Trump Neurosis Thread

[putnam6]

If this is true


This is the heart of the matter.... 

[UltraBudgie]

This is the heart of the matter.... 

Have a source for this? Because it looks like this:

The 2020 census will show that the presence of all immigrants (naturalized citizens, legal residents, and illegal aliens) and their U.S.-born minor children is responsible for a shift of 26 House seats. This is the cumulative impact of immigration, not the change from the previous census.

Which includes all immigrants and their children. Counting only "illegals", the effect is:

Illegal immigrants alone in the 2020 census will redistribute three seats, with Ohio, Alabama, and Minnesota each having one fewer seat than they otherwise would have had, while California, New York, and Texas will have one additional seat.

Far different.

Source: https://cis.org/Report/Impact-Legal-and-...tives-2020

Not that you (and Dwight) are not correct haha.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/president-...-and-world

So.... Is he just trolling the Atlantic or does Trump really feel this way? Because I read the story of the interview (paywalled) and it seems he thought out what things would trigger them most. It is The Atlantic, afterall. It might be the equivalent of myself doing a Conservative Treehouse type interview to describe my troll thesis on "Interactive Preference Conversion as a Means of Reproduction at Liberal Arts Colleges"

And if it isn't completely trolling, does anyone else have a problem with that mindset?

Does he really believe he controls the world, because that is a seriously problematic level of megalomania for even a billionaire leader.

He joins the illustrious list of others who said that before him like; Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Mao Zedong.

[AngryOldBrewer]

There's no problem having due process for those who use the same due process to enter the country.

And yet our constitution has an ammendment that specifically mentions people. I think that level of humanity that not a single other country offers is what made our country great. "Give me your week, your huddled masses..." and all that. 

It's that simple; the flood of recent years strains our infrastructure, the DNC paid illegals exorbitant amounts, leading to fraud and corruption, and border crossing skyrocketed. It's too much

I can't say I go one way or the other on this. I personally have seen no proof that the DNC specifically paid out illegals which lead to fraud and corruption. In fact I have never seen a direct link between fraud and corruption and illegal immigrants being paid by the DNC

Essentially, these now common law citizens left thier country because of gang intimidation and now live in America and have to get ink because of gang intimidation. 

I think the ink actually is done before they reach the country, as the ink is used to brand members at the point they get...I don't know....we called it getting "jumped in" when I was young

Ive yet to see a physical proof of a now-legal American being deported as an uncharged gang member. 

No one being deported had been charged with being a gang member. In order to have charges brought, wouldn't you need it to present the info in a court of law through due process? Also, being charged is not the same thing as guilt

I'd seriously doubt large percentages are paying taxes, probably less than 15-20%. Regardless, that doesn't make you magically a legal citizen.

Never said it made you a legal citizen. However, that was one of the things immigrants who are applying for green card status are told is part of the process of becoming a member of this society. They must hold a job and pay taxes.

But my post was about whacked-out activist judges, which Im not a fan of, regardless of which side they are on.

100% agree. Wacked out judges should leave their personal political beliefs at the door of the courtroom. However, judges agree and disagree and I don't see a judge who disagrees as wacked out. I do see that any recent judge who disagrees with the Trump administration is AUTOMATICALLY labeled a radical left judge. That paints a pretty petty picture. 

We have seen the left encourages ignoring district court judges when it suits them in the past

Correct, but that doesn't justify left or right leaning judges doing so. I would argue that right leaning judges in the past have been guilty of the same accusations. 

And I apologize for the format in which I am answering these questions. Haven't figured this sight out just yet. If it was beer, I would have nailed it by now, but technology.....

https://x.com/ConservBrief/status/1916486969585959084

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...59-941.jpg]

[AngryOldBrewer]

Won't let me copy the substack link to this as the websight appears to be down for a bit. However, the author's name is Heather Cox Richardson. She is a political historian who from time to time shares some interesting info. Since I can't copy the link, I will bore you all with the TL;DR version. Note that in history, it was actually the Republicans that wanted the language changed in the 14th ammendment to include all people in the country and not just citizens. I believe at the time, newly imancipated slaves were still not considered "citizens". 


April 26, 2025 (Saturday)
Early yesterday morning, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sent three U.S. citizens aged 2, 4, and 7 from Louisiana, including one with Stage 4 cancer, to Honduras when they deported their mothers. The three are children of two different mothers who were arrested while checking in with the government as part of their routine process for immigration proceedings. The women and their children were not permitted to speak to family or lawyers before being flown to Honduras. The cancer patient was sent out of the country without medication or consultation with doctors although, according to Charisma Madarang and Lorena O'Neil of Rolling Stone, ICE agents were told of the child’s medical needs.
The government says the mothers opted to take their U.S. citizen children to Honduras with them. But as Emmanuel Felton and Maegan Vazquez of the Washington Post noted, because ICE refused to let the women talk to their lawyers, there is only the agents’ word for how events transpired.
ICE also deported Heidy Sánchez, a Cuban-born mother of a one-year-old who is still breastfeeding, leaving the U.S.-born child in the U.S. with her father, who is a U.S. citizen. Like the women flown to Honduras, Sánchez was detained when she showed up at a scheduled check-in with ICE.
In March, ICE agents sent four U.S. citizens, including a 10-year-old with brain cancer, to Mexico when they deported their undocumented parents.
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.” He promises to make “clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward, the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic US citizenship.”
Reelected in 2024, on his first day in office, Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” It announced a new U.S. policy, saying that the government would not issue documents recognizing U.S. citizenship to persons whose “mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or…when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”
The order specified that it would not take effect for 30 days. If it had been in effect when Trump’s rival for the White House, Vice President Kamala Harris, was born, she would have fallen under it.
But an executive order is simply a directive to federal employees. It cannot override the Constitution. Trump’s attack on the idea of birthright citizenship as a “historical myth” is a perversion of our history.
In the nineteenth century, the United States enshrined in its fundamental law the idea that there would not be different levels of rights in this country. Although not honored in practice, that idea, and its place in the law, gave those excluded from it the language and the tools to fight for equality. Over time, Americans have increasingly expanded those included in it.
The Republican Party organized in the 1850s to fight the idea that there should be different classes of Americans based on race. In that era, not only Black Americans, but also Irish, Chinese, Mexican, and Indigenous Americans faced discriminatory state laws. 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.”
After the Civil War, in 1866, as former Confederates denied their Black neighbors basic rights, the Republican Congress passed a civil rights bill 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 vetoed the 1866 Civil Rights Bill. He 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 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 really did recognize the citizenship of the U.S.-born children of immigrants quickly became an issue in the American West, where prejudice against Chinese immigrants ran hot. In 1882, during a period of racist hysteria, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act declaring that Chinese immigrants could not become citizens. But what about their children who were born in the United States?
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.
That decision has stood ever since, as a majority of Americans have recognized the principle behind the citizenship clause as the one central to the United States: “that all men are created equal” and that a nation based on that idea draws strength from all of its people.
On the last day of his presidency, in his last speech, President Ronald Reagan recalled what someone had once written to him: “You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American.”
He continued: “We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people—our strength—from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so we continuously renew and enrich our nation. While other countries cling to the stale past, here in America we breathe life into dreams. We create the future, and the world follows us into tomorrow. Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we're a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier. This quality is vital to our future as a nation. If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost.”