Yes, yes, yes! I came across two great pieces of news today that show concrete progress on the shamnesty issue (even though they're both from the House rather than the Senate), and they deserve to be trumpeted.
Good News #1: The first is that Rep. Tom Tancredo (Rep., CO) successfully passed a bill that would withhold federal emergency services funding for so-called 'sanctuary' cities that protect illegal immigrants.
I've mentioned this subject in previous blogs, but a quick synopsis is that these 'sanctuary' cities refuse to investigate the legal status of criminals picked up on the streets, and in many cases these criminals are released simply because they are suspected to be illegals (but it's a no-no to actually check it out). Basically, the city government turns a blind eye to illegals, allowing them 'sanctuary'. The end result is that illegals have virtually free reign in these 'sanctuary' cities, and we end up with things like the Fort Dix Six, a group of terrorists who attempted to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey. Three of them were illegals who'd been in the US for at least 10 years, and between the three they'd had charges filed against them 75 times! But, no one bothered to investigate their legal status and have them deported.
So, what does this House bill mean? It means, I believe, that these 'sanctuary' cities will have to choose between the protection of their US citizens via federal emergency money or the protection of their illegal populations via their 'sanctuary' status. Can't have both anymore. It should be very illuminating to see what they decide...
The good news is that there were 50 Democrats voting in favor of this bill, a good sign that this issue crosses the normal political aisle and reflects the will of the clear majority of the American people. And, it may be an indicator that if the Shamnesty Bill (Part 2) does pass the Senate, it may find more opposition in the House than previously thought. I'd much rather see it killed in the Senate again, but it's nice to have a backup plan.
Good News #2: The second piece of good news was posted by Michelle Malkin: Republicans in the House also introduced legislation today that took aim squarely at securing our borders before entertaining any other action at all. It rightly blasted the past 20 years of leadership, pointing out the obvious lack of enforcement. The LA Times goes into some more detail: the Secure Borders First Act would effectively secure our borders first, bar illegal immigrants from obtaining legal status, require employers to check the legal status of all workers hired, and establish English as the nation's official language. It stresses operational control over the border and rejects amnesty in favor of enforcing existing laws. It would require the deployment of 18,000 more border patrol agents by the end of 2008, as well as full implementation of the US-VISIT program (to track who comes and goes), which was authorized in the mid-90's but never implemented. It also has some common sense provisions that would improve communication between the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration, and the Treasury Department, allowing for better identification of illegals. Another provision would prevent temporary agriculture workers from bringing their families or from getting legal status in the US, and it would hold 1/4 of their wages in escrow to be picked up at the border when they return home at the end of their work visa. It would also crack down on illegal gang members.
I don't know about you, but this bill is music to my ears!
Here's the thing that's really interesting to me. The Founding Fathers designed Congress very carefully - the Senate was meant to be the place where legislation got bogged down in debate, resulting only in the passage of bills that really have a lot of support. The House, on the other hand, was given the ability to fire off bill after bill in rapid succession, but House members tend to stay much more in tune with their constituents since they serve only two year terms (rather than the Senate's 6-year term). So, even though the Senate has been slow in coming around to what the American people want, the House has heard it loud and clear (at least these Republicans who introduced this bill). We'll see if it passes a full House vote, but I certainly hope it does. It could be a sign of good things to come.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment