[gpapa]

It is actually an appropriate place for the amendment since the Homeland Security Funding legislation is an appropriations bill. If the Tancredo amendment in the Senate version of that bill passed it would carry the day. That is why Tancredo chose not to attach it to the House version of the Immigration Reform Act of 2007.

BTW, sanctuary actually does have a legal defintion, i. e., Immunity to arrest afforded by a sanctuary

[jedward]

You’re right! I guess it’s the below lumping of INS with DHS that I still find some issues with.

“Other examples of non-homeland-security duties that DHS discharges are disaster relief administered by FEMA and immigration services previously performed by the INS.”

The Dems and Rino’s can easily argue that “the money is for the Defense of our Homeland”, and I don’t like them having that edge. Besides The OMB even states on their homepage that they it’s hard to follow the funds...

“Distinguishing between activities aimed at making the U.S. homeland more secure against terrorist attacks and those directed toward other purposes is not always easy.”

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5414&type=0

Just a personal moan and groan :) Tancredo did what he needed to do, and my hat’s off to him. Thanks for addressing that issue. Many (lurkers, etc.) are not aware of how all the funding works these days.