Read more about the bills we are considering designed to crack down on dangerous sanctuary policies and enhance penalties for deported felons who return to the U.S. by clicking here.
Top Stories
A right-leaning disgruntled Republican comments on the news of the day and any other thing he damn-well pleases.
Published on Jun 27, 2017
- This
week, Congress is addressing the lack of immigration enforcement and
the spread of dangerous sanctuary policies that have failed the American
people and harmed too many lives.
We owe it to the families of those who lost loved ones to take action to prevent these horrible crimes.
To learn more: visit judiciary.house.gov, Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/housejudiciary
The Nashville Scene reports what most of us who have been paying attention already knew, and that is that the State of Tennessee as represented by the State legislature would have been very displeased if Nashville would have passed the sanctuary city bill. The Scene article says the Metro attorney's legal opinion
hurt the bill and the opposition of candidates for governor and opposition from news and opinion outlets hurt the bills chances and the mayor's opposition hurt the bill. However, the article says opposition from the State was a primary negative factor. What we learn from the Scene piece is that a movement was afoot in the capitol to call a special session of the legislature for the purpose of killing the Metro effort.
To read The Scene piece see, Threat of Another Fight With State Hung Over Immigration Bills.
The Tennessean reports that the lead sponsors of the Nashville sanctuary city bill (BL2017-739) will not bring the bill to a vote on July 6th. I am not surprised. After the bill passed second reading on June 20th, I assumed it would most likely pass on third reading on July 6th, however, since then several things have happened that make me think the bill is now likely dead. The most important thing is that the Metro Attorney issued a legal opinion that said if passed, it would not be enforceable. His opinion said the Council had no authority to direct the sheriff how to operate the County jail. (link)
Other factors leading to the lessened likelihood of passage is the Mayor stating her opposition to the bill. While the mayor did not make a strong statement in opposition or threaten to veto the bill, she said that due to the content of the Metro legal opinion, "the Metro Council should give serious consideration to these factors
and reconsider whether this legislation is appropriate or necessary at
this time."
Also, several State legislators expressed anger that Nashville was going to defy the will of the State and made it clear that when the legislature reconvenes they would nullify Metro's action should the bill pass. Also, several candidates for Governor blasted Metro's move to become a sanctuary city. Also, the Sheriff took a strong position against the bill and said he would ignore it if passed. In addition, there has been vocal pubic opposition to the bill on talk radio and social media and among the public. I assume councilmen have been hearing from their constituents.
The sponsors do not say if they will withdraw the bill or defer it. I suspect they will defer it indefinitely and just let it die. Deferring a bill and letting it die is a face-saving way to kill a bill without admitting defeat. The sponsors could defer the bill to a specific future meeting, such as the next meeting, or defer it indefinitely. Since the momentum is going against passage, I would not assume they would simply defer one meeting and instead would expect an indefinite deferral. An indefinitely deferred bill can be brought back up at a later date and be placed back on the agenda on third reading. If deferred, opponents need to stay vigilant.
Below are excerpts from the legal opinion of the Metro Director of Law John Cooper. The yellow highlighting is mine. The bold type and black underlining is in the original. Rod Williams