Posted on 06/14/2014 1:36:56 PM PDT by Impala64ssa
Panicked liberals and crony Republican elitists agree: Tom Tancredo would be bad for their Big Government and Big Business rackets. That’s exactly why I support him in Colorado’s June 24 GOP primary election for governor. A fear-mongering ad campaign by the left-wing group “ProgressNow,” which is funded by billionaire George Soros, hyperventilated last week that “Tancredo believes Obamacare is a scam.” Gasp! “Scam” is putting it politely, of course. Billions of dollars have been wasted on defunct and dysfunctional Obamacare health exchanges. Criminals, illegal aliens and con artists have been hired as “navigators” to sign up Obamacare enrollees (a.k.a. future Democratic voters). And millions of Americans of all backgrounds, including my family, have had their plans canceled thanks to the costs and regulatory burdens of the law. Workers have seen their wages and hours cut; employers, especially small and family-owned businesses, have been forced to drop coverage. It’s absurd to call Tancredo’s dead-on diagnosis of Obamacare “radical.” But the pile-on against Tancredo isn’t just coming from out-of-touch Democrats. Here in Colorado, many corporatist Republicans who support the suicidal push for illegal alien amnesty claim Tancredo “can’t win” because his “divisive,” unrelenting stance on securing America’s borders (gasp again!) will scare away Hispanic voters. This attack on Tancredo is nonsense on stilts.
(Excerpt) Read more at michellemalkin.com ...
Spot on.
That is ridiculous, mass immigration since the democrats and JFK's 1965 immigration act is what destroyed the United States, not illegals.
When do you guys get enough, 500 million, a billion?
Can you identify any Freeper or any other persons who has such an agenda? I have not noticed any such persons.
Aside from your “impression,” do you have any proof?
I agree that legal immigration is an absolute necessity if this country wishes to flourish but for a different reason. Without immigration and fecund immigrants, the US is not sustaining its own population. There is not a single economically-thriving civilization in all of history without a burgeoning population. Just look at Japan and most European countries. They have had to allow Muslim immigrants in because they are at a negative population growth. The fact is that the US that we have known (white, Christian, manufacturing based) is over. The only hope for the US of the future is to pass on the values of the Founders and hope for the best.
I’m not a Coloradan ,and have no dog in this fight, but Tancredo has always struck me as a limited one-trick pony. Has he ever shown leadership in any areas other than immigration? Is there any other “there” there?
Tom is good on a number of issues. Immigration is the national question, and if it’s not managed soon there will not be a country to live in. Once we can no longer win national elections....and we are close to that. You can kiss off the courts which will be filled with leftists & the first thing to go will be the second amendment.
Duplicate.
A True Maverick for Colorado: Who’s Afraid of Tom Tancredo?
Townhall.com ^ | June 13, 2014 | Michelle Malkin
Posted on Fri 13 Jun 2014 04:39:45 PM MDT by Kaslin
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3167488/posts
Scott Gessler once again leads in fundraising as GOP gov reports offer surprises
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2014/06/03/scott-gessler-john-hickenlooper-fundraising/109567/
Gessler’s fair-elections wish list: photo I.D. and proof of citizenship
http://whosaidyousaid.com/video/gesslers-fair-elections-wish-list-photo-i-d-and-proof-of-citizenship/
Republicans Greg Brophy and Scott Gessler: If I were governor I would …
The Denver Post
The Spot
By Lynn Bartels
August 29, 2013
“’I will propose a broad economic package that will reduce regulations and some of the unfair taxes we have here in the state of Colorado to get this economy going,’ Gessler said.”
Scott Gessler grilled at Capitol about immigrant letters, website glitches
Westword
By Sam Levin Tue., Jan. 15 2013 at 2:55 PM
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2013/01/scott_gessler_immigrant_letters_website_glitches.php
“Mainly, the critical legislators wanted to know why Gessler had been so focused on finding illegally registered immigrants and if any voters were disenfranchised due to technical problems at his office.”
2008 Republican Presidential debates Tom Tancredo stated he wanted to stop all legal and illegal immigration. Therefore Tom Tancredo’s views are kooky.
Maybe I am attacking a straw man. Maybe no Freepers share Tancredo’s view that legal immigration must cease.
He ran on the American Constitution Party four years ago and almost won. Only an Establishment Republican who drew about 5 percent cost him the win.
Who’s afraid of him? The Establishment, that’s who.
I disagree that America needs more legal immigration. If immigration was slowed way down wages would go up and we could afford more children of our own. I could see letting in maybe 50 to 60,000 a year of the very brightest people - that’s all we need.
That’s 60000 more per year than Tancredo professed to want back in 2008. Therefore he should be rejected.
Your impression of Tancredo is one to be expected of liberals and the WSJournal/Bush wing of the GOP.
First of all, opposing all immigration is a perfectly legitimate position, and much preferable in my opinion to unending mass illegal and legal immigration.
But in point of fact Tancredo does not want to end all legal immigration. While in Congress he sponsored bills that would have greatly reduced legal immigration (as we should), but still allow upwards of 300,000 legal immigrants per year. Only in the mind of pro-unending mass immigration zealots like you does that represent a xenophobic or extreme position.
Your preferred policy of mass legal immigration will demographically destroy conservatism and any hope of smaller and more limited government. Most Hispanics hold liberal views on most of the big issues. The same is true of most other immigrant groups too.
In the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination debate he said he wanted all immigration stopped (including legal). That is a crazy position. You can’t deny it is a crazy position.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.946.IH:
SEC. 2. IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM DEFINED.
As used in this Act, the term `immigration moratorium’ means the period beginning on October 1, 2003, and ending on September 30 of the first fiscal year after fiscal year 2008 during which the President submits a report to Congress, which is approved by a joint resolution of Congress, that the flow of illegal immigration has been reduced to less than 10,000 aliens per year and that any increase in legal immigration resulting from termination of the immigration moratorium would have no adverse impact on the wages and working conditions of United States citizens, the achievement or maintenance of Federal environmental quality standards, or the capacity of public schools, public hospitals, and other public facilities to serve the resident population in those localities where immigrants are likely to settle.
Tom Tancredo is dangerous. His policies will harm America.
Yes I can deny your incorrect claim that it’s a crazy position. It’s not my position, as I support a policy of greatly reduced legal immigration, but if forced to choose between no legal immigration at all or continued mass legal immigration, I’d choose the former. And if it’s a choice between no legal immigration versus greatly increased legal immigration (that the Gang of 8 bill would deceptively unleash), then the choice for the former is even easier.
With the former, at least conservative principles would have a fighting chance demographically going forward. If mass immigration continues (even if it’s all legal) then there is no chance; the left will gain a lock on power. The idea that immigrant communities would flock to the GOP if only immigration were removed as an issue is a fantasy. All that would do is put more weight on other issues, the majority of which immigrant communities hold liberal views on. There is no way that mass immigration is good for conservatism.
As for Tancredo; yeah I’ve seen the comments saying he’d like to end legal immigration, but he would usually add an exception for immediate family members (and even refugees sometimes). I’ve also heard him call for a moratorium on legal immigration, but what some don’t realize is that ‘moratorium’ in this context usually means setting legal immigration levels to equal emigration levels, which would be 200,000+ per year. The bills that Tancredo sponsored while in Congress would have still allowed upwards of 300,000 legal immigrants per year, which is generous by any sane reckoning.
My position, for the record, is greatly increased legal immigration and mass deportation and incarceration of illegals. The net effect would likely be a short term reduction in the number of immigrants present in the US, depending upon the rate at which illegal immigrants are deported versus the rate at which visas get processed. I would even contemplate adding one extra visa for every two illegals deported.
Passing on the values of the Founders will not be possible unless we have a long pause from mass immigration, just like we had from the mid 1920s until the effects of the deceptive 1965 immigration reform act took effect.
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.