[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 112 (Thursday, June 29, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H5316-H5333]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NO SANCTUARY FOR CRIMINALS ACT
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 414, I call
up the bill (H.R. 3003) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
modify provisions relating to assistance by States, and political
subdivision of States, in the enforcement of Federal immigration laws,
and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marshall). Pursuant to House Resolution
414, the bill is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3003
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals
Act''.
SEC. 2. STATE NONCOMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION
LAW.
(a) In General.--Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.
1373) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
Federal, State, or local law, no Federal, State, or local
government entity, and no individual, may prohibit or in any
way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity,
official, or other personnel from complying with the
immigration laws (as defined in section 101(a)(17) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17))), or
from assisting or cooperating with Federal law enforcement
entities, officials, or other personnel regarding the
enforcement of these laws.'';
(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Law Enforcement Activities.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no Federal,
State, or local government entity, and no individual, may
prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local
government entity, official, or other personnel from
undertaking any of the following law enforcement activities
as they relate to information regarding
[[Page H5317]]
the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful,
the inadmissibility or deportability, or the custody status,
of any individual:
``(1) Making inquiries to any individual in order to obtain
such information regarding such individual or any other
individuals.
``(2) Notifying the Federal Government regarding the
presence of individuals who are encountered by law
enforcement officials or other personnel of a State or
political subdivision of a State.
``(3) Complying with requests for such information from
Federal law enforcement entities, officials, or other
personnel.'';
(3) in subsection (c), by striking ``Immigration and
Naturalization Service'' and inserting ``Department of
Homeland Security''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Compliance.--
``(1) Eligibility for certain grant programs.--A State, or
a political subdivision of a State, that is found not to be
in compliance with subsection (a) or (b) shall not be
eligible to receive--
``(A) any of the funds that would otherwise be allocated to
the State or political subdivision under section 241(i) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)), the
`Cops on the Beat' program under part Q of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3796dd et seq.), or the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant Program under subpart 1 of part E of title I
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3750 et seq.); or
``(B) any other grant administered by the Department of
Justice or the Department of Homeland Security that is
substantially related to law enforcement, terrorism, national
security, immigration, or naturalization.
``(2) Transfer of custody of aliens pending removal
proceedings.--The Secretary, at the Secretary's discretion,
may decline to transfer an alien in the custody of the
Department of Homeland Security to a State or political
subdivision of a State found not to be in compliance with
subsection (a) or (b), regardless of whether the State or
political subdivision of the State has issued a writ or
warrant.
``(3) Transfer of custody of certain aliens prohibited.--
The Secretary shall not transfer an alien with a final order
of removal pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) or (5) of section
241(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1231(a)) to a State or a political subdivision of a State
that is found not to be in compliance with subsection (a) or
(b).
``(4) Annual determination.--The Secretary shall determine
for each calendar year which States or political subdivision
of States are not in compliance with subsection (a) or (b)
and shall report such determinations to Congress by March 1
of each succeeding calendar year.
``(5) Reports.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
issue a report concerning the compliance with subsections (a)
and (b) of any particular State or political subdivision of a
State at the request of the House or the Senate Judiciary
Committee. Any jurisdiction that is found not to be in
compliance shall be ineligible to receive Federal financial
assistance as provided in paragraph (1) for a minimum period
of 1 year, and shall only become eligible again after the
Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the
jurisdiction has come into compliance.
``(6) Reallocation.--Any funds that are not allocated to a
State or to a political subdivision of a State due to the
failure of the State or of the political subdivision of the
State to comply with subsection (a) or (b) shall be
reallocated to States or to political subdivisions of States
that comply with both such subsections.
``(e) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall require
law enforcement officials from States, or from political
subdivisions of States, to report or arrest victims or
witnesses of a criminal offense.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act,
except that subsection (d) of section 642 of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. 1373), as added by this section, shall apply only
to prohibited acts committed on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. CLARIFYING THE AUTHORITY OF ICE DETAINERS.
(a) In General.--Section 287(d) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(d)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(d) Detainer of Inadmissible or Deportable Aliens.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of an individual who is
arrested by any Federal, State, or local law enforcement
official or other personnel for the alleged violation of any
criminal or motor vehicle law, the Secretary may issue a
detainer regarding the individual to any Federal, State, or
local law enforcement entity, official, or other personnel if
the Secretary has probable cause to believe that the
individual is an inadmissible or deportable alien.
``(2) Probable cause.--Probable cause is deemed to be
established if--
``(A) the individual who is the subject of the detainer
matches, pursuant to biometric confirmation or other Federal
database records, the identity of an alien who the Secretary
has reasonable grounds to believe to be inadmissible or
deportable;
``(B) the individual who is the subject of the detainer is
the subject of ongoing removal proceedings, including matters
where a charging document has already been served;
``(C) the individual who is the subject of the detainer has
previously been ordered removed from the United States and
such an order is administratively final;
``(D) the individual who is the subject of the detainer has
made voluntary statements or provided reliable evidence that
indicate that they are an inadmissible or deportable alien;
or
``(E) the Secretary otherwise has reasonable grounds to
believe that the individual who is the subject of the
detainer is an inadmissible or deportable alien.
``(3) Transfer of custody.--If the Federal, State, or local
law enforcement entity, official, or other personnel to whom
a detainer is issued complies with the detainer and detains
for purposes of transfer of custody to the Department of
Homeland Security the individual who is the subject of the
detainer, the Department may take custody of the individual
within 48 hours (excluding weekends and holidays), but in no
instance more than 96 hours, following the date that the
individual is otherwise to be released from the custody of
the relevant Federal, State, or local law enforcement
entity.''.
(b) Immunity.--
(1) In general.--A State or a political subdivision of a
State (and the officials and personnel of the State or
subdivision acting in their official capacities), and a
nongovernmental entity (and its personnel) contracted by the
State or political subdivision for the purpose of providing
detention, acting in compliance with a Department of Homeland
Security detainer issued pursuant to this section who
temporarily holds an alien in its custody pursuant to the
terms of a detainer so that the alien may be taken into the
custody of the Department of Homeland Security, shall be
considered to be acting under color of Federal authority for
purposes of determining their liability and shall be held
harmless for their compliance with the detainer in any suit
seeking any punitive, compensatory, or other monetary
damages.
(2) Federal government as defendant.--In any civil action
arising out of the compliance with a Department of Homeland
Security detainer by a State or a political subdivision of a
State (and the officials and personnel of the State or
subdivision acting in their official capacities), or a
nongovernmental entity (and its personnel) contracted by the
State or political subdivision for the purpose of providing
detention, the United States Government shall be the proper
party named as the defendant in the suit in regard to the
detention resulting from compliance with the detainer.
(3) Bad faith exception.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not
apply to any mistreatment of an individual by a State or a
political subdivision of a State (and the officials and
personnel of the State or subdivision acting in their
official capacities), or a nongovernmental entity (and its
personnel) contracted by the State or political subdivision
for the purpose of providing detention.
(c) Private Right of Action.--
(1) Cause of action.--Any individual, or a spouse, parent,
or child of that individual (if the individual is deceased),
who is the victim of a murder, rape, or any felony, as
defined by the State, for which an alien (as defined in
section 101(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(3))) has been convicted and sentenced to a
term of imprisonment of at least one year, may bring an
action against a State or political subdivision of a State in
the appropriate Federal or State court if the State or
political subdivision released the alien from custody prior
to the commission of such crime as a consequence of the State
or political subdivision's declining to honor a detainer
issued pursuant to section 287(d)(1) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(d)(1)).
(2) Limitation on bringing action.--An action brought under
this subsection may not be brought later than ten years
following the occurrence of the crime, or death of a person
as a result of such crime, whichever occurs later.
(3) Attorney's fee and other costs.--In any action or
proceeding under this subsection the court shall allow a
prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorneys' fee as part of
the costs, and include expert fees as part of the attorneys'
fee.
SEC. 4. SARAH AND GRANT'S LAW.
(a) Detention of Aliens During Removal Proceedings.--
(1) Clerical amendments.--(A) Section 236 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226) is amended by
striking ``Attorney General'' each place it appears (except
in the second place that term appears in section 236(a)) and
inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''.
(B) Section 236(a) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(a)) is
amended by inserting ``the Secretary of Homeland Security
or'' before ``the Attorney General--''.
(C) Section 236(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(e)) is
amended by striking ``Attorney General's'' and inserting
``Secretary of Homeland Security's''.
(2) Length of detention.--Section 236 of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1226) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Length of Detention.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, an alien may be detained, and for an alien
described in subsection (c) shall be detained, under this
[[Page H5318]]
section without time limitation, except as provided in
subsection (h), during the pendency of removal proceedings.
``(2) Construction.--The length of detention under this
section shall not affect detention under section 241.''.
(3) Detention of criminal aliens.--Section 236(c)(1) of
such Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(c)(1)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
``(E) is unlawfully present in the United States and has
been convicted for driving while intoxicated (including a
conviction for driving while under the influence or impaired
by alcohol or drugs) without regard to whether the conviction
is classified as a misdemeanor or felony under State law, or
``(F)(i)(I) is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(i),
``(II) is deportable by reason of a visa revocation under
section 221(i), or
``(III) is deportable under section 237(a)(1)(C)(i), and
``(ii) has been arrested or charged with a particularly
serious crime or a crime resulting in the death or serious
bodily injury (as defined in section 1365(h)(3) of title 18,
United States Code) of another person;''; and
(C) by amending the matter following subparagraph (F) (as
added by subparagraph (B) of this paragraph) to read as
follows:
``any time after the alien is released, without regard to
whether an alien is released related to any activity,
offense, or conviction described in this paragraph; to
whether the alien is released on parole, supervised release,
or probation; or to whether the alien may be arrested or
imprisoned again for the same offense. If the activity
described in this paragraph does not result in the alien
being taken into custody by any person other than the
Secretary, then when the alien is brought to the attention of
the Secretary or when the Secretary determines it is
practical to take such alien into custody, the Secretary
shall take such alien into custody.''.
(4) Administrative review.--Section 236 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226), as amended by paragraph
(2), is further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Administrative Review.--The Attorney General's review
of the Secretary's custody determinations under subsection
(a) for the following classes of aliens shall be limited to
whether the alien may be detained, released on bond (of at
least $1,500 with security approved by the Secretary), or
released with no bond:
``(1) Aliens in exclusion proceedings.
``(2) Aliens described in section 212(a)(3) or 237(a)(4).
``(3) Aliens described in subsection (c).
``(h) Release on Bond.--
``(1) In general.--An alien detained under subsection (a)
may seek release on bond. No bond may be granted except to an
alien who establishes by clear and convincing evidence that
the alien is not a flight risk or a danger to another person
or the community.
``(2) Certain aliens ineligible.--No alien detained under
subsection (c) may seek release on bond.''.
(5) Clerical amendments.--(A) Section 236(a)(2)(B) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(a)(2)(B)) is
amended by striking ``conditional parole'' and inserting
``recognizance''.
(B) Section 236(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(b)) is
amended by striking ``parole'' and inserting
``recognizance''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act
and shall apply to any alien in detention under the
provisions of section 236 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1226), as so amended, or otherwise subject to
the provisions of such section, on or after such date.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte)
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
General Leave
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3003.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the No Sanctuary for
Criminals Act. This simple, straightforward bill combats dangerous
sanctuary policies that permit criminals to go free. We are all too
familiar with how sanctuary policies have devastated families across
the United States, and today we are taking action to prevent these
senseless tragedies and save American lives.
For years, the lack of immigration enforcement and spread of
sanctuary policies have cost too many lives. The Obama administration
encouraged or, at the very least, turned a blind eye to jurisdictions
nationwide that implemented sanctuary policies designed to prevent U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement from being able to effectively
enforce Federal law. Foolhardy jurisdictions continue to pass
legislation and implement policies aimed at stymieing and maligning
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Earlier this year, a Baltimore City Council member introduced a
resolution calling on ICE to arrest only those posing a ``serious
risk.'' In discussing this initiative, the council member likened ICE
officers to Nazis several times. Such rhetoric is reprehensible,
creating a moral equivalent between genocide and a nation exercising a
fundamental right and obligation of sovereignty.
In a deeply troubling move on the other coast, San Francisco
announced that it would no longer participate in the Joint Terrorism
Task Force because of concerns that the task force's duties may
coincide with immigration enforcement.
Sanctuary policies often focus on flouting ICE detainers, notices
issued by ICE to allow it to take custody of aliens in law enforcement
custody in order to initiate removal proceedings.
These irresponsible policies have led to a sharp drop in ICE's intake
of aliens from criminal detention facilities, which forces ICE agents
to engage in the far more time-consuming and dangerous task of picking
them up on the streets. This, among other factors, led to a drop in the
number of criminal aliens removed from the interior of the United
States from almost 87,000 in fiscal year 2014 to approximately 63,500
the following 2 fiscal years.
We must discourage, not encourage, sanctuary policies and practices.
H.R. 3003 addresses sanctuary policies and also takes great strides in
clarifying Federal immigration detainer policy.
Since the 1990s, Federal law has barred jurisdictions from
restricting communication with Federal immigration officials regarding
immigration status; however, this provision has never been enforced.
H.R. 3003 amends current law and expands this prohibition against
impeding Federal law enforcement. Instead of merely focussing on
communication, the bill ensures that no jurisdiction may restrict
assistance or compliance with immigration enforcement.
To be clear, this bill imposes no affirmative duty to act on the part
of any jurisdiction. Should a jurisdiction not comply with this
provision, the jurisdiction will not be eligible for certain grant
programs administered by the Department of Justice and Homeland
Security. Eligibility for many of these grant programs is already
predicated on compliance with this provision in the Immigration and
Nationality Act.
This section is also in line with a recent memo by Attorney General
Sessions outlining compliance with this provision as the single factor
that the Justice Department will use in identifying sanctuary
jurisdictions.
Regarding detainer policy, Congress has long heard that jurisdictions
will not comply with ICE requests to hold individuals due to a lack of
probable cause inherent in the detainer. I am pleased that H.R. 3003
provides the probable cause standards necessary to ensure that ICE only
places detainers on aliens for whom they have probable cause and are
deportable.
In addition, the bill mandates that ICE must take custody of the
subject of a detainer within 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays.
Jurisdictions who comply in good faith with detainer requests will be
immune from liability associated with that detainer, and if such an
action does arise, the U.S. Government will substitute itself in as the
defendant. This ensures that jurisdictions do not go bankrupt defending
against never-ending litigation. And in those jurisdictions that refuse
to honor a detainer resulting in an alien committing a crime, the
victim or victim's family will be provided with the opportunity to
bring a lawsuit against that jurisdiction.
The third section of H.R. 3003 is named for Sarah Root and Grant
Ronnebeck, two young people whose lives were suddenly taken by criminal
aliens who remain at large today. This section was originally
introduced as separate bills by Judiciary Committee
[[Page H5319]]
members Steve King and Andy Biggs, who worked tirelessly to bring these
tragic cases to the attention of the committee and the Congress.
This section provides that aliens who are arrested or charged with
serious crimes that result in death or serious bodily injury of another
must be held without bond during the pendency of their removal
proceedings.
{time} 1415
In addition, aliens convicted of even one drunk driving offense will
also be ineligible for bond during their removal proceedings. The
latter would have prevented the August 2010 death of Sister Denise
Mosier, a Catholic nun in Virginia, at the hands of a drunk driving
illegal alien who was released from ICE custody on bond. These classes
of individuals present a clear and present danger to society and should
not be permitted to roam our communities during the pendency of their
removal hearings.
The commonsense provisions of H.R. 3003 will provide better
immigration enforcement and the peace of mind that no criminal will be
provided sanctuary from our immigration laws.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear at the outset of this debate that
this legislation does nothing to make our communities safer, and it
does nothing to improve our immigration system. Instead, H.R. 3003 will
trample the rights of States and localities to determine what is in the
best interest of their public safety, and it will conscript law
enforcement to enforce Federal immigration law.
The ultimate experts on community safety are communities themselves,
and hundreds of them have determined that, as community trust
increases, crime decreases. This is because immigrants will come out of
the shadows and report crimes to local law enforcement when they are
not threatened with deportation. In fact, a recent study found that
community trust jurisdictions are actually safer than their
counterparts.
Against this considered judgment, H.R. 3003 forces localities to
abandon community trust principles and mandates the conscription of
local offices into Federal immigration enforcement. Some localities, of
course, would rightfully resist this conscription. As punishment, H.R.
3003 would rob them of vital law enforcement funding that they depend
on to prevent crime, prosecute criminals, and boost community policing
ranks.
Localities, therefore, would face a losing choice: they can abandon
community trust policies and leave their communities in danger, or they
can leave community trust policies in place but forgo law enforcement
funding, leaving their community in danger.
It is important that we consider that this is more than just bad
policy. It is also likely unconstitutional for multiple reasons. First,
H.R. 3003 likely violates the 10th Amendment by commandeering States to
comply with detainer requests that drain their resources.
In addition, the bill's changes to the Department of Homeland
Security's detainer authority exacerbate the current Fourth Amendment
concerns associated with immigration detainers. The bill does not
require any particularized finding about the individual that may form
the basis of a probable cause determination and fails to provide for a
prompt judicial determination of probable cause.
The bill further compounds constitutional concerns by eliminating the
ability for a detained individual to obtain an independent,
individualized review of his or her bond determination by a neutral
decisionmaker.
For these reasons--and there are others--I urge my colleagues to
please oppose this dangerous, mean-spirited, and constitutionally
suspect legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. King), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee not only for working with and cooperating on all this
legislation, but for the relentless work that has come forward in the
committee. He has spent a lot of time on this floor and in committee,
and we are getting some progress here today.
This is a big week, and we are starting to restore the rule of law.
The sanctuary cities legislation, which is before us right now, is
something I just looked back through my records and wondered: How long
have I slugged away on this?
The first amendment I brought was in 2005 to cut off some funding to
sanctuary cities. At each appropriations opportunity, along with CJS
and Homeland Security, when there was a chance, I would bring another
amendment and another amendment, 2005 on through 2014 and 2015. In
2015, then I introduced the broader sanctuary cities legislation which
is the basis for this legislation.
I also had the misfortune and fortune of having the Root family as my
constituents. Sarah Root was tragically killed by an illegal alien on
the streets. Her father and mother both have been here to testify. Her
mother is in town this day. Her father, Scott Root, testified before
the committee. He said this:
They bailed the killer of my daughter out of jail for less
money than it took to bury her, and he was out of this
country before we could have the funeral.
Those words were some of the most chilling and mournful words that I
have heard in this Congress. This bill today honors his daughter's
life, Michelle's daughter's life, Sarah, and it also brings into play
the enforcement that we need to have.
We have got to put an end to sanctuary cities and ban those
policies--which the bill does--block the DOJ grants if they don't
comply with the Federal law, and refuse the warrants to the sanctuary
cities because they will just release them on the streets and let ICE
take custody of them within 48 hours. And then the good faith hold
harmless for ICE detainers, when they got the wrong recommendation out
of the Obama administration, this makes the right recommendation to
local jurisdictions.
The private cause of action is also very useful to us. It is a good,
solid bill. I thank the chairman and all those who put the work in this
today, and I urge its passage.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren), who is a senior member of the House Judiciary
Committee.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this bill isn't about fixing our
immigration system. In fact, it makes the system more dysfunctional and
puts communities in peril. This bill is about telling communities how
to police themselves and protect their people. It says: We here in D.C.
know better than you do, local police, across the United States.
Now, 600 or more local governments engaged in what they call
community trust policies. These policies promote, among other things,
allowing immigrant victims and witnesses to crime to report these
offenses to local authorities without fear of immigration consequences.
Years of locally informed experience have proven that this approach
best ensures these communities' safety.
I think that is why we have received communications from the National
Fraternal Order of Police in opposition to this bill, from the Law
Enforcement Task Force--that is 36 sheriffs and chiefs across the
country--in opposition to this bill, from the Major County Sheriffs of
America in opposition to this bill, from the National Task Force to End
Sexual and Domestic Violence against this bill, as well as the U.S.
Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and the National
Association of Counties.
ICE is not prohibited from doing their job, but as the San Jose
Police Department has told me, San Jose police are not enforcing the
securities laws, they are not enforcing the Federal tax laws, and they
are not enforcing the immigration laws of the United States. They are
doing their job to protect their community against crime.
Now, because they are doing that, the threat is to remove funding
from jurisdictions.
Now, what would that funding be?
It is grants against violent gangs. It is grants for the Anti-Heroin
Task Force and the Anti-Methamphetamine Program, grants on port
security to
[[Page H5320]]
prevent terrorists from getting into the United States, and grants for
the BioWatch Program to prevent terrorists from getting biohazards and
killing us all.
That is not smart to take those programs away from local governments
that are working with us to help keep America safe.
Now, I always think, as I said earlier, we are not doing bumper
stickers here. We are doing laws. It is important to take a look at the
details of what is in this proposed bill. In addition to banning
collaborative grants with localities, the remedies it has made
available is if a community has a community trust policy, the
Department of Homeland Security can refuse to honor warrants--legal
warrants--that are issued by that jurisdiction.
That is astonishing. That is simply astonishing because what the
local governments have said on the detainer policies is that the Fourth
Amendment prevents them from holding people whose sentences have been
served. In fact, there are a number of Federal courts that have made
that determination, you can't hold somebody on a civil detainer request
without violating the Fourth Amendment.
There is a remedy to that: get a warrant like anybody else. The
Fourth Amendment means something, and there is a remedy. Go get a
warrant. I don't know why our Federal Government feels that they can
upend constitutional law for their own convenience.
Now, there is a provision in this bill that I find shocking. What it
says is that if local governments violate the law--violate a court
order--that they cannot violate the Fourth Amendment, that they are
immunized, the Federal Government is going to pay, go ahead and violate
the law. I cannot remember a time when we had a bill before us that
said to States and localities: go ahead, violate the law because we are
going to indemnify you for the violation.
That is not the way our Federal system should work, and it is not the
way those of us who believe in our oath of office to support and defend
the Constitution of the United States think that things ought to work.
Now, finally, it creates something that I think is truly astonishing:
a private cause of action against a State or locality if because the
detainer cannot be honored because of the Federal Court cases and a
person is released and, for any reason, commits a crime that it is the
locality that bears the cost, not the criminal. This is a crazy
provision.
We should oppose this bill.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the
gentlewoman from northern California that what is crazy is what the
city of San Francisco is doing with their taxpayer dollars, since it
was reported just yesterday that San Francisco taxpayers could soon pay
$190,000 in a lawsuit settlement with an illegal immigrant who claimed
he was reported to Federal immigration authorities in violation of the
city of San Francisco's sanctuary city ordinance.
{time} 1430
The city attorney's office confirmed this, and the settlement is
expected to be confirmed by San Francisco's supervisors in future
hearings.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
Now, people who are murdered, people who are injured by people who
are unlawfully present in the United States should have their day in
court with the city of San Francisco or anyone else just as well as
they are apparently willing to pay money to people who are illegally in
the country because they were properly turned over to Federal
authorities to be deported from this country.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member
of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia, our
chairman, for his leadership on this, and I rise in strong support of
the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, which has been worked on by a whole
number of Members of the House.
The adoption of dangerous sanctuary policies across the country makes
it more difficult to adequately enforce our immigration laws, which, in
turn, needlessly puts Americans' lives at risk.
Unfortunately, sanctuary cities that fail to comply with Federal law
and deliberately refuse to cooperate with Federal authorities become
safe havens for undocumented criminal immigrants, because criminals
know they are less likely to be detained in those cities, which are, by
definition, sanctuary cities.
Far too many innocent lives are put at risk when a criminal alien
convicted, for example, of drunk driving or charged with another
serious offense is not detained so they could be appropriately dealt
with and, if warranted, deported from our country according to the law.
That is why it is essential that we pass this resolution, which will
strengthen our Nation's immigration laws, hold sanctuary cities
accountable, and enhance public safety by requiring detention of
criminal aliens.
The bottom line is, if we expect our Federal immigration authorities
to enforce our Nation's immigration laws and protect the American
people, State and local officials need to cooperate, not defy Federal
immigration laws. And those local officials who refuse to do so and
instead give so-called sanctuary to those that have come to our country
illegally and then committed crimes here, they are putting the very
people who they were sworn to serve and to protect at risk. And
unfortunately, this has been happening all over the country, where
literally people come here illegally, commit crimes, and local entities
decide not to enforce the law.
We need to pass this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), a gentleman on the committee who has worked
tirelessly with myself and Ms. Lofgren to make this measure more
understandable.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, ever since Donald Trump descended the
golden escalators at Trump Tower to announce his candidacy by saying
Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers, and drug dealers, the
Republican Party has had Mexican fever, and they have been working
feverishly to paint immigrants all as criminals. And when something
goes bad, they go back to their old favorite.
When Trump's Muslim ban was blocked in the courts, out came the
Attorney General to say they were doing everything they could to do
more roundups and that no immigrant was safe in America.
The Russia investigation not going well for the dear leader at the
White House? Hey, let's whip out that Mexican thing, as Vice-President
Pence said. Maybe it will keep our voters happy and distracted.
Healthcare not going well? Let's just hate some Mexicans today.
Listen, almost 8 out of 10 Latinos in the United States are citizens,
1 out of 10 are legal permanent residents. That leaves 1 in 10 who are
undocumented, but this policy is about going after all of us, whether
we are citizens or not of the United States of America.
These bills are nothing new, and they are not really about fighting
crime. They are about racial profiling and putting Latinos ``in their
place.'' Latinos, African Americans, Muslims, women, they know what it
is like to be targeted.
Ninety-nine percent of the votes for this bill today will come from
people who do not have to worry about racial profiling for themselves,
for their children, or the people who they represent, but let's be
clear. Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona is the poster child for the kinds
of policies the Republicans want to impose on every city and county in
the country, and we know the results.
Sheriff Arpaio embodies racial profiling and rounding up people
because they are brown. Oh, we will sort out their papers later, he
says, whether they are citizens or legal permanent residents or
whatever.
I have talked to U.S. citizens who were detained by Sheriff Arpaio
because they didn't carry with them their birth certificate or a
passport at all times in the country in which they were born.
Let's be clear. Sheriff Arpaio has been sued successfully to stop his
racial profiling, and he has been charged criminally in Federal court
for his racial profiling tactics, and still the Republicans of the
House want to make
[[Page H5321]]
the law he is being sued for legal in the United States of America.
Sometimes Democrats have to stand up for justice, for what is right
when the chips are down. Well, the chips are down, and every immigrant
family and every immigrant in America is going to remember who stood up
for them when they needed Democrats to fight to keep families together
when the chips were down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President or Vice President.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Biggs), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Goodlatte for yielding and
for his leadership on this legislation. It is an honor to serve with
him on the House Judiciary Committee. And I am grateful to
Representative King as well for producing Sarah's Law.
Today, the House of Representatives can pass a crucial piece of
legislation to codify the tenets of two of President Trump's executive
orders on immigration enforcement.
H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, will finally hold
accountable States, cities, and local law enforcement agencies that
provide safe haven to criminally violent illegal immigrants by refusing
to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
You know what is astonishing and you know what is shocking, is that
there are jurisdictions in this country that blatantly choose to
endanger their communities by providing protection to criminals.
Passage of H.R. 3003 ensures that these communities will no longer be
given rewards for their dereliction of duty.
Importantly, this bill also contains a section entitled Sarah and
Grant's Law, which recognizes two young Americans who were murdered by
criminally violent illegal aliens who had no right to be on our
streets.
In January 2015, a 21-year-old convenience store clerk and
constituent of mine, Grant Ronnebeck, was working the graveyard shift
at QuickTrip in Mesa, Arizona. Just before 4 a.m., an illegal alien
with a long criminal record, awaiting deportation proceedings, walked
in and demanded a pack of cigarettes. When Grant tried to count the
money before handing them over, the man shot him and left him to die.
Sarah and Grant are far from the only Americans who have been
impacted by illegal immigration. In 2014, Mesa, Arizona, police officer
Brandon Mendoza was killed in a wrong-way car crash by an illegal
immigrant driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
Despite tragic stories like these, the Obama administration continued
to promote policies that circumvented many of our immigration laws,
allowing thousands of criminals to return to our communities. It is
time for these reckless policies to end.
H.R. 3003 specifically targets illegals who commit serious crimes by
preventing them from being released onto our streets during their
deportation proceedings.
After 8 years of policies that have placed a priority on protecting
all illegal aliens, including those who are violent criminals, over the
rights and safety of Americans, it is refreshing to have a President
who is willing to follow regular law and order. President Trump has
taken active steps to reverse the failed policies of the previous
administration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. BIGGS. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump has taken active steps to reverse the
failed policies of the Obama administration and has been vocally
supportive of Congress' efforts to do the same.
Passing this bill is a positive step toward our duty of enforcing the
Nation's immigration laws, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
this vital piece of legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the Intellectual Properties
Subcommittee.
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3003. This
legislation would withhold needed law enforcement funding from cities
that choose not to assist Federal authorities in enforcing the
immigration laws.
Besides being constitutionally suspect, this bill is also highly
counterproductive. Recognizing that good policing depends on building
trust with their residents, many cities forbid their law enforcement
officers from questioning victims of crime or witnesses to a crime
about their immigration status, and they do not share immigration
information with Federal authorities.
They believe that their communities are at greater risk when a victim
of domestic violence is afraid to ask the police for protection from
her abuser for fear of deportation, or when witnesses to a murder
refuse to assist law enforcement in tracking down the perpetrator
because they are afraid their immigration status will be discovered.
These cities have concluded that taking on themselves the Federal
responsibility to enforce immigration laws would destroy trust between
immigrants and local law enforcement, which would make everyone less
safe.
Perversely, this bill would punish these cities by denying them the
funds that they need to protect public safety. Funding to hire new
police officers, grants to combat the opioid crisis, and money to
reduce the rape kit backlog could all be taken away under this bill.
Not only does this raise serious constitutional concerns, it is simply
bad policy that will lead to more crime, not less.
As if this were not bad enough, the bill would also authorize
mandatory indefinite detention of certain categories of immigrants
without sufficient due process even if they present no danger to their
communities.
Indefinite detention is repugnant to our values of fairness and
individual liberty, but this bill perpetuates the ugly myth that
immigrants are more dangerous and likely to commit more crimes than
native-born Americans, and it erodes the fundamental protections that
we guarantee to all who are present in this country.
Instead of taking positive steps to improve communication between
Federal, State, and local authorities, this bill demonizes immigrants,
punishes communities that seek to build trust between immigrants and
law enforcement, and authorizes indefinite detention of certain
immigrants, all while making us less safe.
For each of these reasons, this bill should be defeated, and I urge
my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mast).
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about two very honorable
lives, Paul Besaw and Lahiri Garcia, who were both taken from us far
too soon by the criminal acts of one who was illegally in our country.
A death of our innocent neighbors is especially devastating when it
could have been prevented had our immigration laws been upheld and had
they been working.
Paul and Lahiri were paramedics in my community, dedicated to saving
lives, but on January 1, a man illegally in our country, driving drunk,
collided with their ambulance and killed both of them.
Paul left behind his loving wife, Dawn, and his 6-year-old daughter,
Allison, who you see here behind me. When I spoke with Paul's widow,
she rightfully said that if our country wasn't ``too afraid or inept to
enforce immigration law,'' her husband would still be with her today,
and she is absolutely right.
Lahiri's wife, Julie Garcia, told me how hard it was for her four
children to not have their father this Father's Day. She expected to
grow old with her husband, but because this man wasn't sent home the
first three times he was pulled over, she will no longer have that
opportunity.
Both wives, both mothers, expressed to me sincere disbelief. They
don't understand why this was allowed to happen, and, for the life of
me, I can't understand why it is allowed either.
The bottom line is that this should never happen to anyone. Sanctuary
cities are a violation of the rule of law, they are absolutely
unacceptable, they
[[Page H5322]]
cannot be tolerated. We must enforce this rule of law.
It is, in fact, the right of every American to be protected by this
government. It is not the right of anybody to spend one day, one
moment, in our country illegally or without invitation.
Today, Congress is addressing this epidemic. Our bills, they crack
down on dangerous sanctuary policies that put these kind of innocent
lives at risk.
So let us ensure that unlawful immigrants convicted of crimes are, in
fact, detained and are, in fact, deported.
Mr. Speaker, let's pass these bills. More importantly, let us be
convicted that what happened to Paul and what happened to Lahiri is
never allowed to happen again.
{time} 1445
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the ranking member of the Crime,
Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations Subcommittee of the
House Judiciary Committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I venture to say that none one of us
who comes to this floor doubts that any local law enforcement, our
neighbors, do any second-guessing to arrest drunk drivers, murderers,
and others, and that they are held to the high calling of justice. I do
not want to be associated with being mild-mannered and weak on those
who would do serious harm, kill, and maim, no matter who they are. That
is not this debate.
This debate is whether or not this bill interferes with the
legitimate enforcement of the law and whether or not it takes away the
mercy that we are known for in the United States. Let me tell you why.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Fraternal
Order of Police--which, by no means, is shy about enforcing the law--
writing to oppose this legislation, saying that local police
departments answer to local civilian government, and it is the local
government which enacts statutes and ordinances.
National Fraternal Order
of Police,
Washington, DC, 27 June 2017.
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin O. McCarthy,
Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,
Minority Whip, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker and Representatives McCarthy, Pelosi and
Hoyer: I am writing on behalf of the members of the Fraternal
Order of Police to reiterate the FOP's opposition to any
amendment or piece of legislation that would penalize law
enforcement agencies by withholding Federal funding or
resources from law enforcement assistance programs in an
effort to coerce a policy change at the local level. The
House will consider H.R. 3003 on the floor this week and
Section 2 of this bill would restrict the hiring program
administered by the Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS), the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance
Grant (Byrne-JAG) programs, as well as programs administered
by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The FOP has been very clear on this issue: we strongly
believe that local and State law enforcement agencies should
cooperate with their Federal counterparts. That being said,
withholding needed assistance to law enforcement agencies--
which have no policymaking role--also hurts public safety
efforts.
Local police departments answer to local civilian
government and it is the local government which enacts
statutes and ordinances in their communities. Law enforcement
officers have no more say in these matters than any other
citizen and--with laws like the Hatch Act in place--it can be
argued they have less. Law enforcement officers do not get to
pick and choose which laws to enforce, and must carry out
lawful orders at the direction of their commanders and the
civilian government that employs them. It is unjust to
penalize law enforcement and the citizens they serve because
Congress disagrees with their enforcement priorities with
respect to our nation's immigration laws.
The FOP issued a statement in January of this year
regarding the approach of the Administration on sanctuary
cities as outlined in President Trump's Executive Order. The
President recognized that it is unfair to penalize the law
enforcement agencies serving these jurisdictions for the
political decisions of local officials. It allows the U.S.
Attorney General and Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security to make an informed decision about the
public safety impact without an automatic suspension from
Federal grant programs. In Section 2 of H.R. 3003, there is
no such discretion and it countermands the Administration's
existing policy.
The FOP opposed several bills in the previous Congress,
which were outlined in a letter to the Senate leadership, and
we will continue to work against proposals that would reduce
or withhold funding or resources from any Federal program for
local and State law enforcement. If Congress wishes to effect
policy changes in these sanctuary cities, it must find
another way to do so.
On behalf of the more than 330,000 members of the Fraternal
Order of Police, I want to urge the House to reject H.R.
3003's punitive approach and work with law enforcement to
find a better way to improve public safety in our
communities.
Sincerely,
Chuck Canterbury,
National President.
____
Committee on Migration, United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops,
Washington, DC, June 26, 2017.
Catholic Charities USA,
Alexandria, VA, June 26, 2017.
Dear Representative: We write on behalf of the Committee on
Migration of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB/
COM), and Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA) to express our
opposition to H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004.
The Catholic Church holds a strong interest in the welfare
of migrants and how our nation welcomes and treats them. Our
parishes include those with and without immigration status,
unfortunately some who have witnessed or been victims of
crime in the United States, including domestic violence,
armed robbery, and assault. We understand the importance of
fostering cooperation and information-sharing between
immigrant communities and local law enforcement.
We oppose H.R. 3003 because it would impose obligations on
local governments that we fear--and that many of them have
warned--would undermine authority and discretion of local law
enforcement. This, in turn, would hamper the ability of local
law enforcement officials to apprehend criminals and ensure
public safety in all communities.
Furthermore, Section 2 of H.R. 3003 would deny to
jurisdictions vital federal funding related to law
enforcement, terrorism, national security, immigration, and
naturalization if those jurisdictions are deemed to be non-
compliant with H.R. 3003. The Catholic service network,
including Catholic Charities, works in partnership with the
federal government on a number of Department of Justice and
Department of Homeland Security initiatives, including
disaster response and recovery, naturalization and
citizenship services, and services for the immigrant,
including victims of human trafficking, and domestic
violence. These services are incredibly valuable to the
protection and promotion of the human person and in some
instances life-saving. Cutting grants related to these
important national objectives, or threat of such cuts, is not
humane or just, nor is it in our national interest.
Also, we oppose H.R. 3004 as it would lead to an expansion
of incarceration and does not include adequate protections
for people who re-enter the U.S. for humanitarian reasons or
seek protection at the border. While H.R. 3004 makes notable
efforts to protect us from those convicted of violent
criminal offenses, the legislation goes far beyond this goal
by expanding the government's ability to prosecute illegal
re-entry cases and heightening the criminal penalties in
these cases. In an era of fiscal austerity, it is vital that
important judicial resources are efficiently utilized to
prosecute and convict the most violent offenders of violent
crimes. Expanding who is eligible to be prosecuted for entry
or re-entry as well as enhancing sentencing requirements does
not advance the common good nor will it ensure that
communities are safer. Furthermore, we are concerned that, as
introduced, H.R. 3004 would also prevent vulnerable asylum
seekers and unaccompanied children, (who have presented
themselves repeatedly at the U.S. border in the flight from
violence), from being able to access protection, and instead
face fines, imprisonment or both.
We respectfully urge you to reject these bills in favor of
a more comprehensive and humane approach to immigration
reform; an approach that upholds human dignity and family
unity and places a greater emphasis on balancing the needs
and rights of immigrants with our nation's best interests and
security.
The United States has a long and proud history of
leadership in welcoming newcomers regardless of their
circumstances and promoting the common good. We stand ready
to work with you on legislation that more closely adheres to
this tradition and appreciate your serious consideration of
our views in this regard.
Sincerely,
Most Rev. Joe Vasquez,
Bishop of Austin, Chairman, USCCB Committee on Migration.
Sr. Donna Markham, OP, PhD,
President & CEO, Catholic Charities USA.
____
[From the Houston Chronicle, Apr. 30, 2017]
Police Chiefs: SB 4 is a `Lose-Lose' for Texas
(By Art Acevedo and James McLaughlin)
No one believes in the ``rule of law'' more than the Texas
Police Chiefs Association and the Texas Major Cities Chiefs,
which besides Houston include Austin, Arlington, Dallas,
[[Page H5323]]
Fort Worth and San Antonio. We work tirelessly to make our
communities safer, within the confines of the U.S.
Constitution, by arresting those who commit criminal actions
that threaten our communities. We specifically target those
individuals committing violent crimes and arrest anyone who
threatens the safety of our communities, regardless of their
immigration status.
Police chiefs across the state work extremely hard to
develop law enforcement agencies that build and maintain
trust, communication and stronger relationships with minority
communities through community-based policing and outreach
programs. So we know well that no good can come of Senate
Bill 4, which the state House of Representatives, joining the
state Senate, passed last week.
SB 4 requires local law enforcement to take a more active
role in immigration enforcement; this will tear down what
we've worked so hard to build up. Officers will start
inquiring about the immigration status of every person they
come in contact with, or worse, only inquire about the
immigration status of individuals based on their appearance.
This will lead to distrust of police, less cooperation from
members of the community and will foster the belief that they
cannot seek assistance from police for fear of being
subjected to an immigration-status investigation.
This is a lose-lose situation for everyone.
Distrust and fear of contacting or assisting the police has
already become evident among legal immigrants. Legal
immigrants are beginning to avoid contact with the police for
fear that they themselves or undocumented family members or
friends may become subject to immigration enforcement. Such a
divide between the local police and immigrant groups will
result in increased crime against immigrants and in the
broader community, create a class of silent victims, and
eliminate the potential for assistance from migrants in
solving crimes or preventing crime.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Law enforcement officers have to be able to abide by
the law. It is unjust to penalize law enforcement and the citizens they
serve because Congress disagrees with the enforcement priorities with
respect to our Nation's immigration laws. And they are right. But they
also say that they need to build trust in our communities.
This bill destroys community trust. It also penalizes hardworking
governments of mayors and county leaders who are, in fact, trying to
run the government and ensure that victims of domestic violence and
crime, even as immigrants, are able to be treated in a manner where
justice is had.
What about the National Sheriffs' Association or the Texas Police
Chiefs in Texas' major cities who indicate that this bill will serve no
good and no good can come to a similar bill in the States?
Let me say to you, I stand with the Catholic church, and I am not
Catholic. What are our values? This church opposes the idea of our
values.
Let me be very clear as I close. We are doing the sanctuary cities
bill, but I want to know about the integrity of this place.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3003, the ``No
Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' which requires state and local
cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, expands DHS detainer
authority, and expands detention authority.
I oppose this bill mainly because it directly violates the
Constitution of the United States.
If H.R. 3003 were to become law, it will coerce states and localities
to cooperate with immigration enforcement, it will hurt victims and
witnesses to crimes, and ultimately make communities less safe, which
directly contravenes the stated and alleged goals of this bill.
Police Chiefs across the nation are responding to less disturbances,
not because crime is magically disappearing, but because immigrant
communities are afraid to report them out of fear of being targeted.
H.R. 3003 will completely strip state and local jurisdictions of
their ability to enact common-sense policies that breed respect and
trust and turn local law enforcement into an auxiliary arm of the
federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
To ensure compliance, this bill coerces states and localities by
imposing penalties that will deny federal funding for critical law
enforcement, national security, drug treatment, and crime victim
initiatives.
This divisive and vindictive administrative policy abridges the Tenth
Amendment to the Constitution, which states:
``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.''
H.R. 3003 also violates the Fourth Amendment's proscription against
unreasonable searches and seizures in respect to the changes it makes
to DHS's detainer authority.
It expands upon current DHS detainer practice by broadening the ways
in which DHS can determine it has probable cause to issue a detainer
and it significantly expands the time an individual may be held by law
enforcement.
The Supreme Court has stated that the Fourth Amendment requires a
judicial finding of probable cause, usually within 48 hours of arrest.
H.R. 3003, however, allows law enforcement to hold a person up to 96
hours before DHS takes custody, and there is no mention of when the
person will even see an immigration judge.
H.R. 3003 compounds these constitutional violations by eliminating
the ability for a detained individual to obtain an independent,
individualized review of his or her bond determination by a neutral
decision-maker.
This bill also authorizes DHS to detain individuals in removal
proceedings without time limitation and it expands the categories of
individuals who would be subject to such a detention on a mandatory
basis.
These provisions make it substantially more difficult, if not
impossible, for individuals to obtain release on bond while removal
proceedings are pending, thus increasing detention costs and separating
families while they seek to litigate their immigration cases.
H.R. 3003 is nothing but an anti-immigrant, enforcement-only proposal
that represents another step in Trump's mass deportation plan.
Mr. Speaker, rather than forcing state and local officials into a
one-size-fits-all federal enforcement scheme, Congress and the
administration should enact legislation and adopt policies that
integrate unauthorized immigrants into our communities--approaches that
the American public supports by a wide margin.
For these reasons, I join with local law enforcement chiefs and faith
community leaders in denouncing and opposing this mean-spirited, ill-
considered, and un-American legislation.
I end, Mr. Speaker, by apologizing to Mika Brzezinski, to the press,
for the horrible words that were said about a bleeding face.
There is no way that we can entrust this law or any other laws to
this President of the United States. He has lost the trust, and I will
vote for nothing until he steps down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Gaetz), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
While we have heard a good amount of inflammatory rhetoric, my
remarks will speak solely to the facts.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of keeping America safe. In less
than 2 years, over 8,000 undocumented immigrants, all subject to ICE
detainment, were released because of local noncooperation policies.
Sixty-three percent of those illegal aliens had prior convictions or
had been marked a public safety concern. After being released, they
went on to be rearrested nearly 4,300 times, committing nearly 7,500
new offenses.
The facts are clear: States and local governments that do not comply
with our immigration laws are putting American citizens at risk.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission found that, in 2014, 75 percent of all
criminal defendants who were convicted and sentenced for Federal drug
offenses were illegal immigrants. As of 2014, illegal immigrants made
up roughly 3.5 percent of our population but committed over 10 percent
of all murders.
Refusing to turn over criminal illegal immigrants poses a threat to
our society, our safety, and our economy. American citizens pay nearly
$19 million a day to house and care for the 450,000 criminal immigrants
in jails and prisons who are all eligible for deportation.
When cities ignore Federal immigration laws, the results are often
tragic.
The sheriff of Travis County, Texas, decided she would only turn over
illegal aliens who have committed a narrow list of crimes. Her policy
allowed one illegal alien to be released on bail despite sexually
abusing his girlfriend's 9-year-old daughter.
A Cook County sheriff released an illegal immigrant after he served a
brief domestic assault sentence, despite an ICE detainer. Soon after,
he went on to kill a 15-year-old girl.
America wept as 32-year-old Kate Steinle was killed by a stray
bullet. The illegal immigrant who shot that gun had seven previous
felony convictions.
There are thousands more stories of innocent lives lost, of families
destroyed, and of crimes that could have
[[Page H5324]]
been prevented. Every day in America, another family grieves because of
the policies of sanctuary cities.
Mr. Speaker, I rise for the protection of our citizens, the safety of
our communities, the defense of our country, and to ultimately see the
end of sanctuary cities.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Crowley), our Democratic Caucus chair.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Much of the same rhetoric we are hearing right now from the other
side of the aisle is similar to the same rhetoric we heard back in the
1840s, 1850s, and 1860s against the Irish when they came to America. We
heard it said about Italian Americans in the 1880s and 1890s.
We continue to hear the same type of rhetoric about African Americans
in our country in terms of the percentage of criminal activity that
takes place. What we have seen happen is the further incarceration and
enslavement of African Americans in our Nation today because of similar
rhetoric.
I want to make it very clear: ``Immigrant'' and ``criminal'' are not
synonyms. You make it out to be that way by the passage of this
legislation.
Talking about law enforcement, in New York City, James O'Neill, the
police commissioner, has said this law will make New York City less
safe than it is today.
I remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that 9/11
happened in my hometown, in my city. Since then, there have been no
major incidents of terrorism in New York City because they have been
able to collect information--much of it from the undocumented community
in our city--to prevent similar events from happening again. That is
why this bill is so egregious.
The first responsibility of the Federal Government is to protect its
citizens from foreign invasion, foreign attack, terrorist attacks. This
bill will withhold terrorism money from New York City. It will prevent
the city of New York from continuing to collect the information they
and other cities around this country need to protect their citizens, to
develop the trust that the community has to have in its police
department and the police department in its communities.
That is how law enforcement works, that is how they catch the
criminals, and that is how they help the Federal Government deport
criminals who have committed criminal offenses in a city like New York.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire at this time how much time
is remaining on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 12 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Black), the chairman of the Budget Committee.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, across the country, more than 300
municipalities have adopted policies to limit local law enforcement
cooperation with Federal authorities, making it harder to keep our
families and communities safe.
Back in my home State of Tennessee, the Nashville City Council has
recently been advancing legislation to become one of these sanctuary
cities. Giving Federal funds to sanctuary cities defies logic and it
demands attention.
Yesterday, I offered an amendment to expand the bill before us today
so that sanctuary cities would no longer have access to Community
Development Block Grants and certain other economic development grants,
as well, that send more than about 300 billion taxpayer dollars a year
to local communities.
On its website, the Community Development Block Grant program says
its purpose is to provide services to vulnerable communities and
address issues that ``pose an immediate threat to the health or welfare
of the community.''
What population is more vulnerable than a 6-year-old girl in Lebanon,
Tennessee, who was sexually molested while she was sleeping? Just last
month, charges were brought against a criminal illegal immigrant for
repeatedly breaking into her room at night and making videos while he
assaulted her. The evil individual had been in police custody before.
For Kate Steinle, who has been talked about many times on the floor,
her killer had a criminal record of not one, two, or three, but seven
felonies. He had been deported not once, twice, or three times, but
five times. Is that who liberal legislators around the country want to
give ``sanctuary''?
We need more communication and cooperation between local, State, and
Federal law enforcement officers who are trying to keep our communities
safe, not less. It is time to stop giving taxpayer dollars to these
cities. I am voting for this bill today to do just that.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the distinguished
ranking member, for yielding.
I don't know what our friend from Tennessee was talking about. I am
not here as a liberal legislator. I am here as a local government
person. I spent 14 years in local government.
We are not sanctuary cities. We are trying to solve crimes by seeking
cooperation from the immigrant community. This bill will make it
harder. Most of our local police chiefs would tell you that--if you
would listen to them.
Oddly enough, the Members supporting this bill are the same Members
who sanctimoniously decry Federal mandates and overreach--except when
they want one. Here we are, dictating how local governments should
implement Federal immigration laws.
At the local level, we know effective, community-based policing
relies on trust between the police and communities. This bill would
erode that collaboration and that trust.
How can we expect our Nation's immigrants to turn to the police if
they witness or fall victim to a crime if they are afraid of being
deported or separated from their families?
The bill will punish local police departments and those
relationships. It should be defeated. This local government guy will
oppose this bad policy bill.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I was at the White House
with President Trump and the parents and relatives of those daughters
and sons who were killed by those who are here illegally. The stories
were very heavy. They should weigh on all of us.
One story that was shared was given by Michelle Root about her
beautiful daughter who was struck down and killed in a senseless way by
someone here illegally. Michelle is in the gallery here today, and she
is a great advocate.
In late January 2016, Sarah's parents, Michelle and Scott Root,
started their day with joy. On that day, their beautiful daughter,
Sarah, graduated. She had the whole world ahead of her. But for
Michelle and Scott, the day ended with loss and tragedy. It was the
unimaginable loss of their daughter. Sarah was killed by a drunk driver
here illegally. It is so senseless. Sarah had her whole life in front
of her.
Through incompetence and uncertainty about the law or the policy, or
both--but for sure, a lack of common sense--Sarah's killer was
released. Today, Sarah's killer is free.
Today, Sarah's parents, Michelle and Scott, and Sarah's brother,
Scotty, fight for Sarah's justice. They fight for her honor. They fight
to make sure no other parent or loved one has to go through the tragic
ordeal they had to go through.
{time} 1500
My vote today is about policy, but it is in honor of Sarah Root. It
is hard to find a love stronger than a parent has for their child.
Sarah will always be loved and certainly not forgotten by her family
and friends and those who never even met her. She has touched their
hearts. They continue to advocate, and so must we.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman, my colleagues in Iowa and
across the border in Nebraska who support this legislation and fought
for it to be incorporated into this bill.
God is taking care of Sarah now. Her memory lives on. I urge the
passage of this legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is not in order to refer to persons in
the gallery.
[[Page H5325]]
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a former justice to the Texas Supreme Court.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the only sanctuary involved here today is
the sanctuary that this sorry bill provides for prejudice. This is the
Trump counterpart to the outrageous SB4 that Governor Greg Abbott has
been promoting in Texas. It all goes back to the rhetoric of last year
about the ``bad hombres'' and the attacks on Mexico and Mexicans.
I will tell you, I want the bad hombres off the street no matter
where they come from, but I look to my local police chiefs, to my local
sheriffs and law enforcement officers to tell me what the best way is
to protect our families from crime. They say maintaining the confidence
of the immigrant community is vital, and that measures like this, which
simply have politicians in Washington interfering with and attempting
to intimidate local law enforcement officers, do exactly the opposite
of what all these speeches claim that they do.
Anti-immigrant hysteria, what a way to leave for July Fourth from a
Congress that has accomplished practically nothing but to attack
immigrants as we depart instead of standing by and supporting local law
enforcement and making our communities safe.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond and
point out that many, many of the victims of these crimes are Hispanic,
African American, and others, and they were seated around the Cabinet
table at the White House yesterday pleading for this legislation
because they had lost their loved ones. They would much rather have
been able to rewind the tape and be with those loved ones who were
killed by people who were illegally present in the United States. The
victims would never have suffered if our laws had simply been enforced.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Dunn).
Mr. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3003, the No
Sanctuary for Criminals Act.
Congress has a responsibility to protect the rule of law in our
country and to provide for the safety of our citizens. The American
people overwhelmingly oppose sanctuary cities and believe that we
should be doing more to enforce our Federal immigration laws.
The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act clarifies the authority of the
Department of Homeland Security to order the detainment of illegal
immigrants arrested for crimes until they can be processed for
deportation.
It also cuts off certain Federal grants to cities and States that
violate Federal immigration law. It is simple: If you don't comply with
the Federal immigration law, you are not eligible for certain Federal
grants.
It is time for us to enforce our immigration laws.
National attention was brought to the consequences of the sanctuary
city policies by the death of Kate Steinle, who was killed by an
illegal immigrant who had previously been convicted of seven felonies
and deported five times. If the city of San Francisco had worked with
the Federal Government to enforce the Federal immigration law instead
of releasing this criminal, Kate Steinle would be alive today.
Our current system of laws failed Kate and all those who have died at
the hands of convicted felons in this country illegally. The people who
I am honored to represent do not understand why some American cities
get to flout the law and not cooperate with Federal officials. This
legislation makes it clear that they don't, that sanctuary cities are
illegal. By holding these jurisdictions accountable and stopping
sanctuary cities, we will make Americans of every background safer on
our streets.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important
legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a dedicated civil rights leader.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R.
3003.
In jurisdictions within my district, Cook County, cities like
Chicago, Evanston, and Skokie, which are immigrant rich, we have
adopted sanctuary cities, sometimes called welcoming cities, ordinances
in order to reassure immigrants that they can, with safety, talk to law
enforcement within our jurisdictions.
Skokie Mayor George Van Dusen said: ``It has taken the Village of
Skokie years--decades really--to form the bridges that we have of trust
with our immigrant community.''
These policies work. A January study found that sanctuary cities tend
to be safer and have stronger economies than not.
This bill would push communities to abandon sanctuary city policies,
breaking down that hard-earned trust between immigrants and law
enforcement. Turning law enforcement into immigration enforcement makes
cities less safe.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, it makes immigrants less likely to
report crimes. This bill protects criminals in our communities and not
victims.
I urge my colleagues to vote for safer communities and vote against
this bill.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Goodlatte for making sure
this bill gets to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I am registering my support for Kate's Law and H.R.
3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals--for Criminals--Act. I support
these bills for the sake of Kate Steinle and every single one of those
who share her tragic fate.
She was murdered in broad daylight by a violent, criminal illegal
alien. This was an easily preventable and heartbreaking crime, and we
simply cannot fail the American people by refusing to act on these
bills.
The government's first responsibility is the security and protection
of our homeland, a duty that should not be abdicated or yielded based
on convenience.
In 2011--2011--a GAO study found that aliens committed more than
25,000 homicides, more than 69,000 sexual offenses, 14,000 kidnappings,
42,000 robberies, and 213,000 assaults, among other offenses. Every
single one of these is too many.
Very few things in this world we can get at 100 percent, but these
are 100 percent preventable if these people would not have been here.
These are preventable crimes, completely preventable, and we must stop
the willful neglect of complacency by government officials who refuse
to enforce existing--this is not new. This is existing law we are
asking them to enforce, we are requiring them to enforce.
According to a March 2017 Washington Times article, nearly 500
jurisdictions have sanctuary policies that block--that block--that
limit ICE from apprehending criminal aliens.
A January 2017 article from the Washington Examiner reported that,
from January 2014 to September 2015, sanctuary jurisdictions rejected
17,000 ICE detainers. Those are 17,000 criminals that are out on the
street that we know about that we let go.
Adding insult to injury, these sanctuary jurisdictions seek Federal
funds to help them defy Federal law enforcement efforts to remove the
dangerous criminal aliens from the streets.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to put Americans first, and we support the
restoration of law and order by supporting these proposals.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 7\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lofgren) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the
National Fraternal Order of Police; Law Enforcement Immigration Task
Force; National League of Cities; U.S. Conference of Mayors; and the
National Association of Counties in opposition to this bill.
[[Page H5326]]
National Fraternal Order of Police,
Washington, DC, 27 June 2017.
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin O. McCarthy,
Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,
Minority Whip, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker and Representatives McCarthy, Pelosi and
Hoyer: I am writing on behalf of the members of the Fraternal
Order of Police to reiterate the FOP's opposition to any
amendment or piece of legislation that would penalize law
enforcement agencies by withholding Federal funding or
resources from law enforcement assistance programs in an
effort to coerce a policy change at the local level. The
House will consider H.R. 3003 on the floor this week and
Section 2 of this bill would restrict the hiring program
administered by the Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS), the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance
Grant (Byrne-JAG) programs, as well as programs administered
by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The FOP has been very clear on this issue: we strongly
believe that local and State law enforcement agencies should
cooperate with their Federal counterparts. That being said,
withholding needed assistance to law enforcement agencies--
which have no policymaking role--also hurts public safety
efforts.
Local police departments answer to local civilian
government and it is the local government which enacts
statutes and ordinances in their communities. Law enforcement
officers have no more say in these matters than any other
citizen and--with laws like the Hatch Act in place--it can be
argued they have less. Law enforcement officers do not get to
pick and choose which laws to enforce, and must carry out
lawful orders at the direction of their commanders and the
civilian government that employs them. It is unjust to
penalize law enforcement and the citizens they serve because
Congress disagrees with their enforcement priorities with
respect to our nation's immigration laws.
The FOP issued a statement in January of this year
regarding the approach of the Administration on sanctuary
cities as outlined in President Trump's Executive Order. The
President recognized that it is unfair to penalize the law
enforcement agencies serving these jurisdictions for the
political decisions of local officials. It allows the U.S.
Attorney General and Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security to make an informed decision about the
public safety impact without an automatic suspension from
Federal grant programs. In Section 2 of H.R. 3003, there is
no such discretion and it countermands the Administration's
existing policy.
The FOP opposed several bills in the previous Congress,
which were outlined in a letter to the Senate leadership, and
we will continue to work against proposals that would reduce
or withhold funding or resources from any Federal program for
local and State law enforcement. If Congress wishes to effect
policy changes in these sanctuary cities, it must find
another way to do so.
On behalf of the more than 330,000 members of the Fraternal
Order of Police, I want to urge the House to reject H.R.
3003's punitive approach and work with law enforcement to
find a better way to improve public safety in our
communities. Please feel free to contact me or my Senior
Advisor Jim Pasco in my Washington office if I can be of any
further assistance.
Sincerely,
Chuck Canterbury,
National President.
____
Law Enforcement
Immigration Task Force,
June 28, 2017.
Dear Member of Congress: As law enforcement leaders
dedicated to preserving the safety and security of our
communities, we have concerns about legislative proposals
that would attempt to impose punitive, ``one-size-fits-all''
policies on state and local law enforcement. Rather than
strengthening state and local law enforcement by providing us
with the tools to work with the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) in a manner that is responsive to the needs of
our communities, these proposals would represent a step
backwards.
Attempts to defund so-called sanctuary cities regularly
sweep too broadly, punishing jurisdictions that engage in
well-established community policing practices or adhere to
federal court decisions that have found federal immigration
detainers to violate constitutional protections. We oppose
these approaches and urge Congress to work to encourage--
rather than compel--law enforcement agency cooperation within
our federal system.
We believe that law enforcement should not cut corners.
Multiple federal courts have questioned the legality and
constitutionality of federal immigration detainers that are
not accompanied by a criminal warrant signed by a judge. Even
though the legality of such immigration holds is doubtful,
some have proposed requiring states and localities to enforce
them, shielding them from lawsuits. While this approach would
reduce potential legal liability faced by some jurisdictions
and departments, we are concerned these proposals would still
require our agencies and officers carry out federal
directives that could violate the U.S. Constitution, which we
are sworn to follow.
Immigration enforcement is, first and foremost, a federal
responsibility. Making our communities safer means better
defining roles and improving relationships between local law
enforcement and federal immigration authorities. But in
attempting to defund ``sanctuary cities'' and require state
and local law enforcement agencies. Local control has been a
beneficial approach for law enforcement for decades--having
the federal government compel state and local law enforcement
to carry out new and sometimes problematic tasks undermines
the delicate federal balance and will harm locally-based
policing.
Rather than requiring state and local law enforcement
agencies to engage in additional immigration enforcement
activities, Congress should focus on overdue reforms of the
broken immigration system to allow state and local law
enforcement to focus their resources on true threats--
dangerous criminals and criminal organizations. We believe
that state and local law enforcement must work together with
federal authorities to protect our communities and that we
can best serve our communities by leaving the enforcement of
immigration laws to the federal government. Threatening the
removal of valuable grant funding that contributes to the
health and well-being of communities across the nation would
not make our communities safer and would not fix any part of
our broken immigraton system.
Our immigration problem is a national problem deserving of
a national approach, and we continue to recognize that what
our broken system truly needs is a permanent legislative
solution--broad-based immigration reform.
Sincerely,
Chief Chris Magnus, Tucson, AZ; Chief Sylvis Moir, Tempe,
AZ; Ret. Chief Roberto Villasenor, Tucson, AZ; Chief Charlie
Beck, Los Angeles, CA; Ret. Chief James Lopez, Los Angeles
County, CA; Sheriff Margaret Mims, Fresno County, CA; Sheriff
Mike Chitwood, Volusia County, FL; Sheriff Paul Fitzgerald,
Story County, IA; Chief Wayne Jerman, Cedar Rapids, IA;
Sheriff Bill McCarthy, Polk County, IA.
Public Safety Director, Mark Prosser, Storm Lake, IA;
Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek, Johnson County, IA; Chief Mike
Tupper, Marshalltown, IA; Chief William Bones, Voise, ID;
Ret. Chief Ron Teachman, South Bend, IN; Ret. Chief James
Hawkins, Garden City, KS; Commissioner William Evans, Boston,
MA; Chief Ken Ferguson, Framingham, MA; Chief Brian Kyes,
Chelsea, MA; Chief Tom Manger, Montgomery County, MD.
Chief Todd Axtell, Saint Paul, MN; Sheriff Eli Rivera,
Cheshire County, NH; Chief Cel Rivera, Lorain, OH; Public
Safety Commissioner Steven Pare, Providdence, RI; Chief
William Holbrook, Columbia, SC; Sheriff Leon Lott, Richland
County, SC; Ret. Chief Fred Fletcher, Chattanooga, TN; Chief
Art Acevedo, Houston, TX.
Sheriff Edward Gonzalez, Harris County, TX; Sheriff Sally
Hernandez, Travis County, TX; Sheriff Lupe Valdez, Dallas
County, TX; Ret. Chief Chris Burbank, Salt Lake City, UT;
Sheriff John Urquhart, King County, WA; Asst. Chief Randy
Gaber, Madison, WI; Chief Michael Koval, Madison, WI; Chief
Todd Thomas, Appleton, WI.
____
National League of Cities,
Cleveland, OH, June 28, 2017.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 19,000 cities and
towns represented by the National League of Cities (NLC), I
am writing to express our strong opposition to the ``No
Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003). The bill, which
was made public just recently, completely bypassed the House
Judiciary Committee and includes provisions that will result
in violations of due process and the Fourth and Tenth
Amendments to the Constitution.
We are very troubled by the fact that the bill--which
preempts local authority, jeopardizes public safety, and
exposes local governments to litigation and potential
liability--was drafted with no input from local officials.
NLC has consistently opposed federal legislation that would
impose harmful sanctions on local governments--sanctions that
prohibit or restrict compliance when a detainer request is
issued by the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Specifically, NLC has
significant concerns with the provisions in H.R. 3003 that:
1. Undermine local government's authority to govern their
public safety and local law enforcement programs. The bill
would prevent localities from establishing laws or policies
that prohibit or ``in any way'' restrict compliance with or
cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. H.R. 3003
would strip local governments ability to enact common-sense
crime prevention policies that ensure victims of crime will
seek protection and report crimes.
2. Penalize local governments that fail to comply with
federal immigration efforts with the denial of federal
funding for critical law enforcement, national security, drug
treatment, and crime victim initiatives, including the State
Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS), and Byrne JAG programs that provide
hundreds of millions of dollars to localities nationwide.
[[Page H5327]]
3. Compel local governments to honor Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer requests, even though the
federal courts have determined the that ICE use of detainers
violates the Fourth Amendment, and that localities may be
held liable for honoring them.
4. Expand ICE's detainer authority requiring localities to
hold undocumented immigrants for up to 96 hours, which is
twice what is currently allowed even if probable cause has
not been shown. The bill also does not provide any additional
funding to local governments to cover the costs associated
with detaining the undocumented immigrants. Requiring cities
to shoulder the financial burden being forced upon them with
no input impacts our ability to pay for essential
infrastructure and services such as roads, schools and
libraries.
5. Create a ``private right of action'' that would allow
crime victims or their family members to sue localities if
the crime was committed by someone who was released by the
locality that did not honor an ICE detainer request. This
provision could allow frivolous lawsuits against a local
government by anyone who alleges that they were a victim of a
crime committed by an immigrant.
6. Compel local governments to utilize their local law
enforcement resources to implement federal civil immigration
enforcement in violation of the Tenth Amendment's
``commandeering'' principle. The Tenth Amendment does not
permit the federal government to force counties and cities to
allocate local resources, including police officers,
technology, and personnel, to enforce federal immigration
law. The federal government also cannot withhold funds from
localities refusing to participate in federal efforts if the
programs affected are unrelated to the purpose of the federal
program, or if the sanctions are punitive in nature.
Since the inception of the United States of America, lawful
immigrants and refugees have played a vital role in the
civic, economic and social life of cities. We recognize that
local governments address issues associated with federal
immigration laws in a variety of ways that best meet the
needs of all their residents. Some cities provide greater
leniency towards undocumented immigrants who do not violate
state and local laws by not dedicating municipal resources to
enforce federal immigration laws. Unfortunately, these cities
are wrongfully characterized as safe havens for undocumented
immigrants who violate state and local laws.
We believe the power to enforce federal immigration laws
remains exclusively a federal power and we strongly oppose
federal efforts to commandeer our local law enforcement to
take on the duties of federal immigration enforcement agents.
Our nation's local elected officials call on you to do the
right thing and vote against H.R. 3003 when it is considered
on the floor. We urge you to move beyond punitive bills like
H.R. 3003 and work with us to develop a positive legislation
that will fix our broken immigration system and make our
cities safer.
Thank you for your leadership and for willingness to stand
up for America's cities by voting against this legislation
that would impose harmful sanctions on local governments.
Sincerely,
Matt Zone,
President, National League of Cities, Ward 15 Councilman.
____
The United States Conference
of Mayors,
Washington, DC, June 26, 2017.
Dear Representative: I write to register the strong
opposition of the nation's mayors to H.R. 3003, a partisan
bill that seeks to punish so-called ``sanctuary cities,''
which is expected to be considered by the full House this
week.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors represents well over a
thousand mayors and nearly 150 million people. Today, we
concluded the 85th Annual Meeting of The U.S. Conference of
Mayors and adopted policy that reinforces and builds on
previous positions we have taken which oppose provisions in
this bill. Specifically, the nation's mayors:
urge members of Congress to withdraw legislation that
attempts to cut local law enforcement funding necessary to
ensure the safety of our communities, indemnify conduct that
violates the constitutional rights afforded to both United
States citizens and immigrant populations, and further
criminalizes immigration and infringes on the rights of
immigrant;
oppose punitive policies that limit local control and
discretion, and urge instead that Congress and the
Administration pursue immigration enforcement policies that
recognize that local law enforcement has limited resources
and community trust is critical to local law enforcement and
the safety of our communities;
oppose federal policies that commandeer local law
enforcement or require local authorities to violate, or be
placed at risk of violating, a person's Fourth Amendment
rights; expend limited resources to act as immigration
agents; or otherwise assist federal immigration authorities
beyond what is determined by local policy.
H.R. 3003 would do all of these things and more:
It would jeopardize public safety by withholding critical
public safety funding from jurisdictions that tell their
police officers not to ask an individual their immigration
status. Many departments have such policies to encourage
crime victims and witnesses to report crimes and to build
trust with immigrant communities.
It would put jurisdictions at risk of violating an
individual's Fourth Amendment rights by establishing probable
cause standards for ICE's issuance of detainers that do not
require a judicial determination of probable cause. Numerous
federal courts have found that continued detention under an
ICE detainer, absent probable cause, would state a claim for
a violation of the Fourth Amendment and subject the detaining
officer or jurisdiction to civil liability.
While it says it would provide immunity to jurisdictions
which comply with detainers and hold them harmless in any
suits filed against them, they would still be subject to
Fourth Amendment challenges.
Further compelling and expanding compliance with certain
enforcement provisions, such as immigration detainers, and
cutting off federal funding to jurisdictions which do not
comply with these provisions likely conflict with the Tenth
Amendment.
H.R. 3003 is a bad bill for our cities and their residents
and for our nation. It would jeopardize public safety,
preempt local authority, and expose local governments to
litigation and potential findings of damages. America's
mayors call on you to do the right thing and vote against
H.R. 3003 when it is considered on the floor.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors urges you instead to focus on
positive legislation that will fix our broken immigration
system and make our cities safer. The nation's mayors pledge
to work with you on bipartisan immigration reform legislation
that will fix our nation's broken immigration system. We need
to move beyond punitive bills like H.R. 3003 and develop an
immigration system that works for our nation, our cities and
our people.
To make our cities safer we urge you to consider
legislation that will help us to fight crime and prevent
terrorism. The U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Major Cities
Chiefs Association agree that to make the streets of America
safe, Congress must act to strengthen bonds between
communities and police, expand homeland security grants,
invest in mental health and substance abuse services, reduce
gun violence, and reform the criminal justice system and
strengthen reentry services.
Sincerely,
Mitchell J. Landrieu,
Mayor of New Orleans,
President.
____
Major County Sheriffs of America and National Association
of Counties,
June 29, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Steny Hoyer,
Minority Whip, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker, Majority Leader McCarthy and
Representatives Pelosi and Hoyer: On behalf of the Major
County Sheriffs of America (MCSA) and the National
Association of Counties (NACo), we write to express our
commitment to work with Congress and the Administration on
measures to prevent crime and violence, but are concerned
that H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act is not an
effective approach. While we applaud measures to protect the
public from repeat, violent predators, we cannot support
further cuts in funding that weaken crime prevention efforts,
officer recruitment, and safety and wellness programs.
Most sheriffs want to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) so that it may remove criminal
illegal aliens from the United States, but sheriffs must
follow the law that has rendered current ICE requests
illegal. Without proper arrest authority, sheriffs cannot
willfully disregard an individual's 4th amendment rights as
articulated in these court cases. Make no mistake, the
American public has a right to know which jurisdictions are
blatantly ignoring the rule of law and are endangering
community safety and they should be held accountable. If a
jurisdiction is following the law of its state or a binding
court ruling, it is misguided for Congress to cut funding for
programs that support State and local law enforcement
agencies in nearly every jurisdiction in this country.
ICE's removal of illegal aliens who are committing crimes
in our communities is important to ensure public safety.
Their removal mitigates the drain on sheriffs' resources by
ensuring these criminals are not sitting in our jails and
that our deputies are not continually investigating their
crimes. As leaders in law enforcement, the MCSA been working
collaboratively with the Department of Homeland Security to
find an agreeable solution that is lawful, effects good
public safety policy, and allows ICE to effectively do its
job of removing criminal illegal aliens from our country.
We know Members of Congress believe that efforts to stop
violence in American cities
[[Page H5328]]
must be strengthened, not weakened. While we appreciate
Congress' support for law enforcement, we strongly feel a law
enforcement grant penalty solution would not only negatively
impact law enforcement efforts across the country, but also
not achieve its intended purpose.
Very Respectfully,
Michael J. Bouchard,
Sheriff, Oakland County (MI), Vice President--Government
Affairs, Major County Sheriffs of America (MCSA).
Matthew D. Chase,
Executive Director, National Association of Counties
(NACo).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Panetta).
Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to H.R. 3003 because, if this
bill passed, it would punish our communities more than it would punish
the criminals. As written, this bill would deny critical funding for
our police departments.
As a former 20-year prosecutor in local counties, I know firsthand
how much our local police rely on Federal funding not just to do their
job, but to be safe when they keep our communities safe. Any decrease
in any sort of funding would decrease the safety of our officers as
they strive to protect and serve our communities. This law will not
only affect our police officers' safety, but it will negatively affect
the sense of security in our communities.
Yes, the underlying intent of the law is to make it easier for ICE to
target undocumented people who are criminals--I get it--but it is not
that simple.
In the past few months, my district has seen two large-scale raids by
ICE. Yes, they swept up criminals, but they also snagged collaterals,
law-abiding people who were here in the wrong place at the right time.
Those operations cast a complete pall over the community that affected
our ability to enforce our laws.
As a gang prosecutor, over and over I experienced people who were
afraid to come forward out of fear of retaliation. Now they are afraid
of the police, afraid of the courts, and afraid of our government. That
is why I am opposed to H.R. 3003.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren), a senior member of the House Judiciary
Committee.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to reflect back on
why localities adopt these community trust policies.
The chairman of the committee mentioned somebody in San Francisco who
is suing the city. In a way, that shows the efficacy of the trust
policies.
This man, Mr. Figueroa-Zarceno, was a victim of crime. His truck was
stolen. He went into the police department to report that his truck was
stolen. There was a removal order that was 10 or 20 years old. He has
an American citizen child. He is a working person. When he went
outside, he was picked up by ICE.
I think what that tells other people who are victims of crime who
might have an outstanding removal order is: Don't report the crime. It
is one thing if you have lost your truck. It has been stolen.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
Ms. LOFGREN. Not that I am for stealing trucks, but here is a bigger
problem.
The cities of Houston and Los Angeles report a dramatic drop-off in
reports of sexual violence. Why? Because immigrants are afraid to
report; and not just because they might be undocumented, but they might
have a sister or a next-door neighbor or a spouse who is undocumented,
even if they are a citizen. So what has happened is with these threats
come an unwillingness of immigrants to report crime, to be witnesses to
crime, to keep our communities safe.
These stories that we have heard of the victims of crime are
heartbreaking, but we are not without remedies under current law.
The most important law in our country is the Constitution. The
Constitution includes the Fourth Amendment.
{time} 1515
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again
expired.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman.
Ms. LOFGREN. The Constitution is the most important law we have. We
read it aloud on the first day of our Congress. It includes the Fourth
Amendment, which requires probable cause and warrants. A bunch of
courts have made that ruling relative to detainers.
Well, that doesn't leave the Federal Government without remedies. Get
a warrant. There is not a jurisdiction in the United States that will
not honor a judicial warrant. Don't blame the local police. Look to the
Department of Homeland Security for why they have dropped the ball and
been unwilling to take the steps that are well within their authority
today to make sure if there is someone that they need, they get a
warrant and they obtain that person for whatever is the next step in
their process.
To somehow suggest that this misguided bill is the answer is a big
mistake.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).
Mr. BACON. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this bill today. I
stand in support of the rule of law. I stand in support of our
institutions.
I also stand in memory of Sarah Root, a young woman who was murdered
by a drunk driver on January 16. She was killed in my district--or
Nebraska 02--a short time after graduating from Bellevue University
with a 4.0 grade point average, with a bright future ahead of her. She
was loved by her parents and her extended family. If you see her
picture, that beautiful smile would warm any room.
The perpetrator was here illegally from Honduras. He posted bail and
never was seen again. ICE failed to hold him, and justice was denied.
We can't let this happen again.
The bill today will fix this. We can't let a travesty of justice like
this ever happen again. Our systems have to hold people accountable.
When ICE lets people go like this and they leave, a travesty of justice
occurs.
Today we stand with Michelle Root, the mother of Sarah Root, who is
here, and we stand with Scott Root. We remember Sarah Root, and we say:
Never again.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to close.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3003 is not making our communities safer. If it
was, the bill's sponsors would have heeded the strong opposition of
organizations like the National Fraternal Order of Police, who stated
that, ``withholding needed assistance to law enforcement agencies--
which have no policymaking role--hurts public safety efforts;'' and the
U.S. Conference of Mayors, who cautioned, ``H.R. 3003 is a bad bill for
our cities and their residents and for our Nation. It would jeopardize
public safety, preempt local authority, and expose local governments to
litigation and potential findings of damage.''
Instead, this legislation is a down payment on the President's and
the Republican majority's mass deportation plan.
This bill, and the one that we will debate later today, is a portion
of the mass deportation bill known as the ``Davis-Oliver Act,'' which
has been cited as a priority for the Trump administration, and is
supported by anti-immigrant groups, such as NumbersUSA and the Center
for Immigration Studies.
I respectfully urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hill). The gentleman from Virginia has
2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First, let me be clear: the only law enforcement agencies that risk
losing any Federal grants because of this legislation are those
agencies that, without any outside compulsion, deliberately choose to
violate Federal law by outright prohibiting their law enforcement
officers from voluntarily communicating with ICE and cooperating with
it in the enforcement of Federal law.
[[Page H5329]]
Second, let me also be clear that this bill does not require State
and local law enforcement agencies to comply with ICE detainers, and it
does not seek to cut off any Federal grants to jurisdictions that
choose not to comply.
Finally, it is a long-settled principle of constitutional law. And
let me remind you that all of these law enforcement officers vowed to
defend the Constitution, and the Constitution grants supremacy to
Federal immigration law.
When there is a conflict with Federal immigration law, State laws
that are in conflict are invalid, preempted by Federal law under the
10th Amendment. Under the 10th Amendment, State and local law
enforcement agencies have no obligation to comply with unconstitutional
provisions of State or local law that asks them to violate title 8,
United States Code, section 1373.
Then, again, getting back to the amazing news that we have, the city
of San Francisco has just agreed to pay $190,000 to an illegal alien
because the San Francisco sheriff complied with an ICE detainer and
turned the alien over to ICE, apparently in violation of San Francisco
policy. That individual, under Federal law, because he was the victim
of a crime, will be eligible to apply for a U visa.
Respect for the rule of law is the way to keep communities safe.
Respect for the rule of law is the way to make sure that people like
Kate Steinle are not murdered in the city of San Francisco, as we have
heard of other murders all during the debate today, by people who are
unlawfully present in the United States. Therefore, they are all
preventable crimes.
Law enforcement in this country needs to cooperate. Most law
enforcement officers want that to be done. Let's support them, let's
support this legislation, and make sure that the rule of law is upheld.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following
additional letters in opposition to H.R. 3003. These are additional
letters of opposition that I mentioned earlier on H.R. 3003.
June 26, 2017.
Dear Representative: We write on behalf of the Committee on
Migration of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB/
COM), and Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA) to express our
opposition to H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004.
The Catholic Church holds a strong interest in the welfare
of migrants and how our nation welcomes and treats them. Our
parishes include those with and without immigration status,
unfortunately some who have witnessed or been victims of
crime in the United States, including domestic violence,
armed robbery, and assault. We understand the importance of
fostering cooperation and information-sharing between
immigrant communities and local law enforcement.
We oppose H.R. 3003 because it would impose obligations on
local governments that we fear--and that many of them have
warned--would undermine authority and discretion of local law
enforcement. This, in turn, would hamper the ability of local
law enforcement officials to apprehend criminals and ensure
public safety in all communities.
Furthermore, Section 2 of H.R. 3003 would deny to
jurisdictions vital federal funding related to law
enforcement, terrorism, national security, immigration, and
naturalization if those jurisdictions are deemed to be non-
compliant with H.R. 3003. The Catholic service network,
including Catholic Charities, works in partnership with the
federal government on a number of Department of Justice and
Department of Homeland Security initiatives, including
disaster response and recovery, naturalization and
citizenship services, and services for the immigrant,
including victims of human trafficking, and domestic
violence. These services are incredibly valuable to the
protection and promotion of the human person and in some
instances life-saving. Cutting grants related to these
important national objectives, or threat of such cuts, is not
humane or just, nor is it in our national interest.
Also, we oppose H.R. 3004 as it would lead to an expansion
of incarceration and does not include adequate protections
for people who re-enter the U.S. for humanitarian reasons or
seek protection at the border. While H.R. 3004 makes notable
efforts to protect us from those convicted of violent
criminal offenses, the legislation goes far beyond this goal
by expanding the government's ability to prosecute illegal
re-entry cases and heightening the criminal penalties in
these cases. In an era of fiscal austerity, it is vital that
important judicial resources are efficiently utilized to
prosecute and convict the most violent offenders of violent
crimes. Expanding who is eligible to be prosecuted for entry
or re-entry as well as enhancing sentencing requirements does
not advance the common good nor will it ensure that
communities are safer. Furthermore, we are concerned that, as
introduced, H.R. 3004 would also prevent vulnerable asylum
seekers and unaccompanied children, (who have presented
themselves repeatedly at the U.S. border in the flight from
violence), from being able to access protection, and instead
face fines, imprisonment or both.
We respectfully urge you to reject these bills in favor of
a more comprehensive and humane approach to immigration
reform; an approach that upholds human dignity and family
unity and places a greater emphasis on balancing the needs
and rights of immigrants with our nation's best interests and
security.
The United States has a long and proud history of
leadership in welcoming newcomers regardless of their
circumstances and promoting the common good. We stand ready
to work with you on legislation that more closely adheres to
this tradition and appreciate your serious consideration of
our views in this regard.
Sincerely,
Most Rev. Joe Vasquez,
Bishop of Austin, Chairman, USCCB Committee on Migration.
Sr. Donna Markham, OP, PhD.,
President & CEO, Catholic Charities USA.
____
National Task Force to End,
Sexual and Domestic Violence,
June 27, 2017.
The National Taskforce to End Sexual and Domestic Violence
(NTF), comprised of national leadership organizations
advocating on behalf of sexual assault and domestic violence
victims and representing hundreds of organizations across the
country dedicated to ensuring all survivors of violence
receive the protections they deserve, write to express our
deep concerns about the impact that H.R. 3003, the ``No
Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' and H.R. 3004, or ``Kate's
Law,'' will have on victims fleeing or recovering from sexual
assault, domestic violence, or human trafficking, and on
communities at large.
This year is the twenty-third anniversary of the bipartisan
Violence Against Women Act (``VAWA'') which has, since it was
first enacted, included critical protections for immigrant
victims of domestic and sexual violence. H.R. 3003 and H.R.
3004 will have the effect of punishing immigrant survivors
and their children and pushing them into the shadows and into
danger, undermining the very purpose of VAWA. Specifically,
the nation's leading national organizations that address
domestic and sexual assault oppose H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004
because:
Community trust policies are critical tools for increasing
community safety. Laws that seek to intertwine the federal
immigration and local law enforcement systems will undermine
the Congressional purpose of protections enacted under VAWA
and will have the chilling effect of pushing immigrant
victims into the shadows and undermining public safety.
Immigration enforcement must be implemented in a way that
supports local community policing and sustains community
trust in working with local law enforcement. H.R. 3003 runs
contrary to community policing efforts and will deter
immigrant domestic violence and sexual assault survivors not
only from reporting crimes, but also from seeking help for
themselves and their children. While H.R. 3003 does not
require that local law enforcement arrest or report immigrant
victims or witnesses of criminal activity, the language in
the bill provides no restriction prohibiting such practices.
Perpetrators use fear of deportation as tool of abuse.
Local policies that minimize the intertwining of local law
enforcement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) help protect the most vulnerable victims by creating
trust between law enforcement and the immigrant community,
which in turn help protect entire communities. Abusers and
traffickers use the fear of deportation of their victims as a
tool to silence and trap them. If immigrants are afraid to
call the police because of fear of deportation, they become
more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Not only are the
individual victims and their children harmed, but their fear
of law enforcement leads many to abstain from reporting
violent perpetrators or seeking protection and, as a result,
dangerous criminals are not identified and go unpunished.
As VAWA recognizes, immigrant victims of violent crimes
often do not contact law enforcement due to fear that they
will be deported. Immigrants are already afraid of contacting
the police and HR 3003 proposes to further intertwine federal
immigration and local law enforcement systems will only
exacerbate this fear. The result is that perpetrators will be
able to continue to harm others, both immigrant and U.S.
Citizen victims alike. Since January of 2017, victim
advocates have been describing the immense fear expressed by
immigrant victims and their reluctance to reach out for help
from police. A recent survey of over 700 advocates and
attorneys at domestic violence and sexual assault programs
indicate that immigrant victims are expressing heightened
fears and concerns about immigration enforcement, with 78
percent of advocates and attorneys reporting that victims are
describing fear of contacting the police; 75 percent
[[Page H5330]]
of them reporting that victims are afraid of going to court;
and 43 percent reporting working with immigrant victims who
are choosing not to move forward with criminal charges or
obtaining protective orders.
In addition, according to Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie
Beck, reporting of sexual assault and domestic violence among
Latinos has dropped significantly this year, possibly due to
concerns that police interaction could result in deportation.
According to Chief Beck, reports of sexual assault have
dropped 25 percent among Los Angeles' Latino population since
the beginning of the year compared to a three percent drop
among non-Latino victims. Similarly, reports of spousal abuse
among Latinos fell by about 10 percent among Latinos whereas
the decline among non-Latinos was four percent. The Houston
Police Department reported in April that the number of
Hispanics reporting rape is down 42.8 percent from last year.
In Denver, CO, the Denver City Attorney has reported that
some domestic violence victims are declining to testify in
court. As of late February, the City Attorney's Office had
dropped four cases because the victims fear that ICE officers
will arrest and deport them. Both the City Attorney and
Aurora Police Chief have spoken on the importance of having
trust with the immigrant community in order to maintain
public safety and prosecute crime.
H.R. 3003 Will Unfairly Punish Entire communities.
H.R. 3003 punishes localities that follow Constitutional
guidelines and refuse to honor detainer requests that are not
supported by due process mandates. H.R. 3003 likely covers
more than 600 jurisdictions across the country, most of which
do not characterize their policies to follow constitutional
mandates as ``sanctuary'' policies. H.R. 3003 penalizes
jurisdictions by eliminating their access to various federal
grants, including federal law enforcement grants, such as the
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, and
other federal grants related to law enforcement or
immigration, such as those that fund forensic rape kit
analysis. Withholding federal law enforcement funding would,
ironically, undermine the ability of local jurisdictions to
combat and prevent crime in their communities.
In addition, the fiscal impact of both H.R. 3003 and H.R.
3004 will result in limited federal law enforcement resources
being further reduced as a result of shifting funding from
enforcing federal criminal laws addressing violent crimes,
including those protecting victims of domestic violence,
sexual assault, and human trafficking, to the detention and
prosecution of many non-violent immigration law violaters.
H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 Will Unfairly Punish Victims.
By greatly expanding mandatory detention and expanding
criminal penalties for reentry, H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 will
have harsh consequences for immigrant survivors. Victims of
human trafficking, sexual assault, and domestic violence are
often at risk of being arrested and convicted. In recognition
of this fact, existing ICE guidance cites the example of when
police respond to a domestic violence call, both parties may
be arrested or a survivor who acted in self-defense may be
wrongly accused. In addition, if the abuser speaks English
better than the survivor, or if other language or cultural
barriers (or fear of retaliation from the abuser) prevent the
survivor from fully disclosing the abuse suffered, a survivor
faces charges and tremendous pressure to plead guilty
(without being advised about the long-term consequences) in
order to be released from jail and reunited with her
children. In addition, victims of trafficking are often
arrested and convicted for prostitution-related offenses.
These victims are often desperate to be released and possibly
to be reunited with their children following their arrests or
pending trial. These factors--combined with poor legal
counsel, particularly about the immigration consequences of
criminal pleas and convictions--have in the past and will
likely continue to lead to deportation of wrongly accused
victims who may have pled to or been unfairly convicted of
domestic violence charges and/or prostitution. H.R. 3003
imposes harsh criminal penalties and H.R. 3004 imposes
expanded bases for detention without consideration of
mitigating circumstances or humanitarian exceptions for these
victims.
In addition, H.R. 3004 expands the criminal consequences
for re-entry in the U.S. without recognizing the compelling
humanitarian circumstances in which victims who have been
previously removed return for their safety. Victims of
domestic and sexual violence and trafficking fleeing violence
in their countries of origin will be penalized for seeking
protection from harm. In recent years, women and children
fleeing rampant violence in El Salvador, Guatemala and
Honduras, have fled to the United States, seeking refuge.
Frequently, because of inadequate access to legal
representation, they are unable to establish their
eligibility for legal protections in the United States,
resulting in their removal. In many cases, the risk of
domestic violence, sexual assault, and/or human trafficking
in their countries of origin remain unabated and victims
subsequently attempt to reenter the U.S. to protect
themselves and their children. Other victims of domestic and
sexual violence and trafficking may be deported because their
abusers or traffickers isolate them, or prevent them from
obtaining lawful immigration status. They are deported, with
some victims having to leave their children behind in the
custody of their abusers or traffickers. Under H.R. 3004,
these victims risk harsh criminal penalties for re-entry for
attempting to protect themselves and their children.
On behalf of the courageous survivors of domestic violence,
sexual assault, dating violence, stalking and human
trafficking that our organizations serve, we urge you to vote
against HR 3003 and 3004, and to affirm the intent and spirit
of VAWA by supporting strong relationships between law
enforcement and immigrant communities, which is critical for
public safety in general, and particularly essential for
domestic and sexual violence victims and their children.
Sincerely,
The National Taskforce to End Sexual and Domestic Violence
(www.4vawa.org).
____
June 28, 2017.
Re Vote NO on the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003,
and Kate's Law, H.R. 3004.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 407 undersigned
local, state, and national immigrant, civil rights, faith-
based, and labor organizations, we urge you to oppose the No
Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003 and Kate's Law, H.R.
3004, and any similar legislation that jeopardizes public
safety, erodes the goodwill forged between local police and
its residents, and perpetuates the criminalization and
incarceration of immigrants. H.R. 3003 would strip badly
needed law enforcement funding for state and local
jurisdictions, runs afoul of the Tenth and Fourth Amendment,
and unnecessarily expands the government's detention
apparatus. H.R. 3004 unwisely expands the federal
government's ability to criminally prosecute immigrants for
immigration-based offenses, excludes critical humanitarian
protections for those fleeing violence, and doubles down on
the failed experiment of incarceration for immigration
violations.
Over 600 state and local jurisdictions have policies or
ordinances that disentangle their state and local law
enforcement agencies from enforcing federal immigration law.
The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003, seeks to
attack so-called ``sanctuary'' jurisdictions (many of whom do
not consider themselves as such) by penalizing state and
local jurisdictions that follow the Fourth Ameniment of the
U.S. Constitution by refusing to honor constitutionally
infirm requests for detainers. H.R. 3003 penalizes
jurisdictions by eliminating various federal grants,
including funding through the Cops on the Beat program, the
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, and
any other federal grant related to law enforcement or
immigration. Importantly, using the threat of withholding
federal grants to coerce state and local jurisdictions likely
runs afoul of the Tenth Amendment's prohibition on
commandeering, a position supported by over 300 law
professors.
``Sanctuary'' policies are critical to promote public
safety for local communities. Fearing referral to U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, victims and witnesses of
crime are significantly less likely to communicate with local
law enforcement. Local law enforcement authorities have
repeatedly echoed this sentiment, acknowledging that
community policing policies are paramount to enhancing public
safety. Indeed, ``sanctuary'' jurisdictions have less crime
and more economic development than similarly situated non-
``sanctuary'' jurisdictions. Withholding critically-needed
federal funding would, paradoxically, severely cripple the
ability of state and local jurisdictions to satisfy the
public safety needs of their communities.
Kate's Law, H.R. 3004, would further criminalize the
immigrant community by drastically increasing penalties for
immigrants convicted of unlawful reentry. Operation
Streamline encapsulates our nation's failed experiment with
employing criminal penalties to deter migration. Under
Operation Streamline, the federal government prosecutes
immigrants for reentry at significant rates. By all practical
measures, Operation Streamline has failed to deter migration,
wasted billions of taxpayer dollars, and unfairly punished
thousands of immigrants who try to enter or reenter the
United States to reunite with their children and loved ones.
We fear that H.R. 3004's increased penalties for reentry
would double down on this failed strategy, explode the prison
population, and cost billions of dollars.
Instead of passing discredited enforcement-only
legislation, Congress should move forward on enacting just
immigration reform legislation that provides a roadmap to
citizenship for the nation's eleven million aspiring
Americans and eliminates mass detention and deportation
programs that undermine fundamental human rights. Legislation
that erodes public safety, disrespects local democratic
processes, and raises serious constitutional concerns
represents an abdication of the Congress' responsibility to
enact fair, humane, and just immigration policy. In light of
the above, we urge you to vote NO on the No Sanctuary for
Criminals Act, H.R. 3003 and Kate's Law, H.R. 3004.
Please contact Jose Magana-Salgado, of the Immigrant Legal
Resource Center, if you have any questions regarding this
letter. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
National Organizations
America's Voice Education Fund; American Federation of
Teachers; American
[[Page H5331]]
Friends Service Committee (AFSC); American-Arab Anti-
Discrimination Committee; Americans Committed to Justice and
Truth; Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
(AALDEF); Asian Americans Advancing Justice-AAJC; Asian
Americans Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus; Asian Pacific
American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO (APALA); Asian Pacific
Institute on Gender-Based Violence; ASISTA; Bend the Arc
Jewish Action; Black Alliance for Just Immigration; Casa de
Esperanza: National Latin@ Network; Catholic Legal
Immigration Network, Inc.; Center for American Progress;
Center for Employment Training; Center for Gender & Refugee
Studies; Center for Law and Social Policy; Center for New
Community.
Center for Popular Democracy (CPD); Christian Church
(Disciples of Christ) Refugee & Immigration Ministries;
Christian Community Development Association; Church World
Service; Coalition on Human Needs; CODEPINK; Columban Center
for Advocacy and Outreach; Committee in Solidarity with the
People of El Salvador (CISPES); Community Initiatives for
Visiting Immigrants in Confinement (CIVIC); Defending Rights
& Dissent; Disciples Center for Public Witness; Disciples
Home Missions; Dominican Sisters of Sparkill; Drug Policy
Alliance; Easterseals Blake Foundation; Equal Rights
Advocates; Farmworker Justice; Freedom Network USA; Friends
Committee on National Legislation; Fuerza Mundial.
Futures Without Violence; Grassroots Leadership; Hispanic
Federation; Hispanic National Bar Association; Holy Spirit
Missionary Sisters--USA-JPIC; Immigrant Legal Resource
Center; Intercommunity Peace & Justice Center; Interfaith
Worker Justice; Isaiah Wilson; Jewish Voice for Peace;
Jewish Voice for Peace--Boston; Jewish Voice for Peace--
Tacoma chapter; Jewish Voice for Peace--Western MA;
Justice Strategies; Kids in Need of Defense (KIND); Lambda
Legal; Laotian American National Alliance; Latin America
Working Group; Latino Victory Fund; LatinoJustice PRLDEF.
League of United Latin American Citizens; Lutheran
Immigration and Refugee Service; Mi Familia Vota; Milwaukee
Chapter, Jewish Voice for Peace; NAACP; National Center for
Transgender Equality; National Coalition Against Domestic
Violence; National Coalition for Asian Pacific American
Community Development; National Council of Asian Pacific
Americans (NCAPA); National Council of Jewish Women; National
Council of La Raza (NCLR); National Day Laborer Organizing
Network (NDLON); National Education Association; National
Immigrant Justice Center; National Immigration Law Center;
National Immigration Project of the NLG; National Iranian
American Council (NIAC); National Justice for Our Neighbors;
National Korean American Service & Education Consortium
(NAKASEC); National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health.
National Latina/o Psychological Association; National
Lawyers Guild; National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund;
National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; National
Resource Center on Domestic Violence; NETWORK Lobby for
Catholic Social Justice; OCA--Asian Pacific American
Advocates; Our Revolution; People's Action; PICO National
Network; Queer Detainee Empowerment Project; Refugee and
Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES);
School Social Work Association of America; Sisters of the
Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, New Windsor;
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC); Southern
Border Communities Coalition; Southern Poverty Law Center;
T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights; The Advocates for
Human Rights; The Hampton Institute: A Working Class Think
Tank.
The National Alliance to Advance Adolescent Health; The
Queer Palestinian Empowerment Network; The Sentencing
Project; The United Methodist Church--General Board of Church
and Society; U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants;
UndocuBlack Network; Unitarian Universalist Association;
Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of New Jersey;
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee; UNITE HERE; United
Child Care, Inc.; United for a Fair Economy; UU College of
Social Justice; UURISE--Unitarian Universalist Refugee &
Immigrant Services & Education; Voto Latino; We Belong
Together; WOLA; Women's Refugee Commission; Working Families;
Yemen Peace Project; YWCA.
State and Local Organizations
(MILU) Mujeres Inmigrantes Luchando Unidas; #VigilantLOVE;
580 Cafe/Wesley Foundation Serving UCLA; Acting in Community
Together in Organizing Northern Nevada (ACTIONN); Advocates
for Basic Legal Equality, Inc.; Alianza; All for All;
Alliance San Diego; Allies of Knoxville's Immigrant Neighbors
(AKIN); American Gateways; Aquinas Center; Arkansas United
Community Coalition; Asian Americans Advancing Justice--
Atlanta; Asian Americans Advancing Justice--LA; Asian
Americans United; Asian Counseling and Referral Service;
Asian Law Alliance; Asian Pacific American Legal Resource
Center; Asylee Women Enterprise; Atlas: DIY.
Bear Creek United Methodist Church--Congregation Kol Ami
Interfaith Partnership; Bethany Immigration Services;
Brighton Park Neighborhood Council; Cabrini Immigrant
Services of NYC; Campaign for Hoosier Families; Canal
Alliance; Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coalition; CASA;
Casa Familiar, Inc.; Casa Latina; Casa San Jose; Catholic
Charities; Catholic Charities San Francisco, San Mateo &
Marin; Causa Oregon; CDWBA Legal Project, Inc.; Central
American Legal Assistance; Central New Jersey Jewish Voice
for Peace; Central Pacific Conference of the United Church of
Christ; Central Valley Immigrant Integration Collaborative
(CVIIC); Centro Laboral de Graton.
Centro Latino Americano; Centro Legal de la Raza; Centro
Romero; Chelsea Collaborative; Chicago Religious Leadership
Network on Latin America; Church Council of Greater Seattle;
Church of Our Saviour/La Iglesia de Nuestro Salvador
Episcopal; Church Women United in New York State; Cleveland
Jobs with Justice; Coalicion de Lideres Latinos-CLILA;
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA); Coalition of
African Communities; Coloradans For Immigrant Rights, a
program of the American Friends Service Committee; Colorado
People's Alliance (COPA); Columbia Legal Services; Comite Pro
Uno; Comite VIDA; Committee for Justice in Palestine--Ithaca;
Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc.; Community
Legal Services and Counseling Center.
Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto; Community of
Friends in Action, Inc.; Connecticut Legal Services, Inc.;
CRLA Foundation; CT Working Families; DC-Maryland Justice for
Our Neighbors; Delaware Civil Rights Coalition; Do the
Most Good Montgomery County (MD); Dominican Sisters-Grand
Rapids (MI); Dream Team Los Angeles DTLA; DRUM-Desis
Rising Up & Moving; East Bay Sanctuary Covenant;
Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon; El CENTRO de Igualdad y
Derechos; El Monte Wesleyan Church; Emerald Isle
Immigration Center; Employee Rights Center; Encuentro; End
Domestic Abuse WI; English Ministry-Korean Presbyterian
Church of St. Louis.
Episcopal Refugee & Immigrant Center Alliance; Equal
Justice Center; Equality California; Erie Neighborhood House;
First Congregational UCC of Portland; First Unitarian
Universalist Church of Berks County; Florida Center for
Fiscal and Economic Policy; Florida Immigrant Coalition, Inc.
(FLIC); Franciscans for Justice; Frida Kahlo Community
Organization; Friends of Broward Detainees; Friends of Miami-
Dade Detainees; Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights;
Gethsemane Lutheran Church; Grassroots Alliance for Immigrant
Rights; Greater Lafayette Immigrant Allies; Greater New York
Labor Religion Coalition; Greater Rochester COALITION for
Immigration Justice; Grupo de Apoyo e Integracion
Hispanoamericano; HACES.
Hana Center; Harvard Islamic Society; Her Justice; HIAS
Pennsylvania; Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama;
Hispanic Legal Clinic; Hudson Valley Chapter of JVP; Human
Rights Initiative of North Texas; ICE-Free Capital District;
Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Immanuel
Fellowship: a bilingual congregation; Immigrant Justice
Advocacy Movement (IJAM); Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project;
Immigration Action Group; Immigration Center for Women and
Children; Inland Empire-Immigrant Youth Coalition (IEIYC);
Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity; International
Institute of Buffalo; Irish International immigrant Center;
IRTF-InterReligious Task Force on Central America and
Colombia.
Japanese American Citizens League, San Jose Chapter; Jewish
Voice for Peace-Albany, NY chapter; Jewish Voice for Peace-
Albuquerque; Jewish Voice for Peace-Austin; Jewish Voice for
Peace-Bay Area; Jewish Voice for Peace-Cleveland; Jewish
Voice for Peace-DC Metro; Jewish Voice for Peace-Denver;
Jewish Voice for Peace-Ithaca; Jewish Voice for Peace-Los
Angeles; Jewish Voice for Peace-Madison; Jewish Voice for
Peace-New Haven; Jewish Voice for Peace-Philadelphia; Jewish
Voice for Peace-Pittsburgh; Jewish Voice for Peace-Portland;
Jewish Voice for Peace-San Diego; Jewish Voice for Peace-
South Florida; Jewish Voice for Peace-Syracuse, NY; Jewish
Voice for Peace-Triangle NC; Jolt.
Justice for our Neighbors Houston; Justice for Our
Neighbors Southeastern Michigan; Justice For Our Neighbors
West Michigan; JVP-HV. Jewish Voice for Peace-Hudson Valley;
Kentucky Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Kids for
College; Kino Border Initiative; Kitsap Immigrant Assistance
Center; KIWA (Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance); Korean
Resource Center; La Casa de Amistad; La Coalicion de Derechos
Humanos; La Comunidad, Inc.; La Raza Centro Legal; Lafayette
Urban Ministry; Las Vegas Chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace;
Latin American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Latino
Racial Justice Circle; Latinx Alliance of Lane County; Legal
Aid Society of San Mateo County.
Legal Services for Children; Lemkin House inc.; Long Island
Wins; Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition;
Massachusetts Law Reform Institute; Middle East Crisis
Response (MECR); Migrant and Immigrant Community Action
Project; Migrant Justice/Justicia Migrante; MinKwon Center
for Community Action; Mission Asset Fund; Mississippi
Immigrants Rights Alliance (MIRA); Mosaic Family Services;
Movement of Immigrant Leaders in Pennsylvania (MILPA);
Mujeres Unidas y Actives; Mundo Maya Foundation; National
Lawyers Guild-Los Angeles Chapter; New Jersey Alliance for
Immigrant Justice; New Mexico Dream Team; New Mexico
Immigrant Law Center; New Mexico Voices for Children.
[[Page H5332]]
New Sanctuary Movement of Philadelphia; New York
Immigration Coalition; NH Conference United Church of Christ
Immigration Working Group; North Carolina Council of
Churches; North County Immigration Task Force; North Jersey
chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace; Northern Illinois Justice
for Our Neighbors; Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant
Rights; Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP); OCCORD;
Occupy Bergen County (New Jersey); OneAmerica; OneJustice;
Oregon Interfaith Movement for Immigrant Justice-IMIrJ;
Organized Communities Against Deportations; OutFront
Minnesota; Pangea Legal Services; PASO-West Suburban Action
Project; Pax Christi Florida; Pennsylvania Immigration and
Citizenship Coalition.
Pilgrim United Church of Christ; Pilipino Workers Center;
Polonians Organized to Minister to Our Community, Inc.
(POMOC); Portland Central America Solidarity Committee;
Progreso: Latino Progress; Progressive Jewish Voice of
Central PA; Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada;
Project Hope-Proyecto Esperanza; Project IRENE; Puget
Sound Advocates for Retirement Action (PSARA); Racial
Justice Action Center; Reformed Church of Highland Park;
Refugees Helping Refugees; Refugio del Rio Grande;
Resilience Orange County; Rocky Mountain Immigrant
Advocacy Network (RMIAN); Rural and Migrant Ministry; Safe
Passage; San Francisco CASA (Court Appointed Special
Advocates); Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education
Network (SIREN).
Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, Philadelphia/
Delaware Valley Chapter; Sisters of St. Francis, St. Francis
Province; Sisters of St. Joseph of Rochester, Inc.; Skagit
Immigrant Rights Council; Social Justice Collaborative; South
Asian Fund For Education, Scholarship And Training (SAFEST);
South Bay Jewish Voice for Peace; South Texas Immigration
Council; Southeast Immigrant Rights Network; St John of God
Church; Students United for Nonviolence; Tacoma Community
House; Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition;
Teresa Messer, Law Office of Teresa Messer; Thai Community
Development Center; The Garden, Lutheran Ministry; The
International Institute of Metropolitan Detroit; The Legal
Project; Tompkins County Immigrant Rights Coalition;
Transgender Resource Center of New Mexico.
Trinity Episcopal Church; U-Lead Athens; Unitarian
Universalist Mass Action Network; Unitarian Universalist PA
Legislative Advocacy Network (UUPLAN); United African
Organization; United Families; University Leadership
Initiative; University of San Francisco Immigration and
Deportation Defense Clinic; UNO Immigration Ministry; UPLIFT;
UpValley Family Centers; VietLead; Vital Immigrant Defense
Advocacy & Services, Santa Rosa, CA; Volunteers of Legal
Service; Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights;
Watertown Citizens for Peace, Justice, and the Environment;
Wayne Action for Racial Equality; WeCount!; WESPAC
Foundation; Wilco Justice Alliance (Williamson County, TX).
Women Watch Afrika, Inc.; Worksafe; Young Immigrants in
Action; YWCA Alaska; YWCA Alliance; YWCA Berkeley/Oakland;
YWCA Brooklyn; YWCA Clark County; YWCA Elgin; YWCA Greater
Austin; YWCA Greater Pittsburgh; YWCA Greater Portland; YWCA
Madison; YWCA Minneapolis; YWCA Mount Desert Island; YWCA NE
KANSAS; YWCA of Metropolitan Detroit; YWCA of the University
of Illinois; YWCA Olympia; YWCA Pasadena-Foothill Valley;
YWCA Rochester & Monroe County; YWCA Southeastern
Massachusetts; YWCA Southern Arizona; YWCA Tulsa; YWCA
Warren; YWCA Westmoreland County.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 414, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mrs. DEMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Mrs. DEMINGS. I am opposed in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. Demings moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3003 to the
Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Page 6, insert after line 5 the following:
``(7) Public safety exception.--For purposes of this
subsection, a State, or a political subdivision of a State,
shall not be found to be out of compliance with subsection
(a) or (b) if the State or political subdivision of the State
certifies to the Attorney General that such compliance would
endanger public safety.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. DEMINGS. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted,
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
Mr. Speaker, I stand here today not just as a Member of Congress, but
as a 27-year veteran of law enforcement and as a former police chief.
As such, I am compelled to warn of the harm this bill, in its current
form, will cause for our law enforcement agencies.
As a police chief, it was my responsibility to reduce crime and
maintain livable neighborhoods; neighborhoods where families can live
in peace, and enjoy local parks, community centers, restaurants, and
shopping; neighborhoods where children can walk to school and play in
their front yard and backyard without fear.
That is the kind of community that everyone in America deserves--one
where they feel safe and secure.
H.R. 3003 impedes on law enforcement's ability to effectively do its
job. It will create an environment that will erode the trust between
law enforcement and the communities they serve.
The local police are the first ones to respond. They are the thin
blue line that stands between those who are in this country, who are
trying to live in peace, and those that would do them harm. We want our
neighbors--immigrants--to call the police to report crimes without fear
or hesitation. When they do not, Mr. Speaker, our community is at the
mercy of the criminals.
This does not make our communities more safe, yet that is what is at
stake with the bill before us. Supporters of the bill claim that it has
an exemption for victims and witnesses, but it is not a complete
exemption.
Law enforcement officers investigate and interview witnesses. Their
goal is to solve crimes, regardless of the immigration status of
victims and witnesses, including victims of sexual assault and domestic
violence.
I filed an amendment with the Rules Committee that would have
exempted victims and witnesses from all of the bill's intrusive
requirements. The Rules Committee blocked me from offering that
amendment, but the bill, in its current form, would undermine law
enforcement's ability to do its job, therefore, making our communities
less safe.
Mr. Speaker, don't just take my word for it. The National Fraternal
Order of Police stands against the bill. They represent over 330,000
law enforcement officers across the Nation. These officers are not
responsible for creating laws, and eliminating Federal grant funding
for political reasons impedes their ability to solve crimes.
As the FOP writes:
Withholding assistance to law enforcement agencies, which
have no policymaking rule, will hurt public safety efforts.
No one knows our communities better than the law enforcement
officials sworn to protect their communities, which is why I have
offered this motion which would exempt from the mandates and penalties
in the bill those jurisdictions in which local law enforcement
officials conclude that the mandates in this bill would endanger public
safety.
Politics should never impede public safety. The President has said
that, when lawmakers vote on this bill, they should put America's
safety first.
I strongly agree, and I urge my colleagues to support this motion and
put our public safety first.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is quite correct:
everyone deserves to feel safe.
Kate Steinle deserved to feel safe when she was walking down the pier
with her father in San Francisco, when she was killed.
Not enacting this legislation endangers public safety, not the
opposite, as those on the other side have argued.
How would you trust local government officials, who have instructed
their law enforcement officers to not cooperate with Federal law
enforcement officers to take dangerous criminals off of our streets,
when this motion to recommit would say: ``Oh, they will have to certify
that such compliance would endanger public safety and then the law
wouldn't apply?''
[[Page H5333]]
It is circular reasoning.
The nonenforcement of immigration laws has led to the bolstering of
sanctuary jurisdiction policies in communities throughout the United
States. These policies hamper the enforcement of Federal law and do
nothing to truly promote trust between law enforcement and U.S.
citizens.
This bill provides a commonsense approach to fixing the damage caused
by sanctuary policies without mandating any affirmative duty. In order
to be in compliance with section 1373 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, as amended in this bill, States and localities have no
affirmative duties to act. They have no obligations to cooperate or
communicate, or even engage with U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement at any level.
{time} 1530
Instead, they simply may not affirmatively restrict a government
entity, including law enforcement, from cooperating or communicating
with ICE.
So I am shocked that so many on the other side of the aisle view
compliance with this provision as a condition for eligibility for
certain grant programs as outlandish. This is not a novel concept. And
compliance with section 1373 is already a condition of eligibility for
these grant programs.
As for detainers, H.R. 3003 creates the probable cause standard that
so many have argued was lacking for so long. Once enacted, States and
localities can look to Federal law to receive clarification on what
probable cause standard is employed before a detainer request is
placed.
To further aid jurisdictions, the threat of expensive and time-
consuming frivolous litigation is abated by providing immunity for
jurisdictions that exercise good faith in honoring a detainer.
Finally, this bill ensures that dangerous criminal aliens convicted
of drunk driving or not yet convicted of very serious crimes are
prevented from freely walking the streets of our communities during
their removal hearings. This bill is a strong first step in ensuring
that our immigration laws are enforced.
I urge my colleagues to vote down this motion to recommit, to vote
for the base bill, and to send a message that sanctuary policies will
not be tolerated so that the rule of law will prevail.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. DEMINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________