House cuts off funds to sanctuary cities

Houston Chronicle:

Local officials continued to debate police policy toward illegal immigrants Thursday after the U.S. House passed a Houston lawmaker's measure that would cut off federal crime-fighting money to cities with sanctuary policies.

The House overwhelmingly approved a spending bill containing an amendment by U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, intended to force state and local authorities to get more involved with immigration enforcement — or risk losing millions in federal grants.

In a news release on his amendment, Culberson listed Houston among cities that "have adopted sanctuary policies which prevent law enforcement officers from inquiring about immigration status."

Mayor Bill White, Police Chief Harold Hurtt and the top federal official charged with local immigration enforcement maintain the city doesn't have a sanctuary policy.

Responding to that assertion Thursday, Culberson said, "If they are in compliance with the law, and they can prove it to the Justice Department, then they don't have anything to worry about."

The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan research arm of the House and Senate, in 2004 included Houston among sanctuary cities.

Culberson said the amendment passed Thursday, and others he has attached to unrelated spending bills, are necessary to combat the government's "widespread and systematic refusal to protect our border and enforce the immigration laws."

The measure won't become law unless it is approved by the Senate, which is set to debate a similar bill later this summer, and signed by President Bush.

...

This is a good idea. It shows some seriousness about the rule of law when it comes to immigration matters. That is something those cities who act as sanctuaries certainly do not. It should make them take a closer look at the cost of this policy that undermines the nations immigration laws. If they provide services to people that are here illegally they should be obligated to notify immigration authorities of their illegal presence.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more