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.

 

BREAKING NEWS: Emergency Stay Granted - Defeat for Trump's Right Wing Agenda

page: 37
89
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Do you know what the immigration act is? If so, how in the world do you even remotely think he has violated it?




posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Indigo5

I think you need to look at your math again, you misplaced a decimal..7% of 120m would be 8.4m

70k would be 0.058%

Did you use the calculator on your computer? see the "e-4" at the end?

Here you go: % Calc

So...

Edit: Even your high end of 120k is 0.1%.


Eff...Yes..My Computer Calculator...A little voice said it didn't look right, but juggling work and posting.

Humble retreat from that erroneous claim.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I figured
I have had employees throw some numbers at me and they do the same thing occasionally. It happens.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Indigo5

Do you know what the immigration act is? If so, how in the world do you even remotely think he has violated it?



Trump's Executive Order


"The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked," the order said. (AKA call the President if you want in)
...

"Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, if you’ve been screened already, and you present a valid visa, you should be able to get in," Hing said. "And if there is any challenge, you have the right to an appearance in front of an immigration judge.


www.politifact.com...

Put another way...the law says that if you have a Valid Visa, the law requires you either be admitted or have a right to appear in front of an immigration judge.

Trump has usurped that appeal process stipulated in the law, by requiring appeals go to the Sec of State or DHS.

AND not affording Valid Visa holders an appearance before an immigration judge, but rather detaining them and putting them on a plane back to point of origin.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Indigo5

I figured
I have had employees throw some numbers at me and they do the same thing occasionally. It happens.


Not sure what to do when my own PC Calculator get's into the fake news business!



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5


Put another way...the law says that if you have a Valid Visa, the law requires you either be admitted or have a right to appear in front of an immigration judge.

Politifact is not a part of the US government. But the State Department is:

After I have my visa, I will be able to enter the U.S., correct?

A visa does not guarantee entry into the United States. A visa allows a foreign citizen to travel to the U.S. port-of-entry, and the Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) immigration inspector authorizes or denies admission to the United States. See Admissions on the CBP website.


You seem to be unclear how the immigration process works.

TheRedneck

edit on 1/30/2017 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   
former U.S. Representative Jack Kingston



This is INSANE.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Sorry if anyone has posted this...law professor Jonathon Turley says Trump has upper hand. www.google.com...



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   
OFFS.....Kellyanne on Jake Tapper --- and she is in a total 'mask face' like she's posing for a magazine cover.

THIS WOMAN IS INSANE.

Honey, Kellyanne, please run. Run away, we are here to help you. Don't look back. Last chance at a future credibility factor.


edit on 1/30/2017 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

Do you want to strip him of the duty to manage immigration?

TheRedneck


Strange question...

I don't want to "strip him" of ANY of his constitutional rights and authority as President.

But the constitution DOES NOT GRANT him the right to invent laws, that is the legislative branch.

I don't want to grant him Legislative Authority...and neither should you??

The Constitution grants him the rights to ADMINISTER laws..How the Laws are enforced.

That is what an Executive Order does...It is a guidance document explaining to an agency how to apply a given law...THAT CONGRESS passes.

IF an executive order is found by a judge or court to be in conflict with existing laws, then it is not valid.

BTW - THAT is why Presidents ask the Department of Justice for an opinion on Executive Orders before issuing them, and they also typically get the input from the Agency it will effect before issuing..Both designed to not run afoul with existing laws in content or enforcement.

Trump decided to consult neither with this one...And it shows..



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

That isn't directly from the EO.




posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

So there is an issue there. Hing is conflating the two. Yes, there is an extreme vetting process for Green Cards and Immigrant visas, there is NOT for non immigrant. (B-1/B-2/F-1/M-1 for example). The originating country is who vets your identity, and the countries on the list are considered exporters of terrorism, which means the USA feels those countries may intentionally allow a known terrorist to gain access to a non immigrant visa.

In this case, the people who had already traveled with a visa were allowed to see a judge, which is where the stay order came from in the first place. Those who were sent back home were probably not notified of their rights and returned home, or they didn't feel like dealing with it and went home.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Incorrect, he is absolutely allowed to invent laws as long as they do not violate the constitution. That is the very basis of Executive Orders. Those orders must be adhered to as laws unless they are struck down by the courts or congress. To become permanent laws they have to be ratified by congress.
edit on 30-1-2017 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I don't know if you are being intentionally dishonest?

I did not say that a valid Visa demands that you be admitted to the USA???

I said if they decide not to admit you, despite having a valid Visa then you have a right to appear before an Immigration Judge???

VS. Trump's executive order requiring special approval from the Trump administration.

You quoted me in your post? Did you miss the word "or".?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
How many times have we heard the words, "to make sure this doesn't happen again".

We have had a reactive approach rather than a real preventative proactive approach for far too long. Trump's common sense approaches are so refreshing.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Neither do I want to strip him of any duties or responsibilities.

There is no law for him to break in this case, at least nothing that has been affected by this order. The President runs immigration, period. His administration decides who gets a VISA (an approval to present at the point-of-entry) and then grants or refuses entry based on general guidelines from the CBP. A Border Guard can decide on a whim to deny any non-citizen entry. If that non-citizen later wishes to push for legal relief, their only right to do so comes through their embassy.

In almost all cases, the Border Guard's decision prevails.

The only way the judiciary can prevail is to prove this is religious discrimination, and even that would be very iffy. To do so, the order would have to affect the majority of Muslim countries, which it does not. Even if it did, courts are very reluctant to tie the hands of the President on immigration, because his administration is the only thing that can respond quickly enough to immediate threats.

Likewise, Congress would have to pass sweeping legislation to remove his duty to handle immigration. Any such legislation itself would be open to judicial challenge on the grounds of National Security. Can you imagine the effect a law or judicial order allowing Iranians the right to enter unchallenged would have? A terrorist could literally walk through all the scanners with a suitcase nuke, wearing an explosive vest, and be immune to being stopped because of a judicial order preventing them from being denied!

By the time all was said and done, the order would be rescinded anyway because the new vetting process would be complete.

You really need to read the actual regulations. It just don't work like you seem to think it does.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Indigo5

Incorrect, he is absolutely allowed to invent laws as long as they do not violate the constitution. That is the very basis of Executive Orders. Those orders must be adhered to as laws unless they are struck down by the courts or congress. To become permanent laws they have to be ratified by congress.


Precisely wrong...



United States presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself.

Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).

Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution.

Major policy initiatives require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging wars, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.


The POTUS doesn't make the laws...He decides how they are administered or enforced.

Executive orders can and are struck down by the courts if they are not supported by legislation from congress.



In 1935, the Supreme Court overturned five of President Franklin Roosevelt's executive orders (6199, 6204, 6256, 6284, 6855). Executive Order 12954, issued by President Bill Clinton in 1995, attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll; a federal appeals court subsequently ruled that the order conflicted with the National Labor Relations Act, and invalidated the order.


edit on 30-1-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

But that's what this all about: VISA holders being denied based on a decision from the administration. They have been denied no rights; there is no right for a non-citizen to be admitted to the US. There is no right to appear before a US judge if they are refused entry. Entry is granted as a service, not as a right.

I do not see how referencing the State Department's own rules and regulations is being "intellectually dishonest."

I repeat: I agree with the stay order. It remedies an unforeseen problem in implementation. I do not agree with, nor do I expect to happen, a successful court challenge to the Constitutionality of this order.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

The President runs immigration, period.


his duty to handle immigration.



You keep saying "runs".."handles"...

Which is correct...but he does not write the laws and any EO must comply with the law..His authority is around how the law is administered or enforced.

His EO on immigration is legally and constitutionally suspect at best.

THUS the 5 + and counting Federal Judges that have placed a stay on parts of the EO.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   
O M F G




Kappa Delta?

Tri Delt?

sigh


edit on 1/30/2017 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join