Trump promises and proposals tracking thread.

[volfanhill]

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

The word abridge makes it clear

 

[LSU-SIU]

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.



^^ I find myself agreeing with this guy again.

Yeah. I don't know, it seem pretty broad. Of course, what I am not familiar with is what are they giving up as part of the visa application? Depending on the terms, its simply a violation of the terms of the visa????

 

[Vol8188]

The word abridge makes it clear

What about that word makes it clear specifically?

There’s no right to a visa. There’s no right to keep a visa.

 

[volfanhill]

What about that word makes it clear specifically?

There’s no right to a visa. There’s no right to keep a visa.

Never said there was a right to a visa.

But once I have one, my speech can not be diminished or restricted by the feds. The government changing my visa status would be the government attempting to reduce or diminish someone's speech.

 

[hog88]

Dont forget incitement.

Incitement is a crime you can be prosecuted for.

 

[hog88]

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.



^^ I find myself agreeing with this guy again.

You are much smarter than OB looks.

 

[hog88]

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

They do not however have a right to remain here.

As long as they have a valid visa they do, they are also protected by the 1A so it would be hard to cancel that visa for simple speech. As I said earlier, if the visa has expired toss their asses.

 

[hog88]

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.

Revoked, no that shouldn't happen over simple speech. Not renewed? Hell no they shouldn't be renewed.

 

[volfanhill]

Revoked, no that shouldn't happen over simple speech. Not renewed? Hell no they shouldn't be renewed.

Agreed. If found during the vetting process for renewal it would be a hard no. Kind of why the vetting process prior to granting these visas is important.

 

[hog88]

Agreed. If found during the vetting process for renewal it would be a hard no. Kind of why the vetting process prior to granting these visas is important.

Agreed.

 

[lawgator1]

They dont have a right to be here. Would you want them here if the expressed support for ISIS?

That they don't have a right to be here does not remotely translate to them not having basic First Amendment rights.

I'm fine with arresting or deporting any that engage in violence. Trump having pardoned the J6 insurrectionists creates a bit of a quandary for him on this point.

 

[hog88]

That they don't have a right to be here does not remotely translate to them not having basic First Amendment rights.

I'm fine with arresting or deporting any that engage in violence. Trump having pardoned the J6 insurrectionists creates a bit of a quandary for him on this point.

How so?

 

[C-south]

That they don't have a right to be here does not remotely translate to them not having basic First Amendment rights.

I'm fine with arresting or deporting any that engage in violence. Trump having pardoned the J6 insurrectionists creates a bit of a quandary for him on this point.

Lol. No it doesn’t. The ass clown that just left office just pardoned his entire family and slew of corrupt politicians that haven’t even been charged. Of course I’m not sure how you preemptively pardon someone that hasn’t been charged with a crime without expressing what crimes you’re offering immunity from.

 

[RockyTop85]

How so?

It doesn’t.

The only way some petty inconsistency is going to come home to roost for Trump is if his policies are inconsistent with lowering the price of groceries.

The idea that meaningful numbers of people or institutions are going to frown on him deporting violent people for because he pardoned other violent people is… unrealistic. For some MAGA folks, the disparity in outcomes is a positive.

 

[DC_Vol]

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.

It’s amazing the hoops you have to jump through to come here legally. The process is long, time consuming, and expensive. Lots of documentation, personal affidavits from people who know you, photographic evidence, etc. Had to prove no serious criminal record, prove that you wouldn’t become a public charge. Go through a pretty intense interview where it seemed they were trying to get an admission of visa fraud. I did all of this with my spouse.

All these people who walked across need to be sent home. If they want to come back, they give it try through the legal pathway. If they took public bennies while they were here they should be disqualified. If they have a felony or multiple misdemeanors they should be disqualified. If they can’t prove they are willing to be allegiant to the country they want to take them in, they should be disqualified.

 

[jmacvols1]

 

[Ritzwatch]

I don't know all the details of the individuals pardoned, but on the face of it, the pardon for 23 pro-life protesters is A.O.K. with me.

Thank you,Pesident Trump, I won't even take a cheap shot at you on this one!

President Trump pardons 23 abortion demonstrators

President Trump pardoned 23 anti-abortion demonstrators, convicted of civil rights violations and other crimes.

san.com

 

[lawgator1]

How so?

He gave the rioters a pass. Even those that committed violent acts. Even those that did so against police. Trump has thereby lost any moral authority to challenge those who protest or commit acts of violence.

 

[hog88]

He gave the rioters a pass. Even those that committed violent acts. Even those that did so against police. Trump has thereby lost any moral authority to challenge those who protest or commit acts of violence.

Ok

 

[Volbucky]

Expressed support ...

Wow

It’s great isn’t it?

 

[LSU-SIU]

He gave the rioters a pass. Even those that committed violent acts. Even those that did so against police. Trump has thereby lost any moral authority to challenge those who protest or commit acts of violence.

Cool, cast your vote for the best Independent candidate you got.

 

[RockyTop85]

He gave the rioters a pass. Even those that committed violent acts. Even those that did so against police. Trump has thereby lost any moral authority to challenge those who protest or commit acts of violence.

Governments don’t lose the moral authority to punish people who destroy property or commit violence. That authority comes from the people who formed the government and passed the laws, not the executive. C’mon, man.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Governments don’t lose the moral authority to punish people who destroy property or commit violence. That authority comes from the people who formed the government and passed the laws, not the executive. C’mon, man.

Summer of Love.

 

[Vol8188]

He gave the rioters a pass. Even those that committed violent acts. Even those that did so against police. Trump has thereby lost any moral authority to challenge those who protest or commit acts of violence.

Were you upset when Biden pardoned people who killed police officers?

 

[Orangeburst]

That they don't have a right to be here does not remotely translate to them not having basic First Amendment rights.

I'm fine with arresting or deporting any that engage in violence. Trump having pardoned the J6 insurrectionists creates a bit of a quandary for him on this point.