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.

 

Pros and Cons on open borders.....

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


You really should get past the thought that i am here expressing my opinion.

That's hard to do when you keep trying to argue against the law as written.

Courts do not write law. They interpret it when there is a contradiction between Federal law and the Constitution, or between two Federal laws. Just because we have rogue judges who want to legislate from the bench does not make it right.

TheRedneck




posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Spin and more spin.

Face the facts that you keep bringing up parts of the law that are not valid in this case.

It is legal for people to cross the border anywhere and claim asylum.

If they were breaking the law then potus would be charging them just as he tried to do but was rejected in court because of what i have pointed out to you but you refuse to come to admit reality.

The law clearly says one can claim asylum if they cross between ports. That is giving them permission to cross between ports because it is directing them officially. The law clearly states that it is not a crime if officially directed to cross between ports.

Face it is a loophole.




posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


It is legal for people to cross the border anywhere and claim asylum.

No, it is legal to claim asylum anywhere, even if the border was crossed illegally.

What you are doing is accepting the word of a lone activist Federal judge as finalized law. It is not. The Supreme Court will have a say on this.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Scotus has ruled on the issue of crossing between ports more than once.

Potus just figured he could stack the bench and get a different outcome but the wording is too clear for that. imo

Remember that even judges can be impeached and unless republicans had control of both houses and had everyone under some kind of spell i would not expect any change in ruling.

There are however other options. Change in the law for one. Another is mexican safe spaces run by usa so that people can work and wait while claims are judged.

However a wall will not stop claimants and i think now you realize that more than you did before. So good on you.




posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


Scotus has ruled on the issue of crossing between ports more than once.

Links please? I'd like to see those opinions.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


Scotus has ruled on the issue of crossing between ports more than once.

Links please? I'd like to see those opinions.

TheRedneck


supreme court ruling on asylum

put that in your google box



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


Scotus has ruled on the issue of crossing between ports more than once.

Links please? I'd like to see those opinions.

TheRedneck


supreme court ruling on asylum

put that in your google box




It's on you to provide the link.



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Muninn

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


Scotus has ruled on the issue of crossing between ports more than once.

Links please? I'd like to see those opinions.

TheRedneck


supreme court ruling on asylum

put that in your google box




It's on you to provide the link.


Based on what?

I have made no outlandish claims and the reality at the border shows us what is happening.

If you people continue to rely on everyone else to do your research then ignorance will spread.




Here just in case people are actually interested in the law and not just linky gotcha games then you can check these out.





US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Kwong_Hai_Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590 (1953)
Shaughnessy v. US ex rel Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953)
Graham v. Department of Pub. Welfare, 403 U.S. 365 (1971)
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972)
Matthews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976)
Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977)
Toll v. Moreno, 441 U.S. 458 (1979)
Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)
Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (1982)
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984)
INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984)
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987)
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992)
Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257 (2012)

edit on 3-3-2019 by UncleTomahawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: Muninn

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


Scotus has ruled on the issue of crossing between ports more than once.

Links please? I'd like to see those opinions.

TheRedneck


supreme court ruling on asylum

put that in your google box




It's on you to provide the link.


Based on what?

I have made no outlandish claims and the reality at the border shows us what is happening.

If you people continue to rely on everyone else to do your research then ignorance will spread.




Here just in case people are actually interested in the law and not just linky gotcha games then you can check these out.





US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Kwong_Hai_Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590 (1953)
Shaughnessy v. US ex rel Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953)
Graham v. Department of Pub. Welfare, 403 U.S. 365 (1971)
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972)
Matthews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976)
Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977)
Toll v. Moreno, 441 U.S. 458 (1979)
Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)
Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (1982)
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984)
INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984)
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987)
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992)
Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257 (2012)


Got a link to that?



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Muninn

Google it or just visit the law link already provided.

Look i am not providing outlandish claims.

Education is your responsibility. If i make an outlandish claim i do most certainly understand that site rules require links for such but mundane things like saying the scotus has ruled on asylum before does not require a link.

To be clear that was my only statement where i said scotus has ruled on asylum cases in the past.

You clearly are not interested in law but want to play childish link games. I am not interested.



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


Education is your responsibility.

Validation of claims is yours.

I have already stated that I am not going to dig through hundreds of thousands of court decisions looking for the one you saw. When it comes to US Code, that is fairly well-organized; court decisions are typically not. Every claim I have made in this thread has been backed up by both links to Cornell University law school and applicable excerpts; you have provided only sporadic text references.

The law is not a subjective thing, at least not for us. If you make a statement, it needs to be supported. Otherwise, you just pulled it out of your rear orifice.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Reality is not a claim.

If i tell you the grass is green at my house then i am under zero obligation to prove that to you. If i tell you it walks around and changes shape then that would be extraordinary and require proof.

BTW

I gave the actual scotus cases in a post above this straight from the cornell site you linked just because i am a good guy and want to see you overcome this mental battle you are having with asylum vs immigration and not because the simple statement "scotus has ruled in the past on asylum" requires any citations.

Now i do understand that if i mentioned some detail about a particular case or something more specific drivin that would require a citation.


This gotcha linky crap is making us dumber when there has already been a link to one of the best places to research something like that.



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

Great perspective, thanks for the reply. When put onto a scale of political conversation, I couldn't agree more.

I traveled through most of the Schengen Region, but never once considered America or other countries doing the same. Probably because the USA already has such a similar system implemented. The way you propose it is both realistic and fathomable as far as small steps towards unification goes, I think it'd be very beneficial to everyone involved.



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


Reality is not a claim.

Neither is a claim reality.

I am at somewhat of a loss as to why you would concede to my request, but do so in an area which would be difficult to find. I do not understand why it would be of any advantage to you to edit the post above this one instead of this one. No matter; I still looked at one of the cases you presented, Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257 (2012), and discovered that it concerned retroactivity of a new law in effect during an absence of a lawful, permanent resident. You seem to have forgotten that we are discussing illegal aliens here, not legal aliens.

I will look through the rest... but I am now having serious questions as to the validity of your statement.


This gotcha linky crap is making us dumber when there has already been a link to one of the best places to research something like that.

This "gotcha linky crap" is actually called "corroborating evidence" and is a requirement for anyone who actually nelieves their position. If the links involved were to opinion sites, I could agree... another's opinion is not really corroboration. Links to the actual US Code when discussing law, and links to actual court opinions when discussing court decisions, are not mere opinions; they go to the heart of the matter.

Law is not about feelings. It is not subjective. It is objective and exact, or it is not law; it is tyranny.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
a reply to: Muninn
a reply to: Muninn
a reply to: TheRedneck
a reply to: TheRedneck

I've gone round and round with this poster in several threads asking them to provide a link as a basis for their claims and all I've ever gotten was more spin and bluster; not one link ever. He seems to think that his word should be good enough and that he does not need to corroborate his position.

Good luck getting this person to actually back up their position.

I've come to the conclusion that they don't really have any basis in fact for their continued assertions and is merely here to get us chasing our tails.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

OK, here's the rest:

INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) - This case concerned a claimant who was denied entry because his claim that coercion by a political guerilla organization was not sufficient. The Supreme Court upheld that claim by reversing the reversing opinion by the Court of Appeals.

INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) - Concerned whether two competing legal standards were contradictory. The court held that they were not contradictory, but that each applied to the particular section of the law it was found in.

INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984) - Held that it is legal for INS agents (now ICE agents) to conduct surveys of factories where illegal aliens are reasonably expected to be employed, as long as there is minimal disruption of the factory.

INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984) - Concerned an illegal alien arrested for deportation who argued that his arrest was illegal and violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The court held that he could not prevail, because the arrest for deportation is a civil and not a criminal matter, and allowed the deportation.

..............................

OK, look, that's the latest 5 cases you gave, and not a single one so far has said what you implied was stated: that all border crossings are legal if the crosser requests asylum. I know what you did: in your statement, you moved the goal post by using the words, "Scotus has ruled on the issue of crossing between ports more than once." Yes, they have, but not in the context we were discussing.

My First Rule of Engineering states, "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS." It appears to be your rule of debate as well. Your position about border crossings being legal has not been proved, but rather disproved by the very cases you tried to use to move the goal posts.

Enough. Wallow in your ignorance. I have little tolerance for kindergarten games.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I agree, and in the post right before this one, I caught them.

Children pretending to be adults. Again. No knowledge or understanding of the issues being raised. just a desire to stir a pot. Disgusting.

Thanks for the heads-up, even if I did already figure it out.


TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


Reality is not a claim.

Neither is a claim reality.

I am at somewhat of a loss as to why you would concede to my request, but do so in an area which would be difficult to find. I do not understand why it would be of any advantage to you to edit the post above this one instead of this one. No matter; I still looked at one of the cases you presented, Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257 (2012), and discovered that it concerned retroactivity of a new law in effect during an absence of a lawful, permanent resident. You seem to have forgotten that we are discussing illegal aliens here, not legal aliens.

I will look through the rest... but I am now having serious questions as to the validity of your statement.


This gotcha linky crap is making us dumber when there has already been a link to one of the best places to research something like that.

This "gotcha linky crap" is actually called "corroborating evidence" and is a requirement for anyone who actually nelieves their position. If the links involved were to opinion sites, I could agree... another's opinion is not really corroboration. Links to the actual US Code when discussing law, and links to actual court opinions when discussing court decisions, are not mere opinions; they go to the heart of the matter.

Law is not about feelings. It is not subjective. It is objective and exact, or it is not law; it is tyranny.

TheRedneck


EPIC FAIL

You claim we are discussing but the topic you and have here is asylum.

I simply said asylum cases have been ruled on by scotus and i used your cornell link to search for them.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Your opinion is noted... and ignored.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




OK, look, that's the latest 5 cases you gave, and not a single one so far has said what you implied was stated: that all border crossings are legal if the crosser requests asylum.


Yea..no i never claimed those cases were related to border crossings being legal or illegal. I was just giving examples of scotus taking up the issue of asylum.

If you are interested in asylum and border crossings you should have just put that search term in the google box and you would have found a couple pages of articles from december when the scotus ruled on the matter.

It is the most recent ruling on asylum.

The point has already been made that people can claim asylum after crossing between ports and that is legal cause the law directs them to.

You make an argument against that but you fail to accept that if the law says a person can claim asylum by crossing between ports then that is permission because the law also states that a criminal can not claim asylum. That was in the law you provided.

Do you really think potus would not have taken the stance you are attempting too? He did and was rejected and the claim that people are committing a crime by crossing between ports is at present time completely false.

Remember the phrase "obama judge" that i think roberts went on a rant against. That was in relation to the ruling by scotus in december.

Where you been bro?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join