201 Marxists/Dems vote against The Kayla Hamilton Act, Sick Bastards …

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

fricking cunts would rather talk about piece of shite Rob Reiner.

This bill has real impact on people's lives.

I can not even turn it on. I hate that the American people have become so calloused from the pain that people elect those who are nothing but life support systems for wigs as their leaders.

quote:

---

Jasmine Crockett just referred to Kayla Hamilton, an autistic girl R*PED AND STRANGLED to death by an El Salvadoran illegal, as a “RANDOM DEAD PERSON” This piece of trash is out of control.

---

She's the penultimate hero of the modern left, and has become a leading voice among their party. They absolutely love her.

It speaks volumes about many things.

She and AOC are by FAR the stupidest "educated" people in Congress.

How many rinos will vote against it in the Senate to kill it?

quote:

---

The House of Representatives just passed the Kayla Hamilton Act, which would prohibit gang bangers who enter the US illegally as unaccompanied alien children from being released into our communities to victimize innocent Americans.

---

The OP's summary of the Act (above) is much narrower than the more-complete summary linked in the Tweet:

quote:

---

Restricts Who Can Be a Sponsor (Status): Prohibits the government (HHS) from placing an unaccompanied alien child (UAC) with a sponsor who is unlawfully present in the United States.

Restricts Who Can Be a Sponsor (Criminal History): Prohibits placing a UAC if the sponsor or any other adult living in the home has been convicted of a felony, sex crime, domestic violence, child abuse, or other serious offenses.

Mandates Full Household Vetting: Requires HHS to conduct comprehensive criminal background checks on the sponsor and all other adults in the household and share all results with DHS.

Mandates New Vetting for UACs: Requires screening for all UACs 12 and older, including: Contacting their home country's consulate to check for any criminal records and Conducting a physical examination for gang-related tattoos or markings.

Requires Placement in Secure Facilities: Mandates that a UAC (12 or older) must be placed in a secure detention facility (instead of with a sponsor) if they are determined to be a flight risk, a danger to the community, or have a criminal record or gang affiliation.

Forces Inter-Agency Consultation: Requires HHS to consult with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) before placing a UAC to ensure they will show up for immigration court and be protected.

Bans "Release on Recognizance": Explicitly prohibits UACs from being released on their own recognizance.

---

The boldface language is the ONLY part of the bill bearing any resemblance to the OP's portrayal. MAYBE the bill drew opposition for reasons OTHER than the boldface language.

quote:

---

RelentlessAnalysis

---

faggiehank alter

quote:

---

The boldface language is the ONLY part of the bill bearing any resemblance to the OP's portrayal. MAYBE the bill drew opposition for reasons OTHER than the boldface language.

---

Then let's look at those other parts.

quote:

---

Restricts Who Can Be a Sponsor (Status): Prohibits the government (HHS) from placing an unaccompanied alien child (UAC) with a sponsor who is unlawfully present in the United States.

---

What fricknut would be against this? Who wakes up and thinks "It would be such a great way to show these kids that what they are doing is wrong by putting them with adults who we know are here illegally too, but we just choose to do nothing about."?

quote:

---

Restricts Who Can Be a Sponsor (Criminal History): Prohibits placing a UAC if the sponsor or any other adult living in the home has been convicted of a felony, sex crime, domestic violence, child abuse, or other serious offenses.

---

Again, only someone seriously fricked in the head would think putting a child (UAC or not) in a home with a known pedophile. I guess that answers the question about why so many Dems voted against the bill. I could probably stop here, but I won't.

quote:

---

Mandates Full Household Vetting: Requires HHS to conduct comprehensive criminal background checks on the sponsor and all other adults in the household and share all results with DHS.

---

No shite? You mean like for things that would come up when checking on the other two options? Heaven forbid we try finding the safest possible places for these kids. frick it, just dig up Jeffy E. and send them all to his island to watch over.

quote:

---

Requires Placement in Secure Facilities: Mandates that a UAC (12 or older) must be placed in a secure detention facility (instead of with a sponsor) if they are determined to be a flight risk, a danger to the community, or have a criminal record or gang affiliation.

---

Oh, shite! More common fricking sense! Avert your eyes (and votes), Dems! We must let them run free like when someone blows those fricking parachute seeds off of dandelions.

quote:

---

Forces Inter-Agency Consultation: Requires HHS to consult with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) before placing a UAC to ensure they will show up for immigration court and be protected.

---

quote:

---

Bans "Release on Recognizance": Explicitly prohibits UACs from being released on their own recognizance.

---

They're children, they're unaccompanied and they come into the country illegally. What part of that screams they will respect any recognizance?

The boldfaced point was probably the least worthwhile of them all so anyone who looked at it and thought "I can agree with that, but not one one/any of the others" is too blindly partisan to even bother talking it over with.

quote:

---

the OP misrepresented the content of the legislation.

---

Not enough to matter. The core of the legislation is to begin stopping the deluge of UACs coming in illegally (who are often brought in as sex slaves and/or drug mules).

Aside from that, you posited that perhaps one (or more) of the other points was what caused individuals to vote against the bill. Which of those points do you think those who voted against it to be the most objectionable?

Yay...

How about another reconciliation bill?