Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. First, let me be clear: the only law enforcement agencies that risk
losing any Federal grants because of this legislation are those
agencies that, without any outside compulsion, deliberately choose to
violate Federal law by outright prohibiting their law enforcement
officers from voluntarily communicating with ICE and cooperating with
it in the enforcement of Federal law. Second, let me also be clear that this bill does not require State
and local law enforcement agencies to comply with ICE detainers, and it
does not seek to cut off any Federal grants to jurisdictions that
choose not to comply. Finally, it is a long-settled principle of constitutional law. And
let me remind you that all of these law enforcement officers vowed to
defend the Constitution, and the Constitution grants supremacy to
Federal immigration law. When there is a conflict with Federal immigration law, State laws
that are in conflict are invalid, preempted by Federal law under the
10th Amendment. Under the 10th Amendment, State and local law
enforcement agencies have no obligation to comply with unconstitutional
provisions of State or local law that asks them to violate title 8,
United States Code, section 1373. Then, again, getting back to the amazing news that we have, the city
of San Francisco has just agreed to pay $190,000 to an illegal alien
because the San Francisco sheriff complied with an ICE detainer and
turned the alien over to ICE, apparently in violation of San Francisco
policy. That individual, under Federal law, because he was the victim
of a crime, will be eligible to apply for a U visa. Respect for the rule of law is the way to keep communities safe. Respect for the rule of law is the way to make sure that people like
Kate Steinle are not murdered in the city of San Francisco, as we have
heard of other murders all during the debate today, by people who are
unlawfully present in the United States.
Keywords matched
immigration illegal alien visa ICE detain