Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or will
They show they care more about illegals than the American citizens?
Quote:
In the June 29 House vote, 166 Democratic legislators voted against “Kate’s Law,” but 24 Democrats voted for the law, which raises potential jail sentences for repatriated illegals who sneak back into the United States. The bill is named after Kate Steinle, an attractive young woman who was murdered by an illegal alien in 2015 who had returned to the United States multiples times after being sent home.
Only three House Democrats voted for the “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,” which also passed June 29. The sanctuary bill allows the federal government to withdraw several categories of funds from jurisdictions which hinder the enforcement of immigration law.
White House officials and immigration reformers from advocacy groups NumbersUSA and the Federation for American Immigration Reform are promising an intense P.R. campaign before the eventual Senate vote.
The dilemma facing the Democratic Senators was highlighted by TheHill.com, in an article about the Democratic Senators who will decide the bills’ fates:
A top House Democratic aide predicted that “Kate’s Law” would be used in campaign ads against vulnerable Democrats.
“The ad writes itself,” said the aide. “They’re gonna use Kate Steinle’s picture in a Willie Horton-style ad,” referring to a controversial 1988 TV ad used by President George H.W. Bush’s campaign against Michael Dukakis…
Their targets would likely include Democratic Sens. Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Bob Casey (Pa.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Jon Tester(Mont.) — each up for reelection next year in states won by Trump.
Notably, the article also quotes Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, who promised Democratic opposition — but did not predict that his party would stop both bills.
“Democrats are not going to stand for harsh anti-immigration measures, we’re not,” he said. “If they’re not willing to meaningfully dialogue with us about immigration reform, you’re not going to see us embracing their super-partisan anti-immigration bill.”
Yiu see Kaine say that and yet you still have libs going "why did people vote for Trump??" Hilarious
Lol. It's always about the Dems being obstructionist or doing the right thing.
Eight long years of Republicans obstructing and not doing the right thing at all. They could not have cared less about the 'right thing.'
Reap what you sow.
This is about "Kate's Law" not the continuing vendetta against Trump and Republicans.
The Dems have voted it down before. Do the Dems care more about possible votes by illegal aliens and their sympathizers or savings the lives of Americans? Votes!
This is about "Kate's Law" not the continuing vendetta against Trump and Republicans.
The Dems have voted it down before. Do the Dems care more about possible votes by illegal aliens and their sympathizers or savings the lives of Americans? Votes!
Maybe they care about the Constitution? I know, I know, they don't. But there is a Constitutional challenge having to do with due process.
From Rep Justin Amash R-MI
This bill unconstitutionally eliminates the opportunity for those charged with illegal re-entry to challenge the validity of a removal order. As noted above, the removal order is an element of the crime. In our criminal justice system, a person cannot be convicted of a crime unless the prosecution proves every element beyond a reasonable doubt.
If a defendant never has a meaningful opportunity to have a judge review her removal order and, under this bill, she is prohibited from challenging her removal order during the criminal proceedings for illegal re-entry, then she could be convicted of a felony without ever having had the chance to challenge whether the order to remove her—which is an element of the crime!—was legally valid. As the Supreme Court held in United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828 (1987), this would be a violation of the defendant's due process rights.
Under current removal procedures, this circumstance may be rare, but that is irrelevant to the fact that the Constitution secures the defendant's rights when this circumstance does arise.
Maybe they care about the Constitution? I know, I know, they don't. But there is a Constitutional challenge having to do with due process.
From Rep Justin Amash R-MI
This bill unconstitutionally eliminates the opportunity for those charged with illegal re-entry to challenge the validity of a removal order. As noted above, the removal order is an element of the crime. In our criminal justice system, a person cannot be convicted of a crime unless the prosecution proves every element beyond a reasonable doubt.
If a defendant never has a meaningful opportunity to have a judge review her removal order and, under this bill, she is prohibited from challenging her removal order during the criminal proceedings for illegal re-entry, then she could be convicted of a felony without ever having had the chance to challenge whether the order to remove her—which is an element of the crime!—was legally valid. As the Supreme Court held in United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828 (1987), this would be a violation of the defendant's due process rights.
Under current removal procedures, this circumstance may be rare, but that is irrelevant to the fact that the Constitution secures the defendant's rights when this circumstance does arise.
One RINO voted against the law and it should our minds on it? Lmao
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
