Tancredo Sneaks Sanctuary Amendment Into Homeland Security Funding Bill

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 07:49:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This:

Were Democrats asleep at the switch Friday, or what?

The Homeland Security funding bill (H.R. 2638) came up for a vote in the House. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) tacked on an amendment preventing what he calls "sanctuary cities" from receiving federal funding. What's a "sanctuary city?" It's not defined, but Tancredo uses it to describe cities in which local police don't assist the feds in busting the undocumented. He lists Denver and Boulder as examples.

Tancredo has tried to get this amendment passed seven times before and failed each time. Today, in a surprise move, he succeeded. The vote was 234 to 189, with 50 Democrats voting in favor. (More on the votes here.)

THOMAS describes the Amendment:

More...

H.AMDT.294 to H.R.2638 An amendment numbered 7 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit funds to be used in contravention of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Sponsor: Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. [CO-6] (introduced 6/15/2007) Cosponsors (None)Latest Major Action: 6/15/2007 House amendment offered.

But it also says Tancredo submitted another amendment, one that would prevent any money in the act from being spent on visa waivers:

H.AMDT.292 Amendment (A043) offered by Mr. Tancredo. An amendment to prohibit funds of this Act to carry out the visa waiver program.

Also part of the bill: $50 million in grants to implement Real ID.

The total amount of spending authorized by the House bill is $37 billion. Hundreds of millions of it go to state and local anti-terrorism grants. Sure, just throw money at law enforcement. That will solve the problem and keep us safer(sarcasm.)

All of the bill's provisions are in the House Report 110-181 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2008. THOMAS link is here, but if it doesn't work, just type in H.R. 2638.

The bill now goes to the Senate and then to Bush to sign into law.

< 1946 Lynchings May Have Been Encouraged by GA Gov. | The Extremism of Tim Russert >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Tancredo Sneaks Sanctuary Amendment Into Homeland Security Funding Bill | 7 comments (7 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Prediction (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by MikeDitto on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 11:02:54 AM EST

It will probably get dropped in the conference committee. Sometimes it's easier just to throw the other side a bone to get a bill passed and then strip the offending provisions in conference. The Repubs did this all the time to Democratic amendments.

Especially if they hear from constituents about how dumb it is.

Where are the Democrats!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by LonewackoDotCom on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 11:42:00 AM EST

I'm upset about this too! Where were the Democrats to block this and help cities support illegal immigration and help those who profit from illegal activity such as corrupt growers, sweatshops, corrupt banks, and the Mexican government? I guess those groups will just have to step up their contributions to the Dems or something.

Interesting. Both LAPD and San Diego (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 12:57:25 AM EST

P.D. were specifically instructed not to inquire about residence status of persons they contacted so as not to frighten people from cooperating with law enforcement. Since some of the 9/11 hijackers were living in San Diego pre 9/11, does it make any sense at all to penalize San Diego? No.

I also heard recently on NPR that a lot of the money previously approved for homeland security hasn't been spent.

Sounds like blackmail to me..... (none / 0) (#2)
by kdog on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 08:54:07 AM EST

Basically Tancredo and the rest of Congress is saying if you don't chain up them immigrants, they will withold money. Blackmail.

So much for small government and respecting state and city rights, eh?

As far as I'm concerned, the feds can keep their precious cash, homeland security funds end up getting spent on machine guns and other tools of tyranny anyway. I don't want or need it.

It's double-blackmail (none / 0) (#5)
by roy on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 11:19:03 AM EST

They wouldn't simply be withholding money, they'd be taking money through taxation and refusing to give it back. Denver et al would still have to fund the programs they aren't allowed to benefit from, so it's more like levying a fine than it like refusing to subsidize. It's a very old, very successful way for Fedgov to get around federalism and exert big control over areas of law it's supposed to be denied.

Always remember, when the feds "keep their precious cash", they're actually keeping our precious cash.

[ Parent ]

: True..... (none / 0) (#7)
by kdog on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:51:55 AM EST

It is our cash, but once it's jacked from our checks or payed out of pocket, it's no longer ours, it's gone.
Like paying the mob in a protection racket...it's a cost of doing business aka being alive in the USA. I know I don't have any real say in how it will be spent, only the illusion of a say.
I think the apt cliche is I ain't gonna cry over spilled milk.

[ Parent ]

Nancy With Pearls (none / 0) (#3)
by seabos84 on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 10:11:12 AM EST

and her wimpy 'leadership' on display.

let me see ... the fascists ran the house such that NEVER was ANYTHING allowed whcih might benefit the peee-ons

ya know, peee-ons ... the bottom 90% who do all the work so the top 1/2% can steal everything!

they didn't allow anything good for us to see the light of day

and nancy is letting this bigot and nut case slow the system down with his nuttery and bigotry.

she's pathetic (so is reid ... but this is the house ... )

rmm