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: 7
50
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


The President and his administration still has to obey the Constitution. Even if you dislike it.

Well Trump's policy is causing an international humanitarian crisis.


Had Obama followed the Constitution, the crisis level wouldn't be as high in this country as it is. If there is an "international humanitarian crisis, it's not because of the U.S.. No one is capable of saving the world, however, we are designed to helping a limited number through a legal immigration system.




posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Krazysh0t


The President and his administration still has to obey the Constitution. Even if you dislike it.

Well Trump's policy is causing an international humanitarian crisis.


Had Obama followed the Constitution, the crisis level wouldn't be as high in this country as it is. If there is an "international humanitarian crisis, it's not because of the U.S.. No one is capable of saving the world, however, we are designed to helping a limited number through a legal immigration system.

Obama did follow the Constitution. There was no humanitarian crisis involving immigrants while he was in office. I can't say that it was the most humane thing possible as some of the problems plaguing ICE predate the Trump admin, but due process was at least attempted to be followed.

Perhaps you'd like to point out how Obama violated the Constitution since you are making this claim, because to me it looks like you are just turning my accusation against Trump back at Obama without thinking through its implications.
edit on 10-8-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
The illegals are criminals. That’s the law

Leftist judges who hold politics above the law need to be replaced

Common trump, say the words...’You’re fired’




You do not know under what circumstances they were detained or if they have committed any crime worth punishment.

Your statement was ignorant at best.

Letting them in if they have no criminal is no different than letting you or i go for something like not wearing a seat belt.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Obama did follow the Constitution.


No he didn't. He committed an illegal act when he gave out work permits to DACA and DAPA recipients. Obama had the authority to allow these people to stay in this country, but he had absolutely no legal authority to give them work permits.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 10:20 AM
link   
They failed Clinton's smell check and were being deported as such. All because failed states cant police their public. So we gotta take them. There is no evidence their stories are even true. Where is the ACLU in domestic cases? And, as i linked to earlier, most of the criminals dont show up for their court case.





www.washingtonpost.com... -1c897f17e185_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.49b932c3b259



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Obama did follow the Constitution.


No he didn't. He committed an illegal act when he gave out work permits to DACA and DAPA recipients. Obama had the authority to allow these people to stay in this country, but he had absolutely no legal authority to give them work permits.

What part of the Constitution does that violate exactly?



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 10:48 AM
link   
This one.

constitutioncenter.org...

Which caused this....especially when it was advertised on telly in central america.

www.heritage.org...
a reply to: Krazysh0t



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: SocratesJohnson


What makes you think this woman and her child are illegal. All the article says is that they're asylum seekers from El Salvador.

They were denied an asylum hearing based on Session's new rule eliminating domestic violence and gang violence victims from seeking asylum. The ACLU, with this woman as their client, is suing the DOJ because of that (arbitrary) rule change, which goes against our international refugee treaties and federal law that incorporated refugee/asylum procedure.




Here are the rules for seeking asylum and this woman doesn't fit within that requirement.


Asylum has three basic requirements. First, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she fears persecution in their home country.[3] Second, the applicant must prove that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group. Third, an applicant must establish that the government is either involved in the persecution, or unable to control the conduct of private actors.


en.wikipedia.org...



Nope. The women was denied a hearing based on Jeff Sessions new rules that deny asylum hearings for domestic and gang violence. She was in the middle of litigation, represented by the ACLU challenging those NEW rules, so that her asylum claims could be finally heard. She was deported in the middle of the night, after the DOJ promised the judge she would not be, before her case could be heard.

For rules on asylum, which you don't seen to understand, read this: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Even if she was given a hearing, I seriously doubt that she would have met the definition of the law based on the following...


You may qualify for asylum in the U.S. if you have been (or if you fear that you will be) persecuted in your home country either by your government or by persons or groups that your government is unwilling or unable to control because of your political opinion, religion, race, nationality, or membership in a particular social group.

In particular, if you are a victim of domestic violence, you may under limited circumstances be eligible for asylum—that is, provided that the violence perpetrated against you is motivated by one of the five grounds mentioned above, and that your government is unwilling or unable to protect you from the perpetrator.

In such a case, you should try to show how views prevalent in your home society regarding your and your persecutor’s respective social roles and statuses might explain not only why your government is unwilling or unable to protect you from domestic violence but also, in the first place, why you are a target of persecution on the applicable ground.


www.nolo.com...

Unless this woman can prove that her government isn't able to protect her or that she's a specific target by the government or a whole group of people based on one of the five conditions listed above, she's got nothing. I'm doubting that she has the ability to prove either.






edit on 10-8-2018 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

So are you saying that you do not think gang violence in el salvador exist?

It is proven that it exist but the admin has chose to ignore it when judging asylum applications>

What would she have to prove?



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: lakenheath24
From the first link.

That order has kept the policy on hold for a year and a half, and the order remains intact because the Supreme Court in late June upheld it by a tie vote, 4-to-4. That did not mean that the Justices agreed that the order was valid, just that they could not raise a majority to set it aside; that would have taken five votes on the eight-Justice court.

in other words the Constitutionality of the order was unsettled.

As for the second link. LOL! You honestly aren't expecting me to take anything from the Heritage Organization seriously do you?



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined





Even if she was given a hearing, I seriously doubt that she would have met the definition of the law based on the following...


You have no idea what her personal circumstances, that led her to flee with her young daughter, were.


In this particular case, our client was persecuted by members of Mara-18, a criminal gang heavily present in El Salvador. Gang members were forcing our client to abandon her Christian beliefs, her church, and her pastor who preached against gangs, threatening to kill her if she refused. Attorneys at I.S. law Firm successfully showed that while the goal of our client’s persecutors was to force her to participate in gang activities, they were doing so by trying to overcome our client’s religious convictions and by trying to distance her from her church, which was also opposed to gangs’ criminal activities. We demonstrated that gang members actively sought to punish our client for her strong Christian beliefs, which prevented her from participating in gang activities. We also showed that the government of El Salvador was unable or unwilling to control the gangs, as evidenced by the fact that police did not provide any protection to our client. Therefore, our lawyers proved that our client suffered past persecution in El Salvador.

As required for all asylum cases, attorneys at I.S. Law Firm also demonstrated that our client had a well-founded fear of persecution if she was forced to return to her home country, evidenced by the fact that the situation with gang violence in El Salvador has not improved. In fact, objective evidence such as U.S. Department of State and Amnesty International reports indicates that gang killings, gang rape, sexual exploitation of female gang recruits, and other crimes against women and girls are widespread and on the rise in El Salvador. Gangs including Mara-18, also known as 18th Street Gang or M18, and Mara Salvatrucha, also known as MS, Mara, and MS-13, have continued their brutal activities, while Salvadoran authorities have remained ineffective and unsupportive toward victims of gang crimes.
www.islawfirm.com...


Here, educate yourself some more!


Central Americans flee homes in record numbers: 'The level of violence is brutal'
UNHCR counts 294,000 asylum seekers and refugees in 2017
Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala the main source countries

www.theguardian.com...



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

Seriously, IF she was getting abused, why travel all the way to the states? With Coyotes? Through Mexico? Why not stop at Mexico? Why not go to her own cops. Should every US citizen that is a victim of domestic violence or drug violence go to Canada to seek asylum? What would Canada say? Please explain the difference.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky


So are you saying that you do not think gang violence in el salvador exist?


No, I'm saying that based on the law, she would have to prove that her government either refuses to protect or is not capable of protecting her. That would be a tough argument to prove.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And thank God for that. Now that the Supreme Court is decidedly conservative, we can get some common sense laws and ban these illegal aliens coming in because of stupid Obama era carrots. Get a points system like the rest of the world. Whats next, medical asylum? Trans asylum? It's a joke.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


We also showed that the government of El Salvador was unable or unwilling to control the gangs, as evidenced by the fact that police did not provide any protection to our client.


What proof does she have for that? Can she prove that the police intentionally did nothing and/or weren't capable of protecting her? Once again, another tall order to prove.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


UNHCR counts 294,000 asylum seekers and refugees in 2017
Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala the main source countries


In the meanwhile, I know American missionaries currently living both in Honduras and El Salvador pushing Christianity and I'm not hearing about any persecution or a need for them to return to the U.S..

Sometimes, maybe it simply just requires a move to a different area of the country that's safer if you don't feel that police are willing or capable of adequately covering the current one you're living in.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: lakenheath24
a reply to: howtonhawky

Seriously, IF she was getting abused, why travel all the way to the states? With Coyotes? Through Mexico? Why not stop at Mexico? Why not go to her own cops. Should every US citizen that is a victim of domestic violence or drug violence go to Canada to seek asylum? What would Canada say? Please explain the difference.


Mexico does not offer asylum to peeps. like her.

Canada does not accept anyone with a record,anyone in debt,anyone associated with the mj industry...That is all i know except that the usa is not canada.

Could you explain why the usa should emulate canada or mexico and why you want to deflect from tha truth of the matter.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: howtonhawky


So are you saying that you do not think gang violence in el salvador exist?


No, I'm saying that based on the law, she would have to prove that her government either refuses to protect or is not capable of protecting her. That would be a tough argument to prove.


No you are mistaken. That has already been proven but the admin decided to suddenly not accept it as a reason for asylum. She simply has to tell her truth and the admin would have to back track on their decision.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky


No you are mistaken. That has already been proven but the admin decided to suddenly not accept it as a reason for asylum. She simply has to tell her truth and the admin would have to back track on their decision.


LOL! Just because the police in her area didn't respond to one incident isn't proof that they weren't willing or capable of protecting her. Once again, she has to prove that the government isn't capable of protecting her, but we're talking about the government that rules over the entire country, not one local police station.

Once again, she should move to a safer area of the country.
edit on 10-8-2018 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
50
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join