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 Trump's New EO Immigration Memos; Children

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: yuppa

I'll believe it when the offer of citizenship with a day of study is made public. Until then you have done nothing.

By the way, the law above lets illegal children stay. You might want to send the admin a note on that and decide if you will compromise or not.


I didnt suggest that idea to his campaign or people so why would it?




posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 10:38 PM
link   
We definitely need to get rid of the anchor baby law, nobody else is dumb enough to have this. It's nothing more than a magnet for illegal immigration and subversion of the United States.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
I didnt suggest that idea to his campaign or people so why would it?

I was suggesting that you bring it to their attention and then tell them what they could do about it.

It is, after all, the law that actually allows what you are in opposition of.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

Actually all but a couple of countries that make up the American Continent have that and even some other countries in other parts of the world.

Birthright citizenship



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Why? i like where he is going with it actually. The less input the better on this issue now that he is going around the court. Got to know when to stay silent sometimes.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Who said anything about where he is going with it?

The laws already on the books will trump anything he tries to do. There is no going around the courts on it.

Just like the travel ban EO.

ETA: I thought you might want to give them a heads up.
edit on 25-2-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: yuppa

Who said anything about where he is going with it?

The laws already on the books will trump anything he tries to do. There is no going around the courts on it.

Just like the travel ban EO.

ETA: I thought you might want to give them a heads up.


The travel ban was struck for the relgious exemption. this one has no such exemption. therefore it will pass.

Also the laws on the books ALlow him to deport Illegals no matter the age. If w e enforce the laws then Illegals would not b e here.
edit on 17000000pppm by yuppa because: clearing up



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
The travel ban was struck for the relgious exemption. this one has no such exemption. therefore it will pass.

Doesn't matter why it was struck down. The fact that it was shows that he can't get around the courts.


Also the laws on the books ALlow him to deport Illegals no matter the age. If w e enforce the laws then Illegals would not b e here.

I linked the law on the books on that topic. I understand that the sheer volume of laws in the US means that most americans usually don't know what actually applies but they sure do like to sound like they do.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
I understand that the sheer volume of laws in the US means that most Americans usually don't know what actually applies but they sure do like to sound like they do.


Thanks for that. I'm one who knows I don't know. Armchair politicians can be really silly.

If things were black and white, we wouldn't have lawyers.

Constitutional lawyers - - obviously Constitutional Law isn't black and white either.



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Actually he can....And has by writing a new one,and also he las within his rights the first time as well. the court is not privu to the information he is and as such made a bad call. Respect for the court should never allow them to dictate things beyond their scope.



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

That is your opinion. In the end he had to go back and rewrite the EO.

If the court finds a reason to strike that down, they will. That is the advantage of not living in a monarchy or dictatorship. You make it sound like that is a bad thing.



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: yuppa

That is your opinion. In the end he had to go back and rewrite the EO.

If the court finds a reason to strike that down, they will. That is the advantage of not living in a monarchy or dictatorship. You make it sound like that is a bad thing.


No the Original EO was constitutional under his office from which it was issued. the court made a decision based on half information. something normally frowned on in a beyond reasonable doubt justice system.



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

No. It was poorly worded and did infringe upon resident aliens because of that, beside the religious bit.

It was this part of the EO:

I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,


That conflicted with this part of the law:
8 U.S. Code § 1255 - Adjustment of status of nonimmigrant to that of person admitted for permanent residence which seems to indicate that an immigrant visa is what someone admitted for permanent residence and who has certain rights receives to travel to the US.


(a) Status as person admitted for permanent residence on application and eligibility for immigrant visa
The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification as a VAWA self-petitioner may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if (1) the alien makes an application for such adjustment, (2) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and (3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.


You could still disagree but it isn't because the court was working with incomplete info.



edit on 26-2-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: GreenGunther
Isn't illegal like... illegal and stuff, man?


Aren't children like... children and stuff, man?

What if it was you? What if you lived in a bullet riddled war zone and had a chance to get your child out of there?


You mean like the U.S. children getting shot at and Killed in Chicago and others inner Cities?

How did Obama let Central America turn into Chicago under his watch?



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

IE a GREEN CARD HOLDER or LEGAL VISA holder. who were not mentioned in being banned from entry. The airports and other places were too stupid to realize this. the EO was fine. the understanding of it was not.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Actually it was mentioned here: "immigrant and nonimmigrant entry".

That covers everyone. If it covers everyone then how can it not cover "GREEN CARD HOLDER or LEGAL VISA" holders.

Sorry, but the court did have something to back up their decision.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: yuppa

Actually it was mentioned here: "immigrant and nonimmigrant entry".

That covers everyone. If it covers everyone then how can it not cover "GREEN CARD HOLDER or LEGAL VISA" holders.

Sorry, but the court did have something to back up their decision.


YEah his Anti trump bias,but sure.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Sorry if you can't see how the words used in the EO were all inclusive.

It is pretty telling when the argument is that the words "green card" don't appear in the EO when in fact the words "green card" don't appear in any immigration law. That it is just a popular term used in place of resident alien card which is used as proof of immigrant visa status which is what the EO specifically targeted.

All one can do is put the info out there.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

A little off topic convo........

I am a native Californian, even though I spent a good deal of my life living in the State of Hawaii, I have spent the past 17 years in and around San Diego County. In Hawaii the equivalent to California's illegal Mexican "problem" were the Philippinos.

I have know many young adults, whose parent's "dumped" them off with legal relatives, who in turn raised them with fake IDs, from the get go! Many of these kids have F#ed up in some way or other, shoplifting, DUIs and marijuana arrests. Many of them have assumed these lives, with their fake IDs, taken and identified with their fake names and they have jobs and paid taxes, have bank accounts, credit cards, and yes VOTE and serve on juries! These people are currently terrified, as well they should be, but they're just ordinary people, many of whom have children, who are American Citizens!

The problem is vast and complicated! It certainly is!


Carry on......


No, they are not "just ordinary people"; they are people who have stolen identities from others, and are using them, which is criminal. What if it was your ID they stole? That of a family member? They are criminals! The people sheltering them are criminals, too. They vote? Illegal! They serve on juries? Illegal?? They should be removed. You have highlighted even more reasons to get them out. They can take their kids with them. Other criminals have kids, too, and don't get a free pass as a result. Why should these be any different?



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Why should these be any different?

To borrow from Carlin: "because the owners of this country don’t want that."



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join