Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Illinois is different than other states
Next Post: Emanuel connects cartoon response to SB1 veto
Posted in:
* From the Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier interview of Gov. Bruce Rauner…
BAIER: There are some families who say they’ve lost loved ones because of sanctuary status or policy and they’re trying to meet with you. Do you want to hear that point of view?
RAUNER: I want to hear everybody’s point of view. I work for everybody in the state of Illinois. Our immigration system is broken and we need to have a system that keeps the people of Illinois safe, the people of America safe. We’ve got to put that as the first priority.
* The Illinois Review did a brief piece on this social media meme…
* From the story…
The families of these three Illinoisans that died at the hands of immigrants in American illegally have yet to hear from Governor Rauner, although he promised Fox News’ Bret Baier he would speak with them before his final action on SB 31. The deadline for action on the bill is August 29th.
“No, the governor hasn’t called me yet,” Brian McCann told Illinois Review Tuesday morning. “It’s very disappointing. There are four families that want a chance to share their stories with him in person. We’re all hoping he does what he said he would do.”
The above meme is circulating the internet, encouraging calls to the governor’s office to veto SB 31.
* As you already know, the governor is supposed to sign SB31 next Monday. But that’s giving time for public pressure to build…
Fran Eaton, co-founder of the conservative Illinois Review website, questioned whether Rauner’s support for the bill was “the beginning of the end.”
“If he wants Republican support, then govern like a Republican,” Eaton tweeted. “It’s simple. Otherwise, it’s a waste of time & energy.” […]
State Sen. Dave Syverson of Rockford has said Republicans are concerned the “blanket prohibition could result in leaving criminal illegal immigrants, including those accused of violent crimes, on the streets.” The conservative news organization Breitbart just wrote an article on the bill suggesting Rauner would be helping Democrats “frustrate federal immigration enforcement.”
* But Lake County Sheriff Mark Curran, a Republican and a supporter of Donald Trump, supports the bill…
The legislation requires that local police not comply with immigration detainers and warrants not issued by a judge. Curran said that’s already standard practice.
But writing it into the law could help stop other sheriffs or police chiefs from going rogue, supporters say.
In addition, the TRUST Act would prevent local police from stopping, searching or arresting anyone based on their immigration or citizenship status.
Again, that’s already how it’s done in Lake County, Curran said. […]
“In order to police these communities, protect these communities from the true predators, you have to be able to pull up with lights and all and not have widespread fear and panic among citizens that really have nothing to do with the crime.”
* And that makes me wonder if Rep. Cabello understands the legislation…
Also critical of the bill is Rep. John Cabello, a Republican of Mexican heritage who is a Rockford police detective and also co-chair of the Illinois Trump Victory fund. Cabello said the measure puts police in the position of choosing whether to uphold federal law or state law.
“We can’t cherry-pick which laws we are going to enforce, it doesn’t matter if this bill is signed into law or not, law enforcement will do what we have to do,” he said. “I think this bill is symbolic, no law enforcement officer is going to follow this bill.”
* Related…
* Illinois Review: Despite threats of federal police funding cuts, Rauner to join Emanuel in defying federal immigration laws
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 1:25 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Illinois is different than other states
Next Post: Emanuel connects cartoon response to SB1 veto
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Today is August 23. The deadline to sign the bill is August 29. He does have time to talk to the families.
Comment by Piece of Work Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 1:31 pm
There is no federal law being violated. ICE cannot, and does not order a local agency to enforce this detainees, they are requests.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 1:31 pm
Do any other states have anything like the Trust Act?
Comment by blue dog dem Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 1:33 pm
==Do any other states have anything like the Trust Act?==
Per a federal court ruling last fall, by law every State that receices an immigration detainer out of Chicago essentially has this Trust Act in place.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 1:35 pm
Good luck calming nerves on the far right with this one. Don’t think that’s possible at this time.
The far right is much more in line with Sheriff Joe than Sheriff Curran.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 1:36 pm
People are turning this into something it isn’t. It simply states that the simple fact of being an illegal immigrant isn’t a reason to arrest someone. The police shouldn’t be in that business anyway.
And the $3.5B figure? I would love to see the deets behind that number.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 1:37 pm
Anony. So the Trust Act is just for show?
Comment by blue dog dem Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 1:37 pm
I have yet to see a conservative critic of the bill clearly understand what is in it. It is not the “sanctuary city” bill that Sessions et al, claim it is.
Comment by walker Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 1:38 pm
== no law enforcement officer is going to follow this bill.==
Is he saying that a law enforcement officer is going to ignore the law? That’s a real confidence builder. Law enforcement doing whatever it is they want to do.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 1:39 pm
Anony. Let me rephrase. Is the Trust Act for political gamemanship?
Comment by blue dog dem Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 1:39 pm
==makes me wonder if Rep. Cabello understands the legislation==
Because if he understood it, he wouldn’t misrepresent it? LOL.
==“I think this bill is symbolic, no law enforcement officer is going to follow this bill.”==
So Cabello has gone on record that police officers don’t follow laws they don’t like.
People who think cops can break laws they’ve sworn to uphold based on their personal opinions shouldn’t a) be cops or b) write laws, much less hold both jobs simultaneously.
Comment by crazybleedingheart Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 1:46 pm
Even as a Trump supporter, I do not want our local or state police using resources to enforce immigration. The one thing we should be doing is calling ICE when we have arrested someone on a charge unrelated to their status and have them in custody. Our expenses are reimbursed and it makes everyone’s job safer and easier.
Comment by CrazyHorse Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 1:48 pm
Rauner is cornered on this.
So, he’ll have to do the right thing by listening to these grieving families and then vetoing the bill.
Rauner gets no voters by supporting it, but will lose a lot if he signs.
He bought the wrong party on this issue.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 1:52 pm
===There is no federal law being violated. ICE cannot, and does not order a local agency to enforce this detainees, they are requests.
I’m so old that I remember when federalism was espoused by conservatives.
The idea that this makes people less safe is ridiculous. It encourages interactions with the police with those who are only undocumented thus giving those people the confidence to call in dangers to the community who are sometimes undocumented as well.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 1:53 pm
==So, he’ll have to do the right thing by listening to these grieving families and then vetoing the bill.==
But now that he’s said he’ll sign it, that’s going to create its own pain.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 1:55 pm
===I have yet to see a conservative critic of the bill clearly understand what is in it.===
It didn’t help when FOX News posted incorrect info about what was in the bill. And these are the same folks who screamed “amnesty” about a legal path to citizenship that included paying a fine and back taxes.
The people who are opposed to immigration reform have made up their minds. “What part of illegal don’t you understand?” That is the level of debate you can expect from these folks. Some are well-meaning but wrong. Others like Pulido and her minute men allies, are not well meaning.
The debate is toxic. Facts, logic and reason have no place here. Trump seized upon this emotional, nativist strain and rode it all the way to the White House. It is sad, pathetic and wrong, morally and economically.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 1:56 pm
The ad incorrectly spells Mahomet. Nice going, proofers.
Comment by Mahomet Man Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 1:58 pm
==Anony. Let me rephrase. Is the Trust Act for political gamemanship?==
It’s not gamesmanship to codify existing case law, it’s a pretty common and helpful procedure. It’s not perfect in that it also prevents enforcement of Administrative Warrants, but at least in terms of how locals deal with immingration detainers this just codifies existing law.
A major problem with all of this noise is people looking at the original language, which did in fact venture into law enforcement potentially violating federal law. This current version is nothing like the original.
Comment by Anony Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 2:02 pm
The bill’s 3 pages long, but somehow it looks as though the opposition folks haven’t even read it. It’s a law that’s sadly not for show because there’s always a chance a local police department or sheriff goes Joe Arpaio and just starts arresting people because they “look” undocumented.
Comment by Veil of Ignorance Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 2:06 pm
@Blue Dog
Not the anonymous poster, but I think its a little column A, little column B.
The bill does have the practical impact mentioned in the post — it standardizes what is already practice across much the state, set’s boundaries for what local law enforcement does vis-a-vis ICE, probably makes folks in immigrant communities a little less wary of law enforcement, and ensures Illinois isn’t blowing funds chasing down nonviolent offenders when ICE should be taking care of it. I see all of these as pretty clear policy benefits. It’s not a hugely radical piece of legislation, but it’s got some good impacts.
All of that said, I think it definitely is intended to have symbolic value as well. It’s supporters definitely want to position Illinois as a less-Hawkish state on immigration without moving into the more controversial sanctuary territory.
On a more cynical note, as someone who likes reasonable policy and dislikes Bruce Rauner’s tenure as governor, I feel like him signing this is a win-win for the state — we get good, bipartisan policy, and Bruce splits his supporters and possibly hurts his chances for reelection.
I work with groups that were part of the coalition that got this to his desk, and they did not push the bill for the purpose of creating a wedge. But for me, it seems like a happy accident.
Comment by Actual Red Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 2:09 pm
==The people who are opposed to immigration reform have made up their minds.==
Actually if you even mention the words immigration people on both sides have made up their minds. I don’t get it. I’m actually for building the wall while allowing people already here with no criminal backgrounds an accelerated path to citizenship.
My solution actually angers people on both sides and it’s somewhat of a compromise. The discourse is too toxic right now.
Comment by CrazyHorse Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 2:17 pm
==starts arresting people because they “look” undocumented.==
Coincidentally enough, that’s what spurred the lawsuit that in turn spurred the final version of the bill. The plaintiffs in that lawsuit, who ICE issued immigration detainers on, included a US Citizen and a lawful permanent resident.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 2:19 pm
===I’m actually for building the wall===
“Fixed fortifications are monuments to man’s stupidity.”
Gen. George S. Patton
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 2:27 pm
I keep hearing people say that the far don’t know whats in the bill. Well, who cares if they don’t know. Rauner spread a lot of misinformation about sb1 and other bills so this is his karma.
Comment by Real Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 2:28 pm
- wordslinger - is correct.
Sheriff Curran is much closer to Tom Dart on immigration than he is with Joe Arpaio. He won’t provide any cover on the right.
- CrazyHorse - I’m with you. I like the part of the TRUST Act that forbids police from acting as immigration agents, but there might be some cases when local police should have the option to honor a detainer request. The Dennis McCann story bothers me.
Comment by Roman Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 2:30 pm
Building that wall is a stupid idea. It’s nothing but tax dollars wasted on a shiny object that will not solve the problems we have with illegal immigration.
BTW, I’m a socialist. And even I recognize we have problems with illegal immigration.
Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 2:33 pm
The crime victim angle is interesting. In reality, undocumented workers commit crimes at lower rates than citizens.
Despite this, Illinois Review brings out a piece showing three white crime victims. The dog sure is going wild about that sound.
That’s Illinois Review for you. They will never change.
Comment by Gooner Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 2:34 pm
==“Fixed fortifications are monuments to man’s stupidity.”==
==Building that wall is a stupid idea. It’s nothing but tax dollars wasted on a shiny object that will not solve the problems we have with illegal immigration.==
The cost of the wall is a tiny, tiny fraction of the tax dollars that are spent on educating, incarcerating, and providing government services for illegals. What’s stupid is not turning off the faucet when the water bills are piling up.
Comment by CrazyHorse Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 2:47 pm
Building a wall isn’t going to stop anything. It might make you feel like we’re “protected” but you won’t be any more protected than you are now.
The wall is a show, plain and simple.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 2:52 pm
===The cost of the wall is a tiny, tiny fraction of the tax dollars that are spent on educating, incarcerating, and providing government services for illegals.===
Lol. Anybody working or buying stuff in this country is paying taxes, one way or another. Somehow that always gets left out of the discussion of the cost of “illegals.”
Btw, using the term “illegals” to describe people betrays your real views on the subject.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 2:57 pm
Let’s get back on topic, please. Thanks!
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 2:58 pm
Actually Crazy Horse, most undocumented workers pay taxes but qualify for nearly no benefits.
The only benefits they tend to get are education and ER care.
Meanwhile, they pay a long list of taxes.
Did I mention the crime rate? Lower for undocumented workers than for citizens.
There are economic reasons to limit immigration (mostly based on downward wage pressure) but taxes, benefits and crime are not legitimate reasons to oppose immigration.
Comment by Gooner Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 3:00 pm
Read a a actual sanctuary city ordinance
https://chicagocode.org/2/2-173/
AND then read SB 31….Very very different
Comment by Welcoming IL Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 3:04 pm
I believe,as has been previously posted Federal Court rulings make this moot. It probably is for show altho I don’t think it helps Rauner. Cynic that I am I think he is doing it to insure plenty of labor (cheap labor) for his rich industrial friends
Comment by DuPage Saint Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 3:09 pm
This is dog-whistle at its worst. Speaking not at all on the merits of this bill, since it is largely a codification of current procedure, I agree that it’s more problematic for Rauner to sign than veto. He needs every single Republican vote he can get in 2018 and signing will likely cost him a few from people who are attenuated to the pitch of the whistle. Signing gains him none (on either side) and costs him some. Vetoing gains him none and costs him none.
Comment by Downstate43 Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 3:11 pm
Rauner must dance with the only people who support him now. Doing a big deal empathizing with each victim’s families, then making a big PR presser over how his heart was moved from signing to vetoing can show citizens that he does have a heart.
Few supporting this bill are Rauner supporters. He won’t win back votes signing it. Vetoing it will make news and playing it with empathy and heart will solidify his support.
I’d definately advise him to use this issue to raise his enemies’ hackles and stand with down-home taxpayers. They’ll love.
If he signs, Rauner loses his only base of voters.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 3:31 pm
Police cherry pick which laws to enforce all the time. One example is how few whites are arrested for possessing and using illegal drugs. Another is how often certain people are let go with lower level traffic offenses instead of what they actually got pulled over for.
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 3:57 pm
Precinct Captain, exercising discretion is different than breaking the law.
Comment by crazybleedingheart Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 4:17 pm
==Precinct Captain, exercising discretion is different than breaking the law.==
Do tell, please, which laws would be broken with this Act? Keep in mind the administrative detainees, by the Federal government’s own admission in Court, are requests and compliance by locals is not mandated by law.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 4:21 pm
I came he legally and went through the process to become a citizen. Now this State is giving preferential treatment to ILLEGAL’s. I’m out of here.
Comment by cameherelegally Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 4:24 pm
==Now this State is giving preferential treatment to ILLEGAL’s==
Umm, no it’s not.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 4:27 pm
Bill summary (again):
==Prohibits law enforcement agencies and officials from detaining or continuing to detain an individual solely on the basis of an immigration detainer or non-judicial immigration warrant or from otherwise complying with an immigration detainer or non-judicial immigration warrant==
Cabello, again:
==“no law enforcement officer is going to follow this bill.”==
He said, in plain terms, that police (apparently including himself?) are going to ignore the fact that the law explicitly prohibits them from doing something.
That is unlawful.
It’s a pretty big problem.
Ask Sheriff Joe’s lawyer.
Comment by crazybleedingheart Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 4:28 pm
Finishing my thought . . .
All the bill says is that the state isn’t going to be the immigration police. Nor should they. That’s someone else’s job.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 4:28 pm
Who said they won’t be deported. That’s the feds job, not the state’s job. This leaves immigration policing up to them. And I’m pretty sure the federal courts have said that anyway.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 4:30 pm
And, by the way, this is coming from someone who’s wife is an immigrant who went through the citizenship process and who wrote a very big check to the Department of Homeland Security. This doesn’t bother me in the least.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 4:31 pm
==Few supporting this bill are Rauner supporters. ==
How do you know this?
I doubt it’s true.
Comment by crazybleedingheart Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 4:32 pm
===ILLEGAL IS A CRIME===
Sigh. Ibid.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 4:35 pm
I’m surprised he didn’t amend the bill with an exemption for union members.
Comment by Liberty Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 5:01 pm
Bill got almost exclusive Dem support in General Assembly.
Rauner will sign it even in the face of conservative critics like Fox and Breitbart.
Dems will still say he’s a racist, can’t be reasonable and refuses to compromise.
Comment by Anon312 Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 8:33 pm
Two choices, if person detained is definitely a citizen, proceed per usual.
If any ambiguity on status of citizenship, call ICE.
Comment by cc Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:09 am