SouthernWorldwide.com – Representative Mike Lawler, a Republican from New York, strongly criticized his Democratic colleagues following a contentious hearing on immigration policies. The hearing became particularly heated when the mother of a murder victim, killed by an undocumented immigrant, appealed to Congress for reforms to sanctuary policies.
During a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, Lawler confronted Representative Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland. Lawler accused Raskin of lacking empathy for American victims murdered by undocumented immigrants, specifically naming Laken Riley and Sheridan Gorman. Jessica Gorman, the mother of one of these victims, Sheridan Gorman, was present as a witness to share her tragic story with the committee.
ANGEL MOM WARNS DEMOCRATS ‘WE’RE NOT GOING TO STOP’ AFTER EMOTIONAL HOUSE HEARING ON SANCTUARY POLICIES
Lawler emphasized the importance of understanding the full context of Jessica Gorman’s presence. He stated that to truly grasp her testimony, one must understand what happened to her daughter. He asserted that the reality was that some members did not want to hear the details of Sheridan Gorman’s death.
Furthermore, Lawler claimed that the policies supported by some Democrats directly contributed to Sheridan Gorman’s demise. He described this as a fundamental fact that seemed to be ignored by his counterparts. This assertion fueled the escalating tensions during the hearing.
The New York Republican then drew a stark comparison, accusing House Democrats of exhibiting greater empathy towards the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Good and Pretti were identified as anti-ICE agitators who were fatally shot by federal agents earlier this year. This incident occurred after they allegedly interfered with law enforcement during protests in Minnesota.
This accusation led to a significant clash between Lawler and Raskin. Raskin, in response, vociferously argued that Lawler did not belong on the Judiciary Committee and demonstrated a lack of understanding of the Constitution. The exchange became visibly heated, disrupting the proceedings.
RASKIN TELLS LAWLER TO ‘GET THE HELL OUT’ DURING CONTENTIOUS HEARING
Raskin also directly questioned Lawler, asking if he felt any outrage regarding the deaths of Good and Pretti. This was a direct challenge to Lawler’s comparison of victim empathy. Lawler recounted his exchange with Raskin, stating that he told Raskin that if he cared about Alex Pretti and Renee Good, he should care just as much about Sheridan Gorman.
Lawler continued to elaborate on his position. He pointed out that he had spoken out about Alex Pretti and Renee Good being killed, emphasizing that their deaths were tragic and unnecessary. However, he then linked their deaths to the implementation of sanctuary policies.
According to Lawler, these sanctuary policies prevented local law enforcement from cooperating effectively in areas such as crowd control and traffic management. He argued that this lack of cooperation was the direct cause of their deaths, creating a situation where they should not have died.
RASKIN TELLS LAWLER TO ‘GET THE HELL OUT’ DURING CONTENTIOUS HEARING
In a pointed remark directed at Raskin, Lawler suggested that Raskin should feel “ashamed” of himself for his unwavering stance on sanctuary policies. This was a direct challenge to Raskin’s policy advocacy and his defense of such measures.
The article notes that Raskin has been a vocal supporter of sanctuary policies. His arguments often center on the belief that it is unconstitutional for local police to enforce federal immigration laws. He has frequently defended these policies against what he perceives as federal overreach. Furthermore, Raskin has been critical of proposals that seek to withhold federal funding from cities and states that limit their cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Lawler concluded his remarks by directly linking Sheridan Gorman’s death to specific policy failures. He stated that Sheridan Gorman would still be alive if not for “open borders, sanctuary policies and pro-criminal cashless bail policies.” He reiterated that his opponents supported these policies, while he did not, identifying this as the fundamental difference between their perspectives.
