Sue Tucker Carlson

The 2013 Immigration Reform bill that passed in the Senate (but was blocked in the House by extremist Repubs) with bipartisan support allowed for a path to citizenship for qualified applicants. It also provided for greatly enhanced border security.

"Well Clearly the Center for American Progress should be sued for promoting Replacement theory." What you cynically call replacement theory is in truth the humane treatment of resident immigrants supported by the majority of Americans.

Poll: 70 percent of Americans support a path to citizenship
https://thehill.com/latino/594625-poll-70-percent-of-americans-support-a-path-to-citizenship/

Who is eligible and what are the requirements?

The bill will allow undocumented immigrants to apply for Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status if they have been in the U.S. since December 31, 2011, have not been convicted of a felony or three or more misdemeanors, pay their assessed taxes, pass background checks, and pay application fees and a $1,000 penalty (which may be paid in installments), among other requirements. Applicants must also be admissible under current law, which excludes individuals who have committed certain offenses, participated in terrorist acts, or belong to other excluded categories. Spouses and children of RPIs would also be eligible. RPIs will not be eligible for federal means-tested public benefits such as Medicaid, food stamps, and benefits under the Affordable Care Act, and in general will not receive social security credit for previous unauthorized employment (except in the case of those who received a Social Security number prior to 2004).

How does the RPI program reflect the special circumstances of undocumented immigrants?

Many undocumented immigrants eligible for RPI status could be disqualified based solely on immigration status-related violations of immigration law. Consequently, certain grounds of inadmissibility or other factors that would disqualify a large segment of the undocumented population do not apply to RPI applicants. For example, the 3 and 10 year bars do not apply. Judges also have greater flexibility to make case-by-case determinations involving minor criminal violations or other infractions for humanitarian purposes, to promote family unity, or in the public interest. Individuals who have been deported are generally ineligible, but may be permitted to re-enter the United States and apply for RPI status if they meet all other requirements and have close relatives who are U.S. citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents.

When can undocumented immigrants apply for RPI status?

If S. 744 becomes law, there will be a delay between its enactment and implementation of the RPI program. The bill gives the government a year to publish regulations governing the program. The official application period should begin on the date of final publication of these regulations and is set to run initially for one year, with a possible extension of an additional 18 months at the discretion of DHS. In the interim, S. 744 prohibits removal of individuals who are eligible for RPI status, although it does not stop DHS from putting anyone in immigration proceedings who has committed crimes or is otherwise ineligible for status.

How long does RPI status last?

The initial grant of RPI status is good for six years. RPI status may be renewed for six years if the immigrant has remained regularly employed, which allows for gaps of up to 60 days between employment periods. If the immigrant cannot show continuous employment, he or she must demonstrate income or resources not less than 100 percent of the poverty level. Note that the 2013 federal poverty level for a family of four is $23,550 per year. There are exemptions to the employment requirement for full-time enrollment in school, maternity leave, medical leave, physical or mental disabilities, children under 21, and extreme hardship. Applicants for RPI renewal must also undergo another background check, pay taxes, and pay any remaining balance of the $1,000 RPI penalty, among other requirements.

When will Registered Provisional Immigrants be eligible for Lawful Permanent Residence?

Registered Provisional Immigrants will be able to apply for Lawful Permanent Residence (a “green card”), but they must go to the “back of the line” and have been in RPI status for at least 10 years. They will receive permanent residency only after all other applications submitted before the enactment of the bill have been processed. Like the RPI requirements, the requirements for permanent residence will include maintaining regular employment, which allows for gaps of up to 60 days at a time. In the alternative, if an applicant cannot show regular employment he or she would have to show an average income or resources of 125 percent of the poverty line during the RPI period. Exceptions are made for full-time students, children under 21, physical or mental disability, and showings of extreme hardship. Applicants would also have to show that they have maintained RPI status, paid taxes, meet English proficiency requirements (or be pursuing a course of study in English), pass an additional background check, and pay application fees and an additional $1,000 penalty.
https://www.americanimmigrationcoun...44-understanding-2013-senate-immigration-bill

 

If you think that you have been watching too much of “Tucker the *******”

 

I don’t think he will win this time though

 

And this has always been the rub - proving “actual malice” but he has been repeating critical race theory as a real issue and that just migh cross that line

 

What Carlson disingenuously said is Biden was accusing his immigration policy critics of racism. That's a lie. Carlson makes racist, dehumanizing comments about immigrants to gin up hatred for them among people like the Buffalo shooter irrespective of a policy dispute.

 

Do you see Tucker in this Ralph Northam video?


Why are you scared of anybody good at getting Democrat voters to think about the lies they are being fed by their party?

 

It used to be that when you were presented with those set of facts about aliens voting in US elections, you were incredulous. Times change. And with the passage, the potential fraud of illegal aliens and resident aliens voting in our elections seems quite more likely because of the policy democrats you support implemented in their states. If these folks were say represented by COVID mail in ballots that they didn't request but they still found their way to the counting machines... I'd say you have a real problem on your hands.

 

Do you have evidence that the Buffalo shooter who admitted to being an eco-fascist like AOC is a Fox News fan? Fascists like Mussolini and AOC evolve from Socialists.

Could you post a few examples of Tucker Carlson making "racist, dehumanizing comments about immigrants" outside of a bunch being on the terror watch list?

 

It must seem more likely to you because Repubs trying to suppress the votes of specific demographic groups need a rationale for the suppressive laws they are passing. So they make up lies about "the potential fraud of illegal aliens and resident aliens" but have nothing more than extremely anecdotal evidence of such.

 

Do you think that it's wrong that 3 million illegal aliens voted in an election?

 

I'm sorry you find the truth so inconvenient.

 

Do you think that 3 million illegal aliens voted in an election? If so, your evidence please.

 

I actually thought that you were acknowledging that 3 million illegal aliens voted, but you were saying that it was no big deal in a nation of over 300 million. In reading the PBS article which you linked to, I now know that the "3 million illegal alien votes" is an unproven Trump claim, and that you were just being a smartass in the way that you asked that question.

 

Which "replacement theory" are you saying that the Democrats are promoting?

 

No evidence that the piece of human waste shooter watched Tucker Carlson or Fox News!

 

Hmm.. so you don't agree that folks explicitly not allowed to vote should be able to? Is that your contention?

 

You are making the **** up as you go along. Feel free to quote from your link ANYTHING that shows otherwise. Carlson said “sounds like a classic case of extortion." and the court found that was an expression of opinion.

 

The real problem you have on your hands is endless innuendo about the illegal casting of votes is not supported by the facts. Even after extensive, forensic investigations of voting in multiple states.

 

And what about all the comments from those with a D by their name? Do they get sued as well?

 

Do you mean this Hillary?

Hillary Hopes You've
Forgotten - Have You?
From Diane Rigali
2-6-8

Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her "record," which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or "co-president" - and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder of what that record includes:


HILLARY, As First Lady, assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Pat Moynahan, key votes were needed to pass her legislation, that she would "demonize "anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.)


HILLARY assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations (Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood) were forced to withdraw their names from consideration, and then she chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as "my worst mistake."


HILLARY recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn.


HILLARY recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.


HILLARY also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. (FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee in 1996 both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty years.)


HILLARY, in order to open "slots" in the White House for her friends the Harry Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired. They were reported to the FBI for "gross mismanagement" and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours.


HILLARY also assumed the duty of directing the "bimbo eruption squad" and scandal defense:


...She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit.


...She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.


...Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all.


...And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury.


...And Bill was impeached by the House.


...And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, "I do not recall," "I have no recollection," and "I don't know" 56 times under oath).


HILLARY accepted the traditional First Lady's role of decorator of the White House at Christmas, but in a unique Hillary way. In 1994, for example, The First Lady's Tree in the Blue Room (the focal point each year) was Decorated with drug paraphernalia, sex toys, and pornographic ornaments, all personally approved by Hillary as the invited artists' depictions of the theme, "The Twelve Days of Christmas."


HILLARY wrote "It Takes a Village," demonstrating her socialist viewpoint.


HILLARY decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to get financial support.


HILLARY then left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen.


HILLARY played the "woman card" in the campaign for the Senate, by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her.


HILLARY'S husband further protected her by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.)


HILLARY, as the junior Senator from New York, passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11.


Quite a resume, isn't it? Sounds more like an organized crime family.


minimaxmall@yahoo.com

 

The incredulous thing here is your latest assertion. You have zero ability to assert it, but you did anyway, absent any auditable findings to support your contention. We have examples. The SCOTUS finding is just one. Ruh Roh Raggie......

 

How about you quote EVEN ONE example of Carlson doing so. I suspect youve never even watched his show.

 

I hope not. But I would never have believed it if somebody told me this argument would work the first time.

 

Yes, she was ahead of her time. The big pharma and health insurance company lobby made sure the bill failed to protect their profits.

 

See post # 40.