I include in the Record a letter to every Member of Congress from The
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights in opposition to this
bill; a letter to all of us from the ACLU in opposition to this bill; a
letter to every Member of Congress from the National Task Force to End
Sexual & Domestic Violence that is in opposition to this bill; as well
as a letter to Members of Congress from the United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops and Catholic Charities USA in opposition to this bill;
and a letter from NETWORK, which is a lobby for Catholic social justice
in opposition to this bill. The Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights,
Washington, DC, June 27, 2017. Oppose the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's
Law'' (H.R. 3004)
Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200
national advocacy organizations, I urge you to oppose H.R.
3003, the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' and H.R. 3004,
``Kate's Law.'' These two bills may sound ``tough,'' but they
would ultimately make the problems with our national
immigration system even worse than they already are. H.R. 3003 would unnecessarily and unwisely penalize states
and municipalities that are attempting to strike the delicate
balance between cooperating with federal immigration
authorities, on one hand, and respecting the constraints
imposed on them by the U.S. Constitution, on the other. At
the same time, it would do nothing to address the
constitutional concerns raised by the use of immigration
``detainer'' requests, concerns that the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) itself has recognized in the past. Among its provisions, H.R. 3003 would eliminate various
federal law enforcement grants to states and municipalities,
such as the ``Cops on the Beat'' program, unless
jurisdictions comply with all DHS detainer requests. It aims
to overturn local policies adopted by over 300 jurisdictions
across the country that have determined, as a matter of
constitutional law and sound public policy, including
community policing efforts, that they cannot hold individuals
beyond their release dates solely on the basis of a DHS
detainer request. The senseless and tragic 2015 killing of Kathryn Steinle in
San Francisco has renewed the debate over so-called
``sanctuary cities.'' Yet the term suggests, incorrectly,
that certain states and municipalities are refusing to work
with federal immigration enforcement authorities. The truth
is that state and local law enforcement agencies (``LEAs'')
throughout the country already aid in the identification of
individuals who are subject to immigration enforcement action
through the sharing of fingerprints of those who are taken
into custody. LEAs with limited detainer policies have
determined, however, that they cannot continue to detain
individuals for immigration enforcement purposes, under the
Fourth Amendment and pursuant to numerous court rulings,
unless DHS obtains a judicial warrant, as all other law
enforcement agencies are required to do. H.R. 3003 would not address the Fourth Amendment concerns
raised by the use of DHS detainers. Instead, it would leave
many state and municipal governments in an untenable
position: either they must disregard their constitutional
responsibilities and erode the trust they have built between
the police and the communities they serve, or they will face
the loss of vital federal law enforcement funding that helps
them fight crime in their jurisdictions. Congress should not
force such an arbitrary and unwise choice on cities. H.R. 3004, the other immigration-related bill expected to
come to the House floor this week, would significantly
increase sentences for previously-removed individuals who
reenter the country. While the bill is an improvement over
other bills by the same name, in that it does not include
mandatory minimum sentencing provisions, it would still lead
to a likely increase in the federal prison population without
any tangible benefits. The Department of Justice's
``Operation Streamline'' program, upon which this bill would
build, has already shown that increased criminal prosecutions
do little but waste resources while failing to deter
unauthorized border crossings. It should be ended, not
expanded. For these reasons, I urge you to vote against H.R. 3003 and
Keywords matched
immigration sanctuary cities border crossing