158 Democrats Oppose Bill Deporting Noncitizens Convicted of Sex Crimes
“I mean, truly, because we’re talking about illegals who are here who are committing domestic violence, rape and murder on women and children — they’ve gotta go. They shouldn’t be allowed into our country.”
158 Democrats voted against a bill that would ensure “aliens who have been convicted of or who have committed sex offenses or domestic violence are inadmissible and deportable.”
The Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act (H.R.7909) bill was introduced by Republican Representative Nancy Mace.
In addition to deporting migrants convicted of sex crimes, the legislation would also deem illegal immigrants who admit to domestic violence or sex-related charges — or are convicted of them — to be inadmissible in the U.S.
It’s part of a wider legislative push by the House GOP to spotlight issues stemming from the border crisis, which has for months affected cities and states across the country.
Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., told Fox News Digital hours before the vote that she “100%” anticipated Democrats voting against her bill.
“If you vote against it, you’re sexist against women,” Mace declared.
“I mean, truly, because we’re talking about illegals who are here who are committing domestic violence, rape and murder on women and children — they’ve gotta go. They shouldn’t be allowed into our country.”
US House, in 266-158 vote, passed Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) bill that would designate noncitizens convicted of sex offenses or domestic violence inadmissible to and deportable from US.
R 215-0
D 51-158 pic.twitter.com/sYsegIQgjW— Greg Giroux (@greggiroux) September 18, 2024
U.S. House has passed a bill to deport illegal immigrants who commit sex crimes. Rep. Nancy Mace, R S.C. introduced the bill which passed 266-158
158 Dems voted against the bill
This comes as weekly, if not daily, heinous stories about vicious crimes committed by illegal aliens… pic.twitter.com/kFUkFut8kE
— Wid Lyman (@Wid_Lyman) September 19, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Under Harris these undocumented rapists will be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
You are insane if you really believe this.
Well, it sounds like Democrats are trying to award them a stay in this country.
Why is that?
Maybe Dems love their power more than they love our country.
Quit upvoting yourself.
Lol
No he isn’t, it isn’t even absurd enough to be a Babylon Bee headline
And you’re defective if you don’t recognize it as sarcasm.
Not recognizing sarcasm is where we draw the line on JR being defective?
Argyria, for example, has a lot of subtle symptoms, but smurfing out is the dead giveaway.
This should be the first talking point of every Republican who gets an on-air interview. Think of what this means to our country! They are saying, let anyone vote and as many times as they want. What scum! The Congress of yore would not believe the corrupt scum that occupies those seats today.
It should feature in a Trump campaign ad.
Not a surprise it seems that Democrats support criminals in general and especially love sex offenders.
It’s playing on the high ratings value of sex crimes, even when it’s only MeToo allegations.
Deport them for all crimes.
Including the felony of entering the country illegally. With prejudice.
They have already committed a crime , they are here illegally
Period
Take a moment and reflect that the overwhelming majority of the 158 d/prog members who voted in opposition to deportation of illegal aliens convicted of sex crimes or domestic violence would happily approve of using a mere allegation of DV to deprive US Citizens of their rights enshrined in the 2A, 4A, 5A, 6A and 14A.
These 158 d/prog members are more concerned with the potential deportation of illegal aliens convicted of DV and/or sex crimes than protecting the individual liberties and rights of US Citizens under our Constitution.
This seems to clearly point to where their priorities are and IMO offers another piece of evidence towards proving the ‘great replacement’ is less a theory than a practical reality.
Domestic violence, even if it means just a simple misdemeanor, like pushing your wife or girlfriend, if you are convicted, then you can lose your 2nd Amendment firearm rights for the rest of your life. Now such a conviction means that you can also be deported. This is overkill, and Republicans should not be supporting this.
Well, I am not an illegal alien, nor would I abuse my wife.
Illegals should be deported just for being illegals. Crimes should push them to the front of the ejection line.
Such a conviction SHOULD mean that you get deported.
What part of “illegal alien who shouldn’t even be here in the first place” are you not comprehending?
Let the d/prog and goobers like you reverse that argument, adjust your priorities and advocate that absent a conviction at a criminal trial no one’s 2A should be infringed. Heck argue your case that a DV misdemeanor should NOT result in loss of 2A beyond the length of the sentencing handed down…..but get those issues reformed before you go whining about deporting illegal aliens convicted of sex crimes and violent acts. You’d be more credible if you’d get your priorities in order and stop putting the deportation of criminally convicted illegal aliens ahead of the intrests of US Citizens.
If you can be deported, then by definition you are not an american. This is not your country and you have no right to be here. Commit crimes and void your presence
Illegal aliens don’t have Second Amendment rights to lose, Einstein.
Actually they do. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human right, that all people have merely by being people, just like the freedom of speech. And the fourteenth amendment says that the constitution protects the rights of all persons who are in the USA. That includes those here illegally.
There was a recent court decision that while they may have such a right, the second amendment doesn’t protect it because it says congress may only not abridge “the people’s” RKBA, and non-resident aliens aren’t part of “the people”. If this argument is valid, it would also apply to legal tourists and other aliens here legally but not as residents. But I’m not buying it.
Then by all means, let them exercise their right to bear arms in their home countries, not here.
That’s been the precedent since U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez in 1990.
They have a “human right,” but not here where they are uninvited.
It’s the same as the “human right to life” that a US citizen has if he is found unauthorized inside a nuclear facility, or even inside the Capitol building.
No, it isn’t. Verdugo-Urquidez is about the rights of people who are neither USAn (citizens or residents) nor in the USA. Mr Verdugo-Urquidez was a Mexican citizen, living in Mexico, whose rights were violated in Mexico. The only USA nexuses were that the violation was committed by the USA government, and that he was in the USA at the time that his rights were violated in Mexico. A majority of SCOTUS decided that the evidence obtained through this violation could be admitted against him.
(Note that the exclusionary rule is not required by the constitution, it was made up by SCOTUS; so it was open to the court to say, yes, you did have a protected right which was violated, and the government didn’t ought to have done that, but that it was not in the public interest to exclude the evidence thus obtained.)
Of course the cases were “different.” The crucial commonality was the use of the “community of peoples” criterion by SCOTUS. V-U was denied his argument because he wasn’t part of the US community. And so were illegal immigrants,
The point is that illegal aliens and tourists who are in the USA certainly do have their rights in the USA protected. I don’t think any court would say that that the government could search them or their premises in the USA with impunity. Suppose Verdugo-Urquidez had a home or a storage unit in the USA; wouldn’t the government need a warrant to search it?
And if so, then the same must apply to the second amendment.
Even when Israel was recruiting Jewish immigrants to populate the new country, they didn’t want criminals or the unemployable. They blocked the immigration of as many elderly and ill as they possibly could. They didn’t want non-productive people who would be a drain the public, even if they were Jewish.
Tell me why we should be obligated to accept any such people when they have no such associations with this country?
Even 51 House Democrats did not side with convicted sex offenders, You do.
Your fringe view is way outside the norm.
Keeps the Marxists no border invasion force going.
Shouldn’t we deport all illegal aliens? Surely all illegal aliens who commit any felony crime. Why the limit to sex crimes?
A surprise. My old rep in California, Swalwell voted yeh. My new rep in Texas voted yeh. No surprise there as he’s a Republican. Swalwell constituents love him. I have been to many of his meetings. Love fests with some exceptions like me. He has lied to my face. I got into a shouting match in the parking lot with his staff.
The stark contrast between the way Republicans and Democrats voted on this is a little surprising given how the Democrats promote themselves as the pro woman party. Evidently being pro immigrant, even pro criminal immigrant, trumps being pro woman. The immigration issue is the biggie. Perhaps the biggest and explains the intensity of the opposition against Trump. Follow the money. Who makes the big bucks off immigration?
It’s sometimes difficult to keep up with the constant shuffling of the intersectional hierarchy.
Especially when uninsured illegal aliens keep crashing their cars in the “intersectionality….”
Globalism is the overriding principle. No borders. Everything else is second.
I am opposed because it is not the death penalty on a streamlined schedule.
Come here to commit crimes you deserve to end up in a box.
Then Democrats have declared war on women. First they deny a woman’s existence and vote against protecting women in sports. Now they vote to keep sexual predator illegal aliens in the country. Republicans should pivot to this anytime they are asked about abortion.
And children. Never forget the Democrat War on Children (abortion, maleducation, sex trafficking, drugs and gender mutilations).
Democrat catechism includes protecting felons at the expense of law abiding citizens at all costs, coddling hostile foreign invaders at the expense of Americans at all costs, and micturating in the Wheaties of Americans at all costs. No surprises here.
Subotai Bahadur
Not democrats, communists.
The Harris Venn diagram of the two shows nearly complete overlap.
Here is a prime example of home broken the system is, Mace introduced this very simple one page bill on April 9, 2024, it has two committee hearings in May and sits until mid September.
The bill also states that the criminal activity “shall be grounds” for removal, it is not a mandate using the words like ordered, must. The dems including many high profile women can not bring it to themselves to support a very simple straightforward bill. They would rather protect criminal aliens over crime victims.
The vote summary
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024429
Will Schumer even bring it to the floor, it was sent to Durbin’s committee yesterday. It may die there and never get the floor. I want to hear Klobuchar, Hirono and Butler argue against this bill in committee.
“The bill also states that the criminal activity “shall be grounds” for removal, it is not a mandate using the words like ordered, must.”
You have that backwards. “Shall” is precisely the legal term of art used to indicate mandatory.
even better
Yep. “May” is the squishy one.
To me, “must” should be the same as or even stronger than “shall,” but I’ve been instructed that’s just not proper legal cant.
Also, “will” has next to no legal value.
they should have to serve max time in the usa prisons first
and then deported
otherwise they ae just going to be released by the gov there and sent right back here
Why create a burden on the taxpayer? Deport them, deport them again (and again) if they reenter the country.
Dip them in permanent blue dye to make reoffenders easy to spot.
I see no evidence that the Border Patrol is any more efficient at denying illegal entrance to any color as opposed to any other.
every deportation cost money
and I never ever believe the stat on how much it costs to keep a prisoner incarcerated
Deportation is still cheaper than support.
If they need to cut their costs, I can give them the phone numbers of several cruise lines I know who are experts at it.
Where’s the tard from yesterday (not you, JR) that was posting about Trump’s shortcomings? Meanwhile, his entire party is defending illegal alien rapists on record.
Debating sex crimes with a Democrat is like debating water with a fish:
“What’s water?”
“If you vote against it, you’re sexist against women,” Mace declared.”
A hackneyed cheap shot… and therefore incredibly effective with the low-information Democrat voter.
Engineer intersectional collisions.
You’re right it’s not that simple. They are also guilty of trying to import future voters that they can buy off.
This may not be the problem we think it may be. Black Americans are the people being replaced (and, to a lesser degree, Hispanic Americans). They’re waking up to that. This can be leveraged by Republicans (it seems some of those being replaced are already catching on to the MAGA movement) to balance out the votes of the replacements.
But the reason this works for the Democrats is the same reason it won’t help Republicans: the Democrats have replaced the blacks with a much larger cadre of illegal voters. The Republicans get the blacks now? They’re moot now.
I wish I could say I was at all surprised about this, but the only surprise was that it wasn’t unanimous among democrats.
If that ain’t a line in the sand, I do not k ow what one is.
Too bad we have a republic where many voters are lo-info and don’t read legal insurrection, et. al., nor would even under stand where we are at even if they did.
Is there a shortage of sex crimes in DC? Or are they hoping to make the perpetrators a protected class? ‘Cause Epstein had a lot of friends.
I think there is. We need to send them lots moar immigrant buses so they can have a “Market of Sweethearts” of their own in every DC neighborhood.