TODAY!!!!!!!!!!! On the Senate and House Floors

Image result for importantSB 2332 Green – HB 2315 Reedy

SB 2332 by *Green , Bell, Ketron, Roberts, Pody, Southerland, Bowling, Jackson, Gresham

HB 2315 by *Reedy, , Terry, Sexton J, Moody, Rogers, Hill M, Goins, Eldridge, Byrd, Matheny, Boyd, Matlock, White D, Weaver, Keisling, Zachary, VanHuss, Carr , Vaughan, Crawford, Hawk, Whitson, Tillis, Kane, Calfee, Marsh, Sexton C, Lynn, Johnson, Moon, Hill T, Holt, Casada, Holsclaw, Halford, Brooks H, Sargent, Brooks K, McCormick, McDaniel, Carter, Travis, Gant, Smith, Sherrell, Powers, Lollar, Gravitt, Sparks, Littleton, Hulsey, Coley, Ragan, Doss, Lamberth, Howell, Hicks, Williams, Faison, Kumar, Butt, Forgety, Harwell, Daniel, Rudd, Alexander, White M, Wirgau

Purpose of the bill:

To augment and clarify Tennessee’s public policy regarding cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Why we need this bill:

In June 2017, the Davidson County Metro Council introduced two ordinances designed to obstruct compliance with both federal and state law regarding illegal aliens who have committed criminal acts in addition to, or unrelated to their immigration status.

Opposition by more than half of the Tennessee General Assembly members to Metro Council’s efforts to effectively operate as a sanctuary city, along with a negative legal opinion by Metro’s Legal Director, resulted in both ordinances being withdrawn by the sponsors.

Metro Council’s attempt to obstruct cooperation federal immigration authorities using a “don’t ask so you don’t have to know or tell” practice highlights the need to strengthen and clarify Tennessee law.

How this bill works:

Section 1 (state) and Section 2 (local) – broaden the definition of “sanctuary policy” to include “any directive, order, ordinance, resolution, practice or policy, whether formally enacted, informally adopted, or otherwise effectuated”

  • sanctuary policies come in a variety of ways; some are enacted as written local laws while others are embedded in “welcoming resolutions” or simply as internal law enforcement agency policy and/or practices
  • Tennessee’s current sanctuary policy only addresses written policies and does not extend to
  • practices
  • the broader definition is explicit that no governmental entity in Tennessee will be limited or prohibited from communicating with federal immigration authorities
  • AG Loretta Lynch said that city officials must comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 – the free flow of communication between state/local government and federal immigration officers concerning an individual’s citizenship or immigration status.
  • North Carolina and Georgia have adopted the broader definition

Sections 1 and 3 allow the state to withhold future ECD moneys(existing grants cannot be rescinded) from any governmental entity that adopts a sanctuary policy (per the broadened definition of sanctuary policy)

Section 5 – affirms that cooperating with ICE and complying with detainer requests is consistent with federal law

  • ICE detainers are based on a statement of probable cause that an immigration violation has occurred.
  • 5th Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld compliance by local law enforcement with the ICE detainer and said there was no violation of constitutional rights.
  • two New York cases (2014 & 2015) held that an ICE detainer based on probable cause did not violate any constitutional rights.
  • removal under federal immigration law is a civil matter so no jurisdiction for Article III judges to issue judicial warrants. The Immigration and Nationality Act provides for DHS issued administrative warrants.
  • memorandum of agreement by local law enforcement to enforce immigration law pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1357(g) is permissive.

•    communication or cooperation with federal immigration authorities in the identification of removable aliens does NOT require a written agreement per 8 U.S.C. 1357(g)(10)

%d bloggers like this: