Ashley Renee

“OBAMA SPENT $376 MILLION!!!”

yeah
on underground wiring, utilities and security systems the government ordered after 9/11
not on a ballroom.

(Sources: 26 U.S.C. § 36B(f)(2)(B); H.R. 1, Subtitle B, § 71303–71305; CRS “Premium Tax Credit and Advance Payment Reconciliation,” 2023; KFF Health News & PolitiFact fact-checks.)

And according to CBP’s own hospital reimbursement data, immigrants account for just 0.4 % of total Medicaid compensation to hospitals nationwide — so this narrative that the system’s being drained by immigrant health care costs doesn’t hold up.

Undocumented people are still not eligible for ACA plans or subsidies under any proposal. The “subtitle B” repeal just stops those new penalties and paperwork traps from hitting everyone else.

That’s why Democrats want those sections removed. Keeping them would punish middle-class Americans on the ACA, not just immigrants.

Section 71305 – deletes 26 U.S.C. § 36B(f)(2)(B) — the repayment-cap table that protects families at tax time. Right now, you only have to repay up to $350–$3,000 if your income estimate was off. Under this, you’d have to repay the entire amount, which can be thousands of dollars.

Section 71304 – takes away subsidies if you enroll mid-year because your income changed — even if you’re a U.S. citizen who just lost a job.

Here’s what it does:

Section 71303 – makes people prove eligibility all over again before they can even start coverage. That means delays, lapses, and lost coverage while the exchange verifies income and residency. (Undocumented were never eligible for this so this is just divisive.)

“Subtitle B of Section VII” (the one everyone’s arguing about) isn’t about immigrant eligibility, that’s a moot point because they already are NOT eligible. It changes how everyone on the ACA qualifies for and keeps their subsidies.

Mike Johnson says this is the section in the proposal that allows “free healthcare to illegal aliens.” Let’s review:

Again, this case has moved beyond logistics.
It’s now about whether the government can keep someone imprisoned while it looks for a country that never agreed to take him.

Abrego Garcia remains detained at Moshannon Valley in Pennsylvania under a judicial stay of removal.

The courts are now deciding whether his continued detention—and the prosecution that followed it—can stand under the law.

He set an evidentiary hearing on the motion to dismiss for November 3.

Defense attorney Jenna Dabbs told the court the team plans to seek removal of irrelevant and prejudicial allegations — including repeated references to MS-13 that have nothing to do with the charges.

The facts:

Eswatini: rejected.
Ghana: rejected.
Uganda: rejected.
Costa Rica: willing per defense, no U.S. outreach.
Maryland: detention ruling pending.
Tennessee: motion to dismiss scheduled Nov. 3.

In Tennessee:

Judge Waverly Crenshaw held a separate hearing in the criminal case filed the day Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S.

He did not hear the suppression motion.

Judge Xinis said she will soon decide whether Abrego Garcia should stay detained or be released while this challenge proceeds.

Her tone suggested she sees through the claim of “imminent removal.”

What that means in practical terms:

The U.S. has no approved travel documents, no destination, and no clear legal path.
Costa Rica remains untested because the government hasn’t asked.

Judge Xinis pressed DOJ attorney Drew Ensign on a different option: Costa Rica.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers told the court Costa Rica is willing to receive him.

Ensign admitted the government hasn’t contacted Costa Rica at all.

Judge Xinis: “This is just not that hard.”

The testimony showed how hollow DHS’s plan really is.

Schultz said they were “still talking” with Eswatini, even though that country already declined.

He added that removal could happen “within 72 hours” if a country agreed—
but there is no agreement.

Each one said no.
Eswatini rejected the idea this week.
Ghana said TODAY it will not accept him, directly rebutting the news report.
Uganda had already refused.

Their brief claims the Constitution grants citizenship only through “allegiance and consent,” not by birthplace.

America First Legal Urges U.S. Supreme Court to Restore Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment in Brief Filed on Behalf of Chairman Jim Jordan and 17 Members of Congress America First Legal (AFL), in partnership with Boyden Gray LLC, has filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of eighteen members of the House Judiciary Committee—led by Chairman Jim J...

🚨 AFL, with Jim Jordan and 17 members of Congress, just asked the Supreme Court to “restore the original meaning” of the Fourteenth Amendment — arguing that birthright citizenship should not apply to children born in the U.S. if their parents are undocumented or owe allegiance to another country.

Congressman Buddy Carter says he wants to call a special session of Congress to give Donald Trump a “Congressional Nobel Peace Prize.”

Since Trump can’t win the real one, Buddy’s just inventing a fake one.
A whole award ceremony for a man who threatens war on his own people, not peace.

“The greatest extent practicable” is not “to no extent at all.” That’s the line the court just drew.

storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2025/10/...