President Obama’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement director told lawmakers on Tuesday that federal authorities would be unable to do anything about “sanctuary cities” until Congress passes some form of amnesty.
Testifying before a Senate Judiciary Committee on criminal alien violence, Sarah Saldaña said some form of “comprehensive immigration reform” would be necessary before the administration would take action on city and state policies that allow some criminal illegal aliens to remain unreported to federal officials.
After hearing testimony from families that have suffered as a result of “sanctuary city” policies, Republican members of the committee questioned two administration officials who have been tasked with carrying out Obama’s executive amnesty for “DREAMers.”
Republican Senator David Vitter, from Louisiana, pressed Saldaña on why the administration refused to take action against cities and municipalities that openly disregard federal immigration law by refusing to turn over criminal illegal aliens.
“This has been going on for years and you still are not prepared to say that there is ever going to be any negative consequence to those [sanctuary] jurisdictions,” Vitter said, according to Breitbart.com. “When is that going to change?”
“I presume when you all address comprehensive immigration reform; perhaps it can be addressed there,” Saldaña replied.
Describing her response as “ridiculous,” Vitter tried again.
“And absent Congress passing that [Senate immigration] bill, that you and the Obama Administration prefer, you don’t think right now we can stop sanctuary cities from flaunting federal law?” Vitter asked. “You don’t think right now there can be any negative consequences when they do not properly cooperate under existing federal law with immigration enforcement?”
“That’s what I understand that all of you are working on,” Saldaña said.
Of course, the administration’s preferred “comprehensive immigration reform” package would include provisions to let many criminal illegal aliens remain in the country – raising the obvious follow up question of “what exactly would change?”
With amnesty advocates running federal immigration enforcement agencies, the answer, in all likelihood, is “very little.”