I laugh at how some people use the term bipartisan. It makes it sound like both sides supported it. Reality is 47 of 50 senate republicans voted against it and the 4 who supported it only did so because they felt something was better than nothing.
Trump's Immigration plan
- Thread starter baltimorened
- Start date
Isn’t that exactly how our government is supposed to work? You’ll never get 100% buy in from everyone, so you compromise and try to win over as many votes as you need
Semantics
A person crossing our border anywhere other than an approved port of entry has committed an illegal act.
18 U.S.C. 1325 criminalizes unauthorized entry into the United States. The primary offense is entering or attempting to enter the country at a location other than a designated port of entry. This means any noncitizen who crosses the border without inspection violates federal law, regardless of intent or circumstances. The statute also applies to those who use fraudulent documents or misrepresent facts to gain entry.
Last edited:
Sure but that's not the point.
Assume there were 218 republicans and 217 democrats. Now assume republicans try to pass a bill and 217 republicans vote for it and one against. Also assume 216 democrats vote no and 1 crosses over a votes yes. The bill passes 218-217. Would you call that bipartisan or would you claim that republican rammed it through?
To me the term bipartisan indicates mutual cooperation and compromise. I consider a vote where 99% of one party votes one way and 99% of the opposing party votes the other way to be extremely partisan.
For what it's worth, any Citizen (not just non-citizen) who enters or attempts to enter at a location other than a port is violating federal law.
Andrew Callaghan (Channel 5 news YouTube) tried this last year. He went to Mexico, hired folks there who supposedly specialize on getting people over the border, and got caught. He was arrested for not entering at a port of entry even though he's a citizen.
I think it becomes bipartisan when the authors of the bill are both Republican and Democrat. Anything else is just kind of performative, imo.
If someone crossed the border illegally and did not get asylum. I agree that they are illegal. Those people should be removed with one caviat. if they’ve been here for many years and are paying taxes. I think you should let them stay.
if they crossed the report of entry, and we’re granted asylum, they are not illegal. If they crossed the border, not at a port of entry, but then turned themselves into an immigration officer and were granted asylum, They are not illegal.
The commiecrats were mass granting millions asylum with no checks at all. ******* that. They must go home. The US is currently past capacity for immigration.
That's fine but they still get due process. It's in the Constitution. You don't get to just the Constitution when it suits your ******* needs. I know that's how you do it with the Bible, hypocrite.
Immigration cases are civil rather than criminal proceedings, and aliens have limited due process rights as defined by Congress and Supreme Court precedents. Those rights differ depending on whether aliens are trying to enter this country or are already here, legally or illegally, as well as their visa or other status. Federal immigration statutes bar aliens from asserting certain claims in federal courts, prohibit any federal court from reviewing specified federal government actions such as the Attorney General’s enforcement of deportation orders, and limit which federal courts have jurisdiction over particular alien claims. Federal courts assuming jurisdiction over such banned, prohibited, or limited claims are violating federal law, and the Supreme Court, if necessary, should tell them so.
Due process process in this case is a one way ticket home and possibly a swift kick in the @$$ as a bonus.