Sanctuary cities; liability for certain injuries and damages caused by an illegal alien. (SB705)

Introduced By

Sen. Dick Black (R-Leesburg)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Liability of sanctuary cities for certain injuries and damages. Provides that a sanctuary city, defined in the bill as any locality that adopts any ordinance, procedure, or policy that restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law, shall be responsible for the full amount of any personal injury or property damage caused by an illegal alien within such locality. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

DateAction
01/21/2016Presented and ordered printed 16103669D
01/21/2016Referred to Committee on Local Government
01/27/2016Impact statement from DHCD (SB705)
02/02/2016Reported from Local Government (7-Y 6-N) (see vote tally)
02/04/2016Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/05/2016Read second time and engrossed
02/08/2016Passed by for the day
02/09/2016Engrossment reconsidered by Senate (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/09/2016Floor substitute printed 16105360D-S1 (Black)
02/09/2016Reading of substitute waived
02/09/2016Substitute by Senator Black agreed to 16105360D-S1
02/09/2016Engrossed by Senate - floor substitute SB705S1
02/09/2016Constitutional reading dispensed (38-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/09/2016Passed Senate (21-Y 19-N) (see vote tally)
02/11/2016Placed on Calendar
02/11/2016Read first time
02/11/2016Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
02/16/2016Assigned App. sub: Constitutional Law
02/16/2016Assigned Courts sub: Constitutional Law
02/18/2016Assigned App. sub: Criminal Law
02/23/2016Assigned App. sub: Civil Law
02/23/2016Assigned Courts sub: Civil Law
03/08/2016Left in Courts of Justice

Video

This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 2 clips in all, totaling 36 minutes.

Transcript

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



Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 34, NOS 5. AYES 34, NOS 5. THE BILL PASSES. SENATE BILL 705, A BILL RELATING TO SANCTUARY POLICIES. THE SENATOR FROM -- THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN, SENATOR BLACK. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. SENATE BILL 705 DEALING WITH SANCTIONARY CITIES SAYS THAT THAT IF A SANCTUARY CITY PROCEEDS TO ENACT AN ORDINANCE THAT RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS THEN THEY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF ANY PERSONAL INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE CAUSED BY AN ILLEGAL ALIEN WITHIN SUCH LOCALITY. AS YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY THESE FOLKS ARE JUDGMENT PROOF AND ANYONE WHO SUFFERS INJURY IS LIKELY TO BE LEFT HOLDING THE BAG. THIS IS REALLY SIMILAR TO THE LAST BILL THAT WE HAD. I REALLY DO NOT DESIRE TO IMPOSE ANY LIABILITY ON ANY JURISDICTION BECAUSE, FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE THE DILLON RULE. THE DILLON RULE SAYS THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ENACT AN ORDINANCE THAT FLIES IN THE FACE OF FEDERAL LAW. WE ALSO HAVE FEDERAL PREEMPTION. THE DOCTRINE OF FEDERAL PREEMPTION SAYS THAT STATES WILL NOT ENACT LAWS WHICH CONFLICT WITH EXPRESSED FEDERAL MANDATES. NORMALLY WE THINK THIS IS NOT NECESSARY, HOWEVER, WE ARE SEEING IN OTHER STATES A MOVEMENT TOWARDS SIMPLY IGNORING FEDERAL LAW, IGNORING FEDERAL PREEMPTION AND DOING THIS. SAN FRANCISCO HAS BEEN A RATHER DRAMATIC EXAMPLE WHERE WE HAD A WOMAN WHO WAS MURDERED BY SOMEONE WHO WAS PROTECTED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS THERE FROM BEING TURNED OVER TO FEDERAL OFFICIALS. SO, WITH THAT, I -- MY HOPE IS THAT AS THE BILL THAT WE JUST PASSED THAT WAS INTRODUCED BY THE SENATOR FROM BUCKING HAM, IS THAT THIS BILL DOES NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER IN VIRGINIA BECAUSE VIRGINIA LOCALITIES COMPLY WITH BOTH FEDERAL LAW AND WITH THE DILLON RULE. WITH THAT I WOULD ASK THAT YOU PASS THE BILL. THANK YOU, SENATOR. MR. PRESIDENT,. THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM HENRICO, SENATOR McEACHIN.

Sen. Don McEachin (D-Richmond): WOULD THE SENIOR SENATOR YIELD FOR A QUESTION OR TWO?

[Unknown]: DO I.

Sen. Don McEachin (D-Richmond): HE YIELDS, SENATOR.

[Unknown]: MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD ASK THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN HOW DOES HIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION COMPORT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TORT CLAIMS ACT? THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN. ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT? FOR CLARITY, MR. PRESIDENT, I AM REFERRING TO THE STATE TORT CLAIMS ACT. THE SENIOR SENATOR. I CANNOT GIVE YOU AN ACCURATE RESPONSE TO THAT. ALL THAT I'M SAYING THAT IS THAT UNDER THIS BILL THE INDIVIDUAL WHO COMMITS THIS ESSENTIALLY TURNS OVER HIS LIABILITY TO THE LOCALITY. AND I THINK IT IS FAIRLY CLEAR AND REGARDLESS OF THE TORT CLAIMS ACT, WHICH IS REALLY DESIGNED I THINK SO PROVIDE SOME INSULATION IF TO THE LOCALITY FROM CLAIMS OF TORT THIS IS NO THE A TORT COMMITTED BY THE LOCALITY, IT IS A TORT COMMITTED BY -- BY AN UNLAWFUL IMMIGRANT, AND THE INDIVIDUAL WHO IS SO DAMAGED IS ENTITLED TO BRING SUIT AGAINST THE LOCALITY AND THE LOCALITY THROUGH ITS OWN ACTIONS HAS WAIVED SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IN THAT CASE. THE SENIOR SENATOR. FURTHER QUESTION, MR. PRESIDENT,. WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION? I DO. HE YIELDS,. THAT IS A WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY TO A DEGREE BUT THE TORT CLAIMS ACT DEPENDING WHETHER YOU ARE COUNTY, CITY OR POSSIBLY EVEN A STATE HAS DIFFERENCE NOTICE REQUIREMENT. I DON'T KNOW -- I DON'T SEE WHERE THERE ARE ANY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN YOUR LEGISLATION WHICH YOUR LEGISLATION CONTEMPLATES SUCH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS SINCE THEY ARE THERE TO ALLOW THE STATE TO -- OR THE LOCALITY TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO INVESTIGATE THE MATTER? THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN. I WOULD RESPOND BY SAYING THAT I THINK THAT THE LEGISLATION IS SELF-CONTAINED. IT IS ESSENTIALLY GIVES STANDING TO SUE THE LOCALITY IF THE LOCALITY HAS VIOLATED THE DILLON RULE, DELIBERATELY VIOLATED VIRGINIA LAW, DELIBERATELY VIOLATED THE FEDERAL PREEMPTION DOCTRINE AND OFFERS THEM UP TO LAWSUIT IS BY THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE HARM. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM HENRICO. SPEAKING TO THE MEASURE, MR. PRESIDENT,. THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. I WILL YIELD TO THE -- THE SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN YIELD, MR. PRESIDENT, THE GENTLEMAN FROM LOUDOUN COUNTY YIELD FOR A QUESTION.

[Unknown]: THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN YIELD FOR A QUESTION? I DO YIELD. THAT, YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WOULD ASK THE GENTLEMAN WHO DETERMINES WHAT IS A SANCTUARY CITY? THE SENIOR SENATOR. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THE DEFINITION OF THE SANCTUARY CITY IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE BILL AND SIMPLY SAYS FOR PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION, SANCTUARY CITY MEANS ANY LOCALITY THAT ADOPTS ANY ORDINANCE, PROCEDURE OR POLICY THAT RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. FURTHER QUESTION, MR. CHAIR. WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR AN ADDITIONAL YES. I YIELD. HE YIELDS, SENATOR. IF I HAD A CLIENT INJURE THE EITHER INTENTIONALLY OR UNINTENTIONALLY AND THE PERPETRATOR WAS NOT SOMEONE HERE LEGALLY WOULD I FILE THE LAWSUIT AND NAME THE UNDERLYING COUNTY AS A PARTY AND HAVE THE JURY DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE LOCALITY IS A SANCTUARY CITY? THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE -- WHETHER THE COUNTY IS OR WHETHER THE CITY IS A SANCTUARY CITY IS A -- IS A PRELIMINARY LEGAL ISSUE WHICH I BELIEVE WOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE JUDGE RATHER THAN THE JURY. I DON'T THINK THAT WE GO TO THE JURY AND I THINK THE -- I THINK THAT THE LOCALITY COULD MAKE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND BASED UPON WHATEVER PROOFS WERE PRESENTED BUT I THINK THAT FOR THE PLAINTIFF WHAT THE PLAINTIFF WOULD NEED TO PROVE WHAT YOU AS THE ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF WOULD NEED TO BRING FORWARD, IS DOCUMENTATION THAT WOULD SHOW THAT THERE WAS AN ORDINANCE ENACTED BY THAT CITY AND THAT THE ORDINANCE DID NOT COMPORT WITH THIS QUESTION. FURTHER QUESTION. WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR A QUESTION? I YIELD. THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS. SINCE IT IS NOT LIMITED TO INTENTIONAL TORTS WHAT IF SOMEONE HERE ON AN INVESTOR VISA BUT HAD NOT BROUGHT THE MONEY THEY CLAIMED TO BRING TO THE UNITED STATES SO THEY WERE HERE ILLEGALLY AND I REPRESENT ONE OF THE PARTIES COULD I NOT BRING A CLAIM AGAINST FAIRFAX COUNTY OR LOUDOUN OR WHATEVER IS THE JURISDICTION. THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN. I WOULD RESPOND BY SAYING THAT THE TEXT OF THE BILL SPEAKS TO PERSONAL INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE CAUSED BY AN ILLEGAL ALIEN WITHIN SUCH LOCALITY. SO, IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT CONTRACTUAL ISSUES, IF YOU ARE, YOU KNOW, PARTNERSHIP DISPUTES, THINGS OF THAT SORT, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THIS PARTICULAR BILL.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD TO THE GEORGIA FROM ROCKINGHAM -- TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM ROCKINGHAM.

[Unknown]: I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT THIS BILL GO BYE FOR THE DAY. WITH THAT OBJECTION, SENATE BILL 705 WILL GO BYE FOR THE
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SENATE BILL 588 WILL GO BYE FOR THE DAY.

Sen. David Suetterlein (R-Salem): SENATE BILL 705, RELATING TO SANCTUARY POLICIES. WE HAVE A FLOOR SUBSTITUTE.

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

Sen. Dick Black (R-Leesburg): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I MOVE RECONSIDERATION OF THE VOTE BY WHICH THE BILL WAS ORDERED TO BE ENGROSSED AND ADVANCED TO ITS THIRD READING.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE VOTE BY WHICH SENATE BILL 705 WAS ENGROSSED AND ADVANCED TO ITS THIRD READING BE 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. Dick Black (R-Leesburg): AYES 40, NOS 0.

[Unknown]: AYES 40, NOS 0. THE MOTION IS AGREED TO. THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN. I MOVE THAT WE WAIVE THE READING OF THE FLOOR SUBSTITUTE. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE READING OF THE FLOOR SUBSTITUTE BE WAIVED. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, NO. THE AYES HAVE IT. THE READING OF THE FLOOR SUBSTITUTE IS WAIVED. THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN. I MOVE WE AGREE TO THE FLOOR SUBSTITUTE. SPEAKING TO THAT, SENATOR, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE HAD A FAIRLY IN-DEPTH DISCUSSION OF THE BILL DEALING WITH SANCTUARY CITIES AND BASICALLY ALLOWING RECOVERIES FOR INJURIES THAT OCCUR AS A RESULT OF THEIR SANCTUARY POLICIES. THERE WERE SOME ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED IN THE COURSE OF THE DISCUSSION, AND AS A RESULT, WE TOOK THE BILL BYE AND WE HAVE INTRODUCED A FLOOR SUBSTITUTE, WHICH YOU SHOULD HAVE. WHAT THE FLOOR SUBSTITUTE DOES IS IT PROVIDES SOME CLARIFICATION, FIRST THAT THE SANCTUARY CITY IS LIABLE FOR TORTIOUS INJURY TO PERSONS, THAT I BELIEVED WAS IMPLIED, BUT WE HAVE MADE IT EXPLICIT. AND THE OTHER THING IS WE HAVE ALSO MADE IT EXPLICIT THAT THE CLAIM WILL BE UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT AND WITH THAT, I MOVE THAT WE AGREE TO THE FLOOR SUBSTITUTE. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM ALEXANDRIA, SENATOR EBBIN.

Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria): IS THIS THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO WEIGH IN ON THE BILL, SIR? AFTER THE SUBSTITUTE OR --

[Unknown]: THIS IS FOR THE FLOOR SUBSTITUTE.

Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria): OKAY, I'M SORRY.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE FLOOR SUBSTITUTE BE AGREED TO. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, NO. THE AYES HAVE IT. THE FLOOR SUBSTITUTE IS AGREED TO. THE SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN, SENIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN. MR. PRESIDENT, I MOVE THAT WE SUSPEND THE RULES AND DISPENSE WITH THE THIRD CONSTITUTIONAL READING. SENATOR, WE NEED TO ENGROSSED AND ADVANCED TO ITS THIRD READING BEFORE WE GET TO THAT YES. STEP. I NOW MOVE THAT WE ENGROSS AND ADVANCE THE BILL.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE BILL BE ENGROSSED AND ADVANCED TO ITS THIRD READING. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, NO. THE AYES HAVE IT. THE BILL IS ENGROSSED AND THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN. ADVANCED TO ITS THIRD READING

[Unknown]: AND NOW I MOVE THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL READING BE DISPENSED WITH.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE RULES BE SUSPENDED AND THE THIRD CONSTITUTIONAL READING BE DISPENSED ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL 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 38, NOS 0. AYES 38, NOS 0. THE MOTION IS AGREED TO. THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN, SENATOR BLACK.

Sen. Dick Black (R-Leesburg): AND MR. PRESIDENT, I NOW MOVE THAT THE BILL PASS AND SPEAKING TO THE BILL.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR.

Sen. Dick Black (R-Leesburg): LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AS I MENTIONED THE OTHER DAY, IT IS NOT MY INTENTION THAT ANY LOCALITY ACTUALLY BE EXPOSED TO LIABILITY UNDER THIS. IT IS SIMPLY MY DESIRE THAT WE NUDGE LOCALITIES INTO CONFORMANCE WITH LAW WHICH IS PRESCRIBED FIRST BY FEDERAL PREEMPTION PRINCIPLES AND SECONDLY BY OUR OWN DILLON RULE, AND WITH THAT, I URGE THAT THE

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

Sen. John Edwards (D-Roanoke): MR. PRESIDENT, NOT TO REPEAT WHAT I SAID YESTERDAY ON THIS BILL, BUT THIS FLOOR AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE WHICH IS NOW THE BILL IS NOT ANY BETTER THAN YESTERDAY. WHAT IT DOES, IT MAKES THE LOCALITIES JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE, I SUPPOSE, WITH THE ACTUAL OFFENDER, THE TORTFEASOR, FOR ACTIONS WHICH THE LOCALITY IS NOT INVOLVED IN AT ALL. SO YOU'RE MAKING YOUR LOCALITIES INSURORS OF THE ACTIONS OF MAYBE A STRANGER, SOMEBODY IN THEIR MIDST WHO IS AN UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT, WHO COMMITS A TORTIOUS ACT. THIS IS MAKING AN ENORMOUS PRECEDENT IN VIRGINIA LAW. I CANNOT IMAGINE ANY LOCALITY SUPPORTING ANYTHING LIKE THIS. THIS IS A FAR REACH, IT'S A BRIDGE TOO FAR, MR. PRESIDENT. I WOULD HOPE THE BODY WOULD REJECT THIS ILL CONCEIVED BILL.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE JUNIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN, SENATOR WEXTON.

Sen. Jennifer Wexton (D-Leesburg): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. WOULD THE PATRON RISE FOR A QUESTION?

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

Sen. Jennifer Wexton (D-Leesburg): I YIELD.

[Unknown]: HE YIELDS, SENATOR. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WOULD INQUIRE OF THE PATRON IF IT IS HIS INTENTION THAT AN ILLEGAL ALIEN WHO IS THE VICTIM OF A TORTIOUS ACT BY ANOTHER ILLEGAL ALIEN WOULD BE ABLE TO SEEK CONTRIBUTION UNDER THIS STATUTORY SCHEME. THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN. THE RIGHTS OF THIS ACCRUE TO THE INJURED PARTY. IF -- I THINK IF YOU HAD SOMEONE WHO WAS AN ILLEGAL ALIEN WHO HAD -- WHO WAS NOT JUDGMENT PROOF, WHO DID HAVE ASSETS, I THINK THAT INDIVIDUAL WOULD BE REQUIRED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE AWARD OF DAMAGES, BUT FROM THE VANTAGE POINT OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO IS INJURED, THAT INDIVIDUAL WOULD HAVE THE LOCALITY AS A AND AGAIN, I THINK IT IS BACKUP. ESSENTIAL TO RECALL THAT THE METHOD BY WHICH THE LOCALITY AVOIDS EXPOSURE TO THIS IS BY CONFORMANCE TO THE LAW, FOLLOWING THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA, FOLLOWING FEDERAL LAW. IF THEY DO THAT, THEY HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY AT ALL ABOUT FROM THIS LAW. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE JUNIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN. I THANK THE GENTLEMAN. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM ALEXANDRIA, SENATOR EBBIN.

Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. WOULD THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN YIELD FOR A QUESTION?

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

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

[Unknown]: HE YIELDS, SENATOR. I WOULD ASK THE GENTLEMAN, IF THE BILL WOULD PROHIBIT A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY FROM HAVING A POLICY OF NOT ROUTINELY ASKING VICTIMS AND WITNESSES OF CRIME FOR THEIR IMMIGRATION STATUS, PARTICULARLY IF IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CRIME? THE SENIOR SENATOR. I WOULD RESPOND BY SAYING THAT THIS BILL DOES NOT REQUIRE THE LOCALITY TO TAKE AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS TO FURTHER FEDERAL LAW. IT SIMPLY REQUIRES THEM NOT TO IMPEDE FEDERAL LAW. SENATOR FROM ALEXANDRIA. THANK YOU. I'D ASK THE GENTLEMEN IF HE'D YIELD FOR ANOTHER QUESTION. WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD? I DO. HE YIELDS, SENATOR. AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION ON THE LINES 15 AND 16 OF THE BILL, IT SAYS LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL IS HOW I READ IT, BUT I'M WONDERING FURTHER IF YOU'VE DISCUSSED THE BILL AND ITS IMPACT ON LAW ENFORCEMENT, OF THEY'RE BEING PROHIBITED FROM HAVING SUCH A POLICY, THE WAY I READ THE BILL, AND I KNOW THAT VIRGINIA BEACH AND PRINCE WILLIAM ARE AMONG THOSE LOCALITIES WITH A POLICY. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I UNDERSTAND THE GENTLEMAN'S QUESTION. I WOULD POINT OUT ON LINE 15 THAT IT REFERS TO A POLICY THAT RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS. THE POLICY MUST RESTRICT AND SO THE FACT THAT THE LOCALITY DOES NOT TAKE ACTION TO ADVANCE, TO AFFIRMATIVELY ADVANCE FEDERAL LAW IS NOT GOING TO CAUSE THEM A THE PROBLEM WILL ONLY ARISE WHEN PROBLEM. THEY TAKE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO RESTRICT FEDERAL LAW. THE SENATOR FROM ALEXANDRIA. SPEAKING TO THE BILL, SIR. THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. YOU KNOW, YESTERDAY THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN SAID THAT THIS BILL WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT IN VIRGINIA, AND I WOULD MAINTAIN IT WOULD, THAT IT WOULD NOT ONLY AFFECT THE 275 UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS IN VIRGINIA AMONG U BUT THAT IT WOULD AFFECT THE REST OF US. THE -- WE'RE ONE OF ONLY TWO STATES THAT MANDATE EVERYONE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY IN JAIL OR PRISON THAT HAVE THEIR IMMIGRATION STATUS CHECKED AND ONE OF THE FEW STATES THAT HAS AN EXPLICIT PRESUMPTION FOR ANYONE PRESENT IN THE U.S. WITHOUT AUTHORITY. TO ME, THAT WOULD MEAN THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE KEPT BECAUSE IT WOULD BE LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT FER KNITTED BY FEDERAL -- PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. LAW. FURTHER, IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO KEEP THESE PEOPLE IN JAIL AFTER THEY SERVE THEIR TIME FOR STATE OR LOCAL OFFENSES AND I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT AN EFFECT IT WOULD HAVE TO HEES IMMIGRANTS -- THESE IMMIGRANTS AS I ASKED THE GENTLEMAN ABOUT, OR ALLUDED TO IN THE EARLIER QUESTIONS. HIS VERY NEXT BILL, SENATE BILL 248, SHOWS OR EXEMPLIFIES THE LEADERSHIP THAT HE HAS SHOWN ON COMBATING ISSUES OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND MAKING SURE THAT VICTIMS HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE TESTED SO THAT WE CAN STOP SEXUAL PREDATORS. I WOULD MAINTAIN THAT THIS BILL WOULD DISCOURAGE THE REPORTING OF SEXUAL ASSAULTS BY UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS BECAUSE IT WOULD PUT THEM IN FEAR OF BEING CONTACTED BY POLICE. RIGHT NOW THE POLICE DEPARTMENTS HAVE A POLICY, AT LEAST IN VIRGINIA BEACH, PRINCE WILLIAM, AND OTHERS THAT I'M AWARE OF, TO ASK THE STATUS OF SOMEONE ON A ROUTINE CRIME, AND THIS WOULD SAY TO THEM, BE CAREFUL BECAUSE IF WE WERE TO TAKE THIS BILL LITERALLY, YOUR POLICE OFFICERS WOULD BE -- WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A POLICY RESTRICTING THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED. FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW PERMIT AND LOT OF THINGS THAT VIRGINIA IS NOT THE LEGAL ENFORCER OF. WE'VE GOT -- WE'VE DONE A GOOD JOB, BUT I WOULD SAY FURTHER THAT WE ADOPTED A POLICY AND LOCALLY THESE POLICIES WERE ADOPT, BUT SOME THAT DON'T ROUTINELY ASK THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF VICTIMS, IT'S ESSENTIAL TO COMMUNITY POLICING AND THIS BODY, THIS SENATE PASSED 40-0 THREE YEARS IN A ROW A BILL THAT MAKES THAT POLICY STATEWIDE, SO THIS IS COUNTERVAILING TO THAT KIND OF A POLICY. AND IF THERE IS NO EFFECT OF THE BILL, AS THE GENTLEMEN STATED YESTERDAY, AND I WOULD DISPUTE, THEN I WOULD WONDER WHY WE HAVE TO PASS THIS AND WITH THAT, I WOULD ASK WE VOTE NO. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM EASTERN FAIRFAX COUNTY, SENATOR SUROVELL.

Sen. Scott Surovell (D-Mount Vernon): SPEAKING AGAINST THE BILL, MR. PRESIDENT.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR.

Sen. Scott Surovell (D-Mount Vernon): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. YOU KNOW, I'M KIND OF AN ODD DUCK I FEEL LIKE SOMETIMES IN THIS STATE. I'M HALF REDNECK AND HALF JEW, AND I'M 12th GENERATION ON ONE SIDE, 12th GENERATION VIRGINIA ON ONE SIDE AND THE OTHER SIDE, A THIRD. I HAVE ONE GRANDMOTHER THAT THOUGHT HARRY BYRD WALK ON WATER AND SAVED THE STATE AND ANOTHER GRANDMOTHER THAT FELT HE WAS THE DEVIL INCARNATE. THE REASON SHE FELT THAT WAY BECAUSE WHEN MY GRANDPARENTS MOVE HERE FROM BROOKLYN LOOKING FOR A JOB BACK IN THE GREAT DEPRESSION OF 1935, THEY MOVED TO FAIRFAX COUNTY AND BACK THEN, IT LAD ABOUT 35,000, 40,000 PEOPLE IN IT. LED THE STATE IN DAIRY PRODUCTION. THAT'S WHAT FAIRFAX WAS KNOWN FOR, IT'S MILK AND CHEESE THAT IT CREATED FOR THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. AND THE STORIES THAT I WAS TOLD BY MY GRANDMOTHER, MY GRANDFATHER DIED WHEN I WAS 5, BUT THE STORIES I WAS TOLD BY MY GRANDMOTHER ABOUT WHAT LIFE WAS LIKE WHEN SHE MOVED TO THE COUNTY, COMING DOWN HERE WITH A DIFFERENT ACCENT, WITH DIFFERENT CLOTHES, DIFFERENT MANNERS, DIFFERENT HABITS, POFRG INTO A COUNTY THAT WAS COMPLETELY RURAL, LIVING IN A FARMHOUSE ON THIS LITTLE DIRT ROAD CALLED GALLOWS ROAD WHICH YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD OF, THEY WEREN'T TREATED VERY WELL. THEY WERE POLL TAXED, LITERACY TESTED, LOOKED AT FUNNY BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE WHO WAS HERE. THEY WERE DIFFERENT. AND THAT MADE A BIG IMPRESSION ON HER. IT MADE A BIG IMPRESSION ON HER CHILDREN, AND HER CHILDREN'S CHILDREN. BECAUSE THEY FELT LIKE THEY WERE NOT WELCOME. AND I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS BILL AND THE OTHER ONE WE JUST PASSED A MOMENT AGO, AND THIS LEGISLATION, IT'S INT, I MEAN AS A LAWYER, IT'S -- IT WILL BE A DREAM FOR LAWYERS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS. I DON'T KNOW HOW A JUDGE WOULD EVER ENFORCE IT, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF LITIGATION OPPORTUNITY TO ME, WHICH FOR ME LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF BUSINESS, BUT IT'S NOT END PORTABLE THE WAY IT'S -- ENFORCEABLE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, SO LEADS ME TO THE QUESTION, WHAT'S THE POINT? WHY ARE WE PUTTING THIS ON THE BOOKS? I DON'T UNDERSTAND YET WHETHER OR NOT IT WAIVES SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND THE WAY I READ IT, I WOULDN'T APPLY ANYMORE. BUT PUTTING THAT ASIDE, THE REASON THIS LEGISLATION IS IN HERE, WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE A TREND AND THAT'S A TREND GOING ON FOR ABOUT THE LAST TEN YEARS POLITICALLY IN COUNTRY. TOIZ SEND A MESSAGE AND WE -- IT IS TO SEND MESSAGE AND THOSE OF US WHO REPRESENT PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, WE'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE MESSAGE. WE HEARD IT TEN YEARS AGO. PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY SENT A MESSAGE TO PEOPLE NEW TO THE COUNTY AND WHAT IT DID WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE FLED AND IT CRASHED THE HOME MARKET IN PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY TEN TYPES WORSE THAN IT NEEDED TO, IT RESULTED IN VACANT HOUSES, REAL ESTATE VALUES CRASHED, MADE PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY THE LAUGHING STOCK OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND PEOPLE STILL POINT TO THAT DISASTER THAT HAPPENED BECAUSE OF WHAT WE DID SENDING THAT MESSAGE TO THOSE PEOPLE. NOW, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY. WE CAN CONTINUE TO SEND THAT KIND OF MESSAGE. WE CAN CONTINUE TO SAY THAT VIRGINIA IS NOT OPEN, THAT VIRGINIA DOESN'T WANT PEOPLE TO COME TO THIS STATE, THAT VIRGINIA DOES NOT LIKE PEOPLE WHO DON'T LOOK LIKE US OR PEOPLE THAT DON'T SHARE OUR VALUES, BUT THE REALITY IS, MR. PRESIDENT, IS THAT FOR STATES THAT HAVE BOOMING ECONOMIES, FOR STATES THAT ARE OPEN, STATES THAT HAVE POLICIES THAT EMBRACE PEOPLE, STATES THAT HAVE POLICIES THAT EMBRACE PEOPLE WITH NEW IDEAS, WITH NEW CULTURES, THEIR ECONOMIES THRIVE, THEIR ECONOMIES BOOM, AND THAT'S THE KIND OF MESSAGE THAT I THINK WE NEED TO SEND TO THIS ENTIRE STATE SO THEY CAN ENJOY THE SAME KIND OF SUCCESS WE'VE HAD IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA. I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE BODY TO VOTE AGAINST THIS BILL SO WE DON'T SEND THE WRONG MESSAGE.

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

Sen. Dick Black (R-Leesburg): MR. PRESIDENT, IF THERE IS NO ONE ELSE WHO DESIRES TO SPEAK, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE BY THE FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE TO SPEAK IN GENTLEMAN. DEFENSE OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY. I DON'T THINK IT'S THE LAUGHING STOCK. I THINK IT'S A VERY PROUD COUNTY AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE GENTLEMAN MEANT TO SAY. BUT AS FAR AS THE GREATER SWEEP OF THINGS, THIS IS NOT TARGETED AT ANY GROUP OF PEOPLE, IT'S NOT INTENDED TO INJURE ANYBODY OR EMBARRASS ANYBODY. IT IS INTENDED TO AVOID VIRGINIA FALLING INTO THE SAME SITUATION THAT IS SWEEPING CERTAIN PLACES AROUND THE COUNTRY WHERE WE'RE COMING UP WITH SANCTUARY CITIES, SANCTUARY CITIES THAT DEFY FEDERAL LAW, THAT DEFY THE RULE OF LAW AND WHATEVER WE DECIDE -- AND YOU KNOW, I THINK PROBABLY THROUGHOUT OUR LIFETIMES, ALL OF US ARE GOING TO BE DEALING WITH ISSUES RELATED TO IMMIGRATION. THIS IS JUST INEVITABLE. HOWEVER, WHATEVER WE DO, THIS NATION NEEDS TO COMPORT WITH THE RULE OF LAW. THE LAWS MAY BE LAWS THAT I LIKE, THEY MAY BE LAWS THAT YOU LIKE, BUT WE NEED TO COMPORT WITH THE RULE OF LAW AND WHEN WE HAVE LOCATIONS THAT ESTABLISH SANCTUARY CITIES WHERE THEY SAY, WE'RE JUST GOING TO INMORE OR DISOBEY LAWS, I THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM. THAT IS NOT THE WAY THAT VIRGINIA OPERATES AND SO WHILE I HAVE GREAT SYMPATHY AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE GENTLEMAN HAS VERY GENUINE SYMPATHY FOR MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE COME HERE LEGALLY OR ILLEGALLY, THIS IS NOT TARGETED AT PEOPLE OF ANY PARTICULAR GROUP. IT IS TARGETED AT MAINTAINING THE RULE OF LAW IN VIRGINIA, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU PASS THE BILL.

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

Del. Tom Garrett (R-Louisa): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. SPEAKING TO THE BILL.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR.

Del. Tom Garrett (R-Louisa): I WOULD INVOKE TIP O'NEILL, LIKE I HAVE A COUPLE TIMES. HE WAS A PRETTY NEAT GUY, MY FAVORITE QUOTE WAS YOUR ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN OPINION, BUT YOU'RE NOT ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN FACTS. I WAS JUST REMINISCING OVER WHAT WAS SAID AS RELATES TO THIS BILL AND STATES WITH DIFFERENT POLICIES AND WHICH STATES GROW AND PROSPER, SO I WAS CURIOUS TO SEE WHICH STATES ARE GROWING. SOME OF THE TOP TEN ARE NORTH DAKOTA, TEXAS, UTAH, FLORIDA, ARIZONA, SOUTH CAROLINA, NORTH CAROLINA, OBVIOUSLY ALL VERY LIBERAL STATES, RIGHT? WHAT STATES ARE SHRINKING? CONNECTICUT, ILLINOIS, MICHIGAN, RHODE ISLAND. WOW. OBVIOUSLY STATES THAT EMBRACE THESE POLICIES ARE THE ONES THAT ARE -- WAIT, NEVER MIND, THAT'S NOT TRUE. IT'S AMAZING HOW THE SAME QUESTIONS GET ASKED AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, MR. PRESIDENT. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN WAS SPEAKING A FOREIGN LANGUAGE OR PEOPLE JUST WEREN'T LISTENING. BUT LIKE SENATE BILL 270, NO, THIS BILL DOES NOT COMPEL LOCALITIES TO INQUIRE AS TO IMMIGRANT STATUS. WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S THE LAW IN VIRGINIA RIGHT NOW IS UP FOR DEBATE, BUT THIS BILL DOESN'T DO IT. ANOTHER PERSON SAID, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY LOCALITY THAT WOULD WANT THIS. WELL, LET ME BREAK IT DOWN FOR YOU. DON'T ADOPT A SANCTUARY CITY STATUS. I KNOW THIS IS PRETTY COMPLEX BILL, GOLLY NED, IT'S ABOUT SEVEN OR EIGHT LINES OF TEXT. BUT ON LINE 14 OF THE BODY, WHICH WAS ABOUT THE SEVENTH LINE OF TEXT, IT SAYS FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, SANCTUARY CITY MEANS ANY LOCALITY THAT ADOPTS ANY ORDINANCE OR PROCEDURE OR POLICY. SO IF THIS WOULD HAVE SUCH A HORRIBLE IMPACT ON A LOCALITY, DON'T ADOPT IT. WE LEARNED YESTERDAY FROM THE SAME PEOPLE THAT POSED THIS BILL THAT NOBODY IS DOING THIS. AND FINALLY, WE HEARD ABOUT A MESSAGE, A MESSAGE THAT WAS BEING SENT. AND I WOULD WHOLEHEARTEDLY CONCUR THAT INDEED, A MESSAGE IS ATTEMPTING TO BE SENT. HERE'S THE DIFFERENCE. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO SEND IT TO PEOPLE. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO SEND IT TO UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS. OKAY? IF I WERE POOR IN ANOTHER COUNTRY AND I COULDN'T SUPPORT MY FAMILY AND I KNEW THAT PROSPERITY AND OPPORTUNITY EXISTED ELSEWHERE AND THAT THAT COUNTRY WASN'T ENFORCES ITS LAWS AND NOT DOING ANYTHING FROM STOPPING PEOPLE FROM PURSUING THAT PROSPERITY AND OPPORTUNITY AND I DIDN'T GO THERE TO TAKE CARE OF MY FAMILY, WHAT KIND OF FATHER WOI BE? THE MESSAGE ISN'T SENT TO THE PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE AREN'T DOING ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT PEOPLE WHO LOVE THEIR FAMILIES WANT TO DO. THE MESSAGE IS TO BE SENT TO OUR GOVERNMENTS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL WHICH HAS THESE LAWS ON THE BOOKS WHICH ARE FARCICAL, WHEREIN BLUE COLLAR NATIVE-BORN AMERICANS AND IMMIGRANTS UNDOCUMENTED AND DOCUMENTED SUFFER. ANY LAW ON THE BOOKS NOT ENFORCED SHOULD BE ENFORCED OR THERE'S A MESSAGE BEING SENT CHANGED. HERE. IT IS TO ENFORCE THE DARN LAWS. ENFORCE THE DARN LAWS. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE COLOR OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S SKIN. I CARE ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW AND DOING WHAT'S RIGHT. WHY IS THAT SO HARD? I ASK THAT WE PASS THE BILL.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX COUNTY, SENATOR SASLAW.

Sen. Dick Saslaw (D-Springfield): YOU KNOW, MR. PRESIDENT, YOU HEAR A LOT OF STRANGE THINGS. I HEARD THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY NOT LIKE THE LAWS, BUT YOU NEED TO OBEY THEM IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE RULE OF LAW. OF COURSE, THE QUESTION I'D ASK, DOES THAT ALSO APPLY TO GAY MARRIAGE? BUT LISTENING TO WHAT, YOU KNOW, HAS JUST BEEN SAID, AS FAR AS SENDING A MESSAGE, GENERALLY SPEAKING, MESSAGE BILLS DON'T DO REAL WELL. WE PASSED A LOT OF THEM OUT OF HERE, SOME MAKE IT THROUGH THE HOUSE, A LOT OF TIMES THEY GET VETOED BY GOVERNORS, AND PROBABLY NOT WITHOUT GOOD REASON. AND I'M REMINDED OF -- THERE USED TO BE A GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME OF SAMUEL GOLDWIN. TO THE YOUNGER PEOPLE IN THIS CHAMBER, HE WAS ONE OF THE TWO FOUNDERS OF A FILM PRODUCTION COMPANY BY THE NAME OF MOIRD GOLDWIN MAYER. YOU OFTEN SEE THE EMBLEM MGM. AND HE LEFT AND STARTED HIS OWN PRODUCTION COMPANY, AND HE MADE A TON OF BROADWAY MUSICALS THAT HE PUT ON FILM. AND THEY WERE VIRTUALLY -- THEY WERE ALL BIG HITS. YOU MOVIES THAT YOU COULD TAKE YOUR KIDS TO AND WOULDN'T BE EMBARRASSED BY ANYTHING THAT OCCURRED THERE. THEY WERE GREAT MOVIES. AND ONE DAY SOMEBODY SAID TO HIM, YOU KNOW, SAM, YOUR NOVICE ARE REALLY GREAT, BUT -- MOVIES ARE REALLY GREAT, BUT THERE'S NO NEGLIGENT. LET ME TELL YOU WHAT SAM GOLDWIN HE SAID YOU WANT TO SEND A TOLD HIM. MESSAGE, GO SEE WESTERN UNION, AND QUITE FRANKLY, THIS IS GOING TO BE ABOUT AS SENDING A WESTERN UNION MESSAGE. I CAN-CAN TELL YOU HOW MANY -- I CAN'T TELL YOU HOM LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT I'VE READ, HEARD, BEEN IN THE PRESENCE OF IN THE CITY OF XRAERNZ, COUNTY OF ARLINGTON, COUNTY OF FAIRFAX LOO, SAID WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF ENFORCING THAT FEDERAL LAW. LET ME REPEAT THAT. HAVE NO INTENTION. NOW, YOU CAN SAY, WELL, THEY DIDN'T ADOPT THE POLICY, BUT LET ME TELL YOU, THEY MAY AS WELL HAVE SAID THAT AND I TAKE THEM AT THEIR WORD THAT THEY'RE NOT. I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU ABOUT -- EFFECTIVELY, THEY'VE ADOPTED SANCTUARY POLICIES. THEY JUST HAVEN'T PUT IT IN THEIR LOCAL ORDINANCE, BUT THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE. I MEAN, WHO ARE WE KIDDING? OKAY? SO, YOU KNOW, THIS ISN'T LIKE WINE. THIS BILL DOESN'T IMPROVE WITH AGE. SO I WOULD HOPE THAT WE GET A LITTLE BETTER RESOLVE AND NOT SEND THIS DOWN TO THE HOUSE AND POSSIBLY FROM THERE ON WHERE YOU CAN PRETTY MUCH GUESS IT'S GOING TO MEET A VETO, PROBABLY GOING TO MEET A VETO. SO ANYWAY, THAT'S MY STORY AND I'M STICKING TO IT, MR. PRESIDENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL SENATE BILL 705 RECORD THEIR VOTES AYE, THOSE

Comments

ACLU-VA Immigrants Rights, tracking this bill in Photosynthesis, notes:

The ACLU of VA is monitoring this bill.