Immigration bill targets ‘sanctuary cities and states’

An Indiana congressional representative introduced a new way to curb the perceived immigration problem last week. \nThe “No Sanctuary for Illegals Act,” introduced by U.S. Rep. Dan Burton (R-5), would withdraw all federal funding from states, counties or municipalities that interfere with federal immigration laws, as determined by the secretary of Homeland Security.\nIn his press release, Burton called these “sanctuary cities and states.”\n“Sanctuary cities and states” are those who break laws like allowing the hiring of illegal immigrants and giving out driver’s licenses either knowingly or neglectfully.\n“All elected officials, regardless of where they serve, are bound by the law of the United States,” Burton said in a press release. “They can’t pick and choose what laws they will abide by and enforce.”\nMedia representatives from Burton’s office declined to \ngive interviews. \nTo illustrate his point, Dane said that Jose Lachira Carranza, an illegal immigrant in Newark, N.J., was arrested for allegedly killing three students and injuring another while out on bail for unrelated charges. Dane, who said these illegal immigrants pose a danger, said the man could have remained in jail if his immigration status had been considered.\n“It’s a don’t ask, don’t tell policy, and it’s due for the waste bin,” Dane said. \nHowever, Gavin Rose, director of legislation for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, said that just because immigrants were not born here does not mean they are not entitled to rights and protection, which is the idea the country was built on. Rose said most immigrants, illegal or otherwise, do not become killers. \n“They’re just trying to make a better way for themselves,” Rose said. \nRose believes that any killing is tragic but the fact that the accused killer was an illegal immigrant made it front page news. He said if he had been a legal citizen, it would have received less attention. \nRose explained that not just the illegal immigrants would suffer because both illegal and legal citizens live within these states that would lose federal funding. \nProviding neither amnesty nor requiring deportation of millions of people, the bill aims to deter immigrants from entering the country illegally as there will be little to no help from the government once here, Dane said. \nTo reinstate federal funding, the states must enter an agreement with the secretary of Homeland Security to stop interfering with federal law. The formal agreement requirements are yet unclear.\nStudents interviewed were divided on the issue. While some said the proposed legislation would be ineffective, others appreciated the strong approach.\n“I think it’s harsh, but it’s a way to show the states we’re not going to deal with illegal immigration anymore,” freshman Kristen Young said. \nJodi Richardson, vice chair for the College Republicans doesn’t necessarily agree. To her, it seems a harsh measure to punish a whole state for the actions of a few businesses and individuals. However, she and Andrew Hahn, political vice president of the College Democrats, agreed, saying that if the government wants to solve the problem, they have to start somewhere.