Deportation Bill

[mspart]

6 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Does, or does not, a law already exist on the books to do just that?

Immigration law, as written and codified, is not being followed.   That's why we have an illegal alien problem.   There is already law to not let that happen but when the executive branch is derelict in their duty to uphold the law, you need to re address the situation.

mspart

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, mspart said:

Immigration law, as written and codified, is not being followed.   That's why we have an illegal alien problem.   There is already law to not let that happen but when the executive branch is derelict in their duty to uphold the law, you need to re address the situation.

mspart

Not to mention sanctuary cities flipping their noses at federal law 

[mspart]

Yes, I would create a bill to give no federal assistance to cities, counties, and states if they are not assisting federal law enforcement with regard to illegal aliens.  It would withhold all funding.   I doubt anyone will do that but it should be done.  

mspart

[Wrestleknownothing]

It surprises me, though it really should not, that you guys just cannot recognize the flaw in your thinking. You claim that the existing law is not being enforce therefore it makes sense to have a new, nearly duplicate law.

If existing laws are not being enforced then what difference does it make if you have one, or a dozen new identical laws? Since you are struggling with the concept I will answer for you. It makes no difference.

If it makes no difference then why are they doing this? My guess would be that they are playing a game of gotcha to generate selective outrage. If so, Mission Accomplished.

Now as to whether the existing law is being enforced. How are you sure it is not? https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-arrests-275-noncitizens-sex-offense-convictions-during-nation-wide-law

[mspart]

You are correct.   But with that logic, why have any laws at all if the exec branch can determine which ones they will enforce and which ones they will not.   But by passing a new law with support of most of the people int he country it sends a message.   Anger will follow if it is not enforced.   I think that is the power in a new law. 

mspart

[Wrestleknownothing]

49 minutes ago, mspart said:

You are correct.   But with that logic, why have any laws at all if the exec branch can determine which ones they will enforce and which ones they will not.   But by passing a new law with support of most of the people int he country it sends a message.   Anger will follow if it is not enforced.   I think that is the power in a new law. 

mspart

But the existing law IS being enforced.

[mspart]

Hence we have millions of illegal aliens that have crossed the border from 2021 thru 2024.   It is only recently being more enforced because the tide turned on that fiasco and the American people finally woke up.  They are woke some might say but not in the way it is usually used. 

mspart

[Wrestleknownothing]

6 minutes ago, mspart said:

Hence we have millions of illegal aliens that have crossed the border from 2021 thru 2024.   It is only recently being more enforced because the tide turned on that fiasco and the American people finally woke up.  They are woke some might say but not in the way it is usually used. 

mspart

You are changing the subject. If you want tl debate a different thing, fine. But I am talking about the original topic.

[mspart]

The original topic is the Deportation Bill.   You said we already have laws.   True, but not being enforced.   I just gave you a reason why it might be  necessary to have a new Deportation Law (the current4 bill and topic of this thread) and you say I am changing the subject.   Perhaps I'm changing what you want to talk about but I am perfectly on topic. 

mspart

[Bigbrog]

14 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

You are changing the subject. If you want tl debate a different thing, fine. But I am talking about the original topic.

Instead of debating semantics, why don't you answer the question(s)...should or shouldn't illegals be deported when they commit a sex crime?  Or better yet, should or shouldn't illegals be deported even if they didn't commit a sex crime?

[ionel]

I have heard reported that existing law will be enforced on Tuesday. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

2 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

Instead of debating semantics, why don't you answer the question(s)...should or shouldn't illegals be deported when they commit a sex crime?  Or better yet, should or shouldn't illegals be deported even if they didn't commit a sex crime?

This is what I am talking about. Your original post was about outrage. "Every single D voted against deporting illegal immigrants that have been convicted of sex crimes...seriously WTF???  How in the heck is this even a partisan issue??" And it was factually incorrect on several points.

• Every single D did not vote against the proposed law.
• No D that voted against the proposed law voted against deporting illegals that commit sex crimes, because there is already a law on the books that handles that exact situation. This was pointed out in the article that you posted and I quoted.

But instead of owning your errors you want to double down.

And then you, and others want to distract by pretending that the existing law is not being enforced. But, of course it is.

With that out of the way, yes, I think illegals who commit sex crimes should be deported. What's more, I am very glad that there is already a law to handle that very situation. And I am grateful that the law is being enforced.

No, I do not think all illegals should be deported. And if you do, then be prepared to deal with the inflation that so many here thought was such a problem before the election.

[Husker_Du]

WKN, you're going thru a lot mental gymnastics to defend utterly idiotic, nonsensical democrats who voted (several times) in an insane manner.

the only thing you're right on is that there is, in fact, laws already on the books and every time they were broken or unenforced it was by a democrat admin, official or organization.

if Virginia Tech is out of compliance and has too many Men's athletes compared to Women, they don't receive federal or state aid.

but cities and states that break federal law suffer no penalties.

withhold government funding for breaking immigration laws and watch how quickly these virtue signaling pigs fall in line. 

[Le duke]

WKN, you're going thru a lot mental gymnastics to defend utterly idiotic, nonsensical democrats who voted (several times) in an insane manner.
the only thing you're right on is that there is, in fact, laws already on the books and every time they were broken or unenforced it was by a democrat admin, official or organization.
if Virginia Tech is out of compliance and has too many Men's athletes compared to Women, they don't receive federal or state aid.
but cities and states that break federal law suffer no penalties.
withhold government funding for breaking immigration laws and watch how quickly these virtue signaling pigs fall in line. 

Because Title IX requires that.

Whereas the SCOTUS has repeatedly made it clear that immigration enforcement is a function of the federal government, not the states or city governments.

Why did they do that? Because the 10th Amendment is pretty clear. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Per Scalia, the federal government “may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.”

So, it’s pretty clear that the federal government can’t withhold funding for a thing the states can’t be compelled to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Offthemat]

There are and there aren’t.  As I understand it.  There are federal laws that say illegals can be deported for sex crimes, this one said they shall be.  As crazy as it sounds, there have been instances where they weren’t. 

[Caveira]

https://www.dailysignal.com/2015/07/24/illegal-immigrant-sex-offenders-are-escaping-deportation-not-having-to-join-sex-offender-registry/amp/
 

We recently learned that in one eight-month period in 2014, more than 8,100 deportable aliens were released by sanctuary jurisdictions. Of those, three thousand were felons and 62 percent had a prior criminal record. Nineteen hundred were later rearrested a total of 4,300 times on 7,500 different offenses.