GOP Legislators Urge Rauner to Veto Sanctuary State Bill

From the follwoing Republican legislators:

Representative Allen Skillicorn, Representative David Allen Welter, Representative John Cabello, Representative Tom Morrison, Senator Kyle McCarter, and Senator Jim Oberweis all urge Governor Bruce Rauner to veto the Sanctuary State Bill, Senate Bill 31.

Governor Rauner,

As elected Republican Legislators we are compelled to represent our constituents and our party by respectfully urging you to veto Senate Bill 31, the “so called” Trust Act.

Law enforcement, elected officials, and the federal government have all sworn to protect individual rights and the U.S. Constitution. We agree in checks and balances, but the State should not interfere with lawful action by the federal government.

We see SB31 as what it is, this bill is a political ploy. Signing SB31 into law does more political harm than good. Please veto SB1 and let’s continue to work on the reforms Illinois so desperately needs.


Comments

GOP Legislators Urge Rauner to Veto Sanctuary State Bill — 34 Comments

  1. This bill has morphed from an originally long 40 page bill to a 4 page bill.

    The passing of this bill would NOT make IL a Sanctuary State. (The original bill would have but the revised version-No)

    This bill as it stands is good for local Law Enforcement and good for the local communities safety as it reads now.

    If local Law Enforcement is conducting the Federal Immigration processes there are two very bad things that will happen.

    1) They will be even More overburdened than they already are and unable to patrol streets and curtail criminal acts by their mere presence .

    2) If people knew that an illegal household member could be deported by local Police, then fewer calls would be made enforcing local laws and safety.

    i.e. A woman has a domestic abuse issue with boyfriend. She absolutely does not call the police knowing that the father of her child will be deported and her monetary support will be abruptly ended. The local Law Enforcement would lose any trust a community has for them. There are many scenarios in which local Police would not be called making local communities far less safe if they had to conduct the Feds job as well as their own. We need to keep the lines of communication open between all members of the community.

    The old saying “Don’t Rely Strictly Upon The Headlines’ rings true.

    Read the bill as it stands now, not just the name of the bill or the bill that was originally presented because 36 pages worth of proposals have been removed.

    I will also be seeking a trusted Law Enforcement leader’s professional written opinion based on Law Enforcement’s perspective for you.

  2. Karen Trio, I hope and pray you are right on SB31.

    Please, when you get the information, share the written version with Cal, so we can all read it.

    Again Thank You.

  3. **Trump pardons Sheriff Joe – MAGA !**

    Yea! Making America Great, one racist constitution violating sheriff at a time!

    Nothing quite like Making America Great by saying that law enforcement can violate civil rights and get away with it.

  4. Can’t wait for someone to remind us some Bill Clinton on-the-way-out pardons.

  5. Cal Skinner, your right but what about Obama’s pardons.

    Really Creepy.

    I lived in Arizona for 6 or 7 years, Sheriff Joe had a Sunday evening radio show . . .

    Prisoners could call in for free, from the jail, with questions and complaints, and they did.

    Sheriff Joe always said ” You don’t want to be here, it is not the Hilton”.

    Once they stayed in Tent City, they did not go back.

    Heck, Glen Campbell (sp) spent some time there in Tent City, he brought his guitar for everyone’s entertainment.

    He had a couple of DUIs and served his time.

  6. What is going on with this guy Rauner?

    Until recently, thought that he was a decent guy.

    But now with this sanctuary thing, he is not so good.

    In fact, very bad to want to harbor illegal aliens in Illinois.

    Anyone who supports sanctuary of illegal aliens is a goofball.

    A moron.

    Think about the young woman in San Francisco out for a walk with her father when she was shot and killed by an illegal alien in that sanctuary city.

    That is the city and area that stupidly and recklessly supports sanctuary provisions and the incredibly inept Nancy Pelosi.

    You have to wonder if San Fran and the State of CA, by the voting of their citizens, really is way, way out of sync with mainstream of the US that elected our current president.

  7. Sheltering or protecting domestic abusers and violent felons from deportation doesn’t keep your community safe.

    But that is exactly what occurs when ICE is not helped by local authorities

    A POS who beats his wife or girlfriend and is here illegally should be deported.

    All the liberal BS excuses in the world can’t change that.

    Talk

  8. I’m not advocating domestic violence and I’m not for sanctuary cities or states for illegals aliens but I’m all for law and order.

    The law already as such, that illegals don’t get deported by Local Police (that’s not municipal/county/state Law Enforcements’ jobs) unless the illegal is arrested for a crime and taken into custody.

    If this goes thru, I’m seeing This will help to destroy Trust for each community’s local Law Enforcement, and you’ll see communities living in fear of criminals AND fear of lack of Law Enforcement in each community.

    The passing of this bill will most likely end up multiplying crime among American criminals as well as legal criminals, and illegal criminals because areas with illegals will be ‘easy pickings seeing there may be no time for Police to patrol and no Police will be called by residents witnessing crimes.

    If someone has committed a crime, they already go thru the Federal enforcement of deportation.

    I wish local police could just make a call when they come across people here illegally.

    If they were required to do so, the Local Police forces would have to double in size just to keep up that work load. They’d have to triple in size in order to keep up the work load of the Fed’s job, and double the size of all departments to patrol. You think taxes are high now?

    And I firmly believe illegals who have been convicted of violent crimes, fraud, drug/gun running, should not be able to come back.

    And each time they’re captured the punishment should be extreme and the country they’re from should be charged for the costs of incarcerating them and legal costs along with having to take them back.

    My logic isn’t about harboring illegals, nor is the bill.

    It’s about not screwing up local Law Enforcement being able to Protect & Serve to the best of their capabilities.

    It’s a fact that some legislation that sounds great, will have negative unintended consequences and vice versa.

    Today more than ever our officers are overburdened and their hands are tied.

    Lets not give them the Fed’s job on top of what they already have to deal with.

    It could end up costing their lives.

  9. Karen, I disagree with you.

    First, domestic abuse is a criminal act, and if that were to happen (regardless of if this bill passes or not) then the abusive illegal immigrant could be subject to deportation anyway.

    Second, I disagree with you that local law enforcement will be overburdened if we don’t pass this. Not passing the bill wouldn’t put an additional burden on law enforcement; things would remain as they are now, as no laws would be changing. Obviously cops use discretion, otherwise the jails would already be full of illegal immigrants who rolled stop signs.

    On the other hand, if the bill is signed, a law enforcement officer will be *prohibited* from enforcing federal civil immigration laws without a judicial warrant. “A law enforcement agency or law enforcement official shall not detain or continue to detain any individual solely on the basis of any immigration detainer or non-judicial immigration warrant or otherwise comply with an immigration detainer or non-judicial immigration warrant.” Not passing this bill won’t put a greater strain on cops, but passing it may put a greater strain on judges.

    This bill comes down to whether you think being in the country illegally should be an arrestable offence or not. More accurately, it’s about whether you think cops should have the discretion to arrest, or if cops should be prohibited.

    Some argue that this puts us in line with the Constitution. I’m not sure what federal law is or what courts have said about this issue, but why would we need to pass a bill to say LEOs can’t arrest people solely on immigration status if arresting people solely based on immigration status is already unconstitutional or illegal? Plus, if this bill is going to make us one of the most lenient states in the country, that would imply the vast majority of states allow their police to engage in unconstitutional practices. If that were the case, wouldn’t we have heard more from Obama’s legal team about that?

    This was not just some bill that Rauner initiated after hearing an outcry from cops. Some cops may favor the policy because it will make their job easier, but that isn’t where the bill originated. This is a bill modeled after other bills that you see in California, New York, Maryland, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Colorado – in other words, blue states that encourage illegal immigration. This was a bill filed by John Cullerton and with zero Republican cosponsors in either the House or Senate. I didn’t see any Republicans vote yes on it in the Senate and only 1 in the House – there’s 73 Republicans total in the General Assembly. Rauner backs this bill because 1) he’s chummy with the Koch Brothers who believe in open borders for cheap labor and 2) some political advisers told him that vetoing this bill will tie him to Trump and he needs to win with suburban women.

    As to Rauner “shredding it down,” Rauner has no say in what happens to bills in committees and it’s doubtful Republican legislators did any shredding either since 1) they’re outnumbered in all the committees that this bill went through and 2) they voted against it anyway.

  10. Well that’s just great Tirio,

    Since Kate’s Law passed, you and Rauner can get together and figure out how to replace Federal Funds.

    Maybe pass the hat to already crippled Illinois tax paying homeowners.

  11. Karen, are you for this bill or against it?

    You appear to argue both ways?

  12. I phoned the governor’s office and urged him to veto the bill and nothing in these arguments tends to sway my opinion differently.

    Criminals should be reported to all concerned law enforcement agencies.

  13. The law would negate an immigration detainer.

    So, without the detainee Mr. Abuser, rapist, etc… pays bond and goes back to the community, runs off or whatever he or she wants.

    Time for lawmakers to protect its citizens and legal residents.

    Is that so hard to understand?

  14. Okay, I reached out to a county Precinct Committeeman who is also a Law Enforcement Officer. This is what he offered:

    “Illinois will not become a sanctuary state when SB31 is signed into law. As the bill was first proposed, we wouldn’t be able to say the same thing, but after it was modified several times, I believe the final product is good for the State of Illinois!

    The foundation of being able to effectively police our communities is community trust and legitimacy. Police officers must not be feared by those they serve. If communities feel the police are going to arrest their family, friends, or acquaintances, they won’t call the police. This means crimes will go unreported. Communities will become unsafe and volatile. Law enforcement should be free to pursue predators committing crimes in our neighborhoods – not wasting time trying to enforce federal laws. For example, picture a gang shooting where someone innocent was shot. A witness, not here legally, would be far more likely to speak with law enforcement and explain what they saw if they didn’t fear being arrested for their status. This would help law enforcement solve this crime, and would help law enforcement in similar situations.

    Under SB31, law enforcement will continue to communicate with the federal government regarding immigration statuses. County jails can continue sharing inmate data with the federal government. Law enforcement will continue holding those with federal ICE warrants and will continue turning those with federal warrants over to federal authorities (there is absolutely no prohibition in the current bill which would prohibit law enforcement and the federal government from communicating regarding immigration status). This means, county jails still have the ability to share inmate information with the federal government. The federal government then makes a determination if they wish to send an arrest warrant for someone in custody at the county jail. If this happens, the county jail would turn that inmate over to the federal government. The current bill does not provide for any ‘safe zones.’

    This bill (when signed into law) will keep the burden of immigration enforcement on the Federal Government – which is very important for local law enforcement. Local law enforcement simply can’t be burdened with enforcing federal immigration laws – this is the job of the federal government. For example, local law enforcement doesn’t ask the FBI to go on routine patrol and respond to calls in progress, as this would hinder their operation of protecting us from terrorists. They don’t ask ICE officials to seek and arrest drunk drivers patrols, as this would hinder their responsibilities. Local law enforcement is tasked with keeping people in our community’s safe, everyday. They can’t take the burden of also enforcing federal law – it would be completely counterproductive.

    This bill will put common practice for law enforcement into law. Our local law enforcement will continue to keep us safe. They will continue to seek and arrest those who commit criminal offenses in our communities. Those here illegally will still have to answer to the federal government.

    The Illinois Chiefs of Police Association, Illinois Sheriff’s Association, Illinois State Police, and numerous individual Sheriffs and Chiefs across Illinois support this bill. ”

    Here is a statement released by the Illinois Chiefs:”

    http://www.illinoischiefsblog.com/?p=139

    Again here is the revised bill, which has been presented to Governor Rauner. Down to 3 1/4 pages from the original 40:

    http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/100/SB/PDF/10000SB0031lv.pdf

    I understand there are strong opinions on both sides of this issue. That’s why I wanted to provide the information that helped form my understanding on the Bill, and the issues facing our local Law Enforcement AND an find an actual Officer’s stance on the issue. (As a strong supporter of law enforcement I wanted to get their opinion on a Bill that would impact the ability to do their jobs.

  15. A major cause of the American Civil War was South Carolina’s practice of nullifying Federal Law, mostly taxation on imports which began in 1831 with John C Calhoun.

    Now jettison forward to 2017 and we have the state of Illinois and other municipalities in the nation nullifying Federal Immigration law in deference to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

    This is history repeating itself but let’s hope it does not have the same violent ending.

    If the State of Illinois can nullify a Federal law it does not like, doesnt it logically follow that an individual of a state can nullify a state law he or she does not like, let’s say excessive taxation.

    Since our Declaration of Independence provides that government acts by consent of the
    governed, we the people, I think a compelling case can be made by we the people for adoption of individual nullification.. I know Thomas Jefferson would think so.

  16. As a refugee Cubano from Castro’s Hell, I FULLY SUPPORT THE ROUND UP OF ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS.

    This sanctuary nonsense is for the birds.

    Rauner is a fraud.

  17. Seeking out different in-person perspectives tonight.

    Will report back later.

    I may be wrong in the big picture.

    Bear with me.

  18. So how is a person detained pending the ICE warrant?

    A warrant takes time,so how are they detained pending the warrant?

  19. I indicated I would be back with an UPDATE after garnering varying viewpoints and facts by those I respect and trust at a roundtable discussion:

    CP you were right.

    I was in seeing both sides but leaning toward supporting the Bill because it’s supported widely by Municipal/County/State Law Enforcement and due to the fact that I sympathize with what our Police have had to go thru (during the last 8 yrs under Obama, and even now with Media giving benefit to criminals over cops).

    After careful review of all arguments, I see the other side of the issues.

    Great debate tonight at a residence with several people from both sides of the aisle.

    Here are the counter agreements discussed:

    While considering law enforcements’ take on the bill one would still have to ask:

    “If Laws were enforced from the beginning, would we even be in the position we are in now? (to have over 11 Million illegals here to worry about them distrusting law enforcement/being afraid to report crime or the growing hotbed crime communities of illegals?”

    Another is:

    “How many times do illegals actually call the Police to report crimes in their neighborhood? The incidence of this happening is probably low, especially now that Trump is President. (Lower with the self-deportations going on. Lower with the discouraging of illegals to enter the U.S. to begin with.)

    “Should we be making laws to satisfy ‘a few’ when it’s bad for the majority” (More importantly, should we be making laws to satisfy people who are here illegally when it’s bad for the majority who happen to be citizens of this country, or immigrants who are here legally?)

    Another point is that: Illegals cost the country so much that one can’t really say they’re fiscally responsible if they vote for socially liberal laws or programs. Illegals are depleting our welfare system to the point of taking away from our own citizens in need, and cost taxpayers.

    Another belief is that: We have to remain on track of America First. For example, When you’re on a plane that’s going to crash you’re instructed to put on your own oxygen mask first so you will save yourself in order to be able to help others. Similarly to the belief that If America isn’t secure, isn’t fiscally sound, or if resources aren’t in place, how are we to help anyone else?

    Another fact is: Illegals send a lot of money in earnings and welfare, back to their homeland so the argument of ‘having more people here is good for consumption and therefore the economy’ is negated as those here illegally are taking American jobs, not paying taxes and sending more money home than they add to our economy. (and illegals are breeding-creating a growing population that’s flooding our schools, costing us in having dual language in classrooms, providing free tax-funded lunch programs, emergency room costs, unpaid hospital stays, early pregnancy promoting entitlements such as W.I.C., LINK cards, Section 8 housing, Utility Assistance, food pantries, Free Phones, etc etc etc)

    As ‘Bred Winner’ referred to … I did hear of some second hand horror stories of illegals’ crimes that robbed Americans of their lives and/or well being justice isn’t served, illegal criminals walk free and go on with their lives with little to no consequence.

    OR illegal commits violent acts and is deported, then returns to commit more violent acts without harsher sentencing. And we’re not recovering the costs for our country to retain/charge criminally/ deport these illegal criminals. Bottom line: We’re losing American lives to illegals that should never have been here to begin with.

    Another problem occurs when: This PC Culture has intimidated too many people into fear of ‘being perceived as ‘racist’ just by demanding that laws be enforced, borders be secured, illegals be deported, entitlements to illegals stopped discouraging illegals from entering our country to begin with.

    An observation in retrospect is: Just because we’re now in this mess, doesn’t mean we should acquiesce into bending laws MORE.

    In fact, in the dyer situation we find ourselves in, we should step up ways to enforce the laws now, rather than wait til it gets even worse. Is it racist if one would demanded an unwelcome intruder to leave their home!

    No.

    Another point made was that: Politicians want to appease industry that wants cheap labor. This is creating another economical crisis in that members of the 11 million illegals are taking jobs from Americans. This is a strain on unemployment as more citizens depend on it due to lack of positions available. As that goes on, citizens on unemployment who cannot find jobs, also go on welfare entitlements or give up on finding jobs altogether, keeping them from consuming. Illegals are also taking part-time jobs from High Schoolers, Mom’s wanting to contribute to households who would be paying taxes on earnings.

    Another question as rhetorical as it may be, is: What does this say to immigrants that have respected our laws and followed process and paid their due to come here legally? We agreed to the answer: “It says those who followed the law, patiently waited and put blood, sweat and sacrifice of time and treasure, and those who left their families to get here the right way, were suckers. The Result: Allowing illegals to stay only perpetuates more to come.

    Another discussion pointed out that: At one time the nation was pushing for Section 287(g) training. This is the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act authorizing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to deputize selected state and local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law.[1][2] Section 287(g) allows the DHS and law enforcement agencies to make agreements, which require the state and local officers to receive training and work under the supervision of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE provides the officers with authorization to identify, process, and—when appropriate—detain immigration offenders they encounter during their regular, daily law-enforcement activity.

    Lastly, After being assured that this Bill WILL NOT make IL a “Sanctuary State” if it stops deportation of illegals that haven’t committed crimes other than the initial crime of entering the U.S. illegally, it’s not a solution.

    it’s a Bill that doesn’t add value equal or greater than the costs we’ll incur by staying on the destructive path we’ve been on.

    After hearing all sides of exploration into this Bill I’d have to conclude that this Bill should be vetoed and another Bill devised to allow for the manpower needed to re-institute Section 287(g) training for local law enforcement to be able to facilitate deporting those who have entered the country illegally.

    The initial costs will hurt, but it will pay off once it curtails/ends the drain that illegals cost the U.S. on what seems to be a never-ending basis.

    I prefer to hear WHY you are FOR or AGAINST legislation.

    Hearing how you arrived at your decision, opens discussion to scenarios one may not have originally considered. Thanks to all on this thread, as well as all who shared their views last night.

  20. I’m glad you reached that decision.

    I would never base an opinion because of what the Sheriff’s or Police Chief’s Association says.

    Those people are usually political hacks and clueless.

    You have to talk to the people on the ground.

    My big issue is that the bill states that you need a federal warrant to detain an individual who is here illegally.

    If Franz from Germany is here illegally, arrested at 5 am for aggravated battery, he can post bond after Rights Court and leave.

    A detainer can be received via teletype but a warrant takes longer.

    By eliminating the ICE detainer you are creating sanctuary situations.

    Obviously, ICE is overwhelmed, insisting on Federal Warrants or Judicial Orders only means dangerous illegal subjects will post bond and walk free.

  21. Karen,

    Are illegal aliens in this country legally or illegally?

    You are willing to let the policies of Chicago spread to McHenry county and the rest of the state? Other states living under the same federal rule without SB 31.

    Always be on the side of rule and order, protecting all legal citizens 1st.

    People are welcome to come to this country LEGALY and assimilate into our culture and values.

  22. Next MCGOPAC mailer:

    – Support Conservative Values
    – Support Sanctuary City Policy

    I’m beginning to see a pattern here with this group.

  23. Thanks CP. Thanks for reading all that!! Didn’t want to write a book but thought I should share all the points of discussion for reasons to abandon this Bill and demand a better solution by legislators in support of Law Enforcement Officers.

    Federal Farmer, I guess you didn’t read my most recent post (besides this one).

    After calling a forum of 12 Pro-Police participants to discuss the Bill, last night, it was determined that the best way to support the Police as much as possible, would be to abandon this Bill. Better to provide funding needed for training & manpower necessary to implement full and immediate enforcement of the law in cooperation with Federal Agencies now. When all is said and done, the tax dollars spent now, will be saved in the future.

    Of course, Never having strayed from that would have prevented the predicament we’re in now, but as you probably know, politicians are people with different administrations’ ideas and different interpretations of States’ Rights and new Bills such as The Dream Act and others that lessened the law and got us where we are today, against our will.

    I can admit when I may have jumped the gun (and didn’t weigh out ALL of the repercussions) before sharing the reasons given to me BY MEMBERS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT in support of this Bill. Discussing and Weighing all options and opening this up for discussion made easier to present an argument against this Bill.

  24. Takes a big person to say they may have jumped gun on decision.

    Unfortunately some politicians deliberately hide the real reasons for the bill.

    Big counties like Cook and departments like CPD have to be forced to cooperate with ICE. This bill gives them an out to release dangerous illegals into the community.

    This is a bill that will cost lives if not vetoed.

  25. Karen,

    Thanks for your honesty as well as your change of heart.

    We can’t let the PC world take over.

    The facts are the facts at the end of the day.

    Now if our Govenor will do the same?

  26. Karen, so again the pattern, just like your MCGOPAC.

    You solicit tens of thousands of dollars from “conservatives” to pay for mailers and literature promoting Joe’s Campaign and substantiate the contribution by also promoting nearly every otherv INCUMBENT OFFICIAL running as an R.

    After the fact, you guys after now telling us these guys are bad and must be replaced.

    “Oops!”

    Sort of like here, where after you come about publicly, you come back with “oops” I guess I didn’t know what it was talking about.”

    But, with your GOPAC you took many thousands of dollars from unsuspecting voters.

    I think you guys owe more than just an “oops”!

    I think you owe a refund to your contributors!

    Your GOPAC is suspect.

    But, I guess it will again be a handy tool to Garner contributions for Joe’s Clerk campaign this time around.

    Principles be damned…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.