• 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

ttwtt78640 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Many jurisdictions already have harsher sentences for US citizens. There is a present and spreading trend to consider immigration consequences when selecting charges to bring against alien defendants, and local policies are being emplaced that mandate charging "alternative offenses" or "reasonable modifications" to sentencing when the usual charge and/or sentence might result in removability.

So in Brooklyn, for example, an alien might be charged with trespassing when a US citizen would be charged with a drug offense because the trespass charge doesn't make them removable or inadmissible, but a USC gets stuck with a drug conviction forever. No future employer's going to care about a trespass conviction.
 
OrphanSlug said:
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.

Click to expand...
It appears to be adding to the current law, to include domestic violence and child abuse. Why would you not want that? (Not you personally :) )
 
BirdinHand said:
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.
Click to expand...
Right. This bill is an amendment to those laws already in place. Appears to add domestic violence and child abuse as additional crimes.
 
holbritter said:
It appears to be adding to the current law, to include domestic violence and child abuse. Why would you not want that? (Not you personally :) )
Click to expand...

My understanding, and I am not a lawyer nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, is those crimes are already felonies. Thus subject to anyone here illegally to then be subject to deportation post serving a sentence for the crime found guilty of. And they are also all still state prosecuted crimes.

I could be wrong, but on read I am questioning the actionable value of the legislation.
 
holbritter said:
Right. This bill is an amendment to those laws already in place. Appears to add domestic violence and child abuse as additional crimes.
Click to expand...

It adds non-violent misdemeanors to the existing felonies which require (allow?) deportation be added to the sentence.
 
OrphanSlug said:
My understanding, and I am not a lawyer nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, is those crimes are already felonies. Thus subject to anyone here illegally to then be subject to deportation post serving a sentence for the crime found guilty of. And they are also all still state prosecuted crimes.

I could be wrong, but on read I am questioning the actionable value of the legislation.
Click to expand...
Ahh..... I'm picking up what you're throwing down. So the law saying you can deport for committing a felony, should cover it? Regardless of what kind of felony? If so, I agree then.
 
holbritter said:
Ahh..... I'm picking up what you're throwing down. So the law saying you can deport for committing a felony, should cover it? Regardless of what kind of felony? If so, I agree then.
Click to expand...

I think so, I'll go check and see but I cannot imagine existing immigration law carving out exceptions for certain felony charges as being subject to deportation and others deemed not so bad.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It adds non-violent misdemeanors to the existing felonies which require (allow?) deportation be added to the sentence.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. Those written in the bill I posted, are all violent. Well, I guess not following a protection order would not necessarily be 'violent'.
 
holbritter said:
It appears to be adding to the current law, to include domestic violence and child abuse. Why would you not want that? (Not you personally :) )
Click to expand...
Domestic violence is already a removable offense, whether it's classed a felony or misdemeanor, under Section 237(a)(2)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The same section almost certainly would make removable a person convicted of child abuse.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I think so, I'll go check and see but I cannot imagine existing immigration law carving out exceptions for certain felony charges as being subject to deportation and others deemed not so bad.
Click to expand...
US immigration law does, in fact, class certain crimes as "worse" than others, even when they are all felonies. Certain felonies are classified as a "crime involving moral turpitude." Such felonies make a person inadmissible in nearly all cases and removable if the crime was committed within 5 (or 10, depending on specific immigration status) years of admission to the United States.

But not all felonies are considered CIMTs. First-degree murder is a CIMT, but negligent homicide (depending on the specific wording of the statute and the elements of the crime) is not. Yet both are felonies. Because the negligent homicide statute (universally, so far as I'm aware) does not require a criminal motivation, it does not trigger removability under the INA.
 
eohrnberger said:
I'll leave it to you to elaborate your point.
Click to expand...
There's a pretty big difference between deporting someone who crossed the border illegally and deporting someone who has legally lived here, worked here, started a family here, and paid taxes here for 30 years.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
US immigration law does, in fact, class certain crimes as "worse" than others, even when they are all felonies. Certain felonies are classified as a "crime involving moral turpitude." Such felonies make a person inadmissible in nearly all cases and removable if the crime was committed within 5 (or 10, depending on specific immigration status) years of admission to the United States.

But not all felonies are considered CIMTs. First-degree murder is a CIMT, but negligent homicide (depending on the specific wording of the statute and the elements of the crime) is not. Yet both are felonies. Because the negligent homicide statute (universally, so far as I'm aware) does not require a criminal motivation, it does not trigger removability under the INA.
Click to expand...
Falsifying business records...
 
Deuce said:
There's a pretty big difference between deporting someone who crossed the border illegally and deporting someone who has legally lived here, worked here, started a family here, and paid taxes here for 30 years.
Click to expand...
So you want to keep people who:

(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.”.​

Per the OP #1

Why is that?
 
eohrnberger said:
So you want to keep people who:

(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.”.​

Per the OP #1

Why is that?
Click to expand...
I want to deport citizens who do that
 
Looks like a waste of time by House Republicans since everything listed in the bill is already illegal regardless of who commits the act, citizens or non-citizens.
So what is the purpose?
 
KingLeo said:
Looks like a waste of time by House Republicans since everything listed in the bill is already illegal regardless of who commits the act, citizens or non-citizens.
So what is the purpose?
Click to expand...
Deny admittance for one.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
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).
Click to expand...
Ambiguous wording.

Not at all what we want in legislation/laws.
 
holbritter said:
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
Click to expand...

THIS is what the Republican House voted on while a shutdown looms? Christ, Repubs are useless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom