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.

 

Refugees detained at US airports Lawyers challenge Trump’s executive order

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Trump's immigration ban is already working. There are refugees that were stopped and detained.


Refugees who were en route to the United States on Friday evening have been detained at U.S. airports and restricted from the country as a result of President Trump’s executive order banning their entry.


They already have lawyers, and the lawyers filed a middle of the night lawsuit in fed court to challenge the executive order on grounds it is unconstitutional. The lawyers are looking to make this a class certification lawsuit so refugees can all be represented.


Lawyers for two Iraqi refugees detained at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport filed a middle-of-the-night lawsuit in federal court challenging Trump’s executive order as unconstitutional and seeking the release of their clients.

They also are seeking class certification so they may represent all refugees who are being similarly held at U.S. ports of entry. Immigration advocates say at least one refugee family is detained at San Francisco International Airport, but it is not clear how many refugees are currently detained at airports nationwide.


Both refugees have been receiving bro bono work form New York refugee assistance project. The refugees were on separate flights when Trump signed the ban, and the detention is the worst case scenario.

www.nhregister.com...
Both Iraqi men now detained at JFK had been receiving pro-bono legal assistance for several months from the New York-based International Refugee Assistance Project. Betsy Fisher, the organization’s policy director, said the men were in the air on separate flights when Trump signed the temporary ban on refugees Friday. She called their detention “our worst-case scenario.”

“In the coming weeks we will be advocating to show why this policy is bad for U.S. national security, why it goes against our humanitarian responsibilities, and why it is fundamentally un-American,” Fisher said. “If there is one fundamentally American value then it is welcoming those who are fleeing persecution. At our best, this is what we can do.”

edit on 28-1-2017 by seasonal because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I'm kind of turn on the issue myself but the baseless and rampant fear mongering pushed by the right is the equivalent of the baseless and rampant gun fear mongering pushed by the left.

I've heard it said that "it could only take one bad apple," and people want that used as justification as punishment for the whole.

.... is this not what liberals due with guns? Blow it out of proportion, claim that we need stricter laws, assume all gun owners to be guilty?

The parallels are striking (imo) and no one is talking about it.

R's want Muslims banned.
D's want guns banned.

We need less of this, and more freedom.

Just my .02. Shoot it full of holes with the Obama/Hillary deflections as well as witty "libtard," comments and dank memes.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Sudden change is usually not a good sign. It precludes a pending problem or a disaster. Attempting to change ourselves quickly leads to a crash or a breakdown.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: RomeByFire

No, Trump wants vetting, and then the people who meet the requirements will be allowed in. 120 days to come up with the process. Seems logical.

The left when it dares to talk about gun bans, knows it is already illegal to shoot people and rob people with the gun.
edit on 28-1-2017 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

The whole concept of what constitutes a "refugee" needs to be clarified. We do not have to take in people from every nation in the world where there is any unrest. We also are not obligated to assume that, even if a person is from an area with issues, that they are suitable to enter our country. Proper vetting is vital, for the stability of our own nation. The many issues in European countries show the dangers of allowing in any and all that claim the label of "refugee". Many of these are NOT coming because of any danger, too, but for economic reasons. This country cannot take in all the poor of the world. Foreigners do not have a Constitutional right to enter our country at will, and claiming that they do is utter BS.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

I heard it was George Soros attorneys that filed the suit, I don't give it much chance of success:

Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Good post and 100% correct.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

We reap what we sow. Stop dropping bombs and people can stay home.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Looks like documented profiling is working.



Every case must be reviewed.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 08:15 PM
link   
He wasn't kidding when he said he would do this right away.

MSM of course reports on the heartbreaking stories and I'm sure each person being detained is heartbroken, I feel fior them BUT for every 30 or so people who might not pose any threat, there is one who might. It's these 'maybes' that might just stop terrorists from entering the country
Why take a chance? When you think of all the terrorist acts that took place and wouldn't have , if this rule had been in place long ago. Some of them may have been moving here and having offspring eventually and the kid grows up and becomes radicalized. So I think he's just weeding them out. If you don't weed a garden it chokes all the viable beakthy plants

edit on 28-1-2017 by violet because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2017 by violet because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedal

Don't speak facts. They are too short-sighted to see these mass exoduses are the result of America's constant need to stick their noses where it doesn't belong. Then they complain about the immigration, and vote for people who prolong these wars which spark these mass movements.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal


Must be nice to not even be a citizen yet still have such great legal representation.

How many US citizens can say they have had the same level of and/or quality of representation.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

This is a set up, these refugees have been getting this legal help for months. THis is the roe vs wade moment, we will see what happens.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join