on the Laken Riley Act. I just discovered that the critical new part, paragraph e, requires the immigrant to have violated sections of 8 USC 212. And 8 USC 212 was repealed in 1952. I checked the copy of the bill (HR 89 EH). Like all the prior versions of this act, it references Section 212. I'm pretty sure they meant Section 1252. The H…
on the Laken Riley Act. I just discovered that the critical new part, paragraph e, requires the immigrant to have violated sections of 8 USC 212. And 8 USC 212 was repealed in 1952. I checked the copy of the bill (HR 89 EH). Like all the prior versions of this act, it references Section 212. I'm pretty sure they meant Section 1252. The House passed the same Bill, same wording, back in March (It died in the Senate).
My question is, if a bill gets passed that requires someone have violated a repealed statute, does that requirement stand? The migrant has to have BOTH be inadmissible under these repealed these sections AND been guilty of the kinds of crimes people are talking about (burglary, theft, larceny, and for some reason shoplifting.)
Yeah, I know, typos are easy to fix. But surely in all the time this bill has been around someone should have noticed??? Do you think it will pass the Senate? Can it be fillibustered?
On the New AG and the Documents case: If the 11th Circuit actually orders that the report be released, can Bondi or whoever refuse to release it? It is the lesser of the two cases we need to learn details about because it is REALLY CLEAR that there are actually no defenses to it. We've all seen the bathroom.
on the Laken Riley Act. I just discovered that the critical new part, paragraph e, requires the immigrant to have violated sections of 8 USC 212. And 8 USC 212 was repealed in 1952. I checked the copy of the bill (HR 89 EH). Like all the prior versions of this act, it references Section 212. I'm pretty sure they meant Section 1252. The House passed the same Bill, same wording, back in March (It died in the Senate).
My question is, if a bill gets passed that requires someone have violated a repealed statute, does that requirement stand? The migrant has to have BOTH be inadmissible under these repealed these sections AND been guilty of the kinds of crimes people are talking about (burglary, theft, larceny, and for some reason shoplifting.)
Yeah, I know, typos are easy to fix. But surely in all the time this bill has been around someone should have noticed??? Do you think it will pass the Senate? Can it be fillibustered?
On the New AG and the Documents case: If the 11th Circuit actually orders that the report be released, can Bondi or whoever refuse to release it? It is the lesser of the two cases we need to learn details about because it is REALLY CLEAR that there are actually no defenses to it. We've all seen the bathroom.