CanucksCorner.com Forums

Per wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 1:37 am Now, I'm not a legal scholar

Correct.

Per wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 1:37 am but from what I understand it seems to be the 14th amendment:

Natural-born U.S. citizens maintain citizenship through the 14th Amendment, so they cannot be denaturalized or deported https://www.lawfirm1.com/removal-procee ... itizenship.

I tried to look at the actual wording of the 14th amendment, but I don't really see where it says so, but numerous sites claim that because of that amendment, natural born US citizens cannot be deported, and naturalized citizens can only be deported if they received their citizenship on false grounds, and have their citizenship revoked. I guess it may have to do with how courts have interpreted the amendment rather than the explicit wording.

In my understanding, being sent abroad because of a felony or misdemeanor would constitute deportation.

Where do you get that understanding? Deportation is a permanent concept, with reentry being a criminal act. That's not what the bill is doing, as I understand it. It merely is serving a termed sentence extraterritorially.

Per wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 1:37 am Australia and Georgia were British penal colonies and would have little to do with US laws and/or citizenship rights.
British subjects in the 18th century did not have the same rights and protections as US citizens in the 21st (or even 19th) century.

And I'll remind you ...

Per wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 1:37 am Now, I'm not a legal scholar

Correct.

The rights of Englishmen in the 18th Century is critical to understanding the unenumerated rights reserved to the people by the 9th Amendment. The 9th Amendment was enacted in the 18th century as part of the Bill of Rights. The American revolutionaries were asserting their rights a Englishmen (which were also natural rights, according to our founders), and all that could be "reserved" were those that were had. Even 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) doctrine makes contact with the original understanding of that right (though, to be sure, interpretation of the scope of that right has gone through a fair bit of jurisprudential modernization).

Per wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 1:37 am And of course the Soviet Union deported its citizens left, right and center.
They never were sticklers for citizens' (or even human) rights.

Did it? I was under the impression the Soviet disposition towards dissidents was to send them to Siberia (not deportation) or, at least during Lenin and Stalin, execute them. Far from forcing Soviet citizens out of the country, they often wouldn't let them leave.

UWSaint wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 11:38 am

Per wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 1:37 am And of course the Soviet Union deported its citizens left, right and center.
They never were sticklers for citizens' (or even human) rights.

Did it? I was under the impression the Soviet disposition towards dissidents was to send them to Siberia (not deportation) or, at least during Lenin and Stalin, execute them. Far from forcing Soviet citizens out of the country, they often wouldn't let them leave.

True. Executions and prison camps in Siberia were far more common. But there were some cases of dissidents that were kicked out, stripped of their citizenship and not allowed to return home.

Voluntary and involuntary emigration allowed the authorities to rid themselves of many political active intellectuals including writers Valentin Turchin, Georgi Vladimov, Vladimir Voinovich, Lev Kopelev, Vladimir Maximov, Naum Korzhavin, Vasily Aksyonov, psychiatrist Marina Voikhanskaya and others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_dissidents

They also had a system of internal deportation. Many of the annexed and subjugated neighbours were forced to leave their traditional homeland and live elsewhere. Hundreds of thousands of Estonians, Finns, Ingrians and Latvians were relocated to Siberia and replaced by Russians, and the Crimean Tatars were also forced off the peninsula, mainly deported to Uzbekistan, and were only allowed to return in 1989. Ukraine has since granted them status as an indigenous people, but that status is not recognised by the Russians who invaded Crimea in 2014 and are still illegally occupying it.

Donny and his buddy Jeffrey

https://youtu.be/KLcfpU2cubo?si=y_pnB5SxAbnNsBUT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA8RtJLdQhA



Cat fight at a House Oversight Committee hearing.

Devolution.

Can you spot when the Dylan Mulvaney fiasco happened, and your schadenfreude started?



I thought not.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-69045271.amp

Trump campaign deletes video mentioning 'unified Reich'

The Trump campaign has deleted a video posted to the former president's Truth Social account, which referenced a "unified Reich".

The Trump campaign appealing to white supremacists. Anyone nazi that coming?

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 8:04 am The Trump campaign appealing to white supremacists.

Oh is that a fact?

An "absolute" fact?

We forgive you though because we all know your brain is presently being ravaged by TDS.

From the article:

A spokeswoman said it was not an official campaign video and was posted by a junior staff member, not Mr Trump.

Karoline Leavitt, Mr Trump's spokeswoman, said the post "was not a campaign video, it was created by a random account online and reposted by a staffer who clearly did not see the word, while the president was in court".

BBC Verify research indicates that the probable origin of the graphics is a video template website where users pay to download content they can then customise.

US media reported that the version appearing on Truth Social was first posted on X/Twitter by a user called "Ramble Rants", who regularly reposts videos from a pro-Trump group called the Dilley Meme Team.

It's all in your mind Horsey, have I ever advised you to get some help?

Lol I wasn't expecting a rebuttal

Strangelove wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 3:21 pm From the article:

A spokeswoman said it was not an official campaign video and was posted by a junior staff member, not Mr Trump.

According to Trump himself, only he and his right-hand man, Dan Scavino, have access to post on his social media accounts.

https://x.com/BidenHQ/status/1792916416 ... y_aTA&s=09

Which would make sense. Why would a junior staffer have access to a presidential candidate's social media?

How about looking at some key performance indicators instead of just hurling insults?

To be fair Per, you can't discount the effect of the pandemic on the economy.

Per wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 7:48 am How about looking at some key performance indicators instead of just hurling insults?

How many of those were public sector jobs vs private?

Trudeau’s job creation numbers are astounding, but they are primarily non-revenue generating government positions funded by tax dollars.

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 9:12 am To be fair Per, you can't discount the effect of the pandemic on the economy.

Per doesn’t care about logic and real world happenings. Only what his charts and graphs show him.