Democrats slam sanctuary city legislation, labeling it 'The Donald Trump Act'

The Hill ^ | July 22, 2015 | Mike Lillis

[maggief]

House Democratic leaders are slamming GOP legislation aimed at discouraging sanctuary cities, characterizing the proposal as "The Donald Trump Act" in a bid to embarrass the Republicans bringing the measure to the floor this week.

The proposal, which would withhold federal law enforcement funds for state or local governments that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration agents, comes in response to this month's fatal shooting of Kathryn Steinle along the San Francisco waterfront, allegedly by an illegal immigrant with a long criminal history.

The House vote on the Republicans' sanctuary city bill is scheduled for Thursday, and it is expected to pass.

Trump, the billionaire real estate mogul, stirred a hornet's nest of controversy when he launched his GOP presidential bid in June with accusations that most Mexican immigrants are criminals — remarks he's amplified since Steinle's death. The Democrats are citing Trump to highlight their criticisms that the Republicans' bill represents a similar attack on immigrant communities.

"We can do all the politicking we want. We can do the so-called 'Donald Trump Act,' which simply denies the cities and towns their dollars to hire police officers while attacking immigrant communities," Rep. Xavier Becerra (Calif.), head of the House Democratic Caucus, said Wednesday in reference to the GOP's floor agenda. "Or we can actually do things that improve the lives of Americans."

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) piled on, accusing the Republicans of exploiting the Steinle killing to promote a long-held agenda of "making the local police an arm of the federal government."

Lofgren emphasized that Democrats want a thorough review of policies related to illegal immigrant criminals — a review that she and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) requested of the administration on Tuesday. But she also warned that the GOP bill, by blurring the lines between federal and local law enforcers, would erode community trust at the expense of public safety.

"With community policing, you need to make sure that the entire community is free to call the police, to serve as a witness, to be part of fighting crime," said Lofgren, the senior Democrat of the Judiciary Committee's subpanel on immigration and border security. "This bill would obviate that, and if you didn't comply by becoming the immigration police you would lose all of the federal funding that help[s] you enforce the laws."

The issue of sanctuary cities has gained national prominence since the death of 32-year-old Steinle, who was killed on July 1 while walking with her father along San Francisco's popular waterfront.

The suspect, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, was released in April by local law enforcers who, citing San Francisco's sanctuary status, defied a request from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials that he be held while they launched deportation proceedings.

Trump pointed to the tragedy as vindication that his earlier depiction of southern-border immigrants was on the mark.

"This is merely one of thousands of similar incidents throughout the United States," Trump said. "[T]remendous infectious disease is pouring across the border."

The remarks have won him strong praise in certain conservative circles, and recent polls put Trump atop the GOP primary field. But they've also raised concerns among national Republican leaders, who are trying to woo Hispanic voters they see as crucial in a number of battleground states in 2016. Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, has privately urged Trump to tone down the rhetoric.

On Capitol Hill, Steinle's death has prompted a flurry of legislative activity, largely among Republicans aiming to eliminate local sanctuary laws.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced legislation Tuesday that, like the House bill, would tie certain federal grants to the willingness of states, cities or law enforcement agencies to cooperate with federal officials in holding or transferring undocumented criminals.

"There is no good rationale for non-cooperation between the feds and state and local law enforcement," Grassley said Tuesday during his panel's hearing on the issue.

Upping the pressure on Congress, Steinle's father, Jim Steinle, urged the Senate panel to move on legislation "to take these undocumented immigrant felons off our streets for good."

"Due to unjointed laws and basic incompetence of the government, the U.S. has suffered a self-inflicted wound in the murder of our daughter by the hand of a person that should have never been on the streets in this country," he said.

Still, the Republican proposals have found strong critics among local law enforcers, many of whom say they simply don't have the authority to detain illegal immigrants beyond the time allowed by local law, federal detainer or none.

"Local agencies cannot be expected to take on these additional duties," Tom Manger, chief of police in Montgomery County, Md., and president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It is right to call upon us for actions to protect the public from crime and violence, but it is wrong to demand that we engage in matters that relate solely to immigration status."

Rep. Joe Crowley (N.Y.), vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, noted the regional considerations surrounding the sanctuary cities debate. Condemning the Republicans' bill, he argued the importance of unhindered communication in combating problems — including sex trafficking, domestic abuse and gang violence — unique to multicultural urban areas, like his district in Queens.

"In denying funds, federal funds, to cities like New York to hire police officers to engage makes their jobs so much more difficult when they cannot count on the advice and the information coming from the broader community, the general population, including the undocumented communities where there's exploitation of workers … that they need to be able to expose. That would be lost," Crowley warned.

"It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist."

[windsorknot]

Dims are going to regret being on the wrong side of this issue.

[Kickass Conservative]

Do they even realize that they just gave The Donald more Credibility than he could even give Himself?

I Guess the original name of the Bill, “The Democrats who love to have Illegal Invaders Kill Innocent Americans” Bill.

OMG - We’re a long way from the 2016 Election and I don’t recall seeing Fireworks like this ever.

[The Toll]

It’s their endgame. Turn America into California and rule forever. They are all in on the raping and killing Americans to get it done.

[Kickass Conservative]

>>>if patriots don’t like sanctuary cities which are reasonably based on 10th Amendment-protected state power imo<<<

Didn’t you get the Memo? The SCOTUS gutted the Tenth Amendment a few Weeks ago. The White House celebrated the occasion by lighting up the White House like a Rainbow.

[The Antiyuppie]

“Don’t forget Greenwich,New Canaan and Darien,CT...which is where the members of the NY Times Editorial Board all live.”

I believe that these are all gated communities. So, as generous conservatives, I believe that we should chip in for nice easy-to-carry fiberglass ladders for “our new amigos” to use. Just think of the symbolism!

I so want these limousine liberals to suffer for the consequences of their behavior, as they make others do.

[lodi90]

Do they even realize that they just gave The Donald more Credibility than he could even give Himself?

---

I don’t believe Senor Becerra realizes the can of whoop ass he just dumped on himself because he is use to toothless GOPe “opposition”.

Trump will tear him a new one and destroy the Democrat position on the insane policy of non deportation of criminal aliens.

[Oatka]

They complain about the attention being given to him, then they nickname a bill after him. They are so stupid.

Indeed. When I read the headline, I howled so loud the wife thought I was having a stroke.

A few weeks ago I mentioned that Trump would give himself another boost in the polls if he were to come out and say if he were president, he'd push for defunding the so-called Sanctuary Cities. Later, I found out there already was a proposed bill in Congress to do so, and thought that had been upstaged.

Then these frigging idiots come out and hand him another 10% on a silver platter. With enemies like them, who needs friends? Just shows you how out of touch they are with the public.

[MIchaelTArchangel]

Call a piece of legislation “The Donald Trump Act” is not much of a “slam”.

[i_robot73]

So, each State should get to decide the standards of whom becomes a Citizen of these United States, with all Rights and privileges thereof?

That’s exactly what we have happening in these ‘sanctuary cities’: given licenses, work vouchers, welfare, ‘free’ education, SSN, etc....non-citizens trumping the Rights of Citizens.

No, thanks, this is one of the FEW areas best left up to the Fed. govt, as per A4S4. This invasion, and I’d like to know: after what # of MILLION of illegals constitute an (unarmed) invasion?, should be quickly and efficiently repelled.

Unfortunately, SCOTUS nurtured those States wishing to enforce their borders AND Fed law, while also allowing Fedzilla to to be derelict in its enforcement of the same...if not TREASONOUS for aiding and abetting the illegal invaders!

[Amendment10]

So, each State should get to decide the standards of whom becomes a Citizen of these United States, with all Rights and privileges thereof?

The colonies where wrestling with differing citizenship requirements when the country was established. But the Founding States also recognized government power regulate immigration and decide citizenship requirements as two different things, delegating to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power only to decide only citizenship requirements as evidenced by the Constitution’s Clause 4 of Section 8 of Article I.

So only individual states have the unique, 10th Amendment-protected power to decide what to do with immigrants, legal and illegal, until the states should choose to amend the Constitution to grant the feds the power to decide immigration policy.

No, thanks, this is one of the FEW areas best left up to the Fed. govt, as per A4S4.

Note that I’m not the one making decisions on which of the governments, state or federal, should be calling the shots on immigration policy. When the Founding States made the Constitution to deliberatly limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers, they reserved the power to regulate immigration uniquely to the states.

Also, I would like to agree with you that the federal government can do the immigration job better. But we presently have a very corrupt federal government that is infamous for screwing up everything that it gets involved in.

Also consider that although the states uniquely have the 10th Amendment-protected state power to regulate immigration, immigration policy is a mess because low-information state lawmakers don’t understand that the states, not the feds, uniquely have this constitutional authority to regulate immigration. So like dogs fighting over a stick, between the state and federal governments, immigration policy is a mess.

I would like to see the states wake up to their power to regulate immigration and experiment with their own immigration policies. But if they ultimately decide that the federal government can best decide such policy then there is nothing stopping the states from amending the Constitution to grant the feds the specific power to regulate immigration.

[Balding_Eagle]

May I restate that thought for you?

IF, and only IF, someone is going to be mugged, raped, or murdered by an illegal, may it be someone who is in favor of the illegals being here, namely a very powerful, high profile Democrat or family member of same.

[Democratic-Republican]

I have the utmost respect for someone with your screen name since the Ninth and Tenth are the most critical Amendments, but this ...

Note that I’m not the one making decisions on which of the governments, state or federal, should be calling the shots on immigration policy. When the Founding States made the Constitution to deliberatly limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers, they reserved the power to regulate immigration uniquely to the states.

... goes too far I think. Near as I can tell you are adding positive significance ( 'they reserved' ) to the lack of any mention of the word 'immigration' in Article One Section 8. Now I totally agree with strict interpretation, but this exercise is parallel to those that say airwaves != speech and modern weapons != armed and that privacy needs to be spelled out.

I would need to see it specifically argued from Madison/Hamilton/Jay that omitting immigration/borders/civilian invasion to even begin to accept this, and my old brain cannot recall this from the Federalist Papers masterpiece.

Isolating Immigration from Citizenship, and, putting forth the notion that states each regulate their borders is IMHO saying that the 'United States' as a republic has no national border at all. It supports the hypothetical that a foreign Army could be welcomed into a state perhaps by a radical governor or group of states ( like the Hartford Convention of northern Federalists plotting against the Democratic-Republicans ) ... while a standing U.S. Army cannot not exist period. It directly invites the 'Constitution is not a suicide pact' Pandora's Box catch-all solution to everything.

I fully agree with your spirit though! And clearly we need an overhaul with a slate of Amendments to rectify the huge mistake the founders made in over-estimating the integrity and honor of man, and under-estimating their capacity for evil and subversion of plain english words. Well two mistakes really, counting their failure to purge all the tory loyalist traitors and burn NYC to the ground after the revolution. They immediately took root posing as (new) Federalists and expanded federal power which as layer by layer and precedent by precedent has destroyed the Republic.

[Amendment10]

I would need to see it specifically argued from Madison/Hamilton/Jay that omitting immigration/borders/civilian invasion to even begin to accept this, and my old brain cannot recall this from the Federalist Papers masterpiece.

I’m glad that you requested additional information. I had not included the excerpts below from the writings of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in my previous post for brevity.

Note that both Madison and Jefferson wrote in reaction to a federal immigration bill which President Adams had signed into law in 1798 which Madison and Jefferson had evidently regarded as unconstitutional. They referred to unique state power to regulate aliens in these excerpts, Jefferson borrowing language from the 10th Amendment in his clarification.

Here is the relevant excerpt from Jefferson’s writing.

“4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force [emphasis added].” —Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798.

And here is the relevant excerpt from the writings of James Madison in Virginia Resolutions.

"That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, ...

…

… the General Assembly doth solemenly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people [emphasis added]. ”— James Madison, Draft of the Virginia Resolutions - December 1798.

[Democratic-Republican]

IF, and only IF, someone is going to be mugged, raped, or murdered by an illegal, may it be someone who is in favor of the illegals being here, namely a very powerful, high profile Democrat or family member of same.

You know what, I don't even have the faith that this is true. The enemy is so thoroughly evil incarnate that they would probably attempt to censor the illegal alien details, or failing that, would remain unavailable for comment and accept the death as a sacrifice to their God on the altar of liberalism.

We'll probably find out soon enough though since the illegal alien status seems to be being reported more often lately, and there sure are a lot of liberals walking around as potential victims.

There are ready-made reverse 'gotcha' questions that enterprising reporters could use to badger all the candidates and politicians offended by Trump. They should ask:

• "Are you willing to actually hire *illegal* aliens or would you discriminate based on their status?"

• "Would you be willing to let an *illegal* alien babysit your kids, drive their school bus, cook your food or would you refuse?"

• "Do you think victims of crimes by *illegal* aliens should shut up about their status?"

• "Do you think that politicians and officials that facilitated a criminal illegal alien should be charged, convicted and jailed?"

Watch them squirm. Let's hope Trump and his team play this back against them.

[Democratic-Republican]

Thanks for the reply. Since we're concerned specifically with 'original intent' we really should dig into the Federalist Papers ( no time at the moment ) which are fully a decade earlier than this point in time which happens to be when Jefferson and his great protégé Madison were in all-out war with the Federalists. And that is a HUGE understatement.

This context is very important and few people, except freepers, even realize what these two heroes did ( and there are straight-line parallels to today ) to fight an out-of-control unrestrained-by-the-brand-new-Constitution FedGov which had already engaged in Washington's Whiskey Rebellion putdown and Adam's Alien and Sedition Act.

So the context here I believe is that Jefferson/Madison were understandably on the offense, essentially trying to challenge all FedGov power even those few things that they were intended on regulating. The Alien and Sedition Acts included both enumerated powers ( Citizenship ) and the part we are talking about but neglected to enumerate ( Immigration ) not to mention an attack on the First Amendment for good measure ...

The Alien and Sedition Acts were four bills that were passed by the Federalists in the 5th United States Congress and signed into law by President John Adams in 1798, the result of the French Revolution and during an undeclared naval war with France, later known as the Quasi-War. Authored by the Federalists, the laws were purported to strengthen national security, but critics argued that they were primarily an attempt to suppress voters who disagreed with the Federalist party.[1] The Naturalization Act increased the residency requirement for American citizenship from 5 to 14 years. The Alien Friends Act allowed the president to imprison or deport aliens considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States" at any time, while the Alien Enemies Act authorized the president to do the same to any male citizen of a hostile nation, above the age of 14, during times of war. (At the time, the majority of immigrants supported Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans, the political opponents of the Federalists.) Lastly, the controversial Sedition Act restricted speech which was critical of the federal government.

Even though we today appear to be on the opposite sides of Jefferson who was protecting 'immigrants' we are on the same side with respect to FedGov excess. Jefferson had NO CHOICE in my opinion. It is quite rational to fight in this manner. He kicked up a sh!tstorm knowing he wouldn't achieve each and every detail. He was sure to make it painful for the tyrant though, Adams, who never saw it coming.

This was kind of the 2nd American Revolution in a way. It was fought without guns and the war ended on Jefferson's inauguration ( when Adam's famously slipped out of town without any gracious power-handoff public decorum ). How bad was it during this cold-war? Wikipedia ...

the Federalists under John Adams started rebuilding the military, levied new taxes, and enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson believed that these acts were intended to suppress Democratic-Republicans rather than dangerous enemy aliens, although the acts were allowed to expire. Jefferson and Madison rallied opposition support by anonymously writing the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which formed the basis of State's rights, declaring that the federal government had no right to exercise powers not specifically delegated to it by the states.[114] Though the resolutions followed the "interposition" approach of Madison, Jefferson advocated nullification. At one point he drafted a threat for Kentucky to secede.[f] Jefferson's biographer Dumas Malone argued that had his actions become known at the time, Jefferson might have been impeached for treason.[115] In writing the Kentucky Resolutions, Jefferson warned that, "unless arrested at the threshold," the Alien and Sedition Acts would "necessarily drive these states into revolution and blood."[115] The theoretical damage of the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions was "deep and lasting, and was a recipe for disunion". George Washington was so appalled by them that he told Patrick Henry that if "systematically and pertinaciously pursued", they would "dissolve the union or produce coercion."[116] The influence of Jefferson's doctrine of states' rights reverberated to the Civil War and beyond.[117][118] In the spring of 1797, he held four confidential talks with the French consul Joseph Letombe. In these private meetings, Jefferson attacked Adams, predicted that he would only serve one term, and encouraged France to invade England. Jefferson advised Letombe to stall any American envoys sent to Paris by instructing him to "listen to them and then drag out the negotiations at length and mollify them by the urbanity of the proceedings." This toughened the tone that the French government adopted with the new Adams Administration.

( NOTE: Wikipedia authors are clueless and probably believe they are hurting Jefferson with this entry, which mirrors those that feel Trump is hurting himself, the party and the country ).

Notwithstanding the wikipedia spin on "States Rights" and clumsy attempt to paint Jefferson as instigator of the Civil War, this is thoroughly Amazing stuff. Did I mention that Jefferson was Vice-President throughout this time? Forming a new party, attacking his boss in public, giving aid and comfort to France ... Who the hell do we have today willing to risk "treason" to save the Republic? No-0ne! Those that criticize Jefferson for not fighting in the 1st American Revolution don't even realize he fought the 2nd one almost singlehandedly. And note Washington's quote there which mirrors what the establishment of today mutters about the TEA Party and even Trump, painting these insurgents as threatening their corrupt fiefdom.

Note the straight-line parallel to today ... Jefferson rightly viewed Adams ( and to a lesser extent Washington ) as we view DingleBarry - a dangerous tyrant wiping his *ss with the Constitution and destroying the republic. Thankfully in 1800 the people and the republic caught a huge break when Jefferson was elected and the country got 24 years of small-R republicans ( aka Jeffersonians, or newer nomenclature Democratic-Republicans ) which substantially thwarted FedGov. Had that not happened just imagine where we would be today.

Will Trump by accident or design serve the same purpose as Jefferson? Well, Jefferson created the (DR) party which had the White House for 6 straight elections and it dominated Congress for almost 3 decades. Trump could possibly do something similar if he can dismantle the GOPe kicking the door open for all the TEA party Congress members and voters even if it is 4 or 8 years down the road. TEA domination could change the current stupid party from (R)ino to (R)epublican but it would require annihilation of the GOPe which even Reagan could not do so it is a tall order to be sure. So the context here I believe is that Jefferson/Madison were understandably on the offense, essentially trying to challenge all FedGov power even those few things that they were intended on regulating. The

[Democratic-Republican]

( replying to my own post )

I just noticed that a sentence got repeated at the end, but luckily it kinda fits well.

I traced it to my browser collecting a random string from the currently edited post and tacking it at the end when the ‘PREVIEW’ button is pressed, it then has the checkmark ticked in the “I HAVE PREVIEWED...” box so by clicking POST the defective reply gets sent. Correcting the extraneous characters unticks the box, setting up a vicious circle.

One solution is to copy/paste into a separate editor and proofread it there, then select all and delete everything in the comment box, then finally paste the thing back in.

It is not a FreeRepublic forum software issue as far as I can tell, though there may be a safe character limit for an edit box I am not aware of. Instead it looks like the local web browser is choking on it’s bloated cache and history. No big deal though if you pay attention.

[Amendment10]

Thank your for your reference to the Alien Friends Act of 1798 which are referenced in the excerpts that I had provided.

Given that James Madison is generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, Madison very aware of all the discussions that took place at the Constitutional Convention since he famously recorded the discussions in his daily journal, I am satisfied with his statement that the power to regulate immigration is not one of the powers delegated by the states to the feds, expressly through the Constitution.

After all, there’s been nothing stopping the states from amending the Constitution to expressly grant the specific power to regulate immigration to Congress, an action which, based on Madison’s and Jefferson’s writings has never been done, such power therefore uniquely remaining as 10th Amendment-protected state power.

[Democratic-Republican]

Given that James Madison is generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, Madison very aware of all the discussions that took place at the Constitutional Convention since he famously recorded the discussions in his daily journal, I am satisfied with his statement that the power to regulate immigration is not one of the powers delegated by the states to the feds, expressly through the Constitution

No disagreement there my friend ( well, unless something turns up in the Federalist or Madison's notes ).

At this time I feel that the Founders indeed neglected to specifically enumerate "Immigration" as a power, however I wouldn't use the Tenth to let the States regulate immigration ever, and most importantly NOT to go after sanctuary cities legislation. It's not workable for previously stated reasons, and is doomed from the start due to national security. Ironically the FedGov has jeopardized national security by neglecting it themselves. No matter, the legislation eventually winds up in the Supreme Court for sure.

It is yet another area of limbo that will need to be addressed by a slate of Amendments.

You know, I just thought of a way to encourage self-deportation by using the leftwing scumbags own actions back on them. There are lots of real-world examples of federal supremacy over "Immigration" ...

Dear Illegal Aliens: SELF-DEPORT OR ELSE!

Clinton ordered us to take this kid so you know full well we can get you too!
See you soon!

[cradle of freedom]

Trump first brought up Mexico and how they were sending us their worst people which got the ball rolling on the illegal immigration debate. Then the Katie Seidle murder was brought up in the news. If Trump had not brought up Mexico and illegal immigration would the Katie Seidle case have brought up for national attention? Without Trump she would have been another victim unknown to the nation and ignored by the powers that be.

[cradle of freedom]

Trump first brought up Mexico and how they were sending us their worst people which got the ball rolling on the illegal immigration debate. Then the Katie Seidle murder was brought up in the news. If Trump had not brought up Mexico and illegal immigration would the Katie Seidle case have brought up for national attention? Without Trump she would have been another victim unknown to the nation and ignored by the powers that be.