House Passes Bill to Deport Illegal Immigrants Who Assault Police


OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.

House Republicans on Wednesday passed two new bills in observance of National Police Week, including one aimed at illegal immigrants.

According to The Epoch Times, HR 2494 requires that illegal immigrants who assault police officers are automatically deportable, while HR 3091 authorizes retired federal law enforcement officials to buy surplus weapons being sold by the federal government.

Not surprisingly, Democrats opposed both measures, the outlet noted.

“Democrats opposed the bills largely over Republican refusals to amend HR 3091 to require background checks for officers who wish to purchase firearms and their claims that HR 2494 would unfairly target those they said have valid asylum claims,” The Epoch Times reported.

“HR 3091 passed on a vote of 232 to 198, with 219 Republicans and 13 Democrats voting yes, and 198 Democrats and no Republicans voting against the measure. Three Republicans and two Democrats didn’t vote,” the outlet added.

The expansion of HR 3091 by Republicans to allow retired federal law enforcement officers to purchase items at discounted prices beyond their service weapons drew criticism from Democrats. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) called on fellow Dems to oppose the measures over what he called the GOP’s “poison pill” amendments.


The Epoch Times noted further:

HR 3091 initially allowed retired federal law enforcement officers in good standing with their agencies to purchase their service weapons at fair market value. During debate, Nadler said a similar bill had been introduced during the 117th Congress.

He said that bill required that officers undergo a background before making their purchase, “Thereby transferring it from it service weapon to a weapon in the hands of a responsible gun owner who is trained to use it.”

Test your skills with this Quiz!

Rep. Russell Fry (R-S.C.) countered that not only have the officers been trusted with the weapons in their work, but the plan would help the government recoup part of its intial investment in the weapons instead of costing it $8 million to destroy the guns.

By forcing the government to destroy the weapons, “Taxpayers are paying for these weapons twice,” Fry said.

The Republicans altered the bill, allowing all retired federal law enforcement officers to purchase federally-owned weapons that have been declared surplus at salvage value instead of fair market value.


The measures now go to the Democrat-controlled Senate, where their fate is uncertain.

Meanwhile, the White House responded with anger Friday after a federal judge a day earlier blocked the Biden administration from enacting a policy that would enable the release of migrants without assigning court dates just hours before the expiration of the Title 42 public health order.

As reported by Fox News, Judge T. Kent Wetherell II, a Trump appointee, put in place a two-week restraining order on President Joe Biden’s policy, which would see migrants released on “parole with conditions.”

A recently issued Border Patrol memo outlined a policy stating that migrants can be granted entry into the country on parole, a process usually reserved for cases involving urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit, in instances where Customs and Border Protection (CBP) encounters overcrowding, the outlet reported. Referred to as “parole with conditions,” this practice necessitates that migrants schedule an appointment with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or request a Notice to Appear by mail.

“Under a parole release, migrants are rapidly released into the country, do not get an alien registration number and do not receive a court date,” Fox News noted.

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody filed a lawsuit against the implementation of the policy, contending that it was essentially the same as the “Parole + ATD” (Alternatives to Detention) policy that had been previously blocked by the same judge in March.

Wetherell agreed and issued his order accordingly, writing, “…The Court has no trouble concluding that Florida has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits because the challenged policy appears to be materially indistinguishable from the Parole+ATD policy vacated in Florida.”