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.

 

The problem I see with the Liberal Movement.

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
This may just be semantics, but I don't see such a thing as a fabricated loophole. I see it as an interpretation that presents a loophole that wasn't thought about before.


Same difference, and sadly, that's the way that our legal system has been heading for decades.


This is actually one of your "fabricated loopholes". There is no point in the Constitution where it specifically says that the rights outlined within it are only granted to current residents of the country.


That's not a loophole at all...it's actually all contained within the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


I think the better thing to say is, there's no point in the Constitution where it specifically says that it applies to anyone outside of the United States of America. In fact, it talks about "We the people of the United States," and "secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity," and about "ordain[ing] and establish[ing] this Constitution for the United States of America," not for other countries and its citizens. (emphasis in bold is mine, of course)

That's not a loophole--it's actually spelled out pretty stinkin' specifically.


Not letting them into the country is against the spirit of our Constitution because it prohibits them from worshiping their religion here. Any careful study of our forefathers and their beliefs would show this easily.


I half agree with you, but as noted above in the Preamble, we also established the Constitution to "provide for the common defence (sic)" and "promote the general Welfare" for the people of the United States. So, yes, it is in the spirit of the Constitution, just not in the way that you are looking at it.


No what's intelligent is finally understanding that there is no such thing as perfectly safe. We will always be slightly exposed to danger. And trying to curtail rights to stamp out statistically minuscule events from happening is SUPER counterproductive.


Who ever said anything about "perfectly safe?" I've served in the military, as has my wife, and I have access to the news--I know that there is nothing "perfectly safe" about the world. But I also know that if we don't learn from the mistakes of other countries who have let too many immigrants in relatively unchecked and have opened up many of their citizens to negative consequences from ideologically driven political decisions, then we shouldn't even be discussing our immigration policy and "intelligent" in the same thread.


Read the quote from Thomas Jefferson in my at the bottom of my comment--I understand about the issues of safety versus freedoms, probably better than most.


Vet what people? Which people do you think aren't being vetted exactly?


Again, I said nothing about not being vetted, I said something about the inability to vet these people effectively. Both my wife and I were paralegals in the Army, and when she deployed to Iraq back in 2006 and had to deal with locating local-national witnesses for courts-martial and other legal reasons, trying to find them in the type of system that nations like Iraq and Syria have was nearly pointless. Many children didn't even know their birthdate because they don't keep consistent (or any) records of birth in some places.

That's what I meant by it--there's no way to tell if someone is relatively safe to be harbored as a refugee in our country when there is no information on which our vetting process can rely. If you have better insight than that, I'd love to hear it.




posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Same difference, and sadly, that's the way that our legal system has been heading for decades.

Yeah that's why I said it was probably just a semantics issue. Not really necessary to push the issue though.


That's not a loophole at all...it's actually all contained within the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


I think the better thing to say is, there's no point in the Constitution where it specifically says that it applies to anyone outside of the United States of America. In fact, it talks about "We the people of the United States," and "secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity," and about "ordain[ing] and establish[ing] this Constitution for the United States of America," not for other countries and its citizens. (emphasis in bold is mine, of course)

That's not a loophole--it's actually spelled out pretty stinkin' specifically.

Yes, but traditionally (at least until within the last few decades) the interpretation of the Constitution was that rights applied to everyone regardless of citizenship. The Constitution exists to protect rights, not determine who gets them or not. There ARE some things that non-citizens cannot have access to, but those are Administrative things like immigration status, but EVERY person on the planet has the same rights. That is how the Constitution is written.

Do Noncitizens Have Constitutional Rights?


I half agree with you, but as noted above in the Preamble, we also established the Constitution to "provide for the common defence (sic)" and "promote the general Welfare" for the people of the United States. So, yes, it is in the spirit of the Constitution, just not in the way that you are looking at it.

Banning Muslims has nothing to do with the "common defense". It is just a knee jerk reaction to people being afraid of things they don't fully understand.


Who ever said anything about "perfectly safe?" I've served in the military, as has my wife, and I have access to the news--I know that there is nothing "perfectly safe" about the world. But I also know that if we don't learn from the mistakes of other countries who have let too many immigrants in relatively unchecked and have opened up many of their citizens to negative consequences from ideologically driven political decisions, then we shouldn't even be discussing our immigration policy and "intelligent" in the same thread.

Oh PLEASE! The United States of America has more experience than any other country in the world in dealing with immigrants. All the arguments made against letting Muslims into the country have been made against other waves of immigrants in the past. Hell the entire religion angle was pursued against Catholics. How did that work out? Oh yea, Catholics managed to integrate into American society. The fact of the matter is that we are throwing out centuries of our experience dealing with immigration all to rant and rave about a small threat to our country's safety.


Read the quote from Thomas Jefferson in my at the bottom of my comment--I understand about the issues of safety versus freedoms, probably better than most.

Then why are you preaching in favor of safety instead of liberty?


Again, I said nothing about not being vetted, I said something about the inability to vet these people effectively. Both my wife and I were paralegals in the Army, and when she deployed to Iraq back in 2006 and had to deal with locating local-national witnesses for courts-martial and other legal reasons, trying to find them in the type of system that nations like Iraq and Syria have was nearly pointless. Many children didn't even know their birthdate because they don't keep consistent (or any) records of birth in some places.

Do you have experience vetting potential immigrants to this country? If not, then I don't expect you to speak about effectiveness of our vetting processes.


That's what I meant by it--there's no way to tell if someone is relatively safe to be harbored as a refugee in our country when there is no information on which our vetting process can rely. If you have better insight than that, I'd love to hear it.

Except not a single refugee we've ever brought to this country has committed a terrorist attack. In fact, the going trend these days is for Americans to become radicalized on the internet and commit them.
edit on 15-7-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Yes, but traditionally (at least until within the last few decades) the interpretation of the Constitution was that rights applied to everyone regardless of citizenship. The Constitution exists to protect rights, not determine who gets them or not. There ARE some things that non-citizens cannot have access to, but those are Administrative things like immigration status, but EVERY person on the planet has the same rights. That is how the Constitution is written.


Right, but like you say, not everyone in the world has access to immigrant (or refugee) status in America. The government isn't saying that they don't have a right to practice their religion, they're (hypothetically) saying that they can't do it legally on American soil until we can fix our vetting system first. Again, that's a spelled-out, enumerated authority that the president has when it comes to immigration.


Banning Muslims has nothing to do with the "common defense". It is just a knee jerk reaction to people being afraid of things they don't fully understand.


But you keep forgetting to add in the modifier...Trump discussed banning until we can better vet the applicants because of what is happening around the world. But, I don't think we'll see eye-to-eye on this one, so maybe it's better left to the annals of ATS archived threads?


Oh PLEASE! The United States of America has more experience than any other country in the world in dealing with immigrants. All the arguments made against letting Muslims into the country have been made against other waves of immigrants in the past. Hell the entire religion angle was pursued against Catholics. How did that work out? Oh yea, Catholics managed to integrate into American society. The fact of the matter is that we are throwing out centuries of our experience dealing with immigration all to rant and rave about a small threat to our country's safety.


Just because you want to disregard the actual threats against the individual Americans (based on contemporary issues in other countries from refugees exactly from the same places) on the foundation that we have "more experience than any other country in the world dealing with immigrants" if fine and dandy, but when the reality is that the vetting process needs an upgrade, it's irresponsible to knowingly toy with the safety of citizens. The number one priority of our federal government between approving refugee status or protecting even one American citizen aligns with the latter, not the former.


Then why are you preaching in favor of safety instead of liberty?



Refugee status is not "liberty," no matter what way you spin it. Like I just said above, the point is about the prioritized duty of the federal government, and protecting its citizens falls drastically higher on the list than rubber-stamping refugee status when there's a known issue in the system.


Do you have experience vetting potential immigrants to this country? If not, then I don't expect you to speak about effectiveness of our vetting processes.



Then take the FBI's word for it, then do a little research into it.


Except not a single refugee we've ever brought to this country has committed a terrorist attack. In fact, the going trend these days is for Americans to become radicalized on the internet and commit them.


Then why add another way for Americans to become radicalized by loosely just letting people into the country? And for the record, there have been plenty of foreign nationals who have committed deadly acts on American soil over the years. I'm surprised that you would say something like this and expect it to fly as fact. Maybe no "refugee," and maybe no "terrorist act," but that's not all that is the concern about immigrants from the Middle East and their laws and customs.



new topics
 
13
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join