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.

 

27 States and counting...

page: 13
54
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   

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?


That doesn't equal "The door is open, come on in!" AND, and... "All men are created equal" was penned at a time when this new nation had 100% legalized slavery and indentured servitude. Even the authors of that sentence knew it was BS and didn't apply to people already living here, so why would it ever apply to allowing anybody with trouble at home to be relocated to the US? Finally, America's laws are based on the Constitution, NOT on the Declaration of Independence.




posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   

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?


You know, I find it odd that you are suddenly SUCH a constitutional originalist, and yet you forget the part where it says that the same government must provide for the common defense.

If the same government who is so wonderful about promoting those three values above fails to provide for our very same common defense, how can we be expected to have life, liberty and to pursue our happiness? Those three things are pretty hard to do when we are either dead or under constant threat of death or maiming because the government cannot or will not secure the common defense because it eagerly allows in known threats to the common defense in the form of persons who actively seek to undermine it.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Advantage

You can't just answer the questions honestly? I see.


Your questions are an attempt to prove you are on topic and they correlate to the topic, which they dont. Obvious as to what the answers are, but an affirmative answer doesnt give any weight to the argument you are trying to make. They do not have ANYTHING to do with each other or the topic.

IE
Bananas are yellow
oranges are orange
Muslims are dangerous and need to be prevented from entering the country.
DO you agree that bananas are yellow?
" " Oranges are orange?
Yes and yes?
See you proved my point... you agree with me.

Kinda low setting on the argument bar...



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   

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 ?


Jews fleeing Nazi Germany did not massacre people.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   

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 ?


Jews weren't bent on destruction of the west.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


you forget the part where it says that the same government must provide for the common defense.

Wait. Excuse me, please, folks....

Ketsuko: Please define what you mean by "the common defense."


I would ask: the "common defense" of whom? Like, defending the homeless and hungry Americans from being homeless and hungry? Defending the aged, ill, infirmed, unemployed Americans from homelessness and hunger? Defending the lives and health of the veteran Americans? Defending the impoverished Americans from starvation? The disabled Americans from being treated and supported? What about the illiterate? You know - who is it you want to 'defend'???

And against whom are you defending them?


edit on 11/17/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   

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.

I'm not looking to Republican politicians to tell me what to think. I can draw my own conclusion that a small army of refugees will lead to problems. There is a plot behind all of this. ISIS made statements that the US is at the top of their list of places to terrorize.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

It means to provide a unified military force to protect the entirety of the States as a whole, rather than a system by which each state would be responsible for funding their own military and overseeing physical defense. In other words (not trying to put words in ketsuko's post) the opposite of what we're seeing here in which the feds aren't defending the country, so the states in the OP are having to do it themselves.

What you listed could (arguably) fall under "General Welfare," but in no way is related to common defense.
edit on 17-11-2015 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


What you listed could (arguably) fall under "General Welfare," but in no way is related to common defense.


I guess I see the two as the same.
General Welfare and Common Defense.

Gnite, everyone. Talk to you all later.

edit on 11/17/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The state could provide us all with 3 squares a day, a house, clothing, etc. ... any good you think people should have that you would wish. But what does all that matter if you get blown up at the mall because the government let a terrorist across the border because they are doing a piss poor job of vetting who comes in?

But if the state does not provide for our defense (i.e. secure our borders from invaders like infiltrating ISIS agents, not just attacking armed forces), then it doesn't matter because the invaders will surely make all those promises moot.

Without a secure and defended nation, all those other niceties might as well not exist. I'm sure whatever social goods the Nazi state provided to its people counted for naught after the bombing of Dresden for example.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   

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 ?



Not all Nazi's were violent. Most were in fact not violent; but if you din't act along you were put on the train.

So in this case, the more appropriate question you should ask is: How many of these states refused to take in Nazi's?

That said, German's were put into internment camps during World War II in the U.S.; which is what the FEMA camps are for...

Watch, that'll be the compromise between the states and the fed. We'll take refugees, but they are going into the barbed wire camps and once hostilities are over, they are returned to their nations of origin.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   
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...



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   

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.

NO BUH BYE!!


I dont like to clarify myself and usually dont... however, I do not think that by practicing isolationism and schorched earth polices that Im advocating the slaughter of innocents. I dont want to speak to Burds intent, but having read his words on this account and my previous one yrs ago... I can safely say that I TRULY feel he does not either. I dont want you to make assumptions based on emotion ( and ths is a HELL of an emotional topic) or misunderstanding... that might close your mind or sever any dialog. There is plenty of room for you who hold your own feelings on the matter and people like me or like Burd. I think that the real solution will actually be a mesh of the emotional and clinical. Which I am guilty of not being on the emotional side of things and can admit to having MUCH difficulty really understanding what a more emotional person REALLY means. FOr me, my own innocent people will always trump any others. If thats a fault, at least Im owning up to it! LOL!

Even if it starts with just us goofballs on ATS.. a real dialog MUST be maintained. I can argue all day and hold my beliefs.. but I ( and I know there are others) that will truly consider the opposite side and truly try to understand. So.. little miss.. NO Buh Bye. Dont make me stalk you... unless you REALLY want me to. I stalked Zazz and even some old half a cherokee geezer mod on here ( actually he is younger than me.. ) and I think the pervs liked it... but I digress...



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   

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.


Aside from the Louisiana refugee who is AWOL and reportedly heading to DC, exactly ZERO have been relocated to the nation's capital.
www.washingtontimes.com...



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
CNN reporting that the number of states objecting to receiving refugees is now up to 31.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   

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.


Ummmm...weren't the Tsarnaev brothers of Boston Marathon fame refugees?

Just sayin...

Buh bye.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   

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...


I was thinking that FEMA camps would be a much nicer place than the trash dump, re the Japanese-Americans in N Idaho



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   

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!


People who give have to set limits because people who take do not.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   

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.


Here's something else the Constitution says...

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting ..."

How does it not violate the Constitution to disallow refugees on the basis of their religion?




top topics



 
54
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join