Tancredo insults Jeb Bush, the city of Miami

[Gabu]

Mexicans aren't a race, DWDL. There's white mexicans, native mexicans, mixed mexicans(the majority), black mexicans...

Ok, so basically your saying it is impossible for racist in illegal immigration which only furthers my point

You can certainly be ridiculously xenophobic on the topic, as a few people are.  I just don't like the abuse of the word "racist".

[WalterMitty]

How did this fruitbag get elected to Congress?  Sheesh.

i share your disgust, don.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Mexicans aren't a race, DWDL. There's white mexicans, native mexicans, mixed mexicans(the majority), black mexicans...

Ok, so basically your saying it is impossible for racist in illegal immigration which only furthers my point

Um, I never said that. I just said that mexicans are not one race.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

To everyone involved: "Mexican" is not a race.  It is therefore impossible for someone to be racist on account of hating Mexicans.  Please stop abusing the word.

Thank you,
The English Nazi

Notions of "race" are largely social (and, to a certain extent, class) constructs.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How did this fruitbag get elected to Congress?  Sheesh.

i share your disgust, don.

He won (IIRC) under 30% (certainly under 40%) of the vote in a Republican primary (with no runoff) in a very rich and very Republican district (said district is also the whitest in Colorado) and has been re-elected ever since.

[Gabu]

Notions of "race" are largely social (and, to a certain extent, class) constructs.

I hate the classification, myself, and find ethnicity much better, but if we're going to be talking in terms of race, it's at the very least fairly well established that being from a country does not determine your race.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Notions of "race" are largely social (and, to a certain extent, class) constructs.

I hate the classification, myself, and find ethnicity much better, but if we're going to be talking in terms of race, it's at the very least fairly well established that being from a country does not determine your race.

True. But "racist" is a much better insult than "ethnicist".

Btw, in my experience anyone who uses the word "racialist" these days is almost certainly a racist.

[Ebowed]

he wants to enforce our countries laws

If you lived in a theocratic dictatorship where reading the Bible were forbidden, would you support enforcing said law?

I didn't think so.  Likewise, you and your friend Tancredo appear to hate a brown, but hide under the guise of enforcing laws which, in the grand scheme of things, really don't matter.  Your racist and excessively legalist tendencies are growing tiresome, which is why we will soon have amnesty for so-called "illegal" immigrants who have done nothing wrong.

[Colin]

he wants to enforce our countries laws

If you lived in a theocratic dictatorship where reading the Bible were forbidden, would you support enforcing said law?

This is DWDL we're talking about. He'd actively support that law and be an informant for the morality police.

[NewFederalist]

The English Nazi

I thought you were Canadian not English.

[Colin]

The English Nazi

I thought you were Canadian not English.

Quit being a smartass Feddie. Just because you're immortal and witnessed the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the slaughter of J.J.'s ancestors doesn't mean that you know everything.

[Gabu]

The English Nazi

I thought you were Canadian not English.

FOOL

YOU NEED TO PUT A COMMA AFTER THE WORD "CANADIAN"!!!!!11

[DownWithTheLeft]

he wants to enforce our countries laws

If you lived in a theocratic dictatorship where reading the Bible were forbidden, would you support enforcing said law?

I didn't think so.  Likewise, you and your friend Tancredo appear to hate a brown, but hide under the guise of enforcing laws which, in the grand scheme of things, really don't matter.  Your racist and excessively legalist tendencies are growing tiresome, which is why we will soon have amnesty for so-called "illegal" immigrants who have done nothing wrong.

Do you seriously believe it is good for the country to be overrun by undocumented people?  Myself and Tom do not hate brown people, you hate people who do not respect our country's laws.  The law is not unfair, you just have to wait your turn so we can account for all the ppl in the country.

[dazzleman]

he wants to enforce our countries laws

If you lived in a theocratic dictatorship where reading the Bible were forbidden, would you support enforcing said law?

I didn't think so.  Likewise, you and your friend Tancredo appear to hate a brown, but hide under the guise of enforcing laws which, in the grand scheme of things, really don't matter.  Your racist and excessively legalist tendencies are growing tiresome, which is why we will soon have amnesty for so-called "illegal" immigrants who have done nothing wrong.

Oh please Ebowed, you're really making no sense.

If the laws are so bad, then we should change them, not support people who break them.  Your argument makes no logical sense.

I don't like Tancredo, but he's right that our laws ought to be enforced.  I don't support ending immigration, but we should insist that people who are here are here legally.

We have no obligation to allow in anybody we don't want.  I get tired of hearing the whole 'racist' argument every time somebody says something you don't like.

It's not racist to police our borders and enforce our immigration laws.  If you keep overusing and abusing the racist concept, it will eventually lose its power.  That will be a very sad day for political correctness.

[NewFederalist]

The English Nazi

I thought you were Canadian not English.

FOOL

YOU NEED TO PUT A COMMA AFTER THE WORD "CANADIAN"!!!!!11

Really? Jeez, you really are the English (expletive deleted).

[Ebowed]

If the laws are so bad, then we should change them, not support people who break them.

The government is far too slow to enact any meaningful reform within an appropriate time frame, thus we must break the laws so much that they are forced to do something about it.  Deporting 12 million people simply won't work, and will rightfully earn us the anger of the international community.  Thus the Democrats will likely pass an amnesty bill and Bush, of course, will sign it.

I don't like Tancredo, but he's right that our laws ought to be enforced.  I don't support ending immigration, but we should insist that people who are here are here legally.

Inability to separate morality from legality is an unfortunate problem, but again, will soon be a non-issue.

We have no obligation to allow in anybody we don't want.  I get tired of hearing the whole 'racist' argument every time somebody says something you don't like.

Oh, please, if we had a rush in of immigrants from Israel or the UK, no one would be calling doomsday.  Clearly people like Tancredo are upset because he fears his great-grandchildren will have to learn Spanish in a public school.

[dazzleman]

In the past, periods of massive immigration are followed by periods during which immigration is slowed down in reaction.  I think this is necessary to allow society to absorb the previous wave of immigrants.

I am ambivalent about the immigration issue.  I think your obvious support for breaking the law is wrong.  Clearly, we can't deport 12 million people, but I think that any amnesty has to be coupled with effective controls to give us back control over who comes in.

The American people will be willing to let quite a number of people in, if they come legally.  The laws now are a tangled mess and need to be changed, but that doesn't mean that we should have to accept anybody who shows up on our borders.  We have a right to say no to people.  That's what you and the other liberals seem to miss.

[Storebought]

Tom Tancredo was wrong to call Miami a Third World city.

He obviously meant New York

[dazzleman]

Tom Tancredo was wrong to call Miami a Third World city.

He obviously meant New York

[Smash255]

In the past, periods of massive immigration are followed by periods during which immigration is slowed down in reaction.  I think this is necessary to allow society to absorb the previous wave of immigrants.

I am ambivalent about the immigration issue.  I think your obvious support for breaking the law is wrong.  Clearly, we can't deport 12 million people, but I think that any amnesty has to be coupled with effective controls to give us back control over who comes in.

The American people will be willing to let quite a number of people in, if they come legally.  The laws now are a tangled mess and need to be changed, but that doesn't mean that we should have to accept anybody who shows up on our borders.  We have a right to say no to people.  That's what you and the other liberals seem to miss.

Its really not about support for breaking the law.  Though some of the controls and barriers we have on legal immigration from certain areas is a major contributing factor and makes the law breaking more understandable.

Those who are here illegally are in part a drain on our system, no question about that.  We obviously can't deport all of them, or even more than a small %.  The biggest problems other than that which is caused by illegal immigration is exploitation by employers as the fact we don't know who many of these people crossing the border are.  We do need more to secure the border, no question, but we also need a realistic approach of what to do with those already here.  From a full scale prespective from simple morality and human rights, financial impact as well as from a security prespective.  We need to adress all those issues in order to deal with the immigration issue in the most effective manner.  The Senate plan is what deals with all these issues most effectivley.  It might not be perfect, and some circumstances isn't always fair, but we need a atarting point, and something that deals with all sides of the issue, not something that deals with only one portion of the issue, and puts those already here even further into the underground, to make them even more unknown, which is the most dangerous, the most expoitive as well as the largest financial burdern to us.

[Joe Biden 2020]

In the past, periods of massive immigration are followed by periods during which immigration is slowed down in reaction.  I think this is necessary to allow society to absorb the previous wave of immigrants.

I am ambivalent about the immigration issue.  I think your obvious support for breaking the law is wrong.  Clearly, we can't deport 12 million people, but I think that any amnesty has to be coupled with effective controls to give us back control over who comes in.

The American people will be willing to let quite a number of people in, if they come legally.  The laws now are a tangled mess and need to be changed, but that doesn't mean that we should have to accept anybody who shows up on our borders.  We have a right to say no to people.  That's what you and the other liberals seem to miss.

Its really not about support for breaking the law.  Though some of the controls and barriers we have on legal immigration from certain areas is a major contributing factor and makes the law breaking more understandable.

Those who are here illegally are in part a drain on our system, no question about that.  We obviously can't deport all of them, or even more than a small %.  The biggest problems other than that which is caused by illegal immigration is exploitation by employers as the fact we don't know who many of these people crossing the border are.  We do need more to secure the border, no question, but we also need a realistic approach of what to do with those already here.  From a full scale prespective from simple morality and human rights, financial impact as well as from a security prespective.  We need to adress all those issues in order to deal with the immigration issue in the most effective manner.  The Senate plan is what deals with all these issues most effectivley.  It might not be perfect, and some circumstances isn't always fair, but we need a atarting point, and something that deals with all sides of the issue, not something that deals with only one portion of the issue, and puts those already here even further into the underground, to make them even more unknown, which is the most dangerous, the most expoitive as well as the largest financial burdern to us.

Wow, for once, I actually agree with your entire post.

[ag]

The law is not unfair, you just have to wait your turn so we can account for all the ppl in the country.

Where did you get such a law? US doesn't have it, that's for sure. You must be talking of some other country.

If you are a Mexican without any advanced postgraduate degree or other unique skill, and have no direct US-citizen relatives (as in father/mother, brother/sister, son/daugther, second cousins don't count), I don't see any loophole in the US law, as it currently is, that would allow you to come in legally. There are, actually, a few other categories, such as relatives of legal immigrants, etc., but their members would do better to go into deep freeze right now, since chances of getting through the queue in their  natural lifetimes are pretty much zero. Still, for the vast majority of those who come illegally even  that is not an option.

Create a queue in which everybody would be able to wait, and make the waiting time commeasurate with human life expectancy, and you'd sharply cut down on the flow of illegal  migration. But that would requre a huge change in the US migration law that nobody is even proposing now.

[dazzleman]

In the past, periods of massive immigration are followed by periods during which immigration is slowed down in reaction.  I think this is necessary to allow society to absorb the previous wave of immigrants.

I am ambivalent about the immigration issue.  I think your obvious support for breaking the law is wrong.  Clearly, we can't deport 12 million people, but I think that any amnesty has to be coupled with effective controls to give us back control over who comes in.

The American people will be willing to let quite a number of people in, if they come legally.  The laws now are a tangled mess and need to be changed, but that doesn't mean that we should have to accept anybody who shows up on our borders.  We have a right to say no to people.  That's what you and the other liberals seem to miss.

Its really not about support for breaking the law.  Though some of the controls and barriers we have on legal immigration from certain areas is a major contributing factor and makes the law breaking more understandable.

Those who are here illegally are in part a drain on our system, no question about that.  We obviously can't deport all of them, or even more than a small %.  The biggest problems other than that which is caused by illegal immigration is exploitation by employers as the fact we don't know who many of these people crossing the border are.  We do need more to secure the border, no question, but we also need a realistic approach of what to do with those already here.  From a full scale prespective from simple morality and human rights, financial impact as well as from a security prespective.  We need to adress all those issues in order to deal with the immigration issue in the most effective manner.  The Senate plan is what deals with all these issues most effectivley.  It might not be perfect, and some circumstances isn't always fair, but we need a atarting point, and something that deals with all sides of the issue, not something that deals with only one portion of the issue, and puts those already here even further into the underground, to make them even more unknown, which is the most dangerous, the most expoitive as well as the largest financial burdern to us.

I agree with much of what you said, Smash.

I think the key is that we have to have rational laws on allowing people in, and we have to have control of the border.  Within that framework, I have no problem with amnesty for most of those already here.

But I don't support a large amnesty without border control, because that will just encourage even more illegals to come.

I resent the implication that many on the left have put out that those who think we should control our own border are motivated purely by 'racism.'  Maybe some are, but there's a larger principle at stake.  We are under no obligation to take in anybody that we don't want, and I resent the implication that we are.

I am generally pro-immigrant and believe that immigrants have been a major plus to the country, even when they have initially been a drain.  I am also firmly in favor of assimilation, though, and I am a uniculturalist.  I favor the melting pot concept over the whole beautiful mosaic thing -- I don't want a bunch of competing cultural and language groups on the country, and a bunch of people who are determined to maintain the culture and lifestyle of a foreign country while living here.  I think that would be a disaster to our nation, since what binds us together, however tenuously, is a common set of values and a common language. 

Countries without a common language lack cohesion (our otherwise quiescent neighbor to the north is a good example, and a pretty benign one).  My nightmare is that we end up like Britain and other parts of Europe right now, with a large group of people who are implacably hostile to the country in which they live, and permanently separated from the rest of the population.  I would be a lot more comfortable with a higher level of immigration if we dropped all this politically correct and multicultural garbage, and instituted more assimilationist policies.

[Smash255]

In the past, periods of massive immigration are followed by periods during which immigration is slowed down in reaction.  I think this is necessary to allow society to absorb the previous wave of immigrants.

I am ambivalent about the immigration issue.  I think your obvious support for breaking the law is wrong.  Clearly, we can't deport 12 million people, but I think that any amnesty has to be coupled with effective controls to give us back control over who comes in.

The American people will be willing to let quite a number of people in, if they come legally.  The laws now are a tangled mess and need to be changed, but that doesn't mean that we should have to accept anybody who shows up on our borders.  We have a right to say no to people.  That's what you and the other liberals seem to miss.

Its really not about support for breaking the law.  Though some of the controls and barriers we have on legal immigration from certain areas is a major contributing factor and makes the law breaking more understandable.

Those who are here illegally are in part a drain on our system, no question about that.  We obviously can't deport all of them, or even more than a small %.  The biggest problems other than that which is caused by illegal immigration is exploitation by employers as the fact we don't know who many of these people crossing the border are.  We do need more to secure the border, no question, but we also need a realistic approach of what to do with those already here.  From a full scale prespective from simple morality and human rights, financial impact as well as from a security prespective.  We need to adress all those issues in order to deal with the immigration issue in the most effective manner.  The Senate plan is what deals with all these issues most effectivley.  It might not be perfect, and some circumstances isn't always fair, but we need a atarting point, and something that deals with all sides of the issue, not something that deals with only one portion of the issue, and puts those already here even further into the underground, to make them even more unknown, which is the most dangerous, the most expoitive as well as the largest financial burdern to us.

I agree with much of what you said, Smash.

I think the key is that we have to have rational laws on allowing people in, and we have to have control of the border.  Within that framework, I have no problem with amnesty for most of those already here.

But I don't support a large amnesty without border control, because that will just encourage even more illegals to come.

I resent the implication that many on the left have put out that those who think we should control our own border are motivated purely by 'racism.'  Maybe some are, but there's a larger principle at stake.  We are under no obligation to take in anybody that we don't want, and I resent the implication that we are.

I am generally pro-immigrant and believe that immigrants have been a major plus to the country, even when they have initially been a drain.  I am also firmly in favor of assimilation, though, and I am a uniculturalist.  I favor the melting pot concept over the whole beautiful mosaic thing -- I don't want a bunch of competing cultural and language groups on the country, and a bunch of people who are determined to maintain the culture and lifestyle of a foreign country while living here.  I think that would be a disaster to our nation, since what binds us together, however tenuously, is a common set of values and a common language. 

Countries without a common language lack cohesion (our otherwise quiescent neighbor to the north is a good example, and a pretty benign one).  My nightmare is that we end up like Britain and other parts of Europe right now, with a large group of people who are implacably hostile to the country in which they live, and permanently separated from the rest of the population.  I would be a lot more comfortable with a higher level of immigration if we dropped all this politically correct and multicultural garbage, and instituted more assimilationist policies.

In part the racisim angle towards it comes from the fact that some of the most vocal anti-immigrant people are no doubt racists.  Tom tancredo classifies as a prime example.  the stuff that is spewed by some of the most vocal such as Tancredo, some (not all, but some) of the minutemen are racist.  The anti-immigrant crowd does themselves no favors when those who are most vocal for their cause are spewing out racist garbage.

You also have some which are rather hypocritical take my Copngressman for example.  King is of Irish descent (I am part Irish as well) and in the past he has worked hard towards helping illegal Irish immigrants gain legal status, and now he is very vocal in opposition to hispanic illegal immigrants
.

Its a complex problem and needs a complex solution.  One thing that makes the issue into such a heated one, is the rhetoric from some of the most vocal people who are anti-immigrant.  We can have civil disagreements, but its hard to when you have those like Tancredo and some others (again some, not all, but the some are te most vocal) who are clearly against it because of racial issues.

[Kevin]

How about we deny amaesty towards all illegal immagrants no matter their nationalty. I'm Irish and I wouldn't have worked to give Irish illegals amaesty no matter what so Mr. King should practice what he preaches.