Trump's Policies Part 4

There has been no proof that she broke any laws. Just having a political view, even writing about that political view, is not against the law. So far, this is a clear violation of the 1st amendment but Dictator Trump and his supporters don’t care.

The more disturbing thing to me is the way she was arrested, by plain clothes individuals wearing masks to hide their faces. Supposedly they were Fed agents. This is ridiculous and not how any real law enforcement agency should behave. The video makes it look like a kidnapping not an arrest. This is worse than WWII Nazi SS behavior because at least the Nazis had the balls to show their faces. It’s unconstitutional and pathetic behavior by this dictatorship of an administration.
I hear what you are saying.
It has been discussed above with the other Hamas supporter at Columbia.
A Green Card means she was a guest in this country. If the Secretary of State finds that her continued presence in the US is not in the interest of the US, the Green Card can be revoked and she has to go. If she is believed to be a flight risk, she can be apprehended and expelled.
I do not believe she is being expelled for writing an op-ed calling on the Tufts president to “acknowledge the Palestinian genocide” and disclose its investments and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel." She probably expressed support for Hamas itself (a US-designated terrorist organization). That can get one's Green Card revoked.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: Bazza
There has been no proof that she broke any laws. Just having a political view, even writing about that political view, is not against the law. So far, this is a clear violation of the 1st amendment but Dictator Trump and his supporters don’t care.

The more disturbing thing to me is the way she was arrested, by plain clothes individuals wearing masks to hide their faces. Supposedly they were Fed agents. This is ridiculous and not how any real law enforcement agency should behave. The video makes it look like a kidnapping not an arrest. This is worse than WWII Nazi SS behavior because at least the Nazis had the balls to show their faces. It’s unconstitutional and pathetic behavior by this dictatorship of an administration.
This is an AI response I got researching this topic. I looked at Chat GPT, Perplexity, and Grok. They all gave the same answer. This one gives a lot of details and references to the sections of the INA that are applicable. I changed font colors in the sections of the answer I found interesting.

A visa holder can be removed from the United States on various grounds, primarily outlined in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), specifically under sections like 237 (deportability) and 212 (inadmissibility). Removal, often referred to as deportation, occurs when a non-citizen violates immigration laws, the terms of their visa, or engages in activities deemed contrary to U.S. interests. Here’s a breakdown of the key grounds based on legal frameworks and practical application:
1. Violation of Visa Terms
  • Overstaying: Remaining in the U.S. beyond the authorized period specified on the Form I-94 (Arrival/Departure Record), even if the visa itself hasn’t expired. For example, a tourist visa (B-2) might allow a 6-month stay, and overstaying triggers "unlawful presence," making the individual removable.
  • Unauthorized Work: Working without permission on a visa that prohibits employment (e.g., B-1/B-2 visitor visas or F-1 student visas without off-campus work authorization).
  • Failure to Maintain Status: For students (F-1), dropping below full-time enrollment or not attending school can void status, leading to removal proceedings.
2. Criminal Activity
  • Convictions: Certain crimes can render a visa holder deportable under INA Section 237(a)(2):
    • Aggravated Felonies: Broadly defined (e.g., murder, drug trafficking, or even theft with a sentence of one year or more), these bar most relief from removal.
    • Crimes of Moral Turpitude: Offenses like fraud or assault, especially within five years of admission or involving multiple convictions.
    • Drug Offenses: Possession or trafficking of controlled substances (e.g., fentanyl), except for a single minor marijuana possession (under 30 grams).
    • Domestic Violence, Firearms, or Prostitution: Specific convictions in these categories trigger deportability.
  • Pending Charges: In rare cases, even without conviction, serious criminal allegations might prompt visa revocation and removal, especially if linked to national security.
3. Inadmissibility at Entry or After Entry
  • Fraud or Misrepresentation: Lying to obtain a visa or entry (e.g., falsifying documents or claiming U.S. citizenship) can lead to removal (INA Section 212(a)(6)(C)).
  • Security Risks: Engaging in espionage, terrorism, or supporting terrorist organizations, per INA Section 212(a)(3)(B)). This includes mere advocacy if deemed a threat by the Secretary of State or Attorney General.
  • Public Charge: Becoming reliant on government assistance within five years of entry, if attributable to pre-entry circumstances (INA Section 212(a)(4)).
  • Health Grounds: Entering with a communicable disease of public health significance (e.g., untreated tuberculosis) or lacking required vaccinations.
4. National Security or Foreign Policy Concerns
  • Terrorism: Any activity, association, or even speech supporting a U.S.-designated terrorist group can lead to visa revocation and removal, with no “material support” threshold required in some cases (INA Section 212(a)(3)).
  • Adverse Foreign Policy Consequences: The Secretary of State can designate a visa holder’s presence as having “serious adverse foreign policy consequences,” a rarely used but broad authority (INA Section 237(a)(4)(C)).
  • Espionage or Sabotage: Actions threatening U.S. safety or sensitive information.
5. Visa Revocation
  • Discretionary Power: Under INA Section 221(i), the State Department or consular officers can revoke a visa at any time, often without judicial review if the holder is outside the U.S. If already in the U.S., revocation typically triggers removal proceedings unless the individual departs voluntarily.
  • Grounds: Revocation can stem from suspected ineligibility (e.g., new criminal info), violation of visa conditions, or prudential reasons (e.g., DUI arrests within five years, per State Department guidance).
  • Example: A student visa revoked for protests deemed to “advocate violence” could lead to immediate removal eligibility.
6. Administrative Violations
  • Failure to Report Address: Not notifying USCIS of a change of address within 10 days (INA Section 265) can technically be a ground, though rarely enforced alone.
  • Document Fraud: Forging immigration papers or misusing entry documents.
Process and Practical Considerations
  • Notice to Appear (NTA): Removal begins with an NTA from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), outlining allegations. This leads to a hearing before an immigration judge, unless expedited removal applies.
  • Expedited Removal: For visa holders caught at entry with fraud or no valid documents, low-level officers can deport without a hearing (INA Section 235(b)(1)).
  • Reinstatement: If previously removed and re-entering illegally, a prior order can be reinstated instantly (INA Section 241(a)(5)).
  • Detention: ICE may detain visa holders during proceedings, especially for criminal or security risks.
Defenses and Relief
  • Visa holders can sometimes avoid removal through:
    • Adjustment of Status: If eligible (e.g., marrying a U.S. citizen).
    • Asylum: Proving fear of persecution.
    • Cancellation of Removal: For non-permanent residents, requiring 10 years’ presence and exceptional hardship to family (INA Section 240A(b)).
  • However, aggravated felonies or security violations often bar relief.
 


Trump Pulls Research Funding To Protect Pregnant Women From Domestic Violence, Citing ‘DEI’
Homicide by an abusive partner is the leading cause of death for pregnant women in the U.S. – and researchers are gutted by the sudden cuts.

The Trump administration abruptly pulled funding last week for a research grant meant to protect pregnant women from domestic violence because it was categorized as a “DEI” study.

The National Institute of Health grant funded a two-year project to create a training program for early career clinicians to measure intimate partner violence and pregnancy. The leading cause of death among pregnant and postpartum women in the U.S. is homicide by an abusive partner. Perinatal women are more than twice as likely to be murdered than to die from sepsis, hypertensive disorders or hemorrhage.
...

“The logistics is they have a list of 100 naughty words that include ‘women’ and ‘female inequity,’ and I think whoever was wielding ‘control F’ that day noticed that our grant had ‘equity’ in the title,” Rebecca Fielding-Miller, a principal investigator of the research and associate professor at the University of California San Diego, told HuffPost. (She was not speaking on behalf of UCSD.)

Integral to the grant project was a mentoring program to help jumpstart the careers of “underrepresented early-stage investigators.” This would ensure the continuation of critical but often underfunded research on domestic violence and pregnancy.

“The people who do research on violence in sexual and gender minority communities, violence against women, violence in black and brown communities ― they are significantly more likely to be from those communities,” Fielding-Miller said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg
Washington Post gift link

Trump administration moves to cut programs that fight child labor abroad
The Labor Department is canceling $500 million allocated to programs that combat child labor, forced labor and human trafficking, and that enforce labor standards in more than 40 countries.

The Trump administration has plans to immediately end U.S.-backed programs that combat child labor, forced labor and other abuses in dozens of countries around the world.

John Clark, a Trump-appointed Labor Department official, directed the agency’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) on Wednesday to end all of its grants due to a “lack of alignment with agency priorities and national interest,” according to an email obtained by The Washington Post.

...

The cuts are expected to end 69 programs that have allocated more than $500 million to combat child labor, forced labor and human trafficking, and to enforce labor standards in more than 40 countries.

Many of the programs provide support and resources to ensure foreign governments are complying with labor standards in U.S. trade agreements, including the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, as well as trade deals with countries in Central America, Africa, the Caribbean and the Middle East. Those standards are designed to protect U.S. jobs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg
WASHINGTON (AP) — Noted economist Arthur Laffer warns in a new analysis that President Donald Trump’s 25% tariffs on auto imports could add $4,711 to the cost of a vehicle, adding that the proposed taxes could weaken the ability of U.S. automakers to compete with their foreign counterparts.

In the 21-page analysis obtained by The Associated Press, Laffer, whom Trump awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2019 for his contributions to economics, says the auto industry would be in a better position if the president preserved the supply chain rules with Canada and Mexico from his own 2019 USMCA trade pact.
Noted economist honored by Trump warns that 25% tariffs risk 'irreparable damage' to US automakers | AP News
 
Yup. Someone has gotten to the guy and convinced him that a tariff is all up-side: government gets more revenue, foreigners pay the bill, American workers get protection.

Depending on the commodity taxed and how the tariff is constructed, none of that is necessarily true, and each of them could be false.

It always amuses when politicians play economist. They seem to be oblivious to the concept that people (and businesses and countries) will change their behavior in response to a new situation. A country subjected to a US tariff will put its own tariffs on US goods and services. An individual will buy an alternative item not subject to artificially high costs. A business will slow or shut down production. An individual or a business will move to a state with lower taxes. (States like Texas and Florida benefit greatly when the David Teppers of the world relocate from places like New Jersey.) Etc., etc., etc. All this taxation siphons off wealth from the people that generated the wealth (private sector) to give it to the people that squander wealth (public sector). It's mind-numbingly stupid.

Hopefully, this is all just a game to get concessions from these other countries, the concessions happen quickly, and we can move back toward freer trade and increased prosperity. Even if that's the plan, the means to these ends are destructive and may not work at all.
 
It always amuses when politicians play economist. They seem to be oblivious to the concept that people (and businesses and countries) will change their behavior in response to a new situation. A country subjected to a US tariff will put its own tariffs on US goods and services. An individual will buy an alternative item not subject to artificially high costs. A business will slow or shut down production. An individual or a business will move to a state with lower taxes. (States like Texas and Florida benefit greatly when the David Teppers of the world relocate from places like New Jersey.) Etc., etc., etc. All this taxation siphons off wealth from the people that generated the wealth (private sector) to give it to the people that squander wealth (public sector). It's mind-numbingly stupid.

Hopefully, this is all just a game to get concessions from these other countries, the concessions happen quickly, and we can move back toward freer trade and increased prosperity. Even if that's the plan, the means to these ends are destructive and may not work at all.
There is always an economist willing to tell the politician what the politician wants to hear.

The head of the Econ department at Va Tech when I was there, had this joke posted to her faculty webpage:
A woman was going to hire someone for a job and had three job applicants, a philosopher, a mathematician and an economist. At a job interview the employer asked the philosopher, "What is 3+3?" The philosopher opined at length about the construct of the number "3" and the meaning of the word "plus."
"Thank you," the employer said and dismissed the philosopher.
Next came to mathematician. "What is 3+3?" she asked. The mathematician replied "6." "Thank you," the employer said and dismissed the mathematician.
Then came to the economist. "What is 3+3?" she asked.
The economist rose from his seat went to the windows pull down the shades, went to the door, locked it, sat back down, looked at the employer and said "what do you want it to be?"

Sadly, that is too true of economist as a group. You can usually find one to give you the answer you want.
 
As usual, it is best to go to the original source material:
"The National Museum of African American History and Culture has proclaimed that 'hard work,' 'individualism,' and 'the nuclear family' are aspects of 'White culture.' The forthcoming Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum plans on celebrating the exploits of male athletes participating in women’s sports. These are just a few examples."

Is "hard work" inherently white? Is believing one is an individual inherently white? Is respect for the nuclear family inherently white? Are those ideas somehow "not black?"

The EO also explains the goal of the Smithsonian: "igniting the imagination of young minds, honoring the richness of American history and innovation, and instilling pride in the hearts of all Americans." That sounds like a noble goal for a national museum.

I feel pride in the Tuskegee Airmen and Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, and MLK not because I am black, but because I am an American and they were Americans. We share that bond. Anything that drives a wedge between the concept of "American" and "black" should be avoided in publicly-funded museums. It is fine to accentuate that in private museums and in individual speech if one wishes, but in publicly-funded museums, the goal ought to be to foster national unity and pride, especially in Washington, DC.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This peach of a gent was rounded up not too far from where I used to live. More than pathetic that this guy can be here for 10+ years without being arrested and deported. MS13 is thick in the DC metro area.

U.S. authorities have captured the MS-13 top leader for the U.S. East Coast, 24-year-old Salvadoran national Henrry Josue Villatoro Santos, the FBI announced on Thursday.

Officials captured Santos in Woodbridge, Virginia, just south of Washington, D.C., and charged him with being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm. He is one of the top three leaders of the MS-13 gang in the U.S., they said.

 
  • Like
Reactions: CrimsonJazz
This is interesting.
Is Tren de Aragua a Military Incursion? You Bet!
So, it appears that TdA is a unit of the Venezuelan government.

Antonio Delgado quoted [CIA officer] Berntsen: “The Venezuelan regime has assumed operational control of these guys [Tren de Aragua] and has trained 300 of them; they have given them paramilitary training, training them to fire weapons and how to conduct sabotage. They have given them all like a four- to six-week course. They put these 300 guys through that course, and then they were deploying them into the United States to 20 separate states. ... We tried to brief them about this [between TdA and the Venezuelan government] three years ago, but they were directed by the Biden Administration to ignore it.”
 
  • Wow
Reactions: CrimsonJazz
This guy's messaging is flawless. Just listen. A reporter pressed him on how Americans should react to tariffs if they "raise prices" - Vance flips it back perfectly. "What I say to the American people is, look: the president ran on this, and he said very clearly that we're done being the piggy bank of the entire world." "For 40 years in the same way that our European friends, I think, have neglected international security, for 40 years a lot of our friends all over the world have used America as a piggy bank... have used us to absorb all of their excess economic production." "What does that mean for Americans? For Americans, that's meant manufacturing jobs declining, that's meant middle class wages going down, that's meant whole towns that have been hollowed out." "Empty factories - and that means an America that is less safe, because our manufacturing isn't as powerful now as it was 30 years ago." "I've got all these brave Americans in front of me and a few behind me too. We've got to send, if God forbid, we have to send Americans to war, we want them to have weapons, the best weapons in the world that are manufactured in America and not in China." "The way you do that is to rebuild the American manufacturing sector. The days of America being the piggy bank of the world... the days of closed factories, the days of people not being able to get a middle class job in this country, they're over." "And yes, that means we're gonna have to fight back even against some of our friends and their unfair economic practices. But the long term consequence of this is gonna be higher wages, more manufacturing, and more economic security for the American people."

 
Are we willing to endure the pain over the next 40 years to convert back? Because that is how long it will take...
 
This guy's messaging is flawless. Just listen. A reporter pressed him on how Americans should react to tariffs if they "raise prices" - Vance flips it back perfectly. "What I say to the American people is, look: the president ran on this, and he said very clearly that we're done being the piggy bank of the entire world." "For 40 years in the same way that our European friends, I think, have neglected international security, for 40 years a lot of our friends all over the world have used America as a piggy bank... have used us to absorb all of their excess economic production." "What does that mean for Americans? For Americans, that's meant manufacturing jobs declining, that's meant middle class wages going down, that's meant whole towns that have been hollowed out." "Empty factories - and that means an America that is less safe, because our manufacturing isn't as powerful now as it was 30 years ago." "I've got all these brave Americans in front of me and a few behind me too. We've got to send, if God forbid, we have to send Americans to war, we want them to have weapons, the best weapons in the world that are manufactured in America and not in China." "The way you do that is to rebuild the American manufacturing sector. The days of America being the piggy bank of the world... the days of closed factories, the days of people not being able to get a middle class job in this country, they're over." "And yes, that means we're gonna have to fight back even against some of our friends and their unfair economic practices. But the long term consequence of this is gonna be higher wages, more manufacturing, and more economic security for the American people."

But the long term consequence of this is gonna be higher wages, more manufacturing, and more economic security for the American people."

There's no doubt he often talks a good game, but are there any economists who agree with Vance? We've been told by billionaires in the Administration that we'll likely suffer some "short-term" economic pain (the severity of which remains to be seen), but I'd like to see some projections (both short- and long-term) from experts.

I read this article a couple of weeks ago and those quoted didn't seem to support the idea of tariffs. They were supportive of cutting the deficit, though that's not something that seems to be on the Republican agenda.

NYT gift link
 
Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads