Posted on 08/04/2007 3:49:46 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo today demanded that Governor Bill Ritter (D-Denver) explain whether the state's Higher Education Director - who was appointed by Ritter - is speaking on the Governor's behalf when he says he wants to give lawbreakers special preference over legal residents when it comes to a college education. "Governor Ritter owes an explanation to the families of Colorado who have to explain to their kids that they've been denied admission to a state school because their slot was awarded to someone who is in this country illegally," said Tancredo. "Then he has to explain to that family that their tax money is going to pay for it." Tancredo issued the statement in response to comments State Higher Education Director David Skaggs made in support of granting taxpayer-subsidized, in-state tuition to illegal aliens. Tancredo noted that federal law bars states from providing taxpayer-funded tuition for illegal aliens unless it also provides the same benefit to U.S. citizens from other states as well. "It's bad enough that Skaggs wants to put the education of American students in jeopardy in order to grant special preferences to lawbreakers," said Tancredo. "What's worse, he expects all of us to pay for it."
(Excerpt) Read more at tancredo.house.gov ...
I just heard Mort Kondrake, once again, take a shot at those of us who are against giving illegals these benefits.
But I’m glad Tancredo is making a big deal out of this - the govt. of Colorado does owe its citizens an explanation as to why they are giving illegals such preference.
Note how Tom, with Representative duties, long-scheduled speaking appointments and a Presidential campaign already on his plate, makes time to keep up with and address the issues in his home state. Just amazing.
I heard that, too. And not only he but Fred Barnes is an open borders advocate. I used to enjoy the “Beltway Boys” but I’m rapidly losing interest. It wasn’t too long ago that Fred Barnes (a Bush acolyte) was saying that those of us who wanted secure borders against the illegal invasion (and terrorists!) were xenophbes, nativists, racists, and worse. Since the defeat of the amnesty bill he’s toned it down but those are his true feelings. By the way, I’ve decided not to renew my subscription to the Weekly Standard because I’m convinced that both he and Bill Kristol just don’t get it on this very vital domestic issue. They have some good insights on foreign policy but in terms of the domestic situation they don’t have a clue.
Right - I have some friends who live in his district in Colorado who needed some quick assistance in some personal matters that involved the federal and state government. I won’t go into specifics but Tom was there for them. He takes his role as representative of the people very seriously.
I'm of the belief that they understand foreign policy about as well as they understand the invasion of illegals.
“Governor Ritter owes an explanation to the families of Colorado who have to explain to their kids that they’ve been denied admission to a state school because their slot was awarded to someone who is in this country illegally,” said Tancredo.
“Then he has to explain to that family that their tax money is going to pay for it.”
You may be right. They’re both considered to be “neocons” but I think they’ve made a good case for why we must win in Iraq. To surrender would convince all our allies that we won’t see a tough situation through and that our commitment to democracy in the region will be abandoned when confronted with a little resistance. The result of our surrender, all experts agree, would be massive purges and a genocide that would destabilize the entire Middle East.
REMEMBER - bin Laden himself said that when we cut-and-ran in Somalia he became convinced that America was a paper tiger that would run away after a few troops were killed.
We can argue forever whether we should have invaded Iraq. But we’re THERE. To wave the white flag of surrender might please Pelosi and Murtha but it would be (I think) disastrous for us in the war against international terrorism.
Tancredo gets demonized by the media and Democrats but he makes more sense than most politicians on issues that most people believe are important. That’s why he is reelected, despite the attacks against him.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Therefore one can logically conclude that Ritter supports them ( even if Skagg’s did not vet them ). I doubt that Ritter can plead ignorance of the comments now. Plausible deniability is fading fast for Ritter.
My guess is that Ritter is using Skaggs’ comments as a test for public reaction. Ritter seems strong enough to say that he disagrees, if he did disagree.
Hopefully, this mess will explode in 2008.
The media hates Tancredo . The fact that Tancredo stands up to the lefties wins him lots of support at home.
Tancredo apparently also does good case work for his district...which is helpful for re-elections.
I just wish he would talk about the other issues, he's conservative on fiscal & limited gov't issues too.
Tancredo is a good man.
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.