Posted on 09/02/2005 7:46:59 AM PDT by hinterlander
What's wrong with bombing Mecca?
I disagree. The immigration issue (which 80% of GOP VOTERS agree on even though only 5% of GOP POLITICIANS do) will unite the party to some degree-I think we'll see a lot of potential '08 candidates "fall in line" out of political necessity.
I have no problem with a pol changing position as long as:
A-he keeps his word after doing so
B-can explain his change of heart outside of political aspirations (i.e. I have learned a lot about this issue...)
Dunno about his immigration stance, but I think MS Gov. Haley Barbour is handling the hurricane aftermath beautifully and honestly, the nomination may well be his if he wants it-immigration issue aside.
"Conservatives strongly oppose the bill, which Tancredo said is tantamount to amnesty."
Treason is a better word than amnesty.
When are those people in Washington going to get the message???
We've had it.
Republican, Democrat, Independent.
We have had it with this army of illegal invaders and attempts to pander to them by politicians on both sides of the isle.
Tancredo is my man. He's got my vote, my support, and my money and personally, I don't give a rat's @$$ if he has no chance to win.
Its CRITICAL we make a statement to the political establishments in BOTH parties that the game is over and one way or another we not going to stand for anymore of this.
I'm a Tancredo supporter but I think he should take a breather from immigration and help the President with relief efforts in the Gulf. Plenty of time to deal with illegals, they aren't going anywhere, after all.
Actually i voted for Bush because of national security(much broader than the WOT), Economics, and judicial appointments.
Lets take Tancredo's congressional voting history since 1998 BEFORE he decided to run for president...
Abortion: ZERO votes on abortion issues before 2003
Crime Issues: ONE vote in his time as a congressman
Defense: ZERO votes before 2003
Foreign Policy Issues: ONE vote before 2005(glad to see he takes a real interest in it)
IMMIGRATION: ZERO votes before 2004...ZERO, NADA, NIL, NEIN, ZIP, ZILCH
National Security: ZERO votes before 2004
Are you guys kidding me?? Tancredo has a WORSE voting absence record than Kerry. What the hell has he been doing before 2004????
See post # 25
Got some examples and facts to back that up, or is that a personal opinion?
It's bluster. Tancredo's positions are laid out on this webpage. He's a bona fide conservative Republican. He just wants to stand for America instead of corporate scofflaws and their illegitimate hiring practices of illegals. That means their online hacks are spreading smears, lies and slanders about him. He's surviving these cheap shots, and he's getting more and more publicity and support from ordinary Americans. Eat your evil hearts out, OBL.
ping
Sorry, but Bush has had five years already to do something about illegals, and the fact that "they aren't going anywhere" is precisely the problem.
His webpage is full of his consultants BS PR campaign...
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=CCO89758 THere is his voting record...enjoy.
Actually, he's pretty good on all those things. He's just political poison.
Wow! Word-for-word from this ChiCom propaganda site! But it might be of interest for you and the author (who obviously had only a sketchy understanding of our Constitution) to know two things: One, the Shanghai Communiqué is not a treaty. The Constitution requires treaties to be ratified by the Senate, and this was never even sent to the Senate. And secondly, even if it was a treaty, a treaty can be overridden by an act of Congress, without violating the Constitution at all, which is all that Tancredo was advocating when he introduced that bill.
Now, you can advocate in favor of the current policy of appeasement all you like, but don't try and hide behind the Constitution while doing it.
A number of Republicans oppose amnesty just as they opposed CAFTA. However, once the president and vice president twisted their arms and promised them goodies in the highway bill and sugar subsidies, they reversed themselves and CAFTA was passed during the wee hours of the morning. Also, be on the lookout for a coupling or packaging scheme/scam. What I mean by a coupling or packaging scam is legislation which calls for overdue increased penalties for employers who hire people here illegally , more border agents and the like accompanied with this amnesty crap. Be on the lookout, it's coming. Hell, it's here. the Coryn - Kyle bill appears to call for tougher immigration policies as it simultaneously calls for amnesty. Silence is consent. Don't be silent. Go on a calling e-mail spree against amnesty!
No kidding. That goes for selling our sovereignty to corporate interests as well.
Your handlers are really hanging you out to dry, aren't you? Tancredo voted for the PBA in 2002. The rest of your propaganda is without a doubt similarly shoddy.
So you're saying you'd rather have the current broken system than a comprehensive solution to the illegal immigration problem?
Anything pro-immigrant is labeled 'amnesty' and demonized.
2002 wasnt listed on vote-smart.org
Tancredo Bump!!
Tancredo’s bill instead focuses on enforcement, particularly on companies that employ illegal immigrants. He said once illegal workers are denied jobs, they will no longer flood into the United States.
If we pass Tancredo's bill the companies will just move to Mexico.. It is not illegal to hire Mexicans in Mexico.
The companies will just need to find some Mexican supervisors to replace the American supervisors they will let go.
Tancredo's policy is really designed to move small business manufacturing to Mexico and do it as soon as possible.
Of course we could prevent small American companies from moving to Mexico. Then the American companies could close down when they could not compete and Mexicans would get to own some new Mexican companies.
It was the same thing a hundred years ago. American companies wanted cheap labor so we had huge numbers emigrating from Europe.
The anti emigration people got strict laws passes that required every emigrant to have emigration papers signed by their home government and possess a birth certificate. The law was simple.. Arrive at Ellis Island WITH OUT PAPERS and they woulc be sent back to their native land.
Huge numbers of Italians came to the USA. There was just one little problem. They could only be let into our nation illegally. You see most of them came with out any emigration papers or even a birth certificate. The only way we knew they were Italians was they spoke the language like a native.
We followed the law and turned them back right? NO WE LET THEM IN .... Americans who did not want them let in gave them a derogatory name.. They called them WOPs... Which is shorthand for illegal emigrant. They were let in with out legal emigration papers. They were... With Out Papers or WOPs.
William Jennings Bryan was the Democratic presidential nominee three times during this period. One of his main issues was stopping the flood of emigrants. His pitch to voters did not work. He was massively defeated 3 times.
The people that benefit from illegal emigrants vote.. The people opposed to illegal emigrants tend to be lower demographic types who don't vote.
Anti illegal emigration has never been a winning issue.
No, we should not. We should stop lawbreakers from flooding over our borders FIRST! Then worry about reforming our immigration process.
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.