House passes Kate’s Law, as part of illegal immigrant crackdown

[Dashinka 25,887]

House Republicans took action Thursday to crack down on illegal immigrants and the cities that shelter them.

One bill passed by the House would deny federal grants to sanctuary cities and another, Kate’s Law, would increase the penalties for deported aliens who try to return to the United States.

Kate's Law, which would increase the penalties for deported aliens who try to return to the United States and caught, passed with a vote of 257 to 157, with one Republican voting no and 24 Democrats voting yes.

Kate's Law is named for Kate Steinle, a San Francisco woman killed by an illegal immigrant who was in the U.S. despite multiple deportations. The two-year anniversary of her death is on Saturday. 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/29/house-passes-kate-s-law-as-part-illegal-immigrant-crackdown.html

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

33 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

House Republicans took action Thursday to crack down on illegal immigrants and the cities that shelter them.

One bill passed by the House would deny federal grants to sanctuary cities and another, Kate’s Law, would increase the penalties for deported aliens who try to return to the United States.

Kate's Law, which would increase the penalties for deported aliens who try to return to the United States and caught, passed with a vote of 257 to 157, with one Republican voting no and 24 Democrats voting yes.

Kate's Law is named for Kate Steinle, a San Francisco woman killed by an illegal immigrant who was in the U.S. despite multiple deportations. The two-year anniversary of her death is on Saturday. 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/29/house-passes-kate-s-law-as-part-illegal-immigrant-crackdown.html

The other bill passed also,

 

"The other bill, which would deny federal grants to sanctuary cities, passed with a vote of 228-195 with 3 Democrats voting yes and 7 Republicans voting no."

 

What's the chance of them both getting through the Senate this time? 

 

[Dashinka 25,887]

4 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

The other bill passed also,

 

"The other bill, which would deny federal grants to sanctuary cities, passed with a vote of 228-195 with 3 Democrats voting yes and 7 Republicans voting no."

 

What's the chance of them both getting through the Senate this time? 

 

Hard to say, but I imagine Trump will be lobbying quite a bit to get them passed.

[IAMX 3,055]

9 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

The other bill passed also,

 

"The other bill, which would deny federal grants to sanctuary cities, passed with a vote of 228-195 with 3 Democrats voting yes and 7 Republicans voting no."

 

What's the chance of them both getting through the Senate this time? 

 

If we go back to last decade during Bush a lot of these GOP Senators that still serve today wanted amnesty..

 

I'm afraid it wouldn't pass the Senate as a normal bill, presuming automatic filibuster because that's how things are done now.

Edited June 30, 2017 by IAMX

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

Just now, IAMX said:

If we go back to last decade during Bush a lot of these GOP Senators wanted amnesty..

 

I'm afraid it wouldn't pass the Senate as a normal bill, presuming automatic filibuster because that's how things are done now.

Trying to get to grips with the jargon,

 

If  either party has 60 seats they can stop a filibuster, the GOP has 52 currently so it would need some Democrats to get either bill passed?

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, Mr&Mrs G. said:

Trying to get to grips with the jargon,

 

If  either party has 60 seats they can stop a filibuster, the GOP has 52 currently so it would need some Democrats to get either bill passed?

The Dems don't have to filibuster, but someone will because everything even remotely contentious is filibustered nowadays. Normal legislation does not need cloture, just the presiding officer (a chosen Senator, usually of the majority party) calls up the next action as requested from a Senator and that Senator asks for unanimous consent.. if anyone objects, it's a presumed filibuster, the Senator wanting to move to a vote either calls for a cloture roll-call vote (60+ votes to beat a filibuster) or asks the presiding officer to move to other business as a result. GOP has 52, if Dems don't filibuster (near impossibility, only need one single Senator to), GOP could pass the bill by simple majority (50-50 plus Pence's VP tie-breaker vote, or 51 affirming), but if they do filibuster, need all 52 GOP votes plus 8 Dem votes minimum, any way of getting 60+.

[Boiler 47,502]

How can anyone logically argue against this?

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

How can anyone logically argue against this?

Because it is bad for immigrants no matter if they are legal or not, also there should be no borders at all.

[IAMX 3,055]

32 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

Because it is bad for immigrants no matter if they are legal or not, also there should be no borders at all.

- Borders, bad

- Breaking laws, good!

 

[Boiler 47,502]

2 hours ago, cyberfx1024 said:

Because it is bad for immigrants no matter if they are legal or not, also there should be no borders at all.

I did say logical.

[Dashinka 25,887]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

I did say logical.

Yes, logic has left  the federal government some time ago.

Edited June 30, 2017 by Bill & Katya

[Dashinka 25,887]

6 hours ago, IAMX said:

The Dems don't have to filibuster, but someone will because everything even remotely contentious is filibustered nowadays. Normal legislation does not need cloture, just the presiding officer (a chosen Senator, usually of the majority party) calls up the next action as requested from a Senator and that Senator asks for unanimous consent.. if anyone objects, it's a presumed filibuster, the Senator wanting to move to a vote either calls for a cloture roll-call vote (60+ votes to beat a filibuster) or asks the presiding officer to move to other business as a result. GOP has 52, if Dems don't filibuster (near impossibility, only need one single Senator to), GOP could pass the bill by simple majority (50-50 plus Pence's VP tie-breaker vote, or 51 affirming), but if they do filibuster, need all 52 GOP votes plus 8 Dem votes minimum, any way of getting 60+.

I seem to remember the DNC needing to defend a lot of senate seats in 2018.  One wonders with the overwhelming majority of the American public against sanctuary cities if there will be at least 8 or more Democrat senators willing to support the sanctuary city bill.

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/320487-poll-americans-overwhelmingly-oppose-sanctuary-cities

[Boiler 47,502]

5 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I seem to remember the DNC needing to defend a lot of senate seats in 2018.  One wonders with the overwhelming majority of the American public against sanctuary cities if there will be at least 8 or more Democrat senators willing to support the sanctuary city bill.

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/320487-poll-americans-overwhelmingly-oppose-sanctuary-cities

Most of them are in safe seats and have no fear of re election issues.

[Dashinka 25,887]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

Most of them are in safe seats and have no fear of re election issues.

Probably, but many of them including one of the senators from my state swung for Trump.  Their are others in Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Montana, West Virginia and Missouri as well.  It may be an exciting 2018.

[IAMX 3,055]

17 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Now that is something I personally feel placing a very large sum on happening.

The gift that keeps on giving.