Thread: Plan to Crack Down on 'Sanctuary Cities' Killed in Senate

Plan to Crack Down on 'Sanctuary Cities' Killed in Senate
Tuesday , October 16, 2007


WASHINGTON —

A House-passed plan to threaten local police agencies with losing federal money if they don't assist in cracking down on illegal immigration was defeated Tuesday in the Senate with a 52-42 vote.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., introduced the plan Tuesday in his chamber as part of the appropriations bill covering the Department of Justice. He said the amendment would take aim at so-called "sanctuary cities" that have policies that protect illegal immigrants from federal efforts to find them and deport them.

"Some of our largest cities practice sanctuary policies that protect and provide assistance to illegal aliens. My amendment instructs (the Department of Justice) to withhold federal policing funds from those cities that continue their sanctuary city policies," Vitter said in news release.

Vitter's amendment would withhold money from the Justice Department's Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS, program. Recent awards for the program created during the Clinton administration include $43.6 million to 117 law enforcement agencies to fight methamphetamine; $159 million in technology grants to 37 agencies; and $15 million to seven Louisiana agencies for crime fighting in the state, according to recent Justice Department information.

Vitter's move angered the No. 2 Senate Democrat, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, who urged his colleagues to defeat the amendment. Other Democrats who usually are open to tougher immigration laws indicated they weren't in support of the measure, suggesting the amendment wouldn't have enough support to prevail.

Vitter said a key portion of federal law requires state and local governments to cooperate with immigration officials, but it isn't being enforced.

That language, in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, says: "Notwithstanding any other provision of federal, state, or local law, a federal, state, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual."

Vitter's one-paragraph amendment simply says no money from the COPS program can be used against what the 1996 law prescribes.

Many local governments, including large cities like New York City and Chicago, have policies that do not require police responding to criminal reports to inquire about a person's immigration status. Supporters of such policies say that it would become more difficult to learn about crime in immigrant communities if those sources thought they would be turned in to immigration officials.

Durbin defended the policies against Vitter's attack, saying Vitter apparently was ignoring support given to Hurricane Katrina-ravaged New Orleans.

"These cities, counties and police departments have decided that as a matter of public health and safety not to inquire about immigration status when people report crimes or have been the victims of domestic abuse or go to a clinic to obtain vaccination force their children," Durbin said on the Senate floor.

"Why in the world would the senator from Louisiana, a state that I bent over backwards to help since Hurricane Katrina, want to cut off federal funds to the city of Chicago?" Durbin added.

One conservative Democrat, who declined to be quoted by name, hinted that Vitter's personal problems were a bad mix with a bill that could take money away from police trying to crack down on prostitution. Vitter issued a public apology in July once it was discovered this phone number was among those disclosed by D.C. Madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Another prostitute has since claimed that Vitter paid for her services.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who also tends to vote for more strict immigration enforcement said Tuesday that the COPS program wouldn't be losing any money, and the point was "not negotiable."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,302464,00.html

Check how your senator voted..


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... vote=00370

Clinton and Obama not voting. Hmmmm.....

zvenomex wrote:

Check how your senator voted..

With the exception of Sen. Landrieu (D-LA), all Democrats voted to table (virtually kill) the amendment. The list of Republicans voting to table the amendment is the usual illegal alien loving crowd:

Stevens (R-AK)
Specter (R-PA)
Snow (R-ME)
Hagel (R-NE)
Collins (R-ME)
Lugar (R-IN)

I'm extremely disappointed in the following Democrats for their failure to support the enforcement of our immigrations law:

Sen. McCaskill
Sen. Tester
Sen. Byrd
Sen. Dorgan

If your senator is up for reelection in o8 call him and request letter on this vote -also if they think you are proamnesty etc they will send you a letter that can be sent and used by an opponent in o8(look at www..senate.gov) this will give you voting records,numbers etc -I have sent letters sent to me by us congress and senate (you can do this on a lot of subjects because they may feel safe at the time or by judging from a comment think they are telling you what you want to hear) Darrell Holmes

DHolmes7: Welcome! Hey, don't be such a stranger

MW: Re:

I'm extremely disappointed in the following Democrats for their failure to support the enforcement of our immigrations law:

Sen. McCaskill
Sen. Tester
Sen. Byrd
Sen. Dorgan

Especially Dorgan - his 'political capital' just went down in my view.
Very disappointing he didn't do the right thing.

Added to HOMEPAGE!

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=N ... e&sid=2642

what we need to be disappointed by is EVERY ELECTED MORON IN DC who is turning their back on the people of the US. not just specific ones.

make those calls to these peoples offices and leave your comment

of the law from 1996 says money can be withheld.
why is there need for another vote to say anything about this law or any other laws not being enforced?

Question.....
in Nevada
Ensign voted Nay
Reid (the illegal lover) voted yea......

Does this mean yea and nay for shelving it....or nay AGAINST it...cause I cannot believe Reid would vote Yea FOR it?????????????????