Bush doesn't think America should be an actual place [Tancredo and WND stuff words into Bush's mouth

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | November 19, 2006 | Joe Kovacs

[MikefromOhio]

I just like how the title of this thread was changed BY A MOD.

That should say something loud and clear.....

LOL

[marajade]

No.

[A. Pole]

Then you are "anti [illegal] immigration"

[marajade]

So, what's your point?

[Enosh]

You again.

I went back and read the thing and once again, you were entertaining.

Thanks for making thing place fun. :)

[MikefromOhio]

No problem :)

It's my pleasure :)

[processing please hold]

Talk about an article to drive the bots insane

Agreed. Ain't it cute how they spit and snort anytime anyone says anything negative about him. lol

If Tancredo runs--we'll vote for him.

[Enosh]

thing place

... LOL!

... And if you figure out what that means, I don't want to know!

LOL!

[MikefromOhio]

well I was reading so quickly that it just fell into place :)

[raybbr]

What was Bush's actual quote and what was the context. I hate Tancredo.

It started in 2000. Bush closed the door on the debate. He wanted a "new America" but was stymied by 9-11.

THE "NEW AMERICAN"..........<

We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.

Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende.

For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.

As I speak, we are celebrating the success of democracy in Mexico.

George Bush from a campaign speech in Miami, August 2000.

You can read the speech here.

Here is an excerpt of a good critique of that speech:

In equating our intimate historic bonds to our mother country and to Canada with our ties to Mexico, W. shows a staggering ignorance of the civilizational facts of life. The reason we are so close to Britain and Canada is that we share with them a common historical culture, language, literature, and legal system, as well as similar standards of behavior, expectations of public officials, and so on. My Bush Epiphany By Lawrence Auster

The Path to National Suicide by Lawrence Auster (1990)

An essay on multi-culturalism and immigration.

Click the Pic!!!!

How can we account for this remarkable silence? The answer, as I will try to show, is that when the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 was being considered in Congress, the demographic impact of the bill was misunderstood and downplayed by its sponsors. As a result, the subject of population change was never seriously examined. The lawmakers’ stated intention was that the Act should not radically transform America’s ethnic character; indeed, it was taken for granted by liberals such as Robert Kennedy that it was in the nation’s interest to avoid such a change. But the dramatic ethnic transformation that has actually occurred as a result of the 1965 Act has insensibly led to acceptance of that transformation in the form of a new, multicultural vision of American society. Dominating the media and the schools, ritualistically echoed by every politician, enforced in every public institution, this orthodoxy now forbids public criticism of the new path the country has taken. “We are a nation of immigrants,” we tell ourselves— and the subject is closed. The consequences of this code of silence are bizarre. One can listen to statesmen and philosophers agonize over the multitudinous causes of our decline, and not hear a single word about the massive immigration from the Third World and the resulting social divisions. Opponents of population growth, whose crusade began in the 1960s out of a concern about the growth rate among resident Americans and its effects on the environment and the quality of life, now studiously ignore the question of immigration, which accounts for fully half of our population growth.

This curious inhibition stems, of course, from a paralyzing fear of the charge of “racism.” The very manner in which the issue is framed—as a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus “racism” on the other—tends to cut off all rational discourse on the subject. One can only wonder what would happen if the proponents of open immigration allowed the issue to be discussed, not as a moralistic dichotomy, but in terms of its real consequences. Instead of saying: “We believe in the equal and unlimited right of all people to immigrate to the U.S. and enrich our land with their diversity,” what if they said: “We believe in an immigration policy which must result in a staggering increase in our population, a revolution in our culture and way of life, and the gradual submergence of our current population by Hispanic and Caribbean and Asian peoples.” Such frankness would open up an honest debate between those who favor a radical change in America’s ethnic and cultural identity and those who think this nation should preserve its way of life and its predominant, European-American character. That is the actual choice—as distinct from the theoretical choice between “equality” and “racism”—that our nation faces. But the tyranny of silence has prevented the American people from freely making that choice.

[television is just wrong]

you then must be an internationalist. I have heard about the amero, and the joining of Canada with U.S. and Mexico. It is a reality, and it is scheduled to happen by 2009.

[B4Ranch]

I think a lot of these Freepers who refuse to even peek without their R Party blinders on are going to get the crap shocked out of them when the NAU and the comprehensive amnesty plan actually come together.

There will be a lot of "How could I have been so stupid" utterings going on.

[zbigreddogz]

So what?

Don't you see: If America is more a place then an idea, what difference does it make if they become merged or not? His entire arguement is based on the premise that America is somehow being 'perverted' by too much immigration, yet, if America is only a place, and not an idea, what exactly does it pervert?

It's not that I favor completely unrestricted immigration, but his arguement is illogical.

[zbigreddogz]

Irrelevant to the issue. Tancredo is not only against illegal immigration. He favors greatly restricting legal immigration as well, and calls all proposals for cutting back on illegal immigration, but allowing for more legal immigration 'Amnesty'.

What the underline crime is for which 'Amnesty' needs to be granted in that particular circumstance, is unclear. I can only assume he thinks they need to be forgiven for being born in another country.

[CyberAnt]

I'm an American!

[television is just wrong]

so am I, and I want our borders closed, which is what Mr. Tancredo wants as well. Few Congressmen and senators are willing to stand up to the internationalists in this mess we are in right now...

Not too far away when our dollars will no longer be accepted as valid currency, and we will be working with what they call amero's...

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Why should I care what that draft-dodging blowhard Tancredo says?

[NapkinUser]

"Why should I care what that draft-dodging blowhard .... says?"

Still listening to Rush Limbaugh?

[NapkinUser]

"Even if Tancredo is right, and America is just a place, then why is it worth 'protecting' from those Mexicans he's so afraid of?"

Again?

[Lurker]

Forum moderators have been notified of a title change in violation of forum rules.

L