Noem Supports Legislation to Hold Sanctuary Cities Accountable for Failing to Enforce the Law

Noem Supports Legislation to Hold Sanctuary Cities Accountable for Failing to Enforce the Law

Washington, D.C. – Rep. Kristi Noem today helped the U.S. House of Representatives pass legislation to cut off certain federal grants for sanctuary cities that ignore federal immigration law.

“As a mom, I want to make our communities as safe as they can possibly be for our kids,” said Noem. “It broke my heart to see the grief that struck Kate Steinle’s family after she was murdered by a man who came here illegally and had a criminal history but was still knowingly allowed to stay in our country. We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation where the rule of law applies – and for good reason. We need to secure our borders and that includes ending the practice of establishing sanctuary cities. That is what today’s legislation aims to accomplish.”

H.R.3009, the Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act, prohibits sanctuary cities from receiving federal grants to help pay for the incarceration of undocumented criminal immigrants. It also prohibits those localities from being eligible for COPS and Byrne law enforcement grants.

17 thoughts on “Noem Supports Legislation to Hold Sanctuary Cities Accountable for Failing to Enforce the Law”

    1. He just flat out gets it and he doesn’t take any crap from anyone. It’s too bad he’s a loose cannon overall because a lot of what he says is dead on.

    1. No, the question is whether we are a nation of laws or we aren’t. It’s a question of whether or not we have to obey a law, and right now if you are Obama and his ilk have proven that if they don’t like a law, they can ignore it and do whatever they want with no consequences. What if I don’t like, say, the income tax law and decide I don’t want to obey it? Guess where I’d end up! Either we are a nation of laws or we aren’t, and right now we aren’t. It will be interesting to see when the people wake up and start to demand the same rights as Obama does right now when it comes to that!

      1. I hate to actually do this, but I have to agree with Porter. It’s not about being a nation of laws. It’s about whether the federal government can force local governments to enforce federal law. Conservatives fought this when the federal government tried to force local law enforcement to conduct background checks on gun purchasers. The Supreme Court said that the federal government can’t do this. (Printz v. United States) Of course, the easy workaround is for the federal government to tie federal funding to whatever regulations it wants to impose (which is what is happening with the bill Rep. Noem voted for). But this still chips away at state sovereignty. So if you believe in federalism, you shouldn’t support the federal government imposing its will on state governments, even if (and especially if) you support the federal law in question.

        1. The federal government is tasked with the security of the citizens (yes, there is such a thing as being a citizen and being an illegal alien), and part of that is securing our borders. It’s not that hard, guys!

      2. You gotta cut back on those Vicodin. You’re talking to yourself again.

    2. The primary function of the federal government is to protect the citizens, and part of that is securing our borders, Porter. Why don’t you think these things out before you post so you don’t show yourself to be the socialist partisan hack that you are.

  1. I’m actually between Mark N. & Springer.

    On one hand, every member of law enforcement (city, county, state, and federal) swears to uphold the law. Overtly choosing to not enforce laws they disagree with is a violation of that oath. Integrity of an oath isn’t subjective or selective.

    At the same time, law enforcement lives in a tension with regard to priority every single day. Do they spend the entire day writing jaywalking tickets (enforcing the law) or monitoring places were skateboarders skateboard and not patrolling or investigating/pursuing more serious crimes? It is critical we give them discretion to use their time and resources as they deem best protects society.

    Mark rightly cited Printz. The effort of the federal government to make background checks a “super-law” to be enforced vigorously all the time without regard to other needs or laws in the community was struck down primarily because it violates the “tension” and need for local law enforcement to set priorities every day.

    I opposed this effort by the federal government to make background checks a “super-law” as well as state legislation to make federal immigration a “super-law” for our local police and sheriff departments to be enforced strictly and as a top priority without regard to other laws or priorities.

    My problem with sanctuary cities is they ANNOUNCE it is a formal policy to ignore duly passed laws. While there is prerogative duly given to local governments with regard to PRIORITY, I believe outright and universal nullification of duly passed laws is a threat to the principal of “a nation of laws” AND it places sworn law enforcement officers to compromise their oath.

    Instead of them choosing daily, weekly priorities based on the situations at hand, law enforcement is forced as a matter of policy to break their oath. I can’t abide that on laws I agree with or disagree with.

  2. I should first clarify that I’m not in favor of sanctuary cities. Local law enforcement should voluntarily assist federal authorities in identifying and detaining illegal immigrants.

    But local law enforcement officers are not required to enforce federal law. Enforcing federal law is not part of the oath that local LEOs take (they swear to support and defend the US constitution, but that is not the same as swearing to enforce federal criminal statutes). It is a matter of jurisdiction and federalism. One sovereign cannot require another sovereign to enforce its laws for it. It can ask, but it cannot require. So while local jurisdictions SHOULD assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law, the federal government should not coerce them.

    Part of my problem is that this happens in all areas of government, from transportation to education to housing to health care. The federal government gives out money, then later adds strings to keep the money. If one is a conservative and is against the enlargement of federal power, then one should not favor this practice.

  3. There would be no sanctuary cities if the federal government actually did what it is supposed to do. First, secure the borders. Now, do you want to get rid of illegal aliens? Using a system such as e-verify and requiring employers to let employees who have a problem with SS # know there is a problem and that employee will not be allowed to work until it is straightened out will go a long way to solving the problem. Holding employers accountable is another part of the step. Make the fine high and multiply the fine for every infraction and employers will get the message. When someone is caught paying cash to an illegal, fine them at the same rate. Do this enough and there will be no jobs for illegal aliens. They will most likely self-deport. The problems are the Democrat party does not want to lose potential voters in the future and groups like the Chamber of Commerce want that cheap labor. This, BTW, will also go a long way towards solving the unemployment problem that the federal government is hiding.

  4. Y’all are in need of a “sanctuary situation”, mentally. The opinions expressed here are so far away from modern day USA mainstream inclination you’d be called “silly” anywhere but there. SECURE THIS, PILGRIMS ….
    New Pew Poll Adds To Republican Party’s Woes
    The latest numbers are in – and they show that the GOP has lost a quarter of its popularity in just over half a year. If the trend continues in a linear manner, the party’s popularity will be around 6% on election day.

  5. Porter, you liberals are so good at feeling good about liberal policies and you don’t give a tinker’s damn about what those policies do to the innocents of the land. It is bad enough when someone suffers the effects of a crime in this country. But when one find’s out the perpetrator should not have even been allowed in the country? How do you think the victims feel when they find out if the law had been enforced they would not be victims? We are living in a time when the workforce participation rate is at some historic lows. What do you tell that roofer who is unable to get a job because a contractor with illegal labor help is able to undercut them? Every time someone who is here illegally gets a job, that person is taking a job that someone who is here legally could have had. Liberals back the increasing of the minimum wage. Wow! All of those people will be making more in our state! But I have personally seen price increases to pay for that increase in labor. When a company such as Walmart has to increase the wages they offer, what do you think they do with their prices? You liberals leave the damage behind and look for the next institution to destroy.

Comments are closed.