From the Rocky Mountain News:
Rep. Tom Tancredo has raised more than $1 million for his exploratory presidential bid, saying that makes it more likely he will follow through with a full-fledged candidacy.
Tancredo, R-Littleton, said he’s aware of the daunting odds he faces going up against bigger-name Republican contenders who have millions more dollars in the bank.
Still, he said he takes heart in the large number of average folks – backers of his hard-line stand against illegal immigration – who have made small contributions averaging $59 on the Team Tancredo Web site.
If nothing else, a Tancredo candidacy will force the other Republican challengers to articulate their stance on illegal immigration reform—which would tend, I think, to pull many of them toward taking a harder-line than they might otherwise take.
I suspect Tancredo realizes he has no shot at winning the Republican nomination, but he will most certainly be a factor, should he decide to run—even though he is practically a single-issue candidate. And I don’t think this is a bad thing for conservatives, though many Republican pragmatists will worry that Tancredo can force the Republican field to take positions that could cost them the Hispanic vote.
I tend to doubt this, there being no reason to think that Hispanic Americans would differ significantly in their opposition to illegal immigration from any other demographic. Of course, all this changes if we are going to allow illegals to vote. Because in that case, yeah—the GOP would be pretty much screwed.
In an unrelated story, Taco Bell, inc., announced a change to their corporate slogan, retiring “Make a run for the border” and replacing it with the newer, fresher, “Stay the hell on your side of the fence, Paco—and yes, I would LOVE to try your new improved Cinnamon Twists!”
“The border ran to US!”
The Missouri Supreme Court sure did its part to help make that possible…
Independence National Historical Park just got taken over by Taco Bell.
The centerpiece of the park will henceforth be known as
“The Taco Liberty Bell”
If immigration revolves around enforcing the laws we already have, then yes. However, if solutions to the issue mean building a massive fence along the Mexican border, you could alienate a good portion of Hispanics. The former applies to all illegal immigrants. The latter singles out one class.
It’s like that big fence around Augusta National. It’s bullshit. All I want to do is play number 12 a couple of times just to see what it’s like. Why they gotta have a fence. Chase me with golf carts if you don’t want me there, but don’t fence me out, man.
……….so if the Mexican border was nothing but country clubs, your immigration problem would be solved. It would be totally fenced and any jumpers would end up raking the bunkers.
They don’t differ on the issue that much, but the issue isn’t the problem. The problem is that Tancredo’s message comes off as racist and pretty consistent with the long history in the US of using the law to target specific racial and ethnic groups for exclusion.
It’s more like that big fence around O’Hare airport. It’s tall with big scary razor wire on top but plenty of illegals come through there anyway.
I think the cartooning of Tancredo’s message makes it sound racist, which is precisely how he is attacked.
As a Coloradan, I have never thought Tancredo racist in the slightest. It just so happens, he might say, that most of the illegal immigrants are coming across the Mexican border. Which is why he targets that border.
Were we seeing an enormous influx of Canadians, I’d be manning the northern border myself.
In fact Jeff, late last year on one TV show or another (perhaps Cavuto) he said exactly that. That he’d run if they keep kicking reform to the curb, just to keep it in the forefront.
Then we’d have no one to play the hockey games Americans don’t want to play.
It’d be a lot harder to “cartoon” his message if it weren’t being funded by, you know, racists.
There are plenty of racists that vote for / contribute to candidates who are not, in fact, racist. Similarly, there are differing reasons for wanting illegal immigration reform.
The point being that plenty of non-racists support tougher laws dealing with illegal immigration.
I believe many of the same “hate groups” that support Tancredo on immigration reform support the Democrats/paleocons on the Iraq War. So the tar brush can splatter both ways.
Remember, David Duke agrees with the Democratic Party 100% when it comes to Iraq policy.
Jeff, agree, but to Hispanic citizens, the racist brush that counts for them the most is the one threatening to take their illegal moms, brothers, cousins, etc. because, as the argument goes, they are resistant to assimilating into the larger culture. Like the marijuana laws, I think the immigration laws are hogwash. If immigration were really about safety, then we’d just make a policy where everyone would have to register and go through a security check without fear of being deported unless they were violent criminals.
But this isn’t about security, its about cultural purity. If we really were worried about the Mexican culture, then it’d be best if we bring them in and teach them the meaning of the Constitution, our federal mindset, etc. A superior culture need not worry about being overwhelmed, just as the Brits didn’t worry about Indian culture overwhelming them. India took the best from the Brits because the Brits were confident in their culture. The Tancredos fear the Mexicans because the American culture has been weakened by the worst of its own ideology, the Pelosi’s of the world. If we truly did have confidence in our culture, as I do, then immigration would be seen as an opportunity to create more Americans, not as a threat to our fragile American culture.
Heck, if we had any balls, we’d just tell the Mexican government that if they don’t cooperate with us then we’ll just have to move our border about 50 miles south and grant every Mexican inside that zone American citizenship. Then we can clean up the place and turn the Tijuana’s of Mexico into the San Diego’s of the US.
friend:
I’m betting that you do not live in So Cal , Texas, Arizona or New Mexico. Because if you did, you would realize that it’s not about “Cultural purity” (although that is not an illegitemate or inconsequential consideration) but instead it is about the complete overwhelming of the infrastructure, economic and physical.
I don’t think it’s about cultural purity, either. To me, it’s only about lawbreaking.
I am not nearly so tough in my views of illegal immigration as is Tancredo, by the way. But I am a strong proponent of assimilation / naturalization.
I actually quite like the Hispanic culture (I lived for 8 years in an almost entirely Hispanic neighborhood in Denver); but illegal immigration, in addition to overwhelming the infrastructure, creates the conditions for cultural and linguistic balkanization.
I’d rather see legal immigration expanded and expedited—and I’m for a guest worker program—but the payoff must be that we get back to the idea of assimilation.
That’s not a call for “cultural purity” unless one envisions the culture, as I do, as a melting pot. In which case, the “purity” is secured only by the fact that all immigrants share the same legal status and the same goal of assimilating to the national identity.
But, but, I read somewhere on the internet that “illegal” in this context is just a code word for racism! And you know if it’s on the internet it has to be true!
Those calling for cultural purity would be besides themselves in a Chicago meat packing plant circa 1910.
It’s almost as if a better solution would be that if a person wants to vote or receive public assistance (including hospital ER and childrens school enrollment) they have to prove they are a citizen or resident alien.
I’m not concerned about latin culture (after all, it’s not just Mexicans that are coming across illegally), nor am I concerned with the impact on the labor pool (why distort the market by allowing employers to exploit the workers legal status). Security concerns me some, but somebody suggested check-ins.
So all you people that want to claim “cultural purity” is the motivation how about a big dose of STFU. The only reason we can’t have almost open borders is because of the voting rules and welfare state that you produced in the first place.
Having spent many years in SoCal, amen to that. With the ridiculously delicious food, mindblowingly hot women, and guys who will dive into any job you’ve got like it’s one of their mindblowingly hot women for very little green, what’s not to like?
Obey the law, learn to speak English, and we’ll get along just fine. Bring your friends and family! Those conditions go for everyone, btw, not just those from south of the border. Those who have come here and have taken those concepts to heart have done quite well.
But not in 1950.
So, do you have a point?
friend,
I can tell you living about 15 miles from Mexico as I do, most of Tancredo’s points aren’t racist, they are facts. Calling them racist is merely a ploy to discredit the messenger & not the message. Unless you can provide a link that specifies a specific race, not a country or its citizens, your points are total BS. Please note, I attacked your points, not you. I have yet encountered a person in favor of open borders who can argue a point w/o resorting to calling the opposition racist.
Yes, those meat packing plants all went out of business by 1980 thanks to rent-seeking, unionized, cultural purists.
BTW, it looks like Colorado is letting prisoners out to work on farms because, you know, immigrants aren’t safe.
Me too. Make it legal and it will be safe. They won’t have to pay “coyotes” exorbitant amounts of money just to get in.
PMain, I live 2 hours from the border in Los Angeles. I am from a place called Boyle Heights, a town in LA that has been a traditional gateway community for Japanese, Jewish, Mexican and now Central American immigrants. Get the picture? They come, they assimilate and they leave, all within 2-4 generations. Many in my family are rooted in the ranchero culture in and around the border who, for generations, made a living going north or south with goods and services; from farmhand work to merchant exchange. About half of Mexicans, like my family, come the US for work so that they can make some money to take back home.
The other half, like my dad, come to stay, to get a job and then give the ol’ American Dream a shot. The social services are a bonus, but not even close to the most important factor. The fastest growing populations of Mexicans are in Louisiana, Georgia, North Carolina, Nebraska, etc., where there is little promise of social benefits, but great promise for work…work.
Like many things (such as drug laws), the harsh immigration laws have made going back and forth a high stakes game, and one in which the illegal activity of all stripes prospers under; from coyotes and human trafficking to drug smuggling. The harsher the laws, the greater becomes the power of those with the ability to sidestep those laws. The harsher the laws, the harder it becomes for Mexicans who only wanted to stay a few months or a single picking season to make the decision to go back home once they’ve made their money. Why go back when there is a greater chance of getting caught the next year? So now they just stay.
The circularity of the matter is that the harsher the laws become, the greater are the social problems that come from the harsh laws, in turn encouraging the Tancredo’s to demand harsher laws.
If people really cared about securing the border, there would be a system that worked with the migrant patterns, not against them. But as I said, thats not the issue. Sure, it is not the case for Jeff or you or even Tancredo, but its a classic double-speak situation for racists who do see it as a cultural purity issue. They can hide behind the “but they are illegal!” meme while not giving two shits about the legality of the issue.
Ah, yes. The old “make the laws lax and people won’t break them” argument. Sorry, no.
Here’s an idea—let’s simply mirror the immigration laws and policies of Mexico. If it’s OK for them to apply to others, it’s certainly OK for us to apply to them.
I just noticed that phrasing.
And I thought a kidney stone would be painful.
Rob, if you want to be more like Mexico, thats your business, but I’d prefer to stick with being more American.
friend,
Is Tancredo calling for harsher immigration laws, or enforcement of the current ones?
Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I’ll retain the belief that it’s the latter.
There is one. It’s called the State Department. The problem is with those who choose to follow their own path and not the one prescribed by our laws. I’m all for a guest worker program that allows for the use of transient/seasonal labor. But I want them to come into the country through the proper channels and points of entry, not however and wherever they choose to do so.
Gee, now I’m afraid to oppose “friend” or he’ll call me a racist. Good job, “friend”. You certainly shut me up good.
Well, at least “friend” didn’t call me a chickenhawk. This time.
mishu-
Those calling for cultural purity would be besides themselves in a Chicago meat packing plant circa 1910.
And those same employees of the meat-packing plants in 1910 were the major force behind the virtual cessation of all immigration to America between 1924-1964…
T/W: Babysteps97
friend-
Sure… Meanwhile, here in Columbus, Ohio- where approx 5% of our population are “illegals”- and they represent 20% of our prison population, 20% of our school children, and 30% of our Medicaid/Food Stamp recipients and unpaid ER admissions…
Because there just aren’t enough Americans to suck that welfare teat.