Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Miss Marple
Tancredo is accusing the Bush administration of taking the Reagan position on Canada and Mexico.

Click here for the Reagan proposal on open borders with Mexico and Canada

More on Reagan's position on free trade and open borders

The anti illegal immigration candidates did not do well in the last election. The House of representatives went to great lengths to earn the support of the anti illegal immigration voters. They passed the border bill the anti's wanted in December of 2005. The voters defeated enough Republicans in the House so that there are now enough votes to offer illegal immigrants amnesty and citizenship.

If the voters supported a closed border with Mexico and a return of illegal immigrants to Mexico the Republicans would have held the house.

It is interesting to note that in 2004 President Bush got 35 percent of the Hispanic vote. In 2006 the Republicans got 30 percent of the Hispanic vote. Had the Republicans gotten 35 percent or more of the Hispanic vote they would have held on to both houses of Congress.

Tancredo will lave less effect on the 2008 election than Pat Buchanan did in 2000. Pat got way less than one half of one percent of the vote in 2000.

Every time I have asked anti illegal immigration posters why they are opposed to the illegal immigration from Mexico they say that terrorists may come through the border and they say are not opposed to legal immigration, just illegal immigration.

When I ask them if they would support the same regulations for Mexican border crossing as is in effect for Canadian border crossing they are opposed to granting to Mexicans the same privileges granted to Canadians.

Most of them do not know that we have an open border with Canada. Canadian citizens can come into the USA and live where they choose and work where they please.

When I point out that far more terrorists have been found trying to enter the USA from Canada than Mexico.. they still want Mexicans barred.

Tancredo like many less than bright people panders to the voters making the most noise. The noisiest voters rarely represent many votes.

35 posted on 11/22/2006 6:00:47 AM PST by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Common Tator
It is interesting to note that in 2004 President Bush got 35 percent of the Hispanic vote. In 2006 the Republicans got 30 percent of the Hispanic vote.

They also lost a bit of the white vote as well. Should they have pandered to the honkies too?

111 posted on 11/22/2006 9:54:17 AM PST by jmc813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: Common Tator

Did you support passage of S.2611, the Senate immigration reform bill that would have allowed millions of illegal aliens the opportunity to obtain legal status, as well as the opportunity to pursue a path to citizenship?

The GOP share of the white vote also declined. The GOP share of the white vote was 58% in the 2002 mid-term elections. In the 2006 mid-term elections, it was 51%. If the GOP had gotten 58% or more of the white vote in 2006, it would have held on to both houses of Congress. Stating that the GOP share of the Hispanic voted declined proves nothing because its share of both the Hispanic vote and the white vote declined.

I believe you are incorrect about anti-illegal immigration candidates not doing well in the last election. Only about six and a half percent (6.5%) of the members of Cong. Tancredo's Immigration Reform Caucus lost their seats. Weren't somewhere around eleven and a half percent (11.5%) of all Republican seats lost? If I am incorrect about those figues, please correct me.

How many Democrats that defeated incumbent Republicans that supported H.R.4437 actually ran on a platform of support for both legalization of millions of illegal aliens, as well a path to citizenship for those illegal aliens? Many Democrats that defeated incumbent Republicans that supported H.R. 4437 attempted to portray themselves as being as tough or tougher than their Republican opponent on illegal immigration and border security.

What potential 2008 presidential candidate or candidates do you believe would make a good president?


141 posted on 11/23/2006 11:31:38 AM PST by arnoldpalmerfan (Tancredo for President 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: Common Tator

He Tator Salad, you're confusing apples with oranges, er Mexicans with Canadians. Canadians working in the U.S. economy are a net plus to the economy. Mexicans are not. The Heritage foundation found that the cost to the U.S. Taxpayer is $100,000 per illegal over the life of *each* illegal. Because they are seen as potential voters, they are coodled and draw upon social entitlements, i.e., education, health care, foodstamps in a hugely disproportionate way, over any other constitutuency and that would include, 'um Canadians.
Your pithy questions to anti-illegal immigrant advocates are only clever by half.


150 posted on 01/07/2007 10:04:02 PM PST by mrflashrifle ("With Amnesty, we'll be getting the equivalent of 12 Million high shool drop-outs")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson