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.

 

Supreme Court kills Trump's hope of outlawing asylum seekers

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2018 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Saiker




This is a matter of national security and he should just tell the courts to go to hell and lock up every congressman whom threatened national security by not bringing a vote to the floor for the wall.

Lock them up? How weak.

Off with their heads! By order of the king!




posted on Dec, 21 2018 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

And let's do some simple maths on those numbers. If every one of those 8,400 children were from a single-child family (unlikely) and were travelling with both parents (also unlikely), that means that only 16,800 of those 51,000 illegal immigrants fit the image of parents desperately trying to forge a new life for their children.

The reality is very different from the image that the media wants to portray. Why else would they focus so heavily on that mother with two daughters at the border when Trump started 'using chemical weapons'. They're in the vast minority.



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

Um yeah you do realize that aslylum requires them to stop in th efirst nation to offer it to them right? Now IF they were never offerred it then the SUpreme court would had got this right. International law is clear on this. you cannot legally pick and choose.

Now they can still apply,and THATS what they are telling trump but...they dont have to approve it either.



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Just Another False Face Thread .............Ho Hum.............





edit on 22-12-2018 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa




Um yeah you do realize that aslylum requires them to stop in th efirst nation to offer it to them right?
Incorrect.


International law is clear on this. you cannot legally pick and choose.
Please cite that law.
edit on 12/22/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Womp womp!

So does this prove that Sullivan isn't a Trump-hater and actually cares about the law?

(Yes, I know this isn't the Sullivan case but his rationale was pretty much the same as this case.)


Nah, the Supreme Court is just out to get Trump. They don't know what they are doing.


Of course when one of losers they allowed to stay murders someone's kid they remain silent.



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
Thank you. I thought I had experienced some sort of time-slip and was wondering how in the world the Supreme Court was ruling on a case they haven't yet heard. Like you, I depend heavily on this site for news so was astonished to see the misleading headline.



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 02:42 AM
link   
blackjackel your OP is just another in a long line of attempting to present propaganda, emotions, half truths, cherry picked info and outright LIES to give legitimacy to clearly anti trump rants.

lets look at your assertions on this one under the glare of intellectual argument, factual context and what THE COURT ACTUALLY SAID.

first intellectual

the law CLEARLY STATES one does not get to "profit from ones crimes"

for example if you sell drugs (a crime) your profits , any items bought using said profits and any items used in said crime are taken by law enforcement and the courts.

it doesnt matter if (ex) your home that your family stays at if it was bought by drug money.

mobsters , drug dealers, and other criminals may have been living between wealthy and average having their lifestyle destroyed when their crimes were found out and not allowed to keep a damn thing no matter what hardship it causes.

now factual context


there is a CORRECT WAY to apply for asylum.
you IMMEDIATELY go to the appropriate place (boarder crossing, immigration office , ect) and apply.

the WRONG WAY is to be caught then you claim asylum.

that is trying to benefit (as legal prescient stated above) from your crime (YES IT IS A CRIME) of sneaking across our boarder.

also most when caught and other legal attempts fail (or are failing) they claim Asylum.

factually its BS to go for a while (sometimes years) NOT FOLLOWING LEGAL WAY to claim asylum then ONLY WHEN CAUGHT claim it.

lastly asylum is NOT A RIGHT, ITS A PRIVILEGE
I defy you to show me IN THE CONSTITUTION or the BILL OF RIGHTS just because you claim asylum you are guaranteed to get it.

practically that is why alot dont apply LEGALLY up front because they dont want to risk loosing.

Now if all this doesnt show your just a ranting anti trump lunatic what the court ACTUALLY SAID does all by itself

trump under CONSTITUTIONAL GRANTED AUTHORITY was going to deny anyone HERE ILLEGALLY (key word here ILLEGALLY) would not be granted asylum. they would have to go back and DO IT LEGALLY.

someone (big surprise... NOT) challenged it in court.

while it was winding its way though the court system trump administration tried to use the courts (yes whats good for the goose is good for the gander) to restrain the courts from banning implantation while it was being adjudicated.

in short it would go into effect UNLESS they lost the court case and all appeals.

the supreme court DIDNT SAY what he wants to do is unconstitutional.

just its IMPLEMENTATION AT THIS TIME.

even your own postings (but not your title) said same thing.

as usual you take one court ruling against trump and spin it into something it isnt.

where have we heard this before.. hmmmm
the travel ban comes to mind.

look we get it.. you hate trump
you want to use ANYTHING to make him look bad.

but in most if not all your posts all you do is spin things into something THEY ARE NOT to attain your goal

in short just reinforce the fact you dont give a damn about facts , just how you can spin them to your end.

scrounger



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

www.uscis.gov...

You will also be barred if you could be removed to a safe third country to a two-party or multi-party agreement. Currently, the United States has a safe third country agreement with Canada that does not apply to you if you are applying for asylum affirmatively with USCIS. The Agreement only applies in Credible Fear Screenings. For more information about the safe third country agreement with Canada, see the Questions & Answers: Credible Fear Screenings page. For more information about bars to applying, see the Asylum Bars page.

Acording to the 1951 ruing each state determines its Asylum rules as they see fit as well.




top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join