LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, there is no debating that our immigration
system is in need of reform. The system doesn't meet the needs of our
Nation, its businesses, or its families. There are sensible steps we
can take to ensure that it works better and that the rules are
followed. But rather than work in a bipartisan and top-to-bottom fashion to fix
our broken laws, today we consider a one-sided and enforcement-only
approach that is rejected by the majority of Americans. This bill would drastically expand and, indeed, compel local
involvement with Federal immigration enforcement. Even though the
majority often professes its fondness for states' rights and local
governance, the bill actually prohibits States and cities from policing
themselves as they think best, including by having community trust
policies that disentangle local policing from Federal immigration
enforcement. These are policies that have proven to engender trust in
law enforcement and drive down crime. The bill prohibits jurisdictions from declining immigration detainer
requests, even when compliance would violate binding court orders. In
fact, a lot of Federal district courts have found that, when it is time
to release an inmate because their sentence has been served, it
violates the Fourth Amendment to hold that individual upon a mere
request by the Federal Government. If you want that person, the answer
is simple: Get a warrant.
Keywords matched
immigration