Pirate's Cove

Is this worse or better than Republican Rep Maria Elvia Salazar’s? Or, are both horrendous and a giveaway to illegals which will entice more illegals to come

Sen. Alex Padilla introduces legislation for pathway to lawful permanent residency for immigrants

Amid weeks of federal immigration enforcement activity in the Southland, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., announced on Friday legislation intended to expand existing pathways for immigrants to obtain lawful permanent residency.

His bill would update the Immigration Act of 1929, also referred to as the Registry Bill.” The law provides the Secretary of Homeland Security the discretion to register certain individuals for lawful permanent resident status if they have been in the country since a certain date, among other requirements.

The act was established in 1929, and Congress has modified it four times — most recently during the Reagan administration in 1986.

Since then, no changes have been made. According to Padilla’s office, the Registry Bill currently allows immigrants who have lived in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 1972, to apply for and obtain a green card.

Under the proposal, immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for at least seven years, do not have a criminal record and meet all other current eligibility requirements could apply to receive a green card.

So, it would count for those who haven’t been convicted, just charged? Remember, they already broke federal law by crossing the border illegally or overstaying their visas.

But, is that what the bill really says? Padilla’s press release links to here as The Bill. Go read it. It will take you 30 seconds. See if you see anything about criminal record. I don’t. But, it could be buried in the government-speak of 8 U.S. Code § 1259, but, could be deemed under 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens. They can’t be unhealthy. Things like “assets, resources, and financial status” are to be taken into consideration, ie, they need to stand on their own two feet, not be wards of the state.

Oh, weirdly, in 6(A)(1): An alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrives in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General, is inadmissible. So, illegals are not eligible? Did Alex think this through?

Of course, there is zero chance it will pass the GOP controlled House or Senate. If the Dems take control in 2027, it won’t survive the 60 vote threshold.

Read: And Here We Go: Excitable Alex Padilla Introduces Bill To Make Most Illegals Legal »

Usually the GOP goes all squishy, but, they slipped an interesting tidbit into the BBB and Democrats never noticed

Federal Funds for Local Obedience: Immigration Clause Puts Dems in Bind

A little-noticed provision in the “Big Beautiful Bill” forces blue states and cities to make a tough choice: Comply with federal immigration law or lose federal money for criminal justice aid.

President Trump’s signature piece of legislation allocated $3.3 billion to the DOJ, some of which will go toward the Byrne-JAG Grant Program, a federal initiative created in 2005 which provides support for local law enforcement and criminal justice efforts. To access the new funds, which supplement the $499 million already appropriated for the Byrne-JAG program in 2025, localities must comply with a section of federal immigration law that forbids them from restricting communication between their law enforcement entities and the Department of Homeland Security regarding an individual’s immigration status. This provides an incentive for localities to share their information with federal immigration authorities, helping the Trump administration implement its immigration enforcement agenda, but it also runs the risk of misallocating federal support.

This condition poses a dilemma for Democrats: Do they accept the demands of the Trump administration in return for money they need to run their cities and localities? Or do they maintain their longstanding opposition to deportation and turn it down?

Suddenly Democrats start realizing that depending on Los Federales for tons of their funding was a Bad Idea. That perhaps federal taxes should be low enough to fund the specific things outlined in the Constitution and nothing else, and States should fund what they want to fund.

But sticking with this position means their constituents won’t benefit from the additional funding that other localities will be able to use to lower their local fiscal burden and make their communities safer.

In effect, millions of dollars in federal justice system aid could flow to low-crime, less liberal suburbs and rural areas, while high-crime cities are left behind for defying federal immigration demands. Specifically, cities like Baltimore, Detroit, and Memphis, which lead the nation in homicide rates, could be prevented from receiving funding.

Well, it’s not like the liberal cities are doing a good job with the federal money to start with, eh? I mean, will they really miss it, considering how messed up their cities are, and that they pass policies which make crime more prevalent?

In a statement to RealClearPolitics, Sen. Dick Durbin, ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, argued that “Putting unnecessary stipulations on this funding is harmful and unproductive.” “Blocking funds for this purpose,” Durbin continued, “totally misses the mark.”

In response, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson argued that “If Dick Durbin is truly focused on the safety and security of American communities, he should encourage cities and states to comply with federal immigration laws. Sanctuary cities only provide sanctuary to illegal criminals, and Americans – like the CBP agent who was just shot in the face by two criminal illegal aliens – are forced to pay the price.”

They have the choice. What will they do?

The first Trump administration also attempted to tie Byrne-JAG grants to compliance with federal immigration law in 2017. At the time, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that such restrictions were not within the power of the executive branch (City of Chicago v. Sessions). Now, the Department of Justice has explicit congressional authorization to make the grant conditional, creating a more favorable legal landscape for the Trump administration.

Well, now what? I’m sure the Dems will find some friendly federal judge to rule in their favor, but, it won’t stand, as Congress has the power of the purse, not the Judiciary.

Read: Oops: BBB Includes Provision Blocking Federal Funds From Sanctuary Jurisdictions »