Jim Costa: “The description of the amendment, as we understand it, prohibits the use of these funds that contravene section 642 of…”

“The description of the amendment, as we understand it, prohibits the use of these funds that contravene section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The facts are that the States and localities around the country that have adopted laws and policies to limit immigration enforcement by law enforcement are focused on protecting public safety. We have this in California. We have it in many border States. There is a level of cooperation that does take place between local law enforcement agencies as well as our Federal enforcement officers. Surely, we don't believe it is good public policy to force an unwanted role upon police through the threat of sanctions, which is what this amendment does, or withholding police funding. Frankly, if you believe in Federalism and if you believe in that relationship between local, State, and Federal Government, this is really top-down and I think runs contrary to the notion that law enforcement agencies at all levels collaborate and cooperate. Holding this sort of a sword of Damocles, so to speak, over the head of local law enforcement agencies simply, I think, is not good public policy. In an op-ed piece that was published in Roll Call last year, the police chief of Dayton, Ohio, explained why his department instructs its officers not to check the immigration status of witnesses and victims or to question their status in minor traffic stops.…”