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: 9
89
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   
This has not reversed the EO at all.

Here is a link to the judges stay
www.vox.com...

The order is only for those that were granted visas before the EO was signed and it only temporarily stops these people from being deported.




posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: liveandlearn

All over the news. Oh wait. The fake real news you guys don't watch.

In N.Y. and Chicago big demonstrations at JFK and in Brooklyn and at OHare in Chicago.
People were being detained at airports. People from Iraq who had legal visas but because of trumps EO were being denied entry. The order that was signed while these people were in flight.
ACLU filed a case in supreme court and the court granted a stay of the EO

For those of you who think he can't be touched. He can. He's not above the courts.

The demonstrations BTW we're pulled together by people with ties formed during the woman's march. The same organization team.
We're not going to let him run ramrod over the constitution.
Two major demonstrations and he's only in office a week.

Hey trump something to consider . These people have gone through a two year vetting process and there are many more who have already been approved. You might think of excluding them from your racist ban on muslims.

edit on 1282017 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   
I thought the stay was only for those at te airport



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH




What is the value of Citizenship if a simple EO can take away all rights?


Bout the same value as the last administration droning American citizens overseas.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: snowspirit
a reply to: Ohanka

I thought the judge just wanted to clear those in transit, out of the airports, globally. Chaos was the reason for the temporary halt on the executive order.

Plus, Saudi (Wahhabis) is not on the anti immigration list of countries.
Wahhabis are still allowed in the states


Right, in transit I hear.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: liveandlearn

The demonstrations BTW we're pulled together with ties by organisers of the woman's march.


Theocrats and murderers?




posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: JinMI



We shut the door were there is an actual or strongly perceived threat.


Keyword: "perceived".

Again, it's a defensive reaction made out of fear by those that have been duped in to believing people of a certain region, or perhaps religion, are going to steal their babies, bomb everyone else and instill Sharia Law.

Scared, limp-wristed governance.



Again, I don't like the fact that this halts LEGAL immigration


Then you should oppose it. Period.

So perceived means we should ignore history or habit? Stealing babies? That's a new one by me.

You think is should oppose it, but this is temporary and I half agree with it. Period.period.period.question mark.


Would you support a ban on firearms because of their history or their specific purpose?

Even if temporary?



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Fake News, move this to the Hoax bin or change the title please mods.
A New York judge does not trump an Executive Order from POTUS



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: liveandlearn

All over the news. Oh wait. The fake real news you guys don't watch.

In N.Y. and Chicago big demonstrations at JFK and in Broklyn and at HOare in Chicago.
People were being detained at airports. People who had legal visas but because of trumps EO were being denied entry.
ACLU filed a case in supreme court and the court granted a stay of the EO

For those of you who think he can't be touched. He can.

The demonstrations BTW we're pulled together with ties by organisers of the woman's march.


Stop watching TV and go back to read the thread and the supplied sources. You have no idea what you are talking about.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
This has not reversed the EO at all.

Here is a link to the judges stay
www.vox.com...

The order is only for those that were granted visas before the EO was signed and it only temporarily stops these people from being deported.



TY



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
This has not reversed the EO at all.

Here is a link to the judges stay
www.vox.com...

The order is only for those that were granted visas before the EO was signed and it only temporarily stops these people from being deported.



TY



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: introvert

The stakes are too high right now, introvert.

What is loose in the world right now, has grown into a huge monster just since 2012 and its tentacles have already made it to Europe.

This monster has been clear. They very plainly said they would enter our borders through the immigration and refugee program. Why do people continue to not believe them?

For now, at this stage and during this particular time, we have to protect our borders. Those with the intelligence information know things that would probably scare the public to death.

President Trump is doing what needs to be done right now. It's a shame America cannot come together and understand this.


Again, all about the fear.

I don't live my life based on what-ifs of the fears of what may happen.

Not going to suppress the freedoms of others because I cannot control my own fears.

Someone could shoot me tomorrow. Should I band firearms?


Don't mistake common sense approaches with fear.

Suppress freedoms of others? Who are you talking about? Immigrants and refugees from countries with known terrorist activity have NO freedom to enter our borders. I think extreme vetting is common sense practice till some of the tentacles of this monster have been cut off and left to rot.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: liveandlearn

All over the news. Oh wait. The fake real news you guys don't watch.

In N.Y. and Chicago big demonstrations at JFK and in Broklyn and at HOare in Chicago.
People were being detained at airports. People who had legal visas but because of trumps EO were being denied entry.
ACLU filed a case in supreme court and the court granted a stay of the EO

For those of you who think he can't be touched. He can.

The demonstrations BTW we're pulled together with ties by organisers of the woman's march.


Woman's march was a joke. Disjointed messaging. I'm all for equality but some many other causes were lumped into that protest that it devalued the whole thing.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: JinMI



We shut the door were there is an actual or strongly perceived threat.


Keyword: "perceived".

Again, it's a defensive reaction made out of fear by those that have been duped in to believing people of a certain region, or perhaps religion, are going to steal their babies, bomb everyone else and instill Sharia Law.

Scared, limp-wristed governance.



Again, I don't like the fact that this halts LEGAL immigration


Then you should oppose it. Period.

So perceived means we should ignore history or habit? Stealing babies? That's a new one by me.

You think is should oppose it, but this is temporary and I half agree with it. Period.period.period.question mark.


Would you support a ban on firearms because of their history or their specific purpose?

Even if temporary?


There already exists bans on firearms, plus plenty of regulations that are permanent.

I'm doing my best to stay on topic and within scope. Please do the same.

That is not a logical comparison at all.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: DBCowboy

That's dumb, having a visa never means you will be allowed to enter.


But, Trump's order banned US Citizens who held dual citizenship with one of the 7 countries, from entering the US.

Banning a US Citizen from entering the USA.

Think about that.

What is the value of Citizenship if a simple EO can take away all rights?

Nuts.


No it does not bar U.S. Citizens from anything.

Read the EO

Now is not the time for mis-interpretations.






posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: JinMI



We shut the door were there is an actual or strongly perceived threat.


Keyword: "perceived".

Again, it's a defensive reaction made out of fear by those that have been duped in to believing people of a certain region, or perhaps religion, are going to steal their babies, bomb everyone else and instill Sharia Law.

Scared, limp-wristed governance.



Again, I don't like the fact that this halts LEGAL immigration


Then you should oppose it. Period.

So perceived means we should ignore history or habit? Stealing babies? That's a new one by me.

You think is should oppose it, but this is temporary and I half agree with it. Period.period.period.question mark.


Would you support a ban on firearms because of their history or their specific purpose?

Even if temporary?


Fully automatic weapons are already effectively banned for most people.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   


A federal judge blocked part of President Trump’s executive order on immigration on Saturday evening, ordering that refugees and others trapped at airports across the United States should not be sent back to their home countries. But the judge stopped short of letting them into the country or issuing a broader ruling on the constitutionality of Mr. Trump’s actions.




www.nytimes.com...[/exnew s]







A little clarification on the topic.

Buck
edit on 28-1-2017 by flatbush71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords



Don't mistake common sense approaches with fear.


Fear seems to be the approach given to me as a response.



Immigrants and refugees from countries with known terrorist activity have NO freedom to enter our borders.


If they have followed the proper processes, they do have that right.



I think extreme vetting is common sense practice till some of the tentacles of this monster have been cut off and left to rot.


Again, the language of fear. You fear a monster. I do not.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I worry more about what the Democratic party is becoming and how they have allowed foreign influences take over politics is starting to become the anti America values party.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: JinMI



We shut the door were there is an actual or strongly perceived threat.


Keyword: "perceived".

Again, it's a defensive reaction made out of fear by those that have been duped in to believing people of a certain region, or perhaps religion, are going to steal their babies, bomb everyone else and instill Sharia Law.

Scared, limp-wristed governance.



Again, I don't like the fact that this halts LEGAL immigration


Then you should oppose it. Period.

So perceived means we should ignore history or habit? Stealing babies? That's a new one by me.

You think is should oppose it, but this is temporary and I half agree with it. Period.period.period.question mark.


Would you support a ban on firearms because of their history or their specific purpose?

Even if temporary?


There already exists bans on firearms, plus plenty of regulations that are permanent.

I'm doing my best to stay on topic and within scope. Please do the same.

That is not a logical comparison at all.


That that FEDERAL judge in New York is just fine with.



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join