andi9899
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 6, 2011 10:22:29 GMT -5
Posts: 30,444
Member is Online
|
Post by andi9899 on Jul 3, 2017 20:28:35 GMT -5
They used to work, the prisoners. I'm not talking ax murderers but the dumb stuff like drug busts. Yes, you'd need a guard but just like the road cleaners of today, it's doable. It's still a cluster waiting to happen. "What happened to inmate #38573?" "I thought you were watching him". "No. I thought you were". There's always someone incompetent working somewhere out there.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 3, 2017 20:29:52 GMT -5
Able bodied and on welfare? Work or lose benefits. As extra incentive don't take away their Medicaid and subsidized housing. But if you're too precious to work, you're too precious to get welfare of any kind. I'm not talking elderly or disabled although Meijers had a greeter who was paralyzed from the neck down and he worked. If he can work, so can others. I'm sure it was good for him to be out among people too. He was promoted to another store. I sure missed him.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 3, 2017 20:32:12 GMT -5
They used to work, the prisoners. I'm not talking ax murderers but the dumb stuff like drug busts. Yes, you'd need a guard but just like the road cleaners of today, it's doable. It's still a cluster waiting to happen. "What happened to inmate #38573?" "I thought you were watching him". "No. I thought you were". There's always someone incompetent working somewhere out there. Eh, if he was busted for marijuana use, I really don't care if he walks away. It's doable but it'll never be done because it's against both parties wishes.
|
|
andi9899
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 6, 2011 10:22:29 GMT -5
Posts: 30,444
Member is Online
|
Post by andi9899 on Jul 3, 2017 20:38:20 GMT -5
Able bodied and on welfare? Work or lose benefits. As extra incentive don't take away their Medicaid and subsidized housing. But if you're too precious to work, you're too precious to get welfare of any kind. I'm not talking elderly or disabled although Meijers had a greeter who was paralyzed from the neck down and he worked. If he can work, so can others. I'm sure it was good for him to be out among people too. He was promoted to another store. I sure missed him. That sounds great in theory. But the people who are able bodied and receiving benefits aren't stupid. They go to some pretty great lengths to get what they do. Especially with some of the different ways to get benefits. Depression is a very real and sometimes debilitating problem. But go to a doctor and cry and say you're suicidal and fake some injuries and cash a check. Morbidly obese people receive benefits. You can't say "lose weight or don't get paid, fat ass". There is always going to be a reason why they can't. Again, not that everybody receiving benefits do, but there are a lot. I get what you're saying, but it's not that simple.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 3, 2017 20:41:52 GMT -5
Funny. I just watched a program on Ellis Island. Of course you had to be able bodied, free of disease, and not become a public charge back then. I bet if someone was put in charge of deciding whether you get welfare or not, it'd be interesting. There are plenty of overweight people who work. Also, staying busy as opposed to sitting around is better for you physically as well as mentally.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 3, 2017 20:45:10 GMT -5
I get there are some issues that prevent people from working. But there wouldn't be such a hue and cry about welfare cheats if a lot of them had to earn their benefits. The cry here is always there are no jobs and people would rather work than receive welfare. Here you go. You don't even get penalized for working. Win win.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 3, 2017 20:48:03 GMT -5
Able bodied and on welfare? Work or lose benefits. As extra incentive don't take away their Medicaid and subsidized housing. But if you're too precious to work, you're too precious to get welfare of any kind. I'm not talking elderly or disabled although Meijers had a greeter who was paralyzed from the neck down and he worked. If he can work, so can others. I'm sure it was good for him to be out among people too. He was promoted to another store. I sure missed him. That sounds great in theory. But the people who are able bodied and receiving benefits aren't stupid. They go to some pretty great lengths to get what they do. Especially with some of the different ways to get benefits. Depression is a very real and sometimes debilitating problem. But go to a doctor and cry and say you're suicidal and fake some injuries and cash a check. Morbidly obese people receive benefits. You can't say "lose weight or don't get paid, fat ass". There is always going to be a reason why they can't. Again, not that everybody receiving benefits do, but there are a lot. I get what you're saying, but it's not that simple. I know there are crap doctors that can be bought. We used to have a poster that bragged about buying one. But it's a beginning. I think if you say you're going to kill your self aren't you baker acted? Being institutionalized might not be such a good idea.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 3, 2017 22:56:44 GMT -5
Because the lone GOP dissenter is a muslim sleeper agent.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 4, 2017 5:49:04 GMT -5
Reading the article was frightening to say the least. I can't believe this country has been so lax about swiftly dealing with invaders. I'm tolerant about deportation the first time even though they've already broken the law but after that punishment should be swift and final. None of this incarceration at taxpayer expense or let go back to commit more mayhem. Not a dime to a city deemed sanctuary and the government of a city that espouses breaking the laws of this country needs to be replaced immediately.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,585
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 4, 2017 6:53:37 GMT -5
Because the lone GOP dissenter is a muslim sleeper agent. Justin Amash Born in Grand Rapids, and raised in Kentwood, Michigan, Amash is a first-generation Arab-American of Palestinian Christianand Syrian Greek Orthodox descent.[11] His father, Attallah, is a Palestinian business owner, whose family emigrated to the United States in 1956[12] through the sponsorship of a Christian pastor and his family. His mother, Mimi, is a Syrianimmigrant to the United States.[13][14] Amash attended Kelloggsville Christian School in Kelloggsville and graduated as class valedictorian from Grand Rapids Christian High School. He graduated from the University of Michigan magna semen laude with a B.A. in economics and earned his J.D. at the University of Michigan Law School in 2005.[14] Amash admires economists F. A. Hayek and Frédéric Bastiat.[15] Amash is married and the father of three children. He belongs to the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch.[16] After graduating from the University of Michigan, he became a consultant to his family's tool business. He worked as acorporate attorney for his family's business for a year, before being elected to the Michigan House of Representatives in 2008.[17][18] Justin Amash
Another supposed Christian, They claim they are Christian but their words and actions say other.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 4, 2017 6:57:46 GMT -5
Because the lone GOP dissenter is a muslim sleeper agent. Justin Amash Born in Grand Rapids, and raised in Kentwood, Michigan, Amash is a first-generation Arab-American of Palestinian Christianand Syrian Greek Orthodox descent.[11] His father, Attallah, is a Palestinian business owner, whose family emigrated to the United States in 1956[12] through the sponsorship of a Christian pastor and his family. His mother, Mimi, is a Syrianimmigrant to the United States.[13][14] Amash attended Kelloggsville Christian School in Kelloggsville and graduated as class valedictorian from Grand Rapids Christian High School. He graduated from the University of Michigan magna semen laude with a B.A. in economics and earned his J.D. at the University of Michigan Law School in 2005.[14] Amash admires economists F. A. Hayek and Frédéric Bastiat.[15] Amash is married and the father of three children. He belongs to the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch.[16] After graduating from the University of Michigan, he became a consultant to his family's tool business. He worked as acorporate attorney for his family's business for a year, before being elected to the Michigan House of Representatives in 2008.[17][18] Justin Amash
Another supposed Christian, They claim they are Christian but their words and actions say other. Amash. 👎🏻DH worshipped him. I thought and still think he's a liar and a typical politician. Same thing actually.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 4, 2017 7:00:37 GMT -5
I've met him several times and he wasn't a fan of me either because I came down on him in front of others and wouldn't let him weasel out of taking a stand. DH was embarrassed by me but I didn't worship at the altar of Amash.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 4, 2017 7:01:30 GMT -5
His parents are actually okay. They're loaded and bought him the office but that's the way it is here.
|
|
buystoys
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 4:58:12 GMT -5
Posts: 5,650
|
Post by buystoys on Jul 4, 2017 9:51:53 GMT -5
In our state, it's no secret that the farm, construction, and hospitality industries run on labor supplied by improperly documented folks. People aren't clamoring to take milking jobs in the rural parts of my state for $8/hour. They just aren't. We need that labor from somewhere. Tourism jobs don't pay a ton of money, either. One tourism hot spot, in particular relies on high school students to work. You can't go to high school and clean hotel rooms at the same time. And, again, most other people in these areas aren't clamoring to clean rooms for $10 an hour. You need to find workers from somewhere.... So, the question becomes, what's better for the economy? Is it better to: 1) Have improperly documented workers fill the need for low wage workers? 2) Let those jobs go unfilled to the detriment of businesses and consumers? 3) Start increasing pay for the jobs so that people will take them? I'm guessing that if you started paying farmhands $15 or so an hour, you'd probably start to get reliable help. But, yet, I also hear that that's too much money. Paying high wages for low wage work will hurt businesses and consumers. So, honestly, I think option #1 is really the only real option that doesn't hurt businesses and consumers. 1. If employers need low wage workers from another country, then there is no reason for them to be improperly documented. The employer needs to go through the H2-A visa program. If they don't, then they should be paying substantial fines for not complying with the law. 2. Yes, let those jobs go unfilled if the employer is not paying a wage that will attract workers. If minimum wage is not enough to get good workers, then the wage will need to increase. It's the same theory for any other industry I know of. Again, if the employer cannot find enough workers by increasing the wage, then they can go through the H2-A visa program. 3. As stated above, yes, increase the pay. Yes, I am aware that we will pay more for food going that route. I think that's a reasonable trade off. I'm willing to pay more if I know that farmers are using legal employees as that benefits everyone in the supply chain. Paying higher wages for a necessary item is not the same as paying higher wages for low wage work. I don't view picking crops as the same work category as taking a fast food order. Picking crops is hard work that does require skill. Taking a fast food order is unskilled labor usually working in an air conditioned setting.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 4, 2017 14:24:16 GMT -5
Yes but people don't want to work these jobs or any other job really so they find doctors that can be bought, or have another baby, or some other bs. Wouldn't matter what the pay was. Sitting on your ass watching Jerry is better.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jul 5, 2017 0:07:18 GMT -5
Not sure, but some people think illegal immigration is ok and any steps to curb it are born of racism. I can't fathom that idea but that's the only reason I can think of.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 5, 2017 8:54:54 GMT -5
Not sure, but some people think illegal immigration is ok and any steps to curb it are born of racism. I can't fathom that idea but that's the only reason I can think of. Some people may think exactly that. I don't know what they think, though, unless they tell me. I just figure they have a right to think whatever they think while I can think whatever I think. I've learned, over the years, it's not going to do me a bit of good to insist they think as I think; nor, is it going to do me any good to put them down for thinking as they do. We can think differently according to our experiences and backgrounds while still remaining civil to one another.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jul 5, 2017 12:05:32 GMT -5
Since the question isn't "why would anyone disagree with Kate's Law" and instead asks about why anyone would vote against it...people would vote against it because a vote FOR it means you're voting for tougher immigration laws, and a vote against it means you're in favor of less stringent immigration laws (immigration laws meaning immigration issues in general, not necessarily any individual law).
If I think the penalties for those who are in the U.S. illegally NOW are too strong, then I wouldn't want to vote to make those penalties stiffer even if it is for people who are deported and then re-enter.
You stated this: "For those who don't know, Kate's Law ONLY deals with illegal / undocumented (whatever you prefer) people that commit FELONIES"
Do you have a link for that? I'm not seeing that when I read what I can find on the bill (which I'm finding difficult frankly to find something which simply summarizes the bill and not from an opinion piece which provides their own lens). What I'm seeing is that it would increase the penalties for simply re-entering after being deported...not just for those who re-enter and commit a felony while here (I have no idea, so maybe re-entry itself is a felony...but I assume you're talking about people committing other crimes and not the illegal entry crime).
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Jul 5, 2017 16:31:48 GMT -5
Because Dems support ILLEGAL immigration. Because dems support EVERYBODY's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happines! Why don't the republicans put forth a law that would punish severely those that are committing a violent crime and give fair treatment to those that are nonviolent? Is it a violent crime to refuse to let yourself or your loved ones die slowly because you live in a place that doesn't afford you your basic civil liberties? Or a place where corruption is so rampant that there is nothing left for the average individual? Do you have any idea what it takes to pack your life in the two pockets of your pants and move thousands of miles away with the hope that things will be better?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 6, 2017 7:41:46 GMT -5
Fix your country. If there are more decent people than criminals supposedly then take steps to fix it. Don't bring your shit to another country and that's exactly what is being done. Posts that not learning English is okay don't help.
|
|
Rob Base 2.0
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 23, 2017 18:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 1,538
|
Post by Rob Base 2.0 on Jul 6, 2017 8:40:14 GMT -5
Since the question isn't "why would anyone disagree with Kate's Law" and instead asks about why anyone would vote against it...people would vote against it because a vote FOR it means you're voting for tougher immigration laws, and a vote against it means you're in favor of less stringent immigration laws (immigration laws meaning immigration issues in general, not necessarily any individual law).
If I think the penalties for those who are in the U.S. illegally NOW are too strong, then I wouldn't want to vote to make those penalties stiffer even if it is for people who are deported and then re-enter.
You stated this: "For those who don't know, Kate's Law ONLY deals with illegal / undocumented (whatever you prefer) people that commit FELONIES"
Do you have a link for that? I'm not seeing that when I read what I can find on the bill (which I'm finding difficult frankly to find something which simply summarizes the bill and not from an opinion piece which provides their own lens). What I'm seeing is that it would increase the penalties for simply re-entering after being deported...not just for those who re-enter and commit a felony while here (I have no idea, so maybe re-entry itself is a felony...but I assume you're talking about people committing other crimes and not the illegal entry crime). thanks for one of the few legit replies to this thread. heres some more info. "The bill would raise the maximum prison penalties for immigrants caught repeatedly entering the US illegally, with escalating penalties for the number of repeat offenses and for other criminal acts. For example, someone who re-enters the US illegally with a felony conviction or three misdemeanors on their record could be imprisoned for up to 10 years. An undocumented immigrant who illegally crosses after being deported three or more times would also serve up to 10 years", from website below www.cnn.com/2017/06/29/politics/kates-law-house-vote/index.html"Kate's Law passed 257-167, largely along party lines, in the GOP-controlled House. Trump, who made immigration a key focus during the campaign and in his administration, celebrated its passage. Under the legislation, an undocumented immigrant previously convicted of a crime who attempts to re-enter the country could face between 10 and 25 years in prison." from website below www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/house-immigration-crackdown-n778141 .
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,315
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jul 6, 2017 8:48:55 GMT -5
If I was going to vote against it I would vote against it because I don't want to pay for illegals to be in prison for 10-25 years. Our prison system is already an overcrowded mess and we got really sick people getting out for "good behavior" because there is no where to house them. I'd rather have people like Nico Jenkins (google it) be kept in prison for the rest of his life than risk people like him being released early because otherwise there is no room for all these new people we're bringing in.
I feel awful for Kate's parents but we got our own homegrown sick mofos that need to be kept locked up. We can't start taking in another country's mofos too.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jul 6, 2017 9:51:52 GMT -5
That's pretty much along the lines of what I read in terms of what the law is. It's not just for those who re-enter and commit felonies, it's a minimum 5 years for anyone who re-enters illegally without any crime committed (I believe). It DOES increase minimum sentences for those who re-enter who have committed felonies, but it also raises the minimums on those who have only committed the crime of entering/re-entering illegally. That's probably why folks are voting against it...they either want less penalties for those who have only been entering/re-entering without committing any other crimes...or they don't want to put more non-violent offenders into our overcrowded jail system.
|
|
Rob Base 2.0
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 23, 2017 18:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 1,538
|
Post by Rob Base 2.0 on Jul 6, 2017 10:48:56 GMT -5
That's pretty much along the lines of what I read in terms of what the law is. It's not just for those who re-enter and commit felonies, it's a minimum 5 years for anyone who re-enters illegally without any crime committed (I believe). It DOES increase minimum sentences for those who re-enter who have committed felonies, but it also raises the minimums on those who have only committed the crime of entering/re-entering illegally. That's probably why folks are voting against it...they either want less penalties for those who have only been entering/re-entering without committing any other crimes...or they don't want to put more non-violent offenders into our overcrowded jail system. [ they have to have been deported 3 times already (if they committed no felonies) to be penalized under this bill / law: "Under the bill, if a deported alien reentered the U.S. illegally with a felony conviction or three misdemeanors on their record, he or she would go to prison for up to 10 years. Someone who is caught illegally crossing the border after having been deported three or more times would also serve up to 10 years." from the below www.washingtonexaminer.com/house-passes-kates-law-to-boost-penalties-against-deported-criminal-aliens-who-reenter-the-us/article/2627506.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 6, 2017 18:38:51 GMT -5
I can't believe anyone gets three tries at breaking the law. How nice. Next time I break the law, I'll point out I have two more tries.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 6, 2017 19:11:39 GMT -5
That's pretty much along the lines of what I read in terms of what the law is. It's not just for those who re-enter and commit felonies, it's a minimum 5 years for anyone who re-enters illegally without any crime committed (I believe). It DOES increase minimum sentences for those who re-enter who have committed felonies, but it also raises the minimums on those who have only committed the crime of entering/re-entering illegally. That's probably why folks are voting against it...they either want less penalties for those who have only been entering/re-entering without committing any other crimes...or they don't want to put more non-violent offenders into our overcrowded jail system. I'd rather not incarcerate those that are here illegally mainly for cost reasons, but I don't see any other option. We can't just deport criminals without punishment for crimes. It would be different if we could stop them from coming back in to the country, but we obviously can't. It would be different if our jails weren't summer camps for criminals, I'm guessing the standard of living in a US jail is better in most ways than living in freedom in a poor country. Unfortunately I see it as a necessity. If we can't keep them out then keep them in under lock and key. Perhaps prisons and jails need to be less inviting. No ac, no entertainment, mre's, basic medical care.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Jul 6, 2017 20:01:27 GMT -5
I'd rather not incarcerate those that are here illegally mainly for cost reasons, but I don't see any other option. We can't just deport criminals without punishment for crimes. It would be different if we could stop them from coming back in to the country, but we obviously can't. It would be different if our jails weren't summer camps for criminals, I'm guessing the standard of living in a US jail is better in most ways than living in freedom in a poor country. Unfortunately I see it as a necessity. If we can't keep them out then keep them in under lock and key. Perhaps prisons and jails need to be less inviting. No ac, no entertainment, mre's, basic medical care. Which probably shouldn't include gender reassignment surgeries.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 6, 2017 20:54:41 GMT -5
Perhaps prisons and jails need to be less inviting. No ac, no entertainment, mre's, basic medical care. Which probably shouldn't include gender reassignment surgeries. No kidding. That should never even be considered.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 14, 2024 19:22:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 21:12:47 GMT -5
I'd rather not incarcerate those that are here illegally mainly for cost reasons, but I don't see any other option. We can't just deport criminals without punishment for crimes. It would be different if we could stop them from coming back in to the country, but we obviously can't. It would be different if our jails weren't summer camps for criminals, I'm guessing the standard of living in a US jail is better in most ways than living in freedom in a poor country. Unfortunately I see it as a necessity. If we can't keep them out then keep them in under lock and key. Perhaps prisons and jails need to be less inviting. No ac, no entertainment, mre's, basic medical care. And no weight machines/workout equipment. I swear people get sent in and come out more buff and ready to be better criminals. Prison should be a place where they can reflect on the wrong that they did... and that's it... all day.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jul 7, 2017 12:21:06 GMT -5
That's pretty much along the lines of what I read in terms of what the law is. It's not just for those who re-enter and commit felonies, it's a minimum 5 years for anyone who re-enters illegally without any crime committed (I believe). It DOES increase minimum sentences for those who re-enter who have committed felonies, but it also raises the minimums on those who have only committed the crime of entering/re-entering illegally. That's probably why folks are voting against it...they either want less penalties for those who have only been entering/re-entering without committing any other crimes...or they don't want to put more non-violent offenders into our overcrowded jail system. [ they have to have been deported 3 times already (if they committed no felonies) to be penalized under this bill / law: "Under the bill, if a deported alien reentered the U.S. illegally with a felony conviction or three misdemeanors on their record, he or she would go to prison for up to 10 years. Someone who is caught illegally crossing the border after having been deported three or more times would also serve up to 10 years." from the below www.washingtonexaminer.com/house-passes-kates-law-to-boost-penalties-against-deported-criminal-aliens-who-reenter-the-us/article/2627506. I don't believe that's the extent of the bill. That's a specific scenario they're throwing out. Here are links to the bill (I have no idea if it was changed since then), plus a link to the act the bill modifies. You can see that it increases the penalty for re-entry a single time. You just don't get 10 years for the first time, you get 10 years after multiple times.
www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Bills/MDM15D29.pdf
www.lawandsoftware.com/ina/INA-276-sec1326.html
It's the first part of the actual bill, talking about the penalty for re-entry being changed from 2 years in prison, a fine, or both, to being a prison sentence of at least 5 years and not more than 6.
Although again, not sure if something else changed in the bill in the meantime, which is why I was asking if anyone had the bill...as opposed to an article where a reporter attempted to tell the public what was in the bill (which is typically not all-inclusive of legislation for obvious reasons that the general public has no taste for it).
|
|