Who you guys think is gonna win Trump or Kamala ? : CafeDread | Torhoo darknet markets

Well firstly,

Roe v Wade was not "reversed" it was corrected.

The actual topic of the law is irrelevant, it just happened to be a contentious one.

The reason why it was reversed was that there was no legal basis for a precedent to be rolled out across the entire country as a federal diktat, as it had no basis in anything in the US Constitution, and was not a Federal law enacted by the US Congress, so it had to go, just out of principle.

It is entirely correct that a law such as that should be referred to the States, as States rights.
The USA is a Federal Republic, which, by design allows for different States to have different laws on a range of topics (e.g.: Marijuana or the Death Penalty).

You might (rightly) believe that the Death Penalty should be universally abolished as a "cruel and unusual punishment"; or, that Marijuana should be completely legal for personal use across the entire country, but for exactly the same reason, as Roe v Wade, those things aren't the case.

The US Congress can vote those things into a Federal law if they want to, but they haven't. It is not appropriate for the US judiciary to create federal laws, because they are not the legislature, and have no democratic mandate to do so.

The USA is not a democracy, it is a republic, and that makes a difference in how laws happen.

So, it's mistaken to call the reversal of Roe v Wade an "agenda" item, you are merely conflating your emotions about the law, and your prejudices against the Republican/Conservative "movement" with media conjecture into a conspiracy theory.

--

The notion of "Book burning" is also completely misconceived.

Children are not adults, and do not have the same rights as adults.
Parents are adults and have rights over their children, unless removed via some legal process of the state to protect children.
The state is not the parent, and does not have a role or right to intervene between parents and children and their UN Declaration of Human Rights right to a family life without the interference of the state (N.B.: the CCP "government" intervenes in this way, such as by inflicting forced abortions).

In the context of a school (as in the British sense of a place of compulsory education for children, who are not adults), it is routine to filter out and police the types of material placed in the school environment for either educational or recreational purposes.

The kind of books you are probably referring to are ones that advance an agenda of exposing children to sexual topics that are in some cases highly disturbing, and more to the point, inconsistent with other legislation.
If an adult were found to have such books in their possession at home, whether they had children or not, in most cases child protection services would be called, with reasonable suspicions of paedophilia, which is illegal, because children are not adults, and cannot legally consent to most things. Censorship of material in schools is routine in the form of national curriculum material and exams. Not many parents are fighting for the right of their children toe learn about and pass exams in genital mutilation, "furries", or paedophilia, aside from morality, and dubious academic benefit, such things offer little use to young adults trying to find a viable job and career in the economy.

The notion that these books are "educational content" is challenged by recent reflection and subsequent changes in policy, such as the closure of the Tavistock Clinic in the UK.

This is not about other forms of legal sexual deviency, it is about education, and regardless of the religious or general beliefs of parents, there is no legal right for teachers and schools to push sexual-political agendas in schools. Removing these sub-educational materials is not "book burning" but quite reasomnable and normal, in the same was as not using comics or BDSM novellas to teach English or Maths.
Teachers and children have enough of a workload without having to placate political activists, and there is a much greater need to raise general literacy and maths skills than there is to recruit future chronic patients for the medical industry.

--

Your final misconceived notion is this idea of "exportation of undocuments citizens".

Firstly, these are not citizens of the USA or any of the countries they have illegally entered. They are foreigners, and citizens of other countries. That means that they have no legal right to enter another country without complying with its visa requirements and other immigration laws.
Secondly, the removal of foreign citizens is called deportation, and is quite a normal process in most countries when laws, and especially visa and immigration laws have been broken. These foreigners are not being "exported", they are being deported to their countries, which are their legal abodes. It's a similar idea to when you own a house, people can only come into your house when you as the owner give consent, and they have to leave, when they have illegally entered your home without your consent. To extend the metaphor, if you jointly own your house with someone who has a completely different position on these property rights, it doesn't change anything in law, the default position is that the property rights must be respected, and the part-owner who wants them enforced, has to to have them enforced; you cannot reasonably have the another part owner subletting their bedroom to an outsider who the other owner wants out, it's a breach of contract, for a start.
Thirdly, these foreigners are not "undocumented", they are illegal aliens; they are not even illegal immigrants or refugees or asylum seekers, they have no rights to be there, and have to be expelled, it is a fundamental aspect of being a country and having a border and of citizenship itself.

--

Fourthly, guns... given the conduct of the current regime in America, it would be a great loss to the world to lose the right to bear arms. It is a fundamental part of what America is. Those Americans who don't like it, really should go to Canada, or Europe, or whatever country is their main ethnic origin.
In the UK the 1689 Bill of Rights enshrined the right to bear arms which led to the USA's 2nd Amendment. It was wrong to erode this right, and most autochthonous British would gladly have it back and jealously guard it.