• 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

Stealers Wheel said:
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!"
Click to expand...
Except 51 Democrats joined the Repubs
 
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...
So it would function as a dragnet.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What laws aren’t?
Click to expand...
The Speaker had no intention of passing this bill. He can count votes as well as anyone. He knew it wouldn't pass, but brought it to a floor vote anyway. THAT is performative.

It is the same as when that same group brought fort bills 60 TIMES to repeal the ACA. Every time they knew they would fail, yet, they wasted the taxpayers' dime just for show. Performative.

As I wrote before, this was a political stunt to give the GOP members something - ANYTHING - they could go home and campaign on.

Had things been different, the House GOP would be impeaching Joe Biden right about now, but that has pretty much gone away. Why do you suppose that is? Performative.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
The Speaker had no intention of passing this bill. He can count votes as well as anyone. He knew it wouldn't pass, but brought it to a floor vote anyway. THAT is performative.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? The bill (HR 7909) passed in the House. Perhaps you should try reading the OP before you start to rant nonsense.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Are you kidding me? The bill (HR 7909) passed in the House. Perhaps you should try reading the OP before you start to rant nonsense.
Click to expand...
My bad.

So you expect this to pass the senate? What are they waiting for? Fast track it and get it to the president's desk immediately.
 
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...
We already have VAWA.
 
eohrnberger said:
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.
Click to expand...
non citizen....meaning, legal immigrants...also, closely read it...it doesn't require a CONVICTION to take the person's papers and deport them....we shouldn't be deporting someone without a conviction. accused of, isn't guilty.
 
OrphanSlug said:
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?
Click to expand...
Trump has taught us well, from the day he came down the escalator. Immigrants of all kinds (especially Muslims) are the new Jews, Gypsies, southern Europeans, Irish, whatever. All part of his Make America Hate Again rhetoric.
 
ClaraD said:
We already have VAWA.
Click to expand...
The VAWA prevents immigrants from being allowed to enter the country? It also doesn't seem to cover child abuse and needs to be re-authorized every 5 years.

There's nothing I see in the VAWA that prevents someone from entering the country.
 
ClaraD said:
non citizen....meaning, legal immigrants...
Click to expand...
Legal immigrants (and legal nonimmigrants) have always been subject to the grounds of removability after being admitted. So what that they would be subject to this one as well?

ClaraD said:
also, closely read it...it doesn't require a CONVICTION to take the person's papers and deport them....we shouldn't be deporting someone without a conviction. accused of, isn't guilty.
Click to expand...
Nowhere in the proposed statutory language does it make an alien removable or inadmissible for being accused of something. It talks about convictions, admission by the alien to having committed the act, and admission by the alien of having committed the essential elements constituting the criminal act. This is the same standard used for every other determination of inadmissibility or removability based on criminal grounds.
 
holbritter said:
The VAWA prevents immigrants from being allowed to enter the country? It also doesn't seem to cover child abuse and needs to be re-authorized every 5 years.

There's nothing I see in the VAWA that prevents someone from entering the country.
Click to expand...
This bill doesn't prevent that either...now does it?
 
ClaraD said:
This bill doesn't prevent that either...now does it?
Click to expand...
Yes, yes it does.

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.”.
 
holbritter said:
Yes, yes it does.

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.”.
Click to expand...
inadmissibility if they have already been in the US..lmao...that doesn't prevent someone from entering and the law already does this btw....if a person has been convicted of any crime of violence they are inadmissible under law...and that has been the law since 1996.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom