Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
VAWA has been a disaster to Americans and a huge boon to immigrants.
I've done dozens of divorces with an underline by VAWA. An American man marries a foreign woman. She alleges abuse. Nothing has to be proved, just alleged. Now she becomes self-petitioning and no longer needs an American spouse. Not only that, but under VAWA she is entitled to emotional and moral support for her entire family so she can bring them all over there (at her husband's expense) and become the petitioner for their immigration too. However it started out, it has become just one more big scam.
VAWA act has what exactly to do against these kinds of divorces, which are essentially civil matters, and that type of gaming the system went on long before 1995.
Women could not become self-petitioning nor could they be a sponsor for a relative. That's the change. At one time, lose an American spouse and it's a quick trip to deportation. We still deport widows if they lose a huband before the process is complete. Now they can bring their entire family here. They don't need an American spouse or an American friend. Just an allegation that they are the victim of abuse. Since these women are "poor" the cost of bringing the family here is borne by the working American spouse.
For Americans who are suckered in, it has been a complete disaster, total.
Perhaps you can show the code in the VAWA where you can support your claim.
Well, that is a good start.
You might google up a few articles to demonstrate your assertion that there is widespread opposition (there is) which also, interestingly enough, explains the various apples of discord the Democrats have tossed into the bill. Such as giving Indian tribes the right to prosecute non tribal members, granting rights under the act to illegals, and giving protections to Lesbians from acts by their partners.
Usually, when you start a thread like this, you should include enough basic information so that people know what you are going on about, plus a couple quotes from the people involved as to their reasoning.
I found pages of stuff where the issues were discussed. You could have included at least one republican quote from at least one of them.
Rhetorical questions about weird acronyms don't help move the debate forward. In order for there to be a useful discussion, you need facts and clear statements.
The next time you pull a stunt like this, a rhetorical question about an obscure issue with no facts anywhere, it goes to the rubber room.
So in order for me to start a thread, I have to educate people who don't know about it? I did my research before I started it. Perhaps you ought to do yours before you opine.
Okay, so I read the article that you linked to, and I read it twice. I didn't see anyting about domestic violence declining 53% since passage of the act. I saw that Alaska's rate of rape is 2.6 times the national average, probably because this article is from the Fairbanks, AK newspaper. I also read that Senator Grassley's opposition to the bill had more to do with AN AMENDMENT aimed at organizations that receive federal money not discriminating based on 'sexual orientation?' Now what the hell does that sort of amendment have to do with violence against women?
Really? I mean can you be more of a political hack? I didn't think so...
Talk about doing a one-and-a-half into an empty pool...
"Nobody opposes the reauthorization of this legislation," Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Senate Republican, told CNN. "If you follow the Judiciary Committee work on it, the questions had to do with the additions that have been made to this bill related to illegal immigrant visas, related to the additional sums of money and grants that would be available and the like.
"So what Republicans are focusing on is how to make a bill that should be reauthorized functional in this day and age of significant budget constraints so we can still accomplish the goals of the legislation," Kyl continued. "I really resent the implication by some of my Democratic friends that if you're trying to improve the bill that somehow you are for violence against women. That's reprehensible."
It's Dick Tuck. He's both.And by assuming, you made an ass of yourself.
It is NOT the same bill as always. See my previous post.
Learn from this experience.
And you got that off the Brainfart (RIP) blog? So you think that the fact the bill explicitly states that even those who are undocumented ought to able to have police protection is a compelling reason to allow this important bill to lapse. Yeah, tell me again how Republicans aren't trying to set back women's rights.
the fact that you've had your error in the OP (making a claim without offering proof) pointed out by 3 different posters... and utterly refuse to understand the problem... shows you to be a simpleton or a partisan hack.
Which are you?
what's their excuse now? Do they not believe that domestic violence is a problem that needs to be dealt with? Is this just another part of their war against women? In the past, the vawa was a law that had bipartisan support. Even with 59 singatories, including republican sens. Lisa murkowski (ak), olympia snowe (me) and susan collins (me), mark kirk (il), scott brown (ma) and mike crapo (id), the gop is blocking the vote for reauthorization.
Google VAWA, and you'll pull up 598,000 hits, with at least the top 100 dealing with the current news event.
are you really too stupid to understand the point?
YOU made claims. It is not MY job to research them. It's YOURS.
It's common practice on the board that when you make a claim, you post a link to a source backing up what you say, and not just say 'Trust me' or 'google it to see I'm right'.
It is immaterial that we can also research your claims. We should not HAVE to, unless we take exception to them or the source posted... in which case we WILL research the claims.
Again, are you simple too stupid to understand this basic board principle???
Read the OP simpleton. I made no claims. I was asking for opinion on why the GOP suddenly decided to block the Violence Against Women Reauthorization.
You gotta cut Dick some slack. He's utterly incapable of independent thought, and can only perform as programmed.And by assuming, you made an ass of yourself.
It is NOT the same bill as always. See my previous post.
Learn from this experience.
And you got that off the Brainfart (RIP) blog? So you think that the fact the bill explicitly states that even those who are undocumented ought to able to have police protection is a compelling reason to allow this important bill to lapse. Yeah, tell me again how Republicans aren't trying to set back women's rights.
And there it is. The left's "war on women tactic" exactly as described.
He's a leftist. If he says it, he believes it, and that's all the proof he needs.Dick Turd,
Your -9 neg rep didn't hurt nearly as much as my -260 to you did......but I'm sure you feel satisfied, and that's all that really matters to a liberal. As to your message telling me to educate myself before I post.......that's the job of the OP if he doesn't want to get rediculed, belittled and schooled in his thread for being a totally clueless douche. Do have a great day!
I honestly do not think he understands the concept of 'prove what you post'.
No one else has said it yet, I believe, so I will:So they might not need sheltering from abusive spouses, and small communities might not need grant money to provide that sheltering? I suggest you read the bill. You can find the text at the link I provided upthread. This is not a federal law against abusing your partner. It's a public law to provide services to the abused and training for counselors, police, and parole officials.
Why did Democrats have to dick with it then? Why do they hate women?
It's Grassly and the GOP that are dicking with it. In the case of most crimes, undocumented folks are granted visas to remain here as witnesses. The GOP wants to make exceptions to those victims of domestic crimes.
No one else has said it yet, I believe, so I will:Why did Democrats have to dick with it then? Why do they hate women?
It's Grassly and the GOP that are dicking with it. In the case of most crimes, undocumented folks are granted visas to remain here as witnesses. The GOP wants to make exceptions to those victims of domestic crimes.
You've been presented proof that what you say is wrong. Yet you still repeat it.
That makes you a liar.
Eeeeew. Just...eeeeew.No one else has said it yet, I believe, so I will:It's Grassly and the GOP that are dicking with it. In the case of most crimes, undocumented folks are granted visas to remain here as witnesses. The GOP wants to make exceptions to those victims of domestic crimes.
You've been presented proof that what you say is wrong. Yet you still repeat it.
That makes you a liar.
dick tuckeduphisass is having an affair with TDM.
are you really too stupid to understand the point?
YOU made claims. It is not MY job to research them. It's YOURS.
It's common practice on the board that when you make a claim, you post a link to a source backing up what you say, and not just say 'Trust me' or 'google it to see I'm right'.
It is immaterial that we can also research your claims. We should not HAVE to, unless we take exception to them or the source posted... in which case we WILL research the claims.
Again, are you simple too stupid to understand this basic board principle???
Read the OP simpleton. I made no claims. I was asking for opinion on why the GOP suddenly decided to block the Violence Against Women Reauthorization.
And you were answered, the democrats put garbage in the bill. Or is it your contention that we should rubber stamp everything the dems demand?
Eeeeew. Just...eeeeew.No one else has said it yet, I believe, so I will:
You've been presented proof that what you say is wrong. Yet you still repeat it.
That makes you a liar.
dick tuckeduphisass is having an affair with TDM.
Read the OP simpleton. I made no claims. I was asking for opinion on why the GOP suddenly decided to block the Violence Against Women Reauthorization.
And you were answered, the democrats put garbage in the bill. Or is it your contention that we should rubber stamp everything the dems demand?
Expanding the bill isn't garbage and is worthy of discussing.
what's their excuse now? Do they not believe that domestic violence is a problem that needs to be dealt with? Is this just another part of their war against women? In the past, the vawa was a law that had bipartisan support. Even with 59 singatories, including republican sens. Lisa murkowski (ak), olympia snowe (me) and susan collins (me), mark kirk (il), scott brown (ma) and mike crapo (id), the gop is blocking the vote for reauthorization.
b/c it's a waste of fucking time and money you fucking moran!
what's their excuse now? Do they not believe that domestic violence is a problem that needs to be dealt with? Is this just another part of their war against women? In the past, the vawa was a law that had bipartisan support. Even with 59 singatories, including republican sens. Lisa murkowski (ak), olympia snowe (me) and susan collins (me), mark kirk (il), scott brown (ma) and mike crapo (id), the gop is blocking the vote for reauthorization.
b/c it's a waste of fucking time and money you fucking moran!
Domestic violence is down 53% since the law was first passed. I guess that spending money for an outcome like that is a waste in your eyes. Sorry, but I can't support your pro-wife beater position.
What do you expect from someone who took his screenname from an admitted liar?b/c it's a waste of fucking time and money you fucking moran!
Domestic violence is down 53% since the law was first passed. I guess that spending money for an outcome like that is a waste in your eyes. Sorry, but I can't support your pro-wife beater position.
dick tuckeduphisass is quite thoroughly dishonest.
Many small communities don't have the resources for shelters for battered women or training of police and parole officers on how best to deal with it.
This is a Federal issue, then?
You commies just don't get it.
LOL
According to this article, domestic violence is down 53% since the initial passage of the law. It also states that it's law enforcement that requested the number of visas be increased from 10,000 to 15,000 to encourage reporting and fighting sexual assaults and domestic abuse crime. Yeah, this sounds real communist to me.
