Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

And here we go again.. new bills!

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • And here we go again.. new bills!

    Now the house is considering several fragments of H.R.4437 for quick passage. One would think that "removing gang members and dangerous criminals" is a very good thing, that at last these provisions will enhance the security of the country, but there's little new to this bills, in fact, it's mostly a political move.
    Take the "Removal of Gang Members" for instance. Gangs are defined as specific groups to be designated and published in the Federal Register, just like terrorist groups. So, aliens would be deported or inadmissible if they are "members" and the alien has committed or has conspired to commit "gang crimes" (also defined). Note how these gang crimes are serious crimes (all of them felonies) and most of them are also CIMT's.
    INA already incorporates provisions for removal and inadmissibility of aliens who have committed CIMT's. Moreover, INA incorporates a provision for inadmissibility of those who intent to "commit serious criminal activity". So, what's the change here?
    Confusion, that's the change. While a CONOF could easily deny on reason to believe grounds for serious criminal activity related to gangs (criminal association, 371 conspiracies, controlled substances violations) now there's doubt is a gang-related denial could be effected if the particular group is not yet designated but the offenses are clearly gang-related. In short, there's absolutely nothing new about this gan-related bill, only the confusion it will create on consular officers and the additional expenses associated with the study, designation and publishing of criminal groups. While INA has nothing to gain and lots to lose out of these new provisions, it's a certain group of politicians who stand to gain a boost in their campaigns out of these redundant legislation.
    The House of Representatives is a very capable body, so it's hard to understand that instead of engaging in negotiations over the Senate bill, the House decides to go with a redundant, superficial approach hoping to benefit their own political interests.

  • #2
    As you've already pointed out, it's a tactics to score election points. They are playing to their base in order to get reelected.

    Comment


    • #3
      The House alone will not pass a bill into law, there's a lot more required by the legislative process. But that is marginal to the point here.
      All you hear the House talk about is "security" and "dangerous aliens". That's a great concept and needs to be enforced by REAL measures. When the Cuban adjustment program was created, for instance, Castro (a known terrorist himself) stated that he would empty all prisons and send his felons to the U.S. So there's no way to tell if a person, who SHALL be granted adjustment as a MATTER OF LAW, is a criminal or not. That is a CLEAR security danger and nobody talks about it. And don't forget TPS that extends to citizens of other countries, most of them countries that support or sponsor terrorist activities.
      Getting "some action done" is not some marginal provision that will have little effect and will only create confusion.

      Comment


      • #4
        And listening to the remarks of the Chairman stating that the INA requires a conviction for a crime, read it a victim, before the alien can be rendered inadmissible is just wrong. The INA very clearly and without ambiguity states:

        Security and related grounds.-
        (A) In general.-Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in-
        (ii) any other unlawful activity.

        That doesn't only cover gang crimes but ANY unlawful activity regardless of nature. What part of that is NOT clear?

        Comment


        • #5
          I am well aware of the legislative process. This bill is going nowhere, but that doesn't stop some politicians from taking advantage of what they perceive to be an opportune situation.

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm not aware of any provisions in the package that makes illegal presence a criminal offense, it only relates to those involved in "criminal street gangs" and expedited removal of criminal aliens unable to obtain a waiver AND who entered the U.S. without inspection. However, the definition of "criminal street gangs" is to be applied directly by officials, without any background in criminal law, and does not require an advisory opinion by any law enforcement agency regarding a matter that s clearly criminal in nature and different in every geographic region of the nation.
            The Chairman stated almost every time he took the floor that republicans wanted prevention and democrats wanted victims to take action. Really? In the package, for a group to be considered a gang there has to be criminal activity involved not once BUT TWICE, and at least a CRIME OF VIOLENCE. So I guess those who suffered the impact of such criminal activity REQUIRED to render a group a gang are not victims after all.
            Moreover, the package is nothing but a political move. Both the DHS secretary and his predecessor have stated that border control cannot be achieved without a guest worker program. They're saying that with knowledge of the problem, so every time the House declines to consider such program they're, in fact, compromising border security.
            The talk about the "american people" is now reduced to just that, words with little meaning. Take the famous border fence for example. Why spend billions on a border fence when DHS ALREADY CONTRACTED with a private company to implement a virtual fence? If you have one fence you do not need the other, it's as simple as that. But voters sometimes do not understand the concept of a "virtual fence" so the House passed the "fence act" knowing that it will never be completely implemented and knowing that DHS is best served, as the secretary stated, by technological improvements that meet the demands of a 21st century law enforcement agency.
            This is a desperate and somewhat disorganized attempt to change the mind of the american voter.

            Comment


            • #7
              QUOTE< "a desperate and somewhat disorganized attempt to change the mind of the american voter">

              Houston, what f-u-c-k-i-n-g planet do you live on when you write this b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t?? The american voter wants the security first before we reward deadbeat illegals such as yourself. If you put every single opinion and issue aside and you ask yourself one simple question..."how is giving 15 million immigrants legal status before securing the borders going to make the US safer?".........the answer is, it will just make a bad situation worse.When there is amnesty and no tightening of the borders, more and more people will come and within these people there will be terrorists. The illegals don't give a s-h-i-t about this country as evident by their pathetic marches.......they only care about number one and circumventing the law.........The Bush administration is simply dead wrong on this issue and the democrats only care about more potential voters.

              Comment


              • #8
                Sealed borders are one thing, and we all agree with that, but "quick bills" and "last minute agendas" are not the solution to a problem that you agree is of vital importance.
                The House is indeed capable generating great pieces of legislation, bright minds are abundant and the history of achievement is lengthy. But if these bills are more than a political move and have a genuine goal, why would they pass "LEGISLATION" that has almost no chance of becoming law, almost lacking any actual legal effect but to "remind law enforcement that under CURRENT LAW they may at their own discretion participate in the enforcement of immigration law"? This so-called "law" does not change anything, modify anything or alter anything; this is clearly not a law or even part of any statute. Anybody in DHS could have written official communication that would, perhaps more effectively, achieve the very same result but without delay requiring no approval by the Senate or any other legislative body. The objective of such legislation is clearly not to alter or improve the law, but to serve as a political tool to claim action in the eyes and minds of voters.
                The political "talk" mentions that the new gang bill requires no victims and prevents crime instead of waiting for an alien to act criminally to be removed. At the same time, the statute does require criminal activity, not a regular misdemeanor involving moral turpitude but a "crime of violence" along with other serious felonies. What kind of crime of violence requires results in no victim?
                Aliens involved with gangs activities already fall into the criminal 212(a)(2) category of inadmissibility, under the provisions related to the RICO act and those related to money laundering and organized crime, but most of them already also fall into the more severe category related to terrorism. Gang activity is in fact a cancer of society and I agree with most Courts that consider gang activity as acts of domestic terrorism. The gang-related provisions have zero impact in the process and create redundancy. Recently ICE launched several operations to remove aliens involved in gang activities and those with outstanding removal orders; they couldn't have done that if the tools did not exist.
                With all due respect, I don't agree that adding statutes that effectively read "remember you may enforce the law if you want" are serious enhancements to national security.
                The problem requires careful consideration and the issue at hand being critical to national security, as some here seem to acknowledge, shouldn't be used for political gain.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Houston:
                  Sealed borders are one thing, and we all agree with that, but "quick bills" and "last minute agendas" are not the solution to a problem that you agree is of vital importance.
                  The House is indeed capable generating great pieces of legislation, bright minds are abundant and the history of achievement is lengthy. But if these bills are more than a political move and have a genuine goal, why would they pass "LEGISLATION" that has almost no chance of becoming law, almost lacking any actual legal effect but to "remind law enforcement that under CURRENT LAW they may at their own discretion participate in the enforcement of immigration law"? This so-called "law" does not change anything, modify anything or alter anything; this is clearly not a law or even part of any statute. Anybody in DHS could have written official communication that would, perhaps more effectively, achieve the very same result but without delay requiring no approval by the Senate or any other legislative body. The objective of such legislation is clearly not to alter or improve the law, but to serve as a political tool to claim action in the eyes and minds of voters.
                  The political "talk" mentions that the new gang bill requires no victims and prevents crime instead of waiting for an alien to act criminally to be removed. At the same time, the statute does require criminal activity, not a regular misdemeanor involving moral turpitude but a "crime of violence" along with other serious felonies. What kind of crime of violence requires results in no victim?
                  Aliens involved with gangs activities already fall into the criminal 212(a)(2) category of inadmissibility, under the provisions related to the RICO act and those related to money laundering and organized crime, but most of them already also fall into the more severe category related to terrorism. Gang activity is in fact a cancer of society and I agree with most Courts that consider gang activity as acts of domestic terrorism. The gang-related provisions have zero impact in the process and create redundancy. Recently ICE launched several operations to remove aliens involved in gang activities and those with outstanding removal orders; they couldn't have done that if the tools did not exist.
                  With all due respect, I don't agree that adding statutes that effectively read "remember you may enforce the law if you want" are serious enhancements to national security.
                  The problem requires careful consideration and the issue at hand being critical to national security, as some here seem to acknowledge, shouldn't be used for political gain.
                  Houston,
                  Sealed borders and allowing immigrants who want to come here to learn, live, work, and play while keeping out those who want to come here for "destructive purposes" is what most people agree on. However, how to accomplish those goals differ greatly amoungst the American people. The bills you cited are a prime example for immigration restricitonist agenda that will bog down the current process or greater affect most aliens who are from Guatamala, Honduras, Costa Rica, China, Thailand, Philippines, and others.

                  As you pointed out, and i agree BTW, that most of these bills are immigtant restrictionist under the mantra of "immigration enforcement." But I do believe that you are overreacting on these new bills since they are dead on arrival in the Sanate anyway. The Senate has until the month of December to pass the bill and have the president sign it before the 109th slips into history. And I do not believe the Senate will act quickly unlike the Terry Shivo bill that passed in Congress relatively quickly. There is enough, I believe, to fillibuster the bill. Besides, the President, being a lame-duck, has nothing to lose and nothing to gain if Pres Bush vetoes the bill, which may also happen.
                  "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

                  Comment

                  Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                  Home Page

                  Immigration Daily

                  Archives

                  Processing times

                  Immigration forms

                  Discussion board

                  Resources

                  Blogs

                  Twitter feed

                  Immigrant Nation

                  Attorney2Attorney

                  CLE Workshops

                  Immigration books

                  Advertise on ILW

                  EB-5

                  移民日报

                  About ILW.COM

                  Connect to us

                  Questions/Comments

                  SUBSCRIBE

                  Immigration Daily



                  Working...
                  X