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.

 

Top Senate Democrat announces legislation to reverse Trump’s immigration executive order

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mike.Ockizard

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mike.Ockizard

originally posted by: Caver78
First off it's a republican congress.
(Facepalm)

Secondly you know...Feinstein.



Lots of republicans receive money from the military industrial complex that supports globalization. It will be telling how they vote.



It will indeed be an interesting test. As I said, though, they will need 19 of the 52 Republicans to defect. Given all they are trying to do I can't see it happening.


Does anyone have an idea which republicans (or democrats) are on his side? I figured Tulsi Gabbard might be but according to her twitter, maybe not... (damn. I kinda like her)


Well, picking out individuals is kind of moot... they will need to get 97 House republicans AND 19 Senate Republicans on their side. That is their task for ANY bill that Trump does not want passed.




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Caver78
First off it's a republican congress.
(Facepalm)

Secondly you know...Feinstein.



I could not think of a better way to respond to the OP then you just did.

All I could add is "google Feinstein" to check out her massive failures.

/ hat tip



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Well, is this Senator going to take personal liability if her actions lead to a terrorist getting into the country and murdering someone? I didn't think so. Trumps ban is ninety days till they figure out how to properly check these immigrants better and adjust laws that Obama put into effect to disallow certain evidence to be used to deny their coming here, like social media comments.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
The law is clear.

Trump is perfectly within his right.



Yes this is the law that the Democrats are going to try to change.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I tell you what is going to happen, if Democrats become that stupid, they will never get any votes that they lost back.

Anyway by the time the senile senator does anything Trump will have his immigration reform taking priority.




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
The ban plan is for 90 days and it is already ticking down... 90 days less than three months. If national security is the goal? Whats wrong with 90 days to give some extra check for all of those wanting to come in or go out that may return? It gives a window of added security as allied forces have been clamping down hard with the agenda to stamp out IS etc.

90 days, all the life that has been lost in the name of national security already... what's 90 days in a sacrifice against the ultimate sacrifice of life lost? I mean it could be a nation wide ban. But it isn't... the reason it isn't is there is an ideologicial war of extremes going on. When the ideological war going on has nothing to do with the people in total just trying to go about their daily lives except as distraction or possible destruction ideologies aside? It gets to be a hinderance to daily life.

Separation of church and state and yet when ideologues cannot separate the two vying for power and a voice? That's all government can and has focused on for over 16 years now... infrastructure crumbling, etc. we all have to live here together all of those ideologies aside. Not just nationally but on the planetary level... so 90 days to say OK time out we want to take a breather catch our breath, hire some new folks while screening segments very highly likely to hold ideologies that may clash as they have been, especially in the ramping up of things to bring peace... so what is an extra bump of security? Especially if it means possibly saving lives, in the transition of government and policies unfolding.

Ideology aside it is a practical thing no matter how much freedom we may say hey you have a right to your chosen ideologies to not be discriminated against... but when the ideologies of at home and abroad are in such a major tiff around the world vying for ideological views? Who is on trial... we all get punished, from child yet to latch onto such ideologies all the way up to those that still haven't and just trying to live... not really fair is it with so many caught in the middle of something tearing down due to ideology instead of building all belief etc. aside as a reality?

It takes all of us... 90 days is not that big a deal to offer extra protection, even to those it appears to descriminate, as the extra time and checks can make them safe too. Of course if fleeing in as a refugee? That does not fall under this as that has to do with immigration.

Im not a partisan sort of fellow, I see the argument on both sides... freedom and rights, those belong to Americans here already... yes extending them to the world? That's what a lot of this fighting is all about, but fighting for those not yet American but treating them as if they have the same rights? Well, that's what immigration is for... until then they just like everyone else have to abide by the law of the land they find themselves in.

I'm all for the melting pot, it's what has made the U.S. what it is... equality written right into it as law; ideology does not carry equality... so it's not very practical to carry ideology when looking at the situation, that makes things emotional, gets things stirred up and even more unrest.

Less than 90 days and counting... not even a quarter of a year, at my age? 90 days feels like a month if I am lucky. No biggie where security is involved; thats what has been sold to us for the last 16 plus years... so let them do some more securing.

No biggie.


edit on 29-1-2017 by BigBrotherDarkness because: sp.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Funny how neither the poster, the article or Feinstein mention this specific law or acknowledge President Trump's authority to invoke it as he sees fit.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   
for those that say it becomes law if two thirds pass it, your wrong, that's is only after veto. it can beocme law if he doesn't veto it and congress is still in session.


The bill is sent to the President for review.

1. A bill becomes law if signed by the President or if not signed within 10 days and Congress is in session.

2.If Congress adjourns before the 10 days and the President has not signed the bill then it does not become law ("Pocket Veto.")

3. If the President vetoes the bill it is sent back to Congress with a note listing his/her reasons. The chamber that originated the legislation can attempt to override the veto by a vote of two-thirds of those present. If the veto of the bill is overridden in both chambers then it becomes law.
Government 101: How a Bill Becomes Law

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



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: UKTruth

Funny how neither the poster, the article or Feinstein mention this specific law or acknowledge President Trump's authority to invoke it as he sees fit.


I suspect that is because the media and Democrats are purposely trying to set expectation and show a majority vote if they can get it, then attack Trump for the veto, calling it fascism or something similar. They rely on Americans not understanding how their govt. works, or checking all past examples to see that it's normal.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
for those that say it becomes law if two thirds pass it, your wrong, that's is only after veto. it can beocme law if he doesn't veto it and congress is still in session.


The bill is sent to the President for review.

1. A bill becomes law if signed by the President or if not signed within 10 days and Congress is in session.

2.If Congress adjourns before the 10 days and the President has not signed the bill then it does not become law ("Pocket Veto.")

3. If the President vetoes the bill it is sent back to Congress with a note listing his/her reasons. The chamber that originated the legislation can attempt to override the veto by a vote of two-thirds of those present. If the veto of the bill is overridden in both chambers then it becomes law.
Government 101: How a Bill Becomes Law


This is correct, but ultimately the same hurdle is required regardless of the order or sequence of events. The 2/3 vote is to over ride a veto.
I suppose there might be a slight chance Trump forgets to veto it....but I don't think so

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



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Under the 1952 immigration act the president CAN limit / restrict entry / immigration from countries deemed a threat to national security .

So once again democrats acting treasonous supporting terrorists .
edit on 29117 by VengefulGhost because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: VengefulGhost

What is going on with the Democrats is that they are building a new party that is pandering to minorities, but specifically foreign minorities in the US because that is where most of the base contributions comes from.

They are not longer looking for the best interest of the American people, but the countries that can fill their campaign pockets the most.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Wow this is stupid congress doesn't habe the power to remove rights granted the administration branch through the constitution. Next Trump would have to sign it to become law. And there wouldnt be enogh support to overide a veto.Trump winning has apparently made everyone stupid.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

out of 2560 veto's and pocket veto's only 109 have been overridden.that's just a bit over 25% i'd say very slim chance of being overridden.
it still had to go before congress to be overridden.

Presidential Vetoes, 1789–2015





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



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: UKTruth

out of 2560 veto's and pocket veto's only 109 have been overridden.that's just a bit over 25% i'd say very slim chance of being overridden.
it still had to go before congress to be overridden.

Presidential Vetoes, 1789–2015






You mean 2.5%



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: VengefulGhost

What is going on with the Democrats is that they are building a new party that is pandering to minorities, but specifically foreign minorities in the US because that is where most of the base contributions comes from.

They are not longer looking for the best interest of the American people, but the countries that can fill their campaign pockets the most.





Its treason plain and simple . Dont give a rats ass what excuse the democrats use to justify their treason at this point . Had more than my fill of watching them destroy the country and constitution that I once fought for . Time to go get my morning coffee before let an otherwise nice day be ruined .



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: UKTruth

Funny how neither the poster, the article or Feinstein mention this specific law or acknowledge President Trump's authority to invoke it as he sees fit.

Of course not. Can't let the 'facts' get loose and run wild, can they?

Ahhhhahahahaha!!



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

actually it''s more closer to 4.25%, ( 4.25% * 2560 = 108.8)
i don't know where my head was.

still a slim chance


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



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Tell you what dems if you guys get rid of Feinstein we'll get rid of Lindsey Graham.

She hurts the credibility of this. Someone else should have introduced it.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: UKTruth

actually it''s more closer to 4.25%, ( 4.25% * 2560 = 108.8)
i don't know where my head was.

still a slim chance



yes, it's LOW regardless!



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join