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.

 

Locked and Loaded on the Border...

page: 9
42
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

From the same article ...




" In similar style, the Central American caravaners want better conditions in the United States. Judge Jon S. Tigar believes that they have the right to violate U.S. law and enter the country illegally. In the judge’s view, the United States has no right to bar any illegals, even violent criminals."


I also have a Right , a Right to say this particular Judge is a Liberal POS ..........




posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

They can, but the law also says they have to do so at a port of entry. The entire border is not a port of entry.



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Have you read the decision?
Can you provide quotes from it which support those claims?
edit on 11/23/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




They can, but the law also says they have to do so at a port of entry.

False.

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

www.law.cornell.edu...



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

His Rulings are self evident , and his Opinions are in the public record . Judge Jon S. Tigar is just another fifth columnist that Obama appointed to make sure the LAW was Defined by Ideology and Not as Written .
edit on 23-11-2018 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

So, you didn't read the decision.

What a surprise.



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Short memory span?

Are you ignoring context or just unable to grasp it? Probably the former...

Or are you referring to your short memory span?


What policy was removed?

The denial of asylum status (not the inability to apply) at points other than a port of entry.

You did read the OP? Oh, that was a day or two ago... I forgot about your short memory span. Forgive me?

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Well, that's not so much an argument as a deflection


Not. You might want to try getting information from someone who is not a litigant in the case.


Like who?



Let's just ignore that a rogue Federal judge just complicated the matter that was under some measure of control, right?


Rogue?


I guess anyone that's not kissing the big orange hiney is out of line? He's a judge. You don't have to agree with him, but putting the word rogue in front of any thing that doesn't suit you isn't a rational argument

The United States recognizes the right of asylum for individuals as specified by international and federal law.

It couldn't be more easy to understand. You may not like the numbers, and you may not like the people, but until someone changes the law they have a right to make their case - and ask for asylum

Tough noogies for Trump. He's got a very primitive kind of strategy going (I'm being kind), and it's being aided and abetted by white nationalist mumbo jumbo and the likes of Stephen Miller. None of them had the guts or the patience to go through congress - and now it's too late

In the end, if anyone dies over this political stunt the blood will be on Trump's hands



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


The law says that anyone within the United States can apply for asylum.

It does not say asylum must be granted. Unless asylum is granted, the seeker is illegally in the country unless at a port of entry.


Has it been successfully challenged?

Has it been successfully implemented in this context?


Confirmation bias can do that. You should avoid it.

So can human error. You should avoid believing the two are one and the same.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


The denial of asylum status (not the inability to apply) at points other than a port of entry.
Oh, I see. It's unless you apply at a point of entry, don't bother because we don't care about it. We have a file for that. Surely that's what the law says.

Did you read the decision?
edit on 11/23/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

LOL , Really ? You mean this one ?


" Meanwhile, in April of 2017, federal judge Jon Tigar ruled that prison officials must provide “free undergarments that flatten the chest of transgender inmates at women’s prisons and give transgender inmates at men’s prisons access to bracelets, earrings, hair brushes and hair clips.”

Allowing transgender inmates to purchase “compression tops,” Tiger ruled, was “effectively” denying the items to inmates who could not afford them. "



Yeah , that Judge is Almost as Smart as you Mr. Bootae..........



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit



LOL , Really ? You mean this one ?

No. I meant the one about the topic.



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis


Like who?

Like the ACLU:

President Trump’s new asylum ban was blocked by a federal court last night. ‬‪Watch our lawyer’s opening argument in our challenge to stop it.



I guess anyone that's not kissing the big orange hiney is out of line? He's a judge. You don't have to agree with him, but putting the word rogue in front of any thing that doesn't suit you isn't a rational argument

No, any judge who ignores Constitutional authority, preferring instead to make decisions for the rest of the country in violation of those authorities outside their jurisdiction, is a rogue. He is ruling in direct violation of his authority, as well as in direct opposition to the Supreme Court ruling handed down this summer on the travel ban. That's the definition of a rogue.


Tough noogies for Trump. He's got a very primitive kind of strategy going (I'm being kind), and it's being aided and abetted by white nationalist mumbo jumbo and the likes of Stephen Miller. None of them had the guts or the patience to go through congress - and now it's too late

Congress does not enforce border regulations. Congress makes immigration law, like the law they made that states that crossing the border at a location not a port of entry without proper documentation is illegal.


In the end, if anyone dies over this political stunt the blood will be on Trump's hands

Nope. Sorry. That dog just don't hunt.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Oh, I see. It's unless you apply at a point of entry, don't bother because we don't care about it. We have a file for that. Surely that's what the law says.

The law says they can apply, but they have no right to be granted anything. The law says that decision is solely the domain of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security.

President Trump's Executive Order says "don't bother because we don't care about it. We have a file for that." That's his authority as Chief Executive over both departments. Don't like it? Simple solution... get Congress to change the law and the big mean orange guy can't defy it.


Did you read the decision?

Apparently better than you did.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Congress makes immigration law, like the law they made that states that crossing the border at a location not a port of entry without proper documentation is illegal.
And yet, there is a law which says they can apply for asylum. They can avail themselves of the system. And that means due process, because any person in the United States receives due process.

Trump says no. That doesn't count if you cross the southern border illegally. Don't bother because we won't hear your case.
edit on 11/23/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


And yet, there is a law which says they can apply for asylum. They can avail themselves of the system. And that means due process, because any person in the United States receives due process.

Yes, they get to apply for asylum.

It does not say they can "avail themselves of the system."

That does not necessarily mean "due process" that exists outside the asylum process.

No, not every person inside the US is entitled to due process. The US is not second base.

That's a perfect "leftist" system for trying to spin an argument. You start off with a true statement, then reword it slightly, then apply a requirement based on the rewording, then make a conclusion that is invalid. Sorry, but I will call that out. It's intellectually dishonest and, depending on the issue, can be downright sinister. You are ignoring the concepts of national sovereignty, Constitutionally granted Presidential authority, public safety, and every other law concerning immigration passed by Congress in favor of one specious argument based on a single judicial ruling by a lone Federal judge.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

It does not say they can "avail themselves of the system."
What do you think an application entails? Summary dismissal?



No, not every person inside the US is entitled to due process.
Can you provide a citation to that effect?



You are ignoring the concepts of national sovereignty, Constitutionally granted Presidential authority, public safety, and every other law concerning immigration passed by Congress in favor of one specious argument based on a single judicial ruling by a lone Federal judge.
Are you saying that a federal judge cannot issue a restraining order?


edit on 11/23/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Probably a lot of woman and children will likely be fast tracked in because some truly are desperate. Most are young men wanting to come to America and work and send that money back to Mexico to support their families. It's a sad situation. In Mexico you can live in a apartment for 150 USD that includes everything including wifi and tv, water sewer, garbage. The exchange rate is roughly 20 peso to the dollar. I knew a kid born and raised in US and he just works through summer in US and takes that money and lives quite comfortable in Baja for a year or 2 and just surfs, then comes back rinse and repeat.

However, you have to be careful as there is a lot of corruption in the drug mobs and police etc. You never want to find yourself in a Mexican jail or prison. If you got money you can live well and buy your way out of anything. Are those people desperate? Sure they are, but they are poor and that's what they seek money, as money is life and well being. I mean hell we spend millions and billions and drop loads of money in other countries all the time. We could accidentally fly a chopper over the crowd and make it rain money for Christmas. They all know who the fat jolly red guy with a snowy white beard is.



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


What do you think an application entails? Summary dismissal?

It involves a statement and submission of an application. Both may be done anywhere in the US. It does not involve a guaranteed approval of an application.


Can you provide a citation to that effect?

I'm not going to prove a negative. Show me where anyone with one foot across the border has such rights.


Are you saying that a federal judge cannot issue a restraining order?

Obviously they can. That does not mean such an order is Constitutional, nor that it won't be rescinded by a higher court. Neither does it mean a higher court will not rule that the judge was out of his jurisdiction.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: sean

I would hope that those who truly show some sign of being in dire straits would get fast-tracked. I am not against helping people; I am against trying to help everyone that shows up at the front door without even knowing who they are. That actually takes away from those who need help.

We already send (well, sent; this caravan mess have have killed that idea) money to Guatemala and the Honduras. We send it to try and help them improve their economy so their people can live better lives. What more can we do? I would oppose any deeper involvement; they have as much right to national sovereignty as we do.

At some point there has to be some showing of benefit from the monies given... otherwise there's no point in giving it.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join