Imagine people deliberately voting for a felon who pushes stuff illegally into a slush fund with no details. Congress is not involved and there is no information about where the money collected for this will go and how the US will actually benefit and HOW WE THE PUBLIC COULD MONITOR IT. As well as assurance that Trump can’t get his greedy hands on any part of it for his own purposes.
In other words, all men are created equal but if you pay Trump a million bucks, you can bypass our American values.
This is still VERY illegal. The Trump admin says anyone who pays $1 million will be deemed to have "exceptional business ability" and become eligible for an employment-based immigrant visa. But there's nothing stopping someone from just getting a loan or using parents' money.
— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@reichlinmelnick.bsky.social) December 10, 2025 at 3:03 PM
[image or embed]
What Aaron said about vetting is true so it probably won't be the criminals and terrorists but it could well be their families, who can then help them stash their ill gotten gains in the US.
— crzwdjk.bsky.social (@crzwdjk.bsky.social) December 10, 2025 at 4:06 PM
Here’s Trump’s latest grift which he is apparently executing outside of Congress.
AND where does the money go? What account? Since Congress has the power of the purse, Trump won’t be able to put his mitts on it, right?
From the guardian
According to Trump, proceeds from the new program will go to “an account where we can do things positive for the country” and that it will generate “many billions of dollars”.
Of course, Congress, particularly the Republicans, who have decided to, while they’re f*ing the public, do fealty to Trump, apparently doesn’t really want BE the 3rd branch of government.
Only Congress can create concrete immigration policy, as reflected in the INA’s; no other actor, federal or state, may create new laws that circumvent that framework. The Court emphasized this structural limit in Arizona v. United States (2012), where it ruled that immigration policy must originate with Congress solitarily. The Court reviewed Arizona’s S.B. 1070, which attempted to pass their own immigration laws to suppress illegal immigration. The federal government sued, arguing that enforcing immigration policies exist within the realm of federal responsibility, and that S.B.1070 violated the INA. The Court concurred and struck down Arizona’s attempt to create their own immigration policies, such as “creating a state-law crime for being unlawfully present [in the country],” reaffirming that only Congress has exclusive powers over immigration because if states were able to do so, they would impede the national government from smoothly executing federal immigration laws. Following the Court’s ruling, immigration policies must be “made by one voice,” which refers to Congress’s. [9] Albeit Arizona v. US involved state rather than executive overreach, the Court’s reasoning, that solely Congress can set substantive rules governing immigration and not states, serves as a crucial parallel. Arizona v. US stresses that states may not create immigration categories outside of the INA; likewise, the President cannot create an entirely new immigration category without grounding it in statutory text.
Furthermore, according to Justice Jackson, “The President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker… When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.”
If it's possible to buy a green card, then the only thing that undocumented people are guilty of is being poor
— Katie (@limoniana.bsky.social) December 10, 2025 at 4:35 PM
