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.