- Joined
- Feb 3, 2017
- Messages
- 24,401
- Reaction score
- 13,409
- 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.”.
View attachment 67533278
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.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 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.Any insight? And please, I'm don't want rhetoric, I'd like a serious reasoning, if there is one. TIA
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.
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.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.
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.
Hmm. OK.Why should a “domestic violence” conviction carry a life sentence only for non-US citizens with legal permission to be in the US?
Doing so sets the standard of 'better behave, or your permanently removed from the country'.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.
Agreed.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.
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!"
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.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.
We already have laws for deportation.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.
Agreed.
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.
Agreed.
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.
We already have laws for deportation.
This is performative.
This bill doesn’t require a violent felony for deportation.OK, then why oppose this bill?
This bill doesn’t require a violent felony for deportation.
Again, this didn’t specify violent anything.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?
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?