Montrovant
Fuzzy bears!
How many attempts to move toward “Satanic Globalism” have there been?
The New Way Forward Act (the Dem bill NOW pending in Congress to replace the U.S. Constitution!)
- Thread starter The Purge
- Start date
buckeye45_73
Lakhota's my *****
- Jun 4, 2011
- 33,888
- 7,486
- 1,130
Very true, so I stopped calling them liberals, they are leftists....some call them statists....either works.
buckeye45_73
Lakhota's my *****
- Jun 4, 2011
- 33,888
- 7,486
- 1,130
You mean one world rule?
Roman Empire, Greek Empire, French Empire, Mongolian Empire, NAZIs, USSR, just a few off the top of my head
EvilCat Breath
Diamond Member
- Sep 23, 2016
- 95,229
- 71,256
- 3,645
Going to replace Americans. Then replacing the Constitution is easy.Going to replace the Constitution, is it?
The Original Tree
Diamond Member
None of those empires ever sought to dissolve their borders, and willingly put themselves under the yoke of Foreign Rulers in a Global Governance scheme.
BluesLegend
Diamond Member
Get out losers and stay out. There the policy only required 6 words.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #28
For those that can actually read (that leaves out the party of the rumpers) here is the proposed bill
H.R.5383 - New Way Forward Act
The main thing is, it places a 60 day limit to the time that an illegal can be held. Either get them in front of a Immigration Court or release them. Simple as that. Same goes if they are involved in a felony. the Immigration Department has 60 days to get it front the appropriate court. Tucker is just fanning the flames. If you read it, it's not even close to doing away with the Constitution of the United States. It just deals with the Immigration Laws. And it deals with them pretty fair, I might add with only a couple or three differences I may have with it.
How is it “propaganda”? Are you claiming President Trump or the Republicans authored this bill? This bill is real and it was concocted by Democrats. It has many Dem sponsors. Why is it out of line to think that if Dems had total power, they wouldn’t pass a bill like this?
Their Agenda is to destroy America as we know it, they wouldn’t hesitate to pass this bill if they had complete control of the government.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #30
Read the damned bill instead of going by what Tucker says. He's bat shit crazy.
Text - H.R.5383 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): New Way Forward Act
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
Why should we read it? You have proven many times that you are functionally illiterate.
I did, and it is UTTER horseshit:
——————-
“(7) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term ‘vulnerable person’ means an individual who—
“(A) is under 21 years of age or over 60 years of age;
“(B) is pregnant;
“(C) identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersex;
“(D) is victim or witness of a crime;
“(E) has filed a nonfrivolous civil rights claim in Federal or State court;
“(F) has a serious mental or physical illness or disability;
“(G) has been determined by an asylum officer in an interview conducted under section 235(b)(1)(B) to have a credible fear of persecution or a reasonable fear of persecution under section 208.31 or 241.8(e) of title 8, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of the enactment of the New Way Forward Act);
“(H) has limited English language proficiency and is not provided access to appropriate and meaningful language services in a timely fashion; or
“(I) has been determined by an immigration judge or the Secretary of Homeland Security to be experiencing severe trauma or to be a survivor of torture or gender-based violence, based on information obtained during intake, from the alien’s attorney or legal service provider, or through credible self-reporting.
——————-
As you can see, virtually anyone could qualify as a “vulnerable person”, which would mean they cannot be detained. Claiming to be gay or just saying you “fear” persecution qualifies you.
It’s a bill to allow open borders for anyone who wants in.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #33
Are you saying that since I read it, I am functionally illiterate? And that you can't read? Nothing functional about your illiteracy. You keep going with the Talking Heads that tell you what to think when to thin it and how to think it.
Another lovely tidbit, it repeals federal laws that criminalize crossing the border illegally:
TITLE VI—DECRIMINALIZE MIGRATION
8 U.S.C. 1325) is repealed.
8 U.S.C. 1326) is repealed.
TITLE VI—DECRIMINALIZE MIGRATION
8 U.S.C. 1325) is repealed.
8 U.S.C. 1326) is repealed.
And the kicker, yes any previously deported illegal now has a “right” to apply for a relief program, meaning the taxpayers will pay to bring them back:
TITLE VII—RIGHT TO COME HOME
SEC. 701. RECONSIDERING AND REOPENING IMMIGRATION CASES.
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.
——
So no, Tucker was most certainly not lying about what is in this bill.
TITLE VII—RIGHT TO COME HOME
SEC. 701. RECONSIDERING AND REOPENING IMMIGRATION CASES.
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.
——
So no, Tucker was most certainly not lying about what is in this bill.
Except Tucker was telling the truth. See my above posts, or better yet read the ******* bill. YOU are a lying hack.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #37
You cherry picked. Okay, let's look at what you printed.
Under 21 and over 60. That means they need to be gotten in front of an Immigration Court quickly and not wait the months and months they do now.
Is Pregnant. Here is a good reason to get that person in front of an Immigration Court fast. As it stands now, it takes months to get the woman in front of an Immigration Court. By then, we now have an anchor baby on our hands and Momma has to stay. Under that bill, she is to be sent to the front of the line so that she will not have time to create that anchor baby. Either she legally stays or she's deported long before that.
The Lezzie, etc. should not be given any special treatment in my mind. But it's just a proposal, not a law so it can be changed in committee.
Those people that really ARE in trouble if they return as in fear for their lives should be sent to the front of the Immigration Court Line. Get it over with.
That timely fashion it talks about is already set at 60days for the HR. Not Months, or Years like it is today. The Immigration Courts are broken. We need more Immigration Courts, Judges and Officers to process these people. Even an Illegal Immigrant has the right to a speedy trial.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #38
I read the bill. And it's designed to speed up the Immigration Court System. Instead of months and years and being forced to catch and release, there is a time period of 60 days to get them in from of an Immigration Court. There is a stone cold fact we don't have enough Immigration a Judges, Lawyers and Courts to handle the load we have right now. We need to fix that problem. Now, go reread it. This time, turn off Tucker, Rush and Hannity screaming in your ear.
And NONE of that matters if ANY of them can just claim they are gay or “fear persecution” or don’t speak English. So **** off, lair.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #40
So they want to remove it being a Felony. Even though it's legally a felony now, it's not treated as such so we just as well remove the felony part of it. How many times have one or two people been caught, deported, caught again, deported over and over again. I don't know of any other Felony that the fine is between 50 and 250 bucks. A Felony usually has a much higher fine with a possible prison sentence. Whomever wrote those two USC laws were fruitcakes.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
The difference between a DEI president and the very good president.- Started by Mikeoxenormous
- Replies: 0
-
-
Let's face it: there's no good reason to deny the construction of the ballroom.- Started by justoffal
- Replies: 7
