WDSmart

Make up your mind I have made up my mind about this subject. What have I posted that makes you think I haven't?

That would be true of socialists with a right-wing "America First" attitude. A true socialist would also be concerned with the jobs and workers in other countries, and a tariff would probably hurt them.

Yes, any "trade" you undertake to make a profit is capitalism...IMO.

I did call it an International Law, but it appears to be better described as an "international agreement. the US does have it's own laws concerning refugees, and above I did post a link to that. Many "illegal aliens" are called that because they did enter the USA illegally. But, if they then file for Refugee status, they are (usually) permitted to pursue that application. You could still call them "Illegal", since that filing does not change how they entered the USA. If, however, their application for refugee status is approved, they are then given a visa. I Googled the question about what the usual fee is for human traffickers and found it was about $3k to $4k. Here is the link: Human smuggling fees | Open Borders: The Case

Tariffs are, IMO, right-wing. They support capitalism. The left-wing approach would be free trade everywhere. That supports socialism. Yes, Trump described himself as a Democrat years ago. Now he claims to be a Republican. He's whatever he has to be to get power and make money. He's an aristocratic capitalist.

I use Google. Here's another site more specific to the USA: An Overview of U.S. Refugee Law and Policy | American Immigration Council

I disagree. I, of course, would describe my own president and his supporters (MAGA) as "far right." But, then I do describe myself as "work" and "far left," so I might be more inclined to view people who don't have some leftist or at least moderate views as "far right."

I agree that aliens should have less of a chance of getting bail than US citizens. Many of these aliens do have jobs and a place to live. Granting bail is primarily to ensure that you show up at the next scheduled hearing. but I agree it also is dependent upon the type of charges you face. The police that arrested you do believe you MIGHT be guilty, but the judge has to presume you are innocent. That's my understanding of how this works.

"Spreading hate, antisemitism, supporting Hamas..." are all examples of free speech and are (should be) protected by our 1st Amendment, which, I understand, applies to everyone legally in the USA. "Occupying Universities" is not "free speech" and should be handled by the university itself or, at worst, public law enforcement as trespassing or some misdemeanor like that. Unless repeated, I do not think it should result in anyone on a visa being "kicked out" (visa canceled and deported).

If this had happened in my home country, the USA, up until about three months ago, nothing would have prevented it. This is an act of free speech. Now, however, under Trump's presidency, doing this very well might be prohibited and result in a jail term or deportation. 😞

Yes, unfortunately, the rise of the "far-right" is happening all over the world now. It certainly has in my home country, the USA. 😞

Having a "vice president" who will take charge of the presidency should the presiding president die or become incapacitated was not done by the Democrats in secret. It's part of the US Constitution. 🤨

I certainly HOPE the US dollar is "safe." I depend on it. However, with Trump as president, I do worry about this. 😞

Yes, kind of... If they were ACCUSED of a crime and got bail and then (or before had) applied for asylum as a refugee, I would have no problem with him (or her) paying the bail or arranging for a bond and going free BECAUSE they are at that time, as all accused are, pressumed to be innocent. If they were CONVICTED of a crime, I would expect them to be given the same sentence as anyone else found guilty of committing that crime, and after their sentence was done, ICE could detain them, refuse their asylum application, and deport them if they thought that was best.

which way? Did you give her a written document the bank accepted,that gives her access? Or else? Most of my money is in a savings account. The account is in my name only since I use it as financial proof to secure a One-year Stay Extension. Even though the account is only in my name, my wife's signature (which is written in ink that is only visible under a light the bank uses) is on the last page of the back of the bank book (which shows all the transactions) and gives her the authority to withdraw money using the bank book (not the debit card).

Yes, I would allow anyone accused or charged with a crime of any kind to remain in the USA on bail (or in jail if no bail was allowed). In the case of "illegal aliens," I would only allow that if they have filed for an Asylum (Refugee) visa.

Thanks for the info. Part of my point in this forum is that many of the people described as "illegal aliens" may have indeed entered the country illegally, but have since filed an application for asylum. International law allows that an asylum refugee can enter any country illegally if they are indeed fleeing some kind of threat in their home country. Their longer-term status is then determined later during their asylum application proceedings. That's my understanding of that process. Also, I believe there is a big difference between being "accused" and "found guilty" of any act, so I believe accusing an illegal or legal alien of something should not be a valid criterion for deporting them.

I'm not sure what the actual law is, but I carry a photo of my passport, including the pages with my visa, visa extension, and 90-Day report in my phone. I've never been asked for these by a government officer. I do have to have my real passport to get a new bank book and other things at my bank. That's the only time I know I need to actually have it.

This is a violation of their First Amendment right to free speech. I understand that this part of the Constitution applies to everyone who is legally in the USA. I'm sure this will be challenged in court, and we'll see what happens then.

It's not as complicated as you pretend. If you are not XX, you compete against the blokes. That's it. Simple. Maybe unfortunate for the % of 1% but that's life. We can't ruin women's sport for the fraction of a % with such rare conditions who also happen to be world class athletes. If that's what you think, then I assume you are suggesting there just be two categories in every sport: women (XX) and non-women. Right? (Oh, and special categories for age groupings, the blind, those without legs, etc...) And the last I saw, there are about 4% of the population that are not pure XX or XY.

This is exactly why I give my Thai wife withdrawal access to my bank account.

I agree with this approach, but as long as we only place people into two categories, male and female, we'll have problems sorting them out. Here is an example of what we're up against: "The Complexity of Sex Chromosomes Most people have either XX (typically associated with female development) or XY (typically associated with male development) sex chromosomes, but there's more to the story. *Variations in Sex Chromosomes* 1. *XYY*: Some individuals have an extra Y chromosome (XYY), which can lead to varying physical characteristics and developmental outcomes. 2. *XXY (Klinefelter syndrome)*: This condition occurs when a male has an extra X chromosome (XXY), which can affect physical development, fertility, and cognitive abilities. 3. *X0 (Turner syndrome)*: Females with Turner syndrome have only one X chromosome (X0), which can lead to short stature, heart defects, and other physical characteristics. 4. *Mosaicism*: Some individuals have a mixture of cells with different sex chromosomes (e.g., XX/XY), which can result in varying degrees of physical and developmental characteristics. *Intersex Conditions* Intersex conditions, formerly known as hermaphroditism, occur when an individual's reproductive or sexual anatomy doesn't fit typical male or female classifications. Examples include: 1. *Androgen insensitivity syndrome*: Individuals with this condition have XY chromosomes but are resistant to androgens (male hormones), leading to female physical characteristics. 2. *Congenital adrenal hyperplasia*: This condition affects the production of sex hormones, leading to varying physical characteristics. *Epigenetics and Hormonal Influences* Epigenetic factors, such as gene expression and hormonal influences, also play a crucial role in shaping an individual's biological sex and gender." (I have no source I can acknowledge for this information.)

I didn't Google any of this, but I will not dispute it. My comments in this forum are based on three of my opinions: 1. There are federal agents (ICE) and local agents (District Attorney, police, judges, etc. - DAs). ICE can investigate and deport people, DAs can't. DA's can try people for rape or any other crime committed in the US, ICE can't. 2. Many of these people labeled "illegal aliens" did enter the US illegally, but have since filed for Refugee status. That is something that ICE has to sort out, not the DAs. 3. If any of these people have been ACCUSED of rape (or any other crime) while in the US, they are entitled to a presumption of innocence and a trial. That is done by the DAs. If any of these people have been accused or convicted of rape (or any other crime) before coming to the US, that is something that will be considered in their application for Asylum (ICE). What I see here is that many people mix up the two jurisdictions and just think any "illegal alien" accused of rape (or any crime) while in the US should and can be immediately deported. I don't think the two systems work together that way.

I don't recall any other presidents deporting people. I'm sure they did, but I did not know, or at least don't remember, who they were or the details. Yes, I do expect I will oppose almost everything Trump does. In this case, however, the reasons are that he is doing this, which, IMO, is illegally, and it involves a very large number of people.