« Latest Research: Immigrants Don't Hurt Native Workers | Main | Protect them, protect us »
August 6, 2008
Tommy Tancredo Rides Again!!! Press Release: "Tancredo Asks Schwarzenegger to Cut Services to Illegals": Michael Savage -- Call Out the Military!
Rep. Ton Tancredo, an anti-immigrant advocate in Congress (and one time Republican Presidential candidate) who is not seeking re-election, released a letter to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on how to deal with the state's budget crisis. His suggestion -- kick undocumneted immigrants out of the publoc elementary and secondary schools (and thus run afoul of the Supreme Court's 1982 decision in Plyler v. Doe) and stop local government's from adopting sanctuary policies.
Thanks for the advice, Congressman Tancredo. The "blame the illegals" strategy may get you back in the news but will not solve the budget difficulties facing the state, especially since part of the suggested solution calls for defying the Supreme Court and is not truly a viable option.
Media Matters report an even more egregious form of scapegoating by shock jock Michael Savage. Discussing the Italian government's decision to deploy soldiers on city streets to combat crime allegedly committed by illegal immigrants, Savage said:
"So they've done there what we need to do here. We need to get our troops out of Iraq and put them on the streets of America to protect us from the scourge of illegal immigrants who are running rampant across America, killing our police for sport, raping, murdering like a scythe across America while the liberal psychos are telling us they come here to work." Savage added: "[Y]ou turn on the cable news, they're covering again a missing child. Not a missing country but a missing child. ... We hear about the rape of a woman, but not about the rape of the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty is crying, she's been raped and disheveled -- raped and disheveled by illegal aliens." Click the link above to hear an audio of the diatribe.
KJ
August 6, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00e553d136398833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tommy Tancredo Rides Again!!! Press Release: "Tancredo Asks Schwarzenegger to Cut Services to Illegals": Michael Savage -- Call Out the Military!:
Comments
Thanks for the post. Tancredo is anti-ILLEGAL immigrant. There is a world of difference between being opposed to someone who has broken the law and being opposed to someone who merely wants to make a better life for themselves and is willing to do it the proper, legal way.
The conflation of legal and illegal immigration is a tactic of those who merely want to push an agenda - paint opponents of illegal immigration as evil, mean spirited white men. Think Andres Oppenheimer of the Miami Herald.
This blog should be above that sort of thing.
Posted by: Peter | Aug 6, 2008 8:12:37 AM
In fact, Peter, Tancredo has repeatedly come out against legal immigration as well. He's repeatedly called for a "break" from all immigration, including family-based immigration, and for greatly reducing the amount of legal immigration. So, it's quite wrong to say that Tancredo opposes only illegal immigration.
Posted by: Matt Lister | Aug 6, 2008 10:01:18 AM
Tancredo is only calling for a moratorium on legal immigration until we can assimilate those already here and stabilize our population growth. That only makes sense. Those with tunnel vision for the future of our country are either ethnocentric traitors or greedy employers.
Posted by: Frank | Aug 7, 2008 9:23:48 AM
Horace, I must admit that I don't understand your use of a quotation from my remark before. It was claimed that Tancredo only opposes illegal immigration. I pointed out that this isn't so. Your replay (as far as I can understand it) says that opposing legal immigration is fine. Now, that's a defensible position, perhaps, but it's hard to see how it has anything to do with the false claim that Tancredo only opposes illegal immigration, the claim to which I was responding. I'll also suggest that the idea the anyone "mindlessly support[s] something just because some immigration lawyers like it" is a figment of your very active imagination and nothing more.
Posted by: Matt Lister | Aug 7, 2008 9:59:00 AM
Frank, what's an "ethnocentric traitor"? I think that maybe the term "ethnocentric" means something other than what you think it does. And why do we need a "time out" to allow for "assimilation" when all the studies that have been done indicate that in any way we ought to care about current immigrants are "assimilating" just as fast, if not faster, then past immigrants? The idea that they are not exists only in the active imaginations of people like Horace and Tancredo. It's not backed up by evidence at all.
Posted by: Matt Lister | Aug 7, 2008 11:15:47 AM
Matt,
Tancredo doesn't think we should deport LEGAL immigrants, he thinks we should deport and close our borders to ILLEGAL aliens. Do you see the difference now? Yes, Tancredo thinks we should change the law and put a moratorium on legal immigration, but that isn't anti legal immigration, it is pro, ahem, law! He's a congressman, remember. Last I heard they make the laws.
The conflation of anti-illegal alien and anti-immigrant is intentional and quite cynical. The idea is to marginalize those with whom you don't agree and paint them as mean-spirited, racists. It ain't gonna fly in this man's army.
Posted by: Peter | Aug 7, 2008 3:29:44 PM
Ok, I'll play along, Matt. An ethnocentric traitor is one who is pro-illegal because the illegals are ethnically like themselves.
We already have 300 million people in this country. All environmentalists agree that ideally we can sustain around 200 million. We have already surpassed that number. When "immigrants" (and I use that term loosely here as the issue is really illegal aliens) come here in large numbers from mostly one ethnic group they tend to colonize rather than assimilate.
I live in Calif. and these "immigrants" are not assimilating lingually or culturally.
Posted by: Frank | Aug 7, 2008 5:05:45 PM
Frank's assertion that "Tancredo is only calling for a moratorium on legal immigration until we can assimilate those already here and stabilize our population growth," flies in the face of everything that has ever been said by Trancredo about our current undocumented population. In point of fact, Trancredo is not only against the assimilation of our current undocumented immigrants, he wants to deport them at any and all cost. To try to convince us that Trancredo wants to allow the current undocumented to stay, assimilate, and thereby legalize their status, (ie: amnesty), is disengenuous and patently misleading.
On the other hand, for Horace to admit that, "as a principal, I do not think there's a moral imperitive that would make immigration an absolute necessity," is very believable. Nobody that reads this blog could possibly be surprised that Horace is against all immigration, legal or otherwise. Unfortunately, since Horace has also expressed concern on this blog that our nation's Social Security System is headed for trouble, I wish that someone would explain to him that we need far more workers paying into the system that our current population growth can possibly acheive without immigration, in order to make the system sustainable as the baby boomers reach retirement age. Trust me, he won't listen to me.
As to Horace's flippant comment that, "we should hear Tancredo out before dismissing his ideas, unless you advocates of immigration are afraid of losing the argument. Or do you intend to cling to the romanticism of immigration like so many religious fanatics averse to democratic discourse," I guess that I am indeed one of those hopeless romantics that have drunk the immigration Koolaid. However, far from being afraid of losing the Trancredo argument, I say, "bring it on!" If it's democratic discourse he truly wants, I say, "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it."
Posted by: Robert Gittelson | Aug 7, 2008 6:38:00 PM
I never said that Tancredo wants illegal aliens to stay here and assimilate. He absolutely wants them deported and rightly so!
As far as our SS crisis, we need to get past the baby boomer generation without importing millions of "immigrants" to support them because who is going to support this massive immigration when they get old? It would be a never ending cycle of importing more people to cover the SS of the next elder generation. It doesn't make any sense and you have to admit there are limits as to how many people that our natural resources and other needs necessary to sustain a population.
Posted by: Frank | Aug 7, 2008 10:28:24 PM
Peter, I wish you could explain to me how making a law that would greatly limit or stop legal immigration isn't anti-immigration merely because it's a law. I'm afraid that doesn't make any sense at all.
Frank, I'm afraid that you have a deeply reductive and narrow view of why people support various political positions. It may be that you support various political positions primarily because they support your own "ethnic group", whatever that may be, but I'm pretty sure that's not the position of anyone around here nor of many people who call for more human treatment of undocumented aliens.
Posted by: Matt Lister | Aug 8, 2008 9:42:22 AM
Horace and Frank both make the point that our current Social Security System can not be sustained without a continually growing base of fresh new workers feeding money into system to support the ever growing number of retirees at the top of the pyramid. They make my point for me. They are correct, and we either need to re-think the entire system, or continue to expand the base of the pyramid, (more babies or more immigrants). They both seem to want to re-think the system, and I don't disagree. However, as of today, Horace, Frank, me, you, and everybody else that works and pays taxes in the U.S., (including undocumented immigrants that pay Social Security Tax but will never see any benefits from those payments), are investing into that system, and I suspect that we all desire to some day reap the benefits, (Social Security Payments), of our rather sizable investments over our lifetimes. I know that I do.
Now, if Horace, Frank, and the rest of us want to re-think, re-tool, or tweak the current Social Security System to make it more practical or beneficial for our country, then that is a discussion that we should have, the sooner the better, because all problems should be addressed and not ignored.
However, why is it that Horace and Frank are more then willing to recognize and address a problem with a system that needs to be adjusted, such as Social Security, when they have their own interests to protect, but yet are completely unwilling to recognize and address a problem with a system that equally needs to be adjusted, such as our current immigration system, when it doesn't suit their own personal agendas? Why is it perfectly alright with them to leave a clearly broken immigration system in place, even while they are rather vocally lamenting loudly and clearly just how broken the system is on the one hand, but arguing just as loudly and clearly against changing the system in any way, (ie: we have laws in place, we just need to enforce them)? They seem intent on rowing in the wrong direction, but seem to insist that they will get to their destination just fine if they could just row faster!
The immigration system needs to be re-thought, re-tooled, and tweaked. It's called Comprehensive Immigration Reform. We need to do what is best for our country, and enforcing our borders and workforce laws to control who is allowed to be here is paramount. However, since deporting or forcing attrition on the 20,000,000 or so people that are already here and contributing to our economy and society is NOT in our own best interests for a multitude of reasons, (both financial and humane), then we need to pull our heads out of the sand and come together to fix a problem that CANNOT be fixed without enforcement AND the legalization of those that are already here and conducting themselves in a law abiding manner, and deporting those that are not. Again, the solution is CIR. The problem is inaction. As I said earlier, you are either part of the solution, or you are part of the problem. Get it together.
Posted by: Robert Gittelson | Aug 8, 2008 11:48:57 AM
Matt, we already have limits on legal immigration. Does that make our country "anti-immigrant" then? We have to have limits or commit national suicide. What part of that don't you understand? FYI, I abhor ethnic politics. So you are wrong about me. I think we should all refer to ourselves just as Americans and not think along ethnic lines. That is what is dividing our country.
Illegal aliens are already granted what rights they are entitled to. I am of the opinion that they aren't being treated inhumanely.
Robert, our immigration system isn't broken but our immigration enforcement has been. We need to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws internally by mandating that employers hire only legal workers. Local and state law enforcement need to stop being handcuffed by federal laws and be granted the right to enforce immigration law on the local levels. We also need to stop educating and allowing any taxpayer dollars to go to illegal aliens. We also need to rescind the 14th Amendment to make it mandatory that at least one parent of a newborn be a citizen in order for that newborn to be granted instant citizenship.
Our economy would rebound in a short time from a large exudus of illegal aliens out of our country. We built this country without illegal alien labor and our country is very resiliant. I don't care if they are saints after coming here illegally or how long they have been here. It is humane to American citizens to not allow them to stay here and be rewarded for their illegal behavior. They made that choice and not it is time to pay the pauper. It is no different than an American citizen breaking a law. We also have to pay for violating our laws.
Posted by: Frank | Aug 8, 2008 7:37:41 PM
I guess I need to apologize for being too simple minded to understand Horace's latest argument, but just for kicks, let me see if I can break down his argument with my simple "idiotic" mind.........so.........to use Horace's own words,"Let's examine in the simplest terms on how the immigration system is broken."
Horace claims that 1. "We have 20 million unwelcome foreigners in this country, people who were never invited."
However, in his point 2, he says, "We've had a deliberately understaffed and underresourced Border Patrol agency, incapable of preventing mass entry of illegal aliens."
I would ask that Horace please explain to a simpleton like me, why does not the fact that our Border Patrol was "deliberately" understaffed, rendering it "deliberately" "incapable of preventing mass entry of illegal aliens" constitute a "deliberate" invitation? Especially in light of Horace's point 3, that the employers that hired the illegal aliens, did so "with no fear of prosecution because of a negligent Executive Branch."
If our country "deliberately" under sourced the border patrol to allow entry, and "deliberately" and purposely did not prosecute employers at direct orders from the top, the Executive (Presidential) Branch of our government, then even a simpleton such as myself can clearly see that Horace has indeed made the argument crystal clear. Illegal aliens were expressly invited here on the highest possible authority, by the President(s) of the United States.
I must admit that I have been trying to explain that very concept to Horace et. al. for quite some time, but I guess that with my simple mind, I just wasn't capable of putting it into terms that even Horace could comprehend. I guess that I, along with my "agenda masters" who run this blog, owe Horace a debt of gratitude for finally clearing up this fundamental concept. The 20,000,000 undocumented workers are here at our express and open (border) invitation. They are indeed our guests, and frankly, lately we've been lousy hosts. It is indeed time for us to face up to our responsibility. We are responsible for the humane treatment of our guests, but we are equally responsible for solving the problem for our own security to limit entry to legal immigration going forward.
Horace, I apologize for the sarcastic tone of this blog entry, but man, you asked for it, and buddy, you stepped right into it.
Posted by: Robert Gittelson | Aug 9, 2008 1:30:19 AM
Robert, you still just don't get it, do you? The BP is short staffed, our immigration laws have been virtually uninforced and our borders not secured to appease corporate greed by our government. That wasn't what the majority of American citizens wanted. We live in a democracy bound by laws. That means that the majority rules and that laws made should be respected and enforced. Our government nor these greedy employers had the right to "invite" these illegal aliens here against our laws and the will of the majority of the American people. What part of that don't you get? You are trying to justify illegal entry into our country by the inactions of our inept government and corporate greed and totally disregard the majority of the American people's wishes and our laws.
Well us everyday, majority Americans are fed up and want it stopped. It has reached critical mass now and has been effecting our lives in a negative way. Uncontrolled population growth due to illegal immigration is just plain suicidal. That is why we have immigration laws!
Posted by: Frank | Aug 9, 2008 9:16:40 AM
Matt, it's very simple really:
Tancredo wants ALL legal immigrants stay in America. He has never proposed anything that would disturb their status.
However, he wants to deport all ILLEGAL immigrants.
Try to follow me: You aren't a legal immigrant if you aren't here legally yet. To make a law that restricts the number of future legal immigrants isn't anti-immigrant because those individuals aren't immigrants yet.
Tancredo is ant-ILLEGAL immigrant, not anti-immigrant.
Posted by: Peter | Aug 9, 2008 12:18:38 PM
Frank says, "The BP is short staffed, our immigration laws have been virtually uninforced (sic) and our borders not secured to appease corporate greed by our government." Are you honestly trying to say that undocumented workers that accepted our government's invitation to come here, settled here, had children here, made a life here, paid taxes here, supported our economy here, and in all other respects obeyed our laws here, were supposed to somehow know or guess that the invitation by our government was made in error? Doesn't that defy all sense of credibility and common sense? It's not entirely their fault, and if our government is even just a little responsible for luring them here, then our government owes them an opportunity to stay and legalize their status. You yourself, (as well as Horace, by the way), admit that the government had a hand in luring them here and allowing them entry and work. If you want to fix this problem going forward, then I agree with you. However, you can't unwind this clock. The ones that have already accepted the invitation and settled here should be allowed to stay. Blame the government all you want, but the fact of the matter is that it is our government, and as such they, (we who elected them), made the policy, so now we have to accept the consequences of the actions of our duly elected government officials.
Posted by: Robert Gittelson | Aug 9, 2008 1:09:15 PM
Peter, I never said Tancredo wanted to deport legal immigrants, I said he wants to stop (at least for several years) legal immigration and then greatly limit it. That's already anti-immigration, especially when mixed with his supposed justification for it, the manifestly false belief that new immigrants are not assimilating. Every study that's been done indicates that new immigrants are assimilating, in any sense we ought to care about, just as quickly or even more so than immigrants in the past. So, Tancredo's supposed justification is false. His actual justification is that he's a racist and a xenophobe. Once you know that (and it's pretty clear) it's even easier to see that he is anti immigrant.
Posted by: Matt Lister | Aug 9, 2008 1:43:05 PM
Robert, what utter BS! Our government didn't send these illegals an invitation per se, they just didn't make sure our borders were secured as promised with the 1986 amnesty and they haven't been holding the employers accountable until recently with the raids. These illegals knew full well what they were doing and that was breaking our immigration laws by jumping our borders. There were no invitations!
Any so-called support of our economy is negated by their costs and to the American taxpayer and the negative effects of uncontrolled population growth.
NO, we do not owe it our government to forgive and forget and accept the fact that our borders weren't secured reward these people for breaking our immigration laws. We demand that our borders be secured, that employers are held accountable and that these illegals are sent packing back to their homelands. It is our right as U.S. citizens!
Posted by: Frank | Aug 9, 2008 6:52:27 PM
Matt, I'm getting exahusted.
Those with an open-border agenda(I don't mean you)intentionally try to tar those who are opposed to illegal immigrants (i.e. rewards for breaking the law?)as anti-immigrant because it riles up voters. If it were only non-voting illegals who were riled up, the open-border movement would have no clout.
Now, let's try this again.
Restricting the number of new foreigners that can legally immigrate to the U.S. is NOT anti-immigrant. Those people are not immigrants.
For a person to be anti-immigrant, he or she would have to be against in-status foreigners (i.e., in favor of their removal from the U.S.).
Tancredo is not anti-immigrant. In fact, it would appear that he values immigrants MORE than the open-borders folks do because he chooses to honor them for entering the U.S. the right way - legally!
Accusing Tancredo of being anti-immigrant because he wishes to restrict the number of new foreigners who can legally enter the U.S is like accusing someone of being anti-NBA players because he's in favor of a law prohibiting the drafting of high school kids.
Posted by: Peter | Aug 10, 2008 1:26:31 PM
Matt, I'm getting exahusted.
Those with an open-border agenda(I don't mean you)intentionally try to tar those who are opposed to illegal immigrants (i.e. rewards for breaking the law?)as anti-immigrant because it riles up voters. If it were only non-voting illegals who were riled up, the open-border movement would have no clout.
Now, let's try this again.
Restricting the number of new foreigners that can legally immigrate to the U.S. is NOT anti-immigrant. Those people are not immigrants.
For a person to be anti-immigrant, he or she would have to be against in-status foreigners (i.e., in favor of their removal from the U.S.).
Tancredo is not anti-immigrant. In fact, it would appear that he values immigrants MORE than the open-borders folks do because he chooses to honor them for entering the U.S. the right way - legally!
Accusing Tancredo of being anti-immigrant because he wishes to restrict the number of new foreigners who can legally enter the U.S is like accusing someone of being anti-NBA players because he's in favor of a law prohibiting the drafting of high school kids.
Posted by: Peter | Aug 10, 2008 1:26:34 PM
Horace, First of all, I appreciate the civil tenor of the above question, because name calling and derision tend to elicit sarcasm instead of thoughtful responses. Here we have an honest disagreement, and therefore I would like to offer my thoughts for your and all other readers consideration. The first part of your blog posting asks the question(s): "Would you be so forgiving of criminals if our government was derelict in its duty to enforce bank robbery, murder, and rape? Would you say that those who would transgress the laws against such acts should not be punished because of the failure of our government to act, be it out of negligence or corruption?" First of all, I would classify the above mentioned serious felonious and violent crimes differently then the civil crime of illegal entry/presence. I would argue that the later crimes are victim less crimes, (and we will have to disagree as to the basis of that claim, as I contend that the undocumented more then pay their fair share, and I understand that you feel otherwise. I would also point out the obvious truth that their paid share would inexorably increase through the legalization of their status, would it not?). As such, they are apples and oranges. Convict the former, excuse the later. I would further point out that even if what you contend is true, that "the government that they elected acts corruptly in the interests of a few constituencies", (by the way, you do have a point there, although you didn't make a complete list), it doesn't change the fact, from the immigrants perspective, that they entered at the behest of the government. They can't be held accountable for the motives of our government, that is too far of a reach. Let us remember that they generally don't come to commit crime or mayhem. They come to work hard at our worst jobs, in an effort to feed themselves and their starving families, an entirely honest pursuit. Those that do commit crime and mayhem should be deported forthwith, and they are. I would also argue that the task of deporting criminals would be much easier and more efficiently and expeditiously done after the passage of serious CIR.
This leads me to your next point: "The people are now demanding that their government enforce the laws by correcting the current rampant illegal immigration and the deportation of those who have violated our laws. The solution is not appease the advocates and their violator friends, but to rectify a wrong. Appeasement only results in demonstrating a lack of national will, further contempt for laws, more violations, and rewards those who are most responsible for influencing our government to act against the will of the people".
First of the, I disagree with the initial premise of your argument, "The people are now demanding." Poll after poll has shown that the majority are demanding CIR, while the very vocal minority are demanding enforcement only. I would further argue that the minority that are for enforcement-only don't understand the macro economic and macro societal impacts of what the enforcement only approach entails. As to your contention that "Appeasement only results in demonstrating a lack of national will, further contempt for laws, (and) more violations,", I say that was true of the '86 amnesty, (due to lack of will and ability to enforce - not the least of which was due to the unwillingness of Reagan to increase the size of the border patrol and INS due to his fundamental belief in smaller government). However, we have learned from those mistakes, and now have the ability to manufacture biometric tamper-proof identifications. I would also point out that the STRIVE Act, (co-written by your favorite Congressman Gutierrez), lists the following enforcement measures before it says one thing about legalizing the undocumented:
1) Vastly increased border enforcement personnel on both the southern and northern borders.
2) Assistance to Homeland Security from the Dept. of Defense that requires both agencies to submit plans to Congress detailing their efforts to coordinate their resources to secure the borders.
3) Strengthening infrastructure for border control, (constructing roads, vehicle barriers, etc.), to achieve operational control of our borders.
4) Improvements and additions to our ports of entry.
5) Requiring DHS to acquire and maintain unmanned aerial vehicles and related surveillance technologies.
6) Creates criminal penalties for evading inspection at the borders.
7) Requires DHS to develop and submit to Congress a National Strategy for Border Security and a comprehensive plan for surveillance of the international land and maritime borders of the U.S., and to submit to Congress a report on improving the exchange of information on North American security.
8) Requires the governments of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to work with the governments of Central America to improve security south of our border, specifically relating to gang and drug activity, and other law enforcement assistance.
9) Requires fraud prevention, by mandating that DHS produce biometric enhancements and train it’s officers in document fraud detection. Requires that documents be machine readable, tamper resistant, and incorporate a biometric identifier, and creates new authorities for collecting biometric information from all immigrants, and related penalties.
10) Mandates law enforcement relief for states and localities, authorizing DHS to award grants to law enforcement agencies that provide border related assistance. The bill also allows the Justice Dept. to reimburse state and local prosecutors for federally initiated and referred drug cases.
11) Initiates increased penalties related to gang activities, failure to depart, and alien smuggling.
12) Increases criminal penalties for immigrant drunk driving.
13) Increases penalties to employers that employ unauthorized immigrant workers.
14) Makes firearms sales or possession by undocumented immigrants a federal crime.
15) Increases Federal detention space.
16) Increases the number of I.C.E. agents.
17) Enhances penalties and reform of Passport, Visa, and Document Fraud offenses.
18) Increases the criminal penalties associated with illegal reentry of aliens with criminal records.
19) Mandates detaining criminal aliens to ensure their removal upon completion of their criminal sentences.
20) Tightens voluntary departure requirements.
21) Reaffirms the inherent authority for immigration enforcement by State and local police to enforce criminal provisions of the immigration laws.
22) Mandatory address reporting requires of all aliens.
23) Expanded expedited removal provisions.
24) Expands the aggravated felony definition for deportable offenses.
Horace, CIR isn't appeasement, it's a solution. You say the the solution is to rectify a wrong. I would take that a step further, and say the the solution is to rectify a wrong policy by improving it, and making it right. That is the solution. What we have now is untenable. We want a policy that we can live with now, and live with in the future.
Believe it or not, I, and other CIR advocates, do not want illegal immigration, or illegal immigrants. We want to stop the invasion permanently. We also want to 20,000,000 or so already here, and working and living peacefully and (otherwise) lawfully, to be dealt with fairly, in a manner that doesn't completely disrupt their lives, (or those of their innocent and often citizen children and families), or our national economy, especially in these perilous and fragile economic times. We need to compete in the global economy, and lead in the global society. That is America, how it used to be, how it mostly is and could be now, and how it should be going forward.
Posted by: Robert Gittelson | Aug 11, 2008 12:06:31 PM
