[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 57 (Thursday, April 10, 2008)]
[House]
[Page H2212]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      SANCTUARY CITY SAN FRANCISCO

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Madam Speaker, some in the most radical elements of the 
pro-illegal immigration groups advocate something called 
``Reconquista,'' or that is to say, they want to have that part of the 
United States that was ceded to the United States by the Treaty of 
Guadalupe Hidalgo. They want to have it voided, and either that chunk 
of America returned to Mexico or become a second nation. I mean, it's 
pretty bizarre, but that's what they push for.
  Sometimes I hear some of the things said by some of the officials in 
San Francisco. And I would suggest that if advocates for this 
Reconquista would agree to take San Francisco first, I might be 
sympathetic to their particular point of view. Because some of the 
things that are done, some of the statements that are made are quite 
bizarre, to say the least, and would indicate a lack of willingness on 
the part of its citizens, or at least expressed by some of its public 
officials, a lack of willingness to adhere to the laws of this United 
States of America.
  The San Francisco Chronicle reported recently that Mayor Gavin Newsom 
announced a new initiative advertising his city as a sanctuary for 
illegal aliens. According to this report, San Francisco plans to spend 
$83,000 to print brochures in half a dozen languages reassuring illegal 
aliens that they are welcome to stay and access public services. He 
went on to declare that, we don't care what your status is, we want you 
to participate in the life of our city.
  It goes without saying that this is dangerous policy, and it makes no 
sense in a post 9/11 environment. It's also a flagrant violation of 
Federal law. In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed 
immigration enforcement legislation making policies like San 
Francisco's that provide sanctuary to illegal aliens and potential 
terrorists by refusing to report them to Federal authorities, making 
that action illegal, as I say. But unfortunately for America, the Bush 
Administration doesn't seem to care.
  Dozens of major cities have enacted these kinds of reckless policies, 
barring law enforcement personnel from cooperation with Federal 
immigration enforcement efforts, and with disastrous results I might 
add. In Denver, a sanctuary city, a police officer was shot and killed 
and a second officer critically wounded on Mother's Day of 2005 by an 
illegal alien who was later arrested. He had been stopped twice for 
driving without a license and had to appear in municipal court twice. 
In April, less than one month before the shooting, the man was in court 
with a Mexican driver's license, yet no one asked him about his 
immigration status because of Denver's sanctuary city policy. If the 
perpetrator had been deported in April, that police officer might still 
be alive.
  This tragic case is just one example, and there are countless others. 
These policies are responsible for thousands of major crimes around our 
country, and could have been prevented. These irresponsible city 
leaders gamble not only with the safety of their own residents, but 
with the residents of neighboring communities and the entire United 
States as well.
  Madam Speaker, the American people have demanded an end to these 
dangerous policies, and Congress has responded by passing legislation 
to outlaw them. So the question is, will President Bush allow this 
rogue mayor to put the rest of the country at risk, or will he finally 
live up to his oath of office and enforce the law?

                          ____________________