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: 10
72
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Just a passing thought that hit me while reading this thread. You have people saying "we are not at war with Islam" and "Islam is not at war with America". It is just a handful of radicals...right? I agree, I really do. All of Islam is not trying to kill us and we are not trying to kill all of Islam. Just the radicals. For arguments sake, lets say that is 3% of all of Islam.

Now...when America goes to war, often the people are not all behind what the government does. We argue, scream, protest and more. But our government decides to go to war and we are stuck with their decision. When we go to war, how many troops do we send? 100,000 on the high side? I don't know but I'm guessing that is about right. But there are 300,000,000 people in our country, many if not most of whom don't like having us go to war. So if all of America didn't want to go to war, but our government sent 100,000 troops in...guess what. Only 3% of America is at war.

Just found that interesting. If you look at it roughly that way...Islam could be at war with America. At least the portion of Islam willing and able to fight.
edit on 12/10/2015 by WeAreAWAKE because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Phoenix you may have just injured many people here.
They don't know what to do with facts that conflict with their beliefs.


Oh, please! While there are MANY on ATS who will argue in the face of facts and proof, most of us in this thread are big girls and boys. That was a cheap shot.


Youre absolutely right, my apologies to everyone.
I know our membership is a smart bunch.
Having a bad day and subconsciously letting go I guess.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:23 AM
link   
I Completely support Trump's temporary ban on Muslim immigration. I had no idea this site had been infiltrated by so many liberals.

Yes lets just invite (possible enemy who we have no way to vet or background check) to come live with us in hordes. Liberal logic. It makes sense to them somehow.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: boncho

The facepalm is how many insist 8 USC 1182 has any nice nice PC limitations on a President's proclamation.

Vis a vis, the current office holder could temporarily halt immigration of any class of aliens he so chooses, he chooses not to.........

I think that was Trumps point.


No its not even close. One is barring immigration based on already well recognized laws which adhere to the constitution (protection of ones person and property, people that violate that of others cannot get in) but Trump made a statement to bar all Muslims, until they are vetted. Stopping someone simply because of their religious beliefs goes against the constitution and everything the USA stands for. Stopping war criminals does not.

Hell, even Dick Cheney has come out to criticize Trump. Dick Effin Cheney!!!

If Dick thinks you are a Dick you have serious problems.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

No problem here. I have those days all the time. Lately, I find myself letting frustration get the best of me. That's no way to live, IMO.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I have no doubt that the power to do so exists and has supporting precedents. Even if it didn't, I'm sure it could be contrived under the right circumstances. None of this dictates that one must accept or endorse the wielding of that power, however.

I am not an Obama (or Clinton) supporter or defender, so I would hope nothing I say would be interpreted through the lens of partisanship or political affiliation. My concern with this policy is that - just as I would oppose the wholesale banning of assault weapons or the power to predicate restriction of weapon purchases upon medical records indicating mental illness alone without violence or the threatening of violence - this policy would predicate the restriction of entry into the United States upon religion itself generally, rather than being filtered through the nuance of carefully considering actual conduct or actions by those being barred from entry.

Liberty is risky. Just as the risk of allowing the ownership and bearing of arms is violence, the risk of allowing people into the country who hold to a faith some suggest predisposes toward hating us or violence against us (I am not persuaded this is the case,) is violence. I still choose said liberty over safety, personally, in both instances.

If there is persuasive and compelling reason to believe an individual is a threat, by all means, bar their entry. What Trump has advocated however is the wholesale restriction of entry into the country on the basis purely of religion, which would by definition mean barring access to at least some completely innocent people. Many of whom are presently in great need. When confronted about this, his campaign spokesperson stated, "So what? They're Muslim."

As with his statements that he supports torture because they deserve it, irrespective of whether it works, this kind of blanket, generalizing mentality is what terrifies me about the prospect of a Trump presidency. That is not the mentality I want to see in charge of the most powerful nation in the history of humanity. (No, I will note vote for Clinton to prevent this either, though... so, again, the binary one side or the other argument carries no weight with me. I'm not a Democrat, and I'm not arguing that this is unconstitutional.)

Whether Obama is also a hypocritical career politician who has done things I likewise vehemently disagree with and oppose is not somehow exculpatory of Trump's words and expressly desired policies should he be granted the power to implement them. He has repeatedly demonstrated a tendency toward simplifying extremely complex issues requiring nuance, often in the most discriminatory or vengeful manner imaginable for someone trying to run for public office. The man horrifies me, and it has nothing to do with his present party affiliation or my distaste for Barrack Obama.

As always, merely a personal opinion and I respect the views of those who disagree.

Peace.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Phoenix
Is there any limitation to a President's Proclamation of what's deemed detrimental.

I saw no limit but maybe you can where others cannot.


I do not see one.



Just an FYI as Lawrence Tribe, Constitutional Professor at Harvard explained in response to Trump's rhetoric..



"And [the First Amendment] is a flat prohibition on actions that the U.S. government may take, including those actions that respect 'an establishment of religion' or prohibit 'the free exercise thereof.' "


www.npr.org...

Again..for the gigilianth time. The First Amendment tells the US Government what it can't do...so whether those policies or laws apply to foreigners vs. citizens is irrelevant from a constitutional perspective.

US Legal code is subject to the constitution...And the premise that the constitution is not cut and pasted into every legal document does not mean it is some special document that rises above the legal authority of the constitution.

The President may exercise authority as outlined in UC Code 1182, but he may not violate the constitution in doing so...ditto every other page of US legal code.

So yes...there are the limits on the "President's Proclamation of what's deemed detrimental."



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: boncho

The facepalm is how many insist 8 USC 1182 has any nice nice PC limitations on a President's proclamation.

Vis a vis, the current office holder could temporarily halt immigration of any class of aliens he so chooses, he chooses not to.........

I think that was Trumps point.


No its not even close. One is barring immigration based on already well recognized laws which adhere to the constitution (protection of ones person and property, people that violate that of others cannot get in) but Trump made a statement to bar all Muslims, until they are vetted. Stopping someone simply because of their religious beliefs goes against the constitution and everything the USA stands for. Stopping war criminals does not.

Hell, even Dick Cheney has come out to criticize Trump. Dick Effin Cheney!!!

If Dick thinks you are a Dick you have serious problems.


If Dick Cheney can support the status quo GOPe/Dem uniparty he can be a Dick as named,

Nothing, not one shred of text in 8 USC 1182 limits a Presidents determination of "Detrimental" Obamas proclamation has nothing to do with the powers that 8 USC 1182 offers to a President, it only demonstrates that his administration used 8 USC 1182 and was well aware of its powers when it called Trumps hair doo funny and said he should be disqualified, they knew better.

Just want to point out Obamas proclamation covered groups and individuals, among many others such as religious groups, that oppress people about sexual orientation such as gays, maybe the State department could follow their leaders proclamation and ask all visa applicants their stance.

Trumps call for a temporary halt is for our government to review its policies and procedures because the public is being endangered by current lack of effective vetting policy and procedure, 8 USC 1182 supports the recommendation and has no religious limitation no matter how hard some wish it so.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
The immigration issue has haunted this nation since the 1790's. President John Adams and a strong federalist congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.

The government, not just the president, will control immigration when it sees fit. So, if Trump was to become president, then he would have tons of history to back any anti-immigration action he saw fit to implement.

Trying to stop terrorist from going anywhere by controlling immigration is a silly idea that shows little understanding of the situation. A terrorist who wishes to harm a population will find a way to get to that population, regardless if the actions taken are legal or illegal. Controlling illegal immigration cant be done cause the U.S. boarder is to large to contain with out a serious military presence.


This is the problem with people like you. No one is claiming its going to stop it full stop, but it can mitigate and lessen frequency. Israel does a pretty damn good job of stopping terrorist from entering their country. Only because of their own Arab population do they still continue to have attacks on Israeli soil aside from rocket attacks.

Further I wonder if you would make the same statement about gun control?



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
You know, they say Trump is like Hitler (talk about a reach) because he wants to block illegal and potentially dangerous people.

Trump's "Nutty" Proposal Is Already the Law of the Land -- and Was Used by Jimmy Carter During the Hostage Crisis.

Everything the left say is now "nutty" seems to be the most practical.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Whilst I get the media is biased and therefore I am not surprised by the twisting of words and outright lies they are telling, it still makes me just shake my head at how utterly despicable they are.

On the Trump CNN interview today , the interviewer, Jake Tapper painted a picture of a young Muslim man of 22 hearing Trump and becoming radicalised because of his Muslim ban, then extrapolated to Trump radicalising 1.5bn people and making it worse. Mt Tapper also told all his viewers that Trump's proposal was unconstitutional.

I mean seriously, a made up story about what Trump says apparently risking growing radicalisation, whilst ignoring all the interventionist wars and countless murders of innocents in the middle east (sorry I meant 'collateral damage'). So, 'say nothing in case you make it worse' was the message. Forget keeping citizens safe.

The world truly is crazy. This Tapper guy was actually serious too. Stunning.




top topics



 
72
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join