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.

 

Obama Restricted The Immigration Of Certain People Into The U.S. 19 TIMES

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
According to a report from the Congressional Research Service, Obama is tops when it comes to immigration restrictions.

He apparently cited the same law most if not every time !!


The Report pdf


Article:
REPORT: Obama Restricted The Immigration Of Certain People Into The U.S.--19 TIMES!

With a court battle underway over President Donald Trump's temporary ban on refugees and immigrants from 7 Muslim-majority nations in the Middle-East and North Africa, many have begun to question whether or not the president has the legal authority to issue such a ban. Fortunately, one need look no further than Trump's predecessors to find precedent for this executive action.

According to a new Congressional Research Service report entitled Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens, the last 5 presidents have used executive authority to limit or restrict the entry of immigrants and non-immigrants into the U.S. a total of 43 times.

Ironically, it appears that President Barack Obama used this authority more frequently than any of his predecessors, exercising it a total of 19 times during his two terms in office.


Here's the breakdown of how many times each of the past five presidents issued such orders:

Ronald Reagan - Five times
George H. W Bush - One time
Bill Clinton - 12 times
George W. Bush - Six times
Barack Obama - 19 times



outrageous !




posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Welcome to the USA, home of the suppressed land of the elite.

A lot of people are butt hurt, yet they can't realize the similarities that are upon us. Shame Shame



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

But...Russia!




posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:15 PM
link   
You didn't happen to notice that those restrictions applied to specific conditions, did you? No, of course you didn't.

For example:
Executive Order 13726
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of aliens who are determined to have “contributed to the situation in Libya” in specified ways


Executive Order 13722
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of aliens who are determined to have engaged in certain transactions involving North Korea

strongvisa.com...


Just like Trump. Right?

edit on 2/6/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   
It was ok under the Obama, but now is racist, anti Islam and against freedom the religion, let me explain that constitutional rights are only limited to American citizens

Democrats in their destructive path wants a constitutional crisis under Trump, the reason is because from the time he won the elections they are bound to destroy American in any way they can as long as they disrupt Trumps presidency.

I will say and repeat again, Democrats never had the America people and the nation as priority, only the power of been in charge was all they care. They has become a dying breed.
edit on 6-2-2017 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
You didn't happen to notice that those restrictions applied to specific conditions, did you? No, of course you didn't.

For example:
Executive Order 13726
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of aliens who are determined to have “contributed to the situation in Libya” in specified ways


Executive Order 13722
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of aliens who are determined to have engaged in certain transactions involving North Korea

strongvisa.com...


Just like Trump. Right?


Just curious, of people can't be vetted because they are coming from destabilized areas, how could you know who engaged in what exactly?



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043




It was ok under the Obama, but now is racist, anti Islam and against freedom the religion, let me explain that constitutional rights are only limited to American citizens


Bingo!



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Another infamous Xuenchen thread. You get a pass, however, because Hannity did not give the relevant information.

Here is a link to the full report. The information related to this thread starts on page 9. It's a pain to copy and paste from Scribd.
www.scribd.com...

It is true that Obama restricted immigration 19 times. All 19 times, however, were directly barring specific individuals (government, military) who committed crimes against humanity and human rights violations in Syria, Libya, Ukraine, North Korea. There were no blanket bans against entire countries or regions.

Edit: Phage is faster and better at copy/paste

edit on 6-2-2017 by JimSmith because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: eluryh22

originally posted by: Phage
You didn't happen to notice that those restrictions applied to specific conditions, did you? No, of course you didn't.

For example:
Executive Order 13726
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of aliens who are determined to have “contributed to the situation in Libya” in specified ways


Executive Order 13722
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of aliens who are determined to have engaged in certain transactions involving North Korea

strongvisa.com...


Just like Trump. Right?


Just curious, of people can't be vetted because they are coming from destabilized areas, how could you know who engaged in what exactly?


What a silly question. You ask them. They will tell you the truth....right? If they say they are involved in terrorism, you bar their entry. Pretty simple process is it not?

/sarc



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: eluryh22




Just curious, of people can't be vetted because they are coming from destabilized areas, how could you know who engaged in what exactly?
That's not really the topic.

But I don't think that people who can't be vetted are, or should be, allowed into the US.

edit on 2/6/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   
And as always it seems that Obama was the only president that took but he was not, 5 presidents before him did it too, the power to enforced immigration base on national security.


Federal immigration law determines whether a person is an alien, the rights, duties, and obligations associated with being an alien in the United States, and how aliens gain residence or citizenship within the United States. It also provides the means by which certain aliens can become legally naturalized citizens with full rights of citizenship. Immigration law serves as a gatekeeper for the nation's border, determining who may enter, how long they may stay, and when they must leave.

Congress has complete authority over immigration. Presidential power does not extend beyond refugee policy. Except for questions regarding aliens' constitutional rights, the courts have generally found the immigration issue as nonjusticiable.


Interestingly the courts find immigration to be nojusticiable, but now they are all over Trumps enforcing immigrations laws with and EO.

And for those that do not know the meaning of nonjusticiable let me give you the simple explanation.


Justiciability

Justiciability refers to the types of matters that the federal courts can adjudicate. If a case is "nonjusticiable." a federal court cannot hear it. To be justiciable, the court must not be offering an advisory opinion, the plaintiff must have standing, and the issues must be ripe but neither moot nor violative of the political question doctrine.


There you have it.

www.law.cornell.edu...


edit on 6-2-2017 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Good find! That's exactly why Donald Trump's travel ban will be reinstated. The unfortunate thing is that the TERRORISTS have sped up their plans, and have recently arrived, or are on their way, before the courts shut the door.

This is exactly the type of thing President Trump sought to avoid, by not letting the world know in advance that a 7-nation temp travel ban was about to go into effect.

That Seattle judge who halted the travel ban, suddenly became a short-sighted, Anti-American screwball for some reason.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   
nvm
edit on 6-2-2017 by ausername because: Not the mud pit



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust




That's exactly why Donald Trump's travel ban will be reinstated.
Actually, it won't help Trump's case at all since they all were applied very narrowly and specifically to certain actions. Trump just said "everybody" (except "minority religions", of course).

You would have known that if you had read the actual information instead of relying on Hannity.



edit on 2/6/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Oh, it will, the judges job was to cause an interruption of it, and they got away with it, but it will not stand as per established laws.

States have limited legislative power over immigration within their borders.


States have limited legislative authority regarding immigration, and 28 U.S.C. § 1251 details the full extent of state jurisdiction. Generally, 28 U.S.C. § 994 details the federal sentencing guidelines for illegal entry into the country.

28 U.S. Code § 1251 - Original jurisdiction

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

US Code

(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.

(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;

(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;

(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 927; Pub. L. 95–393, § 8(b), Sept. 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 810.)


www.law.cornell.edu...

It took me a while to find the law specifically but I did, thanks to some of my lawyer friends.

Is going to be hard to stop the ban with all the laws already established.


edit on 6-2-2017 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


But I don't think that people who can't be vetted are, or should be, allowed into the US.


Except for all the ones that have crossed our border illegally...



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Which has nothing to do with the topic or Trump's EO.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   
You need to look into the reasoning behind the restrictions and I bet you would find that Obama's made a lot more sense than Trump. Also, you have to look and see that there is religious profiling going on here - Trump has made it clear on at least one occasion that he wants to ban all Muslims from entering the U.S. based on the fact that they are Muslim. This is not the same as banning someone from the U.S. because they are involved in terrorism.

Think about this - a few radical Christians, or even a bunch of them, become terrorists. Now the government is going to target ALL Christian immigrants with some sort of program instead of just the terrorists. This example is just meant to show you the point of view of the Muslims.

Even so, what Trump was probably thinking was that these countries are ones whose infrastructure is so broken (or another reason) that proper vetting couldn't happen. However, his racist comments and willingness to give preference to Christians are what is under fire here. He is also under fire because there already is extreme vetting in place for immigrants and travellers to the U.S., even more so for refugees.

Trump wants to add more vetting measures, such as access to social media accounts and cell phones. Is this an invasion of privacy? Would Trump do this to U.S. citizens? These are questions that might come up if the travel ban lives long enough.


edit on 06pmMon, 06 Feb 2017 20:49:37 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust




That's exactly why Donald Trump's travel ban will be reinstated.
Actually, it won't help Trump's case at all since they all were applied very narrowly and specifically to certain actions. Trump just said "everybody".

You would have known that if you had read the actual information instead of relying on Hannity.



What did Sean Hannity say about Obama's prior actions?



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

You didn't read the OP?




top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join