2017: Schweikert Voted For Legislation That Would Have Increased Criminal Penalties For Immigrants Who Were Previously Deported, But Returned And Are Then Convicted Of A Crime. In July 2017, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "establish[ed] specific possible fines and prison sentences for undocumented immigrants convicted of certain criminal offenses and who illegally return to the United States despite having been previously deported or otherwise excluded from the country. The bill would [have] establish[ed] maximum sentences for such individuals with varying criminal histories, including a 10-year maximum sentence for illegal immigrants who reattempt to enter the country after three or more deportations, even if such individuals have not been convicted of any other crimes." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 257 to 167. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 344, 6/29/17; The Hill, 6/27/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3004]
Legislation Would Have Created a Xenophobic Sentiment And A Double Standard. In a Huffington Post, "It is especially unfair to paint undocumented immigrants as likely criminals when we take into consideration some of the reasons why immigrants come to the United States in the first place. Many immigrants who cross the border are doing so in order to escape political instability, gang violence, and poor economies back in their home countries. These are people who are self-selecting to raise families in a peaceful, stable place. Yes, entering the U.S. illegally is technically a crime. But there is a double standard for giving immigrants legal status as political refugees. Many groups who are fleeing violence, such as Syrian migrants, are securing refugee status; but Mexicans and other Central Americans are usually not legally considered 'refugees' even though they are fleeing similar conflicts. There seems to be little clear justification for this double standard." [Huffington Post, 4/28/17]
ACLU: Legislation Is A "Shortsighted And Ill-Conceived Response." According to The Washington Post, "Civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have strongly opposed Kate's Law, calling it a 'shortsighted and ill-conceived response' to the young woman's slaying. They argue that it is blanket legislation that would penalize even those who come to the United States to escape persecution. Opponents also say that the bill perpetuates the false notion that undocumented immigrants are inherently criminals." [The Washington Post, 6/29/17]
Kate Steinle's Murder Was A Catalyst For Crackdown On Sanctuary Cities. According to The Atlantic, 'Kate's Law is named after Kate Steinle, who died on July 1 after being shot on Pier 14 in San Francisco. Police arrested Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a Mexican national and convicted felon who was in the United States illegally, and charged him with Steinle's murder. Lopez-Sanchez subsequently admitted to firing the gun, but claimed Steinle was not the target and that her death was accidental. Steinle's death set off a firestorm of protests among opponents of illegal immigration. Donald Trump transmuted some of the outrage over Steinle's death, as well as his broader invectives against illegal immigration and "political correctness," into frontrunner status in the Republican presidential-nominee race." [The Atlantic, 9/6/15]