Thursday, July 19, 2007

Tancredo Wants to Reduce LEGAL, as well as Illegal, Immigration

Tancredo_interview2 Rep. Tom Tancredo recently introduced an immigration proposal. According to the Rocky Mountain News (here), Tommy T's big proposal includes "reduc[ing] the number of legal immigrants to the US by two-thirds ..."

KJ

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2007/07/tancredo-wants-.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00e0099661e98833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tancredo Wants to Reduce LEGAL, as well as Illegal, Immigration:

Comments

Yes, he does. It would be good policy to do so. Environmentally, educationally, and probably even economically (when externalities caused by immigration driven population growth are figured into the economic costs) mass immigration is simply bad policy.

Posted by: Mitchell Young | Jul 20, 2007 1:01:40 AM

Tancredo doesn't go far enough. To stop the complete econmc and racial dispossession of European Americans legal immigration must be completly shut down-to 0.

There was and is no demographic,economic and environmental reason for post-1965 immigration.

If America had remained largely labor self sufficient like it was prior to the passage of the 1965 immigratin reform act European Americans would still be 90 percent of the population, the probability of the attack on the Twin Towers occuring would been 0 and the probablity of a Legal asian immigrant from Korea murdering European American teeenagers on the Virginia Tech campus would have been 0.

There is no need to import doctors,engineers and computer programmers from Asia. After this, there is only nepotistic family reunification(which made the VA Tech massacre possible). The legitimate racial interests of European Americans requires shuting down skilled asian legal immigration-H1B visa program and family reunification-completly

Without a doubt, America's resources are scarce. Young European American males shold not be forced to compete with young males from Asia for affordable housing/breeding space.

European Americans made a big mistake when they brought their fertility level down to zpg level in 1973. European Americans hav been severely punshed for doing this. European Americans should retailiate by having more European American babies.

Posted by: Jupiter | Jul 20, 2007 4:59:20 AM

And what a great idea it is.

A 20-30 year moratorium on immigration would allow us to attempt to assimilate the millions of low-potential immigrants who have crashed on our shores in a human tidal wave.

Posted by: John | Jul 21, 2007 4:10:39 AM

And what a great idea it is.

A 20-30 year moratorium on immigration would allow us to attempt to assimilate the millions of low-potential immigrants who have crashed on our shores in a human tidal wave.

Posted by: John | Jul 21, 2007 4:11:27 AM

A much better idea-as far as the long term survival of European Americans in America goes- is a very long term moratorium-centuries- on all non-European legal immigration,skilled and unskilled.

We are under no obligation to assimilate millions of low-skilled non-European aliens living in America. European Americans are also under no obligation to tolerate their economic and demographic dispossession at the hands of skilled Asian legal immigrants.
European Americans are expected to tolerate a legal immigration policy that Asian legal immigrants would never tolerate for a second for their own nations of origin. I don't like the double standard.

Skilled Asian legal immigrants have a very strong moral obligation on them to go back to their nations of origin and help make these nations prosper so that the asian underclass in these nations can have a much better life .

Posted by: Jupiter | Jul 21, 2007 7:22:10 AM

But doesn't Tommy T claim not to be anti-immigrant but only anti-ILLEGAL immigrant? The truth of the matter isn't it that he, and many other restrictionist, want to limit legal as well as illegal immigration? If that is the case, why not just tell teh truth?

Posted by: KJ | Jul 21, 2007 9:55:52 AM

But doesn't Tommy T claim not to be anti-immigrant but only anti-ILLEGAL immigrant?

You confuse 'anti-immigrant' with 'anti mass immigration'. After all, even with a 2/3 reduction we would still be getting 300,000 immigrants per year. That sounds pretty pro-immigrant to me.

BTW under the current, nepotistic system of legal immigration there really isn't a heck of a lot of difference, sociologically, between illegal immigrants and legal ones. That needs reforming too.

Posted by: Mitchell Young | Jul 21, 2007 11:42:07 AM

LOWER LEGAL IMMIGRATION LEVELS? OMIGOD! HOW RADICAL! WE MUST MAINTAIN THE CURTAIN OF RIDICULE! -- signed, the supporters of the moderate concept of no limits immigration

'His plan drew immediate fire from the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition. "Congressman Tancredo’s proposal is unjust, unrealistic and completely out of touch with the American people," the group wrote in a statement.

ACTUALLY, AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICANS FAVOR THE SAME OR LOWER LEVELS OF IMMIGRATION. THE THIRD OPTION, MORE IMMIGRATION, IS THE ONLY POSITION 'COMPLETELY OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE' AS IT HAS MINUSCULE % SUPPORT.

"It is sad and tragic that Mr. Tancredo continues to play the politics of fear and hate...

YOU KNEW THAT WAS COMING. IF YOU HAVE ANY CONCERN OVER THE HIGH LEVEL OF IMMIGRATION, YOU MUST BE A RACIST.

Posted by: Jack | Jul 21, 2007 7:11:54 PM

KJ acts as if he has discovered something scandalous, when all he has done is to reveal that Tancredo is closer to the mainstream on immigration than he is.

Polls consistently show that when Americans are asked if they would like to 'increase', 'decrease', or 'maintain' current levels of legal immigration, they usually express majority or plurality support for reducing legal immigration. Sometimes 'maintain' does have the most support (during the intense debates over illegal immigration the past two summers, for example, support for reducing legal immigration actually fell), but support for increasing legal immigration never comes close. It rarely cracks 20%.

Posted by: Brad | Jul 21, 2007 7:38:02 PM

"You confuse 'anti-immigrant' with 'anti mass immigration'. After all, even with a 2/3 reduction we would still be getting 300,000 immigrants per year. That sounds pretty pro-immigrant to me."

Mitchel, KJ doesn't confuse anything. He is quite clear in his writings that foreign nationals should have a right to a visa unless proven to be otherwise ineligble. He doesn't believe that the government should control immigration to the socioeconomic benefit of those who are presently citizens. You can see how anti-mass immigration and anti-immigrant are interchangeable terms in his world view. Fortunately for our citizens, his proposal for open borders remains a fringe elitest viewpoint that has made little headway except with pro-illegal alien advocacy grups and immigration lawyers.

Countries with very limited immigration include Korea, Japan, China and Taiwan prove that birthright citizens do very well without indulging in the diversity orgy that is the intent of the open borders advocates. Add tax incentives to increase the birthright citizens birthrate and make our higher education costs lower and our nation can maintain its workforce at an acceptable demographic equalibrium. The latter could be achieved by removing tenure from professorships so there would be more competition among them for employment from day one to the end of their careers. Tenure is an archaic concept that has no place in this day and age.

Finally, our Congress should open up the litigation process to allow for H-1B visas for the legal profession, on a limited basis. This would reduce the zeal of immigration lawyers in pursuit of open borders, as they would have to compete with a foreign work force just like the rest of us, and make them empathize in the plight of their fellow citizens, perhaps even making them more socially responsible. At this point, we peasant's concerns are just mere curiousities for these elites. We've become a litigious society to the extreme, to the point where our society is being milked by lawyers of many specialties. Our politicians enact laws essentially written by lawyers engaged in lobbying, which have the intended and unintended (at least from the viewpoint of witless Congressional dupe) affect of expanding their business. A case in point is the recent Senate bill which would have resulted in providing free legal assistance to illegal aliens during the legalization process, probably reaping hundreds of millions of dollars for their profession.

Posted by: Horace | Jul 22, 2007 10:15:25 AM

I'd be happy if Tommy T would reduce to zero the number of unsolicited pieces of mail he ships to my abode every day. If society could be judged by the direct mail that cons pump out everyday - this one is in big - I MEAN BIG - trouble. Did you know that our schools are being destroyed by the radical homosexual agenda AND a trend away from English! You guys on the far right sure have a lot of work to do to SAVE european-america from the Mexican, Homosexual, despotic, ACLU, anti-christ. Good luck.*Note: If you do not live with a right-wing conservative or in the former home of a right-wing conservative and you have no idea what I am referring to, I apologize.

I wonder why anyone would think that an individual advocating the reduction of "non-European" immigrants could be racist? I mean what planet are you...oh, nevermind.

Posted by: jsm | Jul 23, 2007 2:27:54 PM

Great Im with'm ALL THE WAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Finaly a MAN with BALLS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Chuck | Jul 25, 2007 7:55:46 PM

Post a comment