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: 9
72
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: fairinnj
Muslim is not a religion, Islam is.


No one is saying that "Muslim" is a religion.




posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

No I clarified my citing error and pointed you back to 8 USC 1182 and asked,

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.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Even granting that it's legally acceptable to describe all adherents of the world's second largest religion as a "class" of aliens doesn't mean it's still not a horribly stupid idea on several levels.

As Commander in Chief this maniac would also be able to launch nuclear missiles if he decided the country was at risk. It doesn't mean he would be right.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel
Even granting that it's legally acceptable to describe all adherents of the world's second largest religion as a "class" of aliens doesn't mean it's still not a horribly stupid idea on several levels.

As Commander in Chief this maniac would also be able to launch nuclear missiles if he decided the country was at risk. It doesn't mean he would be right.


So, with recent news and abject failure of vetting process there is no merit doing temporary halt on entries to the US allowing time to correct deficiencies.

To me, doing nothing is akin to having a PC suicide pact.

Regards second comment - really!!! Destabilizing mid-east as has been done has higher risk.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix


Regards second comment - really!!! Destabilizing mid-east as has been done has higher risk.


Higher risk than giving the nuclear codes to someone like Trump???? Has a big chunk of America simply lost their minds?

And of course "destabilizing mid-east as has been done" was a bad idea. That doesn't make another bad idea acceptable.

And how in the hell would Trump determine who was "Muslim" or not? We're talking 1.6 billion people from every nation on earth of every conceivable ethnicity. And to pull out a gun rights argument, potential terrorists aren't going to follow any rules or admit to being Muslim.

But, of course, the man has no details about anything. Just trust that he's a genius and will figure it out starting Jan. 20, 2017. God knows what he will have proposed by then if it ever gets that far.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: Phoenix


Regards second comment - really!!! Destabilizing mid-east as has been done has higher risk.


Higher risk than giving the nuclear codes to someone like Trump???? Has a big chunk of America simply lost their minds?

And of course "destabilizing mid-east as has been done" was a bad idea. That doesn't make another bad idea acceptable.



Last I heard Putin was the world leader speculating about launching nukes into the M.E.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

First off, Trumps proposal was a request for the current administration and Congress to effect a temporary halt to muslim entry to the US based on proven failure of current system to identify muslim extremist attempting entry.

We and Trump know full well there is no way Obama would take up the proposal, nor would the establishment congress.

Trump very boldly highlighted a problem that a large majority of Americans agree with and are frustrated seeing no action.

The folks in charge from President on downwards are understandably having reactionary responses as they are exposed.

The rest I chalk up to multiculurist indoctrination by media and educators.

To deny there is a vetting problem that needs fixing or better yet deny it because one can't think of a solution is absolutely insane.

Calling for a halt while this is figured out is very very smart.

It's legal, it's constitutional, it's good policy leading to actual solution.

Doing nothing = stupid and dangerous.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

And would Putin be making those allusions sans Obama/Clinton policies, which is my point in response.

Fact of the matter one could ask would Trump be mentioning muslim immigration sans Obama/Clinton policies.

As an infamous preacher once said "chickens are coming home to roost" the Obama/Clinton raised chickens that is.
edit on 10-12-2015 by Phoenix because: Add comment



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: MagesticEsoteric
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.

I highly doubt he forgot.
In a way he's doing Americans a favor in that in a reverse psychology kind of way, more and more American people are waking up, paying attention, studying and defending the Constitution, Bill of Rights, many American laws and using the Judicial system to bring things to a head. In this case it's a Proclamation. It's not the only example of how he states the "wrong" thing and the response from the public is massive.

I hope what I am pointing out is clear.
If not, I will try again.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Phoenix you may have just injured many people here.
They don't know what to do with facts that conflict with their beliefs.
Perhaps we should have some type of TRUTH warning label for threads like this.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: IAMTAT

And would Putin be making those allusions sans Obama/Clinton policies, which is my point in response.

Fact of the matter one could ask would Trump be mentioning muslim immigration sans Obama/Clinton policies.

As an infamous preacher once said "chickens are coming home to roost" the Obama/Clinton raised chickens that is.


Completely agree.
Frankly, Obama and his impotent foreign policy of appeasement even contributed largely to making Putin what he is today.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: fairinnj But muslims can be temporally banned as they are not a religion.


Christianity is a religious faith...it's followers are "Christians"

Islam is a religious faith...it's followers are "Muslim"

Hope that helps you out..

Banning followers of a faith is the same as banning religion, because a faith is premised on it's followers...a religion does not exist in practice without followers.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   

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.

I have a few questions. So, if your point is that Trump may legally be able to do what he proposes, you may be right. Is that your position? If so, from what I have read, I would agree. It would have to go through the courts (because there would be massive challenges), and it may be found to be unconstitutional.

Is your position that Obama should take this step now?


originally posted by: Phoenix
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.


I would agree that it may be constitutional and it may be legal. But I would still argue that it's decidedly un-American and craps in the face of MANY values this country stands for. Do you think it's un-American?
edit on 12/10/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Freedom of religion means that you can worship based on your own faith and that the government cannot stop you from worship. No one is stopping immigrants from worship. There are laws however that can prevent a group of individuals from entering the country based on their religion as detailed already in this thread.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Freedom of religion means that you can worship based on your own faith and that the government cannot stop you from worship. No one is stopping immigrants from worship.


Tell that to Kim Davis and all her supporters here. Oh, and why are you responding to me? Read my post. www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

BH, If a temporary halt was done to clean up various agencies policies and procedures to properly vet immigrants and non-immigrants,

Then no I don't believe that would be un American.

Doing a permanent blanket prohibition would invite USC case and would go against the ideals, however that's not even close to Trumps proposal for current administration.

Obama even refused baby step of halting K1 visas for review, says State and DHS reviewing as program continues, I have no confidence that'll amount to anything of substance.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
BH, If a temporary halt was done to clean up various agencies policies and procedures to properly vet immigrants and non-immigrants,

Then no I don't believe that would be un American.


And how would the immigrants be vetted? Would they have to prove that they aren't Muslims? How?

Would you feel the same if it were Christians being halted?
edit on 12/10/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

The lack of a clear vetting solution kinda proves point government has no reliable process and supports temporary halt until one is determined.

If it were predominately Christians citing their religion when doing terrorist attacks, then I'd say there was a common connection that requires stepped up scrutiny.

Of some 16000 attacks worldwide as I've heard it - nearly 100% cite or proclaim religion as part or all the reason.



new topics

top topics



 
72
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join