Harry Reid and the Democrats Vote for Sanctuary Cities Again

View Poll Results: Sanctuary Cities

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • The Already Illegal Sanctuary Cities have to be eliminated.

    11 100.00%
  • Sanctuary Cities are good for America and should be allowed.

    0 0%
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Harry Reid and the Democrats Vote for Sanctuary Cities Again

  1. #1

    Thumbs up Harry Reid and the Democrats Vote for Sanctuary Cities Again

    10/17/2007

    The Vitter amendment would have effectively eliminated sanctuary
    policies in local municipalities, whereby law enforcement officials
    are barred from asking suspects about their immigration status or
    reporting them to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Shame on
    those senator(s) who voted for protecting these law-breaking
    municipalities.

    . How will the Democratic leadership explain to voters in the next
    election that they instructed Democratic senators to vote to support
    sanctuary policies for illegal aliens? At worst, these policies create
    environments where tragedies like the Newark murders take place. At
    best, these policies encourage illegal immigration in communities
    which must then contend with overcrowded housing, schools, hospitals
    and declining wages and job opportunities for its residents.

    . It is highly unlikely that any sanctuary cities in our individual states would
    have lost funding if the Vitter amendment passed because nearly all of
    them would choose to end their sanctuary policies rather than face the
    loss of Federal funds. The senator(s) could have effectively ended
    sanctuary policies that protect illegal aliens, but chose to protect
    illegal aliens instead.

    . The Vitter amendment would have ensured that existing law is
    enforced uniformly across the country by withholding COPS Federal
    funding for cities that choose to violate section 642(a) of the 1996
    Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).
    The Vitter amendment would have passed if only six more senators had
    stood up against illegal immigration.


    I am outraged by this...

    Let our senators, the President and Harry Reid know this will not be tolerated!

    Write, call, email, fax your representatives in Washington:
    http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/

    Write, call, email, fax the Media:
    http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/media/

    Keep up with the fight against sanctuary cities and be proactive...
    http://numbersusa.com/

    Disappointed in Fred Thompson? Conservatives are choosing Huckabee...
    http://www.mikehuckabee.com/

    I am a USMC Veteran, a U.S. born citizen and I vote.
    Last edited by Bohemian; 10-17-2007 at 03:58 PM.

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia
    Posts
    61
    I am a proud resident of Prince William County, Virginia, where early this morning (2:30 AM), the County Board of Supervisors voted to cut county services to illegal immigrants in the county. The hearing was from 2:00 PM YESTERDAY and didn't end until early this morning.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...?nav=rss_metro

    Prince William County supervisors early this morning voted to move forward with a nationally watched plan to crack down on illegal immigrants by increasing local police enforcement and restricting certain public services.

    The unanimous vote, which came at 2:30 a.m., followed a 12-hour session of emotional public testimony, as one person after another -- nearly 400 speakers in all -- urged supervisors to approve or reject the measures. More than 1,200 people gathered at the county government complex in Woodbridge. County staff said it was largest crowd they had ever seen for a board of supervisors meeting.

    Many of the immigrants who remained to the end appeared stunned and dejected at the supervisors' unanimous vote.

    "They didn't hear what people said today," Manassas resident Juan Pablo Gomez said. "Why did they waste our time?"

    As the meeting began shortly after 2 p.m. Tuesday, supporters and opponents of the measures scuffled in the street before police pulled the two sides apart, threatening to make arrests. A charged atmosphere persisted all night and into the early morning. The mood reflected the intense debate playing out in communities across the country as an increasing number of jurisdictions move to clamp down on illegal immigrants following Congress' failure to pass immigration overhaul measures.

    The resolution supervisors approved early today included new provisions addressing concerns about cost, fairness and public confusion about the measures. It postponed the more contentious matter of how to secure long-term funding for the plan, projected to cost $14.2 million over the next five years. It also calls for a public education campaign aimed at the immigrant and minority communities, while directing the county to partner with a university or outside consulting group to review the measures' fairness.

    "What we've seen this evening is there is a great deal of room for public disagreement on this issue," said Supervisor Martin E. Nohe, (R-Coles), who authored the resolution, saying he was particularly concerned by fears it would invite discrimination. "We don't want to be the kind of community that even allows the image that racial profiling is taking place," he said.

    With Prince William property values dropping 14 percent this year and the county facing a projected revenue shortfall of $10 million in the next fiscal year, supervisors would only commit $325,000 toward the measures, but pledged to find the rest of the money later.

    Police chief Charlie T. Deane called it "start-up funding."

    "The funding is something that's beyond me, but I expect it to be there," he told board members.

    Prior to the vote, supervisor Michael C. May (R-Occoquan) read a written statement in Spanish attempting to ease immigrants' fears, but the effort appeared to backfire. He was interrupted by a woman who shouted at him and rushed out of the room crying, saying the measures would separate her from her daughter.

    The tension in Woodbridge came as officials in Fairfax County and Richmond also turned their attention to illegal immigration yesterday. Fairfax's county executive said he would begin studying which services might be restricted to illegal immigrants, and in Richmond, officials rejected a proposal to build a 1,000-bed detention center where illegal immigrants could be temporarily held for deportation. Instead, the Virginia Crime Commission's immigration task force approved a proposal to give more money to local governments to house arrested illegal immigrants and to expand or build jails.

    But the real drama was in Prince William, and it wasn't confined to the street. When the board's chairman, Corey A. Stewart (R), who has made illegal immigration the signature issue of his reelection campaign, moved at the outset to reduce the time allotted for each speaker during the public comment period from three minutes to one, Supervisor Maureen S. Caddigan (R-Dumfries) sought to block the measure.

    Caddigan and other board members have criticized Stewart for using $30,000 in public money to send postcards to every Prince William household notifying residents of the board's vote. Stewart should not invite residents to the meeting and then restrict their right to speak, Caddigan argued.

    The motion was put to a vote, and five of the board's other seven members, including three Republicans, agreed with Caddigan.

    At one point in the session, Supervisor Hilda M. Barg (D-Woodbridge) said Stewart had left the board chambers to conduct television interviews and asked to delay proceedings until he returned.

    The measures approved yesterday improve cooperation with federal immigration authorities and direct police to check the immigration status of anyone accused of breaking the law if the officer suspects that person is an illegal immigrant. They also would deny certain county services to illegal immigrants, including drug counseling, some elderly services, and business licenses.

    With the Nov. 6 election approaching and all of the supervisors up for reelection, the county's illegal-immigration policies have become a dominant campaign issue. Stewart has pushed hard for the county's new measures to be approved before Election Day, angering fellow board members.

    But for hours yesterday afternoon and deep into the night, the podium belonged to residents, highlighting how visceral the issue has become. The list of speakers grew longer after the workday ended, as scores of Hispanic immigrants arrived to urge the supervisors to vote no, many speaking through translators. Children of immigrants, standing on stools, asked board members not to hurt their parents.

    Others pointed out that illegal immigrants are breaking the law. "Where do you get off demanding services, rights and mandatory citizenship?" said Manassas resident Robert Stephens, addressing the large crowd of Hispanic residents. "Who invited you? You cry for your rights? You have none."

    People spilled out of the board's chambers and the building's atrium, which together hold several hundred people. The much larger crowd of resolution opponents responded to speakers with clapping, cheers -- even boos -- well after midnight.

    Residents on both sides of the debate told weary-looking supervisors of their families' immigrant backgrounds, their values, and their frustrations.

    One woman said she had time to go home and prepare dinner for her family before coming back to address the board. Another woman showed up dressed as the Statue of Liberty. An African-born man who said he was a disabled Iraq War veteran berated the supervisors to raucous late-night applause.

    Even more people were in attendance yesterday than at the board's July 10 meeting, when the supervisors unanimously approved the plans to deny some public services to illegal immigrants and increase immigration enforcement by police. The July vote prompted similar proposals in Loudoun and Culpeper counties and elsewhere in the region.

    But the Prince William measures would be the most extensive. Police officials emphasize that they would not be conducting immigration sweeps or setting up checkpoints, as some have feared, and that it would take months to put the measures into practice. More than 500 county police officers would need to be trained in the nuances of federal immigration law. Yesterday's vote also approved the creation of a seven-officer Criminal Alien Unit that would work directly with federal immigration agents.

    The county's plan to deny services has evolved since it was first proposed. Services such as access to schools and emergency medical care are federally protected, and illegal immigrants are already ineligible for benefits such as Medicare and food stamps.

    Instead, Prince William has pinpointed a more limited set of services and benefits, including substance abuse counseling, homeless assistance and in-home care and other county programs for the elderly. County officials said they are not sure how many illegal immigrants are taking advantage of these programs or how much money would be saved by curbing them.

    Legal experts say the county policies are untested in court. A group of 22 plaintiffs has filed a lawsuit against the county and its top officials in federal court seeking to block the measures, claiming that they violate equal protection laws and that immigration enforcement is a federal concern.In Richmond yesterday, state officials rejected the controversial proposal to build the detention center, where illegal immigrants arrested for certain crimes could be held until federal officials deport them.

    "I don't think there is support in the General Assembly or with the public for building a stand-alone facility," said state Sen. Kenneth W. Stolle (R-Virginia Beach), chairman of the task force.

    The detention center would have been the country's first state-run facility built to hold only illegal immigrants accused of crimes. Currently, illegal immigrants who are arrested are held in local jails, federal facilities and private prisons. Under the new proposal, localities would be allowed to keep all of the money the federal government sends them to house federal inmates, including illegal immigrants, instead of giving a share to the state. Sheriffs also would start to receive 50 percent, instead of 25 percent, of the cost of expanding or building jails.

    The 22-member task force killed the detention proposal during a more than four-hour meeting yesterday. It approved 18 other proposals that will be considered by the full Crime Commission next month.

    Staff writer Anita Kumar contributed to this report from Richmond.

  4. #3

    Thumbs up

    thanks for the info!

  5. #4

    Embarrassed Nevadan

    I continue to be embarrassed, aggrivated and humiliated by this individual--Senator Reid. Any of you boys/gals want him for you're state you can have him at no charge. He also voted for the DREAM act. And oh yeah--my personal favorite "THE WAR IS LOST", my Marine nephew on his fourth infanty tour in Iraq thought that was just swell! Glad Harry was't around for the Revolution, War of 1812, Mexican Campaign, Civil War, Spanish American War, WW 1, WW 2, Korea. Wait, I need to go in my garage listen to some C&W and drink a Miller...gotta calm down.

  6. #5
    I am also a Embarrassed Nevadan...

    hopefully, our fellow citizens will have had enough the next time he is up for re-election and will finally vote him out!

    In the mean time I hope no U.S. Citizen gives this guy a moments piece when it comes to writing, calling, faxing and emailing this sell-out about his positions on issues that Americans do not want...

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast