House to take up bill blocking money for 'sanctuary cities'

OP-ED IN THE HILL NEWSPAPER: 'SANCTUARY CITIES' LEGISLATION MUST TACKLE 'SANCTUARY NATION' POLICIES

https://www.numbersusa.com/sites/def...?itok=wMLnLDpe
UPDATED:

Wed, JUL 22nd 2015 @ 9:32 am EDT by Roy Beck

Two influential publications in the Capital today ran stories on NumbersUSA's arguments that people serious about greatly reducing the number of Americans murdered, raped, maimed and otherwise injured by illegal aliens have to consider the role of the federal government and not just the misbehavior of "sanctuary cities."

See Politico's story on our letter to Members of Congress, and see the full text of the letter here.

In addition, The Hill ran my op-ed today at:http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/248643-sanctuary-cities-legislation-mus.... It began:

It isn't just cities that release criminal foreign citizens with felony convictions into our local communities, often with tragic results like the ones that recently have caught the public and congressional attention.

Yes, Congress must act to defund sanctuary cities until they cooperate with federal enforcement agencies. But Congress must also address the largest sanctuary jurisdiction of all: the federal government.

Federal entities release nearly four times as many criminal aliens as do cities and other local jurisdictions with sanctuary policies.

Thanks to help from my staff, the op-ed is full of citations to government data that provide the rationale for why we have been asking our activists this week to phone this:

Message to House Leadership: I urge you to end all sanctuary policies by insisting that, instead of H.R.3009, Congress pass legislation like the Gowdy bill (H.R.1148) that will end the practice of releasing convicted criminal aliens into our communities by all law enforcement agencies, including DHS.
The Hill op ed noted:

According government data released to the Center for Immigration Studies through a Freedom of Information Act request, 276 sanctuary jurisdictions nationwide refused to comply with ICE detainers and released more than 8,000 criminal-alien offenders over eight months. In less than a year's time, nearly one-out-of-every-four released criminals had been arrested for subsequent offenses.

But ICE itself released 30,000 convicted criminal aliens in 2014 (and another 36,000 in 2013), according to data obtained by the House Judiciary Committee.

The president's executive actions are part of a larger strategy to allow as many illegal aliens as possible to remain in the United States. That policy has added to the 347,000 convicted criminal aliens who are currently released into the interior, 1,400 of whom are known to have committed new crimes. Their victims are collateral damage of federal government's sanctuary policies.

(Read the full op-ed at: http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/248643-sanctuary-cities-legislation-mus....)

Some news media and politicians want to distract the public with questions about whether illegal aliens are more or less likely than Americans to commit violent crimes. (The answers are more complicated than some of the media make it seem.) But those questions are not what are at stake in this particular discussion about Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary Federal Agencies.

What matters is that once an illegal alien has been convicted of a felony, our governments should have a pretty good idea that these are not foreign citizens who should be released into our communities. And that we ought to have border and visa operations that prevent these convicted criminals from so easily moving back into this country if they are among those who ARE deported.

Many of us in NumbersUSA sat through the emotional testimonies in the Senate today of families who have lost loved ones at the hands of criminal foreign citizens allowed by our governments to move freely in American communities. Afterwards we spent time with them near the east steps of the Capitol hearing their frustrations about politicians who say in front of cameras how sorry they are about the losses and that they will work to keep these tragedies from happening to so many other American families. Their promises don't seem very serious when congressional leaders are considering only stopping some local jurisdictions from releasing some criminal aliens into the public but allowing most of the criminal releases to continue, especially those by the federal government.
ROY BECK is Founder & President of NumbersUSA

https://www.numbersusa.com/blog/op-e...ation-policies

NUMBERSUSA OPPOSING SANCTUARY CITY BILL, SUPPORTERS ARGUE IT’S A STEP FORWARD

http://media.breitbart.com/media/201...AP-640x480.jpg

by CAROLINE MAY 22 Jul 2015 23

NumbersUSA says it is opposing the sanctuary city legislation slated for a House vote this week due to the bill’s narrow focus, but supporters argue the legislation is a step in the right direction.

“While we appreciate the intent behind the Hunter sanctuary bill (H.R. 3009), NumbersUSA has no choice but to oppose it,” the limited immigration group said in a statement issued to House members Tuesday, adding the bill does not confront the “largest sanctuary jurisdiction of all: the Federal government.”

The House is expected to vote on
Rep. Duncan Hunter’s (R-CA) sanctuary city bill this week. It would block federal law enforcement grants to cites and jurisdictions that do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities.Joe Kasper, a Hunter spokesman, explained to Breitbart News that the intent of the legislation is accountability, not enforcement, saying the enforcement aspect is an ongoing debate in Congress.

“This bill was introduced simply as an accountability piece,” Kasper said. “It was intended to impose some consequence on sanctuary cities or any state or subdivision that subverts federal law. But this bill is not an enforcement piece. It was never intended to be an enforcement piece. Those conversations are ongoing in the House.”

The vote comes in the wake the murder of Kathryn Steinle at a San Francisco pier, allegedly by a multiple deportee illegal immigrant with a long rap sheet. The illegal immigrant charged with Steinle’s murder had been released from custody due to the city’s sanctuary policy of not honoring immigration detainers.

According to NumbersUSA, the Hunter bill is “weaker” than an amendment from

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) that was adopted on a vote of 227-198 as an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Act in June. The group called the House’s decision to move with the Hunter bill in response to Steinle’s murder “unconscionable” following passage of King’s amendment earlier in the summer.“The bigger problem, however, is that the Hunter bill does not in any way address the largest sanctuary jurisdiction of all: the Federal government,” NumbersUSA continued. “Sanctuary states, cities, and counties release thousands of convicted criminal aliens each year, but the Department of Homeland Security releases tens of thousands of convicted criminal aliens each year.”

King, meanwhile, in an email to Republican colleagues Tuesday, said he would be voting yes on the Hunter bill, as it “moves the ball in the right direction.”

The Iowa lawmaker noted in his email, however, that in a conversation with House Majority Leader
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) he said that “A lot of conservatives would be disappointed because we should be doing more” and pointed to his own June amendment and a broader sanctuary city bill he has that eliminates all federal assistance to sanctuary jurisdictions, makes detainers mandatory, and requires DHS to hold criminal immigrants until deportation, among other things.“Kevin McCarthy expressed commitment to me to bring enforcement immigration legislation to the Floor after August,” King wrote.

“I’ll continue to advocate for what we can do that is constructive. And I will keep my commitment to vote yes if they bring the Hunter Bill to the Floor. ”

Kasper, in response to NumbersUSA’s critique, praised its mission but reiterated that the goal of the bill is accountability, getting members on the record, and having the sanctuary debate.

“To have the conversation about the consequences that would be directed toward sanctuary cities is good one to have. The intent behind the bill is to withhold specific, targeted federal funds that sanctuary cities and states both want and need.

What is wrong with that? Absolutely nothing,” Kasper said, adding that Hunter is in agreement with the enforcement aspect.

NumbersUSA’s Director of Government Relations Rosemary Jenks told Breitbart that the group has not decided if or how they will score the vote.

“We don’t have a problem with the Hunter bill, per se. Our problem is that it is a totally inadequate response to the problem of criminal aliens being released onto our streets,” Jenks added in an email. “Jurisdictions like San Fran, New Orleans, etc., don’t care about [State Criminal Alien Assistance Program] funding, so the Hunter bill isn’t nearly a big enough stick to get them to change their sanctuary policies. The bigger problem, though, is that the bill does absolutely nothing about the biggest sanctuary jurisdiction of all, the federal government.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-step-forward/

I like Roy's title... "Sanctuary Nation" right on target!

W

The ArchBishop in this case is doing exactly what I keep pointing out to conservatives is regulated by federal law. He is interceding--i.e. lobbying--on behalf of 'foreign principals' and that is forbidden by federal law, unless you are a registered lobbyist. Of course, the GOP remains completely oblivious of this requirement, and Democrats who cried long and loud about American Jews doing that on behalf of Israel, hope that no one notices.

We are supposed to put US constituents first, and FYI there are federal laws to that effect. DOn't expect anyone in Congress to wake up to that fact, apparently.o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captainron

The ArchBishop in this case is doing exactly what I keep pointing out to conservatives is regulated by federal law. He is interceding--i.e. lobbying--on behalf of 'foreign principals' and that is forbidden by federal law, unless you are a registered lobbyist. Of course, the GOP remains completely oblivious of this requirement, and Democrats who cried long and loud about American Jews doing that on behalf of Israel, hope that no one notices.

We are supposed to put US constituents first, and FYI there are federal laws to that effect. DOn't expect anyone in Congress to wake up to that fact, apparently.o

---

I do not grasp why Americans whose nation was founded upon the principle of independence accept so much ignoring and breaking of American law by their government that leads only to the destruction of the principle!

There can be only two answers to that. The majority of Americans are purposely ignorant of what happens in their nation. It might be that the founders were of much more courage than Americans today. Neither answer should be acceptable behavior.

7/23/15

http://www.alipac.us/f12/house-passe...ies%92-321509/