Posted on 01/08/2004 5:01:57 AM PST by T-Bird45
President Bush's proposal has thrust Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., back into the national spotlight as one of the most outspoken advocates of tougher measures against illegal immigration.
On Wednesday, Tancredo appeared on numerous national network telecasts, and press secretary Carlos Espinoza said he had the busiest day of his career fielding interview requests.
Tancredo condemned the proposal as dangerous for national security. And he publicly cast doubt on the sincerity of his own party's president: He believes Bush's package may be just an election year ploy to win Hispanic votes.
In Tancredo's view, the measures would reward illegal immigration and do nothing to secure U.S. borders against terrorists lost in the huge numbers crossing into America.
Failure to create secure borders first is the "fatal flaw" in Bush's proposal, he said.
"The president makes two very bad mistakes in this proposal," he said.
"No. 1, he rewards people for having broken the law. That's bad policy," he said, referring to the idea of allowing millions of illegal immigrants to register and work.
"No. 2, he believes it will not hurt him politically."
Tancredo said his office received hundreds of calls Tuesday from Republicans furious with the idea of allowing illegals to work.
Tancredo is not alone in his views. He is chairman of a caucus that counts 68 other members of Congress united behind proposals for secure borders, a halt to illegal immigration and a limited guest-worker program.
Colorado representatives Marilyn Musgrave and Joel Hefley have signed onto the caucus.
Tancredo predicted the president's proposal would die in the House because of opposition by his own party. "It will be a very ugly event," he said.
The president offered only principles, not an actual bill - such a measure will take months to write, he noted. "I think he doesn't even want this."
It's not the first time Tancredo has clashed with the White House over immigration.
Shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Tancredo claimed the Bush administration was promoting amnesty for illegal immigrants to score political points.
Tancredo drew a rebuke from Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, for saying that if lax border control contributed to another terrorist attack, then the White House and Congress could have "blood on their hands."
Is this the saving grace that will return sanity to the immigration discussion?
| Rank | Location | Receipts | Donors/Avg | Freepers/Avg | Monthlies | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Tennessee | 580.00 |
13 |
44.62 |
317 |
1.83 |
81.00 |
9 |
Thanks for donating to Free Republic!
Move your locale up the leaderboard!
Of course, without real enforcement, this is just a futile political gesture. What wasn't really emphasized in the speech is that after this system is in place, if you are *still* illegal, you're out faster than you can say boo. I do think the enforcement part will be there though.
If I was a Republican governor of California, and I could ask the president for one law, this would be *exactly* it. I suspect Arnold twisted the president's arm for this one. Once the federal law is passed, I expect Arnold will make state/local police have to enforce it (right now, it is SOP that state/local cops can't/don't enforce immigration laws). The difference between taxes paid and services recieved by illegal immigrants is responsible for an estimated $11 billion out of California's current $15 billion deficit, so this should really help.
Republicans really need to get their heads on straight and stop whining about us being overrun by immigrants. Surely even a strong conservative doesn't have anything against immigration per se, seeing how it is just an extension of the free market. The real objection is that when you have an huge influx of people with a different and possibly incompatible worldview, it can really disrupt a society. That is why the influx needs to be carefully balanced, and these people need to be able to integrate into our society, eventually assuming an equal status with full rights and responsibilities if they can prove they deserve it. This bill is a good step in the direction of making those people think of themselves as Americans first, and hispanic or whatever else second, which is incredibly important. Unintegrated immigrants hurt us, well-integrated immigrants in moderation are one of our great strengths.
(As an aside: here in So Cal I have seen a very few leftist MEChA hispanics, mostly college students, and a huge number of hard-working, entreuprenerial, essentially conservative hispanics. They do *not* want handouts, they just want half a chance to make a living. I think this will actually hurt the liberal welfare-state agenda in California and elsewhere.)
(It is interesting that Rep. Tom Tancredo has already introduced a bill exactly like what Bush's speech describes, as far as I can tell. Yet he's speaking out against Bush's speech now?)
Who are those 68 other members? I mean, seriesly...this is news to me.
The display Jorge-boy put on in our White House was just sickening, with his praise for illegal aliens as heros, and his insults to American workers.
This is only unrealistic if this kind of myth goes unchallenged! If we as a soverign nation have the will and commitment, then we have the way to give a six-month grace period, nationally advertised, for illegal ALIENS to pack up their bags, settle their affairs here, gather their children, and ship out. If they don't, they will be arrested and deported.
Where there is a will, there is a way, actually works for me in my "real" life.
Penny
“This bill will also end the exploitation of illegal workers in our underground economy. Legal guest workers will not have to fear deportation and will not be subject to intimidation and mistreatment,” Tancredo concluded.
Hmmmmm. Why not?
I can see the next logical step: what is realistic? 5 million? 1 million?
What is to prevent another 10 million wave for developing over the next ten years and the same argument recycled?
When 10 million or 1 million illegal muslim "students" and their 10,000 new "mosques" are among us, what's to prevent the exact same argument for being used to ignore all the implications?
I heard Medved use this "argument" yesterday and I blanched. It is non sensical and a circular argument brought to respectability. I'm not buying it. The whole town is under 4 feet of water. Getting rid of it is not "realistic". Let's just raise the town 5 feet...
Hmmmmm. Why not?
Because huge numbers of businesses would go under rather immediately. Because there are not enough personnel to check the docs on 10 million people (actually more, since there are several million LEGAL immigrants whose docs would require verification). Because there is no enforcement program to prevent this from happening again. Because even under a "get tough" warning of 6 months, there is no incentive to leave rather than hoping one doesn;'t get caught.
IMHO, this is the best solution to a big problem.
But I'm still waiting to see the enforcement mechanisms, the fixup of the horrorshow called INS, the penalties and timelines for noncompliance, etc.
If those are not rigorous, well-funded, and serious, then this is just one more immigration scam. And GWB has lost my vote.
A good point, I will try to answer that. To me, an American is someone who first and foremost believes in the American idea/ideals, wants to make a home here, and is therefore willing to assume all the responsibilities of citizenship. It is not where they come from, as long as they *belong*. After all, where did Americans come from originally?
Your muslim students obviously fail to meet a lot of these criteria.
I don't see that a completely closed society is the best possible one. I have serious doubts about whether it would even be viable at all.
At the same time, I don't want to be overrun by people with different ideals. I couldn't care less about their skin color or where they come from, but they have to believe in some of the basic things we all believe in (as in "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." etc). Most people who live here come to believe in those things just by experiencing them, because they are good things. That's why Los Angeles is not Tijuana. Those mexican immigrants we're talking about tend to be as American as you or me once they've been here for a while. That's what we want to encourage.
A well-defined immigration process (and not a fast one) at the end of which you have full citizenship is the way to do it, but it is *absolutely critical* that you don't get too many people tooo fast, or segregation. Illegal immigrants can come in as fast as they want, and they are naturaly segregated, which is why they don't tend to become as American as fast, which is a bad thing. It also causes resentment against the whole ethnic group, also a bad thing.
Indeed, it seems like they are proposing the same thing. If there's a difference, I must be missing it. Yet Tancredo is speaking out against Bush now. That's the part I don't understand. Anyone?
Well, certainly, it could be done, at tremendous economic and political cost. It is not realistic in the sense that for the most part nobody really wants to pay the price.
Two questions:
one, who or what is an American? it that an accident of birth, a piece of paper that proves your citizenship, or is it something else?
two, why would it be good to do what you suggest, assuming it was possible? would we really be better off without those people? is a closed society the best possible one?
(snicker) Well, I know where he was. My "representative" in Congress is Bobby Rush, a former Black Panther.
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.