I beg to differ. The worst of the worst are already covered by existing law. If you commit a murder like the gruesome murder he describes in his State, you can go to jail for life. In many States--and I suppose Kansas, but I don't know--you are subject to the death penalty. If you commit rape or armed robbery, there are laws that cover that. Today, under section 1326, if you have committed an aggravated felony such as the kind he describes, you already can be imprisoned for an additional 20 years under the immigration statute. I understand that it might be satisfying for us to say we are just going to increase all these penalties, but we are not in any way connecting with the worst of the worst. What we are really doing is saying that we are going to hold people who have done nothing other than enter the country illegally for much longer periods of time, for 5 years or 10 years. Again, we see this as very wasteful in terms of public tax dollars.
Editor's note · Context
Debating the implications of immigration legislation and its penalties.
Share
More from Jamie Raskin
It seems Republican Members of Congress are lashing out because they just realized their communications with the White House became presidential records preserved at the National Archives as required by the Presidential Records Act.
The most recent quid pro quo that Fifa and President Trump orchestrated is not a victimless crime. It hurts Americans.
Hearn would never desecrate a federal building or landmark by writing his name on it or affixing his name illegally to it or engaging in any other kind of political graffiti, vandalism or delinquency.
At a minimum, it appears that members of the Trump Administration were ready and willing to imprison an innocent American for a decade in a desperate effort to soothe an ex-landlord’s wounded ego about a terrible paint job and wasteful…





