U.S. Senator Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, introduced a bill on Wednesday that blocks sex offenders from immigrating to the United States, and deports those convicted of sexual offenses.
The “BE GONE” Act, or the Better Enforcement of Grievous Offenses by un-Naturalized Emigrants Act – that would make “sexual assault and aggravated sexual violence” a disqualifying act for those seeking to immigrate to the U.S.—such as those given the temporary status of “humanitarian parole.”
The bill also gives law enforcement the ability to deport those convicted of violent sex crimes or sexual assault and those trying to immigrate. Specifically, it would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 to include sexual assault and other forms of aggravated sexual violence as a disqualifying crime for foreign applicants for residence in the United States and deportable for non-citizen resident immigrants.
So, my voice has been silenced here.
I doubt FAC has the power to silence anyone. If they could, they’d silence Ron Book.
https://all4consolaws.org/2021/10/bill-to-prevent-sex-offenders-entry-into-u-s/#comment-276872
“Right now, the current laws on the books don’t effectively target those who have been convicted of sexual assault and sexual violence. We desperately need to update these laws to make sure we block sexual predators from immigrating to the U.S.,” Ernst added.
That statement is WRONG. 8 USC 1182: Inadmissible aliens ( https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8-section1182&num=0&edition=prelim: ) already defines who can/can not enter the US.
In pain language according to https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/what-crimes-make-immigrants-inadmissible.html :
“You become inadmissible to the U.S. if you have been convicted of, admit to having committed, or admit having committed acts that add up to the essential elements of one of the following:
A crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or attempting or conspiring to commit such a crime. Two exceptions exist, including one for minors (under 18 years of age) who committed the crime and were released from any prison or confinement more than five years before applying for a visa or other immigration benefit; and one for where the maximum penalty possible for the person’s crime is less than one year’s imprisonment, and the person was not, in fact, sentenced to more than six months.A violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any controlled substance (drug) law, whether it’s a U.S. or foreign law.
Multiple criminal convictions (two or more, other than purely political offenses) for which the total, aggregate prison sentences were five years or more. It doesn’t matter whether the conviction came from a single trial or scheme of misconduct or from separate ones.
Illicit trafficking in any controlled substance (drug). No actual conviction is required for this one: It’s enough that the consular officer or the Attorney General has reason to believe that you’ve been a trafficker, or even a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, or colluder with others in illicit trafficking.
Benefiting from illicit drug trafficking, by a spouse, son, or daughter of the trafficker within the previous five years. This means having obtained any financial or other benefit from such illicit trafficking, while having known or reasonably should have known where the money or other benefits came from.
Prostitution and commercialized vice. This applies to people who will or have engaged in prostitution (within ten years of applying for a visa or other immigration benefit), as well as to those involved in procuring prostitutes or who receiving proceeds from prostitution, as well as to anyone coming to the United States to engage in any other unlawful commercialized vice.
Involvement in serious criminal activity, where the person has asserted immunity from prosecution, departed the United States as a result, and not subsequently submitted to the jurisdiction of the relevant U.S. court.
Particularly severe violations of religious freedom while serving as a foreign government official.
Human trafficking, whether inside or outside the United States; or apparently being a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, or colluder with such a trafficker in severe forms of trafficking in persons.
Benefiting from human trafficking, by a spouse, son, or daughter of the trafficker, within the previous five years, where the person knew or reasonably should have known where the money or other benefits came from. There is an exception for a son or daughter who was a child at the time he or she received the benefit.
Laundering of monetary instruments; or apparently being a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, or colluder with others in money laundering.”
So the difference Ernst wants is no exceptions allowed period. It seems to me she just wants less immigrants.
LPH unless I missed something, I don’t see where sexual assault or aggravated sexual violence (perhaps she meant assault) currently disqualify entry into the U.S. That is unless you are considering them as crimes of “moral turpitude.” Unfortunately that term is not defined in black-letter law. The courts, such as in United States ex rel. Manzanella v. Zimmerman, have described conduct involving moral turpitude as: “An act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.”
Given the vagueness of that description, damned near anything could be included, and would morph as social mores change. With a few specified exceptions, those convicted of only one criminal offense can generally now be admitted. I don’t significantly object to Sen. Ernst including those particular violent crimes except that it singles out sex offenses and likely won’t end there. We’ve all seen how ambitious “polichickens” try to capitalize on sex offender moral panic for political gain.
Veritas.
P.S. The bill is S.2945 but the actual text is not yet available from the GPO.
(CITATIONS MISSING)
Ms Joni, is a Retired Lt Colonel from the Iowa National Guard….
According to WIKIPEDIA, She is a Republican and is a Trump Supporter, but oddly enough, the KOCH Brothers have donated, over the years, to her Political Campaigns…..
Maybe, just another intrusive politician, Like the ‘Barbie Doll’, ‘Whiskey Blue’s DAUTA! (The Dude that crashed his car because he was allegedly DRUNK and then later sued a Vet about the death of his pet bird, ‘BLUE’)
It really doesn’t matter which politicians are Republicans or Democrats. They are all politicians who seek to make laws that will either get them into office or keep them there. That’s something our members seem to miss from time to time when discussing laws and ordinances against people forced to register. Party affiliation is not useful in identifying which politicians are harmful to our cause because none of them that I am aware of are helpful to our cause.
And I’d like to add that it really doesn’t matter if someone is a Trump supporter. As if Trump was the only Republican president we’ve ever had. I never in my life saw so much concern over who supported which president. We used to be a society that kept who we voted for to ourselves. WTF happened?
Anyway, as Bob said; IT DOESNT MATTER. Politicians are trying to win votes. If Republicans come up with a sex offense bill to make the lives of RSO’s more difficult, your wonderful Democrats will surely support it. It’s about the only time the two sides can ever agree on anything because they know the public has been brainwashed.
If the US govt wants to deport nasty guys like me, why do they make it so hard for me to leave of my own accord?
Exactly! I’m ready to go. Let me!
she is Ignorant trying to make some kind of a name for her to look good at election time, what she suggest is already Protocal and deportation
of these ppl can only be done if they hold a green card on this side of the creek and during the immigration process here, it is Up to USCIS to get police clearences from the person imigrating here
and still its solely up to the discression of USCIS to deport anyone.
try again Joni!
Well Experienced after I read it I feel the same as you…..you got the right #….BINGO!!
Too bad she doesn’t want to exclude murderers, drug dealers, armed robbers, armed car jackers, armed home invaders, and other miscellaneous ‘riff-raff’.
— also, the men in other countries who are allowed to beat their wives in public and who punish a woman because a man decides to rape her. These men would not be stopped by Ernst’s bill, nor the males who commit all sorts of acts in their country that would be considered a sex crime in the U. S. but not in their country. All of these people would be welcomed by Ernst.
Aren’t convicted felons ALREADY blocked/deported? Is this just symbolic legislation?
no they are not blocked. if they have past domestic Violence in there criminal record then they would be made to take a risk assessment test.
Convicted sex offenders and people with a no conviction due to adjucation are already barred under INA § 212(S
Joni- IOWA (Idiots Out Wanting Attention) ( from Iowa origionally)
#Experenced
If they are so big on getting rid of people with sex charges, I would gladly volunteer too move to the EU. Thanks.
Count me too.
The noose never gets looser.
I doubt they put as much thought into that bill as they did into the acronym, “Be Gone.” It seems they create an acronym first, then the legislation to match the acronym. Wastes so much time and taxpayer dollars.