Thread: TX: Anti-Illegal Immigration Bill Passes Committee

the vote was 9 yes, 4 no

HB 12: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... &Bill=HB12


Comprehensive Anti-Immigration Measure Voted Out of House Committee


AUSTIN, Texas – Earlier today the House State Affairs Committee voted out a comprehensive anti-immigration measure that would, among other things, force the abolishment of sanctuary cities, ask agencies to collect and report information on services provided based on citizenship, permit local law enforcement officials to verify citizenship status for certain purposes, and establish English as the official language of Texas.

And as quickly as the vote was taken, Texas State Representative Roberto R. Alonzo wasted no time in expressing his dissatisfaction at the vote, taken primarily along partisan lines.

“The vote on HB 12 today shows clearly the Arizona-style tactics some of our lawmakers are promising to use to turn Texas into another Arizona. Not only is the measure outright Draconian, ridiculous and outrageous, it simply sends the wrong message to all Texans specifically and Americans and businesses at large from all corners of the country that we are a very insensitive state to live in, raise and educate our children and grandchildren , and do business in,â€

This sounds good on the surface, but it has the word COMPREHENSIVE in it which often means Amnesty.

We need volunteers to ...

1. Immediately read this whole bill to make sure there are no hidden amnesties in the bill.

2. Be on guard for them to pass an Amnesty with this bill just like LDS, the Utah Chamber of Commerce, and others did in Utah this week.

W

82R7015 PAM-D


By: Solomons H.B. No. 12


A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the enforcement of state and federal laws governing immigration by certain governmental entities.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 370, Local Government Code, is amended by adding Section 370.0031 to read as follows:
Sec. 370.0031. LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICY REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF STATE AND FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS. (a) This section applies to:
(1) the governing body of a municipality, county, or special district or authority;
(2) an officer, employee, or other body that is part of a municipality, county, or special district or authority, including a sheriff, municipal police department, municipal attorney, or county attorney; or
(3) a district attorney or criminal district attorney.
(b) An entity described by Subsection (a) may not adopt a rule, order, ordinance, or policy under which the entity prohibits the enforcement of the laws of this state or federal law relating to immigrants or immigration, including the federal Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. Section 1101 et seq.).
(c) In compliance with Subsection (b), an entity described by Subsection (a) may not prohibit a person employed by or otherwise under the direction or control of the entity from doing any of the following:
(1) inquiring into the immigration status of a person lawfully detained or arrested;
(2) with respect to information relating to the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any person lawfully detained or arrested:
(A) sending the information to or requesting or receiving the information from United States Citizenship and Immigration Services or United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including information regarding an individual's place of birth;
(B) maintaining the information; or
(C) exchanging the information with another federal, state, or local governmental entity;
(3) assisting or cooperating with a federal immigration officer as reasonable and necessary, including providing enforcement assistance; or
(4) permitting a federal immigration officer to enter and conduct enforcement activities at a municipal or county jail to enforce federal immigration laws.
(d) An entity described by Subsection (a) may not receive state grant funds if the entity adopts a rule, order, ordinance, or policy under which the entity prohibits the enforcement of the laws of this state or federal laws relating to Subsection (b) or, by consistent actions, prohibits the enforcement of the laws of this state or federal laws relating to Subsection (b). State grant funds for the entity shall be denied for the fiscal year following the year in which the rule, order, ordinance, or policy is adopted or the determination is made that the entity has intentionally prohibited the enforcement of the laws of this state or federal laws relating to Subsection (b). The governor's office may issue guidelines to implement this subsection uniformly among the state agencies from which state grant funds are distributed to an entity.
(e) The attorney general may file a petition for a writ of mandamus or apply for other appropriate equitable relief in a district court of a county in which the principal office of an entity described by Subsection (a) is located to compel the entity that adopts a rule, order, ordinance, or policy under which the local entity prohibits the enforcement of the laws of this state or federal laws relating to Subsection (b) or that, by consistent actions, prohibits the enforcement of the laws of this state or federal laws relating to Subsection (b) to comply with Subsection (b). The attorney general may recover reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining relief under this subsection, including court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, investigative costs, witness fees, and deposition costs.
SECTION 2. The heading to Chapter 370, Local Government Code, is amended to read as follows:
CHAPTER 370. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS RELATING TO [MUNICIPAL
AND COUNTY] HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY APPLYING TO MORE THAN ONE
TYPE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
SECTION 3. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2011.

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

This sounds good on the surface, but it has the word COMPREHENSIVE in it which often means Amnesty. <snip>
W

I just reviewed the bill language, as posted to the Alipac website, and I do not see the word "comprehensive" in it. The bill was good but the Senate never passed it - "Thank you, RINO Lt Gov David Dewhurst!!"

The bill should be introduced in the next session of the legislature, as it was passed to the Senate later in the session.

So, Alipac Administrator, please access the Alipac registration database and call me or e-mail me when you see this and let us sort out this difference of opinion on this bill's language - be ready (united) for next session.

Originally Posted by jamesw62

the vote was 9 yes, 4 no

HB 12: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... &Bill=HB12


Comprehensive Anti-Immigration Measure Voted Out of House Committee


AUSTIN, Texas – Earlier today the House State Affairs Committee voted out a comprehensive anti-immigration measure that would, among other things, force the abolishment of sanctuary cities, ask agencies to collect and report information on services provided based on citizenship, permit local law enforcement officials to verify citizenship status for certain purposes, and establish English as the official language of Texas.

And as quickly as the vote was taken, Texas State Representative Roberto R. Alonzo wasted no time in expressing his dissatisfaction at the vote, taken primarily along partisan lines.

“The vote on HB 12 today shows clearly the Arizona-style tactics some of our lawmakers are promising to use to turn Texas into another Arizona. Not only is the measure outright Draconian, ridiculous and outrageous, it simply sends the wrong message to all Texans specifically and Americans and businesses at large from all corners of the country that we are a very insensitive state to live in, raise and educate our children and grandchildren , and do business in,â€

The quoted "news" article was typical inaccurate "news" - HB-12 only dealt with taking "sanctuary cities" to court by the State Atty Gen. It had NO language about the other things in the "news" article.

Sounds like the reporter used that false report to stir up Democrat Rep Alonzo - his statement is basically unrelated to the limited extent of HB12 - if he were investigated under oath by a Grand Jury and made those same statements, he could be indicted for perjury - he lied. This is what the Democrat minority does in the Legislature during committee and floor deliberations - they lie about the purpose, impact, and scope of decent, well written bills. There needs to be a new House Rule to prohibit and punish their lies.