Tom Tancredo's Unsavory Backers

The Long Knives are Out

By Leon H Wolf Posted in Comments (171) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

With the announcement of the formation of Tom Tancredo's exploratory committee, Congressman Tancredo has announced his intention to take his anti-immigration show on the road nationally. As a result of that, some folks are taking a closer look at exactly who pays Tancredo's tab, and the result isn't pretty. The American Spectator has a piece today which reads, in part:

In fact, it's not clear Tancredo is in line with the mainstream, social conservative wing of the GOP he seeks to align himself with. According to campaign finance reports, one of Tancredo's biggest financial backers has been the family of Dr. John Tanton, the founder of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Wall Street Journal editorial-page features writer Jason Riley wrote a devastating piece about the organization back in 2004, in which the group's pro-abortion and pro-eugenics roots were revealed.

Tanton is also one of the most prominent conservative financiers of Planned Parenthood in the United States, having helped found in the mid-1960s the first Planned Parenthood chapter in northern Michigan.

Tancredo appears to have embraced FAIR's extreme and repugnant policy positions, having accepted more than $20,000 from the FAIR PAC and personal donations from Tanton between 1996 and 2006. Over the past ten years, according to Federal Election Commission reports, FAIR has provided more than $15,000 to Tancredo campaigns and PACs. Tanton has given Tancredo $7,000, while donating $28,000 to FAIR's political action arm.

More below...

The details of the Riley WSJ piece are indeed devastating. The article (available on Lexis) reads in part:

The Federation for American Immigration Reform and the Center for Immigration Studies may strike right-wing poses in the press, but both groups support big government, mock federalism, deride free markets and push a cultural agenda abhorrent to any self-respecting social conservative.

FAIR's founder and former president is John Tanton, an eye doctor who opened the first Planned Parenthood chapter in northern Michigan. By Dr. Tanton's own reckoning, FAIR has received more than $1.5 million from the Pioneer Fund, a white-supremacist outfit devoted to racial purity through eugenics.

Board members of FAIR actively promote the sterilization of Third World women for the purposes of reducing U.S. immigration prospects. And if anything disturbs the good doctor more than those Latin American hordes crossing the Rio Grande, it's the likelihood that most of them are Catholic, or so he once told a Reuters reporter.

CIS, an equally repugnant FAIR offshoot, is a big fan of China's one-child policy and publishes books advocating looser limits on abortion and wider use of RU-486. CIS considers the Sierra Club, which cites "stabilizing world population" fourth on its 21st century to-do list, as too moderate. And like FAIR, CIS has called for a target U.S. population of 150 million, about half of what it is today.

Tancredo clearly aims to take the majority of his support from social conservatives in the upcoming 2008 race. Somewhat problematically for Tancredo, he's apparently been laying down with Margaret Sanger types for a very long time, and nevermind the fleas.

I make no bones about the fact that I'm not in line with Tancredo on his one big issue, but a person with even modest social conservative convictions would simply not be funded by an organization whose activities are as repugnant as FAIR's. That Tancredo has says a lot about where he really stands.

UPDATE by Leon: In case any are inclined to view this as alarmist, here's the Pioneer Fund in their own terms.

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | WV-SEN: Rep. Capito (R) considering challenge to Sen. Rockfeller (D)Comments (6) »
Tom Tancredo's Unsavory Backers 171 Comments (0 topical, 171 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

Throughout my public career I have always maintained a deeply held conviction that abortion compromises the sanctity of human life. Tragically, our nation has ignored our founding principle that all individuals have a right to life and in doing so has failed to protect the most vulnerable among us, unborn boys and girls. I do not support federal funds going to Planned Parenthood or any other organization that promotes abortion. I will continue to do everything in my power to protect the defenseless, and to end the practice of abortion.

-Tom Tancredo

We won't talk about all the wacko groups supporting this illegal, ILLEGAL immigrant invasion.

Tancredo's got a good voting record on abortion, I don't dispute that. But what we're constantly assured by Tancredo supporters is that his politics are not about race. One would think that a person who has to answer this on such a regular basis would be a little more hesitant about accepting so much money from an organization like FAIR.

------------
Fnord.

One would think that a person who has to answer this on such a regular basis ..

I suppose the people who keep yelling racism have no responsibility at all for his having to "answer" the charge.

But this is all pointless. The problems with immigration have been pointed out countless times, and none of the editors, except Paul, are willing to address the problems.

The effect of immigration is to move the country to the left, on all issues, and to empower the Democratic party.

Assuming one is a proponent of left-wing ideas in general there is nothing remarkable about pressing for greater immigration. Thats why Ted Kennedy is doing it. But its flat out foolish for people who favor fiscal conservatism or social conservatism to take the same stance.

You attack Tancredo for taking money from FAIR. But your own position is more damaging to the unborn.

1. I edited your comment because you left an italics tab open, which screwed up the rest of the page. I hope you don't mind.

2. I can say with near 100% certainty that I am in more dire financial straits than is Tom Tancredo. But if a white-supremacist, eugenics-supporting, population control organization came to my door with a $2,000 check, I'd tell them in no uncertain terms where to shove it. So yeah, while I was never a Tancredo supporter before, I am somewhat bothered that he took several such checks over a ten year period. Others, I guess, will be less bothered/not bothered at all. Such is politics.

------------
Fnord.

1) Thanks.

2) You don't respond to what I'm saying.

Calling Tancredo names may make you feel better. Knock yourself out, its a free country. Athough the openly racist people supporting your own position don't seem to bother you. One of them is a group calling itself "The Race". Can you get more racist than that?

The immigration enthisiasts cannot make a postive argument in favor of immigration. They cannot respond to the facts that this policy is damaging to the Republican party and to both fiscal and moral conservatism. So they don't. They content themselves with namecalling and character assassination.

It's really striking that in the year or so I've been reading this site, nobody backing immigration has put up a diary/blog trying to make the case for why its such a great idea. I just argued that immigration is deadly for the pro-life cause, and you simply ignored the point.

Why is that?

It's probably because La Raza does not support my position whatsoever. I know that to most Tancredo devotees, you're either with Tancredo or with La Raza, but in the real world, that's not how it goes.

Tancredo, on the other hand, has, as a matter of unquestioned fact, taken money from these groups. This is not a "Tancredo takes a position that is similar to extremist/racist groups, and therefore he is guilty by association," (which I agree is a stupid argument) this is "Tancredo is knowingly benefitting financially from extremist/racist groups." There's a fundamental difference here, and I think you know it.

It's really striking that in the year or so I've been reading this site, nobody backing immigration has put up a diary/blog trying to make the case for why its such a great idea. I just argued that immigration is deadly for the pro-life cause, and you simply ignored the point.

There are a lot of factors that contribute to hispanic voting patterns, and it's entirely possible that immigration policy has something to do with it. But regardless, somewhere along the way you missed the fact that I support a fence - with an alligator-filled moat, if necessary - as part of any immigration program. But this is all irrelevant since any immigration proposal on the table does not make allowances for future slots for citizenship, but rather for permanent residency (which does not convey the right to vote).

------------
Fnord.

..any immigration proposal on the table does not make allowances for future slots for citizenship, but rather for permanent residency (which does not convey the right to vote).

Is this your understanding of the position being taken by Bush and the majority of Senators? Because its not correct. The illegals already have permanent residency, by any common sense meaning of the term. What everyone is pushing for is the "path to citizenship". Which is somewhat meaningless. Any permanent resident in the US can vote in our elections, in fact if not in law. And any children of any permanent residents are awarded citizenship.

"Tancredo is knowingly benefitting financially from extremist/racist groups."

You have not made that case, unless we're going to adapt lefty logic. FAIR is not an extremist/racist group, and they are the group which donated fairly small amounts of money to Tancredo.

I'm glad you are admitting that Tancredo is a solid defender of life, at least in the comments. Because the thrust of your story is to paint him as the opposite. Purely by accident, I'm sure.

I read the bill - SAOI, at least - and it made provision for "path to citizenship" for illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States (as of May 2005), but not for new immigrants.

You have not made that case, unless we're going to adapt lefty logic. FAIR is not an extremist/racist group, and they are the group which donated fairly small amounts of money to Tancredo.

Yes, we have only the comments of its founder, former President, and board members, and the fact that Tanton himself donated $7K personally to Tancredo. So, it's a pretty strained case.

I'm glad you are admitting that Tancredo is a solid defender of life, at least in the comments. Because the thrust of your story is to paint him as the opposite. Purely by accident, I'm sure.

I made the following two basic points:

As a result of that, some folks are taking a closer look at exactly who pays Tancredo's tab, and the result isn't pretty.

And:

Tancredo clearly aims to take the majority of his support from social conservatives in the upcoming 2008 race. Somewhat problematically for Tancredo, he's apparently been laying down with Margaret Sanger types for a very long time, and nevermind the fleas.

I stand by both of those comments.
------------
Fnord.

But you're being deceptive here, unless you have just not looked at the numbers.

some folks are taking a closer look at exactly who pays Tancredo's tab

FAIR are not paying Tancredo's tab. It's total donations to him over a period of ten years totaled $20,000 by your own figures.

The average House incumbent spends $1,000,000 to get relected. So in the last ten years Tancredo has spent roughly five million dollars on his election campaigns. In other words, FAIR's contributions to Tancredo amount to less than half of one percent of his campaign expenses. Thats a funny definition of paying the tab.

If David Duke sends you a check for $5, you send it back. You don't keep it and say "well, it was only .01% of the funds I raised that year." I know I wouldn't be comfortable taking money from these guys.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Lets gets a few things straight. FAIR is not David Duke.

I'm looking to see who else they have donated money to. I suspect that many people will have egg on their faces from the results.

I know I wouldn't be comfortable taking money from these guys.

Why not? Other than all the heavy breathing, what do you know about these guys, and what about them is out of the mainstream?

The amount of money is irrevelant

No, its not. The charge was made that FAIR is "picking up the tab" for Tancredo. That charge is false, unless we are going to play sematics games ala amnesty.

Like this Tanton guy is about as bad, though... and he and his wife have given thousands of dollars directly to Tancredo and to his PAC just in the past few years. It seems pretty unlikely that any congressman would be completely unaware of a contributor that is giving him that kind of dough.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

First, the charge that FAIR is picking up Tancredos tab is plainly false, admit it.

Second, what is there about Tanton that makes him as bad as Duke, even assuming that the WSJ is being an honest and impartial broker of the facts here? Planned Parenthood is not exactly the KKK, and reduing immigration is not the goal of only white supremacists, as the position of leftys like Tanton indicates.

First, the charge that FAIR is picking up Tancredos tab is plainly false, admit it.

I'll leave that to Leon because I didn't say it.

Second, what is there about Tanton that makes him as bad as Duke, even assuming that the WSJ is being an honest and impartial broker of the facts here? Planned Parenthood is not exactly the KKK, and reduing immigration is not the goal of only white supremacists, as the position of leftys like Tanton indicates.

Enthusiastic supporters of abortion and "population control" policies are every bit as bad as officers of the KKK, and have contributed to the deaths of more people than the KKK could have ever dreamed of. Wherever you want to place him in respect to David Duke, he is certainly a very unsavory character and somebody I wouldn't take a dime from.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Planned Parenthood is a mainstream group in the US. And the pro-abortion position is a mainstream one. These people are not some kooky fringe extremists like Duke.

If Tanton wants to support some conservative positions along with some liberal ones, we should take his money, as the liberal groups take it in spite of his support for some conservative stances.

Planned Parenthood is a mainstream group in the US.

So what? The fact that evil has gone mainstream is not a reason to support evil, or to accept funds from people who do.

So, you really believe that the millions of future 'guest workers' (and the family members they'll be allowed to bring even while still technically 'guests') will not be given a path to citizenship? Do you really believe that?

Face it, the proposed Guest Worker plan is a subterfuge for an enormous increase in permanent legal immigration. It would be so nice if the McCains and Kennedys of the world would simply admit this. Just come out and admit that their preferred method of dealing with illegal immigration is to so massively increase the available legal slots to the point where most who want to come, can do so.

As it is, they are trying for a repeat of the deceptive 1965 reform bill, which ended up doing everything its sponsors promised that it would not do. Personally, I would love to have, just for once, the proponents of mass immigration be upfront and honest about their agenda. If they went to the American public and told them they seek to double or triple legal immigration, and the American people approve, then so be it. But it is highly vexing to see them try to get such massive increases w/o telling the public about it.

Jon Sandor:

Sen. Brownback, Sen. Hagel and Sen. McCain, along with the overwhleming majority of Democrats in the United States Senate, support rewarding millions of illegal aliens that have deliberately violated federal criminal immigration laws with legal status and a path to citizenship.

Raider

"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo

www.tancredo4prez.blogspot.com and www.tancredo.org

It's probably because La Raza does not support my position whatsoever. I know that to most Tancredo devotees, you're either with Tancredo or with La Raza, but in the real world, that's not how it goes.

La Raza lumps together anti-illegal immigrant people with anti-immigrant people. Team America (First)ers lump together pro-immigration people wiht pro-illegal immigration people.

It's a twisted environment when I'm the 'moderate'.

Run like Reagan!

La Raza lumps together anti-illegal immigrant people with anti-immigrant people. Team America (First)ers lump together pro-immigration people wiht pro-illegal immigration people.

And, "comprehensive" immigration reform people lump together all border security first people into anti-immigrant camps, and immediately start throwing around the racism card. Hardly a "moderate" position by any means.

I think, for the "comprehensive" people to be intellectually honest, they have to admit the following:

1) people who oppose "comprehensive" reform today do not oppose immigration in general;

2) comprehensive reform was promised with the 1986 amnesty, and instead we got millions more illegals.

3) admit that security first people want to do just that, secure the border, get a handle on immigration, and then determine what levels / kinds of legal immigration america needs. We are not saying shut down the border and never allow immigration again - and the "comprehensive" people who imply that, call us racists, and otherwise are dishonest in their arguments need to just stop, and be reasonable.

I consider my position the only true "moderate" position. That is the following:

A) secure the border now (meaning, get some reasonable control over who is actually coming into the country -with a fence, troops, more boder security forces, etc.);

b) actaully enforce immigration laws currently on the books;

c) wait a couple of years to determine what public policy the U.S. should have regarding what types and what levels of legal immigration are needed AFTER we have significantly slowed the illegal immigration into the country; and then

d) enact laws to address that.

The "comprehensive" people want to jump to "d" above without doing anything about a, b, or c. It simply defies common sense. Moreover, their promises about getting control of illegal immigration ring entirely hollow when they oppose any sort of enforcement first. Why would you oppose getting control of the current problem before addressing what needs might become apparent thereafter? Why jump over all the other steps? Why can't comprehensive reform people wait a few years to get that reform while we take care of the current problem?

...wait a couple of years to determine what public policy the U.S. should have regarding what types and what levels of legal immigration are needed AFTER we have significantly slowed the illegal immigration into the country...

The "comprehensive" people want to jump to "d" above without doing anything about a, b, or c.

The reason the "comprehensive" people want to jump to "d" is that they believe a, b, and c won't be accomplished without jumping to d. In other words, they believe, rightly or wrongly, that getting control of our our borders, and radically reducing illegal immigration, isn't feasible without simultaneously allowing for an increase in legal immigration from Latin America (whether that be in the form of a guest worker program, a simple increase in green card issuances, or whatever).

On balance I tend to think they're probably right, although I'm open to persuasion. I simply haven't seen the votes for the sorts of huge-in-scale budget increases for enforcement I believe are necessary to end/sharply reduce illegal immigration without some element of decriminalization. Getting rid of black markets is always very difficult, and usually very expensive.

it the matter was not so serious.

Getting rid of black markets is always very difficult, and usually very expensive.

The cost of immigration is huge, running into trillions of dollars. Nobody has voted for it, it just happens and is accepted.

The results of immigration are predictable with close to mathematical certainty. The immigrants will vote for the party which promises them goodies, meaning the Democrats. They in turn will raise taxes to pay for the programs demanded by their new constituients.

The wave of immigration in the late 19th - early 20th century led directly to the New Deal. This current wave will lead to the New New Deal, as surely as the Sun rises.

People are not fungible. The Democrats undertand that, and that understanding is the key to their success. And to our failure.

The cost of immigration is huge, running into trillions of dollars. Nobody has voted for it, it just happens and is accepted.

What are you talking about? America has a GDP of $13 trillion. I suspect it would be a lot smaller if the folks in Jamestown had stopped newcomers from arriving. What year would you have stopped immigration? 1636? 1758? 1875? 1910? Far from imposing a cost, immigration creates incalculable wealth (at least to the extent that immigrants are of working age).

The wave of immigration in the late 19th - early 20th century led directly to the New Deal.

Highly unlikely. Canada, which took in fewer immigrants proportionally than the US during the period in question (and indeed in many years experienced net emmigration) built a far more robust welfare state than anything constructed in the United States. Ditto for those net people exportin' Europeans. Even if your contention were true, the explosion in the country's population generated by the huddled masses also enabled an explosion in the country's wealth-building capacity and industrial strength. And these, as I'm sure I don't have to remind you, made possible America's victories in WWII and the Cold War.

I'll trade a gulag for a FICA tax any day, thanks very much.

Far from imposing a cost, immigration creates incalculable wealth (at least to the extent that immigrants are of working age).

GDP per capita for America has grown at a steady pace ever since the sixties, which is when the immigration gates were opened. But it has grown at the same pace for all the other large industrialised countries, none of which have the levels of immigration that America has.

Which is not hard to understand. If having lots of people or working age led to wealth, China and India would be wealthy.

Ditto for those net people exportin' Europeans.

Whats your point? It was those Europeans who came here with their European ideas of a lavish social welfare state and decided to remake America in their home countries image.

Immigration has not led to wealth in America, and cannot lead to wealth, period. (With the exception of people with greater skills and earning power than the averge of the country they are moving to.)

Unless you want to say that Mexicans moving to China and Chinese moving to India would create wealth in the process.

My comment was meant, I suppose, more as a rebuke to the "comprehensive" people who are sooo quick to label anyone who disagrees with them "anti-immigrant" and "racist" in an attempt to stop the debate. An unsavory tactic that really should be left to the infantile left.

I was trying to point out that while those of us opposed to "comprehensive" reform BEFORE any effort is made to deal with our illegal immigration problem are not AGAINST immigration, just against a "deal" with promises of "future" enforcement, which we know will never materialize, based on significant precedent. We are not against immigration, nor are we racist, we simply do not want to be sold a bill of goods without seeing any effort made at actually getting control of immigration before offering "a path to citizenship" and other goodies that will obviously increase illegal immigration significantly.

From our perspective, it is the "comprehensive" people who are being dishonest, both in what they are claiming their own position is, and in what they claim our position is.

The question I would ask is, if those people believe so strongly in their position, why do they constantly mislead as to what it actually is, and as to what their opponents position is?

Again, what is disturbing is not just that "comprehensive" people are uniting with the far left on this issue, but they are using the far left's dishonest tactics.

The reason the "comprehensive" people want to jump to "d" is that they believe a, b, and c won't be accomplished without jumping to d. In other words, they believe, rightly or wrongly, that getting control of our our borders, and radically reducing illegal immigration, isn't feasible without simultaneously allowing for an increase in legal immigration from Latin America (whether that be in the form of a guest worker program, a simple increase in green card issuances, or whatever).

So, what you are saying, is that you do not believe the United States can ever control its border, instead we must simply legalize the immigration? If that is not your point, than what is? Why would it not be possible to significantly reduce illegal immigration without legalizing it first? If any attempt had ever been made to actually stop illegal immigration, and that attempt had failed, i might be persuaded. Absent that, how is it that other countries are able to control immigration, but you believe the U.S. will not be able to?

This argument strikes me as being completely without merit. To say we simply cannot stop illegal immigration without first legalizing all of that immigration, and then we will be able to stop illegal immigration, hardly sells "comprehensive" reform.

And, it does not do anything to convince me that "comprehensive" people have any intention of actually getting control of immigration if they were to get what they want, which is the main objection we have to "comprehensive" reform. We believe that the people pushing it have no intention to ever do anything about illegal immigration. that we will give 20 million illegals already here "a path to citizenship" and other bennies, which will be a HUGE incentive to drastically increase illegal immigration, but that nothing will be done to slow or stop the flow of illegal immigration therafter, resulting in 40 million new illegals within 10 years.

This is not a "Tancredo takes a position that is similar to extremist/racist groups, and therefore he is guilty by association," (which I agree is a stupid argument) this is "Tancredo is knowingly benefitting financially from extremist/racist groups." There's a fundamental difference here, and I think you know it.

So, if "comprehensive" immigration reform is supported by unmittigated socialists, such as Ted Kennedy, we can simply reject the arguments? If a "comprehensive" reformer takes $$ from a truly leftist group / person, such as La Raza or the ACLU, can we simply conclude that they are themselves leftists?

I suppose we are now sinking to the level of ignoring the substance of ideas and attacking a person by what other people / groups agree with a specific position.

I'm not sure the right wants to start echoing the left's argumentation techniques to this extent.

"The effect of immigration is to move the country to the left, on all issues, and to empower the Democratic party."
As for social conservatism, our Mexican immigrants will not easily support abortion or gay marriage.

If latin American values are so right-wing, why did 56% of so-called hispanics vote Kerry in 2004?

My understanding is that illegal aliens from Mexico are disproportionately from the south of the country, from more indigenous communities, who aren't been Catholicized quite like the more Spanish communities are.

Run like Reagan!

I interact almost daily with Mexican Americans and also new immigrants many of whom I'm sure (though we never discuss it) are illegal. The 'invasion' rhetoric is absolutely killing the GOP with voters of Mexican descent.

Travelling in Mexico recently, I bumped into a pair of Mexican Americans in a bar one evening both of whom were very interested in politics and one of whom was an active volunteer for GOP candidates. He said that he'd never seen anything like the way hispanics have turned away from the GOP over the last five years. As a matter of pure politics the issue is tricky: it's true that new americans from mexico are more likely to vote democrat than republican but it's also true that if the GOP gets itself into the position where the rate it wins hispanics is similar to the rate it wins blacks, it won't be competitive in national elections.

-exits

It's more accurate to say that we will not be competitive in national elections if we keep allowing large scale immigration.

Clearly we are competitive at present, but we won't be for much longer the way things are going.

...to reduce immigration now, before it is too late. I think arguments that such action would cause our economy to disappear down a blackhole are baseless, so its best to just go ahead and sacrifice some Hispanic support now (as a result of Dem/Leftist demagoguery) in exchange for a fighting demographic chance over the long run.

Also, the drop in latino support for the GOP last year is blown way out of proportion and taken way out of context. Yes, it is almost certainly true that some of it was due to the typical leftist demagoguery of the immigration issue, whereby anyone opposed to amnesty and mass immigration is demonized as a racist xenophobe. But remember, white support for the GOP also plunged, and we all know that the chief reasons were Iraq and corruption issues. The Hispanic vote for the GOP generally rises and falls along with the white vote, so if the most pro-GOP racial group abandoned the party in large numbers, why would we be surprised at all that a generally pro-Democrat group would also move further away from Republicans? 2006 was a terrible year for Republicans, and its disingenous for pro-mass immigration conservatives to try and explain the defeat of certain immigration hawks as being due to their stands on immigration. Not until Congressman Bonilla lost a run-off election in Texas was there a genuine case where a refusal to adopt 'comprehensive' reform probably did cost the Republican the election.

Finally, the concern about the 'invastion' rhetoric killing the GOP with Hispanics may have some truth to it -- demagoguery and mischaracterization of it is powerful -- but surely you realize we are now in an impossible situation with regards to this. ANY calls to clamp down on the border, strictly enforce interior laws, and reduce immigration in general -- no matter how kindly and gently worded -- will be attacked by the Left (i.e. Democrats, media, ethnic grievance groups), and the WSJournal-wing of the GOP as being xenophobic, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic...and so on and so on. For Republicans/conservatism to have any chance over the long run, then we'll just have to be willing to face being called all sorts of names.

if Kerry had been held to only 56% of the black vote, the GOP would rightly have considered it a huge triumph.

Needless to say, there has been substantial cause for optimism in recent years when it comes to winning the votes of Hispanics.

That 56% is the lowest the Democrats have won in a national election.

But as I'm sure several people will be quick to point out (Adam? Where are you??) hispanics sure do seem to vote in large numbers for politicians who indeed support abortion and/or "gay" marriage.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

who are far more conservative than their voting record would indicate.

One thing you've really got to admire with the Democratic Party, when they buy people, those people stay bought.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

Senior Writer

That's why California has moved so far to the social conservative right over the last few decades. I understand that women have to leave the state now to get an abortion.

Yeah, but since judges now set social policy, its almost to the point where the person one supports for President and Senator is more important than how they vote on a state amendment dealing with marriage. If marriage makes it to our masters on the current Sup Court, then the fate of all those amendments likely rests in the hands of Anthony Kennedy....a frightening prospect indeed.

Of course, its not just Hispanics who cast what are in effect countering federal votes. All races/ethnic groups do it, with good examples being whites in Montanta (Tester) and blacks in Michgian (Kerry, Stabenow). But as the latino population is the one that is surging, that is the one that will push the nation towards the Democrats.

...that pro-mass immigration conservatives/Republicans can put forth with regards to the political effects of mass immigration. It is undeniable that most immigrants, and at least the first few generations of native born, will vote heavily Democratic. Two campaigns, and one full term of shameless pandering by President Bush got him no better than 40% of the latino vote, and he was unable to return the Asian vote to the fold. All together, you can almost count the number of times a Republican has carried the Hispanic vote in an important statewide race on one hand.

The question of why immigrants vote Democratic is a key one, especially the role that immigration policy plays. Polling data is all over the place on this, but I think its safe to say that leftist demagoguery does convince many immigrants that Republicans hate them, and they vote accordingly. On the other hand, I think that pro-mass immigration conservatives are deluding themselves if they think that embracing mass immigration will win many votes for the GOP. If the issue of immigration is made neutral, then other issues will carry the day, and aside from a handful of social issues, that is a big advantage to the Democrats.

As it is, pro-mass immigration conservatives are left in a position of trying to convince the party (and themselves I imagine) that we need only push strong assimilation policies and reject multiculturalism and race-based policies. That they don't see how all of these things are strengthened by immigration is a mystery to me. The idea that you will be in a stronger position to get rid of destructive welfare polices, racial preferences, anti-assimilation/pro-muliculturalism policies even as you import millions who will benefit from them (or who will be told that they will benefit from them)is borderline crazy.

Though it should be noted that the party seems to have quietly surrendered on racial preferences anyway, which is convenient, because it means they don't have to justify the insane collision between preferences and the immigration of people eligible for them. One might expect the lesson of Michigan, where an anti-preferences ballot initiative easily won while the party lost big time, would sink in with Republicans. But it won't, because afterall, to publicly and forcefully oppose preferences is proof that you hate minorities!

There is no response that pro-mass immigration conservatives/Republicans can put forth with regards to the political effects of mass immigration. It is undeniable that most immigrants, and at least the first few generations of native born, will vote heavily Democratic.

There are actually two responses:

The first is to try and shut down immigration because losing political power is a foregone conclusion.

The second is to vigorously compete in the marketplace of ideas, and win the votes of immigrants.

There is no marketplace of ideas. People are not rational consumers of ideas who listen to differing views and analyze them with cold Vulcan logic. Immigrants have zero interest in ideas. They want to know what you are going to do for them. That is not a contest that a conservative Republican party can win. Immigrants have voted Democrat for the entire history of the party because they give people stuff.

Money talks. Ideas walk.

They want to know what you are going to do for them.

Absolutely. And we can give them things. Like a great economy. And school choice. And radical tax code simplification. And a favorable environment for entrepreneurship. And low crime. And a strong defense. The Democrats are unlikely to do any of those things.

Immigrants have voted Democrat for the entire history of the party because they give people stuff.

Maybe so, but the sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters of immigrants have a funny habit of deserting the Democrats, or else the GOP would have had to fold up its tent sometime around 1913.

Illegal immigrants... you want to GIVE them something to vote Republican. Heh.

A great economy and a place to start their own business? That's why there here. School choice? Barrio schools in LA are better than anything in Northern Mexico. Tax code simplification? Like they pay taxes or something, huh? Low crime? See schools comment. Strong defense? Gimme a break.

Exactly none of those things will ever, repeat EVER, get an illegal immigrant to vote Republican. Cash will. Government services will. All of those things that are an anathema to conservatives will get them to vote for the party that promises to supply them.

Guess who does that?
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

Senior Writer

we can give them things. Like a great economy. And school choice. And radical tax code simplification. And a favorable environment for entrepreneurship. And low crime. And a strong defense.

We can't give them these things, because they take them for granted as just being part of Americas bounty. When immigrants want to be given things, it means government programs to make their lives easier. The things you mention are just there, like the air.

the sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters of immigrants have a funny habit of deserting the Democrats

Two answers. First, you are saying that the New New Deal will pass eventually, maybe by 2070. I'm thrilled.

Second, you are assuming that the immigrants will change over time in their voting habits.

Catholics were once a solid Democratic bloc. They now are about evenly split. And it only took a century to happen.

Blacks and Jews continue to be fanatically loyal to the Dem party. In spite of your depiction of voters as being reasonable people looking for the best ideas, all the evidence says that different ethnic groups lock on to a party and stick with it across generations.

The reasons they do this are either money, or loyalty to an ideology. The GOP cannot really offer them money, and there is exactly zero evidence that its limited government philosophy is of the slightest interest to them.

Right here in America live all the people who care about limited government. Making them a minority is only a good idea if you are anxious to grow the state.

Cities tend to be overwhelmingly democratic. Is it because of demographics, or maybe because people tend to rent and not own land. Probably both are factors. Today's immigrants tend to move out of cities and even migrate into suburbs and rurals a trend almost unprecedented in our history. Property redistribution? They tend to purchase property far sooner then many ethnic immigrant groups at prior times. The Irish and imagine Italians voted democratic for long periods of time, but consider that they were urban dwellers also for long periods of time. German immigrants who came at the same time as the Irish, were some of the strongest backers of Republicans at the outset of the party. One key difference is that Germans settled in greater quantities outside of cities then did Irish.

And poor people without much education are suckers for Marxism.

These illegal immigrants come from areas of Mexico that just loved AMLO and were willing to take to the streets for him. Some of these areas are barely under the control of the Mexican government. These regions have almost no economic activity. These regions are totally dependent on remittances. Those who come here from those areas bring their political views with them when they come here, and those views have nothing to do with tax code simplification and a strong defense.

Poll recent illegal immigrants on whether it would be a good idea for the Federal government to seize all private property currently in the hands of the wealthy and redistribute it more "fairly" and look at the results. I bet they would be very ugly.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Though 'reduction' would be more accurate than cut-off, but the point is the same. Congress passed laws in the early 1920s that drastically reduced immigration. It went from about a million per year, to averaging just about 200,000 a year, and it remained this way for over 40 years until the effects of the fraudulent 1965 reform bill set in.

It is disingenous to look to the last great wave of immigrants --which came to an end -- and how their descendants slowly made their way to the GOP, and use that as an argument in support of unending mass immigration today. Without a similar reduction in immigration today, then your analogy is fatally flawed. Frankly, I can't recall any pro-mass immigration conservative ever really dealing with the inconvenience of the 1920s restrictionist legislation when they try to say all will be well with the current mass wave. But it really can't be ignored.

As to your suggestion about competing in the marketplace of ideas; well, that would be another good thing about reducing immigration. Once the worst of the demagoguery ran its course, then the GOP would be in much better position to reach out to immigrants in an environment of less immigration. Such an environment would be much more favorable to assimilation, and assimilated immigrants are a better audience for conservatism. So long as large-scale immigration persists, the GOP will be fighting a very steep uphill battle.

I just wish to point to a few facts about immigrants. A large percentage of immigrants are not permanent in the United States, many will return to their place of origin, this is not uncommon, given advances in transportation. Around 50% of Italians returned to Italy.

In addition, there was this one point that 40 million illegals are expected to enter the states in the 10 years. One should remember the total population of Mexico and Central America is rought 160 million. Unless you truly believe 1/4 will come to the states, I think that statistic is a bit far fetched. In addition given the constant factor of immigrants returning, to have 40 million in this nation as illegal does not seem a realistic statistic.

Harry Reid is to ethics reform what HIV was to free love!

Bob Frazier:

Here are Rep. Tancredo's ratings from the National Right to Life Committee:

109th Congress - 100%

108th Congress - 91%

107th Congress - 100%

106th Congress - 100%

Rep, Tancredo is one of the most pro-life members in the entire United States House of Representatives.

As for the quote that "it's not clear Tancredo is in line with the mainstream, social conservative wing of the GOP he seeks to align himself with", below are other ratings achieved by Rep. Tancredo.

Ratings from the American Conservative Union:

Lifetime - 99%

2005 - 100%

2004 - 100%

Rep. Tancredo was awarded a grade of "A" from tne National Rifle Association during the last election.

For his votes druing 2005, Rep. Tancredo earned a grade of "A" from the National Taxpayers Union(NTU) and achieved score of eighty percent (80%), tying him for the third (3rd) highest score in the entire United States House of Representatives with Rep. Duncan and Rep. Franks. He also earned a Taxpayers' Friend award from NTU for 2005.

For his votes during the second session of the 109th Congress, Rep. Tancredo earned a score of one hundred (100%) from the National Research Council.

He achieved a score of one hundred percent (100%) from the National Federation of Independent Businesses for his votes druing the 109th Congress.

The allegation made in the article that "it's not clear Tancredo is in line with the mainstream, social conservative wing of the GOP he seeks to align himself with" cannot be supported with objective facts. Rep. Tancredo is a solid conservative.

The intellectually dishonest author of the American Spectator article did not make reference to a single vote that Rep. Tancredo has taken during his time in Congress. If that author could have pointed to a series of votes that disprove Rep. Tancredo's claim to be a conservative, he would certainly would have done so.

"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo

www.teamtancredo.org and www.tancredo4prez.blogspot.com

Bob Frazier:

Has FAIR ever taken a position on any abortion-related issue?

Raider

"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo

www.tancredo4prez.blogspot.com and www.tancredo.org

which means he will double other one-trick ponies like Brownback. Single issue candidates tend not to do well.

not to impeach the credibility of the reporting, which, so far as I can determine, is impeccable, (although I would caution that there exists the possibility of a certain selectivity in reporting, given the interests implicated in the controversies over immigration...) but to question the motivations of those who have drawn their knives.

They haven't drawn their knives primarily because of a rational, moral horror at the allegiances of Tancredo's financial backers; there is not a single rational person who believes that any elected official would ever succeed in formulating and implementing public policies derivative of the eugenicist obsessions of some of Tancredo's backers. Rather, someone has gone to the trouble of investigating the ideological positions of those organizations and/or their founders and officers with a view toward discrediting Tancredo, and, by association, anyone who dares to identify with the cause of immigration reform, which itself is to be deligitimated as the province of cranks, bigots, nativists, and creepy fascists, in order better to secure the economic and political interests of those elements of society invested in the current immigration 'system' - if a state of disorder may be referred to as a system - and its perpetuation under various guises of legality.

This is not so much about Tancredo and a few Sanger epigones as it is about the interests of those who oppose immigration reform, defined as the cessation of mass immigration. Follow the money.

My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ shall speak with the voice of them that weep. Spare me, O Lord, for my days are truly as nothing.

The Presidency is not a single-issue office. There are any number of reasons one might oppose the man. Just because he demeans the office by pretending it's credible to try to become President on one issue (just like Steve Forbes and his little game), it doesn't preclude the rest of the world from taking a more wholistic view of the candidate and the office he aspires for.

Run like Reagan!

The only people who regard him as such as those who themselves are single issue people, viz the open borders types who view the entire world through the prism of their own obsession.

As you know from the last time we had this discussion, Tancredo is the perhaps the most consistently conservative Republican in the House, on all issues.

Here is a roundup of his stands on the issues. Try to find a better Republican on abortion issues, ot free trade issues, or tax issues, or any issues important to us.

Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

The fact that Leon and AmSpec are trying to paint him as pro-eugenics says a lot about Leon and AmSpec, none of it good.

Yes, it's the pundits who are the real scary problem, Jon. See my comment above.

------------
Fnord.

If you want to try to paint somebody as being pro-eugenics, it would help your argument if the person in question was not one of the mosr pro-life members of Congress.

Facts can help you. Rolling your eyes cannot.

And I'm just going to stop answering you. As I said upthread, I've acknowledged that Tancredo has a solid voting record on abortion. That doesn't address the article at all, for a number of reasons:

1. Eugenics is not exclusively, or even primarily, concerned with abortion.
2. It does not answer whatsoever that a man who so stridently opposes immigration is negligent (to be charitable) in investigating the people/organizations who are funding him, or knowingly accepts money from these groups/organizations. Again, this bothers me - if it doesn't bother you, we can agree to disagree. The facts - which I have laid out in this article, are what they are and we'll each draw our own inferences.

------------
Fnord.

The facts - which I have laid out in this article, are what they are and we'll each draw our own inferences.

The facts laid out in the article are that FAIR made donations of about $20,000 to Tancredo over a period of ten years, or $2,0000 per year. That is not exactly a large amount of money, and FAIR is not accurately depicted as being a major finicncial backer of his, as these stories try to imply.

The insinuation being made is that since the Pioneer Fund gives money to FAIR and FAIR gives money to Tancredo, that he shares all the views of both of these groups. I've pointed out already, and you have agreed, that he does not. So I think the insinuation needs to be retracted.

Eugenics is not exclusively, or even primarily, concerned with abortion.

Then by all means list all the pro-eugenics positions which you feel Tancredo has taken. Has he sponsored legislation to have Downs syndrome children be put to death? To have the elderly unproductive members of society be "assisted" into the grave? What are you trying to say here?

However, in the estimation of some conservatives, the issue for which he is prominent is underserved by the conservative, Republican establishment, and is of greater importance for the future health and vitality of the body politic than many of the other issues on which those other pols prefer to campaign. If one believes the issue of be of greater consequence than the panjandrums of the party acknowledge, and accepts the reality that the political world is one where ideal conditions seldom obtain, he might well support a relatively single-issue candidate merely to draw attention to an issue he believes is suffering from the (malign) neglect of the establishment. That is, in a way, ordinary politics.

And while I agree generally regarding single-issue campaigns, the vanity of such things is not the only consideration of importance. And for the record, I think that immigration is much less vain as the basis of such a campaign than the flat tax; the former concerns innumerable aspects of the future of the polity, while the former is really only about dollars and cents.

My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ shall speak with the voice of them that weep. Spare me, O Lord, for my days are truly as nothing.

--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.

--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.

I'm a churchgoing Catholic, and the descendant of LEGAL immigrants from four different European countries. I wholeheartedly support Congressman Tancredo and FAIR.

As for FAIR, any group that large and diverse will have members, officers, or supporters with comments or views we don't like or are even offended by.

As for Tancredo: despite this attempt to smear him, he has never proposed excluding people from the US based on their race. He calls for aggressively enforcing the laws we have, and for enacting tougher border-security measures and immigration limits that will apply to EVERYONE.

As for trying to taint Tancredo because FAIR is allegedly pro-abortion:

(1) Tancredo's voting record and public statements show that he is, in fact, solidly pro-life;

(2) In any event, I'm tired of the apparent assumption that a Republican or a conservative must be entirely in the pro-life camp. Many good, patriotic Americans - including many of the conservatives and libertarians who comprise the active Republican Party - are somewhere in the middle on the issue of abortion policy, including me;

(3) The explosion of the U.S. population IS quite dangerous. We shouldn't want the congested roads, overcrowded schools and hospitals, increased crime and social tension, decreased privacy, decreased open space, deforestation, pollution, excessive noise, etc., that come with very high population density. The Third World provides abundant examples of the drawbacks.

These are just some of the many reasons we should fight to make sure we don't become more like the Third World. Stopping illegal immigration and reducing legal immigration are essential parts of that effort.

Tancredo and FAIR shouldn't apologize for their hard work towards those goals, and I sure as hell won't either -- no matter how many "conservatives" imply that we're racist or whatever.

Americans, and Western people generally, are a small and shrinking minority of the world's population. It's time to grow up, wake up, and start defending ourselves. That includes our borders, our common language, and our cultural mores & traditions.

Thank you, sir, for drawing the line I didn't catch. Some of the same people who fear 'mass migration' are the same old population bomb types, who also support abortion in order to reduce the world's population.

Heh. This is interesting.

Run like Reagan!

Yes it is Neil. Tancredo and his bunch are not really about solving illegal immigration and promoting legal immigration, but engaging their own form of social engineering.

Opposing legal immigration at current levels says a lot in my opinion about nature of our candidate.

At present its Ted Kennedy, but somebody is going to do it. All that matters is who does it and what the end result will be.

What do you think the end result of immigration will be, legal or illegal?

Talk about progressive pragmatism...

Run like Reagan!

The country is going to have some immigration policy. Yes?

That policy, whatever it is, will have some very far reaching implications for all sorts of other questions. Yes?

Tell me what you are saying, you're being too cryptic here.

Your comment came off to me as "Well, my social engineering is better than your social engineering," and well, I'd rather we get as close to a hands-off government as we can get on this.

But then again, I do favor a secure border, tough sanctions on illegal aliens and their employers, the deportation of illegal aliens even if they have American children, and carefully screened legal immigrants.

But I favor the above for security, not for an attempt to favor one kind of person over another, so in my mind that's not social engineering.

Of course I would say that, heh.

Run like Reagan!

I think once we decide on an overall ballpark figure concerning how many people we can absorb, and once we have in place policies that protect our security, we ought to avoid "picking winners" to the greatest extent possible. Rejiggering our immigration policy to explicitly crystalize a certain racial makeup strikes me as very unwise policy. If bureaucrats can't give us a sensible tax code or decent schools, why should we trust them to "get right" a subject as profoundly complex as the racial and ethnic makeup of the country?

Let me ask you this: if it was demonstated to you that the people coming here despise your libertarian streak, and would cheefully vote for every statist scheme imaginable, would you reconsider whether or not you wanted them here?

And would your decision constitute "social engineering"?

If you have met any significan number of immigrants you must know that their ideology, those that have one, is hard to the left. Those without an ideology will vote for whoever gives them the most money. I doubt if one in ten is a likely convert to our cause.

Say what you like about Teddy K, the man is not stupid.

And then there are "founders" and "board members" and "taking $1.5 million from the Pioneer fund."

------------
Fnord.

There's "Tanton giving Tancredo $7K personally."

------------
Fnord.

We are just pleased that he is staying out of the race to replace Wayne Allard. He could have really complicated things for Bob Schaffer--who is the obvious consensus conservative candidate to replace Allard. I know and like Tom but he's bad for the Republican party. Not because of his stances but because of his rhetoric. He won't win the presidency and he's out of the Senate race here. So, Tom, do as you wish.

And go Schaffer '08.

Apparantly, any candidate who actually takes a stand on issues like immigration and life instead of either (1) embracing ambiguity so as not to offend anyone, or (2) capitulating to Democrats is "bad" for the party. Who is "good" then? Mitt Romney, who was for abortion before he was against it? It didn't work out to well for the Pubs last election did it?

Yeah, Tancredo is 'bad' for the GOP because his non-PC rhetoric infuriates the various organs of the Left -- the mainstream media, the Democratic party, and the professional ethnic grievance groups -- and in response they do their best to demonize him.

The increasing use of lame, nauseating, PC, guilt-ridden rhetoric by Republicans is despicable, but on some level it is understandable. Its just easier to mouth these stupid, vapid, feel-good platitudes than it is to fight the name-calling one will experience if they dare say something out of line. Not towing the PC, diversity-worshipping, multicultural line means you spend as much time defending yourself from bogus charges of [insert attack here] than you do talking policy.

But surrendering to the Left's rules of debate can only end badly for conservatives, Republicans, and the nation. The more ground we give, the narrower the scope of language and the list of acceptable topics will get. Before long, we'll be reduced to a European version (i.e. nonexistent) of conservative politics.

Most of Tancredo's positions on immigration are very mainstream, and that is why he must be marginalized, because make no mistake about it, it is the positions that Tancredo holds that makes him so hated by the Left and WSJ-wing of the Right. Even if Tancredo used the nicest, most gentle words to express his opposition to amnesty and mass immigration, then he would still be attacked so long as he is the visible leader of the cause.

Here are some Tancredo quotes for you to ponder...

"The Republican Party looks at massive immigration, legal and illegal, as a source of cheap labor, satisfying a very important constituency. "

"There are people in the administration, and in Mexico, and in Congress, who believe that we should do away with borders entirely. "

"
This issue, if not addressed, leaves any President, including George Bush, open to the criticism that they are essentially ignoring the destruction of the nation and I believe that with all my heart. "

Ignoring the 14th Amendment....

"There is general agreement about the fact that citizenship in this country should not be bestowed on people who are children of folks who come into this country illegally,"

and let's not forget the one that will ensure that he will never be a serious contender for President...

""Well, what if you said something like — if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites,"

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

There is nothing wrong with the first four quotes. The first two are clearly true, while the third is a reasonable opinion. As to the 14th Amendment specifically; well, it was never envisioned or intended to grant citizenship to children born to illegal aliens. Sorry, but its true.

Anyway, as it relates to immigration, Tancredo basically opposes amnesty, opposes deceptive guest-worker plans, opposes granting public benefits to illegals, opposes increasing legal immigration, supports greater border and interior enforcement, and supports a reduction in legal immigration. Again, all of these are very mainstream American views.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for a Tancredo run for President. He would be like the Ralph Nader of the Republican Party. His entry into the national Republican debate would probably seal off the Hispanic vote from Republicans for 10 years.

I'm not sure why it matters what the 14th did or did not intend to do. It is pretty explicit.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Let's see here. My trusty NoteTab Pro program (a great tool) serves up the following from the Supreme Court's Elk vs. Wilkins decision (1884):

..The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indiana tribes, (an alien though dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations...

Seems to me to be very explicit...and contrary to current practice. I know there is a reason for this, but I can't remember the search terms I'd need to use to call it up. If I figure it out, I'll post more.

"It never hurts to remind those who would vote for your opponent to vote...on Wednesday" - TMYN Blog

Tancredo apparently never got the memo about the 14th Amendment or he despises it. I say the latter.

"Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired."

This highlighted section does not support your argument at all. If a person is born in the United States, regardless of their parent's status, they are subject to jurisdiction. In this case, jurisdiction is granted from being present in the territorial boundries of the U.S. Furthermore on this issue, the text of the document is plain and clear. The "intent" of the drafters, even if it can be accurately determined, would not then enter into the discussion. (At least according to textualist theory.) Tancredo's statement, then, is clearly opposed to the 14th Amendment, Section 1.

-Just a democrat trying to follow both sides of the debate
pgaige

Senator Jacob Merritt Howard said in introducing the language that became the 14th Amendment:

...this amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

That his intent has been subsequently so misconstrued is pathetic, but typical considering the presence on the courts of those who advocate the Constitution as a "living document." The easiest way around legislative intent is to find new meanings for words and phrases that do not connect to the source.

"It never hurts to remind those who would vote for your opponent to vote...on Wednesday" - TMYN Blog

Who cares what Senator Jacob Merritt's intent was? Can you cite at length the intent of every other Senator and Representative who voted for the amendment, plus the state legislators who ratified the amendment?

How many people's intent was only to end reconstruction?

Intent is for mind readers. Mere mortal judges should stick to the text, I say.

Run like Reagan!

I'd be interested to hear the arguments in favor of birth-right citizenship, and the explanations for why its problems (both practical and legal) should be discounted.

The last time I tried to answer you on an immigration-related issue, it really didn't do any good.

If I'm going to get anywhere with you I need to hit it out of the park, you're pretty well entrenched on a side pretty different from mine on this. If I'm inspired at some point I'll give it a try, but trying to work it up out of the blue won't work so well I think.

Run like Reagan!

Make it well researched and well argued. That's all I look for. It does not have to be something I agree with, in fact its more interesting to me if its not. But it needs to employ both facts and logic, not just assertion and platitudes.

The last time I tried to answer you on an immigration-related issue, it really didn't do any good.

Jog my memory. When was that? I know I put up a blog refuting the supposed economic advantages of immigration. I don't recall you trying to answer though. At least, you did not address any of the points I made.

That's just it. For me, economics research begins and ends with a few government websites, since that's all I have access to here at my desk. Normally that's good enough, but when it's not, it's not.

Run like Reagan!

For the birth-right citizenship question the research would probably need to be on legal questions (discussion of the Constitution and court rulings) and on the social/ethical ramifications of your preferred policy. "Ideas have consequences", as we conservatives like to say, and they are often unintended. What are the expected consequences of your ideas here?

I just don't have access to a good library. Actually my town doesn't even HAVE a library. My only resources are the books I own plus the Internet.

So realistically unless I'm going to buy some governemnt-subsidy-inflated subscription to some Internet service, I'm out of luck once I'm done with resources like BLS.

And you certainly are right that ideas have consequences. However I also think there is an inherent difficulty in proving the consequences of the current policies in the absence of a recent change. Hence my problem.

Run like Reagan!

When the terms are made ambiguous in the course of public debate, there is often no other way to discern meaning than looking at the Congressional Record to see what it was they were talking about.

The meaning of "under the jurisdiction thereof" is apparently subject for debate and is the "hook" upon which those who demand birthright citizenship hang their hats. But their claim fails the test of meeting the intent of those who framed the amendment.

Words and language often change, sometimes significantly and sometimes in a subtle manner, over the course of time. The best way, and perhaps the only way, in which to discern true meaning is to apply the same constraints upon words and phrases that were commonly applied at the time in which they were written or spoken.

Sen. Howard's introduction is the clear-cut way to interpret what he meant by the jurisdiction language. Congress debated and passed the amendment cognizant of his his definition of the currently contested phrase.

We can either like or dislike, agree or disagree, with their intent. But that doesn't change their intent's impact upon their words regardless of the ambiguity that can be introduced to create false arguments. Digging them up and berating them for it would have the same effect: Nothing.

There are many who simply refuse to acknowledge there is value in determining what those who came before us desired or that there is a responsibility on our part to grant their desires consideration as we fulfill our role as current actors in something grander. These people are not Conservatives.

"It never hurts to remind those who would vote for your opponent to vote...on Wednesday" - TMYN Blog

I'm no originalist, and if you're going to tell me that textualists like me are not conservatives, well, you're reading a lot of solid conservatives out of the movement.

Run like Reagan!

But the Supreme Court has ruled differently.

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the 14th Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Elk vs. Wilkins, 1884.

It's just not true to say that by law everyone who happens to be born within the borders of the US is automatically an American citizen. Your assertion, "If a person is born in the United States, regardless of their parent's status, they are subject to jurisdiction", is flat out wrong.

I'd just add that the fifth quote isn't bad either.

In the first few quotes he's claiming that there are people who support essentially open borders, which surely seems to be the case. He also says this is bad for America. If you disagree, it's obvious Tancredo's not your candidate in the first place.

He also doesn't like what the Constitution says about children born in this country BECAUSE of the problem of mass illegal immigration. I can't imagine the Constution changing, but maybe we can do something about that last.

And as for blowing up holy sites, why not? If we actually have another significant strike in the US, that sounds like a relatively mild response, compared to war. And we'd love to convince jihadists that fighting us was bad for Islam.

These statements just aren't as shocking as you seem to think. Surely many Republicans will disagree with him, but not being PC or a Bush cheerleader isn't an outrage to most of us.

And as for blowing up holy sites, why not? If we actually have another significant strike in the US, that sounds like a relatively mild response, compared to war. And we'd love to convince jihadists that fighting us was bad for Islam.

This is just plain wrong. It would be a stupid and ridiculous response and certainly not justified. I'm not sure how dropping nuclear weapons on our allies in the region (Saudi Arabia? Israel? Iraq?) would improve our situation at all. If we wanted to turn the GWOT into a full on worldwide where we have as many countries allied against us as the Axis powers did in WWII, that would be all we would need to do to accomplish it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

But who is suggesting that we drop nuclear weapons on Israel or Iraq?

There are Islamic holy sites in all those places. Is the Tancredo plan to just go after the ones in Saudi Arabia?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

But end of thread jack.

His response was to a hypothetical question as to how he would respond to a nuclear attack on a U.S. city. He responded that we would have to consider an attack on Muslim holy sites.

Listen, if terrorists start nuking population centers, it is completely irresponsible and stupid to pretend that such an attack would not be considered to preserve the very survival of our country and the world.

Listen, if terrorists start nuking population centers, it is completely irresponsible and stupid to pretend that such an attack would not be considered to preserve the very survival of our country and the world.

Sure, just like it would be completely irresponsible and stupid to pretend a nuclear attack on random mosques in Canada and the UK wouldn't be contemplated. I don't care what it is in response to, it makes absolutely no sense and would accomplish absolutely nothing positive. At least nobody that could conceivably be elected as President (sorry, Tom) would contemplate something that stupid.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

and its off topic, so open a blog on it if you want to discuss it.

And as for blowing up holy sites, why not? If we actually have another significant strike in the US, that sounds like a relatively mild response, compared to war. And we'd love to convince jihadists that fighting us was bad for Islam.

So you wish to punish the extremists by killing potentially millions of innocent people. Ok. That is certainly quite mainstream.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

but detnoate a suitcase nuke in LA, CA (a la 24, of course) and see how fast the cries of "Nuke Mecca" become "mainstream".

Doesn't make it right, but I could easily see it happening.

Now? Nope - that's just plain nutty, not to mention insanely unhelpful.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

Agreed, it's crazy to talk about nuking a Muslim city, "holy" or not, in the current situation. Whenever we can avoid provoking potential enemies w/o endangering our interests, we should do so.

But if they detonate a nuclear or radiological device in America, it will make perfect sense to retaliate with massive force. The call for "nuking Mecca" will not only be "predictable", they will be right.

And by massive force, I mean 100 times over. If they kill 1 million people, we select countries that have not been doing all they can to root out terrorists and kill 100 million there.

In that situation, a fatal precedent will be set if we do not respond with more than ground forces or conventional bombing. A nuclear response will be needed.

I am well aware that an increasing number of Muslim countries have, or will have, the capacity to fire nuke missiles back at us. Pakistan has nukes now; Iran apparently will have them fairly soon. And, as discussed in another thread, France will become a majority-Muslim country within the next 40 years, giving Muslims control over another nuke arsenal.

That suggests not that we should hesitate to retaliate with nukes, but that we should be far more serious about developing and deploying missile defenses.

Islamic terrorists need to know that if they strike America (or brother nations like Canada & the UK), our response will end the existence of their home nations, and we WILL be able to shoot down their missiles. We have a lot of work to do to get to that point...

we'd broadcast a warning before doing this. Nor am I necessarily talking about city-wide nuclear strikes. (Though why we should rule them out to make our enemies sleep better escapes me.)

As for the idea that we daren't go after militants in mosques, phooey. I would have thought we'd had enough of that in Iraq already. If we're fighting a war, we're fighting a war. If not, I don't see much point in military intervention in the first place.

So you wish to punish the extremists by killing potentially millions of innocent people.

It is not about punishment, it is about deterrance. His answer was to a hypothetical question as to how he would respond to a nuclear attack on a U.S. city. It is irresponsible of any President to allow the terrorists to believe that any option is not on the table if they decide to detonate a nuke in a U.S. city.

When Tom Tancredo becomes President then perhaps you have a valid point.

Regardless, doc is right. This is a threadjack so I will cease and desist.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

If Tancredo becomes President, God help us all.

I can say with 1000% certainty, Tancredo will not be the next President of the United States.

Millard Filmore does not count, because only his first name is funny and it probably wasn't funny back then.

The Wall Street Journal repeatedly editorialized for a five (5) word amendment to the United States Constitution that would read as follows: There shall be open borders.

"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo

www.tancredo4prez.blogspot.com and www.tancredo.org

And that's the main reason I no longer subscribe to the Journal.

TANCREDO FOR PRESIDENT

Profits for Americans ARE good for America, as are lower prices on goods and services that Americans need.

You sound like a Communist with your attempt to make profit sound evil and anti-American, sheesh.

Run like Reagan!

Are short-term profits that pose potential long-term detriment to the nation acceptable? Has the nation been subjected to some new desired norm? Is instant financial gratification now more desired, more condoned, than short and long term profit earned under the long-honored precept of stewardship of our nation?

I hope that's not what you mean.

There was a time not so long ago that the idea of honoring God, country and company, in that order, was the unquestioned standard of doing right in American business. Are we really in an era in which the standard ordinal is Company, Stockholders, Globe?

I'm saddened by even having to ask.

"It never hurts to remind those who would vote for your opponent to vote...on Wednesday" - TMYN Blog

...shareholders, shareholders, and shareholders. (In most European and Asian countries, the order is management, management and management.)

Business isn't about doing right. It's about doing well without doing wrong. But business is only 10 hours of each day. The rest of life is about doing right.

The standard ordinal in business is to do your job and do it well. If shareholders hire you to run a company, then it's your job to get them the proper return on their investment.

And that's how it should be. When an honest man makes a commitment, he follows through.

I think people ought to be looking out first for their families. And that's where making the most of your dollars come in.

After THAT, then I'll start making commitments in order to earn money. And after that comes the country.

Run like Reagan!

Your standard ordinal for business is, I think, a dangerously shallow and contemporary one. Hopefully it is ephemeral. Perhaps it will get crushed when we finally kill political correctness.

I'm going to assume that your position is in favor of short term profits in any manner that suits the stockholders, even at the cost the nation's future ...the very thing that keeps families secure through the generations. I was afraid that's where you'd land and really didn't want to ask.

I think its an horrific shame that there is no consideration for stewardship in so many these days. Nations don't last without it and Conservatism does not exist without it.

Oh, and when I think about it, I don't separate my family from God. I can't. It's the greatest gift He has ever given me.

"It never hurts to remind those who would vote for your opponent to vote...on Wednesday" - TMYN Blog

I've heard the stupid meme that capitalism is all about short-term profits to the exclusion of anything else about a thousand times and it is still total BS. Every single day, companies decide to sacrifice short-term profitability for long term results. At the end of the day, maximizing those results is the purpose of most corporations. They exist to earn a return on the capital invested by the shareholders.

They don't exist to "keep families secure through the generations" or anything else. We already have another entity that is responsible for that (the family).

If you want to start a corporation that has that nebulous goal as it's purpose, go for it. There's nothing stopping you, except, maybe, your ability to raise capital when you declare that profits are not a priority.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

...had no concern whatsoever for the future greatness of my nation. It strikes me as idiotic to have to point this out: Were it not for this nation, the company would not exist. I would not want to take a cruise on a ship whose owners had overspent on amenities to make it look good, but neglected to maintain its hull. While those amenities would surely attract a lot of passengers and make a lot of money for the company and its stakeholders, eventually the ship would sink from management's neglect for the most important part.

I did not bring up "a stupid meme." You did. I do not refer to or think there is something inherently evil about "capitalism." That is your assumption. My point...my only point is that regardless of what you think is the best way to do business, if you lack a commitment to stewardship for the nation you are not Conservative. By definition, a Conservative does not have a short-term view of the world. Maybe your position is that of a strict "fiscal conservative," but that would only confirm the contention of some that those types are not really conservatives after all.

When I write about the importance of conservative stewardship, I'm not relying on stuff that just pops into my head, I'm echoing the ideas handed down to us by our founding fathers that undergird this nation.. Perhaps you are familiar with this "total B.S.":

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There was expressed by our founders a higher moral imperative for the nation that does include "keeping families secure through the generations." Or does the "posterity" part not count because it is inconvenient to think of such things at any time there are dollars to be made? I find it hard (but I do try) to respect those whose lack of concern for what might be left after we have had our time on the playground bodes so poorly for there even being an idea left of America for our descendants.

As far as dollars and cents are concerned, there is nothing about Conservatism and conservative stewardship that precludes a company from, to paraphrase your phrase, maximizing profitable results. If there were some such preclusion, this nation would have had virtually no successful companies prior to about 1960.

Either you missed it or you didn't want to process it, but I wrote: "Is instant financial gratification now more desired, more condoned, than short and long term profit earned under the long-honored precept of stewardship of our nation?" So, no, I don't think companies can thrive if they have nebulous goals. I also don't think this nation can thrive if its corporate citizens have nebulous feelings about their responsibility as stewards.

"It never hurts to remind those who would vote for your opponent to vote...on Wednesday" - TMYN Blog

I don't know if Tancredo can win the presidency, but to say he is bad for the Republican Party is an outrage.

He is supporting that our borders be defended, that our immigration laws be obeyed. That reasonable immigration limits be imposed to assure assimilation. Any government that cannot defend a nations borders has failed on the very most important, and some would say only, true function of government.

This issue needs to be turned on the people who support this lawbreaking. What is their goal? Move the electorate to the left? Ignore and impugn American Law? Abolish America's national borders and American Independence? Make Americans of European decent a minority in the country where they were a majority for 250+ years? Make Blacks in the United States the third minority group? Balkanize the American Southwest? Allow businessmen to evade American minimum wage and hiring laws? What is it they are trying to do?

but immigration? I'm frankly more interested in what his positions are that who he got a lousy 20 grand over 10 years from.

The author notes that he "...appears to have embraced FAIR's extreme and repugnant policy positions, having accepted..." Is there maybe some comparison that shows what FAIR's positions are juxtaposed with TT's?

I'm not defending TT here, I don't care about the guy one way or the other. He's a lightweight CongressCritter™ who's OK with me in Congress and who's every bit as unqualified for POTUS as McCain.

It would be nice to be able to discuss potential candidate's current positions on issues. This is a nit. Even more nitty than the Mitt stuff. Or the Brownback stuff.

If one were to just read RS to form opinions about potential candidates, one could conclude that there are about no Republicans who have an enunciated vision for the country and who have no coherent stands on issues.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

Senior Writer

I checked his website. He has positions posted on most mainstream topics.

OTOH, if you do a Google News search for "Tom Tancredo" you get 460 matches, of which 351 mention "immigration". Of course, this may not reflect his output of press releases, just the ones that were reported.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

here.

As I attempt to point out to people, Tancredo is probably the most consistently conservative member of the House, across every conceivable issue. He is by any sane standard a heavyweight. Feel free to look at his stands on crime, free trade, taxes, the military, homeland security, and other issues.

If the commenters at RS drew up a wish list for what the perfect Congresscritter would be like, they'd come up with something like Tancredo. They just don't know it.

He is not conservative on Free Trade. He claims he is conservative, but the right has been supporting free trade for decades.

Unless "conservative" is the Buchanan position on trade. Any vote that would be applauded by masked anarchists running around some European city looking for a McDonalds to fire-bomb would not be "conservative" in my book.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

So now the only "conservative" position is to force American workers and small businesses to compete with foreign companies that subsidize their exporters until they've destroyed the rest of our manufacturing base?

The only "conservative" position is to sit by while perfectly hard-working, competent, innovative American businesses go under because they can't compete with companies that operate without similar environmental, minimum-wage, and safety costs?

Last time I checked, the Founding Fathers themselves planned a federal government funded by TARIFFS ON FOREIGN GOODS and excise taxes.

One can argue that their approach no longer applies today, or that the benefits to Americans of free trade outweigh the costs. Indeed, both the benefits and costs of free trade are enormous, and not always easy to quantify.

But at least recognize that there is a legitimate debate to be had. Supporting Pat Buchanan's position on trade is no less conservative than supporting "free trade."

Alexander Hamilton was a reactionary. He was pro-monarchy and pro-mercantilism. He just wanted American mercantilism, not British.

Run like Reagan!

were the Founding Fathers in favor of "free trade"?

There were Mercantilists like Hamilton who opposed trade, to be sure, because they believed Americans could never manufacture and sell goods without such state assistance. But others, who knew how many Americans depended on being able to buy and sell on the international market, hated tariffs.

Run like Reagan!

Policies considered appropriate for one period are not necessarily appropriate for another. New ideas in economics have come along since then. The contemporaries of Adam Smith and Malthus did not have the advantage that we have of being able to look back and discover which of the two was right. Indeed, I doubt many of the founding fathers were ever aware of the works of either, which were very new at the time.

Furthermore, circumstances have changed. Trade between countries no longer requires journeys measured in months.

The idea that one group of people at one time had a monopoly on all wisdom is really rather bizarre.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

According to CATO he is conservative on free trade. What makes you say that he is not? Did you click on the link and look at his votes on the issues?

61% is nothing to brag about. Looking at his votes, I don't know how he got 61%.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Compared to what?

Look at the votes and rating for some other "big name" members of Congress.

Look at Mike Pence, "Mr Conservative". His CATO score is also 61%. Just try to find people better.

Look, you and Leon and everyone else here are entitled to your opinions. But the facts are what they are. Tancredo is by a long shot one of the most conservative members of Congress. There is no getting around that, and its sad to watch people I respect twist themselves into knots in an effort to do just that.

Admittedly that is not the best place to be in a party moving hard to port, but that's a different issue.

Unless you can tell me exactly how they arrive at the figure. I've never seen a breakdown on their process. I imagine the figure includes a lot of non-trade stuff. It would have to. If you actually look at his trade votes, it is pretty obvious he isn't "conservative" on the issue, unless you define conservative as Buchananite (and I don't).

In any case, aside from free trade I don't have a problem with his voting record so much as with his rhetoric. Maybe I could be convinced that nuking Islamic holy sites is a fantastic idea after all, if only someone would write a diary explaining it :).

Anyway, I don't have a problem with the guy being in Congress. I certainly wouldn't vote for him for Governor, much less POTUS, however. He isn't qualified for that kind of job IMO.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Plenty of politicians take money from people and organizations who have taken positions at odds with their own. Personally, I consider a pro-abortion position to be worse than those positions espoused by FAIR (which are also abhorent). Rudy Giuliani has taken that position. Candidates who have accepted money from Giuliani`s PAC include John Ensign, Mark Kennedy, Jon Kyl, Rick Santorum, Michael Steele (in 2006) and Jim DeMint, John Thune, and David Vitter (in 2004). If you`re criticizing Tancredo for taking money from FAIR, perhaps you`d also like to call out these supposed conservatives as well.

is an added boost to McCain and Giuliani. Tancredo will take a few percentage points of right of center votes. That's fewer votes for Brownback and especially for Romney. The more long shot candidates, the harder for any of them to cobble together a competitive coalition.

Are a non-factor. Nobody will satisfy them on immigration anyway, so they'll sit at home during the primary and throw away their vote on some third party candidate in the general. These are not Brownback or Romney supporters. They will never be Brownback or Romney supporters.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I happen to be sympathetic to his immigration position, but hell will freeze over before I vote for him. (I may have to rethink that, it's been way cold here in Phoenix all week.)
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

Senior Writer

Tancredo might be a factor, because he is not in this in order to become President, I am sure he realizes what a long shot that would be. He is in the race in order to push his positions to the forefront. And I hope he is successful in that endeavor.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

that he's not in it to win but to make a point. I just have a really hard time with the idea that he will pull votes from any credible candidate.

And I too hope he is successful in calling attention to the amnesty debacles. Unfortunately, I think the issue will be over and done with by '08. And we'll have at least 35MM new US citizens.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

Senior Writer

then we can all pack it in and join the Democratic Party, which will be the only game in town.

But at least we won't have said anything nice about Tancredo. I'm sure that will be a comfort to some.

MBecker908:

If an "amensty debacle" does occur in 2007, it will iin part be because potential GOP 2008 presidential nominees, Sam Brownback,Jon McCain and Chuck Hagel have worked with Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry in the Senate to pass a bill that rewards millions of illegal aliens that have deliberately violated federal criminal laws with legal status adn a potential path to citizenship. Sam Brownback was an original co-sponsor of the Kennedy-McCain plan to reward millions of illegal aliens with legal status.

As for your estimate of at least thirty-five million new citizens as a result of an amensty, I believe there is one thing you can count on in light of the experience with the 1986 legislation. Whatever estimate the backers of rewarding millions of illegal aliens with legal status give, it will be far lower than the actual number with regard to the number of illegal aliens that achieve legal status.

Raider

"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo

www.tancredo4prez.blogspot.com and www.tancredo.org

"It never hurts to remind those who would vote for your opponent to vote...on Wednesday" - TMYN Blog

Sorry, you just can't lay amnesty at the feet of McCain, Kennedy, etal. They aren't the folks providing the leadership here on this issue. For that you have to look straight at the White House. M/K is simply legislation drafted to look pretty much like W's position on immigration. It just so happens that that position is widely supported by Democrats and now, in a period when Democrats control both House and Senate, you can fully expect to see immigration amnesty pass both houses of Congress.

Were the problem simply M,K,etal, the President could simply veto any legislation. He absolutely will not do that. He will sign it and hail it as a landmark piece of legislation.

It's OK, I guess, to hold support for this against the various supporters and co-sponsors, but they're just players. If this were an important issue (border security, that is) then we would have seen leadership from the White House a long time ago, instead of the Administration's push for open borders. Which, frankly, is nothing new. Bush has been an advocate of open borders since way before he was President.

With respect to the 35MM number, I know that's way low. I just tossed it in because if use 100MM - which I think is more correct - it's like throwing red meat in front of the lions. It distracts from the argument about policy and degrades into "your number sucks", so I'm perfectly happy to use a low number. I don't care if the number is 5MM, the principle is the same, and actually, the lower the number the easier enforcement should be, and the smaller the impact on the economy should be from enforcing employer sanctions (assuming you think that taking illegals out of the workforce is an economic negative).
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

Senior Writer

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

"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo

www.tancredo4prez.blogspot.com and www.tancredo.org

Mbecker908

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

Raider

"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo

www.tancredo4prez.blogspot.com and www.tancredo.org

if Leon included in his updates a little information on Tancredo's voting record.

Anyone who reads his blog and does not read the comments will come away with a seriously warped view of where Tancredo stands on the issues. It's hard not to think that the intent of Leon here is to give the casual reader a misleading impression of where Tancredo stands on life issues.

He might also make note in his updates of just how insignificant the amounts of money involved actually are, rather than implying that Tancredo is being bankrolled by Tanton.

I think that if I were a politician, or ever were to become one, I would not turn away money from anyone for any reason - other than if it were illegal.

My position is that I am who I am, I believe what I believe, and I will pursue the agenda that I want to pursue and feel that I am elected to pursue. If people agree with what I stand for in certain areas and donate to me, I will keep their money. If they think they know what I stand for, and end up being wrong, I will still keep their money.

If David Duke, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, and Barney Frank all wroke me $2100 checks, I'd take them just as readily as I'd take checks from Mike Pence, Jeff Flake, Jeb Hensarling, Tom Coburn, and Jim DeMint.

If a group with an unsavory connection gave me $2100, in my mind, that's $2100 they no longer have in their coffers to do unsavory things with.

Leon and I like to clobber heads of Mitt Romney and Sam Brownback, but I am happy to be on his side on this one. The people need to know how extreme Tom Tancredo and his supporters are on the immigration issue. These people are not simply anti-illegal immigration like most of us here, but are anti-immigration period.

Leon and I like to clobber heads over* Brownback and Romney.

Put up a blog on the good things that stem from large scale legal immigration. I've asked the various other backers of this view to do so but they never get around to it. I'm curious to hear why some people think its a good idea.

I'm even more curious to hear somebody respond to the flaws in this idea, which have been pointed out time and again.

"It never hurts to remind those who would vote for your opponent to vote...on Wednesday" - TMYN Blog

True, opposing illegal immigration is distinct from opposing or wanting to reduce legal immigration.

But who is anyone to tell an American that he is "extreme" for wanting to reduce legal immigration as well?

This is our country, and we have the right to decide who comes here, from where, for what purpose, and for how long. That is the most basic attribute of sovereignty. Without control over who is physically here, we simply do not control our fate.

I, for one, support a moratorium on all net legal immigration. That is, there's a certain outflow of non-citizens each year (people returning to their home countries after working or going to school here, for instance). Let in enough new people to offset that and no more, for now.

We need to pause this influx and take the time to find out who's here, where they're from, and what effects they're having - positive and negative - on our public services, taxation levels, environment, and culture. After doing so, we can make a considered, informed, SELF-INTERESTED judgment about what immigration policy is best for US.

There is of course nothing extreme about wanting to reduce legal immigration. When polls put it in the most simple form, a desire to reduce legal immigration usually enjoys majority or plurality support, though it does sometimes battle it out with 'maintain' for the top spot. One thing is constant, however, and that is how support for 'increasing' legal immigration is always small. I've only seen it crack 20% once.

So one thing can be said with absolute certainty, and that is that support for reducing legal immigration is much more mainstream and widely held than is support for increasing legal immigration. That is no doubt the main reason why those pushing the McCain/Kennedy approach never see fit to inform us rubes that their bill would unleash a massive increase in permanent legal immigration. And the media, of course, is happy to aid in the deception.

The last thing that proponents of the McKennedy brand of 'comprehensive' reform want is for the American public to be fully aware of what they are pushing. The strategy of those wanting unending and increased levels of mass immigration is twofold; (1) deceive and mislead with regards to their agenda, and (2) use downright Orwellian tactics to turn the genuinely mainstream position (i.e. reduce immigration) into some 'extreme' view.

I will say that many pro-mass immigration conservatives here are upfront about their views, so my criticism isn't directed at them. It just irks me that you never see such honest from politicians.

This is a truly shameful piece of character assassination. What you are doing, Leon, is attempting to implicate Tancredo as having racist or pro-eugenics views by linking him, through organizations and people who have supported him (FAIR and Tanton) to other organizations with which he has no formal ties (CIS and the Pioneer Fund). In other words, your argument runs as follows:

Group A supports Group B

Group B supports Candidate C

Ergo, Group A also supports Candidate C

Sorry, but that’s just bull c—p. And btw, simply reproducing other people’s text doesn’t count as research. You should know that. It’s not enough to simply repeat the Spectator’s assertion that the Pioneer Fund is “a white-supremacist outfit devoted to racial purity through eugenics;” you have to prove that statement if you wish to repeat it. The link you cited does nothing to support your assertion.

In fact, here’s another link [1] from that same website in which the Pioneer Fund explains why they’re sometimes perceived as a controversial group. In particular, they explain why they fund controversial scientific studies into the links between IQ and race, class, and gender, and they defend their research on the perfectly reasonable grounds of free academic research.

This is not to say that I agree with or support everything that the Pioneer Fund, or FAIR, or CIS do or say. But you are throwing around some pretty loose characterizations about people who disagree with you. Moreover, you are being terribly unfair to Tom Tancredo. You simply can’t draw etcher-sketch connections between groups and individuals as you’ve done. And as your own evidence indicates, Tancredo has received a little more than $20,000 over the course of 10 years from Fair and Tanton. In today’s political races that barely covers a single day of hard campaigning. You aren’t following the money so much as following the pocket change.

[1] http://www.pioneerfund.org/Controversies.html

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

...logical devices. I'm appalled by the tenor of the attacks, and quite frankly take them personally on a certain level. I oppose mass immigration and loathe illegal immigration. While I consider myself more informed on the issue in that I know, factually, that our current immigration policy is a radical aberration from historical patterns, my feelings about the issue(s) are mainstream.

Here are some reasonable questions I have for those who support mass-immigration, amnesty and guest-worker programs:

How do you know that the result of adding perhaps 100 million more people, mostly from one culture, to our population in my child's lifetime won't create a bad result that can never be fixed?

What some in Congress want to do has never been tried before, not in these numbers; so, why are you willing to gamble with our nation's future like that?

What does it mean for our kids if you are wrong? Are you going to clean up the mess that can't be cleaned?

Human nature is fickle: What sort of America will there be if we plant seeds that result in intractable ethnic divisions?

Why on earth would anyone put short term economic gain ahead of the future for all of our kids?

Why in the world would any Conservative want to join hands with Teddy Kennedy in a cause that will only result in the permanent Leftist dominance of our government?

"It never hurts to remind those who would vote for your opponent to vote...on Wednesday" - TMYN Blog

I notice how you studiously ignore that he also takes money directly from Tanton, and how the information right on the front of the friggin Pioneer Fund page says:

The Pioneer Fund has changed the face of the social and behavioral sciences by restoring the Darwinian-Galtonian perspective to the mainstream in traditional fields such as anthropology, psychology, and sociology, as well as fostering the newer disciplines of behavioral genetics, neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, and sociobiology.

For the uninitiated, a reminder - Galton is the father of eugenics.

Now, as I said, people can draw their own inferences from the fact of this funding (and its size) but I've been very up front about both. If you're not bothered, then we have different standards (and that's fine), but I'm getting sick of being accused of "swift boating" - which is to say, as always, reporting the facts accurately.

------------
Fnord.

In fact, in my post I mentioned

... organizations and people who have supported him (FAIR and Tanton) ...

So I certainly recognize that Tanton has contributed to him. So what? Congressmen money from thousands of people every election year. Are congressmen obligated to know about allthe political positions of every contributor. Heck, in 2004 there were plenty of Republicans who contributed to Howard Dean's candidacy on the (incorrect) assumption that he could win the Democratic nomination thereby making Bush's job in '04 easier. Do you think Dean cared?

It would be different if we were taking about a large sum of money (perhaps something more than $100,000). That would raise the possibility that Tancredo actually listens to these people.

And one other thing, Leon, there's a lot more to Sir Francis Galton than eugenics. Nor is every application of eugenics sinister. Controlled breeding of humans to weed out hereditary diseases? I'm against that too. Controlled breeding of horses for the same purpose? No problem with that. Moreover, I can even see cases in which a eugenics approach could be ethically applied to humans. For example, like many conservatives I believe that chemical castration of convicted rapists or child molesters should be considered as an alternative or a supplement to long-term imprisonment.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

It sure is interesting what comes out when both the American Spectator and the WSJ pull source material from the SPLC web site and start channeling Morris Dees. Talk about your strange bedfellows!

The smell of fear envelopes this frantic chicken-littling of Tancredo's exploratory committee. I suspect it's because his message just might resonate with too many. I'd advise the GOP to save the tar and feathers for others or it may find itself with a lot bigger problem than maintaining its snipe hunt for a weak plurality of its currently most-favored bloc vote. The GOP can stand on its head 'til the cows come home and it won't secure more of this vote unless there are nanny state programs jingling from its pockets; that group is hanging a Louie, baby!

Where will the Conservatives go if the GOP chases its folly farther to the left? I think that's a much more important question the GOP needs to be asking itself right now. And if they're askin' could somebody please point it out to leadership of the party on my voter registration card that it looks an awful lot like the GOP apparatchik is the one playing the race card harder than David Duke on meth?

"It never hurts to remind those who would vote for your opponent to vote...on Wednesday" - TMYN Blog

This is much worse than when Guy Millner tried running for governor and senator from Georgia as some kind of social conservative, after having rented office space to an abortion clinic.

I already had a problem with the immigration issue, particularly with our very unfair policy towards who gets a tourist visa and who does not. As things are now, if you want to bring your lady friend from eastern Europe, it's almost impossible for her to get a tourist visa. She can come if you make her your fiancee much more easily, but I feel my Russian friend deserves a chance to visit her prospective new home before making such a commitment.

I found some archives at Instapundit and Adventures in Bureaucracy that expand on this.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

I have a friend in the UK and the U.S. embassy in London told him that the only way he could get an immigration visa is the "immigration through investment" program and that he might be able to get a visa for $250,000.00.

As has been pointed out by many, Leons conclusions rest on a shaky interpetation of the facts. Tancredo is a solid social conservative and a lot more pro-life than his detractors at the SPLC and WSJ. And probably at Red State.

any suggestion that an end justifies the means, for any goal, is not what I want to find practiced by my chosen candidates.

Now that we're talking about it, I expect prompt clarification and explanation by Mr. Tancredo.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

why you're more interested in attacking Tom Tancredo than doing something about the fundamental alteration of our country's culture, politics, and economy by Third World immigration? Is it more important to attack Tancredo or to prevent large swathes of the United States from becoming Mexico?

SJ Reidhead
http://thepinkflamingo.blogharbor.com/blog

I am thrilled to see the rest of the world has discovered what I've been blogging about for nearly six months. I am just surprised that anyone is bothering to look at Tancredo's supporters too deeply.

Maybe this will signal the beginning of the end of the anti-immigration forces in this country. It isn't the message, but the messengers, who are very tarnished, indeed.

It's about time!

(sorry, no tilde on this keyboard for the "n")

Well, you'll need to. Because after we're done trashing Tancredo and all the other "tarnished" opponents of illegal immigration, the country will accelerate its transformation into a Third World country. This country's politics will be more socialist/fascist than ever, its natural resources will be despoiled and overburdened, and its dominant language will be Spanish.

I prefer to work with supposedly "tarnished" men like Tancredo, who at least do not have their heads in the sand, to defend my country's language, culture, way of life, and natural beauty.

There is no other candidate for the Republican nomination that as clearly and comletely reflects conservative positions as well as Tancredo does.

Taxes - reduce them.
Spending - reduce it.
Abortion - pro-life.
Immigration - control the border, enforce our laws.
Trade - free trade (mostly).
Social Security - allow private accounts.
GWOT(or whatever you want to call it) - aggressive posture.
2nd Amendment - gun supporter, anti-Bradyite.

He has demostrated these positions in his public life and spoken openly about them. Weight these positions aganst McCain, Romney or Guilianni and I think you will find these men wanting.
If conservatism is still a force in the Republican party, Tancredo (or Hunter) will win the nomination. If we select another 'Dole' we will have abandoned what we believe is right for the country for political expediency (and we'll know it in our hearts). You can't win if you don't beleive in what you're doing - people smell a phony.
These lessser known candidates are the true conservatives in our party, and I will support them because we are on the verge of diluting the 'critical mass' of cultural values of what makes America, America.

Tancredo's record is undeniably pro-life; no one can deny that. As others have said here, his pro-life credentials are almost certainly stronger than those of his detractors at the WSJournal and American Spectator.

On immigration, Tancredo is attempting to form a coaltion. In doing so, it is unavoidable that he will attract certain people who disagree with him (and most Republicans) on other issues. So what?

The irony, of course, is that if Tancredo's views on immigration were made law (and actually enforced), then the resulting political and demographic environment would be much more favorable to Republicans and conservatives, and make the implementation of other conservative goals easier.

This is key as far as the abortion issues goes. There are only a few ways in which abortion policy will be returned to the people, where pro-life policies have a chance;

(1) Successful repudiation of judicial supremacy that comes from the other branches refusing to obey the courts constitutionally-unfounded decisions: This is not going to happen, as we have been successfully conditioned to treat Sup Court decisions as being akin to the word of God.

(2) Pass some form of an Amendment: Even an Amendment that simply stripped the courts of jurisdiction and explicity empowered the states could not pass the current, or any recent, Congress, so this too is highly unlikely.

(3) Confirm enough good judges so that our judicial masters voluntarily correct their terrible decision in Roe.

Since we can rule out #1, that leaves us with the other two, and as I said earlier, it is here again that Tancredo proves to be the superior pro-life champion via his stands on immigration. Continued mass immigration and amnesty will push the nation towards the Democrats, and thus make it unlikely that there will ever be a Congress and enough states to pass an anti-Roe Amendment, and it decreases the chances of having a President eager to appoint good judges, and a Senate willing to confirm them. That many, or most, Hispanics disapprove of abortion is meaningless so long as (a) judicial supremacy persists, and (b) they keep voting for the likes of Barbara Boxer.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service