home

Tom Tancredo in the Green Room

I got to meet Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo tonight. We had our makeup done together. He was on CNN and I was on after him on MSNBC.

We chatted very amiably for over a half hour. I told him I thought he looked very good (posture and clothes) in the Republican debates, and although I've never agreed with anything he's ever said, I think it's pretty cool he's taken his quest for the Republican nomination as far as he has.

I did try to ask him some serious questions. Does he read blogs? Never. His campaign had a blogger who was terrific but he went back to college. He gets news clips with articles about himself every day. He knows bloggers write negative things about him and he has no interest in reading them.

Does he have a favorite for the Republican nomination if he's not the candidate? No.

More...

He thinks too many of the presidential candidates arrive at their position on issues by listening to what focus groups say instead of having any real ideology. (I'm going to respect his privacy and not disclose his comments on individual candidates.) He thinks the Republicans will have a hard time in November '08. Right now, he can't imagine who he'd vote for (but he assured me it wouldn't be Hillary.)

I thanked him for sponsoring the bill to keep Dog the Bounty Hunter from getting extradited to Mexico. He said he's a big fan of Dog's. He didn't know anything about him before seeing his tv show.

His son, who's in college, shares his politics.

He does travel to Mexico. He has no problem with Mexico. He doesn't think the Mexican government would stand for Americans coming in without visas and he respects them for that. He said the media in Mexico is much more aggressive than our's.

I could hear his CNN segment from the makeup room. Listening to what he said -- he was arguing that two kids who have been here since they were two years old should not be allowed to attend college here and should be deported -- I just shook my head. How can a person who seems so normal and friendly have such backward ideas? Then again, I'm sure he'd say the same thing about me.

And, since he didn't make fun of the rollers in my hair or tease me that it took three times as long for my makeup as it did for his, I'm not going to say anything critical about him tonight. Tomorrow might be another story.

< Say Hello | Is Dick Durbin Supporting Obama? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    better you than me (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by scribe on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 11:07:46 PM EST
    but, then again, I'm not really good at just going up to people I've never met and introducing myself.  

    People tell me a lot of prominent people live, work, shop, whatever in my neighborhood or in neighborhoods where I pass through on whatever business.  I can't pick them out of a crowd to save myself, though I did see Mario Batali once.  Of course, he's so big he'd be hard to miss.  

    But, better you than me.  I just have a hard time dealing civilly with people with ideas differing from mine.  When I have to, I prefer to stay away from those topics, and therefore cultivate a knowledge of sports and some aspects of culture.  That way I can keep the conversation away from hot buttons.  I also ask a lot of questions but reveal few answers;  most people love to teach you about whatever it is they're passionate about.


    Tolerance? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Pancho on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 11:23:36 AM EST
    I just have a hard time dealing civilly with people with ideas differing from mine.

    Is it really so bad for someone to have a differing opinion. That is just sad, but so emblematic of the left.

    Parent

    No, it's not (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Kitt on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 12:53:47 PM EST
    I've met plenty of rigid people who are right of the political spectrum.

    Difference of opinion is one thing; rigidity is quite another.

    And...it would depend upon the issue

    Parent

    I love the immigration debate (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by glanton on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 01:40:46 PM EST
    And hope the Tancredos never shut up.  This is the most fractious force the GOP has had to deal with in a long time.  The rest of are passing the popcorn watching the fight between bigots and corporate overlords.

    Oh yeah, there are a few on both sides of the issue whose agenda doesn't stink to high heaven.  A blind groundhog will find an acorn every now and then.  

    ;-)

    I met him in '00 (1.00 / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:33:52 PM EST
    (?) and was impressed with his open posture and politeness to one and all. Having made my living for years and years in complex sales I think I am able to spot phonies and aholes at 20 yards. Love him or hate him, he is real.

    Not to Mention (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:50:26 PM EST
    That you agree with his reactionary immigration policies.

    Parent
    You (none / 0) (#7)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 05:42:22 AM EST
    mean illegal immigration policies.  

    Parent
    Reactionary (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 07:50:01 AM EST
    And I don't know but maybe his policies are illegal too. If not they should be.

    Parent
    I'm convinced that (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:56:42 PM EST
    if you want to embarrass a public figure, you snap a picture of them with a smock on in a green room.

    Backwards? (none / 0) (#5)
    by LonewackoDotCom on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 11:58:18 PM EST
    The two students are citizens of another country and thus can appeal to their home country (Colombia IIRC) for help with college. If they get discounts, that will mean two less discounts available for U.S. citizens. Is it good public policy to take something from a U.S. citizen in order to give it to a foreign citizen who's here illegally? Is it good public policy to encourage people to bring their children here illegally thinking it will work out OK?

    Citizenship (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 01:23:48 AM EST
    isn't a zero-sum game. There's not a limited amount of citizenship to go around. So make them citizens. Immigration law is no more unchangeable than copyright law: both are historically variable.

    What is a citizen anyway? Is there some definition that holds for all time and places? Hasn't America's story been about the slow, painful,  and ultimately progressive enfranchisement of its population: propertyless white men, African-Americans, women? What presently makes undocumented people such objects of scorn? Cut them, do they not bleed?

    As for college admissions, does anyone remember the system composed of the great Clark Kerr's Univ. of Calif, the fine state universities and junior colleges? Every student graduating high school when I was a kid in California could get into college of one form or another, just about. You work hard enough you could go from a local J.C. to UC by transfer.  Again, education isn't a zero-sum game either, depending on how we decide to support it.

     Now CA spends virtually as much on prisons as on its universities. The US spends over $700 million a week in Iraq while the Bush Administration has added 3 trillion dollars to our national deficit. Neither strategy is working and the costs are being passed down to future generations.

    It seems to me that we're failing on public policy in any number of ways on education, foreign policy, or prison expansion. I wouldn't pin our policy dereliction on undocumented immigrants' desire for a better life.

    Parent

    Open borders is your claim (1.00 / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 10:03:48 AM EST
    Unlimited illegal aliens is your game..

    Citizenship isn't a zero-sum game. There's not a limited amount of citizenship to go around.

    What is a citizen anyway? Is there some definition that holds for all time and places?

    That is just an appeal for open borders. And what is a citizen? Try this:

    Citizen:

    a member of a state b : a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it

    State:

    a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign

    Definite:

    having distinct or certain limits



    Parent
    You prefer a fortress America (none / 0) (#28)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 11:57:39 AM EST
    Reality is undocumented immigration does not threaten America's cultural identity or economy. Undocumented immigrants contribute while they're here, even as they use gov't services that cost locales money. For example, from the Udall Center in Arizona:

    Based on this study, the total state tax revenue attributable to immigrant workers was an estimated
    $2.356 billion ($862.1 million for naturalized citizens plus $1.49 billion for non-citizens). Balanced
    against estimated fiscal costs of $1.414 billion (for education, health care, and law enforcement), the
    net 2004 fiscal impact of immigrants in Arizona was positive by about $942 million.

    How about rationalizing the valuable economic and cultural connections with immigration law reform? Immigration law that allows for unionization, provides a path to citizenship, and protects workers from abuse at the hands of agribusiness or other employers. Both parties use the immigration controversy as a campaign talking point, but haven't really stepped forward to bring the crisis to a resolution.

    Closed borders are a fantasy, though regulated traffic ought to be possible.

    Nothing in your post acknowledges the experience of those who want to come here, which is too bad. I welcome people who come here looking to work and make a better life and haven't heard a single reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so.

    Parent

    tnthorpe (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 07:22:51 PM EST
    The report you link to is fatally flawed from the beginning. Why?

    The report examines the two categories of immigrants (naturalized citizens and noncitizens)separately in order to disentangle the economic costs and benefits associated with each.

    Since it does not distinguish between foreign workers hear legally on visas and illegal aliens, any information under "noncitizen" is almost worthless when trying to analyze the impact of the illegal aliens. i.e. "noncitizen" is illegal aliens plus legal aliens. Immigrants are naturalized citizens.

    Education: For this analysis, English Language Learner (ELL) enrollment was used as a proxy for the number of immigrant children in Arizona's public schools. The 2004 cost of ELL education in Arizona was $544 million of which $352.2 million (65 percent) was incurred in Maricopa County.

    Yet even that almost worthless guideline is not used here. No mention is made of the two categories. All are lumped under "immigrant."

    Of the $134.4 million in uncompensated care costs associated with immigrants, $119.9 was incurred by non-citizens.

    Better, but we still don't know the split between the legal and illegal `noncitizen."

    Of the $641.9 million in (Medicaid) AHCCCS costs associated with
    immigrants, $477.4 million was incurred by non-citizens.

    That's right at 75%. But still no information on illegal alien vs legal alien.

    ..the cost to the Arizona Department of Corrections of incarcerating immigrants in 2004 was $90.9 million, of which $89.1 million was for non-citizens.

    So naturalized citizens were $1.8 million. Illegals and legals were $89.1 million. That is a HUGE number. The question is, of course, what did the illegals cost?

    Consumer spending in 2004 by naturalized citizen households in Arizona was an estimated $6.06 billion. Approximately 38,500 full-time equivalent jobs can be attributed to this spending

    Consumer spending in 2004 by non-citizen households in Arizona was an estimated $4.41 billion. Approximately 28,000 full-time...

    Here again we have no legal vs illegal split, and worse, we find the number of jobs that can be attributed to this spending is almost identical based on the dollars spent for both groups. 6400 per billion/naturalized vs 6360 per billion/non citizens Why you would expect a demographic group that has a very large number of low income consumers to produce the same amount of spending as a demographic with higher incomes, is not explained. It does suggest that no serious attempt was done to determine the actual numbers.

    The bias of the report is further highlighted by such statements as:

    Agriculture: A fifteen percent workforce reduction in the agriculture sector would result in direct losses of 3,300 full-time-equivalent jobs..

    This, of course is a "the sky is falling" argument, and does not take into consideration that with sufficient pay many of the jobs would be taken by citizens who are either now unemployed or under employed and looking for better pay. It also doesn't take into consideration that it would be possible to introduce more legal immigrants into the country.

    Arizona's foreign-born population has grown significantly since 1990 when there were 268,700
    immigrants in the state. By the year 2000, the number of immigrants had grown by 143 percent to
    652,200 and by 2004 it had grown to 830,900 people, an increase of over 300 percent from 1990.

    Again there are no numbers of the illegals, but the study shows that in 14 years the gross number had increased 300 percent. On an annul basis that would be approximately 8% per year, for an expected doubling to  approximately 1,680,000 in 9 years, or 2013. Since the increase isn't linear, look at the change between 2000 and 2004, of about 90,000 per year, or near 2,000,000  by 2013..

    And the real problem is that of the 831,000 immigrant growth, 619,800 is non- US citizen. Being generous and saying that 15% are here on visas, that means 85% are illegal, or a total of about 1,700,000..... And that assumes a linear growth for the next 9 years or so when we know the growth has been expotential.

    And since we also know that labor is a commodity that is sold, there will be no increase in wages, no better working conditions as long as this unlimited supply is made available.

    Close the borders.

    Parent

    There are no (none / 0) (#50)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:37:16 PM EST
    perfect numbers on undocumented vs documented vs naturalized citizens, and you make the perfect the enemy of the good here. I think you can assume that most non-citizens in the study are undocumented. Suit yourself.

    You want to build walls; I want to build bridges.

    There is absolutely nothing in the current economic situation that indicates that the US and Latin American economies will become less integrated. Closing borders might be possible for North Korea, but America is about the free flow of capital, ideas, people, labor, and it can be made rational. Reform immigration law, regulate the traffic as much as possible, and realize that immigrants from Mexico and Latin American are part of this nation's fabric. How long has it been since we annexed Texas and California anyway? 1845?

    Parent

    Just admit it. You want open borders. (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:27:58 PM EST
    There is a vast difference between NO numbers and educated estimates based on research. And when the try and do a learned study about immigration and do not separate those who are here legally and those who do not, they make those who do the study, and those who try to use it look foolish.

    And you continually make such wonderful comments as:

    Sin is bad. Love is good, etc.

    You know that when I say "close the borders" I mean stop the illegal influx of aliens into this country.

    That has nothing to do with the free flow of capital, ideas, etc.


    Parent

    Short-sighted (none / 0) (#40)
    by Al on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 03:32:12 PM EST
    If they get discounts, that will mean two less discounts available for U.S. citizens.

    You're assuming the only people who benefit from two more college graduates that otherwise might not be able to afford tuition are the two students themselves. In fact, all of society benefits from two more college graduates. What's the problem?

    If it is truly a competition, why exclude anybody? I don't get it. If these guys turn out to be heart surgeons, who cares where they're from?

    Parent

    Are you actually (none / 0) (#41)
    by Pancho on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 03:34:14 PM EST
    saying that citizens should not have preference over illegals?

    Parent
    Yes. That is what he saying. (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:28:45 PM EST
    Are you surprised?

    ;-)

    Parent

    Ewwww (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 06:47:00 AM EST
    I don't think I could have done it.  I can talk to just about anyone and find something about them that I respect or even admire.  Tom Tancredo though, I just don't want to go there.  Especially not right now where I am in my life.

    Why the respect (none / 0) (#10)
    by history is a weapon on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:11:39 AM EST
    Long time reader, first time commenter.
    I don't understand this: Tancredo, a racist who believes that people who have been in this country since infancy should be rounded up by men with guns and kicked out of the country, but he deserves his own privacy respected? Why? Would you respect his privacy if he was talking about jews or blacks or women?

    I had no idea that (1.00 / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:38:27 AM EST
    illegal aliens were a race.

    racist:

    a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

    I learn something every day.

    Parent

    Undocumented Workers (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 10:09:00 AM EST
    May not be a race but Tancredo's policies are right in line with white supremacists who consider themselves not only a race but a superior race. That makes Tancredo a racist because he believes that whites are superior and a race.

    Seems to me that you also have written that white people are superior to many foreign peoples as well as superior to the natives who were here before the white man arrived.

    Parent

    Now (none / 0) (#19)
    by Pancho on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 10:20:32 AM EST
    you are just making stuff up. Has Tancredo ever said anything even remotely close to that? Please provide the links.

    Parent
    Take Your Pick (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 10:39:36 AM EST
    Tancredo (none / 0) (#24)
    by Pancho on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 11:19:40 AM EST
    is against ILLEGAL immigration and the vast majority of illegal immigrants are Mexicans. This makes him popular with white supremacists. So what?

    Parent
    So What? (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 11:52:32 AM EST
    Considering that is Tancredos only platform to speak of his only constituency are those who are either white supremacists or those sympathetic to their cause.

    There have been other world leaders that have held this position. Their deeds and fate were an ugly blot on the face of history.

    Parent

    Do you think that (none / 0) (#27)
    by Pancho on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 11:55:29 AM EST
    maybe Hitler shared some of your opinions?

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 12:00:54 PM EST
    He did, things like eating pasta, or getting a massage. But that was not his driving ambition or legacy. His legacy was an evil and  maniacal desire to create a superior Aryan race that would rule the world.

     

    Parent

    What if the KKK (none / 0) (#30)
    by Pancho on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 12:25:22 PM EST
    supported taxpayer funded abortions, because they keep black population growth down? Would that make supporters of abortion racists?

    Illegal immigration has very real negative consequences that are felt most significantly in the communities where they live. In my city the illegal use the emergency room as a free clinic. The legal residents are then forced to pay more to cover their bills. There is plenty of money to send to Mexico, and for spinning rims and MS-13 tatoos, but none to pay for medical treatment.

    The schools have contorted themselves in ridiculous ways to accomodate THOUSANDS of illegal aliens and anchor babies, most of whom do not speak English, and thanks to liberals like you, are taught in Spanish. My kid pays $8/month for milk, while an illegal will pay about the same for milk, plus two hot meals a day. That's if they pay anything at all.

     They can't pay their own way, but they can sure send plenty of money to Mexico. If they do file an income tax return they will certainly get the Earned Income Tax Credit, which results in a cash payment to them.

    If you think that these things are OK, you are entitled to that opinion, but don't call a racist for speaking the truth.

    Parent

    47,000,000 (none / 0) (#31)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 12:50:33 PM EST
    people lack insurance, are they all undocumented immigrants? Didn't Bush just tell people that emergency rooms are great places for health care?

    After the Senate Finance Committee approved an expansion of the federal Children's Health Insurance Program to cover nearly 10 million kids, President Bush offered a strange rationale for threatening to veto it.

    "People have access to health care in America," he told an audience in Cleveland. "After all, you just go to an emergency room."

    Nothing you've said in your posts acknowledges the many valuable contributions made by immigrants, documented or otherwise. Why is that?

    Parent

    Nothing in your post (none / 0) (#34)
    by Pancho on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 12:57:31 PM EST
    acknowledges the many problems. Do you believe that illegals should get free health care while mine costs $900/ month in addition to co-pays and deductibles? Should they be taught in Spanish?

    Many are good workers, but we are paying a high price to subsidize their residence in this country.

    Parent

    No and Yes (none / 0) (#36)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 01:09:57 PM EST
    I think there should be national health care across the board for everyone, undocumented, citizen, resident alien, tourist,

    I don't think you're getting a fair shake from the health insurance industry at all.

    Yeah, teach people in Spanish initially, but also require them to learn English. What do education professionals say about this? Is there any evidence about what's effective?

    For how many years have health insurance companies, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies been ripping us off? Reform health care, reform immigration law, but don't blame undocumented immigrants for the failings of a system that plunders the consumer just fine on its own.

    I'm not claiming that crossing a border makes you a saint, just that undocumented immigrants contribute, they are part of what America is now, and America needs to acknowldege that.

    As for you last claim, it just ain't so:

    From the Udall Center

    The Bottom Line
    Based on this study, the total state tax revenue attributable to immigrant workers was an estimated
    $2.356 billion ($862.1 million for naturalized citizens plus $1.49 billion for non-citizens). Balanced
    against estimated fiscal costs of $1.414 billion (for education, health care, and law enforcement), the
    net 2004 fiscal impact of immigrants in Arizona was positive by about $942 million.


    Parent

    paying for your health care.

    The CHIP expansion was to extend gvt funded health care to kids of middle income families, whereas it previously was designed only for low income families.

    Parent

    Speaking of health insurance (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:40:58 PM EST
    Looks like this illegal alien and those around him will need some. This type of thing will continue to be more and more prevalent if we don't close the border.

    On a personal note, a 66 year old female friend recently had whooping cough, a disease that has been almost wiped out in the US. She said she could remember a person in her Doctor's office who was coughing a a couple of weeks before she came down with. Since she has othe heart/lung problems the disease was a real problem for her. I asked her if she knew the person and she described him as a Spainish speaking young boy with his mother.

    What's it gonna take? A pamdemic with 10 million dead to get our attention??

    Parent

    smear and anecdote (none / 0) (#54)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 10:07:28 PM EST
    while you criticize a study you misrepresent in its fundamentals. Wow.

    Parent
    tnthorpe (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 03:49:00 PM EST
    Going to fast for you??

    The comment you are nested to has nothing to do with the study I had previously commented on. My link goes to an article about an illegal alien who has TB.

    Something that, at one time, would have been picked up as part of the legal immigration process. That you oppose such things as public health protection probably comes as a surprise to you. That it does should indicate to you that you have not thought this Open Borders nonsense all the way through, probably because you aren't old enough to remember such national health threats as polio, etc.

    As for the study, if you think you can actually "study" the impact of illegal aliens without defining their numbers and rate of inflow then your lack of understanding public health threats needs no explaining.

    Parent

    Final Response (none / 0) (#59)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 04:10:53 PM EST
    You keep calling my position open borders. It isn't. I advocate for reform that respects the dignity of work, allows for unionization, a path to citizenship, and protects national security. You keep not attending to my posts, suit yourself.

    You smear all undocumented immigrants by posing them as a well of contagion. This rhetorical move is fairly common in American history. Your anecdote attempts the same rhetoric. Did you take a similar stance on the young, white man who was a fugitive internationally with TB just a few months back? Are all people who travel on planes now a similar well of contagion? They may after all be carrying anything from TB to West Nile.  I note that the immigrants were being treated which is consonant with my position that all people deserve health care. Period.

    I'm for regulated, rationalized borders that acknowledges the many valuable connections between Latin America and the US.


    Parent

    tnthorpe (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 06:22:50 PM EST
    What you call for is wisdom and rhyme that can mean anything at anytime.

    Dignity of work? Close the borders, require employees to compete for labor by paying a decent wage and safe working conditions. That is dignity. Not some priest mouthing platitudes. I spent my childhood hearing how Mr. or Mrs. so and so were gonna take care of us. My parents said BS to that and so did I. Words mean nothing. Join me in believeing in giving true dignity.

    Yes. International travel is a health problem. That is why you must have certain immunizations to travel to some places. Here again though the issue is legal. BIOR, that person searching your luggage and/or stamping your passport is trained to look for health problems. And since it is LEGAL, one can assume that the individual would also be interested in not traveling if they felt ill. You can not assume that to be true of someone one is knowingly engagung in an illegal act to get what they want.

    And speaking of West Nile The first appearance of West Nile virus in the Western hemisphere was in 1999 with encephalitis reported in humans and horses, and the subsequent spread in the United States

    And  it has now spread to Canada.

    And the white boy should spend some jail time to impress on all the other selfish people what they are doing.

    And I believe strongly in NHC, and have so commented time and again. But does that mean that the American tax payer should pay for 12-14 million illegal alies? No. They should be provided care, and then deported, and their country of origin BILLED for the cost of their treatment. Maybe then that country will have  more interest in keeping their citizens from breaking the law.
    That would include birthing cost, including pre and post natal care.

    Unionization?? As someone who saw up close the difficulties and pain of establishing a union, I believe anyone should have the right to join or establish a union. I also believe if they are an illegal alien they should be picked up and deported.


    Parent

    As for open borders... (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 06:49:06 PM EST
    I'm for regulated, rationalized borders

    Your use of the word "rationalize" tells us all we need to know.

     

    to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable:

    Simply put, you want to change the borders. You want them to be open.

    Parent

    Are You Kidding? (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 01:37:10 PM EST
    What if the KKK supported taxpayer funded abortions, because they keep black population growth down? Would that make supporters of abortion racists?

    I wouldn't be surprised by aything the contemporary manifestation of the KKK would do to secure their goals. And your example would no more make supporters of abortion racists than it would make people geniuses because they like the same colors that Albert Einstein liked.


    Parent

    Of course it wouldn't, and foes of illegal (none / 0) (#42)
    by Pancho on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 03:37:12 PM EST
    immigration are not racists just because the    KKK is also against illegal immigration.

    Parent
    How long does someone need to be here (none / 0) (#20)
    by Pancho on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 10:23:59 AM EST
    illegally before they should be allowed to stay forever?

    There has to be an answer to this or you are just advocating open borders.

    Is it 1 minute?

    1 day

    1 year

    10 years?

    Parent

    It's tough (none / 0) (#13)
    by Pancho on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:06:23 AM EST
    to be forced to recognize that your ideological foes are not demons. I have tried to discuss the very real effects of illegal immigration on my small city of Waukegan,IL here, and have been dismissed as a racist,or worse, or been told that I need to move. Most of the people here do not want to here any facts that do not support their ideology.

     I would be happy to discuss any possible solutions from an honest perspective, but the argument is always framed in such a dishonest manner i.e. 'The War on Immigrants',. There is no 'War on Immigrants' there is only an attempt to slow the damage done by illegal immigrants.

    Misheard? (none / 0) (#14)
    by oudemia on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:22:15 AM EST
    Tom Tancredo does not have a son in college. He has two sons, one of whom is 40 or so, and the other a tad younger. Certainly the older one shares his politics. The younger I don't know about.

    He's only been married 30 years (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 10:50:11 AM EST
    He got married in 1977, unless he was married before, I don't see how he has a 40 year old son.

    See His campaign site

    Now you have me curious.

    Parent

    Step-sons (none / 0) (#23)
    by oudemia on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 11:07:10 AM EST
    Hi Jeralyn -- They are technically his step-sons, but he's their "real" father in terms of raising them. So yes, he has a 40 year old son and one a bit younger.

    Parent
    jeralyn (none / 0) (#15)
    by cpinva on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:34:29 AM EST
    you just had the personal experience of discovering, as i have, that "the face of evil is banal". watch any interview with jerry falwell or pat robertson, etc. they both come across as very reasonable, pleasant guys, who just happen to be raving, nutcase ideologues.

    i feel certain david duke would be equally charming in person. don't be fooled, they cultivate that exterior, so regular folks will go "gee, he's such a nice person."

    they aren't.

    You are right (1.00 / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:47:24 AM EST
    so regular folks will go "gee, he's such a nice person."

    I once flew from Portland, OR to Denver with Jimmy Carter.. I found him to be pleasant, calm and personable...

    Parent

    Bloomfield CO... (none / 0) (#33)
    by desertswine on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 12:54:06 PM EST
    Well, this is too bad.

    According to the Archdiocese of Denver, the conversation soon became about immigration and it turned ugly.

    "Holy Family High School is dedicated to being a family - through respect and charity for all its members. It's always had a diverse student body. It values that diversity and strives to be a place of unity and respect for all."

    Pancho (none / 0) (#45)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 05:00:31 PM EST
    You cannot understand that citizens and "illegals" share one common trait. They are people. Using words like "illegals" conveniently depersonalizes a group in order to make you feel OK with rounding up certain individuals and incarcerating them. Once again, rounding up people and deporting them will not solve the problem. It's impossible to arrest and deport 12 million people. The resouces needed would bankrupt our society. Those resources would be better used to upgrade our border facilities and increase INS personnel and training, as well as improving our education system to prevent gravitation to gangs and crime.

    I am (none / 0) (#46)
    by Pancho on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 05:35:06 PM EST
    still waiting for someone to explain where you would draw the line.

    Can we deport gangbangers who are here illegaly?

    Do they first have to be convicted of a felony or should an illegal who spray paints gang slogans on a garage be deported?

    How long does someone have to be here before they can stay forever?

    Can we stop people at the border?

    Under the current system, where most of us, along with our employers, pay for healthcare, should they be getting it for free?

    Parent

    Do good fences (none / 0) (#49)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:11:18 PM EST
    make good neighbors? Do they make good countries?

    In any case we can and ought to stop some people at the border.

    The Immigration and Nationality Act lists a number of crimes for which a legal alien can be deported, and presently undocumented immigrants are deportable in any case.

    What is your stance on citizenship? I think if you've been here 2-5 years, worked, kept your cool, then I don't see a real problem. This is how things presently stand:

    Naturalization
    Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is conferred upon a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The general requirements for administrative naturalization include:

    a period of continuous residence and physical presence in the United States;
    residence in a particular USCIS District prior to filing;
    an ability to read, write, and speak English;
    a knowledge and understanding of U.S. history and government;
    good moral character;
    attachment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution; and,
    favorable disposition toward the United States.
    Note: Recent changes in immigration law and USCIS procedures now make it easier for U.S. military personnel to naturalize (see Naturalization Information for Military Personnel).

    All naturalization applicants must demonstrate good moral character, attachment, and favorable disposition. The other naturalization requirements may be modified or waived for certain applicants, such as spouses of U.S. citizens. Applicants should review the materials listed under "Related Links" and carefully read the N-400 application instructions before applying.

    This page can be found at http://www.uscis.gov/naturalization

    As for medical care, treating something is expensive, not treating it is worse. It is a strain on limited resources, but it's immoral not to treat people and pragmatically it just defers and increases the eventual costs. You've rightly pointed out that this a big local impact, so leadership at the Federal level might help mitigate the strain at the local level.

    To return to my first two questions, they're not rhetorical. Countries the world over, but especially in Europe and North America, not to mention Israel and Palestine, are struggling to annswer them. The Dutch are increasingly suspicious of their Muslim population, the French have the "sans papiers," the Spanish face a North African challenge, and so on. I think the following 2 books are very useful in thinking about this. Transformations of Citizenship by Seyla Benhabib, a scholar at Yale, and Territories, Authorities, Rights, by Sassia Sasken, who teaches at Yale. The first looks at immigration from the idea of "the right to have rights," while the second looks at the idea national sovereignty in the context of globalization.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#56)
    by Pancho on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 02:01:52 PM EST
    for actually giving me a real response; I will respond when I have more time.

    Parent
    I will (none / 0) (#62)
    by Pancho on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 02:08:59 PM EST
    follow Jeralyn's suggestion and take this to E-mail if you are willing to discuss the issue further. My E-mail address is jt3151@Gmail.com

    Parent
    Reply (none / 0) (#63)
    by Pancho on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:52:18 AM EST
    What is your stance on citizenship? I think if you've been here 2-5 years, worked, kept your cool, then I don't see a real problem. This is how things presently stand:

    I understand your point, but how will this be enforced and what is the actual time frame? What about some one that has been here for a year and a half? Who will decide who stays and who goes?

    As for medical care, treating something is expensive, not treating it is worse. It is a strain on limited resources, but it's immoral not to treat people and pragmatically it just defers and increases the eventual costs. You've rightly pointed out that this a big local impact, so leadership at the Federal level might help mitigate the strain at the local level.

    The biggest problem I have with their abuse of the system is that I do what it takes to pay my bills, including Hospital bills, and these people are not paying ANYTHING.

    Parent

    Thread Cleaned (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 11:53:27 PM EST
    I've deleted several comments between two regular commenters that were just sniping at each other. Take it to e-mail, guys.

    Pancho, you're becoming a chatterer. See the commenting rules.  Four comments a day limit for you.

    What exactly is wrong with any of my comments? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Pancho on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 02:03:55 PM EST