Sessions' & Gowdy's bill stand above a crowded list of "Sanctuary Bills" in Congress

If any good can come from the tragic shooting of a San Francisco woman earlier this month at the hands of a five-times deported illegal alien, it's that Congress may finally take action to punish sanctuary jurisdictions that protect illegal aliens, including the federal government which has been releasing criminal aliens onto the streets. The response has gotten confusing because at least a dozen bills have been offered in recent weeks to end sanctuary jurisdictions. They have all earned varying levels of attention, with the one pushed by Fox News' Bill O'Reilly getting the most attention even though it's not the best bill. The bills differ in scope and effectiveness, allowing House and Senate leaders to pick and choose the bill they want to move. If recent history serves as a lesson, House and Senate leaders will choose the weakest possible bill to move even though a large majority of American voters are furious and want criminal aliens removed from the United States. THE BEST BILL THAT NUMBERSUSA SUPPORTS NumbersUSA supports passage of the Davis-Oliver Act introduced by Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions (S.1640) and South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy (H.R.1148). It's named after Michael Davis, Jr. and Danny Oliver, two California deputy sheriffs who were murdered by illegal aliens. Among many other things, the bill would: Withhold SCAAP funding, 'Cops on the Beat' funding, or any other law enforcement DHS grant to jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration agents (sanctuary jurisdictions) Allow states to pass immigration enforcement laws so long as the penalties do not exceed the federal penalties Require DHS to provide all known data to the National Crime Information Center for aliens who have final removal orders, overstayed or misused a visa, or entered in to a voluntary departure agreement Provide grants to local jurisdictions that help enforce immigration laws The Sessions-Gowdy bills would go beyond simply ending sanctuary cities through additional measures to increase public safety as a whole. They would strengthen the enforcement of federal immigration laws, end benefits for known terrorists, and prevent foreign citizens who pose a threat to public safety from entering the country in the first place. BILLS ADDRESSING ONLY SANCTUARY CITIES None of the other bills, including the so-called "Kate's Law" pushed by O'Reilly, would do as much to make our communities safer. But more importantly, none of them, except for the Sessions-Gowdy bills, address the federal government's sanctuary policies. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has released nearly 70,000 convicted criminal aliens over the last two years. Only the Sessions-Gowdy bills would end this federal complicity. Both Presidential Hopefuls Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have introduced sanctuary bills. The Cruz bill is similar to Kate's Law in that it would only imprison previously deported aliens that return to the U.S. It wouldn't require jurisdictions to notify ICE when they release criminal aliens from prison. The Paul bill would only block funding to jurisdictions that don't cooperate with federal immigration agents, while allowing the federal government to continue its sanctuary policies. Legislation has also been introduced by Rep. Scott Desjarlais (R-Tenn.), Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Penn.), Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), but all of these bills would only block funding to sanctuary jurisdictions without addressing the feds policies. THE CLEAR ACT The only bill that comes close to the effectiveness of the Davis-Oliver Act is Rep. Marsha Blackburn's (R-Tenn.) CLEAR Act. NumbersUSA has promoted this bill in past years, and it's still a good bill, but the Davis-Oliver Act is more thorough and incorporates almost all of the CLEAR Act's state and local enforcement provisions. DAVIS-OLIVER BILL NEEDS MORE CO-SPONSORS The Sessions version only has 5 cosponsors. The Gowdy version has more than 30 cosponsors and has already been approved by the House Judiciary Committee. Just this week, Reps. Dave Brat (R-Va.) and Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.) added their names to the list of cosponsors, but both bills need a lot more support! We have faxes posted to your Action Board urging your three Members of Congress to support the Davis-Oliver Act. Please send these faxes, and if you've already sent them, there's more you can do. Next Monday, please call your Members of Congress or contact them through Social Media. Let's do everything we can to help get the Davis-Oliver Act signed in to law! CHRIS CHMIELENSKI SAT, JULY 18th Via: NumbersUSA Continue Reading....

Lawmaker to Vilsack: In Your Thinking, What’s the Limit to ‘the Role of the State in Caring for Our Kids?’

(CNSNews.com) – Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) challenged Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack Tuesday about the extent of the role he believed the federal government should have in school lunch programs.

“Is there any upper bound philosophically in your thought to the role of the state in caring for our kids?” he asked during a House Education and Workforce Committee hearing.

Brat said he didn’t “want to be sitting here at the federal level, micromanaging all these micro issues” which he said “belong to the state and local and optimally at the parent level.”

Referring to an earlier remark by Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), Brat said, “The ranking member made a comment, ‘it’s our job to provide nutritious meals.’ I think most of us agree with that statement in the short run, but I want to get your thoughts on what you’d make of that in the long run – both on the economic front and on the ethics front.”

Vilsack said the questions were “really important” ones.

“Frankly, as you were asking your question I was actually thinking back to my childhood,” he continued, “adopted into a family where my mother … she was a mean lady when she drank and she was a wonderful lady when she stopped, but during the time that she was drinking she was not there.”

“You know somebody’s got to be there, somebody’s got to be there. I’d like it to be mom and dad but sometimes that’s just not possible, so somebody’s got to be there,” Vilsack said.

“You know we send our children to school and obviously you know when they’re in school this whole [in loco parentis] notion, you would hope that the school district is taking care of them, protecting them, feeding them well, and teaching them well so that at some point in time the light bulb turns on and the kid basically says, I want a better life, I want a better way. I’m going to work hard. I’m going to do what I need to do.”

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....