The Trump administration is operating on a “it’s not legal/constitutionally protected until a judge says it is” and if they punish you before the judge says you don’t deserve punishment, oh well!

So I’m this case, because we don’t have any case law saying that deportation is an infringement of the 1st amendment, Trump gets to say it is until a judge says otherwise. At which point maybe Trump will obey the court, or (probably) not.

It’s bullshit and backwards, but that’s what we’re up against.

What do you mean? We’ve always been at war with Eurasia

They’re already doing this ALL the time. Even before the Trump administration, an average of one citizen gets deported every month, and if you don’t have a lawyer on the outside fighting for you, you’re fucked.

You might be on to something there

Huh. TIL.

I guess this is exactly what the judicial branch was created for. We’ve got an undefined area of legality, somebody’s got to sort it out, and until they do we just can’t say for sure one way or the other

Has he ever given any indication that he knows what the CHIPS Act is? Because I’m 99% sure he’s confusing it with CHIP Children’s Health Insurance Program which iirc is part of social security and we know he’s aiming to get rid of that.

IMO you’re overthinking it.

The Constitution applies to all people within jurisdiction of the United States. Immigration or citizenship status isn’t a factor; he absolutely has a first amendment right to say what he said.

The question you’re struggling with is regarding people who aren’t already within the jurisdiction, or are applying for citizenship.

All of that said, if ICE already deported him then that complicates things. Normally somebody who’s been deported will be denied reentry for that reason alone; there’s a waiting period (5 years iirc) if they’re ever going to be allowed back in at all. But you’re correct that they could also deny him reentry for his political views. It’s likely that, if he’s already out of the country, legally removed or not, a judge will have to order him to be allowed reentry despite both of this things.

Not enough

A strike that has a scheduled end date is a strike that’s has scheduled its own failure. A ten day strike would achieve nothing except the suffering of it’s participants.

Yes, the economy would grind to a halt, yes people would likely die, yes it would financially hurt the powerful people in charge.

But do you really think those powerful people will give a shit? They know after ten days the gravy train will resume, but only for them and not the people who lost their jobs, got arrested, were injured, etc. The rich and powerful can afford to be patient, meanwhile everyone who sacrificed for ten days is going to have to question whether they can survive doing it again.

No, we’re way past the point where our society can afford another failed effort to affect change. We need a general strike that doesn’t end until the government capitulates to the needs of the people. It’s all or nothing, now. ☹️

The Democrats could have run a turd as a candidate with the slogan “it’ll be a shit show” and I’d still have voted for them with no regrets, because I understand that fascism is an existential threat. If the Democrats are to blame in any way, it’s because they didn’t try to get people to understand that OH WAIT THEY DID.

Should the Democrats have run a better candidate and a better campaign? Obviously yes. Is it their fault that voters were willing to let a fascist win? Not even a little.