yes, this is fully his economy.. no more Biden blamingAs a rule, the media usually reports the inflation number that excludes volatile food and energy prices, that’s the core inflation figure. But this month, May 2025, they’ve been highlighting the full headline inflation number that includes food and energy, which tends to be more volatile. I actually believe core inflation gives a truer picture of the underlying inflation trends. It’s important to compare core inflation to the full inflation rate to really understand what’s happening.
Looking at the last two months under Biden, core inflation was around 3.3% in January 2025 and stayed fairly high. Since Trump took office for his second term, core inflation has improved, dropping to about 2.7%-2.8% in April and May 2025. The headline inflation numbers, including food and energy, have also shown a positive trend, coming down from over 3% under Biden to around 2.3% in April 2025. These stats clearly show that inflationary pressures have eased and that the economy is moving toward more stable prices during Trump’s administration. This is just a fact.Sorry, as a rule the media (at least CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, BBC, etc) reports the "Headline" CPI, which includes the more volatile items. Then, if they are good like CNN, they report the "Core" CPI which excludes energy and food.
Also, it is way too early to draw any real conclusions on Trump's inflation numbers. That said, every metric points toward inflation increasing for the foreseeable future. Current forecasts for core inflation for the rest of 2025 and 2026 range between 3% and 4% from professional forecasters. All of them say the underlying reason is Trump's tariffs.
10 of the last 11 recessions since 1950 began under Republican presidencies..... Not a coincidence
That record persists back to 1786 SOURCE: A Short History of Significant Recessions, Depressions, and Panics: Why Conservative Economics do not Work.
This Supreme Court ruling is a big win for Trump’s vision for America. It supports parental rights, protects religious freedom, and pushes back against government overreach in schools, three things Trump has always stood for. It also shows the lasting impact of the justices he appointed, who are now defending the rights of families to raise their children according to their values. This decision proves that Trump’s policies are still working to protect faith, freedom, and common sense in education.
The Supreme Court held Friday that a group of Maryland parents are entitled to opt their children out of school lessons that could violate their beliefs in a case centered on religious freedom.
The justices decided 6-3 along ideological lines in Mahmoud v. Taylor that parents can exclude their children from a Maryland public school system's lessons that contain themes about homosexuality and transgenderism if they feel the material conflicts with their religious faith.
The case aroses from Montgomery County Public Schools incorporating books into their preschool through 12th grade language arts curriculum a few years ago that featured "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer characters," the school district’s attorneys told the Supreme Court.
The attorneys said the school district did this as part of an effort to be "culturally responsive" and teach lessons that encourage "equity, respect, and civility."
The Maryland parents who sued said in their petition to the high court that the school board introduced books to their elementary school students that promoted "gender transitions, Pride parades, and same-sex playground romance."
The parents said the school board initially allowed parents to opt their children out of lessons involving those books but then ceased doing that.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the dissent, said exposing students to the fact that "LGBTQ people exist" does not warrant Supreme Court intervention. Sotomayor said she believed the high court's decision would open floodgates for students to opt out of a wider range of lessons.
"The result will be chaos for this Nation’s public schools," Sotomayor wrote. "Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent’s religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools."
The parents who brought the suit span a range of religious backgrounds. Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat are Muslim, while others fall under different denominations of Christianity.
During oral arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas questioned an attorney representing Montgomery County schools about whether the books simply existed in the classroom or were actively introduced to the students.
The attorney indicated that teachers gave lessons to the students involving the books in question five times during the school year.
Rosalind Hanson, a member of the conservative group Moms for Liberty, told Fox News Digital during a recent interview in front of the Supreme Court that she and other parents who helped bring the case were "not trying to change the curriculum" for parents who did support their children being exposed to the books.
"The majority of states across the country have said you can have an opt-out for these very sensitive issues and topics, especially because of the religious component, but also because of the age appropriateness," Hanson said.
Education Department Secretary Linda McMahon celebrated the ruling as a win for "parental rights" and a loss for "bureaucrats."
"Parents have the right to know what their children are learning at school and to exercise their First Amendment freedom of religion to opt out of divisive and ideological lessons that go against their families' values and beliefs," McMahon said.
"A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. "And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of such instruction."
MY view --- As a Christian conservative, I am deeply pleased to see this ruling from the Supreme Court. This is a strong affirmation of religious freedom and parental rights, two principles that are foundational to both our Constitution and our faith. No parent should be forced to choose between their deeply held beliefs and their child’s education. The decision rightly upholds the idea that families, not government bureaucrats, should have the final say when it comes to what children are exposed to in the classroom, especially on sensitive moral and spiritual matters. This is a much-needed victory for those of us who want to raise our children according to our values without interferenceYou've always been able to opt your child out of anything you want in a public school. Christian scientists have regularly excluded their kids from any curriculum in schools that suggest doctors heal people... The rulings a nothing Burger
Then why does the right wing tribunal of a SCOTUS been supportive of mandatory displays of the 10 commandments in the public school environment, what are my rights as an individual who may well be agnostic and don’t like me or my children exposed to religious dogma? Is it ok not to want the rubbish from the other side forced down my children’s throats?
I smell hypocrisy…..I'll probably look dumb for asking this, but Google didn't point me to a decision like you infer. This must be a question you anticipated: How has the Supreme Court supported mandatory classroom displays of the 10 Commandments?
GAI apologize, it wasn’t them specifically, yet. But in the face of recent rulings from this tainted court, I wouldn't be surprised if that is what is next. The Christian Right bludgeons us all with their sanctimonious crosses. It appalling that so many of the most retrograde red states legislatures have embraced the idea.
I think Credence is anticipating the Courts approval of laws in Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas that mandates indoctrination to Christianity through the posting of the 10 Commandments.
One of the reasons I rejected the Christian church 65 years ago was my realization that they haven't really come to a consensus of who or what God is. The same problem carries over to the commandments. Can anyone tell me which one of the three official versions of the commandments are the REAL version?Nah, it wasn't that. He already said he mispoke.
GA“think Credence is anticipating the Courts approval of laws in Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas that mandates indoctrination to Christianity through the posting of the 10 Commandments.”
Absolutely
While I subscribe to basic Christian principles that in my relentless logic makes sense, I abhor the Christian right and most organized religions who do not adhere to the holy writings and take a hypocritical stance regarding their application. It is as if a beautiful concept is soiled beyond recognition whenever it is touched by hand of man. Now, I do my own thinking and studying and come to my own conclusions.
Your reply completely misses the point and tries to equate two fundamentally different legal principles under the vague banner of “hypocrisy.” The Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor isn’t about forcing any belief system onto others; it’s about preserving a parent’s right to shield their children from state-imposed ideas that contradict their religious or moral convictions. The issue at hand wasn’t whether students should be exposed to all viewpoints, but whether parents can opt their children out when those viewpoints cross personal lines of faith or conscience.
Now, dragging in the Ten Commandments issue as some kind of “gotcha” just doesn’t hold water. A passive display of historical documents, especially when contextualized as part of the foundations of Western law, is not the same as compulsory instruction about gender ideology in elementary school. A display doesn't mandate belief or require student participation. The court isn't forcing kids to pray to Moses; it's acknowledging the religious and moral roots of legal culture, something that’s undeniably a part of our heritage, whether one is Christian, agnostic, or otherwise. SCOTUS has not mandated displays of the 10 commandments in public schools.
The real double standard here isn’t on the side of parents defending their right to opt out; it’s on those who want state-sanctioned progressive ideology pushed into schools without any form of recourse for dissenters. You’re not being forced to teach your children religious doctrine. But under the prior policy in Montgomery County, parents were being forced to accept ideologically loaded instruction about sex, gender, and identity, topics that go far beyond basic civic tolerance and into the realm of moral worldview. That’s the line this ruling draws, and rightfully so.
So no, it’s not hypocrisy. It’s about respecting the pluralism that public education is supposed to honor, where agnostics, Christians, Muslims, and everyone else have a voice in how their children are taught. This ruling doesn’t impose faith; it pushes back against ideological compulsion. Big difference.Well, you know I consider it to be the same. The ten commandents are the product of a religious faith and I and mine have a right to not have it forced down my throat in mandatory public displays that impinge on the rights of other students not to be indoctrinated in the same way that the families choose to opt out of so much as the mention of gay and other non-straight individuals. The rightwing has his or her viewpoint on a billboard sign on the classroom walls of public schools that require compulsory attendance. I don’t want to be forced to acknowledge nor adhere to them. If it is history, let the history remain in the textbook rather than handbilled all over the school. Why not put up a copy of the secular Constitution or Bill or Rights? But, no, the rightwinger is always determined to indoctrinate and surreptitiously force others to regard their religion as more important than anyone else’s.
Keep Christian religious symbols out of public schools and maybe the arguments of the right wing oriented parents can at least be considered consistent with an overall principle rather than just hypocrisy in favor of the right wing view of things."The ten commandents are the product of a religious faith and I and mine have a right to not have it forced down my throat in mandatory public displays" cred
Public schools in the United States are legally obligated to accommodate students’ religious practices, including Muslim students who wish to pray.
All religions should be respected. But let’s draw a clear line here, there’s a fundamental difference between religious belief and modern discussions on gender identity or sexual preference. The Ten Commandments are undeniably rooted in religious tradition. In contrast, gender theory and sexuality are not religious doctrines, nor are they tied to any faith-based tradition. They are sociopolitical constructs, topics that many families and faiths, regardless of denomination, view through a moral lens shaped by centuries of teaching.
Factually speaking, no major world religion, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or otherwise, openly promotes or centers homosexuality within its doctrine. That’s not hate; that’s historical and theological truth. So when a public school endorses materials that present these themes as normative or instructive without offering families a way to opt out, it is forcing a worldview, one that has nothing to do with religious tolerance and everything to do with ideological preference.
Respecting all faiths means acknowledging that deeply held beliefs deserve the same protection from unwanted intrusion as anyone else’s personal identity. If the goal is true neutrality, then neither the Ten Commandments nor Pride flags nor gender ideology posters belong as permanent fixtures in a taxpayer-funded classroom. Let’s teach the Constitution. I’d welcome that. But don’t tell me stripping Christianity from the walls while waving another set of beliefs in everyone’s face is somehow more fair. That’s not neutrality. That’s selective silencing.Public schools in the United States are legally obligated to accommodate students’ religious practices, including Muslim students who wish to pray.
The difference is that other students are not forced to participate and should not otherwise have their school day or curriculum affected, Christian students would be granted the same privilege, on their own time without otherwise disrupting what should be a secular institution. The idea of imposition of “establishment” by adult authorities over impressionable minors is avoided.
You respect all religions by not giving hegemony to any particular one within a secular environment.
Why do gender identify and sexual preference have to have the blessing of any religion? These people exist and they are here and don’t need to be approved by any religion to be valid.
Yes, the goal is true neutrality, keep your religious trinkets and hypocritical reminders out of public schools then I can better understand and appreciate rightwing oriented parents who do not want their children exposed to all of those “deviant ideas”. I can live with that compromise. The Constitution is secular and becomes historical as a foundation document for all Americans regardless of religious faith or lack thereof. Keep your religion in your homes, your churches or whatever private schools you wish for the kids to attend.Oklahoma’s education chief says they’ll fire any teacher caught “indoctrinating” kids… unless, of course, it’s with a chisel and the Ten Commandments.
Apparently, teaching critical thinking is dangerous, but stone tablets from 3,000 years ago? Totally fine. Nothing screams “freedom from indoctrination” like mandatory Bible verses in public schools.
If irony were a subject, Oklahoma would’ve banned it by now. LOL"The difference is that other students are not forced to participate and should not otherwise have their school day or curriculum affected, Christian students would be granted the same privilege, on their own time without otherwise disrupting what should be a secular institution. The idea of imposition of “establishment” by adult authorities over impressionable minors is avoided." Cred
This comment emphasizes neutrality, saying all religious expression (including Christian) should happen privately or outside official school time, to avoid disrupting the secular nature of public schools. It advocates for equal treatment and keeping religion from being imposed in public education.
Your prior comment seems to offer another view?
"Then why does the right wing tribunal of a SCOTUS been supportive of mandatory displays of the 10 commandments in the public school environment, what are my rights as an individual who may well be agnostic and don’t like me or my children exposed to religious dogma? Is it ok not to want the rubbish from the other side forced down my children’s throats?
I smell hypocrisy….." Cred
This one expresses strong opposition to religious displays in schools, specifically Christian symbols like the Ten Commandments, and frames them as unwelcome impositions of belief.
Are children being forced to look at a plaque? Are they also not exposed to Muslims praying multiple times a day? We're told that's about being accepting and tolerant of other religions. So why shouldn’t Christians be shown the same level of tolerance? The very context of prior comments contradicts your thoughts. You're all over the place.Well, Am I all over the place or are you just missing the point?
"The difference is that other students are not forced to participate and should not otherwise have their school day or curriculum affected, Christian students would be granted the same privilege, on their own time without otherwise disrupting what should be a secular institution. The idea of imposition of “establishment” by adult authorities over impressionable minors is avoided." Cred
This comment emphasizes neutrality, saying all religious expression (including Christian) should happen privately or outside official school time, to avoid disrupting the secular nature of public schools. It advocates for equal treatment and keeping religion from being imposed in public education.
------------
Let me clarify, i don't see the crimson red Oklahoma legislature mandating that the tenets of the Koran be posted in every classroom. There is no contradiction.
Yes, I don't like religious displays in schools generally, but my issue focuses on the idea of "mandatory". Who says that that plaque has any right to be imposed by authorities when as a Buddhist, the tenets of my religion does not have the force and power of a mandatory posting in classrooms. Do you see the difference now, Sharlee, mandatory......?
Being exposed to things is not the same as the state mandating things, is not that difference so hard to discern? The fact that the plaque is there and is mandated to be there reeks of the concept of "establishment" a clear violation of the principle of separation of church and state.
I always say worship your deities on your own time and on your own dime.But also, where do the opt-outs stop? Will public school become a bespoke curriculum service catering to the whims of every whiny parent?
it doesn’t take much of a leap to get from opt-outs for LGBTQ book references to opt-outs for the study or even mention of human evolution and really just an endless number of issues that offend some parent, somewhere.
At what point is preventing a child from understanding the world beyond their own family and experience potentially more crippling?
To the maga folks who cheered this as a "win"...
Let me remind you, Some kids have two moms and some have two dads. Some kids have a transgender parent. Some are being raised by a single parent or grandparent(s) or in a blended family, some kids are being raised by someone with whom they are not related, and still others are being raised by no one at all. Refusing to allow a child to understand and normalize this diversity marginalizes those kids... many of whom are already marginalized by circumstances.
I believe this is what educators think about. They try to look out for all kids, but especially the ones who might otherwise feel out of place.
Books that validate all families and all kids can save the life of a child who realizes they are gay or trans and feels alone and terrified by that realization. Especially the ones who are demeaned, shamed and bullied by their own parents.
The imposition of those books to someone’s faith seems, by comparison, trivial. Pushing back against that imposition seems utterly selfish... ironic for people of "faith".Your point is well taken, Willow
What is happening in right red state school districts is part of a troubling trend.
The door has been open to right wing fanatics to censor school books not just for their kids but for other kids,
The door has been opened for the whinny parents to insist on a revisionist rendering of American history full of lies and half-truths. So, George Washington never told a lie? Slavery was a job training program. "Patriotic education" does not necessarily correlate with truth.
As I said in an earlier post, the Right's moral indignation is irrelevant these blended families exist, I would not accommodate their moral priggishness thinking that they can keep their children from being exposed to realities of the world. Their ideal traditional nuclear family is now the fantasy.
This malignant trend is finding its way into colleges and universities, indoctrination being more important than intelligent inquiry and discovery.
What ever happened to "reading, riting, rithmetic"? With people keeping their moral judgement to themselves and treating every child the same regardless of his or her family origins.
It's all conservative and all Trump....
You left out some context when you wrote: Public schools in the United States are legally obligated to accommodate students’ religious practices. It should have finished with "within Constitutional limits".
The Free Exercise Clause protects individual religious expression. Students are allowed to pray privately, non-disruptively, and of their own volition during non-instructional times (e.g., lunch, recess, passing periods)
If it is as she says, they are just a neutral historic document that doesn't profess any religious viewpoint, then it should be mandatory that they be accompanied by similar documents from all other faiths as well as similar thoughts from atheists.
That’s the “rub”, Esoteric. I tell these churches let YOUR OWN GOOD EXAMPLE influence and move others to find merit in what you say and profess. No one can be compelled to believe anything. Do you walk the talk? Ramming dogma down the throats of others is not the way.
Hey, didn't you know - you don't count in Trump's America. It is only what what white Christian conservatives feel that matters.
"It supports parental rights, " - LOL. Tell that to the parents of trans kids. Also, parental rights are not mentioned in the Constitution anywhere.
And isn't it a shame that those so-called "deeply-held religious beliefs" are founded in discrimination. - something I am sure Jesus would disapprove of.
Doesn't Jesus' teachings suggest He would be deeply concerned by policies that ostracize or discriminate against vulnerable populations.
or
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” – Matthew 7:1. This reflects Jesus’ core teaching that mercy must take precedence over condemnation. Policies that target transgender individuals—often framed as morally justified—would likely stand in opposition to this principle of compassion over judgment.
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (Texas porn‑site age verification)
The Supreme Court upheld a Texas law requiring adults to provide proof of age before accessing pornographic websites, with the majority finding the law constitutional despite free-speech concerns.
The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Texas’s age‑verification law in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton marks a significant ideological victory for Trump-era conservatism. By affirming that states can require adults to verify their age before accessing pornography, the Court embraced a strong pro-family, child‑protection stance central to Trump-aligned social policy. It also reinforced state sovereignty in regulating online content, bolstering a federalist vision dear to Trump’s base, while signaling continued skepticism toward Big Tech’s unfettered content access. Although some libertarian-leaning conservatives worry about privacy and First Amendment implications, the ruling clearly aligns with Trump’s broader cultural agenda: empowering states to enforce moral standards and curb the influence of a permissive internet.June 27, Trump's press conference. I appreciate that Trump does these conferences so frequently.
Trump held a press conference this afternoon where he touched on a wide range of topics, and honestly, he seemed pretty pleased all the way around. He kicked things off by praising the Supreme Court’s decision to limit nationwide injunctions, calling it a big win that would help him move forward on policies that had been held up, like ending birthright citizenship. He seemed especially proud of Justice Barrett’s opinion and gave a shoutout to Pam Bondi for her work. On Iran, he doubled down on the recent strikes, saying their nuclear sites were "obliterated," but he also showed some openness by supporting the idea of inspectors going in to make sure Iran isn’t ramping things back up. He did, however, make it clear that if Iran starts enriching again, he’d take action.
He also touched on trade, saying new tariff letters are going out soon, and he mentioned progress with India and China. On the economy, he pushed the Fed to lower interest rates, which he said would be great for borrowing. When it came to his immigration and tax bill, he backed off the July 4 deadline a bit, saying it might take a little longer, but he’s sticking around in D.C. to keep things moving. He closed out by mentioning a new peace deal between the DRC and Rwanda, which he said is a win for access to critical minerals.
Overall, Trump seemed relaxed, in control, and pretty upbeat. His tone was confident but not overly aggressive, almost like he was enjoying the moment and feeling good about the direction things were heading.Only in America would the Supreme Court limit the power of their own branch of government.
As Justice Jackson writes: “In essence, the Court has now shoved lower court judges out of the way in cases where executive action is challenged, and has gifted the Executive with the prerogative of sometimes disregarding the law.”
And Sotomayor writes: “It asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone. Instead, the Government says, it should be able to apply”
Imagine the possibilities to skirt the Constitution, for a good period of time under this ruling....Considering that within hours of the published comment, the Right was posting clips of her in an earlier interview saying nearly the same thing that Trump sued for, it seems risky to quote Jackson. She spoke of an imperial judiciary.
It's easy to find. I expected to see it here by now. ;-)
GAThe Supreme Court just made it easier for the U.S. government to violate your rights and harder for you to stop it...you don't find that to be a problem?
– If you’re being harmed and didn’t sue, you’re unprotected.
– Even if a policy is found unconstitutional, the state can still enforce it against everyone else.
-And every impacted community now has to fight the same battle over and over, in courtrooms across the country.
The state can now harm the many while only being forced to answer to the few. That’s not justice. That’s policy by attrition...designed to exhaust and isolate the people most impacted.
The Bottom Line?
This ruling shatters collective protection.
It basically says...Even if a law is unconstitutional, the government
can still enforce it against everyone else unless they individually sue.
That’s not due process. That’s not equity.
That’s divide and conquer, written into law.Except for your close, I mostly agree with you concerning the effects of the decision. Now, how ya gonna deal with that? ;-)
The difference I see is that the "consequences" of the ruling aren't because it's a bad ruling. I think it was a correct decision on an issue of judicial powers. The ruling also pointed the finger at the correct Constitutional fix—Congressional action. Not an extrapolated rationalization to justify expanding jurisdictions.
GAThe correct decision? Now? Why now?
This demonstrates just how biased Scotus is… Biden had 8 national injunctions and Scotus was just fine with those.
Scotus even denied Biden’s emergency application to stay the injunction for “Remain in Mexico”.
But they took Trump's request? Folks may be careful what they wish for. Those nationwide injunctions stopped Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan and banned the abortion pill for a short time. Now, that won’t work anymore…
If they're used against a GOP president, even for a flagrantly unconstitutional order, they "lack a historical pedigree". However, for the ones used against Biden, they were perfectly legit...m'kayThe "why now" question is easy and obvious: Because the question was put to the court. Has this issue been asked before? Where is the bias if the question hadn't previously been presented to the court?
If the motivators behind the question were switched to Biden and Democrats, it would still be a correct decision.
It's not a bad thing that this won't work for the Republicans anymore. It should be a win-win. If it motivates Congress to define the issue, it could be a triple-win.
GAThe Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to take up the propriety of nationwide injunctions. The court said no and refused to stay many preliminary nationwide injunctions against the administration.
So using current logic...When the Supreme Court refuses to stay a nationwide injunction, it allows a single district judge's order to temporarily halt a federal policy across the entire country. So what's the difference? Surely the same reasoning should have applied.Do you have a source that factually substantiates your claim? I am always open to learning.
"The Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to take up the propriety of nationwide injunctions. The court said no and refused to stay many preliminary nationwide injunctions against the administration" Willow
My research shows the Biden administration has faced multiple (14) nationwide injunctions blocking some of its policies.
In several cases (3), the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to stay (pause) these nationwide injunctions, but the Court did not always grant those stays. He won two, lost one.
However, Biden’s administration did not formally ask the Supreme Court to take up the broad constitutional or procedural question of the propriety of nationwide injunctions as a legal principle in a standalone case.
Perhaps you could cite a case that you feel could prove your view.
I have not found a public record or a well-known case where the Biden administration formally asked the Supreme Court to broadly rule on or limit the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions in the way the Trump administration did.The court, oddly enough, dealt with all of the Biden administration's requests for relief on the shadow docket... Dealing with each one, in isolation but certainly not applying the same principle as what is currently being applied to the Trump Administration.
The difference-- Trump administration challenged nationwide injunctions issued by lower federal courts that blocked parts of its immigration policies.
Specifically, Trump’s legal team asked the Supreme Court to limit or stop federal district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that prevent the enforcement of federal policies across the entire country.
The argument was that such broad nationwide injunctions overstep judicial authority because federal judges typically only have jurisdiction over their specific district or region.
Trump’s team wanted the Supreme Court to rule that injunctions should be limited in scope to only the geographic area of the court issuing them, not nationwide.
This would prevent individual district judges from effectively stopping federal policies nationwide based on a single lawsuit.
Biden never addressed any of his cases with the specific ask to rule on the above. You would have a valid complaint if he had. Perhaps you can provide a case that proves this theory. A court need not rule on what is not asked of it.
At any rate, I’ll step back now. I see you were having a good conversation with GA—I just wanted to share what I’ve learned
The Biden example doesn't sound like the same question. I don't know the details. If it did present the same legal question (not a reasonable or logical comparable question), then this recent decision does show obvious bias. Was it the same? *shrug*
GAWell interestingly, in all of the Biden cases, the court decided to sidestep the issue of Nationwide injunction and directly address the merits. Total opposite of what they just did with Trump...
But again, in the Biden cases, when the Supreme Court decided to reject a stay of a nationwide injunction, they endorsed it's use.Then they were different questions. So the charge of bias has to do with accepting the question, not its decision.
That sounds like the court's proper job: addressing legal questions, not political issues.
GAYou don't find it in the least bit suspect or interesting that they only chose to address the merits of the Biden cases and picked their issues differently in the Trump cases? Choosing to broaden their focus instead? I mean it is the Court's choice to decide which aspects of a case they will address.
Trump supporters, I thought today's news would set hair on fire. More to come, with a president who is hell bent on doing what he promised. Make America Great Again!
America was already great. Trump has made half of the country his enemy. How can that be great?
It’s troubling when a vocal minority refuses to respect the democratic process. We hold presidential elections every four years, and that system gives every citizen a voice. Presidents, regardless of party, should always be open to criticism — that’s healthy in a free society. But they also deserve respect when they’re doing the job they were elected to do on behalf of the people. He may not return, but if he continues leading effectively, others will follow in his footsteps and carry his agenda forward. That’s how leadership and legacy work in a functioning republic.
No president will satisfy everyone, but when one is duly elected, it's not just fair, it's foundational, to recognize their authority and evaluate their leadership based on results, not just partisanship.
Here is the rub - what he and his Supreme Court are doing is destroying every principle America once stood for.
Trump's Bold Agenda to subjugate America took another step forward in the last few days as the conservatives on the Supreme Court continue to DISMANTLE our Constitution.
"Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority had “shamefully” played along with the administration’s “gamesmanship” in the case, which she described as an attempt to enforce a “patently unconstitutional” policy by not asking the justices to bless the policy, but instead to limit the power of federal judges around the country.
She warned that under the ruling, “No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates.”
“Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship,” Sotomayor wrote. “The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief.”
That said, I am actually OK with this ruling. Why? Because conservatives won't be able to stop sensible Democratic EOs designed to protect Americans from harm caused by the same conservatives. No longer can a set of conservative AGs judge shop to put a nationwide ban on say mifepristone.
At the same time, I am not sure what the practical effect of the SC stopping judges from imposing nationwide bans in this particular case will be. Most likely, States that actually care about their citizens will have to proactively file a case in their state that speaks to children covered by the 14th amendment that use some state service.The attack on birthright citizenship by the Supreme Court just verifies that the idea of liberals ruling from the bench as utter nonsense. It is the conservatives that are content to shred the Constitution into so much confetti. I thought that this sort of question was to be decided by Congress and Constitutional convention, how is Trump given the authority to dismiss this process because he wants?
Your comment reflects a misunderstanding of both the legal process and what’s happening in the birthright citizenship debate. Trump doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally change the Constitution, and he hasn’t claimed to. What’s being challenged, and what the Court may ultimately address, is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, particularly the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
For decades, courts have largely treated this as a blanket guarantee of citizenship for anyone born on U.S. soil, even children of those here illegally. But that interpretation was never actually settled by the Supreme Court in the specific context of illegal immigration. So if the Court is now taking a closer look, that’s not “shredding the Constitution”, that’s fulfilling its duty to interpret the law in changing contexts, especially as immigration law becomes more complex.
Saying conservatives are “ruling from the bench” by even hearing this case is ironic. For years, the left has relied heavily on judicial activism to expand rights and redefine standards without Congressional action. Yet now, when the Court simply examines whether a 19th-century legal standard applies to 21st-century border realities, it’s suddenly “authoritarian”? That’s not a fair or honest criticism.
Congress has the power to clarify the law through legislation. But when it doesn’t, it’s precisely the role of the judiciary to review and interpret the Constitution as cases come before them. That’s not Trump bypassing the process, that’s the process working as intended. If you're worried about Constitutional integrity, you should support rigorous legal scrutiny, not panic when a conservative court takes up a difficult but legitimate question.Funny thing, just a year ago, the idea that 14th Amendment guarantee of birthright citizenship was not considered ambiguous. Now, you’re saying that the right wing Tribunal that AKA SCOTUS, is talking about changing what is clearly provided in the Constitution and reinterpreting it. And conservatives say that liberals are not the strict constructionists and followers of the “original intent” of the Constitution. Yes, I panic, because if they can get around a clear intent of the drafters, what else would they try to get away with? So, let’s not deny it, this is rightwing judicial activism. The fact that it is not emanating from the left does not make it any less so. So, calling out the right on its double standards is quite fair and just. When the left took a “closer look” on issues related to the Constitution, it was called activist. Clarify does not mean nullify. Could I use the same logic as clarification to rid myself of the electoral college? You all would virtually have a cow if I even mentioned such a thing…
It's fair to raise concerns about consistency in constitutional interpretation, but to be honest, the situation surrounding birthright citizenship is more nuanced than this comment suggests. The 14th Amendment says that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” The key phrase, which has long been debated by legal scholars, including some on the left, is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Some argue that illegal immigrants, foreign diplomats, and others who aren’t fully subject to U.S. laws and allegiances may not meet that threshold. This is not a new idea invented by conservatives; it’s been discussed in legal circles for many decades, including in law journals and by figures like Senator Harry Reid, who in the 1990s openly questioned automatic citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.
Calling the Supreme Court a “right-wing tribunal” undermines the legitimacy of judicial review and ignores the fact that courts have historically reinterpreted constitutional principles over time in good faith. Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, and Obergefell v. Hodges reinterpreted the 14th Amendment to apply to same-sex marriage, both celebrated by progressives as steps forward. Was that not also "judicial activism"? Do you only respect the court when it agrees with your ideology? Perhaps contemplate that a bit.
If interpretation is always activism when you disagree with the outcome, then no side is immune from the charge.
As for the Electoral College, it’s not comparable. Birthright citizenship is a constitutional amendment; the fact that our Electoral College is part of the original Constitution itself. Changing either would require a constitutional amendment, not just “clarification.” So no, one cannot simply "clarify" the Electoral College away, and pretending that this is an equal comparison muddies the waters.
Ultimately, constitutional interpretation, whether done by liberals or conservatives, should be judged on the strength of its reasoning and historical grounding, not just on who benefits from the outcome. If we start labeling every decision we dislike as hypocrisy or activism, we lose the ability to have serious legal and civic conversations.
(The constitutional basis for birthright citizenship is found in the 14th Amendment, Section 1, ratified in 1868:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
This is the entire constitutional text that underpins the principle of birthright citizenship. The key phrases often debated are:
"born or naturalized in the United States" — which clearly covers anyone physically born on U.S. soil or legally naturalized.
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" — this is the part that opens the door for legal interpretation.
At the time of ratification, the main goal of this clause was to ensure that formerly enslaved people and their children would be granted full citizenship. However, the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was also included to exclude certain groups, such as:
Children of foreign diplomats (who have diplomatic immunity),
Enemy occupiers,
Members of sovereign Native American tribes (at the time—this was later changed by statute).
( The U.S. Constitution outlines the Electoral College primarily in Article II, Section 1, and it was later modified by the 12th Amendment and 23rd Amendment. Here's the relevant portion from Article II, Section 1:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
And here's a key section from the 12th Amendment, which revised the process after the election of 1800: )I note your comments, I just want you to understand that, contrary to what Republicans always say, your side and this court are just as activist but from the rightwing side. So, You can tell me that aspects of the Constitution as originally drafted were not changed by amendment? I consider amendments as addendum to the Constitution rather than something separate.
All of these Amendment change the Constitution from its original draft
16th Amendment. Income Tax.
17th Amendment. Popular Election of Senators.
18th Amendment. Prohibition of Liquor.
19th Amendment. Women's Right to Vote.
20th Amendment. Presidential Term and Succession, Assembly of Congress.
21st Amendment. Repeal of Prohibition.
22nd Amendment. Two-Term Limit on Presidency.
23rd Amendment.
The Amendments | Constitution Center constitutioncenter.org › the-constitution
So what is so sanctified about the electoral college? Is it because preserving it is a sacred cow among conservatives?
Trump thinks birth citizenship was established in a legal "case" right after the war, rather than being created by the 14th Amendment.... It is apparent that the man isn't well educated but why does no one prep him before he speaks publicly? They let him go out there and embarrass himself over and over and over again. Seems like they feel that his followers don't know any different...
This one’s a real gem. Trump, the self-proclaimed constitutional scholar, is out here rewriting history and spewing nonsense about birthright citizenship.
His claim that the 14th Amendment was only meant for the children of slaves? Pure fiction.
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1938631996999106887You might be a bit off base in your "pure fiction" thought. Google disagrees with you. (Grok does too)
The Dred Scott decision and the post-war freed slaves are noted as the primary motivators for the 14th Amendment in both responses. And 1869 was only a year off the ratification date.
*shrug* What was the "pure fiction"?
GAThe 14th amendment was not meant purely for children of slaves.
“The 14th Amendment Right of American Citizenship never had anything to do with modern day “gate crashers,” illegal immigrants who break the Law by being in our Country, it had everything to do with giving Citizenship to former slaves,” Trump on Truth Social.
He is incorrect.'Focus Danial San, Focus.'
The description was "primary," not "all." Which is true. The other parts are important inclusions—for closure of the concept, but they were minority motivators. Your criticisms of Trump's statements ("pure fiction") imply the opposite, as I read them.
My point wasn't about the word choice President Trump used; it was about your "pure fiction" claim. In the context of his statement, criticizing 'primary vs everything' as pure fiction is lame. MyEsoteric would call it 'sharpshooting'.
GA ;-)
The Fourteenth Amendment that established birthright citizenship came out of a very specific moment and addressed a specific problem. After the Civil War ended in 1865, former Confederates in the American South denied their Black neighbors basic rights. To try to remedy the problem, the Republican Congress passed a civil rights bill in 1866 establishing “[t]hat all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians, not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens of every race and color…shall have the same right[s] in every State and Territory in the United States.”
But President Andrew Johnson, who was a southern Democrat elected in 1864 on a union ticket with President Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, vetoed the 1866 Civil Rights Bill. While the Republican Party organized in the 1850s to fight the idea that there should be different classes of Americans based on race, Democrats tended to support racial discrimination. In that era, not only Black Americans, but also Irish, Chinese, Mexican, and Indigenous Americans, faced discriminatory state laws.
In contrast to the Democrats, Republicans stated explicitly in their 1860 platform that they were “opposed to any change in our naturalization laws or any state legislation by which the rights of citizens hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.”
When Republicans tried to enshrine civil rights into federal law in 1866, Johnson objected that the proposed law “comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gipsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks,” as citizens, and noted that if “all persons who are native-born already are, by virtue of the Constitution, citizens of the United States, the passage of the pending bill cannot be necessary to make them such.” And if they weren’t already citizens, he wrote, Congress should not pass a law “to make our entire colored population and all other excepted classes citizens of the United States” when 11 southern states were not represented in Congress.
When Congress wrote the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, it took Johnson’s admonition to heart. It did not confer citizenship on the groups Johnson outlined; it simply acknowledged that the Constitution had already established their citizenship. The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
In the short term, Americans recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment overturned the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that people of African descent “are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.” The Fourteenth Amendment established that Black men were citizens.
But the question of whether the amendment recognized birthright citizenship for all immigrants quickly became an issue in the American West, where white settlers were not terribly concerned about Black Americans—there were only 4,272 Black Americans in California in 1870, while there were almost half a million white Americans—but wanted no part of allowing Chinese men to be part of American society.
Western state legislatures continued to discriminate against Asian immigrants by falling back on the country’s early naturalization laws, finalized in 1802, to exclude first Chinese immigrants and then others from citizenship. Those laws were carefully designed to clarify that Afro-Caribbeans and Africans—imported to be enslaved—would not have the same rights as Euro-Americans. Those laws permitted only “free white persons” to become citizens.
In the late nineteenth century, state and territorial legal systems kept people of color at the margins, using treaties, military actions, and territorial and state laws that limited land ownership, suffrage, and intermarriage.
As late as 1922, in the case of Takao Ozawa v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that Takao Ozawa, born in Japan, could not become a citizen under the 1906 Naturalization Act because that law had not overridden the 1790 naturalization law limiting citizenship to “free white persons.” The court decided that “white person” meant “persons of the Caucasian Race.” “A Japanese, born in Japan, being clearly not a Caucasian, cannot be made a citizen of the United States,” it said.
The next year, the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind upheld the argument that only “free white persons” could become citizens. In that case, the court said that Thind, an Indian Sikh man who identified himself as Indo-European, could not become a U.S. citizen because he was not a “white person” under U.S. law, and only “free white persons” could become citizens. After the Thind decision, the United States stripped the citizenship of about 50 South Asian Americans who had already become American citizens.
Those discriminatory laws would stand until after World War II, when U.S. calculations of who could be a citizen shifted along with global alliances and Americans of all backgrounds turned out to save democracy.
But despite the longstanding use of laws designed to perpetuate human enslavement to prevent certain immigrants from becoming citizens, the Supreme Court always upheld the citizenship of their children. In 1882, during a period of racist hysteria, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act agreeing that Chinese immigrants could not become citizens.
Wong Kim Ark was born around 1873, the child of Chinese parents who were merchants in San Francisco. In 1889 he traveled with his parents when they repatriated to China, where he married. He then returned to the U.S., leaving his wife behind, and was readmitted. After another trip to China in 1894, though, customs officials denied him reentry to the U.S. in 1895, claiming he was a Chinese subject because his parents were Chinese.
Wong sued, and his lawsuit was the first to climb all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, thanks to the government’s recognition that with the U.S. in the middle of an immigration boom, the question of birthright citizenship must be addressed. In the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision, the court held by a vote of 6–2 that Wong was a citizen because he was born in the United States.
Immigration scholar Hidetaka Hirota of the University of California, Berkeley, explains that the government went even further to protect children born in the U.S. In 1889 the Treasury Department—which then oversaw immigration—decided that a native-born child could not be sent out of the country with her foreign-born mother. Nor did the government want to hurt the U.S. citizen by expelling her mother and leaving her without a guardian. So it admitted the foreign-born mother to take care of the citizen child.
The Treasury concluded that it was not “the intention of Congress to sever the sacred ties existing between parent and child, or forcibly banish and expatriate a native-born child for the reason that its parent is a pauper.”
In May 2023, then–presidential candidate Donald J. Trump released a video promising that on “Day One” of a new presidential term, he would issue an executive order that would end birthright citizenship. He claimed that the understanding that anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen is “based on a historical myth, and a willful misinterpretation of the law by the open borders advocates.”
It is actually a historical myth and a willful misinterpretation of the law that the Civil War ended in 1869, that birthright citizenship came out of a case filed on that exact day, and that the “case” was “very obviously” about “the babies of slaves.” But there were indeed echoes of the past in the administration’s position on immigration today. The administration's announcement that it is terminating Temporary Protected Status for half a million Haitians, stripping them of their legal status, seems to echo the ancient laws saying only “free white persons” can become citizens.A bit of the otherside of the coin---
"It is actually a historical myth and a willful misinterpretation of the law that the Civil War ended in 1869, that birthright citizenship came out of a case filed on that exact day, and that the “case” was “very obviously” about “the babies of slaves.” But there were indeed echoes of the past in the administration’s position on immigration today. The administration's announcement that it is terminating Temporary Protected Status for half a million Haitians, stripping them of their legal status, seems to echo the ancient laws saying only “free white persons” can become citizens."
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is intended as a temporary humanitarian program that allows people from countries facing serious crises to live and work legally in the U.S. for a limited time. It is not designed to provide permanent residency or citizenship, and recipients are expected to return to their home countries once conditions improve and the TPS designation ends. The Trump administration decided to end TPS for Haitians because it believed conditions in Haiti had improved sufficiently since the 2010 earthquake and political instability that initially justified TPS. The administration viewed TPS as a temporary relief measure, not a permanent immigration solution, and argued that continuing to extend TPS indefinitely undermines the integrity of the U.S. immigration system. Ending TPS was meant to uphold the rule of law, ensure the immigration system is fair and sustainable, encourage self-reliance and rebuilding in Haiti, and reduce incentives for permanent stay through temporary protections. While some TPS holders may seek other legal paths to remain in the U.S., TPS itself is not intended to grant permanent status or citizenship, reinforcing its role as a temporary protection rather than a permanent solution.
Thank you for the detailed information on birthright citizenship. It's always valuable to have the facts. This certainly gives us a lot to think about. I’m leaving this complex issue in the hands of the Supreme Court; their ruling will be historic. Maybe we’ll even be surprised by their decision, perhaps they’ll find a way to tweak the law so everyone can be satisfied in the end.Thank you for the history, but here is where we are today.
Here's how Trump's Supreme Court win is reshaping the legal landscape around the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship:
A Patchwork of Citizenship Rights
Because the Supreme Court ruled that **lower courts can no longer issue nationwide injunctions**, Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship could now be enforced **state by state**. That means:
- In states like **California, New Jersey, and Illinois**—which have filed lawsuits—**birthright protections remain intact** for now.
- In at least **28 other states** that haven’t challenged the order, **federal agencies may begin denying citizenship** to babies born to undocumented or temporary-status parents.
This creates a **two-tiered system** where a child’s citizenship could depend entirely on the state they’re born in—a dramatic shift from over a century of consistent interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Legal Challenges Mounting
Civil rights groups and state governments are fighting back:
- A major class-action lawsuit, *Barbara v. Trump*, has been filed in federal court, arguing that **Executive Order 14160 violates the 14th Amendment**.
- The **ACLU and other legal nonprofits** are pushing for a nationwide ruling through class certification, which could restore uniform protections.
- The Supreme Court left the door open for such class-action suits to potentially block the order across all states.
What’s at Stake
If the executive order is enforced in some states but not others, it could lead to:
- **Stateless children**—denied U.S. citizenship and potentially any citizenship at all.
- **Loss of access** to healthcare, education, and legal protections for thousands of U.S.-born children.
- A **constitutional crisis** over whether rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment can vary by geography.
This is shaping up to be one of the most consequential legal battles over the Constitution in decades.
https://rollingout.com/2025/06/28/citiz … challenge/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … r-AA1HxVbR
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supr … ship-case/"Because the Supreme Court ruled that **lower courts can no longer issue nationwide injunctions**, Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship could now be enforced **state by state**. That means:"
Yes, state judges can rule on birthright citizenship issues within their states. The Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. CASA limits federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions but does not take away state courts’ authority to decide cases, including birthright citizenship, within their own jurisdictions.
How I understand it, the Supreme Court will have the last word and will possibly rule on Birthright in October. I would think some of these cases would sooner or later be at the doorstep of the Supreme Court. Unless they rule before any could even be heard. For now, it appears states can rule.
A Supreme Court ruling always takes precedence over any conflicting state court decisions because the Supreme Court is the highest court in the U.S. judicial system.
So if the Supreme Court rules differently on birthright citizenship than a particular state court, the Supreme Court’s decision is the final law of the land and would override the state ruling.
In other words, state courts can decide on birthright issues within their states, but if the Supreme Court weighs in on the same issue, its ruling supersedes all state court decisions.Shar, is they a suprem court of each state in the USA, besides the Supreme Court of federal government?
Hello, my friend---- Yes, every U.S. state has its own Supreme Court or highest court, in addition to the Supreme Court of the federal government. So, there’s one federal Supreme Court (the one most people hear about in the news), and then each of the 50 states has its own top court for handling state law matters.
Our system in the U.S. is based on something called federalism, which means power is divided between the national government and individual state governments. Each state has its own constitution, court system, and laws, just like a small country in some ways. So, if a legal case is about state laws (like property, family, or most criminal matters), it usually ends up in that state’s court system. The state’s highest court will be the final word unless the case involves a question about the U.S. Constitution, then it can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The federal Supreme Court was created by the U.S. Constitution back in 1789. It mostly hears cases about federal laws or big constitutional questions, and it doesn’t take many cases each year; it’s more like a final referee for the whole country.
So, in short, yes, each state has its own highest court, and above all of them is the U.S. Supreme Court, which is the final authority on federal and constitutional law.
Star witness against Kilmar Abrego García was due to be deported. Now he’s being freed.
Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes is a three-time felon who has been released early from federal prison to a halfway house in exchange for his cooperation in the case.
The Trump administration has agreed to release from prison a three-time felon who drunkenly fired shots in a Texas community and spare him from deportation in exchange for his cooperation in the federal prosecution of Kilmar Abrego García, according to a review of court records and official testimony.
Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes, 38, has been convicted of smuggling migrants and illegally reentering the United States after having been deported. He also pleaded guilty to “deadly conduct” in the Texas incident, and is now the government’s star witness in its case against Abrego.
In court, prosecutors have identified their main witness as the “first cooperator.” But a federal agent also testified this month that the main cooperator owned the vehicle that Abrego was allegedly using to smuggle migrants when the Tennessee Highway Patrol stopped him in 2022. The Department of Homeland Security has identified Hernandez as the registered owner of the SUV Abrego was driving in that incident. That traffic stop is the centerpiece of the criminal investigation.
Hernandez is among a handful of cooperating witnesses who could help the Trump administration achieve its goal of never letting Abrego walk free in the United States again. In exchange, he has already been released early from federal prison to a halfway house and has been given permission to stay in the U.S. for at least a year.
“Otherwise he would be deported,” Peter Joseph, a Homeland Security Investigations special agent, testified at Abrego’s criminal hearing June 13. The government is also likely to give him a work permit, the agent told the court.
Abrego’s mistaken deportation in March to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center with more than 200 other deportees revealed the risks associated with the Trump administration’s efforts to quickly fulfill the president’s campaign promise to carry out mass deportations. But the Justice Department’s decision to spare Hernandez shows that officials are also willing to keep serious offenders in the United States to meet their particular goals. Abrego has no prior criminal arrests or convictions.
Hernandez was going to be deported a sixth time in the coming months. Then federal agents showed up a few weeks ago, asking about Abrego.
“It’s wild to me,” said Lisa Sherman Luna, executive director of the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition. “It’s just further evidence of how the government is using Kilmar’s case to further their propaganda and prove their political point.”
Hernandez testified during the grand jury proceedings that led to the recent indictment against Abrego, who has pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors allege that Abrego, 29, was a driver for a business that transported thousands of undocumented immigrants from Texas to states such as Maryland for money.
Abrego crossed the southern border illegally in 2011 as a teenager, court records show, after he said he’d received multiple death threats from a gang. Immigration officers detained him for several months in 2019 after a Maryland police detective alleged he was an MS-13 gang member. The detective, who made the claim after an encounter with Abrego at a Home Depot parking lot, was later fired and indicted over alleged misconduct in an unrelated case. Abrego’s lawyers have said he was never a member of any gang.
Hernandez’s criminal record dates at least to 2015, when police in Chesterfield County, Virginia, arrested him for public drunkenness and he paid a small fine. He has been arrested or in prison every year since, according to federal, state and county records reviewed by The Post.
Houston police arrested him in 2016 for alleged cocaine possession, but court records show prosecutors dismissed the case because of an issue with the search. Police in College Station, Texas, arrested him in 2017 for allegedly driving while intoxicated with a handgun in the car. He pleaded guilty to misdemeanor drunken driving and was punished with 60 days in jail and a $1,500 fine. He also forfeited the gun to the state.
An immigration judge in Texas ordered him deported in February 2018, and he was sent to El Salvador that month.
Two months later, U.S. Border Patrol agents arrested Hernandez after he waded across the Rio Grande into Texas. He pleaded guilty to entering the country illegally, a misdemeanor, and was sentenced to 30 days in prison. Federal court records show he was deported in May 2018.
But Hernandez repeatedly seemed to find a way to get back in. By December of the next year, he had surfaced again, this time, in Mississippi. An officer had pulled over the vehicle he was riding in, and suspected Hernandez was helping smuggle migrants.
Federal investigators said Hernandez admitted that he was in the United States illegally. He said he was running a business called “Transs Express” that offered rides from Texas to South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland and Atlanta for $350 per person. He said he had started out as a ride-app driver in Maryland but there was too much competition, so he moved to Texas and started his own company. Hernandez sat in the front passenger seat, while his partner’s unlicensed 18-year-old brother drove. The man told investigators Hernandez paid him $400 to help transport the migrants.
Hernandez later pleaded guilty to illegally transporting migrants and was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison in 2020. It is unclear what happened after Hernandez finished that sentence, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond to questions about his immigration history.
On a December afternoon in 2022, Hernandez was “highly intoxicated” and had just argued with his wife, according to Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office records released in response to a public records request from The Post.
Hernandez was riding around a Texas community known as the Woodlands with a friend at the wheel of a pickup truck. The friend told authorities Hernandez pulled out a silver handgun and, from the passenger seat, began to shoot out the window. It was before 4 p.m. and with neighbors nearby.
Then, he fell asleep.
Authorities said they recovered 11 spent shells and several rounds of live ammunition.
Authorities charged him with deadly conduct with a firearm, a third-degree felony, in part because he was shooting in a residential neighborhood with a person only 50 feet away, and he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two years in state prison.
After his sentence was up, federal prosecutors charged Hernandez with reentering the United States illegally after having been convicted of a serious crime. That crime carries a potential sentence of up to 20 years and hefty fines.
Hanen granted the prosecutor’s request that Hernandez serve 30 months in federal prison. He was nearing the end of that sentence, and facing imminent deportation, when ICE officers wrongly deported Abrego in March.
MORE
SMHIn addition to Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes, prosecutors are relying on several other cooperating witnesses. These include at least five individuals, some of whom are believed to be co-conspirators. Four of these witnesses reportedly come from the same family, and at least three have their own criminal or immigration cases pending.
These additional witnesses have allegedly provided information suggesting that Kilmar Abrego García was involved in transporting undocumented immigrants, along with accusations of drug and firearm trafficking. Some have even made claims about abusive behavior toward passengers and the solicitation of explicit material from a minor, although none of these allegations are formally part of the current indictment.
The defense has raised serious concerns about the credibility of these witnesses, noting that many of them have something to gain from cooperating with the government, such as reduced sentences or relief from deportation. The fact that four of the witnesses are related has also raised concerns about the potential for coordinated or biased testimony.
So while Hernandez is a central figure, he’s not the only one the prosecution is relying on.Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes is a three-time felon who has been released early from federal prison to a halfway house in exchange for his cooperation in the case.
The Trump administration has agreed to release from prison a three-time felon who drunkenly fired shots in a Texas community and spare him from deportation in exchange for his cooperation in the federal prosecution of Kilmar Abrego García...
Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes, 38, has been convicted of smuggling migrants and illegally reentering the United States after having been deported. He also pleaded guilty to “deadly conduct” in the Texas incident...In addition to Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes, prosecutors in the Kilmar Abrego García case are relying on several other cooperating witnesses. This includes at least five individuals, some of whom are believed to be co-conspirators. Four of these witnesses reportedly come from the same family, and at least three are dealing with their own criminal or immigration issues.
Both the defense and the prosecution will have a full opportunity to question these witnesses. Typically, when individuals agree to cooperate in exchange for leniency, they must offer solid, verifiable information; otherwise, their testimony is unlikely to hold up. I would assume the prosecution believes these individuals have something substantial to offer, possibly even portraying them as close to García and therefore in a position to know the truth. Of course, if their accusations don’t stand up to scrutiny, the defense will be able to expose that.
In any case, García will receive a trial, whether by jury or judge, I’m not certain, but he will have his day in court and the full right to appeal any outcome.I understand your point that the witnesses may be unreliable or acting in their own self-interest, but I can’t automatically assume the prosecution hasn’t thoroughly vetted their testimony. Can you?
To put it more simply: if the defense can challenge or discredit their statements, they absolutely will. That’s how the process works.
I was simply trying to move the conversation to consider the other side of the coin. I mean it well appears you have concerns about the witnesses, as one might due to their background. Unfortunately, your or my view will change what happens in that trial. We certainly are not privileged to have information from either side. Grasping at a media blurb simply does not give important details.It would seem I need you to offer the point. This was the comment I was responding to
----IslandBites wrote:
Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes is a three-time felon who has been released early from federal prison to a halfway house in exchange for his cooperation in the case.
The Trump administration has agreed to release from prison a three-time felon who drunkenly fired shots in a Texas community and spare him from deportation in exchange for his cooperation in the federal prosecution of Kilmar Abrego García...
Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes, 38, has been convicted of smuggling migrants and illegally reentering the United States after having been deported. He also pleaded guilty to “deadly conduct” in the Texas incident..."
It seems you’re worried that this man might not be a reliable witness and could be motivated by rewards for his testimony. I just want to point out that the defense will have the opportunity to challenge this in court. Is there anything that can actually be done about him being a witness now?
I’m simply shifting the conversation to focus on the present situation. I understood where you were coming from, but I didn’t see any reason to assume the prosecution acted maliciously. I did not let bias seep in.Like I said, that is not the point. MAGA wont see it, cause their need to defend anything and everything.
'Like I said, that is not the point. MAGA wont see it, cause their need to defend anything and everything." IB
I defended nothing or no one --- Perhaps you could quote me... I was very cordial and polite. Too bad you could not have shown the same courtesy. When they go low, I go high. I showed no bias at all.
I offer my comments
Sharlee01 profile image82Sharlee01posted 15 hours ago
In addition to Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes, prosecutors are relying on several other cooperating witnesses. These include at least five individuals, some of whom are believed to be co-conspirators. Four of these witnesses reportedly come from the same family, and at least three have their own criminal or immigration cases pending.
These additional witnesses have allegedly provided information suggesting that Kilmar Abrego García was involved in transporting undocumented immigrants, along with accusations of drug and firearm trafficking. Some have even made claims about abusive behavior toward passengers and the solicitation of explicit material from a minor, although none of these allegations are formally part of the current indictment.
The defense has raised serious concerns about the credibility of these witnesses, noting that many of them have something to gain from cooperating with the government, such as reduced sentences or relief from deportation. The fact that four of the witnesses are related has also raised concerns about the potential for coordinated or biased testimony.
So while Hernandez is a central figure, he’s not the only one the prosecution is relying on.
second comment -- In addition to Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes, prosecutors in the Kilmar Abrego García case are relying on several other cooperating witnesses. This includes at least five individuals, some of whom are believed to be co-conspirators. Four of these witnesses reportedly come from the same family, and at least three are dealing with their own criminal or immigration issues.
Both the defense and the prosecution will have a full opportunity to question these witnesses. Typically, when individuals agree to cooperate in exchange for leniency, they must offer solid, verifiable information; otherwise, their testimony is unlikely to hold up. I would assume the prosecution believes these individuals have something substantial to offer, possibly even portraying them as close to García and therefore in a position to know the truth. Of course, if their accusations don’t stand up to scrutiny, the defense will be able to expose that.
In any case, García will receive a trial, whether by jury or judge, I’m not certain, but he will have his day in court and the full right to appeal any outcome.
Third comment It would seem I need you to offer the point. This was the comment I was responding to
----IslandBites wrote:
Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes is a three-time felon who has been released early from federal prison to a halfway house in exchange for his cooperation in the case.
The Trump administration has agreed to release from prison a three-time felon who drunkenly fired shots in a Texas community and spare him from deportation in exchange for his cooperation in the federal prosecution of Kilmar Abrego García...
Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes, 38, has been convicted of smuggling migrants and illegally reentering the United States after having been deported. He also pleaded guilty to “deadly conduct” in the Texas incident..."
It seems you’re worried that this man might not be a reliable witness and could be motivated by rewards for his testimony. I just want to point out that the defense will have the opportunity to challenge this in court. Is there anything that can actually be done about him being a witness now?
I’m simply shifting the conversation to focus on the present situation. I understood where you were coming from, but I didn’t see any reason to assume the prosecution acted maliciously. I did not let bias seep in.
Hopefully, out of all 3, you can point out where I " defend anything and everything." IBI think the point is the hypocrisy....
"The Trump administration has agreed to release from prison a three-time felon who drunkenly fired shots in a Texas community and spare him from deportation "That has been convicted of smuggling migrants and illegally reentering the United States after having been deported, I might add.
Like I said, MAGA wont see it. They jump to defend anything, even when they do not understand the point.You could definitely call it that, and there’s a case to be made. But this kind of trade-off—flipping shady characters for testimony—has been happening for as long as I can remember. Several unsavory or compromised individuals have gotten legal deals to testify against Trump. Michael Cohen, a convicted felon, flipped and accused Trump of directing hush-money payments. Allen Weisselberg, longtime Trump Org CFO, took a plea deal and testified in the NY fraud trial. David Pecker from the National Enquirer got immunity for exposing the “catch and kill” scheme.
Should we be shocked? Maybe. But I could write a book on how common this process is. As I’ve already said to IB, we’re well past the point of pretending prosecutors won’t lean on disreputable people—and sometimes reward them with deals. The one she mentioned even has a one-year deal to fight deportation.
Maybe I moved on too fast to the next issue that guy faces, but I tend to stay focused on what’s current, and that’s where we are now.
This is all now in the hands of the court.
Trump is determined to see Garcia fail whether it is within the purview of the law or not. It’s another one of his dirty obsessions that he wants to shrine using the law.
I think the Democrats should be recognized for how much worse they made things for this guy. Instead fo being back in El Salvador with his family he can thank the libs for their interference and will now be deported to Sudan where he can enjoy cockroaches and probably die of tuberculosis. He is probably less than thankful for liberal support.
I see it the same way. Go figure. His life now stands in the hands of our courts, and it most likely will not be pretty.
So you support a man being bagged up and sent to a gulag in Central America, without due process? What you are talking about is not the issue and is a poor diagnosis on your part.
The libs and that guys lawyers screwed him over. The gulag in África he is heading to is going to be a lot worse, all thanks to liberal interferênce and ignorance. That is the issue, whether or not libs understand that.
I have to ask about the credibility of a criminal like Reyes being taken seriously. To get the deal he would have to be as big a liar as Trump himself.
They have to use incredulous testimony like his because they have no other credible evidence; if they did, they would have used it four years ago.
Now an independent voice agrees with US inelegance initial assessment - Trump, the felon and liar, is playing politics with America's national security, he DID NOT obliterate Iran's nuclear capability.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/29/worl … anium-intlWhat kind of insane idiot would endanger the lives of millions of Americans by denying data that helps forecasting hurricanes? Oh yes, MAGA elected such an imbecile who has a history of helping millions of Americans did needlessly.
"Trump admin will cut hurricane forecasters out of key satellite data in one month
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/30/weat … tage-delayYup. I posted about that in another thread.
This is Hurricane Specialist John Morales warning about the cuts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwmmPlw06_0
And about the SSMIS cut.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QqckzMLd5lUI see MAGA is defending this nonsense with their silence.
I've been thinking... I'll bring the subject of the thread back for a moment. Trump's bold Agenda. (sort of wish some that hope to trash Trump would show a bit of politeness and create a great new thread to conduct their conversations. Oh well-------
We’re only halfway through Trump’s second term, and already it’s clear we’re witnessing something rare in modern politics: a real, thought-out grand strategy that puts America first without apology. For all the media chatter that Trump is reckless or erratic on the world stage, the facts speak louder than the spin. What we’re seeing is the return of peace through strength, and it’s working. The so-called Trump Doctrine isn’t chaos; it’s a deliberate course correction after decades of failed policies and weak leadership that allowed threats like Iran to grow unchecked. Trump didn’t just hit Iran’s uranium sites to flex; those strikes were a message: America will stand by its allies, especially Israel, and won’t tolerate empty threats or broken agreements. And even then, Trump made it clear that diplomacy was always the preferred route. Iran was warned repeatedly, given chances to talk, and only when they refused did Trump act, and then immediately followed up by pushing for a ceasefire. That’s not warmongering, that’s strategic leadership.
What’s even more impressive is how Trump is changing the narrative in the Middle East, not just with military strength, but by opening doors to trade, commerce, and long-overdue cooperation. His recent trip to the region showed how a business-first mindset can create real partnerships. While past presidents only saw conflict, Trump is unlocking new possibilities, even getting countries like Syria to quietly distance themselves from Iran. At the same time, he’s shattered the old claims that he’s an isolationist; NATO backing his call for 5% GDP defense spending is proof enough. Trump’s approach reminds me a lot of Reagan, unapologetically strong, but always aiming for peace. These are the actions of a president who puts his country first, stands firm against threats, and still keeps the door open for those willing to negotiate in good faith. He is keeping me busy trying to keep up with what he does daily. I, for one, am very much satisfied with his job performance.Like Trump, Bolsonaro (the Trump of Brazil) tried to overthrow the election he lost. Unlike Trump, he is being brought to Justice (Trump, instead, simply got reelected to by-pass Justice).
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/29/amer … intl-latamUpdate on Trump's tariff agenda: Canada's digital services tax took effect in June 2024 and requires large businesses, whether they're headquartered in Canada or elsewhere, to pay a 3% tax on revenue earned from engaging with online users in Canada if they meet certain conditions.
Trump terminated trade discussions with Canada on Friday, citing the digital services tax on American tech companies like Amazon, Meta, Google, and Apple, among others, as the reason.
The Canadian government said it was rescinding the Digital Services Tax "in anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States."
"Consistent with this action, Prime Minister Carney and President Trump have agreed that parties will resume negotiations with a view towards agreeing on a deal by July 21, 2025," Canada’s Department of Finance said in a news release.IslandBites: MAGA's excused felony limit is 34. This guy is well under their limit.
Lol, yes Kathleen... Felonies aren't necessarily a bad thing in the eyes of maga! Now, lgbtq or transgender folks, that's quite a different story...
It's won them two presidencies out of the last seven. Who would want to lose that advantage?
If all the northern states that have not yet signed on, would sign on, the National Popular Vote would go into effect.Please all read this. My thread has once again become a let's trash Trump thread.
Rules and Etiquette
Below are some basic guidelines to adhere to:
"Stick to the topic. Please stay on the thread’s topic when replying to an existing thread. If you don’t see an open thread about something you’d like to discuss, please open a new thread." Rule number one
I encourage others to move forward and start their own threads on topics they’re interested in exploring. It’s only fair to respect the purpose of threads that others have taken the time to create. This particular thread is dedicated to highlighting the accomplishments of President Trump—a space for supporters to discuss and share. If Trump isn’t your focus, feel free to start a new thread. It’s easy to do and will give you the freedom to dive into a wide range of topics that matter to you.
https://hubpages.com/help/forum_rulesAmazing isn't it. Republicans are dead set on killing jobs and raising energy prices on every MAGA out there. How stupid.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/30/climate/ … wind-solarHere is another Trump LIE for you Trumpers to defend or deflect from:
"“They won’t take our RICE, and yet they have a massive rice shortage."
The "they" in this headline is Japan who he threatens with tariffs.
FUN FACT for MAGA to ignore - Japan is America's third largest importer of RICE.
Is there any reason why Trump supporters should be respected if they buy all his lies hook, line, and sinker?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/30/business … nweb-convoOnly use the report button on posts you think break the forum rules. Please do not report posts just because you do not like them.
"Kathleen Cochran
"Only use the report button on posts you think break the forum rules. Please do not report posts just because you do not like them."
I think that is a good suggestion. I also feel that the site rules, such as the one I posted, need to be followed.
Here is the rule I was referring to. I also offered a link to the site's rules, which is number one.
Rules and Etiquette
Below are some basic guidelines to adhere to:
"Stick to the topic. Please stay on the thread’s topic when replying to an existing thread. If you don’t see an open thread about something you’d like to discuss, please open a new thread." https://hubpages.com/help/forum_rules
Rubio hails 14 million deaths in FIVE years because of death of USAID!!! I suppose Trump and MAGA joins in the cheering.
"Rubio hails end of USAID as study says its elimination could contribute to 14 million deaths in next 5 years"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/01/politics … ion-deathsYou are free to sell your house, car and any other possessions and send it to those that would die without it. You can also ask for donations to help the poor throughout the world.
You are NOT free to forcibly take from those that would rather not do that in order to provide additional resources for your personal projects.A small part of our budget saves millions of lives and strengthens our security. Turning our backs on that isn’t just heartless—it’s un-American. Compassion and leadership are part of who we are. Without them, what’s left? To me, having such a cavalier attitude about people's lives is not what a human being should be about.
Oh yes, because the mental health issues in this country have been solved, right?
Sixteen states are suing the Trump administration for ending more than $1 billion in mental-health-related grants created to help after mass school shootings, the states’ attorneys general said....
This is idiotic.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/educatio … th-grants/It’s important to look at this issue with both facts and common sense. The Trump administration decided to end over $1 billion in mental health-related grants, claiming that many of the programs emphasized ideologically driven content like DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) language and identity-based approaches, which they argued fell outside the scope of direct mental health treatment. Their reasoning was tied to a broader executive order aimed at removing political and identity-focused frameworks from federally funded programs. However, they have yet to release detailed evidence showing how or why specific programs were failing or misusing funds.
Again, is this really a surprise? Trump has never made a secret of his opposition to DEI programs. In fact, removing DEI from government and education was something he frequently campaigned on and made central to his executive agenda. Whether one agrees with that approach or not, it's consistent with the goals he’s stated all along.
The administration has mentioned plans to “re-envision” these grants, supposedly to align more closely with what they consider merit-based, non-political mental health support, but as of now, there is no timeline, no new application process, and no clarity on what those replacement programs will look like. That leaves schools, students, and mental health professionals in limbo.
"The Education Department “plans to re-envision and re-compete its mental health program funds to more effectively support students’ behavioral health needs,” Brandy Brown, deputy assistant secretary for K-12 education in the Education Department’s office of legislation and congressional affairs, wrote in an email obtained by Education Week."
Quote https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/ … hatgpt.com
(Despite multiple statements promising to “re-envision and re-compete” the mental-health grants, as of today, there have been no formal Requests for Proposals, and no clear timeline or criteria released by the Department of Education.) This should bode well for the many states' lawsuits.
States absolutely have the right to sue the federal government when they believe it's overstepping or making arbitrary decisions. That’s how our system works. The courts are the proper place to determine whether the administration acted within its legal authority, especially since these grants were Congressionally approved.
Until more data is shared, both on the content of the canceled programs and the structure of the proposed replacements, it’s difficult to draw a full, fair conclusion. What we need right now is transparency, not speculation.You are so good at rationalizing Trump's actions, I'm curious to see how you handle this one.
President Trump is headed to Florida to personally christen the latest marvel of right-wing fever swamps and American hospitality: “Alligator Alcatraz”—a migrant detention facility conveniently located in the middle of the Everglades, where the guards are optional because the hungry alligators work for free.
According to the White House, this swamp-surrounded sanctuary for Trump’s mass deportation plan is a “low-cost, high-predator” solution to immigration enforcement. Only one road in, no roads out—unless you count the digestive tracts of local wildlife. Officials boast it’s “unforgiving terrain,” because nothing promotes Christian values like pythons and gator pits.
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt helpfully explained that this remote crocodile gulag will help “process and deport criminal illegal aliens,” a phrase she repeated until her empathy chip short-circuited. When asked if putting human beings in a biological minefield was humane, Leavitt replied, “Let’s just say no one escapes Alligator Alcatraz—except perhaps through litigation.” But even that is unlikely given the recent Supreme Court ruling that effectively relegated lower court rulings to the marshy sediment.
The $450 million-a-year facility will be funded partly by FEMA, because why spend money on climate disasters when you can spend it on migrant Jurassic Park?
Meanwhile, Florida’s Attorney General—channeling his inner reptile brain—praised the facility as a “one-stop shop” for deportation—apparently confusing immigration policy with Amazon Prime. “No fences needed,” he bragged, “just gators and despair.”
Joining Trump at the ribbon-cutting will be Kristi Noem, Ron DeSantis, and Byron Donalds—presumably to take selfies in front of detention cells while avoiding eye contact with protesting Indigenous groups and endangered species lawyers.
Protesters, environmentalists, and human rights advocates gathered over the weekend to object to locking up asylum seekers in sacred wetlands guarded by apex predators. Their concerns were swiftly ignored, presumably because alligators don’t vote, and detained migrants aren’t inrsvited to the Fourth of July barbecue.
In conclusion, American immigration policy is now brought to you by Animal Planet and Escape Room. And if anyone still doubts that “the cruelty is the point,” well, you haven’t been paying attention.
Chris Britt - CreatorThey also say they made this American gulag specifically to be cruel to those who stay there in hopes to deter others from coming to America or self-deporting. That is the same rational these animals used when they thought it was a good idea to rip babies out of the arms of their mothers, never to be seen again. How Putin or Hitleresque can you get?
To me this sounds hard and grazy. But its neither funny. It's you Americans that can be that hilarious or facetious.
Trump’s Day One: A Bold Agenda to Reclaim America -- Make America's Media Great Again. Puts Media on notice.
It’s honestly wild to see how this all shook out. CBS and Paramount just agreed to pay Trump what could total over $30 million to settle his election interference lawsuit, and while they’re not admitting wrongdoing, it’s hard to see this as anything but a win for Trump. He gets $16 million upfront, plus the potential for a whole chunk more earmarked for conservative ads and PSAs. That’s a pretty hefty payout, especially considering ABC already paid him $15 million last year in a separate settlement. And now with this so-called “Trump Rule,” CBS has to release full, unedited transcripts of all future presidential candidate interviews, which says a lot. If they had nothing to hide, why agree to that?
The real kicker is that CBS edited Kamala Harris’s cringey response about Netanyahu into two different segments, giving her a cleaner image right before the election. That kind of media manipulation is exactly what people have been accusing legacy outlets of for years, and this lawsuit brought it to light in a way they couldn’t just brush off. Even though CBS tried to defend themselves the whole way through, the FCC had to step in just to get them to cough up the unedited footage. And let’s be honest, if this was a Republican candidate getting cleaned up in editing before an election, the media would’ve exploded.
Democrats like Bernie Sanders are crying about free speech and press intimidation, but nobody’s “punishing” the press for criticism; they’re being held accountable for deception. There’s a difference. Trump didn’t sue them for having an opinion; he sued them for misleading editing that could’ve swayed an election. And now CBS is coughing up millions, changing internal policies, and seeing high-level resignations. Doesn’t sound like a baseless lawsuit to me.Do people really believe that news programs don't edit interviews for time? But please, tell me how none of Trump's interviews have been edited? The entire video of the interview and the transcript was released previously....
Legal experts maintained that Trump’s suit was frivolous and that CBS was on solid ground to fight and win the case in court..... They shouldn't have settledIn my view, this was a wonderful case to highlight media bias and how outlets like CBS can distort the true context of what was actually said. The editing of Harris’s interview to subtly shift the tone or meaning of her words is a prime example of how narratives can be shaped, not by what is said, but by how it's presented. I give credit to anyone who has the courage to push back against this form of manipulation. It’s not about defending one political figure over another, it’s about standing up for truth in reporting and holding powerful media institutions accountable when they cross the line between journalism and agenda.
And this wasn’t just any interview, this was a candidate running for president, the highest office in the land. I wanted to hear her views, not CBS’s interpretation of them. I do realize that many media outlets do this, and it’s part of why I appreciate Trump’s transparency. You get his words, whether one likes them or not. Much of the time, we got it straight out of his mouth, and still do, now that he is once again president.
Washing words, in my view, shows me a true form of dishonesty. In this case, CBS edited out a key portion where Harris clarified her stance on federal intervention in local police matters, making it appear she was far more supportive of sweeping federal overreach than she actually was. Literally turned it upside down. That kind of omission isn’t just misleading, it’s dishonest journalism.
Hey, it is apparent that many feel this sort of politicking is Okay. To each their own."The editing of Harris’s interview to subtly shift the tone or meaning of her words"
That idea was certainly not proven...
But we all can see that Fox crafts every minute of their blather to to positively shape the narrative and coverage of trump... Sometimes even lying.Trump's lies and his defamation of characters with derogatory name calling cross the lines everyday. The people he lies to and defames just don't have the money he has to hire the best lawyers in town. They don't have the judicial branch in their pocket as he does.
Jan. 6, Dominion, Georgia find more votes, Ballot Counters threatened by his thugs, Stealing Classified Documents, Thirty Four charges against him., presidential immunity, I could go on and on. This is just off the top of my head..The subject concerns a lawsuit and is not about name-calling. It revolves around the misrepresentation of a presidential candidate’s words, essentially lying to viewers who tuned in and promoting a false narrative.
Your diversion says a lot, it suggests it’s okay for my side to lie, but totally unacceptable when your side does. Can you really defend what CBS did here? I’ve never defended anything Trump said or did unless I had solid reasons and facts that gave me doubt. I’m always straightforward in calling out anyone, including Trump, when it’s deserved. But you seem to dodge the real issue, what CBS tried to pull off. I believe the truth comes out eventually, and it has in this case.
This was not about calling names; this was about clear corruption by the media. And they were outed as was ABC--- In December 2024, ABC News, owned by The Walt Disney Company, agreed to pay $15 million to settle a defamation lawsuit filed by Trump. The lawsuit stemmed from an inaccurate on-air statement by anchor George Stephanopoulos, who claimed that a jury had found Trump "liable for raping" writer E. Jean Carroll. In reality, the jury had found Trump liable for "sexual abuse." As part of the settlement, ABC News issued a public apology, expressing regret for Stephanopoulos's misstatements, and agreed to pay $1 million in legal fees to Trump's attorney. The $15 million was designated as a charitable contribution to Trump's future presidential library.
All funds from his media lawsuits will go to building a library.And MAGA finds THAT kind of politicking OK
Actually, the FCC found no bias, no distortion
If they watch Fox, they should. Fox has admitted to manipulating interviews.
Talk about making a mountain out of a mole, no, make that an ant hill.
I can understand why Trump thought CBS edited the 140 - 180 word comment Harris made was biased - that is common practice at Fox News to change the meaning of things that are said. If it is done at Fox, then Trump presumes it is done everywhere.
However, that is NOT the case with CBS or the other legitimate news outlets. It is COMMON INDUSTRY PRACTICE to:
* Trim long answers to fit time slots.
* Rearrange segments for narrative flow.
* Remove ums, pauses, or tangents that don’t affect meaning.
* Choose quotes that are most clear or powerful for the broadcast.
And that is EXACTLY what CBS did as it faced limited air time.
Here is the BOTTOM LINE in this made up scandal.
The lawsuit and FCC review brought transparency, but there was no finding of distortion—just a settlement to avoid prolonged litigation and regulatory hurdles.The original unedited footage and transcripts from the disputed Harris interview, meaning the raw, pre-edited material, were never publicly released either before or after the settlement.
We have no facts on what she said or what was altered. They would not have settled if it were not a mountain. And let’s be honest, if this were a Republican candidate getting cleaned up in editing before an election, the media would’ve exploded. But hypocrisy runs deep on the left.Actually, they were. I read the transcript yesterday.
Let's get real - if it had been a Republican, nothing would have been said by anybody. Why, because what CBS did is normal editing in order to fit the broadcast format. So, No Hypocrisy on our side but lot on yours.OH DARN! Look what I found.
1. Gavin Newsom vs Fox News (R wins automatic?)
California’s Republican Gov. Gavin Newsom is suing Fox News for $787 million, alleging a Jesse Watters segment dropped key parts of a Trump–Newsom phone call to portray Newsom as lying about the timing of troop deployment - foxnews.com, apnews.com, theguardian.com.
Watters reportedly edited out entire sentences that would have clarified the call—altering the impression given to viewers.
(Seems to me, CBS kept the meaning of what Harris was saying pretty clear, unlike Fox who is changing the meaning.)
So yes, let us get real!
"THIS GROWTH has already begun at levels never seen before" -- Trump posted this about an hour before news broke that America actually lost private sector jobs last month...
I have to ask—are you for open borders? If so, there’s no need to answer the other questions. But if not, what are your thoughts on deporting migrants who have gone through due process and no longer have legal grounds to remain? Do you believe those with criminal records should be detained until they can appear before an immigration judge? Also, do you think using detention centers for this is illegal or just unfair?
edited - PeoplePower, I want to clarify that my first sentence was a rhetorical question—I’m asking for your personal view.” I fully realize you are fully aware our borders are not open.We have immigration laws and policy. That does not equate to "open borders". That's a purely political term used to mislead people who don't understand immigration policy
I have to ask—are you for open borders? Note the word
"for". My context was very clear.
I never said our immigration laws amount to open borders, did I? That was a rhetorical question meant to highlight PeoplePowers' viewpoint.
"Sharlee01 wrote:
I have to ask—are you for open borders? If so, there’s no need to answer the other questions. But if not, what are your thoughts on deporting migrants who have gone through due process and no longer have legal grounds to remain? Do you believe those with criminal records should be detained until they can appear before an immigration judge? Also, do you think using detention centers for this is illegal or just unfair?"
PeoplePower well understands that we have laws that indicate our borders are not open.This is what I gleaned from doing my research in AI.
“Alligator Alcatraz” isn’t just a detention center—it’s a political symbol, a logistical experiment, and a flashpoint in the broader immigration enforcement strategy of 2025. Let’s unpack how it fits into the national picture:
---
Part of a Larger Enforcement Surge
The facility is a cornerstone of the **“One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA)**, passed in July 2025. This sweeping legislation:
- Allocates **$150 billion** to immigration enforcement through 2029
- **Doubles ICE deportation officers** and expands detention capacity
- **Accelerates deportation and asylum processing**, often bypassing traditional legal safeguards
- Ends public benefits for undocumented immigrants and imposes **remittance taxes**
“Alligator Alcatraz” is the first of several planned **remote detention hubs**, designed to isolate detainees and streamline deportation logistics.
---Political Theater Meets Policy
The site’s location—deep in the Everglades—was chosen not just for security, but for **symbolism**:
- Florida AG James Uthmeier dubbed it “Alligator Alcatraz” to evoke fear and deterrence
- Governor DeSantis and President Trump have both **publicly celebrated** the facility, with Trump calling it “as good as the real Alcatraz”
- The Florida GOP is even selling **merchandise** featuring the facility’s name and imagery
This isn’t just about enforcement—it’s about **messaging**: projecting toughness, dramatizing deterrence, and energizing a political base.
--- Environmental and Legal Fallout
The site’s construction has triggered:
- **Federal lawsuits** from environmental groups and the Miccosukee Tribe, citing violations of the National Environmental Policy Act and tribal protections
- Concerns over **flooding, endangered species**, and cultural heritage
- Accusations of bypassing public input and environmental review using emergency powers
Despite these challenges, the facility opened on **July 1, 2025**, just eight days after construction began.
---Strategic Implications
From a Selectorate Theory perspective, this facility:
- **Rewards the winning coalition** by delivering on hardline immigration promises
- **Signals control and decisiveness**, even if the policy’s long-term efficacy is questionable
- **Shifts the Overton window**, making extreme measures seem mainstream
It’s a case study in how **policy, politics, and performance** intersect.
---
Remittance taxes are **levies imposed on money sent from one country to another**, typically by migrant workers sending earnings back to family members abroad. In the U.S. context, they’ve become a hot-button issue due to recent legislation.
---What’s Happening in the U.S. (as of July 2025)
Under the **One Big Beautiful Bill Act**, the U.S. has introduced a **1% remittance tax** on certain outbound money transfers:
- **Who’s affected**: Non-citizens—including green card holders, visa holders, and international students—who send money abroad using **cash, money orders, or cashier’s checks**
- **Who’s exempt**: U.S. citizens and anyone using **bank accounts or debit/credit cards** for transfers
- **How it works**: The tax is collected at the point of transfer by providers like Western Union or MoneyGram and remitted to the U.S. government quarterly
---Why It Matters
- The U.S. is the **largest source of global remittances**, sending over **$80 billion** abroad in 2022 alone
- Countries like **India, Mexico, and the Philippines** rely heavily on these funds for household income, education, and healthcare
- Critics argue the tax **disproportionately affects working-class immigrants**, while supporters say it helps **recapture funds** leaving the U.S. economy
---Controversies and Pushback
- **Immigrant advocacy groups** and state lawmakers (like the Pennsylvania Latino Caucus) have condemned the tax as punitive and regressive
- **Environmental and economic justice groups** argue it’s part of a broader pattern of policies targeting non-citizens
- Some economists warn it could **drive remittances underground**, making them harder to track and regulate
---This tax is more than just a revenue tool—it’s a window into how immigration, economics, and politics intersect.I note you opted out of answering my few questions... Perhaps you missed the comment I addressed to you. Here is the link.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/362 … ost4374530
Your comment raises some interesting points about the intersection of politics, immigration policy, and symbolism. It tends to blur the line between what is actually codified in legislation and what is unfolding through administrative action or political messaging. For example, the facility dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz” may be dramatic and certainly charged with symbolic meaning, but it is not explicitly mentioned in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA). Its construction seems to be more of a state-level or executive enforcement move rather than a direct result of any single federal bill. Suggesting it is the “cornerstone” of the OBBBA misrepresents the bill’s contents, which focus broadly on enforcement funding, processing timelines, and resource allocation, not the creation of specific detention centers.
And while it’s true that politics often involve theatrics and signaling, particularly in the realm of immigration policy, that doesn’t necessarily invalidate the practical or legal merits of enforcing immigration law. Selective enforcement, messaging, and deterrence have long been used by both parties. The application of Selectorate Theory here, while intellectually interesting, also assumes intent that may not be provable. As for environmental and tribal concerns, those lawsuits deserve due process, but emergency powers and rapid construction have precedent, particularly when dealing with federal priorities. It’s fair to debate whether that approach is ethical or sustainable, but it’s misleading to imply it’s unprecedented.
Regarding the remittance tax, the framing seems skewed. A 1% tax on certain outbound transfers affects specific non-citizens using cash-based methods, but it exempts those using traceable banking systems. This policy arguably encourages financial transparency and aims to recover funds from a system where billions exit the U.S. without taxation or oversight. While critics call it regressive, supporters argue it’s a small ask in the context of public services being strained by unchecked immigration. It’s important to acknowledge that the U.S. remains one of the most generous countries in terms of global remittances, and this policy doesn’t halt that; it simply asks for a minimal contribution from those operating outside the traditional banking structure.Did you read all 940 pages of the bill and you found it was not cited in the bill?
How It’s Cited in the Bill and Public Messaging
- During his July 1, 2025 visit to the facility, Trump emphasized that the detention center exemplifies the kind of infrastructure the bill is meant to fund.
- The bill allocates $150 billion over four years for immigration enforcement, including detention centers like Alligator Alcatraz.
- White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that the facility
“underscores the need to pass the One Big, Beautiful Bill” because of the scale of the deportation effort and the lack of existing infrastructure.
- The facility’s $450 million annual operating cost is expected to be covered by funds authorized in the bill, particularly through FEMA’s Shelter and Services Program.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) clocks in at a whopping 940 pages. That’s nearly a thousand pages of sweeping tax cuts, spending reforms, immigration enforcement measures, and even unexpected provisions like a 10-year ban on state-level AI regulations.Why so long?
- It’s a reconciliation bill, meaning it bundles legislation from 11 House committees into one mega-package.
- It includes everything from Medicaid restrictions to remittance taxes, detention center funding (like Alligator Alcatraz), and tax breaks for tipped workers.
- Lawmakers have been scrambling to digest it all before Trump’s self-imposed July 4th deadline."- During his July 1, 2025 visit to the facility, Trump emphasized that the detention center exemplifies the kind of infrastructure the bill is meant to fund." PP
I did listen to his live speech, and did not hear that statement-- I couldn't locate a direct quote from President Trump stating that the "detention center exemplifies the kind of infrastructure the bill is meant to fund" during his July 1, 2025, visit to the "Alligator Alcatraz" facility. However, he did express support for the facility's model, indicating a desire to see similar centers in other states. According to ABC News, Trump stated, and I quote
"Well, I think would like to see them in many states. Really, many states," and added, "And, you know, at some point, they might morph into a system." Trump
"The bill allocates $150 billion over four years for immigration enforcement, including detention centers like Alligator Alcatraz." PP
The claim that the bill allocates $150 billion solely for immigration enforcement, including detention centers, is not accurate as stated. The $150 billion figure refers to a broader spending package that covers many areas related to immigration, and is well laid out in simple language in the bill. If the bill passes, funds will be used for --- kist is taken from the bill.
Border security and surveillance technology
Staffing for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Construction, maintenance, or expansion of detention facilities
Legal and processing resources for immigration cases
Programs aimed at preventing illegal crossings and speeding up deportations
Thus, the bill’s funding is divided among multiple aspects of immigration enforcement and border security, with detention centers being just one component of the overall package.
You ask why the bill is so long. Odd, I thought it was one of the shorter pieces of legislation as of late
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)—also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law— Page Length
The final IIJA totaled 2,702 pages
Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376)
Introduced: September 27, 2021
House Passage: November 19, 2021
Page Length: Approximately 2,400+ pages
Do I need to quote other presidents? The Trump bill is not any different; it is lengthy.
Your concerns regarding AI regulations.I consider AI a good thing, but an entity that most likely will need to be regulated, thats just my view.
The 10-year ban on state-level AI regulation was removed from the final bill. When: The U.S. Senate voted 99–1 on July 1, 2025, to strip the AI-moratorium provision from the “One Big Beautiful Bill” budget legislation
What happened: This provision had been included in the House version of the bill but faced significant bipartisan backlash in the Senate. opponents, including governors, attorneys general, and both Republicans and Democrats, argued it would block states from protecting children, privacy, and data rights. Senator Marsha Blackburn dropped her support after initially trying to renegotiate a shorter, five-year version
washingtonpost.com
Bottom line: The law that ultimately passed does not include a ban on state AI regulation — states retain their authority to regulate AI.
Regarding the taxes being addressed in the "Big Beautiful Bill," — you do realize that the current tax cuts are set to expire at the end of this year. That means if nothing is done, we revert back to the pre-2017 rates, with income tax brackets increasing across the board. For example, the 22% bracket would rise to 25%, and the 24% bracket would jump to 28%. One may not like every part of the current tax proposal, but we certainly wouldn’t like the outcome if Congress fails to act. Addressing this with urgency is critical; otherwise, we’re all looking at a significant tax hike.
I certainly did not read the entire bill, but I learned to navigate the pages and made sure I read what was being torn apart by the media and the Democrats in Congress. It would seem the wise thing to do. I posted the link to the Big Beautiful Bill here on several occasions. I feel very confident that what I have shared here about the bill is accurate regarding the actual bill. I won't entertain the media or political fodder.
Not quite a Hitler-type concentration camp - yet, but certainly a Russian-style gulag.
Can you imagine putting people in brutal (not quite torturous) conditions to make an example to others to stay out?
Brought to you by the people who rip babies from mother's arms.
First, I would like to offer the full report on employment ---
Trump has a penchant for pardoning famous people convicted of similar crimes he has been. I have to wonder if he will pardon Sean "Diddy" Combs.
"A federal judge on Wednesday blocked President Trump's plan to sharply restrict access to the nation's asylum system, a blow to the president's sweeping crackdown on immigration into the United States.
U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss ruled in favor of 13 individuals seeking asylum in the U.S. and three immigrants' rights groups who argued that a proclamation signed by Mr. Trump on his first day back in office — which has been a pillar of his immigration agenda — is unlawful. "
In his decision, Moss ruled that neither the Immigration and Nationality Act nor the Constitution give the president and administration officials "the sweeping authority" asserted in his proclamation and subsequent guidance implementing the directive.
"The court recognizes that the executive branch faces enormous challenges in preventing and deterring unlawful entry into the United States and in adjudicating the overwhelming backlog of asylum claims of those who have entered the country," he wrote. "But the INA, by its terms, provides the sole and exclusive means for removing people already present in the country."
Moss said that a pair of provisions of federal immigration law do not provide "the president with the unilateral authority to limit the rights of aliens present in the United States to apply for asylum."
He further found that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to "adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted and the regulations that the responsible agencies have promulgated."
In addition to finding Mr. Trump's plan to limit access to asylum, the judge granted the plaintiffs' request to certify a class of all people covered by the president's proclamation or its implementation who are or will be in the U.S...
So, as we all knew what would happen,... Trump would be forced to work under the same immigration laws as his predecessors.... When will you folks start calling his "policies" open borders?? LOL
Looks like he's going to let anyone who walks up to the border, either one or 10 million, claim asylum and walk right in....gasp. his phony immigration numbers due to the administration's breaking of the law are about to head straight up
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-asyl … ge-blocks/Just my view--
I think we can agree this will ultimately end up in the Supreme Court. President Trump does have several legal authorities that could support his case, particularly 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), which grants the president broad power to suspend the entry of any class of aliens if their entry is deemed detrimental to the interests of the United States, often cited in the context of national security and terrorism concerns. Additionally, statutes like 6 U.S.C. §§ 202(3) and 236 give the Department of Homeland Security authority over border enforcement and managing immigration flows. These laws have historically been used to justify strong executive action to protect national security and public safety.
One important point in the asylum debate is that U.S. law generally requires individuals seeking asylum to apply in the first country they arrive in. This principle supports “safe third country” agreements, which Trump’s policies have tried to enforce more strictly. The administration argues that many asylum seekers bypass this rule by crossing the U.S. border illegally or traveling through other countries where they could have applied for protection, creating a system vulnerable to exploitation by criminal organizations and possibly terrorists.
Why Trump could win: If the administration can convincingly demonstrate that asylum processes are being abused by those linked to terrorism, drug cartels, or organized crime, and that these abuses pose a genuine threat to national security, the Court may give deference to the president’s authority under 1182(f) to act decisively. The 2018 Supreme Court decision in Trump v. Hawaii set a precedent affirming the president’s broad discretion to restrict entry on national security grounds, even when those restrictions have broad effects. Given the current conservative majority on the Court, there is a realistic chance they will uphold strong executive action in this context.
Why Trump could lose: However, the law is also clear that under 8 U.S.C. § 1158, any noncitizen physically present in the U.S. or who arrives at a U.S. border has the statutory right to apply for asylum regardless of how they entered. This is a specific congressional mandate that protects the right to seek asylum and includes procedural safeguards. Courts typically hold that the president’s authority under 1182(f) cannot override or nullify clear statutory rights granted by Congress. If the Court finds that the asylum restrictions are overly broad, blocking legitimate asylum seekers without proper case-by-case consideration, or that the policy unlawfully contradicts the INA’s asylum provisions, it could rule that the president exceeded his authority. Ultimately, the outcome will hinge on whether the Court views the policy as a lawful exercise of executive power narrowly tailored to security concerns or an unlawful attempt to bypass immigration laws passed by Congress.
What I see is a president who is going around the back door to get the high court to help him bypass a non-productive, stale Congress that does little more than try to hold onto power. The reality is their influence is ebbing away, and they know it. Trump has shown he is determined to make changes in immigration: he has taken away the open invite, is deporting many, and is making all efforts to speed up due process and make migrants wait in centers. Taken together, these policies make it much less attractive to ask for asylum in the United States.
Going out on a limb--- I see a strong chance of a win for Trump, given the numerous problems his attorneys can point to in arguing why asylum must be severely limited. They can highlight issues such as the overwhelming number of fraudulent or non-meritorious claims that clog the system, creating a backlog that strains resources and delays legitimate cases. There are serious national security concerns, including the risk that terrorists or criminal elements exploit loopholes in the asylum process to enter the country. The administration can also emphasize the failure of many migrants to seek asylum in the first safe country they pass through, which undermines the principle of orderly and fair immigration enforcement. Additionally, the border crisis, with large numbers of migrants crossing illegally, contributes to law enforcement challenges and public safety risks. These factors combined give a strong legal and practical basis for arguing that limiting asylum is necessary to protect national security, uphold the integrity of immigration laws, and restore order to an overwhelmed system. At any rate, we will see this appeal quickly. Yes, it’s very likely we’ll see a quick appeal. When a federal judge blocks a high-profile immigration policy like this, the new administration typically moves fast to appeal the ruling to a higher court.
I love following any court case. This will be a big one.
Oh yes... Only the best people.
Former January 6 defendant now advising justice department’s ‘weaponization working group’
Jared L Wise has been named an adviser or counselor to Ed Martin, the advocate for January 6ers who was previously acting as US attorney for Washington DC and is now leading the weaponization working group, the New York Times and ABC News reported on Tuesday
The justice department, under the Biden administration, had identified Wise in footage inside the US Capitol and engaging with police among a group of protesters outside. Video footage from a Metropolitan police department body camera showed Wise saying to police officers: “You guys are disgusting. I’m former – I’m former law enforcement. You’re disgusting. You are the Nazi. You are the Gestapo. You can’t see it … Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you!”
The department’s press release on Wise notes that once violence broke out against law enforcement officers in front of him, Wise said, “Yeah, f*ck them! Yeah, kill ’em!” and then, in the direction of people who were attacking the police line: “Kill ’em! Kill ’em! Kill ’em!”
Charming?
Former January 6 defendant now advising justice department’s ‘weaponization working group’ | US Capitol attack | The Guardian https://share.google/LsitCruv7YPBwUbLjIs that the same as saying Shame to all Putin enemies here or
Shame to all Hitler enemies here?
Before the Right crows about the June jobs report, let's put things into context.
* Jobs grew 147,000, higher than expected
* Unemployment fell .1 to 4.1%
* The 3-month average growth of 150,000 is the lowest since Trump lost 1.2 million jobs in 2020
* Black unemployment surged 0.8 points which previously has indicated a weakening economy
* Job gains were limited to health care, leisure and hospitality, and state and local government.
* Labor force participation ticked Down.
My guess is Trump's TACO dance is the reason for the seemingly good numbers.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/03/economy/ … june-finalTrump's Bold Agenda Strikes Again:
ICE raids in California’s Central Valley and Ventura County reportedly scared off up to 70% of farmworkers, many undocumented — leaving fruits and vegetables unharvested during peak season. A sixth-generation farmer told Reuters: “If 70% of your workforce doesn’t show up, 70% of your crop doesn’t get picked and can go bad in one day.”
Economists, including Bernard Yaros of Oxford Economics, warn that these enforcement sweeps could echo Pandemic-level labor shortages and pose a risk to the food supply chain
A CalMatters report estimated that mass deportations could cut California’s GDP by 14% in agriculture and 16% in construction - But hey, it is California, so what MAGA cares, right?
YES, Trump's Bold Agenda enforcement activity under Trump is already disrupting farm labor supply, with measurable unharvested crops, rising concern among farmers, and warnings from industry economists about inflation and GDP risk. The disruption isn't hypothetical — it's happening now.And the solution from the left is to ignore the laws and encourage violating those that unliked.
While the right says "You have had decades to stop this nonsense; now pay the price for your illegal behavior".Trump orders ICE to pause raids on farms, hotels, restaurants
Donald Trump
Trump 'working on' deportation exemptions for illegal farm and hospitality workersYep - he's working on it. Shame that our idiot politicians have not "worked on" that problem for the last 10 years instead of sitting back and encouraging people to violate the laws of our country, isn't it?
(although I have to wonder just why he is so concerned about hotels and restaurants...if they cannot exist within our legal framework then let them go under.)Working on it is not the same as paying the price. "Work" on it is what most on the left want and always wanted.
Btw, do you really have to wonder why? Ha!The left wanted to "work on it"?!?! The only "work" they wanted was to allow anyone and everyone in to feed off the American public! They were not, and are not, interested in following immigration laws - this can be seen in any large city and every state that has declared they are "sanctuary cities/states", meaning they will not enforce the laws needed to control illegal entry to our country.
I agree, he’s actively working on it. He’s repeatedly acknowledged the need for migrant workers, not just in agriculture and hospitality, but also in high-skilled sectors like tech and engineering. It’s frustrating how some people cherry-pick his words instead of listening to the full message. He clearly sees the value migrants bring and has made it clear that he welcomes them, as long as they come legally.
Trump is signaling that he supports expanding legal access to workers in agriculture, hospitality, and other key industries, but he’s doing it in a targeted and controlled way. Hopefully, he will truly come up with a way to make it easier to have migrants come in legally and join our workforce where they are needed. In my view, he is the guy to do it.This is what is REALLY going on.
Timeline & Key Actions
June 12, 2025
Trump publicly announced an upcoming executive order to shield farm and hotel workers from ICE raids, noting his enforcement was harming those industries.
“Our farmers are being hurt badly… We're going to have an order on that pretty soon”
Shortly After
An ICE memo allegedly ordered worksite enforcement pauses at farms, hotels, restaurants, and meatpacking plants—though still allowing action against serious criminals
]b\Then Trump Reverse Stance (TACOs)[/b]
Within days, enforcement guidance was reversed and ICE was instructed to resume all worksite raids as part of a broader strategy
What This Means
Trump has not permanently protected undocumented farmworkers from deportation.
His team made temporary gestures to appease industry concerns—but no formal exemption was enacted or written into law.
When enforcement quotas remain (e.g., 3,000 arrests/day) and raids continue, the verbal promise holds limited weight.
Current Status
Trump administration is still “looking at” possible tools, but no concrete policies have been implemented to safeguard farmworkers .
As of now, enforcement continues with no reliable carveouts; ICE raids on agricultural sites are still occurring.
.
Bottom Line
So far, Trump’s promise to “save” illegal farmworkers has been temporary and symbolic, not a binding policy. Unless a formal, written, and permanent exemption is issued, farmworkers remain at risk under current enforcement practices.
Yet another CON JOB by Trump.I wouldn't care if he brought in 20M migrants. Vetted migrants NOT feeding off the American welfare system, following all American laws, and NOT requiring their children to be educated by American schools.
A far, far cry from what Biden was doing as he welcomed anyone that could sneak across the border with open arms and immediately began providing for their every need/want. Somehow I don't see Trump following that road.Again, hyperbolic nonsense not supported by any facts.
What do you deny? That Biden took very nearly anyone that could sneak in or that wouldn't care how many true migrants there were?
Or do you deny that Biden provided for illegal aliens when he set them up with living arrangements, right down to food?Where is your proof for you hyperbolic claims? What data are you relying on.
I do have this to say
Let’s separate emotion from fact here. President Biden did not ‘take anyone who could sneak in.’ That’s simply not how U.S. immigration law or policy works. And unlike the felon Trump, Biden follows the law. The majority of migrants arriving at the border are processed under existing immigration law—including Title 8—and many are removed or placed in deportation proceedings.
Second, the notion that Biden is ‘providing for illegal aliens’ with food and shelter ignores the reality that the U.S. government—under both Republican and Democratic administrations—has always had a legal and moral obligation to humanely process individuals, especially families and children, while they await legal determinations. Only Trump deviated from this moral obligation.
The courts have ruled that migrants, including asylum seekers and undocumented individuals in custody, must be treated with dignity and provided basic needs. That’s not a partisan policy—it’s constitutional and humanitarian decency. AGAIN, Trump is ignoring these court rulings.Biden operated under our immigration law. Trump has been skirting asylum law and it looks like the court is going to bring him up on that. When he is forced to comply with the law, his numbers will rise.
Biden operated under immigration law...except that he allowed, condoned and encouraged breaking that law every day he was in office. He even told ICE to quit deporting illegal aliens unless they had just caught them crossing! The man had exactly zero respect for our laws - his feelings and his personal moral code took priority every time.
That's been done over and over. My repeating the same thing once more will accomplish nothing.
If you don't know that Biden put up illegal aliens in hotels, my saying so with infinite sources will not convince you.
If you don't know Biden fed those same illegals my saying so with infinite sources will not convince you.
If you don't know Biden refused to deport any but a few of the worst criminals from the interior my saying so with infinite sources will not convince you.
If you don't know that Biden provided transportation to illegal aliens my saying so with infinite sources will not convince you.
So there is zero reason to repeat common knowledge.Infinite sources? You have yet to present one credible source.
Go back and read my post again. Enough times and the meaning will sink in.
When have you ever proved anything using real data? I have never seen it and I know Credence has made the same complaint.
Hotel stays - it didn't happen except for short-term processing.
Food - it didn't happen except for short-term processing.
Interior - that is simply not true, Biden deported plenty of non-criminals from the interior.
Transport - How do you think he deported them?
NO, what you claim without proof is NOT common knowledge except in MAGA's fantasy world
Biden ignored the on-the-books immigration laws one after another.
Parole and Mass Entry without Legal Basis:
Biden has used humanitarian parole on a mass scale, even though immigration law (INA § 212(d)(5)) says it should be used only for urgent, individual cases.
Created "parole pathways" for entire groups (e.g., Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, Venezuelans), without congressional approval.
Legal scholars on both sides have debated this, but federal judges in some states have already blocked parts of these programs as unlawful.
Criminal Vetting:
What the Law Requires:
INA § 212(a)(2) bars entry to individuals with certain criminal records (felonies, drug crimes, trafficking, etc.).
Under Biden:
Several reports indicate migrants with prior criminal convictions (including DUIs, assault, or reentry after deportation) were allowed into the U.S. pending asylum hearings.
Some were released on their own recognizance without robust background checks due to overwhelmed CBP capacity or lack of full fingerprint records from foreign countries.
Health Vetting:
What the Law Says:
U.S. law (INA § 212(a)(1)) requires medical examinations for most immigrants to ensure they do not pose a public health risk.
Immigrants can be deemed inadmissible for diseases like tuberculosis or lacking required vaccinations.
Under Biden:
Critics argue that the massive surge in border crossers overwhelmed the vetting system.
Many were released without complete health screenings during the height of COVID and afterward.
In some cases, migrants were not tested for contagious diseases before being bused or flown into the U.S., including during the 2021 Del Rio and Texas border waves.
This drew backlash from border states, sheriffs, and some DHS whistleblowers who said public health protocols were bypassed.
This alone has resulted in ---
Health Vetting and Public Safety Under U.S. Immigration Law
What the Law Requires (INA § 212(a)(1)):
U.S. immigration law mandates that most immigrants undergo medical examinations to ensure they do not pose a threat to public health. Those found with certain communicable diseases—like active tuberculosis—or who lack required vaccinations, can be deemed inadmissible to the United States.
What Happened Under the Biden Administration:
Due to the record-high influx of migrants, especially during 2021–2022, the health screening infrastructure at the border was severely strained.
Reports emerged that many migrants were released without full medical vetting, even during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
In high-traffic border zones like Del Rio, Texas, some migrants were not tested for contagious illnesses before being bused or flown across the country.
Border state officials, sheriffs, and DHS whistleblowers raised alarms, saying these practices bypassed standard public health protocols required by federal law.
This situation potentially violated the intent of the INA’s health screening requirements. Though not necessarily an outright legal violation, critics argue it amounted to de facto non-compliance, especially when done at scale and during a public health emergency.
Here’s what the data shows about rises in diseases like tuberculosis, polio, and whooping cough, and their connection to migrant health screening:
Tuberculosis (TB)
TB cases in the U.S. hit a 13-year high in 2024, with over 10,300 cases—an 8% rise from 2023. CDC attributes this increase mainly to international travel and migration, especially among foreign-born individuals
Outbreak hotspots: Kansas City’s metro area saw TB rates jump by 148%; Alaska and Hawaii also have elevated rates
City-level surges: New York City reported a rise in TB cases among foreign-born residents, jumping from 536 to 684 cases between 2022 and 2023. Nearly 89–95% of these cases were in foreign-born individuals
Polio & Whooping Cough (Pertussis)
Polio: In 2022–2023, unvaccinated individuals in New York tested positive for polio, marking the first confirmed U.S. cases since the 1990s
Whooping cough: A sharp surge was reported in NYC in 2024, with cases up 169% over the previous year, and statewide cases up 300%. Officials flagged overcrowded migrant shelters with incomplete vaccination as exacerbating the outbreak.
This is a result of the Biden administration not following the laws that are yes on the books.
Other Diseases & Public Health Risks
Reports mention localized outbreaks of measles, mumps, chickenpox, and even rare illnesses like leprosy and syphilis tied to migrant shelter environments
.Health officials have expressed concerns that inadequate vaccination or screening in migrant settings can contribute to these outbreaks.
.Screening gaps: Critics say bypassed health vetting—especially for TB and polio—in shelters and border processing created vulnerabilities in public health
.
Public health response: Local health departments (e.g., NYC, Kansas, Alaskan health authorities) have intensified vaccination drives, screening, and contact tracing efforts.
Bottom Line:
Yes, there has been a notable rise in TB and vaccine-preventable diseases like polio and whooping cough since the migrant surge.
Factors include incomplete health screening, low vaccination rates, crowded shelter settings, and reactivated latent infections.
That said, the overall U.S. infectious disease rate remains low, and public health agencies emphasize confirming and treating cases rapidly to prevent broader spread.
Then there’s catch and release—a policy never authorized by Congress, yet used as a fast-track into America. The Biden administration didn’t just skirt immigration law; they openly ignored it. The consequences have been felt across our country. Now, we finally have a leader determined to repair the damage and restore order.
So far, he has the backing of the Supreme Court for his immigration policies, and it seems you won’t acknowledge that fact. I’ve mentioned it repeatedly: Trump is working hard to fulfill his promise to deport any migrant who shouldn’t be here. They are being handled according to the law. Trump is not bypassing any laws; he defends his policies through the court system and, as I said, has received support from the highest court to keep moving forward. You seem to be ignoring these facts.
We don't know what the Supreme Court will do in the end, do we. They haven't ruled on the substance of any of his immigration overreaches. They have only set aside stays that were keeping people from probable torture or death in places like Sudan.
So you would rather have farmers, hospitality companies, and restaurants go under than leave things the way they were. How does that create jobs that Trump wants where all undocumented immigrants are replaced by "real Americans."
It's all about the division of labor. What real Americans are going to work for the same pay and work the fields, wash dishes, and make the beds for the same pay as those Mexican laborers?
Seventy percent of those workers did not show up because they are afraid they are going to be deported by ICE.
Oh I know just like Stephen Miller said, 'They can be replaced with machines." Where I live car washes with workers are being replaced with drive through car washes, You know who has to do the vacuuming and polishing?......The driver. How is that creating jobs? Good luck in finding robots who will clean rooms and make thousand of beds per day.
Things were just fine the way they were. Who cared if those workers were undocumented? Oh, they should be replaced by real Americans because they rape our women take our jobs, are heavy drug users, they all belong to gangs, like MS13..and they are violating the laws of our country.
How many undocumented field crop workers, hospitality workers, and restaurant workers fit those descriptions?I think he is one of those who thinks we need a good, cleansing 1930s-style depression to make things right, lol.
Democrats tried, many times. Your side kept putting road blocks up. I provided a list of examples earlier.
From what planet do you come from, Wilderness. Trying to let Trump off of the hook again?
You missed the memo, don’t you know that is how all hotels and restaurants have been operating? They are all in on it.
How many Americans are willing to be paid to harvest fruits and vegetables by the bag?
How many migrants can you actually remove and not have an adverse effect on certain industries?
His crusade against migrants and illegals will have failed in a large way, if he has to make exceptions for so many.
If he did as you expected and what is was that he promised, the mere deficit of labor available to work the fields will raise food prices, that is called inflation. I stand with my bat ready to pummel Trump if his promise regarding “controlling inflation” fails. This because he should have taken this outcome into consideration before making it a plank in his platform. But being a stable genius, he could just ignore the advice of qualified experts and he did. I and the left will see that he pays the price as a result.
"Ignoring laws", interesting. How many times have you personally broken the law?
When you can prove to me your have never jay-walked or run a stop sign or sped or cheated on your taxes, only THEN can I take your complaint about others breaking the law seriously.
In the spirit of your "breaking the law" message, I think every employer in America who has knowingly or should have known they were hiring an undocumented immigrant be rounded up and thrown in jail. Why are you pushing for that? Or are you making the distinction that it is OK for American citizens to break the law but not undocumented immigrants?
Back to the subject of my thread for a moment. Trump's Bold Agenda to Make America Great Again
Trump is clearly on a roll, momentum is building, and it’s becoming harder to deny the shift in tone and outcomes. With today’s strong jobs report and a clear rebound in the labor market, it feels like he’s already starting to tackle the problems that had been weighing down the economy. Job growth beat expectations, revisions to past months erased the so-called "slowdown," and wages are holding steady, this is what progress looks like. Beyond the numbers, there’s a growing sense of direction, of problems being addressed rather than ignored. From economic confidence to border enforcement and foreign policy, Trump appears focused, strategic, and determined to deliver. If this keeps up, we may truly be on the path to Make America Rich Again!
This morning’s June jobs report firmly debunked any lingering slowdown narrative:
Nonfarm payrolls increased by 147,000 jobs, significantly outpacing consensus forecasts of around 106,000, marking a solid upside surprise
investopedia.com
reuters.com
May's jobs numbers were revised upward to 144,000 (from 139,000), AND April to 158,000 (from 147,000)—adding a combined +16,000 jobs to earlier estimates.
The unemployment rate dipped to 4.1% (from 4.2%), again outperforming expectations for a possible rise to 4.3%
reuters.com
Average hourly earnings rose 0.2% month-over-month, and 3.7% year-over-year, suggesting steady but inflation-friendly wage growth
reuters.com
June’s robust job additions, combined with strong upward revisions to prior months, a steady unemployment rate, and controlled wage pressures, form a clear narrative: the labor market remains resilient, and concerns about a softening in May were misplaced.Not sure, isn't this still Biden's economy? Trump's credit and blame shifts daily
Well, I would think that is a good lifeline for the Democrats to hold onto... When their party is sinking. In my view, Trump is winning at everything he touches.
Well Trump said it himself ... The bad is Biden and the good is him... The man is an imbecile
Tariffs will increase the cost of everything.. because in case folks still don't didn't know, we pay that cost and 12 million people are about to lose their healthcare coverage... That's not what I call winning
people don't believe that taking away healthcare from that many people won't have a huge impact on our economy? Folks better think again
You really need to take off those rose colored glasses and see the reality as it is.
* Black unemployment SURGING past 8% which historically portends a bad economy.
* The 3-month average job gain rate has steadily dropped from 500,000 in 2021 to 150,000 today.
* For comparison, in the 60s through the 90s, the average was between 200,000 and 250,000. From 2010 to 2019 it was 190,000.
Tell me again how great things are. For I sit looking at comparable numbers, Trump is doing terrible.
Claim another one for the bold agenda!
A rural hospital in southwest Nebraska announced Wednesday it is closing due to financial challenges, including anticipated Medicaid cuts in Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.”
“Unfortunately, the current financial environment, driven by anticipated federal budget cuts to Medicaid, has made it impossible for us to continue operating all of our services” Community Hospital CEO Troy Bruntz said in a statement.
OH WELL. This is what they voted for.
https://share.google/pT4TaU0E7EvwSGiRsBut it would seem that under the new Medicaid rules being proposed, rural residents wouldn't necessarily be at risk of losing their benefits. In fact, several of the outlined reforms include built-in protections through exemptions designed specifically to safeguard the most vulnerable populations. Here are some of the key exemptions:
Mandatory Exemptions
These individuals must be exempt from the work and eligibility requirements:
Individuals under 19 years old
Pregnant women or those in the postpartum period
People entitled to Medicare (Part A or B)
Individuals eligible due to disability-related categories or cancer treatment
People recently released from incarceration
Specified Excluded Individuals
These categories must be exempted, though states may define the details:
Former foster care youth
Native Americans or Alaska Natives
Parents, guardians, or caretakers of dependent children or disabled individuals
Veterans with a total disability rating
Adults over 64 years old
People with disabilities receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Individuals who are medically frail or have chronic health conditions
Caregivers of young children
Residents of rural areas with limited access to work, training, or transportation
If someone falls under any of these categories, children, pregnant women, elderly, disabled individuals, caregivers, veterans, tribal members, rural residents, they are not subject to the 80-hour-per-month work, education, training, or volunteer requirements. These exemptions are designed to ensure that Medicaid coverage remains intact for vulnerable groups, even as broader reforms seek to encourage workforce participation among able-bodied adults.
The only people due to lose benefits would be able-bodied people, and they need not lose their benefits if they abide by the *0 hour rules.
What Is the 80-Hour Rule?
Able-bodied adults who do not qualify for an exemption must engage in one or more of the following activities for at least 80 hours per month to maintain Medicaid eligibility:
Work (part-time or full-time employment)
Job training or workforce development programs
Volunteer service or community service
Education, such as attending classes or earning a GED
Caregiving (non-parental, often defined narrowly by state policy)
I think a little research would go a long way in understanding the real challenges facing rural hospitals. The bigger issue isn’t the threat of losing Medicaid, it’s the chronic lack of adequate state funding. These hospitals already receive significant federal support, and under the proposed new rules, many would still qualify for the same level of aid, if not more. The media is spinning this story for political effect, but it doesn’t take much digging to see what’s really going on.
Look to the States on this issue.Doesn't really matter what the bill says does it? This hospital is closing and more to come.... Hopefully in predominantly Maga areas like this one!
Too many Californians have moved there - that particular ailment has long infected Southern California.
More of your poignant insight, Wilderness? There is nothing in Southeast Nebraska, I have been through there and I know. That is the last place Californians will move regardless of how desperate.
I would have said the same thing about Idaho, but have (sadly) learned differently. All too many flee the outrageous actions of Cali, only to try and start them again in Idaho. It doesn't appear that they are able to understand what is causing the woes of California, with the result they want to repeat the same actions after running from the bad results.
No, Idaho and much of the mountain states have an allure that is lacking for Nebraska, particularly the virtually barren Southwest part of the state. You don’t have to worry about it, it will take some time before Idaho can be Californicated. Living in California for a few years, most leave to escape high costs of living associated with so many people in one place, and to acquire a non-urban lifestyle.
My theory is that every place will be a California at some time in the future, for example, real estate prices are going up over much of the sunbelt, as supply and demand forces take hold. Bargain areas are becoming much more difficult to find. Here in Florida, the real estate market shot through the stratosphere within the last 5 years, no more secret inexpensiVE hangouts anywhere in this state. That is why conservatives are afraid and nervous, more people changes things. And the Mayberry world cannot remain in the face of advance and progress.Personally, I agree with you about Nebraska; endless corn fields don't do much for me.
But not everyone agrees, and Nebraska has as many residents as Idaho does. Somebody likes corn fields!
But I wasn't referring to Californians bringing in costs. My local housing market has skyrocketed in the past 10-20 years as the population soared, but that's expected and a result of more people.
No, it is the political climate they bring that disturbs me. Californians are quite liberal and want the Big Government, the nanny state. They want endless rules and laws to control their neighbor. They want millions of illegal aliens to support...because of the low prices they bring. They want high taxes to pay for the services they give away for free.
What they want and demand gives rise to the problems they are running from when they immigrate to Idaho...yet they then begin to demand the same things here, and the numbers are growing enough to make it felt. This small bastion of self reliant conservatism is shifting left ever more, and the primary cause is liberals coming to live in the state, or at least it seems that way to me.If I wanted splendid isolation, you can’t do better than Southwest Nebraska.
There are people in Nebraska most of them are on the east side of the state.
Endless cornfields are not an attraction for the California exodus.
More people, more competitive real estate markets, that is California, and it will be the case in other parts of the country unaccustomed to that environment. The great California exodus is what happened to Colorado in the 1980s, Nevada and Arizona more recently and Washington State (western Washington) a few years ago. It threatens to turn Texas blue in time. More people, means more diversity and a left oriented environment. It going to come as certain as the sunrise. Places like Southeast Nebraska may be the only place where it may never come.
Everybody can relate to low prices, who doesn’t? When there are more people, there is more need for laws, that the farmers and ranchers never needed to consider. More people mean more services and consequently, higher taxes to pay for them.
And I bet that you are tasting a bit of those disturbing changes in Idaho right now. Trying to stop the inevitable is an exercise in futility. Liberals are people that learn to live with and accept diversity of people as natural and as a given, because that is the direction we are going.
Ask yourself, where do you find highly populated urban centers that are not basically more liberal than otherwise?To a point, I think you are correct; we are destined to move left. I DO disagree that more people means more services, at least in that it does not mean that we need more per capita. Yes, we need more cops, more water, etc....but no more per person. That is strictly a left wing idea that the nanny state is good for the country - an idea proven false over and over in other countries that took it too far. Problem is that the left consistently tries to be everything to everyone and it simply does not work. Far too many people are quite content to live off the efforts of others and eventually that, combined with a few power hungry people at the top, brings failure. The adage about "bread and circuses" is all too true.
However, even if it is not more per capita, taxes are still going to rise.
This idea of American rugged individualism is just so much fable and folklore, isnt it that way, really? The affect of that many more people is a sea change from a basically rural setting. I say this while acknowledging your being correct about the extreme the other way.
The problem for me as a black male, is for my life to have any meaning, I need to be accepted at face value where ever I choose to reside. Liberals tend to be more accepting of physical diversity and the diversity of ideas. With whom do you think that I am going to be more comfortable? I don’t have to look and think like you to be OK. The conservative idea of homogeneity in appearance and thought simply does not work, it is a thing of the past. we live in an ever increasing diverse world. The arc of universe is long but tends to bend left.Total tax receipts had better rise with more people, but with liberals in charge it rises per capita...and with nothing to show for it but giveaway programs.
You may denigrate self sufficiency, you may poke fun at it and you may claim it is non-existent today. The reality is that without it we will not continue to exist; we can't all live off the efforts of someone else, as liberals claim.
Liberals DO tend to be more accepting of diversity. Often to the point that a handful of individuals will change the face of our culture (trans people, for instance). Unfortunately, with that acceptance comes the demand that everyone else accept anything they find "good" (such as men competing with women and free drug paraphernalia for addicts) - things that are a tremendous anathema to our culture. To the liberal there is nothing of value in who and what we are, nothing good in our past, and nothing desirable in our future.
There must be a balance for it to work, but the liberal will never accept one. It must always be in flux, changing daily or hourly, and always to change the enormous majority for the benefit of a tiny handful. Plus, of course, provide all needs for everyone and pretend that all are "equal" somehow.Culture changes over time no matter how badly you do not want it to. It is part of advancing as a society.
So what if culture changes to accept different people or attitudes? Are you still fighting the decision to allow interracial marriage? That was a huge cultural shift. Was it bad that it happened? If not, so why is it so bad to accept trans people for who they are?
Bold Agenda costs you money.
You would think Trump voters would very tired of getting conned and lied to, but apparently not.
Trump falsely claimed he sealed a "deal" with Vietnam. It would have been his firs one, if it were true, but it is not. At best it is framework. In a real deal you know the details. Well, in this agreement, like with England and like with China, the details are still being negotiated.
What IS known is that YOU are going to pay more money for the things you buy from Vietnam!!
"Shoes, electronics and clothing are just some of the goods that could get more expensive under the trade agreement President Donald Trump announced with Vietnam on Wednesday."
Why you ask? Because currently there is a 10% tariff on things coming from Vietnam. Now it will be 20% under what Trump "negotiated" for you.
Face it, you have been conned again.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/03/business … am-tariffsTrump is a master con-artist. He is very good at taking illusions and presenting them as reality.
In the Art of The Deal, he describes needed a loan for a property and bankers were coming to view the progress on the property.
It turns out it was just an empty lot with no construction work going on. So he tells his staff, go rent heavy equipment and make it look like they are working.
When the bankers came they asked, why is one worker making holes with his backhoe and the other worker is coming right behind him with his dozer and burying the same hole? Trump never answered and he got the loan anyway.
Related Discussions
- 30
Why Drill, Baby, Drill Isn't Working
by kerryg 6 weeks ago
Contrary to what has been suggested in several posts here over the last few weeks, Obama's supposed imposition of "regulation after regulation, roadblock after roadblock" is not what's holding up domestic oil drilling, it's the oil companies themselves holding out for higher profits.This...
- 32
Oil spill result of corporate negligence and a lack of over sight.
by Stump Parrish 14 years ago
How do we make sure this doesn't happen again you ask? Deregulate further and open more of the gulf to drilling. That could only makes sense to those in the oil companies back pockets.
- 214
Obama's attacks on BP not going down well in the UK
by CMHypno 15 years ago
Obama's attacks on BP are increasingly being viewed in the UK as signs of his anti-British stance. Or is he just trying to pull attention away from his own administration's failures?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … itain.html
- 59
What's the libertarian take on the BP oil spill?
by Don W 15 years ago
Would a free market have prevented this from happening?I'm guessing the libertarian argument would be that the failings of state regulation was a contributing factor. Those failings stemming from the fact that the regulators were in bed (figuratively and literally) with those regulated. Whereas...
- 47
Biden’s Dirty Oil Deal With Venezuela
by Sharlee 2 years ago
What do you think about becoming dependent on dictators for energy? Is this not all half-ass-backward?Wall Street Journal Biden’s Dirty Oil Deal With VenezuelaCaracas gets a sanctions reprieve while the U.S. vetoes a loan to Guyana, a rare U.S. ally in the region."At the United Nations climate...
- 192
Global Warming is Socialist Propaganda
by Nickny79 16 years ago
Mississippi and Lousiana get snow: http://news.aol.com/article/rare-snow-c … 1200988198So much for global warming. I bet Al Gore was scheduled to give a speech in New Orleans.