Trump Desires to be Sued Over Birthright Citizenship, Does Anyone Understand Why?

[canpakes]

Pakes: At this point, I’m not sure that some folks will be able to conclude that you’re in agreement with what you wrote.

If you stop every non-citizen from crossing the border today and from here on out, have you eliminated the fentanyl problem?

No, but like I wrote, if no one crossed the border illegally with fentanyl, it would save countless lives. I thinks most folks can understand the logical framework behind that.

Perhaps we could save 5 times as many if we also were as preoccupied with the American citizens bringing fentanyl across the border.

Related, and since you asked upstream, you have been on this fentanyl kick (not that kind of kick, lol) lately since you came in from nowhere to inject the subject into the Mass Deportation thread:

viewtopic.php?p=2881114#p2881114

… and in the Death of Democracy thread, in relation to ‘homeless illlegals’:

viewtopic.php?p=2881824&sid=243f31f8d46 ... b#p2881824

… and same thread again:

viewtopic.php?p=2881943#p2881943

Given this thread’s topic of the birthright citizenship status of folks born here, and the related issue of mass deportations of people already arrived, I don’t see how either of those two things really affect the fentanyl issue to any significant degree. As you might say, ‘I’m thinking most folks can understand the logical framework behind that’.

[Markk]

Pakes: Perhaps we could save 5 times as many if we also were as preoccupied with the American citizens bringing fentanyl across the border.

Yes, if our border was not so lax....right? We have gone full circle.

Pakes: Related, and since you asked upstream, you have been on this fentanyl kick (not that kind of kick, lol) lately since you came in from nowhere to inject the subject into the Mass Deportation thread:

LoL....You brought up Fentanyl, not me. Are you denying that? You, Steuss, and PG injected it.

[Markk]

Pakes wrote...
viewtopic.php?p=2881114#p2881114

... and in the Death of Democracy thread, in relation to ‘homeless illlegals’:

viewtopic.php?p=2881824&sid=243f31f8d46 ... b#p2881824

... and same thread again:

viewtopic.php?p=2881943#p2881943

Given this thread’s topic of the birthright citizenship status of folks born here, and the related issue of mass deportations of people already arrived, I don’t see how either of those two things really affect the fentanyl issue to any significant degree. As you might say, ‘I’m thinking most folks can understand the logical framework behind that’.

I have no idea what you are talking about, or why you are bring in other thread context.

You again other brought up fentanyl, not be. You have dug yourself in a hole here. It has gone full circle and I think we both agree that if we aggressively stop fentanyl from coming across the border, by either Citizens or non-citizens....we can save American lives, and I assume you agree all the heart break and costs associated with it.

Why are you having a hard time accepting it is a good thing?

[canpakes]

… if we aggressively stop fentanyl from coming across the border, by either Citizens or non-citizens....we can save American lives, and I assume you agree all the heart break and costs associated with it.

Why are you having a hard time accepting it is a good thing?

I don’t see what you claim in your last line, in any of my posts. Could you point that out to me?

[Moksha]

Could they make Gaza into a MAGA homeland?

[canpakes]

... if we aggressively stop fentanyl from coming across the border, by either Citizens or non-citizens....we can save American lives, and I assume you agree all the heart break and costs associated with it.

Why are you having a hard time accepting it is a good thing?

I don’t see what you claim in your last line, in any of my posts. Could you point that out to me?

Lol....then what are you bitching about? Then you agree that the Trump plan to get more aggressive at the border/s is a good thing.

You’re talking about two different things here.

I think you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who thought that aggressively reducing the fentanyl supply wasn’t a good thing. You and I can agree on that along with everyone else.

On the other hand, “the Trump plan to get more aggressive at the border/s” is another one of those meaningless phrases. Let’s not go there.

As examples:

Disallowing birthright citizenship (this thread’s topic)? No effect on fentanyl availability or abuse.

Not allowing any non-citizen to enter the US for any reason? You might stop a very small amount of fentanyl from making it across, while the vast majority of it will still be smuggled in by American citizens.

Mass deportations? These probably do nothing about the fentanyl issue, given that folks already here are being booted. Turns out that reports indicate half of all non-cuts being rounded up seem to have no record at all, so Trump May (once again) be going for show more so than results.

Troops on the border? Canadian and Mexican troops aren’t under our control, so what guarantee exists that they can or will do anything more than slow down non-criminals?

It remains to be seen if this ends up being more of a dog-and-pony show, like last time … or if the Administration has some ideas that are actually effective for whatever they’re trying to do.

[Markk]

Pakes: You’re talking about two different things here.

I think you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who thought that aggressively reducing the fentanyl supply wasn’t a good thing. You and I can agree on that along with everyone else.

On the other hand, “the Trump plan to get more aggressive at the border/s” is another one of those meaningless phrases. Let’s not go there.

I will go there....it is what I care about and one of the reasons i voted for him, in that he promised to get aggressive at the border. It went full circle and you and I agree that what Trump is doing is good. Why can you support his efforts on this, there is plenty of other things to dosage with.

Pakes: As examples:

Disallowing birthright citizenship (this thread’s topic)? No effect on fentanyl availability or abuse.

Did I say there was? Remember you brought up Steuss, PG, and you, brought up fentanyl and change the thread topic.

Pakes: Not allowing any non-citizen to enter the US for any reason? You might stop a very small amount of fentanyl from making it across, while the vast majority of it will still be smuggled in by American citizens.

LOL... two separate issues here. We should not let any one in here illegally, saying "non-citizen" does not make them legally here. Non citizen could mean someone with a green card, the context is those who are illegal.

And according to your stats, it would have stopped 20%, and save 50k lives, 1/5th of burdens to the different things I already mentioned including gang violence.

And keep in mind Trump is going to go after illegal smuggling, citizen smuggling, green card smugglers, the cartel, the gangs, and all the law breakers.

Pakes:
Mass deportations? These probably do nothing about the fentanyl issue, given that folks already here are being booted. Turns out that reports indicate half of all non-cuts being rounded up seem to have no record at all, so Trump May (once again) be going for show more so than results.

For someone that keeps accusing me of focusing on fentanyl, you sure focus a lot on fentanyl. Mass deportations will solve many problems across the board. We are deporting people that are here illegally. Plus many that are here illegally, deal the drugs that are brought over. The citizens that smuggle the drugs over don't own these drugs, the cartel does, and once they come across, they go to the pushers.

I don't know if you follow the news or not. But one of the biggest issues is in this context is that there are major sanctuary cities, that refuse to contact ice when illegal immigrants commit crimes including dealing these drugs.

Pakes: Troops on the border? Canadian and Mexican troops aren’t under our control, so what guarantee exists that they can or will do anything more than slow down non-criminals?

Pretty pessimistic.

Which is why Trump suspended the tariffs for 30 days. If they renege, or are lazy and ineffective, they will be un-suspended, and possibly raised to 50%.

We are the greatest country on earth with the greatest economy, they need us and they will do what they agreed to do, which in my opinion is more than fair. We subsidize both countries, 100 billion to Canada a year, and 300 billion a year to Mexico, they need to respect that, don't you think?

[Dr. Shades]

We subsidize both countries, 100 billion to Canada a year, and 300 billion a year to Mexico, they need to respect that, don't you think?

Wait, what? The United States simply gives that much money to both countries every year??

[Molok]

We subsidize both countries, 100 billion to Canada a year, and 300 billion a year to Mexico, they need to respect that, don't you think?

Wait, what? The United States simply gives that much money to both countries every year??

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-t ... X_zTm4Gac-

Trump's claims about subsidizing Canada with more than $100 million or $100 billion a year are false. According to the United States government's foreign assistance website, the U.S. has not spent more than $35.1 million in a single fiscal year on financial assistance for Canada since at least 2001. In the most recent reported fiscal year, 2022 — which ran from Oct. 1, 2021, to Sept. 30, 2022 — the United States sent $32 million in foreign assistance to Canada.

[Markk]

We subsidize both countries, 100 billion to Canada a year, and 300 billion a year to Mexico, they need to respect that, don't you think?

Wait, what? The United States simply gives that much money to both countries every year??

No, It is mostly in trade deficits, It is that lopsided. It is why these countries caved so quick, they need us much more than we need then economically. It will be interesting to see where all this unfolds as the numbers are released. The list of monies given freely to all these different lame programs is crazy, and what is even more amazing that there is no account that I have seen as to how those monies are spent, once they are given to these different countries. A Newsweek article I read stated we gave over a trillion dollars out to different countries throughout the world, the articles did not include the aid we gave to the Ukraine.

According to the article we gave almost 3 million dollars to Panama, yet I read elsewhere that something like 60 or 70% of the traffic that travels through the canal is US. I read elsewhere that the average price for a large ship to go through the canal is 300k or more. I read one article that read it could be as much as a million for a very large container ship.

I guess my point is that we are on the back side of trade, and we give out over a trillion in "aid" each year, and there has been to real accounting and I believe we are being naïve if we think all this money is being used like it is supposed to be used. Just google this stuff Shades and be fair and read the different opinions, it is staggering how out of control our spending is, and how we are being taken advantage of in trade.

https://www.newsweek.com/usaid-map-coun ... ey-2025073 (edit) see the interactive map