By Jon Harris:
Writing for the Daily Wire, September 2, 2016, Editor in Chief Ben Shapiro noted:
David Frum of The Atlantic, no hard-core immigration opponent, wrote in 2015 that as of 2011, there were 25,000 illegal immigrants serving murder sentences, and nearly 3 million offenses committed by illegal immigrants between 2003 and 2009, including 70,000 sex crimes and hundreds of thousands of other violent crimes. “After years of welcome decline,” Frum pointed out, “crime rates are rising in immigration hubs including Houston, Milwaukee, Phoenix, and San Diego.” Former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo reported in 2015 that between “2008 and 2014, 40% of all murder convictions in Florida were criminal aliens. In New York, it was 34% and Arizona 17.8%. During those years, criminal aliens accounted for 38% of all murder convictions in the five states of California, Texas, Arizona, Florida and New York, while illegal immigrants constitute only 5.6% of the total population in those states.”
Under the Trump Administration, Kate’s Law and the move to defund ‘sanctuary cities’ appear to have new legs. There is a real movement by the state legislature in Texas to ban the practice of sanctuary cities. In fact, this is not the Lone Star State’s first attempt to ban the practice of ignoring federal law.
The officers who patrol the streets of our cities and counties see a real ethical issue. They know the law, and when the politicians direct them to disobey federal statutes, it places them in a very uncomfortable—if not impossible—situation.
The movement to ban sanctuary cities, as well to tackle the issue of deported illegal immigrants returning to the US with no threat of punishment, gained attention with the proposal of Kate’s Law. Kate’s Law is named after Kathryn (Kate) Steinle, a vibrant young woman gunned down in July 2015 in the sanctuary city of San Francisco by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez. The bill passed in the House of Representatives but failed to pass through the Senate; it was defeated by the Democrats’ filibuster with a vote of 55-42.
Kate’s Law
With the new GOP administration taking over control of the House, Senate, and presidency, Kate’s Law has a chance to pass this time. On January 5, 2017, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and US Rep. Steve King (R-IA) introduced the bill once again. Kate’s Law puts in place a five-year mandatory minimum prison term for an illegal immigrant who reenters the US after being removed following either a conviction for an aggravated felony or two or more prior convictions for illegal reentry.
Kate Steinle’s Murderer
Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez (or Francisco Sanchez; given name José Inez García Zarate) of Guanajuato, Mexico, was deported from the US a total of five times by the date of the murder, most recently in 2009. He was on probation in Texas and had already had seven felony convictions. Sanchez was convicted of his first drug charge in 1991 in Arizona, and had three convictions in 1993 in Washington state for heroin possession and manufacturing narcotics (both felonies). After additional convictions for drugs in Oregon, the US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) deported Sanchez in 1994. Two years later, Sanchez returned to the US and was involved in drug convictions again in Washington state. In 1997, he was deported a second time.
In 1998, he was deported once again after re-entering the US through Arizona. United States Border Patrol caught him six days later. He was sentenced to five years and three months in federal prison for unauthorized reentry by a federal court. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), formerly INS, deported him for the fourth time in 2003. He again reentered the US through the Texas border and got another federal prison sentence for reentry before the 2009 deportation—number five. Shortly after, Sanchez was caught reentering at Eagle Pass, Texas. He pleaded guilty to felony reentry and a federal court recommended Sanchez be placed in “a federal medical facility as soon as possible.”
On March 26, 2015, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department requested the United States Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to turn Sanchez over to San Francisco authorities for an outstanding drug warrant. San Francisco officials transported Sanchez to San Francisco County Jail on March 26, 2015, after Sanchez completed his latest prison term in San Bernardino County for illegal reentry. Sanchez was to face an old felony charge of selling and possessing marijuana. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a detainer for Sanchez requesting that he be kept in custody while they arranged to pick him up. However, because San Francisco is a sanctuary city, they did not honor the detainer. The San Francisco County Jail released him on April 15 with no current outstanding warrants; the ICE detainer was ignored, and Sanchez murdered Kate Steinle in San Francisco three months later.
Legality of Sanctuary Cities
The question of whether sanctuary cities are in violation of federal law has been answered by the US Supreme Court under the 10th amendment of the US Constitution. The 10th Amendment prevents the federal government from compelling localities to participate in the enforcement of federal programs. The court’s decision in Printz v. the United States (1997) determined that it was unconstitutional to require local sheriffs to take part in a federal gun-control program. This case hinged on the federal government requiring the local entities to spend time and effort fulfilling a federal regulation. The court found this was unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment. The case for sanctuary cities falls on the same points. By constitutional standards, sanctuary cities are legal.
Enticing Change
The federal government can place pressure on sanctuary cities through the power of the purse. The withholding of federal monies and grants for those entities that fail to cooperate with the federal laws is also perfectly legal. This principle was argued and decided by the US Supreme Court in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012). As long as the withholding of federal funds does not reach the threshold of 20% of the state budget, they may be continue to be withheld. Money talks– this method would create an incentive for sanctuary jurisdictions to comply with the federal law. These are the tactics the Trump Administration is most likely to use, as they avoid the constitutional challenges to passing legislation to force the sanctuary cities to comply with the federal statutes.
The Texas Approach
Regarding the move in Texas to ban sanctuary cities, Senate Bill 4 (SB4) explicitly requires all municipalities and entities to follow federal immigration laws and comply with federal immigration detainers. The second part of the sanctuary city initiative authorizes the immediate withholding of state criminal justice grants and funding to any sheriff or law enforcement agency that does not fully comply with the federal immigration laws.
This is not to say that the new law (SB4) allows for arrests or stops by law enforcement strictly over immigration status. Any stop made by a law enforcement agent must be based upon probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a crime. What this law changed is that it requires the law enforcement agency to report and record the immigration status of an arrestee, as well as fully working with federal authorities for detainer requests and information transfer.
Conclusion
The change in the political structure of the country, along with the strong feeling that the Trump Administration will make honest attempts to tackle the immigration issues facing our nation, all point to stronger immigration enforcement and a more robust law enforcement stance against illegal immigrants. The situation of sanctuary cities is addressed with a two-pronged approach.
First, the passing of Kate’s Law, aimed at stemming the flow of repeat immigration offenders—those who are deported but use the revolving door that is the border only to return without any fear of criminal retribution—must be achieved.
Second, making the financial cost unbearable for those municipalities and counties that refuse to abide by the federal immigration statutes, through the withholding of federal grants and funding, will create incentive for compliance with the law.
In the case of Texas, requiring compliance with federal immigration statutes by law enforcement agencies as a condition of releasing law enforcement grants and funding is all the necessary motivation to fall in line with federal rules. In time, more states are sure to follow the Lone Star State’s example.
Jon Harris is an OpsLens contributor and former Army NCO, civilian law enforcement officer, and defense contractor with over 30 years in the law enforcement community. He holds a B.S. in Government and Politics and an M.S. in Criminal Justice.
