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.

 

Supreme Court to Hear Case on Protecting Illegal Immigrants From Deportation

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I couldn't care less if it was done before.

It doesn't change the discussion of what's moral and what's right or wrong or if it's legal or not.




posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I couldn't care less if it was done before.

It doesn't change the discussion of what's moral and what's right or wrong or if it's legal or not.


Moral? It certainly isn't moral to deport these people, possibly breaking up tons of families and people who have started growing roots here.

Legal? Well again, precedent.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: mikell
It's not about more workers it's about more voters!



I know I made a thread about it recently and everyone laughed at me.

Children.


That's because it's a ridiculous talking point regurgitated often without proper evidence of it actually occurring on a massive scale.


You didn't read anything in the op did you?


Yes, I did. I was commenting on what was said about voters.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I couldn't care less if it was done before.

It doesn't change the discussion of what's moral and what's right or wrong or if it's legal or not.


I call BS. you framed it as a liberal bleeding heart issue. I was pointing out the fallacy of that argument by pointing out Reagan and Bush did the same exact thing.

At least have the guts to acknowledge it



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

I hear and understand what you are saying. But what I am starting to see for the most part is the court legislating from the bench. Both parties are guilty of this. If you are a judge you are to interpret the law. Not make it so it goes along with your party line. And that is what gets my goat the most. Leave your party at home and do your job. Or is it we have to many laws to begin with.






posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: onequestion

I think you may be in for a big disappointment. Similar actions were taken during the Reagan and Bush presidencies and were perfectly within the authority of the administrations.

Also, we have to come to some sort of solution on this issue and deportation is not it.


"We"?

Who do you speak for? By what authority?

We deport currently, although the numbers have been halted by no show court appearances and Executive action by Obama. But deportation is current LAW.

So who do you speak for?



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Name me ONE law, where the FAMILIAL status of an offender, is the difference between punishment, jail time, fines...or NOT

Just one.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
uhmm....everybody knows we only have 8 justices, right?.....either "side" cannot win....as it is right now, one side can lose...or...because of a "tie" vote, go back to being decided by the lower federal courts....the only decision that will be made in the supreme court now, is one with a 5 to 3 ruling.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I never intended to imply that the familial status of the family member was setting precedent for what Obama is doing here. I was answering two distinct questions there with two completely separate answers. I tried to convey that by separating the two questions with a space, but I guess that wasn't clear enough. Or are you purposely misconstruing the premise of my post?



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I never intended to imply that the familial status of the family member was setting precedent for what Obama is doing here. I was answering two distinct questions there with two completely separate answers. I tried to convey that by separating the two questions with a space, but I guess that wasn't clear enough. Or are you purposely misconstruing the premise of my post?


Reread your post just to be sure.

It appears that you are arguing against the "morality" of breaking up families via deportation.

So my question still stands.

SHOULD punishment of laws, or lack thereof, be based on FAMILIAL status, or location of offender's relatives?



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: mikell
It's not about more workers it's about more voters!



That is not reality as it is unfolding.
As we have seen recently, the Democrat and Republican Party pick who they want, not what the voters want.
As they say follow the money:

Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street benefit off of more cheaper labor + suppressing wages. Cha Ching

www.teaparty.org...

Top Corporate Executives Descend On Washington To Lobby For Amnesty


(Bloomberg) - Evangelical pastors, corporate leaders, elected Republican officials and small-government activists arrive in Washington next week to lobby lawmakers to revamp U.S. immigration policies before year’s end.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

All I am saying is that it is immoral to break them up. You can decide if it is the right thing to do or not. It certainly ISN'T moral to break families up, wouldn't you say? Or do you think that because they broke the law, breaking a family up is a moral thing to do? But if you can make a compelling argument why we should, then ok. Just understand you don't have the moral high ground on it.
edit on 18-4-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So do we give their kids citizenship is that he question at hand?

How many people is that?



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

All I am saying is that it is immoral to break them up. You can decide if it is the right thing to do or not. It certainly ISN'T moral to break families up, wouldn't you say? But if you can make a compelling argument why we should, then ok. Just understand you don't have the moral high ground on it.


So when a person commits, bank fraud, check fraud, possession of drugs, DUIs, battery....or a host of offenses. Their jail time or punishment comes down to 'morality' for you? Right?

Why not then use it across the board? Why jail ANYONE with a family member? We can make that argument according to your 'morality' slant.

It's all 'breaking up families'. Why are Illegals special? What puts them beyond punishment?
edit on 973pm3005America/Chicago14CDT05America/Chicago by BatheInTheFountain because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So do we give their kids citizenship is that he question at hand?

How many people is that?


not according to your own post. did you read it ?



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So do we give their kids citizenship is that he question at hand?

How many people is that?


To be honest. I really don't care. I'm not afraid of immigrants taking my job. Nor do I care to punish them. But I certainly also understand that they broke the law. So if everyone insists on deporting them, then so be it, but I have no intention of pushing the issue.

One thing to consider. The US' economy is directly reliant on their labor whether we like to admit it or not. So if you insist on deporting them, there WILL be consequences for it. So when we have food shortages or accidents go up due to shoddy construction work, you know who to blame. You can try to argue this point with me all day, but we have existing proof of this happening when Alabama just merely tightened it's illegal immigrant rules and all the immigrants fled the state.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain

So when a person commits, bank fraud, check fraud, possession of drugs, DUIs, battery....or a host of offenses. Their jail time or punishment comes down to 'morality' for you? Right?


Nope. Never inferred that. Just stating what I consider to be moral or immoral.

Why is it so hard for people to read things matter-of-factly? Why must they always interpret more than what is being said? Maybe it's me... Probably just a hold-over from my drill sergeant always telling me to say what I mean directly.
edit on 18-4-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Executive , Legislative , and Judicial . The Three Branches of the United States Federal Government . The ONLY one of the Three that can Enact LAWS is the Legislative Branch , Congress . The Chief Executive , The President , has No Power to Enact or Pass Laws . Simple as that . Seems Mr. Obama has a Bad Memory .



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

" So when we have food shortages or accidents go up due to shoddy construction work, you know who to blame "

Is that just Your Opinion , or do you have some kind of Information to present here to back up that Statement ?
After reading your Post here , i have come to the Conclusion it is just your Personal Opinion , and has Absolutely no Basis in Fact or Reality .



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Oh. I'm glad you asked. Here you go.
How America’s harshest immigration law failed
Enjoy.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join