I've noticed that throughout the debates over illegal immigration and efforts by ICE to detain and deport those in America illegally, almost all the responses from those who live in other nations don't really seem to think removing those illegally present in their country as much of a big deal at least as a public commotion/outrage that occurs in the US.

While those who live in other nations may or may not approve of the tactics of American immigration enforcement, I rarely hear them say anything crosswise about the objective to remove those illegally present in their state regardless of sympathies or circumstances. If a student overseas his visa in France or a job hunter can't find legal work in Japan, they are deported with almost no public outcry as compared with how American media portrays the same situation, much less toward actual criminals or lawbreakers.

What do you make of the difference in how Americans and those who live in other countries respond to the policy of deporting those who reside in their national illegally? Is it just the volume of illegals present in any particular nation? How do their views shape how much concern the response should be to these immigration enforcement actions?

At a campaign rally in North Carolina, Donald Trump promised compensation for victims of toxic water contamination at Camp Lejeune — but tied the payments to Republicans winning the November 3 midterms.

"If we don't win, there's no money. If we do win, you're getting it," Trump told supporters.

He's also promised Americans $5,000 payments if Republicans retain control of Congress and linked a proposed $100 million investment in Kentucky to a Republican victory.

Critics call it an abuse of presidential power. Supporters argue he's simply explaining what Republicans intend to deliver if they win.

Where is the line between legitimate campaign promises and using government money to pressure voters? Should compensation for sick veterans ever be tied to an election outcome?

https://americareport.us/trump-election-promises-cash-only-if-republicans/

In international law, should nations be permanently bound by the treaties they sign to ensure stability and trust (the principle of pacta sunt servanda), or should they be legally allowed to modify, withdraw from, or dissolve treaties when significant, unforeseen changes in historical, political, or geopolitical circumstances render those agreements obsolete (the principle of rebus sic stantibus)?"

your Opinions are needed!