Skip to comments.Rep. Justin Amash Only Republican to Vote Against Kate’s Law
Posted on 06/30/2017 5:03:54 PM PDT by Lera
Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI) was the only Republican to vote against Kates Law, a law that would impose harsher penalties on deported aliens who try to return to the United States.
Kates Law passed through the House 257 to 167, 24 Democrats voted for the bill. Congressman Amash was the only Republican to vote against Kates Law.
Kates Law was named after Kate Steinle, a San Francisco woman murdered by an illegal immigrant who remained in the United States despite multiple deportations.
The Michigan lawmaker also voted against H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, a bill that would defund cities that prevent their police from turning over illegal aliens to federal authorities.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
This guy obviously needs to change parties. I hope he gets primaried.
This Arab snake is a huge Open borders/ Never Trumper.
He needs to be removed .
OUT-OF-TOUCH Michigan congressman. RESIGN Amash, you POS.
..and the camel he rode up on.
Bad move Congressman.
I don’t know why I ever thought this guy was a good guy. He’s obviously a domestic enemy and NO patriot.
-—Amash is a Palestinian -—
Not sure how that revalant to the way he voted...
Plus he is NOT a republican
Amash supports decreasing U.S. military spending, and believes there is significant waste in the military spending of the U.S. Department of Defense.
In 2011, Amash was one of six members of Congress who voted "Nay" on House Resolution 268 reaffirming U.S. commitment to a negotiated settlement of the IsraeliPalestinian conflict through direct IsraeliPalestinian negotiation, which passed with 407 members in support.
In 2014, he was one of eight members of Congress who voted "Nay" on a $225 million package to restock Israel's Iron Dome missile defenses, which passed with 398 members in support.
He supports a two-state solution to the PalestinianIsraeli conflict.
Amash joined 104 Democrats and 16 Republicans in voting against the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which specified the budget and expenditures of the Department of Defense, calling it "one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation of our lifetime".
Amash co-sponsored an amendment to the NDAA that would ban indefinite military detention and military trials so that all terror suspects arrested in the United States would be tried in civilian courts. He expressed concern that individuals charged with terrorism could be jailed for prolonged periods of time without ever being formally charged or brought to trial.
On March 14, 2016, Amash joined the unanimous vote in the House to approve a resolution declaring the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) to be committing genocide against religious minorities in the Middle East (passed 3830), but joined Representatives Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) in voting "Nay" on a separate measure creating an international tribunal to try those accused of participating in the alleged atrocities (passed 3923).
In 2017, Amash criticized U.S. involvement in Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen, highlighting that Al Qaeda in Yemen has emerged as a de facto ally of the Saudi-led militaries with whom [Trump] administration aims to partner more closely.
The NDAA can be used by any Administration to potentially incarcerate ANY individual (US citizen or not) for extended periods. This is not a good law.
Selling your freedom for some perceived "safety" will give no Freedom and No safety
Guy makes a compelling argument.
His facebook post reads:[snip]
"I voted no on #HR3003, No Sanctuary for Criminals Act.
This bill increases the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) detention of suspected illegal aliens, defunds sanctuary cities, and limits the ability of state and local governments to direct their law enforcement resources. In doing so, the bill violates at least five constitutional amendments.
The bill violates the Tenth Amendment by prohibiting any state or locality from doing anything which would restrict the ability of their law enforcement officers to “assist” federal immigration enforcement, giving state and local governments legal immunity for providing such assistance, and limiting transfers of aliens to sanctuary cities for criminal prosecution.
I have voted in the past to defund law enforcement grants to sanctuary cities that prohibit information sharing between their law enforcement and federal immigration officials (including #HR3009 in the 114th Congress), but this bill also prohibits any actions or policies that may restrict local law enforcement’s cooperation with, or assistance to, federal immigration enforcement. This goes far beyond just facilitating the exchange of information that local law enforcement may already come across in the course of their own activities; this bill unconstitutionally enables the federal government to coerce states into helping with actual enforcement of immigration laws. Plus, it gives immunity to states for assisting with immigration enforcement, and it affirmatively punishes states for noncompliance.
Congress has no authority to direct state and local officials in this way. Our Constitution establishes a system of dual federalism. In Congress, the laws we make are to be executed by federal officials; we may not commandeer nonfederal officials.
The bill violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable seizures and the Fifth Amendment’s due process requirements by increasing DHS’s use of, and authority for, warrantless arrests and detention of suspected illegal aliens. As their text makes clear, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments apply explicitly to all “people” and “person[s]” within the United States. The Constitution uses the word “citizen” in other provisions whenever that word is intended. This interpretation of the Constitution’s applicability is shared by the U.S. Supreme Court, including among the conservative justices.
The bill violates the Eleventh Amendment—which largely prohibits Congress from unilaterally permitting lawsuits against states—by allowing the victims of crimes committed by an illegal alien to sue a state that declines to fulfill a request from the federal government to detain the alien.
Lastly, the bill violates the First Amendment by likely interfering with the ability of state and local officials and other individuals to make statements regarding immigration enforcement policies and priorities.
I support securing the borders, and I have voted to defund sanctuary cities, but I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, even when it means I must oppose bills aimed at policy goals that I support.
It passed 228-195."
Who can argue against that?
“The Americans” redux...
Correction...he is a goat-.................
Amash's "vision" for a "two-state solution" would likely be 1) "The Islamic Republic of Gaza" and 2) "The Islamic Republic of the West Bank" sitting side-by-side in what USED to be Israel.
The man is my rep - I did NOT vote for him. I will do all I can to make him the former rep of my district.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.