Skip to comments.Two Immigration Amendments Approved by House
Posted on 05/30/2014 6:02:03 PM PDT by ObamahatesPACoal
On Thursday, the House of Representatives approved two immigration enforcement amendments offered by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) to the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Act. The bill includes funding for the Justice Department, and Rep. King's amendments addressed the recent report of more than 36,000 criminal illegal aliens being released from custody and sanctuary cities. SNIP Nine Republicans voted against the amendment, including pro-amnesty supporters Mario Diaz-Balart, Peter King, David Valadao, and Jeff Denham.
(Excerpt) Read more at numbersusa.com ...
It gives them less excuse not to investigate.
I think this is more of a ploy to get Democrats to admit they don’t care that Obama released 36,000 illegal aliens.
They will claim they don’t have the funds to investigate otherwise.
OMG. Lets spend more money, maybe deport 36,000 illegal felons but keep 25 million non assimilating tax suckers.
Steve King kudos.
Illegals for gunz swap.
Nobody believes the Democrats care about illegals in our midst. Nobody.
The House adopted two amendments related to immigration yesterday that are so elementary they should have been no-brainers for any Republican. And yet, a handful of GOP members voted no.
The first amendment requires an investigation into the reasons for the alarming criminal alien releases revealed by my colleague Jessica Vaughan. The vote was largely along party lines. Its understandable, if lamentable, that most Democrats would vote no theyre protecting an increasingly feckless and incompetent administration that is, alas, from their own party. Likewise, you can see why five Democrats would vote yes theyre in tight reelection contests. But the nine Republicans who voted no have some explaining to do. They are: Denham (prime mover of the military amnesty scheme), Diaz-Balart, Heck, Peter King, McAllister, Nunes, Pearce, Shimkus, and Valadao.
The other amendment would cut off federal funds intended to cover part of the cost of jailing illegal-alien criminals to any jurisdiction that refuses to cooperate with federal immigration authorities i.e, sanctuary cities. There is no excuse for reimbursing San Francisco, Chicago, and other places for these jail costs when they are obstructing the enforcement of immigration law. (Such obstruction is a violation of 8 USC §1373, though you wont be surprised that the Justice Department hasnt sued anyone for that.) The Republicans who voted against this amendment are Barton, Coffman, Denham, Diaz-Balart, Farenthold, Heck, Herrera Beutler, Reichert, and Valadao.
Voting against either of these amendments is bad enough, but the three Republicans who voted against both have declared themselves opposed to the most minimal standards of immigration enforcement. Those three are Denham, Diaz-Balart, and Heck. Presumably they figure their anti-border votes wont hurt them with their constituents, and they may be right. But any claims they might make in the future about their support for secure borders will be false.
This does smoke out what RINO will vote for any amnesty down the road.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.