Way Forward Act - No Ability To Deport Or Detain Immigrants? (1 Viewer)

Joe Bryant · Feb 10, 2020

This is making the rounds among my conservative friends. It's Tucker Carlson and FOX News so I would not expect it to be unbiased.

Can you guys shed light on this?

https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/tucker-new-way-forward-act-would-make-it-nearly-impossible-to-detain-immigrants

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," February 7, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Good evening and welcome to TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT. Last night on this show, we told you about what may be the single most extreme and disruptive piece of legislation ever to gain widespread support in the Congress in the history of this country.

It's called the New Way Forward Act. It's before Congress right now and has been for almost two months.

And yet so far it has been essentially ignored by the country's major media outlets, which are either too embarrassed of it or too ignorant to cover it.

That's a disservice to you, because it's nearly impossible to describe just how radical this bill is. If passed, it would remake our immigration system for the expressed purpose of helping foreign born criminals live here.

The bill would allow people who have committed serious felonies in other countries to move to the United States legally. It would make it nearly impossible for Federal immigration officials to detain immigrants, no matter how potentially dangerous they are.

And perhaps most infuriatingly, and remarkably, it will require taxpayers to transport deported criminals back into the United States.

In other words, you break our laws, you hurt our people, we will send you a plane ticket. We will pay for you to come back.

******

Rest of transcript here.

The Commish · Feb 10, 2020

Probably best to have the actual text of the proposed bill, that isn't even out of committee yet. Read for yourself and judge whether Tucker's being honest.

Marauder · Feb 10, 2020

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr5383

I don't see anything like what you quoted in the text of the bill but regardless, this bill has very little chance of becoming law. govtrack gives it a 4% chance but that seems high. It would never pass in the republican senate.

Joe Bryant · Feb 10, 2020

The Commish said:
Probably best to have the actual text of the proposed bill, that isn't even out of committee yet. Read for yourself and judge whether Tucker's being honest.

Yes I scanned and thought I'd ask here if others had opinion. I got lost in the details on the original bill.

When Tucker says the bill has "44 co-sponsors", what does that mean exactly? What does it mean to co-sponsor a bill?

timschochet · Feb 10, 2020

And perhaps most infuriatingly, and remarkably, it will require taxpayers to transport deported criminals back into the United States.

In other words, you break our laws, you hurt our people, we will send you a plane ticket. We will pay for you to come back.

If we're gonna do this, then dammit I want sharia law imposed as well.

McBokonon · Feb 10, 2020

Marauder said:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr5383

I don't see anything like what you quoted in the text of the bill but regardless, this bill has very little chance of becoming law. govtrack gives it a 4% chance but that seems high. It would never pass in the republican senate.

You're right, of course, but the point of Tucker "reporting" on it is to show that if the country lets Democrats win the Senate and White House, they'll pass legislation like this and before you know it, your family will be eaten by packs of rabid Guatemalans.

Joe Bryant · Feb 10, 2020

McBokonon said:
You're right, of course, but the point of Tucker "reporting" on it is to show that if the country lets Democrats win the Senate and White House,

Agreed. I think that's a really good point. And one Tucker would totally agree with. I think he's saying, "This is insane. And the only thing keeping it from happen is Republican control of the Senate". Now I have no idea if what he's saying is accurate or not. But that's what I think he's saying.

Mister CIA · Feb 10, 2020

Joe Bryant said:
Yes I scanned and thought I'd ask here if others had opinion. I got lost in the details on the original bill.

When Tucker says the bill has "44 co-sponsors", what does that mean exactly? What does it mean to co-sponsor a bill?

You got lost in this?:

III

Limit Criminal-System-to-Removal Pipeline

301.

Criminal offenses and immigration laws

(a)

Inadmissibility based on criminal and related grounds

Section 212(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)) is amended—

(1)

by striking subparagraph (A); and

(2)

by redesignating subparagraphs (B) through (I) as subparagraphs (A) through (H), respectively.

(b)

Deportability based on criminal offenses

Section 237(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) is amended—

(1)

in subparagraph (A)—

(A)

by striking clauses (i) and (ii);

(B)

by redesignating clauses (iii) through (vi) as clauses (i) through (iv), respectively; and

(C)

in clause (iv), as so redesignated, by striking Clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) and inserting Clauses (i) and (ii);

(2)

by striking subparagraph (B); and

(3)

by redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (F) as subparagraphs (B) through (E), respectively.

302.

Definitions

(a)

Aggravated felony

Section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)) is amended—

(1)

in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking means— and inserting means a felony, for which a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years was imposed, that is—;

(2)

in subparagraph (F), by striking for which the term of imprisonment at least one year;

(3)

in subparagraph (G), by striking for which and all that follows through year;

(4)

in subparagraph (J), by striking , for which a sentence of one year imprisonment or more may be imposed;

(5)

in subparagraph (P)—

(A)

by striking (i); and

(B)

by striking and (ii) for which the term of imprisonment imposed (regardless of any suspension of such imprisonment) is at least 12 months;

(6)

in subparagraph (R), by striking for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year;

(7)

in subparagraph (S), by striking , for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year; and

(8)

by striking the last sentence.

(b)

Conviction

Section 101(a)(48) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)) is amended—

(1)

in subparagraph (A), by striking court and all that follows through to be imposed. and inserting the following: court. An adjudication or judgment of guilt that has been dismissed, expunged, sealed, deferred, annulled, invalidated, withheld, or vacated, or where a court has issued a judicial recommendation against removal, or an order of probation without entry of judgment or any similar disposition, shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this Act. No judgment on appeal or within the time to file direct appeal shall be deemed a conviction for the purposes of this Act.; and

(2)

in subparagraph (B)—

(A)

by inserting only after deemed to include; and

(B)

by striking or confinement and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting ordered by a court of law. Any such reference shall not be deemed to include any suspension of the imposition or execution of that imprisonment or sentence in whole or in part..

(c)

Particularly serious crime

Section 208(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1158)(b)(2)(B)(i)) is amended to read as follows:

(i)

Conviction of aggravated felony

For purposes of clause (ii) of subparagraph (A), section 241(b)(3)(B), or any other provision of this Act, only an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony for which a term of imprisonment of not less than five years was imposed shall be considered to have been convicted of a particularly serious crime.

.

(d)

Applicability

The amendments made by this section shall apply to—

(1)

admissions and conduct occurring before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act; and

(2)

convictions and sentences entered before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

IV

Restore Judicial Discretion and End Removal Without Due Process

401.

Immigration procedural changes

(a)

Decision and burden of proof

Section 240(c)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229(c)(1)(A)) is amended by inserting after the period at the end the following: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an immigration judge may grant any relief or deferral from removal, including withholding of removal, to any individual who is otherwise eligible for such relief but for a prior criminal conviction, or the commission of or a finding of the commission of other conduct described in section 212(a)(2), 237(a)(2), or 237(a)(3), if the immigration judge finds such an exercise of discretion appropriate in pursuit of humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest..

(b)

Removal of aliens who are not permanent residents

Section 238 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1228) is amended—

(1)

by striking subsection (b); and

(2)

by redesignating the first subsection (c) as subsection (b).

(c)

Reinstatement of removal orders against aliens illegally reentering

Section 241(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(a)) is amended—

(1)

by striking paragraph (5); and

(2)

by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs (5) and (6), respectively.

(d)

Special rules relating to continuous residence or physical presence

Section 240A(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1229b(d)) is amended—

(1)

by striking paragraph (1);

(2)

by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively.

(e)

Judicial review of orders of removal

Section 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252) is amended by striking subsection (a)(2)(C).

Joe Bryant · Feb 10, 2020

timschochet said:
And perhaps most infuriatingly, and remarkably, it will require taxpayers to transport deported criminals back into the United States.

In other words, you break our laws, you hurt our people, we will send you a plane ticket. We will pay for you to come back.

I don't know where he's getting this. Can anyone tell from the bill? Is he just completely making it up?

Joe Bryant · Feb 10, 2020

Mister CIA said:
You got lost in this?:

Sorry. But yes. :bag:

The Commish · Feb 10, 2020

Joe Bryant said:
Yes I scanned and thought I'd ask here if others had opinion. I got lost in the details on the original bill.

When Tucker says the bill has "44 co-sponsors", what does that mean exactly? What does it mean to co-sponsor a bill?

They are the ones listed at the very beginning of the bill as the authors I believe:

Mr. García of Illinois (for himself, Ms. Jayapal, Ms. Bass, Ms. Pressley, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Velázquez, Ms. Haaland, Ms. Tlaib, Ms. Escobar, Ms. Omar, Ms. Garcia of Texas, Mr. Espaillat, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, Ms. Judy Chu of California, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Rush, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Takano, Ms. Barragán, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Meng, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Serrano, Ms. Clarke of New York, Ms. Norton, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Mr. Vargas, Mr. Cárdenas, Mr. Brown of Maryland, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Correa, and Mr. Meeks) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

Joe Bryant · Feb 10, 2020

The Commish said:
They are the ones listed at the very beginning of the bill as the authors I believe:

Thank you. Forgive my ignorance of Civics, (I'm working mostly off of the Schoolhouse Rock "I"m a Bill... On Capital Hill... here.

) but how does this process usually work with the co-sponsors? These are legislators that signal their approval of a bill as it's considered?

The Commish · Feb 10, 2020

Joe Bryant said:
Thank you. Forgive my ignorance of Civics, (I'm working mostly off of the Schoolhouse Rock "I"m a Bill... On Capital Hill... here. ) but how does this process usually work with the co-sponsors? These are legislators that signal their approval of a bill as it's considered?

Correct...and sometimes will have input into the authorship of the bill. The list I provided you was incorrect Here is a list of the co-sponsors. The other list is the list of authors.

Ilov80s · Feb 10, 2020

From what I can tell, this change allows immigrants to POTENTIALLY be admissible if they have committed only 1 crime. Currently, 1 crime of moral turpitude or a controlled substance is an automatic no.

Sand · Feb 10, 2020

Joe Bryant said:
Agreed. I think that's a really good point. And one Tucker would totally agree with. I think he's saying, "This is insane. And the only thing keeping it from happen is Republican control of the Senate". Now I have no idea if what he's saying is accurate or not. But that's what I think he's saying.

This is true and no doubt Tucker is using a bit of hyperbole - it's his hallmark and he's good at it. I do wonder why we need this bill, though, other than typical political posturing around election time. It has no chance of becoming law, so by definition it's posturing by the blue team. We are already the most immigrant friendly country in the world and if we can still be selective inside that envelope then we should be. Why lower our standards if we can get good immigrants without the criminal records?

This kind of reminds me of the recent immigrant farm workers bill. With robotics for this coming along incredibly quickly there wasn't a need for this bill, either. This labor category will resolve itself inside the next decade or so.

Marauder · Feb 10, 2020

Here's Ayanna Pressly's argument in favor of it.

https://pressley.house.gov/media/press-releases/reps-pressley-garc-jayapal-and-bass-introduce-new-way-forward-act-fight

I haven't fully digested the nuances of the bill and I'm not really inclined to spend the time to do that but I thought I'd post the other side of it.

The Commish · Feb 10, 2020

Sand said:
This is true and no doubt Tucker is using a bit of hyperbole - it's his hallmark and he's good at it. I do wonder why we need this bill, though, other than typical political posturing around election time. It has no chance of becoming law, so by definition it's posturing by the blue team. We are already the most immigrant friendly country in the world and if we can still be selective inside that envelope then we should be. Why lower our standards if we can get good immigrants without the criminal records?

This kind of reminds me of the recent immigrant farm workers bill. With robotics for this coming along incredibly quickly there wasn't a need for this bill, either. This labor category will resolve itself inside the next decade or so.

Please help raise the bar of our political discourse by not settling for this sort of behavior. This isn't how this is supposed to work. In a functioning Congress, things are actually hashed out between the groups via compromise and rewriting portions of the bill. We are told all the time that there is no way to "know" one's true motives, which is technically true. Here though, we have an opportunity to find out via their actions, but this notion that since the Senate won't pass it (stated as a fact with no real basis in anything substantive) then the Dems are posturing is tired....really tired. It takes two to tango.

Sand · Feb 10, 2020

The Commish said:
Please help raise the bar of our political discourse by not settling for this sort of behavior. This isn't how this is supposed to work.

There is no point in whitewashing the truth in the name of "raising the political discourse". These two bills are election cycle fodder. If you disagree with the statement feel free to offer a counterpoint, but we can save the chiding for another time.

If it makes you feel any better this is a direct analogue to the red team's repetitive "repeal ACA" bills that went nowhere. Posturing.

FBG26 · Feb 10, 2020

Joe Bryant said:
Mister CIA said:

You got lost in this?:

Click to expand...

Sorry. But yes.

I think Mister CIA was being sarcastic (but I could be wrong) as these bills are really only comprehensible if you have the statue in front of you and see what is being added/stricken. No shame in not following.

Joe Bryant · Feb 10, 2020

FBG26 said:
I think Mister CIA was being sarcastic (but I could be wrong) as these bills are really only comprehensible if you have the statue in front of you and see what is being added/stricken. No shame in not following.

Thank you. I agree with you.

parasaurolophus · Feb 10, 2020

Marauder said:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr5383

I don't see anything like what you quoted in the text of the bill but regardless, this bill has very little chance of becoming law. govtrack gives it a 4% chance but that seems high. It would never pass in the republican senate.

Plenty of it is actually in there.

Also if i am reading that correctly i am pretty sure it makes the US one big sanctuary city.

It prohibits local law enforcement from detaining illegals.

The Commish · Feb 10, 2020

Sand said:
There is no point in whitewashing the truth in the name of "raising the political discourse". These two bills are election cycle fodder. If you disagree with the statement feel free to offer a counterpoint, but we can save the chiding for another time.

If it makes you feel any better this is a direct analogue to the red team's repetitive "repeal ACA" bills that went nowhere. Posturing.

There was no "chiding"....that you selected pieces of my post tells me what I need to know...it was worth the shot. What I bolded is not the standard for "posturing" :shrug:

parasaurolophus · Feb 10, 2020

Joe Bryant said:
I don't know where he's getting this. Can anyone tell from the bill? Is he just completely making it up?

Transportation.—The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide transportation for aliens eligible for reopening or reconsideration of their proceedings under this section, at Government expense, to return to the United States for further immigration proceedings and shall admit or parole the alien into the United States.

this bill would be retroactive to 1996. If i am reading the bill correctly anybody that was deported or left voluntarily after 1996 would now be able to appeal using these new provisions, if they applied.

That would mean that if somebody was detained by local law enforcement ten years ago and then deported, they would now be able to appeal that deportation since it would be retroactively illegal for local law enforcement to have detained them.

AAABatteries · Feb 11, 2020

FBG26 said:
I think Mister CIA was being sarcastic (but I could be wrong) as these bills are really only comprehensible if you have the statue in front of you and see what is being added/stricken. No shame in not following.

Of Liberty or another one? That’s pretty far for me to travel so I may just sit this one out.

FBG26 · Feb 11, 2020

AAABatteries said:
FBG26 said:

I think Mister CIA was being sarcastic (but I could be wrong) as these bills are really only comprehensible if you have the statue in front of you and see what is being added/stricken. No shame in not following.

Click to expand...

Of Liberty or another one? That’s pretty far for me to travel so I may just sit this one out.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. :bag:

Van Dyman · Feb 11, 2020

FBG26 said:
AAABatteries said:

FBG26 said:

I think Mister CIA was being sarcastic (but I could be wrong) as these bills are really only comprehensible if you have the statue in front of you and see what is being added/stricken. No shame in not following.

Click to expand...

Of Liberty or another one? That’s pretty far for me to travel so I may just sit this one out.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

He was ribbing you about the typo.

Way Forward Act - No Ability To Deport Or Detain Immigrants? (1 Viewer)

Guide

Footballguy

Footballguy

Guide

Footballguy

Footballguy

Guide

Footballguy

Guide

Guide

Footballguy

Guide

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Guide

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread