The New Way Forward Act (the Dem bill NOW pending in Congress to replace the U.S. Constitution!)

[BrokeLoser]

Going to replace the Constitution, is it?

Going to replace Americans. Then replacing the Constitution is easy.

Is there some sort of specific number of people that can be in the US at any given time? I'm not sure how someone who comes into the country illegally is replacing an American.

Look to Mexifornia for proof...good real American white folks do not want to live in ******* infested foreign seeming shitholes so they move / relocate. Good real American white folks don’t want to bring children into a world full of disgusting human cockroaches so they slow / stop fertility.
This is simple shit.

 

[theHawk]

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.

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.

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.

There are enough translators to take that language barrier away. And I agree, being Gay or whatever would never stand up in court anyway. But it doesn't mean that they get a free pass. It only means they get a faster track to the Immigration Court to see if they stay or get deported. And even an Illegal Immigrant has the right to a speedy trial.

Would never stand in court? This would be the law. The fact that you have to use that as an excuse for the worst parts goes to show you have no argument. You’re pathetic and un-American for supporting this piece of shit bill.

And it would be found to include exclusions and unless the exclusions have more of a reason than has been listed, the Courts would bounce it like a bad check. And since I don't fully support it, since when do I get to be UnAmerican? Do I need to get a special license or can I go into the DMV and just register? Could it be that I just buy the talking heads of Rush, Tucker and Hannity? Could it be that I like to make up my own mind? I really feel sorry for you. Maybe someday, after the party of the rump is gone you'll be able to get some therapy to relearn how to think for yourself for a change.

Funny how you suddenly “don’t fully support it” when you can’t refute what is in the bill, yet you continue to say that we who reject the bill are just following what Tucker and Rush say. I can read the bill myself and see it’s full of changes that would destroy this country. It’s an open borders bill. Tucker only focused on the part about taxpayers footing the bill to bring back criminals that were deported. Thing is, that’s not even the worst part of it, not by a long shot.
It literally says that someone who can’t speak English cannot be detained or deported. Total nonsense. WHY are Dems putting that shit in the bill? Because they hate our country and want to destroy it through mass immigration from third world shit holes.

 

[Montrovant]

It literally says that someone who can’t speak English cannot be detained or deported.

 

[theHawk]

It literally says that someone who can’t speak English cannot be detained or deported.

Actually it literally does say that. Try reading it.

“(H) has limited English language proficiency and is not provided access to appropriate and meaningful language services in a timely fashion; or”

 

[Montrovant]

It literally says that someone who can’t speak English cannot be detained or deported.

Actually it literally does say that. Try reading it.

“(H) has limited English language proficiency and is not provided access to appropriate and meaningful language services in a timely fashion; or”

Yes, I did. You clearly did not. It does not say such a person cannot be detained or deported. I already quoted the portion you skipped which points that out, but here, I'll do so again:

“(6) SPECIAL RULE FOR VULNERABLE PERSONS AND PRIMARY CAREGIVERS.—In a case in which an alien who is the subject of a custody determination under this subsection is a vulnerable person or a primary caregiver, the alien may not be detained unless the Government shows, in addition to the requirements under paragraph (3), that it is unreasonable or not practicable to place the individual in a community-based supervision program."

I put the important part in bold for you, since you obviously didn't catch it the first times you looked. That word unless, do you understand what it means? It is a qualifier. It means that the person CAN be detained given the right circumstances.

In other words, no, the bill does not literally say that a person who cannot speak English cannot be detained.