Not enacting this legislation endangers public safety, not the
opposite, as those on the other side have argued. How would you trust local government officials, who have instructed
their law enforcement officers to not cooperate with Federal law
enforcement officers to take dangerous criminals off of our streets,
when this motion to recommit would say: ``Oh, they will have to certify
that such compliance would endanger public safety and then the law
wouldn't apply?''
It is circular reasoning. The nonenforcement of immigration laws has led to the bolstering of
sanctuary jurisdiction policies in communities throughout the United
States. These policies hamper the enforcement of Federal law and do
nothing to truly promote trust between law enforcement and U.S.
citizens. This bill provides a commonsense approach to fixing the damage caused
by sanctuary policies without mandating any affirmative duty. In order
to be in compliance with section 1373 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, as amended in this bill, States and localities have no
affirmative duties to act. They have no obligations to cooperate or
communicate, or even engage with U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement at any level. Instead, they simply may not affirmatively restrict a government
entity, including law enforcement, from cooperating or communicating
with ICE. So I am shocked that so many on the other side of the aisle view
compliance with this provision as a condition for eligibility for
certain grant programs as outlandish.
Keywords matched
immigration Immigration