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: 13
50
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2018 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: howtonhawky

Do you get it? When the admin says the policy is catch and release then that is directing people to come over here by any means and find a border guard and they would be released.


With respect to the Catch and Release policy, I absolutely do get it. I was dealing more with the now...not the before General Kelly as Homeland Security Secretary decided to do away with Catch and Release.



So no you are also incorrect in stating that it has always been illegal to come here without papers because the laws states unless otherwise directed by an official...i referenced the law in a post to the redneck


That's true, it hasn't ALWAYS been illegal to come here without papers, I have to cede that point, but it also wasn't always illegal to have PoC as slaves too.

This may seem off-topic, but bear with me and I'll try to make it make sense. I'm a huge fan of I Love Lucy eipsodes. It's likely that I know all of them by heart yet still love watching them. In one particularly memorable episode, a reference is made to the US Census, where there are 180 million people in the US. That was 1956....geologically speaking a very short amount of time. That was 62 years ago, In 62 years we've almost doubled that amount to 330+ million. My point? Well, I don't know what the population was circa 1776, however, in that 180 years we developed a 180 million population. In the following 62 years, almost doubled THAT. So it's clear that we need some restrictions simply to avoid no jobs and no resources. The founding fathers I doubt ever envisioned a time where the people wanting to come here would ever surpass the lands ability to accommodate them. I'm CERTAIN they never planned on almost doubling life expectancy, which also plays a part.

There are so many moving parts to it all, it almost impossible to comprehend.


I too agree that the population explosion needs to be addressed and i will even say that at least the admin is trying some things.

I understand that there is a right way and a wrong way.

If i were in charge i would take the usurped power the fad has and give it back to the states and hold them accountable for the people that live there and who they let in.

This would allow some states like california to be held responsible for their policies and let states like arizona be free of immigrants if it is the peoples will.

I truly believe this is what the founders envisioned and it slipped away in the 1880's.

I believe that the fed should have a very thourough naturalization policy that the states would have to adhere too.

Back then they came to the conclusion that the chineses could not be naturalized so they panicked and made an amendment that was not only unconstitutional but very much out of touch with the way the system would work effectively.

The panic came from the fact they had no way to deal with the immigrants as a whole on the state level. Today we do.




posted on Aug, 13 2018 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky


It shows us clearly that an immigration official can direct immigrants where ever they see fit just as they did under obama.

Oh, really? Where did you get that? Is there no chain of command in the CBP? Are you saying any employee can run the agency?

Care to show me that in writing somewhere?


Would you care to address the underhanded tactic of changing policy in the middle of the night in an attempt to entrap more immigrants.

Any self respecting leader would have gave a warning that the policy would be changed so as not to be inhumane.

So you're saying Rahm Emmanuel shouldn't have put more police on the street this past weekend to curb the murder rate? Maybe he should have given all the gangs a month's notice first?

Trump did give warning... on January 20th, 2017!

TheRedneck

edit on 8/13/2018 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2018 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I already showed you!

You try to spin over and over.

Tha policy came from obama.He was running the show back then. He directed them to cross the border and turn themselves in. This was all over the msm at the time and you likely opined in a thread or two on the subject.

edit on 13-8-2018 by howtonhawky because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2018 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears



You want to sneak in the open borders, it won't be allowed. I don't need a court hearing to kick a trespasser off my house, nor should the U.S as a country need one either.


They're applying for asylum:

The woman — identified in court as Carmen — is a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed this week against the administration by the American Civil Liberties Union over efforts to prevent immigrants from seeking asylum because of domestic and gang violence in their home countries. The lawsuit asks the judge to invalidate Sessions’ June 11 decision to restrict the kinds of cases that qualify for asylum.

I have to assume that there's no reasonable discussion that's going to be possible now - since some people seem to think asylum seeker is just another term for illegal immigrant



edit on 8/14/2018 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2018 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Xenogears

They're applying for asylum:

The woman — identified in court as Carmen — is a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed this week against the administration by the American Civil Liberties Union over efforts to prevent immigrants from seeking asylum because of domestic and gang violence in their home countries. The lawsuit asks the judge to invalidate Sessions’ June 11 decision to restrict the kinds of cases that qualify for asylum.

I have to assume that there's no reasonable discussion that's going to be possible now - since some people seem to think asylum seeker is just another term for illegal immigrant




It would depend on if they are really seeking asylum for what they say, or using that particular loophole just to get in.

Just like everyone complains about the rich using loopholes for taxes, the immigrants are likely to be doing the same.



posted on Aug, 14 2018 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Seems kinda communistic to be fighting eachother about letting people in here to the usa when at the same time they will not let a large % of the population leave the good ole usa.



posted on Aug, 14 2018 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe




Just like everyone complains about the rich using loopholes for taxes, the immigrants are likely to be doing the same.


This is why they deserve due process. It's pretty simple really

But, taking it all a step further, I lose a lot of respect for people that want to assume first and ask questions later:

Right of asylum

The United States recognizes the right of asylum of individuals as specified by international and federal law. A specified number of legally defined refugees who apply for refugee status overseas, as well as those applying for asylum after arriving in the U.S., are admitted annually.

As noted in the article specifically about asylum and refugees in the United States, since World War II, more refugees have found homes in the U.S. than any other nation and more than two million refugees have arrived in the U.S. since 1980. During much of the 1990s, the United States accepted over 100,000 refugees per year, though this figure has recently decreased to around 50,000 per year in the first decade of the 21st century, due to greater security concerns. As for asylum seekers, the latest statistics show that 86,400 persons sought sanctuary in the United States in 2001.[20] Before the September 11 attacks individual asylum applicants were evaluated in private proceedings at the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS).

This mass immigration is not going to let up any time soon. It's easy to see that some people are unwilling to look at the problem with compassion and instead are satisfied calling anyone wanting into our country a criminal

No human being is illegal


edit on 8/14/2018 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Vasa Croe




Just like everyone complains about the rich using loopholes for taxes, the immigrants are likely to be doing the same.


This is why they deserve due process. It's pretty simple really

But, taking it all a step further, I lose a lot of respect for people that want to assume first and ask questions later:
Right of asylum

The United States recognizes the right of asylum of individuals as specified by international and federal law. A specified number of legally defined refugees who apply for refugee status overseas, as well as those applying for asylum after arriving in the U.S., are admitted annually.

As noted in the article specifically about asylum and refugees in the United States, since World War II, more refugees have found homes in the U.S. than any other nation and more than two million refugees have arrived in the U.S. since 1980. During much of the 1990s, the United States accepted over 100,000 refugees per year, though this figure has recently decreased to around 50,000 per year in the first decade of the 21st century, due to greater security concerns. As for asylum seekers, the latest statistics show that 86,400 persons sought sanctuary in the United States in 2001.[20] Before the September 11 attacks individual asylum applicants were evaluated in private proceedings at the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS).

This mass immigration is not going to let up any time soon. It's easy to see that some people are unwilling to look at the problem with compassion and instead are satisfied calling anyone wanting into our country a criminal

No human being is illegal


The problem with all of it is people seem to think every country keeps records and whatnot on births and deaths and whatever else. They dont in many cases. This makes it near impossible to actually check their background story.

It isn't like they are coming in with a DNA registry and country issued ID. This type of background check costs thousands in resources for each immigrant.

I would be fine with it as long as they actually CAN verify all the information AND my tax dollars aren't paying for it.

These folks spent thousands to get to the border from wherever. Maybe we should make it much more well known that they need to understand there will be a long process to get it done and they need to save up to pay for the resources used on the US side.
edit on 8/14/18 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2018 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe



These folks spent thousands to get to the border from wherever. Maybe we should make it much more well known that they need to understand there will be a long process to get it done and they need to save up to pay for the resources used on the US side.

They know

It's a complicated situation that would be less costly and more humane if there wasn't a presumption of guilt from the start

I've got to admit Vasa - I am not about this argument anymore. Different governments on this planet are creating situations that force people to abandon their homes. This is going to get worse before it gets better - if it gets better

What kind of people we want to be is the discussion we should be having. Where do we put our money, our time, our philosophy - our entire approach towards humanity?

I'm not a nationalist. It doesn't mean I don't love my country, but I love people more. So sue me

edit on 8/14/2018 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2018 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: toysforadults
There is an assumption that this woman is in the country illegally. But nowhere in the article does it say that.


Of course the article doesn't tell us that. The liberal media always forgets to mention that part of it, and that they are in this country illegally - therefore, law breakers; ergo, criminals.
edit on 14-8-2018 by TrulyColorBlind because: Corrected a typo.



posted on Aug, 14 2018 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Illegal - An illegal immigrant/alien is a person who has entered a country without government permission. Ergo , Also a Criminal . That Entails ANYONE who tries to Entr the Country WITHOUT PERMISSION Froggy.................


What proof do you have that the women in this case, an asylum seeker, entered the country without government permission, i.e. at the border crossing? Do you think that all asylum seekers are "illegals"?

Well, let's see.... She was being "deported." Legal United States citizens, by law and definition, cannot be "deported." Therefore, this women must have been, what we refer to under U.S. law, as an "illegal immigrant." Illegal immigration is against the law in the United States; it is a "law" and therefore when you break a "law," you are deemed what is known as a "criminal." I hope this little lesson has helped you understand things better.

Sorry for the late reply, but my new ISP finally hooked up my internet after being offline for a month.








new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join