Demanding Accountability on Deporting Sex Offenders

Jump to Last Post 1-7 of 7 discussions (83 posts)
  1. Sharlee01 profile image86
    Sharlee01posted 6 weeks ago

    In September, the House of Representatives passed the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, which included provisions to deport illegal immigrants convicted of violent crimes, including sex offenses. The bill passed with overwhelming support from Republicans, but shockingly, 158 Democrats voted against it, choosing to prioritize political correctness over the safety of women and children in this country. I am deeply troubled by this, and it is why I believe these lawmakers should be voted out of office at the earliest opportunity.

    This bill was not about partisan politics; it was about ensuring that convicted criminals—especially sex offenders—who are illegally in this country are removed, protecting the safety of Americans, particularly women and children. In my view, there should be no debate over this issue. The safety of innocent people, especially vulnerable populations, should always take precedence over protecting the rights of criminals.

    The fact that 158 Democratic lawmakers, including well-known names like Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff, and Nancy Pelosi, voted against this bill is alarming. These lawmakers were presented with an opportunity to send a strong message about prioritizing the protection of American citizens, yet they voted against the bill, which aimed to deport criminals who prey on women and children. There’s no acceptable excuse for this stance, and I’m not alone in my condemnation.

    While many of these Democrats justified their votes, claiming that the bill was discriminatory and unfair to immigrants, I view this as a misguided argument. Yes, it is important to distinguish between law-abiding immigrants and criminals, but the focus of this bill was solely on those who have broken the law in the most heinous ways. It’s one thing to discuss immigration reform, but it's another to defend criminals who have victimized the most vulnerable members of society.

    I voiced my frustration on social media, where I’ve continued to emphasize that the right thing to do is to vote out those lawmakers who prioritize criminal protection over public safety. I’ve seen many of these 158 Democrats insist that the bill would "demonize immigrants" or "stigmatize" people who come to the U.S. in search of a better life. While I understand that immigrant communities have faced hardships and deserve humane treatment, there is no justification for permitting violent criminals—such as rapists, pedophiles, and domestic abusers—to remain in this country.

    The true focus here should be on protecting the public, not pandering to political correctness. I fully recognize that the U.S. should welcome immigrants who come here legally and contribute to society. However, those who commit crimes should face the full force of the law, including deportation. Allowing violent offenders to remain in the country because of their immigration status is a slap in the face to those who are doing the right thing and seeking to better their lives through legal channels.

    In the face of this, I stand firm in my belief that these 158 Democrats have failed the American people. These lawmakers are out of touch with the values of the majority of Americans, who understand that public safety must be a top priority. They should be held accountable for their actions, and the only way to ensure that we have leadership that puts the safety and well-being of Americans first is to vote them out of office.

    "Tech billionaire and Trump ally Elon Musk renewed criticism of the more than 150 House Democrats who voted against deporting illegal immigrants convicted of sex offenses, demanding each of the lawmakers be voted out of office.

    "There is no excuse. Please post the list of people who opposed this law and want to keep illegals who are convicted sex offenders in America," Musk posted to his X account on Saturday referencing a September House vote.

    "They all need to be voted out of office. Every one of them."

    The following 158 Democrats, who voted against deporting convicted sex offenders, need to be replaced:

    Alma Adams (NC)
    Pete Aguilar (CA)
    Gabe Amo (RI)
    Jake Auchincloss (MA)
    Becca Balint (VT)
    Nanette Barragán (CA)
    Joyce Beatty (OH)
    Ami Bera (CA)
    Donald Beyer (VA)
    Sanford D. Bishop Jr. (GA)
    Earl Blumenauer (OR)
    Suzanne Bonamici (OR)
    Lisa Blunt Rochester (DE)
    Jamaal Bowman (NY)
    Shontel Brown (OH)
    Julia Brownley (CA)
    Cori Bush (MO)
    Salud Carbajal (CA)
    Tony Cárdenas (CA)
    André Carson (IN)
    Troy Carter (LA)
    Greg Casar (TX)
    Ed Case (HI)
    Sean Casten (IL)
    Kathy Castor (FL)
    Joaquin Castro (TX)
    Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (FL)
    Judy Chu (CA)
    Katherine Clark (MA)
    Yvette Clarke (NY)
    Emanuel Cleaver (MO)
    James Clyburn (SC)
    Steve Cohen (TN)
    Gerald Connolly (VA)
    Luis Correa (CA)
    Jim Costa (CA)
    Jasmine Crockett (TX)
    Jason Crow (CO)
    Danny Davis (IL)
    Madeleine Dean (PA)
    Diana DeGette (CO)
    Rosa DeLauro (CT)
    Suzan DelBene (WA)
    Mark DeSaulnier (CA)
    Debbie Dingell (MI)
    Lloyd Doggett (TX)
    Veronica Escobar (TX)
    Anna Eshoo (CA)
    Adriano Espaillat (NY)
    Lizzie Fletcher (TX)
    Bill Foster (IL)
    Valerie Foushee (NC)
    Lois Frankel (FL)
    Maxwell Frost (FL)
    John Garamendi (CA)
    Jesús "Chuy" Garcia (IL)
    Robert Garcia (CA)
    Sylvia Garcia (TX)
    Dan Goldman (NY)
    Jimmy Gomez (CA)
    Al Green (TX)
    James Himes (CT)
    Steny Hoyer (MD)
    Valerie Hoyle (OR)
    Jared Huffman (CA)
    Glenn Ivey (MD)
    Jonathan Jackson (IL)
    Sara Jacobs (CA)
    Pramila Jayapal (WA)
    Hakeem Jeffries (NY)
    Henry "Hank" Johnson (GA)
    Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA)
    Bill Keating (MA)
    Robin Kelly (IL)
    Ro Khanna (CA)
    Dan Kildee (MI)
    Derek Kilmer (WA)
    Andy Kim (NJ)
    Raja Krishnamoorthi (IL)
    Ann Kuster (NH)
    Greg Landsman (OH)
    Rick Larsen (WA)
    John Larson (CT)
    Barbara Lee (CA)
    Summer Lee (PA)
    Teresa Leger Fernandez (NM)
    Ted Lieu (CA)
    Zoe Lofgren (CA)
    Doris Matsui (CA)
    Lucy McBath (GA)
    Jennifer McClellan (VA)
    Betty McCollum (MN)
    Morgan McGarvey (KY)
    James McGovern (MA)
    Gregory Meeks (NY)
    Rob Menendez (NJ)
    Grace Meng (NY)
    Kweisi Mfume (MD)
    Gwen Moore (WI)
    Joseph Morelle (NY)
    Seth Moulton (MA)
    Kevin Mullin (CA)
    Jerrold Nadler (NY)
    Grace Napolitano (CA)
    Richard Neal (MA)
    Joe Neguse (CO)
    Donald Norcross (NJ)
    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY)
    Ilhan Omar (MN)
    Frank Pallone (NJ)
    Nancy Pelosi (CA)
    Scott Peters (CA)
    Brittany Pettersen (CO)
    Dean Phillips (MN)
    Chellie Pingree (ME)
    Mark Pocan (WI)
    Katie Porter (CA)
    Ayanna Pressley (MA)
    Mike Quigley (IL)
    Delia Ramirez (IL)
    Jamie Raskin (MD)
    Deborah Ross (NC)
    Raul Ruiz (CA)
    C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (MD)
    Linda Sánchez (CA)
    John Sarbanes (MD)
    Mary Scanlon (PA)
    Janice Schakowsky (IL)
    Adam Schiff (CA)
    Bradley Schneider (IL)
    Robert "Bobby" Scott (VA)
    David Scott (GA)
    Terri Sewell (AL)
    Brad Sherman (CA)
    Darren Soto (FL)
    Melanie Stansbury (NM)
    Haley Stevens (MI)
    Marilyn Strickland (WA)
    Mark Takano (CA)
    Shri Thanedar (MI)
    Mike Thompson (CA)
    Bennie Thompson (MS)
    Rashida Tlaib (MI)
    Jill Tokuda (HI)
    Paul Tonko (NY)
    Norma Torres (CA)
    Ritchie Torres (NY)
    Lori Trahan (MA)
    David Trone (MD)
    Lauren Underwood (IL)
    Juan Vargas (CA)
    Marc Veasey (TX)
    Nydia Velázquez (NY)
    Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL)
    Maxine Waters (CA)
    Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ)
    Nikema Williams (GA)
    Frederica Wilson (FL)

    It’s clear to me that these lawmakers are deeply out of touch with the American public’s priorities. They must be held accountable for their actions, and the best way to do that is through the power of the vote. Public safety is non-negotiable, and it’s time for a leadership change.

    Do any of those on the list represent your voice in Washington?

    Thoughts

    1. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      I have a lot more pressing needs to get rid of the GOP congress, maybe 2026?

      But, I will say that i see no reason for the Democrats to have voted against the bill. After all, is it not the goal of law enforcement to see that all illegal aliens are deported? Are they not already here illegally. There may have been a bit of redundancy and show boating on the part of Republicans, who I would have thought would know that the very fact that an illegal is on American soil is a crime itself outside of legitimate channels or exceptions, let alone any felonious infraction of our laws here.

      1. IslandBites profile image91
        IslandBitesposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        I will say that i see no reason for the Democrats to have voted against the bill.


        Ranking Member Nadler Opening Statement for the House Judiciary Committee Markup of H.R. 7909, the "Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act"

        Washington, May 22, 2024

        Today, Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) delivered the following opening statement, as prepared, for the House Judiciary Committee Markup of H.R. 7909, the "Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act":


        "Mr. Chairman, here we are again marking up a bill that is another attempt by the majority to scapegoat and fearmonger about immigrants.  Despite its title, this bill will impact not only those who are undocumented, but also lawful permanent residents, or green card holders.

        This bill will do nothing to secure our border or fix our broken immigration system.  It does not close any gaps or fix any loopholes in the law.  It is purely a messaging bill and an attempt to score cheap political points.

        H.R. 7909 purports to add new grounds of inadmissibility and deportability for “sexual offenses,” adds a new ground of inadmissibility for domestic violence and other related offenses, and expands the current ground for deportability for domestic violence. 

        If that were where the bill stopped, it would be almost entirely redundant to current law.  Let me repeat:  because all of the conduct described here already constitutes a deportable offense, this bill would ensure that no additional dangerous individuals would face immigration consequences.  Zero. 

        But as has been the case in every one of the dozen or so immigration messaging bills we have considered so far, this sloppy, poorly conceived, poorly drafted legislation has far-reaching and unintended consequences.  At least, I hope they were unintended.

        Because this bill includes overly broad definitions and lacks any waiver authority, it threatens to sweep in far more people than it should, including the survivors of domestic violence.

        Let’s break down the problem.  Sexual offenses and domestic violence are serious offenses, and if these bills fixed some gap in current law, I would have no problem supporting this legislation, but that is not the case here.

        First, the sexual offenses in the inadmissibility and deportability sections of the bill are largely redundant. All serious sexual offenses are already covered under current law. Currently, an individual is rendered deportable if they are convicted of an aggravated felony, which includes rape, sexual abuse of a minor, or a crime of violence, which is defined as any “offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person.”

        In comparison, this bill would render deportable those convicted of “sexual offenses” which is defined as “a criminal offense that has an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another.” These categories almost entirely overlap.

        Additionally, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a noncitizen who is convicted of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude, or a “CIMT,” is already subject to removal.  Crimes in which there is intent to cause bodily harm have long been considered CIMTs. 

        As such, people who are convicted of any crime where there is intent to cause bodily harm like sexual assaults, are deportable. The inadmissibility grounds for CIMT are even broader, as one can be deemed inadmissible by either being convicted of, or admitting to, acts that constitute a CIMT.

        Again, if that were all this bill did, it would simply be a waste of our time.  But even more significant concerns with this bill arise with the sections related to domestic violence.

        Under current law, people are deportable if they are convicted of domestic violence and other related crimes and can be deemed inadmissible if they commit the acts or are convicted of a CIMT where the domestic violence or related offense has intent to cause bodily harm. So, the crime of domestic violence is well covered by current law.

        However, this bill attempts to significantly expand the definition of domestic violence to include the Violence Against Women Act definition that is used for grants and funding.

        The current definition for domestic violence offenses under Title 18, which is what is currently used for deportability purposes, focuses on physical force.

        In contrast, the broader VAWA-based definition used in this bill would lead to more people being ineligible for status or subject to deportation, and would sweep in a broader range of behaviors, including criminal charges where there might be any coercive actions, including economic coercion and coercive control.  This will likely implicate survivors of domestic violence who have used violence in self-defense, or who were accused by their abusers and were either unable to defend themselves or pled guilty to avoid having to go through the court process.

        The VAWA definition was never intended to be used as a criminal statute or to capture only criminal behavior.  We know this because the statute specifically says it includes “a pattern of any other coercive behavior committed, enabled, or solicited to gain or maintain power and control over a victim, including verbal, psychological, economic, or technological abuse that may or may not constitute criminal behavior.” 

        And you do not have to take my word for it.  Nearly 180 National and Local groups as part of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence echo these same concerns in their letter opposing this legislation.  I ask unanimous consent to submit their letter for the record.

        By layering immigration consequences onto the existing challenges of talking about domestic abuse, this legislation will almost certainly create a chilling effect in immigrant communities with regard to the reporting of crimes of domestic violence.

        Further, this bill attempts to create a new ground of inadmissibility for domestic violence which does not require a conviction and does not have any of the exceptions that currently exist in the deportability grounds.

        Under current law, when an individual is convicted of domestic violence or stalking, and therefore becomes deportable, there are exceptions if the government finds that the individual is not the primary perpetrator, was acting in self-defense, or the crime did not result in serious bodily injury.  While domestic violence advocates have concerns about the effectiveness of these waivers, such waivers are not even an option in the new inadmissibility grounds under this bill, which means it would certainly lead to survivors being deemed inadmissible, given the expansive definition and no conviction requirement.

        That is why so many domestic violence organizations oppose this legislation.  We anticipate even more will voice their opposition if this bill ever makes it to the House floor.

        This bill is dangerous.  I wish my Republican colleagues would work with us to fix our immigration system instead of moving these pointless messaging bills and attempting to score cheap political points.  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and I yield back."

        That's his reason. I guess the rest had similar reasons.

        1. wilderness profile image91
          wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          Scanning through this it appears that the argument, simply put, is that "It is already illegal so we don't need another law".  Ordinarily I would agree in a heartbeat, but the fact is that just being here is illegal and a deportable offense, yet Democrats have for decades protected those violating the law and made efforts to bring more in.  Biden was particularly successful at that, yet no Democrats complained.

          So maybe we DO need more laws.  Get enough and maybe Democrats will accept that our borders really ARE borders and not to be violated at will.  I doubt it, but maybe...

          1. Willowarbor profile image59
            Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            You do understand that waiting within the country for an asylum claim to be resolved does not mean the individual is illegal?  No one supports illegal immigration. No one.

            1. wilderness profile image91
              wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              "No one supports illegal immigration. No one."

              Tell that to the sanctuary cities, all over the country and 100% being led by Democrats, that refuse to allow ICE to do their job.  Tell them that they do not support illegal immigration even as they take steps to do just that.  Explain it well enough and perhaps they will stop that stupid, illegal practice and live within the laws of our country.

              Heck, we might even get enough Democrats on board to do something about closing the loopholes that are making it so difficult to control our borders.  I doubt it, but hey, if they can understand that it is illegal to be here, illegal to work here, illegal to drive without a license or without insurance here maybe, just maybe, we can convince them that we should not be the dumping ground for the world's poor.  We might even be able to dissuade certain Democrats from doing whatever they can to bring more people into the country illegally.

              1. Willowarbor profile image59
                Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                There are no sanctuary cities that block immigration enforcement officers doing their job.  That would be illegal.  But do they have to take their own police force off the job to help these efforts? No they don't.

          2. Credence2 profile image81
            Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            Conservatives always complain about redundancy of laws proposed by the Democrats, I guess it is different now because it is Republicans that engage in redundancy?

            1. wilderness profile image91
              wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              Here, let me quote from my post that you must not have read: 

              "Ordinarily I would agree in a heartbeat <that it is a waste of time and effort duplicating something already there>, but the fact is that just being here is illegal and a deportable offense, yet Democrats have for decades protected those violating the law and made efforts to bring more in."

              Understand better now?

              1. Credence2 profile image81
                Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                While Republicans just sat around with their thumbs up their rectal orifices over the many years a comprehensive immigration plan has failed to ever be agreed upon?

                From that standpoint your explanation is as clear as mud.....

                1. wilderness profile image91
                  wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Can you point to a single Republican, conservative, controlled city that has decided they are a sanctuary city?  One that hampers the efforts of ICE intentionally and with intent to protect the criminals that inhabit our country? 

                  Just one?

        2. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          Island Bites and Sharlee thanks for the info. I did say that the legislation was ridiculously redundant, but herein lies another slight of hand by Republicans, and I change my mind about not finding a problem with legislation and agree with the Democrats opposition once you look closely atmunderlying intent. I always know that anything being promoted by the Right needs to be evaluated carefully as to what part of the truth that they conveniently omit.

          Alien. Any person not a citizen or national of the United States as the term “alien” is defined in section 101(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3)). This term may include a stateless person and is synonymous with “noncitizen” and “foreign national.”

          There is a difference between undocumented migrants that are on American soil illegally and Aliens, the first could well be a subset of the second. Aliens are non-citizens but are here legally for what ever reasons, diplomats, students etc. Trump has mentioned deporting those that, for instance, are involved in Anti-Israel protests. The term moral turpitude can cover almost any infraction Trump and Republicans wish it to. It is an excuse to criminalize dissent.

          So, I make a distinction regarding criminal behavior for illegals that already are here against the law verses the thousands of legal non-Us citizen residents, for whom I don't believe such policies should apply as they guests and should be afforded the same protections as American citizens.

          1. wilderness profile image91
            wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            How do YOU think we can make it crystal clear to those protecting and hiding foreign criminals so they are not being deported?  How do we tell them that if sexual crimes are committed against our citizens we WILL deport the perpetrator?  That it doesn't matter if that perp crawled under the barbed wire at the border at 2AM, it doesn't matter if they have a green card, a H1 VISA or even a diplomatic pass they WILL be deported (or jailed, I suppose, and then deported)?  How do we emphasize that being from a different culture does not give permission to harm our people?  We have large segments of our society fighting hard to hide criminals; how do you suggest we make it plain that such action is not acceptable?

            1. Willowarbor profile image59
              Willowarborposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              No one is" protecting and hiding "criminals, absolutely no one.

              1. Readmikenow profile image95
                Readmikenowposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                When a state or local government refuses to turn such people over to ICE for deportation what would you call it?

                Protecting and hiding does come to mind.

                1. Willowarbor profile image59
                  Willowarborposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Absolutely no one is refusing to turn over people who have deportation orders.  Can you provide even one such instance?  From a credible source?

                  1. Readmikenow profile image95
                    Readmikenowposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I'm sure once President Donald Trump takes office and Tom Holman gets busy with the "sanctuary" cities and states, we'll se plenty of it.

                    After January 20th, it will happen quite a bit.

              2. wilderness profile image91
                wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                Right.  The mayor that made a public announcement that ICE was coming; to go hide for a few days, was not "protecting and hiding criminals".  The cities/states that refuse to allow ICE to take criminals from prisons or courthouses for deportation are not "protecting and hiding" criminals. 

                We have differing ideas on what "protecting and hiding" means.

                1. Willowarbor profile image59
                  Willowarborposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  What mayor? And is there reporting of this?

                  A city or state can't block ice efforts.  That would be illegal and very easy to remedy if it ever happened but I see no evidence of that.

                  Cities have said that they will not use their own resources to aid ice but that is not blocking efforts...

            2. Credence2 profile image81
              Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              Why does it need to be made Crystal  clear while doubling down of the rights of people that are here legitimately? Criminal behavior is already illegal under current laws committed by non-citizens as with citizens alike.

              If there are differences defined by Rightwingers as moral turpitude, infractions that would not be dealt with harshly by the law against a citizen could be grounds for deporting legal immigrants. I want a simple distinction made, those that are here ILLEGALLY are of a different category from those that are non-citizens but are here legally. The law being hyped and showboated by Republicans treat the diplomat in the same way as an illegal migrant that otherwise does not have a valid exception for crossing our borders.

              So, I stand with the Democrats , as Republicans, as usual, operate from a natural position of deceptiveness.

              1. wilderness profile image91
                wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                "Why does it need to be made Crystal  clear"

                Because an awful lot of idiot liberals don't seem to understand that illegal is illegal, or that illegal actions require a response (beyond that of "Here let me help you in that illegal effort!").

                Personally, I don't have a problem deporting foreign citizens here LEGALLY that sexually harm our citizens.  Do you?  Do you want them to remain here so they can do it again or so that we can pay to incarcerate them?  Because I don't care if they have a green card, a visa or diplomatic immunity; if they harm our people kick them out!

                Of course, you mentioned "immigrants"; I presume you mean naturalized citizens born in a foreign country.  Can't deport them, but can surely  stick them behind bars.

                1. Credence2 profile image81
                  Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Trump is using this to remove legal immigrants or those non-citizen residents here legally for the grave infraction of legal protest against right wing politics, and define the justification "moral turpitude", a catch all for " your opinion is not welcome here", but from whose point of view?

                  So, what? You can stick American citizens behind bars for harming people. The Rightwinger is obtuse in its faulty reasoning. This blood sport against immigrants being so crime prone relative to the those American residents is just manufactured BS from the Trump crowd, that never could hold an ounce of water upon careful analysis.

                  What I am trying to get through to you is that this law makes it possible to deport non citizens for any perceived infraction, as manufactured by Trump and his Rightwingers, that would not be a crime for an American citizen.

                  1. wilderness profile image91
                    wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    You're going to have a really hard time proving that, as he has not deported a single citizen yet.  Not even a foreign citizen here legally.  Heck, he hasn't deported a single illegal alien yet!

                    Again, you will have to prove that it is intended, or used, to deport legal residents (non citizens) for perceived infractions that are not illegal.  Just saying so, through hate filled gritted teeth, is not sufficient.

              2. DrMark1961 profile image99
                DrMark1961posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                Did you stand for Democrats when they said “I want to know who they are, I want to have them on a registry, I want to deport the criminals..”
                That was Hillary Clinton discussing illegal immigrants when running for president back in 2016. Here it is from one of your biased msm news sources: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna20708865
                Or maybe Hillary was just being deceptive and trying to get votes? Dont the dems, as usual, operative from a natural position of deceptiveness?

                1. Willowarbor profile image59
                  Willowarborposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Are you serious? Who cares what Hillary said in 2016?  She's not currently in government and  the year is 2025....Trump and his followers incessantly look backward. 

                  We should be focusing on the looney tunes presser he held in his living room yesterday...

                  1. DrMark1961 profile image99
                    DrMark1961posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    It was a comment on Democrats and their willingness to lie to pander for votes, which we saw so clearly in the recent US election.
                    It is certianly not over as Biden and his cabal have been trying to destroy the US economy since they will soon be out of power. I realize you did not see that since you were on here so vociferously supporting all of their lies.

                2. Credence2 profile image81
                  Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  No, I leave the deception and lies to the experts, America's political Right. The rest of us are rank amateurs in comparison.

                  There is a difference in my mind between illegal immigrants and those that are not American citizens but are here legally. It is the Republicans that attempt to blur that distinction, I won't be so easily deceived by them.

                  1. wilderness profile image91
                    wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    "There is a difference in my mind between illegal immigrants and those that are not American citizens but are here legally."

                    I used to agree with you there.  Until liberals began training illegals how to take advantage of the unintended loopholes and Biden jumped on it with both feet, welcoming anyone that could mutter the word "asylum" as they crawled through the tunnels.

    2. TheShadowSpecter profile image75
      TheShadowSpecterposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      Well, I have this much to say.  Adam Schiff is a weirdo.  Nancy Pelosi is braindead and should resign from office.  Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is clueless.  Jennifer McClellan is a hypocrite.  Maxine Waters has lost her mind literally.  I don't know enough about the other Democrats who voted against this bill.  However, if any of them decide to run for president in future elections, this will certainly come back to haunt them.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image86
        Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        I have to agree—if any of them run, this vote will be all over the media. It’s hard to imagine anyone understanding why a representative would vote to keep migrants in the U.S. who have a criminal history involving sexual abuse. Yet, time and again, some Americans seem willing to defend migrants solely because of their migrant status. I wish the Biden administration had done a better job vetting migrants before releasing them into the country to await a hearing, instead of simply letting them stay. Criminals should be deported swiftly and decisively. Thank you for posting on this current issue.

        1. TheShadowSpecter profile image75
          TheShadowSpecterposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          I don't know much about Jerry Nadler, but I have seen him on C-Span during a Congressional session; and he acts as though he thinks he is some kind of king.  He needs to know that the United States kicked the monarchy to the curb over two centuries ago.  His voting against the bill regarding dangerous sex offenders entering the nation illegally doesn't offer me any reassurance that he is qualified to do his job.

  2. IslandBites profile image91
    IslandBitesposted 6 weeks ago

    "It’s hard to imagine anyone understanding why a representative would vote to keep migrants in the U.S. who have a criminal history involving sexual abuse."


    Good thing they didnt.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image86
      Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      "Passed House (09/18/2024)
      Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act

      This bill establishes certain criminal grounds for making non-U.S. nationals (aliens under federal law) inadmissible and expands the crimes for which a non-U.S. national is deportable.

      First, the bill establishes that a non-U.S. national is inadmissible if the individual has admitted to or is convicted of acts constituting the essential elements of stalking, child abuse, child neglect, child abandonment, a sex offense, conspiracy to commit a sex offense, a violation of certain protection orders, and domestic violence (including physical or sexual abuse or a pattern of coercive behavior when it occurs within certain close relationships).

      Next, the bill establishes additional grounds for deportation. Under current law, a non-U.S. national is deportable for certain criminal convictions, including domestic violence, stalking, and child abuse. The bill makes any sex offense (including crimes against minors) or conspiracy to commit a sex offense a basis for deportation. The bill also expands the domestic violence crimes that make a non-U.S. national deportable to include physical or sexual abuse or a pattern of coercive behavior when it occurs within certain close relationships."
      https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-con … -bill/7909

      The list is hopefully correct, there were many I could have missed one.

      1. Willowarbor profile image59
        Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        The bill was performative and did not do what Republicans claimed it would do.

        Specifically, it: did not add any new protections for victims of domestic violence.

        Did not add any grounds for deportation that do not already exist without this bill.

        Did not add any new grounds for denial of entry into the US that do not already exist without this bill.

        But the bigger problem is that it was drafted so broadly that it risked making being a victim of domestic violence grounds for inadmissibility or deportation.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image86
          Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          "But the bigger problem is that it was drafted so broadly that it risked making being a victim of domestic violence grounds for inadmissibility or deportation." Willow

          H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, does not contain language that makes being a victim of domestic violence grounds for inadmissibility or deportation. However, I’ve read Democrats’ concerns about how broadly such legislation could be interpreted or implemented.

          In my view, that perspective is bizarre—it’s like saying we need to prioritize a victim first and let a criminal remain free in the country. This mindset disturbs me. In my view, this shows skewed thinking.

          1. Willowarbor profile image59
            Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            "In my view, that perspective is bizarre—it’s like saying we need to prioritize a victim first and let a criminal remain free in the country. This mindset disturbs me. In my view, this shows skewed thinking."

            The bill, very simply, did not add any grounds for deportation that do not already exist.  No one is letting a criminal "remain free in the country"

  3. Sharlee01 profile image86
    Sharlee01posted 6 weeks ago

    Cred,

    "I have a lot more pressing needs to get rid of the GOP congress, maybe 2026?

    But, I will say that i see no reason for the Democrats to have voted against the bill. After all, is it not the goal of law enforcement to see that all illegal aliens are deported? Are they not already here illegally. There may have been a bit of redundancy and show boating on the part of Republicans, who I would have thought would know that the very fact that an illegal is on American soil is a crime itself outside of legitimate channels or exceptions, let alone any felonious infraction of our laws here." Cred

    Thanks for your comment.   My Op truly shares my view, as others posting represent their views. I hope the bill makes it to the floor of the Senate.  I am all for deporting any sex offender who is here asking for asylum.

    U.S. immigration law includes provisions that can deny asylum to individuals with a criminal history, including sexual offenses. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and immigration judges consider criminal records as part of the asylum application process. Specifically:

    Inadmissibility for Criminal History: U.S. law states that individuals who have been convicted of certain crimes, including sexual offenses, can be deemed "inadmissible" to the United States. This means they are not eligible to enter or remain in the country, even if they are seeking asylum.

    Criminal Grounds for Deportation: Even if someone has been granted asylum, they can be deported if they are later convicted of serious crimes, including sexual offenses, once in the U.S.

    Asylum Process Screening: Asylum seekers undergo a thorough vetting process, including background checks, during their application process. If they have committed serious crimes, including sex offenses, they are typically denied asylum. This vetting includes checks with databases such as INTERPOL, as well as immigration and law enforcement databases.

    1. Willowarbor profile image59
      Willowarborposted 6 weeks ago

      People complaining about the 158 Democrats not voting for H.R.7909 - Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act should actually read it.

      "UNDER CURRENT LAW, convictions for certain crimes, including crimes of moral turpitude, are grounds for inadmissibility and deportability."

      These laws already exist.

      Under INA 237(a)(2)(A)(v), of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — "[a]ny alien who is convicted under [18 U.S.C. 2250]" is removable.

      Under INA 237(a)(2)(A)(i): This provision mandates deportation for any alien who is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude [includes sexual offenses] committed within five years after the date of admission.

      Under INA 237(a)(2)(A)(ii): This provision mandates deportation for any alien who is convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude, not arising from a single scheme of criminal misconduct, regardless of whether confined therefor and regardless of whether the convictions were in a single trial.

      Under INA 237(a)(4)(B): This provision specifically addresses aggravated felonies, which include many sex offenses.

      Under INA 212(a)(2): This section outlines grounds of inadmissibility, including convictions for certain crimes, such as sex offenses.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image86
        Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        Under INA 212(a)(2): This section outlines grounds of inadmissibility, including convictions for certain crimes, such as sex offenses.

        Yes, current immigration laws already link immigration status with certain crimes of violence, including domestic violence, sexual offenses, and other crimes against women, but the specific mechanisms and scope vary compared to what H.R. 7909 proposes. Here's a breakdown:

        Current Immigration Laws and Crimes of Violence
        Immigration and Nationality Act (INA):

        Deportability for Criminal Convictions: Under Section 237(a)(2) of the INA, noncitizens are deportable if they are convicted of: Crimes of moral turpitude (e.g., domestic violence, stalking, child abuse).
        Aggravated felonies, which include rape, sexual assault, and other serious violent crimes.

        Domestic Violence Clause: The INA specifically makes noncitizens deportable if convicted of: Domestic violence, including physical violence or threats.Stalking or violations of protection orders.
        Inadmissibility:

        Under Section 212(a)(2) of the INA, noncitizens convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude or multiple criminal offenses are deemed inadmissible, barring their entry into the U.S.
        Mandatory Detention:

        Noncitizens convicted of certain violent crimes are subject to mandatory detention while undergoing removal proceedings.

        How Current Laws Compare to H.R. 7909
        Focus on Women:

        Current laws address broad categories of crimes, including domestic violence and sexual assault, but do not specifically emphasize women as victims.

        H.R. 7909 explicitly focuses on crimes of violence against women, creating a more targeted enforcement framework.
        Streamlining Deportation:

        Current deportation processes require conviction of a qualifying crime and often involve lengthy legal proceedings.

        H.R. 7909 proposes making deportation for these crimes more immediate or automatic, which could reduce procedural delays.
        Preventative Measures:

        Existing laws focus on deporting noncitizens after a crime is committed.
        H.R. 7909 emphasizes preventing entry for noncitizens with a history of violence against women, adding a layer of preemptive action not strongly enforced in current law.

        Challenges with Current Laws
        Critics of the current system argue that:

        Enforcement of deportation laws for violent crimes is inconsistent.
        Conviction-based deportation can take years due to backlogged courts and legal appeals.

        Some domestic violence cases may not meet the threshold for "crimes of moral turpitude" or "aggravated felonies," leaving gaps in enforcement.

        Existing Law: INA 237(a)(2)(A)(v)
        Scope of Removability:

        Under INA 237(a)(2)(A)(v), noncitizens convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2250 (failure to register as a sex offender) are deportable.
        This provision targets individuals who fail to comply with federal sex offender registration requirements and does not cover other forms of violence against women unless linked to sex offender registration.
        Limitations:

        This law requires a specific conviction under § 2250, meaning other violent crimes against women, such as domestic violence or sexual assault, may not trigger removability unless they fall under separate provisions
        .
        How H.R. 7909 Differs

        H.R. 7909 appears to address broader issues, with key differences that include:

        Expanded Crimes of Concern:

        H.R. 7909 specifically focuses on violence against women, including crimes like sexual assault, domestic violence, human trafficking, and stalking.

        It explicitly links these crimes to immigration consequences, broadening the scope beyond just failure to register as a sex offender.
        Direct Link to Immigration Consequences:

        The bill emphasizes the immediate or automatic deportation of noncitizens convicted of crimes of violence against women, streamlining the process and reducing procedural delays.

        This marks a shift from INA 237(a)(2)(A)(v), which requires specific conviction criteria and legal proceedings.
        Targeting Illegal Entrants:

        H.R. 7909 focuses on illegal aliens committing such crimes, creating a specific legislative framework to address these cases and potentially closing gaps in existing laws.

        Enhanced Deportation Priorities:

        The bill elevates these crimes to a higher priority for deportation, potentially bypassing the standard removal procedures for some categories of offenders.

        New Provisions or Protections:

        H.R. 7909 might include provisions that don't exist under INA 237, such as stricter requirements for identifying and deporting individuals already known to have committed violent crimes abroad.

        Why It Matters The critical difference is the broader and more explicit focus on crimes against women and the prioritization of deportation for such offenses. INA 237(a)(2)(A)(v) is limited in scope, while H.R. 7909 aims to provide a more comprehensive approach to addressing violence against women committed by noncitizens.

        All you offered regarding previous laws just do not cover what the new bill offers.

    2. Willowarbor profile image59
      Willowarborposted 5 weeks ago

      Fact...sanctuary city policies are in compliance with federal law.

      The Supreme Court has clarified that immigration enforcement is the sole duty of the federal government.

      1. wilderness profile image91
        wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        You are correct.  And building that new water treatment plant, or the new subway is the sole duty of the state, not the federal government.  So is buying local police equipment, the new library and that new school.  In fact, the feds owe the city/state almost nothing.  So give nothing for nothing in return.

    3. Readmikenow profile image95
      Readmikenowposted 5 weeks ago

      Jessica Vaughan from the Center for Immigration Studies has extensively researched the matter and explains:

      "These cities, counties, and states have laws, ordinances, regulations, resolutions, policies, or other practices that obstruct immigration enforcement and shield criminals from ICE—either by refusing to or prohibiting agencies from complying with ICE detainers, imposing unreasonable conditions on detainer acceptance, denying ICE access to interview incarcerated aliens, or otherwise impeding communication or information exchanges between their personnel and federal immigration officers."

      They are nullifying federal law that requires state and local government authorities to cooperate with ICE (see 8 U.S Code § 1373). The fact that the Biden-Harris administration accepts this systematic non-cooperation is hardly a surprise. But ending this unconstitutional activity must be a top priority of the next Trump presidency. Continuing to tolerate sanctuary zones, or just working around them, as all past Republican chief executives have done, seriously jeopardizes presidential authority to carry out needed large-scale deportations that the next administration must undertake.

      The illegal immigrants at issue have typically been arrested for local law infractions, everything from petty crimes to drunk driving to serious felonies. When it becomes clear, after the arrest, that a suspect foreigner has no right to be in the country, sanctuary government authorities simply refuse to notify ICE to ensure the illegal will not be deported.

      Consider New York City, long a sanctuary fortress nullifying ICE deportations. Currently, the NYC “undocumented population” has reached at least 770,000 people under Biden-Harris, and it continues to grow. Criminal acts and insecurity have hit the city hard, and even the New York Times is starting to question the policies. For example, the brutal Venezuelan gang known as Tren de Aragua has built overnight a sophisticated criminal network in the Big Apple, but still city authorities cling to sanctuary practices.

      Similar situations are playing out with foreign scofflaws all across big-city America. From Chicago to Denver, from Los Angeles to Atlanta, local authorities are zealots of the reckless notion that an illegal migrant who commits a crime should not be deported. This incredibly foolish public policy is major cause of the current implosion of our big cities and their communities.

      That is why the next Trump administration must eviscerate these destructive sanctuary zones. It is also a necessary first step in order to carry out an enhanced and comprehensive federal deportation policy. There are over a million illegals who already face federal deportation orders, and ICE, under the next Trump-run Department of Homeland Security, will begin by focusing on this dangerous illegal population group.

    4. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
      Kathleen Cochranposted 5 weeks ago

      Will we start with Trump?

     
    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)