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.

 

Customs agents ignore judge, enforce Trump’s travel ban: ACLU

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
Customs agents ignore judge, enforce Trump’s travel ban: ACLU

Then it's to jail the pathetic Kim Davis' should be a'going!
Contempt of court seems right...




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Looking to renew my wife's visa for a trip to the states and this is on their home page.





Urgent Notice: Per U.S. Presidential Executive Order signed on January 27, 2017, visa issuance to aliens from the countries of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen has been suspended effective immediately until further notification.

If you are a national, or dual national, of one of these countries, please do not schedule a visa appointment or pay any visa fees at this time. If you already have an appointment scheduled, please DO NOT ATTEND your appointment as we will not be able to proceed with your visa interview.

Please note that certain travel for official governmental purposes, related to official business at or on behalf of designated international organizations, on behalf of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or by certain officials is not subject to this suspension. Please contact our callcenter to inform them of your appointment time and date and request cancellation. Please continue to monitor www.ustraveldocs.com/hk for further updates.


www.ustraveldocs.com...


edit on 1 29 2017 by burgerbuddy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Dang,finally someone is doing their job,and liberal's don't know how to act as usual,good for them



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 05:52 AM
link   
I love the idea of civil disobedience especially in the context of the courts and legislating from the bench.

But I dont think Trump and Co. thought this thru.

So if someone is on the "ban list" but lives and works in the US, hes no longer allowed re-entry if he happens to travel abroad?

What about someone from one of these countries whos here on a work visa?

Seems like these are the types of people who are being incarcerated or turned away.

Dont think they really thought this thru.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: FelisOrion

The US was already losing it's global power under Bush and Obama.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

No, actually they are breaking the law. The courts have federal question jurisdiction. Ask President Clinton about that one. One of his Executive Orders was slapped down by a Federal judge because Clinton abused the ability to write directives. Broad, all encompassing directives are questioned by the federal bench. Here's the other thing. Trump could attempt to take it to SCOTUS but if they even heard it, which I doubt, they would backup the Federal judgement. Not to mention, no lawyer in his right damn mind would take the case. If you'll recall, in the Oath of Presidency, Presidents agree to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. So even the President answers to the law and who upholds the law? The bench. I'll attach information from the Heritage Foundation so that you can further understand. I hope this clears up any misconceptions. Federal Question Jurisdiction



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Ohanka
When judges are going against the laws in favour of political posturing, then they should be ignored.


Actually, as we see it is Trump going against the laws in favour of political posturing....


be specific here.

Exactly what law is he going against?

or is this just another unsubstantiated claim for another Trump "hit piece"?



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion


Could this be early signs of a civil war brewing? Suddenly the American public doesn't seem apathetic anymore. All sides are taking substantial stands for the first time in a long time.


Look, I really hate to be "that guy" in a situation like this, but of the two sides, you know, the left vs. the right, you are aware of the differences in some "hobbies" correct?

(if not, think target practice, collecting, gun shows, NRA meetings) I just don't think a civil war like that would bode will for one side in particular. This is not to say the left is weak, but they are a bit under gunned. Plus, War never has any winners, only one side that was better at not being killed. Don't you think diplomacy and some level headedness might be a much, much better choice here?



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
Good give them a pay raise .


Agreed in full.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColdChillin
a reply to: carewemust

No, actually they are breaking the law. The courts have federal question jurisdiction. Ask President Clinton about that one. One of his Executive Orders was slapped down by a Federal judge because Clinton abused the ability to write directives. Broad, all encompassing directives are questioned by the federal bench. Here's the other thing. Trump could attempt to take it to SCOTUS but if they even heard it, which I doubt, they would backup the Federal judgement. Not to mention, no lawyer in his right damn mind would take the case. If you'll recall, in the Oath of Presidency, Presidents agree to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. So even the President answers to the law and who upholds the law? The bench. I'll attach information from the Heritage Foundation so that you can further understand. I hope this clears up any misconceptions. Federal Question Jurisdiction


We're talking about a judicial stay against enforcement of an e/o. Such an order issued by a judge is not a "law".



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Profusion

They are helping Donald Trump fulfill his pledge/promise to keep Americans as safe as possible. No complaints from anyone who shares those values.



Why Sudan though, or iran? The only ones that make sense are Syria, libya, Iraq, MAYBE Yemen due to current chaos and war zones.. Nothing else makes sense. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia isn't banned which is a known supporter of terror.

Right now I have Muslim friends who are Sudanese and grew up in LA. They are amazing people. They are afraid for their family right now.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Any proof anything is being ignored ?




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Iran and Sudan have sanctions against them don't they ?

And they are both bigtime terrorist supporters.




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I wonder what Federal Judge Marryanne Trump Barry thinks of ignoring a Federal Judges Order.

Anyone find a statement perhaps?



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Iran and Sudan have sanctions against them don't they ?

And they are both bigtime terrorist supporters.

Sudan does, but show me the ties to terror in the us? By terror and Iran, do you mean support of hezbollah? How is that different than the US funding "rebels" in Syria, or in the past Afghanistan?
edit on 29-1-2017 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   
What I'm wondering is who released any passenger "in transit" in the beginning?

The EO states


Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including ...when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.


We have no Secretary of State yet, only a designate, but we do have Kelly as HS. Who "jointly" released the persons in transit?

What a clustersnafu this all is.
edit on 29-1-2017 by desert because: add bold



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Iran and Sudan have sanctions against them don't they ?

And they are both bigtime terrorist supporters.

Sudan does, but show me the ties to terror in the us? By terror and Iran, do you mean support of hezbollah? How is that different than the US funding "rebels" in Syria, or in the past Afghanistan?


Real confusing isn't it.

Maybe we should ban all money returning from terror zones.

No more visas for American currency.




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: FelisOrion

Better to be a mad man than a push over...until the country lowers her debt and the divide the DNC is sutured back together.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude



Look, I really hate to be "that guy" in a situation like this, but of the two sides, you know, the left vs. the right, you are aware of the differences in some "hobbies" correct?

(if not, think target practice, collecting, gun shows, NRA meetings) I just don't think a civil war like that would bode will for one side in particular. This is not to say the left is weak, but they are a bit under gunned. Plus, War never has any winners, only one side that was better at not being killed. Don't you think diplomacy and some level headedness might be a much, much better choice here?

So, stand down - hand over our rights - don't make waves or else?

I see where you're coming from - and where you stand

You are so that guy


edit on 1/29/2017 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I believe anyone who has ever said 'if you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to fear', such as in discussions about protesters and police for example, has to be behind the arrests and the terminations of the officers who decided to break the law. Not being behind them would just expose their own hypocrisy.




top topics



 
25
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join