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.

 

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

page: 1
72
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+62 more 
posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
With the controversy over Donald J Trumps request for a temporary halt of Muslim entry to the United States to give government Representatives time to review policies and standards at the forefront of the news generating much misinformation regarding the legality, Constitutionality, powers of President, Americanism, not to mention a political and punditry class providing nothing of substance other than baseless negative response I present some factual and historical basis for Trumps call for action.

The facts directly dispute many critics of Trump,

On August 4th, 2011 President Obama issued Presidential Proclamation 8697, Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Persons Who Participate in Serious Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Violations and Other Abuses.

American Presidency Project


Now, Therefore, I, Barack Obama, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby find that the unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of persons described in section 1 of this proclamation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. I therefore hereby proclaim that:

Section 1. The entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of the following persons is hereby suspended:

(a) Any alien who planned, ordered, assisted, aided and abetted, committed or otherwise participated in, including through command responsibility, widespread or systematic violence against any civilian population based in whole or in part on race; color; descent; sex; disability; membership in an indigenous group; language; religion; political opinion; national origin; ethnicity; membership in a particular social group; birth; or sexual orientation or gender identity, or who attempted or conspired to do so.

(b) Any alien who planned, ordered, assisted, aided and abetted, committed or otherwise participated in, including through command responsibility, war crimes, crimes against humanity or other serious violations of human rights, or who attempted or conspired to do so.

(b) Any alien who planned, ordered, assisted, aided and abetted, committed or otherwise participated in, including through command responsibility, war crimes, crimes against humanity or other serious violations of human rights, or who attempted or conspired to do so.


Bolding mine for emphasis.

The Law, 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens says this about Presidents powers,

Inadmissable Aliens


(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.


proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate

As one can read in quoted text above of Obamas Proclamation based in his own words and citing Constitutional Authority a President may HALT immigration based on his sole belief that the immigration is detrimental to the United States.

Using the text one could form an opinion likewise regarding devout Muslims and their allegiances or lack there of when it comes to secular pledges and laws. One can also easily make the case for religious persecution of non-Muslims in a generalized basis.

Further bolstering the case is Jimmy Carters halting of Iranian travel to the United States, Ordering 50,000 Iranians to report to INS and ultimately deporting over 15,000 citing the same 1952 Immigration Laws.

Carter Banned Iranians

A President can stop immigration and travel of any class of immigrant or non-immigrant for any reason he determines to be detrimental according to long standing immigration law!

That is the facts.

All those hewing and crying that it's unconstitutional, illegal, un-American to halt Muslim travel to the U.S. need to reframe their arguments to a discussion of merits.




posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I'll add some support material from Eugene volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy.

He agrees that it could be done, but that it's not necessarily the best idea.


The Supreme Court has held consistently, for more than a century, that constitutional protections that normally benefit Americans and people on American territory do not apply when Congress decides who to admit and who to exclude as immigrants or other entrants. This is called the plenary power doctrine. The Court has repeatedly turned away challenges to immigration statutes and executive actions on grounds that they discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, and political belief, and that they deprive foreign nationals of due process protections. While the Court has not ruled on religious discrimination, it has also never given the slightest indication that religion would be exempt from the general rule.

There is even precedent for Trump’s plan. In 1891, Congress passed a statute that made inadmissable people who practice polygamy (directed, at the time, at Mormons), and in 1907 extended this ban to people who “who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.” While Congress later repealed the latter provision (the former seems to be still on the books), no court–as far I know–ruled it unconstitutional.


So I guess as you say the question would be should we?

I say that there are only four reasons I can think of:

1.) A temporary halt to put a screening process in place to weed out the terrorists and those who sympathize with them.

2.) A more permanent halt if it is determined no screening process could adequately address the issues listed in #1.

3.) A halt to immigrants from certain Muslim nations known to harbor citizenry less than friendly to the US.

4.) A active state of war exists for the US with the believers of Islam.
edit on 9-12-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)


+10 more 
posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Last 24 hours I've been aghast at the pure ignorance and disinformation put out on this subject by Whitehouse, Pentagon, State Department, Politicians, Pundits, Media and citizens who are acting purposely uninformed or are uninformed about the actual law and code governing Presidential powers and immigration.


+8 more 
posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Read your edit and agree those are all good reasons for contemplation about the issue.

#4, I think is a realization that war has been declared upon us, but few are ready to admit or acknowledge.


edit on 9-12-2015 by Phoenix because: sp


+1 more 
posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
This related ATS thread is a great example of the agit-prop coming from Whitehouse, who know better,

Whitehouse says Trump Should Dis-qualify Himself



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: ketsuko

Last 24 hours I've been aghast at the pure ignorance and disinformation put out on this subject by Whitehouse, Pentagon, State Department, Politicians, Pundits, Media and citizens who are acting purposely uninformed or are uninformed about the actual law and code governing Presidential powers and immigration.



I'm just gonna say: "There's law --- then there's Interpretation of Law.


+3 more 
posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

There is, but as the source I quoted mentions, the plenary power has always been interpreted in the past as being exclusionary if the reason was determined to be in the common best interests of the American people who were already here on this soil.


+16 more 
posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
It's looking like Trump knew of this U.S. Code all along. It was not an off-the-cuff statement...and he knew it would come out.
Shrewd.
Always give your opponents just enough rope to hang themselves.
edit on 9-12-2015 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

And they called us crazy.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Annee

There is, but as the source I quoted mentions, the plenary power has always been interpreted in the past as being exclusionary if the reason was determined to be in the common best interests of the American people who were already here on this soil.



Yes. I am trying to understand the whole 360 of this.

I'm doing other stuff right now, so not 100% focused.


+7 more 
posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Trump has done us all a favor by highlighting that very point!

The law provides a President with virtually unlimited power to Halt immigration.

A point the current administration surely does not want highlighted.

Kudo's for him bringing it up!

I have issue with those attempting to paint it as unconstutional or otherwise illegal when its really a political belief or moral objection to the powers a President has.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
It's looking like Trump knew of this U.S. Code all along. It was not an off-the-cuff statement...and he knew it would come out.
Shrewd.
Always give your opponents just enough rope to hang themselves.


Yes I'd agree, he knows never bring up a question or subject unless you have the definitive answer. I'm sure in all his deals he's been around a lawyer or two.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   
So did Obama just forget about this proclamation from four years ago or what?

Must have since the White House was just saying yesterday that his statements should disqualify him for presidency.


Gotta love the craziness that comes along with Presidential elections.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: IAMTAT
It's looking like Trump knew of this U.S. Code all along. It was not an off-the-cuff statement...and he knew it would come out.
Shrewd.
Always give your opponents just enough rope to hang themselves.


Yes I'd agree, he knows never bring up a question or subject unless you have the definitive answer. I'm sure in all his deals he's been around a lawyer or two.


Just one more big Radical Islamic Terror attack here...and people will be calling him a genius.
Sadly, it's a pretty safe bet, there will be another one either here or in Europe, very soon.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix



(a) Any alien who planned, ordered, assisted, aided and abetted, committed or otherwise participated in, including through command responsibility, widespread or systematic violence against any civilian population based in whole or in part on race; color; descent; sex; disability; membership in an indigenous group; language; religion; political opinion; national origin; ethnicity; membership in a particular social group; birth; or sexual orientation or gender identity, or who attempted or conspired to do so.


I'm going to assume you didn't read this carefully... The people being suspended are aliens who attacked our citizens because of their religion... In other words, any alien who systematically commits violence against Christians, for example...



edit on 12/9/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
What's the latest on internment camps?

Let's make America great again!




posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: ketsuko

Last 24 hours I've been aghast at the pure ignorance and disinformation put out on this subject by Whitehouse, Pentagon, State Department, Politicians, Pundits, Media and citizens who are acting purposely uninformed or are uninformed about the actual law and code governing Presidential powers and immigration.



I'm just gonna say: "There's law --- then there's Interpretation of Law.





Fair enough! Why don't you illustrate the lefts interpretation of the law instead of biased rhetoric?



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: IAMTAT
It's looking like Trump knew of this U.S. Code all along. It was not an off-the-cuff statement...and he knew it would come out.
Shrewd.
Always give your opponents just enough rope to hang themselves.


Yes I'd agree, he knows never bring up a question or subject unless you have the definitive answer. I'm sure in all his deals he's been around a lawyer or two.


Just one more big Radical Islamic Terror attack here...and people will be calling him a genius.
Sadly, it's a pretty safe bet, there will be another one either here or in Europe, very soon.


The last guy was born here.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: rupertg
What's the latest on internment camps?




Sure.
We haven't had any internment camps since a great Democrat President initiated them.
FDR Executive Order 9066

Trump is against them.
edit on 9-12-2015 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: sirlancelot

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: ketsuko

Last 24 hours I've been aghast at the pure ignorance and disinformation put out on this subject by Whitehouse, Pentagon, State Department, Politicians, Pundits, Media and citizens who are acting purposely uninformed or are uninformed about the actual law and code governing Presidential powers and immigration.



I'm just gonna say: "There's law --- then there's Interpretation of Law.





Fair enough! Why don't you illustrate the lefts interpretation of the law instead of biased rhetoric?


What? What does that even mean?

And you have no idea what my politics are.

You're just a "label" thrower.



new topics

top topics



 
72
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join