Posted on 12/09/2005 12:09:51 PM PST by Checkers
My greater concern is if Tom goes away, what happens to the issue? It wouldn't be a good turn of events.
Now, what we can learn from all of this. Tancredo`s mistake is that , because he was more interested in promoting Terrible Tom then solving problems, he is basically cut out from designing the bill.
"Terrible Tom" has been the single most effective factor in making the bill go as far as it does toward enforcement over amnesty. Of course, it still doesn't go far enough - the amnesty needs to be excised completely - but it's completely ignorant to say that he's had no effect. He's had a much greater effect than he would have if he had just been a good little GOP hack and not made any serious waves.
If had really cared about this issue, he would have stopped bashing the President publicly, and worked with the leadership on a solution. Of course, that would have hurt fund raising.
LOL! As if his public stance hasn't drastically hurt his chances of getting funding through the RNC. That's the reason so many of his fellow Republicans in Congress haven't been joining his criticism of the administration and its congressional allies. They're the ones who are thinking primarily about the effects on their fundraising abilities.
You say the problem is Tancredo. No, the problem is people who try to personalize this whole issue by attacking the messenger as a way of avoiding the message. I would wager that if you put every proposal currently in Congress before the American people for a vote, Tancredo's would win, hands down. So to suggest that he's an extremist with his own unreasonable agenda is completely disingenuous. It's the amnestites who are the obstructionists, not Tom.
I've never been much of a fan of employer sanctions myself, mostly for that very reason, so that's a valid criticism. But Kyl-Cornyn has similar provisions, does it not?
Do you write Hewitt's material? You certainly have the boot polisher's style down pat.
Let me give it a try:
Okay, you forced us to pretend to address a problem we have no intention of solving. Now go away, and let us, the party insiders, the powerbrokers, and the sycophants, get back to running the GOP and the country as it suits us.
Nothing new here. The quisling brigade is unhappy with Tancredo.
I wish I was half as smart as Hugh. But, lets solve the border/illegal immigration problem your way.
All you other people,your stupid, you don`t care about the country, you are selling us out, and you don`t care about the future.
Now, having said that, vote for what I want or else.
Yup, you will be able to be as effective as Terrible Tom (but he`ll raise more money)
The reason Tancredo's use of (a more adult version of) that general approach has been as successful as it has in frustrating Bush's amnesty agenda is that it represents the views of the vast majority of voters, and is also just plain common sense. You don't grant amnesty to illegals if your goal is to improve border security. You just don't.
Please direct me to Bush`s amnesty agenda. I don`t remember when he said that.
Bush admits it's an amnesty every time he insists it's not a "blanket" amnesty. It's a partial amnesty, and it has the same effects as amnesty, regardless of whatever word games anyone wants to play with the issue.
Imagine for a minute what would happen if we just threw them out.
Why do you imagine that "just throwing them out" is the only other choice? How about just not giving them legal status, and focus instead on securing the border. Can we just work on that right now? And if yes, then why is Bush obstructing that effort by insisting upon legalizing illegals as part of that bill? Is he afraid that if we actually do secure the border, there wouldn't be public support for his little pet plan?
No, as much as we all would like the problem solved a certain way, tis time to grow up and work for what is possible. Unless, of course, you are part of Tommy Boy`s fund raising organization.
If you're talking like that, you're not in much of a position to be exhorting anyone to grow up.
Actually I don't claim to be an expert. You don't need to be an expert to know that offering legal status to illegal aliens does not improve border security. That ain't rocket science, to say the least.
What I missed is your solution to the problems we have with the ones that are here now.
First rule of holes: Stop digging. To use another analogy, if you're basement's being flooded, the first thing you'd want to do is cut off the inflow. So our first priority has to be to get the border under control.
That's not to say that dealing with those already here shouldn't be a part of it. We should cut off their government benefits, for one thing (welfare, free health care, etc.). Also, states need to be completely unrestrained by federal law (other than the Constitution itself) in doing whatever they judge best with illegals. If a state calls the INS with an illegal and the INS says it's too busy to take him, the state should be able to deport the illegal on its own initiative, or prosecute him for illegal presence in the state, or take any other corrective action it deems appropriate, with due process, of course.
Well, we are getting close. Got to close the border and seems like that is happening and is going to get better. Remember, Bush doesn`t write the checks, its Congress.
If I had my way, there would be a 25 foot wall.
But you still don`t offer any realistic solultions for the ones that are here. Instead, your idea of cutting off government aid (I will not call it services)won`t fly. Between the Courts and the voters, we have to treat them like citizens.
Our best chance to change things still is to lower our voices and work with Congress and the President. Shouting doesn`t work.
To the extent that it is happening at all, you can thank Tancredo for a lot of it. I don't think we would have gotten this far without him stirring up trouble for the GOP leadership. But we still have farther to go.
Instead, your idea of cutting off government aid (I will not call it services)won`t fly. Between the Courts and the voters, we have to treat them like citizens.
Does the term "Proposition 200" sound the least bit familiar to you? But even if you're right that that idea won't fly, it still doesn't follow that we have to grant them any kind of legal status. If we can't deport them quickly, we can deport them slowly, as long as the border is secured. But offering them legal status will make it harder to secure the border.
I'll pick up on this in the morning.
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.