Attorney General Candidate Unveils Immigration Initiative

Attorney General Candidate Unveils Immigration Initiative

ABERDEEN, SD (February 14, 2018) – Senator Lance Russell, South Dakota Attorney General candidate, will hold a press conference at the Holiday Inn Express & Suites in Aberdeen at 10 a.m. (CST) Friday, February 16, to unveil his recent Immigration Enforcement Bill, SB 193.  This legislation will prohibit “sanctuary cities” and “sanctuary campuses,”  and will be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee this coming Tuesday at 8 a.m. Senator Russell will also be unveiling his Immigration Plan as a South Dakota Attorney General candidate to address the ongoing issues of illegal immigration within the state.

This conference comes two days after the one-year anniversary of the passage of a “sanctuary campus” resolution by the University of South Dakota’s Student Government Association, passed on February 14, 2017. Senator Russell’s Immigration Enforcement Bill would make such actions illegal within South Dakota. It would also provide relief for South Dakota cities suffering the ravages of having law-breakers invited into the state.

WHAT:           Attorney General Candidate Russell’s Immigration Initiative
WHO:             Senator and Attorney General Candidate Lance Russel
WHEN:           February 16, 2018, 10 A.M. (CST)
WHERE:         Holiday Inn Express & Suites, 3310 7th Avenue SE, Aberdeen, SD 57401

###

16 Replies to “Attorney General Candidate Unveils Immigration Initiative”

  1. Ike

    “…provide relief for South Dakota cities suffering the ravages of having law-breakers invited into the state”

    Ravages. Seriously? Anyhoo – looks like Mr. Censure is borrowing a page from Tapio’s playbook. BEWARE THE BROWN PEOPLE!

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      What next? Propose they build a wall around South Dakota? If so, who pays for it? Mexico is paying for the one on the US southern border.

      Reply
  2. Anonymous

    The Boogyman behind every corner hysteria has overtaken elements of the SDGOP. No-Go-Zones, bathrooms, talk of militias, living in basements, Muslim Brotherhood, building a wall and boobs. What happened to the good old Republican Party that was optimistic, Cold War Patriots, fiscally sensible and not crazy?

    Reply
  3. Jake

    How does anybody take this guy seriously he is absolutely unelectable as Attorney General. I do believe that if we nominate him he’s going to lose in the general… the Democrats will have a field day….

    Hence this proposal doesn’t matter

    Reply
  4. Anonymous

    He should probably spend more time explaining his reprimand from the Supreme Court concerning his behavior and ethics.

    Reply
  5. Malachi

    Hey Pat, you folks do realize that the particular piece of USD SGA legislation you all have been referencing was vetoed by the SGA President the day after it was passed and never actually implemented right? I’m not sure if people just don’t know that piece of the story or if they’re conveniently ignoring it for political purposes.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      But isn’t the mere passage of it indicative of the mindset of a lot of young brains of mush? It was vetoed that time, but liberals go back to the well again and again until they get their way.

      I’m no fan of Lance Russell, and I don’t think the word “ravages” seems appropriate, but I don’t see anything wrong with banning the intentional breaking of immigration laws of the United States of America.

      Reply
      1. Malachi

        Perhaps. I won’t get into it with you on my personal thoughts on immigration, but I will tell you that the most SGA can do is recommend changes to policy to administration. Just because something passes doesn’t automatically make it school policy. As someone who was there during the discussions on that particular piece of legislation there was significant pushback on certain pieces of it, specifically the recommendation that university police officers not cooperate with ICE.

        The resolution that ultimately passed and was vetoed was a watered down version of the one that produced all of the initial media attention, and none of the media that covered the original story bothered to cover the follow-up. Most folks never heard about it and just assume the original passed and USD is a “sanctuary campus” even though it isn’t.

        Reply
  6. Troy Jones

    I am interested to see the actual plan. With these questions:

    1). Sanctuary areas are basically a haven for lawlessness (selective at least) which means laws are already being broken. Why do we need a new law when all we need to do is enforce the laws being broken.

    2). In particular, what are the ravages, who are the invitees doing the ravaging, who is doing the inviting, what is the proposed relief, and what is the cost.

    Criticizing (or praising) before one sees specifics is jumping the gun. Liking or not liking the intent doesn’t translate automatically into a viable solution.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.