New Way Forward Act

:rofl: Are you defending these sick journalists that pushed the Russian collusion lie?

No, I’m pointing and laughing at Tucker Carlson.

1 Like

OK…So ridicule the messenger, but dont provide any information at all on the accuracy of the message, or in this case the actual act. That is exactly why I included the act from congress.gov. You have absolutely nothing to refute on the actual act, you just dont like that publicized it…

He didn’t push that lie, but OK you do you.

Yes, I’m ridiculing this:

Carlson’s “take on it” is worth less than garbage.

How does this section strike you?

TITLE VII—RIGHT TO COME HOME

SEC. 701. RECONSIDERING AND REOPENING IMMIGRATION CASES.

(a) In General.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Attorney General—

(1) shall grant a motion to reconsider or reopen proceedings pursuant to paragraph (6) or (7) of section 240(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)) with respect to any alien who—

(A) on or after April 24, 1996—

(i) was ordered removed, deported, or excluded; or

(ii) departed the United States pursuant to a grant of voluntary departure under section 240B of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229c) (regardless of whether or not the alien was ordered removed, deported, or excluded); and

(B) demonstrates that the alien—

(i) would not have been considered inadmissible, excludable, or deportable under the immigration laws (as defined in section 101(a)(17) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17))) if this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, had been in effect on the date on which such order was issued or the voluntary departure took place; or

(ii) would have been eligible to apply for relief from removal, deportation, or exclusion under such laws if this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, had been in effect on the date on which such order was issued or the voluntary departure took place; and

(2) shall deem an alien who makes the demonstration under paragraph (1)(B) as not having been removed, deported, excluded, or departed, and as not having failed to depart under a voluntary departure order, for all purposes under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).

(b) Previously Filed Application; Previous Motions To Reopen Or Reconsider.—The Attorney General may not reject or deny a motion to reconsider or reopen under subsection (a) because—

(1) the alien did not include a copy of any previously filed application for relief; or

(2) the alien had previously filed a motion to reopen or reconsider.

(c) Deadline.—The deadline described in paragraphs (6)(B) and (7)(C)(i) of section 240(c) of the Immigrations and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)) shall not apply to a motion to reopen or reconsider under this section.

(d) 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.

(e) Physical Presence Requirement.—For the purpose of applications filed subsequent to reopening under this section pursuant to section 240A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b), or any other application for relief under the immigration laws (as defined in section 101(a)(17) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17))), removal, deportation, exclusion, or voluntary departure shall not be considered to toll any physical presence requirement.

(f) Judicial Review.—Notwithstanding any other provision of the Immigration and National Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), any denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider submitted pursuant to this section is subject to de novo judicial review in a Federal district court having jurisdiction over the applicant’s residence or, in the case of an applicant who was removed from the United States, the last known residential address of the applicant in the United States.

The government spends money on many dumb things, and this seems like one of them. :man_shrugging:

So how many illegals do you think have been kicked out since 1996? And the Dept of Homeland Security will be responsible for the travel back to the US for every one of them. Further, when the get back here, they must be released and paroled.

This garbage piece of legislation was put forward and co-sponsored by 43 dems.

And you guys wonder why Trump is President.

2 Likes

Where does it say that?

Who does? I certainly don’t.

Ok. So is he lying about the proposed bill, or is this just a profile of him for personal reasons?

They want this conversation to end because it makes the Democrats even more disgusting then they already are for funding Obama’s spygate!

The worst part is, if an illegal alien commits a crime and is deported, that information will not be allowed to be put into our national criminal database. In other words, if I murdered someone that crime would be incorporated into a national crime information center database. However, if an illegal alien does the same and is deported for that murder, that information is not allowed to be retained by any law enforcement database. So when someone does come back across the border, the border officials and immigration will have no previous history on them. Now extrapolate that to someone who comes through Mexico to enter the country illegally, commits an act of terrorism, is deported and then simply comes back across our border.

PRESUMPTION OF RELEASE.—In a hearing under this subsection, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the alien should be released. The Government shall have the duty of rebutting this presumption by clear and convincing evidence based on credible and individualized information that establishes that the use of alternatives to detention will not reasonably assure the appearance of the alien at removal proceedings, or that the alien is a threat to another person or the community. The fact that an alien has a prior conviction or a criminal charge pending against the alien may not be the sole factor to justify the continued detention of the alien.

1 Like

The OP brought up Carlson’s opinion as if it’s supposed to be meaningful:

Anything that comes out of Carlson’s mouth makes me suspicious.

Thanks. I certainly disagree with this part.

you’re deplorable!

1 Like

Where are these “Mexican judges”?

Good Lord.

Pretty bad.

Cartels will not believe their good fortune.

The bill doesn’t do any of that, but again you could read the bill you linked it yourself in the OP and see that.