Rep. Justin Amash Feels The Heat For Opposing Border Security Measures

in News by

Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) has once again separated himself from the pack, but not in such a good way this time. He is catching a great deal of flak on the state and national level for voting against immigration measures promoted by President Trump.

Amash was the only Republican ‘no’ vote against Kate’s Law, and one of the few Republican ‘no’ votes against the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act. Kate’s Law would bolster penalties for undocumented immigrants convicted of crimes who were deported from the United States and then re-entered the country illegally. The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act would make sanctuary cities ineligible for certain federal grants.

Amash cited constitutional reasons for opposing both pieces of legislation. He responded personally to Matt Hall, a Michigan Republican Party Executive Committee Member, who took him to task on social media for his “disappointing votes.”

“A few of us still care about the Constitution and conservatism. It’s embarrassing how quickly people ignore and abandon the Tenth Amendment when it’s inconvenient,” Amash wrote in defense of his controversial votes.

An occasionally pointed but constructive discussion between Amash and various Michigan conservatives continued from there. The exchange illustrates the difficulties that Amash’s constant dogged opposition to Trump is giving him in Michigan.

“There’s a clear Fifth Amendment violation. The Fifth Amendment applies to “persons” within U.S. jurisdiction. The bill expressly prohibits a court from allowing a person to challenge an element (validity of prior removal order) of the alleged crime. That violates due process,” Amash wrote in an attempt to clarify his Constitutional concerns with Kate’s Law.

“It seems suspect to me that Rand Paul and Ted Cruz would vote yes on an Unconstitutional bill. They voted in favor of this legislation in the past. It also appears that all of the Liberty Caucus Members voted in favor of these two bills except for you,” Hall wrote in a response to Amash.

Although most of the Michigan conservatives participating in the discussion disagreed with Amash’s sentiments, they appreciated his candor. Amash will need to rely on this frankness and sincerity to avoid succumbing to a primary challenge next year. Trump’s social media director threatened Amash personally earlier this year, and the liberty-minded legislator will need to be a nimble navigator to stop any sharks circling him anticipating his vulnerability in 2018.

  • 1) @justinamash has no “due process” grounds to stand on when due process was already delivered & decided previously.

  • html is a mess in first paragraph… I would re visit that article.

  • 2) What @justinamash is SUBJECTIVELY demanding is unconstitional “re-process” because of his obviou…

  • 3) As his SUBJECTIVE emotions riled against the Yanez verdict as “a miscarriage of justice” as a ju…

  • Check the top few posts on Amash’s FB and look at the comments. They’re really letting him have it!

  • 4) @justinamash yaps the 10th out of 1 side of his mouth, while voting for fed gov-dictated healthc…

  • 5) The foremost qualifier of truth is consistency. @justinamash’s subjectivity is – NATURALLY – full of contradiction.

  • 6) @justinamash is a politician for a nation of men, not of law.

  • JGillman

    The tenth applies to those things not delegated to the Federal Government under the constitution. There is a clear delegation of the concern to the federal authority. It is one of the FEW delegated powers.

    Amash is going by the Articles of Confederation which was superseded by the constitution.

    Get caught up with the times Mr congressman!

  • Thanks for the article. I think it was pretty fair. I was looking for more explanation from him but couldn’t find it on twitter and you did.

    • I read his reply and explanation for his vote.
      He impressed me with his explanation.

  • Statists gonna state.

  • Why did go from being a constitutionalist to being a cuck?

    • Apparently you didn’t read Justin Amash’s response. He clearly opposed it on Constitutional grounds.

      The bill is unconstitutional.

    • Local governments that ignore federal law aren’t constitutionally entitled to federal money.

    • Joseph Monack Sure they are, because there’s no constitutional justification for denying funds to states based on policy.

    • There’s no constitutional grounds for federal money in the first place.

  • Good for Amash!

  • His explanation is invalid. The Constitution applies to US Citizens and proper residents. He needs to go. We can get somebody better.

    • The Constitution applies to everyone.

    • The Constitution applies to the federal government, what it can and can’t do. Deciding sentencing for felonies and misdemeanors at the state level is not one of its delegated powers.

    • The Constitution applies to anyone within it’s jurisdiction. Anyone within the borders of the US and it’s territories are within it’s jurisdiction.

  • He should feel the heat. Amash is a good liberty minded conservative, but how can you honestly state that the bill is unconstitutional? Total bs on the part of Amash.

  • The headline is false. The two votes weren’t on border security measures.

  • If people don’t understand why he voted the way he did, then how can they possiblly vote for candidates that are constitutional?
    It is up to the people to understand the concepts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, because the documents cannot defend themselves.

Latest from News

Go to Top

Thanks for visiting our site! Stay in touch with us by subscribing to our newsletter. You will receive all of our latest updates, articles, endorsements, interviews, and videos direct to your inbox. 

Send this to a friend