Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The past few decades of violence in the USA, mass killings etc, including the NOLA incident, have shown that the USA grows its own dangerous people very effectively. Dangerous people crossing the border won't amount to jack squat.Some dangerous people have crossed the border, so there is an aspect of Russian roulette if we continue to let it happen.
Will be very surprised if it’s days. Try hours.NO democrat should vote yes on this legislation until each and every one of them has read EVERY ... SINGLE ... WORD ... of the package. Plus, let's have an amendment-o-rama. How much do you wanna bet that this mega maga bill will be dropped days before consideration with zero input from Democrats.
"... The House previously passed the bill in March by a vote of 251-170, with 37 Democrats voting in favor. The bill was expected to pass again with bipartisan support.
... The bill will need 60 votes to advance through the upper chamber. Even with the Republicans' new 53-vote majority, it could prove difficult to court the necessary Democratic support to advance it.
So far, only one Democrat, Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, is reportedly co-sponsoring the bill, which is being led in the chamber by Sens. Katie Britt, R-Ala., and Ted Budd, R-N.C. It is unclear whether there will be requisite Democratic support to clear the Senate. ..."
House passes Laken Riley Act as first bill of new Congress
The House voted at 1 p.m. Tuesday on the Laken Riley Act as its first piece of legislation of the 119th Congress.abcnews.go.com
"This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain certain non-U.S. nationals (aliens under federal law) who have been arrested for burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. The bill also authorizes states to sue the federal government for decisions or alleged failures related to immigration enforcement.
The bill can be found here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7511
Summary:
"Under this bill, DHS must detain an individual who (1) is unlawfully present in the United States or did not possess the necessary documents when applying for admission; and (2) has been charged with, arrested for, convicted for, or admits to having committed acts that constitute the essential elements of burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting.
The bill also authorizes state governments to sue for injunctive relief over certain immigration-related decisions or alleged failures by the federal government if the decision or failure caused the state or its residents harm, including financial harm of more than $100. Specifically, the state government may sue the federal government over a
- decision to release a non-U.S. national from custody;
- failure to fulfill requirements relating to inspecting individuals seeking admission into the United States, including requirements related to asylum interviews;
- failure to fulfill a requirement to stop issuing visas to nationals of a country that unreasonably denies or delays acceptance of nationals of that country;
- violation of limitations on immigration parole, such as the requirement that parole be granted only on a case-by-case basis; or
- failure to detain an individual who has been ordered removed from the United States."
Surely you can't see the downside to letting Attorney General ramrouser from Alabama be able to sue the federal government for federal decisions which he disagrees with.Not that voting for Kari Lake was ever an option, but I did vote for Ruben and am glad to see him co-sponsor. A pretty safe move in AZ, but still.....
Surely I believe that being in the US, especially if you are here illegally, is a privilege, not a right and if you take advantage of that privilege, we should remove it.Surely you can't see the downside to letting Attorney General ramrouser from Alabama be able to sue the federal government for federal decisions which he disagrees with.
The question is whether that is all there is in the bill. On the surface, I understand what you're saying ,but you're not known for either the depth or breadth of your opinions. Where's the hook?Surely I believe that being in the US, especially if you are here illegally, is a privilege, not a right and if you take advantage of that privilege, we should remove it.
This isn't germane to the point raised.Surely I believe that being in the US, especially if you are here illegally, is a privilege, not a right and if you take advantage of that privilege, we should remove it.
Which could be attained by passing the law without the ridiculous rider which permits States to sue the federal government for making decisions explicitly within their Constitutional remit and explicitly outside those of the states.Surely I believe that being in the US, especially if you are here illegally, is a privilege, not a right and if you take advantage of that privilege, we should remove it.