[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 200 (Thursday, December 7, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H9712-H9713]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1015
  THE KATE STEINLE VERDICT AND THREE PRINCIPLES FOR IMMIGRATION POLICY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Budd) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BUDD. Mr. Speaker, on July 1 of 2015, Kate Steinle was walking 
with her father on a pier in San Francisco. While she was on the pier, 
she was shot to death by an illegal immigrant who had been deported 
five times. He had been convicted of seven felonies.
  Before he murdered Kate Steinle, the Federal Government had asked the 
city to turn him over so that he could be deported again. The city, 
following its policy of not cooperating with Federal immigration 
officials, released him from jail. He murdered Kate Steinle 3 months 
later. A few days ago, her killer was declared not guilty by a San 
Francisco jury. For now, there is no justice for Kate Steinle.
  There is a question in this, though, for all of us. It is a question 
we should ask when we are confronted by a terrorist attack conducted by 
the asylees like the Boston bombing or the San Bernardino massacre, 
where one of the attackers was in the United States on a K-1 visa.
  The question is: Why was this person in our country? In the case of 
Kate Steinle, we now know exactly why: the city of San Francisco's 
policy. The city is an accomplice to Kate Steinle's death. It is pure 
and simple.
  They have defied and continue to defy Federal law. They defied it in 
general by refusing to cooperate with Federal immigration authorities 
as a blanket policy, and they defied it in the specific case that led 
to the death of Kate Steinle.
  This is a radical policy, and I don't use that word lightly. You have 
an illegal immigrant convicted of multiple crimes, in addition to 
coming here illegally five times. The Federal Government tries to send 
the guy home a sixth time, and the city lets him go because they ignore 
the law, and then he murders someone.
  The results of this city's extremism is a shattered family. The 
result is a

[[Page H9713]]

father who will never see his daughter again. The result is a mother 
who has to face the worst nightmare of every parent. These are the 
terrible facts of this tragedy, Mr. Speaker, and there is nothing we 
can do in this body to change them.
  What we can do is move forward towards an immigration policy that is 
based on sound principles. For the radicals, this will be a radical 
change. For everyday Americans, this is just common sense.
  On this front, there are three fundamental principles to a sane 
immigration policy. First, Americans have the right to determine who 
becomes citizens through laws. It is right there in the Constitution. 
Article I, section 8, provides Congress with the explicit authority to 
regulate naturalization. A country without borders is not a country. It 
is just a geographic destination.
  Second, who comes here should be in the best interest of Americans. 
The number of known criminals we need to be letting in is zero. The 
number of people who cannot read and cannot speak English we need to be 
admitting is zero. The number of radical Islamists and of drug addicts 
we need to be letting in--zero. We are ready and willing to welcome 
hardworking immigrants who are ready to pay taxes, to follow our laws, 
and to build our country together.
  Third, we have the right to enforce our choices through immigration 
laws. We should stop sanctuary cities and enforce sanctions against 
those who hire illegal labor. We should build President Trump's border 
wall, a policy that has worked unbelievably well in Israel. Most people 
agree that law enforcement is an effective deterrent against committing 
crimes. Illegal immigration is no different.
  Mr. Speaker, according to the Pew Research Center, the population of 
illegal immigrants in my State of North Carolina has gone up 1,400 
percent from 25,000 people in 1990 to 350,000 in the year 2014. We have 
got to get this under control. Any country where the Kate Steinle 
tragedy can happen is not a country with a sane immigration policy.
  I hope we never again have to ask the question after a tragedy: Why 
is this person in our country? Because I hope the answer will be widely 
known, that we have a reasonable immigration system that benefits all 
Americans and does everything within reason not to bring in people who 
will hurt us. Kate Steinle proves that we are not there yet. But I 
believe that we can get there one day.

                          ____________________