Bush team strikes back against Tancredo

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."

Fine. GUN crime, then. Do you believe that stricter gun control will reduce the number of crimes in which guns are used?

I'll bite. Strict enough gun control would certainly reduce gun crime. If all legal importation and domestic production of guns were stopped tomorrow and the next day all gubment officials started destroying every gun they found gun crime would dwindle quite dramatically even if just due to the lack of guns to use in crimes. It would take a while because there are allready so many guns in country but that result would be inebitable.

Now as to the comparison. We are already better off than a gun ban. Illegals are easier to find/catch than guns. Illegals, by definition, cannot be domestically produced. And illegal importation of live bodies (still alive upon delivery of course) is much harder than that of guns.

EBUCK

What if that same person has had several drinks? That would change things, wouldn't it?

You've made my point. There's a big difference between unintended consequences and taking chances that have a high likelihood of fatalities.

What Tancredo is saying, IMO, is that for Congress and the Executive have an obligation to maintain the borders of this country, and if their failure to do so allowed terrorists to enter the country, they would share part of the responsibility for any acts they commit.

How can they maintain the borders in an effective way if a majority of the American people don't want them to? Governer Wilson and Pat Buchanon know all about just how much the American people want our borders defended. Not very much.

If this is what he meant (beneath the inflammatory rhetoric), then I would agree with him.

They've been crossing the border for decades. To accuse Bush of murder for things that happened long before he was president is beneath contempt.

In fact, we would *all* have to shoulder some of the blame because we elected officials who failed in their duty and did not remove them.

Exactly. The voters failed by letting them in in the first place.

If you get into an accident, wife and kids killed, because you didn't want to get your hands dirty and fix the brakes you are responsible and you would know it.

That's not murder.

Even if it wasn't your fault...some guy ran a red light and you could have stopped if only you had fixed the brakes. You would spend the rest of your days blaming yourself inwardly while outwardly attempting to blame the other party. Blood on your hands.period.

No, it's an accident.

He never said it was murder. He said Bush and Congress would have blood on their hands. Meaning that Bush and Congress would bear some responsibility for the deaths of Americans becuase they didn't do what they lawfully could to prevent it. I would certainly hold myself partially responsible is I'm the guy that makes the call to leave the borders wide open and our little hypothetical happens. And if you say you wouldn't you are either lying or really don't care about this country.

EBUCK

Just who do you think would vote for a man to take away all the welfare programs, quit funding education, do away with social security and medicare when the democrats will give them a hillary to take care of the poor masses?

I would. It sure beats having to explain to people how you voted for someone who is taking away your freedoms and placing more and more taxes on you, who is destroying the country through being overwhelmed by illegal immigration.

When you fail to vote for the person you think is best suited, you start down the slippery slope of just how far you would go from your principles to get a person elected: when do you say "enough"? I don't have to ask that question because I never departed from my principles.

Tuor

Let's try this...

You piss off your neighbor somethin fierce one night (somethin about you running around his back yard and kicking his dog).
Next morning, you take off for work leaving your wife, kids and dog alone and forget to lock the front door.

After you leave, the angry neighbor comes on over and kicks that crap out of your dog, burns down you shed and harrasses you wife and kids.

You get angry, call the cops to come and get your crazy neighbor, then tell your family that you will lock the house down so that it can never happen again.
Next day you leave for work DELIBERATELY leaving the door unlocked (leaving it wide open as a matter of fact) knowing full well that your neighbors family is planning revenge.

That is what bush has done and is doing. But he bears no responsibility?

EBUCK

Having crossed both borders often, I would certainly choose the Canadian to infiltrate the country.

While I don't disagree with your statements about the border itself, I give you this question: At which border did we actually catch a terrorist entering this country?

The Canadians have tighter security than the Mexicans and the whole Mexican illegal immigration support structure isn't in place to the North.

But you're right in that, although one border may be marginally harder to cross than the other, they are both still far too lax. Also, there are a great many other ways to sneak into the country if you're at all intelligent about it.

Tuor

Exactly. The voters failed by letting them in in the first place.

By refusing to deal with the situation that has come to them through the ineptitude and corruption of the past, you become part of the problem and not the solution. This, IMO, is what Bush and Congress has done. They've exasperated the situation by failing in their Constitutional duties, some of which are indeed unpopular. Sometimes, a public servant has to do unpopular things.

Tuor

Gore would do no better and prolly a whole lot worse (if possible). And that seems to be the point. Neither presidential candidate would have handled this in any sane fashion. They both are too damn tied into special interest, PC Pandering and are both afflicted with the disease termed Politicurious Castratus (made it up but thought it sounded good). We need new parties or a really big change in one of them cause neither are working for us anymore.

EBUCK

He never said it was murder

Blood on hands means murder to me, if it doesn't to you then we're at a fundamentral irreconcilable difference.

He said Bush and Congress would have blood on their hands. Meaning that Bush and Congress would bear some responsibility for the deaths of Americans becuase they didn't do what they lawfully could to prevent it. I would certainly hold myself partially responsible is I'm the guy that makes the call to leave the borders wide open and our little hypothetical happens.

Bush hasn't called for open borders. The American people have, if anybody has.

And if you say you wouldn't you are either lying or really don't care about this country.

You're an idiot.

Let's try this... You piss off your neighbor somethin fierce one night (somethin about you running around his back yard and kicking his dog). Next morning, you take off for work leaving your wife, kids and dog alone and forget to lock the front door. After you leave, the angry neighbor comes on over and kicks that crap out of your dog, burns down you shed and harrasses you wife and kids. You get angry, call the cops to come and get your crazy neighbor, then tell your family that you will lock the house down so that it can never happen again. Next day you leave for work DELIBERATELY leaving the door unlocked (leaving it wide open as a matter of fact) knowing full well that your neighbors family is planning revenge. That is what bush has done and is doing. But he bears no responsibility?

Bush has done nothing. The American people have left the door wide open for decades, that's the root of the problem. Ask Governer Wilson and/or Buchanan.

Which is why people need to be educated about the results of this failure. That way, we may perhaps begin to rectify it, or at least stop it from getting any worse. To say, essentially, 'it is here so we might as well accept it' and then do nothing about it would only compound the problem. It is a bit like smoking: once you realize what smoking does to your lungs and you stop, you improve your chances of living longer than if you kept right on smoking non-stop. It's not a guarantee that things will get better, but it at least creates the possibility that things might get better. By refusing to deal with the situation that has come to them through the ineptitude and corruption of the past, you become part of the problem and not the solution. This, IMO, is what Bush and Congress has done. They've exasperated the situation by failing in their Constitutional duties, some of which are indeed unpopular. Sometimes, a public servant has to do unpopular things.

Bush had a solution. Tancredo torpedoed it and offered no solution of his own. Byrd knew what he was doing. This will help elect more Dems and then there will be open borders because the Dems want all the minorities here they can get to vote for Dems. Why do you think a Dem helped torpedo it. Because they knew Bush would use capital gained on the immigrant worker solution to seal our borders better. You were played the fool by the RINO from liberal Colorado and the Dem from West Virginia to bring in more Latinos to elect Dems to bring in even more immigrants in a viscious cycle.

Face reality: The overwhelming number of immigrants -- both legal AND illegal have been from ONE nation -- Mexico. And exactly what gives Mexico the right and privilidge, whether legal OR illegal to flood and stampede the United States of America year after year after year??

Maybe America should allow a quota of 10,000,000 per year, per country -- would that make you happy? OR we could merely open the floodgates for ALL people of the world in America, with NO quota whatsoever. And yes, perhaps the sovereignty of America should be superceded by the will of foreigners -- afterall -- who are we as Americans but sons of immigrants ourselves?

Nice try, but it won't wash...

Elitists like you need to frame the issue of immigration from up on your ivory tower in the overblown language of the fascist Left with words like "unfairness" and "prejudice" and "bigotry". Congratulations -- You have been indoctrinated well...

And FYI, my immigration-regulated ancestors stepped off a crowded boat onto Ellis Island, were processed like animals, then agow at being an "American" gladly found whatever menial work they could find without the expected fail-safe bonanza of foodstamps, free medical, dental, and housing ANY immigrant knows he can expect today.

So take you Leftist propaganda, and delusions of grandeur to the top of the mountain with your history teacher, and serenade the world together with a few bars of 'Kumbaya'.

So take you Leftist propaganda, and delusions of grandeur to the top of the mountain with your history teacher, and serenade the world together with a few bars of 'Kumbaya'.

Delusions of grandeur?! ME?????? HA! Leftist Propaganda?! HA!

If you're trying to be funny, you've failed miserably. If you're trying to be clever, you've done even worse. If you're trying to make me feel bad cause you're all mad at me, and are calling me names, you lose. I feel so good, I think I'll sing a few choruses of Kumbaya! If you're trying to look like a bigoted fool..... CONGRATULATIONS!! We have a winner!

Peace, brother! :o)

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.