I've seen multiple comments on both Bluesky and Reddit, and reports from NBC and Reuters that the reimbursement portals of all 50 states are indeed affected. I have yet to confirm for myself the truth of this, but it passes the basic sniff test.
Traitor Watch - The 45 & 47 Thread
- Thread starter Wheelimus
- Start date
I've seen multiple comments on both Bluesky and Reddit, and reports from NBC and Reuters that the reimbursement portals of all 50 states are indeed affected. I have yet to confirm for myself the truth of this, but it passes the basic sniff test.
Hearing the official WH line is this is a glitch. But a glitch, the day after an EO that would precisely affect these systems was signed, and came out of 'no where'?
Hogwash.
Incompetence at best. More likely got more backlash than expected and are trying to walk it back.
Hogwash.
Incompetence at best. More likely got more backlash than expected and are trying to walk it back.
So... trumps cult is giving him credit for the rain in california, and claiming the fires are out.
It's literal insanity.
It's literal insanity.
I feel virtually certain that the USA is still treating them exactly the same right up until Colombia gets them and Trump doesn't give a tiny, tiny care what Colombia does with them after that.
Claiming that something which is in the constitution is unconstitutional should be grounds for immediate removal on the "mentally unfit for the job" criteria.
No impeachment, no criminal trial (until afterward), no long process; just being immediately fired for being so obviously unqualified.
No impeachment, no criminal trial (until afterward), no long process; just being immediately fired for being so obviously unqualified.
I was hearing that it's so he can go line by line and see where money is going to make sure the dirty transgenders and DEI hires aren't getting any. Because a man who's bankrupt 3 casinos is the man I want doing finances.
Federal judge temporarily blocks Trump administration freeze on federal grants and loans
A federal judge has temporarily blocked a push from President Donald Trump to pause federal funding while his administration conducts an across-the-board ideological review to uproot progressive initiatives.
apnews.com
Ironbite-thank god there are still a few adults on the bench that can stop him...if only for a second.
No, their not. Deportation flights used to be done on civilian airliners, without keeping people in hand and leg cuffs. Not on military planes, not under military supervision. The air force IS NOT customs enforcement and should never be used as such.
What a receiving country does after a deportation is never a problem for the deporting country... unless the person was there under refugee or asylum status. It's technically a crime to send a person somewhere that they could be killed.
"birthright citizenship is unconstitutional" is a terrible way to frame it. I hope that's what his lawyers say when they get heard in court.
I had previously believed and said that the courts are just going to slap this thing down and Trump was going to be able to say the did his part and it would end there, but I am feel less sure. I'm going to tread weird ground here, so I'm writing a preamble. I oppose this. I oppose it because it is a tentpole in a campaign of racial scapegoating that will cause and exacerbate a lot of social problems in our country. Much bigger problems than the ones it seeks to solve, so we would be better off just leaving it alone.
I begin to believe this is really going to pass. Most discussion I see acts like it puts everything up in the air, but the EO is pretty precise. I wouldn't have been surprised if they had looked for a way to unto Obama. But perhaps they did look and his case was really too solid. The EO only excludes people who were born in the US with neither parent a citizen or legal permanent resident. If that were how the 14th Amendment had said it, I am very doubtful that people would openly argue now that the rules should be changed to include children of people who snuck over the border.
When the 14th Amendment was written, no one was sneaking in because no one was being turned away. The writers would have had no concept of this application. If it were being decided by REAL strict-constructionist (it won't be) the snag would be that the Amendment was not intended to address this topic at all. The people it was written to make citizens were born to legal permanent residents. The strict-constructionist would have to say that nothing in the Constitution addresses this and Congress needs to write a law or Amendment. But I don't think we have any strict-constructionists on the Supreme Court. They will decided this according to how they believe it should work in the present and I don't know exactly what any of the justices think about this, but 6-3 gives Trump a margin for surprises.
I had previously believed and said that the courts are just going to slap this thing down and Trump was going to be able to say the did his part and it would end there, but I am feel less sure. I'm going to tread weird ground here, so I'm writing a preamble. I oppose this. I oppose it because it is a tentpole in a campaign of racial scapegoating that will cause and exacerbate a lot of social problems in our country. Much bigger problems than the ones it seeks to solve, so we would be better off just leaving it alone.
I begin to believe this is really going to pass. Most discussion I see acts like it puts everything up in the air, but the EO is pretty precise. I wouldn't have been surprised if they had looked for a way to unto Obama. But perhaps they did look and his case was really too solid. The EO only excludes people who were born in the US with neither parent a citizen or legal permanent resident. If that were how the 14th Amendment had said it, I am very doubtful that people would openly argue now that the rules should be changed to include children of people who snuck over the border.
When the 14th Amendment was written, no one was sneaking in because no one was being turned away. The writers would have had no concept of this application. If it were being decided by REAL strict-constructionist (it won't be) the snag would be that the Amendment was not intended to address this topic at all. The people it was written to make citizens were born to legal permanent residents. The strict-constructionist would have to say that nothing in the Constitution addresses this and Congress needs to write a law or Amendment. But I don't think we have any strict-constructionists on the Supreme Court. They will decided this according to how they believe it should work in the present and I don't know exactly what any of the justices think about this, but 6-3 gives Trump a margin for surprises.
I'm not sure what you think I meant. You seem to be replying to something else. I will rephrase.
I don't think Colombia won anything meaningful. They did not get Trump to treat the deportees with an ounce more respect. They just moved forward the time that Colombia could treat them better. I am virtually certain that they are still being brought to the plane in restraints and at no time are US personnel treating them any better than before this disagreement with Colombia.
Someone spoke with a law professor about this and his take was that it's both unconstitutional (contradicts the 14th amendment) and unilateral (this is the same court that said forgiving even a small amount of student loan debt was a step too far for Biden's executive power).
I think what we will probably see is the conservatives on the SC throwing him a bone in their opinions and gesturing at what he could do to make this happen.
Which means that restricting immigration at all is "not grounded in tradition", right?
Well. It is pretty grounded in tradition now. There was a long time that the US had plenty of room and not enough workers was holding us back. That's not where we are now. I think a ground up rethink on all of our immigration would be a good idea, but I don't feel conversant on all the details. I don't know if we could handle all the people that would come if we really had the open border that redhats think Democrats want. And AI and androids may be about to put a lot of hurt on the unskilled labor sector. I don't know.
They write what they write. "Strict Constructionist" decided Heller according the intent of the Second Amendment and they were wrong. They decided Dobbs according to the intent of the Tenth Amendment and they were right. They are spotty on following the original intent of the Constitution, but they are pretty accurate at agreeing with modern Republicans.
Now we still have plenty of room but not where anyone (except the very very desperate) wants to live, and not enough workers but not for jobs that anyone (except the very very desperate) wants to do. Both those vacancies could still easily be filled by legal immigrants—which is to say, making it easier for people to become legal immigrants rather than having to hop the border and lay low—but then we'd have to actually pay them at least minimum wage. It's been so much more convenient to have a workforce that are perpetually exploited with the threat of sending them back where they came from if they complain. The mainstream right understands this, but they can't say it out loud. Instead they've occasionally made empty gestures about how "illegal immigration is a big problem and someone should do something about them" to remind their workers how thin of a string their livelihood (such as it is) is hanging from.
They didn't figure on a sizable voter bloc completely missing the point of it all and instead taking it as a genuine call to action, nor a charismatic (by the standards of said voter bloc) loudmouthed dumbass also missing the point and leading the charge. But they can't do anything about it now. Owning up to it having been a ruse wouldn't win them any favors with anyone.