| Welcome to Virtual America. We hope you enjoy your visit. If you're looking to join and sign up for the first time, register here! You'll want to familiarize yourself with the rules of Virtual America which you can find here. And you'll want to read up on how to sign in and create your character here. After all than you can sign in and get to playing! We're all friends here and we're certain you'll enjoy it here at Virtual America! |
| HR 63 Responsible Immigration and Secure Enforcement Act | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 13 Jun 2013, 04:08 PM (342 Views) | |
| Heather Holson | 13 Jun 2013, 04:08 PM Post #1 |
![]()
|
48 hours for debate
Edited by Heather Holson, 13 Jun 2013, 06:49 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Daniel Hernandez | 13 Jun 2013, 04:22 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Wielder of the Gavel
|
Rick Thomas Madame Speaker, This is a bipartisan approach to immigration reform which will make our system work in a far more efficient, fair and safe manner. Accordingly, I request passage via unanimous consent. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| Heather Holson | 13 Jun 2013, 04:28 PM Post #3 |
![]()
|
Motion recognized. 24 hours for objections. |
![]() |
|
| Vissering | 13 Jun 2013, 04:31 PM Post #4 |
|
I'm radioactive.
|
Madame Speaker, I object. I am rather up in air about this bill, and as Im not fully confident whether I support it or not I'd like to see the arguments for and against it. However, I will add that I'm not a fan of granting citizenship to those here illegally. I yield Edited by Vissering, 13 Jun 2013, 04:31 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Heather Holson | 13 Jun 2013, 04:32 PM Post #5 |
![]()
|
Objection noted. Debate continues. |
![]() |
|
| Landry | 13 Jun 2013, 04:40 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Winter is Coming to the Red States
|
Madam Speaker, I fully understand the concerns of my dear friend from Arkansas, and I share some of her reservations. I would, however, harken back to comments made by former Speaker Gingrich--certainly not a gentleman I find myself in agreement with all that often. He pointed out, in addresses he made while exploring a Presidential bid, that we have millions of undocumented aliens living in this country and that, but for the offense of entering the country illegally, most have committed no crimes. They live above board, quiet lives dedicated to ensuring that their children are able to experience America at her fullest. Many of them have been a part of our communities for decades, attending our churches, volunteering in our schools, and doing the jobs that Americans and legal immigrants do not want to do. Where is our compassion in requiring these men and women, people who wanted nothing more than a better life, to live in perpetual fear and dread? Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor under federal law; we're not even dealing, for the most part, with felons. The present legislation balances compassion with ensuring that it is not a blank cheque; individuals qualifying under this bill will be forced to pay restitution for entering the country illegally, will be forced to learn English-as every American should-and will have a waiting period behind those who entered our country legally. I am proud to support this legislation, and I hope my friend from Arkansas eventually does as well; if not, I perfectly respect that, and her position. But as for me, this bill--and its companion border security bill--will command my vote. I yield back. |
![]() |
|
| Daniel Hernandez | 13 Jun 2013, 04:41 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Wielder of the Gavel
|
Rick Thomas Madame Speaker, I request permission to revise and extend my remarks. To respond to the gentlelady from Arkansas, this bill adopts a back of the line policy, guaranteeing that nobody will be granted automatic citizenship. This legislation contains a process whereby the millions of men and women who are here can be brought out of the shadows, ending the cost of millions of dollars in taxpayer services they may be receiving. This bill combines increased enforcement of the border with the kind of reforms that would enable us to target our resources on finding and deporting those who come here with criminal records. I would argue to my friend from Arkansas that we should not be deporting those who come to our shores to make a better life for themselves and for their families. I yield the balance of my time. |
![]() |
|
| Vissering | 13 Jun 2013, 04:53 PM Post #8 |
|
I'm radioactive.
|
Madame Speaker, I request permission to revise and extend my remarks. I have a question related to the legislation I would like to direct to the Gentleman from Texas, as well any of the bill's sponsors. The bill requires illegal immigrants to undergo a background law enforcement check, as I read. However unless I missed something, I do believe it fails to say what will happen to those who fail the check. What will happen to those immigrants? It is my firm belief that those here causing trouble and such should be deported. I'll also add that I certainly see the viewpoint on those immigrants here living simple pleasant lives, and I respect the view and am able to agree with it, to a point. I yield the floor. |
![]() |
|
| Daniel Hernandez | 13 Jun 2013, 05:18 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Wielder of the Gavel
|
Rick Thomas Madame Speaker, I request permission to revise and extend my remarks. In answer to the gentlelady from Arkansas, those who fail the background check would be able to be more easily deported. This background check would create for a streamlined process that would enable us to more effectively remove those who come into our country with evil intentions. I yield the balance of my time. |
![]() |
|
| Vissering | 13 Jun 2013, 05:30 PM Post #10 |
|
I'm radioactive.
|
Madame Speaker, I request permission to revise and extend my remarks. As the bill does not give a guarantee that criminal immigrants will be deported, I move to amend as follows:
I simply am proposing this for clarification, and I ask it to be accepted as friendly. I yield the floor. |
![]() |
|
| Daniel Hernandez | 13 Jun 2013, 05:31 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Wielder of the Gavel
|
Rick Thomas Madame Speaker, I request permission to revise and extend my remarks. I second the amendment proposed by the gentlelady from Arkansas. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| Brenninger | 13 Jun 2013, 05:34 PM Post #12 |
![]()
#Swaggy
|
Madame Speaker, I fully support this amendment and I move we pass it via unanimous consent. I yield |
![]() |
|
| Heather Holson | 13 Jun 2013, 06:49 PM Post #13 |
![]()
|
Being a primary sponsor of the legislation I accept the amendment as friendly. Debate continues |
![]() |
|
| Brenninger | 13 Jun 2013, 07:28 PM Post #14 |
![]()
#Swaggy
|
Madame Speaker, Would my colleague from Arkansas now remove her objection, so the bill can once again be considered for unanimous consent? I yield |
![]() |
|
| Patrick Callaghan | 13 Jun 2013, 07:51 PM Post #15 |
|
New England Republican >:D
|
Madame Speaker, In terms of procedural purposes I will consider the amendment friendly. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| Vissering | 13 Jun 2013, 10:13 PM Post #16 |
|
I'm radioactive.
|
Madame Speaker, I graciously remove my objection. I yield |
![]() |
|
| Heather Holson | 13 Jun 2013, 10:31 PM Post #17 |
![]()
|
With the objection removed the motion for passage by unanimous consent is recognized. 24 hours for objections. |
![]() |
|
| AK3 | 14 Jun 2013, 07:42 PM Post #18 |
![]()
|
Mr. Speaker, I object. I yield |
![]() |
|
| Daniel Hernandez | 14 Jun 2013, 07:46 PM Post #19 |
![]()
Wielder of the Gavel
|
Rick Thomas Madame Speaker, I request permission to revise and extend my remarks. Although I am aware the rules do not require a reason to be provided for the objection, perhaps the gentlelady from Vermont might explain the nature of her objection to the House? Reasoned debate requires an exchange of ideas, and knowing what the gentlelady opposite finds objectionable might be helpful in passing a better piece of legislation. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| AK3 | 14 Jun 2013, 08:00 PM Post #20 |
![]()
|
Mr. President, I generally disapprove of the requirement that immigrants must be able to speak English, especially considering that there is no official language in the United States; the fact if they don't pass a background check they aren't given citizenship; I'm especially fond of removing the provision requiring the payment of fines. All of this for the quest for a better life. Many come here through measures deemed "illegal" for the reason of getting away, it's their only chance, not because they don't want to go about it the right way. Everyday they face adversity, they are taken advantage of by employers, and they face the fear of further mistreatment by the government of their land of choice for a new life and the land of their former life when they are potentially deported back to. I generally found some things to amend in the beginning of the bill, which none of would have been passed, only to disapprove of every other provision of the rest of the bill. I just don't think this is the right solution we as a legislative body are looking for and think there are more humane ways to reform our immigration system. I yield |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · House Debate Archives · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
4:13 PM Jul 11
|
Theme by Sith of the ZBTZ









4:13 PM Jul 11