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.

Comments

joe | October 29, 2007, 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?"

An Ottawa Reader | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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.

iih | October 29, 2007, 11:40am | #

An Ottawa Reader:

Exactly my thought and reaction!

The bus driver in question | October 29, 2007, 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.

creech | October 29, 2007, 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?

de stijl | October 29, 2007, 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.

Doctor Duck | October 29, 2007, 12:09pm | #

Tancreado always reminded me of this guy...

Tancredo is no Bargen.

Adam W. | October 29, 2007, 12:10pm | #

Good riddance.

To his credit, he was IIRC a steadfast supporter of Hinchey-Rohrabacher.

The Wine Commonsewer | October 29, 2007, 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.

joe | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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.

VM | October 29, 2007, 12:28pm | #

LookOut who is HierNow!

joe | October 29, 2007, 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.

Cesar | October 29, 2007, 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.

Ferdinand | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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.

highnumber | October 29, 2007, 1:03pm | #

LoneWacko?

Cesar | October 29, 2007, 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".

Matt L | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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?

George Chell | October 29, 2007, 1:14pm | #

Tancredo is a commie and TLB is soundling like one.

Brian White | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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.

Cesar | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 1:32pm | #

Daniel W. Southerland - Commie, 9/11 Truther, Raving Lunatic, and Reason Magazine Contributor

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30457.html

Robert | October 29, 2007, 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.

the king | October 29, 2007, 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."

George Chell | October 29, 2007, 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.

Cesar | October 29, 2007, 1:36pm | #

As Steve Sailer often points out,

DRINK!

George Chell | October 29, 2007, 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.

Cesar | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 1:47pm | #

Among working-class Latinos, the figure is probably closer to 90-10.

In Boston maybe.

VM | October 29, 2007, 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?

joe | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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...

joe | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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

Cesar | October 29, 2007, 2:01pm | #

Oh yes, Free Republic. The epitome of objective, literate, and thoughtful journalism.

Brian White | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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.

Isaac Bartram | October 29, 2007, 2:12pm | #

All I got to say is that Tancredo sounds like a foreign name to me.

Cesar | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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!

joe | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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.

joe | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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.

MikeP | October 29, 2007, 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.

joe | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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.

joe | October 29, 2007, 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?

MikeP | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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.

the king | October 29, 2007, 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

joe | October 29, 2007, 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.

An Ottawa Reader | October 29, 2007, 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!

MikeP | October 29, 2007, 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"...

Robert | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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.

joe | October 29, 2007, 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.

Cesar | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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.

Cesar | October 29, 2007, 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.

MikeP | October 29, 2007, 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?

joe | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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.

MikeP | October 29, 2007, 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?"

joe | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 5:01pm | #

Tancredo's ancestors were the swarthy ones in the Galley making spaghetti and meatballs for the Pilgrims.

No immigration laws back then!

Rick Barton | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 5:05pm | #

Rick -

thanks for the info!

is Mark Udall of the New Mexico Udall political cartel family?

libertreee | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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.

Rick Barton | October 29, 2007, 5:14pm | #

VM,

Yep, same family but actually they're from Utah.

Geotpf | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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.

MikeP | October 29, 2007, 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 | October 29, 2007, 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!

Robert | October 29, 2007, 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.

Jim Walsh | October 29, 2007, 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...

Rick Barton | October 29, 2007, 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.

J sub D | October 29, 2007, 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.

J sub D | October 29, 2007, 9:06pm | #

You'll note I didn't reference any polls. They usually have little to do with what is right.

MikeP | October 29, 2007, 9:23pm | #

J sub D,

If you have (d) and (e), why do you need (c) and by extension (b) or (f)?

J sub D | October 29, 2007, 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).

Kenny | October 29, 2007, 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."

MikeP | October 30, 2007, 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).

joe | October 30, 2007, 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.

R C Dean | October 30, 2007, 10:07am | #

Really? The Germans were saying "we're here and we're not leaving" in the '30s?

I thought it was more like "we're here, and the rest of you are going to the camps", or "we're here, and we're sending our armored divisions over the border."