Redstate

Perhaps you will have a different opinion when President Hillary Clinton throws Bill Gertz in Prison along with who ever else leaks what treason her government commits.

Republicans might not always have the White House and we must know what the government is up to.

I can't stand the media, but they are our ally against omnipotent Government and always have been.We need to keep it that way.

1. As I covered in the story, a reporter will only be jailed for contempt if they are refusing to answer questions about the operative facts in a criminal case. So, for instance, if someone has committed a violation under the Espionage Act, I've got no real problem with the reporter going to jail. And if the person doing the leaking feels strongly enough that the government is breaking the law, and is simultaneously convinced that the totalitarians they work for will press charges against them, then they ought well to feel strongly enough about it not to hide behind a reporter. Also, this omits the very salient fact that reporters can avoid jail time by simply giving up their source - I understand the general hesitance to give up sources, but if someone came to me with some highly sensitive information, I'd say up front, "I'll protect your confidentiality as you've asked, but if it turns out that you broke the law to give me this information, expect me to cooperate with the authorities." I don't think that journalistic ethics require reporters to obstruct justice in order to sell more newspapers, and if they do, they shouldn't.

2. In the case in question, there's no kind of potential for political prosecution or aggressive action to cover up administration wrongdoing; to the extent that you're concerned about that sort of thing, Pence's bill expressly excludes it under the "national security" exception (hence, the folks at the Times are still screwed for reporting on the NSA program). The reporters in question are in jail for covering up for someone who broke the law and disclosed sealed grand jury testimony (a grand jury testimony that was investigating, of all things, steroid use). Contempt proceedings are literally the only thing that act as a deterrent to breaking the law in this fashion, and if the reporters are determined to shield the lawbreakers, they should be willing to pay their just price. No national security or administration run amok here, just the process of the everyday judicial system, which is pretty important. People are so willing to look the other way here because they hate Barry, and because the story is so juicy, but they neglect to realize that these two writers made an absolute fortune off of publicizing some information that - while scandalous - was not reliable enough to bring an indictment against Barry, despite several tries. My sympathy for them does not run high.

But there is a weakness with your side of this, too.

>>"I'll protect your confidentiality as you've asked, but if it turns out that you broke the law to give me this information, expect me to cooperate with the authorities."

The trouble is, you won't really know, when the authorities come knocking on your door, if your source broke the law or not. (I am assuming the matter is not obvious, or you would not have made the declaration as you did). That will be a matter to be settled in court, with a fair trial, at which the defendant's case will also be put.

The trouble is, for it to get to court, you would have to give up your source first, making him/her vulnerable to other sanctions, such as firing, which do not depend on criminal standards of proof.

Also, I don't think Pence said the First protects journalists from giving up sources. I think he said it empowered Congress to create a law which does so. On the merits of such a law, I am conflicted.

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

"When the authorities come knocking on your door," the issue is "when you are summoned before a grand jury and compelled to testify." By that time, you have plenty of opportunity to secure counsel (the newspaper will pay for it), and you can describe to them the facts of what happened, and they can tell you fairly easily whether the law has been broken. In the case of the Espionage Act, there may be some very close cases, but when you are talking about leaking sealed grand jury testimony, it ain't that hard to figure out.

The trouble is, for it to get to court, you would have to give up your source first, making him/her vulnerable to other sanctions, such as firing, which do not depend on criminal standards of proof.

As Achance noted below, and as I've tried to make clear here - if you are divulging information that could potentially land you in jail, and that is certainly against the law for you to divulge (and the person who leaked this information to the SF Chronicle reporters certainly knew they were breaking the law), you shouldn't do it unless you're willing to face the music. Laws like the Espionage Act and the sealing of grand jury testimony are in place for a reason; they shouldn't be discarded lightly by a person who's only willing to hide behind a reporter later.

from reading between the lines, I have a little experience with the issue, and from both sides. I've been the hunter and the hunted.

I cannot under any circumstance support giving any kind of absolute privilege to a journalist. As to classified material being leaked, the classification process has proven itself to be the refuge of rogues. Asserting that leaked material was impermissibly classified should be an affirmative defense and some sort of process established to have the courts make the determination as to whether the material was properly "classified" before Espionage Act charges could be brought. Even on this, I wouldn't offer any protection to the leaker on the administrative side; if you aren't willing to quit or get fired, keep your fingers off the phone.

In Vino Veritas

He was not talking about an absolute privilege. He was talking clear exceptions, including (but I don't think limited to) national security and the personal safety of others. I took the latter to refer to troops and intelligence personnel who might be exposed to danger (note, that doesn't include analysts at Langley) and people whose right to a fair trial would be jeopardised.

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

leakers whether in GWB or HRC's administration. Totally different issue from providing a privilege to journalists. Anybody at a level of government to have anything worth leaking knows the game they're playing; if you're not prepared to get fired or prosecuted, don't pick up that phone.

The game being played now is the bureaucratic leakers can be relatively certain that the media will come out howling in their favor and the Bush Administration won't be willing to take the heat and fire or prosecute them.

You may rest assured that a Democrat administration will have no such qualms and will have no need to fear much from the press. The leaker will be slimed and characterized as disgruntled, untrustworthy, and incompetent. The press will nod approvingly and the leaker will be cast into outer darkness.

If Republicans were a little more savvy about actually running a government, they'd snap up people who get on the wrong side of Democrat administrations and give them a way to make a living when the Ds put the laser dot on thier forehead. The Rs usually are afraid of being associated with the person who's been slimed, so they are left to find a job at WalMart or as a security guard, about all you can get in a capital city if you've gotten crosswise with the party in power.

Don't take this to mean I'd defend anyone who leaks classified material; that is a crime and anyone who does it should face the consequences. However, many of us here are old enough to remember administrations "classifying" most everything, so there are games played in that arena as well.

But "leakers" on bad policy and processes are an asset for political operatives to cultivate. The Ds do it well, the Rs hardly at all.
In Vino Veritas

Former Conservative.

Tom Tancredo

Pence has a perfect lifetime rating from the ACU and from the Club for Growth, Tancredo is not even close.
Pence is to the right of Tancredo fiscally and socially.Not to mention Pence is way more effective for the conservative cause.Heck,Tancredo does not even care about real conservative issues.

If the immigration problem is not solved, there will be no conservative movement. Texas now is California in 1980. If you care about conservatism and the GOP, you need to support a real solution to this issue.

Pence's plan is just not serious. Expecting illegals to "self-deport" won't work.

We saw this movie in 1986. The amnesty then was coupled with promises that this time we really would secure the border. They didn't. When Buchanan ran in 1992, we all scoffed that he was a crazy extremist who didn't know what he was talking about. Now, we know that on that issue, he was right and the establishment was wrong. For all those who think Tanc is being extreme here, who could have predicted in 1980 that California, the home of Nixon and Reagan, would be a liberal bastion within 20 years? What do you think the country will look like if this continues?

The only plan that is serious and that makes sense is enforcement only, with the issues that divide people (guest workers, path to citizenship, etc) to be discussed AFTER our border is secure. Pence needed to stand strong with the House Republicans at this moment. Instead, he proposed an impractical plan.

At every step of the way, it is the moderates, the realists, and those hailed as sober analysts who are most likely to support pie in the sky fantasies. Conservatives need to stick together on this issue and solve this problem once and for all.
Otherwise, just because of demographic pressure, kiss conservatism goodbye.

and much of the rest of the South is going the same way.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who claims that globalization is a conservative process is either a liar or a fool. - James Kurth

Just kidding about Wilson, though that is something the party has convinced itself of.

Comparing Texas and California is interesting. They are following almost identical demographic trends, but the saving grace for the GOP in Texas is the conservatism of the white population. Republicans have routinely carried more than 70% of the white vote in Texas for a decade now, and that is THE reason why the GOP has come to dominate the state. Some like to attribute some of the credit to greater pro-GOP sentiment of Hispanics in Texas versus California, but that has been of marginal impact. In fact, if the GOP did as well with whites in California as they do in Texas, then Calif would still be red, or at least competitive.

But California has been an almost perfect storm for the Democrats. Much of the state's white Republican population has moved out of the state over the last 20 years, leaving behind a (shrinking) white population too liberal for the GOP to enjoy any consistent success. Add this to the influx of pro-Democrat Hispanic and Asian immigrants, and its easy to see why the only important statewide Republican victory there over the last 10 years came to a socially-liberal movie star. Put in simple terms; a shrinking, non-conservative white population + increasing diversity = bad news for the GOP.

I don't expect a Calif-style exodus of conservatives from Texas, so as long as white Texans remain as conservative as they are today, then the GOP should be able to avoid a collapse there like they've had in California. If the GOP can keep winning 70%+ of the white vote in Texas, then they will continue to dominate for at least a few more election cycles, but as the demographics of the electorate catches up with those of the overall state population (whites lost majority status in Texas a year or so ago), then we should expect the state to become less red and more purple. In other words, no one should be surprised if Texas is a competitive battleground state by or before 2020. And if the Dems nominate someone who can convince enough of the state's white population that they are not overtly hostile to their values (in other words, someone other than John Kerry or Hillary Clinton), then all bets are off.

But pro-unending mass immigration conservatives will persist in believing that Hispanics (and Asians too I guess) are 'natural Republicans', and would vote as such if not for all of the racist/xenophobic/anti-immigrant/anti-latino bigots like Tancredo who are just mean to them. They don't see that American-style conservatism is pretty much unique, and endemic to the United States. The big govt ideals and ethnic pandering of the Democrats are more universal.

Pence has a perfect lifetime rating from the ACU and from the Club for Growth, Tancredo is not even close.

Pence has a liftime ACU rating of 100.

Tancredo has a lifetime ACU rating of 99.

Tancredo has an almost perfect conservative voting record, and he has supported President Bush in all areas of the war on terrorism. He votes conservative on taxes, and on culture-war issues. To pretend as though Tancredo is anything but a conservative is very disingenuous.

So what if Tancredo is not the standard-bearer for every conservative cause. Who is? The important thing is that he votes the right way virtually every time.

What really irks some here is that on immigration, Tancredo is championing the genuinely conservative position, and that cannot be tolerated when trying to transform the liberal position on immigration (delayed, multi-step amnesty + disguised, unadvertised increases in permanent legal immigration) into the conservative one.

Mike Pence's compromise shattered the fragile alliance between the anti-immigration fringe and the mainstream anti-illegal immigration wing of the party.

Tancredo and his supporters therefore HAVE to go after Pence like a pack of hounds, lest they lose their ability to hijack the issue of border security to shut down immigration into this country.

But me, I'll back Pence every day over the tax-hiking, Buchananite loon Tancredo.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

You are more incoherent than usual. According to CFG, Tancredo is easily one of the most fiscally conservative members of Congress, ranking ahead of about 200 other GOP House members. We need many more of this sort of tax hiking loon.

As for Pence, he is not even within shouting distance of the mainstream on the immigration issue. Even the Dems running for election are pretending to favor an enforcement first approach. Look at Ford in Tennessee, or Sherrod Brown, who voted against the House bill as a Congressman but now says he favors it while running for Senate.

Either all the politicans are running away from the mainstream in an effort to get get elected, or the mainstream is not where you think it is.

Pence is toast as far as a presidential run is concerned.

Tariff votes are few and far between, unlike the normal, annual tax and spend matters. So you can be a tax hiker, only call them tariffs, and still get good ratings from groups like CfG.

--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

It's lucky for the country that it has eagle-eyed people like you around to pick up on all those "tax-hikers" who slip past those fools at CFG and the ACU.

I wonder how many other people out there with seemingly impeccable conservative credentials are really tax hikers in disguise? We clearly need to scrap the old ratings and replace them with the "Neil Stevens Ratings System", under which people who disagree with Neil become "tax hiking loons" and those who agree with him are Heros of the Conservative Revolution.

I'm not THAT good.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I still have the (probably vain) hope that you might one day bring some facts to one of these discussions.

All I could do is blush, since that was nothing but a mocking broadside at me.

And hey, if I can answer with some levity, then I'm doing good.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Neil seems to be saying that Tancredo is on the record as favouring particular tax rises which have not been brought to a vote. Is this not true?

If it is true, then he is correct both in saying that Tancredo is a tax-hiker and that it would not show in the ratings.

If it is not true, please englighten us.

From what I have read of Tancredo's website and his writings, he policy is pretty strongly focussed on one issue these says, all mention of his previous backing for term limits having now been expunged from the record.

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

He may indeed be using some definition of "tax hiker" known only to himself. I suspect that this is the case.

He also claimed that Pence represents the "mainstream" position of the GOP on immigration. I noted that all the evidence suggests otherwise. The fact that he ignores this and responds with some odd notion of his own of what constitues a tax hiker speaks volumes. It's worth bearing in mind that using what seems to be the new standard for fiscal conservative purity, the GOP may have as many as six seats in the House of Representatives.

And I disagree with some of it. The same could be said of you. I have not known either of you to deliberately mislead people.

Neil was pretty specific. He said Tancredo is on the record as supporting tarrif hikes. These are indeed tax hikes, and in my view some of the most dangerous tax hikes you can get. Is Neil mistaken about this.

As for whether the Pence plan is mainstream, I know you feel very strongly about this. My reading of this site suggests that you are in a minority here in opposing the Pence plan. There is certainly a very wide range of views here on the subject of immigration, but I would think on RedState the Pence plan is probably the most popular view.

That may not be true more widely than this site.

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

Neil was pretty specific. He said Tancredo is on the record as supporting tarrif hikes.

This is what he said.

Tariff votes are few and far between, unlike the normal, annual tax and spend matters. So you can be a tax hiker, only call them tariffs, and still get good ratings from groups like CfG.

I trust you can see the distinction without me pointing it out to you.

As for whether the Pence plan is mainstream, I know you feel very strongly about this. My reading of this site suggests that you are in a minority here in opposing the Pence plan.

Then your reading is wrong on this also. There was a recent site poll on the question and the majority from this site were against it.

And, of course, the majority of people in the country are against it, as shown by the fact that those who have to actually run for office always claim to be against amnesty and in favor of stringent enforcement.

Re Neil's comments on tarrifs: Yes, I see the distinction. But you are evading the question (possibly you don't know the answer, any more than I do). Is Neil wrong? Is Tancredo NOT a supporter of tarrif hikes?

I don't recall seeing the poll on the Pence plan. My apologies. I read nothing into your comment regarding what people running for office say, since Mike Pence and all the people supporting his plan would also say they are against amnesty and in favour of stringent enforcement. That is an easy slogan to sign up to. But, as you know, the definitions are key.

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

So you think it is up to me to prove a negative, rather than up to Neil to back up what he says? Nice.

I see nothing on the web to back up the claim that Tancredo favors tariff hikes. It is still possible I suppose that he favors some particular tariff. It's worth keeping in mind that Ronald Reagan favored some tariff hikes, against the Japanese. Still, I think its up to Neil back up what he has said.

There was a straw poll recently which included the question "Are you for or against a guest worker program?"

I see that the results are no longer available here on Red State for some reason {hmmm}, so you'll have to take my word for it that the majority of votes on this site were against the idea.

You can see the wider cross blog results here.

Mike Pence and all the people supporting his plan would also say they are against amnesty

Mike Pence can say whatever he likes. It's a free country. But I've pointed out in several instances the exact language in his bill which says in so many words, "The people who broke the law before my bill takes effect will not be liable for their crimes.". So saying something does not make it true. Mr Pence gets around this by employing a definition of amnesty which is downright Clintonesque.

>>So you think it is up to me to prove a negative, rather than up to Neil to back up what he says? Nice.

Well, semi-fair point. You accused him in response of having a private and ridiculous definition of tax-hiker. All I was trying to establish was whether you were disagreeing on the facts or the interpretation. It seems you doubt his claims as to facts, which is fair enough, and does put the onus on him to prove it.

>>Mike Pence can say whatever he likes.

Sure. But for that reason you cannot read much into the fact that most candidates say they are against amnesty. I bet every candidate running for office would claim, if asked, to be against terrorism. It tells you nothing about what specific measures they may or may not support.

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

Pence can say he is against amnesty only because we have freedom of speech. His plan is an amnesty plan, no ifs, ands, or buts.

I have already pointed out cases where a Democrat running for office in this election cycle has reversed course. He formerly voted against the House enforcement only approach. Now he is for it, as are most people who have to face the voters. It is possible that this change of heart is due to his giving the matter further consideration, but I suspect that he gauged the mood among the voters pretty well. In other words, nobody running for election is even hinting that they are interested in amnesty, only in enforcement first. So we don't even need to consider what definition of amnesty they may employ in the future.

If the Pence plan includes amnesty, then it's only because the EXISTING law allows for 'amnesty' by letting any illegal alien leave the US of their own free will, then turn around and apply for a visa with a clean slate.

Blaming Pence for that I think is completely unfair. What are we supposed to do? Sic the Border Patrol on people trying to leave?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I mean the specific provision in the lanaguage of his bill which states that the people covered by his bill will not be liable for past crimes. Current law does not say that an illegal may leave the country, turn around, then reapply for entry with a clean slate. If it did, there would be no reason for the Pence bill.

Oh yeah, an online poll at Red State is going to measure SO accurately the mainstream of the party...
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

This site is home to the pro-immigration Republicans on the web.

A reasonable person might assume that the position taken by the majority of Republican House and Senate members does accurately reflect the mainstream of the party. But I guess they are all a bunch of Buchananite loons. Even the Democrats running for election are Buchananite loons. Perhaps that whole Buchanan presidency has something to it.

Because I don't support any guest worker plan on principle... in fact, there is only one plan I could ever see myself supporting, and that is the Pence plan. The poll was not specifically about Pence IIRC.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

You say you don't support guest worker plans on principle, but would support the Pence which contains one of these phony guest worker plans.

So what are you saying? What about guest worker plans do you oppose on principle. Is it the duplicity of calling something a guest worker plan that is in fact a deceptive way to greatly increase permanent legal immigration?

I think many of us say we oppose "guest worker" plans, forgetting that "guest worker" doesn't actually mean "illegal alien legalization," just because President Bush keeps using it as code for that.

The Pence compromise is a guest worker plan that does NOT legalize illegals. That makes all the difference.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I have no interest in a revolving door like Bush envisions, where people have some set time limit, then either go home or become illegal. They'll never learn English or assimilate, either, because they know they are not going to be here for more than X years.

Any guest worker plan has to be geared towards having the people learn English, which Pence has (proficiency tests required every couple years). Any guest worker plan has to have the prospect of permanent immigration, which Pence has. Pence, so far, has the only guest worker program I ever found to be an acceptable compromise.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Try to keep it reasonably civil?

As for Tancredo on trade, I found this.

Rated 61% by CATO, indicating a mixed record on trade issues.

From the same source.

Let's run him out of town!

Just trying to inject some basis for factual discussion.

Voting in favor of raising tariffs or keeping them high 39% of the time is pathetic, and why I call him a tax hiker.

If someone voted against income tax cuts 39% of the time, I'd call him a RINO, too.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

.. you do realize that this is Pence we are referring to? Not Tancredo?

Well, congratuations. I've now crossed Pence off my list, too.

I still like his immigration plan, though he'll never be my favorite in a Presidential primary.

Who says these arguments never go anywhere?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

You're a good sport, Neil. Though I never realized you were quite so CATO-ish.

I'm no libertarian, not any more (if I ever truly was one), but I hate tariffs as passionately as I hate all other taxes, heh.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

that is from DEC 2002..a lot has happened on trade since

In that about half the 100%ers were Democrats. Black box ratings are even more pointless than normal ratings, which are of dubious utility anyway. I haven't been able to find the criteria used to generate the ratings.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Its the anti-mass immigration mainstream plus the anti-illegal immigration mainstream. There is of course much overlap in those two groups.

Very few favor shutting the doors to all immigration. Most favor allowing 200-300,000 per year to immigrate, but in the minds of pro-mass immigration extremists, this number represents proof of base xenophobia and all sorts of anti-[insert object of hate here]s.

And while it would be nice to have a reasoned national discussion about the proper amount of legal immigration, and separate it from illegal immigration, it is unfair to blame Tancredoites for mixing the two when that is precisely what the awful Senate bill and the Pence plan does.

SCGOP:

You claim that "Pence has a perfect lifetime rating from the ACU and from the Club for Growth, Tancredo is not even close." Also, you contend that "Pence is to the right of Tancredo fiscally and socially." Additionally, you state that "Tancredo does not even care about real conservative issues".

For their votes in 2005 and 2004, both Cong. Tancredo and Cong. Pence received a rating of "100" from the American Conservative Union (ACU). Cong. Tancredo has a liftetime rating of "99" from ACU and Cong. Pence has a lifetime rating of "100" from ACU.

Cong. Pence achieved a 2005 score of "100" form the Club for Growth. Cong. Tancredo achieved a 2005 score of "88" from the Club for Growth.

Both Cong. Tancredo and Cong. Pence have a score of "100" from the National Right to Life Committee for the ongoing 109th Congress. Both achieved a score of "91" for the 108th Congress and both achieved a score of "100" for the 107th Congress.

For the first session of the 109th Congress, the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) awarded Cong. Tancredo a score of "80%" and a letter grade of "A". For the first session of the 109th Congress, the NTU awarded Cong. Pence a score of "75%" and a letter grade of "A". Cong. Tancredo's score of "80%" tied him for the third highest score in the entire United States House of Representatives. Cong. Pence's score of "75%" ranked as the eleventh highest score in the entire United States House of Representatives. Both won a "Taxpayers' Friend Award" from the NTU for 2005.

Your claim that Cong. Tancredo's lifetime rating from the ACU is not even close to Cong. Pence's is false. For 2005, Cong. Pence received a higher score than Cong. Tancredo from the Club for Growth, but a lower score from the NTU than Cong. Tancredo. The facts do not support your contention that Cong. Pence is to the right of Cong. Tancreo fiscally and socially.

Raider

Reagan wasn't good on immigration either, so that's not a credit to Pence.

Though in Reagan's defense, it should be pointed out that he listed the 1986 amnesty as one of his regrets after seeing how the enforcement parts of the bill were not being enforced. And his typical romantic speech about immigration came at a time when the problem was small compared to today, and before immigration in general had helped make his beloved California a blue bastion.

has called the IRCA of 1986 during his time with the Reagan Administration its biggest mistake. AG Meese has been at the frontline in the criticism of the current proposals that don't start with enforcement first. Former Sen. Alan Simpson also is a good source for where that legislation went horribly wrong.

Pence Plan: Secure the borders by any and all means necessary. Clog all the pores and reduce illegal immigration to 0. Then allow a steady flow of foreign workers who have passed Homeland Security/Justice Dept. security screenings to come in and contribute to our economy by allowing companies such as Kelly Services and Administaff to match employers with workers in Ellis Island Centers in foreign countries. All who remain in the country illegally, after being given both opportunity and incentive to self-deport, of course, should be deported and receive 10-yr to lifetime bans on re-entry.

Add severe penalties to businesses who hire illegals, and force employers to have to pay them minimum wages. Minimum wages should be altogether abolished, but if we're going to have them, they shouldn't put American workers at a disadvantage simply because foreign workers and low-bid American workers.

What I would like to see added is a provision allowing employers to be able to import an unlimited amount of highly skilled workers - such as scientists, engineers, doctors, nurses, etc.

The difference between Pence and Democrats who mouth stuff about securing the border is that Pence means it.

Tancredo Plan: Secure the border and throw away the key. This plan will lead to economic stagnation. Only those who are economically illiteral imbiciles endorse this plan.

If the U.S. economy is a bonfire, labor is its fuel. The Tancredo Plan would starve the bonfire of its fuel, and that hurts all of us.

Well, at least you're being honest about it, unlike most proponents of unending mass immigration. But while designing an immigration policy biased towards high-skill immigrants would probably be preferable to the current system, don't you think letting in an 'unlimited' number would stunt the development of home-grown scientists, doctors, etc?

And if the Pence plan really called for reducing illegal immigration to zero, THEN moving ahead with the 'guest worker' (i.e enormous increase in permanent legal immigration) program, then it would not only have to call for tough border security, but also call for strict interior enforcement and the withdrawal of all public rewards for illegal aliens. I doubt it does all of that.

And all of the hate for Tancredo might be more understandable if it were based on actual fact, or actual positions he holds, instead of these leftist-style caricatures of him and his positions. Saying Tancredo wants to secure the border and throw away the key is to suggest that he wants to end immigration into the US, when in fact, he favors a legal policy admitting up to 300,000 per year. I know this number is outrageously low for open-border/pro-mass immigration enthusiasts, but to most people it would be perfectly reasonable. And there is no reason to believe that our economy would fall into a blackhole if we were to implement such a policy.

But if it did turn out that we desperately needed more workers, then perhaps proponents of guest-worker programs could design one that actually matches that which is suggested by the words 'guest' and 'worker'. By that I of course mean a plan that consists of people who must eventually go home, and who are not allowed to bring family with them when they are here to work, and not a plan that is in fact a disguised method to massively increase permanent legal immigration. If it is these gigantic increases in permanent legal immigration that one favors, then one should just say so, and drop the pretense about temporary guest workers. To be fair, some on blogs such as this will openly admit this preference, but sadly, few of the politicians and interest-group talking heads will ever be so honest.

I've taken a stab at explaining this before, but maybe the Tancredobots enjoy having their head in the sand. The 300 K number is not proposed because he wishes that even one more immigrant be let into the country. A quick examination of his "Mass Immigration Reduction Act", AKA the "End All Immigration, Now" Act shows that he arrives at the number by exempting the spouses and minor children of US citizens, and setting almost every other category to zero. As discussed earlier an immigration law preventing the movement of the spouses and minor children of US citizens would face serious legal challenges. This Act is about as close to ending immigration as can be reached.
Under the Act, the worldwide quota for employment based immigrants (both high-skilled and low-skilled) is 5000. Yes, 5000. Only an individual with his head in the sand, or who has an enormous dislike for all immigrants, would fail to see the impact locking out such high skilled immigrants would have on the country and its economy.

The facts are pretty clear for anyone who wishes to see them. For him, its not about "supporting legal immigration in smaller numbers", it is about ending all immigration.

I guess if you parrot the Team America (First) warcry against Pence, it'll eventually stick.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Appeal to Reagan (n): form of argumentation in support of an action by pointing to a time when a similar action was taken during Ronald Reagan's eight years in the White House, without taking into account any differences in the political environment, the party's intellectual makeup, or the party makeup of the Congress.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

You mean like when the WSJ-editorial types claim Reagan would support their defact open-borders posiition, w/o taking into effect all that has changed since his 1986 amnesty and his empthy rhetoric on the issue?

That's one prime example, yes.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.