A strike against Sanctuary Nation
There was a glimmer of hope on the shamnesty landscape today in the House. Stalwart immigration enforcement proponent Tom Tancredo won approval–by a significant margin–of his amendment banning DHS funds for renegade sanctuary cities. From Rep. Tancredo’s website:
U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo’s (R-CO) amendment to cut funding from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Bill (H.R. 2638) for cities that employ a sanctuary policy passed the House with strong bipartisan support today; 234 to 189.
“The times, they are a changing,” said an exuberant Tancredo, who had introduced the same amendment several times in the past with far less support. “This should also serve as a warning sign to the White House and supporters of re-introducing an amnesty bill from the Senate. If that legislation makes it to the House, it is in serious trouble.”
The Amendment would prevent cities like Denver and San Francisco who employ a sanctuary policy for illegal aliens from receiving first responder funds, including law enforcement and terrorism prevention grants, among other programs.
It’s a step in the right direction. The Democrat support for the bill–234-189, with no fewer than 49 Democrats voting in favor–is a good sign. Is it a sign of things to come as the second Senate showdown looms next week?
We’ll see.
In the meantime, sanctuary cities are on notice: Defy immigration law, risk your homeland security funding. Too bad the White House refuses to send that message.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Hyscience
- Bill's Bites
- Re-Igniting The Revolution
- JammieWearingFool
- UniversalUpdate.com
- The Thomas Chronicles
- BIRD
- Provide for the Common Defense
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Amnesty, Sanctuary Cities
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Founding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Boston Globe Climate Beclownment SpectacularDoug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-ShirtRadio Equalizer
» Media Matters Admits Rush Didn't Make Key Racist RemarksDoug Ross @ Journal
» The CRU Climate Scam In 90 SecondsHot Air
» 3rd quarter GDP 2.8%, not 3.5%Mudville Gazette
» Threatswatch: US Embassy Denies Secret Eikenberry Talks With Taliban
Bush should have done this long ago. Something is wrong with this administration.
Like so many others on the political right opposed to non-vital interventionism and nation building, I was conflicted over the 2006 mid-term election results. The Democratic sweep, historically unprecedented in that the party did not forfeit a single seat while snatching up 30 from their incumbent Republican rivals, was clearly a rebuke of the war in Iraq.
But the self-destruction caused by the Bush Administration’s war left me worried that the President, with the castigation of his party, would eagerly team up with the new Democratically-controlled Congress to pass a 1986 amnesty repeat. On that cool November evening I could already envision glowing media stories about a new era of ‘compromise’ and ‘bi-partisanship’ in Washington, with Senator Ted Kennedy standing behind Bush as he signed IRCA 2.0 into law.
But parsing through the rhetoric of the victorious Democratic rookies a few days after the elections boosted my spirits a bit. Overwhelmingly, this freshman class stressed enforcement-first while being critical of the Bush Administration’s dereliction of duty in failing to penalize employers for workplace violations and for failing to halt the illegal influx.
Apparently, most of them are sticking to their guns. Congressman Tancredo’s amendment to the Department of Homeland Security funding resolution calls for ’sanctuary’ cities to receive no federal funding via DHS. For being a ‘fringe extremist’, Tancredo sure garnered a lot of support, as the amendment passed by an impressive 234-189 margin.
Included in the yes-votes were 49 Democrats. What’s especially noteworthy is that 17 of these pro-sovereignty Democrats are members of the rookie class. Among the 180 Democrats opposed to the resolution (six sat the vote out), only 13 are newly-elected representatives. That is, while 57% of Democrats who beat out their Republican incumbent challengers in ‘06 voted in favor of Tancredo’s amendment, only 16% of the Democratic old guard did. The freshmen aren’t willing to dutifully tow the Pelosi line.
Keep in mind that while only 5.9% of Republicans who had been member to Tancredo’s Immigration Reform Caucus lost their seats last November, 16.7% of non-IRC Republicans did. At least on immigration, the mid-terms resulted in both parties in the House becoming more ‘conservative’.
Despite a solid Democratic majority in contrast to the Senate and Executive, the House is the most reliable stalwart against the Latinization (ie greater wealth disparity, cultural balkanization, dismal school performance, greater prevelance of communicable diseases, increased welfare use, less mutual trust among members of the community, a lowly-skilled workforce, etc) of the US.
That the Republican Party–whose voters are even more opposed to open borders and amnesty than Democratic and Independent voters are–willfully allows this to happen says a lot about the GOP’s national leadership and why the party is crashing on the rocks.
Bush, whose agenda was to legalize illegal aliens, for his business chronies, is the incentive, not the deterent. Americans should elect patriots like Tom Tancredo.
http://www.teamtancredo.com