Kate’s Law and No Sanctuary for Criminals Act should have been no-brainer votes. We the People sent Trump to Washington along with strong GOP majorities in Congress to ensure the full faith and credit of our immigration laws across the country.
In fact, US Senators Ted Cruz and Pat Toomey had submitted similar legislation last year. I know, because one of my US Senators, Dianne Feinstein, voted against them, then tried to rationalize her votes in a letter to me two months ago.
To this day, it is shameful and disgraceful that my own US Senators have done nothing to commiserate or commemorate the loss of their own constituents Kate Steinle. Why must I still depend on US Senators from other states to represent my interests—and the best interests of this country!
For Kate’s Law, 20 some Democrats crossed over to vote for it, even in liberal loony California, including Zoe “Transgender” Lofgren and
But this one Republican voted against HR 3003 and HR 3004: Justin Amash of Michigan.
I have listened to Republican activists, donors, and operatives, and their consensus is unanimous
They hate Justin Amash.
I think of that mantra from the 2008 pervert-flick "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" starring Jason Segal and Kristen Bell (who have all but disappeared from the Hollywood scene, just like Hollywood itself). At the time, the advertising for the movie had a picture of Jason Segal with a sign reading "You suck, Sarah Marshall."
So I have to add: "You suck, Justin Amash."
For a long time, I had no problems with this guy. I kind of like the notion of Congressional representatives casting votes and then tweeting to the public why they voted the way they did. Perhaps we should require this action. It’s not as though they work that hard when voting on laws.
(FYI, No August Recess, Congress! Repeal Obamacare!)
Amash is a vocal libertarian, an outspoken member of the Freedom Caucus. He is a clear-cut Christian conservative who is not afraid to scale back the role of the state in its entirety in our lives.
But … his rationale for voting against these two common-sense, necessary immigration reform bills (when reform means what it should, ensuring the enforcement of our laws) does not make any sense. Why is he claiming that the enforcement of our federal immigration laws in states and local governments is unconstitutional?
He needs to go back to Article 1 Section 8, where he will find a clear outline for the federal government's enumerated powers, which include national security and established sovereignty. For a man who champions his incessant defense of the United States Constitution, his argument against doubling penalties for illegal aliens who have re-entered the United States is remarkably unfounded, as is the determination to defend cities out of compliance with our federal immigration laws:
I voted no today on two bills that together violate the 1st, 4th, 5th, 10th, and 11th Amendments. I will always defend our Constitution.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) June 29, 2017
How does requiring cities to abide by federal immigration laws violate the First Amendment? Huh? Fourth Amendment? Immigration enforcement is not a violation of searches and seizures. These rights belong to citizens, We the People of the United States, not to everyone in the world especially those who break into this country.
As for the 10th Amendment ... yes, I do believe that there are a plethora of rights and privileges which are not enumerated in the United States Constitution. Those rights must be defended by the states and retained by the individual citizens of this country.
Violation or disregard of our nation's federal immigration laws is not one of those rights. The feds have every right--and every necessity--to ensure the full and unimpeded enforcement of our laws, the security of our borders, and the protection of our national sovereignty.
I believe in defending our Constitution, too, Justin. Unlike you, however, I outlined clearly why No Sanctuary for Criminals Act and Kate's Law are not in conflict but rather in concert with the United States Constitution.
Your decision to vote against those two bills was not based on Constitution principles.
It was based on NeverTrump acrimony. nothing more.
Keep in mind, everyone, that this man was one of the first to call for Trump's impeachment, when there was no justifiable charge against the President.
The Justin Amash strain of ultra-libertarianism is turning into self-absorbed narcissism. People want to look like champions of liberty, when in reality they want to champion their celebrity profile. This kind of arrogance would reduce to the state to absolutely nothing.
Today is Independence Day and whether libertarians like it or not, governments are instituted among men to protect our rights. What are some of those rights? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Some libertarians are so radical, that they believe liberty is more important than life.
Life is the necessary condition for liberty to exist!
How can anyone enjoy liberty if the federal government refuses to secure our borders, or demands that individual cities and states enforce our laws?
Justin, I respect your take on stopping the encroachment of the state into our daily lives. I also resent the fact that you think our President is undermining our government and our Constitution by ensuring that all American citizens live and move and have their being in this great country without fear from foreign invaders.
Keep this kind of crap up, Justin, and you won't have a job next year, and please don't play martyr be claiming that you lost your seat because you were defending the Constitution. Your votes against the security of our borders and full respect for the United States Constitution were clearly unconstitutional.