House Passes "Kate's Law" & Bill Targeting Sanctuary Cities

[Swordsmyth]

Split largely along party lines, The House passed legislation on Thursday to crack down on illegal immigration and enact a key priority of President Trump’s known as "Kate's Law."
As The Hill reports, the House approved two bill -

• one would cut off some federal grants from so-called sanctuary cities that limit cooperation with immigration authorities;
• the other would impose tougher sentences on criminals who have entered the U.S. illegally multiple times.

“For years, the lack of immigration enforcement and spread of sanctuary policies have cost too many lives,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the author of both bills.
Kate's Law is named for Kate Steinle, a San Francisco woman killed by an illegal immigrant who was in the U.S. despite multiple deportations.The brutal murder of Steinle catapulted the issue of illegal criminal aliens into the national spotlight. Alleged shooter Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez had been deported five times and had seven felony convictions. The two-year anniversary of her death is on Saturday.

The second measure, "No Sanctuary for Criminals Act," would cut federal grants to states and “sanctuary cities” that refuse to cooperate with law enforcement carrying out immigration enforcement activities.

More at: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...nctuary-cities

[KEEF]

So anyone got easy bullet points on why Amash voted no on this? His tweet only says because it violates 1st, 4th, 5th, 10th, and 11th Amendments.

Honestly curious how it does.

[Swordsmyth]

So anyone got easy bullet points on why Amash voted no on this? His tweet only says because it violates 1st, 4th, 5th, 10th, and 11th Amendments.

Honestly curious how it does.

Amash has a nearly perfect voting record, but he votes wrong on some weird things that don't seem to have a pattern.

[CPUd]

So anyone got easy bullet points on why Amash voted no on this? His tweet only says because it violates 1st, 4th, 5th, 10th, and 11th Amendments.

Honestly curious how it does.

For Kate's Law, it could be an issue of state vs federal jurisdiction. This bill says if someone is early released from prison and deported, if they come back illegally they would have to do the remainder of their sentence. So if they were locked up on state charges and the state somehow deems them OK for release, this is the federal govt interfering with state's disposition. If the state made the same law, then that would be OK, and also would really be no need for it to be in the federal law.

[Krugminator2]

This is one of those non-issues that people are going to drool uncontrollably over when Rand votes for this. It would hurt his standing with El Presidente Trump if he votes against this and that would be catastrophic while he has such a big microphone on health care. The fact of the matter is laws the House voted on can be argued endlessly from a libertarian perspective.

This is one of those issues I already know CATO and Reason will think is a big deal, but it really isn't. This law does not matter at all. It is a distraction issue. Getting health care costs lower, tax reform, budget cuts, and continued deregulation are everything.

[KEEF]

For Kate's Law, it could be an issue of state vs federal jurisdiction. This bill says if someone is early released from prison and deported, if they come back illegally they would have to do the remainder of their sentence. So if they were locked up on state charges and the state somehow deems them OK for release, this is the federal govt interfering with state's disposition. If the state made the same law, then that would be OK, and also would really be no need for it to be in the federal law.

Thanks. Don't really have time right now to look up the bill and read it.

[CPUd]

Kate's Law: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/h...15hr3004ih.pdf

No Sanctuary for Criminals Act: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/h...15hr3003ih.pdf

[AuH20]

So anyone got easy bullet points on why Amash voted no on this? His tweet only says because it violates 1st, 4th, 5th, 10th, and 11th Amendments.

Honestly curious how it does.

Sounds like a copout which Amash has been remarkably proficient at lately. Massie would not be voting for a bill allegedly that egregious to the U.S. Constitution.

[CPUd]

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.

https://www.facebook.com/justinamash...63514783687923

[CPUd]

At least his facebook comments are 50/50, but could use some work if you don't mind getting mobbed by the MAGA squad for the next few months:

[CPUd]

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.

https://www.facebook.com/justinamash...64695266903208

[Danke]

Illegal Alien Allegedly Tazes, Scalds, Rapes Mom in Front OF CHILDREN

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/...ront-children/

[Origanalist]

At least his facebook comments are 50/50, but could use some work if you don't mind getting mobbed by the MAGA squad for the next few months:

He's getting lynch mobbed by the MAGA crowd. I don't facebook, but on tweeter it's brutal.

[RonPaulMall]

This is one of those non-issues that people are going to drool uncontrollably over when Rand votes for this. It would hurt his standing with El Presidente Trump if he votes against this and that would be catastrophic while he has such a big microphone on health care. The fact of the matter is laws the House voted on can be argued endlessly from a libertarian perspective.

This is one of those issues I already know CATO and Reason will think is a big deal, but it really isn't. This law does not matter at all. It is a distraction issue. Getting health care costs lower, tax reform, budget cuts, and continued deregulation are everything.

Politically it is a big deal, which is why it would be stupid to vote against it. Rand would be alienating the GOP base just at a time when he is wielding enormous influence on an important issue. Even purple state Dems are probably going to have to vote for this thing, otherwise they will get hammered with ads about all the rapes and murders committed by illegals (like the attack yesterday where a mother was raped in front of her own children by a gang of illegals) that will seriously damage their re-election hopes.