House Passes Bill to Withhold Certain Grants From ‘Sanctuary Cities’

House Passes Bill to Withhold Certain Grants From ‘Sanctuary Cities’

Obama expected to veto legislation if it reaches his desk

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...0723145309.jpgENLARGE
Sabine Durden, left, the mother of Dominic Durden, who was hit and killed by an illegal immigrant in 2012, comforts Liz Sullivan, whose daughter Kathryn Steinle was shot dead on July 1, allegedly by an illegal immigrant. The two were attending a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday. PHOTO: MICHAEL REYNOLDS./EUROPEAN PRESSPHOTO AGENCY


By ISAAC STANLEY-BECKER
July 23, 2015 4:22 p.m. ET 0 COMMENTS

WASHINGTON—The Republican-controlled House Thursday passed legislation that would withhold federal law-enforcement grants from cities that shelter illegal immigrants from federal authorities, part of a campaign to punish what are known as sanctuary cities.

The bill, passed 241-179, is the GOP’s answer to the shooting this month of Kathryn Steinle, 32 years old, on a San Francisco pier, allegedly by an illegal immigrant who had been convicted of seven felonies and previously deported to Mexico.

President Barack Obama would veto the House bill if it reached his desk, the administration said Thursday. It said the bill, by compelling local law enforcement to help investigate citizenship status, would threaten civil rights, sow seeds of distrust between communities and the agents charged with keeping them safe, and thwart the administration’s immigration enforcement priorities. The National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and scores of immigration advocacy groups have lined up against the legislation.

Momentum is building on the other side of the Capitol to advance similar legislation, but Senate leaders said they are still considering the timing. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing Tuesday that featured testimony from Ms. Steinle’s father, a dramatic opening to the committee’s work on a similar bill, which would aim to compel sanctuary cities to heed federal immigration directives.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...0723153046.jpgENLARGE
A large photo of Kathryn Steinle is shown while her father, Jim Steinle, testifies during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington on Tuesday. PHOTO: MARK WILSON/GETTY IMAGES


Spurred by the violence in San Francisco, the House measure—carried by a solid Republican majority—successfully bridged a deepening GOP divide over how to handle the surge of people from Mexico and Central America seeking entry to the U.S. in the last several decades. Republicans in both chambers say the measure is a necessary response to local ordinances that instruct public employees not to cooperate with federal immigration officials, while Democrats say it is an attack on immigrants, the preponderance of whom faithfully abide by the country’s laws.

Under San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy, the man charged in Ms. Steinle’s death was released by local law enforcement despite a request by Immigration and Customs Enforcement that he be held so it could take him into custody and deport him, the agency has said. Roughly 200 municipalities have ordinances that direct local officials not to help federal authorities with certain immigration investigations and arrests.

Rep. Mike Coffman, (R., Colo.) whose district is almost 20% Hispanic, favored the measure, saying “it cannot be seen as anti-immigrant, as anti-Hispanic. It has to be seen simply as pro-law enforcement.”

The delicate balance embraced by Mr. Coffman reflects the precarious position in which Republicans—both on Capitol Hill and on the presidential campaign trail—have found themselves on immigration policy. The House’s Thursday vote coincided with a trip to the border by Republican presidential candidate and real estate mogul Donald Trump, who has roiled the party with derogatorycomments about immigrants. The timing wasn’t lost on Democrats.

“The Donald Trump wing of the Republican party is clearly ascendant today,” Rep Lloyd Doggett (D., Texas) said Thursday on the House floor.

Several Republican rivals, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, have sought to distance themselves from Mr. Trump’s views.

In Congress, these disagreements have halted comprehensive immigration overhaul, despite pockets of Republican support. In 2013, 14 Republicans joined Democrats in the Senate in advancing a comprehensive bill, which was swiftly spurned by Republican leadership in the House.

For House Republicans who would prefer a full overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws, the effort to penalize sanctuary cities is evidence their party is wedded to a misguided approach.

“This is a messaging piece of legislation aimed at addressing a very sad, horrible tragedy in San Francisco,” said Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R., Fla.), a leading Republican dissident on immigration, on Wednesday. “But this isn’t going to solve the problem. This isn’t going to secure the border. It’s not going to reform our visa system. And it isn’t going to help us identify those who are living in our country illegally.”

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R., Calif.), who sponsored the House bill, said the proposal doesn’t purport to address broader problems with the way people enter the country—a solution to which he said is politically unfeasible.

House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) told reporters Thursday the House’s bill would put states and cities “on notice that we will no longer allow them to decide how and when to ignore our nation’s laws.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/house-pa...ies-1437682955

http://www.alipac.us/f12/house-take-...cities-321425/

July 23, 2015, 04:21 pm

House votes to punish sanctuary cities

By Cristina Marcos

http://thehill.com/sites/default/fil...?itok=LxMfW9iw


House Republicans passed legislation on Thursday that would deny federal funds to sanctuary cities.

The bill, passed 241-179, would withhold certain federal law enforcement grants to cities that have policies designed to shelter illegal immigrants from deportation.

Sanctuary cities have come under heavy scrutiny in the wake of Kathryn Steinle’s death on July 1 in San Francisco.

Authorities charged Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez with her killing. Lopez-Sanchez, who is in the U.S. illegally, has a history of felony convictions and has been deported five times.

Critics of the sanctuary laws say such policies encourage people to immigrate to the U.S. illegally at the expense of citizens.“A refuge for whom? A sanctuary for whom?” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said. “A sanctuary for Kate Steinle? Or a refuge for a convicted felon with a 25-year-long criminal history?”

Democrats accused House Republicans of bringing up the bill in part because of real estate mogul and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s focus on illegal immigration and sanctuary cities; they dubbed the bill the “Donald Trump Act.”

“Just a few weeks into his campaign and Donald Trump has a bill on the floor of the House. That is better than some of the senators he’s running against.” Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) said mockingly.

Republicans denied that Trump had any influence on their decision to bring up the legislation.

“This is a valid concern that we’re voting on today,” said Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.), who has often broken with his party on immigration in the past and said he finds Trump’s comments offensive. “I’m not going to let Donald Trump dictate my vote.”

Five Republicans joined all but six Democrats in opposing the measure.
The five Republicans who voted against the bill were Reps. Carlos Curbelo (Fla.), Bob Dold (Ill.), Dan Donovan (N.Y.), Pete King (N.Y.) and Dave Reichert (Wash.).

Six Democrats voted for the bill, in a break from previous immigration votes in which the party voted unanimously. The Democrats voting yes were centrist Reps. Ami Bera (Calif.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Bill Keating (Mass.), Collin Peterson (Minn.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.).

The sanctuary city debate centers on laws that are aimed at encouraging illegal immigrants to report crimes to the police without fear of deportation.

Before Steinle’s death, the Federal Bureau of Prisons transferred Lopez-Sanchez to the San Francisco Police Department for an outstanding arrest warrant on drug charges.

But San Francisco authorities dropped the charges and released Lopez-Sanchez weeks later, despite a request from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to receive notification of a release given that Lopez-Sanchez was prioritized for deportation.

Democrats have argued that Lopez-Sanchez should have been deported even under the sanctuary statutes in San Francisco.

A coalition of 21 big-city mayors criticized the House bill and warned that cutting off federal law enforcement grants would weaken public safety efforts.

“Overbroad immigration enforcement undermines safety for all,” they wrote in a Thursday letter to lawmakers.

“When immigrant residents can report crime without fear of deportation, immigrants are more willing to engage with local police and government institutions, our streets and neighborhoods are safer, and those who commit crime are more likely to be brought to justice.”

The White House has threatened to veto the legislation, saying the proposal “undermines current administration efforts to remove the most dangerous convicted criminals” and doesn’t enact comprehensive immigration reform.

Meanwhile, NumbersUSA, which advocates for reduced immigration levels, urged lawmakers to oppose the House bill because the group didn’t think it went far enough.

More immigration enforcement legislation could hit the House floor in the coming months.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said he’s received a “commitment” from Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to take additional action to ensure compliance with immigration laws.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), one of the most ardent immigration hardliners in the House, said he received a similar assurance from McCarthy this week about future legislation.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...nctuary-cities

Obama to veto bill stripping 'sanctuary cities' of federal funds

By NICOLE DURAN

7/23/15 9:59 AM

The Obama administration on Thursday threatened to veto a House bill that would strip federal law enforcement grants from "sanctuary cities."

The bill would deny cities that refuse to enforce federal immigration laws certain Justice Department grants, and is expected to get a House vote on Thursday. The bill is a response to the shooting death of Kate Steinle by an illegal immigrant who had been deported several times.

An illegal immigrant, Francisco Sanchez, was a convicted felon but was released from custody by law enforcement in San Francisco in April, despite a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement order to hold him so he could again be deported.

He has been charged with killing the 32-year-old Steinle.

But a White House statement indicated that the Obama administration doesn't see that event as a reason to pressure sanctuary cities to enforce federal laws.

"This bill fails to offer comprehensive reforms needed to fix the nation's broken immigration laws, undermines current administration efforts to remove the most dangerous convicted criminals and to work collaboratively with state and local law enforcement agencies, and threatens the civil rights of all Americans by authorizing state and local officials to collect information regarding any private citizen's immigration status, at any time, for any reason, and without justification," the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement of administration policy issued Thursday morning.

"If the President were presented with H.R. 3009, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto this bill," the statement said.

The veto threat was released just moments before Steinle's father was set to testify in a House subcommittee on the threat that sanctuary cities pose to public safety.

It also came just one day after White House spokesman Josh Earnest said that the administration didn't take such legislation "particularly seriously."

Obama has used his executive authority to band-aid the nation's broken immigration system because of Republican inaction on comprehensive, federal legislation, Earnest said on Wednesday.

Democratic legislation that the Senate passed but the House never took up "included an historic investment in border security," Earnest said.
"It also would have ramped up interior enforcement of immigration laws against dangerous individuals; it would have enhanced penalties for repeat immigration violators with sentences of up to 20 years for certain aliens who were convicted of felonies prior to their previous removal or departure," he said. "It would have increased penalties for passport and immigration document trafficking and fraud. And it would have made it easier to remove and deport individuals convicted of gang-related crimes, or who have been repeatedly convicted of drunk-driving violations."

But GOP refusal to pass that bill and instead take up measures such as the defunding one is "why we don't take those legislative proposals particularly seriously," Earnest said.

The White House said it would prefer that Congress pass the Senate's immigration reform bill from the last Congress, and said public safety is already being handled by the Obama administration's new immigration enforcement priorities.

Those priorities, however, have been blasted by Republicans as weakening public safety.

"The administration continues to believe that it is critical to fix the nation's broken immigration system through comprehensive commonsense legislation that builds on existing efforts to strengthen border security, cracks down on employers hiring undocumented workers, streamlines legal immigration, and offers an earned path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants to get right with the law if they pass background checks, contribute to the nation's economy by paying taxes, and go to the back of the line," the White House said.

The White House said its deportation priority list works when state and municipal authorities comply.

"The administration has put in place new enforcement priorities that … [focus] limited resources on the worst offenders – national security threats, convicted criminals, gang members, and recent border crossers," the statement said.

"The effectiveness of these new priorities depends on collaboration between federal, state and local law enforcement."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ob...rticle/2568814

Isn't this the bill HR 3009 that NumbersUSA says isn't the right bill to pass?