What the Court should have added is 'Dreamers' need to apply for citizenship as soon as they turn 18.
They are prohibited, by law, to apply for citizenship or for lawful permanent residency no matter how many times you and others try to make it sound like it is their fault that they find themselves in this situation; and, I know I have mentioned that probably a half-dozen times over the past few years on this website. One must be in a “legal status” to apply for citizenship...that is why people have been clambering for a change to the law. It is not the dreamers’ fault that they were unlawfully brought here, grew up here, were educated and lived here and made their lives here and can’t do anything to legitimize their existence here. There are specific rules to being able to register for DACA. E.g. age and time period of entry, being of good moral character as legally defined in Title 8, U.S.C. and 8 C.F.R., etc...What the Court should have added is 'Dreamers' need to apply for citizenship as soon as they turn 18.
thePlease explain how you arrive at the judgement that if someone genuinely feels solidarity or respect or appreciation or admiration for someone or some group or organization or what have you that it means they are "fake"?
Example 1: How is it if I praise your computer abilities and am genuinely impressed that you are so knowledgeable and express my thoughts on this website after a particularly frustrating time I had, because of my lack of knowledge, and sought your help, and not expecting nor wanting anything in return "fake" or a bad thing?
Example 2: Now if I said and posted the same because I was trying to butter you up so you'd come to my house and pull weeds, mulch my flower beds and mow my lawn for free, and I really didn't think you were all that particularly talented where computers were concerned, I certainly realize that is not a "good thing" and my purported "praise and admiration" is indeed fake.
Read the dictionary definition of "virtue signaling" that I provided. And please note that I specifically qualified that I didn't think it was a bad thing so long as the feelings or position was genuinely held by the person/people expressing it. I know the difference between someone saying, "of course, I fully support racial equality (and they genuinely do, they live it, and teach it) vs someone saying the same but at the same time won't rent their rental property to people of other races than themselves; teach their children that children who are of different races are inferior; or laughed when that dumbass West Virginia official who said that Michelle Obama was an "ape in heels." BTW, that dumbass WVa official was found guilty and sentenced of a Federal crime (she committed FEMA fraud and stole $18,000). Meanwhile, Michelle Obama's memoir (Becoming) is set to become the best-selling memoir in history, raised two accomplished daughters and she has the respect and admiration of millions.
It is a matter of "truth." The most suspicious and un-trusting people I have encountered during my lifetime are often people whose actions are usually suspect and are not trustworthy. It is called, "projecting." People usually don't like in others, what they secretly know is present and think they are hiding in themselves, as well as accusing others of their own sins while denying theirs. Exhibit 1: The current POTUS
Russian intel unit offered bounties for killing coalition troops in Afghanistan: report
BY OLIVIA BEAVERS - 06/26/20 04:15 PM EDT
A Russian military unit secretly sought to offer rewards to Taliban-linked militants in order to incentivize them to hunt and kill coalition forces in Afghanistan as the Trump administration engaged in peace talks to end the war in the area, U.S. intelligence officials have reportedly concluded.
The New York Times, citing officials briefed on the matter, reported Friday that the U.S. intelligence apparatus has known for months about the alleged efforts of the Russian military intelligence unit, which reportedly provided rewards to militants for successful attacks last year.
U.S. troops were among the targeted coalition forces, according to the Times, which reported that some militants or associated entities are believed to have received reward money.
While 20 Americans died last year in combat in Afghanistan, it is unclear how many – or which specific cases – are linked to the killing bounties, the newspaper reported.
President Trump and other intelligence officials on the National Security Council reportedly discussed the matter in a meeting in late March, where they weighed a series of potential responses. However, no formal steps have been made, the Times reported. (This is how much the f'n POS trump "loves" the military!)
The newspaper's sources said they were unclear why there has been a delay. The motivations of the Russian intelligence unit's alleged efforts are also unclear.
Some officials theorized the efforts could be to destabilize the West or take revenge for pro-Syrian forces being killed when advancing on an American outpost in 2018, according to the Times.
Still, such actions would mark a major escalation of Russian support of the Taliban and an attempt to turn violence onto coalition forces.
It would also mark an escalation of Russia's actions toward the U.S., (Obviously trump is counting on Russia's continued efforts to cause the same kind of crap for his relection as they did for his 2016 election, so he isn't going to "kill" that golden goose, and we all know how the tacky trump loves his gold.) following its efforts to sow discord during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. During that election, Russia used disinformation campaigns on social media platforms and cyberattacks to amplify an already divisive race.
The Kremlin has not officially commented on the reports, saying that they will do so if they see the U.S. make accusations.
Crickets...crickets...crickets...A Russian military unit secretly sought to offer rewards to Taliban-linked militants to incentivize them to hunt and kill coalition forces in Afghanistan as the Trump administration engaged in peace talks to end the nearly two-decade lonthehill.com
4 hrs ·
The guy in charge of protecting our troops from this?
He went golfing today.
Trump claimed he was staying in Washington to protect STATUES of dead soldiers, which he apparently cares more about than the live ones, but even THAT was a lie. He didn't go to Bedminster because he's worried about law and order, he didn't go because it's raining in New Jersey.
Trump stayed in DC so he could go to his golf course in Virginia.
If you're in the military, or you have somebody in the military that you care about, and you vote for or support these Republican assclowns, you are a snicklefritzing moron.
It was the United States that was in peace talks with the Taliban and the United States that signed the agreement with them. trump has on at least one occasion basically told the U.N. to pound sand. Unfortunately and to their detriment he is the commander-in-chief of all U.S. military personnel and is responsible for them. I am really sorry, but, the U.S. intelligence agencies have not shared with me the proof that they provided to the White House. But despite what that f’ing ridiculously orange son-of-bitch says, the American intelligence apparatus is pretty good, reliable and honest with the country’s best interest at heart unlike that POTUS* who, despite his tough-guy act is nothing more than an inept sniveling ignorant coward. What I want that stupid f’er to do is to act like the CIC and not ignore it like it didn’t/isn’t happening all the while treating Putin like a great friend to the U.S. Gawd, he really must have naked pictures of that POS POTUS.*You know Coalition troops are under the command of the UN and not the President.
Question, what proof is there to the allegations?
Question, what do you want Trump to do to stop it?
Or is everyone just happy to bitch about it?
Still not a solution and won’t stop the bounties that are taking place on both sides.What I want that stupid f’er to do is to act like the CIC and not ignore it like it didn’t/isn’t happening all the while treating Putin like a great friend to the U.S. Gawd, he really must have naked pictures of that POS POTUS.*
I expect I know much more about this than you do...and it doesn’t matter.Still not a solution and won’t stop the bounties that are taking place on both sides.
And if you don’t think our SF’s don’t have that behind the scenes incentives, just keep your eyes closed.
My comment was in response to your quoted comments...which had nothing to do with “being in Afghanistan“ and everything to do with knowledge of how things sometimes gets done by the military and other operatives. You’d be surprised at how much you can learn through osmosis when you’ve spent many years rubbing shoulders and other things as well as living and working with and among these folks over a span of 40 years or so.How much time did you spend in Afghanistan?
AP sources: White House aware of Russian bounties in 2019
By JAMES LaPORTAtoday
Top officials in the White House were aware in early 2019 of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban for the deaths of Americans, a full year earlier than has been previously reported, according to U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the intelligence.
The assessment was included in at least one of President Donald Trump’s written daily intelligence briefings at the time, according to the officials. Then-national security adviser John Bolton also told colleagues he briefed Trump on the intelligence assessment in March 2019.
The White House did not respond to questions about Trump or other officials’ awareness of Russia’s provocations in 2019. The White House has said Trump was not — and still has not been — briefed on the intelligence assessments because they have not been fully verified. However, it is rare for intelligence to be confirmed without a shadow of a doubt before it is presented to top officials.
Bolton declined to comment Monday when asked by the AP if he had briefed Trump about the matter in 2019. On Sunday, he suggested to NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Trump was claiming ignorance of Russia’s provocations to justify his administration’s lack of a response.
“He can disown everything if nobody ever told him about it,” Bolton said.
The revelations cast new doubt on the White House’s efforts to distance Trump from the Russian intelligence assessments. The AP reported Sunday that concerns about Russian bounties were also included in a second written presidential daily briefing earlier this year and that current national security adviser Robert O’Brien had discussed the matter with Trump. O’Brien denies he did so.
On Monday night, O’Brien said that while the intelligence assessments regarding Russian bounties “have not been verified,” the administration has “been preparing should the situation warrant action.”
The administration’s earlier awareness of the Russian efforts raises additional questions about why Trump did not take any punitive action against Moscow for efforts that put the lives of Americans servicemembers at risk. Trump has sought throughout his time in office to improve relations with Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, moving earlier this year to try to reinstate Russia as part of a group of world leaders it had been kicked out of.
Officials said they did not consider the intelligence assessments in 2019 to be particularly urgent, given that Russian meddling in Afghanistan is not a new occurrence. The officials with knowledge of Bolton’s apparent briefing for Trump said it contained no “actionable intelligence,” meaning the intelligence community did not have enough information to form a strategic plan or response. However, the classified assessment of Russian bounties was the sole purpose of the meeting.
The officials insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the highly sensitive information.
The intelligence that surfaced in early 2019 indicated Russian operatives had become more aggressive in their desire to contract with the Taliban and members of the Haqqani Network, a militant group aligned with the Taliban in Afghanistan and designated a foreign terrorist organization in 2012 during the Obama administration.
The National Security Council and the undersecretary of defense for intelligence did hold meetings regarding the intelligence. The Pentagon declined to comment and the NSC did not respond to questions about the meetings.
Concerns about Russian bounties flared anew this year after members of the elite Naval Special Warfare Development Group, known to the public as SEAL Team Six, raided a Taliban outpost and recovered roughly $500,000 in U.S. currency. The funds bolstered the suspicions of the American intelligence community that the Russians had offered money to Taliban militants and other linked associations.
The White House contends the president was unaware of this development as well.
The officials told the AP that career government officials developed potential options for the White House to respond to the Russian aggression in Afghanistan, which was first reported by The New York Times. However, the Trump administration has yet to authorize any action.
The intelligence in 2019 and 2020 surrounding Russian bounties was derived in part from debriefings of captured Taliban militants. Officials with knowledge of the matter told the AP that Taliban operatives from opposite ends of the country and from separate tribes offered similar accounts.
The officials would not name the specific groups or give specific locations in Afghanistan or time frames for when they were detained.
Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Putin, denied that Russian intelligence officers had offered payments to the Taliban in exchange for targeting U.S. and coalition forces.
The U.S. is investigating whether any Americans died as a result of the Russian bounties. Officials are focused in particular on an April 2019 attack on an American convoy. Three U.S. Marines were killed after a car rigged with explosives detonated near their armored vehicles as they returned to Bagram Airfield, the largest U.S. military installation in Afghanistan.
The Marines exchanged gunfire with the vehicle at some point; however, it’s not known if the gunfire occurred before or after the car exploded.
Abdul Raqib Kohistani, the Bagram district police chief, said at the time that at least five Afghan civilians were wounded after the attack on the convoy, according to previous reporting by the AP. It is not known if the civilians were injured by the car bomb or the gunfire from U.S. Marines.
The Defense Department identified Marine Staff Sgt. Christopher Slutman, 43, of Newark, Delaware; Sgt. Benjamin Hines, 31, of York, Pennsylvania; and Cpl. Robert Hendriks, 25, of Locust Valley, New York, as the Marines killed in April 2019. The three Marines were all infantrymen assigned to 2nd Battalion, 25th Marines, a reserve infantry unit headquartered out of Garden City, New York.
Hendriks’ father told the AP that even a rumor of Russian bounties should have been immediately addressed.
“If this was kind of swept under the carpet as to not make it a bigger issue with Russia, and one ounce of blood was spilled when they knew this, I lost all respect for this administration and everything,” Erik Hendriks said.
Marine Maj. Roger Hollenbeck said at the time that the reserve unit was a part of the Georgia Deployment Program-Resolute Support Mission, a recurring six-month rotation between U.S. Marines and Georgian Armed Forces. The unit first deployed to Afghanistan in October 2018.
Three other service members and an Afghan contractor were also wounded in the attack. As of April 2019, the attack was under a separate investigation, unrelated to the Russian bounties, to determine how it unfolded.
The officials who spoke to the AP also said they were looking closely at insider attacks — sometimes called “green-on-blue” incidents — from 2019 to determine if they are also linked to Russian bounties.
Associated Press writers Zeke Miller and Deb Riechmann in Washington, Deepti Hajela in New York and Vladimir Isachenkov in Moscow contributed to this report.
39 mins ·
Trump told us the pandemic which has now killed more than 126,000 Americans was a hoax made up by his enemies to discredit him.
Then he told us it was only a few cases that would be cured soon.
Then he told us there would be a vaccine any day now.
Then he told us about some wonder drug that turned out to be not much of a wonder after all.
Then he told us it would only be 10,000 Americans dead.
Then he told us how we should be happy if it's only 200,000 dead and not 2 million.
Then he told us how we should be glad to sacrifice grandma for the sake of Wall Street.
Then he told us how he himself won't do even the minimum -- like wear a mask -- to protect others.
Then, when new infections began to surge, he told us how we could cure the disease by just not testing.
THEN he told us what a great job he's doing and how we should be grateful.
Then he went golfing.
Now he says THIS new threat is a hoax made up by his enemies to discredit him.
Hopefully this time it won't take a quarter million dead American soldiers to get to the truth.