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.

 

Immigration and U.S. Law – Sanctuary Cities vs. Federally Mandated Refugee Migration

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
What a quagmire! We know Syrian refugees have already been settled into the U.S. over the last several months with more coming. We also now know that ISIS is sending jihadists. Because of this, some states are now saying they won’t let that happen and will refuse to take in refugees. The federal government, apparently, doesn’t have to get the states’ permission to do so. If the states refuse, they are essentially breaking the law.

At the same time, there are cities in the US (and Canada) that allow illegal immigrants to live without impunity taking advantage of civil services paid for by tax payers. There is a federal law that is very specific with regard to illegal immigrants. Here’s a quote from
immigration.laws.com

Here's part of what that says:

The laws revolving around illegal entry or overstaying are found in Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code. This section, titled “Improper Entry of Alien” will provide a fine or imprisonment (or both) for any immigrant who: 1. Enters or attempts to enter America at any time or location other than what was designated by the United States Government (immigration official, or 2. Any individual who eludes inspection or examination instituted by the United States Government and its immigration agents, or 3. Any individual who attempts to enter the United States by providing a false or misleading representation of oneself or through a willful concealment of fact. For instance, if you provide a false passport, driver’s license or pretend to be anyone else, you will be charged with attempting to enter the United States in an illegal fashion. The maximum prison sentence for an individual caught in the act of violating immigration policy is 6 months for the first offense and additional 2 years for any subsequent offense.


When I first heard about Sanctuary Cities, I wondered how states can be allowed to break federal law but they do it without fear of any consequences. Allowing it to happen without prosecution by the Justice Department always seemed to me that we were on a path down a slippery slope.

That is, if the Federal Government doesn’t enforce one immigration law when a state breaks it, what keeps a state from breaking another immigration law that they don’t agree with? There’s a precedent already that shows the feds do not uphold all immigration laws.

Accepting refuges from a region of the world where a terror group has already said they would infiltrate just sounds irresponsible to me. At the same time, I have empathy for those that are legitimately trying to get out of harm’s way. For them, I would advocate finding ways to make their life better in the region. However, every time we try to do that, we discover people don’t want the help after all or we misunderstood their expectations and they have no interest in changing their way of life.

So, what about the law? Is there a double standard when it comes to immigration?


edit on 11-17-2015 by LogicalGraphitti because: Fixed the link




posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

Okay, but the Feds enforce Federal Drug Laws on State-legal "marijuana" growing operations... double standards are the norm when it comes to Fed vs. State gov
edit on 17-11-2015 by FamCore because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   


So, what about the law? Is there a double standard when it comes to immigration?


Yeah, it's called The Obama Pen and Phone. It's illegal or unconstitutional unless it's something he wants, then it's "feed'em bullsh** and tell'em it's for their own good"
edit on 17-11-2015 by DAVID64 because: correction



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
At the same time, I have empathy for those that are legitimately trying to get out of harm’s way. For them, I would advocate finding ways to make their life better in the region.


You don't have empathy for the refugees if you want them to try and make their life better in the region. The region is way too dangerous and in ruins, which is why they are leaving.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

That's pure Bull crap!

Nothing more than a manipulative, head game to arrogantly enforce your 'vision' of empathy or compassion.

How many do you have in your House, pray tell.

Any less than one and you can.......


edit on 17-11-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
At the same time, I have empathy for those that are legitimately trying to get out of harm’s way. For them, I would advocate finding ways to make their life better in the region.


You don't have empathy for the refugees if you want them to try and make their life better in the region. The region is way too dangerous and in ruins, which is why they are leaving.

I certainly do have empathy (different from sympathy). It means that I understand their plight - as seen from a distance - and I want to help. But, I'd rather try to help them closer to their home instead of mine. There are a number of ways that could be done. First, find a way to stop the war. That's not an easy one because there are a lot of egos involved. Second, help them help themselves. Find out what a "good life" means to them. Obviously, it isn't the same as what we in the west want. get other Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia and UAE to take refugees. That's more along their lifestyle.

Doing these things will show whether people really want to escape war or are they just trying to go to western countries.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
We also now know that ISIS is sending jihadists.


No we don't. There's some reason to believe that preventing foreign nations from accepting refugees is exactly what ISIS wants. It allows them to force people to fight for them AND it creates a sense of fear and distrust that would make Muslims already in the West want to go fight for God.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

Don't you know that our current government is a do-as-I-say,-not-as-I-do type of nanny?

Of course there's a double standard.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
We also now know that ISIS is sending jihadists.

No we don't.

Sure we do… ABC News

originally posted by: links234
There's some reason to believe that preventing foreign nations from accepting refugees is exactly what ISIS wants. It allows them to force people to fight for them AND it creates a sense of fear and distrust that would make Muslims already in the West want to go fight for God.

Right! I read the ATS memo too. That's subjective to say the least. All I got out of it was that ATS staff can call board members "stupid" if they don't agree. It repeats what Obama said and, sorry to say, he's not exactly the authority on this topic right now. He's all over the place and speaks only in partisan terms.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
At the same time, I have empathy for those that are legitimately trying to get out of harm’s way. For them, I would advocate finding ways to make their life better in the region.


You don't have empathy for the refugees if you want them to try and make their life better in the region. The region is way too dangerous and in ruins, which is why they are leaving.


Y aknow i wonder how life go tso dangerous in th eregion...oh i dont know...maybe because they were too stupid to stop it before they got things rolling? Its entirely their fault and as such the syrians should go back home or walk off a short pier. I dont care about them anymore. Except as a human. They need to go fight for their country liek our nation did in the past.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

That passport, more than likely, was stolen and copied. ISIS doesn't want people leaving the 'caliphate,' they support actions outside of their area but they don't actively send people out.

Also, what ATS memo?

Why Syrian refugee passport found at Paris attack scene must be treated with caution

But there are several reasons why it’s worth waiting until all the facts are known before making too strong a link between the attacks and the refugee crisis. The first is a general one: on at least 12 occasions, Isis has actually criticised refugees for fleeing to Europe. “For those who want to blame the attacks on Paris on refugees, you might want to get your facts straight,” wrote Aaron Zelin, an analyst of jihad, in an online commentary about the 12 outbursts. “The reality is, [Isis] loathes that individuals are fleeing Syria for Europe. It undermines [Isis’s] message that its self-styled caliphate is a refuge.” It’s therefore unlikely that the vast majority of Syrians fleeing to Europe are Isis supporters, since their actions are in obvious contravention of the group’s creed.


ETA: Minutes after I submitted this I found the following story; Paris attacks: The eight terror suspects named so far are not refugees and all have EU passports
edit on 18-11-2015 by links234 because: Extra link




top topics



 
4

log in

join