Placido Salazar

psalazar9@satx.rr.com
This report is very lengthy but I believe we all should be properly informed. You
do have the option to DELETE it now.
The Republican Party in Texas is no longer the Republican Party, as we knew it
-- but is now the TeaPublican Party of Texas, with Jan.. I meant to say Dan
Patrick. (Sorry, I confused Dan with Jan Brewja of Arizona) unfortunately
calling the shots. How can any Mexican-American live with his/her conscience,
now being a member of the Tea Party, with its inhumane stunts to de-humanize
immigrants, including innocent school children and dehumanizing Immigrant
Warriors who enlisted in our military service, to fight Americas wars of the rich,
fought by the poor, for our Democracy? The Democracy which will slowly
revert to the racial hatred against minorities back to the 1940s? Do you feel
comfortable with that?
Thanks to my HEROES, Senators Jose Rodriguez and Sylvia Garcia, even before
this very astute move to block the Tea- Publicans from sneaking SB185 through,
without timely public notice to deny us the Constitutional Right to provide OUR
input. WHAT ELSE, WILL THE REAPUBLICANS TRY TO PASS INTO LAW
WITHOUT THE PUBLIC BEING PROPERLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY
INFORMED???
Placido Salazar, USAF Retired Vietnam Veteran
From: Placido Salazar [mailto:psalazar9@satx.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 9:22 AM
To: Javier Salazar (realtorcop@live.com)
Subject:

If you can, make the time to read this and keep Chief informed. Love you, Dad

Jonathan Tilove

Sanctuary cities and the horns of the Republican dilemma

March 10, 2015 | Filed in: Abbott, Austin, Politics, Texas Legislature, texas state and national politics, Uncategorized.

COMMENTS 0

Good morning Austin:

On Saturday, Jared Woodfill, the former Harris County GOP chairman, spoke passionately before the
Texas State Republican Executive Committee about why they ought to elect him the new state party
chairman, succeeding Steve Munisteri.
I believe if we are going to be the party of the majority for 2015 and beyond, we are going to have to have
a big, bold vision for this state. Were going to have to be a party that stands for its party platform, that
stands on principle, that is on the front lines every single day fighting for those core values and beliefs
that we find in our party platform. I think Ive proven that, Ive proven time and time again that Im not
going to back down, Im not going to run, Im not going to surrender when it comes to standing up for our
party platform. And Ill tell you its not always easy, its not always easy. People in the trenches know that
if you stand for something, youre going to be attacked. When you stand against an Obama administration
thats trying to nationalize one-sixth of our economy, you are going to be attacked. When you stand up to
protect our borders and against sanctuary cities and in-state tuition, you are going to be attacked, and
against illegal immigrants getting better health care than veterans, youre going to be attacked. When you
stand for the Second Amendment and against an Obama administration thats trying to outlaw
ammunition for AR-15s, you are going to be attacked. But I welcome those attacks, folks. I welcome
those attacks every single day because if we are going to be the majority party in 15 and beyond, we are
going to have to stand for something.
Woodfill did not prevail, though he did better than some expected, finishing tied for second in the fourman race on the first ballot. The leader on that first ballot, Tom Mechler of Amarillo, who clinched the job
on the second ballot, also happened to have chaired the committee that hammered out the hard-right
platform at the partys 2014 convention that Woodfill said the party needs to more demonstratively
promote and defend. (Woodfill, if he chooses, can take another crack at the chairmanship at the 2016
state convention, when Mechler will seek a full, tw0-year term.)
But, when Mechler accepted his victory, he didnt talk about the platform, instead emphasizing the
demographic imperative facing the party to improve its standing with minority and particularly Hispanic
voters, or perish as the dominating majority party in Texas.
This then is the horns of the Texas Republican Partys dilemma, and on Monday, the horns were
sharpened with an attempt by Senate Republicans to hold a hearing, with little notice, on a bill by Sen.
Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, targeting sanctuary cities, a move that Senate Democrats quickly scuttled, for
the moment.
As Tim Eaton reported in todays American-Statesman:
State Sen. Jos Rodrguez prevented a hearing from occurring Monday on a divisive immigration-related
bill.
Rodrguez, D-El Paso, put a so-called tag on Senate Bill 185 by state Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock,
who seeks to outlaw sanctuary cities by prohibiting Texas governmental entities from passing laws to
restrict police from asking about immigration status. Rodrguez said after the 8 a.m. meeting that he
employed a procedural move to allow more time for discussion on the issue that raises passions on both
sides. The bill was not properly posted on Friday, and the public was not given enough time as outlined in
the Senate rules before the scheduled hearing, Rodrguez said.
There was very little time for people to come and testify, he said.

State Sen. Brian Birdwell, a Republican from Granbury and chairman of the Border Security
Subcommittee of the Senates Veteran Affairs and Military Installations Committee, took the blame for the
improper posting and said the bill would be heard next Monday.
After Birdwell pushed back the hearing, Rodrguez gave an impromptu news conference with state Sens.
Kirk Watson, D-Austin, and Sylvia Garcia, D-Houston. Rodrguez said he would fight Republicans
attempts to pass SB 185, which he called an Arizona-style show-me-your-papers proposal.
Watson added that the measure deserves a full, complete and robust discussion in which the public
should be able to participate.
Garcia said a real debate is necessary before lawmakers move toward a policy that would lead to racial
profiling and police stopping Hispanics for driving while brown.
Austin City Council Member Greg Casar said Perrys proposal would hinder and harm Austin police
officers from fighting violent crime.
The hearing has been rescheduled for next Monday.
Here is a video of the press conference Senate Democrats held yesterday after the hearing was
canceled.
A bill to ban sanctuary cities, on the face of it, would enjoy broad, but very uneven, public support.
Anglos, especially tea party Republicans, would be enthusiastic, but Democrats, and Hispanics, are not
only far less enthusiastic and, in many cases, intensely opposed. It also generates opposition from both
business and labor, and local law enforcement. It is probably not an issue that Governor Abbott is terribly
excited to see surface, important to his base but complicating Hispanic outreach, and nettlesome to some
big donors. He probably prefers to focus the energy and attention on immigration to border security,
which he made an emergency item, and not sanctuary cities, which he didnt.
From Jim Henson, the head of the Texas Politics Project at UT, this morning:
I think immigration attitudes among Republicans have been very restrictive for quite a while and remain
so. The deployment of the Guard to the border may have caused slight increases in the degree and
intensity of these attitudes, but the baseline has been present for several years (per the piece I sent and
the data in it).
I agree that Abbott, to some degree like Perry before him, emphasizes border security as an issue rather
than issues that show more partisan division, like in-state tuition and sanctuary cities. The political logic
of this is pretty clear. The issue of border security doesnt just resonate with attitudes on immigration it
also invokes public safety and/or law and order. This is probably why you see Democrats much more
evenly split on issues like the deployment of the National Guard last summer than on immediate
deportation.
Calling for mandatory local enforcement of federal immigration law has been a politically alluring play for
Republicans since Perrys use of the issue in the 2010 campaign but he didnt stick with the issue as a
major plank, at least not in that construction. But the pushback in the much more demanding environment
of the legislature in 2011 particularly from important business elements and local law enforcement
illustrated the political limitations of playing to the base with this particular issue. Perry subsequently
abandoned it in 2013. The pushback weve seen in the last few days from the expected Democratic and
humanitarian sources is likely to be only the leading edge of other opposition to the measure.

This doesnt mean anti- sanctuary city legislation doesnt have the potential to move, especially in a
legislature with many lawmakers looking over their right shoulders at a very conservative primary
electorate. The tenor of the debate over state-level policy on border security may also have shifted the
terrain in ways that add resonance to the use of sanctuary cities as a gesture in the direction of securing
the border.
Here is Sen. Perrys statement from yesterday: Today, unfortunately, some placed political posturing
over public safety and common sense. Our bill is simple, cities cannot pick and choose the laws they
want to enforce; public safety, not political correctness should be the priority. I look forward to working
with my fellow legislators to pass this bill and place this crucial legislation on the Governors desk by the
end of Session.
And here are the talking points on the issue from Sen. Perrys office:
Definition of a Sanctuary City: Cities and other jurisdictions prohibit law enforcement from enforcing
immigration laws or reporting information in relation to immigration status to the federal
government.Sanctuary Cities in Texas: Austin, Baytown, Brownsville, Channelview, Denton, Dallas, El
Cenizo, Ft. Worth, Houston, Katy, Laredo, McAllen, Port Arthur.
^ Disclosure: There is no legal definition of a sanctuary city.
A few important things on the bill to note:
- This bill does not mandate a city or officer to do anything, it simply states there cannot be a blanket
policy that prohibits the enforcement of state and federal immigration laws.
- This bill has nothing to do with the Arizona law, there is nothing in our bill that gives officers permission
to pull people over and check their papers as Rodriguez stated this morning. The only way an officer
can inquire about a persons immigration status is if they have been arrested or lawfully detained for a
criminal offense.
- The US Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that it is Constitutional for an officer to inquire about
immigration status with individuals that have been arrested or lawfully detained.
- Additionally, the bill explicitly states that they may not consider race, color, language, or national origin
while enforcing the laws
- If a municipality was refusing to enforce DWI laws, no one would have objections to this bill. Why are
there objections to asking cities to allow law enforcement to enforce the laws already on
Public Safety Stats from DPS:
http://www.dps.texas.gov/administration/crime_records/pages/txCriminalAlienStatistics.htm
- According DHS status indicators, over 145,000 criminal aliens have been booked into local Texas jails
between June 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014.
- Of the total criminal aliens arrested in that timeframe, over 96,000 or 53% were identified by DHS status
as being in the US illegally at the time of their last arrest.
Those arrests include 795 homicide charges; 45,641 assault charges and 4,039 sexual assault
charges.
Sen. Perrys spokesman ,Travis McCormick said that, while our office did not have a press conference
this morning, we met with supporters of the bill in our office. Below are some of their stories:

What he provided were videos shot in his office of two parents talking about the murders of their children
by people living illegally in Texas, the suggestion being that, they were, in effect, under the current state
of affairs, enjoying sanctuary in America with terrible results.
Heres some of the immediate negative response to the renewed push against sanctuary cities.
From Charles Kuffner: Its another attack on local control, only in reverse, as this time it aims to compel
cities to do something they dont want to do.
From Ed Sills, communications director for the Texas AFL-CIO: The United Labor Legislative Committee
today OPPOSED SB 185 by Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, the so-called sanctuary cities bill that
would encourage police officers to inquire of anyone detained for questioning or arrested regarding
immigration status. No Texas city currently has a formal sanctuary cities policy, though many police
officers believe that leaving immigration questions to the federal government, which has jurisdiction, is
essential to conduct effective community policing strategies. The Show me your papers bill would
prohibit cities from sanctioning police officers who question detainees on immigration status.
From the Texas Tribunes by Julin Aguilar: Opponents of the bill said Republicans only hurt their efforts
by trying to fast-track the bill. They woke up a sleeping evangelical, Latino giant, said Pastor Lynn
Godsey, the president of the Coalicin Evanglica de Alianzas de Texas, a faith-based immigrant rights
group. Were awake and we aint going back to sleep. This move here today was a bad move, yall.
From Eaton:
Democrats attributed the 2011 bills failure to opposition from the business community, law enforcement
groups, local governments and faith-based organizations. Watson said he hopes they will come together
again.In the current environment of the Capitol, this bill has a good chance of passage, Watson said.
However, I dont know if it is guaranteed passage if we have the kind of full, complete and robust debate
that we should have.
The last time that University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll asked about sanctuary cities was in 2011, but
Henson, who co-directs the poll, said today, I doubt attitudes have changed much on the issue. It still
remains a vessel for partisan attitudes about immigration.
Below are the results on two sets of questions, one directly on whether or not the respondent approves or
disapproves of city governments that choose not to enforce some immigration laws, with results also
broken down by party and race, and a second, more subtly worded question, about whether local police
should have to enforce federal immigration laws all the time, some of the time or never, with results
broken down also by party, race and identification with the tea party.

University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll

University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll

University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll

Here is the question asked differently.

University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll

University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll

University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll

University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll

It remains to be seen whether, as this issue plays out this session, the past may be prologue,.
Here is Jim Hensons take on the issue when it occupied center stage for a while in 2011.
The strange saga of anti-sanctuary cities legislation in the 82nd session amplified the sharp dissonance
around immigration politics inside the Texas Republican Party. The essence of the problem is the conflict
between conservative Republican voters with intense preferences for restrictions on immigrants and
immigration, on one hand, and the much more pragmatic positions of key Republican leaders, elected
officials, and business interests in the state on the other. Gov. Rick Perry, as the leader of the party, has
maneuvered through this conflict with mixed results. Whatever his place in the party and his political
future, the problem is built into the coalition of interests in the Texas GOP.
Legislation prohibiting cities from declining to enforce federal immigration law was incarnated as a
campaign issue by candidate Perry in the 2010 gubernatorial race, then rose again as an emergency item

declared by the governor as the session began. The legislation haunted both the legislative sessions, with
a version passing in the House but not the Senate in the regular session, then another version passing in
the Senate but not the House in the special session. The failures were greeted with relief by Democrats,
who had fought the legislation tooth and nail, and with howls of displeasure from conservative
Republicans and allied groups.