Donald Trump the Megathread part II

Economics101

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123620576#Comment_123620576

Well said, Brazil. It shows up some of the craven approaches taken by European governments. As especially the a*selicking of Mark Rutte,

Apiarist

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123620675#Comment_123620675

Well then it deserves to collapse. I won't cry seeing the system built on the injustice and the unfair exploitation of migrant workers implode.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123621373#Comment_123621373

After just shy of a quarter century in the US Army, I am absolutely convinced it's a marching ability problem

On other matters…

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/10/politics/birthright-citizenship-hearing-rhode-island

It's the same District judge who would only enforce the order from being applied to the plaintiffs in front of him. The new petition instead used the correct procedure to make it a class action suit, and is now applied as to the class, just as the Supreme Court suggested was always the case.

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123620892#Comment_123620892

Could be argued food ought to cost more. Businesses depending on suppressed wages isn't good for workers or the economy imo. It's helped to perpetuate the issues surrounding immigration for decades.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123621576#Comment_123621576

What is the technical difference between a nationwide block and a nationwide injunction when the aim is to stop Trumps deprivation order from having effect? I see the difference seems to be that the latest request to the judge involves the use of the term "class action".

Does his putting a pause on his order for a few days in order to give Trump a chance to respond in court not allow Trump's ICE agents to proceed with deportations of the adult parent/s of the newborn necessitating them to bring the child with them when they are being expelled?

As my post is in two-part question format, anyone with expert knowledge to reply please do so.

A Dub in Glasgo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123621401#Comment_123621401

It would be fantastic if it were true

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123621647#Comment_123621647

Sure but you're going to send inflation through the roof that way. Same if we start buying clothes and gadgets from places with fair working conditions.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123621830#Comment_123621830

1. It is a procedural (or I guess technically a categorization and presentation) difference.

In a normal case, “I (singular) believe I (singular) am being unlawfully (whatevered) by the government. In this case, “I (singular) believe I (singular) am being unfairly denied citizenship”.
Until the recent trend of universal injunctions happened, the response from the court was normally “I agree. You (singular) are likely being unlawfully treated, and you (singular) shall have the protection which you (singular) seek until this can be resolved. Though multiple plaintiffs can make a combined suit, they are still acting as individuals.

A Class Action Suit, however, uses “we” (plural), not “I” (singular). Establishing a class action suit requires a couple extra steps, such as identifying to the court’s satisfaction what qualifies people to be the members of the class in question. The individuals named as plaintiffs in the suit are technically representatives of the class. They speak on behalf of the “we”. All members of the class benefit from a positive ruling, even if they never heard of the court case. So, for example, I am a member of a class which won a suit against BMW due to questionable quality control in a specific V8 engine. I found out about this when I received a note in the mail (as a registered 2015 BMW 550 owner living in Texas) saying “You own an affected car and thus are a member of the class which won the class action suit of ‘Isley vs BMW North America’ in the US District Court of New Jersey. Per the ruling, you have the following choices to obtain compensation.” So, in this case, to be a member of the class “that person’s 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 (2) 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.”

Since there are those extra hurdles, I guess it was easier to do the individual thing and expect the universal injunction.

2. Correct. Should they get picked up in the meantime, they still have the option of filing individual suit as was tried before, and on past experience, they will almost certainly get it. Though I will make one additional statement in that I don’t think it makes much of a practical difference. Parents of the child are not members of the class, so they can be detained even without the hold. The matter of what happens to the child remains the same as it did six months or even six years ago: The parents have to decide whether to bring the child with them. A citizen cannot be deported… but without parents they are either transferred to citizen/lawfully resident relatives or made wards of the State.

looksee

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123622139#Comment_123622139

It would, but it wasn't remotely convincing.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123620752#Comment_123620752

No. The scenario apiarist was suggesting was that the government would issue visas/work permits allowing immigrants to enter to do the necessary farm work, to avoid the collapse of large sectors of the US farming sector.

His assumption is that undocumented migrants can be employed for less, but this isn't necessarily true. Undocument migrants still pay tax and social security; they still have to pay rent and buy groceries; etc — they have to be paid a wage which makes it possible to live in the US. And it's not obvious that migrants with work permits would have to be paid a larger wage.

RickBlaine

Trump considers a 35% tariff on Canadian goods. I wouldn't be surprised if this is just an attempt to distract from the Epstein list and how his administration's staff cuts impacted the Texas floods.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123621830#Comment_123621830

The key difference as a result of the recent Supreme court ruling is that the injunction only applies to those people/places explicitly referenced in the ruling. If the Government can argue that you aren't exactly the category of person described in the specified injunction, they can still carry on doing what they want.

For example, under the Scotus ruling if a future President decided to make Gun ownership illegal, that would be clearly unconstitutional but it's now much more difficult to stop that.

Let's say the NRA goes to court to challenge it. The judge could only give relief to members of the NRA and not everyone else.

Or if the Texas AG did the same, the ruling would only apply to Texas etc.

And because you can only escalate to the Supreme Court if you lose - And no one is going to lose a case like that because it's clearly wrong, getting the case in front of the SCOTUS to get a clearly unconstitutional law fully overturned is now much much more difficult.

everlast75

Trump continues his efforts to establish a "dear leader" country by attacking independent media.

Btw - anyone else think of Baby Reindeer "sent from my iPhone" when he writes "thank you for your attention to this matter"?

HalloweenJack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123623073#Comment_123623073

Of course it is. Sure, people have copped on now that it's just his go-to line he trots out. He also got a swift response from the Brazilians so he's looking for another target to pick on.

Have any of the tariffs he announced actually been applied? Or do they keep getting quietly pushed back?

RickBlaine

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123623278#Comment_123623278

Only a few months ago JD Vance was criticising the UK due to free speech issues. An absolute joke of an administration.

Tazz T

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123619686#Comment_123619686

The US also imports most of its coffee from Brazil. Just saying…

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123623124#Comment_123623124

Yes. I got that from Manic Moran's post. All BABIES born in the U.S to persons classified as non-U.S citizens are covered by the CLASS-ACTION injunction as it was sought to protect people born in the U.S as defined in the birth-right clause, barring it being overturned by an appeals court ruling.

I reckon it's likely that Trump will urge his legal people to go direct to SCOTUS to halt the latest leftie liberal judges ruling against his "greater natural ability" of knowing what the people want, though they will probably go the circuit appeal court route.

The biggest bugbear in the U.S. justice system now is the majority of the SCOTUS bench deciding to roll back on precedent decisions made by previous SCOTUS benches over the past few decades as improper and outside what those benches could and should have done.

It's almost like the present bench rollback decisions are being made as a result of the U.S losing it's pre-eminent position in the world as it knew it and is trying to do what Trump, in his own style, is doing, re-trenching the U.S position worldwide through isolationism, in a hopeless attempt at what he sees as keeping the barbarians from the gates.

That has left it open to political chancers to bring personal notions of who should SHOULD NOT be a U.S citizen to the fore in attempts to ensure only the selected become U.S. citizens, that all others be thrown outside the borders. George Wallace is being reborn.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123623613#Comment_123623613

Ruth Bader Ginsburg deserves a lot blame, and there's a special level of Hell waiting for Mitch McConnell. The likes of Murkowski are getting some of that, too.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123623621#Comment_123623621

How do you figure RGB as liable for some of what has/is happening; holding on too long on the bench or what?

yagan

Birth right citizenship is not the norm in Europe and a lot of the world and if the USA wanted to follow suit that would be its right, we closed a birthright loophole that had been opened with the Belfast GFA.

However attacking those already with citizenship makes no sense and only highlights racist motivations.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123623640#Comment_123623640

Exactly. Obama asked her to retire early on in his Administration when he had majority in the Senate. Didn't, hung on till she died and enabled CFTrump to name her replacement. Her answer to 'who will you get to replace me who would be better?' was the same answer Scalia gave. Answer ended up being, "Trump will choose them.'

All the work she did for women's rights up in smoke. Unfortunately, it's critical to maintain at least the illusion of a divided court. It'd be 5-4 and maybe Roberts would stick his head above the parapet once in awhile especially on farces like Presidential Immunity.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123623124#Comment_123623124

Close, but not quite. There is nothing stopping the NRA from undertaking a class action suit of their own. That said, the NRA generally files suit on behalf of individuals who fall afoul of laws. For example, taking the case of someone arrested for possession of a suppressor, and attempting to get the court to declare the regulation of suppressors as unconstititional. Until that happens, anyone else may still be charged even as the question is being fed through the courts. Injunctions requested by states actually tend to be more likely to have universal effect because it is a direct matter of the relationship between the federal government and the states which make up the country.

The last paragraph is the one with which i disagree to the largest extent. You seem to indicate that things have changed and gotten more difficult, when we are in the situation which has held as standard for many decades if not a century or two. You are correct that you can only choose to escalate if you lose, and historically that has often been seen as a strategic decision. Many states did not appreciate New York escalating Bruen to SCOTUS, because they believed there was too much chance of SCOTUS making a national ruling. Prior to that, the Bruen ruling only applied to New York and a few states around it. They figured that New York was lost anyway, but the gun control in places like Hawaii was still untouched. New York decided to gamble with the other states laws effectively as collateral and as a result, all the states lost.

pad406

I can dream !

Leroy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123623641#Comment_123623641

That is not the point. How other countries do it is irrelevant. It is within the constitution and Trump is openly saying that he doesn't like that particular part of the constitution and is simply going to ignore it.

The US has ever right to amend its constitution to whatever it wishes, but there is a process for that in the worlds greatest democracy (tm) surely the people should at least be consulted.

But it does look to set a vey dangerous precendent. If this attack on the constitution is allowed to proceed, then effectively the US has given up on the constitution and it is purely down to the power of the POTUS to decide on anything.

2nd Amendment would be a great place to start. So all this stuff we hear from gun advoates "its the 2nd Amendment, you can't touch my guns" will be gone

Peregrinus

The process for amending the US constitution is:

• Two-thirds vote in favour of the amendment in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, followed by
• Ratification of the amendment by simple majority in the legislatures of at least three-quarters of the states (i.e. currently 38 out of 50 states)

Conspicuously not involved in the amendment process at any point is the President. Amending the Constitution is absolutely not his busines; his job is to uphold the Constitution and carry it into effect, and indeed he takes an oath to do just that. If you don't like what's in the Constitution and don't want to carry it into effect, well, don't run for President; why apply for, and swear to do, a job that you don't want to do and don't intend to do?

If the Republican Party was anything other than a sick joke, they would of course act to prevent a Republican President from overthrowing the parts of the Constitution that he doesn't like. But they've made it fairly clear for some time now that, whatever else the Republican Party is about, upholding, protecting or defending the republic is not on their agenda.

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123623278#Comment_123623278

Seems like he's getting his way. What are ordinary Americans opposed to Trump actually doing about his efforts to effectuate a fascistic takeover of the USA other than having marches and cutting pithy responses to MAGA sycophants on Twitter?

I mean, if the best plan they have is to vote him and his lot out, well firstly that may not happen if Trump is able to tamper with elections enough. Even if it does happen, America evidently only has a memory of four years, so MAGA would just get voted back in afterward, probably more organised, determined and vengeful if the current trend holds.

Stanley 1

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/10/trump-carroll-sexual-abuse-appeal.html

"A federal appeals court in New York on Thursday officially affirmed the jury verdict that found President Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll, starting the clock for Trump to ask the Supreme Court to overturn the decision and its order that he pay her $5 million in damages."

"Trump now has 90 days to ask the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. There is no automatic right to appeal to the Supreme Court."


If the SC throws the "appeal" out, Donald will have to fork up the $5m + $80m for defamation.

This decision will have an effect on how US women view their rapist/sexual assaulting President as the mid terms draw closer.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123624299#Comment_123624299

When you consider how little they care about the Epstein files, I wouldn't say that things look good.

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123622821#Comment_123622821

Would they want to come if they were restricted to one employer? If they had to go home after the job was finished it would be less attractive.

Do you know where these kind of work visas have been discussed elsewhere?

Are there any other countries where this has been tried or is in use?(I think S.Arabia is sometimes mentioned)

MisterAnarchy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123624299#Comment_123624299

I dont think she will see a dime of that money.

Trump will drag it out for years.