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.

 

Attacks by aliens on our Sovereignty are getting more severe - no respect for our laws

page: 12
41
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
The laws are simply being misapplied. This claim has not been adjudicated yet, so no one can say the matter is settled. The case is going through the courts now, but so far we have only an injunction from Judge Tigar and refusals from the higher courts to overturn that injunction.

Based on your interpretation. Until it is settled things will remain the same.


I have made my case for that misapplication, and I am not going to repeat it here again. We both know what the law says, and we both know what is being done in the name of that law. I have been following the goings-on at the border for some time now. There is no need for you to point out to me that the law making illegal border crossings illegal is effectively overridden by the asylum law in practice; I know that. I also know that such is not considered an appropriate interpretation of law by most judges and law scholars.

It is as appropriate as the castle doctrine.

Murder is illegal but the castle doctrine creates an exception.

Border crossing at a point other than a point of entry is illegal but the asylum law creates an exception.

It is that easy. Same concept.




posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Border crossing at a point other than a point of entry is illegal but the asylum law creates an exception.


No it does not

It requires you to enter at a lawful port of entry and make a VALID asylum claim.

To do so, you MUST be fleeing only and exclusively State persecution. Not domestic violence, not crime, not poverty, not hunger, not just getting dealt a bad hand and living a third world dump... actual, factual GOVERNMENT persecution and violence. As always, the burden of proof is on the claimant.

We have no obligation to accept an asylum request. And falsely claiming asylum (ie: for anything other than State violence/persecution) is known as FRAUD which is simply another crime they are committing against us.

We need to get our own affairs in order before we worry about someone else's people. It is that simple. America first.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Redneck already posted the law earlier in the thread. Check out the parts in bold below.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


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.


Nobody said you have any obligation to grant anyone asylum, except for the groups the gov has given TPS, but that is the US exercising your sovereignty. They are your laws.
edit on 13-3-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 03:51 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

"may apply" is not the same as "is excused," any more than someone who shoots up a nightclub can just claim "self-defense" and go on his merry way. As alien may apply, but other sections of the law state that acceptance is up to the DoJ. If not accepted, a claim does no good whatsoever to alleviate the crime.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I was addressing JBurns claim that asylum seekers can only apply at a port of entry. The law clearly states otherwise.

Nobody said "may apply" is the same as "is excused", but legally, "if granted" is technically the same as "is excused".

It isn't the claim that alleviates the crime but the applicability of other laws to a specific case. "Self-defense" is one example, even though it obviously isn't going to apply in every case.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

This is true enough, but if one were to read the other laws applicable, the decision of whose application is accepted (a prerequisite to granting asylum) is vested solely in the Attorney General. Thus, the Attorney General may indeed decide that anyone trying to cross at points other than a Port of Entry may not have their application accepted. The President agreeing with the Attorney General does not change this.

The law must be taken in its entirety. An alien may apply anywhere, but the Attorney General decides whether or not to accept that application.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Nobody is saying otherwise. That is why it is a case by case/dept policy thing that we cannot go into detail here.

The AG "may decide" is not the same as "has decided".

In the end, if the AG decides against, it is legal, and if he decides in favor, it is also legal. What are you arguing about? Within the scope of the topic of the thread, either way it is the US exercising its sovereignty.


edit on 16-3-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

And yet we have a Federal judge who has said that any alien who decides to claim asylum at places other that the Attorney General specified must have their applications accepted and processed. That is a direct usurpation of the authority of the Attorney General in opposition of laws duly passed by Congress and signed by the President. The Judiciary is a co-equal branch, not a dictator of the other two.

That is what I argue against, and that is my concern. We do have dictatorial tendencies in our government... from activist judges. Not from the President, who is bound by and has used the laws, and not even by the Congress (although some would love to be in the position to do so IMO)... by the Judiciary.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
That is what I argue against, and that is my concern.

I see the disconnect. The "new rule" contradicts the law on the books.

The argument is that the executive has the right to enact the "new rule" but the counter would be that it cannot override a standing law.

In the end it doesn't change what the law says (what some are discussing) and what is being "settled" is the limit of the executive power (what you are discussing?).

Seeing that the executive doesn't have the power to create, change or review legislation, I'm thinking that the asylum ban will be struck down. I see a perfectly legal reason if that is the outcome.

Seems to me that is the way it was set up to work and everyone seems to know it because they are giddy about getting conservative judges on the supreme court so that they can get that "dictatorship" to work in their favor.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


The argument is that the executive has the right to enact the "new rule" but the counter would be that it cannot override a standing law.

In actuality, according to the law, the Executive has the power to establish policy in compliance with the law. In other words, the President can "fill in the gaps" in legislation, if you will. What he cannot do is circumvent or change the law with these policies. That's what made DACA unconstitutional: it was a direct circumvention of immigration law by Executive Order. The idea isn't the problem; I support the idea behind DACA. How it was implemented is the problem.

If Congress were to pass a law that said no structures were allowed along the border, I would oppose it... but I would also oppose any attempt to build one via Executive Order. (Of course, that would bring up a court challenge that the laws contradicted each other. The Judiciary would then have their say in the matter.)

In the end, it boils down to one thing: either we have a functioning government with authorization from the people, or we don't. If we do, then everything is fine. If not, there is no longer a Constitution, no longer a legitimate government, and the people, every one of us, is living under an illegal regime. The Constitution is the contract that gives the government power... without it, the government has none. It is a breached contract.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 17 2019 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
In actuality, according to the law, the Executive has the power to establish policy in compliance with the law.

That is pretty much what I said. Policy isn't law and the law says illegals can apply anywhere, so any policy that contradicts that is not in compliance with the law.


In the end, it boils down to one thing: either we have a functioning government with authorization from the people, or we don't.

I don't think it is as black and white as that. The whole idea of checks and balances and things like "the color of law" that can be contested, but which may take years to hash out, really makes for a dynamic system which might take some time to put back on track but avoids massive upheavals. The former has got to be better than the latter, no?
edit on 17-3-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2019 @ 03:36 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


That is pretty much what I said. Policy isn't law and the law says illegals can apply anywhere, so any policy that contradicts that is not in compliance with the law.

But application means nothing. I can claim self-defense regardless of the circumstances of a murder; it means nothing unless the DA or a judge decide it is warranted.

In the case of immigration, the law specifies who gets to decide whether a claim is warranted or not: the Attorney General (occasionally the Secretary of Homeland Security). He gets to decide whether or not he will consider the application. That's not policy; that is law. Congress has specifically directed the Attorney General to create policy within certain broad guidelines also specified. Many of the statures even contain a paragraph that states that no judge can override his decision. Ergo, the decisions hold the full effect of the law.


I don't think it is as black and white as that. The whole idea of checks and balances and things like "the color of law" that can be contested, but which may take years to hash out, really makes for a dynamic system which might take some time to put back on track but avoids massive upheavals. The former has got to be better than the latter, no?

While there are checks and balances, yes, it is that black and white. The thing is that it is up to the people to overthrow the government should it operate unlawfully, and people will tend to suffer the actions of a government as long as those actions are sufferable. In may ways this is a good thing; I do agree that it is far preferable that we have a government in place that exists within the boundaries established by the people. However, the right of the people to rise up and overthrow the government exists should it go too far.

Ironically, I have been debating the wisdom of such in another thread. In today's society, with people already at each others' throats over every imaginable issue (I saw a thread earlier about AOC not having a chair and being tired... really?), I do not believe a revolution at this point would be beneficial to anyone except those who are already abusing their power over us. We wouldn't be warring against them; we would be warring with each other.

IMO, that makes government corruption only more dangerous.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 17 2019 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
In the case of immigration, the law specifies who gets to decide whether a claim is warranted or not: the Attorney General (occasionally the Secretary of Homeland Security).

Back to the disconnect, nobody is saying that the AG doesn't have the final word on who is granted asylum, but they don't get to decide where an illegal can apply. That is what got that executive order shot down.


While there are checks and balances, yes, it is that black and white. The thing is that it is up to the people to overthrow the government should it operate unlawfully, and people will tend to suffer the actions of a government as long as those actions are sufferable. In may ways this is a good thing; I do agree that it is far preferable that we have a government in place that exists within the boundaries established by the people. However, the right of the people to rise up and overthrow the government exists should it go too far.

Sounds like you described a grey area.


Ironically, I have been debating the wisdom of such in another thread. In today's society, with people already at each others' throats over every imaginable issue (I saw a thread earlier about AOC not having a chair and being tired... really?), I do not believe a revolution at this point would be beneficial to anyone except those who are already abusing their power over us. We wouldn't be warring against them; we would be warring with each other.

Isn't that how it always is? When was the last time two political leaders met on the battle field? People choose sides and have at it while those who don't even want to be part of it are stuck in the middle.

Seems to me, litigation will always seem more appealing than war, especially when the majority of people have a decent standard of living.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Back to the disconnect, nobody is saying that the AG doesn't have the final word on who is granted asylum, but they don't get to decide where an illegal can apply. That is what got that executive order shot down.

The Executive Order specified that no one would be approved for asylum unless they made application at a Port of Entry. That does not prevent anyone from asking to apply for asylum anywhere. It just means they have no chance of receiving asylum if they cross at an improper location.

The wording was intended to allow for Cuban refugees to escape the Castro regime. They were coming in by boat and usually with very limited helm control. It was literally next to impossible for them to maneuver into a Port of Entry. So the law stated that they could still apply even if they missed. That same law is now being exploited by people who are fleeing poverty, not political oppression, and has resulted in, yes, a literal invasion.


Sounds like you described a grey area.

Morally, yes; legally, no.

It is also wrong to poke at a dog with a stick. But there is a grey area there as well... at what point will the dog turn around and bite you? Regardless of when it does, there is no grey area in the fact that you caused the bite by poking at the dog with a stick.


Isn't that how it always is? When was the last time two political leaders met on the battle field? People choose sides and have at it while those who don't even want to be part of it are stuck in the middle.

There have been a few times in history when a political leader became a direct target of the people, but they are admittedly rare. Your statement is usually the norm.


Seems to me, litigation will always seem more appealing than war, especially when the majority of people have a decent standard of living.

Agreed, but then again, that standard of living is declining. The reason for the decline is at least substantially a result of illegal immigration, along with regulation and government corruption also making significant contributions.

Bear in mind that "poverty" is a relative term. To someone in Ethiopia, the poorest American might be seen easily as a wealthy individual. Compared to the few who have attained extreme wealth, the fellow we see as wealthy is living in poverty. Therefore a "decent standard of living" is also a subjective term. So at what point will enough people decide to rebel over their "poverty"? When they're starving to death in the cold? When they have to eat Ramon Noodles every night? When they can't afford the latest iPhone? When they have to cancel a second vacation because they can't afford it?

That's obviously a range from the most ridiculous to the most ridiculous, but somewhere in there is a point of no return. We don't know where that point is. Do we really want to?

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 03:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
The Executive Order specified that no one would be approved for asylum unless they made application at a Port of Entry.

Contradicting a standing law. That one detail about contradicting standing law is why that EO was shot down.

It shouldn't be that hard to grasp.


But there is a grey area there as well.

Glad you agree.


There have been a few times in history when a political leader became a direct target of the people, but they are admittedly rare. Your statement is usually the norm.

Not in modern US history and I have yet to see statements like mine too often. Maybe I have been looking in the wrong places.


a "decent standard of living" is also a subjective term

Yes it is, and up till know the average american seems to be more than willing to "to suffer the actions of a government", so most of them must feel that their standard of living is decent enough to not want start a revolution.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Contradicting a standing law. That one detail about contradicting standing law is why that EO was shot down.

Which law states that asylum will be granted at any point along the border?


It shouldn't be that hard to grasp.

One would think so, but it seems there is still a disconnect between applying for asylum and being granted asylum.


Not in modern US history

The US is not somehow immune to historical precedent from other areas of the world. Ask Louis and Marie what happened during the French Revolution.

Hint: Marie was unable to eat anything, even cake. Her mouth wasn't exactly operational.


Yes it is, and up till know the average american seems to be more than willing to "to suffer the actions of a government", so most of them must feel that their standard of living is decent enough to not want start a revolution.

Using my example just above, Louis and Marie probably felt the same way... right up until their palace was stormed.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Which law states that asylum will be granted at any point along the border?

None, the one you posted said illegals can apply anywhere on US soil.


One would think so, but it seems there is still a disconnect between applying for asylum and being granted asylum.

There isn't because nobody is saying the granting of asylum is guaranteed. You are the only one that keeps bringing up that strawman.


The US is not somehow immune to historical precedent from other areas of the world. Ask Louis and Marie what happened during the French Revolution.

The french revolution happened a little after the american revolution. Hardly modern times.


Using my example just above, Louis and Marie probably felt the same way... right up until their palace was stormed.

That example isn't really compatible since the US doesn't have a monarchy.



edit on 18-3-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


None, the one you posted said illegals can apply anywhere on US soil.

Then how is the Executive Order violating a law if it dies not conflict with a law? That was your contention.


There isn't because nobody is saying the granting of asylum is guaranteed. You are the only one that keeps bringing up that strawman.

Actually, no I'm not. I am referring to it because it seems no one else is understanding that application is not acceptance. The law says anyone can apply anywhere on US soil; the law says the Attorney General can decide who among the applicants can be accepted or rejected; the Executive Order says no one will be accepted unless they apply at a Port of Entry; it says nothing about who can apply. None of those conflict with any other.

You keep saying you understand that application and acceptance are different, but then you state that since someone is allowed to apply, they are immune from deportation (aka their application is accepted). That is simply not true according to the law. Application is not acceptance... no matter how many times you say it is.


The french revolution happened a little after the american revolution. Hardly modern times.

So we have iPhones. What does that have to do with the possibility of a violent revolt? There are many similarities between then and now.


That example isn't really compatible since the US does have a monarchy.

??? I assume you means "doesn't have a monarchy."

We still have leaders. Revolution is not restricted to specific arrangements of government.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Then how is the Executive Order violating a law if it dies not conflict with a law? That was your contention.

The law says they can apply anywhere on US soil and the EO said only at a port of entry. You don't see the difference?


You keep saying you understand that application and acceptance are different, but then you state that since someone is allowed to apply, they are immune from deportation (aka their application is accepted). That is simply not true according to the law. Application is not acceptance... no matter how many times you say it is.

Actually, in certain situations it is true, isn't that what you are complaining about?


So we have iPhones. What does that have to do with the possibility of a violent revolt? There are many similarities between then and now.

Whatever the similarities, the average american has a decent standard of living, even if the term is subjective, the lack of revolt is indicative of that.


??? I assume you means "doesn't have a monarchy."

We still have leaders. Revolution is not restricted to specific arrangements of government.

Corrected.

I don't even know why you went on that tangent but no revolution still means no revolution. All I said was that the comfort of the average american has kept them from revolting. Until they do, what is there to talk about?


edit on 18-3-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


The law says they can apply anywhere on US soil and the EO said only at a port of entry. You don't see the difference?

The Executive Order does not say that. It says applications will not be accepted at areas that are not Ports of Entry. Do you not see that difference?

Again, application does not mean acceptance of an application. if it does, then that means the borders are open because the law does not say that accepted applicants can be deported. It actually doesn't say either way; judicial interpretation says they cannot be deported.


Actually, in certain situations it is true, isn't that what you are complaining about?

Only by judicial interpretation, not by law. One thing I am complaining about is that the Judicial does not have authority over immigration matters. That's the pervue of the Executive branch.


Whatever the similarities the average american has a decent standard of living, even if the term is subjective, the lack of revolt is indicative of that.

The lack of revolution is a statement of history and present. It says nothing about the future.


All I said was that the comfort of the average american has kept them from revolting. Until they do, what is there to talk about?

If one is driving and sees stopped traffic ahead, should one take actions to avoid hitting the stopped traffic? After all, there is no problem until one's car makes contact with another's.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
41
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join