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: 7
41
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

But that is not a obstacle. Anyone can say the words "I want asylum." That requires no proof, no evidence, no intent, no anything. It's a get-out-of-jail-free card. Those should not exist outside Monopoly.

If there is no legal hurdle to clear, there is nothing to cause 8 USC § 1325 to ever be in effect.

TheRedneck




posted on Mar, 7 2019 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes, it is a loophole. The only ones that can't use it are those who have been detained and deported before.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Actually, since these aliens are "undocumented," how can we know for sure if they have been deported before? Could they not just make up a new name?

What we're discussing is a completely open border.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jefferton
a reply to: JBurns

When even your own people are calling you a lunatic, it's time to stop and think.

Please get help for that rage. Seriously.




Now you know why he wants an armoured car...



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Actually, since these aliens are "undocumented," how can we know for sure if they have been deported before? Could they not just make up a new name?

Fingerprints. A made up name isn't going to change biometrics.


What we're discussing is a completely open border.

Not really. Just ending catch and release makes a difference. If someone is thinking of border hopping and they know that they are going to be held while the US figures out if they have a valid asylum claim and they know they don't, then they will probably stay at home. That would be a grater deterrent than a wall.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Fingerprints. A made up name isn't going to change biometrics.

That would be logical, but I am not aware if immigration fingerprints all detainees. Do you have a source for that?


Just ending catch and release makes a difference. If someone is thinking of border hopping and they know that they are going to be held while the US figures out if they have a valid asylum claim and they know they don't, then they will probably stay at home. That would be a grater deterrent than a wall.

I agree that catch-and-release should be discontinued, but there is a problem with that: in order to detain the number of illegal crossers until they can get an asylum hearing, we need a LOT more beds for them. Congress is not willing to fund those beds, forcing catch-and-release.

The advantage of a wall, once built, is that it does not need funding to exist as a deterrent. It also discourages crossings at open areas of the border. That's the real reason the wall is opposed so vehemently: it will work without Congressional approval every year. "It's too expensive" is just silly; "walls don't work" is ludicrous; "it'll take too long" is a cop-out. The real reason is that Congress wants open borders.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 04:00 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.



Yes. But the numbers today are overwhelming the system.
It was ok when it was a few here and there, but not carvans of thousands.
These are people who have more children then they have the ability to care for and what society can handle.
Its a recipe for diseaser for any country.

There is literally nothing positive the American people get out of this.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 04:05 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Need to automate the "jobs Americans won't do", cutoff all benefits to aliens, illegal aliens get deported, plug the hole in the law that allows them to be released in country, dump the lottery, end chain migration, and replace the system once these are done with a merit based system. Of course all of this after the wall is built.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
That would be logical, but I am not aware if immigration fingerprints all detainees. Do you have a source for that?

No, I would just think that if someone is going to be caught and processed that it would/could/should be part of the process.



I agree that catch-and-release should be discontinued, but there is a problem with that: in order to detain the number of illegal crossers until they can get an asylum hearing, we need a LOT more beds for them. Congress is not willing to fund those beds, forcing catch-and-release.

The US should allow people to apply at american embassies in their own country. According to this:


Can I Apply for Asylum at an American Embassy?

No. You must be physically present in the United States to apply. The distinction between a refugee and an asylee (asylum applicant) is easy to confuse. Both are considered persons who are subject to persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Consequently, both types apply for humanitarian relief with the U.S. government. The main difference in processing, however, is where the individual is located. Refugees are located outside of the U.S and outside of their native country. Asylees are already within the U.S. or a port of entry of the U.S. This distinction is important because it affects how and where you can apply for relief.


Seems to me that we be the cheapest way to keep caravans from heading towards the border.


The advantage of a wall, once built, is that it does not need funding to exist as a deterrent. It also discourages crossings at open areas of the border. That's the real reason the wall is opposed so vehemently: it will work without Congressional approval every year. "It's too expensive" is just silly; "walls don't work" is ludicrous; "it'll take too long" is a cop-out. The real reason is that Congress wants open borders.

It really isn't much of a deterrent. There are images of people climbing and going over existing portions of walls at the border.

Then you have the whole B2 visa thing going on which is just as good as an open border. Makes me think that the border wall show is just optics.
edit on 8-3-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-3-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Good morning! Did the shooting start? Are there any childrenses left for me? My ear necklace is looking a little light....



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The Baby Thatchers 2 (not in your theaters)

Good earring to you, too, Green Deal Monster! What a lovely day to have the little others die.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion


A day without blood is like a day without sunshine.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You're such a warm stream of light!



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

I agree 100%

Shoot to kill anyone that crosses the border illegally, women and children first. If they wanted to claim asylum then they wouldn't be trying to sneak across the border. They can simply go to a port of entry and seek asylum there.

I guarantee you after just one day of implementing this policy the illegal crossings would be reduced by 99%.

Build the wall. Shoot to kill. Problem solved.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: watchitburn

If someone broke into your house and killed your closest family member I guarantee you that you would be ready and willing to shoot and kill the next MFer that tries to brake into your house. If you didnt then you would be both a fool and a coward.

Well guess what, people are breaking into this country illegally and killing someones closest loved one.

If they wanted to seek asylum then they wouldnt be trying to sneak past the athorities. They only want to seek asylum when they get caught. If they wanted to seek asylum in the first place then they could have done so at a port of entry.

Build the wall. Shoot to kill. Problem solved.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

It is not legal to cross the border illegally. I've asked you this before please provide the law you are referencing.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: latic

Basic human rights, freedom of movement.

How legal was this colonization of indigenous land in the first place? Just pack your things and leave if you can't deal with it, back to the homeland with you weird settlers already! Your family in the Fortress Europe is looking forward to take you back, we miss our cousins.

Mush love!



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: latic
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

It is not legal to cross the border illegally. I've asked you this before please provide the law you are referencing.


Read the previous page in this thread. page six lays it out.

What they are talking about is what the scotus voted 5-4 in last december to uphold what is happening now.

Driving down the road you come to a section where your lane is blocked off by traffic cones and construction peeps. you have to go into the wrong lane in order to pass because road construction and you pass all that by. Did you just break a law?

No you did not because you were officially directed to do so even though the law clearly states you must drive in the right hand lane and yet you went into the left lane in the wrong direction.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Just heard a report that migrants have located sections of the wall that is not exactly on the border so all they have to do now is come to that part of the wall and yell for help and surrender to border agents without ever crossing the wall.

This proves beyond any doubt that the wall is a joke.

Time to change the laws or lease land in mexico and set up some safe zones and job center where these people can wait and work as their claims are judged.

This just took a very comedic turn.
edit on 8-3-2019 by UncleTomahawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


What they are talking about is what the scotus voted 5-4 in last december to uphold what is happening now.

The Supreme Court voted on a stay for an injunction last December, not on whether it is legal to cross the border.

Judge Jon Tigar of the US District Court of San Francisco issued an injunction that stopped President Trump from requiring that undocumented aliens would not be allowed to claim asylum outside of Ports of Entry. The 9th District Appellate Court upheld it. The Supreme Court then upheld it last December. The case has not been heard in court yet.

It will be heard, and a ruling will be made, which if not made by the Supreme Court, will eventually rise to the Supreme Court. Courts take a lot of time to rule, however, and there is the danger in this injunction. If there were an emergency anywhere in the nation, one lone rogue Federal District judge could and probably would stop any action to address it, leaving it in place for years. Let's just hope the Russians don't invade.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
41
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join