From the Department of Homeland Security

Comes this statement today about President Joe Biden’s immigration bill:

Individuals outside of the United States will not be eligible for legal status under the bill President Biden sent to Congress today.

The legalization provisions in that bill apply only to people already living in the United States.


From the Department of Homeland Security — 15 Comments

  1. Wait, what?

    PRESIDENT Biden?

    But Lopez kept telling us to just wait, and that Biden wouldn’t be President.

  2. How will Sleepy Joe know, sneak in and say you have been here for 3 years and get your back pay, no questions asked or it will be deemed racist.

  3. There has been a well documented procedure for persons living in other nations to apply to immigrate LEGALLY to the U.S. Millions of people from other nations have followed our laws and came here legally and then became citizens.

    Anybody who disobeyed our laws, violated our laws and came into the U.S. illegally must be rounded up and removed and sent back to their nation of origin. Besides being sent back to their country of origin, they should never be allowed to immigrate to our nation legally or otherwise for the remainder of their lives.

  4. Blah blah blah, fill up the country with third world scum.

    Soon it will be just like the third world.

    Large parts of it already are.

  5. Another issue not resolved in last 4 years and of course will not be resolved under the Biden Administration. The practice of some governors and mayors in the U.S. declaring their states or cities as sanctuaries for illegal aliens. These governors and mayors should have been charged with a crime and prosecuted and put in jail.

    How are a majority of voting citizens so absolutely stupid to have allowed this to happen? Suppose they would be OK if someone broke into their house and demanded that they get shelter and food.

  6. bred winner

    What, exactly, would that crime be ?

    Can you share a statutory cite to the federal code ?


    Regarding Harboring or giving Sanctuary to illegal aliens by anyone in the U.S. including governors and mayors:

    Per United States Department of Justice, “1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses”

    “Harboring — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.”

    Many years ago, it was common for U.S. Presidents and other politicians to refer to illegal aliens as “illegal aliens”. Then, in later years, perhaps starting with President Barak Hussein Obama, politicians and the mostly left wing media substituted the irrational and incorrect term, “undocumented immigrant”.

    In his 1995 State of the Union Speech, Democrat President Bill Clinton said that Americans “are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.”

    Clinton said:

    “The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public services they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws.”

  8. In a Democrat presidential debate in June of 2019, Moderator Savannah Guthrie asked a question of the candidates regarding the health care plans they would propose as follows:

    “This is a show of hands question and hold them up so people can see. Raise your hand if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants.”

    Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Andrew Yang, Pete Buttigieg, Kirsten Gillibrand, Michael Bennet, Marianne Williamson, John Hickenlooper, and Eric Swalwell all raised their hand.

    Already, Biden has made some decisions that harm American citizens. Will he and/or Democrats who now control the U.S. Congress further hurt them by using tax dollars to pay for health care for those who disrespected U.S. laws and came into our Nation illegally? Reward the illegals instead of sending them back to their country of origin?

  9. sure it does … i got some russian stocks to sell you too… hahaha….

    what makes you think anyone would believe this cheatin , lying Not My Prez, … beady eyed black snake… i mean really…

    fool me once… no MO…

  10. bred winner

    I think you’ve got problems (quite a few, actually, but let’s start by noting just a couple) attempting to apply 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) to sanctuary states and cities. This is a federal penal provision and prohibits “any person” from violating its provisions. A violation of § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) can result in a fine, imprisonment or both, the statutory maximum term of imprisonment being 5 years (unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years). Now, apart from the explicit statutory language (“any person”), I think you appreciate the difficulty of construing penal provisions (“go to jail, go directly to jail”) as being applicable to corporate entities (be they governmental or otherwise). I would be interested in a cite to any prosecution of a state or local government for a purported violation of § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii).

    Moreover, any effort by the federal government to compel (or punish or retaliate for refusal) state or local governments to enforce federal immigration laws would likely run afoul of the Tenth Amendment, which bars the federal government from commandeering state officials to carry out federal tasks. (See,e.g., Printz vs. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 925 (1997) (invalidating federal law requiring state officers to conduct background checks on individuals purchasing handguns)). Now, if the Tenth Amendment prohibits such commandeering, it likely likewise prohibits backhanded legal attempts to accomplish the same prohibited result. This is why over the years the federal government has attempted other coercive avenues to compel state and local cooperation with regard to immigration enforcement, such as funding restrictions.

    I believe the foregoing is good for starters.

  11. I pose this question for those who support.

    How is it equitable to just allow anyone who sneaks in to stay? Why are we giving an advantage to one group of people (who live in North America and can access our country by land) vs someone say in India that can’t just sneak over?

    How is that right or fair? We shouldn’t treat someone different just because they are across an ocean instead of a land border. It definitely DOESN’T fit in with progressive ideals because you are discriminating based on where a person was born. How is THAT progressive????

  12. Neal

    You are posing a false dichotomy. U.S. law treats them the same regardless of country of origin. I don’t perceive of any way in which the U.S. can enact a law or take any other measures to move India closer to the U.S. Perhaps your beef is with Jehovah.

  13. Did not expect Barak Hussein Obama’s AG’s, Holder and Lynch, to prosecute governors and mayors for harboring illegal aliens. But, was disappointed that AG William Barr did not.

    U.S. Senator Tom Cotton properly used the term “illegal aliens” on a Sunday morning news talk show.

    The evil left wing media continue to falsely use the term “undocumented immigrant” rather than the correct “illegal alien”.

    When will the nutty left wing media start using “undocumented withdrawl” for a bank robber taking cash from a bank?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *