Tom Tancredo: Are You Supporting Illegals?

Here is the letter from Tom Tancredo referred to in the Sheriff Joe Arpaio post below. I didn’t post it initially because it had a lot of “donate here” buttons embedded in it, but I’ll post it now since it is referred to below.

Dear Conservative,

You are literally paying foreign nationals to sneak over our borders, break the law, and live off government social giveaways!

On average, the American taxpayer pays $1,117 each year to support illegal immigrants.

It’s clear the Obama Administration has abandoned their responsibility to defend our nation’s borders and protect your interests.

In fact, they even filed suit against the state of Arizona for daring to investigate and enforce federal laws that have been on the books for decades.

To be blunt, Washington is useless in the immigration battle. In fact, they are aiding and abetting those breaking our laws!

As a former Congressman, I can promise you that even shifting majorities in Congress will not change the endless debate, backroom deals, and stagnation in Washington.

Washington will never make the hard decisions unless they are forced into action by the states.

That’s why I’m running for Governor of Colorado. From Day One, my first priority will be to stand firm with Arizona’s staunch defense of our nation.

And as states across the country join our banner, we will force the federal government to act.

Under my leadership, Colorado will no longer be a magnet for illegal immigrants.

But I need your help.

Will you join my team and make a contribution of $525 — the legal maximum allowed in Colorado?

I know that’s quite a bit of money, but $525 is less than half the price you are already paying each year for illegal immigrants.

Honestly, I thought I was finished running for office. But I couldn’t stand by and watch the Republican establishment just hand over the state to Obama’s hand-picked Democrat candidate.

Mayor John Hickenlooper has turned Denver into one of the largest “Sanctuary Cities” in the nation. And I have no doubt that he plans the same fate for the rest of the state.

In fact, there’s an even darker history behind Hickenlooper’s disregard for immigration law:

Paul Garcia-Gomez, an employee for Hickenlooper, was an illegal immigrant living in this country for ten months.

Garcia-Gomez was stopped 3 times for traffic violations, and Hickenlooper’s own restaurant was informed that he was living here illegally.

But the “Sanctuary City” policies Hickenlooper so proudly supports prevented him from being deported.

On Mother’s Day 2005, Garcia-Gomez executed Denver Police Detective Donald Young with a bullet to the back of the head.

But even when faced with the tragic results of his policies, Hickenlooper turned a blind eye saying, “That buck doesn’t stop here.”

While he may ignore them, you and I know the consequences of disastrous “Sanctuary City” policies:

* Increased crime including kidnappings, rapes and murders;

* Violent gangs like MS 13 invading peaceful communities and wreaking havoc;

* Schools and hospitals overwhelmed with the children of illegal immigrants forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for these strained services;

* The loss of our very culture as we all continue to “Press 1 for English.”

Colorado cannot afford a “Sanctuary City” mayor to become governor.

Recently, it was reported that the state of California spends over $21 billion on illegal immigrants alone.

Illegal immigration is literally bankrupting the state and ballooning their deficit.

It’s a similar story in New York and elsewhere around the nation where Hickenlooper’s “Sanctuary City” policies have been fully implemented.

I cannot let that happen to the rest of the nation. And starting in Colorado, you and I will take a stand in defense of this great nation.

But winning a gubernatorial election is not an easy thing to do. And it’s certainly not cheap.

That’s why I need your help today.

Will you please make a contribution of $525 — the legal maximum in Colorado — $200, $100, or even just $50 today?

I served in the Colorado Legislature for ten years before going to Congress, and I know how to make state government work for the people by applying solid conservative principles.

As the battle over illegal immigration has moved from Washington to the states, it is going to be critically important to have governors who are committed to enforcing our laws.

And I will stand up to the special interest groups — from Obama’s La Raza allies to big businesses fighting for cheap illegal labor.

My only “special interest” is in securing this nation’s border and enforcing this nation’s rules of law.

But to do this, I need your help. Please respond right away.

Patriots like you must rise up and mobilize if we ever hope to defeat the open border status quo.

Sincerely,
Tom Tancredo

P.S. The Obama Administration has failed to secure our nation’s border.

Each year, their failure costs the average taxpayer $1,117 in subsidies to illegal immigrants.

My candidacy is the only chance for conservatives to elect a Governor who will enact laws based on the Arizona model to combat illegal immigration and end sanctuary cities.

Please make a contribution of $525 — the legal maximum in Colorado — $200, $100, or even just $50 today.

44 thoughts on “Tom Tancredo: Are You Supporting Illegals?

  1. Melty

    To Tancredo’s credit, he does not use the obnoxious buzzword “illegals” that appears in the title.

    Tancredo writes: * The loss of our very culture as we all continue to “Press 1 for English.”

    This’s some serious paranoid xenophobia. Folks who think like this scare me.

  2. RedPhillips Post author

    The title above was the title of the e-mail.

    People who want to preserve their culture scare you? People have been attempting to preserve their culture since … oh I don’t know … around … about … THE DAWN OF MAN. It’s called the survival instinct. But of course we know better.

  3. Melty

    Then Tancredo does say “illegals” eh? …fits with the tone.

    There is no such threat to this “culture” that some say they want to “preserve.” Intolerance of the use of other languages than English in the States is so extremely anti-liberty, that, yes, it scares me. The States has never had an official language and yet it has only become more monolingual over time.

  4. Melty

    @4 exactly my point, paulie, thank you, …that’s exactly why I called “illegals” an obnoxious buzzword.

  5. RedPhillips Post author

    “There is no such threat to this “culture” that some say they want to “preserve.””

    Some might disagree.

    “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.” John Jay, Federalist # 2

    Jay may actually be overstating the case as he papers over differences between North and South in his quest for union under the Constitution. But if it is true that North and South were destined to not get along in a single polity, how much more so must it be true that even greater diversity will surely bring strife.

  6. RedPhillips Post author

    But let’s just invite more and more diversity in and even “celebrate” it so we can all pat ourselves on the back for not being guilty of wrongthink.

  7. LibertarianBlue

    How so Paulie? They came here illegally, amnesty is a slap in the face to legal immigrants who went through the process the right way. I dont disagree that our immigration policy is fucked up with massive amounts of red tape but rewarding those who break the law isnt the way to go.

  8. paulie

    How so Paulie? They came here illegally

    Bad laws deserve to be broken.

    amnesty is a slap in the face to legal immigrants who went through the process the right way.

    I’m a “legal” immigrant, and it’s not a slap in my face. It was simply a matter of luck that due to cold war propaganda reasons we were considered “refugees” over people far more deserving of the term. Otherwise I would have grown up in Israel after leaving Russia. I’m glad I didn’t.

    I dont disagree that our immigration policy is fucked up with massive amounts of red tape but rewarding those who break the law isnt the way to go.

    So, change the law and let everyone in.

  9. wolfefan

    Wasn’t there an explicit proposal rejected at the time of the Constitutional Convention to make English the official language? There were a lot of people here at the time of the Revolution (many of them my ethnic and religious ancestors in PA) who did not speak English who were nevertheless citizens of the new nation.

  10. Jason Gatties

    The problem is, under the current system, it makes legal immigration even tougher due in large part to those who enter illegally. I wouldn’t wish the process I had to go through with my wife to get her here legally on anyone…and she came here from ENGLAND (you would think that would be easy…it wasn’t)

  11. paulie

    It’s the other way around.

    There’s “illegal” immigration because legal immigration is difficult; legal immigration is not difficult because of “illegal” immigration.

  12. Gene Berkman

    Wolfefan @ 13 – you are correct that the time the American colonies declared independence from the UK, people spoke many languages. The first report of the Declaration of Independence was published in a German newspaper in Philadelphia.

    The situation continued for many years. The first report of the founding of the Republican Party was in a German newspaper in Wisconsin.
    The first edition of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” included on the cover an ad for the German edition of the book (reproduced on the cover the Penguin Classic edition now in print).

    It was not until after World War I that the situation changed. Many German newspapers closed during the war, and after the war, the first law restricting immigration was passed, in 1923.

    There were of course in the same periods leading to the war newspapers published in other languages as well.

  13. paulie

    I’ve dealt with immigration from all sorts of different angles. If anyone told you the legal hassles are because of “illegal” immigration, they lied.

  14. Melty

    I went through it with my wife ten years ago. It was a hassle.

    Government meddling incentivizes illegal entry.

  15. Davi Rodrigues

    Unless every social program that is subsidized by US citizens, taxpayers, and residents is FIRST halted, there is no way we can just let everyone in.
    Further, unless we have equal enforcement of laws and codes, we cannot just let everyone in

  16. Erik G.

    wolfefan@13 is correct again.

    My ancestors, for instance, came to America in the early 1800s, but didn’t use English in the home until after WWI. This was a common occurrence in many German-American communities, as well as the communities of other cultures. German was used in churches, schools, etc., not English.

  17. Erik G.

    Davi Rodrigues @22:

    That’s a myth. Study after study has shown that ‘illegal’ immigrants actually put more into the ‘system’ than they take out. If we kicked out all the ‘illegals’ tomorrow, we’d actually have more debt or have to raise taxes to cover the difference.

  18. paulie

    Unless every social program that is subsidized by US citizens, taxpayers, and residents is FIRST halted, there is no way we can just let everyone in.

    Nonsense. That’s like saying we can’t end gun control until drugs are legalized, or we can’t legalize drugs until we get rid of welfare and government involvement in medicine, or we can’t end welfare until government is out of the schools….

    Truth is, immigrants work harder for less and get less welfare subsidies than those born in the US.

    Yes, we should end all those subsidies, for US born or non-US born alike, but it’s not a reason to hold any other freedom hostage.

    All our freedoms, all the time.

    Further, unless we have equal enforcement of laws and codes, we cannot just let everyone in

    Which means what?

  19. Thomas L. Knapp

    America is, and always has been, a polyglot country.

    Less so after WWI, and even less so again after WWII (when the US government put 16 million men under arms and insisted that they learn to take orders in English), but still.

    Within 10 minutes of my home in St. Louis, I can walk into places where the predominant language is Spanish. Within 15 minutes’ drive, there are apartment complexes where you’ll hear mostly Urdu. Within 30 minutes drive, whatever it is that Bosnians speak (40,000 Bosnian Muslim immigrants in St. Louis city). Here and there around town, enclaves of people who speak Vietnamese or Mandarin. Within a couple of hours’ drive, Amish who speak mostly (I think) “Low Dutch.”

    In larger cities, all of the above (plus Russian, Yiddish, German, etc.), only more so.

    English has always been the predominant language, but there’s no particular reason it should be a privileged or government-enforced language.

    If we’re going to enforce borders, the one measure I’d like to see implemented is that if you leave the US to work in the District of Columbia, you can’t come back.

  20. Catholic Trotskyist

    The Catholic Trotskyist Party endorses the position of Paulie and Tom Knapp within the immigration debates on this site.

    On th other hand, we think Tom Tancredo for indirectly benefiting the Catholic Trotskyist (aka Democratic) candidate in this Colorado election.

    Open borders is a major step toward the Catholic Trotskyist world government, where the American culture as we know it will be gone, gone, gone. The Lord is confounding the enemies of Catholic Trotskyism at every turn, glory to God amen.

  21. Catholic Trotskyist

    On the other hand, Red Phillips does argue the other position well. And he is bringing a lot of sanity to the AIP threads on this site.

  22. paulie

    On the other hand, Red Phillips does argue the other position well. And he is bringing a lot of sanity to the AIP threads on this site.

    True.

  23. paulie

    Open borders is a major step toward the Catholic Trotskyist world government, where the American culture as we know it will be gone, gone, gone.

    Actually, it’s the other way around. American culture is sweeping the world.

    For instance, I’ve noticed that a lot of American/English expressions have worked their way into Russian vernacular over the last couple of decades. I mean Russians who still live in Russia and are just visiting the US, not those of us that left many years ago, we were already speaking Russlish way before they were.

  24. paulie

    On th other hand, we thank Tom Tancredo for indirectly benefiting the Catholic Trotskyist (aka Democratic) candidate in this Colorado election.

    Not if he wins. Don’t laugh, it could happen.

  25. Annchovie

    What a bunch of nonsense. Tancredo is not responsible for any of this, it’s the CO state GOP. Get a F’n clue idiots.

    Better now to have found out Maes is a fraud than in October. At least now, we conservatives have an opportunity to put an end to the idiotic ideas of the Libs in Denver. Not such a bad move after all was it.

    Open borders. How stupid. What are you 12? You must have enjoyed the WTC attack on 9-11? What’s next an a-bomb in lower Manhattan? Yeah moron. There are people who want the USA to fail and they are want to kill us to make it happen. If you don’t like it here then leave. Oh yeah, you won’t because you enjoy FREEDOM here. Fucking loosers.

  26. Timothy Yung

    Paulie, if we should have no borders and unlimited immigration then I guess you don’t believe we should have nation-states at all. Do you support eliminating all national borders and having all countries combined into a giant economic zone? You seem to be a supporter of the New World Order. I can understand that as a libertine anarchist you support open border. However open immigration will be a disaster for libertarian ideals. Most of the illegal immigrants come from cultures that do not believe in freedom of speech, economic freedom, religious freedom, gay rights, gender equality, or other important libertarian ideals. Illegal immigrants will support big government, cultural and economic Marxism, a expansive welfare, etc. In other words a libertarian immigration policy will result in an unlibertarian society.

  27. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Do you support eliminating all national borders and having all countries combined into a giant economic zone?”

    You say that as if the latter naturally follows from the former.

    What makes you think that in the absence of imaginary lines drawn on the ground by overgrown street gangs, “economic zones” won’t form along voluntary social, rather than coercive political, lines, the main difference being that various types of capital (including human capital) will more efficiently flow to the places where it produces the best returns on investment instead of being coercively channeled or penned up?

    “Most of the illegal immigrants come from cultures that do not believe in freedom of speech, economic freedom, religious freedom, gay rights, gender equality, or other important libertarian ideals.”

    That’s sort of a tautology — can you name so much as a single existing culture in which some mix of the defects you list doesn’t prevail, at least at the political level?

    The real question is whether such defects are best addressed by forced ossification or by freedom of people to re-sort themselves without worrying about being shot by some dickhhead in a tower with an imaginary line to guard.

  28. paulie

    Paulie, if we should have no borders and unlimited immigration then I guess you don’t believe we should have nation-states at all.

    I’ll admit that my ultimate goal is individual, not national, sovereignty, but it’s certainly possible to have nation-states without border enforcement. I can still remember going back and forth across the US-Canadian border without being stopped or harassed. Going from the US to Mexico was the same way. Before my time, but for many decades, so was going from Mexico to the US.

    Do you support eliminating all national borders and having all countries combined into a giant economic zone? You seem to be a supporter of the New World Order.

    I support the economy organizing itself in whatever ways it will without government interference. I’m certainly not in favor of a one world coercive bureaucratic government, which is what I understand by the term New World Order. If anything, I want government to be at as local a level as possible. That does not mean I want to go through government harassment, stop and search and questioning, much less ask permission, every time I cross state lines, county lines, city lines, neighborhood lines, etc.

    I can understand that as a libertine anarchist you support open border. However open immigration will be a disaster for libertarian ideals. Most of the illegal immigrants come from cultures that do not believe in freedom of speech, economic freedom, religious freedom, gay rights, gender equality, or other important libertarian ideals.

    And many of them left for those very reasons.

    Illegal immigrants will support big government, cultural and economic Marxism, a expansive welfare, etc. In other words a libertarian immigration policy will result in an unlibertarian society.

    See my points to Red, above, in response to the same line of argument; many still unaddressed.

  29. Robert Capozzi

    tk: What makes you think that in the absence of imaginary lines drawn on the ground by overgrown street gangs, “economic zones” won’t form along voluntary social, rather than coercive political, lines,…

    me: What makes you think they WILL? Yours is an unprecedented assumption. The “street gangs,” as you call them, exist; States exist. If you liken the State to a street gang, gangs may bleed their victims, but they also do provide protection from OTHER gangs from entering the territory. It’s in the gang’s interest that those under their “protection” remain at least somewhat prosperous, yes? If the gang makes it impossible to generate wealth, there would be no base from which to “steal,” yes? As the economic system becomes more interconnected and based on high-volume transactions, it becomes all the more important to minimize risk and uncertainty, as trust in the myriad counterparties needs to increase to facilitate trade.

  30. Michael H. Wilson

    @ 37 TY writes: “Most of the illegal immigrants come from cultures that do not believe in freedom of speech, economic freedom, religious freedom, gay rights, gender equality, or other important libertarian ideals.”

    Interesting comment but I have long believed that we can prevail if we put some focus on the Bill of Rights. Make Dec. 15th a big event in Libertarian circles with news releases, press conferences and handout of the BoR. Bumper sticker might be helpful as well.

  31. Robert Capozzi

    ty: …a libertarian immigration policy will result in an unlibertarian society.

    me: I’m not sure there IS one L immigration policy. But, assuming Ls generally want much a much less restrictive immigration policy, your prediction is mere speculation. If a person wants to leave tyranny for more liberty, why do you assume that new immigrants will want what they had back home? Based on their behavior, they seem to not like what they were coming from, after all. I don’t deny that those leaving more tyranny won’t carry with them modes of thought that may sometimes seem unL, but certainly some of the most freedom-minded people I’ve known are recent immigrants.

  32. Hmmm ...

    One of my favorite freedom comments came from a “recent immigrant” at a tax protest. He called out to the crowd:

    “Taxes? Taxes? I don’ pay no stinking taxes!”

    Abolish the welfare state, and abolish all taxes on income, land and all property and then fling open the borders. New immigrants to America love liberty much more than the fascists trying to keep them out.

Leave a Reply