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.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: burdman30ott6
No, but the Declaration of Independence does say that ALL people have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - not just citizens - and that governments should protect those rights. Does that mean nothing?
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: burdman30ott6
No, but the Declaration of Independence does say that ALL people have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - not just citizens - and that governments should protect those rights. Does that mean nothing?
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Advantage
You can't just answer the questions honestly? I see.
originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Vroomfondel
It would be interesting to know how many on that list refused to take Jews who where fleeing Nazi Germany ?
originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Vroomfondel
It would be interesting to know how many on that list refused to take Jews who where fleeing Nazi Germany ?
you forget the part where it says that the same government must provide for the common defense.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy
The Federal government has jurisdiction on immigration over the states. This fact has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
As far as this particular issue, it's not about security of immigration/refugees. It's all political. The Republicans would be against this no matter what because Obama is at the helm. Don't let them fool you in to thinking they are doing it for our safety.
What you listed could (arguably) fall under "General Welfare," but in no way is related to common defense.
originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Vroomfondel
It would be interesting to know how many on that list refused to take Jews who where fleeing Nazi Germany ?
originally posted by: kaylaluv
You guys are hopeless. Revel in your selfish cruelty to innocent people who haven't hurt anyone, just to "be on the safe side".
Buh bye.
originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: SonOfThor
I wonder how many refugees the WH would hold? Camp David, Martha's Vineyard, and the private homes for Obama's entire cabinet.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
You guys are hopeless. Revel in your selfish cruelty to innocent people who haven't hurt anyone, just to "be on the safe side".
Buh bye.
originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: SonOfThor
I wonder how many refugees the WH would hold? Camp David, Martha's Vineyard, and the private homes for Obama's entire cabinet.
Proove to us they are safe...
originally posted by: Komodo
a reply to: Vroomfondel
and Oregon isn't one of them .. go figure.. .our emergency resources are maxed out and unable to sustain what we have already .. period..
if we don't send message...ALL of them will be here .. it's TIME to STOP the WARS!
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: kaylaluv
I just find it ironic how people around here fight the whole gun control idea tooth and nail, arguing that a few killings is worth them being able to have their guns, but saving the lives of innocent refugees and risk a possible terrorist act (that could happen anyway by a non-refugee)? No way!
Do you find the Constitution ironic as well? The Constitution grants exactly ZERO rights to entry, refuge, or asylum for non-citizens into the USA. Firearm ownership, however, are a Constitutionally defined RIGHT of the citizenry. There's a vast difference.