[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 8, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4832-S4834]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            SANCTUARY CITIES

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I first want to thank Senator Alexander, 
and I have a few remarks to make about sanctuary cities and how they 
threaten the safety of our country.
  I am cosponsoring Senator Cotton's amendment to this bill that would 
withhold Federal law enforcement funds to sanctuary jurisdictions. The 
amendment, based largely on the provisions of the Michael Davis, Jr. 
and Danny Oliver in Honor of State and Local Law Enforcement Act, which 
we introduced a few weeks ago, ensures that jurisdictions that choose 
to endanger their communities and the public at large by adopting these 
reckless policies receive no Federal law enforcement funding.
  It is a fundamental principle of law enforcement that individuals who 
are tried in one jurisdiction and who also face charges in other 
jurisdictions are held and turned over to the next jurisdiction before 
being released because it becomes an extremely dangerous problem if 
they are released before charges are disposed of in another 
jurisdiction. That is being violated deliberately and openly by a 
number of cities in the country as an act of defiance and disrespect 
for those traditions of courtesy between Federal and State 
jurisdictions and even county and city jurisdictions.
  Congress has an obligation to ensure that limited taxpayer dollars 
are not given to those cities and counties that refuse to cooperate 
with basic Federal law enforcement efforts to remove criminal aliens 
from the country.
  I would like to take a few moments to talk about the life of Kate 
Steinle. Kate was a 32-year-old young woman who grew up approximately 
40 miles east of San Francisco in Pleasanton, CA. She graduated from 
Amador Valley High School and California Polytechnic State University. 
She worked as a sales representative for a medical device equipment 
company and was precisely the type of person every parent aspires for 
their child to become. Kate's family described her as ``loving, smart 
and beautiful.'' Kate's brother said that ``she was the most wonderful, 
loving, caring person.'' Kate's friends described her as an ``amazing, 
very compassionate person'' with an infectious smile and the kind of 
friend who was always there.
  Last Wednesday, Kate had plans to visit her brother and his wife in 
Pleasanton with the hopes of learning whether she would soon have a new 
niece or nephew. Before leaving, she spent some time with her father 
strolling around San Francisco and taking pictures at Pier 14--one of 
the busiest and most popular tourist destinations in the city.
  While on Pier 14 and in broad daylight, Kate was shot to death by an 
illegal alien. Kate's mother, Liz Sullivan, described the horrific 
encounter to the San Francisco Chronicle, explaining that Kate just 
kept saying, ``Dad, help me, help me.'' Kate's father performed CPR 
until the paramedics arrived and took her to the hospital, where she 
fought for her life but ultimately passed away.
  Her death was at the hands of Francisco Sanchez, an illegal alien 
with seven felony convictions who had been deported to Mexico at least 
six separate times, most recently in 2009. According to information 
obtained by my office, this individual's criminal history includes 
multiple criminal convictions and lengthy Federal and State prison 
sentences dating back to 1991, including felony heroin possession, 
felony manufacture of narcotics, revoked probation, and at least four 
convictions for illegal reentry after deportation, among others.
  In an interview with local media, this individual admitted to 
shooting Kate. In the same interview, the individual stated that he 
repeatedly returned to San Francisco because he knew San Francisco was 
a sanctuary city where he would not be pursued by immigration 
officials.
  Make no mistake--in essence, that is what a sanctuary city is. Not 
only do they not honor detainers--the basic law enforcement requirement 
between jurisdictions--but they send a signal that ``No matter whether 
you are legal or illegal, you are safe in our city, and we will do 
nothing to facilitate your apprehension for violations of law.''
  Despite this extensive criminal history of approximately six prior 
deportations and no obligation to release this individual to local 
custody in San Francisco--a jurisdiction that is known to release 
illegal immigrants back into the public--Federal authorities turned 
this individual over to San Francisco on March 26.
  I question whether the Federal Government should have ever turned him 
over to San Francisco. Perhaps they should have deported him on the 
spot. But, courtesy says, San Francisco indicated they had another 
criminal charge and they turned him over. The charge apparently was for 
distribution of a controlled substance. On April 15, for reasons which 
at this point are unclear, this individual was released from San 
Francisco County Jail--an action that led directly to the death of Kate 
Steinle on July 1.
  So San Francisco filed a detainer with the Bureau of Prisons, which 
had this individual in custody, and the Bureau of Prisons dutifully--
according to, it appears, normal procedures--turned him over to San 
Francisco for processing of San Francisco's criminal charge. Then, the 
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, doing its job, filed their 
detainer with San Francisco in effect saying: San Francisco, when you 
finish handling this case, he is ours to be deported. Being a sanctuary 
city, however, San Francisco did not honor it.
  Notably, within the same 24-hour period, across the country in 
another sanctuary jurisdiction--Laredo, TX--Angelica Martinez was 
brutally murdered with a hammer by her husband, Juan Francisco De Luna 
Vasquez, an illegal alien. He had been deported from the United States 
four times. Local police said this was the third violent encounter 
between this couple and that Vasquez had also had a previous driving-
while-intoxicated charge and a charge for evading arrest. As a 
sanctuary city, Laredo refused to even tell the Department of Homeland 
Security of the arrest and denied Homeland Security the ability to file 
a detainer with their jurisdiction. They just denied it.
  These cases, colleagues, highlight the tragic and completely 
avoidable consequences of sanctuary jurisdiction policies. Indeed, if 
not for sanctuary cities and the Obama administration's continued 
destruction in other areas of immigration enforcement, Kate and others 
surely would be alive today. Her death could have been prevented, but 
the extreme open borders ideology that rejects even the deportation of 
criminals--that is, people who commit crimes other than the crime of 
entering the country illegally--led to her death, as it has led to the 
death of many others.
  Although sanctuary jurisdictions are not a recent development, they 
have been allowed to flourish under this administration. Let me repeat 
that. This administration has allowed sanctuary cities to flourish. On 
a few occasions, officials in the government have complained, once 
about Chicago, Cook County, but no action was ever taken to pressure 
Cook County to change. The administration has not only refused to stop 
cities from acting in this way but has emboldened them with this 
systematic dismantling of immigration enforcement.
  In fact, while this administration has taken legal action against 
State and local jurisdictions that have simply attempted to help the 
Federal Government enforce our immigration laws, they sued them to 
block their efforts to enforce the law or help the Federal Government 
enforce the law--States and counties which have never attempted to 
deport people, but they have taken efforts when they capture somebody 
for a crime or for a DUI and find out they are illegally in the 
country--they would like to be able to turn them over to the Federal 
Government in some fashion so they can be deported.
  This has been resisted by the Federal Government, unfortunately. In 
2010,

[[Page S4833]]

the Federal Government openly announced it would not undertake any 
legal action against sanctuary jurisdictions for refusing to cooperate 
with the enforcement of our immigration laws. Thus, while it had the 
time and resources to sue States like Arizona and litigate such cases 
all the way to the Supreme Court, this administration has not spent a 
dime to take similar actions against sanctuary jurisdictions around the 
country, and the administration was well aware of the dangers posed by 
these policies.
  Former ICE Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal 
Operations Gary Mead said that sanctuary cities--and in particular Cook 
County, IL--were ``an accident waiting to happen.'' That was obviously 
a sound prediction, and we have seen the tragic results.
  Not only has the government failed to stand up to sanctuary 
jurisdictions, but two days ago--the White House is now claiming that 
if Congress had just passed the Gang of 8 bill, the comprehensive 
amnesty bill, then this would never have happened. But the Gang of 8 
bill the President pushed so hard for would have dramatically increased 
incidents of criminal alien violence, officially legalizing dangerous 
offenders while handcuffing immigration officers from doing their jobs. 
Law enforcement professionals told us the Gang of 8 bill would have 
undermined the rule of law in America, not strengthened it. These are 
the people who know.
  Chris Crane and Ken Palinkas, presidents of the National ICE Council 
that represents all ICE officers, and the USCIS union, respectively--
these two leaders of these two important organizations issued a 
statement on behalf of their officers--the key officers who enforce 
immigration law in America. This is what our Federal law officers had 
to say about the President's idea that the Gang of 8 bill would fix 
these kinds of problems:

       The [Gang of Eight] proposal will make Americans less safe 
     and it will ensure more illegal immigration--especially visa 
     overstays--in the future. It provides legalization for 
     thousands of dangerous criminals while making it more 
     difficult for our officers to identify public safety and 
     national security threats. . . .

  They go on to say:

       The legislation was guided from the beginning by anti-
     enforcement special interests and, should it become law, will 
     have the desired effects of these groups: Blocking 
     immigration enforcement. . . .

  They go on to say:

       [It is an] anti-public safety bill and an anti-law 
     enforcement bill.

  Imagine if the country's chief law enforcement officer--that is, the 
President of the United States--had spent that year trying to end 
sanctuary cities and deport criminal aliens and enforce the laws of the 
United States instead of trying to empower open borders activists and 
fighting against law enforcement and refusing to enforce whole sections 
of plain law through his Executive amnesty what could have been done to 
end unlawfulness in this country and turn this country around.
  Just to show how deep the disagreement was between the Federal law 
officers and their supervisors--their politically-appointed 
supervisors--they actually filed a lawsuit in Federal court contending 
that their superiors were ordering them to violate their oath to 
enforce the laws of the United States. They sought relief in the 
Federal court. The district judge found merit in their claims, but 
ruled against them on a procedural issue. That case is now before the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
  It is an incredible spectacle that law enforcement officers were 
suing their supervisors--the political appointees of the President--
because they were being ordered to violate the plain law they had sworn 
to uphold.
  It is time to get our priorities straight. We need immigration reform 
all right but reform that serves the interests of the American people--
not international corporations, not anti-enforcement zealots, not the 
open borders lobby. They don't get to dictate to America how laws 
should be enforced. Immigration reform should mean improving 
immigration controls, not further weakening or eliminating them.
  Just yesterday it was reported that a six-time deported illegal alien 
in Arizona was charged in a felony hit-and-run of a mother and her two 
young children who were seriously injured in the crash--six times 
deported, he returns.
  When they return, do they not go to jail? Are we just going to 
continue to deport them time after time with no real consequence?
  Mr. President, 121 homicides have been committed by aliens who were 
released from ICE custody over the last few years. People who were 
released after being held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
officers, illegally here--not deported but were released--have murdered 
121 people.
  So over 170,000 criminal aliens with final orders of removal are 
walking our streets. ICE releases tens of thousands of criminal aliens 
every year into our communities. The policies of this administration 
have effectively nullified law in a host of areas. That is plain fact.
  I have talked to the officers personally. I know what the policies 
are. I know the effects of these policies are exactly what the 
administration wanted, exactly what the special interests wanted, 
exactly what the ACLU wanted, exactly what La Raza wanted. That is what 
they have been asking for. That is what this administration has 
delivered.
  Now, when a murder occurs which becomes national news, they say that 
it is not our fault; it is Congress's fault.
  These actions have effectively nullified plain law. George Washington 
University Law Professor Jonathan Turley--who supported President 
Obama's reelection--has documented that. These are facts. The number of 
acceptable crimes committed by illegal aliens is zero.
  Congress must take action now to protect all Americans, including the 
millions of dutiful immigrants who are in our country, many of them in 
high-crime areas, to protect them from criminal gangs and violent 
offenders.
  Just recently, I, along with Senators Vitter, Perdue, Cotton, Inhofe, 
and Boozman, introduced the Michael Davis, Jr. and Danny Oliver in 
Honor of State and Local Law Enforcement Act, a bill named for two 
sheriff's deputies in California who were murdered by an illegal alien 
with an extensive criminal record, and, I thought, three deportations. 
Talking to the widows of these officers recently, I am told that he may 
have been deported four times--and had an extensive criminal record.
  So this bill is a companion to the House bill introduced earlier this 
year by the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Border Security Trey Gowdy. It is a good bill.
  Our bill is similar. In addition to enhancing cooperation with States 
and local law enforcement and eliminating loopholes that allow criminal 
aliens to obtain immigration benefits, this bill would constitute a 
clear, strong, and responsible response to sanctuary jurisdictions and 
other government actions. Specifically, it would withhold Federal 
funding from sanctuary jurisdictions that do not cooperate with the 
enforcement of Federal immigration laws or do not honor Federal 
immigration detainers, provide immunity to jurisdictions that honor 
detainers and hold aliens until ICE can pick them up, and provide a 
general sense of Congress that ``the Department of Homeland Security 
has probable cause to believe that an alien is inadmissible or 
deportable when it issues a detainer'' for an alien. That would clear 
up one of the loopholes being cited here to excuse some of these 
actions.
  By the way, I believe it is 300 sanctuary cities and counties in the 
country out of 17,000 or so law enforcement jurisdictions. Some of them 
are quite large cities: Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles.
  The passage of these sections alone could do more to combat sanctuary 
jurisdictions and protect the people of those communities and really 
the country from criminal aliens than what this administration has 
accomplished in the 7 years or so it has been in office.
  It is time for Congress to make its first item of business the 
immediate passage of legislation to cut off Federal law enforcement 
moneys to sanctuary cities. Not one more parent should lose a son or 
daughter because American cities are harboring criminals. In any 
State--like mine, I was attorney general of Alabama--one jurisdiction 
is prosecuting a person for a crime, and when that is completed and 
another one has a warrant against them, they

[[Page S4834]]

file a detainer. When you are finished with the criminal, he is sent 
back, whether he is acquitted or whether he is convicted. This is basic 
law enforcement. It goes on in every jurisdiction in this country.
  The Federal Government holds people for State jurisdictions and the 
State jurisdictions hold people for the Federal Government. I was a 
Federal prosecutor for 12 years. It is done all the time. It is 
shocking to me--absolutely shocking--that a great city of the United 
States of America would not honor a detainer by the U.S. Government.
  The Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers should not second-
guess why it is issued or not. It is up to that jurisdiction to try or 
acquit or treat responsibly the person they are now prepared to release 
to them. To ignore that is a breach of the most fundamental 
relationships between Federal law enforcement, and it is done for 
political reasons by political mayors, generally, and city councils to 
try to win votes, I suppose. It has no principle in fact.
  I am also calling on Congress to move toward a series of measures, 
whether as stand-alone bills, in appropriations measures or in any 
other planned legislation, to establish immigration reforms that serve 
the interests of all lawful residents of the United States living here 
today. These are some things we need to do:
  End the release of criminal aliens from Federal custody. We cannot 
just let them go after having been convicted of a crime. They need to 
be deported. The law says they shall be deported. It has been ignored.
  Cut off visas to foreign countries that will not repatriate their 
aliens. It is an absolute outrage that countries like China refuse to 
take back people who are lawfully deported by the United States. Yet 
they want us to give visas to them. We should cut off funding. We 
should cut off their visas until they agree to promptly take back these 
individuals. That is the whole basis of international visa law. All 
nations know that. Most nations take their nationals back promptly. 
This refusal by these countries backs up our system, costs us millions 
of dollars in housing, and all kinds of other additional problems. It 
needs to end. We can end it just like that if the President would take 
action. The law requires it. The President doesn't really need a law to 
fix that one.
  Suspend visas to countries with high overstay rates. Some of these 
countries have this huge number that get a visa and never return home 
and they reach these higher rates. We don't have to keep giving visas 
to countries whose residents don't return like they are supposed to and 
at the time they are supposed to.
  We need to close the asylum loopholes and eliminate fraud. This is a 
huge issue and can be greatly abused. We need to end the catch and 
release at the border with mandatory detention and repatriation for 
illegal border crossers. This administration has ended Operation 
Streamline, which is a very effective policy. It started during the 
Bush administration and was continued for a while under President 
Obama. Now they have undermined that.
  We need to protect the work site with E-Verify. If a person can't 
establish they are here lawfully with a lawful Social Security number, 
they don't need to be employed.
  We need to curtail an oversupply of foreign work visas to protect 
American jobs first. The only immigration measures politicians should 
be discussing today are those that protect Americans, that protect 
American security and safety and American jobs and American 
communities. More than enough has been done for the special interests. 
They have had their day. They had their day too long.
  Whether we are talking about employees at Walt Disney in Florida, 
unemployed construction workers in California or truck drivers in North 
Dakota, it is time for the needs of Americans who are out of work to 
come first. We don't have enough jobs for Americans. We don't need to 
bring in more foreign workers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I am sorry, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent for 
one additional minute to wrap up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. There is no more basic need than ensuring that all 
Americans live in a safe, secure, and peaceful community. I believe the 
legislation I have offered will take us in that direction. It is sound. 
It is responsible. It is consistent with American law. It is well 
within all of the constitutional requirements. I hope my colleagues 
will be able to study it as time goes by and pass it into law.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I expect I will take less than the 20 
minutes, just to reassure you, but I want to reserve that much time.

                          ____________________