View Full Version : Amash Votes Against Sanctuary City Law

06-29-2017, 07:22 PM
This guy is on a real bender of late. Even Massie didn't vote against it.


06-29-2017, 07:37 PM
A rare miss for Massie.

06-29-2017, 08:31 PM
Amash is getting a lot of criticism on his twitter page for this. Massie seems more paleocon, Amash more libertarian.

06-30-2017, 01:50 PM
A rare miss for Massie.

Amash is getting a lot of criticism on his twitter page for this. Massie seems more paleocon, Amash more libertarian.

Both assessments are eminently arguable.

Firstly, the real issue is one of constitutionality. Is the bill constitutional? I believe it can be argued either way and to be upfront, I have not done an exhaustive analysis, But cursorily, I can say that the issue can be argued. There is the question of delegated powers of the federal government to pass such a law. On that point, I would judge the statute unconstitutional, all else equal.

OTOH, the Constitution can be validly viewed as empowering the fedgov to establish and protect not only the borders of the land, but also the rights of the people through the military and the courts. To those valid ends, it can be credibly held that when the states fail in their duties to protect the rights of their respective people, the fedgov holds the valid power to intercede on the behalf of those people against the manifold state governments in defense of the rights in question. That tosses the ball to the question of whether a "state" is empowered to 1) disobey immigration/border law and, 2) endanger/violate the rights of its own people in favor of foreign nationals. I say "no" in response to both questions. They hold zero authority to do so.

Therefore, it would appear at first blush that the fedgov is in fact empowered to act in correction of the errors committed by states. This makes eminent sense because the Constitution is a compact between the states wherein each party to the contract is bound by the mandates and other stipulations of the agreement. It seems clear to me that states are not empowered to endanger and/or violate the rights of their respective populations. Therefore, the fedgov stands centrally within the envelope of its granted powers to makes the sorts of corrections as represented in the particulars of these two bills.

From the philosophical standpoint, I would say that Massie has indeed been the more libertarian here, Amash having fallen down in his duty of diligent and competent consideration of the bills in question, once again all else equal such that I assume there is nothing hiding therein that represents violations of the rights of Americans. I have not read either bill, do cannot say with 100% certainty that they are philosophically "clean", so to speak.

06-30-2017, 03:50 PM
Both assessments are eminently arguable.

Of course it can be argued either way. To me, the bigger issue is why would San Francisco be so eager to house illegal immigrants? It isn't because they are laissez-faire capitalists. They want voters. The only answer is political. If someone has broken federal law, it hardly seems unreasonable for local law enforcement to cooperate with the federal government.

Lawsuits like this are bonkers. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/06/28/san-francisco-pay-undocumented-immigrant-sanctuary-policy/

06-30-2017, 05:04 PM


06-30-2017, 05:08 PM

06-30-2017, 05:11 PM

06-30-2017, 05:18 PM

06-30-2017, 07:54 PM


Knuckle draggers.

06-30-2017, 07:58 PM
I'm personally not a fan of Kate's law at all. I don't have a problem with deporting illegal immigrants, particularly if they have a criminal record like the illegal immigrant who killed Kate Steinle. But, putting them in prison for five years will just expand our already large federal prison population and cost taxpayers a lot of money. We have too many people in prison as it is, and we need to go in the direction of enacting criminal justice reform and reducing the number of people in our prisons. Kate's law would take us in the wrong direction and significantly expand the federal prison population.

06-30-2017, 08:01 PM
I voted no on #HR3003, No Sanctuary for Criminals Act.

This bill increases the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) detention of suspected illegal aliens, defunds sanctuary cities, and limits the ability of state and local governments to direct their law enforcement resources. In doing so, the bill violates at least five constitutional amendments.

The bill violates the Tenth Amendment by prohibiting any state or locality from doing anything which would restrict the ability of their law enforcement officers to "assist" federal immigration enforcement, giving state and local governments legal immunity for providing such assistance, and limiting transfers of aliens to sanctuary cities for criminal prosecution.

I have voted in the past to defund law enforcement grants to sanctuary cities that prohibit information sharing between their law enforcement and federal immigration officials (including #HR3009 in the 114th Congress), but this bill also prohibits any actions or policies that may restrict local law enforcement's cooperation with, or assistance to, federal immigration enforcement. This goes far beyond just facilitating the exchange of information that local law enforcement may already come across in the course of their own activities; this bill unconstitutionally enables the federal government to coerce states into helping with actual enforcement of immigration laws. Plus, it gives immunity to states for assisting with immigration enforcement, and it affirmatively punishes states for noncompliance.

Congress has no authority to direct state and local officials in this way. Our Constitution establishes a system of dual federalism. In Congress, the laws we make are to be executed by federal officials; we may not commandeer nonfederal officials.

The bill violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable seizures and the Fifth Amendment's due process requirements by increasing DHS's use of, and authority for, warrantless arrests and detention of suspected illegal aliens. As their text makes clear, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments apply explicitly to all "people" and "person[s]" within the United States. The Constitution uses the word "citizen" in other provisions whenever that word is intended. This interpretation of the Constitution's applicability is shared by the U.S. Supreme Court, including among the conservative justices.

The bill violates the Eleventh Amendment—which largely prohibits Congress from unilaterally permitting lawsuits against states—by allowing the victims of crimes committed by an illegal alien to sue a state that declines to fulfill a request from the federal government to detain the alien.

Lastly, the bill violates the First Amendment by likely interfering with the ability of state and local officials and other individuals to make statements regarding immigration enforcement policies and priorities.

I support securing the borders, and I have voted to defund sanctuary cities, but I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, even when it means I must oppose bills aimed at policy goals that I support.

It passed 228-195.


07-01-2017, 12:58 PM
Kates Law would allow people to sue the government if they are harmed by an illegal immigrant. That alone makes the bill worth it.

Once again, Amash disappoints.

07-01-2017, 06:01 PM
I voted no on #HR3004, Kate's Law.

This bill is narrower than other recent bills that also have been called "Kate's Law."

This version of Kate's Law changes the maximum possible punishments for some individuals convicted of re-entering the United States illegally and changes the procedures for prosecuting illegal re-entry. My concern with this bill stems from a provision that denies Fifth Amendment due process to certain criminal defendants.

As its text makes clear, the Fifth Amendment applies explicitly to all "person[s]" within the United States, including suspected illegal aliens who are arrested, charged, and tried within the United States. The Constitution uses the word "citizen" in other provisions whenever that word is intended. This interpretation of the Constitution's applicability is shared by the Supreme Court, including among the conservative justices.

Under current law, it is illegal to re-enter the United States if you have an outstanding order of removal. The removal order is an element of the crime, and a defendant may challenge the validity of the order, but only in limited circumstances. To challenge the validity of a removal order under current law, the defendant must show that she has used up all other opportunities to challenge the order, she has been denied her right to have a judge review her case, and the removal order was "fundamentally unfair."

This bill unconstitutionally eliminates the opportunity for those charged with illegal re-entry to challenge the validity of a removal order. As noted above, the removal order is an element of the crime. In our criminal justice system, a person cannot be convicted of a crime unless the prosecution proves every element beyond a reasonable doubt.

If a defendant never has a meaningful opportunity to have a judge review her removal order and, under this bill, she is prohibited from challenging her removal order during the criminal proceedings for illegal re-entry, then she could be convicted of a felony without ever having had the chance to challenge whether the order to remove her—which is an element of the crime!—was legally valid. As the Supreme Court held in United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828 (1987), this would be a violation of the defendant's due process rights.

Under current removal procedures, this circumstance may be rare, but that is irrelevant to the fact that the Constitution secures the defendant's rights when this circumstance does arise.
It passed 257-167.