Looks like we might have a Presidential candidate running on a "close the border" platform
(that doesn't mean that they will actually do it though)
Secure borders: the hot issue
James P. Pinkerton
September 29, 2005
The sleeper issue in the 2008 presidential election is immigration. Actually, as a recent straw poll shows, it's waking up.
Since the 1960s, the elites in both parties have been solidly pro-immigration. Democrats, for their part, have figured they could burnish their anti-racism, pro-multiculturalist credentials by opening America's borders to the world's teeming masses.
During this period, the vision of "affirmative action" - special help for the mostly black disadvantaged - morphed into a new vision, "diversity." The idea behind such diversity was not a temporary compensation for the needy, but rather a permanent balkanization of the country, based on ethnicity.
Oh, and by the way, if the new immigrants, most notably Hispanics, wanted to vote Democratic - well, that was OK, too.
As for Republicans, they might have been expected to oppose this Democratic agenda, drawing upon their Lincolnian "one nation" legacy of nurturing a middle class. But GOP leaders joined with Democrats to usher in newcomers for two reasons.
First, business-minded Republicans liked more workers coming in at the bottom, busting unions and holding down wages. New immigrants were popular as inexpensive domestic servants, both rich donkeys and rich elephants agreed. And second, the GOP's ascendant neoconservative faction sought to "modernize" the party, burying once and for all the racial edge associated with Southern senators Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms. The neocons were further bewitched by the vision of everybody, from every corner of the world, becoming a liberty-loving small "d" democrat, inspired by the power of American ideas. And so, from the barrios of East L.A. to Baghdad and back to Brooklyn, the New GOP sought to implement that vision.
Some parts of this bipartisan pro-immigration policy worked as planned. Unionization has plummeted, nannies and landscapers are plentiful, and there are plenty of new poor people for bureaucratic welfare statists to lavish taxpayer-supplied "compassion" down upon. For those who happen to speak an exotic language and don't mind working in a dicey environment, there are plenty of bilingual-education teaching jobs available.
Other parts of the open-borders plan have worked less well. After 9-11, for example, we found out just how rotten our immigration and identification mechanisms were. The 19 kill-jackers had reportedly garnered 63 pieces of fake ID. So now we know - or should know - that homeland security is a joke if the government can't figure who people are and how they got here.
(well......homeland security was created AFTER 911, but illegals are still using fake IDs)
More broadly, the American middle class is finally saying, "Enough." Enough of illegal immigration, enough of multiculturalism, enough of carelessness about homeland security. The Silent Majority will no longer allow an arrogant elite to speak for it on fundamental issues of national and cultural destiny. The Lincoln vision - a house not divided against itself - looks pretty good right now.
George W. Bush has been a victim of this political shift. He was pursuing the same lenient bipartisan immigration policy of his presidential predecessors, and hoped by speaking a little Spanish he could garner some Latino votes. But Congressional Republicans, galvanized by Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, rebelled against the latest lax amnesty plan, now shelved.
Now Tancredo, a tireless advocate for better border control, says he will run for president if nobody else will adopt his platform. Adding weight to his threat, Tancredo just finished second in a 2008-preference straw poll conducted by Michigan Republicans. He finished second behind Sen. John McCain of Arizona, but ahead of such better-known White House hopefuls as Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee and Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. The Republican Party is changing.
But interestingly, the Democrats are changing too. The Democratic governors of Arizona and New Mexico, Janet Napolitano and Bill Richardson, have both taken extraordinary steps to regain control over their border with Mexico.
So now it's a bipartisan rebellion against loose and lax immigration controls. It's about time.
Good article and good luck to him because there are very few people in this country that actually see the unarmed invasion taking place as we speak.....
I love the use of different size fonts, colors and bolding's.
Tancredo is awesome. His stance on other issues is great, too - he's the one who mentioned bombing Mecca if we got hit with an NBC attack.
The media doesn't talk about it much, or post\commission any polls about it but............
I keep reading in interview after interview with Congressmen\women that everywhere they go
they are bombarded with questions\complaints\demands to close the border & deport illegals
McCain must not be allowed to run for President.
Lets Hope for
This article mentions what I said
for the record: I would have no problem with doubling\tripling immigration, but DEPORT THE ILLEGALS
Hayworth targets migrants with immigration bill
Measure would reduce visas for Mexicans
Billy House and Susan Carroll
The Arizona Republic
Sept. 29, 2005
WASHINGTON - Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., plans to introduce today a sweeping immigration enforcement bill that would create a new national Social Security card, crack down on employers who hired undocumented workers and bring a moratorium on immigrant visas for Mexican citizens.
Although the provisions of the bill were well-received by some proponents of greater immigration control, they were widely assailed by immigration attorneys, advocates for undocumented immigrants and privacy watchdogs.
The Enforcement First Immigration Act of 2005 laces together in one package new and old proposals.
It represents what Hayworth and other U.S. House conservatives hope will be their signature core principles in any immigration reform bill agreed upon by Congress.
"The hope is that my model of enforcement will be a blueprint where the majority . . . can come together," Hayworth said of the 113-page bill he plans to detail today at a Capitol Hill news conference.
Hayworth joins several other Arizonans in producing his own major legislation targeting immigration reform, a key issue for their state, which is the gateway for most of the illegal immigration into the United States.
Some provisions echoed a bill by Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., that calls for 10,000 more Border Patrol agents, adds Customs and Border Protection officers at ports of entry and expands detention space for undocumented immigrants.
But Hayworth's bill, unlike other immigration legislation introduced this session, would reduce the number of visas available, particularly for Mexican citizens.
It includes provisions that historically have proved controversial, such as putting the military on the border, ending automatic citizenship for babies born on U.S. soil and authorizing an estimated 700,000 state and local law enforcement officers to enforce immigration law.
The proposed legislation also would make voting in a foreign election without approval from the secretary of State a felony.
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that favors stricter immigration controls, said the bill is "the right approach because it focuses on enforcement first."
"I don't mean to be a mouthpiece for the bill, but it really does summarize the approach we need to take, which is to regain control of the border and then talk about whether we need an amnesty or guest-worker program," he said.
"I'd have to say Congressman Hayworth's bill is common sense. In fact, it's hard to believe there would be any objection to it at all."
But critics found plenty to fault in the legislation.
"I don't expect this is going to be taken particularly seriously on Capitol Hill," said Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that pushes for more legal immigration. "The debate has moved far beyond where Representative Hayworth is."
Kelley charged that Hayworth's bill mistakenly tries to stop illegal immigration by restricting legal immigration.
"I think there's some enforcement provisions in here that might make sense, but they can't be absent an overall reform," she said.
"It guarantees our illegal immigration population will swell because it shuts off the narrow legal channels that now exist."
The bill will have strong backing from the anti-illegal immigration lobby and may have a chance given the "sentiment in the House," said Ira Mehlman, a Los Angeles-based spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which lobbies for reductions in immigration.
"These bills are always difficult, but I think
the level of public discontent with
and the fact that it is now spread all across the country works in the favor of getting this support that it needs," he said.
Mehlman said the bill addresses some of the major issues that fuel the growth of the undocumented population in the United States, now estimated at 10 million to 12 million people.
Hayworth's bill would dedicate thousands of agents and local law enforcement officers to identifying and deporting undocumented immigrants, while increasing the fines for employers who flouted the law.
Under Hayworth's bill, hiring one undocumented immigrant could result in a penalty of up to $50,000 and a jail term of up to one year.
"It actually puts some teeth into enforcement, which has been lacking for a long time," Mehlman said.
"It creates a verifiable means for employers to check if somebody is legal to hold a job, and if they fail to observe those procedures, there is a serious fine involved.
"On the other side of the equation, it sends the message to people that if you are caught . . . you will be sent home."
Lynn Marcus, director of the University of Arizona Immigration Law Clinic, said the proposed legislation is a "monster" with "many heads," alluding to the number of controversial provisions.
'Could be a disaster'
"Any piece of this could be a disaster," she said.
The legislation would create a "tamper resistant" Social Security card with a digitized photograph of the cardholder, a move designed to allow employers to instantly verify citizenship for new hires.
But Dawn Wyland, interim executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Arizona, said an ID based on a Social Security number raises troubling questions.
"From a privacy standpoint, we definitely would be opposed to a national security ID or a secure ID that uses a Social Security as an identifying factor, solely for the purposes of privacy and identity fraud," she said.
The bill takes a chapter from the CLEAR Act, which proponents have said could add as many as 700,000 law enforcement officials to the battle against illegal immigration.
The CLEAR Act has faced opposition from many law enforcement and union leaders across the country, including in Arizona, who fear undocumented immigrants will not come forward to report crimes.
The bill's thrust stands in starkest contrast to bipartisan legislation introduced in the Senate and House in May by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., along with Reps. Jim Kolbe and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.
That measure would set up a program for undocumented workers already in the country to get them temporary visas after paying a fine and could put them on track to become permanent residents or return home in six years.
Alright. Tancredo seems like a decent enough guy. He's a politician that has the stones to speak his mind and stand up for it and take the shit for doing that.
I've got alot of respect for that.
One other politician comes to mind when I say that: James Trafficant. Trafficant had BALLS, and I mean BALLS. His reward for having such a thing was being indicted on various charges (I don't remember what now). To this day I still think he was indicted for the same shit that EVERY politician does, but he got so far out of line (meaning independant, unpredictable and uncontrollable) that they finally just dropped the hammer on him.
If Tancredo keeps it up (although he is MUCH milder than Trafficant ever was, which puts him in a better position to run for president), the same fate will likely befall him.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go adjust my tinfoil hat.
James Traficant was\is a character, he did\said some good things(and he was a dem)
She, at least, isn't doing jack about illegal immigration.
She's SAYING alot, but DOING little to nothing, other than Vetoing bills designed to combat illegal immigration.
It's all a cover so that she can say she's 'doing something' in the next election.
I'm going to keep my eye on this Tancredo guy.
Yup, she(like cnn)is using the illegals issue because it makes bush look bad...........
at least that gives the illegals issue airtime instead of it being ignored by the leftist liberal media
I'll only vote for Tancredo if he promises to nuke Mecca. I know that he has talked about nuking Mecca before, but I want a firm promise of canned sunshine for Allah.
This is how much the average american gives a flying f*ck about this:
"Co-founder Chris Simcox of Tombstone, Ariz., says simply, "People on the East Coast couldn't care less.""
"Numbers dwindle for civilian border patrol"
Face it, most Americans are more concerned with football, Desperate Housewives and gas prices...not the rise of tyranny and the destruction of our sovreignity.
Thats the way it has been for a long time, but I think it is changing as more people become
aware of the damage that the illegals are doing, mainly from repeat offenders killing while dui
Tancredo gives me a small glimmer of hope that things might get better one day...
Thinking of a McCain presidency is just too depressing.
Ummm, I think Hillary has already been using this against the Republicans. If anyone is going to be successful with a "close the borders" campaign it will be her.