Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Tancs for the Memories
The
illegal immigrants aren't going anywhere, but Rep. Tom Tancredo is.
In January 2009 he'll
either be in the White House or back in Colorado.
Tancredo, 61, waited until after the Colorado Rockies' last out of the World Series on Sunday night before announcing that he plans to retire from Congress at the end of this, his fifth term.
"It's the fact that I really believe I have done all I can do in the House, especially about the issue (immigration) about which I care greatly," he said.
Tancredo said other people are now taking up leadership on the immigration issue.
Credit where it's due: Tancredo has probably had more influence on a national issue than any back-bench congressman since Jack Kemp started spreading the gospel of supply-side tax cuts. The difference is that Kemp's issue heralded the rise of the modern GOP; Tancredo's activism has so far shrunken the party's appeal by repelling the fastest-growing ethnic minority in America. But Tancredo never cared about the long-term or short-term electoral fortunes of his party. As he saw it, he was defending his country and his civilization. Credit for that, too, I guess.
A side note:
[O]ver the summer, he began hinting that he had his eyes on a 2010 contest against Sen. Ken Salazar, a Democrat he sees as his polar opposite on the immigration issue.
I'm sure Tancredo knows this and it's an ad hominem point, but Salazar's family has been in Colorado since before it was part of the United States.
|10.29.07 @ 11:23AM|#
Darn, now I'll never get to ask him my question:
"Congressman Tancredo, I've hear you say that you you aren't
anti-immigrant, just anti-illegal-immigrant. You've told us you
like and support legal immigrants.
When I like and support something in the political arena, I try to
expand it and make it easier to people to take advantage of. For
example, I support SCHIP.
When I don't like or support something, such as the Iraq War, I try
to reduce of eliminate it.
As someone who likes and supports legal immigration, can you please
tell us what you've done to expand and support it?"
|10.29.07 @ 11:27AM|#
[O]ver the summer, [Tancredo] began hinting that he had his
eyes on a 2010 contest against Sen. Ken Salazar...
I was going to write, "Good riddance," until I read this part. We'd
all be so lucky, wouldn't we?
Anonymo the Anonymous|10.29.07 @ 11:31AM|#
Haven't you learned anything here, joe? If you have a question for an elected official, the proper course of action is to put it on Youtube with an intentionally vague yet deceptively bombastic title, then spam every blog comment page remotely connected to the person or issue with links written in a BizarreStyle that indicates CerebralDamage, couched in remarks that accuse everyone else on the site of being Los Manchurians on the payroll of foreign governments and evil corporations.
The bus driver in question|10.29.07 @ 11:53AM|#
Ottawa reader,
Not to worry, he is a shoe-in for the white houes in 08, I don't
see why he would resign as president and run for senate.
|10.29.07 @ 11:55AM|#
Want to bet he shows up as Executive Director of some Anti-Illegal Immigration group at about twice the salary of a congressman?
|10.29.07 @ 12:01PM|#
Tancreado always reminded me of this
guy - George's lazy boss on the last season of Seinfeld, the
commandant of the military school on Malcon in the Middle, the
chief of police for the town cops in Super Troopers, etc.
His name is Daniel von Bargen, btw.
Adam W.|10.29.07 @ 12:10PM|#
Good riddance.
To his credit, he was IIRC a steadfast supporter of
Hinchey-Rohrabacher.
The Wine Commonsewer|10.29.07 @ 12:14PM|#
Tancredo's activism has so far shrunken the party's appeal
by repelling the fastest-growing ethnic minority in
America.
There is some truth to that, but outside of our isolated little
bubble house there is a huge contingent of people who are really,
really fed up with illegal immigration. Lots of them are working
class Latinos who see illegals as undercutting the wage base and
directly affecting their own ability to earn a decent living. It's
the union argument, but it has a broad appeal.
Given that a majority of Latinos aren't voting Republican anyway
(regardless of immigration stance), I don't see Tommy Boy as
alienating anybody that doesn't already hate him for any number of
different reasons.
Nobody is going to vote for any libertarian in favor of open
borders either. Why? Because we ain't offering no freebies and the
left considers us anti-choice because we're against tax paid
abortions. Pretty sure that same logic could be applied to why the
GOP isn't that popular with minorities or the left.
Kemp might have been good with supply side econ but minorities
weren't voting for him either.
|10.29.07 @ 12:21PM|#
More of the people - way more, by about 2:1 - who are "fed up
with illegal immigration" want to legalize immigration than give
the government a bigger boot to stomp it out - you know, the rest
of the "Union argument."
Among working-class Latinos, the figure is probably closer to
90-10.
TLB|10.29.07 @ 12:27PM|#
This is grrrrreat news! I'm sure the MexicanGovernment is
jumping up and down with joy, as are the crooked businesses that
enjoy the corporatism that Reason's "libertarians" effectively
support. (Reason's readers should take a clear-eyed look at the
bottom line effect of what Reason supports: corporatism, subsidies,
undercutting the national defense, etc.)
As for Weigel's braindead assertion about the GOP's appeal,
certainly he's not saying that support for illegal activity is a
genetic trait of Hispanics. And, certainly he realizes that it's
bad public policy to support illegal activity to pander to one
racial group.
I welcome Weigel somewhat seeing the light: I think he actually
realizes that Tanc is willing to - gasp! - put the best interests
of the U.S. ahead of the supposed best interests of the GOP.
And, of course, Tanc knows about Salazar, but Weigel doesn't seem
to understand Salazar's issue is that he's revealed that he's
willing to put the interests of his extended ethnicity - one he
actually doesn't entirely share with most illegal aliens (ala
Geraldo) - ahead of the interests of his country.
|10.29.07 @ 12:38PM|#
Prohibition is the greatest friend of the corporatists seeking to drive down wages, because it makes it easier to exploit immigrants, and get them to work for lousy wages under lousy conditions, when you can have your workers deported for complaining.
|10.29.07 @ 12:54PM|#
His immigration hobby horse gets old, but believe it or not Tanc's stands on fiscal policy and Iraq are actually pretty decent and sane.
|10.29.07 @ 1:01PM|#
At last, Tanc recognized that he's acting like a no brainer in the field of candidates. Good riddance. Welcome to billbray, king and sessions in the spotlight too, with their propaganda king dobbs. These three musketeers in the immigration clan are grinding their teeth for another episode of the saga. I bet Fair and some in the heritage class of empty think tankers of hate are now in solitude for the broken dreams of an anti immigrant president. SHmuck, these people should all be exiled in Siberia.
TLB|10.29.07 @ 1:02PM|#
joe's not thinking things through.
Let me show another way what the "libertarians" at Reason support
will lead to the opposite of the libertarian position.
Reason's continual smears of people like Tanc play a small role in
enabling IllegalImmigration, and making the situation worse.
The vast majority of Americans oppose IllegalImmigration and they
want something to be done about it. Only an insignificant number of
people support the same thing as Reason: completely open
borders.
Enter Ruuudy to solve the problem, with his "ForeignersOnly"
BiometricIDCard that will eventually become for everyone.
So, by helping to make the situation worse for the vast majority of
Americans, Reason is setting the stage for a victory by someone who
wants a NationalBiometricIDCard that will eventually become a
requirement for everyone.
I don't know whether Reason is not what they pretend to be or
whether they just can't figure things out, but it could be
both.
|10.29.07 @ 1:04PM|#
TLB, you do realize your paranoid ravings are right up there with 9/11 truthers and the militia men, right? Talk about the "paranoid style".
|10.29.07 @ 1:04PM|#
At least Tancredo showed he has a little more class than Scott Boras and waited until after the World Series was over to make his announcement.
Lone Know-Nothing|10.29.07 @ 1:08PM|#
Even at this moment the EuropeanMonarchs in collusion with the CatholicChurch are plotting to dump millions more IrishCatholic immigrants into our AmericanRepublic. It is not long before these devious forces destroy our RepublicanConstitution and integrate the United States into their secretly planned UniversalMonarchy.
Mith|10.29.07 @ 1:12PM|#
At least Tancredo showed he has a little more class than
Scott Boras and waited until after the World Series was over to
make his announcement.
I dunno - maybe he made the announcement because he lost a bet on
the series?
Brian White|10.29.07 @ 1:21PM|#
Joe Announces...
"More of the people...by about 2:1 - who are "fed up with illegal
immigration" want to legalize immigration than ...stomp it
out"
Thus demonstrating just how out of touch Joe is. It was, no doubt,
this overwhelming populist support combined with the support of the
elite of both parties that made the passage of a "Comprehensive
Immigration Plan" impossible.
Brian White|10.29.07 @ 1:27PM|#
Wow - TLB is sounding like a "commie". Did you stick your tongue
out when you said that, George?
The need for I.D. cards to universally used by citizens and
non-citizens alike to be effective has been commented on by
(presumably) non-commie Reason writers, btw, who give it as a
reason to reject immigration enforcement altogether.
|10.29.07 @ 1:30PM|#
Hey Brian, tell us about that NorthAmericanUnion and NAFTASuperHighway the CorporateElites are planning ForUs as part of their scheme for a OneWorldGovernment.
Brian White|10.29.07 @ 1:32PM|#
Daniel W. Southerland - Commie, 9/11 Truther, Raving Lunatic,
and Reason Magazine Contributor
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30457.html
|10.29.07 @ 1:32PM|#
Chell has lost his mind. TLB is insulting our intelligence and Joe is misinformed. First, Chell, Tancredo is not a commie which brings me to TLB's and Joe's point. Tancredo uses American workers when it is convenient for him, to fight all imiigration, not just the illegals. He supports moratorium on all immigration, considers any Asian woman marrying an American a mail order bride and has done everything to split up families, legal or otherwise. Tancredo indeed embodies the GOP family values, for white families. If Tancredo wants to help the poor American worker, why did he bitterly oppose the minimum wage increase? What has he done about outsourcing of jobs? Two years ago, I saw Northwest mechanics picket lines in Denver against outsourcing of jobs. Where was Tancredo, the savior of American workers? The same could be said about FAIR, CIS and other anti-immigration groups. They all use the poor American workers to stop non-white immigration legal or illegal, but when it comes to outsourcing, cutting budget for education to train Americans, so that we dont have to depend on foreign workers so much, they are nowhere to be seen. In short, their goal is to keep non-whites out of the country and if jobs go abroad, they dont care about the American worker. TLB has no idea about why illegal immigration is ignored by some groups which support American workers. It is because racists such as Tancredo do not care about the American worker, and the reason why foreign governments try to own America? People like Tancredo have run up debt to foreign countries which we will be paying for a few more generations. Tancredo, FAIR, CIS, Heather McDonald of Manhattan Institute, all racists. Lou Dobbs? Perhaps not. He at least opposes outsourcing in the same breath that he opposes illegal aliens.
|10.29.07 @ 1:35PM|#
As Steve Sailer often points out, the overwhelming majority of
Hispanics don't vote Republican anyway, so I doubt Tancredo has
repelled many from the party.
Also, Weigel might want to consider why it is that Hispanics are
"the fastest growing ethnic minority in America."
|10.29.07 @ 1:35PM|#
"Daniel W. Southerland - Commie, 9/11 Truther, Raving Lunatic,
and Reason Magazine Contributor"
Agreed!! And I see that Robert may also have a point.
|10.29.07 @ 1:41PM|#
"As Steve Sailer often points out, the overwhelming majority of
Hispanics don't vote Republican anyway, so I doubt Tancredo has
repelled many from the party."
Steve Sailer is a racist idiot from VDare. Hispanics vote more
frequently for GOP than many whites in northern states such as
Vermont, Maine, Washington, New York, New Jersey, Illinois,
Minnesota, Massachussetts, Connecticut, RI, Oregon and New
Hampshire (more recently of course). Steve Sailer has been trying
to convince these whites to switch to GOP in the name of racial
interest and failed. So now he is trying to convince us and the
northern whites whether indeed their interest lies with non-whites.
NM which is majority Hispanic has majority GOP delegation, whereas
majority white WA, MN, NH, MA have a heavily Dem delegation. Which
proves one thing..Steve Sailer is a racist liar or a racist
idiot.
|10.29.07 @ 1:43PM|#
Hispanics (among those that vote) vote GOP about 40% of the
time. Since most don't vote, they are very much up for grabs. But
do your best to repel them conservatives, I'm sure it would make
people like joe very happy.
Steve Sailer is a racist liar or a racist idiot.
But...but....you really think like him tooooo! Its the PC
ORTHODOXY!!! WAAAAAAAAH! WAAAH!
The Wine Commonsewer|10.29.07 @ 1:47PM|#
Among working-class Latinos, the figure is probably closer
to 90-10.
In Boston maybe.
VM|10.29.07 @ 1:47PM|#
"Also, Weigel might want to consider why it is that Hispanics
are "the fastest growing ethnic minority in America.""
why?
oooh!!!! Lemme guess!!!!! the southern fundies have ED secondary to
their type 2 and therefore can't get it up?
|10.29.07 @ 1:51PM|#
Hey, Brian, how about doing so research on public opinion before
mouthing off about how out of touch I am? Have you ever, even once,
actually sat down and looked at any public opinion data on
immigration, or are you just going with what your gut tells
you?
"One proposal would allow undocumented immigrants who have been
living and working in the United States for a number of years, and
who do not have a criminal record, to start on a path to
citizenship by registering that they are in the country, paying a
fine, getting fingerprinted, and learning English, among other
requirements. Do you support or oppose this, or haven't you heard
enough about it to say?"
.
Support Oppose Haven't Heard Unsure
% % % %
6/7-10/07
63 23 12 2
6/24-27/06
67 18 12 3
"Overall, would you say most recent immigrants to the United
States contribute to this country, or do most of them cause
problems?"
.
Contribute Cause
Problems Both (vol.) Depends On Origin (vol.) Unsure
% % % % %
5/18-23/07
57 28 6 1 8
12/7-10/01
51 31 4 1 13
Mistaking the volume of an activist group's speech for the
popularity of its position is rookie wishful thinking.
thoreau|10.29.07 @ 1:51PM|#
Lonewacko-
I think your stance could be summed up with the motto "For our
American people everything! For those outside our group
nothing!"
It seems I've heard that phrase before...
|10.29.07 @ 1:55PM|#
Assuming far broader support than their ideas actually command
is the characteristic failure of the racial right.
They simply assume themselves to be speaking for "Ordinary
Americans," by virtue of their adherence to an ideology based
around a racialized conception of "Ordinary Americans."
TLB|10.29.07 @ 1:57PM|#
Anywho, why does the supposed libertarian magazine support
policies that give more power to people like DoloresHuerta [1] or
JuanJoseGutierrez?
Giving even more power to those two and the many similar people I
could list isn't just very bad public policy. Neither of them are
libertarian in the least, with the second person being linked to
ANSWER.
Yet, in their quest to help crooked companies profit from illegal
activity, one of the side effects is giving some really bad people
even more political power, and all of those people are completely
opposed to anything remotely libertarian.
Readers of this site should really think this through.
[1] freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1617445/posts
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1627844/posts
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1610739/posts
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1616651/posts
|10.29.07 @ 2:01PM|#
Oh yes, Free Republic. The epitome of objective, literate, and thoughtful journalism.
Brian White|10.29.07 @ 2:07PM|#
Joe, it wasn't my "gut" that convinced Congress, (full of people
who are good at reading polls), not to pass the immigration
bill.
What organization paid for the 'poll' you cited, I wonder. The
question is worded just like the ones I get from the Republican
national committee.
Timothy|10.29.07 @ 2:09PM|#
But Tancredo never cared about the long-term or short-term electoral fortunes of his party. As he saw it, he was defending his country and his civilization.
You know, there once was a German who just thought he was defending
his country and his civilization, look where that got us.
|10.29.07 @ 2:13PM|#
Brian, the Senate--a place where a determined minority can block the will of the majority--isn't a very good barometer of the American people. If it was, we would be out of Iraq by now.
Brian White|10.29.07 @ 2:13PM|#
" ...there once was a German who just thought he was defending
his country and his civilization, look where that got us."
Conclusively proving that the defense of countries and civilization
is BAD!! Thanks Timothy!
|10.29.07 @ 2:14PM|#
Brian,
You mean the bill that would have spent a huge sum of money on
fences and larger patrols and made being in the country illegally a
felony?
THAT bill that Congress wouldn't pass?
I could just as easily throw that patchwork monstrosity's defeat in
YOUR face.
But, however accidently, you stumbled into a valid point at the end
there - immigration polls are extremely sensitive to the wording of
the question. "Amnesty" gets as little as 10% support, while "a
path to citizenship" gets as high as 70% support.
That, right there, should tell you something about the depth of
support for immigrant-bashers' ideas.
Brian White|10.29.07 @ 2:21PM|#
Cesar - how about these?
http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm
Pick and choose among these polls as you like, but note that CNN
cites 30% support for the Senate bill, meaning the Senators was
hardly a case of blocking the will of a majority.
Greg|10.29.07 @ 2:23PM|#
If only I could sit down with Tancredo on a nationally televised debate viewed by all the kids who made fun of me in high school and that girl in the next office I have a crush on. I would pepper him with my brilliantly concocted ToughQuestions, he would be instantly discredited and burst into flames on camera. At least, that is what gets me through the night.
|10.29.07 @ 2:24PM|#
The fate of split-the-difference bills that incorporate just enough from every side to be unpalatable to everyone are not a good basis from which to draw conclusions about the popularity of the ideas of any one side.
Brian White|10.29.07 @ 2:25PM|#
Joe, none of the Senators voting against the bill cited border
fences or felonies as their reason. The folks who might have been
expected to cite them (Kennedy, among others) voted for the bill
and urged others to do so.
Your desire to think yourself in the majority is charming, but
silly. As a Reason reader, you should be used to being in the
minority.
|10.29.07 @ 2:28PM|#
Brian,
As I read down that list of poll questions, almost all are about
illegal immigration.
The very first question that asks about converting illegal
immigrants into legal immigrants gets 58% support and 35%
opposition.
This is exactly in line with the numbers that joe was citing.
|10.29.07 @ 2:40PM|#
Good thing Senators are so forthright in their dealings with the
public.
What are we to make of the fact that you, in your attempt to argue
for the popular supremacy of one side's position over the other,
you keep pointing to the fate of a squishy compromise bill in the
Senate?
BTW, as a Democrat, I'm quickly becoming used to being the
majority. Actually reading polling information about immigration,
as opposed to just swallowing the self-serving rhetoric of
immigrant bashers, has been quite helpful in bringing me to this
stage.
I used to make the same lazy assumptions that guide you, thinking
the nativists were as popular as they perceive themselves. Then I
actually looked at the numbers.
Brian White|10.29.07 @ 2:43PM|#
MikeP - I invited you to hunt around for what you wanted - but
look down a little futher...
89% want an enforced English requirement
74% want fines on illegal alien-hiring businesses
65% want a border fence and more border patrol
None of which remotely justifies as an expression of majority
position Reason's venom to Tancredo.
Reason's minority positions - as in "citizenship means nothing,
national borders mean nothing" - are fine, but you guys are being
silly trying to pretend you've got the masses on your side. You
don't.
|10.29.07 @ 2:43PM|#
Why exactly would the defeat of a bill that would turn immigrants into the indentured servants of their employers be evidence that the pro-immigrant side is losing the PR battle?
|10.29.07 @ 2:43PM|#
As a broader point, asking poll questions about illegal
immigrants is useless in providing direction on the biggest
questions in immigration legislation.
As an example, if the only illegal immigrants were terrorists,
felons, or carriers of contagion, then I would answer a question
such as "Overall, do you think ILLEGAL immigrants do more to help
the country or do more to hurt the country?" with "They do more to
hurt".
But as it now stands, where 99% of illegal immigrants are nothing
more than people looking for a better life and a better job, I
would answer that question with "They do more to help".
Timothy|10.29.07 @ 2:45PM|#
Man, it sure is easy to get the nativist one-shot posters riled up. A tiny oblique joke about the Fuhrer and BOOM! Thanks Mr. Blanco, I needed a chuckle.
|10.29.07 @ 2:47PM|#
Cesar, Weigel has linked to Steve Sailer a couple of times in previous posts, so I guess he doesn't think he's persona non grata like you do. Anyway, here's Sailer breaking down the Hisplanic vote: http://www.vdare.com/sailer/pew.htm
|10.29.07 @ 2:48PM|#
89% want an enforced English requirement
74% want fines on illegal alien-hiring businesses
65% want a border fence and more border patrol
Those aren't the controversial parts of Tancredo's position.
Tom Tancredo has proposed a 2-year moratorium on legal immigration.
He has proposed forbidding the government from providing a way for
undocumented immigrants currently in the country from ever becoming
legal residents or citizens.
Standards for citizenship and the robustness of border security are
second-order issues. On the central questions - should we try to
put a stop to immigration? should people be allowed to come here
and live legally? Should there be a way for currently-illegal
immigrants to gain legal status - the country is sharply opposed to
the nativist agenda.
|10.29.07 @ 3:00PM|#
I don't know whether Reason is not what they pretend to be
or whether they just can't figure things out, but it could be
both.
What, you don't know, Lonewacko? The paychecks of the staff of
reason are individually signed by the Treasurer of the
Learned Elders of Zion! Everyone knows that!
|10.29.07 @ 3:06PM|#
Brian,
The word 'quota' does not appear in any of the questions on the
page of polls you cite. Since the change in law to get to the free
migration position is simply "There shall be no immigration
quotas," I wonder how well these questions get to the heart of
"Reason's minority positions."
The question that comes closest is "Should LEGAL immigration into
the United States be kept at its present level, increased, or
decreased?" which yields 39% present level, 20% increased, and 35%
decreased.
But even that question doesn't get to the crux of the matter. The
level of legal immigration should be the number that willfully
enters the US, that can support itself while in the US through
willful employment, and that can willfully leave and reenter at any
time. That level may increase or decrease based on any number of
factors and should not be decided by government.
I'm curious how the poll responses would look if the word
"immigration" was replaced by the word "birth"...
|10.29.07 @ 3:07PM|#
Tom Tancredo is a racist fraud. No one here answers questions about the American worker. If Tancredo is so fond of the American worker why did he oppose minimum wage and living wage legislations? At least Lou Dobbs protests against outsorucing and screwing of the American middle class. What does Tancredo do about outsourcing? Nothing. All he cares about is America becoming non-white. Steve Sailer is a racist bigot. Why cannot he convince the majority of his white bretheren and sisters in the northern states to vote for GOP? Why is he complaining about Hispanics?
TLB|10.29.07 @ 3:16PM|#
Almost every poll I've seen on this issue has huge flaws, such
as misleading language or failing to point out everything that
would result from the question being asked. Some of these polls are
actually Luntzian attempts to find out what language can be used to
lie about this issue.
Regarding my previous comment, let me turn it around a bit: what
exactly is the effective Reason strategy to counteract people like
those two listed above and similar people like this? If a million
more Mexican citizens come here, almost all of them are going to
fall under the sway of people like that, and only a tiny fraction
are going to have any interest in libertarian ideas.
Either Reason has thought that through or they haven't. If the
former, let's hear their plan. If the latter, that's one more
reason why you shouldn't trust anything they say.
|10.29.07 @ 3:22PM|#
I don't think Brian quite knows what to do.
The idea that the Volk might not actually be behind his Volkish
political philosophy rarely occurs to those who would speak for the
Volk, so they rarely have a ready counter-argument.
|10.29.07 @ 3:32PM|#
Cesar, Weigel has linked to Steve Sailer a couple of times
in previous posts, so I guess he doesn't think he's persona non
grata like you do. Anyway, here's Sailer breaking down the
Hisplanic vote:
I don't know the context in which he linked to him. Even if he did
so approvingly, Sailer's still a dipshit. If you ever mention Steve
Sailer, Mark Steyn, Peter Brimelow, or Jared Taylor approvingly on
matters of race you pretty much deserved to be tuned out.
Oh, and two of those people aren't even "real Americans" to begin
with. And one of them grew up in Japan.
Mongo Aurelio|10.29.07 @ 3:32PM|#
This is actually bad news for those in favor of a path to
legalization.
Now that one of the biggest clowns of the nativist side is
quitting, we'll have to settle for Lou Dobbs to ridicule.
Geotpf|10.29.07 @ 3:34PM|#
Being loudly against illegal immigration is a loser of an issue,
for a wide variety of reasons (the whole thing smacks of racism,
for one, especially in the minds of Latinos). I attribute the
illegal immigration issue as playing a large part in turning
California, where the loud attacks against it started a decade
earlier than nationwide, from a red/purple state to a consistantly
blue one, for example. Red and purple states with large numbers of
Latinos (Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Texas(!)) will be
next, due to the recent nationwide anti-illegal immigrant attacks
by Republicans such as Tom Tancredo.
Many in the Republican Party realizes this. Why do you think Bush
(from Texas) and McCain (from Arizona) aren't willing to jump on
the illegal bashing bandwagon? They did the electoral math.
|10.29.07 @ 3:35PM|#
Yeah, I wonder why Texas has two Republican Senators and a
Republican governor, and consistently turns out some of the most
Conservative people in the nation despite the fact it has a very
high proportion of hispanics.
It seems its more likely that they assimilate to the political
culture of a particular state.
|10.29.07 @ 3:38PM|#
Lonewacko,
I watched your latest cited video of Villaraigosa. Most of his
speech is spent pointing out the audiences' First Amendment rights
of free speech, assembly, and petition -- positions that any
libertarian would happily agree with. I certainly saw nothing
inflammatory or antithetical to the interests of the US.
Maybe it's an issue of perception... When you watch a video like
this, what color does the sky appear to you?
|10.29.07 @ 3:53PM|#
The key word in Geotpf's statement "Being loudly against illegal
immigration is a loser of an issue" is LOUDLY. This issue is all
about framing.
Because the preferred frame of conservatives on this issue, as on
so many issues, is "those scheming liberals want to help the scary
people take away what Ordinary Folks like you have got," it's
laughably easy to paint their anti-illegal-immigrant positions as
anti-Latino.
There IS gold in them thar hills for law-and-order conservatives
who want to milk this issue, but it has to be handled with kid
gloves or it will blow up in their faces, and the modern Republican
Party has not shown an ability to do so. They're still too much in
love with the cops-and-robbers framing they've been squeezing
everything into for so many years.
Brian White|10.29.07 @ 4:34PM|#
MikeP - you helpfully make the Reason position for entry, which
is anyone, anytime, for as long as they want. Find me a poll
supporting that!
Joe, the border fence, English-only, and increased employee
sanctions aren't controversial? Funny - I remember lots of
controversies, including marches and the filing of lawsuits about
those very issues.
Otherwise, we may be closer than you think. I'm no fan of Tancredo,
or much of natavist either. I agree entirely with your assessement
of the "reform" bill as making "indentured servants" of immigrant
labor. I don't cross picket lines, I consider the border in the
same category. "illegal alien" sounds less than a slur than "scab",
but the effect is similar.
We also agree that "immigration polls are extremely sensitive to
the wording of the question." Why that is supposed to tell ME
"something about the depth of support for immigrant-bashers'" while
not telling YOU something about the depth of support for
open-border advocates", is unclear.
Bobby|10.29.07 @ 4:42PM|#
Tancredo for Pres!!
Illegals are a bigger problem to this country than people know.
Better start your kids with spanish lessons so they aren't
discriminated in the future when that is the language of the
majority.
|10.29.07 @ 4:47PM|#
you helpfully make the Reason position for entry, which is
anyone, anytime, for as long as they want. Find me a poll
supporting that!
I do not speak for Reason. I actually don't know that that is
Reason's position or even whether Reason has a stated position. It
may be close to Reason's position. It is close to mine.
If you want to see support for that position, please add this
question to your next poll:
"Do you support an immigration policy similar to the immigration
policy under which your ancestors came to the United States?"
|10.29.07 @ 4:49PM|#
Brian White,
Joe, the border fence, English-only, and increased employee
sanctions aren't controversial? They're all widely supported
by the general public. You might remember, the level of support
among the public being the subject of this conversation.
Why that is supposed to tell ME "something about the depth of
support for immigrant-bashers'" while not telling YOU something
about the depth of support for open-border advocates", is
unclear. Because YOU are the one making unsupportable
statements about the popularity of his position.
robc|10.29.07 @ 4:52PM|#
Do you support an immigration policy similar to the
immigration policy under which your ancestors came to the United
States?
Colonists and Injuns only?
As far as my mother has been able to find from extensive ancestry
stuff - I have no immigrants amongst my ancestors. Only the above
mentioned colonists and a scattering of Cherokee. And, yes, before
you ask, I do see a difference between colonists and immigrants.
Not that I would favor your policy suggestion - Im more in favor of
immigration.
libertreee|10.29.07 @ 5:01PM|#
Tancredo's ancestors were the swarthy ones in the Galley making
spaghetti and meatballs for the Pilgrims.
No immigration laws back then!
|10.29.07 @ 5:03PM|#
Tom Tancredo is my congressman and I like him despite, rather
than cuz of, his immigration positions. He has one of the most
fiscally frugal voting records in the House. Only 20 of the 435
reps voted to spend less money than Tom Tancredo:
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=117
Also, he opposed the Bush administration's brazen and tragic Iraq
war "surge".
Tom has been an advocate of fiscal conservatism since he was in our
state house of representatives here in Colorado and numbered among
the "House Crazies" as a radical government cutter. The legacy of
those folks' work lives on in the fact that among the 50, Colorado
has one of the smallest state governments
Was it the Bush administration's irresponsible lack of fiscal
restraint that lead Tom Tancredo to choose to over stress the
immigration issue rather than his perennial favorite-cutting
government spending?
I wish Tom would run for Senate in 2008 cuz fiscally conservative
Sen. Wayne Allard is hanging it up and big spending liberal
Democrat, Cong. Mark Udall is going to make a run for the seat.
VM|10.29.07 @ 5:05PM|#
Rick -
thanks for the info!
is Mark Udall of the New Mexico Udall political cartel family?
libertreee|10.29.07 @ 5:06PM|#
If Tancredo is so fond of the American worker why did he oppose minimum wage and living wage legislations? At least Lou Dobbs protests against outsorucing and screwing of the American middle class.
Ah, another liberal in need of economics 101! Welcome to REASON Hit
and Run Blog!
libertreee|10.29.07 @ 5:10PM|#
At the CLC conference in Reno was presented by significant data
by a conservative called in a booklet called "Border Wars"...also a
lovely Hispanic Republican spoke on these issues.
Hispanics generally have no problem with candidates who talk about
increased border security, fines, deporting criminals, etc.
But, when you talk about rounding up illegals and deporting them en
masse, they get very uptight, and do not vote Republican.
Every Republican candidate so far who has taken the position
favoring mass deportation of illegals has lost significant
measurable Hispanic votes and consequently lost the election he was
in.
Data shows Republicans need 40% of Hispanic vote to win. If it
drops near 30%, they consistently lose.
Geotpf|10.29.07 @ 5:29PM|#
joe-I absolutely agree-I included that word in my statement
intentionally. It's quite possible to be, um, quietly against
illegal immigration. It's just that there's almost nobody taking
that stance. Either they are screaming THE MEXICANS ARE COMING! at
the top of thier lungs, or they take the other side of the issue.
Maybe because the type of people who actually take the time to
rationally consider the issue tend to side with the "you can't
deport them all" side.
Personally, I'm in favor of significantly increased LEGAL
immigration. I also don't think it's practical to deport the twelve
million or so illegals already here. On top of the sheer numbers
involved, there are significant moral problems here-for example,
there are plenty of illegals who have given birth to children since
they have come to the country. Those children are citizens of the
United States, and are probably NOT citizens of the country thier
parents are from. So, one would have to have the government take
them from thier parents when they deport them.
Geotpf|10.29.07 @ 5:35PM|#
Now, I should add that the border fence, increased immigration patrols, fines against companies who knowingly hire illegals, etc., are all fairly uncontroversial amoungst pretty much all segments of the population, including most Democrats, Latinos, liberals, whatever. There's common ground there-so that's not the issue. The issue is deporting 12 million people and seperating families.
TLB|10.29.07 @ 5:49PM|#
Geotpf issues various canards,
some answered at the link.
As for Bush and McCain doing the "electoral math", the truth is
that they've sold out their country partially for political gain
but mostly to support their donors/friends.
MikeP shows once again (reason.com/blog/show/123188.html) that he's
an idiot. On the video (youtube.com/watch?v=3jwqQ8DtlPQ), while
L.A.'s mayor does make some supportable statements, he also says
"we're here and we're not leaving". If you actually think things
through - Reason contributors should seek help with this - you'll
realize that that's something similar to what could be heard in the
Balkans or German sports stadiums in the 30s.
|10.29.07 @ 6:02PM|#
he also says "we're here and we're not leaving". If you
actually think things through - Reason contributors should seek
help with this - you'll realize that that's something similar to
what could be heard in the Balkans or German sports stadiums in the
30s.
Consider this my official request for help...
Geotpf|10.29.07 @ 6:04PM|#
TLB-In regards to any California election, always trust the
Field Poll (which had Latinos opposed 73% to 27%, and also had them
voting for Brown over Wilson 71% to 25%). The Field Poll is scary
accurate. Also, the Field Poll was the newer poll-polling on
propositions in California (in general) tends to start with high
positives that get lower and lower as more people here about them
(and see the mix of ads for and against the proposition on
TV).
Plus, there's an add-on effect here. That is, I believe illegal
immigrant bashing spurs not-voting Latinos to vote for the first
time. Either they become citizens, or are already citizens and just
start voting.
If you don't want to believe that bashing illegals hurts the
Republican Party, that's fine by me, since I'm a Democrat. I love
it when the other side forms flawed strategies on how to win!
|10.29.07 @ 6:42PM|#
"Ah, another liberal in need of economics 101! Welcome to REASON
Hit and Run Blog!"
I am not supporting one side or the other. I am looking for
consistency. Is Tancredo for the American worker or not? Personally
I think he is a fraud and a racist using the American worker.
|10.29.07 @ 8:21PM|#
MikeP shows once again (reason.com/blog/show/123188.html)
that he's an idiot...
Normally, I don't stoop to personal attacks, but since you opened
the door, Fuck you, TLB...
|10.29.07 @ 8:59PM|#
Robert:
Is Tancredo for the American worker or not?...If Tancredo is so
fond of the American worker why did he oppose minimum wage and
living wage legislations?
The evidence is clear. Minimum wage laws stifle the poorest folks
among us by causing unemployment. Also, they cause unemployment
disproportionately among minority folks and have the effect of
preventing the least qualified among us from becoming qualified.
Note that the overtly racist labor unions in South Africa
used to be quite up front in their support of minimum wage laws as
a way to keep Blacks out of the producing sector.
If you consider yourself to be for the American worker, perhaps you
should not speak on this issue cuz you're hurting, not helping, the
least well off among them.
Tancredo has helped the American worker by voting to restrict
spending and taxes.
|10.29.07 @ 9:03PM|#
Ah, I love a good immigration firefight.
The following are just the opinions of a thinking man.
1) Open borders is a bad idea that is not going to happen. It has
almost no support among the electorate. Until Mexico solves its own
economic and legal problems, some sort of immigration policy and
enforcement will be required. OTOH, I'd open the border to Canada
in a micro-second.
2) Deporting all or even some (1/3) of the "illegal aliens",
"undocumented workers", "economic refugees", or whatever you want
to call these people, would be unfeasible, harmful to the U.S.
economy, bad PR, heartless, and immoral. I rule that option out as
well.
3) The status quo is unacceptable for both the rule of law and the
dignity of immigrant workers.
4) Developing and implementing a rational immigration policy is a
must. It should include -
a. Amnesty (yeah, I said the A word) for employed workers and their core families. (Spouse and dependent children only).
b. An accurate assessment as to how many skilled and unskilled workers the U.S. needs.
c. Immigration quotas based on that assessment.
d. A system that allows immigrants to come and go as necessary. Verifiable employment being a prerequisite for entering each and every time.
e. An INS that can handle the paperwork without massive screwups.
f. Workplace enforcement that WILL bankrupt some corrupt businessmen, some of which are no better than flesh peddlers. This would also require deporting those who aren't amnesty eligible.
Nibble aroud the edges as you desire, but this is, IMHO, a sane and
moral policy.
Immigration is similar to drugs and alcohol. Provide a sane, legal
alternative to trafficing and many problems will wither away.
|10.29.07 @ 9:06PM|#
You'll note I didn't reference any polls. They usually have little to do with what is right.
|10.29.07 @ 9:23PM|#
J sub D,
If you have (d) and (e), why do you need (c) and by extension (b)
or (f)?
|10.29.07 @ 9:35PM|#
If you have (d) and (e), why do you need (c) and by
extension (b) or (f)?
To sell it to the public. :-) But now that you mention it, (a),(d),
and (e) and (f) are the essence of my proposal. You need
(f) because the border can't be sealed, and some will always try to
beat the system. The market will solve (b) and (c).
|10.29.07 @ 9:54PM|#
J sub D-
In theory, I like your proposals. However,
An accurate assessment as to how many skilled and unskilled
workers the U.S. needs
is, by the standard free-market doctrine, unknownable by any
central planning organization.
In practice, this is where the political firefight would be fought
- on the definitions of "skilled," "unskilled" and especially
"needs"
(I'm reminded of the scene in Schindler's list where Schindler was
arguing with the Nazi's "I need these children here to make shell
casings." - the appropriateness and even the morality of "needs"
can be spun in a zillion different directions)
As for this: An INS that can handle the paperwork without
massive screwups.
almost fifteens years in the government (and as the son of a
government worker) makes me just think, "aw how cute."
|10.30.07 @ 6:37AM|#
You need (f) because the border can't be sealed, and some
will always try to beat the system.
If the only illegal immigrants are truly undesirables such as
terrorists or felons, and if employers can always find a legal
immigrant, there is a strong market tendency against hiring the
illegal ones.
But I will grant that if the only illegal immigrants are truly
undesirables, then I have little issue with prosecuting knowing
employers of them.
The market will solve (b) and (c).
If the government simply doesn't bother setting the quotas, or if
the government multiplies any good-faith estimates of the
market-based quota by 10, the market is (b) and (c).
|10.30.07 @ 9:46AM|#
On the video (youtube.com/watch?v=3jwqQ8DtlPQ), while L.A.'s
mayor does make some supportable statements, he also says "we're
here and we're not leaving". If you actually think things through -
Reason contributors should seek help with this - you'll realize
that that's something similar to what could be heard in the Balkans
or German sports stadiums in the 30s.
You know, the Germans used to make the Jews wear a certain piece of
flair back in the 30s.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245