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.

 

No borders. No nations. No clue.

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: 727Sky

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: mobiusmale
For some reason, and I doubt I will ever understand why...

Ever read the Constitution?
Feel free, then you'll understand what's 'wrong' with Trump's selective Muslim ban!

What would you want to bet that Trump NEVER read the Constitution through?



You ever read the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952... That pesky little law that Jimmy Carter used to kick out 15,000 Iranians back in 1979 ?

Didn't think so...

That might work for some, a Trumpish personal zinger to distract from the question.
A 'poisoned Tweet'...
I asked a question, and you have not answered it, attempted an end run...
'Alternative facts' would be more entertaining than that attempted distraction.
Besides, the courts (remember them? Thank Dog we got em, as corrupt as they are...) are here to run the Constitutionality and legality of our fearless monarch's decrees and edicts.
So far, muster is not being passed.
I predict that it will be a long, tedious road to impeachment...


Can you give links that show where Trump is losing court battles?




posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluesma
a reply to: mobiusmale

So.... now we're aspiring to be like China, Iran and Saudi Arabia?

Okay. That gives a good illustration of where we're going.

(I'll refrain from responding the way Trump supporters do "why don't you go live there then? Don't let the door hit you on the way out!")


what is your stance?

.....what the hell are you talking about?



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct


what is your stance?

.....what the hell are you talking about?





How do other countries vet visitors? China requires potential guests to fill out a four-page application that asks, among other things, the reason for your visit, the names of your close relatives and what they do, the person who will pay for your trip, your passport number, how long you plan to stay and if you have ever been denied a visa for China in the past? How would the protesters outside American airports react to that kind of quizzing? China doesn't bother with pretending a democracy, so protests are few and far between. Iran, another country that likes to know who’s coming across its borders, asks most of the same questions as China, as well as “Have you ever been infected by any contagious diseases?” and who you plan to meet with in Iran. Saudi Arabia gets right to the point, telling female travelers that they cannot enter the country without a male relative accompanying them. Yet Saudi airports have no one outside screeching about their rights.

That is what I was responding to.

My stance? What does it matter ?

I think America has gone full on crazy, like most of the world thinks.
But also, the people are living off of lies from the media and screeching left wing exaggerations, so I feel some compassion.

It doesn't matter too much what I think, I already did what you'll tell me to do - leave.

I just watch now, wondering what will happen to my family over there. Like people who left their countries in the Middle East, and must watch their families back at home become trapped in corruption and lies. There's a point you understand you can't ever go back to visit them, and they will not be allowed to come visit you, because they come from a country gone nutso.

I'm just trying to follow whats happening, by the words of the regular people instead of the media.
edit on 1-2-2017 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: mobiusmale

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: mobiusmale
For some reason, and I doubt I will ever understand why...

Ever read the Constitution?
Feel free, then you'll understand what's 'wrong' with Trump's selective Muslim ban!

What would you want to bet that Trump NEVER read the Constitution through?


Are you saying that the Constitution calls for open borders, and that the Federal Government has no right to try to control who comes into the Country?

Do tell...

NO!
I am NOT saying that!
So, relax and have a cup of chai.
I AM saying that the Constitution has specific language regulating what the feds can and cannot do regarding immigration, though.
I AM saying that if the Trumpian edicts are against the law, I shall assume that they will be halted in the courts.
Until he has bought, or cowed, them all, anyway.
So far the court has already had to spank our impetuous l'Enfant Terrible.
I get the feeling that we should get used to seeing such judiciary proceedings, perhaps, until President Reince Pinkus in the Land of the Concrete Skulls opens in a theater near you...
Perhaps our Enfant l'Orange is capable of 'learning', and will gradually learn how to turn up the heat to cook us without having us jumping from the pan and suing him in court!?
Time will, of course, tell. *__-






edit on 1-2-2017 by namelesss because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: mobiusmale
For some reason, and I doubt I will ever understand why...

Ever read the Constitution?
Feel free, then you'll understand what's 'wrong' with Trump's selective Muslim ban!

What would you want to bet that Trump NEVER read the Constitution through?



Let's give them a clue: Article Six. It applies specifically to civil servants, but the principle has been extended.

According to anonymous sources (because their positions of authority will be compromised if found that they are violating ethics rules, and applicable law, to speak about it); reports that His Trumpery was spotted just reading this post, and immediately Googled "US Constitution", but got bored after three pages and fell asleep, drooling...

Wow! I just posted 'fake news'!
It feels good! *__-






edit on 1-2-2017 by namelesss because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: loam

You got your text from the New York Times? Where is the text from the government? People are arguing because there has been no official version released, and the order is being modified as objections are raised. The confusion is a deliberate tactic.

ETA: Whitehouse.gov has belatedly published the full text. Here are some provisions missing from your version:


(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.


No Syrians have ever committed acts of terror in the United States. This clause supports Assad's claim that anyone who opposes him is a terrorist. Another example of Trump doing Putin a solid. (Note "until I have determined." Not "the appropriate agencies," but Trump and Trump alone.)


(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.


Note the use of the word "fiscal." The order does not specify what the "interests" that would be jeopardized are, but "fiscal" implies an economic, not material threat. (Again, Trump alone can make this determination.)


(e) 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 a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or 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.


www.whitehouse.gov... [Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

Work out the logic problem. If refugees from predominantly Muslim countries are barred entry unless they are from a religious minority in those countries, what is the intent of the order?

edit on 1-2-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-2-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-2-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Syria is a war zone. Hundreds of thousands have been killed there. If I were the president, I would suspend any entry from Syria until the war is finished there.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 06:51 AM
link   
It is a privilege to come to the US. It is not right to come to the US. The US reserves the right to prioritize certain groups of refugees. For instance, in WW2, the US prioritized Jewish refugees.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: aseasyas123


It is a privilege to come to the US. It is not right to come to the US.


Agreed, but it is a privilege that should be extended freely to those in need.


The US reserves the right to prioritize certain groups of refugees.


Is that it the Constitution somewhere? I don't recall seeing it.


For instance, in WW2, the US prioritized Jewish refugees.


That is an "alt-fact":


As early as June 1942, word reached the United States that the Nazis were planning the annihilation of the European Jews. A report smuggled from Poland to London described in detail the killing centers at Chelmno and the use of gas vans, and it estimated that 700,000 people had already been killed.

Anti-Semitism fueled by the Depression and by demagogues like the radio priest Charles Coughlin influenced immigration policy. In 1939 pollsters found that 53 percent of those interviewed agreed with the statement "Jews are different and should be restricted." Between 1933 and 1945 the United States took in only 132,000 Jewish refugees, only ten percent of the quota allowed by law.

Reflecting a nasty strain of anti-Semitism, Congress in 1939 refused to raise immigration quotas to admit 20,000 Jewish children fleeing Nazi oppression. As the wife of the U.S. Commissioner of Immigration remarked at a cocktail party, "20,000 children would all too soon grow up to be 20,000 ugly adults." Instead of relaxing immigration quotas, American officials worked in vain to persuade Latin American countries and Great Britain to admit Jewish refugees.


www.gilderlehrman.org...



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: aseasyas123
a reply to: DJW001

Syria is a war zone. Hundreds of thousands have been killed there. If I were the president, I would suspend any entry from Syria until the war is finished there.


It is the fact that Syria is a war zone that makes the immigrants refugees. If you were President, you would condemn thousands to an unnecessary death. In retrospect, this EO will be considered tantamount to a war crime.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

#CanadaWelcomesThem They should all go to Canada.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: aseasyas123
a reply to: DJW001

#CanadaWelcomesThem They should all go to Canada.


Personally, I think that they should go to Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, but I don't set policy for those kingdoms. On the other hand, compassion compels me to insist that war refugees be allowed into the country I vote in.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

They should go to any Arab country. There are dozens of these countries. No language barrier. No cultural barrier.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: aseasyas123
It is a privilege to come to the US. It is not right to come to the US. The US reserves the right to prioritize certain groups of refugees. For instance, in WW2, the US prioritized Jewish refugees.


What? Where did you get that information???

Look up the SS Drottningholm in 1942, and the St Louis in 1939- they had jewish refugees trying to escape the Nazi regime, and were turned away- most of their passengers ended up dying in concentration camps.


We've never been the refuge for prosecuted and abused. This is not a new turning point for us. It is business as usual.
edit on 1-2-2017 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 01:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: 727Sky

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: mobiusmale
For some reason, and I doubt I will ever understand why...

Ever read the Constitution?
Feel free, then you'll understand what's 'wrong' with Trump's selective Muslim ban!

What would you want to bet that Trump NEVER read the Constitution through?



You ever read the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952... That pesky little law that Jimmy Carter used to kick out 15,000 Iranians back in 1979 ?

Didn't think so...

That might work for some, a Trumpish personal zinger to distract from the question.
A 'poisoned Tweet'...
I asked a question, and you have not answered it, attempted an end run...
'Alternative facts' would be more entertaining than that attempted distraction.
Besides, the courts (remember them? Thank Dog we got em, as corrupt as they are...) are here to run the Constitutionality and legality of our fearless monarch's decrees and edicts.
So far, muster is not being passed.
I predict that it will be a long, tedious road to impeachment...


Can you give links that show where Trump is losing court battles?

Did he not roll out his anti Muslim travel ban?
Did a number of courts not put the halter on enacting much of his decree?
Really? Have you missed this?



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 01:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: mobiusmale
For some reason, and I doubt I will ever understand why...

Ever read the Constitution?
Feel free, then you'll understand what's 'wrong' with Trump's selective Muslim ban!

What would you want to bet that Trump NEVER read the Constitution through?



Why don't you quote the part in the constitution that pertains to what you allege is a Muslim ban.

More than 'I' allege a 'Muslim Ban', that is how the Trump himself stated it.
And I thought someone else already did that.
Find it.
Besides, you, most likely, have never read it through, perhaps now is a good time?
Go argue with the courts!



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
Good luck!

It seems to me that I can spend hours crafting a great reply, only to find that I have wasted my time.
You have your beliefs.
As I said, time will tell about his decrees being legal or not.
He backed right down from his Muslim ban.
(Sorry if the term disturbs you, snowflake, more than half the world is using it!)
Why, suddenly he grew ethics?
Hardly, it was court ordered, and his henchmen were willing to defy the court!
How Kim Davis!
Just read the news.
I'm not going to play your silly game.
"Seeds planted in the darkest night sprout in the light of day!"


The great Acarya Maitreya says in his Saptadasa-bhumi-sastra-yogacarya:

"Before accepting a challenge for a debate, one should consider whether his opponent is a person worthy of carrying on debate through the process of proposition (siddhanta), reason (hetu), example (udaharana), etc. He should, before proceeding there, consider whether the debate will exercise any good influence on his opponent, the umpire, and the audience. But first of all, he should consider whether a debate - even won - would not bring him more harm than benefit."



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: namelesss




Despite your alphabet soup,


So you're too lazy to look up a Supreme Court case? Why even post in this thread?

Not lazy, uninterested.
Rather like Trump and the Constitution.
If you don't like the way that I offer the information, feel free to peruse the court cases, beginning with the one that curtailed his Muslim ban!
There should be plenty.
Don't argue with me, file for appeals yourself!
If he has not been found, legally, to have violated a number of Constitutional restrictions by this time in a year and a half, I will eat my words.
And, no, I will not go running off to go research some unexplained alphabet soup reference by some internet wag!






edit on 3-2-2017 by namelesss because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 02:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: namelesss

I can not wait to see the Supreme court interpreting the law as the constitution allows them to do, I bet the now Islamic pandering Schumer will have the lady Justice crying this time along with lady liberty.

Schumer is another one that has taken sides and his side is not America and the American people anymore.

I hear your pain, but it is a good pain!
It is the Pain that comes before the Healing!
First, things are going to have to get... 'more painful' for all concerned!
But, I have to admit, that being able to see past the 'nasty' into the Light makes enduring the Pain (of transition) easier! *__-



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: mobiusmale
For some reason, and I doubt I will ever understand why...

Ever read the Constitution?
Feel free, then you'll understand what's 'wrong' with Trump's selective Muslim ban!

What would you want to bet that Trump NEVER read the Constitution through?



www.law.cornell.edu...
9f

Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
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.


Case closed, Constitutionality of ban upheld by already tested federal law, authority of POTUS to control immigration and visitation from ANY nation, group, or class of visitor unquestioned by both law and SCOTUS precedent.

Y'all can keep claiming it isn't Constitutional or legal all ya want, facts prove you 100% wrong.

Right, then.
Pray tell, on what grounds did the courts curtail his immigration decree?



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join