A House Bill Would Create Open Borders if It Became Law. Why is Nobody Talking about It?

truthatallcost said:

The New Way Forward Act was written by Democrat Jesus Garcia (D-Illinois), whose name appears as Jesus 'Chuy' Garcia on the government website. Chuy is pronounced 'chewy'.

Text - H.R.5383 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): New Way Forward Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Some of highlights of the bill should shock you. If passed and signed into law, the bill would effectively do away with deportations of criminal illegal immigrants, and require US tax payers to buy airplane tickets to fly convicted and deported foreigners back into the US.

• Section 701: "The Right to Come Home."
Anyone deported after 1996 has the right to new deportation proceedings subject to the law as defined by the New Way Forward Act.

• Section 102, P3: "Presumption of Release"
Immigration judges would be required to begin hearings with the presumption that the alien will not be detained, but rather freed - even if they've been convicted of a crime in the U.S., or have pending charges against them.

• Section 102, P5: "Bond Determination"
If an illegal alien is freed on bond, the amount of the bond will be decided by the "alien’s financial resources and ability to pay the bond without imposing financial hardship on the alien."

(You don't have that privilege as U.S. citizen)

• Section 102, P6: "Special Rules" for Vulnerable People
The following people can't be detained by immigration authorities:

- Anyone who identifies as LGBT
- Non-English speakers (
- Anyone younger than 21 or older than 60

• Section 102 (f)(2)(b):
- Disallows law enforcement from questioning anyone about their legal status
- Does not allow law enforcement (like Border Patrol) *to stop aliens from crossing the border illegally even if they're watching it happen.*

• Section 201(3)(A): Statute of limitations on deportations.
Would prohibit an undocumented immigrant who has lived in the US for 5 years or more from being deported.

This applies retroactively, so anyone who's already been here illegally for 5 years gets amnesty.

• Section 302(c)(i):

For the purpose of deportation, immigration judges consider whether a "serious crime" has been committed.

This section defines a "serious crime" only as one that resulted in a conviction and prison a sentence of more than five years.

• Section 501 imposes the same rules used by sanctuary cities (local law enforcement prohibited from helping federal immigration authorities)... for the *entire country.*

It makes every state a "sanctuary state."

And on & on it goes. The bill has 44 co-sponsors, who I'll name in my next post. Why are CNN, Fox, and MSNBC not talking about this?

Click to expand...

Redress said:

So what you are saying is that the bill does not create open borders, and your thread title is a lie.

Edit: and no surprise, reading the bill, your post misrepresents a ****load. Maybe try honesty sometime...

Click to expand...

Rogue Valley said:

And not a word from you about the 400+ passed House bills that have been sitting on McConnell's desk collecting dust for many months now.

Three of those bipartisan passed bills collecting dust would strengthen the 2020 election against Russian interference.

And the clueless wonder why he's got the nickname "Moscow" Mitch McConnell.

Click to expand...

truthatallcost said:

The bill would make it nearly impossible to deport anyone . I'm not surprised that the majority of congressional support comes from just three states- California, Illinois, and New York.

Click to expand...

bradt99 said:

It's so idiotic, thank gosh it has no chance of passing. That bill proves democrats don't care about American Citizens or workers in this country. The main reason they want illegals so bad is because of votes. It doesn't matter if they murder American Citizens, that's just collateral damage to them. For gosh sake, sane democrats take back your party from the extremes before you turn off the whole country!!!

Click to expand...

Redress said:

No, it really doesn't.

Click to expand...

truthatallcost said:

You haven't disproven a single claim in the OP thus far. This is your stock and trade, where you deny something is a reality, without offering a shred of proof.

Click to expand...

• Section 102, P3: "Presumption of Release"
Immigration judges would be required to begin hearings with the presumption that the alien will not be detained, but rather freed - even if they've been convicted of a crime in the U.S., or have pending charges against them.

Click to expand...

“(3) PRESUMPTION OF RELEASE.—In a hearing under this subsection, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the alien should be released. The Government shall have the duty of rebutting this presumption by clear and convincing evidence based on credible and individualized information that establishes that the use of alternatives to detention will not reasonably assure the appearance of the alien at removal proceedings, or that the alien is a threat to another person or the community. The fact that an alien has a prior conviction or a criminal charge pending against the alien may not be the sole factor to justify the continued detention of the alien.

Click to expand...

• Section 102, P5: "Bond Determination"
If an illegal alien is freed on bond, the amount of the bond will be decided by the "alien’s financial resources and ability to pay the bond without imposing financial hardship on the alien."

Click to expand...

“(5) BOND DETERMINATION.—In the case that an immigration judge makes a determination to release an alien on bond under subsection (a)(1)(B)(i), the immigration judge shall consider, for purposes of setting the amount of the bond, the alien’s financial resources and ability to pay the bond without imposing financial hardship on the alien.

Click to expand...

• Section 102, P6: "Special Rules" for Vulnerable People
The following people can't be detained by immigration authorities:

- Anyone who identifies as LGBT
- Non-English speakers (
- Anyone younger than 21 or older than 60

Click to expand...

(6) SPECIAL RULE FOR VULNERABLE PERSONS AND PRIMARY CAREGIVERS.—In a case in which an alien who is the subject of a custody determination under this subsection is a vulnerable person or a primary caregiver, the alien may not be detained unless the Government shows, in addition to the requirements under paragraph (3), that it is unreasonable or not practicable to place the individual in a community-based supervision program.

“(7) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term ‘vulnerable person’ means an individual who—

“(A) is under 21 years of age or over 60 years of age;

“(B) is pregnant;

“(C) identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersex;

“(D) is victim or witness of a crime;

“(E) has filed a nonfrivolous civil rights claim in Federal or State court;

“(F) has a serious mental or physical illness or disability;

“(G) has been determined by an asylum officer in an interview conducted under section 235(b)(1)(B) to have a credible fear of persecution or a reasonable fear of persecution under section 208.31 or 241.8(e) of title 8, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of the enactment of the New Way Forward Act);

“(H) has limited English language proficiency and is not provided access to appropriate and meaningful language services in a timely fashion; or

“(I) has been determined by an immigration judge or the Secretary of Homeland Security to be experiencing severe trauma or to be a survivor of torture or gender-based violence, based on information obtained during intake, from the alien’s attorney or legal service provider, or through credible self-reporting.

Click to expand...

• Section 102 (f)(2)(b):
- Disallows law enforcement from questioning anyone about their legal status
- Does not allow law enforcement (like Border Patrol) *to stop aliens from crossing the border illegally even if they're watching it happen.*

Click to expand...

(b) Probable cause hearing.—Section 287(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(a)) is amended by striking the matter preceding paragraph (3) and inserting the following:

“(a) Any officer or employee of the Department of Homeland Security authorized under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have power without warrant—

“(1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to the person’s right to be or to remain in the United States, provided that such interrogation is not based on the person’s race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, color, spoken language, or English language proficiency; and

“(2) to arrest any alien who in the officer or employee’s presence or view is entering or attempting to enter the United States in violation of any law or regulation made in pursuance of law regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens, or to arrest any alien in the United States, if—

“(A) the officer or employee has probable cause to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any such law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest;

“(B) the officer or employee has reason to believe that the person would knowingly and willfully fail to appear in immigration court in response to a properly served notice to appear; and

“(C) not later than 48 hours after being taken into custody, the arrested alien is provided with a hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether there is probable cause as required by this section, including probable cause to believe that the person would have knowingly and willfully failed to appear as required under subparagraph (B), which burden to establish probable cause shall be on the Government.”.

Click to expand...

joko104 said:

Decriminalizing illegal immigration is open borders. It is that simple and obvious.

Click to expand...

Redress said:

And the bill does not do that. That is simple to realize if you just look at his claims vs what is in the bill, which is quick and easy to do.

Click to expand...

“(3) PRESUMPTION OF RELEASE.—In a hearing under this subsection, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the alien should be released. The Government shall have the duty of rebutting this presumption by clear and convincing evidence based on credible and individualized information that establishes that the use of alternatives to detention will not reasonably assure the appearance of the alien at removal proceedings, or that the alien is a threat to another person or the community. The fact that an alien has a prior conviction or a criminal charge pending against the alien may not be the sole factor to justify the continued detention of the alien.

Click to expand...

truthatallcost said:

The New Way Forward Act was written by Democrat Jesus Garcia (D-Illinois), whose name appears as Jesus 'Chuy' Garcia on the government website. Chuy is pronounced 'chewy'.
And on & on it goes. The bill has 44 co-sponsors, who I'll name in my next post. Why are CNN, Fox, and MSNBC not talking about this?

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

Dunno, but it sure looks and reads like the bill would make it nearly impossible to enforce any sort of border security; make it nearly impossible to enforce any sort of immigration control other than release, release, release, amnesty, amnesty, amnesty, which I'm pretty sure is the point of this whole bill anyway.



So, in other words, forced amnesia that the illegal immigrant in question has illegally crossed the border a dozen times, been arrested for a dozen fatal DUIs and previously deported, forget all that when deciding release. That's like WTF?

And yes, I read your quoted sections, thank you for that.

Click to expand...

Redress said:

Well, no, that is not what it says. What it does say is that, just like in all other cases, the presumption of innocence is there.

Click to expand...

Redress said:

So what you are saying is that the bill does not create open borders, and your thread title is a lie.

Edit: and no surprise, reading the bill, your post misrepresents a ****load. Maybe try honesty sometime...

Click to expand...

truthatallcost said:

Have a look at the names of the bills co-sponsors, in post #5. This, unfortunately is the future of our country, so whether the bill passes now, or waits 5-10 years, it will pass eventually , given the course we're on.

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

How much "presumption of innocence" is warranted when an illegal alien is in the country illegally already? It would seem pretty blatantly obvious from the git go, wouldn't it?

Click to expand...

Redress said:

I understand you only feel the constitution protections should only be there when you want them, not when others might want them, but that is not how this country works.

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

I acknowledge that there are Constitutional protections for everyone in the USA. Never said there weren't.

I was pointing out the obvious, which is that illegal aliens illegally in the country already have their legal standing pretty well determined by those mere facts. Seems to be exactly these facts that some would obfuscate, hiding them behind idiotic euphemisms which give obfuscate the obvious facts.

Making an already byzantine immigration system worse by piling on yet more so called 'Constitutional Protections' based on invented rights, such as "The Right to Come Home." - yet more obfuscation, is not only dishonest, it is not what is really needed to address the issues with the present situation.

This bill, presently in House Committee, appears to be initiated by the left for the explicit purpose of doing more of the same dishonest obfuscation, the same piling on more excess process and invented 'rights' on a system already overburdened with contradictory byzantine immigration laws.

What is needed is clear and crisp easy to follow and logical set of directives that should be no more than a page or two. Burying that what is needed with reams of legislative text is little more than obfuscating the matter and a government jobs program for immigration attorneys. KISS is the solution. Not the set of laws as they presently exist, and certainly not the morass that would result by piling this new one on top of it all.

Sure. We probably aren't going to agree on very much on this topic. So be it. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Redress said:

"Pretty well" is not good enough. We all of us, including people you do not like, enjoy the understanding that it is the government's job to prove us guilty, not our job to prove ourselves innocent.

Click to expand...