• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Democrats imigration bill gives amnesty from crimes

selling the country for additional votes.

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

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.
 
BlueWolf47 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Outrage addicts need their fix, even if it's bunk.
 
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.
 
BlueWolf47 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
michal1980 said:
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
actuarial said:
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.
Click to expand...


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?
 
michal1980 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.”
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
michal1980 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Your article doesn't say what you think it does.
 
michal1980 said:
You too are too stuck in your bubbles to open up your minds to what is going on. Too stuck supporting your team.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top