It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The ban would apply to all non-citizen Muslims, not all Muslims.
I would understand a ban on all immigration coming from conflict zones the US is currently involved with.
once these tools are implemented, depending on who is in power and what the leadership decides, those tools will be turned against all US citizens.
originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: TerryMcGuire
And BLM has supported president Obama, but not only that. President Obama has endorsed BLM, a group that openly calls "to murder police officers and white people". Yet his administration is not racist?...
Obama defends Black Lives Matter protests at police memorial in Dallas
Obama Endorses 'Black Lives Matter' as a Serious Movement while Lying about the Real Black Problem
Show us when President elect Trump has openly endorsed the kkk... There is a difference with kkk members supporting Trump, and Trump endorsing them which he hasn't done...
The administration that has been racist, and promoted violence, and targeted conservatives and other groups of Americans for not leaning to the left politically is the Obama administration.... But because President Obama is black suddenly he isn't a racist, xenophobic, authoritarian who endorses violence against police officers and white people??
originally posted by: goou111
It has nothing to do with racism. but maybe its sexism. We are just not ready for a woman to lead .
Black man is fine as long as it is a man. Not saying I agree I just think that has alot to do with it.
originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
I understand Islam is a huge threat to the World, but I also understand why some people might construe it as racist. What I don't understand is why this approach is something we should embrace when it flies in the face of our American principle of innocent until proven guilty.
Everyone knows the principle of being innocent until proven guilty – the burden of proof is on the accuser to show the guilt of the accused. In the absence of the requisite amount of proof, the accused will be considered innocent.
What people may not know is that a similar principle does not apply at the border. It’s a whole different story on the border.
Foreign nationals carry a burden of proof when they present themselves for admission to the United States. Each and every time, the foreign national carries the burden of proof to show his /her admissibility. In the absence of that, there is no getting in. Incidentally, there also is no right to an attorney at the border, so the applicant for admission is alone in this endeavor.
At the surface, this seems like a clear enough concept. However, based on the issues that we see and the amount of times that our foreign national clients encounter problems at the border, it’s not as clear cut as we like to think. As such, it appears to be an appropriate time to provide a reminder of the burden of proof for a border inspection and the ways in which foreign nationals can prove their admissibility.
As background, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 235(a)(3) requires “all aliens … who are applicants for admission or otherwise seeking admission or readmission to or transit through the United States” to be inspected by immigration officers. At the border, these inspecting officers are employed by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. According to INA section 235(b)(2)(A), the inspecting officer must find that a foreign national is “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted”. If an individual is determined to be inadmissible to the U.S., there is a possibility that the inspecting officer will just turn him around and instruct him not to come back without proper evidence of admissibility.