Open Borders Forever

[DBTrek]

Democrat Bill Would Stop Future Presidents Lowering Refugee Intake Quota.
House Democrat introduced a bill that would prevent any future president from lowering the cap for refugee admissions below 125,000.
The bill, dubbed the “‘Lady Liberty Act of 2021,” counts support from over 50 House Democrats and has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The 2-page bill seeks to “amend the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to provide for a minimum number of refugees who may be admitted in any fiscal year after fiscal year 2022.”

To do so, the act would amend Section 207(a) of the INA by inserting after ‘‘in any fiscal year after fiscal year 1982 shall be such number as the President determines,’’ the following: ‘‘except that in any fiscal year after fiscal year 2022, such number may not be less than 125,000, without regard to whether or not the President makes any determination’.’

In other words, from fiscal year 2022 on, the U.S. president would be unable to lower the refugee admission minimum below 125,000 people.

https://thenationalpulse.com/breaking/d ... -minimmum/

The Dems ideas are so good they want to ensure that no one in the future can ever disagree, change, or reverse them. That's the sign of the BEST idea - coercively forcing everyone from here to the end of eternity to comply with what you think is best.
I mean - the free-willed people of the future might not know what's best for them, so may was well enshrine it in law now.

[kybkh]

[The Conservative]

Democrat Bill Would Stop Future Presidents Lowering Refugee Intake Quota.
House Democrat introduced a bill that would prevent any future president from lowering the cap for refugee admissions below 125,000.
The bill, dubbed the “‘Lady Liberty Act of 2021,” counts support from over 50 House Democrats and has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The 2-page bill seeks to “amend the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to provide for a minimum number of refugees who may be admitted in any fiscal year after fiscal year 2022.”

To do so, the act would amend Section 207(a) of the INA by inserting after ‘‘in any fiscal year after fiscal year 1982 shall be such number as the President determines,’’ the following: ‘‘except that in any fiscal year after fiscal year 2022, such number may not be less than 125,000, without regard to whether or not the President makes any determination’.’

In other words, from fiscal year 2022 on, the U.S. president would be unable to lower the refugee admission minimum below 125,000 people.

https://thenationalpulse.com/breaking/d ... -minimmum/

The Dems ideas are so good they want to ensure that no one in the future can ever disagree, change, or reverse them. That's the sign of the BEST idea - coercively forcing everyone from here to the end of eternity to comply with what you think is best.
I mean - the free-willed people of the future might not know what's best for them, so may was well enshrine it in law now.

So we live in a dictatorship now...

[TheOneX]

Meh, I think Congress is the appropriate place to determine this kind of stuff. It is always possible future Congress decides to change it.

[DBTrek]

Meh, I think Congress is the appropriate place to determine this kind of stuff. It is always possible future Congress decides to change it.

Unless Congress passes a law that future congress shall not rescind.


Not that they have to. I mean, if you want to look at the track record of laws that are actually revisited and repealed vs those that just limp along indefinitely - it's not even close.

[TheOneX]

Meh, I think Congress is the appropriate place to determine this kind of stuff. It is always possible future Congress decides to change it.

Unless Congress passes a law that future congress shall not rescind.

That would be called a Constitutional Amendment and would have to be ratified by the states. I think we are safe.


Second point is fair.

[Fife]

If there is going to be a federal legislature, why not make every law have a max life of 4 years? If a law isn't good enough for every other Congress to re-up it, we can surely do without it.

[TheOneX]

If there is going to be a federal legislature, why not make every law have a max life of 4 years? If a law isn't good enough for every other Congress to re-up it, we can surely do without it.

I think that is a good idea. I don't think it should be a blanket every four years, as Congress would either be lazy and just have a mega bill that re-ups everything every year. I would instead increase the expiration time every time a law is re-upped. So a new law would be 4 years, the second time would be 8 years, and so on and so forth. Then I would make it so each law has to be individually re-upped, so Congress can't be lazy.

[C-Mag]

If there is going to be a federal legislature, why not make every law have a max life of 4 years? If a law isn't good enough for every other Congress to re-up it, we can surely do without it.

I'd settle for a budget instead of a decade of continuing resolutions and NDAA's.

[Speakswiththumbs]

.