Just to list a few:
1. President Bush is playing politics with national security.
2. President Bush is proposing amnesty.
3. President Bush has adopted an "open border" policy
4.President Bush has done nothing to secure our borders.
As for your assumption that the majority of people agree with Tancredo, you are wrong. Most conservatives and Republicans agree with President Bush, not Tancredo. Buchanan/Tancredo and other anti-Mexican groups made the Kolbe primary a referendum on the anti-Mexican agenda. Tabcredo's Team America organization (chaired by Babe Buchanan) put it's entire weight behind Kolbe's opponent and lost 2 to 1.
Buchanan's swarms knew in their hearts that he would be elected president in 2000 because they thought his overtly racist message would strike a chord in the majority of voters who were afraid to tell pollsters their real intentions. He got less than 1/4th of 1%. Today those same people believe that the vast majority of Americans are secretly prejudiced against Mexicans. They are wrong.
Intelligent Americans understand the need for increasing labor in an expanding economy. Intelligent Americans understand that if American companies can't find employees in the U.S. that they will have no choice but to move or outsource overseas. If a company closes, outsources or moves overseas all of it's employees suffer, not just the 10% who may be out of status. You would probably think twice if your job was in jeopardy.
If a company closes, outsources or moves overseas all of it's employees suffer, not just the 10% who may be out of status illegal alien lawbreakers.
Bush is playing politics. His rejection of meausre popular with most people is a futile attempt to win the Hispanic vote.
Bush is proposing amnesty. If an illegal alien is granted legal status with the possibility of eventually gaining permanent residency, then its amnesty.
Your Kolbe example would be a good one if immigration were the only issue, and if there were no such thing as the power of incumbency. But just wait; there is an initiative on the ballot this Nov in Arizona that will take a stand against illegal immigration. Last I heard it was polling at well over 60%. Now clearly, many of the same people who support this measure will turn around and vote for people like Kolbe who oppose them on the specifics of this issue. That happens all the time. The people of liberal California have, in the last ten years, voted to bar public services for illegal aliens, ban racial preferences, ban gay marriage, and ban bilingual education -- yet the same majorities turn around and vote for the likes of Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein who oppose them on pretty much every one of those issues.
Unfortunately we can't have a national referendum on immigration policy. But do you really think that most conservatives agree with Bush on immigration? Polls consistently show a majority or plurality of Americans want legal immigration to be reduced. Bush wants to increase legal immigration. Polls show Americans opposed to things like amnesty, acceptance of the Matricula Counselor Card, drivers licenses for illegals.
You seem to be making the argument that Buchanan's failure means his views on immigration were unpopular. That's simplistic and wrong. I've already cited the referendum examples, and another flaw is that immigration simply isn't the most important issue. For most voters it is not a top-tier, vote-deciding issue.
Your statements about Buchanan's 'racist message' and of your claim that others feel most Americans to be secretly prejudiced against Mexicans are absurd, and again, sound like something a leftwinger would say. You seem to be expressing the idea that to stray from the PC, pro-mass immigration line is to be guilty of harboring racist or xenophobic feelins. Try and understand this really simple message: Wanting less immigration overall, and wanting strict laws against illegal immigration, and wanting aggressive assimilation policies does not make one guilty of racism or of being prejudiced against Mexicans. Understand? If so, then most Americans are guilty, but of course that premise is ludicrous, as well as being poison to the idea of open and rational debate.
Your statements about labor is only speaking to one side of the issue. It is also true that if you have an unending supply of cheap labor then it will drive down wages, thus making such work unattractive to natives. You want a system whereby we make certain work unappealing by having such a large labor supply, then complain about natives not wanting to do the jobs that immigration policy has helped to make unattractive. You offer as a cure one of the causes.
And lets be clear about one thing -- neither Tancredo or Buchanan is calling for an end to immigration. If you bothered to see what they really believe, you'd see that they support moderate levels of legal immigration. Both support annual legal levels of about 300,000 per year. That's three hundred thousand per year. That we are at a point when one is called 'anti-immigration' for wanting to let 300,000 people immigrate here each year is a shame.