Democrats imigration bill gives amnesty from crimes

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,493
9,824
136
selling the country for additional votes.

not that we needed more proof that our government is truly broken, but here it is...
 

BlueWolf47

Senior member
Apr 22, 2005
653
0
76
§245B(b)(3)(A)(i) includes the following criminal bars.

*Any felony (other than state or local status-based immigration offenses);
*Aggravated felony under INA §101(a)(43);
*Three or more misdemeanors (other than minor traffic offenses or state/local status based or immigration offenses) where conviction occurred on different dates. May be waived for humanitarian purposes to ensure family unity, or if otherwise in the public interest.
*Foreign offenses (except purely political offenses) that would render the person inadmissible or deportable if committed in the U.S., with certain exceptions.
*Unlawful voting.

You should really do some research before you believe a bunch of right wing bloggers. The bill specifically doesn't allow what your article mentions. This stupidity gets really tiring.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
You should really do some research before you believe a bunch of right wing bloggers. The bill specifically doesn't allow what your article mentions. This stupidity gets really tiring.

Outrage addicts need their fix, even if it's bunk.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,945
122
106
history teaches us that all organized societies eventually fail. And failure starts from within. The fine print in the immigration bill won't be enforced. It will have the same level of enforcement enthusiasm as existing laws on the books which are largely unenforced.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
You should really do some research before you believe a bunch of right wing bloggers. The bill specifically doesn't allow what your article mentions. This stupidity gets really tiring.

did you read what you quoted?

"Three or more misdemeanors (other than minor traffic offenses or state/local status based or immigration offenses) where conviction occurred on different dates. May be waived for humanitarian purposes to ensure family unity, or if otherwise in the public interest."
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
did you read what you quoted?

"Three or more misdemeanors (other than minor traffic offenses or state/local status based or immigration offenses) where conviction occurred on different dates. May be waived for humanitarian purposes to ensure family unity, or if otherwise in the public interest."

Does the bill actually give amnesty for the crime committed (other than immigration crimes, obviously), or just allow those persons to become citizens in certain circumstances?

I'm not in favour of the former, but both you and the article imply both are included, while there doesn't seem to be support for that.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
Does the bill actually give amnesty for the crime committed (other than immigration crimes, obviously), or just allow those persons to become citizens in certain circumstances?

I'm not in favour of the former, but both you and the article imply both are included, while there doesn't seem to be support for that.


I thought the article was clear.

Supporters of the bill are saying publically that criminals wont be allowed to be granted amnesty.

where as the bill allows the government to ignore any number of crimes committed by illegals, to grant them amnesty from both.

Its not automatic. But why even grant that power?
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
I thought the article was clear.

Supporters of the bill are saying publically that criminals wont be allowed to be granted amnesty.

where as the bill allows the government to ignore any number of crimes committed by illegals, to grant them amnesty from both.

Its not automatic. But why even grant that power?

My questions is if the power is even granted to waive the punishment for assault, or is this simply a conflation? One quote from the article that is used as a 'basis' for what's happening:
“the bottom line is an immigrant could have more than three misdemeanor convictions in his background check and still qualify for legalization.”
Does not imply that the punishment for the actual assault is waved.

In addition, the chart appears to state that the crime can be waived for determining RPI status:
Eligible for crime to be waived for RPI status
But again that's not the same thing as waiving the crime.

I'd be interested to read the actual text that says granting RPI status waives the responsibility for those crimes.

By way of example, if someone proposed a bill that waived certain felonies for determining voter eligibility, that is not the same thing as saying those who vote are exonerated for committing those crimes.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
I thought the article was clear.

Supporters of the bill are saying publically that criminals wont be allowed to be granted amnesty.

where as the bill allows the government to ignore any number of crimes committed by illegals, to grant them amnesty from both.

Its not automatic. But why even grant that power?

Your article doesn't say what you think it does.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,063
1,464
126
You too are too stuck in your bubbles to open up your minds to what is going on. Too stuck supporting your team.

What team? Your own article refers to this as a bipartisan gang of 8 bill. There is no team in this situation, you're just claiming there is by lying in your thread title.

In the end the only "team" I support is that of intelligence, science, rational thought, and human decency. That isn't always the Democrats for sure, but it is NEVER the Republicans who support ... any of those things.