Citizen Protection Against 'Sanctuary' Policies Moves Forward in Senate

DENVER -- A Senate Republican bill aimed at ending “sanctuary” policies that protect criminal aliens passed its first hurdle Monday, on a 3 to 2 party line vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee, following three hours of testimony by more than 25 witnesses.

SB-281 moves next to the Senate floor for debate.
 
The bill’s sponsors, Sen. Tim Neville (R-Jefferson County) Sen. Vicki Marble (R-Fort Collins), praised the citizens who came forward to tell both sides of a contentious issue. “We heard several crime victims ask lawmakers to pass the bill so dangerous criminals will not see Colorado as a ‘safe place,’” said Sen. Neville. “Senate bill 281 will empower crime victims instead of criminals,” added Sen. Marble, “by giving crime victims standing to sue so-called sanctuary jurisdictions when the convicted criminal resided there.”  

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday also turned thumbs down on House Bill-1230, which would have made all of Colorado a “sanctuary state” by prohibiting local sheriffs and other state agencies from cooperating with federal immigration law enforcement. 

Do you like this post?

Showing 1 reaction


commented 2017-04-12 06:20:52 -0600 · Flag
SEPARATION CITIES
instead of SANCTUARY CITIES?

The expression “sanctuary cities”
might be taken to mean
that foreign nationals
will not be arrested for ordinary crimes.
Not so.
All crimes will be investigated
and laws will be enforced.

The mayor of St. Paul, Minnesota
suggests a new expression:
SEPARATION CITIES”.
What most of these cities really mean
is that there will be OFFICIAL SEPARATION
between the POLICE functions
and the PRISON functions.

If and when any individual
(regardless of citizenship)
is arrested for probable cause,
then FULL IDENTIFICATION of this individual
should be obtained
—-explicitly including country of citizenship.
Booking includes taking a picture of the person arrested
and creating a set of fingerprints,
which are automatically compared
with other fingerprints kept by the FBI.
If this person is wanted for any other crimes,
then that fact will be taken into account
for all future cooperation
with other agencies of law-enforcement.

In short, the POLICE can do their work
without ever asking for immigration status.
(This protects all who cooperate with the police.)

But if and when some criminal suspect is ARRESTED,
then the full identity of that suspect
should be explored by the PRISON authorities.

On the STREET, no one is asked about citizenship.
But in JAIL, all suspects are completely identified.

The federal government should have no problems
with such SEPARATION CITIES.
Both sides of the debate get what they want:
The city police do not arrest anyone for immigration violations.
Once in custody for ordinary crimes,
the prison authorities fully identify the suspects
and cooperate with all other levels of law-enforcement.

One additional administrative way to achieve this SEPARATION
already exists in many locations:
The CITY sets policy for the local POLICE.
And the COUNTY sets policy for the local JAIL.
Property taxes support both levels of government,
but there are different governing bodies
—-perhaps a city council
and a county board of commissioners.

And even when the same governing body sets both policies,
they can clearly SEPARATE the POLICE PRACTICES
from the PRISON PRACTICES.

When all local and state jails and prisons cooperate
with all levels of national law-enforcement,
there should be no threat of withholding federal funds
from any such SEPARATION CITIES.
LATEST TWEETS
Signup for Email Updates