[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 177 (Wednesday, November 6, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6416-S6418]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2059
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I come to talk about another issue of
immigration that concerns me in North Carolina, and I think it is
something about which every American should be concerned. It is the
sanctuary policies that have been implemented in counties and cities
and, at least in one case, statewide.
``Sanctuary city'' sounds like a great concept as the United States
is a sanctuary to which so many people seek to immigrate. Yet the
policy of the sanctuary city actually breaks down the relationship
between Federal authorities and local authorities. I think this is
dangerous and could potentially--and not only potentially--have serious
consequences in communities. I will use a few examples.
Over the past year in North Carolina, we have had over 500 people who
have been released who had been arrested by local authorities. Many of
them had been arrested for having committed serious crimes. They had
been charged with murder, rape, indecent liberties
[[Page S6417]]
with a child, heroin trafficking--a very, very long list--in cities
just 25 minutes from where I live, down in Charlotte, in Mecklenburg
County. They arrest people but not simply because they are illegally
present. In fact, you can find virtually no instance in which a local
authority would arrest somebody just because one is illegally present.
The people who are in these jails have been charged with crimes, and in
many cases they have been serious crimes.
Two weeks ago in Mecklenburg County, the Mecklenburg County sheriff
had made the decision to release four people--one who had been charged
with murder, two who had been charged with indecent liberties with a
minor, and one who had been charged with heroin trafficking. They had
been illegally present but had not been in jail because they had simply
crossed the border or had had their visas expire. They had been in jail
because they had committed serious crimes.
When Immigration and Customs Enforcement hears about these folks who
have been detained, they issue what they call detainer orders. A
detainer order is a request to hold a person in jail for at least 48
hours so ICE can go to the jail, interview him, and determine whether
they want to transfer him into ICE's custody and potentially deport
him.
This is a very dangerous policy that has actually, ultimately,
resulted in other people being harmed. Think about those people being
released who have been charged with rape or murder or heroin
trafficking. They go back into the community and cause harm to someone
else.
What I have decided we need to do is to at least provide a private
right of civil action to a victim of that unwise decision. If that
charged murderer or heroin trafficker goes out and assaults someone or
murders someone--in some cases, someone who has a DWI is charged with
vehicular homicide and goes back out and while under the influence
harms someone else in, say, an automobile accident--I think the person
who gets harmed or, sadly, his survivor should be able to bring a case
against that governmental entity that has the sanctuary policy.
For those who think sanctuary policies are safe and that only safe
people are being released, this shouldn't be an issue to them--right?--
because no harm is going to occur. Yet, if harm occurs, I believe the
victim should have a right to seek restitution.
Our bill is fairly simple. It is called the Justice for Victims of
Sanctuary Cities Act. It is a bill that reads, if you as a governmental
entity refuse to cooperate with ICE and then release someone who does
harm to someone else, that person has the right to sue that
governmental entity.
Our governments in the United States--the local governments and State
governments--have the right to say they are immune, that they can't be
sued. They have that right, and I respect that right. Yet, if they
refuse to allow themselves to build their cases in court and say that
what they did was appropriate and safe, then it should come at the
consequence of the Federal funding for which they would otherwise be
qualified to receive.
Again, if sanctuary cities are safe and if all we are doing is
releasing people who are not threats to the community, this should be a
nonissue for any sanctuary jurisdiction. It would only be an issue if
there is a victim as a result of the jurisdiction's political
decisions.
That is why we have introduced the Justice for Victims of Sanctuary
Cities Act. In fact, we listened to some of the sanctuary
jurisdictions, and they said: Well, we could get into legal trouble if
we hold them for 48 hours, and for that reason we release them after a
judge has ordered their release.
We have another bill that addresses that problem so that liability
will go away. We are hearing what they have to say and trying to
address it in additional legislation.
But I think this is a bill that makes sense, and I think it is
something that law enforcement, county commissions, and city councils
should take a look at.
I think they should work with ICE. Here is the last reason why I
think working with ICE is very important: ICE has a legal
responsibility to pursue these people if they are released by the local
government.
Here is what happens. You release somebody who is charged with murder
or vehicular homicide or heroin trafficking or rape. You release them
in the community, and ICE has to go pursue them in the community.
So instead of allowing ICE to go into a jail and have a safe transfer
from one jail into the ICE detainee system, they have to actually
create a task force. They have got to go into a community, and they
have to apprehend them. They have a statutory responsibility to do
that.
Ironically, in some of those instances, the very law enforcement
agency that released them now has to go into the field and back them up
if it is a dangerous situation when they are trying to apprehend this
person whom ICE has a legal responsibility to apprehend.
I think this is a commonsense bill. Hopefully, it is one that will
give sanctuary cities some pause before they release somebody charged
with murder or rape or heroin trafficking--a potentially dangerous
person--back into the community, whom the Federal authorities have to
pursue no matter what.
Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent
that the Committee on Judiciary be discharged from further
consideration of S. 2059 and the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time
and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and
laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there is more to the story. What he just
described to you seems pretty obvious: A dangerous person, subject to
deportation, why release them into the community? That is a perfectly
valid point, one that we ought to be discussing and debating. But there
is more to the story, and here is what it comes down to: Why did the
major city police chiefs across the United States oppose what the
Senator from North Carolina has just suggested? Because they know that
if the Federal Government and its immigration authorities are going to
use local police to enforce immigration laws, it is going to change
their ability to keep communities and neighborhoods safe.
Now, why would I say that? Let me give you an example. It was just
about 4 months ago when ICE officials pulled over a young woman and
said to her: Are you here in the United States legally? She said: I am;
I am protected by a program call DACA.
They said: We want to go to your home.
They went to her home, and her grandmother was there. They asked her
grandmother for proof of her citizenship. Her grandmother had
overstayed her visitor's visa. They deported her grandmother.
So the local police are fearful that if they are now going to be
recruited to enforce immigration laws, they will not get cooperation in
the community when it comes to fighting crime.
Let me give you an example that is timely. On Halloween night, in a
section of Chicago, the little kids were out with their parents in a
Hispanic neighborhood, walking along, and a little girl, 7 years old,
named Giselle Zamago was shot twice. She barely survived. They got her
to the hospital, and they saved her life. She is making a miraculous
recovery.
What is important about this story and relevant to what the Senator
from North Carolina asks is the fact that now community members have
come forward to the police to help them find the shooter. They have
arrested a 15-year-old gang member. This gang member was aiming at a
32-year-old gang rival standing next to the little girl, and he wasn't
worth a damn when it came to shooting a gun. This poor little girl was
shot.
What the police in Chicago are telling me is that we need the
community to be willing to talk to the police and not be afraid
somebody is going to follow someone home and check whether their
grandmother is here legally in the United States.
That is why the whole question of sanctuary cities is boiling up and
why
[[Page S6418]]
the police chiefs in major cities have basically said: This is too
simplistic. Let's sit down and do this carefully, not as the Senator
from North Carolina has proposed.
The last point I want to make is this. If you visit the Senate
Chamber this week in Washington and want to see deliberation on
legislation, you are out of luck. There are no bills--no substantive
legislative bills--scheduled to be considered on the floor of the U.S.
Senate this week, but it is not an unusual week. We hardly ever take up
legislation in the committees and bring it to the floor for debate in
the Senate.
So the real question I have is why the Senator from North Carolina--
who is in the Republican majority, who serves on the Senate Judiciary
Committee, who could ask for a markup of his bill if he wished--has
decided instead to bypass the whole process and just say: I want to
take this bill straight to the Senate with no debate. He is in the
majority. We could bring this bill to the floor for debate and for
amendment. We could bring it before the committee for a markup, but he
chose not to do that.
Sadly, it is a commentary on what has happened to the Senate floor.
It has become a legislative graveyard. We just don't do what the Senate
used to do--debate amendments, deliberate, agree on things, and
compromise. It doesn't happen anymore under Senator McConnell. It is
unfortunate. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, maybe just to add another chapter to that
story, first, we did have a hearing on this bill about 2 weeks ago in
Judiciary. That is the first step before you move to a markup.
I will be asking for a markup on this bill because I think it is a
bill that is a commonsense bill. It is a bill that actually has a safe-
harbor provision for people in the community who may be illegally
present who want to work with law enforcement. We are listening to the
concerns that law enforcement have expressed. We have addressed them,
like so many times we have addressed these sorts of matters before.
So we will have a markup on the bill, we will have a vote out of
committee, and I hope that we have a vote on this floor, because at the
end of the day, some of the examples that Senator Durbin noted are sad
and should be avoided, but the real sad examples are the people who are
dying, being raped, and being poisoned by people who were detained and
could have been transferred into ICE custody and deported to make our
communities safer, including the communities of illegally present
people, who are less safe as a result of the current sanctuary
policies.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am going to yield to the Senator from
Iowa who has waited patiently on a separate issue that he and I are
working on together and allow him to speak first if he wishes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.