Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-24-2020, 06:44 PM
Project Patahhh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 26

The New Way Forward Act


I was reading a post on social media decrying all the commercials about corporations pretending to care about us, and nodding my head. Then as I continued through the post it got more and more right-wingy, until finally the guy went into all caps and was screaming how there is a bill AOC is trying to pass in which there is a provision where the US will actually pay for planes to bring back illegal aliens who were convicted of felonies.

I was like, wow that sounds like some misinformation. So I looked it up and read through Tucker Carlson, Snopes, and finally the bill itself. According to Snopes, the bill would basically make it so you can’t deport immigrants for low level drug crimes, and even if it’s an aggravated felony, they have to have been sentenced to 5 or more years to be eligible for deportation.

On my skim through the bill itself, deportation cases could in fact be re-opened if anyone deported since 1996 would not have been deported under the rules in this new bill. Furthermore, there really is a provision that says these people would be transported to the US for further proceedings using government funds. The only thing I can really find that is different than what the right wing guy said, is that these would not have been “illegal aliens”, just people who were here legally but not full citizens, and committed crimes.

Am I understanding this correctly? I do think that there is MASSIVE need for immigration reform in this country (abolish ICE, no more kids in cages, etc). But, as much as I hate to say it, it does seem that the right wing guy was a little bit correct that this is going too far. So what, if an immigrant is a rapist or beats someone bad enough for facial reconstructive surgery, but only gets 4 years and 11 months sentence they can’t be deported? Seems unhelpful. I agree with the low level drug offenses though.

Not that this bill has a chance in hell of being passed anyways, no matter how reasonable it is. Here’s a link to the New Way Forward Act: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...bill/5383/text

I apologize in advance for not citing exact locations in the bill where I saw things. I’ve been reading government documents for work all day and my head hurts.
  #2  
Old 04-24-2020, 07:00 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 42,160
If someone has been deported who in retrospect should not have been deported, we will pay the cost of returning him to the US whence we forcefully ejected him from. Is that what you are complaining about?
  #3  
Old 04-24-2020, 07:05 PM
Project Patahhh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
If someone has been deported who in retrospect should not have been deported, we will pay the cost of returning him to the US whence we forcefully ejected him from. Is that what you are complaining about?
I wasn’t aware I was complaining. I was under the impression that I was presenting a discussion topic. I was also surprised to find that the right-wing guy was apparently correct that if the bill were passed, the government would pay to bring back people who were deported because they committed aggravated felonies. I also wondered if that was really a good idea.

Do you have anything to add to this discussion?
  #4  
Old 04-24-2020, 07:08 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 42,160
It would be to bring back people who were deported but should not have been under today's standards. What do you find objectionable about that?
  #5  
Old 04-24-2020, 07:12 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,704
Without getting into the details of the bill, the hurdles it would face getting passed are, to put it mildly, insurmountable. Congressional Democrats author lots and lots of bills. They never see the light of day. This is the case currently because the House of Representatives is being run by Republicans, Mitch McConnell specifically. So, the bill will not be scheduled for committee, the bill will not be voted on by the full House. The bill will not pass in the House. The bill will not be handed over to the Senate, etc. etc. etc.

So, why get worked up about it? It's a proverbial fart in a hurricane.
__________________
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
- C. Darwin
  #6  
Old 04-24-2020, 07:14 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 10,032
Can't quote the Op:
"So I looked it up and read through Tucker Carlson, Snopes, and finally the bill itself."
Sounds like you got the order of importance right.
  #7  
Old 04-24-2020, 07:17 PM
Project Patahhh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
It would be to bring back people who were deported but should not have been under today's standards. What do you find objectionable about that?
I didn’t say I find that objectionable. According to my reading of the bill, it is referring to people who would not have been deported under the standards of the bill itself. And the standard in the bill is that you can’t be deported for conviction of an aggravated felony that resulted in a prison sentence of less than five years. Are you disputing that? Because it is entirely possible that I misread it, as I said in my OP when I asked if I was understanding correctly.

I pretty much agree with everything else on there, and think it has some great ideas.

Do you see value in bringing back immigrants who were deported for committing an aggravated felony like rape or other violent crimes? And if so, why? I’m not trying to be combative here. I’m curious to hear people’s thoughts.
  #8  
Old 04-24-2020, 07:18 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 10,032
This is from the ACLU website. No mention oc conservative boogeywoman in their first two paragraphs:
I"n 1996, at the height of the “tough on crime” era, President Bill Clinton signed two laws that dramatically changed the criminal legal system and radically altered the U.S. immigration system. Just as the 1994 crime bill instituted unjust mandatory minimum sentences and ballooned the prison population, the immigration bills of that same era led to similarly disastrous consequences for immigrants — an explosion in the growth of detention and unfairly harsh punishments for immigrants, including mandatory deportations for minor crimes. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) and Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) resulted in today’s draconian immigration enforcement system. The system only expanded with the increased criminalization of immigrants, who are then funneled into the detention and deportation pipeline — often with little to no due process.
Reps. Jesús “Chuy” Garcia, Pramila Jayapal, Karen Bass, and Ayanna Pressley, in December 2019, introduced the New Way Forward Act (H.R. 5383), groundbreaking legislation that reimagines what a fair and just immigration system looks like. The bill restores fundamental due process protections for immigrants by ending the mandatory detention of immigrants without the right to release on bail while a judge reviews their case — sometimes subjecting people to years of incarceration. The legislation also breaks down automatic pipelines to deportation from the criminal legal system. For example, the bill would end the 287(g) program, which allows local police to act as federal immigration agents, exacerbates racial profiling, and empowers sherriffs, as was the case with Joe Arpaio. The bill would also end the automatic deportation of people who have had contact with the criminal legal system. This legislation also decriminalizes migration by ending federal criminal prosecutions for improper entry and reentry to the U.S. Not only is this a waste of government funding, it also misguidedly treats migration as a criminal act. "
  #9  
Old 04-24-2020, 07:29 PM
Project Patahhh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
This is from the ACLU website. No mention oc conservative boogeywoman in their first two paragraphs:
I"n 1996, at the height of the “tough on crime” era, President Bill Clinton signed two laws that dramatically changed the criminal legal system and radically altered the U.S. immigration system. Just as the 1994 crime bill instituted unjust mandatory minimum sentences and ballooned the prison population, the immigration bills of that same era led to similarly disastrous consequences for immigrants — an explosion in the growth of detention and unfairly harsh punishments for immigrants, including mandatory deportations for minor crimes. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) and Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) resulted in today’s draconian immigration enforcement system. The system only expanded with the increased criminalization of immigrants, who are then funneled into the detention and deportation pipeline — often with little to no due process.
Reps. Jesús “Chuy” Garcia, Pramila Jayapal, Karen Bass, and Ayanna Pressley, in December 2019, introduced the New Way Forward Act (H.R. 5383), groundbreaking legislation that reimagines what a fair and just immigration system looks like. The bill restores fundamental due process protections for immigrants by ending the mandatory detention of immigrants without the right to release on bail while a judge reviews their case — sometimes subjecting people to years of incarceration. The legislation also breaks down automatic pipelines to deportation from the criminal legal system. For example, the bill would end the 287(g) program, which allows local police to act as federal immigration agents, exacerbates racial profiling, and empowers sherriffs, as was the case with Joe Arpaio. The bill would also end the automatic deportation of people who have had contact with the criminal legal system. This legislation also decriminalizes migration by ending federal criminal prosecutions for improper entry and reentry to the U.S. Not only is this a waste of government funding, it also misguidedly treats migration as a criminal act. "
Thanks for posting that. As for the order in which I read things, that’s just where google took me. I do also like to see what the right wing people are saying, and see how it matches up with reality. I believe the origin of the right wing person’s ire, as mentioned in the OP, was probably from Tucker Carlson.

While looking up what the hell an aggravated felony is, I saw references to that 1996 bill, where they broadened the definition in order to deport more people basically. So it seems that is where this whole thing is coming from in this current bill.

As for the guy above who mentioned that this is never going to pass so why get worked up about it: yeah, I know. And I’m not worked up. Just thought it was an interesting topic because it seemed what the crazy-ass right wing guy said mainly matched up with reality, although it was lacking in the context which was provided by bobot.
  #10  
Old 04-24-2020, 07:33 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 42,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Project Patahhh View Post
I didn’t say I find that objectionable. According to my reading of the bill, it is referring to people who would not have been deported under the standards of the bill itself. And the standard in the bill is that you can’t be deported for conviction of an aggravated felony that resulted in a prison sentence of less than five years. Are you disputing that? Because it is entirely possible that I misread it, as I said in my OP when I asked if I was understanding correctly.

I pretty much agree with everything else on there, and think it has some great ideas.

Do you see value in bringing back immigrants who were deported for committing an aggravated felony like rape or other violent crimes? And if so, why? I’m not trying to be combative here. I’m curious to hear people’s thoughts.
I just see some right wing pearl clutchers lied about the bill, it has nothing to do with illegal immigrants being returned to the US. I don't see what is left to discuss. The bill says the US would pay for airfare to undo wrongs of the past. That's a fine idea.

In your OP you said it was going too far for violent criminals but not for low level drug criminals. So you must have a problem with the standards for return. Do you have some other problem with paying airfare? Is it ok to pay the airfare if you approve of the return?
  #11  
Old 04-24-2020, 07:36 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 10,032
OP:
"Then as I continued through the post it got more and more right-wingy, until finally the guy went into all caps and was screaming how there is a bill AOC is trying to pass..."
Conservatives are so afraid of her, it's kind of amusing.
  #12  
Old 04-24-2020, 07:40 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 10,032
I failed to include a link to the ACLU's side of things. I fix that here.
https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants...w-way-forward/
  #13  
Old 04-24-2020, 07:52 PM
Project Patahhh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
I just see some right wing pearl clutchers lied about the bill, it has nothing to do with illegal immigrants being returned to the US. I don't see what is left to discuss. The bill says the US would pay for airfare to undo wrongs of the past. That's a fine idea.

In your OP you said it was going too far for violent criminals but not for low level drug criminals. So you must have a problem with the standards for return. Do you have some other problem with paying airfare? Is it ok to pay the airfare if you approve of the return?
Yes I do see a difference between something like shoplifting or possessing a Percocet without a script, versus something like rape or aggravated assault. I’m not saying I couldn’t be convinced that flying rapists back (to use an extreme example, but a possible one) is a good idea, but on its face it doesn’t seem to be inherently undoing the injustices of the past, as you say.

I certainly see the value of reducing the strength of the “criminal justice to deportation pipeline”, and affording more rights to people in immigration court. I don’t like the fact that people get locked up for minor offenses like they do now, simply because they’re immigrants. I especially wish we were granting more people asylum. I’ve seen cases where people are suspected of being in a gang in their former country, when in reality they had no choice but to join up. Maybe they even did some violent crimes in that situation. And then they are deported to go back to the danger zone, instead of being granted asylum like they should have been. So perhaps this provision could help with that also, regarding the aggravated felonies thing.

I mean, we all know the bill is going nowhere. I originally was planning to refute the guy’s social media post, but found it was mostly factual, albeit framed in a panicky way. And then I started thinking about it.
  #14  
Old 04-24-2020, 08:04 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 42,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Project Patahhh View Post
Yes I do see a difference between something like shoplifting or possessing a Percocet without a script, versus something like rape or aggravated assault. I’m not saying I couldn’t be convinced that flying rapists back (to use an extreme example, but a possible one) is a good idea, but on its face it doesn’t seem to be inherently undoing the injustices of the past, as you say.
I don't expect much more out of our representatives. They aren't very bright, they don't really care so much about the issue as the political result, so it's just not surprising to see a standard based on criminal sentence lengths which are essentially arbitrary. They wouldn't have a clue how to define a standard that would lead to justice. So unless we choose the path of doing nothing legislatively as the Republicans have than we have to settle for this kind of half assed bill. If there were a chance of it going forward perhaps it would have been improved, I don't know much about how it has evolved.
  #15  
Old 04-24-2020, 08:13 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 29,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Project Patahhh View Post
I wasn’t aware I was complaining.
You were. Right here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Project Patahhh View Post
But, as much as I hate to say it, it does seem that the right wing guy was a little bit correct that this is going too far.
  #16  
Old 04-24-2020, 08:49 PM
Project Patahhh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
You were. Right here:
Zoinkies! Well I guess I did have myself a lil complaint there didn’t I? Thanks for your contribution.
  #17  
Old 04-24-2020, 09:37 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 2,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
the House of Representatives is being run by Republicans, Mitch McConnell specifically. So, the bill will not be scheduled for committee, the bill will not be voted on by the full House. The bill will not pass in the House.
pssst -- you've got the House and the Senate mixed up. McConnell, and the Republican majority, are in the Senate. The House is currently majority Democratic.

Last edited by thorny locust; 04-24-2020 at 09:38 PM. Reason: tense agreement
  #18  
Old 04-25-2020, 10:29 AM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
Congressional Democrats author lots and lots of bills. They never see the light of day. This is the case currently because the House of Representatives is being run by Republicans, Mitch McConnell specifically. So, the bill will not be scheduled for committee, the bill will not be voted on by the full House. The bill will not pass in the House. The bill will not be handed over to the Senate, etc. etc. etc.
That would be news to Speaker Pelosi.
  #19  
Old 04-27-2020, 11:13 AM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
This is the case currently because the House of Representatives is being run by Republicans, Mitch McConnell specifically.
  #20  
Old 04-27-2020, 11:15 AM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,806
Laws get changed all the time. Retroactive application is stupid and wasteful, especially in this situation.

Last edited by Omar Little; 04-27-2020 at 11:15 AM.
  #21  
Old 04-27-2020, 12:18 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
It would be to bring back people who were deported but should not have been under today's standards. What do you find objectionable about that?
Because they violated the old standards. It is one thing to say that we are making our standards more lenient for people going forward. But to use taxpayer money to bring back people who were previously deported because they aren't such bad criminals is pretty crazy, really.

Should they get first class airfare as well? Maybe a week at a nice hotel to give them time to get set up?
  #22  
Old 04-27-2020, 12:27 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,476
Is coming into the nation illegally a deportable offense in and of itself? If so, wouldn't it be odd to have a law saying you can't be deported for being here illegally and having a low-level drug offense?
  #23  
Old 04-27-2020, 02:34 PM
chappachula is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
Laws get changed all the time. Retroactive application is stupid and wasteful, especially in this situation.
I'm confused about something:
The deported people who would get flown back to face a new trial (or whatever) were deported in full accordance to the law. Or am I not understanding something?

Since when do we have "ex post facto"-style* laws that apply retroactively?

If a criminal is sent to jail for possession of marijuana, and then later the state legalizes pot,they don't release the prisoner.





--------------------------
*yes,I know that ex-post-facto is not the right legal term. I used the phrase because it describes the general intent which I am asking about: retroactive laws.
  #24  
Old 04-27-2020, 02:57 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 42,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Because they violated the old standards. It is one thing to say that we are making our standards more lenient for people going forward. But to use taxpayer money to bring back people who were previously deported because they aren't such bad criminals is pretty crazy, really.

Should they get first class airfare as well? Maybe a week at a nice hotel to give them time to get set up?
I believe we should right wrongs of the past. If someone should have not been deported we should bring them back. I do have two problems with this proposal:

1. We should have good reason to believe that if returned and retried they would be allowed to stay. I didn't read all the details of the act but I'd think a new deportation trial in the US should be fairly perfunctory after investigating all of the circumstances first in most cases.

2. Affecting the above, I think the standard based on the length of the sentence is absurd. We know sentences can vary in length for the same crimes, and dumps both violent and non-violent crimes in the same pot. Whether we are talking about new deportees or previous ones the standard is not right.

But someone who should have been allowed to stay in this country under a reasonable standard should be brought back at our expense since we forced them out unreasonably.
  #25  
Old 04-27-2020, 03:45 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by chappachula View Post
I'm confused about something:
The deported people who would get flown back to face a new trial (or whatever) were deported in full accordance to the law. Or am I not understanding something?

Since when do we have "ex post facto"-style* laws that apply retroactively?

If a criminal is sent to jail for possession of marijuana, and then later the state legalizes pot,they don't release the prisoner.
Correct. It is very rare that we look back when the law changes. Caryl Chessman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caryl_Chessman was executed after the law for which he was convicted had been amended to no longer allow for the death penalty for the crime.

It would be like if they lowered the drinking age to 18 tomorrow and the state, at its own expense, looked through all of the old records to expunge all underage drinking convictions so long as the person was at least 18. It doesn't happen.

They were deported under the current standard. The new law would not only raise the standard (require a more severe crime) for deportation, but the taxpayers would fly anyone back who was deported under the old (current) standard!


Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
I believe we should right wrongs of the past. If someone should have not been deported we should bring them back. I do have two problems with this proposal:

1. We should have good reason to believe that if returned and retried they would be allowed to stay. I didn't read all the details of the act but I'd think a new deportation trial in the US should be fairly perfunctory after investigating all of the circumstances first in most cases.

2. Affecting the above, I think the standard based on the length of the sentence is absurd. We know sentences can vary in length for the same crimes, and dumps both violent and non-violent crimes in the same pot. Whether we are talking about new deportees or previous ones the standard is not right.

But someone who should have been allowed to stay in this country under a reasonable standard should be brought back at our expense since we forced them out unreasonably.
There is no "righting of wrongs" or being "unreasonable." It is a change in the standard for deportation. As noted above, U.S. citizens typically don't get this benefit. These people had no enforceable right to be in the United States to begin with.

For what benefit is there to the United States to bring back, at taxpayers' expense, former immigrants with criminal records? Please tell me one tangible benefit to that.

Last edited by UltraVires; 04-27-2020 at 03:46 PM.
  #26  
Old 04-28-2020, 09:35 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,476
You have two sides: One that believes "people shouldn't be allowed in unless there is a good reason to," and one that says "people shouldn't be kept out unless there is a good reason to."
  #27  
Old 04-28-2020, 09:46 AM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 42,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
As noted above, U.S. citizens typically don't get this benefit. These people had no enforceable right to be in the United States to begin with.
US citizens can't be legally deported but if one was wouldn't it be right to bring them back? They were entitled to be in the US to begin with, they were legal immigrants, and the law was changed to deport them, wrongly in the view of others.

Quote:
For what benefit is there to the United States to bring back, at taxpayers' expense, former immigrants with criminal records? Please tell me one tangible benefit to that.
We are supposed to believe in justice. You don't seem to merely disagree with the standard here but don't seem to believe justice matters if the context is distasteful to you. We either correct the mistakes we make or we don't, if we do it is a matter of the standards we use, not the basic principle. And like the rest of life, the cost of unrighted wrongs accrue interest over time.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017