• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

H.R.7909 - Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act

holbritter

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
24,196
Reaction score
13,190
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Although the bill passed the house, I am genuinely confused as to why anyone would vote against it. When I heard about it on the news, I was thinking the results were being twisted by ‘faux’ news or something, so I did a little research. It’s not. Only Dems voted against it. In reading the bill, it doesn’t appear to have any ‘gotchas’ (unless I’m missing something). Why??

Any insight? And please, I'm don't want rhetoric, I'd like a serious reasoning, if there is one. TIA

The bill:

H.R. 7909

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that aliens who have been convicted of or who have committed sex offenses or domestic violence are inadmissible and deportable.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act”.

SEC. 2. INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY RELATED TO SEX OFFENSES, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, STALKING, CHILD ABUSE, OR VIOLATION OF PROTECTION ORDER.

(a) Inadmissibility.—Section 212(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(J) SEX OFFENSES.—Any alien who has been convicted of, who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of a sex offense (as such term is defined in section 111(5) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (
34 U.S.C. 20911(5))), or a conspiracy to commit such an offense, is inadmissible.

“(K) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, STALKING, CHILD ABUSE, OR VIOLATION OF PROTECTION ORDER.—Any alien who has been convicted of, who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of—

“(i) a crime of domestic violence (as such term is defined in section 237(a)(2)(E));

“(ii) a crime of stalking;

“(iii) a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment; or

“(iv) a crime of violating the portion of a protection order (as such term is defined in section 237(a)(2)(E)) that involves protection against credible threats of violence, repeated harassment, or bodily injury to the person or persons for whom the protection order was issued, is inadmissible.”.

(b) Deportability.—Section 237(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (
8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) is amended—
(1) in subparagraph (E)—

(A) in the heading, by striking “CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN AND” and inserting “AND CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN”; and

(B) in clause (i), by inserting before the period at the end the following “, and includes any crime that constitutes domestic violence, as such term is defined in section 40002(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (
34 U.S.C. 12291(a), regardless of whether the jurisdiction receives grant funding under that Act”; and (2) by adding at the end the following:

“(G) SEX OFFENSES.—Any alien who has been convicted of a sex offense (as such term is defined in section 111(5) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (
34 U.S.C. 20911(5))) or a conspiracy to commit such an offense, is deportable.”.

Screenshot 2024-09-19 at 8.22.57 AM.png
 
Although the bill passed the house, I am genuinely confused as to why anyone would vote against it. When I heard about it on the news, I was thinking the results were being twisted by ‘faux’ news or something, so I did a little research. It’s not. Only Dems voted against it. In reading the bill, it doesn’t appear to have any ‘gotchas’ (unless I’m missing something). Why??

Any insight? And please, I'm don't want rhetoric, I'd like a serious reasoning, if there is one. TIA

The bill:

H.R. 7909

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that aliens who have been convicted of or who have committed sex offenses or domestic violence are inadmissible and deportable.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act”.

SEC. 2. INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY RELATED TO SEX OFFENSES, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, STALKING, CHILD ABUSE, OR VIOLATION OF PROTECTION ORDER.

(a) Inadmissibility.—Section 212(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(J) SEX OFFENSES.—Any alien who has been convicted of, who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of a sex offense (as such term is defined in section 111(5) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (
34 U.S.C. 20911(5))), or a conspiracy to commit such an offense, is inadmissible.

“(K) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, STALKING, CHILD ABUSE, OR VIOLATION OF PROTECTION ORDER.—Any alien who has been convicted of, who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of—

“(i) a crime of domestic violence (as such term is defined in section 237(a)(2)(E));

“(ii) a crime of stalking;

“(iii) a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment; or

“(iv) a crime of violating the portion of a protection order (as such term is defined in section 237(a)(2)(E)) that involves protection against credible threats of violence, repeated harassment, or bodily injury to the person or persons for whom the protection order was issued, is inadmissible.”.

(b) Deportability.—Section 237(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (
8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) is amended—
(1) in subparagraph (E)—

(A) in the heading, by striking “CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN AND” and inserting “AND CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN”; and

(B) in clause (i), by inserting before the period at the end the following “, and includes any crime that constitutes domestic violence, as such term is defined in section 40002(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (
34 U.S.C. 12291(a), regardless of whether the jurisdiction receives grant funding under that Act”; and (2) by adding at the end the following:

“(G) SEX OFFENSES.—Any alien who has been convicted of a sex offense (as such term is defined in section 111(5) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (
34 U.S.C. 20911(5))) or a conspiracy to commit such an offense, is deportable.”.

View attachment 67533278

One major difference (which I noticed immediately) is that the bill’s title references “illegal aliens”, while the bill’s text references “aliens” (which would apply to any non-US citizen, including those with legal immigration status).
 
One major difference (which I noticed immediately) is that the bill’s title references “illegal aliens”, while the bill’s text references “aliens” (which would apply to any non-US citizen, including those with legal immigration status).
I should have noticed that myself. Thanks.
 
One major difference (which I noticed immediately) is that the bill’s title references “illegal aliens”, while the bill’s text references “aliens” (which would apply to any non-US citizen, including those with legal immigration status).
Sorry, but I'm not seeing the significance of that.
So the bill is defeated by what appears to be a simple clerical error?
So the bill is defeated by simply using a euphemism which the Democrats didn't like?

As far as what the bill is trying to do, deport a specific set of criminals who happen to be non-US citizens, I'm not seeing the consternation here.
 
Any insight? And please, I'm don't want rhetoric, I'd like a serious reasoning, if there is one. TIA
I suspect a lot of the provisions are rather redundant. First, the sex offenses the bill purports to include as grounds of inadmissibility are almost certainly already covered as crimes involving moral turpitude. Convictions for CIMTs already make a person generally inadmissible under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The same can be said for the grounds of removability on this topic.

The DV provisions are also likely largely duplicative, though it's one of the rare instances where removability for such a conviction is more easily proven than inadmissibility, mostly because other countries don't usually handle DV the same way we do. Amending the INA to make more clear an inadmissibility for DV convictions probably won't actually do much for that reason.
 
Party politics. No bill is going to get the majority of both parties in the House this close to an election. We have a British Parliamentary voting in a two party state now.
 
Sorry, but I'm not seeing the significance of that.
So the bill is defeated by what appears to be a simple clerical error?
So the bill is defeated by simply using a euphemism which the Democrats didn't like?

As far as what the bill is trying to do, deport a specific set of criminals who happen to be non-US citizens, I'm not seeing the consternation here.

Why should a “domestic violence” conviction carry a life sentence only for non-US citizens with legal permission to be in the US? I have no problem with harsher sentences for some criminal offenses, but I fail to see how treating someone’s legal immigration status as an aggravating factor (for sentencing) is a good idea. IMHO, if an ‘undocumented’ (illegal) immigrant gets a traffic ticket or commits some other misdemeanor then they should be turned over to ICE for deportation upon conviction.
 
We already have laws that state when someone that’s a legal immigrant in this country can and will be deported.

This is performative. And some of those offenses aren’t even felonies.
 
Party politics. No bill is going to get the majority of both parties in the House this close to an election. We have a British Parliamentary voting in a two party state now.
I don't think the upcoming election has anything to do with it. It's more of a "if it's the other side's idea, I'm against it" thing.

Example...

In early 2023, the House...under Republican control...passed HR 2, a border crisis bill. Schumer refuses to let the Senate consider the bill. In 2024, the Senate...under Democratic control...wanted to pass their border crisis bill. Speaker Johnson declared it DOA in the House before it was even voted on and the Senate then killed their own bill.

This is why Congress' favorability ratings are in the toilet.
 
We already have laws that state when someone that’s a legal immigrant in this country can and will be deported.

This is performative. And some of those offenses aren’t even felonies.

Yep, and this bill intended to add additional offenses to that list.
 
Why should a “domestic violence” conviction carry a life sentence only for non-US citizens with legal permission to be in the US?
Hmm. OK.
Rather than support that person for their entire lives, (burdening the US tax payers) I'd be more in support of deporting them, and banning them from ever entering the country again.

I have no problem with harsher sentences for some criminal offenses, but I fail to see how treating someone’s legal immigration status as an aggravating factor (for sentencing) is a good idea.
Doing so sets the standard of 'better behave, or your permanently removed from the country'.
That's not really an option with a US citizen.

IMHO, if an ‘undocumented’ (illegal) immigrant gets a traffic ticket or commits some other misdemeanor then they should be turned over to ICE for deportation upon conviction.
Agreed.
 
The point of this bill was so that GOP lawmakers could go back for the final sprint to the election and claim "The Democrats voted AGAINST deporting criminals! OH MY!"

Yep, and that’s true.
 
Hmm. OK.
Rather than support that person for their entire lives, (burdening the US tax payers) I'd be more in support of deporting them, and banning them from ever entering the country again.
If someone committed a domestic violence act that resulted in a long prison term? They’d already be subject to under current laws that deport immigrants for violent crime.


Doing so sets the standard of 'better behave, or your permanently removed from the country'.
That's not really an option with a US citizen.
We already have laws for deportation.


This is performative.
 
Hmm. OK.
Rather than support that person for their entire lives, (burdening the US tax payers) I'd be more in support of deporting them, and banning them from ever entering the country again.


Doing so sets the standard of 'better behave, or your permanently removed from the country'.
That's not really an option with a US citizen.

Harsher sentences are absolutely an option for US citizens convicted of crimes. My point was why have harsher sentences based on someone’s legal immigration status?

 
This bill seems like political showboating, most of the crimes listed in the bill are things usually prosecuted at the state level and every state in the union addresses the prosecution of those crimes be it to slightly different ends in terms of punishment.

The only thing in there is a statement about deportation, what is unclear is intention to deport after prosecution or after serving the term of sentence handed down after. And technically the federal immigration laws already account for means to deport, additional crimes committed or not.

So this all comes down to expectation of the legislation effort, what do we think it really is outside of political showmanship?
 
This bill doesn’t require a violent felony for deportation.

🤷‍♀️

True, but why should certain violent misdemeanors not be subject to harsher sentencing? We saw what happened when CA decided that theft under $950 (per incident) doesn’t deserve (warrant?) any jail time.
 
True, but why should certain violent misdemeanors not be subject to harsher sentencing? We saw what happened when CA decided that theft under $950 (per incident) doesn’t deserve (warrant?) any jail time.
Again, this didn’t specify violent anything.

Want to bet if that was on purpose?
 
Again, this didn’t specify violent anything.

Want to bet if that was on purpose?

I agree that some of the additional offenses included in that bill were non-violent (such as stalking and child neglect). That’s another mismatch between the bill’s title and the bill’s content.
 
I would imagine violence from anyone would be illegal. This seems like one of those bills politicians make up and try to name to pretend it's doing something good. Like Patriot Act.
 
Went and found the bill, the OP is correct, the whole thing can fit on a cocktail napkin, and it worth noting this bill came out of committee in May.

As reported and voted on, I am struggling to see where this bill actually does something.

The summary says "This bill establishes that domestic violence crimes and sex offenses shall be grounds for making a non-U.S. national (alien under federal law) inadmissible and deportable" and technically speaking by plenty of other law already on the books this is already so.

 
Why should a “domestic violence” conviction carry a life sentence only for non-US citizens with legal permission to be in the US? I have no problem with harsher sentences for some criminal offenses, but I fail to see how treating someone’s legal immigration status as an aggravating factor (for sentencing) is a good idea.
This isn't about sentencing. It's about inadmissibility and removability. If an immigration judge decides relief is warranted, they can grant it. If an applicant for admission has a qualifying conviction, they can apply for a waiver. There's always a waiver.
 
Back
Top Bottom