That sounds like a fair statement to me. We can agree to disagree on the "Troops on the Borders," and agree that in any case, there are other areas toward which we should direct our energies first.
Did I understand you correctly?
Posted on 11/24/2002 10:00:53 AM PST by madfly
Personal Story: Interview with Tom Tancredo Bill O'Reilly
11/21/2002
Fox News: The O'Reilly Factor
O'REILLY: Thanks for staying with us. I'm Bill O'Reilly.
In the "Personal Story" Segment tonight, as you may know, Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo has criticized both Republicans and Democrats for doing very little about the chaos on U.S. borders. Now we learn that top Bush adviser Karl Rove told Mr. Tancredo he is unwelcome at the White House.
The congressman joins us now from Denver.
All right. So tell us about this dustup with Rove.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: All right. Well, that happened, actually, quite some time ago.
I think it was probably last April when I did a story -- I mean, I did an interview with "The Washington Times," and my comments in that -- in the paper caused Mr. Rove to give me a call the next day. And I was just leaving my house, you know, with my cell phone, took the call. It says, "White House."
I think, "Wow. This is" -- and it's Karl Rove, and he -- he was very upset, of course, and, during the course of the conversation, he said -- well, I -- he said, first of all, that I was being disloyal to say the kind of things I said because I am, of course, concerned about this immigration issue. It's huge. I lay it at the feet of Republicans, Democrats, the Congress, and the administration. He was very mad about that.
I told him, "I am not disloyal to the president. Disagreeing with the president does not mean you're disloyal. I happen to agree with the president 90 percent of the time, probably 99 percent of the time. In this case, we disagree. And the issue is so big that I'm not going to walk away from it because it happens to be the White House that I'm having a fight with. I don't like this. I didn't want to pick the fight, I assure you."
But he then said -- at some point during the conversation, his comment was, "Well, don't ever darken the doorstep of the White House." That was -- that was his direct quote.
O'REILLY: So no Christmas party for you huh?
TANCREDO: Well, that's it. I was wondering what -- my wife was really upset about that. She likes the Christmas party.
O'REILLY: Yes. Was there a specific comment you made to "The Washington Times" that...
TANCREDO: Yes.
O'REILLY: What was that?
TANCREDO: Yes. I said that, if we have another event like 9/11 and if we have not done any more to protect our borders than we have done, "at that time -- and, by the way, still at this time -- "and if this event was perpetrated by someone who has come across those borders illegally or who is here legally but then overstays the visa and all of the rest of that stuff and we don't catch it, then I'm saying that the people who are killed in that attack -- we are -- the blood of those people is really on our hands in the Congress and in the administration because...
O'REILLY: All right. So he didn't like...
TANCREDO: ... frankly, who else are you going to blame?
O'REILLY: ... that because, as you know, Malvo -- subsequently, John Lee Malvo, another INS botch -- and, apparently, by his own admission, he killed 10 Americans and wounded three others. I guess he is the trigger man now for most of these things.
TANCREDO: Yes.
O'REILLY: Not the -- not only the Bush White House -- and, by the way, we called Karl Rove, and he has no comment on you. But he doesn't like you. But he doesn't like me either, I don't think.
TANCREDO: I get that feeling.
O'REILLY: Yes. I mean, you know...
TANCREDO: The president has -- you know, frankly, Bill...
O'REILLY: What are you going to do? You've got to be honest, and, if you believe what you believe -- and I think you're a sincere man -- I mean, it's your duty to speak out, even if they don't like it.
But here's the rub. Most Americans agree with you, Congressman -- and they agree with me -- that the U.S. military should be moved to the borders to stem the flow of illegal immigration, not to shut the borders down but to plug the holes. Now you just got back from the border today, right, or you were there yesterday?
TANCREDO: Last night. Last night.
O'REILLY: What did -- did you see any improvement at all?
TANCREDO: Nothing. Not only that, it is getting worse. The cartels that have been running drugs across that border for years are now running people across the border. They have taken over the illegal immigration part of this thing because it's become very, very lucrative.
They now -- it's only a thousand or $1,500 for a Mexican, but it is $30,000 for a Middle Eastern or an Asian. So they now run the show down there, and, believe me, they have organized it. They -- it is much more dangerous on the border. It is absolute warfare going on down there.
You cannot -- some of the ranchers on that border -- I do not know how they live there. How would you like to have your 13-, 14-year-old son, grandchildren, having -- if they go one mile from their home, from Grandma's house to Mom and Dad's house, they have to be armed. They have -- they cannot go alone. The harassment -- the threat to the land --
It's just amazing what's going on down there. This is a security risk. People are coming across that border who are OTMs -- that's the way they refer to it, Bill -- other than Mexicans. They are Middle Eastern. They are Asian. They are Chinese. They're coming in huge numbers. They...
O'REILLY: And, mostly, you were in Arizona, right? That's where you were...
TANCREDO: Yes, I was right by Douglas. Right by Douglas, Arizona.
O'REILLY: Right. Now the -- look, we believe you because we heard from everybody down there and nobody says it isn't happening. Everybody says it is. Everybody says...
TANCREDO: Yes.
O'REILLY: ... it's a disaster and it continues to get worse, even after 9/11, and we're sitting here going why won't they move the troops to the border? So you're saying now that the drug cartels have taken over the human smuggling because it's so lucrative...
TANCREDO: That's correct.
O'REILLY: ... and, therefore, they're more dangerous because they're more armed. They've bribed everybody they can in Mexico. They've got no problem over there. And they're coming over, and it -- the stakes are even higher. Now when...
TANCREDO: That's because we now have people...
O'REILLY: ... you present this evidence -- when you present the evidence and all the things that you've accumulated, the Border Patrol backs you up, everybody backs you up, and then you say to your Republican peers, "We need to move the troops to the border," you still don't get any support. What do they say to you?
TANCREDO: Well, what they say is, "Tom, that's an action that" -- you know, here's what the exact
I can give you the quote, as a matter of fact, from the head of the Homeland Defense Agency, Mr. Ridge. He said, when we asked him this, "Why will you not put troops on the border? It is our only hope to defend that border, and we can do it with technology and resources," and he said, "Congressman" -- he said, "There are political and culture reasons why we can't do that." Political and cultural reasons.
Now I want -- you know, somebody else is going to have to go and explain to people who are harmed as a result of people coming across this border that there are political and cultural reasons why we can't protect them. I'm not going to do it.
I'm going to do everything I can, no matter how obstreperous I become -- and I know this is going to get ugly. I know this that we may...
O'REILLY: It's already gotten ugly.
(CROSSTALK)
TANCREDO: ... in this.
O'REILLY: It's...
TANCREDO: It's already gotten ugly.
O'REILLY: But at least Ridge is honest.
TANCREDO: The only thing...
O'REILLY: At least Ridge is honest. He's telling you, "We want Hispanic votes."
TANCREDO: Yes. Straight on.
O'REILLY: Right. "We want Hispanic votes in the Republican Party."
TANCREDO: It's political and cultural reasons.
O'REILLY: And, culturally, we don't have a tradition in this country -- although Teddy Roosevelt did move troops to the border. He was the last...
TANCREDO: Sure.
O'REILLY: ... American president -- of course, if you read the Constitution, one of the mandates of the military is to protect and secure the borders of the United States. So there's no problem...
TANCREDO: Isn't that ironic? Isn't that ironic that Mexico uses troops on their border -- all the time on their side of the border?
O'REILLY: Yes. And they're getting paid by the cartel. Their troops. They're getting paid to bring the stuff in here, and we can't...
TANCREDO: On the northern border, yes, you're right.
O'REILLY: All right. Now, look...
TANCREDO: But they -- they will use their troops on the southern border to stop immigration from Guatemala. They will round up...
O'REILLY: Congressman, what I'm going to do is...
TANCREDO: ... Guatemalans.
O'REILLY: What I'm going to do is, on our Web site, billoreilly.com, we're going to have a link to Governor Ridge where people can give their opinion and a link to you. We're going to set that up tomorrow.
TANCREDO: Great.
O'REILLY: And we're going to have Americans who are interested get to give their opinion directly to Governor Ridge and directly to you. So then you can use that in any kind of legislation you may have proposed. And, Congressman, we appreciate it. We think you're right on on this issue, as you know, and we are going to continue on this story.
Thanks very much.
TANCREDO: Thank you.
O'REILLY: And I'm you can't go to the White House Christmas party, but I won't be going either. So maybe I'll come down there...
TANCREDO: Maybe we'll still get invited. Who knows?
O'REILLY: Yes. We'll have our own party.
Upcoming, as THE FACTOR moves along, it's all over. The bachelor has proposed on ABC TV, But some Americans think this is just atrocious. We'll be right back with that opinion in a moment.
I would say that troops on the border would be a useful tool but I think Tancredo and O'Reilly could do more by talking about other things that could be done. Or what is not being done that should be done. I greatly appreciate their efforts.
That sounds like a fair statement to me. We can agree to disagree on the "Troops on the Borders," and agree that in any case, there are other areas toward which we should direct our energies first.
Did I understand you correctly?
Yes, but I would add that military on the border wouldnt be just for immigration it would be for terrorists as well and drugs smuggling in that mexican military and drug traffickers equiped as military units are a big threat to the border patrol.
The only solution is to build a wall and beef up the border patrol.
Congressman" -- he said, "There are political and culture reasons why we can't do that." Political and cultural reasons.
Congressman" -- he said, "There are political and culture reasons why we can't do that." Political and cultural reasons.
Congressman" -- he said, "There are political and culture reasons why we can't do that." Political and cultural reasons.
Congressman" -- he said, "There are political and culture reasons why we can't do that." Political and cultural reasons.
Congressman" -- he said, "There are political and culture reasons why we can't do that." Political and cultural reasons.
Congressman" -- he said, "There are political and culture reasons why we can't do that." Political and cultural reasons.
Congressman" -- he said, "There are political and culture reasons why we can't do that." Political and cultural reasons.
Congressman" -- he said, "There are political and culture reasons why we can't do that." Political and cultural reasons.
I demand to know just what are the specific reasons behind this PC bu!!sh!+. This is not an answer. PC is the deceptive tool used to block and sidestep the true issues.
Why would anyone declare a war (in this case on terrorists) and leave our flanks exposed? Ask anyone versed in military strategy if you leave your flanks exposed when facing an enemy. Ask them what happens if you do that.
Actually, I don't think your analogy is good. The Orkin man would still get the termites with the neutron bomb. My guess is the troops wouldn't even be effective in stemming the flow of illegals because they're not trained to do border patrol type work.
But your general point is absolutely correct. We need more border patrol agents, not troops, on the borders. A wall or electrified fence would also help.
Soldiers are not trained or equipped to be customs agents.
As of this time anyway, border patrol agents are not equiped to deal with mexican military units which they are actually facing.
First of all, a majority of Latinos in both these states voted for Gore.
The Latinos in Florida who vote Republican are Cubans, and they're about as loyal a Republican voting block as you can get. Getting tough on immigration is likely to increase their support for Republicans rather than decrease it.
In Texas, Bush has such a large percentage of the white vote that he can afford to do badly with Latinos. Most Latinos in Texas who vote Republican have been there for generations and have views on immigration no different than most whites.
Add to that the fact that getting tough on immigration will greatly increase the Republican share of the white vote, and it's a win-win.
The harsh, un-PC truth of it is that when Republicans do well with whites, they win. When they don't do well with whites, they lose. Swings in the minority vote just don't matter much.
Just look at the numbers. Latinos are 7% of the electorate. Suppose Bush were to capture an additional 10 percentage points of the Latino vote. That would get him a whopping total of 0.07% points more of the overall vote. It's chump-change.
By contrast, Steven Salier at Vdare showed that with a mere 56% of the white vote, Bush would have won the election (both the electoral and popular vote) even if every single minority voter went for Gore.
Exactly, so instead of putting troops on the border, why not better equip the border patrol?
And, I love the Christmas party angle. The administration's reps are just sounding so childish "You can come to our party if you say things we don't like (na, na, na, na)"
What I meant to type is:
You can't come to our party if you say things we don't like (na, na, na, na)"
Does anyone know? We're Rep. and Mrs. Tancredo invited to the party?
OK, so we shouldn't ask the politicians to put their careers on the line just to save this country? Is that what you are saying? Because that is what is at stake here - this country. NOt some obscure little bill that is going to cost just money - it is our very existance a a free society. Did you read they are smuggling in ME men. We won't need to go to Iraq for the war, Iraq may be bringing the war here and we are worried about the latino vote. Now the President and many of you are asking Americans to put their life on the line to go to Iraq to save us from harm. I don't believe it is as great a threat - and it certainly is a more distant threat - in geographical terms. Why, then is it too much to ask that someone with the power and the law behind him to step up to the plate, do what he was elected to do and save this country.
Now the highest figure I have heard that we can expect to get of the 'latino' vote is 'that elusive 10%'. Is our country worth 10% of the vote. Has it ever occurred to anyone that we can pick up more than 10% of the vote. The black community is unhappy about this - the Americans of Mexican decent are unhappy about this and I believe if they do not do something - they will lose many staunch republican voters. Now from this, I have to conclude it has very little to do with votes. Why are we thowing away the votes of the American people to run after votes of foreigners. That cannot be the reason.
Getting an additional 10 percentage points of the Latio votes gets us a measly 0.7 precentage points of the overall votes (Latinos are 7% of the electorate). That's chumpchange, so no, it's definitely not worth it.
Now tell me, which one would be better trained to face this situation? Have you considered that smugglers could easily smuggle terrorists across the border with jars of biological toxins. The present system isn't working.
Those cultural and political reasons are just too important to set aside for the safety of our country. Before we put the military or any specially trained group in to protect our borders we need a solid committment from the administration and Congress to defend our borders from the terrorist threat. Without this committment it's moot to discuss which group should defend our borders.
That is fine with me but we need to do something fast.
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.