Jun 15 2007
Tancredo Gets A Good Win
As many have said, to get a handle on immigration takes being serious about the fact we need temporary workers, being serious about the 12 million illegals here now, and being serious about enforcement and the border. If these are not all done well the problem with our illegal immigration problem will just fester. That is why it is not surprising at all that a bill that Rep Tancredo submitted today has won backing, because for any new comprehensive plans to make progress we cannot allow any more exceptions:
he U.S. House of Representatives this morning voted to withhold federal emergency services funding for “sanctuary cities” that protect illegal immigrants.
Anti-immmigration 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.
The only people stunned are the ones who don’t get the mood of the country. We need a consistent comprehensive policy that is not full of loopholes and has been torn down by precedence – as the current status quo suffers. But even worse than loopholes are these ideas of zone which buck federal jurisdiction. This cannot be allowed to stand. Or else you would see sanctuaries from taxes and environmental laws and the everything else. No one side on this is issue is all wrong (as long as you don’t listen to the fringes). This is a necessary step towards immigration reform that can do some good. No exceptions allowed to the coming new plan.
I think one of the problems with not having a sane rational comprehensive immigration policy is that states and cities have decided to all sorts of things on their own. This might not be so bad if the policies were designed to work with the feds, but instead we have seen calls for everything from car insurance to drivers licenses, etc.
I think this is something they need to do, but I wonder if it will stand up to a court battle..or if it will stand up to public pressure if hospitals and schools start to suffer.
Whether Coleman brings back his bill or not, I would say this makes it much likely that this provision would be in a final bill.
I was wondering why someone hasn’t thought of punishing local towns and cities that endorse anarchy by officially aiding and abetting these illegal law breakers. The federal government has not hesitated to threaten to withhold school, highway, and other fed. funds and subsidies to force compliance with other federal laws and mandates. But then, those situations involved forcing US citizens to toe the mark or face the fed.’s wrath. I guess it’s different when we are dealing with a bunch of illiterate foreigners who’s economic welfare is apparently more important than ours.
IMO it would stand a court challenge. It is not unlike the federal law that withholds fed funds from colleges that do not allow the ROTC on campus. It recently was upheld at SCOTUS.
Its about time I am a small business down here in Fla. and I have always required my new people to sumit a social security card and a photo I.D.
“I have always required my new people to sumit a social security card and a photo I.D.”
I had no choice when I got my current job. It was a requirement of government employment regulations.
I support not giving federal funds to localities that are “sanctuary” areas but I do have one reservation … reporting of crime. In many cases immigrant communities are the victims of crime because the perpetrators know they will be afraid to report the crime lest their immigration status be discovered. There should be some kind of exemption for the good of the public safety when it comes to reporting crimes and possible terrorist activity.
Actually, now that I think about it, this bill is a joke. So they remove any reference to “sanctuary city” … big deal. It might not change their enforcement priorities. So Denver might place immigration enforcement somewhere below illegal vibrator possession in their priority and the end result is exactly the same. That’s why I hate legislation against words or terms or trends or fads or slogans, which is basically what this is in the end.