Bush team strikes back against Tancredo

Denver Post ^

[KantianBurke]

Tuesday, April 23, 2002 - WASHINGTON - Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., renewed his fight with President Bush over immigration laws Monday, mixing his pointed criticisms of the president's policies with lavish praise for Bush's leadership. It wasn't enough, however, to win over the president's aides. Tancredo said he got a second call in four days from the White House, this one complaining about the tone of a letter he sent the president offering "some political advice."

"I want to be polite. I really like the president. I really like him a lot," the Colorado lawmaker said shortly after he was berated by Ken Mehlman, White House director of political affairs.

The president's senior political adviser, Karl Rove, upbraided the two-term conservative Friday over statements he made attacking Bush in a Washington Times interview.

"The president is not on our side," Tancredo told the paper, complaining that Bush supports an "open door" border policy that could lead to another terrorist attack. "Then the blood of the people killed will be on this administration and this Congress."

Tancredo didn't dispute any of the quotations. He was just surprised, he said, that the White House took so much offense at them.

Tancredo, who heads the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, long has been an outspoken critic of Bush's immigration policies. Earlier this year, he came within one vote of blocking House passage of a Bush-supported bill to allow individuals who are in the country illegally to become legal residents.

None of Tancredo's previous comments stirred the White House to action as much as his interview with the Times, a conservative newspaper with a strong following among the president's senior advisers. In a luncheon meeting with the paper's editors and reporters Thursday, Tancredo argued that the president's policies are a threat to national security.

Hoping he could open discussions between the president and members of his caucus over the issues, Tancredo on Monday sent the president a letter restating his "strong opposition" to open borders. It didn't mention the flap over his Times comments.

"I, like most Americans, am immensely thankful that our nation has the great fortune of having you at the helm of the ship of state to guide us through this difficult time in history," Tancredo wrote. "Your courage and determination have been inspirational, and I will do all I can to support your efforts to destroy every vestige of those organizations that pose a threat to our way of life."

That was neither a retreat nor an apology, Tancredo said. "What I hoped was we could have some sort of dialogue on this."

At the very least, Tancredo said, he hoped it would prompt Bush to issue a statement backing the reorganization of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. In the letter, Tancredo also noted that Rove had not met with him or the caucus over the issue despite repeated invitations.

Tancredo said he has never been involved in so public a dispute with someone he admires.

"This is not pleasant for me. If the issue didn't demand it, I wouldn't do it. This one happens to be enormously important."

[Sabertooth]

Sorry pal it is the individual that votes and it will be the voters fault if Hillary get into office .. just like I blamed the Voters for the 8 yr. nightmare of her husband Administration

So the politicians have no impact on our votes?

Hmmm... then why do they campaign?

It doesn't really mater who you blame, what matters is reality. In '92, Bush the Elder lost a lot of votes (mostly to Perot) that he won in '88. Was that a deus ex machina for Clinton, or did GHWB alienate a big chunk of his base?

Does he bear no responsibility for that?

Likewise, if Bush the Younger, experiences a net loss of votes while pandering to Latinos on Illegals, whose fault is that?

If Dubya pursues this strategy and it backfires, the blame is his and his alone.

We don't owe him our votes.

[Tuor]

It seems you people are having tantrums over something which had a net effect of 0.

And it seems as if you are being disingenuous. The question isn't over whether or not they are here, but whether or not they are here *legally*: whether their presence is breaking the laws of this country (which it is). By signing this law, Bush taking steps to legitimize the presence of illegal workers in this country, but I imagine you already knew that.

Tuor

[Mo1]

WHATEVER

[Sabertooth]

"WHATEVER"

What a lazy, empty, gutless retort...

In CAPS!

[Tuor]

Declaring that terrorism is the result of immigration policy is absurd on its face...

I don't think that it is a result of immigration policy per se. I think that our immigration policy has led to a very lax control of our borders, and that this lax control is making it easier for illegals -- and terrorists -- to enter the country. So, our immigration policy could be seen, in regards to border control, as a contributing factor, though far from a deciding one.

Tuor

[Jorge]

If Tancredo does sound hysterical, it's partly because our borders are still wide open. I think we should all be very concerned about the United States' lack of border security.

I agree we should be concerned.
But to say that Bush will have blood on his hands if there is another terror attack, is hysterical and irrational.
The fact is most of the Sept 11 terrorists were in this country legally.

[Tuor]

I just request that each of us remember the Clintons as some seek to get the GOP out of power and find the perfect constitutionist that might miraclously win the presidency.

If there is a choice between the lesser of two evils, I choose neither.

Tuor

[Sabertooth]

Let's take another look at you inalienable rights comments...

---

What unalienable rights do people have at airports?

130 posted on 5/13/02 7:47 PM Pacific by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

What unalienable rights do we have at airports that we can not exercise?

140 posted on 5/13/02 7:58 PM Pacific by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

Seems to me you're shifting ground, initially implying that we didn't have inalienable rights at airports, and now suggesting that we don't have any that we can't exercise.

Which is it?

[Phillip Augustus]

I had not thought of it in those exact terms, but, now that you mention it....yeah.

[Jorge]

"He calls Bush a murderer and then says he's surprised that offense was taken."

He didn't call Bush a murderer. Go ahead, read the original post. I'll wait. Done? Didn't see it, did you. Nice job putting words in his mouth.

He said there would be blood on Bush's hands ( his administration) if there was another terrorist attack.

Somehow I don't think it's unreasonable to read blood on your hands as the same thing as if you'de killed the people yourself. That's what "blood on your hands" means.

Perhaps some of us should tell Tancredo that the blood of people seeking a better life in this country is on his hands. All those who die, the women and children..trying to get into this country....their blood is on Tancredo's hands. Just like he killed them himself.
You don't think this sort of inflamatory and hysterical rhetoric is unecessary?

[185JHP]

Lots of vitamins in that post! The "bipartisan malfeasance" is stomach-turningly obvious in this illegal immigrant mess - the worst elements of both parties get something out of not stopping it. Do the worst people in the two animal parties (elephant and jackass) like each other a lot more than they like us - is that it?

[Mo1]

What a lazy, empty, gutless retort...

If I recall the last time I responded to a post you sent me .. you called me a neo-leftist nazi

Excuse me for not wanting to be called a bunch of names again

[#3Fan]

Not much, because Bush's inclination is still to pander to Latinos on the basis of coddling Illegal Immigration. But at least it's not worse.

Looks to me like he had a solution to a neverending problem. Continue to waste money pursuing those who aren't going to be sent back anyway, or legalize them and seal the borders better.

OTH, It's better because Bush and the other pandering pols know that Americans are in no mood for their malfeasance on Illegals. Once in a while, they need to be reminded that they work for us, and serve at our pleasure.

In no mood, huh? So if Americans are so fed up I guess we've redoubled our efforts to keep them out in the first place. Oh we haven't? Oh well, maybe some day Americans will be truly fed up.

I've explained it to you already... Amnesties encourage more Illegals.

So since this proposal got defeated, border-crossing attempts have slackened off. Oh they haven't? Delayed reaction maybe.

Bush apparently wants to be part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

Seems to me he had a solution. What's your solution?

Therefore, thwarting his attempted surrenders is now a necessary part of the solution.

Surrenders? Your guys are going to get tough? When are your guys, like Byrd and Tancredo, going to get tough? I won't hold my breath. I haven't seen them pushing through greater border protection. That's where the problem is, everything else is grandstanding.

Certainly not one that you'd settle for. My point is that we can't continue to allow vast regions of our country to be overrun by Illegals.

I agree. But what do we do with the ones that made it? We're not going to create a refugee problem sending millions back, so I guess you prefer to contine to foster hate toward them for the rest of their lives.

Tell you what, though... Start a campaign to have your state of Illinois boost it's population by 1.5 million Illegals, so that your numbers are proportional to California's, and then I'll at least concede your intellectual consistency.

I'm not for immigration. I think all immigration should be cut off now. But I'm a bit of a realist and know that the ones that are here aren't going to be sent home to starve. So there has to be a solution. You have no solution.

What happens to them across the border is Mexico's problem, not mine.

No, murder is murder. Knowingly and unnecessarily putting people in a position to die is murder. And the leaving of millions to die is a crime getting up there with those great 20th century atheists.

But we don't need to force millions at gunpoint... With Total Asset Forfeiture, a few hundred thousand will do.

So you don't want them all sent back? What do you want?

As for the rest... They Will Deport Themsleves Click the link!

Root, hog, or die huh? That's no solution. You're out there with the libertarians on the morality front.

Lincoln and the slaves? I fail to see your analogy.

Lincoln sent thousands of non-citizens to an Island in the Caribbean. Nice try but it didn't work. I don't blame him for trying, it looks like it would have worked, but it turned out too harsh and he had to retrieve them.

Eisenhower booted 1.3 million Illegals during "Operation Wet-back" in the 50s... Was there a sudden upsurge in the need for therapy for maldjusted Mexicans?

I don't know, was there? Why aren't your fine upstanding representatives proposing this instead of grandstanding the way they are?

Didn't that same "large number of people" leave their countries and come here rather suddenly?

No, not all at once. Plus, they came willingly, had the work ethic, and had a plan of survival. Not so with those forced to leave at gunpoint in large numbers.

Think before you post.

I have a solution. Yours is not based in reality, and if you think it is, why isn't your hero pushing it as much as he did his opposition to Bush. I'll tell you why, he was grandstanding.

I'm disenchanted by the fact that my state is overrun with Illegals, while obtuse Americans living North of the Mason-Dixon and East of the Mississippi have their heads in a place that ostriches wouldn't venture, and they feel mighty smug about it.

Not at all. Seal the borders. Eliminate several BS government programs to triple our investment to seal the borders. But the ones that are here aren't going anywhere because it's immoral to make millions leave at once. There has to be a solution besides hate towards these people. It's our fault they're here because we let them in through nonenforcement of our border laws. So they got lucky. Stuff happens. You certainly don't have a workable solution.

There is bipartisan malfeasance on this issue, and you're comfortable with it because the crisis hasn't reached your state.

You don't think Illinois has illegal aliens? LOL What are we going to do with them? Why aren't your representatives you've been worshipping like Byrd and Tancredo coming up with plans to send them back? Because they know it's impossible.

Oh wow... Truly an Amnesty Deniers' HoF post!

They're going to try to come no matter what. We have to stop them from coming. No one is willing to do that.

#3Fan, Illegals are encouraged to come by the fact that we don't keep them out, we let them stay, and often pay them to do so.

No, the reason they are encouraged to come is because it's so easy.

I realize Illinois is relatively far-removed from the problem, but that's no excuse for spouting patent nonsense.

Far removed? I think not.

If so, that only illustrates the point that on this matter, Bush might as well be a lib, because he's done squat to protect our borders from Illegals.

No, he has a solution to a never-ending problem for the ones that are here. The evidence that this problem is never-ending is that while your heros were loud in their criticism of Bush, they haven't uttered a peep as to a solution. We have to do something about the ones that are here. Do you really believe we're going to let them root, hog, or die. We didn't even let that happen in the 1800s with the slaves, it's not going to happen now.

You're OK with that, I'm not.

I want a solution. I see none from your side.

And the "Would you rather have Hillary?" retort is getting rather tired. I know the Democrats are corrupt on Illegals, I'm fighting against the GOP going down that road as well.

The Dems want as many as possible because they're easy to lie to. Why would Republicans want open borders, minorities don't vote for us and never will.

Are you prepared to give elections to the libs by pandering to Latinos on Illegal Immigration?

We're not pandering. We're offering a solution to a problem that's never-ending otherwise.

Quit acting as if Bush and the rest ot our party have no choice... They do. The have it in their power to do the right thing.

Why aren't your heros proposing anything then? They jumped on this issue to bash Bush and then ran like hell from it when it came time for a different solution.

But if Bush chooses surrender and pandering, my vote will be lost.

Like he ever had it. Let's see a solution from your hero Byrd.

[Tuor]

Seriously, how is this qualitatively different from the guns/crime debate?

One is a constitutional and god-given right. The other is not: no one has a *right* to enter this country illegally, to stay here illegally, or to work here illegally.

None of us our accusing inanimate objects of commiting crimes: those illegal immigrants (and workers) who come here know they are breaking our laws.

IMO, you are comparing apples and oranges here.

Tuor

[FreeReign]

What unalienable rights do people have at airports?

What unalienable rights do we have at airports that we can not exercise?

Seems to me you're shifting ground, initially implying that we didn't have inalienable rights at airports, and now suggesting that we don't have any that we can't exercise.

I clarified my question to you. Your judgement that I am actually shifting ground -- is your judgement.

BTW, your answer to my last question is empty.....

[#3Fan]

He didn't call Bush a murderer. Go ahead, read the original post. I'll wait. Done? Didn't see it, did you. Nice job putting words in his mouth.

When a person gets into an auto-accident and someone dies, we don't accuse him of having blood on his hands. Tancredo accused the adminstration of murder.

However, he did say that if a terrorist attack occurred and it was due to lax immigration policy, then the blood of those killed would be on the hands of the Bush administration *AND* the Congress...which he is a member of. So he himself would have to shoulder some of that blame by his own words.

I don't agree with that. The blood would be on the terrorists hands, not our government, unless they knowingly knew that people would die in a specific situation.

[dsutah]

OK, I suppose one must take what one dishes out. Can
you?

[Tuor]

He knows what kind of damage you have been witnessing.

If he knows it, it is only an intellectual sort of knowledge. I very much doubt he understands it from a common man's view, especially from those in the Southwest. If he knew it that way, rather than as a rich guy who probably hires them for servants, he might feel differently.

I don't know enough of Bush to know how much he 'feels our pain', as it were. But, from what I've seen, it *seems* as if he views illegals as a CEO might view cheap labor rather than a regular worker might view having his wages undercut by someone who can't even speak English.

Tuor

[Tuor]

How can it be more open than it is?

We can all stand at the border handing out milk and cookies (and bottles of Gatorade) while giving these hard working illegals words of encouragement (in Spanish) and directing them to the nearest Mexican consulate for even more help and info on how to milk as much money as possible out of the US. Oh...and make sure we tell them to enjoy their visit!

Tuor