LITTWIN: Tancredo's impact: GOP race, country more mean-spirited
By Mike Littwin, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published December 22, 2007 at 12:30 a.m.
I'll admit it. I underestimated Tom Tancredo. I underestimated the impact he could make as a presidential candidate, particularly as a candidate who was polling, as many of us had predicted, around 2 percent.
And yet, I had no idea he could take one issue and, with it, help make the Republican presidential race - and the country itself - an uglier, nastier and more mean-spirited place to be.
He didn't do it by himself, of course. He wasn't even the lead player. You have to give that role to Lou Dobbs and the huge audience on his team.
Still, you'd have to call Tancredo's aborted presidential run - his never-even-get-to-a- vote run, his abandonment- even-by-the-Minutemen run, his so-desperate-to-be-noticed-that-he'd-even-endorse- Mitt Romney run - a success. And that's even though, as a candidate, he was a minor disaster. And even though few will even notice, now that he's dropped out, that he's actually gone.
If that seems like a paradox, that's because it is. But you can't judge Tancredo in purely electoral terms. As I wrote when Tancredo announced, he wasn't really running for president. He was running to be the next Al Sharpton.
Give Tancredo credit. He out-Sharptoned Sharpton. He brought a single issue to the table, and it's still lying there.
It's true that illegal immigration would have been an issue in the campaign if Tancredo had never gone within a thousand miles of Iowa. It was an issue because John McCain, who put his name on immigration reform next to Ted Kennedy's, was once the front-runner. It was an issue because Rudy Giuliani, who replaced McCain as the front-runner, had embraced illegal immigrants as mayor of New York, although - as far as I know - he had never ordered cops to walk a single illegal immigrant's dog. It was an issue because, gosh darn it, Mike Huckabee, the surprising front-runner in Iowa, champ ioned in-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants.
And so, there was clearly room for someone to demagogue the issue. And, for this war anyway, Tancredo was the first to volunteer.
He promised that, in every debate, the issue would be raised - even if Tancredo, in every debate, stammered his way through every response. (Will anyone ever forget Tancredo's world-record three failed attempts at getting one Benjamin Franklin quote into play?)
You'd think that, with an issue so hot, some of the heat might have rubbed off on Tancredo's campaign. But while Tancredo sweated, Huckabee rose from the bottom tier to the top. As Tancredo floundered, Ron Paul raised millions and became the leader of the Ron Paul Revolution. And, unless I misjudge, Tancredo's backers will rush not to Romney but to Ron Paul. It's not every candidate, after all, who has his own blimp.
The most memorable moment in the presidential immigration debate had nothing to do with Tancredo. It was in the YouTube debate, which opened with Romney accusing Giuliani of running a sanctuary city and Giuliani accusing Romney of running a sanctuary mansion.
At this point, Tancredo should have walked off the stage, saying, "My work is done here." Instead, when he did walk off the stage the other day at the Des Moines Marriott, the hotel restaurant (noted The Washington Post's Dana Milbank) was having its "South of the Border Thursday" buffet lunch.
Tancredo did not wear well in the campaign. Other candidates stole his issue. (See Huckabee's ad on getting tough on the border.) Meanwhile, increasingly desperate to get attention, Tancredo produced increasingly nasty campaign ads.
You can check them out on YouTube yourself. His last ad was a so-called spoof, featuring fellow Republican candidates either wearing sombreros or showing up at presidential cock fights or in "lucha libre" wrestling poses. This was Tancredo's idea, I guess, of ethnic humor - or maybe his idea of what immigrants from Mexico actually look like. By the campaign's end, Tancredo seems to have turned into the kind of person who might actually vote for someone like Tom Tancredo.
And he ended his campaign with one final embarrassment - by endorsing Mitt Romney. What Tancredo and Romney have in common is that both have been caught hiring illegal immigrants to do work around the house. Tancredo's goal is to help stop Romney's Iowa rival, Mike Huckabee, who Tancredo says is too soft on immigration. And yet it was Huckabee who was endorsed by Jim Gilchrist, co-founder of the Minutemen, the same group Tancredo has so often joined on the border patrolling with their night goggles and beach chairs. You think a fence would help here?
M.E. Sprengelmeyer, the Rocky's ace Iowa bureau chief, posted an interview he did with Tancredo that featured this gem about Romney, when Romney was starting to make illegal immigration a key issue: "I can't spend as much as he can here. But I can get enough information out in Iowa that says, 'Mitt Romney is not who he claims to be.' "
Now Romney can claim to be, at minimum, the man Tancredo endorsed for president. Still, Romney wisely chose not to show up for the sparsely attended endorsement news conference.
You can't blame him. He'd have found more supporters at the hotel buffet.
littwinm@RockyMountainNews.com
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
December 22, 2007
8:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
politwriter writes:
I commend Tom Tancredo for almost single handedly keeping the issue alive for the past decade, when he was often a lone voice.
If opposition to an illegal, massive invasion of 3rd world immigrants is mean spirited, you'd better tell key Democrat fundraiser, liberal Cong. Rahm Emmanuel, who warned Democrats to ignore this issue at their own electoral peril.
I think Congressman Tancredo would make a great Secretary of Homeland Security in a GOP administration.
December 22, 2007
9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
ReformedRepublican writes:
Tom Tancredo has personally ensured that I will not vote for a Republican. I voted for Bush twice. Tancredo's attacks against Hispanic Americans has made a person like me persona non grata.
Thank you Tom Tancredo.
December 22, 2007
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brittanicus writes:
If a true patriot like Rep. Tancredo endorsed Mitt Romney, then that's good enough for ME! I'm not voting for either Democrats or Republicans who play along with the globalist, open-border, unfair free-market agenda? All the ultra-liberals entities have left and the anti-American organisations in our midst, is to use the race card. Not all the Hispanic people want unfettered illegal immigration. Those who come here legally want part of the American dream, just like any new member to join American society?
This has nothing to do with Hispanics as a race, but everything to do with the unsubmountable difference with legal and illegal! America welcomes every new potential citizen, but we do not need people who do not follow "THE RULE OF LAW." No exceptions!
December 22, 2007
9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
ReformedRepublican writes:
Tancredo called Miami a third world country. This statement went along with his description of Hispanic immigration, both legal and illegal, as a third world invasion.
Even with years of serving this Country in the military, I'm just a third world invader to Mr. Tancredo.
Tancredo is a fraud.
December 22, 2007
9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
ReformedRepublican writes:
"If a true patriot like Rep. Tancredo endorsed Mitt Romney,"
True patriot? I guess you haven't heard that Mr. Tancredo avoided the draft. Not a patriot. More like a true fearmonger.....
December 22, 2007
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Alive writes:
Mr Tancredo has more balls than Mr.Littwit and all the rest of you put together. Brave people are often attacked. Flame on morons.
December 22, 2007
11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
DanR writes:
I love the line;
"uglier, nastier and more mean-spirited place to be."
You might want to look in the mirror more often. I suspect that you might find that Tancredo has more to offer this world, as limited as he is, than your
"uglier, nastier and more mean-spirited." vitriol
December 22, 2007
11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
davegorak writes:
What's really eating at Litwin is that Tancredo's constant emphasis on the immigration issue put the problem where it belongs: before a national audience.
But what does Litwin know? He's part of the problem because he's part of a mainstream media who have failed to follow their own standards for fair and balanced reporting in a deliberate attempt to keep their readers and viewers in the dark about a public policy issue that affects every aspect of our daily lives.
If you listen to one-dimensional "journalists" like Litwin, who can't crank out enough sob-sister stories about illegal aliens, you come away with the impression that the only people entitled to search for better life are the foreign-born, especially if they're here illegally.
In short, Litwin and his media colleagues don't like this country's native-born working poor. When I was a young Chicago reporter in the 1960s, I watched reporters and editors for all of the city' major newspapers fall all over themselves in support of black Americans who were demanding only the rights they were born with. Pseudo-reporters like Litwin don't even come close to being in the same class as those writers who knew there was far more to their craft then just selling papers.
Dave Gorak
Executive Director
Midwest Coalition to Reduce Immigration
LaValle, WI
www.immigrationreform.org
December 22, 2007
12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
politwriter writes:
Tancredo's Presidential bid, aside from focusing the attention of the electorate on the issue, also had the beneficial side effect of giving him a national contributor base for his upcoming U.S. Senate bid.
Attacks on him by the mindless illegal alien enthusiasts only enhance his fundraising appeal.
I'm from Chicago and he'll certainly be getting a check from me.
December 22, 2007
12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
waitpt writes:
Tancredo is an embarrassment to our fine state.
Yes, illegal immigration is a problem, but not as idiot Tom sees it. Having worked extensively in the construction industry, I can attest that not much would get done without our fine neighbors from the south.
People can say that they are stealing jobs, and that may be so. The important factor that you must realize is the jobs that they are "stealing" are low-wage, labor intensive jobs that we are not training our spoiled kids to do. Plus, these hard workers are bringing down the cost of labor to a more reasonable level.
The best thing this country could do is bring these people fully legal, get their taxes, which can then help to teach them english.
How many of you out there grew up in any one of the large eastern cities where there was(and still is) large immigrant communities that spoke another language, be it Lithuanian, Polish, Italian, etc?
This country is basically being racist towards people they deem different from themselves, and good-ole Tommy was leading the charge.
December 22, 2007
12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
ReformedRepublican writes:
Tancredo as the Senator from Colorado? Hey, if Colorado wants a 'psych deferrement' draft avoider as a Senator.... more power to Colorado.
December 22, 2007
1:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
gary writes:
Good old Littwin...the nitt witt one...
What is the matter nittwitt... can not take it that you have always been wrong on Tancredo and immigration.
You need to go back and read your own articles on Tom. Everything that you have wrote about Tom has turned out to be false.
Immigration is a BIG ISSUE in America...always has been. Tom Tancredo has done more good for our country than you ever will Mike.
So it is time for you to eat crow..Littwin..Nitt Witt One..
December 22, 2007
1:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
politwriter writes:
The same tired old shibboleths from the illegal alien profiteers and their amen chorus at La Raza. Got news for you. No one's buying it anymore. You want a "reasonable level" for construction wages. God forbid you should pay American workers a living wage. Why not just go all out and bring back slavery? If in fact, these are all low wage jobs they're taking, if legalized, they wouldn't be paying taxes at all, but filing for "earned income tax credits," a form of welfare subsidy to the working poor.
And when your low wage worker brings in his wife and children and aging grandparents, who pays for their education, emergency medical care, food stamps and WIC? The American middle class, while the criminal cheap-labor profiteer just rakes off the profits of his exploitation.
Real immigration reform will only occur when the criminal employers are led away from their construction sites in handcuffs. Then the self-deportation would begin as it becomes too costly to continue to break the law by hiring illicit cheap laborers.
Tom Tancredo was dead right on that and Democrats are beginning to run on that very program in far flung Congressional districts across the country as they want to keep their jobs.
December 22, 2007
4:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
GK5353 writes:
I don't know this columnist nor his previous work but based on this piece he must be a very young man or an older gentleman who has learned much too little.
December 22, 2007
4:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
catface1962 writes:
The US was founded by immigrants and has flourished because of the influx of immigrants at various points in its history. The current influx of immigrants is very much like the influx of immigrants at the turn of the 20th century.
We cannot allow demagogues like Tom Tancredo, whose family obviously didn't come to the US on the Mayflower, to continue to practice hypocrisy, let alone continue to breathe the air.
He and those like him must be stopped at all costs. Our country cannot continue to progress without the influx of new blood and new cultural cross pollination.
Open borders for all!
December 22, 2007
4:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
politwriter writes:
Catface is a trifle ignorant of immigration history. While there was a large wave of immigration to the US at the turn of the century, Congress effectively stopped all immigration in 1920 and did not resume it until 1946. That 26 year respite gave that immigration wave a chance to assimilate into American culture.
If it's history, he wants to emulate, I'll go along. I think another 25 year moratorium on all immigration would give our nation a badly needed respite and allow the natural forces of assimilation to work their magic.
But we just can't afford to go on like this. It is unprecedented in our history.
December 22, 2007
4:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
catface1962 writes:
It is Politwriter who is ignorant about history. If one merely looks at the immigration records for post 1920 US immigration, you will find a substantial continuation of immigration into the US, especially from such places as Eastern Europe, where Jews flocked away from the effects of the pogroms and Bolshevik revolution, then from the early days of the Nazi regime.
Assimilation is the worst thing that can happen for immigrants. They are perfectly capable of forming their own communities, with their own businesses and subculture, which function independently but sympathetically with the rest of American society. A case in point is the Korean-American community in Flushing, NY.
There is non need for people to give up their cultural practices in order to live well within a society. How many different languages are spoken in India?
December 22, 2007
6:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Alive writes:
catface1962
Wow! You have bought into this crap hook line and sinker! Let me guess......20 something college kid? No? Hispanic activist? No? Old hippie trying to relive the glory days? No? Idiot? Yessssssss!
December 22, 2007
6:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Rangerjoe1 writes:
Catface1962 must be a slave trader, maybe her ancestors owned a plantation. She likes them brown slave doing jobs, Americans were doing but at market wages. Illegals are not immigrants that are welcome, only law abidding LEGAL IMMIGRANTS are welcome.
She must like brown servants waiting on her as slaves not employees. What a racist!!!! God Bless you TOM TANCREDO please run for senate.
December 22, 2007
7:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
politwriter writes:
Catface is obviously an-anti American multiculturalist ideologue and ideologues are notorious for not letting facts get in the way or their preconceived utopian daydreams.
But facts are stubborn things.
There was no mass immigration into the US for the quarter century mentioned and a very few exceptions on humanitarian grounds. In fact, Jewish activists still complain today that we were too strict in shutting down immigration then. The closure of the gates was, in fact accompanied by significant deportations of illegals during the Depression, most notably, 13k Mexican illegals deported from Los Angeles County at the county's own expense.
As for the wonders of polyglot, multicultural India, what an ignoramous she must be.
Since 1946, India has broken up into into four different countries, a matter effected with great violence and bloodshed, which continues today over Kashmir.
Name one successful multicultural nation.
Yugoslavia dissolved in a morass of murder and ethnic cleansing. Czeckoslovakia broke in two. The former USSR has broken into a hodgepodge of ethnically and religiously distinct duchies, all at each others throats. Belgium is on the verge of dividing into distinct Walloon and Flemish countries.
If Italian boys and Jewish boys and Irish boys and German boys and Polish boys hadn't assimilated into American boys during the immigration moratorium era 1920-46, there would have been no coherent US Armed Forces to liberate Europe and roll back the Japanese Imperialists, and you, dear girl, might be speaking German or Japanese today and living in a slave state.
Open borders plus multiculturalism is a recipe for national suicide and I fear that there are malevolant people, such as this catface poster, who would actively want to see the US self-destruct. Either that or they're dangerously ignorant people.
December 22, 2007
7:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eagle_in_NYC writes:
What? People still read the Rocky Mountain Snooze?
December 22, 2007
8:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brittanicus writes:
Thank heavens a number of states, have seen the light even if some of the corrupt Senators in Washington have intentionally ignored the American people. But times are changing with Georgia, oklahoma, Arizona and soon Missouri and Tennessee against the illegal immigration invasion. Since when does any other country ever have to support 12 to 20 million illegal occupiers. Arizonas harsh law goes into effect on January 1, so other states will be watching very carefully at the impact. We know that there is a large exodus of foreign nationals and families from Georgia. I wonder which will be the next state to follow..........
$60 Billion dollars are year to support illegal aliens, because taxpayers get stuck with the bill; compliments of pariah employers!
December 22, 2007
8:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
omstew writes:
great debate! this is sincerely enlightening reading. without expressing a position on the matter, i note that the meanness that Mr. Littwin refers to is clearly more evident on one side of the issue. some of you certainly went all out to make Mr. Littwin's point for him.
December 22, 2007
10:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
AntiBigGovernment writes:
There is a simple solution to Tancredo's concern about illegal immigrants. He says he has nothing against legal immigrants, just against illegal immigrants. If this is true, then he needs to think about why most illegals are in this country in the first place. The answer is simple -- they are here because "big government" is once again interfering with the free market (as it does in socialist societies), and not allowing Adam Smith's invisible hand to allocate scarce resources. In this case, the scarce resource is labor, and the government has set an arbitrary limit on the number of legal immigrants allowed into the US, which is completely inconsistent with the realities of supply and demand for labor in this country. As with other government interference in the free market, when the government artificially limits the supply of a scarce good (in this case, labor), the result is a black market (in this case, undocumented immigrants).
This, of course, is why almost all free market-oriented (i.e. Republican) economists believe we should loosen rather than tighten restrictions on legal immigration. If we allowed more immigrants to enter legally, more in line with demand for labor in the free market, then there would be fewer illegal immigrants in the US. If they could enter legally, then why enter illegally?
Of course, I realize that the reality is not that simple. Polls demonstrate that most people who say they are opposed to only to the illegal variety of immigrant, are usually also opposed to allowing more immigrants in legally. The only conclusion I can draw from this illogical stance is that opposition to illegals is really code for opposition to immigrants period, which usually means opposition to foreigners and their languages and cultures, and in this country, to Mexicans specifically. Bottom line is, most people (including Tancredo) who want to stop illegal immigration AND who also oppose increased levels of legal immigration, really just don't like Mexicans or Latinos, and don't want to let so many of them into our country.
In the end, Tancredo is nothing more than a xenophobe, and possibly a racist.
December 22, 2007
11:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
AntiBigGovernment writes:
For politwriter and rangerjoe1:
It is true that the US shut down most immigration to the US, primarily with the Immigration Act of 1924. Interestingly, that Act did not limit the number of Mexican immigrants (who weren't a major immigrant group in those days), but it did go all out to limit Italians (such as Tancredo's ancestors), Russians, Poles, and the other large immigrant groups that were the targets of nativists and xenophobes back in those days.
Not surprisingly, within a few years of suddently shutting off the dynamic spigot of immigration, the US economy plunged into the Great Depression. I do not claim the Immigration Act of 1924 to the the sole cause of the Great Depression (the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was another major culprit), but I agree with the many economists who believe it was a major factor.
As for naming a successful multicultural nation, I can name many, beginning with the United States. Other examples of successful multicultural nations include Canada, Australia, Argentina, and Brazil. Note that I am defining "success" as being countries where the various ethnic groups for the most part get along, often to the point where they are no longer considered separate ethnic groups, and where the country is in no serious danger of breaking up along ethnic lines.
You'll also note that these countries are all countries made up primarily of immigrants. This is a key point. Nativists often bring up the difficulties faced by multi-ethnic countries in Asia, Europe, and elsewhere. However, the multi-ethnic or multi-cultural aspect of those nation-states has almost always been imposed by force on exising ethnic groups (i.e. not immigrants), often by outside powers. It is very different when an ethnic group migrates willingly and voluntarily into another country, as they mostly have in the countries I mentioned above (black slaves in the US being a major exception, which has also probably been the most difficult element of our own multi-cultural heritage).
In other words, I think it is comparing apples and oranges to compare a multi-cultural country made up largely of voluntary immigrants and their descendants, with a country that is multi-cultural only because some power at some point ruled over the area, and decided to lump together a bunch of ethnic groups into one artificial and nation-state with arbitrary boundaries. The latter will almost always be troubled, givent he coercive nature of that state's multi-culturalism.
December 23, 2007
12:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
MereMortal writes:
You've got it backwards, Mike. Politicians and the media are following, not leading America on this issue. McCain learned the hard way, and that's just the beginning. Illegal immigration will remain a top-tier issue until the borders are secure, and people find it very difficult to enter and live in this country illegally. We have no reason to feel guilty about wanting to know who is coming to join us. We don't want felons for example, and we don't want people who aren't willing to identify themselves. We do want people who are willing to enter legally, assimilate and become Americans. Legal immigration should be incentivized and quota levels raised, and no one should be allowed to jump ahead of those who follow the rules. Calling Americans who want immigration to take place legally "ugly, mean-spirited and nasty" is playing the role of a demagogue.
December 23, 2007
4:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
politwriter writes:
Big government is responding to the social disintegration caused by massive immigration by enacting measures to try and keep the lid on the societal tensions caused by a sudden influx of millions of unassimilating foreigners into America's communities.
Witness "Hate crime," laws and "Hate speech" campus codes and the FBI's new Billion dollar biometric database on American residents.
Repressive measures of this weren't contemplated when American society was less diverse and the borders were enforce.
As for "successful" multicultural situations Biggov't cites, Argentina kept the lid on social strains with a succession of military juntas, Brazilian middle and upper income people live in gated communities and hire armed bodyguards, Canada has clamped down of free speech and (eliminated birthright citizenship.) Australians are losing civil liberties as their government clamps down of its radical muslim elements.
Moreover, assimilation isn't even being promoted in the US where schools are awash in multiculturalist relativism and bi-lingual education.
I do not think it inconceivable that the US is headed toward a Balkan styled breakup or Tito-styled repression if the disintegrating forces of open borders and multiculturalism aren't arrested.
Men are not merely economic factors out of some Marxian or Libertarian textbook. They are parts of a larger culture.
Culture isn't everything, but it's not nothing, either.
December 23, 2007
6:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
AntiBigGovernment writes:
Politwrter:
If your definition of "success" for a multi-cultural nation is that it has no ethnic or political problems at all, then this is an impossible standard. As long as there are people like Tancredo in a country, who insist that everyone look and think and act and speak like them, there will always be some ethnic tension during the assimilation process. It is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy when those who predict tension are also those who cause it.
Having said this, I maintain that these countries are, by most reasonable standards, multi-cultural successes. In the U.S., for example, nativists used to consider the Irish, Italians, Poles, and Russians (the main ethnic groups explicitly targeted in the Immigration Act of 1924) to be a menace to society. Today, we hardly even think of them as separate ethnic groups, and they have become part of the fabric of American society.
Ironically, it is descendant of one of those groups, Tancredo, who now leads the nativist movement. Tancredo should go read what newspaper editorials and politicians used to say about his ancestors, as well as the Irish, Poles and Russians, 80 or 100 years ago. It sounds a lot like what he says about Mexicans today -- almost idential, in fact. A Balkan-style social disintegration didn't happen then, and it won't happen now. I suspect that my grandchildren probably won't even think of Latinos as a separate ethnic group, just as we hardly consider the Italians or the Irish to be distinct ethnic groups today.
Big government over-regulation of scarce resources, and forceful imposition of uniform cultural norms, is an old Marxist tactic that has failed many times in the past, and is likely to fail now.
I should emphasize that I do agree that we need to eliminate illegal immigration. The difference is that I believe that the best way to do this is to encourge and allow more legal immigration. After all, there is noting inherently wrong with immigrating -- less is not better than more, and we decide how much is legal. Allowing more immigrants to enter legally would eliminate the need for most to enter illegally, and would better reflect the realities of supply and demand for labor in the US economy today. And it would also allow us to better control and monitor who is entering the country.
December 23, 2007
10:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
RLaitres writes:
People who suddenly come into money very often do not know how to handle it. They are frequently called "nouveau riche", that is not a complimentary term. Tom Tancredo, is what we can call a "nouveau patriote". He rose to a position of influence in the country without knowing anything about it. That is true despite his so-called formal "education". Tancredo is and was an ultra-nationist, and not a patriot. If one looks at his words,the campaign he ran, and where his support came from, it is clear that he is an unscrupulous person and a racist to boot. His campaign was, if nothing else, crass and a clear example of fear-mongering only accepted by those having no courage and no sense of obligation to the country. The campaign by Mr. Tancredo could have been conceived by Josef Goebels, one where one has to have someone else to blame for everything.
December 23, 2007
10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Alive writes:
So RLaitres, guess your "old money" huh? Losing that cheap labor might keep you from buying the latest plaything, yes? Couldn't have that now could we. Compareing TC to Goebels?
A rich drama queen is truly a pathetic sight.
December 23, 2007
11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Intelligent1 writes:
Two comments that should be very simple for even illiberals. One, it's the rule of law, and two, get a hair cut nitwitt
December 23, 2007
3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Latinaminutewoman writes:
God Bless Tom Tancredo! I want to thank Tom for standing up for American citizens and braving the idiotic brow beatings to stand up for what is right! This Mexican American is proud and greatful for a true leader like Tom Tancredo! Merry Christmas Minutemen and Minutemen at heart!!
December 24, 2007
7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
They are actually called "Minutemen" because they are unable to last very long.
December 24, 2007
10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
I am having a hard time finding another country that allows more than 700,000 legal immigrants on average every year since 2000.
If wanting our immigration laws enforced makes someone a racist then I guess Mexicans are racist.
How many legal immigrants do we need?
How come the illegals that butt in line aren't condsidered "mean spirited" Nitwitt?
December 24, 2007
3:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Jose and Maria are looking for a place to stay tonight.
Feliz Navidad
December 27, 2007
5:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
gary writes:
titancain, too bad you do not know what you are talking about. Here a just a couple. There is not room to post all of them in this post. Your thoughts are not very good!!
ISSUE 1175
TANCREDO INTRODUCES ‘OVERDUE’ IMMIGRATION BILL
Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Col.) unveiled on July 11 the Optimizing Visa Entry Rules and Demanding Uniformed Enforcement (OVERDUE) Immigration Bill.
The bill “prioritizes nuclear family admissions, tightens the investor immigrant criteria, and tightens the employment-based green card category,” according to a news release.
The bill would grant automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the United States only if at least one parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. it would also authorize state and local law enforcement officers to enforce immigration laws.
....Rep. Tancredo Introduces an Immigration Moratorium Bill
Source: Immigration Report
A new bill in the House of Representatives would reduce the enormous workload currently facing immigration officers and allow the United States to regain control of its borders and protect the nation.
The Mass Immigration Reduction Act of 2003 (H.R. 946), introduced by Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), would enact a five-year moratorium on many categories of immigration, including extended adult relatives, and would significantly cut back on the number of skilled workers and refugees. It also would eliminate the visa waiver program.
Tancredo Introduces Immigration Moratorium Bill
2/28/03
Good news! Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) has introduced a bill to reduce legal immigration from one million a year to approximately 300,000. H.R. 946, the Mass Immigration Reduction Act of 2003, would enact a five-year moratorium on many categories of immigration, including extended adult relatives, and would significantly cut back on the number of skilled workers and refugees. It also would eliminate the visa waiver program.
HELP BUILD SUPPORT FOR H.R. 946
Now is the time to start building support for this bill!
A Tancredo Supporter!!
January 4, 2008
11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
leech67 writes:
they can't deport us all :)