Tipsheet
Premium

Revealing: Why Are Democrats Opposing These Two Bills?

Guy Benson
Guy Benson  |  September 23, 2024 2:01 PM

In case you missed it last week, a large majority of House Democrats opposed a bill that would have designated non-citizens convicted of sexual assault or domestic violence crimes as "inadmissible and deportable.”  The legislation passed, with several dozen Democrats crossing the aisle to join unanimous Republicans, but the overwhelming bulk of the lower chamber's Democratic caucus voted against the measure.  They tried to frame the debate as an election year stunt, or "anti-immigrant," but given the extremely serious and growing issue of violent crimes committed by migrants, it's still a bit shocking to see a major American political party decide to align against legislation like this.  It should not be a partisan issue to assert that people who are not citizens of our country do not have a right to remain in America if they are convicted of serious crimes here.  

This bill should have enjoyed sweeping approval by acclamation, but that's not what happened, as described by the Washington Examiner:

The House passed a bill on Wednesday that would require the federal government to deport illegal immigrants who have a criminal history involving domestic violence and sex offenses. The Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, introduced by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), passed the lower chamber 266 to 158, with 51 Democrats joining all Republicans to advance the measure. The legislation, if signed into law, would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act so that “aliens” convicted of or who have committed sex offenses or domestic violence are “inadmissible and deportable.” ...“H.R.7909 is about common sense — a trait sorely lacking in Washington these days,” Mace wrote. “This bill ensures predators who pose a threat and have been previously convicted of sexual assault, domestic violence and other heinous crimes are turned away or immediately deported.” “The legislation makes sure those who pose a threat are kicked out before they can cause more harm,” the congresswoman continued. “It’s time to stop coddling criminals and start standing up for the innocent victims who deserve justice and families who deserve peace of mind.”

The full story is here. After roughly three-quarters of House Democrats opposed her legislation, Mace ripped into them:

In addition to deporting migrants convicted of sex crimes, the legislation would also deem illegal immigrants who admit to domestic violence or sex-related charges – or are convicted of them – to be inadmissible in the U.S. It’s part of a wider legislative push by the House GOP to spotlight issues stemming from the border crisis, which has for months affected cities and states across the country. Congresswoman Nancy Mace told Fox News Digital hours before the vote that she "100%" anticipated Democrats voting against her bill. "If you vote against it, you're sexist against women," Mace declared. "I mean, truly, because we're talking about illegals who are here who are committing domestic violence, rape and murder on women and children – they’ve gotta go. They shouldn't be allowed into our country." Democrats have panned the bill as xenophobic, however. "Here we are again, debating another partisan bill that fear mongers about immigrants, instead of working together to fix the immigration system," Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., said during debate on the bill. "I probably shouldn't be too surprised. Scapegoating immigrants and attempting to weaponize the crime of domestic violence is appearing to be a time-honored tradition for Republicans."

It is not "scapegoating immigrants" to insist that those immigrants who are convicted of serious crimes shouldn't be allowed to stay here. How is that "weaponizing" anything, beyond 'weaponizing' violent crimes against the non-citizen assailants of said crimes?  You don't have a right to be in the United States if you're here illegally, and that's especially true if you violate even more of our laws.  And even if you're a non-citizen present lawfully in the country, if you're convicted of sexual assault or domestic violence, the privilege of your presence here should be revoked.  Again, this ought not be controversial, yet more than 150 House Democrats lined up to shoot down a bill codifying this basic common sense.  Along somewhat similar lines, we have this story:

We are obviously very close to a government shutdown. We're only a week away. Government funding is going to end September 30th...[A bill] failed in the House, allowing Johnson to now be able to pivot to negotiating with the Senate Democrat-led majority. And we know that in the Senate there is—and actually amongst some Republicans, as well, there is a proclivity towards supporting a three-month continuing resolution. That would be basically maintaining federal funding at the current levels it is, but with—in a clean way, with no added provisions, as this citizenship bill is deeply opposed by Democrats and would be vetoed by the White House.

Legislation to make explicit that only US citizens can vote in our federal elections (some deep blue jurisdictions are expanding local voting to non-citizens) should -- again -- be a no-brainer.  But this is "deeply opposed" by Democrats, spurring a veto threat from the Biden-Harris administration.  Merely believing that this is duplicative and unnecessary does not prompt passionate opposition.  It is telling that the Democratic Party is invested in fighting against both deportations for convicted felon noncitizens, as well as safeguards to ensure non-citizens cannot participate in US elections (they also attack widely-supported voter ID laws as somehow racist).  The acceptable number of non-citizens voting is zero.  Stories like this are unacceptable.  I'll leave you with another development highlighting the perils of unsecured borders: 

Recommended

Why Again Do We Still Have a Special Relationship With the Tyrannical UK? Kurt Schlichter
Wray and Mayorkas Were Set to Testify Today. They Didn't Show Up. Katie Pavlich

The group of Tajik migrants with suspected ties to ISIS had been planning an attack on an LGBTQ establishment in Philadelphia and looked to target “infidels” before they were pinched in June, The Post has learned. The eight terror suspects from Tajikistan crossed the southern border, some using the Harris-Biden administration’s CBP One phone app, and federal agents didn’t uncover any information suggesting terrorism ties, sources said. They were nabbed as part of a multi-state sting that spanned New York, Philadelphia and Los Angeles — with one of the suspects caught on wiretap talking about bombs, sources previously said. But it later emerged that the group had also planned the attack in the City of Brotherly Love, a Congressional source told The Post, without elaborating. A US Immigration and Customs Enforcement source also said that the group had been discussing targeting “infidels” in the US. It is not clear how the group planned to carry out the attack or its exact location.

We covered this story months ago, and now we have a better pictures of what these Islamist radicals were plotting.  You'd think the intended target would be highly newsworthy, but this whole story is an unhelpful one this close to an election, so this has received little traction in much of the media. Kamala Harris, you'll recall, believes we should cancel terms like "illegal alien" or "radical Islamic terrorism" altogether.  She also insists it's a crazy conspiracy theory that terrorists are exploiting the border, but that reality is a fact.  And according to a whistleblower, the Biden-Harris administration is trying to cover up that fact: