WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. House of Representatives this morning voted to withhold federal emergency services funding for "sanctuary cities" that protect illegal immigrants.
Anti-illegal immigration champion Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., sponsored the measure, which he says would apply to cities such as Denver and Boulder. He was elated by its passage, which stunned critics and supporters alike.
Could we really win?
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0%2C1299%2CDRMN_15_5587755%2C00.html
2007-06-20 06:46:11 · 23 answers · asked by Cherie 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
Right you are Yaax Balam.....however, this discussion is regarding ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS not those who came here legally. And there IS a BIG difference!
2007-06-20 14:54:05 · update #1
Can you hear the standing ovation for Tancredo. I have said all along that the winner of this presidential election will be the one who does EVERYTHING possible to stop this idiotic amnesty crap. There are a few against it...Tancredo seems to be strongest against it!
2007-06-20 07:07:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 1⤋
In 2005 Lou Dobbs was saying 7 to 10 Million illegal aliens, now he is saying 12 to 20 Million. if we can support & he work hard to stop the Congress from looking at this matter today, he can repeat the same story in 2009 with little changes i.e.- 20 to 30 Million (or 30 -40 )
By that time they can bring all their distant cousins and their families; most probably Congress will come up with a real AMNESTY plan similar to 1986 instead of this penalties and long waiting period and complex probation system and all.
All the illegal aliens need to thank the conservatives for that ( because many of us do not really know the term 'Conservatism' in its real meaning ).
2007-06-20 16:15:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In L.A., police were not allowed to ask someone in custody whether or not they were a legal immigrant. This points to how deeply flawed the entire immigration policy with Mexico has been. In Arizona, the people voted for an I.D. to be presented prior to voting. The 9th Circus of Appeals overturned it. (We got it back!!!) You tell me, how is possible for judges to rule that an I.D. card presented prior to voting is unconstitutional? There's more examples of this all over the place. Elected officials at the highest levels are turning their backs on lawbreakers!
You've been following this pretty close. You would think putting up a fence, asking people to come into the country LEGALLY, would be a slam dunk. We now have a President, Senators, and Congressional stooges, who want to ignore the law. It's mind boggling.
Can you imagine if this Tancredo law was used in L.A.?
2007-06-20 07:43:05 · answer #3 · answered by Matt 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think its wonderful and I live in a sanctuary city, I am sure my mayor is boo hooing, as for the person who said they will not be able to receive federal funds for disasters and such, sure they will it will just be a choice - protect citizens who vote or illegal immigrants..... Its a huge victory (if it passes) for the citizens of sanctuary cities who have seen repeated crimes from some illegal immigrants go unpunished because the city refuses to cooperate with law enforcement maybe now some future crime can be avoided....
I live in a the hurricane zone so you can bet your sweet beach grass that my mayor will comply..........
2007-06-20 08:04:54 · answer #4 · answered by Rabid Frog 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Well, there is always the senate which already voted down an amendment to their bill that would have barred sanctuary cities. It does seem to indicate that the Senate Bill will have trouble in the House, if it makes it that far.
2007-06-20 08:17:43 · answer #5 · answered by DAR 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
Like stepped up enforcement, this is a token measure designed to drum up support for the Amnesty bill. Sure, Tancredo was probably sincere about it, but most of those voting for it were probably trying to shore up thier voting records - looking for something to point to when thier inevitable pro-Amnesty votes are brought up in the future.
2007-06-20 07:27:25 · answer #6 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
i'm an anti-unlawful immigrant individual and this does not marvel me. i think of that all and sundry legal immigrants must be appalled with the help of the gall of unlawful immigrants and their supporters who seem to think of they're entitled to fudge to the front of the line and likewise must be receiving loose social reward, and so on. My stance continues to be construct THE FENCE/WALL, DEPORT ALL ILLEGALS AS they're placed, PROSECUTE ALL EMPLOYERS OF unlawful IMMIGRANTS TO THE FULLEST quantity OF THE regulation, NO AMNESTY EVER returned TO ANY unlawful IMMIGRANTS!
2016-10-18 03:57:09 · answer #7 · answered by ramswaroop 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have a feeling on this one the Senate will go the other way but I congratulate Rep Tancredo on this one he deserves a lot of praise. These cities need to be taken down a notch for their ignorance to a real problem now and in the future for our country.
2007-06-20 06:50:57 · answer #8 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 14⤊ 2⤋
It will never make it through the Senate, unfortunately. These so called "sanctuary cities" should be declared to be in a state of insurrection.
2007-06-20 07:26:07 · answer #9 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Wow, I'm surprised too. Go Tom! If Michael Savage doesn't run for president, than I'm voting for him. I think we can win. Power to the people!
2007-06-20 08:05:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋