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: 13
41
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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?

Applying means having the application accepted and the law says they must be accepted anywhere on US soil not just ports of entry. There is no 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.

By someone who's job it is to interpret the law, who happens to disagree with you. Who has said otherwise?


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.

But they have authority in keeping executive branch actions in compliance with the law, even when that touches on things like immigration.

I don't know why that is hard for you to grasp but you can continue to complain, not that it is going to change anything.


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

Who was talking about the future? Americans are too comfortable to revolt is a statement about the present.

Even history shows that some states felt otherwise at one point and tried seceding.


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.

Who's driving?




posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Applying means having the application accepted and the law says they must be accepted anywhere on US soil not just ports of entry. There is no difference.

Really?

So I can apply for food stamps while making $100,000 a year and the application be accepted? That's strange... DHR here just says "no" and you leave.

Why do immigrants get rights that others don't have?


By someone who's job it is to interpret the law, who happens to disagree with you. Who has said otherwise?

And who happens to disagree with the law. If the words mean nothing, then why write the laws down? Just say it's illegal to do anything the King... oops, sorry... the JUDGE doesn't like.


But they have authority in keeping executive branch actions in compliance with the law, even when that touches on things like immigration.

According to the wording of the law, the Executive is in compliance. According to one judge, it is not. Do you not see a problem with that?


I don't know why that is hard for you to grasp but you can continue to complain, not that it is going to change anything.

Thank you; I have every intention of continuing to express myself. Not that your complaint about it is going to change anything.


Who was talking about the future? Americans are too comfortable to revolt is a statement about the present.
That present expired the instant you hit the reply button. It is now the future after your response. As soon as I hit the reply button, it will be the future again.

Things can change quite rapidly.


Who's driving?

Who cares? No one has hit anything yet.

*BANG* *CRASH*

Oops.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Really?

So I can apply for food stamps while making $100,000 a year and the application be accepted? That's strange... DHR here just says "no" and you leave.

I see the problem, you think filing a form means being granted the request. When you apply for a job are you automatically granted the job? Of course not, but you did apply for the job.

So you can apply for asylum anywhere on US soil, not just ports of entry. I really don't know why you keep conflating the submission of a form, or even a verbal request, to the ruling on that request.


And who happens to disagree with the law. If the words mean nothing, then why write the laws down? Just say it's illegal to do anything the King... oops, sorry... the JUDGE doesn't like.

From the segment above I would say that you are having trouble with what the words mean.


According to the wording of the law, the Executive is in compliance. According to one judge, it is not. Do you not see a problem with that?

No they are not because the wording says that illegals can apply (submit the paperwork) anywhere on US soil not just ports of entry.


Thank you; I have every intention of continuing to express myself. Not that your complaint about it is going to change anything.

I'm not complaining or trying to change anything.


That present expired the instant you hit the reply button. It is now the future after your response. As soon as I hit the reply button, it will be the future again.

And still we are here 2 hours plus after I hit send and still no revolution in the US. It is continually not happening until it happens.


Who cares? No one has hit anything yet.

But traffic being stopped is just your opinion. You think it is going to lead to a crash but you can be wrong and even if you were right, you are not the driver.



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



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


I see the problem, you think filing a form means being granted the request. When you apply for a job are you automatically granted the job? Of course not, but you did apply for the job.

When I apply for a job, I do not get to stay on-site until my application is reviewed either. Neither am I guaranteed an interview. No, I walk out the door when finished and wait for them to call me for an interview, if they choose to grant it.

When an illegal alien applies, apparently you think that entitles them to stay in the country until the Attorney General makes a decision in their favor so they can have their right to a court date. And a judge agrees with you.


No they are not because the wording says that illegals can apply (submit the paperwork) anywhere on US soil not just ports of entry.

There seems to be a disconnect. Applying for asylum is not filling out paperwork. An application for asylum is someone coming onto American soil, approaching the first CBP officer they see, and saying "I want to request asylum." If that request (the "application") is accepted by the CBP officer, they [i[then get to file the proper paperwork to continue the process.

What, you think these people are well-versed in legal forms and carry briefcases with their documents in them? A true asylum seeker is more often than not is half-dead from exposure and hunger by the time they get here.


I'm not complaining or trying to change anything.

You certainly fooled me.


And still we are here 2 hours plus after I hit send and still no revolution in the US. It is continually not happening until it happens.

As it was in every revolution everywhere, at every time in history.


But traffic being stopped is just your opinion. You think it is going to lead to a crash but you can be wrong and even if you were right, you are not the driver.

That's what the idiot thought a few months back when he destroyed my car. Please tell me you don't drive. Please? I'm begging you!

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
When I apply for a job, I do not get to stay on-site until my application is reviewed either. Neither am I guaranteed an interview. No, I walk out the door when finished and wait for them to call me for an interview, if they choose to grant it.

When an illegal alien applies, apparently you think that entitles them to stay in the country until the Attorney General makes a decision in their favor so they can have their right to a court date. And a judge agrees with you.

That is besides the point. We were just discussing the use of the word apply in the law. The policy in regards to what happens while the ruling is decided has nothing to do with where they can request asylum.


There seems to be a disconnect. Applying for asylum is not filling out paperwork. An application for asylum is someone coming onto American soil, approaching the first CBP officer they see, and saying "I want to request asylum." If that request (the "application") is accepted by the CBP officer, they [i[then get to file the proper paperwork to continue the process.

Guess you just glazed over "verbal request" in the first part of my post and the fact that "submit the paperwork" was in parentheses, implying it is just an example of what applying for something might entail.


As it was in every revolution everywhere, at every time in history.

Sure, and certain things usually happen before they kick off and those have not happened either, that is why the observation of the present and very near future can be made in regards to americans staring a revolt.


That's what the idiot thought a few months back when he destroyed my car. Please tell me you don't drive. Please? I'm begging you!

The analogy was dumb and it has nothing to do with my driving abilities.

If the US government is leading the country into a revolution then that is something you are not in control of, so it makes no difference if you think corrective measures are needed.


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



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


That is besides the point. We were just discussing the use of the word apply in the law.

No, it's not. That is the whole point. One can apply, but what happens to that application next is not cause for them to be allowed to automatically stay in the US, not is it a reason to expect any absolving decision.


Guess you just glazed over "verbal request" in the first part of my post and the fact that "submit the paperwork" was in parentheses, implying it is just an example of what applying for something might entail.

Fair enough. I may have misunderstood your point.


Sure, and certain things usually happen before they kick off and those have not happened either, that is why the observation of the present and very near future can be made in regards to americans staring a revolt.

Those "usual things" are typically the straws that break the camels' backs. And even they are not guarantees.

One common commonality, however, is extreme anger among the people... and that we have plenty of.


The analogy was dumb and it has nothing to do with my driving abilities.

The word "dumb" does not mean "it makes my position look bad." Just as "apply" does not mean "be accepted."

And anyone who does not think that stopped traffic ahead does not mean they might have to stop, sorry, is not a safe driver and needs to stay off the roads. Please.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
No, it's not. That is the whole point.

Not in regards to your argument that the EO complied with the law.


Those "usual things" are typically the straws that break the camels' backs. And even they are not guarantees.

One common commonality, however, is extreme anger among the people... and that we have plenty of.

Yeah, there are no guarantees but there are signs and according to the signs, the day, the week and the month will end without a revolution in the US.

Yes, it is a prediction but some things are pretty certain, like one of us posting on ATS at some point during the next week.


The word "dumb" does not mean "it makes my position look bad." Just as "apply" does not mean "be accepted."

It actually has no bearing on my position because my position is that you are not in control, so even if the driver wants to slam into the cars ahead (the government doesn't care if a revolution kicks off), there is nothing you can do about it.

That is all I'm saying. Not saying it is good or bad, smart or dumb or better or worse for US for them to do so.



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



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Not in regards to your argument that the EO complied with the law.

It seems your argument is based on the opinion of one lone judge. That's fine; a similar position was taken by many on the travel ban Trump signed an Executive Order on as well. The bulk of that ban was upheld by the Supreme Court, and today it is in effect... despite what a lower court judge with a personal agenda said.

We'll see what happens this time around. It will be interesting to see if your position changes when the Supreme Court says you were wrong. Will you then still support the Judiciary?

Likely not.

Oh, and as to the metaphor I used... I can see it went completely over your head.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
It seems your argument is based on the opinion of one lone judge.

No, it is based on comparing the words in the law and the EO.


Oh, and as to the metaphor I used... I can see it went completely over your head.

It didn't go over my head. You were trying to say, 'the signs are there and we need to do something before it is too late', but we were talking about the people overthrowing the government, so who are the people heading into the stopped traffic? Who is driving?

Seemed to me it was the government and since you are not the government then how exactly can "you" do anything about it?


ETA: to address this bit:

We'll see what happens this time around. It will be interesting to see if your position changes when the Supreme Court says you were wrong. Will you then still support the Judiciary?

My position is that I see why the court would strike down this EO. It isn't about me being right or wrong but about applying what I know about the law and trying to understand the arguments. I'm not sitting here cheering for any particular outcome.
edit on 18-3-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


No, it is based on comparing the words in the law and the EO.

Suuuuure.

Might want to toss a dictionary into the works there.


It didn't go over my head. You were trying to say, 'the signs are there and we need to do something before it is too late', but we were talking about the people overthrowing the government, so who are the people heading into the stopped traffic? Who is driving?

Seemed to me it was the government and since you are not the government then how exactly can "you" do anything about it?

Sounds to me like you're driving... well, trying to. In light of that, your response does make sense: "Stopped traffic? I don't believe it! PEDAL TO THE METAL!!!!"


I'm not sitting here cheering for any particular outcome.

Suuuuuuure.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Might want to toss a dictionary into the works there.

So I can cherry pick different definition than the ones you cherry picked?


Sounds to me like you're driving... well, trying to. In light of that, your response does make sense: "Stopped traffic? I don't believe it! PEDAL TO THE METAL!!!!"

You were not talking about government oppressing people to the point of revolt? Whose actions were you criticizing?


Suuuuuuure.

I know it might be difficult for you to believe but I actually don't care about any of this, other than for the infotainment value.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


So I can cherry pick different definition than the ones you cherry picked?



Sure, dude, cherry-pick all you want. Why stop now?


You were not talking about government oppressing people to the point of revolt?

I was until you showed your level of cognitive dissonance.

Now I'm just shaking my head in sad disbelief.


I know it might be difficult for you to believe but I actually don't care about any of this, other than for the infotainment value.

No, I actually figured that out about a page ago, more or less. I was starting to wonder when you were going to be honest about it.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Sure, dude, cherry-pick all you want. Why stop now?

I was holding up a mirror.


I was until you showed your level of cognitive dissonance.

Now I'm just shaking my head in sad disbelief.

No cognitive dissonance here, looks like you forgot that you had been going on about political leaders losing their heads before segueing into "we" mode like you had a mouse in your pocket.


No, I actually figured that out about a page ago, more or less. I was starting to wonder when you were going to be honest about it.

I always mention it when someone tries to put me in a box I don't belong in.

You probably should have figured it out when we went back and forth in that thread about the dad that shot his daughters laptop. That was like 7 years ago.
edit on 18-3-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Mar, 19 2019 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


I was holding up a mirror.

What are you, like, in the 5th grade now?

"I'm rubber, you're glue..."

Sheesh, man!

Look, you started this conversation by essentially finding agreement with me. When someone does that, my first instinct is to try and find agreement with them. But the more I did, the more disagreeable you became. You've gone from agreeing that the law is the law as written, to insisting that the words need to be interpreted by some guy you don't know, who was nominated and seated by people you don't know and who have been caught more often than not in some kind of corrupt actions.

And now you want to go all school-days on me... right...

In every debate like this, where neither party is going to change their mind, there are two possible outcomes: either we can state our positions logically and agree to disagree, or one of us can resort to name-calling and childish antics. It is pretty clear where this one went. "I was holding up a mirror."

We are witnessing a literal coup in our government... bloodless thus far, so far as coups go, but a coup nonetheless. The policies you support today are being implemented by people who will just as quickly implement policies you don't want, and the methodology being used will, if left unchallenged, lead to neither you nor anyone else being able to resist them. It's happened over and over, time after time throughout history... the only real difference this time is there's been no major warring thus far. Maybe it'll stay that way, maybe not. But you or I have no say in whether it does. We only get to say whether this coup continues at the ballot box, or in a bloody field should it go that far.

I prefer the former. But I do not prefer to allow those who would usurp power by unilaterally decoding what needs no decoding, for if that continues, the choice will have been made already.

Now, I know that may be a little over your head; it's not the kind of thing one hears in elementary school. But it is the truth, and it will be borne out in time. I only hope the result is not as severe as other episodes throughout history. Your hope... well, I have an idea, but I can't speak to that. This is just yucks to you... until it directly affects you, of course...

Have a nice day.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 19 2019 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

There is no need for this. I'm not new here and neither are you.

You got emotional and I don't care enough to do so.

The ballot box, or the hope in them, is what keeps revolutions from springing up.

It is what I have been saying for the last couple of pages.

Glad to see that you agree.

None of your quagmire will ever effect me because my "5th grade mind" knows better.

You are only here for a short time, why spend it second guessing faceless people on the net?


(post by eventeca removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join