Customize

Church of Scientology Opposes Kate's Law

Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by CommunicatorIC, Jul 13, 2016.

  1. Church of Scientology Opposes Kate's Law.

    [NOTE: Kates Law is named for Kate Steinle. Steinle was shot and killed by an undocumented alien. The alien had been deported five times but returned to the US.]

    ACLU OPPOSES S. 2193, KATE'S LAW

    https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-opposes-s-2193-kates-law

    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

    ACLU OPPOSES S. 2193, KATE'S LAW

    The ACLU opposes Kate’s Law because it will create a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for those who illegally reenter the country after removal.

    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

    Below is the Letter from above link and also found at: https://www.aclu.org/sites/all/libr...cument/s_2193_opposition_letter_july_2016.pdf

    * * * * * BEGIN QUOTATION * * * * *

    July 6, 2016

    The Honorable Mitch McConnell
    U.S. Senate
    317 Russell Senate Office Building
    Washington, DC 20510

    The Honorable Harry Reid
    U.S. Senate
    522 Hart Senate Office Building
    Washington, DC 20510

    The Honorable Charles Grassley
    U.S. Senate
    135 Hart Senate Office Building
    Washington, DC 20510

    The Honorable Patrick Leahy
    U.S. Senate
    437 Russell Senate Office Building
    Washington, DC 20510

    RE: S. 2193, Kate’s Law

    Dear Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Reid, Chairman Grassley,and Ranking Member Leahy:

    The undersigned organizations working to reform the criminal justice system respectfully write to express our opposition to S. 2193, known as “Kate’s Law,” which has been scheduled for a floor vote this week. We oppose Kate’s Law because it will produce unjust results, waste billions of taxpayer dollars, fail to fix America’s flawed immigration system, and endanger public safety. This year in Congress and in states across the nation, there has been unprecedented bipartisan support for and action to repealor reform mandatory minimum sentencing laws. States as varied as Oklahoma, Maryland, Florida, and Iowa have reduced or eliminated mandatory minimum sentencesthis year. Multiple bipartisan bills introduced in both Houses of Congress would scale back federal mandatory minimum sentences,increase fairness, reduce costs, and focus limited Justice Department dollars where they are needed most. We applaud your leadership on sentencing reform.

    Given this historic and bipartisan consensus in support of reform, we believe passage of Kate’s Law would be counterproductive and undermine the important progress you have made. While well-intentioned, Kate’s Law is an ultimately shortsighted and ill-conceived response to the murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco in July2015. The bill would create a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for those who violate 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by illegally reentering the country after removal, if the person has a prior aggravated felony conviction or two prior convictions for illegal reentry. While passing such a law may sound or feel productive, it would not have saved Kate Steinle’s life had it existed at the time of her death. A new mandatory minimum sentence will not stop illegal reentry any more than mandatory minimum drug sentences have stopped the opioid health crisis impacting our country now. We cannot incarcerate our way out of this country’s drug problems, or its immigration problems.

    The five-year mandatory minimum prison term in Kate’s Law would apply to thousands of the 20,000 people convicted of illegal reentry offenses and sentenced in federal courts every year. Put bluntly, this would be catastrophic to America’s public safety priorities. Estimated conservatively, Kate’s Law would cost taxpayers $3.1billion over the next 10 years just for people with a prior aggravated felony conviction – and require the construction of 9new federal prisons at even additional costs. These costs would far outweigh any savings achievable from enacting the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act (S. 2123) or even broader alternatives introduced in this Congress. Prisons already consume a quarter of the Justice Department’s budget, depleting funding for law enforcement, victim services, and crime prevention. Kate’s Law would consume even more of these scarce resources – resources that would be better invested in state and local law enforcement, anti-terrorism efforts, or more sensible immigration enforcement and reform. Money to pay for Kate’s Law is nowhere to be found in our already stretched public safety budget, and the proposal promises little public safety return on such an enormous investment.

    Most importantly, Kate’s Law will hurt the American economy, harm families and children, and produce unjust results – as all mandatory minimum sentences inevitably do. The five-year minimum prison term would apply to a person with a prior aggravated felony conviction, which includes everything from murder to theft or failing to appear in court. The mandatory minimum term would apply regardless of the nature or circumstances of the prior offense, or the person’s future dangerousness. The five-year mandatory minimum sentence would also apply to people with two prior illegal reentry convictions. These might be people who have no other conviction history, but have repeatedly come here to work in order to provide for a family and contribute to the economy. Kate’s Law would penalize people equally whether they entered the country to commit a terrorist attack, attend a loved one’s funeral,donate an organ to a dying child, or flee religious persecution, war, or natural disasters.

    There are serious problems with our immigration system that must be addressed, but Kate’s Law will not fix them. Getting more people working here legally is good for business, the economy, and free markets. Indiscriminately imprisoning large portions of those who have illegally reentered the country for at least five years will negate the benefits of any other criminal justice reforms Congress may enact, do nothing to enhance border security or implement humane and sensible immigration reforms, and will increase the burden on taxpayers and law enforcement without increasing public safety.

    We urge you to oppose Kate’s Law and adopt common sense reformsthat move away from mandatory sentencing, as more than 30 states havedone. Thank you for your leadership on criminal justice reform, and thank you for considering our views.If you have any questions, please contact Molly Gill at mgill@famm.orgor (202) 822-6700.

    Sincerely,

    American Civil Liberties Union
    Bread for the World
    Capital Area Immigrants’Rights Coalition
    Church of Scientology National Affairs Office
    Drug Policy Alliance
    DC Reentry Task Force
    Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
    FAMM
    Friends Committee on National Legislation
    Grassroots Leadership
    Human Rights Watch
    Interfaith Action for Human Rights
    Justice Strategies
    Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
    National African American Drug Policy Coalition, Inc.
    National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
    National Council of Churches, USA
    National Council of Jewish Women
    National Religious Campaign Against Torture
    StoptheDrugWar.org
    The Constitution Project
    T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights
    United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society

    cc: The Honorable Ted Cruz

    * * * * * END QUOTATION * * * * *

    EDITED TO ADD:

    ChurchOfScientologyOpposesKatesLaw-1.png

    ChurchOfScientologyOpposesKatesLaw-2.png

    ChurchOfScientologyOpposesKatesLaw-3.png

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 1
  2. I'll add the same comment I made on ESMB.

    I believe the Church of Scientology opposed Kates Law at the request of the ACLU and the other civil rights and religious groups that oppose it, and in order to bolster its religious and civil rights bona fides. The Church of Scientology is investing in its relationships with the other co-signers to the letter.

    The Church of Scientology is playing the long game. It is investing in reputational capital and building alliances.

    Think about it. As we've seen, the Church of Scientology has very recently had problems in Kazakhstan, Russia and now Germany. Do you think that the ACLU or any other signatory to the above letter will refuse the Church of Scientology if the Church of Scientology asks for similar support, a similar letter, with respect to Kazakhstan, Russia, Germany, or any other attack on its "religious" status?
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Agreed. Perhaps it is the "undocumented alien" that worries them (;o).
    • Like Like x 1
  4. RightOn Member

    After all, without COS's slave labor force, they crumble.
    They must fight to protect what keeps them afloat.
    Afloat like a turd in a punch bowl.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. ChurchOfScientologyOpposesKatesLaw-1.png

    ChurchOfScientologyOpposesKatesLaw-2.png

    ChurchOfScientologyOpposesKatesLaw-3.png
  6. Kate's Law passed by the House of Representatives despite being opposed by the Church of Scientology.

    As noted above, the Church of Scientology opposes Kate's Law. Despite this, the Bill was passed by the House of Representatives.

    Fox News: House passes Kate’s Law, as part of illegal immigrant crackdownhttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-law-as-part-illegal-immigrant-crackdown.html
    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

    House Republicans took action Thursday to crack down on illegal immigrants and the cities that shelter them.

    One bill passed by the House would deny federal grants to sanctuary cities and another, Kate’s Law, would increase the penalties for deported aliens who try to return to the United States.

    Kate's Law, which would increase the penalties for deported aliens who try to return to the United States and caught, passed with a vote of 257 to 157, with one Republican voting no and 24 Democrats voting yes.

    Kate's Law is named for Kate Steinle, a San Francisco woman killed by an illegal immigrant who was in the U.S. despite multiple deportations. The two-year anniversary of her death is on Saturday.

    President Trump called the bill's passage "good news" in a tweet, adding "House just passed #KatesLaw. Hopefully Senate will follow."

    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

    **************************************************************************

    Breitbart: House Passes 'Kate's Law,' Sanctuary City, Immigration Reforms - Breitbart

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ates-bill-sanctuary-city-immigration-reforms/

    **************************************************************************

    CNN: House passes 'Kate's Law' and bill declaring war on sanctuary cities

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/29/p...uary-cities-house-bill-immigration/index.html

    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

    House passes 'Kate's Law' and bill declaring war on sanctuary cities

    By Tal Kopan, CNN

    Updated 2230 GMT (0630 HKT) June 29, 2017

    Washington (CNN) House Republicans joined President Donald Trump on Thursday afternoon in declaring war on sanctuary cities -- passing legislation targeting the cities' funding while hammering a message of the dangers posed by undocumented immigrants.

    "Kate's Law" is named for Kate Steinle, a young woman murdered on a busy walkway in San Francisco two years ago allegedly by an undocumented immigrant who was deported multiple times. It would increase maximum penalties for undocumented immigrants who repeatedly enter the country illegally after deportation, especially with criminal records. It passed 257-167.

    The "No Sanctuary for Criminals Act" would expand what is required of cities regarding federal immigrant enforcement and allow the government to deny jurisdictions federal law enforcement funds if they don't comply. It passed 228-195.


    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
  7. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Agreed. But I guess there will be no automatic support in return.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Quentinanon Member

    In the U.S., the scientology crime syndicate uses a substantial amount of illegal immigrant labour in the Sea Org.
  9. The Internet Member

    In general I think courts who hear all the evidence are likely to make better decisions than mandatory minimums, which are unthinking unfeeling robot decisions. So I'm with the CoS in this case.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins