America has problems, but America is NOT THE PROBLEM!~
Make The BLEEDING HEARTS, Bleed.
Published on June 18, 2007 By Moderateman In US Domestic

Finally the United States Government has had enough of cities that have become a haven for the Criminal Illegal Aliens among us!

There was a glimmer of hope on the {sh-}amnesty landscape  in the House, as a bill to cut all Department of Homeland Security Funding to OUTLAW cities that have an Amnesty mindset toward ILLEGAL ALIENS and make them either chose Funding or continuing to break federal law by offering shelter to ILLEGALS.

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 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. 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.

Even a few Democrats supported the bill which had failed several times before when Tancrado introduced it. Could it be the Democrats are finally getting the message American is tired of Illegal Immigrants being above the law, killing our citizens and our children, when they should not even be in AMERICA!

  

 

 

 

 

.


Comments (Page 4)
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4 
on Jun 21, 2007
(Citizen)Dr GuyJune 21, 2007 07:38:20


San Francisco and Los Angeles are big and rich enough to be independent city-states anyway.


Then why do they receive more in the federal dole than they pay?


to be fair to Cacto, all big cities in America are Meccas to the bums that live off the public dole. hmmmmmmm
on Jun 21, 2007
to be fair to Cacto, all big cities in America are Meccas to the bums that live off the public dole. hmmmmmmm


But it still points out that they could not become "City States" since they are dependant upon both state and federal funds to survive.
on Jun 21, 2007
Taking away their ability to respond to a terrorist threat seems somewhat counter-productive to me.


That's the whole point. They're NOT responding to a terroristic threat. They "are" saying we don't care if you're here illegally or a criminal, it's okay to stay in our city.


(Citizen)drmilerJune 21, 2007 11:19:36


My Point exactly Doc M. A city just cannot pick and chose which federal law it's going to obey, either obey them all or pay the piper.
on Jun 21, 2007

Reply By: CharlesCS1Posted: Thursday, June 21, 2007
This all seems like one of those 2 wrongs don't make a right situation. In the end not only one authority system fails the American people but so does the second line of defense.

I agree with this Charles, but geeeze we really need to make these so called SANTUARY cities stop that practice, it is not only dangerous to the citizens of the country, it is thumbing their noses at the Federal government.

on Jun 21, 2007

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Wednesday, June 20, 2007
So let me get this straight. There's apparently a war on terror going on yet the US government is refusing to protect some of its cities just because they're being recalcitrant on a domestic issue.


Stay with me here, cacto...

If we're going to PROTECT our borders, we should first SECURE our borders. What SF and similar cities are proposing is to refuse to cooperate in defending our borders. Why should they receive funds when they're working AGAINST our efforts?

Simple solution: round up the leaders of these "sanctuary cities" and hang 'em for treason. Make it a public hanging.

That might be a little harsh,. But an old fashioned recall might be the ticket.

on Jun 22, 2007
I agree with this Charles, but geeeze we really need to make these so called SANTUARY cities stop that practice, it is not only dangerous to the citizens of the country, it is thumbing their noses at the Federal government.


Thank you. I mean think about it, if the Gov't does very little to stop them from coming in and the States do even less by not doing anything once they are here, who is actually doing anything for us, the people? I feel like I am paying taxes to pay people who are nothing more than a title, that can't really enforce anything unless you are a true American. I mean it's almost as if the odd are I am more likely to be arrested for speeding that an illegal is for murder. (Disclaimer, not all illegals aliens are murderers, I was just using as an example)
on Jun 22, 2007
That might be a little harsh


Only because we don't have the stomach for revolution. Which is why we will basically do nothing as our society deteriorates. I guarantee you, if the possibility of being tried and hanged for treason existed (and it IS provided for in the Constitution), our leaders would act much more responsibly. But they can act like idiots because the worst they have to fear is being forced into early retirement and the massive pensions and speaking stipends that accompany it. Nixon may have resigned a disgrace, but he never stopped making money as an ex president or speaker.
on Jun 22, 2007
Only because we don't have the stomach for revolution. Which is why we will basically do nothing as our society deteriorates. I guarantee you, if the possibility of being tried and hanged for treason existed (and it IS provided for in the Constitution), our leaders would act much more responsibly. But they can act like idiots because the worst they have to fear is being forced into early retirement and the massive pensions and speaking stipends that accompany it. Nixon may have resigned a disgrace, but he never stopped making money as an ex president or speaker.


Sad isn't it?
on Jun 22, 2007

(Disclaimer, not all illegals aliens are murderers, I was just using as an example)
Reply By: CharlesCS1Posted: Friday, June 22, 2007

 

Doesn't that just annoy the hell out of you having to post these disclaimers so the loony left does not jump on you because if you do not there will perceive you as some sore of bigot or racist!

on Jun 22, 2007
Doesn't that just annoy the hell out of you having to post these disclaimers so the loony left does not jump on you because if you do not there will perceive you as some sore of bigot or racist!


Or blanketing, or stereotyping, or generalizing. Sad is that I expect this not only from the looney left but from just about anyone, even those who agree with me.
on Jun 23, 2007

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Friday, June 22, 2007
That might be a little harsh


Only because we don't have the stomach for revolution.

The time for armed revolution was ripe in the early 1970's gid, over a million and a half pissed off combat vets that were harshly mistreated not just buy the civilians but by the government too. Many young people pissed off at the governemts.. BUT no GREAT leader rose from the ranks to make it happen.

4 PagesFirst 2 3 4