Redstate

I just read Pence's speech and agree that he has hit on the key aspect of the amnesty/no amnesty problem.  Illegals currently in the county must be made to leave in order to avoid any grant of legal status triggering cries of amnesty.  Leaving the country is the only penalty acceptable to those of us against amnesty.

I still don't like the guest worker program, however, Pence's ideas do make it more palatable to me.

Great, what is next Jeff Flake vs John Shadegg in a steel cage? Pence and Tancredo are both heros of mine and I need to know more before I make a decision on whether Tancredo was justified.

I will say that Pence is the leader of the conservative movement and he is the guy who will decide whether our movement fail or fourishes in the next two decades. Tancredo is a side piece.

This  battle is counter productive and could end up hurting us all in the end by dividing the Reagan conservatives and Paleo cons allowing the moderates to dominate.

may have been upset that Pence co-opted Bush's "mass deportation" strawman. As the CIS and most who have studied the illegal alien problem agree, those here unlawfully will deport themselves when the jobs become more difficult to obtain. For Pence's proposal to work, enforcement, verification, and security would have to be in place before amnesty is granted. The congressman has acknowledged as much.

If is fairly obvious that the House will not accept the Senate bill, and Tancredo's vitriol was out of bounds even if provoked. Nonetheless, the Administration has a very hostile audience there and use of strawmen arguments and outright deception won't work with politicians who are on thin ice even without the illegal alien lobby's nonsense.

Pence knows what he is doing.He has been down this road before with NCLB,Medicare and a whole host of other bills.When the President has to get a bill, he will get a bill.

Pence knows that just like NCLB and Medicare if the President can't get the votes from conservatives he will the liberalize the bill even more to get Democrats on board.

Pence is trying to prevent that.

Pence is saying secure the border,enforce the law,send them home, and then and only then we can have a limited guest worker program.

I trust Mike Pence.

with all of Pence's plan.  But I have seen him speak and he is one of my favorite Congressmen.  There is a reason why Mr. Pence may be President some day and there is no chance for Mr. Tancredo.

He simply needs to be more careful about his language as Bush and the Senate have poisoned the well about this debate with terms like "mass deportation." I frankly don't think there will be any bill at this point because of that animosity. Mike Pence, unfortunately, caught the brunt of something he didn't cause.

How do you deport 12,000,000 illegals? Create an incentive for them to go home. Then build a wall and just let the good ones back in to fill job vacancies we need them to fill to keep the economy humming.

Brilliant.

Just glanced at the Team America (World Police?) website and noticed Bay Buchanan, sister to Pat, is a co-chair.  Given Buchanan's fringe nativist isolationist views, can we assume same for Tancredo, who sees amnesty in everything?

...fall into the guilt by association trap I do believe from what I've heard and read about Mr. Tancredo you may be on to something.

You have a lot more republicans you should be angry with than Tom Tancredo.  Start with george w. bush and half the republicans in the senate.  

A new word for patriot?

Mike Pence is my favorite Rep in Congress I never

find area where I do not agree with and he has a pleasing manner.He deserves better treatment than this.

Just because many of us are upset that Tancredo would stoop to misrepresentation of Pence's position doesn't mean we are not also ticked at the Prez and others.

The fact is that Tancredo could deal with Pence's proposal with serious policy concerns, not a personal attack.  Pence's proposal is not the thing dividing conservatives, it is Tancredo's below-the-belt allegations.

Anyone who has followed Pence's statements on border security and immigration reform knows that he has not done a "u turn" or "changed his mind".  I have long been a fan of Tancredo, but I have to agree with the original poster that he just lost me.

My ancestors would take offense to equating nativism with patriotism.  We all can oppose illegal immigration, but there is an anti-immigration argument seeping through much of the debate.  It is why Pence's proposal is just the right mix.  It is tough and sensible.

Secure the border first.  Deny amnesty to those illegally in our country.  Impose strick penalties on employers who hire illegals.  Put limits on the number of guest workers allowed into the country over a phased in plan.

Nativistic?  No.  Patriotic?  Yes.

giving to the word, yes, I see what you mean. But the nativist/patriot allusion referred to above by Bob Frazier is stemming from a redefinition of the term "nativist" in which anyone proposing anything from a secure border to English-as-national-language is "nativist", akin to "racist", "anti-immigrant and "latinophobe".

Re-inventing language is a game plan used effectively to attack the motives and morals of their opponents, while avoiding an engagement of their positions. It is very effective in marginalizing their opponent in the eyes of the public without having to risk losing a debate.

We need to recognize that play when it's being used. It's cheap, it's dirty, and it's being used here. I agree with Bob, let's not fall for it. And let's certainly not, like a duped proxy, defend it.

He wants the issue.

Why?  Because as long as the issue is out there, money will roll into TeamAmerica PAC.

Pence's plan compels illegals to go home and does not allow them to become citizens, that is exactly what we want and what Tancredo has argued for.

Now Tancredo really does sound like a nativist, or someone who doesn't like Pence stealing his thunder.

This is totally indefensible and plays right in to the stereotypes his critics have labelled him with.

I like this immigration bill about as much as NCLB and Medicare Part D. The guest worker program shows he is no serious about enforcing or securing anything since it undermines any attempts at enforcement.

It would be wise to step back and define what we think a nativist is.  My interpretation is that a nativist is someone who puts the interests of the native-born above the interests of the immigrants.  This implies protectionism, of which Buchanan is an avid (and misguided) supporter.

When Tancredo raises the bar for illegal immigrants so high as to be ridiculous or impractical (eg. "leave and return"), I consider that nativist, because you start to ask yourself what does he have against these people?  Those who support this view will assure me that they are absolutely NOT nativist, but I challenge you to think about what the drivers are for your position.  Most of the people here who support a hard-line on immigration cite the rule of law as the reason, which is not nativist.  Those who cite reasons of protecting native-borns in the job market are nativist.

Yeah, let's require people who have spent their lives in America learning how to fly under the radar to leave and return.  That'll work for the stupid ones.  The smart ones will keep doing what they're doing.  What's the downside for them?  They're already 1) masters of covert activity, 2) have a pre-built support system within their culture and supportive institutions.

Those who demand a go back and return solution are seeking a completely impractical and idealistic solution.  I'd love to say it would work but no one's come close to convincing me.

Think of it in economic terms.  What's the cost to me if I have to go across the border and hope I get let back in?  Travel cost, time away from work, and a risk factor that I won't be admitted.  The risk is measured qualitatively and quantitatively and includes potential loss of property as well as family (eg. kids that are citizens).

Let's say that's worth $5000 to ya (which is low for those with kids).  Now how good of a fake ID can you buy for $5000?  $1000?  Can I bribe my small employer to cover for me for $5000?  $1000?  

One could say that to support other countrymen over your own has a name of its own.  

I keep hearing nativist, nativist, nativist, and it seems no different from Patriot.

I'm pro-immigration and pro-amnesty, but I object (on behalf of both myself and my fellow conservatives on the other side of this issue) to using the term "nativist" in the way you suggest.  Clearly, the term has loaded connotations, and is generally meant as an insult (even if you don't have that intention).

I have no problem with someone who puts the interests of native born Americans ahead of the interests of immigrants.  I consider that to be simply patriotic.  

My disagreement with the anti-immigrant crowd is that I disagree with them about the result of increased immigration.  I don't think it will harm native born Americans, and they do.  That's an honest difference of opinion.  If I were convinced that immigration would harm America or native born Americans, I would be against it as well.

Bottom line -- there may be nativists who oppose immigration because they are against immigrants, and not simply because they love America.  But I don't think that applies to any of the regular posters here on RedState.

Perhaps Tancredo reacted the way he did so that the Pence suggestion would be viewed as a compromise?  Just a thought.  There is a lot of politics going on with this issue on both sides.

Pence has shown real leadership on a very difficult problem.As for Tancreo v Pence, with friends like these......

the superior wisdom of revising your understanding of 'nativism'.  Statesmen have a positive duty to place the interests of citizens and lawful residents before those of any foreign interest, power, or mass of people; should they fail in the fulfillment of those duties, whether by omission or commission, they are telegraphing either that they propose to dissolve the people in whose name they are sworn to uphold the Constitution (When in the course of human events..... it is our right to dissolve the people and to constitute another in their place....), or to implicitly dissolve the sovereign status of the nation whose governing officials they are by law.  

There is a word for political malfeasance of that order, but it has nothing to do with patriotism, and much more to do with its antithesis.

that still doesn't justify the means that tancredo used.  the point of the whole thread is that tancredo is questioning pence's integrity, not the proposal he's put forward.  personal attack may be a political ploy, but it should be beneath mr. tancredo.  the fact that it's not has many of us upset - including me.

we should all be writing mr. tancredo to tell him this.  

We are at each other's throats.

this is like the dwarves, elves, and tlaking beasts and humans allfighting in CS Lewis's "The Last Battle".

We are truly in deep poop.

My kids are only 21 and 19.

I am going to start looking elsewhere to live.

Seriously.

Something is deeply broken in America, and it will take a lot of blood to fix it.

we are broken over war, civil liberties, citizenship, and every other deep topic available.

But if the last, best hope goes out, it will become very dark indeed.

whose integrity he questions as long as he makes a buck doing it?  

i doubt he's this jaded.  but before this statement i thought he was better than this too.

don't pull an Alec Baldwin on us.

buttocks.

I think we are in a much more real and tragic situation than the president of the Film Acotrs Guild can even comprehend.

Perhaps this clarifies positions.  My presumption is that an immigrant is a New American.  This person is on equal footing with an Old American.

Comments here imply that the illegals are not interested in becoming Americans, but are rather perhaps temporary laborers that will return to their former nation or will maintain allegiance to same.  In that case, I would expect Americans to certainly receive extra consideration and representation from their government.  But if the case is New American vs. Old American, then elected officials have equal responsibility to both groups.  I would think a nativist would disagree, as consistent with my earlier post.

So my next question is whether people's opinions on the illegal immigrant question are predicated on whether these people desire to become Americans, or are here to make some bucks and head home.  My assumption is that these people belong to the former category but am I wrong?  Or perhaps there is a mix.  Then perhaps further there should be TWO policies for this problem: those who will swear allegiance to America and those who won't.  

I much don't care whether new immigrants want to be Americans or not.  Of course it's preferable that they do want to become Americans, as current Americans define American, but the chief question for me is whether they benefit those of us already here, and whether they will be good neighbors.  I don't expect them to feel patriotic about a country that isn't their own; indeed I'd be inclined to look on that somewhat suspiciously, as it is almost certain that their patriotism would be of the purely ideological kind.  We have quite enough of that pseudo patriotism already, thank you.  Of course, except in the minds of immigration boosters, very few of them actually do have any love for America per se.  Instead, just like the vast majority of immigrants since the dawn of the Republic, today's immigrants come here to make a buck.

tancredo in his lust for attention/power/fundraising/political points jumped the gun in his characterization of pence and should be reprimanded by his colleagues who have refused to resort this sort of personal attack against the dems let alone against fellow republicans let alone on fellow conservatives.

granted, today's political rhetoric leaves little room for reasoned political discussion.  but in these two men in this debate we see the best and worst of what our system has to offer - one a demagogue questioning the integrity of even his fellow conservatives, the other one who has proven his commitment to conservative principles while refusing to engage in this kind of personal attack.

secondly, pence has staked his political reptuation on two things: (a) being a public voice for well-reasoned conservative policy and (b) doing so without resorting to personal attack or unnecessary vitriol.  he has done so in this case and since he became chair of the Republican Study Committee.

For this latter reason alone (pence's leadership and civility), pence deserved better treatment than he appears to have received from tancredo.  

Pence acknowledged that his bill is not "THE" conservative bill.  He simply said that if there were a rational middle ground this would be it, not the President's proposal.

he offered a market-based solution (that ed meese suggested in the NYT today) that, while not perfect, puts border security firsts and relies on demand from employers to dictate who gets in.  Arguably as these workers are brought above the table, they will compete against Americans for the positions they want because companies will begin to find Americans willing to work for minimum wage who weren't willing to work under the table for $3/hour.  That's the whole point of this debate isn't it?

that's what statemen do.

I understand why Tancredo is upset, and I happen to like Pence a lot.  But folks I like do dumb things all the time, and my wife tells me that people she likes do dumb things more often than I'm aware. (Wonder if she means me?)

That said, this is bad timing.  Pence committed a tactical blunder in floating an immigration compromise from the House side at the very time in which their standing to shoulder for enforcement first is imperative.  It smacks of weakness.  The Senate conferees will surely seize upon any overture from a House member that provides a means for an amnesty-like measure to get more serious consideration on the table in that room full of stacked-decks-against-us conferees.

Pence just raised the likelihood of passage for something that smells like the Senate bill.  I don't like Pence any less because of a single political miscalculation, but if he decides to pick up and run with that stinky ball...

Would be a new citizen or (maybe) a legal resident alien that fully intends to go through with citizenship when eligible. Nobody that comes here illegally is an "American," new or otherwise.

allow me to answer.

First, your response is completely off topic to my post, and doesn't address my central point.

"It would be wise to step back and define what we think a nativist is.  My interpretation is that a nativist is someone who puts the interests of the native-born above the interests of the immigrants.  This implies protectionism, of which Buchanan is an avid (and misguided) supporter."

Whatever you think "nativist" means, or how my definition differs from yours, you obviously are ascribing a negative connotation to the word.

My postulation stated that those promoting open borders and illegal alien "rights", especially in the liberal camp which is devoid of serious debate , have redefined the meaning of the word beyond it's true definition to also include positions which most Redstaters have taken.  You yourself defended the reasoning behind those Redstate positions as "non-nativist", as exemplified in the following quote from your response;

"Most of the people here who support a hard-line on immigration cite the rule of law as the reason, which is not nativist."

Therefore, by your own words, I must conclude you agree with my premise that the left has redefined the term "nativist" to include positions based on legitimate concerns. And that they have done so to morally marginalize those who hold such positions here, in order to avoid engaging in a debate in which they might lose. That was the entire thrust of my response.

Secondly, you turned your response into a forum on my position;

"When Tancredo raises the bar for illegal immigrants so high as to be ridiculous or impractical (eg. "leave and return"), I consider that nativist, because you start to ask yourself what does he have against these people?  Those who support this view will assure me that they are absolutely NOT nativist, but I challenge you to think about what the drivers are for your position." (Emphasis mine)

Where, in the convoluted logic of that statement, did Tom Tancredo's position become mine? That is a poorly structured argument that changes the meaning of my response into a forum to fulfill some preconcieved prejudice of what you believe my position to be. That is particularly breathtaking considering my response never touched on any particulars of my own position.

Thirdly, as others have addressed in their responses to you, your premise is simplistic and grossly over-generalized;

"My interpretation is that a nativist is someone who puts the interests of the native-born above the interests of the immigrants. This implies protectionism ..."

Any American who doesn't place the interests of a native born American over the interests of an illegal alien doesn't know the first thing about Civics I or the meaning of national sovereignty.

On the other hand, if your argument is a statement of degree, which apparently it is, you should state so clearly in order to avoid lumping everyone who is concerned about the ramifications of illegal immigration into the same "nativist" basket. With a grandiose sweeping generalization, you indicted many here at Redstate whom you subsequently defend in the next paragraph.

I just heard him on Kudlow say that he would oppose any version of the Senate bill or conference report if it includes amnesty.  Time will tell if his timing was a miscalculation, but one thing we know for sure:  If there is a logjam between the House and Senate on immigration and border security we do not have to speculate about where the Prez will go for the compromise votes he needs.

Just like in previous battles, he'll go to the libs to get support to pass his plan.  By putting a marker down early Pence shows that there is a thoughtful conservative alternative.  Without it the end game is either stalemate or a really bad amnesty bill.

A friend of mine on the Hill told me today that Pence praised Tancredo at the RSC meeting last week for his work on border security and immigration.  He said it was a real class act.  He also said that when the press asked Pence today to respond to Tancredo's personal attack and misrepresentation of his position that Pence simply said, "Tom is a friend and do not want to address his remarks about me.  However, I'll be happy to talk about the merit of my proposal."  I didn't personally hear it, so I'm paraphrasing.

Bottom line:  We are seeing first hand why many see a bit of Reagan in Pence and a bit of Buchanan in Tancredo.

is apparently entirely unwarranted, at least with respect to the largest contingent of prospective new permanent residents/citizens/Democratic voters", to say nothing, as Cyrus notes, of the content of the patriotism espoused by the minority who do harbour the desire of acquiring American citizenship.  The bare fact that the primary motivation of most of the immigrants in question is to earn money to remit to the home country should arouse in us a suspicion that perhaps their attachment to this country is more fiduciary than filial.

...the chances of a stalemate, which would preferable to passing any version of the Senate bill. The stalemate option required no cracks in the conservative front.  Pence pulled out his sledgehammer...mistook it for a flyswatter.

History proves that guest worker language is either an amnesty, or an invitation to replace it with an amnesty when the "touch base" part of the plan proves to be a non-starter.  And it will.  It's just the fodder for creating another government program we don't need.

Methinks Pence is playing with fire, and America will be what is burned by it. The level of rejoicing here, much of it from econoconservatives, is very telling.

I didn't realize how bad Tancredo's personal attacks against Pence were until I visited his websites.  He says Pence "betrays cause" and that he "sold out" - the sad thing is that he closes his press release by saying "Mike Pence is  a friend of mine."  Dang!  With friends like that...

Whether you are a fan of Pence is irrelevent.  If you are a fan of fair play and civil discourse, contact Tancredo's office and let him know what you think:

Here's his website commentary section:

http://tancredo.house.gov/contact/contact_contacttom.shtml

His phone number is: 202-225-7882

I've already expressed my disappointment.

in the beginning that you are one of those that think "guest worker" programs and "amnesty" are the same thing.  At least then we could debate the policy rather than some tortured reasoning about "miscalculations" - and for the record, I'm more of a social conservative.

Stalemate = status quo

Pence Plan = House border security bill (as passed) - tough employer penalties - no amnesty (all illegals MUST return to country of origin with no favored status) - guest worker program is limited to two year visas with a maximum of six years (two renewals)

I'll take the Pence plan over your status quo any day.

was well-intentioned, but from I gather the Speaker and the GOP conference has sent the word the Senate bill is DOA. The few adults left in the Senate probably will have to rework the bill early next year so it doesn't get caught in another election cycle.

Pence has said the same thing.  Only next year there is a good chance a Democrat House won't be playing along.

there may not be a Republican Senate to play along, either (I never thought that possible until the last week).

haven't learned to govern as winners. Even idealistic conservatives who stand on position should know that you need allies who stand with you against the onslaught of a much larger opposition in Congress. Once someone has consistently shown their sand in standing alone when alone is very uncomfortable, as Pence has clearly done, you give them room, and expect reasons for what they do before you villify them.

And whatever happens between allies happens behind closed doors. In public, you present a united front. Why paint a target on the back of your own teammates?

We, as conservatives, are still greenhorns when it comes to winning play.

I have some concerns myself.

The third step is to put in place a guest worker program, without amnesty, that will efficiently provide American employers with willing guest workers who come to America legally.

The House bill will secure our border, but it will do it even better when its provisions can concentrate just on those illegal border crossers who are criminals, drug dealers and possible terrorists. In order to do that, there must be a legal means for the great majority of people seeking temporary work to come to America.

Depending on how this is implemented, this may be good, mediocre, or terrible. It does sound a bit like he is saying that the "great majority" of people who want to work here should be able to. And I cannot agree with that.

Lets see how large a guest worker program Pence has in mind before either attacking him or patting him on the back.

Whatever you think "nativist" means, or how my definition differs from yours, you obviously are ascribing a negative connotation to the word

I can't help it since I don't agree much with the hard-line, and most certainly don't agree with protectionism.  You caught me.

I must conclude you agree with my premise that the left has redefined the term "nativist" to include positions based on legitimate concerns.

At least to me there seems to be a fine line between opposing these aliens/immigrants on a law and order basis vs. a basis of "they should leave."  I'm glad we're driving out the positions on this topic.  Again, one of the other things we're driving out of this is that policy may need to be different for those who are immigrants vs. those who are migrants.  The former would be expected to be loyal to this nation, the latter would be expected to obey the law and the terms of their stay.  

Where, in the convoluted logic of that statement, did Tom Tancredo's position become mine?"

I don't recall you advocating any of Tancredo's positions.  As for the logic it's convoluted to everyone but me (see tagline).  Essentially what I'm driving to is that those who hold hard-line positions that are infeasible and impractical ought to ask themselves if they're about law and order, about being absolutist on the law, or just want to kick people out for the sake of kicking people out.  I'll leave it to those who advocate such a position to share their rationale, but to me the hard-line philosophy is so impractical I'm puzzled why one would cling to it.  Please educate me.

As for the last part which is too good to quote here, now I'm no Constitutional scholar but I don't recall Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness to be rights only to naturalized or native-born citizens.  Let's try to be a little generous here.  These people come to this country to work and assuming they intend to stay, I think this government owes them consideration.  Even the ones who work and leave deserve some consideration too.  They're doing a job for America.  They built someone's house.  They cooked someone's food.  They came here to work, and did so illegally.  The immigration system is a disaster.  Part of the blame rests on our government for creating this mess.  Because these people are here, our costs are lowered, and Americans on Social Security get more of their $20 Viagras for bargain prices.  

H.R.4437 passed the United States House of Representatives in December 2005 with the overwhelming support of House Republicans.  Rep. Tom Tancredo strongly supported H.R.4437.  That bill deserved to be passed by the United States Senate with minor, if any, changes.  Instead, Ted Kenendy joined with several Senate Republicans to create a bill that provides amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

This nation's borders should be secured and enforced before any guest worker or amnesty plan is considered by Congress.  I agree with Rep. Peter King who said he would rather have no bill than a bad bill.  Rep. King made those comments following the president's sppech to the nation outlining his amnesty plan.

Republican members of the Hosue should be sending a strong message to the Senate that the Hosue will not budge in its desire to secure this nation's borders before considering any legislation that creates a guest worker plan or provides amnesty to illegal aliens.  House Repbulicans should not be undercutting the negotiating strength of Rep. James Sensenbrenner at a conference committee by advocating any type of guest worker plan or amnesty plan be attached to border security legislation.

I appreciate Rep. Tancredo's candid comments.  I am glad that he continues to strongly support the position that a border security bill should not have a guest worker plan or an amnesty plan attached to it.

Whenever Rep. Tancredo speaks in Tennessee again, I plan to be there with dozens of friends to show my support for him.

I'll leave it to those who advocate such a position to share their rationale, but to me the hard-line philosophy is so impractical I'm puzzled why one would cling to it.  Please educate me.

For that you'll have to look to someone else. In the sense you're using the term "hardliner", I'm not in their camp. If our current laws were enforced, while we reform the mess that is the U.S. immigration policy, many illegals would go back on their own, and would have the opportunity to come back legally. But no reform will work if we don't first shut off the flowing faucet of the border, so that the results of a practical reformed policy are defined and measureable.

Concerning the dual track policy of immigrant versus migrant, I don't believe we'll need two. Enough people are wanting in that we don't need migrants, we'll have enough who want to assimilate and gain citizenship that our labor needs will be met. There are many others here who have no desire for or loyalty to our nation. They do need to go home.

...now I'm no Constitutional scholar but I don't recall Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness to be rights only to naturalized or native-born citizens.  Let's try to be a little generous here.  These people come to this country to work and assuming they intend to stay, I think this government owes them consideration.  Even the ones who work and leave deserve some consideration too.

Concerning the first half of that paragraph, when I speak of putting a citizens rights and needs above those of the illegal aliens, it doesn't bring the question down to a strict either/or. I'm not wanting to deprive anyone of their life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. The Constitution doesn't require us to let them come here to have and pursue them. Consider that the Founders viewed these rights as unalienable for all men. That means that they have them south of the border as well. If their government doesn't recognize them, that is their concern, not ours. The fact that we recognize these rights toward all men on earth doesn't compel us to invite the entire earth here simply because our government does recognize them. Consider the forum and the issue. We are discussing what to do with those already here illegally in the context of policy reform concerning our sovereign nation.

I have no general animosity toward these people whatsoever, and my posts have made clear I am pro legal immigration. But whether or not someone stays, or is given citizenship, is a matter for immigration policy. And in these matters, our nation's self interests trump all else. Period. If it is beneficial to the illegal and the U.S., great. But no policy can be good for the immigrant but not for America. Our nation exists for our own society and citizens, not anyone elses. That being said, the reform itself needs to be hammered out, and obviously many of these people will be here, legally.

The immigration system is a disaster.  Part of the blame rests on our government for creating this mess.

You won't get any argument from me that this is the governments 20 year mess. That is unarguable. It is also why we are fighting tooth and toenail to make sure that it doesn't happen again, because what the Senate is proposing is exactly what they did 20 years ago that created this mess in the first place. That too is unarguable. You can put them side by side, and it is a parallel version of 1986, with one major exception. All of the aspects that were so ruinous to us in the old bill are amplified ten-fold in the new bill. We are looking at between 50 to 100 million in the next ten years. The numbers are hurting us now. That will break down our culture and our infrastructure.

They're doing a job for America.  They built someone's house.  They cooked someone's food.  They came here to work, and did so illegally.

Yes, they are doing a job for America. So am I. And they are being paid for it, as I am. This has nothing to do with the reform debate. I want to make sure it's a legal arrangment, by someone working toward citizenship, and paying taxes to give something back to the society they are privileged to become a part of. And that is good for the immigrant and America.

that his electorate believes we should only have immigrants, not guest workers.

As far as sheer numbers, that will be no problem. There are more than enough who want to get here for us to require assimilation and loyalty.

We can make all the laws and rules and what all we want regarding immigration, but it comes down to this: if it's easier to stay and work here in violation of the laws than it is to obey the laws, people will continue to violate them.  And simply cranking up enforcement leaves the GOP wide open to charges of heartlessness, etc.

I have no knowledge of Congressman Mike Pence, but note that he has a career grade of B on immigration bills. His performance has been spotty. Ranging from A+ on some bills to C and even F- on other bills.http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=IN06&VIPID
=952

Congressman Tancredo has a solid, consistant career-long grade of A+ http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=CO06&VIPID
=146

I trust Tancredo. Perhaps he understands the full implications of Pence's plan, which in essence brings the subject of guest-path-to-citizenship into the House Bill, which has as its main focus border security/enforcement and employer/workplace enforcement. These are the two elements upon which any hope of successful, workable immigration policies rest.  His angry words probably spring from the fact that Pence is dragging the red-herring of "regularization" into a bill that is workable because of it makes no attempt to be "comprehensive" [DC lingo meaning promising more than can be delivered or full of confusing verbiage that hides motives ranging from pork to anti-sovereignty]

As for the last part which is too good to quote here, now I'm no Constitutional scholar but I don't recall Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness to be rights only to naturalized or native-born citizens.

Actually the US Constitution does give these rights only to Americans. That's why people in other countries cannot sue in American courts for the right to free speech, for example.

It acknowledges that all have these rights (granted from God), but it only limits governmental interference from infringing these rights for stuff that the US government covers.

The Constitution grants no rights.

It only acknowledges them.

You are thinking, I believe, of the Declaration of Independence, which says that "all men ..." etc.

We'll stop using the word "nativist" to describe people who want a hard line on illegal immigration, if the other side stops using the word "amnesty" for any idea that isn't exactly what they want.  Deal?

Didn't think so.

The Ninth Amendment.

The Constitution does not grant rights. It comes out and says, in the Ninth, others are retained by the people.

Where did these rights come from?

They were there before the Constitution was written. Same as the other rights the Constitution talks about.

there is a lot going on right now and a lot of anger over what the Senate is doing.  They are ultimately on the same side and very close to one another, this will blow over and everything will be fine.

The main problem is the momentum the Senate is trying to build for this bill of amnesty and hand outs.  They are really trying to lean on the house and pound the bill through.

and they are by far superior to John McCain and other open borders fanatics who have dragged the Republican Party into the gutter. The GOP's salvation will be from House members like Tancredo and Pence.

until I saw the way he threw Pence under the bus.  A "good guy" and a "friend" will disagree with you on the substance of a proposal without launching personal darts.  I appreciate Tancredo for his work on immigration, but he showed a side of his character during this disagreement which I cannot support.

most MOCs suffer from them. It doesn't diminish Tancredo at all and I expect he and Pence will move to heal the rift.

a rational leader does not throw his temper-tantrums through press releases and in public.  I'm sure most of the MOC's are egotistical, but my point is that such a public display makes me question his overall discernment and self-control.  It wasn't just bad form, it illustrated a base problem.  It's one of the reasons I can't support McCain regardless of how much makeup he wears.  We need stability and reason from our leaders - not temper tantrums.

I hope to rejoin the Tancredo bandwagon at some point, so despite my disillusionment with his tirade against a good guy (Pence), I'm trying to hear him out.  In the meantime, can those of you who are more in tune with Tancredo explain why his guest worker proposals (3 authored bills in past couple of years) are good and Pence's guest worker proposal is so bad that Tancredo is justified in saying Pence "betrayed the cause"?

Looking for a serious answer.  Thanks.

the idiots in the Senate stop proposing programs that promote amnesty.

Please see Ed Meese's OpEd in the NYT.

basically inferred Jeff Sessions was a racist for not agreeing illegal should get $29 billion in earned income tax money (that's just the projection and we know how conservative those are, i.e. prescription drug plan).  

If frist was not glutless, he would take McCain to the woodshed for the "back of the bus" comment.  Forget about how McCain votes, I just have no repect for him as a person.  His arrogance and condesension toward the voters is unbelieveable.

That's my point.  McCain and Tancredo may not agree on policy, but this Tancredo Temper Tantrum is a clone of what we've seen from McCain.

this is Tancredo's first, McCain is a serial abuser.

This is Tancredo's issue, he has a lot of time and emotions invested, I think he'll cool down and settle it.  McCain on the other hand is a one man show, its all about the mystical McCain.  McCain is not interested in his constitutes views, he knows better than they.  The moonbats complain about Bush's arrogance (leftists are idiots); a McCain presidency would be a horrendous 4 years.  He could possibly be the most despised president in history.  The only thing that explains the polling that has McCain getting any support in '08 must be people's ignorance to him personally and his record and the MSM pr campaign.

I differ a bit though.  I think the 5 1/2 years of his presidency where he has done absolutely nothing shows he is not serious.

Congress provided money for more border agents, DHS has hired a tiny faction.

Bush said in his national speech that the "catch and release" policy needs to end.  After 5 1/2 years, 4 1/2 after sept 11, he now 'says' he wants to end it.

Also, notice how his original plan was a guest worker program where the people would stay for a maximum of 6 years, now he wants citizenship for the law breakers here and path to citizenship for future guest workers.

His father gave us Souter, I think this ones dead set on giving us something even worse.  I know for sure that I don't want Jeb.