criminal illegals such as rapist like Laken Riley murder/rapist from being detain in Laken Riley act.
264-159. All republican voted for it.
7 Likes
Shame on the 159.
4 Likes
I was interested to know why some Democrats voted against if and Grok provided the following which makes for interesting reading
The Democrats’ decision to vote against the Laken Riley Act can be attributed to several reasons, based on the context provided by various sources:
-
Political Exploitation: Several Democrats criticized the bill as an attempt by Republicans to exploit the tragic death of Laken Riley for political gain, particularly in an election year. They argued that the bill was more about scoring political points than addressing immigration or public safety effectively. For instance, Representative Jerry Nadler accused Republicans of using the legislation as a “partisan stunt” to target immigrants.
-
Policy Concerns: Critics of the bill, including some Democrats, pointed out that the legislation would expand mandatory detention for immigrants charged with even minor offenses like shoplifting, without the need for conviction. This could lead to increased discrimination and mass incarceration without due process. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights opposed the bill, highlighting these concerns about mandatory detention and its implications for civil rights.
-
Lack of Comprehensive Approach: There was a sentiment among some Democrats that the Laken Riley Act was narrow in scope, focusing only on detaining immigrants charged with theft-related crimes rather than addressing broader immigration or border security issues comprehensively. They felt that the bill did not offer a holistic solution to border security or immigration policy but was instead a reactive measure to a single, though tragic, incident.
-
Political Strategy: Some posts on X suggested that Democrats voted against the bill to avoid giving political ammunition to Republicans, especially in light of the upcoming elections, where immigration is a hot-button issue. There was also an implication that Democrats might have different priorities or strategies regarding immigration policy, which might not align with the punitive measures proposed by the Act.
-
Resource Allocation: Democrats argued that expanding detention without providing more resources to the Department of Homeland Security could be inefficient and potentially harmful, especially at a time when resources were already stretched thin. This concern was voiced by Representative Nadler, who highlighted the lack of resources for existing policies.
-
Legislative Strategy: There were also strategic considerations within the legislative process. For instance, the bill’s passage in the House was seen as unlikely to gain traction in the Senate, which was under Democratic control at the time of initial votes, indicating that some Democrats might see it as symbolic rather than a feasible policy change.
These reasons collectively explain why a significant number of Democrats voted against the Laken Riley Act, viewing it as politically motivated, lacking in comprehensive policy solutions, and potentially detrimental in terms of civil rights and resource allocation.
Sounds to me all they’re doing is making excuses.
9 Likes
so what? Known and well-established law-breakers and law-evaders should be held over until a judge can decide ther terms of their release. That is why we have judges.
5 Likes
There should definitely be zero tolerance for any type of crime while someone is staying here as a privilege.
6 Likes
Right, so they cops should hold them until the judge can decide what to do with them.
Hopefully, the judge will decide to old them (or place them on high bail, or a ankle locator etc.) until a verdict and possible sentence can be determined.
1 Like
An apartment manager would kick a tenant out for stealing a mere soda out of the vending machine. A fast food manager would fire an employee for stealing a single dollar. No one wants a thief in their neighborhood or business. An immigrant deserves nothing more.
2 Likes
Exploitation…Is Latin for Democrat.
Look it up.
2 Likes
This was not meant as a broad enforcement reform. Essentially, it simply prevented another Biden like government from ignoring illegal aliens who commit crimes. It is a bare minimum. And Democrats wouldn’t even support a bare minimum mandatory enforcement of our Immigration laws.
Shame.
6 Likes
On a lighter note . . . .
3 Likes
I’ll bet that seagull flew over the border from Canada.
1 Like
What a bunch of Democrat BS, I swear they have no shame. The only civil rights they care about is their own and their potential voters. They don’t care about the civil rights of dead Americans at the hands of illegals.
1 Like
or
they’re just scum
1 Like
it doesn’t matter what the judge does. They should be detained, and if detention space is unavailable, wait in a 3rd country. Only those we deem a benefit to the US should be paroled.
Which have an effective range of zero meters…
1 Like
Opposition is summed up in that phrase.
The rest is feckless attempts at justifying their TDS.
1 Like
For any given crime allegation from traffic violations, to shoplifting to fighting in the street
- There is a chance the accused is innocent.
- There is a chance the accused is guilty but there is not sufficient evidence to convict.
- There is a chance the acused is guilty and the penalty assesed will be a small fine.
- In cases involving accused illegals there is a chance they are nto even here illegally.
Because each of these is a possiblity,
we give judges the power to decide if a person should be held pending trial.
That’s why we have judges. Far away central authorities passing blanket laws 10 years ago is not always a good approach.
The potential deportee would get all the due process they are entitled to at the deportation hearing. The state has to show they have no legal right to be in the country.
This is not a criminal proceeding requiring a burden beyond a reasonable doubt.
1 Like
innocence is not a factor.
immigration law dictates ALL illegal aliens should be detained, wait in a third country, or if we decide it will be a benefit to the US released into the country. They do not have to break any laws to be subject to immigration law.
3 Likes
