Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 112 (Thursday, June 29, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 112 (Thursday, June 29, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H5333-H5353]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

KATE'S LAW

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 415, I call
up the bill (H.R. 3004) to amend section 276 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act relating to reentry of removed aliens, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 415, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 3004

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 ``Kate's Law''.

SEC. 2. ILLEGAL REENTRY.

Section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1326) is amended to read as follows:

``reentry of removed alien

``Sec. 276. (a) Reentry After Removal.--Any alien who has
been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed, or who
has departed the United States while an order of exclusion,
deportation, or removal is outstanding, and subsequently
enters, attempts to enter, crosses the border to, attempts to
cross the border to, or is at any time found in the United
States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code,
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
``(b) Reentry of Criminal Offenders.--Notwithstanding the
penalty provided in subsection (a), if an alien described in
that subsection was convicted before such removal or
departure--
``(1) for 3 or more misdemeanors or for a felony, the alien
shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned
not more than 10 years, or both;
``(2) for a felony for which the alien was sentenced to a
term of imprisonment of not less than 30 months, the alien
shall be fined under such title, imprisoned not more than 15
years, or both;
``(3) for a felony for which the alien was sentenced to a
term of imprisonment of not less than 60 months, the alien
shall be fined under such title, imprisoned not more than 20
years, or both; or
``(4) for murder, rape, kidnapping, or a felony offense
described in chapter 77 (relating to peonage and slavery) or
113B (relating to terrorism) of such title, or for 3 or more
felonies of any kind, the alien shall be fined under such
title, imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both.
``(c) Reentry After Repeated Removal.--Any alien who has
been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed 3 or
more times and thereafter enters, attempts to enter, crosses
the border to, attempts to cross the border to, or is at any
time found in the United States, shall be fined under title
18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or
both.
``(d) Proof of Prior Convictions.--The prior convictions
described in subsection (b) are elements of the crimes
described, and the penalties in that subsection shall apply
only in cases in which the conviction or convictions that
form the basis for the additional penalty are--
``(1) alleged in the indictment or information; and
``(2) proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial or admitted
by the defendant.
``(e) Affirmative Defenses.--It shall be an affirmative
defense to a violation of this section that--
``(1) prior to the alleged violation, the alien had sought
and received the express consent of the Secretary of Homeland
Security to reapply for admission into the United States; or
``(2) with respect to an alien previously denied admission
and removed, the alien--
``(A) was not required to obtain such advance consent under
the Immigration and Nationality Act or any prior Act; and
``(B) had complied with all other laws and regulations
governing the alien's admission into the United States.
``(f) Limitation on Collateral Attack on Underlying Removal
Order.--In a criminal proceeding under this section, an alien
may not challenge the validity of any prior removal order
concerning the alien.
``(g) Reentry of Alien Removed Prior to Completion of Term
of Imprisonment.--Any alien removed pursuant to section
241(a)(4) who enters, attempts to enter, crosses the border
to, attempts to cross the border to, or is at any time found
in, the United States shall be incarcerated for the remainder
of the sentence of imprisonment which was pending at the time
of deportation without any reduction for parole or supervised
release unless the alien affirmatively demonstrates that the
Secretary of Homeland Security has expressly consented to the
alien's reentry. Such alien shall be subject to such other
penalties relating to the reentry of removed aliens as may be
available under this section or any other provision of law.
``(h) Definitions.--For purposes of this section and
section 275, the following definitions shall apply:
``(1) Crosses the border to the united states.--The term
`crosses the border' refers to the physical act of crossing
the border, regardless of whether the alien is free from
official restraint.
``(2) Felony.--The term `felony' means any criminal offense
punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year
under the laws of the United States, any State, or a foreign
government.
``(3) Misdemeanor.--The term `misdemeanor' means any
criminal offense punishable by a term of imprisonment of not
more than 1 year under the applicable laws of the United
States, any State, or a foreign government.
``(4) Removal.--The term `removal' includes any denial of
admission, exclusion, deportation, or removal, or any
agreement by which an alien stipulates or agrees to
exclusion, deportation, or removal.
``(5) State.--The term `State' means a State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth,
territory, or possession of the United States.''.

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 to revise and extend their remarks, and
include extraneous material on H.R. 3004.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.

[[Page H5334]]

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, for too long, illegal reentry of criminal aliens has
been viewed as a minor felony with only a fraction of those repeat
offenders ever seeing the inside of a Federal courtroom. Section 276 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act provides Federal prosecutors with
the tools necessary to truly deter criminal aliens from reentering the
United States.
Unfortunately, the section simply does not go far enough to act as a
deterrent. Criminal aliens view the risk as worth the reward, as most
charged under this section of law are given minuscule sentences that
belie the severity of the crime.
Aliens who reenter the United States after being removed, demonstrate
a flagrant disregard for our immigration laws and pose a tremendous
threat to public safety and national security in every community
nationwide.
This Congress has heard from countless victims and family members of
victims whose lives were forever changed or completely destroyed by
criminal aliens preying on our citizens.
This bill is named in memory and in honor of Kate Steinle. On July 1,
2015, Ms. Steinle was enjoying an evening at a popular attraction in
San Francisco with her father. As three shots were fired, Ms. Steinle
collapsed screaming. Her father, Jim, performed CPR until paramedics
arrived, but she ultimately succumbed to the severe damage caused by
the bullet and she died hours later.
Her murderer was arrested an hour later and identified as a middle-
aged criminal alien who had been removed from the United States and had
returned at least five times. The gun used had been stolen from a
Federal officer with the Bureau of Land Management.
Mr. Speaker, these horrific events must be better deterred and
prevented. No legislation can prevent every tragic situation, but this
Congress has a duty to take every action possible to mitigate this harm
and danger.
It is in this vein that I am proud to bring Kate's Law to the House
floor today. This bill seeks to amend and greatly improve section 276
of the Immigration and Nationality Act by enhancing the maximum
sentences for criminal aliens who seek to reenter the United States.
While an alien reentering this country is subject to a sentence of up
to 2 years, current law only subjects certain criminals to enhance
penalties. Specifically, only criminal aliens previously convicted of
an aggravated felony, as defined in our immigration laws, controlled
substance violations, crimes against other persons, or certain felonies
would trigger an enhanced sentence of either 10 or 20 years.
Kate's Law closes the loophole into which so many criminal aliens
fall. The bill provides that a criminal alien, previously convicted of
any three misdemeanors or any felony, would, upon conviction for
illegal reentry, be subject to a maximum sentence of 10 years.
Aliens previously convicted of a crime for which they were sentenced
to at least 30 months, would, upon conviction for illegal reentry, be
subject to a maximum sentence of 15 years.
Aliens previously convicted of a crime for which they were sentenced
to at least 60 months, would, upon conviction for illegal reentry, be
subject to a maximum sentence of 20 years.
Aliens previously convicted for murder, rape, kidnapping, a peonage
offense, or any three felonies, would, under conviction for illegal
reentry, be subject to a maximum sentence of 25 years.
These are significant enhancements to our immigration laws and are
long overdue. I would be remiss, however, if I failed to mention a
caveat added to the bill. If enacted, Kate's Law adds affirmative
defenses for aliens charged under this section. If an alien can prove
that they had the express consent of the Secretary of Homeland Security
to reapply for admission, or that an alien previously denied admission
and removed was not required to obtain such consent, then the alien may
present that as an affirmative defense to the illegal reentry crime.
This safeguard will ensure that only aliens who illegally reenter the
United States may be convicted and sentenced to enhanced penalties
under this section.
This is missing from the current statute, and I am sure my colleagues
on both side of the aisle would agree that due process protections such
as these add to the efficacy of such a measure.
Nothing that this Congress can pass will ever bring Kate Steinle
back, nor take away the pain suffered by her family, and countless
other victims of crimes committed by criminal aliens. Kate's Law,
however, will offer a deterrent against future criminal aliens who seek
to illegally reenter the United States. Knowing they may face up to 2
years in Federal prison is one thing, but the possibility of a sentence
of 10, 15, 20, or 25 years will have the desired effect.
I agree with many of my colleagues on both side of the aisle that we
must take many other steps to address our immigration system. This
Congress must pass strong measures to ensure that immigration
enforcement in the interior of the United States remains a priority.
Kate's Law is an essential component of that larger effort to bring
about true enforcement of our immigration laws, and protect this Nation
from criminal aliens.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3004 is an anti-immigrant enforcement-only proposal
that represents yet another step in President Trump's mass deportation
plan.
This legislation significantly expands the Federal Government's
ability to prosecute individuals for illegal entry and attempted
reentry into the United States.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say this bill is about
protecting us from criminals. But don't be fooled about the ultimate
effect of this bill. It does far more than target immigrants with
criminal histories.
For the first time, this legislation would make it a felony for an
individual who has been previously removed or merely denied admission
to come to an official port of entry to ask for reentry into the
country legally. This is true even if the individual has no criminal
history whatsoever.
For instance, the expanded offense would apply to persecuted asylum
seekers voluntarily presenting themselves at a port of entry to request
asylum under our own immigration laws.
It would reach desperate victims of sex trafficking who approach the
Customs and Border Protection officer to seek protection.
It would even extend to persons asking to enter on humanitarian
parole to donate lifesaving organs to United States citizen relatives.
Under H.R. 3004, all of these individuals could face up to 2 years in
prison simply for coming to an official port of entry to request
immigration benefits provided under our immigration laws.
Finally, this bill perpetuates the fiction that immigrants are
somehow inherently criminal. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Numerous studies examining this issue conclude that immigrants actually
commit crimes at a significantly lower rate than native-born Americans.
Given this legislation's defects, it comes to us as no surprise that
organizations across the Nation join with me in opposition. They
include:
The conservative Cato Institute, which called H.R. 3004, ``a waste of
Federal resources'' that fails to safeguard ``Americans against serious
criminals.''
Cities For Action, representing over 150 mayors and municipal
leaders, warned the bill would place asylum seekers at further risk.
And the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence,
which described how this measure, H.R. 3004, will punish victims of
domestic and sexual violence merely for requesting protection.
H.R. 3004 is not what its sponsors would like us to believe. In
truth, it is a mean-spirited bill that would have far-reaching
consequences by making it a crime to ask for benefits that our
immigration laws provide.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this dangerous
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from

[[Page H5335]]

Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding and
for working this legislation through and facilitating that it comes to
the floor this week.
This week, the event of ``Hold Their Feet to the Fire'' is being held
where many of the families of those who have been killed by illegal
aliens are here to contribute. They went to the White House, and the
message has been sent across the country. They have gone and done radio
shows, and they have been part of this for a long time.
I think of how far back this goes, Kate Steinle's law. From my
perspective, she was murdered on the streets of San Francisco on July
1, 2015. It hit the news, I think, the next day. I sent out a tweet on
July 3 that said it was a 100 percent preventable crime. Just enforce
the law. This story will make you cry, too. And it happens every day.
What we are trying to accomplish with Kate's Law is sentencing that
is enhanced for those who overstay or those who have been deported from
the United States and come back into the United States.
I want to compliment former Congressman Matt Salmon from Arizona,
who, after her death on July 1, introduced legislation only 8 days
later, which was the foundation for what we are talking about here with
this bill. That was H.R. 3011, introduced on July 9, 2015.

{time} 1545

Matt is retired. I picked up that legislation in the first days of
this year, and we have cooperated in this Judiciary Committee to get
this here to this time.
But, also, Bill O'Reilly, who made this a national issue, it hit my
heart as soon as I saw the story. It hit the hearts of America when it
went out over television, and it is too bad that we can't look at data
and come here and fix a massive problem that we have.
It is too bad it has to be focused on individuals and personalities,
when there are many other families out there that have suffered equally
with that of the Steinle family and the other families we have talked
about here today.
Nonetheless, if that is what it takes to get America to move, we are
here now. We are here this week. We have the right legislation in front
of us. I urge its adoption.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren), our senior Representative on the Judiciary
Committee.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. The bill
is part of a larger mass deportation bill marked up by the House
Judiciary Committee earlier this month. I think the message it is
intended to convey is that this bill is needed to keep us safe.
We have heard the sad story of the murder of Kate Steinle, which was
not news to any of us in northern California. That was a horrible
murder, and the fact is, this bill would not have prevented that
murder. The offender had been deported multiple times. He had served 16
years in Federal prison, so the idea that the 10-year enhancement would
have somehow fixed this is just misplaced.
When we talk about the bill, it is as if we don't have harsh
penalties now for misbehavior in the law. If you take a look at the
enhancements, it expands criminal sentences for individuals who reenter
the country after removal. We already have very strong penalties
against that.
To say that this bill will keep us safe because, for example, we have
a 20-year--under current law, a 20-year sentence for a conviction for
an aggravated felony, this would raise it to 25; I don't think that is
going to fix this problem. If it were only that, we could have a
discussion which, unfortunately, we never did on a bipartisan basis.
The bill does other things that are very damaging. It actually makes
it a felony, punishable by up to 2 years, to attempt to reenter the
country legally, in full compliance with our immigration laws; and this
is true for individuals who have no criminal background whatsoever.
Now, the sponsors of the bill may argue that is necessary, but I have
seen no rationale for why that would make any sense, nor why it would
certainly not have prevented the tragic murder of Kate Steinle.
Now, let's give some examples of who that could apply to. You have
individuals who have lived here, we have met them, DREAMers, people who
have been here all their lives, brought over as children, who were
removed. If that person who has been removed becomes a victim of sex
trafficking, the process is this: They can come and seek asylum. They
can flee from their traffickers. And if they present themselves to our
port of entry today, they are not trying to evade detection. No, they
are trying to be found. They are turning themselves in, saying: I am
fleeing from the sex traffickers; I want to make a claim for asylum; I
need to be kept safe from the sex traffickers. This bill would make
that act a felony.
Now, the chairman has said how wonderful it is that we have created
an affirmative defense in the act. What he has neglected to mention is
that right now we don't need an affirmative defense because it is not a
crime to go to the port of entry and seek a benefit, either
humanitarian parole for a purpose that is sometimes granted to travel
if a member of your family is dying, to provide an organ donation to a
member, an American citizen, who is in the U.S. who is dying. That is
not a crime today, and you don't need an affirmative defense because it
is not a crime.
Now, I think the fact that it eliminates an important constitutional
provision is problematic. We all know we can't change the Constitution
by statute. The case of U.S. v. Mendoza-Lopez basically says this: If
you are going to prosecute somebody for entry after removal, which
happens all the time--in fact, that is the single most prevalent
Federal prosecution in the system today; that is number one--you have
to--and you did not have an opportunity to actually contest the first
removal because, for example, you were never notified at a hearing----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
Ms. LOFGREN. Since that is an element of the offense, the Mendoza
case says you have to be able to at least collaterally attack that
because you never had a chance to do so initially. This eliminates that
constitutional case. You can't do that by statute.
So the point I am making is that the majority of those who enter the
United States without inspection are coming back to try and get next to
their families, their U.S. citizen kids, their U.S. citizen spouses.
They are not criminals. They are not creating any kind of crime.
We all oppose crime, but this remedy is unrelated to the horror
stories that we have heard.
You know, we are creating law here, not bumper stickers. I hope that
we will vote against this misplaced law and work together to solve the
real problems that we face.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of
the Small Business Committee.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I especially want
to thank him for his leadership on this.
Nearly 2 years ago, Kate Steinle, a young woman with a promising
future, had her life tragically taken away from her when she was
brutally murdered by an undocumented criminal who had been convicted of
a series of felonies and had been deported five times; five times, and
then he kept coming back, and then he finally killed this innocent
young woman, Kate Steinle.

Sadly, this tragic event barely registered with the previous
administration and other supporters of dangerous sanctuary city
policies. During a July 2015 hearing, shortly after Kate's murder, I
asked President Obama's Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson whether
the White House had reached out to the Steinle family.
I will never forget what the Secretary said to me. He responded: Who?
He had no idea who Kate Steinle or her family were. I had to explain to
him what had happened to Kate Steinle. It was embarrassing.
Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I have
heard countless stories from families who, like the Steinles, have
fallen victim to heinous crimes because of the failure

[[Page H5336]]

to enforce our Nation's immigration laws. We can and must do better to
protect all the Kate Steinles all across America from being victimized
by undocumented criminals who should never have been here in the first
place.
I really can't emphasize enough how important this issue is, and H.R.
3004 will help address this problem finally and enhance public safety
by toughening the penalties for criminal aliens who have been deported
from our country, but then keep returning to the United States, and,
again, far too many of them who commit crimes against innocent
Americans like Kate Steinle.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. This
draconian legislation would dramatically expand the penalties for
illegal reentry into the United States, even for people who have
committed minor and nonviolent offenses.
Although most people who illegally reenter the country do so to
reunite with their families or to flee violence or persecution, this
bill considers them all dangerous criminals who deserve lengthy prison
sentences.
This bill is nothing less than fearmongering, based on the widely
debunked myth that immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than
native-born Americans when, in fact, we know it is just the opposite.
Let me tell you about one of these supposed dangerous criminals who
was mercifully released from ICE custody just yesterday, after 4 months
in detention.
In 1986, 17-year-old Carlos Cardona illegally entered the United
States, having fled threats of violence in his native Colombia. At age
21, he made a foolish mistake and committed a nonviolent drug offense.
He served 45 days in prison, and, ever since then, for the last 27
years, he has lived a crime-free and a productive life as an active
member of his community in Queens, New York.
Not only that, after the September 11 attacks on this country, he
volunteered as a recovery worker at Ground Zero. Like so many other
workers there, due to his sacrifice, he developed acute respiratory
issues from the toxic fumes and other illnesses that have put his life
in jeopardy.
Unfortunately, although he is married to an American citizen, he was
unable to adjust his immigration status because of his decades-old
conviction. However, he was allowed to stay in the country in
recognition of his services after 9/11, as long as he checked in
periodically with immigration authorities, which he did.
But shortly after President Trump took office, Mr. Cardona was
detained after appearing for a routine appointment with ICE, and he was
placed in deportation proceedings and in custody. It was only thanks to
a major public campaign and the compassion of Governor Cuomo, who
pardoned his almost 30-year-old drug conviction, that he was released.
Under this legislation, had Mr. Cardona been deported and then
illegally reentered the country to see his wife and daughter, he would
face up to 10 years in prison because of his decades-old prior
conviction. Even if he presented himself to border agents and sought
asylum, on the reasonable basis that he had reasonable fears because,
in fact, two of his brothers back in Colombia have been murdered, he
would still be subject to prosecution and massive penalties, just for
appearing at the border.
This is both callous and irrational. This bill would dramatically
expand the mass incarceration of immigrants, even for those with minor
offenses and those who simply seek refuge in our country.
It serves no purpose, increases no one's safety, and I urge my
colleagues to oppose this cruel legislation.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to quote from a
letter from the Sergeants Benevolent Association that we received 2
days ago in support of Kate's Law, and I want to read a sentence from
it.
``In recent years, the need to protect our citizens from those aliens
who enter the United States illegally, commit crimes here, are
deported, and who illegally return to the U.S. and commit additional
crimes has become a top concern of the law enforcement community.''
This is from the Sergeants Benevolent Association, Police Department,
City of New York. I include it in the Record.

Sergeants Benevolent Association, Police Department, City
of New York,
New York, NY, June 27, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing on behalf of the more than
13,000 members of the Sergeants Benevolent Association of the
New York City Police Department to advise you of our strong
support for H.R. 3004, ``Kate's Law,'' that will be
considered by the House of Representatives later this week.
We are grateful that the Congress is moving expeditiously to
take up this important legislation.
In recent years, the need to protect our citizens from
those aliens who enter the United States illegally, commit
crimes here, are deported, and who illegally return to the
U.S. and commit additional crimes has become a top concern of
the law enforcement community. It is a problem that was
exemplified in the horrific murder of the young woman in
whose honor H.R. 3004 is named, Kate Steinle. In 2015, Ms.
Steinle was shot and killed on a San Francisco pier while out
for a walk with her father. Her murderer was a career
criminal who had already been deported five previous times,
had a long criminal history, had served multiple prison
sentences, and was on probation in Texas at the time of the
shooting. Nearly two years has passed since Steinle's murder,
and little has been done to address the scourge of violence
perpetrated by those who break our laws and continue to
illegally reenter the United States. That is why prompt
congressional action on ``Kate's Law'' is so critically
important.
H.R. 3004 will ensure that those deported aliens with
criminal histories who decide to illegally reenter the U.S.
will face stiff prison sentences upon their return. First,
the bill provides for monetary fines and between 10 and 25
years in prison for those aliens deported or removed who
illegally return, depending on the severity of their prior
crimes. In addition, this legislation provides for up to 10
years in prison for any alien who has been refused entry,
deported, or removed from the U.S. three times or more, but
who returns or attempts to reenter the U.S.
Finally, for any criminal aliens who were removed from the
U.S. prior to the completion of a prison term and who then
attempt to reenter, H.R. 3004 requires that such individuals
be incarcerated for the remainder of their sentenced prison
term without any possibility for parole or supervised
release. The passage of ``Kate's Law'' is critical to
ensuring that deported aliens with criminal records are
deterred from illegally reentering the U.S., and will help
law enforcement protect our communities from violent
criminals and suspected terrorists who are illegally present
in the U.S.
On behalf of the membership of the Sergeants Benevolent
Association, thank you again for your efforts on this and
other issues important to law enforcement across the nation.
Sincerely,
Ed Mullins,
President.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta).

{time} 1600

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise today in support of Kate's Law and No Sanctuary for
Criminals Act. These important bills represent an important step
towards keeping Americans safe.
Yesterday, I participated in a roundtable discussion at the White
House with the President and family members of individuals who were
murdered by criminal illegal immigrants.
The stories I heard were heartbreaking. Sadly, they are not uncommon.
See, when I was mayor of Hazleton, I sat with the victims' families and
listened to their stories. These stories have changed my life.
Everyone talks about the illegal immigrant, but very seldom do we
ever talk about the victims. I sat with the family of Derek Kichline, a
29-year-old Hazleton city man and father of three young children who
was murdered by the head of the Latin Kings while working on his pickup
truck in his driveway.
Derek's killer was arrested and let go in New York City, a sanctuary
city.
I also talked with the father of Carly Snyder, a beautiful 21-year-
old girl who was studying to be a veterinarian. Her father told me that
Carly was brutally stabbed 37 times and murdered by her next door
neighbor. She had knife wounds on the palms of her hand and knife
wounds in her back as she died on the kitchen floor.
An illegal immigration and Federal fugitive with a long history of
gang violence and drug use killed Carly.

[[Page H5337]]

Carly's killer was apprehended trying to cross the southern border but
was released on $5,000 bond and disappeared into the United States
until one day he showed up at Carly Snyder's doorstep.
I have never forgotten these stories. I understand that there is
nothing that we can do to bring these people back. I know there is
nothing we can do to relieve the pain that their families still feel.
But by passing these bills, we can prevent these crimes from
happening to other families. Let me be clear: violent crimes committed
by illegal immigrants are preventable. The illegal immigrant who
committed these violent crimes should not have been present in this
country and certainly should not have been walking around free. Too
many mayors and local governments think that they are above Federal
law, and we have a chance to change that today.
We can send a clear message to the American people that their
government is serious about keeping them safe. I thank the President
today for standing up for the victims of these preventable crimes, and
I urge all of my colleagues to do the same by voting ``yes'' on these
important bills.
This is a test of the willingness of Congress to stand for families
across this country who have lost loved ones to crimes committed by
criminals who had no business being in this country in the first place.
It is time that we side with the victims like Derek Kichline, Carly
Snyder, and Kate Steinle instead of criminals.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Correa).
Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about H.R. 3004, but let me
first talk about two of my constituents, Officer Jose Vargas, one of
the most decorated police officers in the State of California, and the
other, Jose Angel Garibay, a young marine that made the ultimate
sacrifice for America.
In 1977, Jose Vargas was named as 1 of the 10 most outstanding police
officers in America by the International Association of Chiefs of
Police. But it wasn't always that way. At age 16, Jose Vargas headed
north to the border for a better life.
Officer Vargas crossed the border 15 times over 4 years. Officer
Vargas was probably the only police officer who we know that spent time
in a Federal holding cell. America today is better because of Jose
Vargas. Jose Vargas added to the greatness of this country and to the
security of this country.
Jose Angel Garibay, a young marine, was the first soldier from Orange
County, California, to make the ultimate sacrifice in the Middle East.
He also came to this country undocumented and became a U.S. citizen
posthumously.
Mr. Speaker, yes, we must keep out the bad hombres. We don't welcome
those who would do us harm, but America must continue to welcome those
who come to America to work hard and to contribute. This bill fails to
make this critical and important distinction.
At the end of the day, we are all immigrants and we are all part of
this great country, and I urge my colleagues today: do not brand
millions of immigrants as criminals when their only crime is searching
for the American Dream.
I urge Members to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3004.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and members of the
House Judiciary Committee for their work on this issue. And as a member
of the Homeland Security Committee, the issues being debated and voted
on this week are an area of critical importance when it comes to
keeping our Nation and our people safe.
Mr. Speaker, we are a nation of immigrants. I am the grandson of
Irish immigrants. We are also a nation of laws. Both must be respected
and honored by all of us. Left, right, or center, we can all agree that
our immigration system is broken, and given that broken status, it is
the responsibility of this body to fix it. This goal cannot be achieved
by selectively choosing which laws we enforce and which laws we ignore.
As a former FBI agent, I worked each day to keep Americans and keep
our Nation safe. And as a Federal prosecutor, I prosecuted cases that
resulted in the removal of violent felons who were in our country
illegally in order to keep our communities safe.
I have seen firsthand the threats our Nation faces from a fragmented
and broken immigration system and a porous border. We cannot and must
not allow partisanship to prevent sensible fixes from being
implemented. Our Nation's security depends on us.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is one borne of a
preventable tragedy. Kate Steinle was a bright, aspiring, 32-year-old
woman with a life of possibilities ahead of her. Let this bill be her
legacy. Let this bill result in Kate Steinle saving the lives of
others. Let us do her that honor.
Kate's Law will increase penalties for those who reenter our country
following their removal from the U.S., including Federal prison
sentences up to 25 years for those previously deported who have
criminal records.
Moreover, this bill supports our brave women and men in law
enforcement as they work to keep violent gangs and criminal cartels,
including the likes of MS-13, out of our communities. I am a cosponsor
of this legislation, and I am proud to advance it.
Mr. Speaker, the time is now for us to step up and protect those who
elected us to serve on their behalf, and I urge all of my colleagues to
make a bold bipartisan statement to our communities back home today.
Join me in support of H.R. 3004. Let's get this done for Kate Steinle
and her family.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of
opposition to H.R. 3004, namely, the Federal Defenders of New York and
407 local, State, national immigrant civil rights, faith, and labor
organizations.

Federal Defenders

of New York, Inc.

New York, NY, June 29, 2017.
Re H.R. 3004, Kate's Law

Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chair, House Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Ryan, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Goodlatte, and Mr. Conyers:
We write on behalf of the Federal Public and Community
Defenders in response to inquiries for our views on H.R.
3004. We oppose the bill for the following reasons.
H.R. 3004 would make it a crime to openly and directly
present oneself to immigration officials seeking asylum,
temporary protection, or for other innocent reasons. In doing
so, the bill would incentivize people with genuine claims of
fear to enter the country surreptitiously.
Even while criminalizing essentially innocent conduct and
drastically increasing potential penalties, the bill would
purport to deprive defendants of the right to challenge the
validity of fundamentally unfair or unlawful removal orders.
The bill would transform a basic element of the criminal
offense into an affirmative defense and would thereby
unfairly place the burden on the alien to produce records in
the government's control.
The bill would unjustifiably increase potential penalties,
including for those with truly petty criminal records, and
create a significant risk that defendants, in mass guilty
plea proceedings on the border as occur now, would be
pressured to admit prior convictions that they do not have.
Finally, H.R. 3004 raises serious federalism issues and
would impinge on States' sovereign interests by ordering them
to impose certain state prison sentences thereby impeding
States' ability to manage their own criminal justice systems
and prison populations.
The bill would harm individuals, families and communities
not just on the border but across the nation. Nearly 21
percent of reentry prosecutions in fiscal year 2016 were in
districts other than those on the southwest border, in every
state and district in the country. And though there may be a
perception that illegal reentry offenders are dangerous
criminals, the motive for most people returning to the United
States after being removed is to reunite with family, return
to the only place they know as home, seek work to support
their families, or flee violence or persecution in their home
countries. Further, according to a recent Sentencing
Commission study, one quarter of reentry offenders had no
prior conviction described in Sec. 1326(b), and the most
common prior offense was driving under the influence,
followed by minor non-violent misdemeanors and felonies,
illegal entry, illegal reentry, and simple possession of
drugs. Nearly half (49.5%) had children in the United States,
and over two thirds (67.1%) had relatives in this country.
Over half (53.5%) were under the age of 18 when they first
entered the United States,

[[Page H5338]]

and almost three quarters (74.5%) had worked here for more
than a year at some point before their arrest. These are not
hardened criminals.

I. The Bill Would Make It a Crime To Openly and Directly Present
Oneself to Immigration Officials, Seeking Asylum, Temporary Protection,
or for Other Innocent Reasons, and Would Thus Incentivize Surreptitious
Entry

The bill would add as criminal acts in violation of 8
U.S.C. Sec. 1326, ``crosses the border'' or ``attempts to
cross the border,'' and would define ``crosses the border''
as the ``physical act of crossing the border, regardless of
whether the alien is free from official restraint.'' This
would mean that people previously denied admission or removed
who present themselves at a designated port of entry seeking
asylum or for other innocent reasons, and who intend to be
and are in fact under official restraint, would for the first
time be guilty of violating Sec. 1326.
Freedom from official restraint is an essential part of the
definition of entering, attempting to enter, and being found
in the United States under the law of most circuits. Entering
has long required both ``physical presence'' in the country
and ``freedom from official restraint.'' Attempting to enter
requires proof of specific intent to commit the completed
offense of entry, and so requires intent to enter ``free of
official restraint.'' Similarly, an alien cannot be ``found
in'' the United States unless he has been free from official
restraint. An alien is under official restraint whenever he
``lacks the freedom to go at large and mix with the
population,'' including when he directly and voluntarily
surrenders himself to immigration officials at a port of
entry to seek asylum, protection, or imprisonment.
Thus, an alien who walked directly across the border to a
marked border patrol car and asked to be taken into custody
did not attempt to re-enter the United States because he
intended to be, and was, under official restraint. Likewise,
an alien who crossed the border after being beaten by gang
members in Mexico, in a delusional belief that they were
chasing him, with the sole intent of placing himself in the
protective custody of U.S. officials, could not be guilty of
attempting to enter. In a similar case, the government
dismissed the charges after the border patrol agent's report
confirmed that the defendant had crossed the border and asked
the agent for protection from people he feared were trying to
kill him. Similarly, an alien who went directly to the border
station and presented himself for entry was not ``found in''
the United States because he was never free from official
restraint.
Thus, under current law, an alien who directly and overtly
presents herself to immigration officials at a port of entry,
as opposed to evading official restraint, has not violated
Sec. 1326; even one who crosses the border outside a port of
entry but in sight of immigration officials, and who presents
herself directly to such officials, has not done so. But
absent the ``freedom from official restraint'' requirement,
the law would ``make criminals out of persons who, for any
number of innocent reasons, approach immigration officials at
the border.'' Argueta-Rosales, 819 F.3d at 1160. ``For
example, [an alien] might approach a port of entry to seek
asylum, or he might be under the mistaken assumption that he
has been granted permission to reenter. Under those
circumstances, the alien would not have committed the
gravamen of the offense of attempted illegal entry in
violation of Sec. 1326(a).'' United States v. Valdez-Novoa,
780 F.3d 906, 923 (9th Cir. 2015) (Bybee, J.). Because ``in a
literal and physical sense a person coming from abroad enters
the United States whenever he reaches any land, water or air
space within the territorial limits of this nation,''
``freedom from official restraint must be added to physical
presence.'' Vavilatos, 209 F.2d at 197.
Permitting arrest and prosecution regardless of whether the
person was free from official restraint is particularly
troubling because although border patrol agents are required
by law to refer an alien for a ``credible fear'' or
``reasonable fear'' interview with an asylum officer upon
indication that she fears persecution or has suffered or may
suffer torture, people are increasingly being turned away at
the border without the required protection screening. Under
H.R. 3004, agents would now be empowered to arrest them
rather than turn them away.
By eliminating the ``freedom from official restraint''
requirement, the bill would cast aside well-settled century-
old law from the civil immigration context that for nearly as
long has functioned well in the criminal immigration context
to distinguish illicit or clandestine entries from legitimate
attempts to bring oneself to the attention of U.S.
authorities at the border.
Since it would now be a crime to openly seek help, H.R.
3004 would have the perverse effect of incentivizing people
with genuine claims of fear to ``jump the fence'' in the hope
of not being caught and returned to a country where the
danger is real. Faced with a choice between being killed or
risking being caught and removed, the logical, life-
sustaining choice is obvious.

II. The Bill Would Perversely Criminalize Repeated Unsuccessful
Attempts to Gain Asylum, Even As Border Patrol Agents Increasingly Turn
Away Asylum Seekers in Violation of Law

The bill would create a new crime for an alien who has been
denied admission, excluded, deported or removed three or more
times who subsequently enters, attempts to enter, crosses the
border, attempts to cross the border, or is found in the
United States, subject to punishment for up to ten years.
This would criminalize, for the first time, repeated efforts
to seek asylum that are genuine but unsuccessful, as each
attempt counts as a denial of admission or removal.
As noted above, border patrol agents are increasingly
turning away asylum seekers without referring them for
appropriate screening as required by law. Human rights
organizations have documented at least 125 cases of asylum
seekers being turned away without proper safeguards to
protect their right to seek protection between November 2016
and April 2017, often repeatedly. For example, a Honduran
family whose son was murdered by a gang after he was denied
asylum, another Honduran family whose son showed the agent a
bullet hole wound in his chest, and a Mexican woman whose
father, son, grandfather and uncle were all killed within
seven days, were repeatedly turned away without referral for
protection screening or asylum adjudication. Agents informed
people seeking refuge that the United States no longer gives
asylum, threatened them with force, or threatened to call
Mexican immigration authorities to deport them to the country
they were fleeing.
A person who presents himself at a port of entry without a
valid visa is subject to denial of admission or expedited
removal. But if such a person expresses fear of return, he is
entitled by law not to be expelled but to be interviewed by
an asylum officer. When border patrol agents simply expel
people who express fear without allowing them a chance to be
interviewed and to press their claims, the agents are
breaking the law and giving these people a removal order or a
denial of admission that they should not have. Thus, bona
fide asylum-seekers--those most likely to accumulate ``three
strikes''--would face criminal prosecution rather than what
they are entitled to--a non-adversarial interview with an
asylum officer that could ultimately lead to persecution-
based relief.

III. The Bill Would Purport to Unconstitutionally Prohibit Challenges
to the Validity of Removal Orders

The bill would state that ``an alien may not challenge the
validity of any prior removal order concerning the alien.''
This provision, perhaps more than any other, demonstrates the
overreaching and unduly harsh nature of these proposed
changes to existing law. The bill seeks to visit criminal
convictions and drastic penalties on noncitizens who reenter
even when the administrative process that led to their
original deportation or removal was fundamentally unfair or
achieved an unlawful result, and even when they were deprived
of judicial review of that fundamental injustice. The Supreme
Court long ago held, in United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481
U.S. 828 (1987), that a defendant cannot be convicted and
punished under Sec. 1326 when the deportation order was
issued in an agency proceeding bereft of due process that no
court ever reviewed. But this bill seeks to do precisely
that, and at the same time to criminalize attempts to enter
the country legally and in most cases to increase the
penalties that may be imposed.

IV. The Affirmative Defenses Would Be Unavailable To Most, Do Not
Address Any Existing Problem, and Would Unfairly Place the Burden on
Defendants to Produce Records In the Government's Control

The bill would purport to create two affirmative defenses:
(1) ``prior to the alleged violation,'' the alien ``sought
and received express consent of [DHS] to reapply for
admission,'' or (2) ``with respect to an alien previously
denied admission and removed,'' the alien ``was not required
to obtain such advance consent under the [INA] or any prior
Act,'' and ``had complied with all other laws and regulations
governing his or her admission into the United States.'' The
first defense would be unavailable to anyone who did not have
the wherewithal, resources and time to file the proper form
and get it approved before arriving in the United States. The
second defense is not available to anyone whose period of
inadmissibility has not expired, usually ten years. These
requirements are simply unrealistic for those with little or
no education or money or who are fleeing violence.
Moreover, this is a solution in search of a problem, and it
would undermine due process. Because the absence of most of
these conditions is currently an element, see 8 U.S.C.
Sec. 1326(a)(2), the government routinely provides the
defense with the relevant records, which are in the
individual's ``A file,'' maintained in government custody and
otherwise available to the individual only through a FOIA
request. Placing the burden on the defendant to prove an
affirmative defense would illogically and unfairly require
him to produce records that are in the government's control.

V. The Bill Would Unjustifiably Increase Potential Penalties, Including
for Those With Truly Petty Criminal Records

While it appears that the statutory maxima would increase
for most defendants under the bill, there is no evidence that
any increase is needed to reflect the seriousness of these
offenses, or that such increases would be effective in
deterring illegal immigration. At the same time, the cost of
additional incarceration would be steep--approximately

[[Page H5339]]

$32,000 per prisoner per year. If each of the 16,000 persons
convicted of illegal reentry in 2016 received one additional
year, it would cost the taxpayers an extra half a billion
dollars.
Increasing sentences for these offenders is also
unnecessary and unfair because noncitizens suffer much
harsher conditions of confinement than other federal
prisoners. BOP contracts with private prison companies to
detain noncitizens convicted of immigration offenses and
other federal crimes. A recent analysis shows that many
persons incarcerated in ``immigrant only contract prisons''
suffer serious medical neglect, in some cases leading to
death. An investigation done by the American Civil Liberties
Union found that ``the men held in these private prisons are
subjected to shocking abuse and mistreatment, and
discriminated against by BOP policies that impede family
contact and exclude them from rehabilitative programs.''
Two of the penalty increases are particularly unwarranted.
The bill would increase a defendant's statutory maximum from
two to 10 years if he was removed subsequent to conviction of
any three misdemeanors, whereas the 10-year maximum currently
applies only if the three misdemeanors involved drugs, crimes
against the person, or both. This would apply to a re-entrant
with a truly petty criminal record. If the defendant had
three misdemeanor convictions for driving without a license,
a common scenario for undocumented immigrants and other
impoverished people, his maximum sentence would more than
triple. And because the bill does not require that the three
misdemeanors stem from three separate occasions, a 10-year
statutory maximum would apply to a re-entrant with
convictions from a single incident for disorderly conduct,
public intoxication and public urination.
Likewise, the 25-year maximum for any three felonies would
increase the maximum sentence by 15 years for garden variety
felonies, such as felony possession of a small quantity of
drugs. Worse, if the definition of ``felony'' means any
offense ``punishable by a term of more than 1 year under the
laws of'' the convicting jurisdiction, it would punish
defendants who were never convicted of a felony by up to 25
years, because the maximum punishment is more than one year
for misdemeanors in many states, including Colorado, Iowa,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, and Vermont. We are also concerned that definition
of ``felony,'' by mistake or by design, indicates that if a
particular kind of offense is punishable by more than one
year in any jurisdiction, it is a felony; it states that
``any offense'' is a felony if it is punishable by more than
one year ``under the laws of the United States, any State, or
a foreign government.''

VI. The Bill Would Create A Significant Risk That Defendants Would Be
Pressured Into Admitting Prior Convictions That They Do Not Have

The bill would require that prior convictions upon which
increased statutory maxima are based be alleged in an
indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt at trial or
admitted by the defendant. Records of prior convictions are
notoriously unreliable and national criminal databases that
generate ``rap sheets'' frequently contain purported
convictions that have been misrecorded, expunged, or even
belong to other individuals. In border districts where the
great majority of illegal re-entry prosecutions take place,
re-entry cases have often been rapidly ``processed'' in
batches of up to eighty defendants at once, with 99% of cases
ending in guilty pleas. Given the way these cases are handled
on the border, and the fact that many if not most of the
defendants speak little or no English and have little or no
education, this provision carries a significant risk that
defendants will be pressured to admit to convictions they do
not have and thus significantly raise their sentencing
exposure.

VII. The Bill Would Impinge on States' Sovereign Interests in Managing
Their Own Prison Populations

The bill would mandate that any alien removed pursuant to 8
U.S.C. Sec. 1231(a)(4) who enters or attempts to enter,
crosses or attempts to cross the border, or is found in the
United States, ``shall be incarcerated for the remainder of
the sentence that was pending at the time of deportation
without any reduction for parole or supervised release''
unless the alien affirmatively demonstrates express consent.
Section 1231(a)(4)(B) provides that the Attorney General may
remove an alien convicted of a non-violent offense before he
has completed a sentence of imprisonment (i) of an alien in
in federal custody and the Attorney General determines that
removal is appropriate and in the best interest of the United
States, (ii) of an alien in State custody if the chief state
official determines that removal is appropriate and in the
best interest of the State and submits a written request for
removal. Thus, for example, an alien sentenced to 8 years who
is eligible for parole in 6 years may apply for early
conditional release and be removed after 5 years. Under H.R.
3004, if he illegally re-entered thereafter, he would be
required to serve all three years that were pending when he
was removed.
As far as we are aware, Sec. 1231(a)(4)(B)(i) has never
been systematically implemented for federal inmates. Some
states, however, have implemented some sort of program to
avail themselves of Sec. 1231(a)(4)(B)(ii). A handful have
entered into an MOU with ICE in which they agree that a
person removed pursuant to Sec. 1231(a)(4)(B)(ii) who returns
illegally will serve the remainder of the original sentence.
Other states release prisoners to ICE under
Sec. 1231(a)(4)(B)(ii) through state legislation or parole
board policy under which they do not agree to that condition.
HR 3004 would require any State that releases a prisoner to
ICE under Sec. 1231(a)(4)(B)(ii) to incarcerate such a person
for the remainder of the sentence should they return
unlawfully. It would thus impinge on States' sovereign
interests in managing their own prison populations according
to their own priorities and resources. The bill would remove
the flexibility that States currently have to treat
unlawfully returned prisoners as they see fit, and would
ossify the ICE MOU into law.
Thank you for considering our views, and please do not
hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Very Truly Yours,
Neil Fulton,
Federal Defender, North and South Dakota, Co-Chair, Federal
Defender Legislative Committee.
David Patton,
Executive Director, Federal Defenders of New York, Co-
Chair, Federal Defender Legislative Committee.
Jon Sands,
Federal Defender, District of Arizona, Co-Chair, Federal
Defender Legislative Committee.
____

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 Amendment 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.

[[Page H5340]]

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 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--ANC; 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
lmmigrant 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 Ran; 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/rean 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

[[Page H5341]]

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 Activas; 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.
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.

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 in
opposition to this bill from the National Task Force to End Sexual and
Domestic Violence, the CATO Institute, Church World Service, and the
ACLU.

National Task Force to End

Sexual & 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 H.R. 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% of
advocates and attorneys reporting that victims are describing
fear of contacting the police; 75% of them reporting that
victims are afraid of going to court; and 43% 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

[[Page H5342]]

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 violators.

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 H.R. 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.
____

[From the CATO Institute]

Kate's Law: A waste of Federal Resources

(By David Bier)

The House of Representatives will vote on a bill this week
titled ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004). While it is nominally an
``immigration'' bill, its principal aim relates to criminal
justice--namely, an increase in the maximum sentences for
immigrants who reenter the country illegally after a
deportation. The bill is a waste of federal resources. It
would likely balloon America's population of nonviolent
prisoners, while not protecting Americans against serious
criminals.

Kate's Law Would Not Have Helped Kate

The bill's namesake is Kate Steinle, a 32-year-old medical
sales rep killed in San Francisco in 2015. Her killer was
Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez who was in the country without
status after five removals. Proponents of this bill--
providing lengthier prison sentences for people who reenter
the country after a removal--believe that this would have
somehow helped Kate Steinle. This assertion cannot withstand
a moment's contact with the facts of the case, which I have
previously laid out in detail here.
After his last three apprehensions, the government
prosecuted Lopez-Sanchez for felony illegal reentry. He
served 15 years in federal prison in three five-year
increments. None of the facts of this case would have changed
if he had served those 15 years consecutively. Indeed,
because Lopez-Sanchez never actually made it across the
border without being caught since 1997, the only reason that
he ended up in San Francisco is because the Bureau of Prisons
inexplicably decided to ignore a request for transfer from
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Instead, it
shipped him to the city based on a 20-year-old marijuana
charge--an offense no longer even exists in the city. Thus,
deterrence against reentry has no relevance whatsoever to
this case.

The Provisions of Kate's Law

This legislation introduced by House Judiciary Committee
Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) should not be confused with
other bills of the same name introduced in the House and the
Senate by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX),
respectively. The entire purpose of the prior iterations of
``Kate's Law'' was to create mandatory minimum sentences for
crossing the border illegally after a removal. Indeed, the
alternate title for the bills was the ``Establishing
Mandatory Minimums for Illegal Reentry Act.'' This new Kate's
Law, however, mercifully contains no mandatory minimum
sentences--a sign that criminal justice reformers' criticisms
of them (including Cato's) have started to penetrate the
mainstream.
But the purpose of the law in the broader sense remains:
trying to lock up more immigrants for longer periods. Most of
the actual text comes from section 3705 of the Senate
comprehensive immigration reform bill (S. 744) passed in June
2013, but the Kate's Law authors have added several odious
provisions. The heart of the bill would create a new 10-year
maximum sentence for any person removed or denied entry more
than two times who reenters. The current maximum for regular
reentry is just 2 years. It would increase the maximum
sentences for people who reenter after being convicted of
various criminal offenses--including for immigration
offenses--to up to 25 years.
Kate's Law deletes two important provisions from the 5.744
language that would have protected from prosecution non-felon
juveniles (p. 772-73) and humanitarian groups that provide
immigrants caught in deserts or mountains food, water, or
transportation to safety, which are sometimes the target of
the ``aiding and abetting'' statutes (p. 774). Kate's Law
would also prohibit challenging the legality or validity of a
prior removal order, which is a common defense in these
cases. If the earlier removal was not valid, as in at least
one case where a U.S. citizen was deported, it should not be
the basis of prosecution.
Kate's Law also would allow for prosecutions of immigrants
who attempt to enter the United States unsuccessfully. Under
current judicial interpretation, an alien must be ``free from
official restraint''--that is, not in the custody or control
of a government official. The 9th Circuit has interpreted to
include even chases along the border. Thus, the bill would
significantly expand the number of people eligible for
prosecution for the criminal reentry statute.

Kate's Law Would Further Over-Criminalization

The U.S. Sentencing Commission estimated that the original
mandatory minimums version of Kate's Law would increase the
federal prison population by almost 60,000 in 5 years--a
massive 30 percent increase in the total federal prison
population. Unfortunately, the House is moving this new
version--revealed late last week--without an estimate of
either its financial impact or its impact on the federal
prison population. But the law would likely completely
reverse the recent 5 percent decline in the federal prison
population, the first reduction since the 1970s.
Immigration offenses are already the top reason for a
federal arrest, composing half. of all federal criminal
arrests up, a share that has doubled since 2004. From 1998 to
2010, 56 percent of all federal prison admissions were for
immigration crimes. Locking up immigrants requires taxpayers
to pay to watch, house, clothe, and feed them, and unlike
U.S. citizens who are released into the interior, their
incarceration does not prevent other U.S. residents from
being exposed their criminal behavior (assuming illegal
crossing is a concern in that regard).
While naturally locking people up has some deterrent effect
on future crossing, Border Patrol doesn't bother to keep good
data on this impact compared to its other efforts. Given the
costs of incarceration--both to the person incarcerated and
to the U.S. taxpayer--this seems like a critical insight. In
any case, if Congress was serious about discouraging illegal
immigration, it would make legal immigration significantly
easier. As I have shown, the availability of work permits has
a major impact on illegal immigration.

[[Page H5343]]

It's not clear that the motivation for Kate's Law is
reducing illegal immigration per se, but rather the belief
that illegal immigrants are more likely to commit serious
crimes and so should be singled out. Yet as my colleagues'
recent paper demonstrates, illegal immigrants are much less
likely to end up behind bars than U.S.-born citizens. Because
unauthorized immigrants are required to serve sentences
before their removal, this is the best indication that they
are less likely to commit crimes that require jail time.
In the end, Kate's Law is an improvement on its prior
versions, but still an unjustifiable use of federal
resources.

CWS Statement to Opposing H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals
Act, and H.R. 3004, Kate's Law

As a 71-year old humanitarian organization representing 37
Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox communions and 34 refugee
resettlement offices across the country, Church World Service
(CWS) urges all Members of Congress to support the long-
standing efforts of law enforcement officials to foster
trusting relationships with the communities they protect and
serve. As we pray for peace and an end to senseless acts of
violence that are too prevalent in this country, CWS
encourages the U.S. Congress to refrain from politicizing
tragedies or conflating the actions of one person with an
entire community of our immigrant brothers and sisters and
oppose H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, and
H.R. 3004, Kate's Law.
H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, would target
more than 600+ cities, counties, and states across the
country and threaten to take away millions of dollars in
federal funding that local police use to promote public
safety. Communities are safer when they commit to policies
that strengthen trust and cooperation between local law
enforcement, community leadership and institutions, and all
residents, regardless of immigration status. The Federal
government should not hurt intentional, community-based
policing efforts that are vital in communities across the
country. Many cities have already recognized that requests by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to hold individuals
beyond their court-appointed sentences violate due process
and have been found unconstitutional by federal courts. This
bill would raise profound constitutional concerns by
prohibiting localities from declining to comply with ICE
detainer requests even when such compliance would violate
federal court orders and the U.S. Constitution. Local police
that refuse ICE detainer requests see an increase in public
safety due to improved trust from the community. It is
precisely this trust that enables community members to report
dangerous situations without the fear of being deported or
separated from their families. When local police comply with
ICE detainer requests, more crimes go unreported because
victims and witnesses are afraid of being deported if they
contact the police. This bill would also undermine local
criminal prosecutions by allowing the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) to ignore state or local criminal warrants and
refuse to transfer individuals to state or local custody in
certain circumstances. This bill would reduce community
safety by preventing state and local jurisdictions from
holding people accountable.
The United States already spends more than $18 billion on
immigration enforcement per year, more than all other federal
law enforcement agencies combined. H.R. 3004, Kate's Law,
would expand the federal government's ability to prosecute
individuals for ``illegal reentry'' and impose even more
severe penalties in these cases--even though prosecutions for
migration-related offenses already make up more than 50% of
all federal prosecutions. Yet, this bill does not include
adequate protections for individuals who reenter the U.S. in
order to seek protection, which would place asylum seekers at
risk of being returned to the violence and persecution they
fled. We have seen how Border Patrol's current practices
violate existing U.S. law and treaty obligations by
preventing viable asylum claims from moving forward. DHS has
found that in some areas, Border Patrol refers asylum seekers
for criminal prosecution despite the fact that they have
expressed fear of persecution. In May 2017, a report was
released highlighting that many asylum seekers, who had
expressed a fear of returning to their home countries are
being turned away by CBP agents. New barriers to protection
are unnecessary and would dangerously impede our obligations
under international and U.S. law.
Federal, state, and local policies that focus on
deportation do not reduce crime rates. Individuals are being
deported who present no risk to public safety and who are
long-standing community members, including parents of young
children. Immigrants come to this country to reunite with
family, work, and make meaningful contributions that enrich
their communities. Several studies over the last century have
affirmed that all immigrants, regardless of nationality or
status, are less likely than U.S. citizens to commit violent
crimes. A recent report found a correlation between the
increase in undocumented immigrants, and the sharp decline in
violent and property crime rates. Immigration is correlated
with significantly higher employment growth and a decline in
the unemployment rate, and immigrants have high
entrepreneurial rates, creating successful businesses that
hire immigrant and U.S. citizen employees.
As communities of faith, we are united by principles of
compassion, stewardship, and justice. CWS urges all Members
of Congress to oppose H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for
Criminals Act, and H.R. 3004, Kate's Law. What we need are
real solutions and immigration policies that treat our
neighbors with the dignity and respect that all people
deserve and affirm local law enforcement officers' efforts to
build trust with their communities.

American Civil Liberties Union,

Washington, DC, June 27, 2017.
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Re ACLU Opposes H.R. 3003 (No Sanctuary for Criminals Act)
and H.R. 3004 (Kate's Law)
Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of
the American Civil Liberties Union (``ACLU''), we submit this
letter to the House of Representatives to express our strong
opposition to H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,
and H.R. 3004, Kate's Law.

No Sanctuary for Criminals Act (H.R. 3003)

H.R. 3003 conflicts with the principles of the Fourth
Amendment.
H.R. 3003 defies the Fourth Amendment by amending 8 USC
Section 1373 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (``INA'')
to force localities to comply with unlawful detainer requests
or risk losing federal funding. This is despite the fact that
an ``increasing number of federal court decisions'' have held
that ``detainer-based detention by state and local law
enforcement agencies violates the Fourth Amendment,'' as
recognized by former Department of Homeland Security
Secretary Jeh Johnson in 2014.
Disturbingly, H.R. 3003 seeks to penalize the 600+
localities that abide by the Fourth Amendment. These
jurisdictions have recognized that by entangling local
authorities and federal immigration enforcement, immigration
detainers erode trust between immigrant communities and local
law enforcement. In this way, immigration detainers
ultimately undermine public safety, as entire communities
become wary of seeking assistance from police and other
government authorities that are supposed to provide help in
times of need. Thus, by forcing jurisdictions to comply with
unlawful detainer requests, H.R. 3003 will only make
communities less safe, not more.
H.R. 3003 would also amend Section 287 of the INA to allow
the Department of Homeland Security (``DHS'') to take custody
of a person being held under a detainer within 48 hours
(excluding weekends and holidays) ``but in no instance more
than 96 hours'' following the date that the individual would
otherwise be released from criminal custody. This, again,
raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns, as the Supreme
Court has stated that the Constitution requires a judicial
finding of probable cause within 48 hours of arrest. This
provision would disregard the Court's ruling entirely and
allow a local law enforcement agency to hold a person for up
to 7 days before requiring DHS intervention--and never
requiring the person be brought before a judge for a probable
cause hearing.
Protection against unreasonable detention by the government
is the bedrock of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which
provides that the government cannot hold anyone in jail
without getting a warrant or approval from a neutral
magistrate. This constitutional protection applies to
everyone in the United States--citizen and immigrant alike.
Immigration detainers, however, do not abide by these
standards. Detainers are one of the key tools that DHS uses
to apprehend individuals who come in contact with local and
state law enforcement agencies. An immigration detainer is a
written request from DHS to that local law enforcement
agency, requesting that they detain an individual for an
additional 48 hours after the person's release date, in order
to allow immigration agents extra time to decide whether to
take that person into custody for deportation purposes.
DHS's use of detainers to imprison people without due
process, without any charges pending, and without probable
cause of a criminal violation flies in the face of our Fourth
Amendment protections. Policies that allow DHS to detain
people at-will are ripe for civil and human rights violations
and have resulted in widespread wrongful detentions,
including detentions of U.S. citizens. That is why many of
the 600+ localities targeted by H.R. 3003 have decided not to
execute a DHS immigration detainer request unless it is
accompanied by additional evidence, a determination of
probable cause, or a judicial warrant.
Unfortunately, H.R. 3003 does nothing to address the
fundamental constitutional problems plaguing DHS's use of
immigration detainers. Rather than fix the constitutional
problems by requiring a judicial warrant, the bill
perpetuates the unconstitutional detainer practices and
forces the federal government to absorb legal liability for
the constitutional violations which will inevitably result.
This is irresponsible lawmaking. Instead of saddling
taxpayers with the liability the federal government will
incur from Fourth Amendment violations, Congress should end
the use of DHS's unconstitutional detainer requests.

[[Page H5344]]

H.R. 3003 violates the Due Process Clause by allowing DHS
to detain people indefinitely without a bond hearing.
Section 4 of H.R. 3003 radically expands our immigration
detention system by amending Section 236(c) of the INA to
authorize mandatory detention ``without time limitation.''
This empowers DHS to detain countless immigrants for as long
as it takes to conclude removal proceedings--even if that
takes years--without the basic due process of a bond hearing
to determine if their imprisonment is even justified. This is
a clear constitutional violation, as the federal courts have
overwhelmingly held that jailing immigrants for months and
years without bond hearings raises serious problems under the
Due Process Clause.
Although the bill claims to provide for the ``detention of
criminal aliens,'' it massively expands mandatory detention
to people with no criminal record whatsoever, including
immigrants who lack legal papers or who overstay a tourist
visa. The ``lock 'em up'' approach to immigration enforcement
is cruel, irrational, and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court
has permitted brief periods of mandatory detention only in
cases where individuals are charged with deportation based on
certain criminal convictions. The Court has not endorsed the
mandatory lock-up of people who have never committed a crime.

Kate's Law (H.R. 3004)

H.R. 3004 is piecemeal immigration enforcement that expands
America's federal prison population and lines the coffers of
private prison companies.
Increasing the maximum sentences for illegal reentrants is
unnecessary, wasteful, and inhumane. H.R. 3004 envisions a
federal criminal justice system that prosecutes asylum-
seekers, persons providing humanitarian assistance to
migrants in distress, and parents who pose no threat to
public safety in returning to the U.S. to reunite with
children who need their care (individuals with children in
the United States are 50 percent of those convicted of
illegal reentry).
Current law already imposes a sentence of up to 20 years on
anyone convicted of illegally reentering the country who has
committed an aggravated felony. U.S. Attorneys' Offices
aggressively enforce these provisions. According to the U.S.
Sentencing Commission, immigration prosecutions account for
52 percent of all federal prosecutions--surpassing drugs,
weapons, fraud and thousands of other crimes. Nearly 99
percent of illegal reentry defendants are sentenced to
federal prison time.
H.R. 3004 would drastically expand America's prison
population of nonviolent prisoners at a time when there is
bipartisan support to reduce the federal prison population.
It offends due process by cutting off all collateral attacks
on unjust prior deportation orders, despite the Supreme
Court's contrary ruling in United States v. Mendoza-Lopez.
Profiteering by private prison companies has been the main
consequence of border-crossing prosecutions, which the
Government Accountability Office and the DHS Office of
Inspector General have criticized as lacking sound deterrent
support.
H.R. 3004 is an integral part of this administration's mass
deportation and mass incarceration agenda. Longer sentences
for illegal reentry are not recommended by any informed
federal criminal-justice stakeholders; rather they represent
this administration's anti-immigrant obsession and would
expensively expand substandard private jail contracting
despite the life-threatening conditions in these facilities.
In conclusion, H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 are fraught with
constitutional problems that threaten the civil and human
rights of our immigrant communities, undercut law
enforcement's ability to keep our communities safe, and would
balloon our federal prison population by financing private
prison corporations. Rather than taking a punitive approach
to local law enforcement agencies that are working hard to
balance their duties to uphold the Constitution and to keep
their communities safe, Congress should end DHS's
unconstitutional detainer practices or fix the constitutional
deficiencies by requiring judicial warrants for all detainer
requests. Congress should also repeal mandatory detention so
that all immigrants receive the basic due process of a bond
hearing and reject any attempt to unfairly imprison
individuals who are not a threat to public safety.
For more information, please contact ACLU Director of
Immigration Policy and Campaigns, Lorella Praeli.
Sincerely,
Faiz Shakir,
National Political Director.
Lorella Praeli,
Director of Immigration Policy and Campaigns.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Judy Chu), a former member of the House Judiciary
Committee.
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition
to H.R. 3004, Kate's Law. This is politically driven legislation
intended to create a fear of immigrants, even though repeated studies
have shown immigrants commit less crimes.
It enhances criminal penalties against immigrants, the vast majority
of whom have come here peacefully to rejoin loved ones. All that, and
it doesn't even do what it claims to, address the situation that led to
the tragic death of Kate Steinle.
There are those who might imply that this bill came from H.R. 15, the
comprehensive bipartisan immigration bill that could have passed the
House if allowed to vote on the floor, but this is not true. I know,
because I was one of the lead sponsors of this bill.
Our bill would have vastly improved the pathways to immigrate legally
to the U.S. This bill makes no distinction between those immigrants
trying to rejoin their families and those who may be prone to commit
crimes.
Instead, it treats all immigrants attempting to reenter the U.S. as
criminals and significantly expands sentences for persons with
misdemeanors such as driving without a license or loitering. Even
asylum seekers, who present themselves at the border to escape deadly
gang violence in their home country, could be subject to criminal
prosecution.
Turning our backs on asylum seekers and refugees doesn't make us
safer. It makes us weak, and it is just plain wrong.
We were horrified by Kate Steinle's murder, but the provisions in
this bill would not have prevented it. The man charged with killing her
was convicted for multiple illegal reentry offenses, serving more than
16 years in prison. He had been caught each time he attempted to cross
the border. His presence in San Francisco was not due to lax penalties
for reentry or weak border security.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided legislation ripped from
the pages of Donald Trump's mass deportation and anti-immigrant
playbook.
I include in the Record five documents from organizations that are
opposed to this bill as well as the sanctuary bill, and that is the
15,000 immigration lawyers and law professors who are members of the
American Immigration Lawyers Association; the 1.6 million members of
the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or
AFSCME; the 2 million members of the Service Employees International
Union, SEIU; the Asian Americans Advancing Justice; and the Fair
Immigration Reform Movement.

American Immigration

Lawyers Association,

Washington, DC, June 27, 2017.
Statement of the American Immigration Lawyers Association
Opposing the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R.
3003) and ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004)
Contact: Gregory Chen, Director of Government Relations.
As the national bar association of over 15,000 immigration
lawyers and law professors, the American Immigration Lawyers
Association (AILA) opposes ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act''
(H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004). AILA recommends
that members of Congress reject these bills which are
scheduled to come before the House Rules Committee on June 27
and to the floor shortly thereafter. Though Judiciary
Chairman Goodlatte stated that the bills will ``enhance
public safety,'' they will do just the opposite: undermine
public safety and make it even harder for local law
enforcement to protect their residents and communities. In
addition, the bills which were made public less than a week
before the vote and completely bypassed the Judiciary
Committee, include provisions that will result in violations
of due process and the Fourth and Tenth Amendments to the
Constitution.
At a time when over 9 out of 10 Americans support
immigration reform and legalization of the undocumented,
Republican leadership is asking the House to vote on
enforcement-only bills that will lead to more apprehensions,
deportations, and prosecutions of thousands of immigrants and
their families who have strong ties to the United States.
Instead of criminalizing and scapegoating immigrants,
Congress should be offering workable reforms that will
strengthen our economy and our country.

The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003

H.R. 3003 would undermine public safety and interfere with
local policing.
H.R. 3003 would amend 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373 to prevent states
or localities from establishing laws or policies that
prohibit or ``in any way'' restrict compliance with or
cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The bill
dramatically expands 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373 which is more
narrowly written and prohibits local law enforcement from
restricting the sharing and exchange of information with
federal authorities, but only with respect to an individual's
citizenship or immigration status.
Rather than empowering localities, the extremely broad
wording of H.R. 3003 would strip localities of the ability to
enact common-sense crime prevention policies that ensure
victims of crime will seek protection and report crimes. The
bill would also undermine public safety by prohibiting DHS
from

[[Page H5345]]

honoring criminal warrants of communities deemed ``sanctuary
cities'' if the individual being sought by local law
enforcement has a final order of removal.
Under H.R. 3003, localities that fail to comply with
federal immigration efforts are penalized 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.
In an effort to force localities to engage in civil
immigration enforcement efforts, including those against
nonviolent undocumented immigrants, the bill would make it
far more difficult for many localities, including large
cities, to arrest and prosecute potentially dangerous
criminals. The bill could even offer criminals a form of
immunity, knowing that any crimes they commit in a designated
sanctuary city would result, at most, in their removal from
the country as opposed to criminal prosecution.
H.R. 3003 would run afoul of constitutional safeguards in
the Fourth Amendment.
By prohibiting localities from restricting or limiting
their own cooperation with federal immigration enforcement,
H.R. 3003 effectively compels localities to honor ICE
detainer requests--a controversial and constitutionally
suspect practice that is nonetheless widely-used by ICE.
Federal courts have found that ICE use of detainers violates
the Fourth Amendment, and that localities may be held liable
for honoring them.
The bill also expands detainer authority by establishing
that ICE may issue detainer requests for localities to hold
undocumented immigrants for up to 96 hours--twice what is
currently allowed--even if probable cause has not been shown.
Courts have concluded that localities cannot continue
detaining someone unless ICE obtains a warrant from a neutral
magistrate who has determined there is probable cause, or in
the case of a warrantless arrest, review by a neutral
magistrate within 48 hours of arrest. The expansive
provisions in H.R. 3003 would force localities to choose
between detaining people in violation of the Constitution or
being punished as a ``sanctuary city.''
Furthermore, this bill provides government actors and
private contractors with immunity if they are sued for
violating the Constitution. Provisions in this bill transfer
the financial burden of litigation by substituting the
federal government for the local officers as the defendant.
If H.R. 3003 becomes law, American taxpayers would be stuck
paying for lawsuits brought by those who are unjustly
detained.
The bill goes even further by creating a private right of
action allowing 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.
H.R. 3003 would violate the Tenth Amendment.
H.R. 3003 would compel states and localities 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.
H.R. 3003 would expand detention without due process.
H.R. 3003 would increase the use of detention without
ensuring those detained have access to a bond determination.
Under the bill, nearly anyone who is undocumented, including
those who have overstayed their visa would be subject to
detention without a custody hearing. The bill also
establishes that DHS has the authority to detain individuals
``without time limitation'' during the pendency of removal
proceedings. These provisions would dramatically expand the
federal government's power to indefinitely detain
individuals, and would likely result in ever growing numbers
of undocumented immigrants held in substandard detention
facilities.

Kate's Law, H.R. 3004

H.R. 3004 would expand the already severe penalties in
federal law for illegal reentry (INA Sec. 276; 8 U.S.C.
Sec. 1326). The number of people prosecuted for illegal
reentry has grown steadily to about 20,000 prosecutions each
year, and such cases comprise more than one quarter of all
federal criminal prosecutions nationwide. H.R. 3004 adds
sentencing enhancements for people who are convicted of minor
misdemeanors and people who have reentered multiple times but
have no criminal convictions. This bill will not improve
public safety and will undermine due process and protections
for asylum seekers. H.R. 3004 would waste American taxpayer
funds by imposing severe prison sentences upon thousands of
people who pose no threat to the community and who have
strong ties to the country and are trying to unite with their
loved ones.
H.R. 3004 would impose severe sentencing enhancements upon
people with minor offenses.
H.R. 3004 would add sentencing enhancements for minor
misdemeanor convictions, including driving without a license
and other traffic-related offenses. Under the current version
of INA Sec. 276, if a person is charged with reentering the
U.S. after being removed, their punishment is enhanced by up
to ten years only if they have been convicted a felony or
three or more misdemeanors involving drugs or violence. Under
H.R. 3004 someone who has been convicted of any three
misdemeanors regardless of severity would be subject to a
term of up to ten years.
This expansion would unfairly target large numbers of
people who are not a threat to public safety but instead are
trying to reunite with family members and have other strong
ties to the United States. Currently half of all people
convicted of illegal reentry have one child living in the
country. Increasing sentences for illegal reentry would also
waste taxpayer dollars, costing huge amounts of money to lock
up non-violent people.
H.R. 3004 would punish people who attempt to seek asylum at
the border.
H.R. 3004 expands the provisions of INA Sec. 276 to punish
not only people who reenter the U.S. or attempt to reenter
the U.S., but also people who cross or attempt to cross the
border. The bill goes on to define ``crosses the border'' to
mean ``the physical act of crossing the border, regardless of
whether the alien is free from official restraint.'' That
means that people who present themselves at ports of entry to
request asylum and are taken into custody by CBP to await a
fear screening would be subject to criminal charges based on
a past removal, even though they are seeking refuge in the
U.S.
H.R. 3004 would impose severe sentencing enhancements for
people with multiple entries.
The bill would also create new sentencing enhancements for
people who have reentered the U.S. multiple times, even if
they have no other criminal convictions. If someone has been
removed three or more times, and is found in the United
States or attempts to cross the border again, H.R. 3004 law
would provide for sentencing enhancements of up to ten years.
The bill makes no exception for bona fide asylum seekers,
which means that people who are seeking refuge in the U.S.
from atrocities abroad could be subject to a lengthy prison
sentence under these provisions.
H.R. 3004 would undermine due process by blocking
challenges to unfair removal orders.
The bill will prevent an individual from challenging the
validity of a removal order, even it was fundamentally unfair
in the first place. The Supreme Court held in U.S. v.
Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828 (1987) that due process requires
that a challenge be allowed if a deportation proceeding is
used as an element of a criminal offense and where the
proceeding ``effectively eliminate[d] the right of the alien
to obtain judicial review.'' This provision in H.R. 3004 is
likely unconstitutional and will cause grave injustice to
defendants, such as asylum seekers who were deported without
the opportunity to seek asylum.
____

AFSCME,

Washington, DC, June 28, 2017.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members
of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), I urge you to oppose the punitive and
unnecessary No Sanctuary for Criminals Act (H.R. 3003) and
its companion bill that increases penalties for certain
immigrants (H.R. 3004). These bills together weaken the
rights of immigrants, cut funding to vital state and local
programs, and further criminalize immigrants.
H.R. 3003 and 3004 are deeply flawed pieces of legislation
that would add chaos to an already broken immigration system
when comprehensive reform is what is needed. The bills
undermine state and local policing strategies that have
worked well for many communities. Implementing this ``one
size fits all'' approach, as proposed in these bills,
jeopardizes the trust that diverse communities have placed in
their police force and undermines federal grants that are
aimed at helping law enforcement and that support the very
programs needed to reduce crime.
H.R. 3003 forces communities to devote local resources to
enforcing federal immigration law and penalizes them if they
don't comply. H.R. 3004 mandates increased penalties on
immigrants for reentry, which could lead to a large increase
in the prison population without additional resources. This
would create new financial liability for federal, state, and
local governments, that are already cash strapped, at a time
when funding is urgently needed for investments in public
safety, infrastructure and other vital community needs.
We urge the House to reject both H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004.
Sincerely,

Scott Frey,

Director of Federal Legislative Affairs.
____

SEIU,

Washington, DC, June 28, 2017.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the two million members
of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), I urge
you to vote no on H.R. 3004 and H.R. 3003, which are
currently scheduled to come to the House floor this week.
These mean-spirited and unwise bills would waste taxpayer
dollars, shackle local law enforcement efforts to

[[Page H5346]]

protect the public, and make our nation's immigration laws
even meaner and less reasonable than they already are.
H.R. 3004, ``Kate's Law,'' would increase the prison
population of nonviolent offenders who pose no public safety
risk, without evidence that its harsh provisions would have
any impact on unlawful immigration, and without any other
justification of its cost or impact on prison overcrowding.
Those affected would include immigrants who have only
committed minor misdemeanors such as driving without a
license or other traffic-related offenses, and others who
have never committed any crimes besides unauthorized entry.
H.R. 3004 would also penalize persons fleeing persecution who
voluntarily present themselves at the border to apply for
asylum, and it would short circuit the current minimal due
process protections that protect persons whose previous
deportation was unlawful.
H.R. 3003, the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' is
intended to commandeer state and local law enforcement
resources to perform federal deportation activities. It is
one part of the ongoing effort to villainize immigrants by
unfairly--and against all available evidence--painting them
all with a criminal brush for the misdeeds of a few. Rather
than protecting the public, the provisions of H.R. 3003 would
frustrate policies by states and localities that increase
public safety by encouraging cooperation between law
enforcement and the communities they serve. There is mounting
evidence that localities with such policies experience lower
crime because they build trust between the police and those
they serve, thereby inspiring the community collaboration and
assistance that is a key ingredient to maintaining safe
neighborhoods.
It should be pointed out that the provisions of H.R. 3003
are sufficiently radical that even those who do not support
sanctuary cities should vote no. The bill would deny
important law enforcement funding to localities that are
unwilling to honor any and all federal immigration detainer
requests, including requests that courts have said are
unconstitutional. It would empower private individuals to sue
a locality if they or their family are victimized by a crime
committed by an individual who was released despite a federal
detainer request. It would render local governments powerless
to prioritize local needs over immigration enforcement, even
for local agencies funded by local taxes. And, if that
weren't enough, a separate provision would significantly
increase the categories of individuals subject to mandatory
detention and prolonged detention without bond, thereby
filling local jails and private prisons with individuals who
pose no danger to themselves and no flight risk.
For the reasons listed above, both of these bills should be
defeated. SEIU therefore asks you to vote no, and may add
votes on any of them to our scorecard. If you have any
questions, please contact Josh Bernstein.
Sincerely,
Rocio Saenz,
Executive Vice President.
____

Asian Americans

Advancing Justice,

June 28, 2017.

Five Civil Rights Organizations Oppose Latest Immigration Actions in
the House

house republicans introduce two anti-immigrant bills during immigrant
heritage month

Washington, DC.--Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
introduced a set of anti-immigrant bills that are scheduled
for a vote later this week. These are the latest in a line of
bills that outline a clear anti-immigrant strategy by House
leadership and this administration.
H.R. 3003 seeks to authorize the Federal Government to
withhold millions of dollars in federal funding for
localities with limited detainer policies, sanctuary city
policies, and community trust policies aimed at complying
with the Constitution and making communities safer. H.R. 3004
would expand the Federal Government's ability to prosecute
people for illegal reentry into the U.S., excludes
humanitarian exemptions for people fleeing violence, and
heightens penalties in those cases.
Asian Americans Advancing Justice, an affiliation of five
civil rights organizations, issues the following statement in
response:
``Asian Americans Advancing Justice strongly opposes H.R.
3003 (the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act), H.R. 3004 (known
as Kate's Law), and the passage of any immigration
enforcement legislation that would increase indiscriminate
enforcement, further the criminalization of immigrants, and
instill more fear in already terrified communities.
Approximately 40 percent of all immigrants come to the U.S.
from Asia, and 1.6 million of those immigrants are
undocumented. Anti-immigrant policies create a climate of
fear for all immigrants, regardless of status.
We are horrified and dismayed that House leadership has
chosen to line up behind the administration in its
scapegoating of immigrants. Both of these bills further the
administration's goals of criminalizing all immigrants and
expanding mass incarceration. Since the administration failed
in its attempt to strip funding from municipalities with
sanctuary and community trust policies in federal court, it
is looking for Congress to fulfill its anti-immigrant agenda.
There is abundant evidence that sanctuary and community
trust policies make communities safer. As Arizona and Texas
have shown us, forcing local law enforcement to enforce
immigration laws increases racial profiling and distrust of
law enforcement by communities of color.
Rapidly pushing these bills through the House as America
looks toward a holiday that celebrates the best of our
American ideals is clearly an effort to slide this
legislation under the radar of anyone who would oppose it,
including millions of Americans who support immigrants'
rights.
Vilifying and punishing immigrants who may be fleeing
violence or seeking a better life for their families does not
makes us safer, just inhumane. We call on Congress to reject
this latest anti-immigrant strategy. This vote will be a test
for Members of Congress to show which side of justice they
are on.''
Asian Americans Advancing Justice is a national affiliation
of five leading organizations advocating for the civil and
human rights of Asian Americans and other underserved
communities to promote a fair and equitable society for all.
The affiliation's members are: Advancing Justice / AAJC
(Washington, DC), Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus (San
Francisco), Advancing Justice-Los Angeles, Advancing Justice-
Atlanta, and Advancing Justice-Chicago.
____

Fair Immigration

Reform Movement,

June 29, 2017.

House GOP Continues Cruel Crusade Against Immigrants

Washington.--Kica Matos, spokesperson for the Fair
Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM), issued the statement
below after the House voted on the No Sanctuary for Criminals
Act and Kate's Law:
``Republicans in the House are hell bent on criminalizing
the hard working immigrants who contribute so much to our
country. This week they voted on two heartless bills that do
nothing more than continue to fuel Trump's deportation
machine.
The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act punishes ``sanctuary
cities,'' local jurisdictions addressing immigration issues
without federal interference, and expands the government's
inhumane practice of indefinite detention of immigrants.
The second bill, ``Kate's Law'' is a thinly veiled attempt
to give prosecutors more power to continue the vicious mass
incarceration of black and brown people by expanding on legal
penalties for re-entry. The bill also limits the already
limited protections for people reentering the country for
humanitarian reasons.
The attacks on brown and black people by Republicans are
not going unnoticed. The people are on our side--they marched
with us on May 1st, they showed up after Trump issued the
first refugee ban and they called out elected officials at
town halls. Our message to Congress is clear: the only
solution to fix the broken immigration system is a pathway to
citizenship.
These two bills are the antithesis of our values and should
be condemned by everyone.
The Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM) is the nation's
largest immigrant-rights coalition, with grassroots
organizations fighting for immigrant rights at the local,
state and federal level.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bergman).
Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and his committee for
their diligent work on this extremely important and timely law.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3004, Kate's Law. Our
immigration system here in the United States is the most generous in
the world. Good people from all over the globe who understand the
American Dream seek to join us, and we are better for it.
Alexander Hamilton, Levi Strauss, Albert Einstein, and so many others
have called themselves Americans because of it. But as we continue to
draw on that spirit of understanding and acceptance, we have to
remember that a nation without borders is not a nation.
We have a responsibility here in Congress to be proactive and protect
our communities and our citizens from unlawful and criminal immigrants,
and that is what this legislation does.
Kate's Law, named in honor of 32-year-old Kate Steinle, who was shot
and killed in the prime of her life by an unlawful immigrant who had
accumulated seven felony convictions, been deported five different
times--you have heard this many times said--aims to strengthen public
safety by imposing hasher mandatory prison sentences for deported
felons who return to the U.S. and increasing penalties for unlawful
immigrants who have been convicted of nonimmigration-related crimes.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation just makes sense, and I am confident
that we can continue to welcome the tired, the poor, the huddled masses
yearning to breathe free in our country without giving free rein to
dangerous convicted criminals in any of our communities.

[[Page H5347]]

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, for almost 100 percent of the people who
would go to jail if this bill is enacted, they are not criminals and
have no brush with the law. They were people who lived here for years,
who had no chance of coming legally in the first place, and no way to
get legal once they were here. Most have lived here for 10, 20, 30
years. They live in families with children, and their children are
citizens of the United States just like you and me and our children.
They have mortgages and car notes.
The problems these moms and dads are trying to solve is if they get
deported, how do I make sure my kids are safe in the country in which
they were born, the United States? How do I keep a roof over their head
and get them ready for school? How do I keep my business open or my
career continuing in the U.S. where I have lived, in some cases, for
decades?
That is the problem they have, and guess what, they come back after
they are deported. That person, to me, is not a felon, never committed
a crime. That person is not a hardened criminal, never killed anyone.

{time} 1615

That is a parent fighting for their family.
So in painting a picture of all immigrants as resembling a career
criminal, like the guy who killed Kate Steinle, Republicans are doing
the old bait and switch.
The people we are hitting with this bill come back to the lives they
have built over decades by the only means we have made available, and
now we are going to add a felony and 15 years to that.
Let's give moms and dads different alternatives. The people who would
go to jail if this bill were enacted would rather have come with a
visa. They would get in line for hours to get legal if there were a
line to get in, but there isn't, and most Americans believe we should
create such a line for them. They would come back legally if they
could, but they can't.
We should be looking at how to solve that problem. We should be
looking at ways to eliminate illegal immigration, and stop hoping that
our strategy of the last 30 years of deportation, more restriction, and
more criminalization would somehow miraculously start working.
It hasn't. It won't. It is time for us to enact comprehensive
immigration reform in the Congress and to fulfill our responsibility to
the Nation.
Look, the question today isn't whether or not this bill is going to
pass. It is going to pass. The Republicans are making it a primary
purpose.
The question really, for me, is: Are Democrats going to participate?
Are Democrats going to participate in allowing this to pass?
I have just got to say that I know it is difficult.
Some people say: Well, I might not come back.
It will be difficult. My constituents demand this.
Well, let me just say that when I was elected in 1986 to the Chicago
City Council, I was there but a month and they had the human rights
bill for the gay and lesbian community. I remember the banner
headlines: ``Cardinal Says `No.' ''
Here I was a Catholic all my life, an altar boy, had three of the
seven Catholic rites: communion, baptism, and marriage. Ten years
later, I got to the Congress and was confronted here with the Defense
of Marriage Act. We passed it. There were only about 70 of us who voted
against it.
But guess what. Thirty years after I took that vote for gay rights in
the Chicago City Council, the Supreme Court said that marriage equality
was the law of the land and discriminating against them was against the
Constitution of the United States of America.
That is the way you create social justice, not by doing a poll and
not by trying to figure out what the next election consequences are
going to be.
I say to my Democratic colleagues: Stand up for social justice today.
It wasn't easy as a Democrat to stand up for reproductive rights for
women. I remember going to church and I remember being chastised by the
priest. I remember being booed by some of the congregants as I left
that church. But I stood up for what I believe are women's rights. My
children were chased down the street during Halloween by pro-choice
people who said I didn't deserve to be trick-or-treating with my
children, that I was a bad father and I was a murderer. We stood up,
and women have rights in this country.
That is the way we do that, Democrats. We stand up for what is right.
We don't take a poll, and we don't think of the next election. We do
what is right.
The immigrant community is looking for champions today, and it is my
hope that, as Democrats, we, too, will stand up. When hate visits you,
you need to repudiate it. You need to repudiate it because that hate
might visit you in some personal way and it might cause you to hate
yourself ultimately.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement in opposition to the
bill from the Tahirih Justice Center.

Tahirih Justice Center,

Falls Church, VA, June 27, 2017.

Statement of the Tahirih Justice Center

Opposing the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) and
``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004)

The Tahirih Justice Center (``Tahirih'') respectfully
submits this statement to the United States House of
Representatives as it considers ``The No Sanctuary for
Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003; ``The Act'') and ``Kate's Law''
(H.R. 3004). The House Rules Committee is set to review these
bills today, followed by the full House in the near future.
Tahirih is a national, nonpartisan organization that has
assisted over 20,000 immigrant survivors of gender-based
violence over the past 20 years. Our clients include women
and girls who have endured horrific abuses such as rape and
human trafficking and are in dire need of humanitarian
relief.
Tahirih urges members of Congress to oppose H.R. 3003 and
3004: By further entangling federal and local immigration
enforcement, H.R. 3003 will not only put survivors of human
trafficking and domestic violence at greater risk of criminal
harm, but will embolden violent criminals who pose a danger
to us all. H.R. 3004 will unjustly punish asylum seekers who
sought safe haven in the U.S., but were improperly denied
access to the asylum process the first time around.
H.R. 3003: The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act: The Act
seeks to erase the distinction between federal and local
immigration enforcement. Such measures erode immigrant
community trust of police, who rely on victims and witnesses
to help get dangerous criminals off the streets. When
immigrants know they can call 911 without fear of
deportation, it is perpetrators--not victims or their
children--that are deterred and punished. Abusers and
traffickers deliberately manipulate and isolate victims to
limit their access to information about their legal rights.
Despite longstanding protections under the Violence Against
Women Act, even victims who hold lawful immigration status
succumb to intimidation, and remain afraid of deportation if
they come forward. For some survivors, deportation means
sentencing a US citizen child to the custody of a violent
abuser. Following the recent passage of a state law to
increase local immigration enforcement, a client aptly noted,
``This is exactly what [my abuser] has been waiting for.'' We
are all less safe when we make it easier for perpetrators to
commit crimes.
The Act will also increase prolonged detention of
survivors, resulting in further traumatization, separation
from young children, and limited access to legal assistance
and due process. The Act also punishes localities that refuse
to comply, by revoking critical funding for core programs
that address gun violence, gang violence, and other criminal
activity. When local agencies must ``choose'' between
continuing these programs and compromising community trust,
it is the public that pays the steepest price.
H.R. 3004: Kate's Law: Tahirih and other advocates
routinely assist clients whose initial requests for asylum at
the border are met with hostility, intimidation, and
coercion. These individuals are unlawfully denied access to
the asylum process by U.S. officials. With their lives in
grave danger, women and girls in this situation have no
choice but to request safe haven in the U.S. a second or even
third time. They are not asking to appeal denial of their
claims; rather, they are merely seeking a threshold
determination that they may apply for asylum or related
protections. Our domestic laws and international humanitarian
obligations require that they have this opportunity. H.R.
3004 will punish women fleeing horrific abuse who persist in
their quest for asylum by limiting their ability to challenge
initial, unlawful removals, and by unnecessarily and unjustly
subjecting them to criminal prosecution.
We appreciate the opportunity to offer this statement in
opposition to H.R. 3003 and 3004, and we urge Congress to
unequivocally reject these harmful bills that undermine the
safety of survivors of gender-based violence.
Archi Pyati,
Director of Policy and Programs.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the
Human Rights First: American Ideals. Universal Values.

[[Page H5348]]

Human Rights First,

June 28, 2017.
Re H.R. 3004--115th Congress (2017-2018).

Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: We write to urge you to oppose H.R.
3004 (``Kate's Law'') and any similar legislation that would
have severely negative consequences for asylum seekers and
refugees fleeing persecution.
H.R. 3004 seeks to expand the scope of immigrants who may
be prosecuted for unlawful reentry and further expands
penalties for those who are convicted. But the criminal
prosecution of asylum seekers for offenses such as illegal
entry, illegal reentry, and document fraud violates U.S.
treaty obligations and risks sending genuine refugees back to
their countries of persecution.
For one, many asylum seekers are forced to ``reenter'' the
United States because they were wrongfully deported in the
first place through the expedited removal system. The U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), as
well as Human Rights First and other groups, has long
documented deficiencies and flaws in the implementation of
the expedited removal process, a summary process which gives
immigration officers the authority to order non-citizens
deported without a hearing. In its 2005 report on expedited
removal, USCIRF found that in a significant number of cases,
border agents failed to follow U.S. law and refer asylum
seekers to the ``credible fear'' process, even when USCIRF
researchers were present during the secondary inspection
process.
Even when border agents make the proper referral for a
credible fear screening, asylum seekers are often traumatized
and exhausted by their experiences in their home countries,
their flight to the United States, and their arrest by U.S.
authorities. They are often interviewed by telephone by an
officer they cannot see and are at the mercy of
interpretation problems and other arbitrary factors that
hinder communication. As a result, some may incorrectly be
found to not have a credible fear, and may be deported as a
result. These asylum seekers must then ``reenter'' the United
States after facing continuing persecution in their home
countries to seek protection yet again.
Moreover, H.R. 3004 would redefine ``reentry'' to encompass
an even broader group of individuals, as it will define
reentry as including cases of individuals who had been
previously denied admission. Human Rights First release a
report in May 2017, titled Crossing the Line, which documents
cases of asylum seekers who have been turned back at U.S.
ports of entry, despite stating to border agents that they
had a fear of persecution or intended to seek asylum. While
DHS officials have acknowledged that border agents should be
following U.S. law and referring asylum seekers to the asylum
process, Human Rights First and other groups have found that
this practice continues. H.R. 3004 seeks to penalize an
overly broad group of individuals that would even include
those who were wrongfully turned away from our ports of entry
in violation of U.S. law.
Secondly, prosecuting asylum seekers for their illegal
entry or presence--even in the case of ``reentry''--is a
violation of U.S. treaty obligations under the Convention and
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Article 31 of
the Refugee Convention requires that states refrain from
imposing ``penalties'' on refugees on account of their
illegal entry or presence in the country where they are
seeking asylum. For this reason, in 2015, the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found that
prosecutions under ``Operation Streamline'' may place the
United States in violation of its treaty obligations.
If Congress passes H.R. 3004, more asylum seekers like
Maria will be subjected to wrongful criminal prosecutions.
``Maria,'' a transgender woman from Honduras, who had been
raped and subjected to other sexual violence, fled to the
United States in 2014. U.S. immigration officials failed to
respond to her requests for asylum and she was deported back
to Honduras through expedited removal without ever seeing an
immigration judge or having her fear of persecution assessed
by an asylum officer. Facing ongoing persecution in Honduras,
she fled to the United States again in 2015, and was
apprehended upon entry. U.S. border agents referred her for
criminal prosecution and she was convicted of illegal
reentry. After she was transferred back to immigration
custody, she was determined to be a ``refugee'' who qualified
for withholding of removal. Yet, the United States had
already penalized her for ``illegal entry'' despite being a
refugee.
Please contact Olga Byrne at Human Rights First if you have
any questions regarding this letter. Thank you for your time
and consideration.
Sincerely,
Eleanor Acer,
Senior Director, Refugee Protection.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing
the bill from Cities for Action.

Cities for Action,

June 28, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Members of Congress: Cities for Action (C4A) is a
coalition of over 150 mayors and municipal leaders that
advocates for policies to promote the well-being of our
foreign born residents. Our coalition, representing over 50
million residents, has a considerable interest in protecting
all our residents and ensuring that immigrants are not
unjustly criminalized. We are writing to you today to urge
that you oppose Representative Goodlatte's bill, H.R. 3004,
Kate's Law.
Kate's Law expands already tough penalties for illegal
reentry and allows the government to detain immigrants
indefinitely without bond or a court hearing. It also
mistakenly implies that illegal reentry cases are under-
enforced. Indeed, illegal reentry prosecutions already
account for 52 percent of all federal prosecutions. H.R. 3004
would make the criminal sentences for reentry extremely
harsh. Additionally, it would impose severe sentencing
enhancements on people with minor offenses who reenter the
country.
H.R. 3004 would also limit the ability to challenge the
validity of any prior removal order that forms the basis for
a prosecution for illegal reentry, subjecting people to
prosecution even in cases where the prior order was issued
without due process or was otherwise flawed. In addition, the
bill does not provide adequate protections for people who
reenter the United States for humanitarian reasons or those
who seek protection at the border, putting asylum seekers and
families at risk.
Cities and counties are opposed to this bill because these
measures do not improve public safety and it is based on a
false premise that immigrants pose a threat to our
communities. Local governments have a strong interest in
protecting all residents and maintaining public safety.
Therefore, we urge you to oppose Kate's Law and stop its
passage into law at every possible turn.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter,
Cities for Action.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing
the bill from the Committee on Migration of the U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Charities USA.

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.

[[Page H5349]]

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.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing
the bill from Friends Committee on National Legislation: A Quaker Lobby
in the Public Interest.

Friends Committee on

National Legislation,

June 27, 2017.

Friends Committee on National Legislation Statement in Opposition to
the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act (H.R. 3003) and Kate's Law (H.R.
3004)

The Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) is a
Quaker lobby in the public interest committed to pursuing
policies that build just societies, peaceful communities, and
equitable relationships among all people. FCNL looks to
Congress to legislate on immigration in a manner that honors
the value of immigrants and American citizens alike and urges
congressional representatives to reject any legislation which
would undermine immigrant families and communities. Congress
is tasked with creating lasting solutions for our nation.
FCNL therefore urges members of Congress to oppose H.R. 3003
and H.R. 3004 which together further criminalize immigrants,
expand detention, undermine community well-being, and offer
no legislative remedy for a punitive and outdated immigration
system.
H.R. 3003 is an extreme interior enforcement proposal that
would affect over 600 cities, counties, and states and raises
serious fourth and tenth amendment concerns. Effective
policing depends on building authentic trust between police
officers and the communities they serve; blurring the lines
between federal immigration enforcement and local police
results in fewer reported crimes and makes communities with
large immigrant populations more vulnerable. Perpetrators of
crime, assault, and abuse know that these communities are
less likely to report the crime if they legitimately fear it
will result in the deportation or detention of an immigrant
neighbor, a loved one, or themselves. Law enforcement
officials and advocates for survivors of domestic violence
agree that the proposals included in this bill would be
damaging for the communities they serve. FCNL heeds this call
to ensure safety for the most vulnerable among us, and urges
members of Congress to oppose H.R. 3003.
H.R. 3004 would expand grounds for indefinite detention and
decrease legal opportunities for certain migrants challenging
their removal. Our call as Quakers to welcome the stranger
does not rest on the legal status of any individual.
Criminalizing entire immigrant communities based on the
senseless actions of a few individuals tears at the moral
fabric of our society and will not make our communities
safer. H.R. 3004 could prevent migrants from adequately
accessing asylum and would increase family hardship through
separation by offering no meaningful opportunity for family
members to pursue a legal route when seeking reunification
across borders. These provisions will only fuel the
brokenness of our system, which is already heavy-handed on
indefinite detention and dangerous deportations at great
expense to U.S. taxpayers and our collective moral
conscience. Thousands of faith leaders have urged members of
Congress to reject similar proposals in the past and live up
to our call to minister to all those in need, especially
those who have been marginalized. In keeping, FCNL urges
members of Congress to oppose H.R. 3004.
FCNL looks instead for legislation that proceeds from a
recognition of the inherent worth of all individuals, as
acknowledged in our Quaker faith, as well as in our shared
Constitution, laws, and American values. We call on Congress
to reform the U.S. immigration system so that it is in line
with the Quaker principle to answer to that of God in
everyone and ensures we live up to our legacy as a country
that thrives because we are a nation of diverse peoples and
immigrants. Congress has the opportunity to enact practical
solutions for comprehensive reform that includes clear and
workable processes for legal entry and eventual citizenship.
FCNL is eager to partner on such efforts, and seek the
fundamental policy changes we need to help U.S. communities
truly prosper.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing
the bill from the NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice.

June 27, 2017.
Dear Representative Conyers: NETWORK Lobby for Catholic
Social Justice stands in strong opposition to the ``No
Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's Law''
(H.R. 3004) to be considered this week by the House of
Representatives. We urge Congress to reject these bills. In a
county that prides itself on being the land of welcome and
opportunity, we must ensure that our immigration laws reflect
our shared values.
As Congress continues to delay comprehensive immigration
reform and a permanent solution for the nation's 11 million
undocumented immigrants, we are left with the status quo--an
enforcement-only approach that tears apart families and keeps
people in the shadows. Despite the gridlock in Congress,
localities across the country still have the responsibility
to uphold safety and peace in their communities. To fulfill
this goal, local police and residents have fostered mutual
trust to root out crime and promote public safety,
encouraging community members to cooperate with local
authorities. The ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R.
3003) does nothing to promote public safety and instead will
make communities more dangerous while striking fear in the
hearts of our immigrant families.
Likewise, ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004) would criminalize
immigrants who simply want an opportunity to succeed in the
United States, and often are simply trying to be reunited
with their family. Punishing immigrants for wanting to
provide for their families with fines and imprisonment is
harsh and cruel--we, as a nation, are called to be better
than that. Again, we ask Congress to abandon the
``enforcement first'' policies that have been the de facto
U.S. strategy for nearly thirty years, yielding too many
costs and too few results. Our antiquated system that does
not accommodate the migration realities we face in our nation
today does not serve our national interests and does not
respect the basic human rights of migrants who come to this
nation fleeing persecution or in search of employment for
themselves and better living conditions for their children.
Pope Francis cautions that ``migrants and refugees are not
pawns on the chessboard of humanity'' and he asks political
leaders to create a new system, one that ``calls for
international cooperation and a spirit of profound solidarity
and compassion.'' This is a holy call to embrace hope over
fear. Congress should recognize the God-given humanity of all
individuals and uphold our sacred call to love our neighbor
and welcome the stranger in our midst. Any action that
further militarizes our borders, criminalizes assistance to
immigrant communities, or weakens legal protection of
refugees is neither just nor compatible with the values that
we, as Americans, strive to uphold.
Sincerely,

Sr. Simone Campbell, SSS,

Executive Director, NETWORK Lobby
for Catholic Social Justice.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).
Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Speaker, the previous administration's biggest
homeland security failures were the lack of prosecution and enforcement
for crimes committed by illegal immigrants. For far too long, the Obama
administration failed to adequately punish illegal immigrants who
committed felonies in the United States.
A simple deportation is not enough. The United States must prosecute
and sentence all individuals who commit crimes and hurt Americans.
When we enforce the law, we create a deterrent mechanism for future
bad behavior. Failure to enforce the law is a failure to the American
people. That is why I support Kate's Law.
I thank Chairman Goodlatte for his strong work and leadership on this
issue for the safety and security of the American people.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Walker).
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Goodlatte for yielding. I
appreciate his boldness in protecting the citizens of America with
great legislation.
Mr. Speaker, when the father of Kate Steinle, Jim, testified before
Congress, he said: ``Everywhere Kate went throughout the world, she
shined the light of a good citizen from the United States of America.
Unfortunately, due to unjointed laws and basic incompetence of the
government, the United States has suffered a self-inflicted wound in
the murder of our daughter by the hand of a person that should have
never been on the streets in this country.''
Well, today we can resolve that.
Two years ago this weekend, Kate's life was ended when she was gunned
down by a five-time deported criminal illegal alien with seven prior
felony convictions.

[[Page H5350]]

Kate's Law would stiffen penalties, helping to stop these preventable
tragedies.
Additionally, today the House will pass the No Sanctuary for
Criminals Act as well.
You just heard: Will Democrats participate?
Well, 80 percent of Americans support ending sanctuary cities, and no
citizen should be in danger because politicians think they are above
the law.
So will Democrats participate? Will they listen to their
constituents?
Eighty percent of Americans feel pretty good about this law.
Both pieces of legislation serve the basic functions of our
government by keeping the people of our States and country safe from
those who wish to do us harm.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Yoder).
Mr. YODER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule of law,
of strengthening the enforcement of our immigration system, and of
improving the security of our Nation's borders. The safety and security
of our constituents should be our absolute top priority for this
Congress.
Sanctuary cities are a direct threat to our safety. That is why I led
an effort to defund sanctuary cities through the appropriations
process, and those sanctuary cities and their threat to our safety is
why we are here today.
What happened to Kate Steinle was a tragedy. No parent should have to
go through the anguish of losing their child, especially when it could
have been avoided.
Unfortunately, the deadly toll of sanctuary cities is not limited to
Kate. Last year, in my own community back in Kansas, Master Deputy
Brandon Collins, a Johnson County sheriff's deputy with nearly 21 years
of service, was struck and killed by a drunk driver while he was
performing a routine traffic stop. Deputy Collins was a devoted and
caring husband, father, son, brother, uncle, and friend whose life was
tragically cut short.
The drunk driver, who fled from the scene of the crash, was an
undocumented or an illegal immigrant who had prior convictions for DUI
in California in 2001, and was also arrested for driving without a
license in 2013. He should have never been behind the wheel of that car
when he killed Deputy Collins.
Despite his prior offenses, the man was able to remain in the
country. He was able to be here to commit this crime because of the
failure to enforce the law, and it ultimately led to Deputy Collins'
death.
No nation of laws should tolerate this.
For these reasons--for Deputy Collins and the many other victims and
their loved ones dealing with an unspeakable loss--for them, I support
this bill, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join
me in its passage.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The gentleman from Michigan has
7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), and I ask unanimous consent
that she may control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a really tough bill because this is a really
difficult subject. We mourn the loss of Kate Steinle, and we have an
obligation to take action to keep our streets safe. But this bill
doesn't do that.
Our goal has to be to remove dangerous criminals from our streets so
that they don't harm people. That has got to be our focus.
That is why I am so frustrated that we are taking out of a
comprehensive immigration reform bill--which could have done just
that--a provision that would have addressed this issue in a more
rational way; in a way that doesn't go after people seeking asylum; in
a way that doesn't say, ``If you have been convicted of three
nonviolent misdemeanors, you go to jail for 10 years;'' and in a way
that doesn't punish people who are victims of human trafficking who--if
they spent time in our prisons as a result of what they were forced to
do, go back to their country, come back seeking asylum--could be forced
to go to jail. These victims could be forced to go to jail for 20
years.

None of that is going to keep our communities safer.
We ought to work together. I urge my Republican colleagues to work
with us to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform that will
include provisions--like what is in this bill--that are still humane,
provisions that will help keep American citizens safe, but that don't
demonize immigrants.
It is possible to do both. My friends on the other side of the aisle
know that it is possible to do both, and we ought to work together to
get that done. That is the best way to keep our communities safe and to
respect our values as Americans.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I have only one speaker remaining, and I
am prepared to close.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 6
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia has 9 minutes remaining.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things I think is worth addressing is the
provision of this bill that changes current law relative to unlawful
entry or attempted unlawful entry.
Under 8 U.S.C. 1326, this is a crime if the individual evaded
detection. This has been the principle in Federal law for more than 100
years. Since 1908, the Federal courts have recognized that illegal
entry and illegal reentry require entry free from something called
official restraint, otherwise known as detention.
Now, this bill would change that longstanding law. The bill amends
U.S.C. 1326 to make the physical act of crossing the border a crime for
any individual who has been previously removed or denied admission
regardless of whether the individual was ``free from official
restraint'' when doing so.
Now, why is this a problem?
As I mentioned earlier, individuals who, for one reason or another,
need to come into the United States go to a port of entry, and they ask
to see the Border Patrol agent. Under this law, that is a crime.
Now, let me give you some examples of what that would mean. I will
just talk about the case of Juliza, who was a Guatemalan-Indian woman.
She faced violent persecution really based on her ethnicity. She was
raped by family members who referred to her as a dirty Indian as they
assaulted her. As she went to report this assault to the police, she
was sexually propositioned by the officers.
After a family member threatened her with sexual violence and death,
she fled to the United States. She sought asylum, but she was promptly
deported--turned away--by the Customs and Border Patrol. Within a month
of returning to Guatemala, she was drugged, raped, and thrown into a
river. She fled to the United States for a second time and, once again,
was turned away without seeing an immigration judge or speaking to an
asylum officer.
Finally, the third time she came, her 8-year-old son had been
threatened by gang members, and she was finally allowed to make her
case and was granted asylum.

{time} 1630

Or the case of Carla. In June of 2016, Carla, who was from Mexico,
and her children sought asylum after her father, son, grandfather, and
uncle were killed in a span of 7 days, targeting her family. She went
to the border to turn herself in. She was turned away by CBP agents
twice.
After the family sought assistance from an attorney, they went back
to the border, to the port of entry, and the CBP officers finally
processed them appropriately under American immigration law. This was
their third attempt. The U.S. immigration judge in Texas ruled that
they were indeed refugees and granted asylum.

[[Page H5351]]

Now, I raise these two cases because you think deported, if you are
turned away at the border, it counts for removal under the law. These
individuals would be felons under this bill.
Making Juliza and her 8-year-old son or Carla a felon does not save
an American from crime; it just doesn't. The two are not connected. And
so to think that this bill, which does such harm to asylum seekers, is
necessary to save Americans from threats is simply incorrect. It is
important to stand up for our long-term values in international law.
There are other ways that one could become a criminal by showing up
at the border. It is not uncommon that young people who have a valid
visa issued by a U.S. consulate or Embassy come. They fly into the
country and they are interviewed by a Customs and Border Patrol agent.
Now, if that person on the visitor visa is a 20-year-old young man
who is unmarried, doesn't have a job in the country he is from, doesn't
own a home, and is from kind of a poor country, it is not all that
uncommon for the Border Patrol agency to make a decision that that
person is not a good risk for entry, that they might overstay their
visa and not return home.
I am not questioning that exercise of judgment, but if that same
individual, 20 years later, is now a doctor and he has got a J visa to
come in and be a doctor in the middle of America where there is a
doctor shortage, he lands at Kennedy Airport with his visa to be a
doctor, that would be a felony.
So the point I am making is there is much in this bill that does
nothing about crime but to make criminals of people who have done
nothing wrong. That is one of the reasons why we should vote against
this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, we are a nation of immigrants. There is not a person who
has participated in this debate today who cannot go back a few years, a
few generations or several generations and find someone in their family
who came here to the United States, but we are also a nation of laws.
The loss of respect for the rule of law is absolutely a serious problem
in this country, and the step-by-step approach to restoring respect for
the rule of law and reforming our immigration laws starts with these
bills, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act and Kate's Law.
We are all about today, in this legislation, enhancing public safety,
securing our borders, and restoring the rule of law.
We give discretion to Federal judges--discretion to Federal judges, I
would add--to make sure that people who have entered this country
previously illegally and who reenter the country can be given enhanced
sentences. It is not mandatory by any means, and, in fact, in many
instances, it would be better to send the person outside the country
and not have the taxpayers bear the expense.
But in the case of the individual who murdered Kate Steinle and had
reentered the country five times and had committed other crimes while
in the United States, having that additional time that the judge could
impose on that individual who was just being released for having been
convicted of illegally entering the country, Bureau of Prisons should
have turned him over to ICE to send him out again. But if the ICE
agents wanted to, when he entered illegally the previous time,
recommend that he be given more time than the sentence he just served,
he would have still been in prison when Kate Steinle walked down that
pier with her father and was murdered by him.
So when those on the other side say this was not preventable by this
law, they are entirely wrong. This law would have prevented that if a
judge had chosen to impose that additional time that we are today
providing in these cases.
We also clear up some uncertainty regarding this current law, and I
think it is entirely appropriate to do so. It will deal with some of
the situations that those on the other side have discussed, but most
importantly, it will discourage people from entering the United States
illegally, particularly when they have already entered illegally
earlier and have been convicted of a crime for doing so.
So, to me, this is absolutely the beginning point of restoring to law
enforcement at every level in our country the necessary tools to
enforce our immigration laws, to work together to keep American
citizens safe, like Kate Steinle and many, many others.
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet with about a dozen
representatives of families who lost loved ones to the criminal acts of
people who were not lawfully present in the United States. And so it is
also entirely true to say that, had those individuals not been present
in the United States, those crimes would not have been committed,
those, in most instances, murders, in all instances, killings, would
not have taken place.
Therefore, when you enforce our immigration laws, unlike laws
applying to American citizens who also commit crimes, in the case of
people who are not lawfully present in the United States, these crimes
are entirely preventable if we enforce our immigration laws. Therefore,
I would urge my colleagues to support Kate's Law and the No Sanctuary
for Criminals Act to make sure that we go down this road of restoring
the trust of the American people in their system of government, in
their protection by their government, and in their own respect for the
rule of law and know that their government is upholding that with
regard to other individuals as well.
This is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following
additional letter of opposition to H.R. 3004. This is a letter I
mentioned earlier on the bill.

National Immigrant Justice

Center,

June 27, 2017.

H.R. 3003 and 3004 Undermine American Values NIJC Opposes the ``No
Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' and ``Kate's Law''

This week the House of Representatives will vote on two
bills that attempt to re-write our nation's immigration laws
to reflect a dangerous philosophy of governance. For decades
now, elected officials across the bipartisan divide have
joined together calling for a compassionate and common sense
approach to immigration legislation. These bills move us
further away from that goal. H.R. 3003, ironically named the
``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' will endanger the safety
of our communities by forcing local police to abandon
community policing efforts and become a full partner with the
administration's massive deportation force. H.R. 3004, known
as ``Kate's Law,'' will result in the unnecessary
incarceration of countless immigrants for the mere act of
migration.
The National Immigrant Justice Center calls on elected
officials to reject such nonsensical and harmful legislation.
In the face of hateful rhetoric, now is the time to stand
with immigrant communities.

H.R. 3003, the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'', will further erode
community trust in local police and put our communities in danger

H.R. 3003 amends 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373 to prohibit states and
localities from enacting policies that in any way limit
cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE), even when federal courts have ruled such cooperation
unconstitutional.
The law would strip localities of vital discretion to enact
immigration-enforcement-related laws and policies that are
smart and effective for their communities. Specifically, it
prohibits localities from declining to comply with requests
from ICE to jail individuals under detainer requests even
when doing so will put them in blatant violation of binding
federal court orders. Our communities are safer when
residents feel safe calling for help and assisting police in
investigating and prosecuting cries. By effectively forcing
localities into the business of federal immigration law, this
law will preclude cities and counties from using their
limited local resources to address public safety concerns in
the ways they deem most appropriate and effective.
On top of the danger the bill poses to community safety,
this law arguably violates the ``anti-commandeering''
principle of the Tenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
H.R. 3003 punishes jurisdictions for engaging in smart
community policing.
The law would punish jurisdictions that choose to limit
cooperation with federal immigration enforcement by stripping
federal funding that fulfills vital law enforcement needs,
including the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
(SCAAP), the ``Cops on the Beat Program,'' the Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant Program, and any other grant administered by
the Departments of Justice or Homeland Security that are
deemed ``substantially related to law enforcement, terrorism,
national security, immigration, or naturalization.'' In
addition to running further afoul of the Tenth Amendment,
this law cruelly forces jurisdictions to choose between
maintaining critical funds, including

[[Page H5352]]

for community policing, or exposing themselves to the
significant legal and financial liability that accompany
compliance with detainer requests under the Fourth Amendment
and the Fourteenth Amendment.
H.R. 3003 upends the criminal justice system by permitting
and in some cases requiring ICE to ignore criminal warrants
issued by state and local jurisdictions that it deems in non-
compliance with other provisions of the bill.
H.R. 3003 vastly expands ICE's authority to force
localities to detain immigrants with no regard for the Fourth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and gives local actors
immunity for resulting constitutional violations.
The law makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment by giving
lip service to the notion of ``probable cause'' but in
reality allowing ICE to ask localities to detain immigrants
longer than they would otherwise be held simply on the basis
of a belief that the individual is removable from the United
States. The law then goes on to provide local actors immunity
for resulting constitutional violations. In practice, this
piece of the law essentially requires local actors to violate
the constitution and then gives them immunity for doing so.
It is legislative overreach at its worst.
H.R. 3003 demonizes immigrants by creating a new private
right of action for victims of crime solely on the basis of
the citizenship status of the perpetrator of the crime.
The law provides that an individual or surviving relative
can bring a lawsuit against a state or locality if the
perpetrator of the offense is a non-citizen and was released
from custody pursuant to a trust policy. This provision
allows the worst kind of scapegoating, manipulating
individual tragedies to demonize all immigrants.
H.R. 3003 expands the already damaging ``mandatory
detention'' provisions of immigration law, requiring no-bond
detention for large categories of undocumented individuals
for the duration of deportation proceedings against them.
The law thumbs its nose at the basic due process
protections of our United States Constitution, explicitly
approving of indefinite detention for individuals in
immigration custody regardless of their community ties to the
United States or necessity for detention. Specifically, the
law expands greatly the categories of immigrants who are
denied access to any individualized bond determination
throughout their time in immigration jail. With deaths in
immigration detention occurring with alarming frequency and
rates of representation in detention alarmingly low, these
provisions are nothing but cruel.

H.R. 3004, ``Kate's Law,'' will further the mass incarceration of
immigrants--including asylum seekers--by increasing penalties for the
mere act of migration

H.R. 3004 expands the existing criminal offense of illegal
reentry to punish legitimate asylum seekers fleeing violence
in their countries of origin.
The law expands the category of individuals punishable by
section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to include
even those men and women who surrender themselves at the
southern border to seek protection in the United States.
H.R. 3004 senselessly expands sentencing enhancements for
illegal reentry at a time when more than half of all federal
prosecutions target migration-related offenses.
The law provides incredibly harsh sentencing enhancements
for individuals seeking to return to the United States after
a previous removal on the basis of prior convictions or
entries. Apart from the cruel and unnecessary use of federal
prison to separate families, this bill will prove exorbitant
in its costs at a time when taxpayers have already footed a
bill of more than $7 billion to incarcerate migrants for
migration-related offenses over the past decade.
H.R. 3004 punishes immigrants for illegal reentry even if
their previous deportation orders were unlawful and deprived
them of the opportunity to seek protection. This law entirely
prohibits defendants in illegal reentry cases from
challenging the validity of their prior deportation orders.
This provision is blatantly unconstitutional and in violation
of Supreme Court jurisprudence that protects against
punishing immigrants on the basis of legally defective
deportation orders. See U.S. v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828
(1987). This law will criminalize, for example, asylum
seekers who return to the United States after being
previously denied the opportunity to present their claims for
protection. Given the already anemic protections for asylum
seekers at our southern border, these provisions will
inevitably harm the most vulnerable among us.
A vote for H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 is a vote for hatred and
a vote against community safety. NIJC calls on Members of
Congress to stand on the right of history and oppose these
harmful measures.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 415, 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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. LOFGREN. I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Ms. Lofgren moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3004 to the
Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:

Add, at the end of the bill, the following:

SEC. 3. PROTECTING VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING.

Section 276 of such Act is further amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(i) Protecting Victims of Trafficking.--It shall not be a
violation of this section for a victim of sex trafficking to
voluntarily present herself or himself at a port of entry to
request protection.''.

Mr. GOODLATTE (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading of the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle insist that
today's bill is intended to keep Americans safe by enhancing penalties
for criminals who reenter illegally or attempt to do so. I am offering
an amendment that takes Republicans at their word.
This amendment would make clear that H.R. 3004 would not be used to
criminally prosecute and incarcerate sex trafficking victims merely for
seeking protection at ports of entry.
As should be evident at this stage of debate, the provisions of this
bill extend well beyond immigrants with criminal histories; in fact,
they reach many of the most vulnerable and persecuted members of
society. Perhaps most egregiously, H.R. 3004 authorizes, for the first
time, the prosecution of individuals who voluntarily present themselves
at points of entry to seek relief consistent with our immigration laws,
and that includes individuals seeking protection as victims of sex
trafficking.
Let's be clear on the law. Today, it is not a crime for an individual
who has been previously denied admission or removed to voluntarily
present herself at a port of entry seeking to reenter the country
legally. This bill changes that by making the simple act of going to
the port of entry, which itself requires the physical act of crossing
the border, a felony offense for such individuals.
These are not individuals attempting to evade immigration agents.
They are not trying to sneak into the United States. They are simply
exercising the right to lawfully approach a U.S. port of entry to seek
permission to enter.
Under this bill, the act of approaching CBP agents now becomes
criminally prosecutable as an illegal reentry. Anyone with a prior
removal order or even merely denied admission commits a crime by so
much as stepping into the port of entry.
I mentioned the two asylee seekers a few moments ago. These are
people who are fleeing danger and under our laws have the right to
present their cases. Now, H.R. 3004 would do this to the women I
mentioned: It would make them criminals, and it would allow for the
prosecution and imprisonment for up to 2 years.
Now, even if our immigration system awarded these victims protection,
such as a T visa for human trafficking, the criminal justice system
could take away her liberty.
I strongly hope that my colleagues across the aisle would not seek to
punish women who are fleeing from sex traffickers, because there are
thousands of women who are innocent, abused, sexually trafficked by the
worst of civilization, and instead of offering help to these women,
this bill would put them in prison. It would prosecute them for asking,
of all things, that their life be saved.
I mentioned earlier, we put in the Record, the opposition of the
Tahirih Justice Center to this bill. They advocate for victims of
trafficking and gender-based violence, and they oppose this bill with
all their strength. Here is what they say, and it is a quote: ``H.R.
3004 will punish women fleeing horrific abuse. . . . `'

[[Page H5353]]

Now, I disagree with some of the elements of this bill, and I have
tried to make clear why, but I take Mr. Goodlatte at his word that he
wants to make sure that we have a safe society. I think, if that is his
hope, we will make clear that sex trafficking victims are not going to
be prosecuted or considered criminals when they enter a port of entry
and present themselves to U.S. officials.
This amendment is the chance for Republicans to show that they really
are for the rule of law. It would stipulate that this bill would not
subject sex trafficking victims to criminal prosecution merely for
voluntarily presenting themselves at the border to request protection
from the unspeakable harm that they have suffered.
I will close with this. Years ago, we worked together on a bipartisan
basis to fight sex trafficking. We created the U and T visas. It was a
broad bipartisan coalition. I remember now Governor Sam Brownback and
others, people who are at other ends, opposite ends of the ideological
spectrum, but we came together to fight sex trafficking. We should do
the same thing today. Let's not forget that we can work together to do
the right thing.
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, this motion to recommit not only changes
the bill before us, but it also changes current law. It has long been
Federal law that an alien who has been deported and who returns to the
U.S. is subject to possible criminal prosecution.

{time} 1645

Under this bill, an alien who has received consent from the
Department of Homeland Security to return or is not required to seek
consent from DHS has an affirmative defense.
Obviously, such an alien will never be prosecuted. Never has, never
will. In fact, because this is current law--and the gentlewoman was the
chairman of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee for 4
years and never offered such an amendment to current law--I see no
reason to address it in this legislation.
I will say that we have all been committed in a very bipartisan
fashion to combating sex trafficking. We passed several bills through
this House, some with the gentlewoman's support, some without, that do
indeed combat sex trafficking.
But back to the issue before us today. Criminal aliens are reentering
the United States after being removed all the time. Without stronger
enforcement measures in place, this government cannot provide an
appropriate deterrence for these reentries.
Kate's Law takes a tough approach to dealing with criminal aliens who
reenter the United States. Instead of the majority being subjected to
no more than a 2-year maximum sentence, this bill takes an individual's
criminal history into consideration and provides enhanced penalties
accordingly. While the 2-year sentence may not deter illegal reentry, a
potential 25-year sentence certainly would.
Nothing can bring Kate Steinle back and nothing can absolutely
prevent such crimes from occurring in the future. This legislation is
meant to honor her memory and clearly demonstrate that this Congress
will act.
This legislation is another step in bringing stronger enforcement
measures to improve our immigration enforcement capabilities. Longer
sentences for those criminal aliens who reenter the United States
illegally is an important aspect of that mechanism.
I urge my colleagues to vote down this motion to recommit, vote for
the underlying bill, and to truly deter criminal aliens from reentering
the United States.
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.
Ms. LOFGREN. 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.

____________________