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: 4
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

And I respect you for that, don't get me wrong here.

But those "too big to fail" gangsters are clearly in another justice league by now. This is the reality we're living in, old-school gentleman values don't seem to matter much anymore.
We're way above the law in this cold realm of an increasingly oppressive oligarchy. Some people calling for murder at the border might be the least of our problems, but they illustrate the tendency to disregard pretty much every human right at this point.

And it wouldn't be impossible to find a certain avalanche of developments which proceeded this event. The war with terror devours it's law-abiding citizenry already, slowly but surely.




posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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.

...nowhere is 8 USC § 1325 overridden.

The part in bold overrides 8 USC § 1325.

Also, people are calling for violence because they are being told people applying for asylum has something to do with their sovereignty when it really doesn't.



edit on 7-3-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


The part in bold overrides 8 USC § 1325.

No, it doesn't. It does not say "despite 8 USC § 1325" or "notwithstanding 8 USC § 1325" or "irrespective of 8 USC § 1325" or anything like that. Read it again. Those little squiggly things are called "letters." They are clumped together to make "words." Words have definitions. Look them up.


Also, people are calling for violence because they are being told people applying for asylum has something to do with their sovereignty when it really doesn't.

I think some of them are also ticked off at the racists. I mean, why does someone have to be physically present in the US to claim asylum? You do know there aren't many Muslims who can accomplish that, because there's a big thing called an "ocean" between us. Why do you hate Muslims? Is it because they're different?

What about the poor Asians? My GOD, the atrocities going on in Myanmar! And there's this huge-er ocean on that side! Why do you hate Asians? Are they too different?

How long have you been xenophobic? Are there any other groups you hate?

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: whyamIhere

I hope the hearings with DHS Secretary Nielsen were aired in Mexico and Central America today. If enough parents realize that they will be separated from their children, they might decide to apply for citizenship, instead of coming into our country as criminals.



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 12:45 AM
link   
no point mad is mad.
edit on 7-3-2019 by MyToxicTash because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I mean, why does someone have to be physically present in the US to claim asylum?

I think you answered your own question. Yes, words mean something and those words are saying that 8 USC § 1325 does not apply when someone requests asylum. I can't say why that law was written that way but that is what it says.



You do know there aren't many Muslims who can accomplish that, because there's a big thing called an "ocean" between us. Why do you hate Muslims? Is it because they're different?

What about the poor Asians? My GOD, the atrocities going on in Myanmar! And there's this huge-er ocean on that side! Why do you hate Asians? Are they too different?

They can do the same they just have to (and some do) get to mexico or canada and then hop on over.


How long have you been xenophobic? Are there any other groups you hate?

Played that card, huh? Sorry but I'm not xenophobic at all. I just know what the US immigration law says and I know a loop hole or two. Let whoever can make it work to their favor do so, more power to them, regardless of race, creed or color.



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
I hope the hearings with DHS Secretary Nielsen were aired in Mexico and Central America today. If enough parents realize that they will be separated from their children, they might decide to apply for citizenship, instead of coming into our country as criminals.

Do you even realize that you can't really apply for citizenship as an immigrant?

You have to be in the US a certain amount of time to even apply. That is why the anchor baby thing is a hot topic. It is easier to have a baby in the US and then try to get residency (which isn't citizenship), through them, and then work your way up.

Also, people applying for asylum are not criminals. The whole thing is perfectly legal even if they jumped the border. Take that up with your legislators.



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

When people go to their country's (consulate?) and apply to come to America legally, what are they applying for?



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 01:07 AM
link   
This is a nice updated fact-sheet with Asylum processes and statistics.

immigrationforum.org...

It looks like 28% of the people who apply, are ultimately granted asylum in the U.S..



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


I think you answered your own question. Yes, words mean something and those words are saying that 8 USC § 1325 does not apply when someone requests asylum. I can't say why that law was written that way but that is what it says.

Really? I'm reading the words "Any alien who is physically present in the United States." How does that break down?
  • "Any" - OK, that means it includes all of a group.
  • "alien" - someone who is not a US citizen.
  • "who" - that refers to the alien.
  • "is" - that's a state of being (unless you're Bill Clinton, then it means something else).
  • "physically" - OK, that leaves out virtually and metaphorically... has to be physical.
  • "present" - existing in a location, kinda goes along with "is."
  • "in" - that's as opposed to out, I think.
  • "the" - good grammar... someone used articles.
  • "United States" - capitalized names go together. That's the country I live in and am a citizen of.
So it means any person who is not a citizen of the US but is inside the borders of the US. I don't see anything about illegality of getting to that point? Maybe it's in the rest of the law... the next part is "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." That's a lot to take at once, so let's go by phrase for this one:
  • "or who arrives in the United States" - so it applies to anyone who just gets here. they don't have to be here, just get here.
  • "(whether or not at a designated port of arrival" - so they can be anywhere along the border.
  • "and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters)" - That's a long one! But it just says they don't have to be on land. They can get here across open waters.
  • "irrespective of such alien’s status" - Whoa, wait! Why would it say that? Why would the law reference someone's "status"? It only applies to aliens, so it can't mean that...

    It means legal status... so they can break the law and this still applies. Notice it doesn't say they are legal, it says, roughly translated, "whether they are breaking immigration law or not."
No need to go farther... that indicates that it is possible for an alien to be guilty of violating another law (as in 8 USC § 1325) and still claim asylum. 8 USC § 1157 actually mentions that 8 USC § 1325 can still apply! How about that!

It's amazing what reading can do. You should try it sometime. I won't always be around to read things for you.


They can do the same they just have to (and some do) get to mexico or canada and then hop on over.

Oh, so that group has to be on a plane or a boat to get here. Yeah, I guess they're just not as important to you. They're only Muslims, right? Not as advanced, amirite?


Played that card, huh? Sorry but I'm not xenophobic at all. I just know what the US immigration law says and I know a loop hole or two. Let whoever can make it work to their favor do so, more power to them, regardless of race, creed or color.

Yeah, I hear ya. Not your problem those undesirable Muslims and Asians can't get here, amirite? They're not Latino!

Just thought about... Africa! Have you heard about the turmoil in South Africa? Those poor people probably need asylum, and they can't afford to get here. Not your problem, right? Yeah, we all get it: you are only worried about the people you like getting here. Racist.

You can say you're not all you want... that's exactly what a racist would say.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Visas.

Mostly tourist visas and some business visas. You can't apply for citizenship.

Here is what the Naturalization Eligibility Worksheet Instructions say

If you are 18 years of age or older and are thinking about applying for naturalization based on your years as a Permanent Resident, you should complete this worksheet.


That doesn't include any new comers. Take note of the bolded part.
edit on 7-3-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Break it down however you want, you can't be present in the US without permission without being illegal. If they are there without permission they are illegal but they are still able to apply for asylum. ETA: That means that that other bit of law gets put aside.

Also, you can yell racist all you want but it means nothing, your strawman about who can make the trip to mexico to make the southern border hop doesn't mean that I hold anything against anyone.
edit on 7-3-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


If they are there without permission they are illegal but they are still able to apply for asylum. ETA: That means that that other bit of law gets put aside.

DING DING DING! We have a winner!

An alien can be illegal and still able to apply for asylum! You got it! *happy dance*

Now, as to being "put aside"... the actual term is "legal remedy." For example, self-defense is a legal remedy for murder. If I go out and shoot someone, I am not absolved of murder just because I say "It was self-defense." when the cops get there. I'll probably still have to go to court and prove self-defense. If I can't do that, I am still guilty of murder. If I can, the charge of murder is waived because I proved my legal remedy.

Here's the trick to that: if I claim self-defense and cannot prove it, I will almost certainly be convicted of murder, because I have confessed to the killing by claiming self-defense. If an alien cannot prove asylum, they have admitted to being illegally in the US.

So what's the law say on what qualifies for asylum? I'll let you have the honor of linking this one, since you're so knowledgeable about the laws... wouldn't want to steal your thunder.


Also, you can yell racist all you want but it means nothing, your strawman about who can make the trip to mexico to make the southern border hop doesn't mean that I hold anything against anyone.

Yep, that's exactly what a racist would say... right on schedule.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Now, as to being "put aside"... the actual term is "legal remedy."

Great, you clued us in to the legal term. Still doesn't change how things are.



Yep, that's exactly what a racist would say... right on schedule.

Ok, I don't care. I can still sit down with anyone of any race and not judge them by the color of their skin, even if you wish to continue to play that worn out card. Go on if you feel the need.

ETA:

So what's the law say on what qualifies for asylum?

The US government grants that by issuing temporary protected status. It isn't your or my thunder in any way.
edit on 7-3-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 02:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
It is legal for them to cross and claim asylum and then get a job. They are not an invading armed force.

They just need visas and let them work for a while then go home.

They took our jobs!

From what i am hearing the job market needs some workers.



The reason it needs workers is because the economy keeps adding #ty low wage jobs. Rather than let market forces allow for the employees to raise wages to attract higher quality workers they bring in illegals to work for # wages and take the low income housing millennials could be buying and fixing up for starter homes



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 02:52 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Great, you clued us in to the legal term. Still doesn't change how things are.

Yeah, yeah it does. Just because someone claims a legal remedy, they are not presumed innocent. How would you feel if someone had shot 20 people over the past week, was caught with a gun that matched the slugs taken from 15 of the victims, said "I claim self-defense," and was released on their own recognizance to show up in a year for their trial?

You'd probably be upset... but that doesn't happen. Usually the person is released on bond with restrictions on travel. They don't just waltz out of the police station a free man because they said the right words.

Well, that's how we are handling border security.

Oh, and since you apparently didn't want to post the legal definition of asylum, let me fix that for you. A little background from 8 USC 1158(b)(1):

(b) Conditions for granting asylum
    (1) In general

      (A) Eligibility


      The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who has applied for asylum in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General under this section if the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title.

      (B) Burden of proof

        (i) In general

        The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the applicant is a refugee, within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title. To establish that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of such section, the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

That references 8 USC § 1101(a)(42)(a) ("Definitions"):

(42) The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or (B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The term “refugee” does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. For purposes of determinations under this chapter, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.

"race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion"... I see nothing in there about wanting work, or being poor, or having trouble finding a job. Do you?

Read farther down and you see a reference in 8 USC § 1158 (already linked) in paragraph (b)(1)(B)(iii) that I find interesting:

(iii) Credibility determination

Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record (including the reports of the Department of State on country conditions), and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor. There is no presumption of credibility, however, if no adverse credibility determination is explicitly made, the applicant or witness shall have a rebuttable presumption of credibility on appeal.

So, since asylum does not include economic reasons, and since many of the caravan members have already spoken to news reporters saying they came here to find work... they are not eligible for asylum!

My question is this: since it is in the pervue of immigration officers to make an initial determination of eligibility for asylum, and the aliens in question have already made statements that they are not eligible for asylum, why are we clogging up the system with them? These caravan members do not deserve a hearing, based on their own statements. Now someone from Venezuela might deserve a hearing; there is political persecution happening down there. In Guatemala and Honduras? Nah, not so much. They're just poor countries.


Ok, I don't care. I can still sit down with anyone of any race and not judge them by the color of their skin, even if you wish to continue to play that worn out card. Go on if you feel the need.

Well, if you're serious about not being bigoted... how about this then?

Why does an asylum seeker have to come to the US? We have embassies all across the planet. Why can they not apply for asylum there? We can protect them; most embassies have a US military contingent. We can also give them a ride to the US on a military transport if they can prove their claim... and no laws would be broken!

Not to mention, asylum would be available for anyone, regardless of where in the world they are. We could literally deport all the illegal Mexican/South American aliens in the US and let in every persecuted person in need of asylum across the globe, and we would have less aliens in the US!

Oh, and now you have a small taste of what it was like for many of us during the last decade with the ludicrous and unsubstantiated cries of "RACIST!" hurled at us constantly. Don't feel good, does it? Guess what? It didn't feel good to us either! As a matter of fact, it was worse: no one let up on us after making their point.

Sleep on that.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 03:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Yeah, yeah it does. Just because someone claims a legal remedy, they are not presumed innocent.

Nobody said that. I said that claiming a legal remedy puts the other law in hold.


Well, if you're serious about not being bigoted... how about this then?

None of what you posted has anything to do with me being bigoted or not. I didn't make those laws/regulations.

You being called racist has nothing to do with me. You trying to do it to me doesn't feel bad because I know it doesn't apply. Sorry if you were expecting something else form me.



edit on 7-3-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

OK, so you like things the way they are.

Your right... my right to point out your inherent racism in that decision.

And your ignorance of the law.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Im 100% for a secure America. Bombing and shooting at the boarder is not the way to go. I get it, send a strong message. Using tempered force is the wiser move. You come off blood lusting.

a reply to: JBurns



posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I guess as long as you grasp that claiming asylum after breaking into the country, doesn't absolve the breaking into the country crime, we all agree. It's when someone claims that once you claim asylum, that crime is absolved that I have an issue.




top topics



 
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join