ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (11/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

 

National

Bill to Prevent Sex Offenders Entry Into U.S.

Source: iowatorch.com 10/7/21

DES MOINES, Iowa – 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.

“There was no question that our immigration system right now, under the Biden administration, is strained to its limits, all by the crises they created. Properly betting and processing these individuals is a must,” Ernst said on a conference call with Iowa press on Wednesday.

“We have already seen extremely concerning issues and the Biden administration’s ability to carry out those vetting processes properly. Another key obstacle that we must address immediately is making sure that criminal sexual predators, who are seeking to take advantage of our strained immigration system to enter our country, are identified, stopped, and, if found here, expeditiously deported,” she stated.

Read the full article

 

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 
Subscribe
Notify of
22 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“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.
  • 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.

Last edited 1 month ago by LPH

No, Ernst is an Iowa Republican. Her state’s agricultural industry needs immigrant labor or they’ll have to pay Americans more to do it. They just prefer the immigrants come illegally and are more desperate (and less politically salient).

My guess is this is all about Mollie Tibbetts, who was killed by an undocumented Mexican man, although he had no previous sex crime conviction as far as I know. I’m also guessing we don’t let in anyone with a second crimes conviction anyway so this is all moot.

And despite examples like this, there are those here who think our hopes for relief lies with conservatives. It’s like the Jews might have hoped for relief from the Nazis. Wake up and smell the coffee.

There are also people here who think hopes for relief lie with liberals. It’s like WWII Jews hoping the Italians would offer them some relief. The choice between asking Nazis or Italian Fascists for relief is basically what youv’e got in this country. Neither liberals nor conservatives have been particularly helpful in offering relief so let’s not pretend one is better than the other for that.

All of you are correct. Fact is there is less and less room in the middle as each moves to their extreme. But the people have been convinced the database will save the day for the general welfare. Never has ignoring constitutional limit control been in the general interest.

Fascist bitch. We’ll kill this one too along with HR 5150.

AS IF “sexual predators” are routinely getting into the U.S. as it is. Joni is a Trumpist, nationalist, populist demagogue like the rest of the Republican Party today, busy creating phantom boogeymen to appeal to their appallingly ignorant base.

I used to be an ignorant Republican who believed the politicians were looking out for Americans, country, and world. Senator Ernst does represent the acronym for Iowa well, so I give her some credit.

I’m calling you out, DIK. You are slapping labels on people just like you probably don’t want labels slapped on you. This is wrong and you know it. By placing labels on people, you are participating in a game of inciting violence and censorship against those who hold conservative values. Far left and far right ideologies tread on all of us.

I hope you don’t get triggered to easily by the red hats because I have a feeling we’re going to start seeing them everywhere soon. I’ll be wearing mine with a shirt that says “Made In America” as well. I also hope you and I never cross paths and you don’t lash out on me for being a Trump supporter and a “nationalist”, whatever that is supposed to mean.

Are murderers, etc. Ok to enter?

Hey, leave murderers alone! They never harmed anyone. That’s why we don’t put them on an Oppression List. It’s not like they were looking at bad pictures or something.

I mean, I’d rather my child was shot than someone have SEX with them. America is pretty cool with school shootings. Not school SEX though!

If America cared about school shootings then we would have created a Gun Offenders Registry decades ago. Kept those Gun Offenders from living near schools, of course. All that. Because Registries protect children.

But here’s a hint – Registries don’t protect children, aren’t for public safety, and are nothing but lies supported by lying scumbags.

Will is right—the only crime against children where a persons’s proximity to a school mattered that I’ve heard of was the “I Don’t Like Mondays” case in San Diego, where a 16 year old girl opened fire on Kindergartners at recess from her bedroom window (although she has no priors AFAIK). I do remember in the 1990s (and to a lesser extent more recently) there being lots of “school safety zone” signs in high crime urban areas, where presumably gun or drug crimes would carry heavier penalties. Did that work? My guess is not, but that would be an interesting set of data to mine.

To be clear – I don’t think “residency restrictions” help with any crime. People are going to commit crimes at schools. Some of those people will live by the schools and some won’t. Does it matter? Did it affect their decision to commit a crime? I can’t imagine. One anecdote one way or another doesn’t matter.

My point is that if “residency restrictions” make any sense for sex offenses then they surely make the same sense for gun offenses and piles of other offenses. If the “restrictions” actually were for safety, then those “restrictions” would exist for gun offenders and more.

But the whole thing is just stupid. Even if 0 PFRs live anywhere near schools, that does not change the risk around there at all. People STILL MUST PROTECT THE CHILDREN. Always. Or, as we see all the time, a child will be assaulted and PFRs will have nothing to do with it.

“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”

They need to scratch that off the Statue of Liberty! That sentiment doesn’t apply anymore thanks to the current outrage culture and people like Joni Ernst and Chris Smith.

Do you think it’s possible to petition the French to take back the Statue of Liberty or to nationally televised the US government scratching off that part?

Last edited 1 month ago by L

Well, I get everyone’s view! We shouldn’t allow illegal immigration! I’ve attended (friend) a swearing in LA and I was blown away by how many people where present! That was 1/3 for the day and this was going on all over the country.? We have a homeless crisis that’s out of control! This isn’t about hate, but rather enforcing the laws and not disrespecting the tax payers and all of the military personnel who have given their lives for our freedoms! It’s also about insuring we know who comes to our country to avoid terrorist activities or another 911! If we allow murderers, drug lords or those with serious offenses to immigrate to our country, what are we really saying? No, the registry shouldn’t exist; but let’s be honest. No victims here. Would (how honest are you?) any of you re committed a crime? Hmmm? Or, let’s pretend that if you sexually assault a woman only gets you 30 days in jail? Probation? Misdemeanor? Registry doesn’t exist? Murder: probation? Crime would increase! Don’t lie! I think in reality, serious 10 years on registry? Minor? 5 years? Lifetime of your a repeat offender? It’s not going away! What do you think and let’s be real? We can’t let anyone come to our country! It’s not about hate, but rather protecting our country and national security’

Lol I think she banned me 😇

[snip]
Me personally I don’t care about leaving the country why would I spend $7.000 on a family vacation to Rome for 2 weeks just to come home and still be on the registry labeled a sex offender.
People forced to register in California still trying live normal lives are like drug addicts getting high to numb their pain, pretending to be a normal person in society while on the registry is just a temporary high, then reality kicks back in and you realize that your a registered sex offender that is not wanted in todays society.

Good luck

The problem though Aero1 is that as soon as you stop trying you let them win. You internalize their message and then you become your own jailor and your own worst enemy. I prefer the illusion of normalcy as much as possible to the self-hate and self-castigation you seem to prefer, but each to their own. So far they have taken very little from me even though I am a tier 3 simply because I refuse to allow them into my mind. I also refuse to do their job for them.

One wonders who’s behind the “iron curtain” with all this computer greed when everyone wants a piece of the information “action highway.Talk about irreconilable differences. The rhyme or reasoning is not their or who assumes the role of who they should let in and who they should ban.Government is already in jeapordy and this potato state wants to pass a bill………… unreal.

It’s funny how they don’t want sex offenders in the communities but they don’t allow sex offenders to leave either. Lol

My sister in law researches immigrants committing crimes in the United States. I wonder what her current research is on immigrants committing/committed sex offenses in the country. Maybe she should educate Congress.

22
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.