once again, the law that I am amending, the provision of the law that I am addressing here is current law. The provision of the law that we are dealing with is the part of the 1996 act. All this amendment does is say that no funds can be provided through the Bureau of Immigration and Customs to cities that have violated this law. That is it. We are simply putting teeth into the original law. That is all there is to it. Nothing more. It is as simple as that. And it is through the Bureau of Immigration and Customs. It is not TSA in particular, by the way, the one that the gentleman keeps referring to.
Tom Tancredo: “once again, the law that I am amending, the provision of the law that I am addressing here is current law. The provision…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing an amendment related to funding for cities violating immigration law.
Share
More from Tom Tancredo
CBS News recently ran an expose on the growing phenomenon of illegal aliens entering the United States in order to give birth to a child. The segment shed some light on what has become an increasingly costly burden to the United States…
I thank the gentleman. Earlier someone indicated that we had thousands of supporters, thousands of groups supporting this bill. Who couldn't get thousands of groups to support a bill by paying them $300 billion in subsidies? We are poised…
an article came across my desk earlier today which I believe needs and deserves the attention of this House. It is titled, ``2 Michelles, 2 Americas & Shame v. Pride.'' It was written by Michelle Malkin. She writes: ``Like Michelle Obama…
my amendment would simply prevent the State Department from continuing to selectively ignore Federal statute. The Federal statute in question instructs the State Department to discontinue the issuance of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas to…





