House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers (MI-13) today gave the following statement on the House floor in opposition to the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act (H.R. 3003).
Ranking Member Conyers:
M. Chair, I want to be clear at the outset of debate that this legislation does nothing to make our communities safer. And it does nothing to improve our immigration system.
Instead, H.R. 3003 will trample the rights of states and localities to determine what is in the best interest of their public safety and will conscript local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law.
The ultimate experts on community safety are communities themselves. And hundreds of them have determined that as community trust increases, crime decreases. This is because immigrants will come out of the shadows and report crimes to local law enforcement when they are not threatened with deportation.
In fact, a recent study found that community trust jurisdictions are actually safer than their counterparts.
Against this considered judgment, H.R. 3003 forces localities to abandon community trust principles and mandates the conscription of local officers into federal immigration enforcement.
Some localities, of course, would rightfully resist this conscription. As punishment, H.R. 3003 would rob them of vital law enforcement funding that they depend on to prevent crime, prosecute criminals, and boost community policing ranks.
Localities therefore would face a losing choice. They can abandon community trust policies, and leave their communities in danger. Or they can leave community trust policies in place but forego law enforcement funding, leaving their communities in danger.
Not only is this bad policy, but it is also likely unconstitutional for multiple reasons.
First, H.R. 3003 likely violates the Tenth Amendment by “commandeering” states to comply with detainer requests that drain their resources.
In addition, the bill’s changes to the Department of Homeland Security’s detainer authority exacerbate current Fourth Amendment concerns associated with immigration detainers. The bill does not require any particularized finding about the individual that may form the basis of a probable cause determination and fails to provide for a prompt judicial determination of probable cause.
And the bill further compounds these constitutional concerns by eliminating the ability for a detained individual to obtain an independent, individualized review of his or her bond determination by a neutral decision maker.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous, mean spirited, and constitutionally suspect legislation.
