UNREAL!
New Democrat Bill Would Let Parents Who Commit Fed Crimes Go Scot Free – They Uncovered
It All!
If you really want to know what the definition of insanity is you need to look no further
than what the Democrats have proposed this time.
Democrats have proposed legislation that would prohibit border separations and would actually
go as far as preventing federal law enforcement agencies almost everywhere near the United
States border from arresting and detaining criminals who are parents, even those who
have nothing to do with unlawfully crossing the border and seeking asylum.
But what's perhaps even worse is that this newly proposed legislation, which was cosponsored
by every Democrat in the U.S. Senate, it doesn't distinguish between illegal alien children
and children who are U.S. citizens who are already in the U.S. Meaning it doesn't distinguish
between federal officers having to deal with the border crisis and federal law enforcement
pursuing the ordinary course of their duties such as federal offenses.
The Federalist reports: "Let's break down Sen. Dianne Feinstein's
proposed "Keep Families Together Act" to see where Democrats went wrong.
The bill provides that "[a]n agent or officer of a designated agency shall be prohibited
from removing a child from his or her parent or legal guardian at or near the port of entry
or within 100 miles of the border of the United States" (with three exceptions to be discussed
later).
Four immediate warning signs in this provision should put the reader on notice that this
bill is not what Democrats claim.
First, "designated agency" here is defined as the entirety of the federal departments
of Homeland Security, Justice, and Health and Human Services.
The scope of the bill is not limited to those portions of these departments involved with
the border crisis, and there is no other limiting factor in the bill that would cabin the prohibition
on family separation to immigration-related matters.
In other words, this bill is going to regulate conduct across a great many federal offices
that have nothing to do with separating children from families arriving unlawfully in the United
States.
Second, "agent or officer" is not defined by the legislation, except to say that it
includes contractors.
Federal law, however, already defines "officer" to include (with exceptions not relevant here)
every federal employee appointed to the civil service by the head of an executive agency
and ultimately overseen by the head of an executive agency.
Here again, this bill is not limited to controlling the behavior of the DHS, DOJ, or HHS officers
involved in the border crisis.
The proposed law would apply with equal force to, say, FBI agents (part of DOJ), Secret
Service agents (part of DHS), and Centers for Disease Control officers (part of HHS)
in the exercise of their everyday duties.
Third, "at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the border" does not
meaningfully limit the geographic scope of this bill.
That area includes almost the entirety of the geographical territory of the United States
and the vast majority of people living in it.
Two hundred million people live within 100 miles of the border.
That's roughly two-thirds of the U.S. population.
Even more live near ports of entry, including in places far from the border crisis, like
Salt Lake City, Utah (nearly 700 miles from the nearest border crossing), Tulsa, Oklahoma
(more than 600 miles from the nearest border crossing), and Nashville, Tennessee (nearly
600 miles from the nearest border crossing).
All major U.S. metropolitan areas fall within either 100 miles of the border or are near
a port of entry or both.
Finally, "child" is defined in this legislation as any individual who has not reached 18 years
old who has no permanent immigration status.
This astonishing definition includes U.S. citizens under the age of 18.
Citizen children by definition have no immigration status, permanent or otherwise.
(Even if the Democrats belatedly amended this provision to restrict the definition to alien
children without a permanent immigration status, that amended definition would still include
non-migrant aliens, like tourist children, Deferred Action for Child Arrivals recipients
under the age of 18, and children whose parents have had their immigration status revoked.)
Thus, far from addressing the border crisis, the Democrats' Keep Families Together Act
applies almost everywhere in the country to prohibit any DHS, DOJ, or HHS officer from
removing almost any child from a parent.
The listed exceptions to the prohibition—a state court authorizes separation, a state
child welfare agency determines that the child is in danger, or certain DHS officials establish
that the child is a victim of trafficking or is in danger from the parent, or that the
parent is not the actual parent of the child—are completely unrelated to the vast majority
of DHS, DOJ, and HHS enforcement activity."
What will really be interesting to see is how the Republicans in the Senate vote for
this debacle of a bill.
It will be interesting to see if the usual suspects like McCain and Flake once again
decide to side with foreigners over the well-being and security of American citizens.
What I can't seem to comprehend is why is this an issue now, but in 2014 it was ok?
Why was it ok for Barack Husein Obama to separate families but today it's not?
And even more importantly why was it ok for George W. Bush to sign this bill but today
it's not ok to enforce it?
Is it because once again the former globalist presidents and their left-wing media hacks
don't like the fact that us peons rose up in 2016 and voted in a president who cares
about us Americans over foreigners?
I think we all know the answer to that.
what do you think about this?
Please share this news and scroll down to Comment below and don't forget to subscribe
Top Stories Today.
For more infomation >> Reps. Gowdy, Goodlatte on Strzok's anti-Trump bias - Duration: 7:02. 
No comments:
Post a Comment