Friday, June 30, 2017

Why Dianne Feinstein Refused to Vote Against Sanctuary Cities

In May, I received an e-letter from Dianne Feinstein explaining why she did not vote to defund or outlaw sanctuary cities in the United States. I believe that she issued me this response following my attendance at her town hall in West Adams.



Dear Mr. Schaper:

Thank you for writing to share your concerns about policies regarding “sanctuary cities.”  I appreciate the time you took to write, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

I understand that you are concerned about so-called “sanctuary cities,” in which local governments deny requests from federal authorities to detain undocumented immigrants or notify about the pending release of an undocumented immigrant.  I recognize that you support penalizing these jurisdictions for not complying with immigration detainer and notification requests, and impose greater Federal criminal penalties on individuals who unlawfully reenter the country.

"Undocumented immigrants"? Oh brother, this is what we are dealing with.

Unbelievable.

Shame on Feinstein! She refused to join
Senator Toomey to honor Kate Steinle


As you may know, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) introduced legislation last Congress regarding sanctuary cities.  Senator Cruz’s bill, the “Stop Illegal Reentry Act” (S. 2193), also known as “Kate’s Law,” would have increased sentences for immigrants who reenter the U.S. unlawfully.  Senator Toomey’s bill, the “Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act” (S. 3100) would have denied federal funding to any jurisdictions that did not comply with detention or notification requests from federal authorities. 

Guess what, DiFi? The House passed similar legislation--with the same names!--yesterday. How about that?! You better get busy and vote for these bills, or you are facing an early retirement.

To her limited credit, she has signaled her opposition to SB 54. Thank goodness, but let's see how long this lasts, especially if a more left-wing Democrat makes it into the Top Two against her.

I firmly believe that local governments should notify federal authorities upon request before releasing dangerous individuals into our communities.  In addition, I agree that local governments should be required to comply with these requests for such notice where they are unwilling to comply.

OK.

However, I voted against bills authored by Senator Cruz and Senator Toomey because I believe these bills would have swept up otherwise law-abiding immigrants and diverted important resources away from law enforcement agencies where it is most needed.  For instance, S. 3100 would have withheld numerous federal grants from local communities, including those that fund disaster relief efforts, economic adjustment assistance to those affected by military base closures, and public infrastructure projects.  In fiscal year 2015, California received $376.5 million in federal funding from grants targeted by Senator Toomey’s bill.  So, under this bill, California communities would have been at risk of losing important national security and safety funding.

"Otherwise law-abiding" except for the fact that they are in the country illegally, which make them not law-abiding, and therefore (wait for it) ... criminals. Therefore, they need to be deported, too.

Immigration is about safety and also sovereignty. We the People are entitled to secure borders and a clear cultural and moral identity separate from other nations.

Additionally, Senator Cruz’s bill created two new mandatory minimum sentences, which the U.S. Sentencing Commission estimated would have added 57,000 people to the prison population over five years, costing as many as billions of dollars to U.S. taxpayers.

Oh brother. Feinstein and her Democratic ilk doubled the national debt in eight years. Do we really care about another billion here or there? If she wants to engage in cost savings, why not ensure entitlement reforms and the closure of unnecessary programs.

Locking up violent offenders, especially illegal aliens, is worth the cost.

You may be interested to know that I had been working with local jurisdictions to strengthen participation in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Priority Enforcement Program (PEP), which facilitated collaboration between local and federal law enforcement to take custody of those individuals who pose a danger to public safety.  Unfortunately, President Trump terminated this program through his executive order titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.”  This executive order also directs the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to withhold all federal funding to any “sanctuary” jurisdictions that fail to comply with federal immigration laws.

Yes! Any jurisdiction which refuses to comply with and abide by federal law should lose its funding. This is an example of Democratic blaming the law-abiding President and his widespread supporters for the problems created by illberal, lawless municipalities.

Please know that protecting the safety of Americans is my top priority as a United States Senator, and I have strongly supported, and will continue to support, securing our border and preventing dangerous individuals from entering the United States.  During the 113th Congress, I voted in favor of the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform bill, the "Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act" (S. 744), which passed the Senate by a strong bipartisan vote of 68 to 32 on June 27, 2013.  Among other things, this bill would have provided an unprecedented $46 billion for border security, required the deployment of 38,405 new trained, full-time, Border Patrol agents, and mandated the completion of at least 700 miles of pedestrian fencing along our Southern border.  Unfortunately, S. 744 was not considered by the House of Representatives before the 113th Congress adjourned.



If DiFi really cared about securing our border, then why hasn't she appropriated the funding for the wall? Her vote for the Obamacare of Immigration Reform bills was a total dude, since it would allow for amnesty first before the securing of our borders.

No way.

She should help appropriate the $46 billion first--and only that.

Once again, thank you for writing. Should you have any other questions or comments, please call my Washington office at (202) 224-3841 or visit my website at https://feinstein.senate.gov. 

You can also follow me online at YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, and you can sign up for my email newsletter at https://feinstein.senate.gov/newsletter.

Best regards.



Sincerely yours,


  Dianne Feinstein

         United States Senator

No comments:

Post a Comment