No Sanctuary Cities
FACTS about the Sanctuary City Bill
The final language of HB2315, passed overwhelmingly by both the House and Senate, is a product of respectful and thorough dialogue – listening and responding to each concern raised.
Changes that were made include:
Removing the provisions that would have permitted Tennessee residents to submit a complaint alleging a violation of the statute directly to the Attorney General. The bill no longer involves the Attorney General’s office and instead, retains the process that is already in the T.C.A. allowing a state resident to take their complaint to Chancery Court.
Clarifying the language to ensure that any withholding of ECD grants was prospective only and that already obligated ECD grants remained undisturbed. Further, the bill is structured so that ineligibility for an ECD grant is only triggered after a court finding a violation of the statute. Moreover, state agencies and localities are eligible to receive ECD grants once the sanctuary policies are rescinded, repealed, or otherwise not in effect.
Upon recommendation from House State Government legal counsel, language was removed to ensure that any potential Constitutional questions regarding compliance with ICE detainer requests were negated.
Moving the effective date to January 2019, to allow state and local agencies, law enforcement and other governmental bodies, sufficient time to comply with the new law.
All communities in Tennessee should be “welcoming,” but residents of Tennessee communities should also welcome living in communities where law is respected and upheld as opposed to selective enforcement based on political agendas. That is the primary purpose underlying HB2315.
Tennessee was among the early state leaders in enacting an anti-sanctuary city law in 2009, but an ordinance proposed by the Metro Nashville Council in June 2017, exposed how a practice could be instituted that would, in effect, create a sanctuary city, but avoid violating state law.
States that have passed anti-sanctuary city laws since 2009, have defined sanctuary policies to include “practices” that either prohibit or restrict cooperation with federal immigration authorities executing their duties under federal law, or are preempted by federal law.
The same “practice” language was included in a 2018 U.S. Senate amendment supported by both Senators Alexander and Corker.
Importantly, the bill’s provisions regarding compliance with ICE detainer requests were upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling on the Texas sanctuary city law, reputed to be the strictest in the country.
The Court determined Texas law enforcement could comply with, honor and fulfill detainer requests.
The Court also held that state and local law enforcement are not making any independent decisions about detaining someone but acting only when there has already been direction from the ICE agent who makes the underlying removability determination.
The Court also held that immigration officers may “seize” aliens based on an administration warrant attesting to the probable cause of removability (i.e., a detainer). Moreover, the new detainer form (I-247A) requires the ICE officer to certify that probable cause of removabilty exists – thus the ice detainer evidences probable cause of removability in every instance. Under the “collective knowledge” doctrine, the local law enforcement officer doesn’t need probable cause himself because the knowledge is imputed to him/her. (i.e. the ICE officer’s knowledge passes to the local officer.)
HB2315 does not authorize state or local law enforcement on their own inquiry, to arrest someone based on immigration status.
Nor will HB2315 result in racial profiling, a purely speculative and unfounded claim not supported in any way by the experience in other states that have passed similar legislation. For a sanctuary policy to be triggered, a person must first be arrested for committing a crime under Tennessee law before the policies set forth in HB2315 are relevant.
In fact, ICE data makes a strong case that sanctuary cities post an increase risk to public safety. Following a spike in jurisdictions refusing to cooperate with the federal government in 2014, ICE analyzed the effect of noncooperation nationally and found:
Between January 1, 2014 and September 30, 2014, sanctuary jurisdictions released over 9,000 aliens that ICE had sought to remove;
Of those aliens released, nearly 6,000 had significant prior criminal histories or other public safety concerns;
Of those with a prior history of concern, 58% had prior felony charges or convictions; and
Over 2,000 of the total number released were re-arrested within that 10-month period, and ICE has not been able to re-apprehend those individuals.
NO Sanctuary Cities
READ MORE: Click here to read the legislation
READ MORE: Click here to read Gov. Haslam's letter
So grateful to our sponsors: Sen. Mark Green and Rep. Jay Reedy and all the co-sponsors we had as well as each of those in the Senate and House who overwhelmingly voted for this important legislation.
I would love to tell you that the passage of this important legislation was the end of the story, BUT, as you can see from the links below, we are STILL in the FIGHT for our life. The OPPONENTS of our bill are doing everything in their power - including totally misrepresenting the facts and using scare tactics, to get the Governor to
VETO this important legislation.
It is more important than EVER that you ask the Governor to sign the Sanctuary Bill. You can call the Governor at 615-741-2001 or send him an email at email@example.com
Passed Senate, Ayes 27, Nays 4 04/25/2018 [will post names when they are posted on the Legislative Website.]
HB2315 by Reedy - FLOOR VOTE: AS AMENDED PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 4/25/2018
Representatives voting aye were: Alexander, Boyd, Brooks H., Brooks K., Butt, Byrd, Calfee, Carr, Carter, Casada, Coley, Crawford, Curcio, Daniel, Doss, Dunn, Eldridge, Faison, Forgety, Gant, Goins, Halford, Hawk, Hicks, Hill M., Hill T., Holt, Hulsey, Johnson, Kane, Keisling, Kumar, Lamberth, Littleton, Lollar, Lynn, Marsh, Matheny, Matlock, McCormick, Moody, Moon, Powers, Ragan, Reedy, Rogers, Rudd, Sexton C., Sexton J., Sherrell, Smith, Sparks, Tillis, Travis, Van Huss, Vaughan, Weaver, White M., Whitson, Williams, Windle, Wirgau, Zachary, Madame Speaker Harwell -- 64.
Representatives voting no were: Akbari, Beck, Camper, Clemmons, Cooper, DeBerry, Fitzhugh, Gilmore, Hardaway, Hazlewood, Love, McDaniel, Miller, Mitchell, Parkinson, Pitts, Powell, Shaw, Staples, Stewart, Thompson, Towns, Turner -- 23.
Sanctuary Bill text HERE as amended and passed by the State Government Committee. We will continue with this language through the Finance Committee, the Calendar and Rules Committee and on the House Floor.
SB 2332 by *Green , Bell, Ketron, Roberts, Pody, Southerland, Bowling, Jackson, Gresham, Reeves, Hensley, Lundberg - 12
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, Brooks K, McCormick, 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, Windle - 67
Immigration - As introduced, prohibits state and local governmental entities and officials from adopting sanctuary policies; authorizes Tennessee residents and members of the general assembly to submit complaints to the attorney general; provides that violations subject entities to ineligibility of state moneys; requires law enforcement agencies to enter into memorandums of agreement with federal officials concerning enforcement of federal immigration laws
PLEASE NOTE, THIS BILL HAS BEEN RE-WRITTEN. You can find the new text HERE.
2017 Anti-Sanctuary City Bill Update
SB 2332 Green - HB 2315 Reedy
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 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” practicehighlights 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
• 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 ECD moneys 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 which permits state and local law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration officers without a written agreement.
• ICE detainers are accompanied by a warrant and a statement of probable cause that an immigration violation has occurred.
• 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)
We are very grateful to Sen. Mark Green, MD, (Clarksville), and Rep. William Lamberth (Portland), for being the sponsors of the Anti-Municipal ID bill (SB2333-HB2312.). We saw it as a companion to our Anti-Sanctuary City bill.
Under Rep. Lamberth's excellent leadership, on April 12, HB2312 passed the House floor 72-23-1. Then we were off to the Senate floor. Our great sponsor, Sen. Green ran into a lot of opposition among his colleagues. On April 25, the Senate passed different language, 23-5. When that language was sent back to the House, the House refused to adopt and the bill was sent to a Conference Committee.
Now keep in mind, this was the last day of the Session. Some changes were made, then the Conference Committee Report was send back to both Chambers, where it passed the House 69-9-1 and the Senate 25-3. In each Chamber the vote on the Report was the LAST VOTE TAKEN before they adjourned Sine Die for the year!!!
It went to the Governor on May 10 and HE SIGNED it on May 21st. Whew!!!
In addition to our gratitude to our sponsors, we are grateful for every person who contacted their legislators and the Governor in support of this bill.
Conf. comm. report adopted, Ayes 69, Nays 9 PNV 1 in the House, adopted in the Senate Ayes 25, Nays 3
April 25,2018, The ID bill passed the Senate 23-5:
Sens. Voting aye: Bailey, Bell, Bowling, Briggs, Crowe, Dickerson, Gardenhire, Green, Gresham, Hensley, Jackson, Johnson, Lundberg, Massey, Niceley, Pody, Reeves, Roberts, Stevens, Swann, Watson, Yager, Mr. Speaker McNally. Sens. vote No; Harper, Harris, Lyle, Tate, Yarbro.
HB2312 by Lamberth - FLOOR VOTE: AS AMENDED PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 4/12/2018
Present and not voting...................1
Representatives voting aye were: Alexander, Boyd, Brooks H., Brooks K., Butt, Byrd, Calfee, Carr, Carter, Casada, Coley, Crawford, Curcio, Daniel, Doss, Eldridge, Faison, Farmer, Forgety, Gant, Gravitt, Halford, Hawk, Hazlewood, Hicks, Hill M., Hill T., Holsclaw, Holt, Howell, Hulsey, Johnson, Kane, Keisling, Kumar, Lamberth, Littleton, Lollar, Lynn, Marsh, Matheny, Matlock, McCormick, McDaniel, Moody, Moon, Powers, Ragan, Ramsey, Reedy, Rogers, Rudd, Sanderson, Sargent, Sexton C., Sexton J., Sherrell, Smith, Sparks, Terry, Tillis, Travis, Van Huss, Vaughan, Weaver, White D., White M., Whitson, Windle, Wirgau, Zachary, Madame Speaker Harwell -- 72.
Representatives voting no were: Akbari, Beck, Camper, Clemmons, Cooper, Favors, Fitzhugh, Gilmore, Hardaway, Jernigan, Jones, Love, Miller, Mitchell, Parkinson, Pitts, Powell, Shaw, Staples, Stewart, Thompson, Towns, Turner -- 23.
Representatives present and not voting were: Dunn -- 1.
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Sign-up for TN Eagle Forum's Daily Updates!