TANCREDO: This Land Is Whose Land?

LA Times ^ | May 1, 2005 | Thomas G. Tancredo

[FairOpinion]

I predict that the immigration reform movement is about to score a monumental victory in Congress with the impending passage of "Real ID," a measure that will, among other things, set federal standards for driver's license documents and prohibit states from giving driver's licenses to anyone in this country illegally.

All of which means that Bush must have some other reason for continuing to push his ill-conceived proposal for amnesty for illegal aliens and for turning a blind eye to the dangers of open borders. He appears to be pandering not to Latino voters but to the government of Mexico. Is he so influenced by the corporate advocates for cheap labor that he cannot see the loss of millions of jobs by Latino and black Americans to the unfair competition of illegal labor?

There is now a broad consensus in Congress that border security must be given a high priority. We cannot think seriously about legalizing millions of new "temporary workers" until we are able to control our borders and know who is entering our country and who is leaving.

[Havoc]

Bunk! It's not a phony issue. The problem isn't the Dems trying to divide republicans. The problem is that one group of republicans with no ethics or moral compunctions wants to profit at any cost - Ie in violation of the law. Another group says it's illegal and the law must stand. Bush is in the group of profiteering on illegal activity and being an apologist of it with his "jobs americans don't want" bs. Guys like you want to redefine the argument and make it about anything but the legitimate problem. God forbid we actually discuss the root problem and make you all look bad. We must by all means blame democrats, call detractors "communists", Marxists, socialists and any other "ists" in order to presumptively hope that the unknowing will denounce the label and loose sight of the core discussion. What you want is lack of clarity.

Here's clarity - Bush is selling illegal immigration because the business interests are profiting from illegal labor. If they uphold the laws, businessmen go to jail - we just can't have that. Profit must be profit regardless of the law. It's the ivory tower republican way dontcha know. It's also the Democrat way; but, we mustn't muddle the argument with too many relevant tangientials.

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

Question: Why did he suggest that DeLay should "temporarily step aside"?

Well, for one thing, it seems to me DeLay has spent a whole lot of time defending himself on the floor and in the media lately. I don't imagine he has much time to tend to his regular duties. This would be an opportunity to free up DeLay to fight these "bogus" charges and at the same time prove the Republican leadership has a very deep and capable bench, which it does.

[Havoc]

As I said, the immigration problem has been around for many years, now you want Bush to stop it instanteneously.

You used the word instantaneously, I didn't see it from anyone else. We want the laws upheld. We want profiteers in jail and the illegals deported. The president is too concerned with profit to bother with such things as the law. But, since you're conning yourself and trying to con us along with ya, you can always hold on to the outright lie of "jobs americans don't want." My job was one that many americans wanted - it was taken from me and shipped to mexico due to pressure over offshoring. I both wanted my job and expected to keep it so long as local competition didn't undercut us. Little did I know that the president's policies would help take a job away from an american who wanted it and give it to a Mexican national in Mexico because, hey, afterall, no americans will do these jobs - none want it.. Lie loud and long enough and someone might buy it?

[ARCADIA]

As I said, the issue is NOT illegal immigration -- virtually everyone is AGAINST that. The issue is that unscupulous politicians, LIKE TANCREDO, using that to attack President Bush.

More to the point; Delay has little political capital until he gets over this issue. He is not in a position to provide the needed leadership, and should step aside for somebody who can. 2006 and 2008 are right around the corner; we can't afford to goof off for a year to deal with Delay's personal problems.

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

Like heck it doesn't. It will make the so-called one issue conservatives stay home, and Hillary will laugh all the way to the White House.

You better watch out. Hillary is such an ambitious and unprincipled pol, she may very well run to the right of G.W. on this issue. She'll do whatever it takes to win, and the GOP is very vulnerable on this issue because of Bush, an obvious fact that Tancredo is simply trying to point out before it's too late for the GOP and too late for the USA.

Conservatives who voted for Ross Perot "on principle" were the ones who gave us Clinton...

Wrong again. Bush41 gave us Clinton because he waged an anemic '92 campaign. When Congressman Bob Dornan visited the White House during the campaign and urged Bush41 to confront Clinton more directly, Bush41 just looked at Dornan and said Americans would never elect a draft-dodger to be president. Well, they did! And, of course, now Bush41 says he considers Clinton to be a friend. And Bush43 says Clinton has a "good heart." Oh, isn't that sweet! Washington, D.C., is all one big happy family.

[Godebert]

You've been here long enough to know the rules regarding personal attacks....or do you think they don't apply to you?

[rdb3]

You've been here long enough to know the rules regarding personal attacks....or do you think they don't apply to you?

And you've been here long enough to know that I don't deal kindly with neo-confederates such as yourself. Now stay the hell out of my face!

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Bush's refusal to do his job aids The Evil in her presidential bid.

Posters who point that out are not the problem.

The problem is that Bush refuses to do his job and to fulfill his oath to the Constitution.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Bush swore an oath to protect and defend the Republic and the Constitution.

It may not be treason yet, but he's closing in on it.

[Amerigomag]

You've been here long enough to know the rules regarding personal attacks....

Please leave it be.

If it were not for the ad hominem attacks we couldn't easily identify the Republican Party loyalists trolling on this forum.

Beside; they're fun to play with.

[chainsaw]

All of which means that Bush must have some other reason for continuing to push his ill-conceived proposal for amnesty

If I remember correctly, didn't Clinton provide voter registration for several million illegals during his stint in office?

[Ben Ficklin]

"If Tancredo wanted to improve his own political fortunes.."

Tanc has no interest in improving his political future.

He sees a very bright financial future in replacing Buchanan as the perennial psuedo-candidate. As Pat B. eases into retirement, Tanc assumes more and more duties.

Tanc is not campaigning for office, he is campaigning fot your donation, which he splits with Pat and Bay.

[Ben Ficklin]

What has Bush done, or not done, that he should have, or should not have, to secure the border?

[ZULU]

"Hmmm..."Tancredo." Is that an American name? "


FairOpinion, in addition to being anything BUT a "FairOpinion, you seem to have a racial problem. There isn't anything that isn't an American name anymore, if you haven't noticed.

Bush is just a man like any other, not God. Nor is Bush the only Republican around. Furthermore, Bush is a true political "moderate", not a conservative. The "media moderates" - McCain, Kean, Whitman, Snowe, Chaffee, et al are really liberals.

Having said all that, Bush has done a good job with the foreign war on terror - for the most part. He has done a good job with focussing on national morality issues like abortion.

But he has done a bad job on Constitutional issues - he said he would sign a renewal of the assault rifle ban and he signed McCain Feingold which will come back later to bite OTHER Republicans in the butt in future elections, along with being a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

He has done a miserable job of defending the integrity of our national borders. His pandering to Mexico, which has actively employed its military forces to assist illegal invaders to violate our borders, is irrational. His "guest worker" program is bogus. If we need more workers, raise the immigration quotas for people who want to come here, work and remain as American citizens. Don't create a permanent underclass of exploited migrant workers who will serve as social tinder for unrest in the future while sucking off American dollars to foreign ratholes.

His reference to the minute men as "vigilantes" is inaccurate and offensive. His attitude and that of Carl Rove's towards Tancredo is not in keeping with the view of most Americans on this subject who are enraged at the failure of this administration to stop the increasing hemmorrhaging of our borders by an army of invaders.

I supported Bush for President both times, and have been am active Republican since Ronald Reagan's first run for the primary. So that makes me probably a better Republican than you.

So don't attack me or others on this forum when they point out failings in Bush's policies which should be obvious to any outside observer.

I want the Republicans to win in 2008. But their chances of doing so will be seriously compromised if Bush doesn't wise up to the popular opinion among Americans about his flawed policies with our hostile neighbor to the south.

[GarySpFc]

Interestingly enough, Tancredo isn't just opposed to illegal immigration, he seems to be opposed to ANY immigration.
The same old "I am here, close the door" hypocritical attitude that many have.

A point I would like to make concerns a deception Tancredo is using. He is against chain migration, and defines it as immigrants who become citizens and then bring in their adult children. These immigrants become citizens and hope they can bring in their children, which takes years, but he Tancredo is deceptive when he says it will bring in more immigrants. The number of adult children of immigrant citizens is severely limited to 23,500 unmarried and 23,500 married children.

Tancredo conveniently overlooks the 114,200 spouses, children and adult children of permament residents.<

Tancredo attacks the adult children of citizens, but he overlooks the 65,000 brothers and sisters of citizens.

Furthermore, he says very little about the 50,000 Diversity Lottery Visas given each year throughout the world.

I like Tom Tancredo, but his deception regarding adult children of citizens as chain migration is wrong, and if he can stop the adult children of CITIZENS, which is the first family preference, then he is effectively stopping all immigration except for business.

[Ben Ficklin]

"Hillary may run to the right of GW in this issue(immigration)."

Reality Check.

Hillary's one statement: "I am, you know, adamently against illegal immigration".

You and the rest of the "straw-graspers" try to mis-construe this statement.

The fact is that Hillary was a Co-Sponser of AgJobs from the day it was introduced. Last week, she voted in the Senate to add AgJobs as an amendment to the funding bill.

You call that running to the right?

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

The fact is that Hillary was a Co-Sponser of AgJobs from the day it was introduced. Last week, she voted in the Senate to add AgJobs as an amendment to the funding bill.

You call that running to the right?

It's a long time from now to 2008. Stay tuned. (Of course, Hillary will follow in the tradition of her part-time husband, Al Gore and John Kerry in trying to take both sides of every issue.)

[varon]

Why can't he talk about border security as an issue, without bashing Bush and accusing him of ulterior motives

Alright, then what are his motives?

Agriculture is become highly mechanized and need for manual labor is decreasing in that sector.

Manufacturing jobs are declining as many plants close or move offshore.

The economy has been sluggish at best, through most of Bush's term(s).

Unemployment has been high, through most of Bush's term(s.)

IT jobs have been outsourced overseas

Our high schools turn out millions of practical illiterates each year.

Our economy is changing from manufacturing to high tech and service oriented, each requiring education and learned skills.

For the life of me I can't understand where the need is generated to flood this nation with millions upon millions of uneducated, English illiterate, unskilled laborers? There is no logical motive and as a result, one has to question the ulterior motives of Bush and this administration.

[ARCADIA]

What has Bush done, or not done, that he should have, or should not have, to secure the border?

I think that it would be important to begin by taking an unequivocal position that illegal immigration is wrong and will not be tolerated. That anyone in this country illegally will be immediately deported, and that repeat offenders may be subject to other criminal penalties.

Some of things that can be done would include:

1) Presenting an immediate claim against Mexico for all expenses incurred within the US as a result of the direct actions of their citizens. That should include a tally of all educational, medical, and criminal expenses incurred by the Federal government and the fifty states. It is Mexico's responsibility to police its own citizens. If we have to form a fortified no-man's-land to protect ourselves, then it should be stripped from the Mexican side of the border.

2) Prosecuting anyone who employs illegals to the maximum extent permissible under the law. In many cases, such as for those employers who actively sponsor the smuggling of illegal labor, civil racketeering charges should be applied. I suspect that when as few as 1% of those involved find themselves divested of their property and facing 20 years of Federal imprisonment, the practice of employing illegals will come to a swift end.

3) Homeland defense is nothing but a sad and expensive joke unless it secures our borders. The resources that we are squandering on the airports are better directed towards sealing the borders. That is where the problem originated in the first place.

[Dane]

Uh, tancredo stating that Delay should step down "temporarily" becuse of democrat trumped up charges is not defending him, but stabbing him in the back.

Wjy should he step down because of demo trumped up charges as your god tancredo wants.