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.

 

Thank You Sanctuary Cities for paying for the wall

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

That's kind of what I thought you might be getting at.




Come on, now. Just look at the support for any time a mandatory curfew is implemented in minority or "liberal" neighborhoods.


And what sort of behavior might elicit this type of response? Rioting and looting perhaps?



And look at the support for more domestic surveillance programs of American Muslims;

If you were to remove Muslims from that phrase, you would be spot on. Last I checked the NSA didn't seek out Muslims, they record EVERYTHING. I'm terribly sorry that some who proclaim to represent your religion decide to kill in the name of it.



the talk of sending American Muslims to internment camps like what was done to Japanese Americans during WW2;

Proof please.



the potential deportation forces within Latina/Latino communities, etc.


Illegal immigrants being the operative subject matter




They even elected a guy who's open to sending American citizens to Gitmo.


The last guy had no problem bombing American citizens abroad. They're arseholes by nature.




posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus



Throw the mayors and city councils of all the sanctuary cities in jail for violating federal immigration laws.

they have already convicted themselves of conspiracy to violate federal immigration laws by declaring that they are a sanctuary cities so it shouldn`t be difficult to convict them of actually violating the laws.



The state of Massachusetts is blowing up Marty Walshs customer service line right now.

He will most likely not be re-elected. I know many people who are furious with his Insubordination right now!
edit on 26-1-2017 by KTemplar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: enlightenedservant
Last I checked the NSA didn't seek out Muslims, they record EVERYTHING. I'm terribly sorry that some who proclaim to represent your religion decide to kill in the name of it.

You should check more recently.
NSA ends mass phone surveillance program under USA Freedom Act
Though I'm sure Trump will be reinstating it, and I'm sure you'll be celebrating its arrival when he does.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
"The Constitution prohibits the president from defunding jurisdictions that won't do his bidding," Markowitz said. "There's nothing in federal law that requires localities or states to participate in federal immigration enforcement.


Have fun.

Really!?! So there isn't something about having to follow the laws? And you think following our Federal laws is "doing the President's bidding?" LOL

If you don't follow the federal laws you will lose federal money. The sanctuary cities can cry all they want to but liberal tears don't fill your band account...just ask Hillary supporters!
edit on 1/26/2017 by Martin75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thanks.




However, it's worth noting that despite the victory for anti-surveillance groups, it's not a complete one. Other parts of the NSA's invasive programmes still exist. PRISM, also leaked by Snowden, and which gathers data from internet users, is still very active, largely because the NSA has repeated over and over that the targets of that kind of surveillance are not American citizens


So phone lines are no longer tapped. Now I'm not the sharpest ATS'er but by leaving the PRISM program intact that means that anything internet related still applies. Up to and including our smart phones.

Also, don't pertain to know what I may or may not be happy for. The Alinsky tactics are tired as all get out and frankly, detracts from positive conversation.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI



And what sort of behavior might elicit this type of response? Rioting and looting perhaps?

Do they also cheer for police curfews and crackdowns when other demographics riot and loot over sports events? Oh sorry, when their "revelers" vandalize the town?

11 Stunning Images Highlight the Double Standard of Reactions to Riots Like Baltimore

ETA: And this: College-age revelers riot, clash with officers in Bellingham
And remember, my point is that many people are actually pro-police state as long as the police state doesn't target them. So your point isn't refuting what I said.



If you were to remove Muslims from that phrase, you would be spot on. Last I checked the NSA didn't seek out Muslims, they record EVERYTHING. I'm terribly sorry that some who proclaim to represent your religion decide to kill in the name of it.

I didn't say anything about the NSA. Have you seriously not seen these?
Factsheet: The NYPD Muslim Surveillance Program


If it were simply about NSA programs, there would be no need to create new programs that specifically target Muslims. There are plenty of other Muslim-specific programs if you'd take the time out to research it for yourself.




Proof please.

Would you accept it if I presented it? If so, here are 2 ATS threads about it. And they're both from after the November Presidential election!
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are also other ATS threads about it from earlier time periods, such as this one (HERE) and this one (HERE). And this is just me linking ATS threads as sources, since my original post was talking about the people who accept a police state as long as it's targeting other Americans. Satisfied?



Illegal immigrants being the operative subject matter

So once again, it's ok for a police state and big govt policies as long as they're targeting other demographics? You're not really refuting my points, you know. Also, they would be patrolling Latina/Latino communities in general and basically applying a "papers please" policy to those communities. That would affect everyone there, not just any illegal immigrants.



The last guy had no problem bombing American citizens abroad. They're arseholes by nature.

And I'm against that too. But since this thread is about the current guy & my post was about people here who support police state policies as long as they target other Americans, the last guy's policies aren't the issue here.
edit on 26-1-2017 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Trump Poised to Lift Ban on C.I.A. ‘Black Site’ Prisons



I'm not surprised in the least. Remember all of the people who defended waterboarding during the early days of Pres Obama's 1st term? That showed me the true face of our supposed "moral high ground".



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thanks.




However, it's worth noting that despite the victory for anti-surveillance groups, it's not a complete one. Other parts of the NSA's invasive programmes still exist. PRISM, also leaked by Snowden, and which gathers data from internet users, is still very active, largely because the NSA has repeated over and over that the targets of that kind of surveillance are not American citizens


So phone lines are no longer tapped. Now I'm not the sharpest ATS'er but by leaving the PRISM program intact that means that anything internet related still applies. Up to and including our smart phones.

Moving the goal posts back?

This is what you said originally:

Last I checked the NSA didn't seek out Muslims, they record EVERYTHING.

I just showed you that isn't true anymore. Whats with the caveats? Just admit you were wrong.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

It's about citizenship AND legality. Things can be two things at once. Life is multifaceted you know.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: WilliamtheResolute

Why build the wall?

Just prosecute the companies that hire them 50K per illegal. Jobs go away majority of illegals go away.

Frees up resources to handle the other ones not coming for jobs.

edit on 57131America/ChicagoThu, 26 Jan 2017 08:57:54 -0600000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Even Trump's Defense secretary pick Gen Mattis doesn't agree with this. Trump was actually surprised when he found out.
Trump 'surprised' by Mattis waterboarding comments

Mattis, Pompeo stunned by CIA 'black sites' report



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: enlightenedservant

It's about citizenship AND legality. Things can be two things at once. Life is multifaceted you know.


I know. But I replied to what you actually typed. You specifically pointed out that it was about more law breaking than just being here illegally, which is why I pointed out that even legal citizens are constantly breaking laws.

In fact, I'd dare say that legal citizens probably commit more crimes than illegal immigrants do, not just in overall numbers but also in ratios. Hence why I asked if the same policies should also be applied to the legal demographics who are obviously committing crimes like digital theft, illegal drug use, and the other stuff I typed.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Even Trump's Defense secretary pick Gen Mattis doesn't agree with this. Trump was actually surprised when he found out.
Trump 'surprised' by Mattis waterboarding comments

Mattis, Pompeo stunned by CIA 'black sites' report

Hmmm, that's interesting. I'll have to look into those. Maybe there's hope after all?



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I wouldn't get your hopes up. That first link is from November. Clearly Mattis didn't convince Trump then so I doubt that his opinion is going to matter here. Even back in November Trump was just signaling that he was still in support of torture. It seemed he was more shocked that Mattis didn't agree with him than anything else.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

No what I was pointing out was that, while being non citizens is the issue, it's not the illegals not breaking any laws besides being illegals that the impetus is on. So the whole, we need to protect the poor innocent illegals narrative is absurd. The ones being focused on are the ones that are not only illegal, but causing literal crime on top of it.

I can see no reason why people feel the need to defend criminals that aren't even US citizens. Get them out of here, they aren't citizens and aren't our responsibility to care for.

As for the illegals that aren't criminal besides being illegal, it's still an issue. Just not where the impetus is. There is an impetus on not letting any more in, and punishing businesses for employing non citizens over actual citizens. As there should be.

Here let me alter a quote of Trumps to give you more an idea where I stand.

"Citizens First" is the line. People talk about the whole "first them came for..." and such, as if this is a slippery slope situation. It's really not. There's a pretty clear line between the government having a responsibility towards it's actual citizens over non citizens living in the country illegally.

Citizen, non citizen, that's where the line is.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: WilliamtheResolute

Why build the wall?

Just prosecute the companies that hire them 50K per illegal. Jobs go away majority of illegals go away.

Frees up resources to handle the other ones not coming for jobs.


I think that the cost to the taxpayers is just one facet of the problem of illegal immigration. As a nation if we don't control our borders we don't really have a country. Prosecuting employers is not only unpopular it is very expensive and adds additional cost and personnel to an already bloated system. The wall isn't perfect but when dealing with the third world it is probably effective.....maybe view it as a 21st century WPA project.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: WilliamtheResolute




I think that the cost to the taxpayers is just one facet of the problem of illegal immigration.

Agreed




As a nation if we don't control our borders we don't really have a country.

Not suggesting to not protect the borders




Prosecuting employers is not only unpopular


Disagree.
While the Agriculture,Construction, and Hospitality lobbyist won't like it , since they are the ones directly benefiting from illegal immigration .

Most Legal Americans would get behind it if their real goal is to get control of illegal immigration that is.



It is very expensive and adds additional cost and personnel to an already bloated system.

Thats exactly what the Great Wall of America will do. It will Become his Obamacare.

Canada border proves that you don't need a Wall for a controlled border , as long as your neighbours have no incentives to cross over illegally. Take away their jobs and the majority of illegals won't come.

That allows you to utilize your already existing resources to manage the fewer that are not coming for jobs.

no additional resources needed if you prosecute the companies that hire them.

Added bonus you take the 50K you fine them from hiring illegals and use it to pay for other gov't services.

Having said that our economy would likely topple over if we get rid of illegals overnight as they are so ingrained into our economy.



The wall isn't perfect but when dealing with the third world it is probably effective.


The Wall is the least effective and most costly way to get control of the border. with a constant Uphill battle Its unmanageable and can be circumvented ,unlike stopping the problem at the root cause (American Companies Hiring Illegals)

I agree with a lot of things Trump is doing but this is not one of them.

edit on 38131America/ChicagoThu, 26 Jan 2017 09:38:32 -0600000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: underwerks

Like I said the executive branch can with-hold lots of money right away, not all of the defending would even have to go to the courts. For example they can immediately WITHOUT GOING TO COURT with-hold hundreds of millions from just NYC alone.

The money that the executive branch IS able to immediately with-hold itself would be a VERY effective tool to get MOST of those problem cities to comply. The few cities left could be made to comply with additional methods. And yes this can be done very quickly and very efficiently as hard as that might be for you to hear.

The wall will be built, the illegals will be deported and the liberals will cry, and you will be so disappointed to watch Trump actually fulfill his promises......how sad.


Sorry, he can't. As much as it might pain you to hear there's nothing in the constitution about having to follow federal laws in this case, and to top it off there's already precedent in a few federal court cases that support sanctuary cities in this regard.

So like I said, he can take it to court, and the courts are where it'll stay for a long time. I know you have a manufactured belief that Trump is "getting things done" but even all the executive orders he's signed still have to pass through congress.

Trump doesn't just get to decree something and have it happen, even though people like yourself that wish for a dictatorship want that to be the case.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: underwerks

Like I said the executive branch can with-hold lots of money right away, not all of the defending would even have to go to the courts. For example they can immediately WITHOUT GOING TO COURT with-hold hundreds of millions from just NYC alone.

The money that the executive branch IS able to immediately with-hold itself would be a VERY effective tool to get MOST of those problem cities to comply. The few cities left could be made to comply with additional methods. And yes this can be done very quickly and very efficiently as hard as that might be for you to hear.

The wall will be built, the illegals will be deported and the liberals will cry, and you will be so disappointed to watch Trump actually fulfill his promises......how sad.


Sorry, he can't. As much as it might pain you to hear there's nothing in the constitution about having to follow federal laws in this case, and to top it off there's already precedent in a few federal court cases that support sanctuary cities in this regard.

So like I said, he can take it to court, and the courts are where it'll stay for a long time. I know you have a manufactured belief that Trump is "getting things done" but even all the executive orders he's signed still have to pass through congress.

Trump doesn't just get to decree something and have it happen, even though people like yourself that wish for a dictatorship want that to be the case.


You are going to find out real quick just how long these "sanctuary cities" last. Don't worry I'll have a box of tissue waiting for you.

You know what I think is a good idea? I have been talking about this for a long time but a poster above me put a number on it. Fine any company $50,000 per illegal alien they get caught hiring.

Trump supporters (and anyone else against the wrongdoing of the sanctuary cities) can BOYCOTT SANCTUARY CITIES by simply not doing any business with them.

Implement a national I.D. system using bio metrics (like finger prints). It'll be a little tough getting the finger prints off of those dead people they steal the identities from huh? Or anyone they attempt to steal the ID. Of.
Mandate that all companies submit copies of the new identifying information (the new bio metric I.D.'s) to the feds for federal tax reasons (which is current law anyways)

Offer bounties for illegal aliens! I would make a lot of money off of this one. (I know this one is a stretch but kind of funny, and it would be fun).

Now I know the executive branch can not just COMPLETELY defund CAN defund A LOT.
The executive branch can withhold grants for law enforcement, local DHS, other programs such as battered women's and many other programs. The EB can also offer extra funding to those cities that comply. Yes they can and they will.

Anyways all we can do is sit back and watch it all unfold so that's what I'm going to do. I'll call you guys out down the road a bit after we see some success.....just like I did after Trump got elected. You guys never thought in a million years that would happen either.

The wall will be built, the illegals will be deported and there will be more wailing and gnashing of teeth by the poor buthurt liberal left.....the death throws of a dying ideal.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join