Congressman Swalwell votes No on Kate's law | Tim Talk | Tim Hunt | |

Local Blogs

Tim Talk

By Tim Hunt

E-mail Tim Hunt

About this blog: I am a native of Alameda County, grew up in Pleasanton and currently live in the house I grew up in that is more than 100 years old. I spent 39 years in the daily newspaper business and wrote a column for more than 25 years in add...  (More)

View all posts from Tim Hunt

Congressman Swalwell votes No on Kate's law

Uploaded: Aug 20, 2015
Pleasanton resident Michael Austin asked Congressmen Eric Swalwell in an email why he voted no on Kate's Law. Michael posted Swalwell's response on Town Square, noting "He did not answer the question, but provided the response below:"

"Thank you for contacting me to express your support for H.R. 3011, Kate's Law. I always appreciate hearing from my constituents, and I am glad to receive your input on this important issue.

I was horrified to learn of Kate Steinle's senseless murder. My thoughts and prayers are with her friends and family; I have known the family for years and have called personally to express my deepest condolences. We must act to ensure something like this never happens again. Sanctuary city policies should never be used to shield dangerous criminals from deportation. As you may know, Kate's Law would impose mandatory minimum sentences on aliens who illegally reenter the U.S.

More broadly, this is yet another example of how our immigration system is broken and needs comprehensive reform. As a prosecutor, I brought to justice people who entered out country without documentation and committed serious crimes. Such people must be deported quickly after serving their sentences. At the same time, those coming here should always be treated with respect and dignity. Many are hard working, and they are very important to our economy. We have to fix out broken immigration system in a comprehensive way to allow for their economic participation, protect our borders, and enforce out immigration laws".

Michael's follow-up correctly notes Eric's close connections with former House speaker Nancy Pelosi, who Swalwell has said has mentored him. I think, as Michael does, that a majority of the 15th House District voters would have supported Kate's law. Yes, it is a reaction to a horrible tragedy?but also a necessary one?as is stopping federal funds from flowing to sanctuary cities such as San Francisco.

Who you hang around with is a critically important. Eric benefitted greatly from his courage to take on 20-term incumbent Pete Stark and the understandable and palpable desire among voters for "anyone but Pete."

When Jim Steinle went to Washington D.C. to testify in favor of the bill, Eric personally gave him a tour of the Capitol.

Given the registration is the district, it's likely the seat is Swalwell's for as long as he wants?even if he veers sharply left on issues such as on-demand abortion (regardless of the development of the baby) and immigration. In his successful 2012 campaign, he was more centrist than Stark. It is unlikely he will be defeated from the left?it would have to be another candidate who can pick up the independent and Republican votes using Swalwell's 2012 playbook.
Local Journalism.
What is it worth to you?


Posted by Westerner, a resident of San Ramon,
on Aug 20, 2015 at 9:55 am

Swalwell is a typical double talking crooked politician. Hopefully somebody will challenge him in the next election. By the way, did you know that Swalwell solicits and accepts illegal campaign contributions and then offers jobs in return? Here is a link to a news story about the illegal contributions. Web Link

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Aug 20, 2015 at 11:43 am

Kate Steinle May You Rest In Peace.

Posted by beach bum, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Aug 20, 2015 at 4:02 pm

Typical useless statements from a politician.

Posted by Michael Austin, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Aug 21, 2015 at 6:17 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

I conducted a poll regarding Kate's Law.

I asked 125 people if they supported Kate's Law.
All 125 people answered yes, they support Kate's Law.

The poll I conducted was in Pleasanton at the Lucky's on West Las Positas,
the Safeway on Valley, the City Library, and through out my neighborhood.

I do not know anything about conducting a poll, other then going around and asking people for their opinion.

My poll results, tend to indicate that Representative Swawell has a real need to realize, and come to understand, what it is the people in his district are expecting from him.

Posted by San Ramon Observer, a resident of San Ramon,
on Aug 21, 2015 at 7:26 pm

San Ramon Observer is a registered user.

I was very critical of Swalwell's first term in one of my blogs. His big accomplishment was changing the name of the Dublin Post Office. He seemed to be doing better in his second term, but now I don't think so.

In the last election he had a well-known local Democrat running against him but incumbency carries a lot of weight.

He won against Stark because the District lines had been redrawn and he positioned himself to the Right of Stark. His next opponent would have to position him or herself to the Right of Swalwell now.

Next year is a Presidential election and it depends on who the candidates from each party are. Hillary isn't a sure thing for the Democrats yet, and the Republican slot is wide open.


Posted by Formerly Dan from BC, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Aug 22, 2015 at 9:18 am

Formerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

You mean a Democrat politician didn't answer a question or take responsibility for a vote?!

Color me surprised. <---sarcasm

Posted by Ted, a resident of Stoneridge,
on Aug 22, 2015 at 4:50 pm

Cute little echo chamber you have here!

Posted by Formerly Dan from BC, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Aug 22, 2015 at 7:16 pm

Formerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

Hey Ted,

Is that all you, like, got?

Are you for sanctuary cities or against them? Why?

Do you support a politician who does not answer questions why asked in a straight-forward manner?

Are you in support of allowing illegal immigrant felons to remain in our country to commit more crimes?

Do you think the border should just be opened up and we allow everyone to come in?

Come on smart guy/gal, why not give us your opinion on the topic, because I think we all would like to know.

Posted by BobB, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Aug 22, 2015 at 10:13 pm

Why are we restricting immigration at all? Free movement of capital maximizes economic gain, human capital included.

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Aug 23, 2015 at 3:20 pm

I STRONGLY SUPPORT AN OPEN US BORDER...North, South, East, and West. This country has NEVER been able to keep out "illegals". Even if another Great Wall of China (America) is constructed, people that want to be free will find a way over or under a wall.

Gradually, the color of America is changing. I know that this is frightening to many Americans. However, it was equally frightening when Europeans began to arrive in the Americas and wreak havoc on the lives/cultures of native inhabitants. I am a student of the History of the Americas I am also very grateful that I found a home in the USA. VIVA AMERICA!

However, just because I have been fortunate doesn't mean that I'm not interested in the importance of welcoming people from foreign lands. That is what makes this country great! It is a wonderful experience to pledge your allegiance to our flag and what it means.

All the hate that some folks can muster will never control who arrives and who is on his/her way. WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! WELCOME!


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Aug 23, 2015 at 3:25 pm

Correction: I am a student of the History of the Americas and I am grateful that I found a home in the USA. VIVA AMERICA!

ps Tragically, Kate is no longer with us. Please be respectful when you mention her name or any reference to her surviving family. May Kate Rest In Peace.

Posted by Citizen, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Aug 24, 2015 at 10:28 am

We have our own killers and thieves, we do not need to import them. However, IF there was a certain verification of character and ability to provide for oneself and family, their 'presence' in not the problem. It's the 'presents' that political 'whxxxs' make us give them. We work to provide those presents we bestow on them. Food programs, housing programs, education programs, often ahead or in place of our own families. It's previous politicians taking from American workers to redistribute to illegals.
There have been moments in our US history when we stopped immigration, and use to 'control' according to OUR needs. We also required 'sponsors' declaring responsibility, that newbies would not 'take' from us for any of their 'needs' for a FIVE year period. We had a system and process. And, bringing the whole 'extended' famdamily is not how our ancestors did it. 26 showing up with the same name is not reasonable. Any church that thinks that's ok should be required to sign for and insure all financial responsibility in each community.
Of course no city that harbors criminals, should receive our tax dollars...that's a no-brainer.

Posted by Michael Austin, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Aug 25, 2015 at 6:24 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

Cholo understands and responds to his identification as simpleton.

Posted by C. R. Mudgeon, a resident of Danville,
on Aug 26, 2015 at 2:31 pm

I also sent an e-mail to Rep. Swalwell, urging him to vote for "Kate's Law". Then I wrote to him again, after seeing that he voted No. In response, I received the same form letter. In light of the fact that the Steinle family lives in his district, I was thinking that Swalwell would perhaps have been given "permission" from his Dem. Party bosses to go against the party line. (Especially when I now see that Swalwell actually gave Jim Steinle a tour of the Capitol, when Mr. Steinle was in DC to testify in favor of the bill.)

This is just another example of how our Congressional representatives (both houses) don't really represent the people who live in their districts. They represent the donors to their party. A poll of people within our area would be strongly in favor of Kate's Law. And Swalwell can obfuscate all he wants with talk about "comprehensive immigration reform" being the real answer, but the bottom line is that he could care less what voters think on specific issues.

As a side comment, I used to be in Swalwell's district, but am now in Mark DeSaulnier's neighboring district. I got the same basic form letter response from his office, with the added element that he didn't want to "punish" cities that had sanctuary policies. How about NOT punishing US citizens and legal immigrants by harboring criminals who should be deported? I guess that doesn't count...

Only a year and a few months before we can try to oust politicians who ignore their constituents.

Posted by PleasantonTaxpayer, a resident of Highland Oaks,
on Aug 26, 2015 at 3:34 pm

PleasantonTaxpayer is a registered user.

Like McNerney, Swalwell apparently doesn't have the courage to split with Pelosi.

Follow this blogger.
Sign up to be notified of new posts by this blogger.



Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Burning just one "old style" light bulb can cost $150 or more per year
By Sherry Listgarten | 4 comments | 1,735 views

Reflecting on lives this Thanksgiving Day
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 992 views


Support local families in need

Your contribution to the Pleasanton Weekly Holiday Fund will go directly to nonprofits supporting local families and children in need. Last year, Pleasanton Weekly readers contributed over $83,000 to support eight safety-net nonprofits right here in the Tri-Valley.