Sanctuary policies; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers. (SB270)

This is a transcript of the video clips in which this bill is discussed.

THE SENATOR FROM BUCKINGHAM, SENATOR GARRETT.

Sen. Tom Garrett (R-Lynchburg): THIS SAYS THAT ANY CITIES, TOWNS OR COUNTIES IN THE COMMONWEALTH THAT PROMULGATE REGULATIONS THAT WOULD IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS SANCTUARY CITIES WOULD THEN BE SUBJECT TO THE WITHHOLDING OF STATE OR FEDERAL FUNDS AS APPROPRIATE. I WOULD ASK THE BILL PASS.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM ROANOKE CITY, SENATOR EDWARDS.

Sen. John Edwards (D-Roanoke): WOULD THE SENATOR FROM BUCKINGHAM YIELD FOR A QUESTION.

[Unknown]: I WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO.

Sen. John Edwards (D-Roanoke): HE YIELDS, SENATOR. THE CASE OF A SANCTUARY CITY WHICH IS A CITY THAT DOES NOT WHICH IS A CITY THAT DOES NOT ENFORCE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE FEDERAL LAW IT SAYS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL REDUCE SHALL REDUCE STATE'S FUNDING TO THESE LOCALITIES. TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY STATE AND FEDERAL LAW END JET, MR. PRESIDENT, WHAT IS THAT EXTENT THAT STATE AND FEDERAL LAW ALLOWS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO REDUCE FUNDING BY?

[Unknown]: THERE ARE CERTAIN MONEYS REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE DISSEMINATED AND OTHER MONEYS REQUIRED WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE STATE OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AT THE LATITUDE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO BE DISSIM NATE AND THE BILL SEEKS TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THOSE TWO. IN FACT, THE BILL IS CRAFTILY ENOUGH WRIT THAN IT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THOSE TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES EXIST AND ALLOWS THE LATITUDE FOR US TO NOT VIOLATE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS WHICH ENFORCING THE EDICT THAT LOCALITIES NOT DECLARE THEMSELVES SANCTIONARY CITIES. IF THERE IS A SANCTUARY CITY WHICH I'M NOT AWARE OF IN VIRGINIA COULD THE STATE SAY WE WELL, WE ARE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU FUNDING FOR YOUR PRESCHOOL PROGRAM OR KINDERGARTEN PROGRAM FOR EXAMPLE? IS THAT A QUESTION, SENATOR? WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD FOR A QUESTION? I WOULD. AND I HEARD THE QUESTION. AND THE ANSWER IS YES. OKAY. THIS. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THANK YOU, SENATOR. MR. PRESIDENT, SPEAKING AGAINST THE BILL. THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. MR. PRESIDENT, THIS IS A MEASURE LOOKING FOR A PROBLEM TO SOLVE AND MR. PRESIDENT, THE IDEA THAT THE STATE SHALL AND MUST REDUCE FUNDING FOR THINK HYPOTHETICALLY KINDERGARTEN IN A LOCALITY JUST BECAUSE THE STATE DECIDED THE LOCALITY WAS A SANCTUARY CITY OF WHICH WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY VIRGINIA SEEMS TO MAKE NO SENSE AT ALL. I HOPE THE BODY WOULD VOTE NO ON THE BILL. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM ARLINGTON, SENATOR FAVOLA. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. SPEAKING TO THE MOTION. THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. I WOULD ASK THAT WE DEFEAT THIS BILL FOR SEVERAL REASONS. WE DO HAVE A DILLON RULE CONTEXT IN THIS STATE SO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS REALLY ONLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY THAT IS SPECIFICALLY DELEGATED TO THEM BY THE STATE. AND WE ALREADY HAVE LAWS ON THE BOOKS THAT REALLY PROHIBIT THIS SANCTUARY CITY OPTION ANYWAYS SO I DON'T SEE WHAT PURPOSE THIS ADDITIONAL BILL WOULD SERVE. AND I GUESS MORE IMPORTANTLY, I DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW YOU WOULD IMPLEMENT THIS BILL AND THE THOUGHT OF A JOURNAL LOSING STATE MONEY WHEN IN FACT JURISDICTIONS IN THIS COMMONWEALTH ARE NOT SANCTUARY CITIES DOES NOT MAKE A LOT OF SENSE. SO WE DON'T NEED THIS AND I WOULD ASK THAT THE BODY NOT SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM ALEXANDRIA, SENATOR EBBIN.

Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria): WOULD THE SENATOR FROM BUCKINGHAM YIELD FOR A QUESTION?

[Unknown]: WOULD THE SENATOR FROM BUCKINGHAM YIELD FOR A QUESTION?

Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria): I WOULD.

[Unknown]: HE YIELDS, SENATOR. COULD THE GENTLEMAN NAME POLICIES OR PROCEDURES IN PLACE BY JURISDICTIONS WITHIN VIRGINIA TODAY THAT DON'T ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAW TO THE FULL EXTENT OF FEDERAL LAW? THE SENATOR FROM BUCKINGHAM? YES AND NO. THERE ARE ANY NUMBER OF REASONS WHY LOCALITIES DO NOT CURRENTLY FOR EXAMPLE HOLD DETAINEES FOREVER. WAITING ON I.C.E. TO DO THE JOB THAT THE FEDERAL LAW SUGGESTS THAT THEY NEED TO DO, ONE OF WHICH IS THAT THE LOCALITIES ARE BURDENED WITH THE COST OF INCARCERATION AT THE JAIL LEVEL NOT UNTIL INDIVIDUALS GET TO THE PRISON LEVEL DO THEY BECOME THE BURDEN OF THE STATE. AND LOCALITIES ARE CREEING UNDER THE STRAIN OF THE IMMENSE BILLS THAT THEY ALREADY FACE. AND SO THEREFORE MANY LOCALITIES AS A MATTER OF PRACTICAL DECISION-MAKING CHOOSE NOT TO INCARCERATE PEOPLE FOREVER UNTIL I.C.E. SHOWS UP AND THIS BILL WOULDN'T STOP THAT. LET ME BE CLEAR. WHAT THIS BILL WOULD DO IS COO EPIIS A LOCALITY FROM REFUSING TO ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW WHEN IT WAS DIRECTED. I FIND IT IRONIC, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT PEOPLE CAULK ABOUT LOCALITIES POTENTIALLY LOSING MONEY BUT SAY THERE ARE NO SANCTUARY CITIES IN VIRGINIA BECAUSE IF THERE ARE NO SANCTUARY CITIES IN VIRGINIA THEN PASS THE BILL. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR ANOTHER QUESTION? WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD FOR AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION. I WOULD LOVE TO YIELD FOR AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION. I LIKE THIS. HE YIELDS, SENATOR. MAYBE I SHOULD JUST SPEAK AGAINST THE BILL. I WILL ASK ON LINES 15 AND 16 IT STAYS SO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY STATE AND FEDERAL LAW TO ANY CITY OR LOCALITY FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED THE CONDITIONS. A LOCALITY WERE TO SEE SOMEONE ON A CIVIL OR ADMINISTRATIVE WARRANT THAT THEY WOULD NOW HAVE TO ARREST THEM AND HOLD THEM INDEFINITELY UNTIL I.C.E. SHOWED UP. IS THAT CORRECT? THE SENATOR FROM BUCKINGHAM? I DON'T KNOW HOW I WAS UNCLEAR THE LAST TIME I SPOKE. NO. THE BILL WOULD REQUIRE LOCALITIES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY ADOPT ORDINANCES WHEREIN THEY REFUSE TO ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW. IT WOULD NOT COMPEL THEM TO SINGLE HANDEDLY AND ON THEIR OWN ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW. ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT SAYS IS YOU MAY NOT ADOPT POLICIES WHEREIN YOU EXPLICITLY REFUSE TO UP HELD THE LAW. IT DOESN'T SAY YOU JUST UPHOLD THE LAW. IT IS CLEAR, IF THERE ARE NO SANCTUARY CITIES, WHY NOT PASS THE BILL? SPEAKING AGAINST THE BILL, SIR. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, SENATOR. I WOULD POINT OUT THE BILL SAYS THEY SHALL NOT ADOPT ANY PROCEDURE OR POLICY THAT RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS AND THAT OUR POLICE DEPARTMENTS USUALLY DON'T CONDUCT THEMSELVES IN ARBITRARY MANNER WHERE ONE OFFICER WILL DO SOMETHING THAN ANOTHER OFFICER AND IT IS OKAY TO HAVE A POLICY AND PROCEDURE. THE IF ED RAL IMMIGRATION DO NOT SPICK UP AT JAILS OR. JUST REFUSE TO PICK UP FOR WEEKS OR MONTHS AT A TIME. THIS WOULD REQUIRE US TO BECOME IMMIGRATION AGENTS WHEN WE KNOW THAT NO ONE IN THE STATE IS BLATANTLY VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW. IT WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO KEEP PEOPLE IN JAILS AND EVENTUALLY IN THE STATE PRISONS PERHAPS AND IT IS UNNECESSARY AND UNCLEAR AND REQUIRES US TO BECOME FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AGENTS. WITH THAT I WOULD ASK THAT YOU OPPOSE THE BILL. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX, SENATOR SASLAW.

Sen. Dick Saslaw (D-Springfield): YOU KNOW, MR. PRESIDENT, THE ONE THING THAT WE ARE NEVER GOING TO RUN OUT OF AROUND HERE IS HYPOCRISY, OKAY. I KNOW THAT THE SENATOR HAS GOOD INTENTIONS AND HOPEFULLY I AM GOING TO GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO EXPLAIN SOME OF THESE GOOD INTENTIONS BUT I BELIEVE HE VOTED FOR A BILL THAT CAME OUT-OF-COURTS AND WENT BACK, I THINK, THAT SAID THAT IF SOMEONE RELIGIOUSLY OPPOSED A PARTICULAR UNION OR MARRIAGE THEN THEY WOULDN'T FACE ANY SANCTIONS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA. AND IT WAS PERFECTLY FINE. NOW, I DON'T THINK APPARENTLY HE IS NOT WILLING TO EXTEND THE SAME THING TO PEOPLE WHO FEEL IT IS IMMORAL AND AGAINST THEIR RELIGION TO ENFORCE WHAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT FEEL IS AN UNJUST FEDERAL LAW OR ACTION. THAT IS CALLED HYPOCRISY, OKAY, AND THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF IT HERE. NOW, HAVING SAID THAT LET ME JUST TELL YOU THIS ALL I CAN SAY THATs IS YOU BETTER HOPE THAT ALL OF THESE UNDOCUMENTED PEOPLE DON'T GO BACK TO WHEREVER THEY CAME FROM BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE TROUBLE GETTING ANY SERVICE IN YOUR HOTEL ON THE EAST OR WEST COAST. THAT FEDERAL COURTHOUSE IS NO MORE THAN WHAT, 100 YARDS FROM HERE. THAT BUILDING WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN BUILT WITHOUT THAT. YOU HEARD ME RIGHT. THAT BUILDING WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BUILT WITHOUT THAT. AND WHEN THEY RAIDED THAT THING AFTER IT WAS 99.9% COMPLETE AND DON'T YOU KID YOURSELF FOR ONE SECOND, THEY KNEW UNDOCUMENTED PEOPLE WERE WORKING ON THAT COURTHOUSE BUT THEY WERE TOLD YOU RAID THAT THING AND THAT BUILDING IS NEVER GOING TO BE BUILT. WHO ARE WE KIDDING? WHO ARE WE KIDDING? YOU KNOW, WE PUT IN THESE THINGS LIKE WE ARE TAKING THE MORALLY CORRECT POSITION. EVERYBODY IN HERE, EVERYBODY IN HERE KNOWS THAT IS A BUNCH OF YOU KNOW WHAT, OKAY? WE ARE NOTHING BUT HYPOCRITES IF WE PASS THIS KIND OF BILL. IF IT IS EXCUSE ME IF IT IS RELIGIOUSLY PER MISSABLE TO REFUSE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE BECAUSE IT VIOLATES YOUR RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE TO PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GET MARRIED WHO YOU DON'T THINK SHOULD BE GETTING MARRIED IT ISN'T ANY DIFFERENT THAN REFUSING TO ENFORCE A FEDERAL LAW. AND BY THE WAY, YOU ARE, THE SENATOR IS EXACTLY RIGHT, COST HAS AN AWFUL LOT TO DO WITH THAT AND THAT IS ONE REASON FOR EFFECTIVELY WE HAVE GOT ABOUT 138 OKAY, ABOUT 138 SANCTIONARY JURISDICTIONS IN VIRGINIA. AND EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM ALL 40 OF US KNOW IT. AND THIS BILL ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE IT, I DOUBT IF THE GOVERNOR WILL SIGN IT, BUT THIS BILL ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE A THING. I HOPE THAT WE DON'T PUT THINGS LIKE THIS INTO THE CODE BECAUSE IT MAKES US LOOK FOLLOWISH.

[Unknown]: THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN, SENATOR BLACK.

Sen. Dick Black (R-Leesburg): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I THINK THAT THE BILL IS BEING MISCHARACTERIZED. THE BILL SIMPLY SAYS THAT NO LOCALITY SHALL ADOPT ANY ORDINANCE, PROCEDURE OR POLICY THAT RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMIT THE BY FEDERAL LAW. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY LOCALITY TO ENACT ANY ORDINANCE. IT SIMPLY SAYS THAT THEY WILL NOT ENACT ORDINANCES THAT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL LAW. AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE DOING THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND SO -- AND I AM NOT AT ALL CONVINCED, I RESPECT GREATLY THE GENTLEMAN FROM FAIRFAX, BUT I AM NOT SURE THAT WE HAVE SANCTUARY CITIES ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION OF THIS BILL. NOW WE DO HAVE JURISDICTIONS THAT ARE VERY SYMPATHETIC TOWARDS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND THAT IS THEIR BUSINESS AND THAT IS THEIR, YOU KNOW, THEIR GENERAL APPROACH TO THINGS. HOWEVER, WHAT THIS DOES, THIS IS VERY LIMITED BECAUSE IT SAYS THEY WILL NOT ENACT AN ORDINANCE THAT IS ESSENTIALLY IN CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL LAW. AND I DON'T THINK THAT HE SHOULD BE DOING -- I DON'T THINK THIS HE SHOULD BE DOING THAT AND I THINK WE SHOULD PASS THE BILL.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR FROM BUCKINGHAM, SENATOR GARRETT.

Sen. Tom Garrett (R-Lynchburg): MR. PRESIDENT, SPEAKING TO THE BILL.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR.

Sen. Tom Garrett (R-Lynchburg): WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS READ THIS BILL. NOW, UNLIKE SOME BILLS IT WON'T TAKE 20 MINUTES. IT MIGHT TAKE 20 SECONDS. NO LOCALITY SHALL ADOPT ANY ORDINANCE OR PROCEDURE OR POLICY THAT RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT, RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL REDUCE STATE FUNDING TO ANY LOCALITY FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION. THAT IS THE WHOLE BILL AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT HYPOCRISY. LET ME MAKE A SUGGESTION. WE SHOULD ENFORCE ALL OF THE LAWS AND IF WE DON'T WANT TO ENFORCE THEM, THEN WE SHOULD CHANGE THEM. THIS IS A JOKE AND IT AIN'T A FUNNY ONE, OKAY? THIS HAS NOTHING DO WITH INDIVIDUALS WHO FOLLOW THE PATH OF OPPORTUNITY. IT HAS TO DO WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT IS UNDERMINING OUR ABILITY AT THE STATE LEVEL TO DO OUR JOB AND WILL WE UNDERMINE LOCALITIES TO DO THEIR JOB. EVERY SINGLE LAW THAT IS ON THE BOOK THAT IS UNENFORCED WATERS DOWN THE VALUE OF EVERY LAW THAT REMAINS. I HAVE HAD THREE MEMBERS FROM THE OTHER SIDE SAY THERE ARE NO SANCTUARY CITIES, GOOD, THEN WE ARE VOTING ON WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD ENFORCE OUR LAWS THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. AND IF YOU DON'T THINK WE SHOULD ENFORCE OUR LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS YOU NEED TO BE CALLING WASHINGTON, D.C. AND SELLING THOSE SONS OF GUNS TO CHANGE THEM. I'M TIRED OF IT. I DON'T CARE WHETHER IT IS HEALTHCARE OTHER HIGHER ED COSTS OR IMMIGRATION, THE PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. ARE SITTING AROUND WITH THEIR THUMBS IN THEIR NOSES PRETENDING THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WHEN WE ALL KNOW THERE IS. IF THERE ARE NO SANCTUARY CITIES IN VIRGINIA AND YOU SUPPORT THE RULE OF LAW, VOTE FOR THE BILL. AND IF THERE AREN'T, I MEAN IF THERE ARE, AND YOU THINK WE SHOULD ENFORCE THE LAW, VOTE FOR THE BILL. I DON'T -- IT IS MAZING, MR. PRESIDENT, THE ABILITY TO DISTRACT AND USE SUBTERFUGE. VOTING FOR A RULE OF LAW OR VOTING AGAINST IT. I ASK THAT THE BILL GLASS THE QUESTION IS SHALL SENATE BILL 270 PASS. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL. ARE THE SENATORS READY TO VOTE? HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? DO ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO CH ANGE THEIR VOTE? THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 21, NOS 19. AYES 21, NOS 19.

---

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): RECORD THEIR VOTES AYE, THOSE OPPOSED NO. ARE THE SENATORS READY TO VOTE? HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? DO ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE? THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 40, NOS 0. AYES 40, NOS 0. THE MOTION IS AGREED TO. THE SENATOR FROM BUCKINGHAM, SENATOR GARRETT.

Sen. Tom Garrett (R-Lynchburg): MR. PRESIDENT, I MOVE THE BILL PASS.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL SENATE BILL 270 RECORD THEIR VOTES AYE, THOSE OPPOSED NO. ARE THE SENATORS READY TO VOTE? HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? DO ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE? THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

Sen. Tom Garrett (R-Lynchburg): AYES 21, NOS 19.

[Unknown]: AYES 21, NOS 19.

---

Del. Dave Albo (R-Springfield): THAT, YOU WOULD LOSE STATE FUNDING. WE DIDN'T LIKE THAT AT ALL IN HOUSE COURTS COMMITTEE AND HAVE DONE A SUBSTITUTE AND THE SUBSTITUTE BASICALLY IS EXACT COPY OF GENTLEMAN FROM PRINCE WILLIAM, DELEGATE MARSHAL'S BILL, AND THAT SAYS IS THIS ONE ASKS YOU TO ADOPT THE SUBSTITUTE. THAT IF ISSUED A DETAINER, THE SHERIFF WOULD HAVE TO HOLD THAT PERSON FOR THE DETAINER WHICH IS 48 HOURS, MANY YEARS AGO WE HAD BIG DEBATES HERE IN THE HOUSE FLOOR ABOUT IMMIGRATION POLICY WHEN SOMEONE BREAKS THE LAW. WHAT WE DETERMINED WAS THAT WE NEVER WANTED TO HAVE A SITUATION WHERE A POLICE OFFICER WHO LOOKED AT SOMEONE IN THE STREET AND GO YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T LOOK LIKE YOU'RE FROM HERE, I THINK I WILL ARREST YOU BECAUSE I DON'T THINK YOU'RE LAWFULLY IN THE UNITED STATES. WHAT WE SAID IS EVERYBODY ARRESTED AND TAKEN TO JAIL, EVERYONE, NO MATTER WHAT YOU LOOK LIKE, TALK LIKE, EVERY ONE GETS RUN THROUGH THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION DATA BASE. THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION DATA BASE IS A SERIES OF SEVEN DIFFERENT DATA BASES, TERRORISM WATCH LIST, EVERYBODY WHO SKIPPED THEIR VISAS, ALL PEOPLE WHO WE KNOWN SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEPORTED, ETC. AND IF WE GET A POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION, THEN, THE SHERIFF CALLS IMMIGRATION CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, IMMIGRATIONS AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT DECIDES IF THEY'RE GOING TO ISSUE A DETAINER. NOW, OF COURSE, IMMIGRATIONS CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT IS NOT GOING TO ISSUE A DETAINER ON EVERY PERSON WHO GOT A DRUNK IN PUBLIC. OR DISORDERLY CONDUCT. THIS BILL SAYS THAT IF IMMIGRATION CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT SAYS YES, WE'RE GOING TO COME GET THIS PERSON IN 48 HOIRS, THAT THE SHERIFF HAS TO HOLD A PERSON FOR 48 HOURS. NOW, THERE IS, TO BE HONEST, EVERYBODY, THERE SOME PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIKE THIS BILL BECAUSE IT COULD RESULT IN COSTS ON THE SHERIFF. BECAUSE IF A SHERIFF HOLDS A PERSON 48 HOURS, THEN, THE SHERIFF JUST PAID FOR A PERSON TO STAY 48 HOURS AND I IMAGINE THERE ARE SOME SHERIFF THAT'S DON'T LIKE THAT. SO THIS BILL WOULD CHANGE THE ORIGINAL BILL, LIKE DELEGATE MARSHAL'S BILL, AND IT WOULD SAY THAT IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SAYS THEY'RE COMING TO GET THAT PERSON, THEY HAVE TO HOLD THE PERSON FOR 48 HOURS.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE QUESTION IS ON ADOPTION OF THE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE.

Del. Dave Albo (R-Springfield): THANK YOU. MR. SPEAKER, IN KANSAS A INDIVIDUAL WANTED BY ICE BUT NOT PICKED UP OR TURNED OVER FROM JAIL MURDERED FOUR INDIVIDUALS IN ONE TOWN, AND ONE INDIVIDUAL IN ANOTHER TOWN ABOUT 100 MILES

[Unknown]: GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR. AWAY. THIS IS SIMPLY A PUBLIC SAFETY MEASURE, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER YOU THINK THIS IMMIGRATION POLICY IS TOO LOOSE OR TOO CONSTRAINED. I JUST POINT OUT, CONSERVATIVE PEOPLE, A LOT OF REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN CYNICAL OF THIS ADMINISTRATION'S POLICIES BUT IF THIS ADMINISTRATION WANTS TO DETAIN SOMEBODY, I SUGGEST TO YOU THEY MUST HAVE A GOOD, AND SUFFICIENT REASON TO DO SO. AND UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE WRITING LETTERS TO SOME OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS SAYING WHY YOU THOUGHT IT WAS FINE TO LET THIS INDIVIDUAL GO AND WE HAVE MORE OF THESE SLAYINGS, PLEASE FOR FOR THIS. THIS IS A PUBLIC SAFETY MEASURE, THANK YOU.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): SHALL THE BILL PASS? CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYE, 65, NO, 31. THE BILL IS PASSED. SENATE BILL 478 A BILL TO

---

SENATOR CARRICO.

Sen. Bill Carrico (R-Grayson): CAN THIS BILL GO BYE TEMPORARILY? WITH THAT OBJECTION THE BILL WILL GO BY TEMPORARILY.

[Unknown]: SENATE BILL 270.

Sen. Bill Carrico (R-Grayson): THE SENATOR FROM BUCKINGHAM, SENATOR GARRETT.

Sen. Tom Garrett (R-Lynchburg): I MOVE THAT SENATE BILL 270 PASS IN THE ENROLLED FORM NOT WITHSTANDING THE OBJECTIONS OF THE GOVERNOR.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR.

Sen. Tom Garrett (R-Lynchburg): MR. PRESIDENT, WHEN THIS BILL WAS DRAFTED IT WAS DESIGNED TO DEFUND LOCALITIES WHO DECLARE THEMSELVES TO BE SANCTUARY CITIES AND AS IT MOVED THROUGH THE PROCESS IT WAS PAIRED DOWN TO THE POINT WHERE WHAT WE ULTIMATELY PASSED WAS A BILL THAT SAID WHERE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ISSUED A DETAINER FOR A SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE OF A BELIEF THAT THEY HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME NOT ILLEGALLY ENTERING THE UNITED STATES BUT AN ADDITIONAL CRIME THAT A LOCALITY SHALL NOT RELEASE THAT INDIVIDUAL. THAT HOW NARROWLY TAILORED THIS BILL BECAME. IN THE GOVERNOR'S VETO HE SAYS THAT HE VETOES THIS BILL BECAUSE IT WOULD PROHIBIT THE RELEASE OF HIS WORDS QUOTE CERTAIN PERSONS BECAUSE THAT IS CORRECT. CERTAIN PERSONS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WANTS IN RELATION TO A CRIMINAL CHARGE AND VIRGINIA LAW LEAVES TO THE DISCRETION OF THE LOCALITY HOW TO RESPOND TO A LAWFUL DETAINER ORDER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. RIGHT NOW WE LET LOCALITIES DECIDE TO LET THESE PEOPLE GO IN A REVOLVING DOOR. AND SAYS THAT THIS SUBJECTS NONCITIZENS TO INEQUITABLE TREATMENT. WELL, DUH, THEY ARE NOT CITIZENS. SO I'M NOT CERTAIN HOW THEY ARE AFFORDED EQUITABLE TREATMENT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE UNITED STATES ALREADY. AND FURTHER ARE THEY ALREADY NOT CITIZENS THEY ARE ALSO NOT CITIZENS WHO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SUSPECTS COMMITTED A CRIME. THIS IS A TINY FRACTION OF PEOPLE HERE UNDOCUMENT THE HERE ILLEGALLY. THEN, AND WHILE BEST DESCRIBED POLITELY AS NONSENSE THE GOVERNOR CONTINUES RATHER THAN SOAKING IRRATIONAL FEARS OF NONCITIZENS THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON SUBSTANTIVE POLICIES. IT IS A IS WHAT THIS BILL DOES. HE SAYS IT MAKES NO PERSON SAFER. SHA MEAL SHAW, 17 YEARS OLD. RONA BECK. JESSE BENAVIDES. EMILY CORTEZ, 7 CREEKS OLD. SVETLANA, 30 WEEKS OLD. SPENCER, 25 YEARS OLD. PEGGY, 660. KATE TYNER, 2. BOB BARRY, 58. MICHAEL GRUBB, 63. JAIME OXEN DINE AND HIS WIFE AND THEIR SON, AGE 17. PARKER MOORE AGE 20. NAOMI MERCURY, AGE 18. AND THE 54-YEAR-OLD HOMELESS MAN NAMED AMOS JONES. WERE ALL KILLED BY ILLEGAL AIL, YEPS IN THE UNITED STATES IN THE LAST FEW YEARS. THEY JOIN SISTER DENISE MOSSIER OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY WHO WAS KILLED BY AN ILLEGAL ALIEN IN PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY IN VIRGINIA JUST A FEW YEARS AGO. SO I WOULD SUBMIT THAT WHERE THERE WAS A FEDERAL DETAINER TO HOLD INDIVIDUALS FOR CRIMINAL CHARGES SENT TO A LOCALITY ALL THIS BILL WOULD DO IS SAY THE LOCALITY COULDN'T RELEASE THEM AND THEY WOULD VERY MUCH, INDEED, MAKE EVERY ONE OF THESE PEOPLE WHO IS NO LONGER WITH US MUCH SAFER. I WOULD ASK THAT THE BILL PASS NOTWITHSTANDING THE VETO OF THE GOVERNOR.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM ALEXANDRIA, SENATOR EBBIN.

Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WOULD ASK THAT WE SUSTAIN THE GOVERNOR'S VETO. I WOULD JUST SUGGEST THE SENATOR FROM BUCKINGHAM REFERRED TO MURDERERS AND IF SOMEONE IS MURDERED IN VIRGINIA THEY CAN STAND TRIAL IN VIRGINIA. WHAT THIS HAS TO DO IS WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SAYING TO HOLD SOMEONE BUT NOT PICKING THEM UP AND THAT IS NOT WHAT WE NEED TO DO. IT IS AN INACCURATE ASSUMPTION THAT EVERYONE WHO IS PICKED UP IS DANGEROUS. DEPENDING ON THE CHARGE THEY ARE PICKED UP FOR. I WOULD CONTEND THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN MURDERED AND THAT JUST KIND OF INCENDIARY LANGUAGE. I WOULD HOPE THAT WE SUSTAIN THE VETO. WHAT IT IS ABOUT IS JUST HOW LONG TO HOLD SOMEONE AND IF IT SHOULD BE INDEFINITE. IF U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS WANTS TO PICK SOMEONE UP AND PICK THEM UP THAT WOULD BE FINE. BUT IF THEY DON'T, THEN IT IS A MINOR CHARGE, THEY SHOULD NOT EXPECT US TO HOLD THEM INDEFINITELY. AND I WOULD ALSO SAY TO MY KNOWLEDGE THIS BILL WAS NOT REQUESTED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM ROANOKE CITY, SENATOR EDWARDS.

Sen. John Edwards (D-Roanoke): MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD URGE THE BODY TO SUSTAIN THE GOVERNOR'S VETO. HE DID THE RIGHT THING IN VETOING THIS BILL. WE HAD SOME DIALOGUES BACK DURING THE REGULAR SESSION ON THIS BILL. THE WHOLE ISSUE OF SANCTUARY CITIES IS POLITICIZED BEHIND THE BELIEF THAT THE WORD SANCTUARY CITY IS NOT A LEGAL TERM. IT AS POLITICAL TERM. POLITICALLY CHARGED TERM. IT IS EXCLUSIVE THE RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DEAL WITH IMMIGRATION ISSUES. AND SOLELY. EXCLUSIVELY. NO LOCALITY OR NO STATE HAS NOW AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER ON IMMIGRATION ISSUES AND WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OUGHT TO DO IS FUND I.C.E., IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOM ENFORCEMENT. THEY ARE NOT DOING THAT. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. WHAT HAPPENS IS THE SHERIFFS HAVE SOMEBODY IN JAIL AND NOTIFY I.C.E. AND HAVE THEM AND I.C.E. SENDS A DETAINER WHICH IS NOT A COURT ORDER BY THE WAY AND THE SHERIFFS SAY FINE I WILL DELIVER THE INDIVIDUAL TO YOU I.C.E. WHEN YOU COME -- WE ARE YOU GOING TO COME AND PICK THEM UP. AND BY THE WAY THE JUDGE ORDERED THIS PERSON BE RELEASED ON FRIDAY. FRIDAY COMES AND GOES. THE SHERIFFS ARE THE ONES THAT CAME TO US AND SAID DON'T MAKE US VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION. I.C.E. DOESN'T SHOW UP. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY ARE TO BE RELEASED ON FRIDAY AND I.C.E. DOESN'T SHOW UP And A DETAINER HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND THE THE SHERIFF NOTIFIES I.C.E. PLEASE PICK HIM UP AND THEY DON'T. AND WEEKS GO BY. MAYBE MONTHS. I.C.E. IS UNDER FUNDED. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. DON'T MAKE THE SHERIFFS VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS. THE JUDGES ORDERED THEM RELEASED BECAUSE THE SENTENCE HAS BEEN COMPLETED OR THEY ARE ENTITLED TO GET BAIL BOND OR WHATEVER IT HAPPENS TO BE. WHAT THIS DOSE IS FORCE THE SHERIFFS TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION. THAT IS WHY THE SHERIFFS OPPOSE THE BILL. LET'S PUT THE RESPONSIBILITY WHERE IT BELONGS AND THAT IS ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXCLUSIVELY. TELL CONGRESS TO FUND I.C.E. AND SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR FROM BUCKINGHAM, SENATOR GARRETT.

Sen. Tom Garrett (R-Lynchburg): I HAVE BEEN HERE FOR FIVE YEARS AND I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE BEEN THIS ANGRY. YOU ARE EVEN TITLED TO YOUR OWN OPINIONS YOU ARE NOT HE ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN FACTS. READ THE BILL. IS SAYS PROVIDED THAT NOT ANY INDIVIDUAL BE HELD IN CUSTODY IN EXCESS OF THE DATE THAT HE WOULD OTHER WISE BE RELEASED. SO THE SENATOR FROM ROANOKE AND THE NO ARE FROM ALEXANDRIA SUBJECTED THIS TO A COMPLETELY IRDEVELOP RANT SOLILOQUY TIMES TWO. READ THE BILL. HELD NO LONGER THAN THEY ARE ALLOWED TO BE HELD BUT WHERE THERE IS AN ACTIVE FEDERAL DETAINER THAT THE LOCALITY CANNOT LET THEM GO. AND THE POINT IS THESE AREN'T PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE ILLEGALLY. THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE ILLEGALLY WHO ARE WANTED FOR FEDERAL OFFENSES. I UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT OVER IMMIGRATION. BUT IF THESE WERE PEOPLE WHO WERE HERE LEGALLY AND WANTED FOR STATE OFFENSES WE WOULDN'T LET THEM GO. YOU WANT A DOUBLE STANDARD IN FAVOR OF LETTING PEOPLE WANTED FOR FEDERAL OFFENSES GO? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING FOR? READ THE BILL! IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE SUBSTITUTE ALLYs ALLOWS THAT IN ONE MAY BE KEPT IN EXCESS OF THE TIME THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY ALLOWED IT BE READ THE BILL. KEPT. DON'T ARGUE AGAINST BILL YOU THINK I HAVE ARGUE AGAINST THE BILL I HAVE. I RENEW MY MOTION THAT WE PASS THE BILL NOT WITHSTANDING GOVERNOR'S VETO.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR FROM ARLINGTON, SENATOR FAVOLA.

Sen. Barbara Favola (D-Arlington): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. MY -- THE ISSUE HERE IS I DON'T SEE HOW THIS BILL DIFFERS FROM OUR CURRENT LAWS. I DID READ THE BILL. AND AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, WE ARE DOING WHAT THE SENATOR HAS SAID WE SHOULD BE DOING. I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS ADDS TO THE AUTHORITIES THAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE. IN FACT, I THINK IT WILL DETRACT FROM THEIR ABILITY TO PROVIDE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT AND SECURE ENVIRONMENT FOR THEIR COMMUNITIES BECAUSE THEIR JAIL SPACE WILL BE TAKEN UP BECAUSE I.C.E. WILL NOT BE TAKING UP THE DETAIN YEARS AS THEY ALWAYS SAY THEY WOULD. SO THE SHERIFFS WERE CONFUSED OVER THIS, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WERE CONFUSED OVER THIS, THIS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CLARIFY WHAT THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS REGARDING THIS RESPONSIBILITY. SO, THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE WORKED OUT AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND I ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE RED ON THIS AND TO STAND WITH THE GOVERNOR. THIS BILL DOES NOT HELP THE ISSUE.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM ROANOKE CITY, SENATOR EDWARDS.

Sen. John Edwards (D-Roanoke): POINT OF INQUIRY.

[Unknown]: MR. PRESIDENT,.

Sen. John Edwards (D-Roanoke): THE SENATOR FROM JAMES CITY COUNTY.

[Unknown]: ARE THE RULES OF THE SENATE BEEN CHANGED SO THAT PERMISSION IS NO LONGER TO BE GRANTED IF SOMEONE WANTS TO SPEAK MORE THAN TWICE? I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY CHANGE TO THAT RULE, SENATOR. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. IF KNOW ONE ELSE WISHES TO SPEAK, MR. PRESIDENT, THE BEST THIS BILL CAN BE CONSTRUED AS BEING IS THOROUGHLY CONFUSING TO LOCALITIES. AT WORSE, IT FORCE THE SHERIFFS TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT KNOWS HOW TO PICK UP SOMEBODY. BELIEVE ME. I AM A WERE TOER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY. I KNOW THEY KNOW HOW TO DO IT AND I KNOW THEY KNOW IF THEY WANT SOMEBODY THAT IS IN THE SHERIFF'S JAIL AND THEY WANT A DETAINER AND HAVE THE PERSON BE CONTINUED THERE, THEY CAN PICK THAT PERSON UP UNDER FEDERAL AUTHORITY AND KEEP THEM IN THE JAIL AND PAY THE SHERIFF AND THAT IS ONE THE PROBLEMS, THEY ARE NOT PAYING THE SHERIFFS, PER DIEM FOR KEEPING THEM UNDER FEDERAL AUTHORITY. THAT IS NOT WHAT IS HAPPENING. THEY SEND A DETAINER WHICH IS JUST A REQUEST. THEY ARE NOT SAYING WE WILL HOLD THEM IN YOUR JAIL UNDER FEDERAL AUTHORITY AND PAY YOU THE PER DIEM AND THE SHERIFFS ARE STUCK. THEY ARE NOT GETTING PAID AND PROBABLY VIOLATING THE IN FACT IN ALL LIKELIHOOD VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION OF THESE INDIVIDUALS READY TO BE RELEASED. AT BEST IT IS THOROUGHLY CONFUSING FOR LOCALITIES. THE GOVERNOR DID THE RIGHT THING, MR. PRESIDENT,. THE SENATOR FROM SPOTSYLVANIA, SENATOR REED. I WASN'T PLANNING TO SPEAK TO THIS BUT I WISH TO SPEAK TO THE THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. BILL. I THINK THE BODY IS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED ON THIS BILL VERSUS ANOTHER BILL VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR HOUSE BILL 481. I WOULD ASK THE BODY IF YOU ARE READING THAT BILL, I THINK THAT IS THE BILL THAT THE SENATOR FROM ROANOKE MIGHT BE REFERENCING AND A LOT OF THESE BILLS START SOUNDING THE SAME BUT I THINK THAT IS THE BILL THAT THEY ARE DOING THE AS WELL AS THE SHERIFF AND LOCALITIES ARE NOT AGAINST THIS BILL. I SPOKE TO THEM AS EARLY AS YESTERDAY AND THEY ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE REQUEST HE IS SHALL THE BILL PASS IN ENROLLED FORM NOT WITHSTANDING THE OBJECTIONS OF THE GOVERNOR. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL. ARE THE SENATORS READY TO VOTE? HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? DO ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO CH ANGE THEIR VOTE? THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 21, NOS 18. AYES 21, NOS 18.

---