Mr. Speaker, the Justice Department is suing Arizona for enforcing federal laws that are already on the books. Other states and countries already have enforcement laws like Arizona's.
Prince William County in Virginia has laws almost identical to the new Arizona Senate Bill 1070 enforcement law. Police are allowed to check legal status at any time. Police are also required to check immigration status if anyone is arrested for anything, including DUI or public drunkenness.
According to Corey Stewart, the county board chairman, there has been a 37 percent drop in violent crime in the first 2 years of enforcement of this law. Overall, crime in Prince William County, Virginia, is at a 15-year low. Criminal aliens have fled that part of Virginia and gone somewhere elsewhere the laws are not enforced. Stewart says there has not been one substantiated claim of racial profiling.
Also, the State of Rhode Island enforces federal immigration law by executive order, like the sanctuary cities, only in reverse. The Governor said his law enforcement officers must enforce this federal law.
There are more States that follow suit. In Missouri, if police want to see your ID papers to prove legal status, they are free to ask. Sanctuary cities are illegal in Missouri and they enforce the E-Verify system for employers. That's the free system set up by the federal government where all employers can check someone's immigration status. In Missouri, you have to be legal to get a driver's license and there is no in-State tuition for illegals at State junior colleges.
So why the double standard at the Justice Department and suing Arizona? Why are the Feds picking on Arizona and not these other States?
On the other hand, there are two laws that expressly forbid States from having sanctuary cities. The laws are found in title 8, section 1373 and title 8, section 1644 of the United States code.
These statutes say cities may not have policy that prohibits peace officers from communicating with the federal government about a person's immigration status. But there are cities across the country with policies banning their police from calling the federal government to report even criminal illegals.
In San Francisco, one recent case turned tragic. In 2008, there were three members of a family that were gunned down by Salvadoran illegals. Edwin Ramos is a member of the MS-13 narcoterrorist gang, and he is on trial for gunning down one of the members of this family. Two young sons of that family were also gunned down, Matthew and Michael were their names.
They were all in a car driving home from a family barbecue after church. They were not gang members, they were just citizens. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and Ramos, their accused killer, had been previously arrested three times.
San Francisco police knew he was an illegal alien MS-13 gang member. The San Francisco Chronicle reported after the shooting that the city's sanctuary policy was the reason authorities never called the federal government. I repeat. The newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, reported after the shooting that the city's sanctuary policy was the reason the authorities did not call the Feds.
Instead of being detained and deported, gang member Edwin Ramos was released, and he killed a father and the two young brothers because of the federal government's tolerance to sanctuary cities. So the blood is on the hands of those who support the concept of sanctuary cities. There was even an eyewitness to the shooting, and Tony's youngest son, who survived the hail of bullets, was t