Tom Tancredo: Absolute Moron

In the early 1800's, there weren't any limits at all. People could walk into America, declare that they want to be an American, and immediately get all the legal benefits. That obviously wouldn't work today, but I don't see Tancredo going to such a system, so I assume he's talking about the level they set in the 50's.
 
Watermark said:
The system set up in the 20's was that they would take the national orgins of each American, and every nationality was limited to immigrate to America by one sixths of 1 percent of the total population of that nationality in America.

This was replaced in the 50's by a limit of 200,000 to those of all nationalities. In the 80's, it was set to 1 million a year.
Click to expand...
However, what were the traditional laws before those changes were made? As I said, traditionally the US set requirements. A certain amount in a bank account, etc. Not number limitations.
 
Watermark said:
In the early 1800's, there weren't any limits at all. People could walk into America, declare that they want to be an American, and immediately get all the legal benefits. That obviously wouldn't work today, but I don't see Tancredo going to such a system, so I assume he's talking about the level they set in the 50's.
Click to expand...
As I said, you assume. I'll ask him what he means by 'traditional' next time I see him. Will you believe me when I tell you the answer?
 
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5625185,00.html

Among the bill's top provisions: reduce the number of legal immigrants to the United States by two-thirds, and stop giving citizenship to the U.S.-born babies of parents who are here illegally.




Which would be struck down by the supreme court, as I assume he knows. He's not a stupid man. I think it's really just a publicity stunt to draw attention to it so that they can amend the constitution to take out or limit the provision in the 14th ammendment - but it wouldn't really ever pass anyway, so it's pointless.
 
Watermark said:
Tancredo's "immigration plan", notice the part marked "NO. 1":

1. Limit immigration to "traditional levels" (like, those that were in place whenever the population of this country was 10 million) and seeks to assimilate those already here.

2. Encourage illegal aliens to leave on their own.

3. Eliminate chain migration.

4. Tighten the employment based green card category.

5. Limit anchor babies to only giving one parent citizenship.

6. No in state tuition to legal aliens.

7. Require federal immigration authorities to assist state and local law enforcement in enforcing immigration law.
Click to expand...


I don't see anything in here about arresting and throwing in jail Employers of illegal immigrants. Probably because Tancredo runs his campaings on business contributions and corporate agri-business money.

I guarantee you, that you start throwing some employers of illegal immigrants in jail, the problem would subside.
 
Cypress said:
I don't see anything in here about arresting and throwing in jail Employers of illegal immigrants. Probably because Tancredo runs his campaings on business contributions and corporate agri-business money.

I guarantee you, that you start throwing some employers of illegal immigrants in jail, the problem would subside.
Click to expand...

He believes in jaling the people who knowingly hire illegal Americans with a mandatory minimum of one year. You know, it's not like we're dealing with actual lives here, let's just throw everyone in jail for some stupid racist policy.
 
Watermark said:
He believes in jaling the people who knowingly hire illegal Americans with a mandatory minimum of one year. You know, it's not like we're dealing with actual lives here, let's just throw everyone in jail for some stupid racist policy.
Click to expand...


I agree with him, in principle, on that. Those who knowingly hire illegals are ethical scum. And should be considered law breakers. There taking advantage of desperate human beings for economic advantage.
 
Cypress said:
I don't see anything in here about arresting and throwing in jail Employers of illegal immigrants. Probably because Tancredo runs his campaings on business contributions and corporate agri-business money.

I guarantee you, that you start throwing some employers of illegal immigrants in jail, the problem would subside.
Click to expand...
Actually, that is his stance on how to create incentives for their returning to the country of origin.
 
Cypress said:
I agree with him, in principle, on that. Those who knowingly hire illegals are ethical scum. And should be considered law breakers. There taking advantage of desperate human beings for economic advantage.
Click to expand...
This I agree with.
 
Watermark said:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5625185,00.html

Among the bill's top provisions: reduce the number of legal immigrants to the United States by two-thirds, and stop giving citizenship to the U.S.-born babies of parents who are here illegally.




Which would be struck down by the supreme court, as I assume he knows. He's not a stupid man. I think it's really just a publicity stunt to draw attention to it so that they can amend the constitution to take out or limit the provision in the 14th ammendment - but it wouldn't really ever pass anyway, so it's pointless.
Click to expand...
See... I told you I doubted he wanted to limit the parents of anchor babies to only one of them getting citizenship. That would actually be a two-for-one, currently only the child is a citizen. Hence, even though parents are almost never deported (and when they are it is because of egregious lawbreaking that would separate the child from the parent regardless because there is prison time before deportation), the other side constantly says that "we separate parents from their children"...

It is a fear-mongering tactic.

There are many who believe that Amendment 14 is a serious incentive for people to break the law, they know that there is little chance of being deported if they have an infant citizen.

From your link:

Tancredo has introduced several similar immigration bills in the past. While his bills have not been passed in full, many of the ideas in them have been inserted into other House measures.

His strategy each year, he said, is to "set the goal post. That's what you do on all of these issues. You move the discussion to your side of the field."
Click to expand...

He knows much of the laws he proposes will not pass as they are written, he has however been very successful in actually changing the discussion, remarkably so considering the attempt to use name-calling to silence him.
 
Damocles said:
See... I told you I doubted he wanted to limit the parents of anchor babies to only one of them getting citizenship. That would actually be a two-for-one, currently only the child is a citizen. Hence, even though parents are almost never deported (and when they are it is because of egregious lawbreaking that would separate the child from the parent regardless because there is prison time before deportation), the other side constantly says that "we separate parents from their children"...

It is a fear-mongering tactic.
Click to expand...
No, I'm afraid you're wrong about this one, Damo. Well, it is a fear mongering tactic, yes, but it also happens to be true.

Over 650,000 people have been deported since that damned 1996 "reform" (sic), well over 60% of them without representation or any meaningful trial. Most of the "egregious lawbreaking" you allude to is simply illegal entry. Wow, big surprise.

ICE -- the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency -- has consistently and illegally refused to honor FOI inquiries as to how many families are separated by these brutal and irrational deportations. That fact alone should tell you what you need to know.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
No, I'm afraid you're wrong about this one, Damo. Well, it is a fear mongering tactic, yes, but it also happens to be true.

Over 650,000 people have been deported since that damned 1996 "reform" (sic), well over 60% of them without representation or any meaningful trial. Most of the "egregious lawbreaking" you allude to is simply illegal entry. Wow, big surprise.

ICE -- the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency -- has consistently and illegally refused to honor FOI inquiries as to how many families are separated by these brutal and irrational deportations. That fact alone should tell you what you need to know.
Click to expand...
However, you only post the numbers of people that have been deported, not those that were the parents of an Amendment 14 citizen, which you must admit to not knowing. That number is much lower, and were the actual people of which I was speaking.
 
Watermark said:
THEIR HIRING OTHER PEOPLE AND YOU WANT TO THROW THEM IN JAIL FOR AND LOCK AWAY THE KEYS!

It's just like the drug war! mandatory minimum should be ABOLISHED! THEY ARE INHUMANE AND ONLY USED FOR IRRATIONAL PURPOSES!
Click to expand...
Who said throw away the keys? (Only your emotive, reactionary, single-minded, blindered mind.)

And they are taking advantage of people, paying them what we would consider to be non-living wages, helping to continue the cycle of inhumane living conditions and dependence on crime 'families' to get them here. Often separated by family because the 'coyotes' demand hostages to ensure payment.

To say that they should not pay for perpetuating such victimization is inhumane indeed.
 
Cypress said:
I agree with him, in principle, on that. Those who knowingly hire illegals are ethical scum. And should be considered law breakers. There taking advantage of desperate human beings for economic advantage.
Click to expand...

Hiring someone is "abusing" them? Holy shit, I'm being abused! I better sue, then I can get free money.

Of course, Cypress, all of these people sit in their evil lairs all day, cackling about destroying the American worker. We need to put their evillness in jail and refuse to forgive anyone ever. We're not dealing with real people here, only the people we've stereotyped and apathized with.

It's not like there's any poor farmer out there who hires illegals to work the fields so that he can feed his family. Those stupid brats should quit school anyway and work at the grocery store to feed themselves. They're part of an ignorant breed and are hardly deserving of life. Who cares about some loony judge who throws their dad in prison for 10 years without parole for hiring a person who wanted a job - we're not dealing with real people.
 
Watermark said:
This very same process of apathy was how mandatory minimum were introduced in the "drug war".
Click to expand...
Read my post above. The belief that they are not victimized by the employers who promote the continued status quo is seriously a dangerous view. These people are very often victimized many times, first to get here, and later when they arrive, often by the very people you attempt to protect here.
 
OK, so refusing to agree to throw someone in jail for a year for hiring someone is "protecting" them? How about we just not throw them in jail? That would hurt society. If you want to do anything, fine them. Jail is pure stupidity for something like this.
 
Watermark said:
OK, so refusing to agree to throw someone in jail for a year for hiring someone is "protecting" them? How about we just not throw them in jail? That would hurt society. If you want to do anything, fine them. Jail is pure stupidity for something like this.
Click to expand...
Fining is fine, but your previous posts only spoke of the benevolent nature of those who might hire them, speaking of how wrong it is to do anything at all to people who might hire them and suggesting that hiring them is not taking advantage or victimizing them in any way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top