Trump promises and proposals tracking thread.

#401
#401
lawgator1 said:
Expressed support ...

Wow
Click to expand...
Gotta be more to it than that.
1A and all.

(Of course, all an EO is is a directive to various administrative heads to make decisions in line with an Admin’s policy preferences within the bounds of existing law and regulations, so even if this tweet is accurate, that particular EO is not likely to be actionable.)
 
#402
#402
Orangeburst said:
They dont have a right to be here. Would you want them here if the expressed support for ISIS?
Click to expand...
I want people to be able to express their thoughts.

I also don’t want Christians locked up or deported for praying outside abortion clinics, nor do I want my neighbor deported because she asked for prayers for her displaced Palestinian family in the ME.

I can disagree with people without needed to deport or otherwise silence them.

BHO unleashed fury when he went off the rails with his “pen and phone.”

Why can’t we let our legislature legislate?

Besides, if we let people express their thoughts, it is easier to tell who the crazies are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, InVOLuntary, LouderVol and 1 other person
#403
#403
RockyTop85 said:
How is one guy getting a pardon to undo a perfectly legal sentence a positive for anybody but him?

Making the sentence and/or conviction unlawful would be a positive.
Click to expand...

Trump did numerous pardons for people in similar situations during his last term. A lot of that Kim Kardashian assisted with. So I completely disagree with the claim that it’s just helping one person.
 
#404
#404
Ritzwatch said:
I want people to be able to express their thoughts.

I also don’t want Christians locked up or deported for praying outside abortion clinics, nor do I want my neighbor deported because she asked for prayers for her displaced Palestinian family in the ME.

I can disagree with people without needed to deport or otherwise silence them.

BHO unleashed fury when he went off the rails with his “pen and phone.”

Why can’t we let our legislature legislate?

Besides, if we let people express their thoughts, it is easier to tell who the crazies are.
Click to expand...
they are terrorist orgs and have no right to be here, so whywoyld we be so foolish to educate terrorists?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#405
#405
Orangeburst said:
They dont have a right to be here. Would you want them here if the expressed support for ISIS?
Click to expand...
They are entitled to the same rights you and I are. The constitution specifically calls out rights for citizens only.


"Court has insisted for more than a century that foreign nationals living among us are "persons" within the meaning of the Constitution, and are protected by those rights that the Constitution does not expressly reserve to citizens. Because the Constitution expressly limits to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal elective office, equality between non-nationals and citizens would appear to be the constitutional rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#406
#406
Ritzwatch said:
I want people to be able to express their thoughts.

I also don’t want Christians locked up or deported for praying outside abortion clinics, nor do I want my neighbor deported because she asked for prayers for her displaced Palestinian family in the ME.

I can disagree with people without needed to deport or otherwise silence them.

BHO unleashed fury when he went off the rails with his “pen and phone.”

Why can’t we let our legislature legislate?

Besides, if we let people express their thoughts, it is easier to tell who the crazies are.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what has happened, they identified themselves as "the crazies". What are you going to do next, allow someone that is part of a terrorist organization to be naturalized?
 
#407
#407
volfanhill said:
They are entitled to the same rights you and I are. The constitution specifically calls out rights for citizens only.


"Court has insisted for more than a century that foreign nationals living among us are "persons" within the meaning of the Constitution, and are protected by those rights that the Constitution does not expressly reserve to citizens. Because the Constitution expressly limits to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal elective office, equality between non-nationals and citizens would appear to be the constitutional rule.
Click to expand...
You dont have a right to support terrorists. In fact, you can go to jail quickly.
 
#408
#408
volfanhill said:
They are entitled to the same rights you and I are. The constitution specifically calls out rights for citizens only.


"Court has insisted for more than a century that foreign nationals living among us are "persons" within the meaning of the Constitution, and are protected by those rights that the Constitution does not expressly reserve to citizens. Because the Constitution expressly limits to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal elective office, equality between non-nationals and citizens would appear to be the constitutional rule.
Click to expand...

Agree with this but if it just so happens that their student visa has expired then sorry about your bad luck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol and volfanhill
#410
#410
volfanhill said:
They are entitled to the same rights you and I are. The constitution specifically calls out rights for citizens only.


"Court has insisted for more than a century that foreign nationals living among us are "persons" within the meaning of the Constitution, and are protected by those rights that the Constitution does not expressly reserve to citizens. Because the Constitution expressly limits to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal elective office, equality between non-nationals and citizens would appear to be the constitutional rule.
Click to expand...

That's not really fully true. Heck, even a person that comes here and becomes naturalized can lose their citizenship, although rare and specific. Their rights came statutorily.
 
#416
#416
Vol8188 said:
Trump did numerous pardons for people in similar situations during his last term. A lot of that Kim Kardashian assisted with. So I completely disagree with the claim that it’s just helping one person.
Click to expand...
That’s a non answer. Probably because there isn’t a better response.

It’s not a positive for anybody but the individual receiving the pardon.
 
#417
#417
RockyTop85 said:
That’s a non answer. Probably because there isn’t a better response.

It’s not a positive for anybody but the individual receiving the pardon.
Click to expand...

I gave you the answer. More CJR is needed. Much of that is needed at the state level. Anything at the federal level will take at least a year to get implemented. Trump has already done some level of CJR at the federal level during his previous administration.

It feels like you’re complaining for the sake of complaining at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#418
#418
Vol8188 said:
I gave you the answer. More CJR is needed. Much of that is needed at the state level. Anything at the federal level will take at least a year to get implemented. Trump has already done some level of CJR at the federal level during his previous administration.

It feels like you’re complaining for the sake of complaining at this point.
Click to expand...
You did? I must have missed it.

How is it a positive for anybody but the person receiving a pardon?

Should be easy to copy and paste from earlier. You don’t even have to go looking for your response:
Vol8188 said:
Trump did numerous pardons for people in similar situations during his last term. A lot of that Kim Kardashian assisted with. So I completely disagree with the claim that it’s just helping one person.
Click to expand...
 
#421
#421
Orangeburst said:
they are terrorist orgs and have no right to be here, so whywoyld we be so foolish to educate terrorists?
Click to expand...

LSU-SIU said:
That is exactly what has happened, they identified themselves as "the crazies". What are you going to do next, allow someone that is part of a terrorist organization to be naturalized?
Click to expand...

An expression of support can be: "We should stop bombing Hamas in Gaza because it kills too many civilians."
That expression should be allowed.

Now, another expression can be sending money, supplies or soft target info to Hamas.
That should be met with deportation or prosecution.

The breath of "expression of support" in the EO is what is unclear to me. It may be legal; I don't know.

hog88 said:
You absolutely have the right to support terrorist, you just can’t provide them monetary or material support.
Click to expand...

^^ I find myself agreeing with this guy again.
 
#422
#422
volfanhill said:
They are entitled to the same rights you and I are. The constitution specifically calls out rights for citizens only.


"Court has insisted for more than a century that foreign nationals living among us are "persons" within the meaning of the Constitution, and are protected by those rights that the Constitution does not expressly reserve to citizens. Because the Constitution expressly limits to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal elective office, equality between non-nationals and citizens would appear to be the constitutional rule.
Click to expand...

They have a right to say what they wish without fines or prosecution.

They do not however have a right to remain here.
 
#423
#423
Vol8188 said:
They have a right to say what they wish without fines or prosecution.

They do not however have a right to remain here.
Click to expand...
They have a right of protection from the government. That would include protection from the government changing their visa status.
 
#424
#424
hog88 said:
Agree with this but if it just so happens that their student visa has expired then sorry about your bad luck.
Click to expand...

I’ll go a step further. It should be revoked. The approval of your visa should be dependent on multiple factors, to include statements you’ve made and/or supported.

It’s a misread of the first amendment to believe one’s own statements cannot be used against them in regards to obtaining and/or maintaining their temporary resident status.
 
#425
#425
volfanhill said:
They have a right of protection from the government. That would include protection from the government changing their visa status.
Click to expand...

100% no. This would be like saying federal employers can’t consider your public statements in the hiring process.

They have a right to say what they wish. Just like how working for the government isn’t a right, nor is it a right to remain here. The first amendment was not designed to protect visa status for those expressing antiamerican sentiments.

Send them packing. We can’t commit cultural suicide based on false notions regarding the intent of the constitution
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top