Thune Statement on Bill to Stop Sanctuary Cities

thuneheadernewJohn_Thune,_official_portrait,_111th_CongressThune Statement on Bill to Stop Sanctuary Cities  
“Sanctuary policies have allowed thousands of dangerous criminals to return to our nation’s streets, and too many American families have paid a terrible price as a result.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today released the following statement after Senate Democrats blocked a bill that would protect families and communities from the dangers posed by sanctuary cities, which harbor criminals who are in this country illegally.

“Sanctuary policies have allowed thousands of dangerous criminals to return to our nation’s streets, and too many American families have paid a terrible price as a result. Yet despite the dangers posed by these policies, Senate Democrats are refusing to even debate this legislation.

“By blocking the bill, Senate Democrats are once again employing their favorite strategy of obstruction. In recent weeks, Democrats have opposed funding for our troops and our veterans, and now they are blocking common-sense legislation that is widely supported by the law enforcement community.”

Currently, there are 340 jurisdictions across the country that have official policies discouraging cooperation with federal immigration enforcement officers, resulting in the release of approximately 1,000 criminal aliens per month.


26 thoughts on “Thune Statement on Bill to Stop Sanctuary Cities”

  1. Hopefully, Rounds won’t stop this legislation like he did when similar legislation was introduced in the State Legislature. Huron and the entire State of South Dakota are sanctuaries for illegals. For crying out loud, hospitals are not required to report in South Dakota. Is Thune just grandstanding again.

    Defund sanctuary cities or quit issuing press releases.

      1. Deporting doesn’t require more jails. We have plenty to handle short term stays pending deportation.

  2. Guess you better read the bill then. Mandatory sentencing would be increased for repeat offenders. If this were to pass, we’d need as many as 12 more federal prisons to house all these illegals. Or, you know, just stack ’em like cord wood in existing facilities. Perhaps just build a few catapults and toss ’em over the Rio Grande? Zyklon B showers? I dunno. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    1. “we’d need as many as 12 more federal prisons”

      Finally, gov’t spending we can agree on.

        1. You do realize that Cuba is a sovereign country and the US only leases a small area at GITMO?

          1. I doubt he does. This is the same guy who penned a column on this blog a year or two ago proclaiming that all the railroads in South Dakota were ‘quietly disappearing’. He was very incorrect.

  3. “Build more prisons!”

    “Pretty sure I don’t agree [build more prisons] there”

    Make up your mind, hairbrained crossbrained.

    1. “…a group of scientists at the University of California, San Francisco has determined which areas of the brain govern a person’s ability to detect sarcasm and lies.

      Some of the adults in the group were healthy, but many of the test subjects had neurodegenerative diseases that cause certain parts of the brain to deteriorate. The UCSF team mapped their brains using magnetic resonance imaging, MRI, which showed associations between the deteriorations of particular parts of the brain and the inability to detect insincere speech.

      1. “Some of the adults in the group were healthy, but many of the test subjects had neurodegenerative diseases that cause certain parts of the brain to deteriorate.”

        I think we’ve found hairbrained/crossbrain’s problem.

  4. What a bunch of lame foot stomping. 340 jurisdictions ! How did THAT happen ? How this was ever allowed to root is a damning indicator of a lack of leadership.

  5. Kelly it is a disingenuous genius path to continued leadership by allowing spoon fed third world non-Americans to vote for the party which feeds them socialism…………….from an American dollar made in capitalism. The juxtaposition of this viewpoint is mind boggling to anyone who loves Freedom and juris prudence of law.

    What political party in America is pushing this?

    1. Dear God, Charlie ! Remember the hot water Rubio found himself in ? And how about the Chamber’s position ? Disingenuous huh ? No endorsements yet, but I have an inkling John is leaning Marco. Exactly who are YOU speaking for ? Again, lame foot stomping…

      1. Ms. Lieberg it becomes evident one must explain in detail here to some what hopefully most get on first blush. The Driver’s License voting in CA coupled with incorrect polling data from digital voting machines in many large American cities convinces me that our voting in this country of ours has been attempted and succeeded in fraudulently skimming votes. Their is no other reason for Obama winning twice.

        1. Mr., but that’s a common mistake. It’s not hard for me to agree with you on your theory. This is your second attempt at not addressing the greater concern. So what good are these “sanctuary cities” except to grow the political opposition’s electoral advantage or for John Thune to stand behind it as some red herring. He’s a “Chamber” man and a soon to be Rubio front man. At this point, he’s scamming the foolish by pretending to care. 340 jurisdictions ! We, as a party, can’t stand to allow this while veto’s of various form are threatened while our supposed representation fires off a memo of feigned outrage. It’s tough out there, John and Charlie. The country needs better.

    2. Mr Hoffman, what bills did you bring as a legislator to combat the illegal immigration problem in SD?

      1. Idiot question. What bills did rep Hoffman bring to strengthen national defense, reform the irs?

  6. Anon look at a map buddy. Like a bullet piercing armor once through the line of defense you are in trouble.

    1. Kelly Lieberg is right “lame foot stomping!”

      Anon & Charlie Hoffman forget that our federal government was founded by the states, but states never stopped being the primary form of government for the defense of their boundaries.

      Instead of lame foot stomping, Mr Hoffman? Maybe you should have done something about the illegal immigration problem like state legislators in Az did:

      Yes, Anon.. state legislators..

  7. On this issue, Obama’s “leadership” was very effective. He is keeping illegals in the country and issuing them voter ID’s to stack the deck for the Dems continued power into eternity. After all, will they vote against the party that is giving them all the free passes and freebies? Hardly.

    But, why was this tied in with the bill on Kate’s Law? Neither passed by tying the two together and this is shameful. What happened to Reid’s famous nuclear option or bypassing legality when he was in charge of the Senate? Maybe it’s time for him to get a dose of his own medicine!

  8. From an ACLU letter about this bill:
    “The Fourth Amendment provides that the government cannot hold anyone in jail without getting a warrant or the approval of a judge. This constitutional protection applies to everyone in the United States – citizen and immigrant alike. In the case of immigration detainer requests, DHS (Department of Homeland Security) is asking a locality to lock up a person without a warrant or judicial approval, merely based on the say-so of one DHS agent. DHS immigration detainers have caused widespread wrongful detentions, including detentions of U.S. citizens.” Several federal courts have concluded that DHS, state, and local officials may be held liable for causing wrongful detentions in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

    So I understand this correctly, there are 350 or so municipalities that have concluded that rather than accepting liability for violating a person’s 4th Amendments rights, they’ll not honor federal detention requests unless they’re accompanied by a warrant or approval of a judge.

    Now we have Senator Thune trumpeting a bill that:
    1) Was rushed to the Senate floor, bypassing the regular order of going through the Judiciary Committee.
    2) Increases federal spending by an estimated 3.7 billion over the next 10 years. We really don’t know how much it would have costed because in their rush, Senate Republicans bypassed scoring by the Congressional Budget Office.
    3) Dictates how locally elected governments allocate their own resources.
    4) Requires that municipalities expose themselves to liability for violations of the 4th Amendment.
    5) Misleads the American public into thinking that there are cities free from immigration enforcement.
    6) Takes away resources for law enforcement agencies in municipalities that actually respect the US Constitution.

    It’s a strange time when we have to depend on Senate Democrats to enforce a bit of common sense in the U.S. Senate!

  9. Someone who enters this country illegally is a criminal by legal definition. So is a known criminal given a pass based on the Fourth Amendment? A known criminal is allowed to roam free and kill United States citizens?

    As for your fifth point above, sanctuary cities by their very name are free from immigration enforcement. What part of that don’t you understand?

Comments are closed.