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.

 

President to enact the ultimate power of office avail. to protect USA

page: 2
25
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

How about if the hypothetical terror attack were to be carried out by someone from...say...Pakistan? Saudi Arabia?

edit on 2/5/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

Yes. INA 221 H



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:46 AM
link   
DP
edit on 5-2-2017 by ksiezyc because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP

How about if the hypothetical terror attack were to be carried out by someone from...say...Pakistan? Saudi Arabia?

Or alternatively, if a plane blow up enroute and there is no evidence, no one takes credit.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP

How about if the hypothetical terror attack were to be carried out from some from...say...Pakistan? Saudi Arabia?


Saudi nationals or any other aliens from anywhere on the planet that have attended terror training of any kind in designated terror nations are covered for denial of entry into the country by other subsections of the same law.

If Dems were smart they would let Trump hold back the tidal wave of refugees so he could implement his signature "Extreme Vetting", sit back and watch it inevitably fail. Trump would have to argue he made America safer with Jihadi maniacs on the loose. But no, they are so mad that he won all they want to do is obstruct. Oh well, it is contributing to their further downfall.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP




Saudi nationals or any other aliens from anywhere on the planet that have attended terror training of any kind in designated terror nations are covered for denial of entry into the country by other subsections of the same law.

Heh.
So they are only dangerous if they have gone to terror school? That's what "extreme vetting" is?


edit on 2/5/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP




Saudi nationals or any other aliens from anywhere on the planet that have attended terror training of any kind in designated terror nations are covered for denial of entry into the country by other subsections of the same law.

Heh.
So they are only dangerous if they have gone to terror school? That's what "extreme vetting" is?



That part has been in the law for years and has nothing to do with Trump, the hard part is finding out if they were trained in terror, hence the extreme vetting part.
Obama let them in without extensive background checks.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:16 AM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

That part has been in the law for years and has nothing to do with Trump, the hard part is finding out if they were trained in terror, hence the extreme vetting part.
So, that hypothetical terrorist could well be from Pakistan. In which case the EO would have had no effect. Right?




Obama let them in without extensive background checks.

False.

edit on 2/5/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Obama let them in without extensive background checks.


Your evidence for that claim is what exactly?



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Obama let them in without extensive background checks.


Your evidence for that claim is what exactly?



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:24 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

He asked for evidence that "Obama let them in without extensive background checks." That's a long video. Can you be more specific?



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP

That part has been in the law for years and has nothing to do with Trump, the hard part is finding out if they were trained in terror, hence the extreme vetting part.
So, that hypothetical terrorist could well be from Pakistan. In which case the EO would have had no effect. Right?




Obama let them in without extensive background checks.

False.


No, the bans were temporary except for Syria. Time to allow setting up the extreme vetting program. Of course you know this but your poking and prodding eventually leads to offtopic derailment. I suspect it is the wording of the law that gives the President the power to do what you consider to be a nasty,


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.


He can impose any restrictions on any aliens or any class of aliens, immigrant or nonimmigrant from entering the country.
Pretty wide sweeping, and PC sensitive types just cannot fathom there could be such a law, but there is.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP




Pretty wide sweeping, and PC sensitive types just cannot fathom there could be such a law, but there is.

Oh, I know there's such a law.

Do you think laws are immutable? There were laws that said blacks couldn't marry whites. There were laws that said women can't vote. There have been all sorts of laws. Laws that have been challenged in court. Do you have a problem with laws being challenged in court? Do you have a problem with a president not having absolute power?


edit on 2/5/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Do you have a problem with a president not having absolute power?


Only when that President is Trump apparently.....



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP




Pretty wide sweeping, and PC sensitive types just cannot fathom there could be such a law, but there is.

Oh, I know there's such a law.

Do you think laws are immutable? There were laws that said blacks couldn't marry whites. There were laws that said women can't vote. There have been all sorts of laws. Laws that have been challenged in court. Do you have a problem with laws being challenged in court? Do you have a problem with a president not having absolute power?



No problem at all, in fact I explained in depth in this thread how I think it will ruin the democrats politically, and I am all about that.


What I am not for is the False News narrative that Trump did something illegal, he was defeated blah blah blah. It is plain to see he followed current existing law. If there is a challenge to the law and it is changed, he will just create a new executive order that follows the new law. Big deal, so what.....except it delays slowing the influx of refugees so that better vetting can be implemented timely, and that seems to be an outcome that favors jihadists.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:47 AM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP




What I am not for is the False News narrative that Trump did something illegal, he was defeated blah blah blah. It is plain to see he followed current existing law. If there is a challenge to the law and it is changed, he will just create a new executive order that follows the new law.

Tell me, in fighting the TRO, did the US government cite 1182? Seems it would be a slam dunk. Right?

edit on 2/5/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 03:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: D8Tee

He asked for evidence that "Obama let them in without extensive background checks." That's a long video. Can you be more specific?
Trey Gowdy, Jason Chaffetz, Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions do their magic grilling some high level public servants that can't adequately answer their questions. Looking for a risk free solution in a risk filled world. They point out you cannot vet refugees that have no history, sometimes the testimony of the applicant alone is enough to get them vetted in, cause there just ain't any other information on these people.
Comey tells us there's no database for the people from several of the countries on the list, so there's no way to check a persons background.
They make some valid points, and if they have their way, refugees from those countries are not going to be coming stateside I would think, for a long time.
There's a war on against Islam right now if you ask me.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 03:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP




What I am not for is the False News narrative that Trump did something illegal, he was defeated blah blah blah. It is plain to see he followed current existing law. If there is a challenge to the law and it is changed, he will just create a new executive order that follows the new law.

Tell me, in fighting the TRO, did the US government cite 1182? Seems it would be a slam dunk. Right?



"(Robart's ruling) contravenes the considered judgment of Congress that the President should have the unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens," the Justice Department wrote in its filing.

DOJ further argues that the parties who filed the lawsuit -- the attorneys general of Washington state and Minnesota -- lack the ability to sue in federal court because their alleged harms are too "speculative."


It is clear the DOJ is referring to 1182 by their statement of "the considered judgment of Congress that the President should have the unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens"

CNN reports on DOJ stay request



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Oh.
Did they bring it up on Friday?



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee




sometimes the testimony of the applicant alone is enough to get them vetted in,

If true, that would not be a good policy.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join