It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama's Attorney General Nominee: Illegal Immigrants Have a Right to Work in The United States

page: 10
27
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
Back up a step.

Nobody has a "right" to work.

That would imply that another person would be "required" to provide a job.

We can't force one person to take an action so that another person can express a so-called "right."


Yes. You have a right to work. BUt you don't have a right to a job.

But it all boils down to: does an individual have a right to ply their trade? Or can there be laws that stipulate who can and cannot mow a yard, or flip a burger, or clean a house, or prepare a tax return.

We all have a right to work if we so choose. Whether we will actually find work....that's a whole 'nuther story.




posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

And this right here is why we are circling the drain.

Morons. Every one of them that believes this BS.

ALL illegals need to be deported.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

Why you are circling the drain is because of the global excrement you and other nations keep piling up is clogging the system....stop believing the crap the msm feeds you and start thinking for yourselves...years and years of dumbing people down....actually believing that working for money is correct....learning to understand money in your pocket is debt....for EVERY single dollar is created out of debt....knowing that every soldier whom enters an army only adds to the problem...and learning that borders create immigrants....does privilege only belong to you because of where you are born on this planet....learn that religions divide...learn that because one is white does not make them special....learn that every single human born on this planet should have the ability to go where they want...learn to realise we are all human...and that greed is the problem.....Not immigrants.

Yes my views do not fit in with the system that exists ....but that is what knowledge is about....the ability to see when something is wrong and going about changing it....no matter how daunting the task....I say this not to Americans.....I say this to every human being....because that is what we all are......HUMAN.

okay beyond the dribble....egocentric views are destroying this world....and only the gullible to TPB perpetuate this...right now the most hated nation on this planet is America...it is not because you are envied...and not because others are afraid of you...it is because the people are blind to your sick manipulated DEMONocracy...when your own military starts to put boots on your own streets you might wake up....but by then it will be to late....I am white...born in a western world...and disgusted by our greed....We consumers of goods and producers of hate should only look to ourselves to bring change.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: plube

Thanks for sharing.


We have sovereign borders. People have come here illegally. They have no right to work. They have the right to be returned back to their country of origin.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It's much more than drug-related violence. I forget the figure but it was something on the order of 75% of all small farmers in Mexico were driven out of business by American corporations pushing GMOs. The factories we built there in the 80's are falling in to decay, already supplanted by new ones in Asia.
Ending prohibition would be a good start to curtain the power of the cartels but I doubt the bigwigs in DC or Wall St really want that. Too much money to be made, untraceable money that they can do bad things with. It seems to be their specialty starting with the Russell trust and opium from China. Now we rule the poppy fields of Afghanistan.
So what do you do when your government has basically become a drug cartel in itself?



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok




You should Because it breaks the part in the constitution that says ones property should be safe from being taken without due process


Actually.

The willfull commission of a crime rights are not guaranteed, especially constitutional rights.

Just ask felons that lose their right to vote, and the right to own a gun.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok




You should Because it breaks the part in the constitution that says ones property should be safe from being taken without due process


Actually.

The willfull commission of a crime rights are not guaranteed, especially constitutional rights.

Just ask felons that lose their right to vote, and the right to own a gun.





Yes those are convicted felons.

Due process through a court has been done and it would certainly be acceptable to suspend certain rights. And as I have stated taking money and property from convicted felons is fine with me.


BUT

Civil forfeiture laws as they stand now allow police departments to seize money and assets on just suspicion of crime without there having to be a conviction in court.

THAT to me is morally wrong and from I see is constitutionally wrong.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

The Constitution is there to protect US Citizens, not illegal invaders.

If this were the case, deporting an illegal invader would be outlawed. But, it isn't.

The illegals are here via breaking US laws.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

LOL....vote, i guess.


The US carries on the imperial pursuits of its forebears. Even though we don't set up an outward facing ruler in our name....the dollar does its job of fitting that bill.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: crazyewok

The Constitution is there to protect US Citizens, not illegal invaders.

If this were the case, deporting an illegal invader would be outlawed. But, it isn't.

The illegals are here via breaking US laws.


Thats not what im discussing with neo.

I was responding to his comment here:


originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: burntheships

I honestly don't have a problem with a drug dealers asset's being taken.

Or people like the Madoff's.

And terrorist's.



Im actually with you and neo on the deporting illegal immigrants. I can see first hand how unrestricted immigration can overburden public services. Laws and regulation of immigration need to be in place and enforced.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok




You should Because it breaks the part in the constitution that says ones property should be safe from being taken without due process


Actually.

The willfull commission of a crime rights are not guaranteed, especially constitutional rights.

Just ask felons that lose their right to vote, and the right to own a gun.





Yes those are convicted felons.

Due process through a court has been done and it would certainly be acceptable to suspend certain rights. And as I have stated taking money and property from convicted felons is fine with me.


BUT

Civil forfeiture laws as they stand now allow police departments to seize money and assets on just suspicion of crime without there having to be a conviction in court.

THAT to me is morally wrong and from I see is constitutionally wrong.


You have this exactly backwards.

The due process you speak of is what the illegals failed to complete.

A non-citizen has the burden of proof when visiting a foreign country. The country does not have the burden of proof.

No documents to prove you belong here? Leave.

At least that's how it works in every single country on planet earth except the U.S.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Jamie1
Back up a step.

Nobody has a "right" to work.

That would imply that another person would be "required" to provide a job.

We can't force one person to take an action so that another person can express a so-called "right."


Yes. You have a right to work. BUt you don't have a right to a job.

But it all boils down to: does an individual have a right to ply their trade? Or can there be laws that stipulate who can and cannot mow a yard, or flip a burger, or clean a house, or prepare a tax return.

We all have a right to work if we so choose. Whether we will actually find work....that's a whole 'nuther story.


Well maybe they have a right to work in their country of citizenship.

They don't even have a legal right to physically be in the U.S., let alone a right to be employed.

You can't have an AG who is so political that they ignore the laws. Maybe they should do it the old fashioned way and actually pass new laws if they want to change policy.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok




You should Because it breaks the part in the constitution that says ones property should be safe from being taken without due process


Actually.

The willfull commission of a crime rights are not guaranteed, especially constitutional rights.

Just ask felons that lose their right to vote, and the right to own a gun.





Yes those are convicted felons.

Due process through a court has been done and it would certainly be acceptable to suspend certain rights. And as I have stated taking money and property from convicted felons is fine with me.


BUT

Civil forfeiture laws as they stand now allow police departments to seize money and assets on just suspicion of crime without there having to be a conviction in court.

THAT to me is morally wrong and from I see is constitutionally wrong.


You have this exactly backwards.

The due process you speak of is what the illegals failed to complete.

A non-citizen has the burden of proof when visiting a foreign country. The country does not have the burden of proof.

No documents to prove you belong here? Leave.

At least that's how it works in every single country on planet earth except the U.S.



Read my responce above to maceman


I was responding to something else NEO said.



Im all for deportation of illegals. My country has enough of em too to sympathies with the USA.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

LOL due process would actually be illegals knocking on the door, and ask to come in this house.

Their 'right's are not being denied.
edit on 29-1-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok

LOL due process would actually be illegals knocking on the door, and ask to come in this house.

Their 'right's are not being denied.


If you bothered to actually READ

I was responding to your comment of civil forfeiture laws.


I have no issues with deportation of illegals as I have stated many many many times...



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: crazyewok

The Constitution is there to protect US Citizens, not illegal invaders.

If this were the case, deporting an illegal invader would be outlawed. But, it isn't.

The illegals are here via breaking US laws.


Thats not what im discussing with neo.

I was responding to his comment here:


originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: burntheships

I honestly don't have a problem with a drug dealers asset's being taken.

Or people like the Madoff's.

And terrorist's.



Im actually with you and neo on the deporting illegal immigrants. I can see first hand how unrestricted immigration can overburden public services. Laws and regulation of immigration need to be in place and enforced.


I wonder why that doesn't seem to apply to gun owners, rich folks,bankers,and business owners.

None of those people ever had their 'due process' in courts of law.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96


I wonder why that doesn't seem to apply to gun owners, rich folks,bankers,and business owners.

None of those people ever had their 'due process' in courts of law.


Well they should have there due process if punitive action is ever to be taken.


Though last time I checked bankers have not exactly been punished by the goverment or faced any legal action for there cock up.

though I think large bailout using PUBLIC money does constitute some sort of part ownerships by the taxpayer.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

What do you mean IF ?

There are literally TENS of THOUSANDS of laws regulating their conduct.

Regulation is punishment.

Taxes is punishment.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok

What do you mean IF ?

There are literally TENS of THOUSANDS of laws regulating their conduct.

Regulation is punishment.

Taxes is punishment.


Well that a whole other debate.

We have already gone way off topic with just the civil forfeiture.

If you want to discuss start a topic and I will join you, infact you may find me somewhat sympathetic.


But now your just star baiting

edit on 29-1-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Same topic just different face.

One group says ILLEGALS don't have to follow the law.

And yet gun owners,bankers, rich people,corporations DO.

Doesn't work like that.

After all the rule of law is for everyone.

Not just a group of people every administration deems to be special.

It's called consistency.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join