tom tancredo: Page 1
Carrie Budoff Brown of Politico offers "Lamar Smith avoids hard line on immigration" . Because we're dealing with definitions of those who aren't trustworthy (such as Brown), it's difficult to tell whether Smith will be weak on immigration matters or whether he just won't support nonsensical "boob bait for Bubba" policies.
Smith's first two hearings as head of the House Judiciary Committee will be about eVerify. However:
At the same time, he downplayed the key planks in the conservative immigration agenda... He won’t say when his committee plans to tackle birthright citizenship, the policy of granting citizenship to every child born in the country. He doesn’t want to talk about whether he will pursue reducing the level of legal immigration, family migration or work visas - all at the top of the wish list for anti-illegal-immigration advocates... “That is later on in this Congress; that is not our initial focus,” Smith said. “We don’t have any specific plans now in the early months to move on these issues. The focus is on creating jobs and protecting jobs.”
In the current environment, it isn't really possible to restrict birthright citizenship to those who have at least one citizen parent. Much groundwork would need to be done, specifically involving discrediting those groups that would oppose such a move. Few people with megaphones have shown any ability at discrediting groups like the American Civil Liberties Union. Further, restricting birthright citizenship, at least when proposed by those like Lindsey Graham, is just a political ploy.
Legal immigration is a different matter and is less prone to being emotionalized because those involved aren't physically present in the U.S. There is, however, a lot of money from those like Microsoft involved. It wouldn't be good for Smith to be weak on that, especially since the rationale the GOP appears to be using is to help with unemployment.
“If he is not willing to do it - there is a lot of public support for reducing legal immigration - he is going to find he will be pressured on that issue"... Camarota said he believes Smith is enough of a dealmaker that he might even consider a modified DREAM Act legalizing young immigrants, if it was coupled with a cut in legal immigration and stronger enforcement — although pro-immigrant advocates would be all but certain to dismiss it as a bad deal.
"People like to really vilify Lamar Smith, but he is not Tom Tancredo... He is someone who will not push legislation if he thinks it doesn’t have the wide support of the American people."
* Frank Sharry:
“He is a very disciplined politician, but he is also very ideological. He is very smart at having lots of smallish-looking measures that add up to a whole lot of harsh enforcement."
* Rep. Steve King:
"I read the Pledge to America. It wasn’t particularly moving... So, OK, they decided not to write the treatise that I would have on immigration. It wouldn’t be the first time that I worked on an agenda that wasn’t laid out for me. I can deal with that."
* Roy Beck of Numbers USA:
"We think there are a lot of issues in the Internet world that people get really excited about, and in many ways, it is a side show,” Beck said, referring specifically to cutting off benefits for illegal immigrants. “It is not as important as one thing, which is taking away the jobs. So if Lamar Smith is going to focus on keeping illegal aliens out of the jobs, that is more important than all the illegal immigration stuff put together."
Newt Gingrich supports some parts of DREAM Act; supports guest workers; uses false choice; sounds like Hoffenblum - 12/06/10
The audio below (also at peekURL.com/vkhylh1 ) has Newt Gingrich clarifying his immigration stance to Laura Ingraham. A round-up is here. In the interview, Gingrich supports at least one part of the anti-American DREAM Act:
"I think that it’s legitimate to say, if you’re willing to risk your life for two or three years, serving to protect the United States, we will be willing to consider you for citizenship."
However, he claims to oppose broad programs that would give a "pathway to citizenship", preferring instead the more George W Bush-like approach of a massive guest workers plan. Such a plan would have huge social costs such as are to be found in Germany. And, the children of those "guests" would be U.S. citizens, making it very difficult to deport them. Our "guests" would never leave but instead would stay here as second-class citizens of a sort.
And, he also sounded like Allan Hoffenblum:
Gingrich replied that no election, including the Colorado governor race that saw the openly anti-illegal Tom Tancredo lose to his Democrat rival, has been won on the idea that 11 million people can be deported. This led to a heated argument between the two conservatives, with Ingraham saying that both Republicans and Democrats have “fallen down” in their basic responsibility to enforce the border.
Tancredo supports attrition rather than mass deportations, so Gingrich either doesn't know or lied about Tancredo's position. And, Gingrich engaged in the deportations false choice by failing to acknowledge attrition as an alternative to mass deportations or a legalization program.
And, as with every other hack, Gingrich supports secure the border:
Gingrich said he is in favor of deporting illegals who are gang members or arrested for a felony, and is “committed 100-percent” to enforcement of the US border, noting his past accomplishment as Speaker when he helped enforce the first control of the San Diego border. He also said he committed to having English as the official language of government.
In other words, he does want to deport hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, but he thinks 11 million is too many to deport. And, whether he'd support English only laws is unclear, but it is slightly ironic since Newt Gingrich is promoting bilingualism.
Newt Gingrich: And our very deliberate goal, as with the San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, is we’re talking about how can we create a space that is sort of center-right, pro-jobs, pro-entrepreneur but where the entire Hispanic community feels comfortable arguing, talking, and thinking. We’re going to be putting the DREAM Act on that space and we hope to have, before the beginning of the year, with Jeb Bush’s efforts and others, a very lively debate about whether or not we can develop a step by step solution to help everybody in America come out from outside the law and find a way to ultimately have every person in this country living within the law. That’s got to be our goal.
...Jorge Ramos: So if you say, as one of the most prominent Republicans, that you are for immigration reform, you know many Republicans are going to follow you. They are going to follow your lead. Are you for immigration reform?
Newt Gingrich: I am for immigration reform and the person who I think has had the most courageous position in this is Jeb Bush. Jeb Bush is co-author of a report on immigration reform, which is much bolder than the Republicans will be ready to be in Washington, but he moves us in the right direction.
In the election on Tuesday, I strongly urge you to vote against candidates who are part of the Tea Parties movement and against that movement in general. The teaparties are one of the most malignant political movements in the past several decades and must be repudiated; more on that below and see my extensive coverage at that link.
I'm also making these specific recommendations:
In fact, the opposite of what Gerald Seib says is true: the tea parties have almost completely ignored immigration, and some of their leaders strongly support massive or illegal immigration. For instance, their leaders such as Dick Armey from FreedomWorks, Grover Norquist, and groups linked to the Koch family are about as far from "close-the-borders" types as you can get. The "Tea Party Declaration of Independence" completely ignored immigration, as did the "Tea Party Contract From America". And, by ignoring that issue, they're depriving themselves of a perfect way to oppose the corrupt DC establishment and in effect helping the Democrats costs them money and reduce their power. One of the dirty little secrets of the tea parties is how they're a Trojan Horse for libertarianism, an ideology that the vast majority of adherents think must involve a "free movement of people", i.e., open or loose borders. Certainly, some in the tea parties might support border enforcement, but they're very, very quiet about it; no actual leaders of the movement have highlighted that issue despite how fundamental it is. ALIPAC held some anti-illegal immigration "tea parties", but they were never supported by the leaders of the movement.
The only example of tea partiers supporting border enforcement that Gerry Sieb can provide comes from Tom Tancredo, someone who's not only not a leader of their movement, but who's been smeared by those in the tea parties orbit such as Reason Magazine. Tancredo spoke at the National Tea Party Convention, which was covered by PajamasMedia and others in the vanguard of the actual movement, but that doesn't make him a leader of the movement. About the speech, Gerald Sieb says:
Mr. Tancredo declared that if Republican nominee McCain had won last year's presidential election, he and Rep. Luis Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat, "would have been posing in the Rose Garden with big smiles as they received accolades from (the National Council of La Raza) for having finally passed an amnesty" for illegal immigrants. Moreover, he added, Mr. McCain and Mexican President Felipe Calderon "would be toasting the elimination of those pesky things called borders and major steps taken toward creation of a North American Union." ...That is cringe-producing rhetoric for Republicans who are straining to show they are, simultaneously, tough on illegal immigration yet empathetic with the nation's growing bloc of Hispanic voters.
That rhetoric is certainly hyperbolic, but one wonders why Gerrald Seibe would think that Hispanics would be in favor of a NAU or are fans of a foreign leader? They're Americans, right? If Hispanics respond negatively to criticisms of a far-left fringe character like Gutierrez, where does the problem lie? Clearly, Seibe isn't honest enough to consider whether him cringing is correct or not.
 Very few people want to "close the borders", which would involve blocking all traffic both legal and illegal; Seib is just trying to smear his opponents.
The National Council of La Raza bills itself as "the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States" who works through "its network of nearly 300 affiliated community-based organizations."
Among these affiliates are several chapters of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan) who La Raza helps fund. Aztlan is what radical "Mechistas"—as they refer to themselves on La Raza’s website—call the American Southwest, which they claim still belongs to Mexico. Their slogan is "Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada" meaning "For The Race everything, outside the Race nothing." One chapter says on La Raza’s site that their mission is "empowerment of our gente and the liberation of Aztlan."
La Raza receives tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to set up charter schools like the Aztlan Academy of Tucson where they fly the Mexican Flag, but not the American Flag and teach students "Aztec Math."
See the link for some of his citations, and the "liberation of Aztlan" group is promoted at lideres.nclr.org/content/groups/detail/2308. In addition to that call, they also include the MEChA logo of an eagle holding a stick of dynamite and a war club. See also lideres.nclr.org/content/article/detail/1743 where they promote someone who joined a Brown Berets group while in the sixth grade; they're even more extreme than MEChA. And, right there on the right in that section: the logos of some of the NCLR's corporate sponsors: Allstate, Best Buy, MetLife, and Sodexo. Note also that the NCLR claims not to support separatism at nclr.org/section/separatist. So much for that.
One would think that a group that gave an award to someone who'd proposed genocide wouldn't have much of a chance at beating their opponents. Yet, the National Council of La Raza is in the lucky position that most of their leading opposition doesn't have a clue about that organization or doesn't have a clue about the best way to oppose them.
(For those curious, the way to oppose them is simple: just tell the truth. See the extensive summary of their activities at the last link.)
David Shuster tries to keep left from learning about NCLR giving award to someone who'd proposed genocide - 05/30/09
The attached video shows former Rep. Tom Tancredo appearing on MSNBC's Hardball program discussing with David Shuster the issue of Sonia Sotomayor's involvement in the National Council of La Raza. On the downside, Tancredo doesn't back down from his comparison of that group to the KKK and, as happened during the election, he isn't able to very aggressively defend his points by demanding a hearing.
However, by far the worst part is Shuster trying to keep their leftwing audience members from learning a disturbing fact. In 1994, the NCLR gave an award to the person who'd said the following (see the NCLR link above):
"We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him."
Schuster begins shouting him down around "gringo", trying to pretend that things that Tancredo has said are comparable to the quote above when nothing he's ever said has ever come close. After Tancredo says the quote indicates what type of institution the NCLR is, Shuster engages in some unknown form of logical fallacy by saying, "so, everyone who gets an award is a racist". The other guest was the Rudy Giuliani-linked former Rep. Susan Molinari; Shuster said that she'd gotten a few awards from the NCLR.
Whatever Shuster was trying to say, he didn't understand or (more likely) was trying to obscure the point Tancredo was trying to make: the NCLR doesn't have a problem with "heroes" who propose genocide. Just as obviously, Shuster is a reflexive apologist for such organizations, but he needs others to think up his counter-arguments for him.
Tamar Jacoby pins immigration "reform" hopes on Obama-induced "reformist mood", bad policy, racialization - 05/07/09
America's favorite immigration "expert", Tamar Jacoby, takes to the pages of the Los Angeles Times with "The immigration debate, again" (link). It contains the usual smears ("there's a danger that populist resentments will curdle into xenophobia", Lou Dobbs and Tom Tancredo are "anti-immigrant" with "inflamed, angry followers") together with things like this:
Neither the economic downturn nor enhanced enforcement has driven 12 million illegal immigrants to leave the country. Enforcement is still far from effective, either on the border or in the workplace.
That "enhanced enforcement" has been just for show; George W Bush had no intention of reducing the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. She's not being completely misleading about the "enhanced" part due to the second sentence, but she doesn't reveal to her readers her thoughts on whether truly increased enforcement - together with reduced non-emergency benefits - would reduce the numbers. Obviously, she knows that it would, and that's why she doesn't mention it.
Former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo was planning to speak at Providence College in Rhode Island on Wednesday, but college officials denied the request (link). Instead, he'll be speaking at a VFW hall and in front of the college's gates.
One reason given for the rejection is that the group that invited him - Youth for Western Civilization (link) - is not accredited. However, they're actually open about the real reason:
Just as important, [PC spokeswoman Pat Vieira] said, were Bishop Thomas J. Tobin's views on immigration and how immigrants -- whether here legally or illegally -- should be treated, which contrast sharply with Tancredo's... "The Bishop of Providence ... is a member of the College's Board of Trustees," Vieira said in a written statement. "If a similar request to host a speaker on this topic is made in a future semester, the College will encourage and facilitate a format that allows for multiple points of view to be expressed."
The school - home to such notable alumni as Janeane Garofalo and Chris Dodd - is a private institution run by the Dominicans. The president's email isn't listed, but if you want to send a polite suggestion try bbartoli *at* providence.edu and chaberle *at* providence.edu.
Point out to them that Tancredo wants to treat illegal aliens better than Tobin. Tancredo wants them to return home and press for reforms in their own countries. Tobin is engaging in false compassion and what he supports would lead to even more people dying in the desert and a host of other negative impacts.
UPDATE: Tobin clarifies here that he had no role in preventing the appearance. "Nonetheless... Bishop Tobin fully supports the decision of the administration regarding this matter." He's being disingenuous: PC did what he wanted them to do; it wasn't necessary for him to take an active role. There's an after-action report here. At the PC gates, protesters wore multi-colored masks as a sign of their diversity, and then, after fifteen minutes of silence, turned their backs on him. At the VFW protest (link), they chanted "Tom Tancredo, out of our state, we don’t want your racist hate" and "racist, sexist, anti-gay, Tom Tancredo go away". (For those wondering, the average mental and emotional age of the protesters was 5 years old).
For an unknown reason, on June 10, 2008 Jake Tapper of ABC News posted an entry entitled "Dragged Kicking and Screaming, Tancredo Will Pull Lever for McCain". The reader might remember that from a couple months ago, yet Tapper posted it like it happened just recently and with no acknowledgement that it was old news (link). The Tancredo quote referencing Hillary Clinton as a contender should have been a clue, but I guess Tapper needs all the help he can get. Note also that the earliest comment on the entry is from June 10, and that it's currently in their "Recent Posts" sidebar item.
I left the following comment, which was deleted. Note that I used the name "TLB" and with a link to this site. It can't just be because I used a link, since someone else whose comment remains on the page has a link, and surely they must know that since there are nofollow tags on the links there's no "danger" in letting people put links there, right? So, I'm forced to conclude that ABC News doesn't want people to know that Tapper is serving up old news.
Here's the shocking comment that ABC News doesn't want anyone to see:
Perhaps someone should tell Tapper that the linked article is from two months ago. Someone should also tell him that Barr's position is more or less the same as McCain's.
Mexican president Felipe Calderon visited five U.S. cities this week, and had 34 events scheduled with a wide range of movers and shakers (his wife had a few events also). Some of the dignitaries he met with are listed here; picture right is of him with New York governor Eliot Spitzer from presidencia.gob.mx/prensa/?contenido=33715
At every stop, he has scheduled meetings with top local and state officials, some of whom have direct links to presidential candidates.
In his speech to the California legislature (which includes several Democrats with obviously divided loyalties), he said that "I strongly believe that Mexican and Mexican-American workers are a large reason for the dynamic economy of California", which is certainly true. It's also true that millions of illegal aliens from Mexico have a very negative impact on the state and the country, but he didn't bring up the downsides. He also promoted changing illegal immigration into (massive) legal immigration. From this, he gave a shout out to the Bracero program and also said:
We need to make migration legal, safe and organized.
Compare that to George W. Bush ("I will work to ensure a system of safe and orderly migration"), a Bush rep ("safe, humane, orderly and legal program"), Rob Allyn ("safe and legal and orderly and controlled"), Jim Wallis ("safe, legal, and orderly manner") and various Mexican government reps: link, link, link.
Are they all reading from the same script?
Without specifically directing audience members to pick up the phone and call their congressmen, Calderon also hinted that a key component to ensuring a strong future for Mexico lies in the pressure Mexicans here can apply to U.S. leaders, arguing that the improvement of Mexico is a joint government venture.
One of the major costs he didn't discuss is that massive immigration from Mexico gives that country political power inside the U.S., as evidenced by a foreign leader urging Mexicans and Mexican-Americans to promote Mexico's agenda to U.S. leaders. Obviously, the agendas of the U.S. (but not necessarily our elites) differs from that of Mexico in major ways. In the case of conflicts, whose side would former immigrants from Mexico come down on?
UPDATE: Aurelio Rojas of the SacBee offers this, in which he says that Calderon said "Mexican American workers are a large reason for the dynamic economy of California"; in fact, that was actually "Mexican and Mexican-American workers..." He also said:
"The choice is not between migration and (border) security or between migration and prosperity... The choice is between a future of integration and success or a future of distrust and resentment."
But after the speech, Republican Sen. Tom McClintock of Thousand Oaks said it was "inappropriate" for Calderon to "lecture" the Legislature about U.S. policies. "I don't think it's any of Mexico's business what America does with its own immigration policy, just as it's none of America's business what Mexico does with immigration policy," McClintock said... Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, who spent part of his childhood in Mexico, said McClintock did not have "a valid argument.".. "Any president of any nation has a right to their own point of view," said Nunez, who praised Calderon for his efforts to improve Mexico's economy and stem illegal immigration.
Calderon is entitled to his own POV, but whether he should be given a stage at the California Capitol is another matter. It's not surprising at all that Nunez would defend him.
And, whereever Calderon went he was greeted by some number of Mexicans protesting his pro-business policies; some pictures from Chicago here, which mentions another one of those unmentionable costs of massive immigration from Mexico:
why are we allowing the internal politics of a foreign country to play out within our borders?
And, speaking at a winery founded by a Mexican immigrant, Calderon used another stock term, referring to illegal immigration as a "phenomonon", as if it were the tides:
"We came to be here with you to defend thousands of families of Mexican workers that are here because of a natural phenomenon, that compliments the economy of the U.S. and the economy of Mexico. If we want to seek prosperity for our cities we have to have this prosperity together."
UPDATE 2: Tom Tancredo has sent a letter to Calderon. An AP report on Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa meeting with Calderon is here; per the comments, the L.A. Times doesn't seem to have reported on their meeting. The latest they appear to offer featuring both is a short report from Nancy Vogel (link), which doesn't mention anything that the reports above don't cover. The only artifact they provide from their meeting is this photo, captioned "Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, left, and Mexican President Felipe Calderon discuss trade opportunities in downtown Los Angeles":
UPDATE 3: There's another roundup here:
On the night of Feb. 13th, meeting with LA Mexican leaders, Calderon discussed the formation of a "league of anti-defamation and anti-discrimination," modeled on the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, to protect Mexicans in the U.S... Quoth Calderon, "If anyone is mercilessly defaming, ridiculing, and exacerbating hatred against Mexicans, all of us need to neutralize that force."
That links to this, which says that he said that just as the Jewish community had their league, he hoped that Mexicans would have their own. It also includes another picture of our favorite collaborateur:
The Washington Post doesn't appear to be sore losers about the failure of immigration "reform". They recently published a vile column from Harold Meyerson and a similar editorial. Now comes Dana Milbank with "Hasta La Vista" (link) about Rep. Tom Tancredo dropping his presidential bid. The problems start with the title, a childish attempt at irony. The running theme throughout is that Tancredo is angry; in fact he uses that word four times. Why is he an "angry man"?
We know this because he has proposed dropping bombs on Mecca. We know this because he sang "Dixie" at a South Carolina gathering full of Confederate flags and white supremacists. And we know this because he wants to expel 12 million people now living in the United States.
The first sentence was only the ultimate response to nukes having gone off in several U.S. cities. The second is discussed here and here. The third might imply that he supports mass deportations, when in fact he doesn't. Milbank then goes on to mock the fact that there were only 18 supporters when he made his announcement. Then:
In response to questions, he admitted he was pulling out to help defeat somebody he dislikes more than an undocumented Mexican in the desert: former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, the new Republican front-runner here with what Tancredo called an "abysmal" record of "inviting" illegal immigrants.
I don't think Tancredo would actually "dislike" someone who's trying to cross the desert into the U.S., he just doesn't want them to do it. On the other hand, the Washington Post's support for illegal immigration plays a part in encouraging people to try to cross the desert, despite the fact that thousands have died while trying. And, of course, Huck has promoted and enabled illegal immigration such as by helping Mexico to build a consulate in his state. Then, it's on to a lie:
Never mind that Huckabee was tough enough on immigration to win the support of the border-vigilante Minuteman Project.
The support only came from Jim Gilchrist himself, not any groups using that name. After discussing an admittedly stupid video that Tancredo released (youtube.com/watch?v=n5GUCQAdlxg), it's Milbank's turn to admit why he's the one who's angry:
"It's beyond anybody's wildest expectations that we have been able to, with the help of America, really, get our national leaders to pay attention to the issue," declared Candidate Two Percent... He boasted, with some validity, that his candidacy helped lead "nearly every Republican presidential candidate to commit themselves to an immigration plan that calls for securing our borders." It's true: As his rivals coopted his nativist positions -- even if just rhetorically -- Tancredo became a victim of his own success.
UPDATE: The technicalities of the Gilchrist endorsement are described here:
it is important to note that the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC), the nation's largest Minuteman organization, is a 501(C)4 non-profit organization and cannot and does not endorse any candidate for public office. MCDC is not associated with Mr. Jim Gilchrist, who today endorsed Mike Huckabee for president. Jim Gilchrist's erstwhile Minuteman Project is itself an organization which by its own representations as a non-profit civic group cannot legally endorse candidates. It does not have any volunteers who observe illegal border activity. It has no border fence building projects. Jim Gilchrist here speaks only for Jim Gilchrist, he does not speak for the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, nor is he nationally representative of most patriots in the "Minuteman movement" – who under no circumstances could ignore the failed record nor endorse the duplicitous "plan" recently rolled out by candidate Mike Huckabee. The national media needs to recognize that Jim Gilchrist's endorsement is his own personal statement, nothing more.
Then, we move on to the subhead:
Anti-immigration zealot and GOP presidential candidate Tom Tancredo hired what he often refers to as "criminal aliens" to renovate his Colorado house.There's a difference between illegal aliens and criminal aliens, and I strongly suspect that the workers were just the former and not the latter. And, of course, he's not "anti-immigration".
Then, from the article:
When Tancredo hired a construction crew to transform his drab basement into a high-tech pleasure den in October 2001, however, he did not express concern that only two of its members spoke English. Nor did he bother to check the workers' documentation to see if they were legal residents of the United States. Had Tancredo done so, he would have learned that most of the crew consisted of undocumented immigrants, or "criminal aliens" as he likes to call them. Instead, Tancredo paid the crew $60,000 for its labor and waited innocently for the completion of his elaborate entertainment complex.1. As stated above, he contracted with a contractor .
2. He probably would have violated several state and federal laws if he had inquired about their status; in that case (as with Mitt Romney), the far-left would be accusing him of racial profiling and discrimination.
3. As stated above, Tancredo knows the difference between those who are just illegal aliens and those who are criminal aliens. He doesn't call the former with the latter term unless it applies.
During the renovation process, two illegal workers hired by Tancredo were alerted to his reputation for immigrant bashing. They went straight to the Denver Post to complain. Tancredo "doesn't want us here, but he'll take advantage of our sweat and our labor," one of the workers complained to the Post on September 19, 2002. "It's just not right."1. Once again, Tancredo didn't "hired" them directly .
2. An interesting question is who exactly "alerted" the workers; was it a setup?
3. The Post article followed and coincided with the Jesus Apodaca incident, in which the Denver Post collaborated with the Mexican consulate to push giving college discounts to illegal aliens. See the September 29, 2002 letter Tancredo wrote to the Post (link). They apparently wrote 24 stories about the issue... over nine days. More response here.
...Then defiance gave way to vitriol as the congressman dubbed undocumented immigrants, "the face of murder."Blumenthal is being extremely misleading; Tancredo wasn't refering to all "undocumented immigrants", but to coyotes, drug smugglers, and terrorists .
It continues, this time with mere smears (I didn't bother clicking to the second page to see if there are more lies):
Down on the border, Tancredo announced his support for the Minutemen, providing the anti-immigrant militia with a veneer of respectability while its pistol-packing members hunt for brown-skinned evildoers.Obviously, the use of the word "militia" is meant to convey an incorrect portrayal of their actions, as is the word "hunt", and of course, they're interested in evildoers of all skin colors.
UPDATE: Howie Klein linked to the Blumenthal article (downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/12/heath-shuler-joins-tom-tancredo-know.html), and I left a one-sentence comment linking to this post; the comment appeared and was then deleted. He's really afraid that his readers will learn the truth, isn't he.
UPDATE 2: I'm not going to bother registering to comment, but Pam Spaulding links to the article in the falsely-titled post "Tom Tancredo hired 'criminal aliens' to build his family's rec room" (pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3807). She reposted that at Pandagon; let's see if they approve the comment I left: pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/02/ tom-tancredo-hired-criminal-aliens-to-build-his-familys-rec-room/
Footnotes in the extended entry.
 The article Blumenthal refers to is "Illegal labor aided Tancredo Workers say they redid basement for immigration critic" by Michael Riley, September 19, 2002. A copy is here.
Undocumented immigrants helped remodel U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo's Littleton basement, two of the workers told The Denver Post. The workers said they were among a crew of five or six people who labored for contractor Creative Drywall Design of Denver, creating a home theater with terraced seating, a billiards table and game area, and a bedroom for Tancredo, a Republican and one of the nation's most vocal immigration critics. From a September 18, 2002 House floor speech (link):
All but one of the crew were undocumented immigrants from Latin America, according to two of the workers. The Denver Post is not naming the employees because of the possibility that identification might lead to legal proceedings against them.
Tancredo didn't break any laws, according to immigration lawyers briefed on the case. He never asked whether the workers - only two of whom spoke English - were in the country legally, said Eric Givan, project manager for the company.
The company's president said he believed all of his workers were in the country legally and that he had documentation from them on file. The two workers said their documentation was false...
As the contractor's client, Tancredo had no legal obligation to ask if all the workers were documented. In his floor speech Wednesday night, he said he couldn't legally ask that question.
"You can be sued under the Civil Rights Act if you go out and ask people who have been hired by someone else if they are here illegally or not," he said.
But a Justice Department lawyer disagreed. "If a person wants to feel more comfortable by asking a contractor to sign something assuring them that everyone who works for them is legal, they can do that because (the contractor) has that obligation in the first place," said the lawyer, who declined to be identified.
Creative Drywall owner J.J. Fukunaga said he has documents on file showing that each of the company's 15 employees is legally entitled to work in the U.S. The documents vary by employee but in some cases include copies of Social Security cards and driver's licenses, he said. When asked to show copies of those documents, he declined...
..."Tom Tancredo is no more breaking the law by having his basement refinished by a company that employs undocumented workers than anybody who goes into a McDonald's and gets served a Big Mac" by an undocumented immigrant, said Laura Lichter, a Boulder immigration attorney...
...What is the most discouraging or disconcerting aspect of this whole thing is that when trying to characterize and personify the illegal immigration issue by using the Apodacas, what you do is ignore another face of illegal immigration that is much, much uglier, much nastier. That is the face of illegal immigration that you confront on the borders of this country, both the Canadian border and the Mexican border. It is the face of murder, it is the face of infiltration into the country of people who are coming to do us great harm, it is the face of drug smuggling. It is the face of rape and robbery, because coyotes who often bring these people, in this case from Mexico, into the United States, they charge them sometimes $1,000 or $1,500 to bring them into the United States illegally, and when they get to the borders they rape the women, they steal the money, they force the people into the United States into some of the most inhospitable parts of the country in terms of the desert, and they die out there. This is an ugly thing...
Based on the response to Rep. Tom Tancredo's ad about terrorism, one thing is clear: the nutroots/netroots (like Crooks and Liars, Raw Story, etc.), supposed mainstream bloggers/pundits (like Matt Yglesias), and the MSM just don't take border security that seriously. Some Democratic politicians might not go that far, and some might truly support border security, but most of them - including the top-tier Democratic candidates - simply talk a good game.
Hopefully Frank Luntz or similar is working on rhetoric that would expose this abject failure to protect the U.S. and that could be used by various candidates when it applies. In the meantime, here's my first attempt:
The Democrats just don't see terrorist infiltration of the U.S. as an important issue and would prefer to concentrate on more important things.
It needs a bit of clean-up; I use "important" twice.
Reaching very, very low into the barrel, one of the comments I left on a post  by "Sister Toldjah" was edited, and another was deleted. Almost all comments forms have a box where you enter your URL, and I entered this site's URL in that field; she edited the first message to delete that URL (there were no URLs in the comment body itself). Since I used the name "TLB" as I am wont to do, that URL helps people understand who's responsible for the comment.
Hugh Hewitt: ... [L]et me move on. GOP question, just two years and three months ago, Tom, you endorsed an American Independent Party candidate over the Republican nominee in a special election out here in Orange County. Is that material to a campaign for the GOP nomination, that you threw the Republican overboard just two years ago? ...Tancredo didn't exactly answer the question and perhaps he should have informed Hewitt that sometimes you have to put country before party. Hewitt would have understood that about as well as a chimp would understand higher mathematics, but we should continue to try.
...HH: You threw the Republican overboard.
Captain Ed would probably have issues understanding this as well, saying that "[s]omeone who wants to lead the GOP to the White House needs to answer why he kneecapped the Republican candidate in an election in 2004."
I left a variation of the following comment; it was moderated for one reason or another, so I'm posting this here and sending a trackback:
Hewitt is an extremely partisan hack who barely reaches #72 on Talkers Top 100. He told his listener(s) to call in to John & Ken after the Tancredo interview, and they say they got two (2) calls from his listener(s).Regarding an earlier comment I left on Captain's Quarters which was moderated away despite a subsequent email asking for it to be posted, see the first link in this post.
The OC race in question was between Jim Gilchrist and John Campbell. The first ran AIG so he could get into the finals; the second is a Bush-style loose borders R who had previously supported illegal immigration (link).
And, on election day, Gilchrist got almost as many or even more votes than Campbell: Campbell only won because of absentee votes.
On a related note, in AZ the GOP refused to give measurable support to Randy Graf, another candidate who would have cost the backers of the GOP money. In the primary they supported the loose borders candidate who was losing by a wide margin; in the finals they in effect supported the Dem.
Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), a "dark horse" candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination admitted in an interview that he is a "controversial figure" who is sometimes prone to saying "outrageous things."Brynaert was last noticed by me downplaying the North American Union, something which every FOIA-obtained document makes clear is a distinct plan by Bush, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Chertoff, and their counterparts in Canada and Mexico.
Last November, Esquire Magazine wrote, "Tancredo is Tancrazy. Made his name calling for mass deportations of illegal immigrants. Recently was the featured speaker at a meeting of the League of the South, described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a 'neo-Confederate hate group.' In a rare moment of clarity, he called his own suggestion that he run for president 'idiotic.'"
As for Esquire, do they have a cite of Tancredo "calling for mass deportations of illegal immigrants"? That's a key claim from Brynaert's second paragraph, so perhaps he should verify it instead of just repeating an Esquire smear. Can Brynaert identify Tancredo's actual policy vis-a-vis deportations, and then provide a correction?
As for the SPLC, they seem to define "hate group" as "anyone who disagrees with us". They also have an indirect link to the Mexican government; perhaps Brynaert could look into that.
And, whether the meeting he appeared at was that of the LOS is an open question. The LOS denies it was their meeting, and Tancredo's spokesman says it was organized by "Americans Have Had Enough! and the Sons of Confederate Veterans".
So, why is Brynaert posting unverified and very possibly false information? Cui bono?
Sleazy Think Progress, Anderson Cooper lie about Tom Tancredo
Tancredo may run for president; Chris Cannon begins smears?
Violent MSU lefties disrupt Tancredo speech
Jeb Bush writes letter re: Tancredo's Miami remark
Tim Dickinson/Rolling Stone's misleading, pro-illegal immigration propaganda
UPDATE: To make this clear, there's a huge difference between supporting mass deportations and supporting eventual deportation (or self-deportation) of a large number of current illegal aliens. Namely, the first would take place over a fairly short period of time. It would not only be a logistic nightmare if it went well, if it went poorly it could result in a great deal of civil disturbance due to the fact that illegal aliens are clustered in urban centers. I refer readers to the July 26, 2005 Darryl Fears article "$41 Billion Cost Projected To Remove Illegal Entrants" (link):
Will Adams, a spokesman for Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), an outspoken advocate of stronger immigration laws, called the study an "an interesting intellectual exercise" by liberals that is "useless . . . because no one's talking about" employing mass deportation as a tactic.
"No one's talking about buying planes, trains and automobiles to get them out of the country," Adams said. "The vast number of illegal immigrants are coming for jobs. Congressman Tancredo wants to go after the employers."
Adam Nagourney of the New York Times (with assistance from Rachel Swarns) offers "G.O.P. Candidates Confront Immigration Politics". Despite being two screens long, we're only told that GOP candidates are facing the ire of Iowa voters regarding immigration matters, but we aren't given much in the way of specifics. And, Nagourney doesn't attempt to ask Senator John McCain or others any tough questions that would reveal the flaws in their positions. About the only slight news in the piece is that McCain is backing away from Kennedy-McCain, and instead is moving towards a scheme similar to that proposed by Mike Pence. You know, the one that featured unlimited immigration.
We're also informed that "McCain... is from a border state that is deeply divided over immigration." Yes, large majorities voting for three propositions designed to reduce illegal immigration mark a state as "deeply divided". It's truly an "NYT-style" deep divide.
And: "Tom Tancredo... has based his campaign on an anti-immigration message". Didn't Adam Nagourney just lie?
Mr. Giuliani has yet to campaign in Iowa and has not been pressed on his views on immigration;
Why not? Isn't it the job of people like Nagourney or Swarns or others at the NYT and other media sources to press them on vital issues? Why aren't they doing their jobs?
Then - oddly enough - Nagourney quotes someone saying something a bit questionable:
Mr. Brownback was reminded of that throughout the day on Saturday, including during his march in the St. Patrick's Day Parade up Locust Avenue in Des Moines. "We need to build a fence," Mike Clark, 38, a pig farmer, told Mr. Brownback as he walked alongside him. "We need to get them stopped."
Then, we get thoughts on the Pence scheme:
"The business community has always been skeptical about any requirement to make workers leave the U.S. to obtain legal status," said Laura Reiff, of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, which represents service industries. "We haven't ruled a Pence-like touchback completely out of the question, but it would need to be an efficient, functional process."
The EWIC is a bit more than that, including among their members the American Immigration Lawyers Association, First Data (former owners of Western Union), Tyson Foods, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Please write public *at* nytimes.com with your thoughts. You can also contact the "reporter" by clicking on his name at the article page and then clicking the contact link.
Former Republican Georgia Congressman Bob Barr - also an advisor to the ACLU, a group indirectly linked to the Mexican government - comes out in support of Bank of America's credit card for illegal aliens in "Immigration indigestion" (link). He ends up sounding like Bill Press, and makes the same fundamental error as he did:
When word surfaced recently that some banks, such as Bank of America, were allowing individuals to open accounts, apply for credit cards and obtain home mortgages even though they did not possess a Social Security number, it was not Big Government Liberals who rose up in arms to stop "greedy" financial institutions from offering such services. It was Small Government Republicans, like Colorado's Tom Tancredo and Californians Ed Royce and John Doolittle, who waxed indignant that banks engaged in such a free market activity as extending credit to someone who proved creditworthy but did not have a Social Security number.
The problem is that that isn't the "free market", it's the "corrupt market". Banks were not originally allowed to accept Mexico's Matricula Consular ID card, but the Bush administration fought to change that. That's despite both the FBI and the DOJ pointing out that the cards were not a reliable means of identification and would provide "an opportunity for terrorists to move freely in the United States". As detailed at the last link, the Mexican government is allowed to visit their outposts in the U.S. and distribute them like candy.
The "natural order" of things was not to accept those cards; political corruption and the Bush administration's support for corporatism led to the change.
"At face value the program seems to be problematic," said Russ Knocke, a [Department of Homeland Security] spokesman. "It seems to be lending itself to possibilities of perpetrating identity theft or creating more risk for money laundering."Then, almost at the bottom of the article, we're treated to the news that another bank knows exactly who it's dealing with:
...[Rep. Tom Tancredo] said he sent a letter to U.S. Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff asking them to look into the program.
"I hope the administration will shut down this reckless and illegal program before Bank of America extends a line of credit to a potential terrorist," said Tancredo, a hard-line foe of illegal immigration...
Since then, Wells has opened more than 1 million accounts for Mexicans using the consular card. It also accepts Guatemalan, Argentine and Colombian identity cards. The assumption is that most immigrants using the cards to identify themselves are here illegally, Wells Fargo spokeswoman Trigg said, but the bank doesn't ask.
[List below updated 12/11/07]
"People have to understand what we're talking about here. The president of the United States is an internationalist... He is going to do what he can to create a place where the idea of America is just that – it's an idea. It's not an actual place defined by borders. I mean this is where this guy is really going... I know this is dramatic – or maybe somebody would say overly dramatic – but I'm telling you, that everything I see leads me to believe that this whole idea of the North American Union, it's not something that just is written about by right-wing fringe kooks. It is something in the head of the president of the United States, the president of Mexico, I think the prime minister of Canada buys into it... And they would just tell you, 'Well, sure, it's a natural thing. It's part of the great globalization ... of the economy.' They assume it's a natural, evolutionary event that's going to occur here. I hope they're wrong and I'm going to try my best to make sure they're wrong. But I'm telling you the tide is great. The tide is moving in their direction. We have to say that."
This has resulted in various people calling Tancredo names or disputing that such a plan is underway. And, some of them dispute that such a plan exists, but then say that such an idea isn't so bad after all. While it's certainly possible to disagree with Tancredo's assessment, all of the comments I've seen involve some form of name-calling and none of them discuss the issue on its merits. In some cases this might be actual pro-NAU propaganda, in others it might be due to opposition to Tancredo's support for our immigration laws, in others it might be a knee-jerk defense of Bush, and in some it might be due to the fact that many bloggers aren't, shall we say, that good at research and analysis.
* Judd Legum of Think Progress says: "You might think the right would immediately repudiate this kind of conspiracy theory. You'd be wrong." As could be expected from that site, most of the comments are name-calling. Some however support the NAU concept.
* Steve Benen of The Carpetbagger says: "Now, far be it for me to defend the president against an unhinged attack from a far-right lawmaker, but does anyone seriously believe that the Bush White House wants to dissolve U.S. borders altogether?" At least two out of five comments, while calling names, provide facts on the SPP.
* "AllahPundit" says: "Oh Lord... We get e-mails from those people all the time. We... do not publish them... Update: HotAir commenters (most of them) agree: Tancredo’s a prophet whose only crime is seeing too clearly the nefarious machinations towards one-world government that are happening under our very noses!" (HotAir is run by Michelle Malkin; the first post I made to her immigration blog concerned the SPP. Her position on this matter isn't known.)
* "Captain Ed" (who isn't a real captain) says: "Tom Tancredo reminds people today why he will forever remain a fringe element in American politics... This is absurd. George Bush may not have responded very well to immigration concerns from his base, but he's done more than his father, Bill Clinton, and even Ronald Reagan in bolstering border security. Tancredo is engaging in mindless demagoguery with these doomsday descriptions, and moving closer to the realms of paranoia." Most of those commenting disagree.
* John Podhoretz says: "I speculate in my book, Can She Be Stopped?, that Tancredo will run as a third-party candidate in 2008. Sounds like he'd be perfect to top Lyndon LaRouche's ticket. If you are serious about the importance of immigration restriction, you'd best be looking for a leader who hasn't chosen to place himself beyond the political fringe."
* Mark Steyn says: "Chances of an EU-style sovereignty pooling arrangement in North America? Zero per cent – whatever Tom Tancredo and the CFR say."
* SeeDubya from Junkyard Blog mockingly refers to "internationalist conspiracy", "sweet, sweet New World Order", "Illuminati endgame", and pretends that the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board supports U.S. sovereignty.
* MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy calls Tancredo various names such as "barking moonbat".
* Alexander McClure at Wizbang Politics says: "...I hope the White House throws all of its resources into this race to make sure that Tancredo also goes into retirement. He is an embarrasment to the party."
* John Hawkins at Right Wing News had a debate with Jerome Corsi on the topic. While Hawkins is not a Bush apologist in the Captain Ed/RedState/BlogsForBush mold, he is on the wrong side of this issue.
* "Appalacian Scribe" John Norris Brown says: "Why anyone gives this nutcase credibility is beyond me."
* Ragnar Danneskjold at the Jawa Report says: One would think that a U.S. Congressman would realize that any statement that starts with "I know this is dramatic" and proceeds to defend the ideas of "right-wing fringe kooks" is pretty unlikely to go anywhere good.
* Ezra of People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch says, among other things (rightwingwatch.org/2007/03/phyllis_schlafl_2.html):
...the Eagle Forum published a list of questions for its supporters to ask candidates on the trail, ranging from Schlafly's theory of "supremacist judges" to the John Birch-esque "North American Union." She says her plan is working, according to "Swift Vet" co-author and fellow "North American Union" enthusiast Jerome Corsi...
A few links are included in that excerpt, including one linking the first "North American Union" to Wikipedia's entry on "black helicopters".
* Joshua Holland, staff writer for Alternet, joins the list with "Debunking the North American Union Conspiracy Theory" (alternet.org/audits/54184). He can't even get past the second paragraph without violating Godwin's Rule:
The North American Union story is an offspring of the John Birch Society right, with its attendant xenophobia and paranoia. It comes complete with a shadowy international cabal intent on stabbing decent, hard-working Americans in the back -- Dolchstoss!
He mentions the Council of Canadians, without mentioning that they're a leftwing group and thus tend to disprove his contention that the NAU "story" is just a rightwing issue. And, he mentions some of the "dots" making up the NAU "story", but he just can't connect them.
* Chris Hayes of The Nation offers "The NAFTA Superhighway" and says that highway is fictional. Some of the letters say he's full of it, with one claiming that Katrina vanden Heuvel is a member of the CFR [11/05/10 UPDATE: Katrina vanden Heuvel is indeed a member of the CFR].
* Both join Vice President Dick Cheney in claiming there's no such highway.
* In early August 2007, Stephen Colbert had a little bit of "fun": youtube.com/watch?v=Ookak1IQJ3U
* Seattle Times columnist Bruce Ramsey offers "Bet your bottom amero that U.S. sovereignty is safe". He bases his conclusion that there's no plan to create a NAU by asking... "the government's chief negotiator on trade, Susan Schwab". She tells him it's just an "urban legend". And, he believes what she says. The JBS - mentioned in his piece - responds here.
* The Fox News "all stars" (Fred Barnes, Juan Williams, and Charles Krauthammer with host Brit Hume) play the Bush quote and then have a bit of fun here: youtube.com/watch?v=TT4tBvRDy38 Krauthammer whitewashes the Bilderberg conferences, saying that he went to one. He compares those who think the NAU is possible to those who believe that Elvis is still alive. Barnes and Williams join in with the "fun". Just because these three idiots say people aren't pushing for it shouldn't be taken as proof that it is being pushed, but...
11/27/07 UPDATE: Drake Bennett of the Boston Globe offers "The amero conspiracy": ...The NAU may be the quintessential conspiracy theory for our time, according to scholars studying what the historian Richard Hofstadter famously called the "paranoid style" in American politics. The theory elegantly weaves old fears and new realities into one coherent and all-encompassing plan... [etc. etc.]...
12/03/07 UPDATE: Gretel Kovach of Newsweek offers a very weak debunking attempt of the NAFTA Superhighway and the NAU in "Highway To Hell?" (newsweek.com/id/73372). That's linked to by the Washington Post's "Fact Checker", Michael Dobbs (blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/12/a_superhighway_to_nowhere.html), who offers his own weak attempt. And, on 11/30/07, Stephen Braun of the Los Angeles Times offered "Paul believes in threat of North American superhighway" (link). It's similar to the WaPo's "Fact Checker" article, including a Stephen Colbert "joke". And:
Federal and state highway and trade officials and transportation consultants reacted Thursday with befuddlement and amusement. The fearsome secret international highway project Paul described does not exist, they said... ...the Trilateral Commission [is] an enduring bugaboo of conspiracy theorists... As alarms about NAFTA's illusory highway have spread across the Web, the issue's whiff of paranoia has ignited sparks of humor... [Colbert "joke"]
12/09/07 UPDATE: Matt Stearns of McClatchy Newspapers offers his own "debunking".
12/11/07 UPDATE: The SPLC has also tried to cast doubts on these schemes.
Let's take a look at Karl Rove's new friends, the National Council of The Race ("La Raza") and who they're working with.
The group Defend Colorado New tried to pass Proposition 55 (similar to Arizona's Prop. 200 or CA's Prop. 187), but in June they were thwarted by a possibily activist CO Supreme Court.
On the other side is the deceptively-named Keep Colorado Safe. Their front people include former Denver mayor Federico Pena and former monkey-shiner Gary Hart. However, as discussed here, most of KCS's money is coming from... inside the Beltway.
The most generous supporter is the Service Employees International Union, a far-left, pro-illegal immigration group. And, another supporter is... Karl Rove's buddies at the NCLR.
As described in the latest article, KCS was originally formed to oppose an initiative from Tom Tancredo, and:
The group included representatives from more than a dozen local organizations, including Colorado Progressive Coalition, Rights for All People, American Friends Service Committee and Padres Unidos. They were old allies, joining in 2002 to defeat the English-only measure Amendment 31.
All of those worthy groups are part of Karl Rove's extended network of friends. Others in his extended network include:
...the political consulting firm of Welchert & Britz... Catherine Han Montoya, a former local social service agency worker who campaigned against Amendment 31, was now working at the National Council of La Raza... Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund and the Center for New Community. The three groups had just begun a collaboration to help states fight anti-illegal immigrant ballot initiatives through a $1.1 million grant from Atlantic Philanthropies... [which was] created in 1982 by Charles F. Feeney with his wealth from Duty Free Shoppers Group, Ltd., has given $3.4 billion in mostly anonymous grants across the world to civil rights and educational causes... Recently, the charity has made seven grants to U.S. organizations working on the immigration issue, including $7 million to a national group behind the spring wave of immigrant rallies... In addition to pledging money, the national organizations tried to unify local immigrant advocacy groups, including the Colorado Grassroots Movement for Immigrant Justice and the Coalition for Human Dignity Beyond Borders.... [Gary] Hart sits on the group's executive committee as does Mitch Ackerman, executive director of SEIU Local 105... Eliseo Medina, executive vice president of SEIU... has traveled frequently to Denver to work on the local campaign and said he does not expect that, or financial support, to stop... Bill Vandenberg, co-executive director of the Colorado Progressive Coalition and an executive committee member of Keep Colorado Safe [is unhappy with Pena's compromise]... Vandenberg said he will focus on working with the Grassroots Movement for Immigrant Justice, rather than Keep Colorado Safe, to alter the political environment... Fidel "Butch" Montoya, an immigrant activist, said "there's no reason to celebrate" the new laws and how Initiative 55 died.
It's surprising because in a rare move for the AZ Republic it comes close to reporting the actual truth. They come close to implying that Western Union and their parent company First Data are profiting off illegal immigration, are encouraging illegal immigration, and are corrupting our political system.
...In recent years, Denver-based First Data has openly campaigned for immigration reform, which could legalize millions of undocumented workers, and has created a $10 million "Empowerment Fund" for the same purpose.In brief: First Data not only profits off illegal immigration, they encourage massive immigration. I'll leave it to the reader to determine whether what they do qualifies as encouraging illegal immigration. However, note that Proposition 200 was designed to fight illegal immigration, and First Data opposed it.
It has held seminars on migration law, published how-to guides for migrants, sponsored English classes, given money to a charity that helps Mexican women whose husbands are in the United States, and showered immigrant-sending communities with aid.
First Data has stepped up its political donations in recent years. It also "directly, actively" fought against Arizona's Proposition 200, a First Data official told the Mexican Senate in 2004.
...Those migrants send a torrent of money to their families. Mexicans in the United States alone sent home some $20 billion in 2005, up from $6.6 billion just five years ago.
The increase has been a windfall for wire-transfer companies. Western Union, which also owns the Vigo and Orlandi Valuta chains, saw its revenue nearly double from $2.3 billion in 2000 to $4.2 billion in 2005. It made $1.3 billion in profit last year.
"Their real key to success is the immigration from Third World to Second World and First World countries. That is the ultimate secret sauce," said Kartik Mehta, an analyst with FTN Midwest Securities.
...The company also sponsored the printing of 300,000 guides telling Salvadorans how to apply for the U.S. Temporary Protected Status program. The program gave legal residency to 248,000 migrants following two earthquakes in El Salvador in 2001.
In 2000 the company formed the First Data Western Union Foundation, which is funded by First Data, its employees and its agents in other countries.
The foundation has given out more than $16 million, funding everything from seminars on home buying for migrants in Broward County, Fla. to English classes at the Chicago and San Antonio campuses of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
It gives money to a legal aid groups and organizations like the Massachusetts-based Immigrant Learning Center, which along with running English classes, produces studies "promoting immigrants as assets to America," according to one of its reports.
...Furthermore, some of the foundation's programs almost seem to reward migration, say some border-control advocates.
In the Mexican state of Oaxaca, the foundation gave $250,000 "to provide assistance to women living alone because their husbands are working in the United States," according to a foundation news release...
It also has pledged $1.25 million to the Mexican government's 4x1 Program in Zacatecas state. The program provides matching funds for each peso that migrants invest in small businesses in their hometowns...
Another foundation-funded program helps Mexican migrants go to U.S. universities "because they don't have the documents necessary to go to a college and pay tuition as international students," First Data's public relations director Mario Hernandez said during a forum in the Mexican Senate on Nov. 10, 2004.
The foundation made headlines by funding a 56-page booklet for migrants called "A Survival Guide for Newcomers to Colorado."
..."They're promoting whatever is going to enhance their bottom line, and if that means encouraging mass immigration, that's what they're going to do," said Mike McGarry, acting director of the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, which has opposed First Data's advocacy efforts in its home state.
...During a panel discussion organized by the company at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., First Data's then-chief executive, Charlie Fote, announced the creation of a $10 million "Empowerment Fund" to push for an overhaul of U.S. immigration laws, though he gave few details of how the money would be used.
...Since then, First Data has held panel discussions around the country to campaign for immigration reform. The company also said it used its money to fight Arizona's Proposition 200, a measure passed in 2004 that bars illegal immigrants from receiving some state services.
"Our company directly, actively and with financial support, supported the business, political and community groups that opposed this proposition," Hernandez, the public relations director, told lawmakers during the 2004 forum at the Mexican Senate.
First Data also has stepped up its campaign donations. The company has spent $247,000 on federal elections since 2001, compared to $145,000 in the five years before that, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
A political action committee, First Data Employees for Responsible Government, has donated $128,000 since it was formed in 2000. And that's not counting hefty donations by individual executives. Fote and his wife, for example, gave $46,800 to 32 federal candidates between the beginning of 2000 and Fote's retirement in November.
Most of First Data's beneficiaries are members of the Senate and House committees on banking and financial services. Much of the money also has gone directly to the Republican and Democratic parties in the form of "soft money" donations.
Left out of the largesse: Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, one of the most vocal immigration-control activists, who also happens to be First Data's hometown congressman. First Data, its PAC and many of its executives gave money to Joanna Conti, his Democratic opponent, in the 2004 election.
It is unclear if the $10 million Empowerment Fund has gone into campaign donations. First Data would not give The Republic details on how that money is being spent...
And, they then donate part of the money they've obtained from those engaging in illegal activity to politicians, including Democrats like Conti.
Tancredo knows his candidacy would be quixotic, and he worries that if he wins few votes his issue will be discounted. But he also knows that presidential primaries are, among other things, market research mechanisms whereby unserved constituencies are discovered and dormant issues brought to life.Now, see The "Hispanic Vote" myth for all the many reasons that concept is wrong.
Which is what worries Republican officials. They desperately want to avoid giving offense to the Hispanic vote, the rapidly growing -- and already the largest -- cohort in play in American politics.
The basic problem is that the nation's economy is ravenous for more immigrant labor than the system of legal immigration can currently provide.Last I checked, there are millions of Americans out of work, including hundreds of thousands from Katrina. Just over half of black males in NYC between 16 and 64 are employed. And, there's the not inconsequential matter of throwing cheap labor at a problem when mechanization and automation are the better solution for this country.
Furthermore, about 11 million illegal immigrants are in America. It would take a lot of buses -- 200,000 of them, bumper-to-bumper in a convoy 1,700 miles long -- to carry them back to America's border. America will not do that -- will not round up and deport the equivalent of the population of Ohio.No, it isn't that simple as long as corrupt politicians are in charge and are unable or unwilling to crack down on corrupt businesses.
Tancredo agrees, and insists that no such draconian measure is necessary. His silver bullet is to "just enforce the law" -- the law against hiring illegal immigrants. Give employers computerized means of checking the status of job applicants, and, he says, the ones here illegally will go home. If only it were that simple.
Last year a fight broke out during a one-sided immigration forum in Colorado. An anti-illegal immigration activist had attended the meeting and spoke out against the biased panel and the various statements they made. A pro-illegal immigration activist reportedly told her to shut up, and it degenerated into fisticuffs and torn clothing. The pro-illegal immigration activist, Julissa Molina-Soto, was arrested, tried, and eventually found not guilty. However, the other participant, Terry Graham, has brought a civil suit against her and the company that sponsored the forum. A description and pictures of the fight are here, the forum is described here>, Graham's site is here, and see this description of Polly Baca, one of Molina-Soto's defenders.
The sponsor of the forum was First Data, the parent company of Western Union. WU makes a handsome profit off sending remittances to Mexico. They've also created a $10 million Empowerment Fund to support "Latino" causes. And, they also oppose Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) because of his opposition to illegal immigration.
With that out of the way, the Denver Post offers a profile of Molina-Soto entitled "Clash, acquittal stoke advocate's political fire". Suffice it to say that the profile practically elevates her to sainthood. And, it includes the following:
"I want justice and I did not get it in the criminal case," Graham said. She is soliciting funds on a website she runs to pay for her case against Soto. The website for the Stormfront White Nationalist Community also carries a solicitation for Graham.
I've seen some sleazy, pro-illegal immigration statements in news rags, but that ranks right up there. Does the Denver Post have any evidence that Graham is associated with the latter group, posted the solicitation, or even knows that it exists? I used google to search both sites. While I found at least one posting at the group's site asking people to send her money, I didn't find anything at Graham's site that would indicate a link from her to them.
Does the Denver Post know the definition of "yellow journalism" or of "guilt by association?" It barely needs mentioning that no responsible, professional editor should have let that one through.
Note that the article also seems to have a factual error, claiming that Graham was a member of the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform. Yet, that group says: "Neither the attacker or woman who was attacked were members of Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform".
And, note that the Denver Post article is about someone whose race seems to rule everything she does. And, it was written by someone who is presumably of the same race as the subject. And, as described here, many of those who Molina-Soto associates with seem to be obsessed with their race.
This sleazy rag even has an ethics policy:
A strong sense of fair play must imbue our writing, accurately reflecting motives of sources. The tone and language of stories must be even-handed and avoid loaded phrasing.
Contact their editor, Gregory Moore, at gmoore *at* denverpost.com or (303) 820-1400 and suggest they read through their own policy a few times.
We were appalled to learn that U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado was invited to make a keynote speech at a Republican fundraising breakfast in Minnesota's Third Congressional District this weekend.You know, the last group discussed here that attacked Tancredo in the same manner was ProgressNow ("Tying up the loose ends on Colorado's guide for the illegal alien"). I showed that they were lying and I believe anyone who believes anything ProgressNow says should lay off the KoolAid. I'd like to do the same thing in this specific case, but Moccio and Fennelly have given me nothing specific to rebut. All we have is their word that Tancredo engages in fear-mongering, and I don't think I'm willing to accept their word for much of anything.
His brand of fear-mongering about illegal immigration and his active encouragement of vigilantes should have no place in Minnesota politics. Immigration reform is sorely needed in the United States, but responsible proposals must be based upon facts and not incendiary rhetoric...
Note, of course, the use of the loaded term "vigilantes."
Tancredo rails against "illegal immigrants," but he doesn't address why so many undocumented workers come to the United States...I'm not going to bother to do the research because I'm pretty sure that's simply a lie. Note, of course, the use of scare quotes around illegal immigrants. Both Moccio and Fennelly should know that that's the correct, legal term and that "undocumented" is a Carter-era PC euphemism.
President Bush has called the militia "vigilantes," but Tancredo calls them "heroes" and has invited their leaders to address members of Congress in his Immigration Reform Caucus.Seriously, who cares what President Bush calls them? Everyone knows he's beholden to those companies that profit off illegal immigration. What did you expect him to say, something that most American citizens would agree with? (Here's an article on their meeting with the Caucus.)
Amongst all the lies and the logical leaps, the article's greatest attempt to lie to the reader stands out:
Among these so-called heroes are white supremacists from the neo-Nazi National Alliance. Members of the Alliance were at the project's kickoff, and some carried assault weapons in their trucks and boasted that they were scouting "sniper positions."Let's examine that in more depth. The word "among" implies membership in a set, and that set is those that are "so-called heroes." Therefore, Moccio and Fennelly are saying that those members of the NA were among the "so-called heroes." Who is the agent behind the "so-called"? Why, none other than Tancredo.
Therefore, we see that Moccio and Fennelly are saying that U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo called members of the NA "heroes," with the implication that he did so knowing that they were members of the NA. Which, of course, is a bald-faced lie.
It is also misleading to state that these aforementioned NA members were also members of the MMP. That is clearly stated above. There were members of the NA who attempted to attach themselves to the MMP but were rebuffed. There may well have been members of the NA who hid their affiliation and were able to join MMP, but if so that's because they made it past the MMP's screening process. Not even the screening process by the CIA or other government agencies is foolproof, and one would hardly expect the same level of scrutiny from private parties.
Some members of the media went undercover among the MMP as well and attempted to provoke the others. I note that Moccio and Fennelly didn't mention that.
Note that the major funders of Moccio's group include the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the Ford Foundation and George Soros' Open Society Institute, so you would probably expect the above from anyone associated with such fine organizations.
However, Fennelly is an academic and presumably has some standards of logical reasoning, and if she wrote the above she should be ashamed of herself.
Apparently there's been a purge over at FreeRepublic.com and several posters have been banned. Those posters were also opposed to Bush's guest worker program. Did the bannings result from things like posting links to "fringe" sites like VDare.com and TeamAmericaPAC.org, or has FR become just an echo chamber for BushBots? While some of the opinions at VDare are fringe, many are not. And, TeamAmericaPAC is associated with Rep. Tom Tancredo and Bay Buchanan. For point of discussion, what other group of people wants to silence Rep. Tancredo?
Perhaps as a result of these bannings, there are now very few posts concerning immigration at FR. That might be due to other factors, or it might be due to the banning. One of the main posters of immigration articles was gubamyster. He might be busy, or he might have been banned.
FreeRepublic posted ALIPAC's complaint here, generating over a thousand replies.
As for myself, I believe I still have posting privileges, although that might change at any moment.
One of the leading open borders cheerleaders over at FreeRepublic is 'bayourod' who, I believe, has admitted to hiring illegal workers. He - along with others such as Dane or PRND21 - frequently step in to threads about immigration and serve as the unofficial administration spokesperson. Here's a typical bayourod comment, which I noted in this post:
Obviously factually incorrect. Faris sounds like a textbook case of a xenophobe. Since he hates "rich" people who live in gated communities and enjoy golf, he probably is in a lower income class and fears competition from immigrant laborers willing to work longer and harder than him.
As far as I know, bayourod and the other open borders cheerleaders still have posting privileges at FR.
I was temporarily banned in the past, supposedly for posting swear words. They weren't my swear words, they were in a quote from someone else. The moderators didn't respond to my request for clarification in that case, so I don't know exactly what the issue was.
I posted "The Feds threatened L.A. radio station KFI?" at FR in June of last year. Now, one would think this is an important story. After all, if the federal government is threatening media outlets, shouldn't conservatives be concerned? Despite that, it was moved to their "Bloggers & Personal" section, aka the cheap seats. Despite that it got dozens of replies. The first comment to my post explains why it was moved:
The reason your posting on freerepublic was moved is because you posting something that is negative against the Bush Admin. Remember, it doesn't matter if they are conservative, all that matters is they have a R by there name.
And, another thread I posted had its title decorated by a friendly moderator:
Hint: my original post didn't have the "[Barf! MARXIST PROPAGANDA]" bit. And, this story later turned out to be completely true: "Immigration issue yanked off GOP agenda".
To summarize: FR has not yet reached the level of KoolAidCentral, but they're getting closer every day. Take what you read there with a very large grain of salt.
Colorado recently removed from its website a guide that gives tips for illegal aliens living in Colorado. Those involved in producing the guide included, to varying degrees: the Mexican government, the Colorado Department of Education, Colorado Gov. Owens, various "immigrant's rights" groups, and First Data/Western Union.
Rep. Tom Tancredo complained about the guide and caused it to be removed from Colorado's site. This, of course, caused the other side to fire up their race-baiting and strike back. From a group called ProgressNow (link):
Colorado Department of Education Vice-Chairman asks:
Does Gov. Owens Support Rep. Tancredo's anti-immigration/anti-Bush policy?
The same week that Rep. Tom Tancredo took his anti-immigration pledge on the road to New Hampshire, Governor Owens played lackey to Rep. Tom Tancredo, jumping to action when Rep. Tancredo demanded that a guide for immigrants be taken off the Colorado Department of Education's website. The Congressman demanded, and Gov. Owens did as he was told...
Coloradans, including Jared Polis, Vice-Chairman of the Colorado State Board of Education found the Governor's action unwarranted. "Governor Owens' action furthering Congressman Tancredo's far right agenda was completely inappropriate," stated Polis. "Tancredo's hateful venom is now affecting his Republican colleagues," Polis added.
Michael Huttner, Executive Director of ProgressNow.Org , said because of the Governor's actions concerning the website, Owens needs to clarify his stand: "Does Governor Bill Owens join Rep. Tancredo in his extremist views on closing American borders and using the military to enforce that closure? Does Gov. Owens support Rep. Tancredo's racist, anti-immigrant agenda? Does Gov. Owens really believe that Latino and other immigrants are 'coming across our borders to kill you and your children.'" [Footnote 2]...
...ProgressNow.Org Executive Director Michael Huttner calls for the Governor and the rest of Colorado Republicans to make their positions clear: Either they disavow Tancredo and what the Wall Street Journal Editorial board called his "exploit[ation of] the terror attacks to advance [his] anti-immigration agenda...." [Footnote 3] or their silence stands as tacit approval of Tancredo's extremist views...
2: Tancredo quoted in the Atlanta Journal Constitution 2/03/04
3: Wall Street Journal Editorial 3/18/02
First, let's put Tancredo's statement from Footnote 2 into its proper context:
Paper: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The (GA)
Title: Panelists denounce illegal immigrants
Author: RICK BADIE
Date: February 3, 2004
..."If Republicans don't do something about the border, Republicans can't say we're doing all we can to protect you," U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo told a standing-room-only audience at Mount Vernon Baptist Church in Atlanta.
"They are looking for jobs, yes, but there are people coming into this country to kill you and your children. Maintaining the borders are essential to our survival."
Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, joined U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal of Gainesville and Rick Oltman, a field representative for the Federation for American Immigration Reform to talk about illegal immigration before about 300 people...
Obviously, his full quote shouldn't be shocking to anyone with any sense. Given ProgressNow's baseless smears and selective quoting, is there any reason to believe anything this organization says?
And, why would a supposedly "progressive" organization be on the same side of as issue as the Wall Street Journal, a paper that wants open borders in order to keep the price of labor as low as possible? The Wall Street Journal's goals certainly seem closer to feudalism than "progress." However, they and ProgressNow do share something in common: yellow journalism.
To tie all of this together, Colorado's guide for illegal aliens was produced by the Colorado State Board of Education, of which Jared Polis is the Vice-Chairman. Jared Polis is an internet m/billionaire who founded ProFlowers.com and BlueMountain.com, two sites that you might want to avoid. (Assuming pending further information that he's still involved with them). Polis apparently spent a great deal of money to gain his seat, and is trying to bring others with him.
There's apparently some connection between Polis, Huttner ("Executive Director of ProgressNow.Org"), and the Rocky Mountain Progressive Network. Polis appears to be a contributor to ProgressNow.org.
So, it all kind of ties together nicely, doesn't it?
This isn't the first time that Tancredo has come under attack from these people or their associates. See Tancredo now in cross hairs of attack ads
Thankfully, as can be seen above, showing the readers of ProgressNow that they're being misled should be particularly easy, akin to excercising with half-pound weights. They don't seem to have many facts on their side and are forced to simply call names.
As of now ProgressNow.org's blog accepts comments, so please visit their site and reacquaint their readers with the truth.
From this blurb:
Lawyer-about- town and political pundit Mike Huttner has a new gig.
He's left Foster, Graham, Huttner and Calisher, the law firm he helped form. Now he's running ProgressNow.org (formerly the Rocky Mountain Progressive Network), whose mission statement "is to be a strong, credible voice in advancing progressive solutions to critical community problems."
Huttner, who's been a bachelor forever (just ask his mom, Diane Huttner) also is getting married to Debbie Herz, a New York City attorney, and moving to Boulder.
From the longer article "It's Not Easy Being Green":
...To gain a larger national presence, its name has been changed [from the RMPN] to Progressnow.org; it's hired the technophile behind Howard Dean's much-lauded Internet campaign to launch the new electronic crusade; and executive director (and former Westword intern) Michael Huttner ditched his law firm to run the organization full-time. But the biggest change was moving into the network's new digs on the second floor of the Alliance Center, a hugely ambitious project in LoDo that will soon house 23 progressive-leaning nonprofits.
The $5.25 million center is operated under the umbrella of the Alliance for Sustainable Colorado, a nonprofit founded last year by John Powers. As a longtime boardmember of the Colorado Environmental Coalition...
...he took the first step by purchasing the historic Otero building, at 1536 Wynkoop Street, from the Tattered Cover Book Store and the Wynkoop Brewing Co.; half a dozen nonprofits had already set up shop there. That's not surprising, because the building was part of a project developed by Mayor John Hickenlooper and Tattered Cover owner Joyce Meskis...
[tenants include] Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, Colorado Common Cause, Historic Denver, the Center for Native Ecosystems and the Latina Initiative...