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.

 

US judge halts deportation, threatens Sessions with contempt

page: 10
50
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 05:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Bloodworth


If a boat was sinking. Liberals would try and save everyone and sink the life raft eventually killing everyone one


That is the absolute truth! They are not capable of seeing the big picture or the consequences through their rose colored ideologies.


That's what I was getting at, they cannot see the big picture or even think about the consequences of their actions.

They will ignore over population, ignore lack of resources, ignore lack of jobs, ignore school compacity and just recklessly let everyone in.

Thats your definition of a bleeding heart liberal




posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 07:15 AM
link   
If they are legally within their rights to sue, then they should be able to have their day in court. But does that need all this drama from both sides? Just give them their day in court, and that is that. But the second anyone tries to limit the protection of our borders, we need to refresh them on the laws that exist and have existed for quite a while now.



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Kharron

It's odd that so many people on this site really do not understand basic constitutional principles.

It is because of people like that, who would have the state act against people without due process, that make me thankful we have the rights we do in this country.
edit on 11-8-2018 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   
lol The judge need firing

Preferably by a brick wall



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: toms54

Yea i am pretty sure the woman and child were featured in this documentary.

frontline



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: howtonhawky


Perhaps it is time for the usa to help them down there rather than deal with them here. I looked at the amount of aid we have givin them and it is not much.Nor is the amount of police training and other things has not been much.


How can we help El Salvador more when it takes everything we've got to keep Mexican gangs and drug cartels out?


I am interested in how we can help.

I do not think it takes everything we got to do what we are currently doing.



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodworth

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Bloodworth


If a boat was sinking. Liberals would try and save everyone and sink the life raft eventually killing everyone one


That is the absolute truth! They are not capable of seeing the big picture or the consequences through their rose colored ideologies.


That's what I was getting at, they cannot see the big picture or even think about the consequences of their actions.

They will ignore over population, ignore lack of resources, ignore lack of jobs, ignore school compacity and just recklessly let everyone in.

Thats your definition of a bleeding heart liberal


Everything you mention is a problem derived from dysfunction.

Most people ignore this while they tout the need for more failuring government intervention.
edit on 11-8-2018 by howtonhawky because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 01:28 PM
link   
This is for those of you that are supporting illegal immigration do you lock your doors or your car doors if you do you're hypocrite because aren't thieves human too? If you want to say that is ridiculous then you're also a hypocrite because having open borders is just as ridiculous as not locking your house or your car



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati


Who's calling for open borders?

Why are you conflating personal property protection with Constitutional rights to have the ACLU sue the Government on behalf of someone they believe has had those rights infringed?

In all the arguments being made on either side of the aisle with respect to immigration reform, I haven't seen a single time where "open borders" was even on the ballot.
edit on 11-8-2018 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

An illegal suing for a rule change that makes them ineligible. What a waste of time, money and resources for the US government.



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

The ACLU is suing, not the alleged "illegal"



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

That's only because the specific words are avoided... semantics.

If, as some in this thread have argued, any person physically in the United States is entitled to sue the government to stay, then we have open borders. It is not possible to deport someone until they are physically present in the United States. Once both feet are on US soil, it is not possible to remove them if they state a certain string of words. Therefore, it is not possible to deport anyone who has the ability to communicate, and it is not possible to establish any kind of border.

The simple fact is that there must be three different statuses for individuals physically present in the US: citizens, who have all the rights and privileges thereto; legal aliens, who have a reduced set of rights, and illegal aliens who have very few rights. There is no other interpretation of the law or the Constitution that is not paradoxical. An illegal immigrant does not have Constitutional protection, except in the most basic forms (as in, they cannot be shot on sight without cause). They have, by breaking the law upon entry, refused to submit themselves to the authority of the United States and are not covered by the Constitution.

If one person from Central America crosses the border illegally, they make little difference. They will be forced to live in secret, probably have to move around often to avoid deportation, and will likely eventually be caught and deported anyway. It's a drop of hot water in a large bowl of ice... irrelevant. But we're not really talking about a single person crossing the border; we're talking about a flood of people illegally crossing the border. That's a stream of hot water into a bowl of ice, which will lead to a bowl of nothing but hot water.

The issue at play here is whether or not a person who illegally enters the country has legal standing to use the legal system of the country. If so, we have open borders and might as well do away with CBP and ICE completely: all humans on the planet may come and go at their leisure and there is no border. If we go down that road, we can forget about increasing wages, because we will be fighting against the basic principle of supply and demand. We are then left with social welfare, but since the wages will be so depressed, there won't be enough money left to cover that bill. We will be forced to borrow money in ever-increasing amounts just to maintain some standard of living, and that will lead to runaway inflation which leads to economic collapse.

The only other option is to enforce a border, which we have done since immigration came under scrutiny early in our history. That is more than just having check stations along major thoroughfares. It is a combination of things: a physical wall along areas where patrol is both ineffective and financially prohibitive (the vast majority of the border), serious legal ramifications for anyone who is knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, a complete and total end to all programs that reward illegal aliens (aka free tuition, free health care, etc.), and rapid, certain deportation when apprehended.

There are no other options. If we do not choose the latter, we have chosen the former. The only advantage we will see from the present hodge-podge of contradictory actions is they will only serve to slow the destruction of borders slightly... they won't prevent it.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

Why are you conflating personal property protection with Constitutional rights to have the ACLU sue the Government on behalf of someone they believe has had those rights infringed?

In all the arguments being made on either side of the aisle with respect to immigration reform, I haven't seen a single time where "open borders" was even on the ballot.


Seems many feel that all persons have a right to come into our country illegally anyway they can and then it is on the tax payer to house, feed, care etc each one of these as we process each one through a hearing that could take a very long time. For some reason we need to do this with no other direction to actually not let them in or send them home quickly as millions of others to it the legal way and wait their turn.

Seems kind of like if I set up a tent on your front yard you will need to feed and care for me as we take it to court for my right to do it. Then some judge says yes he is a person he can do that and another 100 do the some as you once again need to care for them too.




edit on 11-8-2018 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Seems kind of like if I set up a tent on your front yard you will need to feed and care for me as we take it to court for my right to do it. Then some judge says yes he is a person he can do that and another 100 do the some as you once again need to care for them too.


Our justice system is so messed up, they protect American professional squatters too...


The woman who moved into Patel’s home, Sandrea Calhoun, has a history of squatting. Court records show she owes former landlords tens of thousands of dollars. She often pays one month's rent, and then waits to be evicted. Sometimes, she just finds vacant homes and moves right in with her five children.

“She’s a pro at this," Tromaine Langham, a former landlord, said. "She’s done this before and she knows exactly what she’s doing."

Calhoun told Langham she was living in a hotel with her children and needed a place to stay. She signed a lease, but only paid one month's rent. It took Langham nine months to formally evict her from the property, and by the time he did, she had destroyed it.

“The conditions when I got there were just deplorable,” Langham remembers. “I walked in and there was broken glass, broken windows, closet doors, bedroom doors smashed. Maggots were just all over the kitchen and in the stove area. I had to totally gut [it] and get that replaced.”

All in, he said, it was $52,000 worth of damage.


wgntv.com...



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Kharron

It's odd that so many people on this site really do not understand basic constitutional principles.

It is because of people like that, who would have the state act against people without due process, that make me thankful we have the rights we do in this country.


The problem is some want to overburden the courts to basically open the borders.

Don't want wall, and put a carrot of welfare and sanctuaries to attract tens of thousands. Once we get a SHTF scenario, it could be 100s of thousands or millions trying to get through the border. So your take is let's have them all get their day in court, fail to show up, and let us have millions of migrants flood the country.

We need to secure the border, before any global crisis occurs, and the global economy is a ticking time bomb. It's a lifeboat we got, we either survive, or we are flooded and sink with the rest of the world.

Go to venezuela if you want a taste of what's to come.

Slaves and their children and grand children were deprived of freedom, even after the constitution. Their constitutional rights were seriously limited. The constitution does not make immigration policy impossible. The constitution does not demand unreasonable resources that basically makes the border wide open especially in times of crisis.



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: thedigirati


Who's calling for open borders?

Why are you conflating personal property protection with Constitutional rights to have the ACLU sue the Government on behalf of someone they believe has had those rights infringed?

In all the arguments being made on either side of the aisle with respect to immigration reform, I haven't seen a single time where "open borders" was even on the ballot.


A global economic crisis appears seem likely. 100s of thousands, millions or god forbid tens of millions come through. It is financially impossible to provide them all with a court hearing, most will not show up either way, it is OPEN BORDER if there is any crisis.

And if they won't get a hearing then, nor should they now.


edit on 11-8-2018 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 06:21 PM
link   
To the "but they're illegals" lot: didn't those human beings come under asylum which is NOT doing things illegally?

Honest question from someone just wishing to learn.



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 06:47 PM
link   
If you want into this country, we have a process for that. If you are seeking asylum, we have a process for that. Both of them include presenting yourself at the border checkpoint or US embassy. Circumventing the border checkpoints make your entry illegal and subject to deportation. end of story.

You may not like the current immigration/asylum policies, but that by no means gives anyone the right to circumvent those immigration/asylum laws. When you have a political wing pushing this agenda, and grandstanding on heart string stories, it is done simply to increase its popularity with the very group of people that openly CHOOSE to defy the immigration laws. This is all political.






edit on 11-8-2018 by PainGod because: grammer

edit on 11-8-2018 by PainGod because: grammer

edit on 11-8-2018 by PainGod because: stuff.



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: sarra1833
To the "but they're illegals" lot: didn't those human beings come under asylum which is NOT doing things illegally?

Honest question from someone just wishing to learn.


Its called do it at an embassy or appropriate point of entry. Having all illegals suddenly call themselves asylum seekers is not a ticket to staying in the U.S.



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: PainGod


Nope.


To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.

You must apply for asylum within one year of the date of your last arrival in the United States unless you can show:

Changed circumstances that materially affect your eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing

You filed within a reasonable amount of time given those circumstances.




A defensive application for asylum occurs when you request asylum as a defense against removal from the U.S. For asylum processing to be defensive, you must be in removal proceedings in immigration court with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).

Individuals are generally placed into defensive asylum processing in one of two ways:·

They are referred to an Immigration Judge by USCIS after they have been determined to be ineligible for asylum at the end of the affirmative asylum process, or

They are placed in removal proceedings because they:

Were apprehended (or caught) in the United States or at a U.S. port of entry without proper legal documents or in violation of their immigration status,

OR

Were caught by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) trying to enter the United States without proper documentation, were placed in the expedited removal process, and were found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture by an Asylum Officer. See Questions & Answers: Credible Fear Screenings for more information on the Credible Fear Process.





www.uscis.gov...



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join