Tom Tancredo Hired Illegal Laborers to Renovate His McMansion

[GabachaYucateca 0]

No kidding. She went from blaming liberal attitudes towards illegal immigration as contributing to the problem but when I pointed out the real causes and then asked her pointedly for a solution she refused to answer, criticized me for assuming anything about her views or political philosophy but then continued on and on with framing the argument as an ideological one.

The fact that she spent some time in politics, yet is reluctant to talk of solutions, let alone give credit where credit is due, reminds me of a statement Edwards made on Charlie Rose the other night, "Republicans campaign by telling the American people that government doesn't work, and then when they get elected, they prove it."

Stroke your ailing ego all you need to, Steven, but when the rubber met the road, you had no response to my very basic question about how supporting illegal immigration benefits the low-income and minority among us. You simply give up, throw up your hands and fall into bed with Mexico appeasers, the illegal alien lobby, and corrupt, exploitive employers. And that is where you left it.

So don't come and pretend that I am the problem because I didn't concede to your red herrings. When you declared that you had no plan except to surrender, you opened yourself bare, guts and all.

All you have left is to pretend that you know who I am. I'm not even a Republican.

I give up. This isn't an argument. This is just some silly game of letting you turn an otherwise insightful argument into a playground match of who can insult the other better.

Let me know when you want to have a real argument.

Fancypants...that's what you people do. When you're not able to defend your position rationally because you're too busy FEELING rather than thinking, you just give up.

You obviously lack rhetorical stamina.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Defeatism summs up the "argument" that I was expected to respond to on this thread. So the entire premise, I have now been told, it that we are arguing about whether to give up or not. What else have the anti-illegals been doing on this board for months other than saying "We won't give up"? No matter how it is said, to expect us to accept defeat is a sad way to promote an alternative to being against coddling law breakers and acquiesing to pc rhetoric and pc definitions. I don't see a meeting of the minds around this no matter how hard I try.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Absolutely a hit piece....no details whatsoever.

As far as this goes - Tancredo doesn't really need help to disparage him; as he seems to do a pretty good job of doing it himself. Isn't that the guy who suggested that it might be a nice idea if muslim holy sites were nuked in retaliation for a terrorist attack?

I don't support the article or indeed the way it is written - but Tancredo seems to be a pretty ridiculous figure.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

A hit piece? Revealing that the candidate who is most vocal about illegal immigration is nonchalant over whether or not the contractors who renovated his house were illegal is a hit piece? There lies the breakdown of why this thread carried on and on into silliness of a playground insult match. You took it as a jab on your position. Interestingly revealing.

Indeed, it was a hit piece, even had a comment about "brown people" at the end.

Not only was it a hit piece, it was an OPINION piece, the subjective view of a partisan pro-illegal. It was not an investigative piece, an objective look at the pros and cons of trying to hire legal construction crews. It did not examine the means by which one individual can assure that they are not employing illegals. It did not decry the exploitation of illegals by employers seeking to make greater profits.

It simply slammed an oppenent to the author's views. Another bend over, grab his knees lib.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I asked you how supporting illegals benefits minorities and low-income Americans. Can you tell me?

It doesn't. It hurts them. Everyone knows that. Elitist types just don't seem to care much about the American poor and lawfully resident minorities but rather cater to those aliens that openly pizz on our laws and the profiteers of this ever growing illegal crowd.

Who among us is an elitist? I think pragmatist is the word you're searching for.

Pragmatist most certainly wasn't the word I was searching for. Elitist was the word I meant to pick. Thanks for trying to read my mind but that attempt clearly failed. There's nothing pragmatist in suggesting that a crowd of 20 million or so illegal aliens is something we've just gotta get used to. If I was looking for a word describing that position, defeatist comes to mind.

Extend that defeatist view to the fact that you and many others here who continue on and on about how illegal immigration is ruining our economy and look at the jobs lost overseas, our consumptuous need for foreign oil, our trade policies with countries like China. Defeatist is what defeatist does or doesn't.

[GabachaYucateca 0]

Defeatism summs up the "argument" that I was expected to respond to on this thread. So the entire premise, I have now been told, it that we are arguing about whether to give up or not. What else have the anti-illegals been doing on this board for months other than saying "We won't give up"? No matter how it is said, to expect us to accept defeat is a sad way to promote an alternative to being against coddling law breakers and acquiesing to pc rhetoric and pc definitions. I don't see a meeting of the minds around this no matter how hard I try.

Choosing to not engage in debate on a forum hardly constitutes "giving up." And defeat? It's just a forum!

There's a whole world out there in which to take action! Verbal sword-fighting online takes a lot of energy that perhaps people choose to expend elsewhere.

There are dozens of people in my life I don't see eye to eye on about immigration and we either a)talk about the issue like rational adults, and accept that we're not going to agree or b)don't broach the subject so as not to get combative and just enjoy each other's company.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Defeatism summs up the "argument" that I was expected to respond to on this thread. So the entire premise, I have now been told, it that we are arguing about whether to give up or not. What else have the anti-illegals been doing on this board for months other than saying "We won't give up"? No matter how it is said, to expect us to accept defeat is a sad way to promote an alternative to being against coddling law breakers and acquiesing to pc rhetoric and pc definitions. I don't see a meeting of the minds around this no matter how hard I try.

Choosing to not engage in debate on a forum hardly constitutes "giving up." And defeat? It's just a forum!

There's a whole world out there in which to take action! Verbal sword-fighting online takes a lot of energy that perhaps people choose to expend elsewhere.

There are dozens of people in my life I don't see eye to eye on about immigration and we either a)talk about the issue like rational adults, and accept that we're not going to agree or b)don't broach the subject so as not to get combative and just enjoy each other's company.

Well said.

[Fandango 1,439]

Absolutely a hit piece....no details whatsoever.

As far as this goes - Tancredo doesn't really need help to disparage him; as he seems to do a pretty good job of doing it himself. Isn't that the guy who suggested that it might be a nice idea if muslim holy sites were nuked in retaliation for a terrorist attack?

I don't support the article or indeed the way it is written - but Tancredo seems to be a pretty ridiculous figure.

Whether or not he's ridiculous in other areas doesn't add credit to this piece.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I asked you how supporting illegals benefits minorities and low-income Americans. Can you tell me?

It doesn't. It hurts them. Everyone knows that. Elitist types just don't seem to care much about the American poor and lawfully resident minorities but rather cater to those aliens that openly pizz on our laws and the profiteers of this ever growing illegal crowd.

Who among us is an elitist? I think pragmatist is the word you're searching for.

Pragmatist most certainly wasn't the word I was searching for. Elitist was the word I meant to pick. Thanks for trying to read my mind but that attempt clearly failed. There's nothing pragmatist in suggesting that a crowd of 20 million or so illegal aliens is something we've just gotta get used to. If I was looking for a word describing that position, defeatist comes to mind.

Extend that defeatist view to the fact that you and many others here who continue on and on about how illegal immigration is ruining our economy and look at the jobs lost overseas, our consumptuous need for foreign oil, our trade policies with countries like China. Defeatist is what defeatist does or doesn't.

Here I talk my beliefs, in the real world, I act on them. All my representatives, and then some, know who I am. At least, I haven't give up like you have. I'm no defeatist. Not by a long shot.

Defeatism summs up the "argument" that I was expected to respond to on this thread. So the entire premise, I have now been told, it that we are arguing about whether to give up or not. What else have the anti-illegals been doing on this board for months other than saying "We won't give up"? No matter how it is said, to expect us to accept defeat is a sad way to promote an alternative to being against coddling law breakers and acquiesing to pc rhetoric and pc definitions. I don't see a meeting of the minds around this no matter how hard I try.

Choosing to not engage in debate on a forum hardly constitutes "giving up." And defeat? It's just a forum!

There's a whole world out there in which to take action! Verbal sword-fighting online takes a lot of energy that perhaps people choose to expend elsewhere.

There are dozens of people in my life I don't see eye to eye on about immigration and we either a)talk about the issue like rational adults, and accept that we're not going to agree or b)don't broach the subject so as not to get combative and just enjoy each other's company.

Well said.

Steven engaged in the debate and revealed that he has given up to the corrupt elements in our society. Piss poor position, imo. Take your solace where you can get it, bro. Your credibility re this issue is fullaholes.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I asked you how supporting illegals benefits minorities and low-income Americans. Can you tell me?

It doesn't. It hurts them. Everyone knows that. Elitist types just don't seem to care much about the American poor and lawfully resident minorities but rather cater to those aliens that openly pizz on our laws and the profiteers of this ever growing illegal crowd.

Who among us is an elitist? I think pragmatist is the word you're searching for.

Pragmatist most certainly wasn't the word I was searching for. Elitist was the word I meant to pick. Thanks for trying to read my mind but that attempt clearly failed. There's nothing pragmatist in suggesting that a crowd of 20 million or so illegal aliens is something we've just gotta get used to. If I was looking for a word describing that position, defeatist comes to mind.

Extend that defeatist view to the fact that you and many others here who continue on and on about how illegal immigration is ruining our economy and look at the jobs lost overseas, our consumptuous need for foreign oil, our trade policies with countries like China. Defeatist is what defeatist does or doesn't.

I don't know when or at what point I went down in the column of supporters of our out-of-balance trade policies. But even with those, illegal immigration doesn't necessarily and inevitably follow. Else, all industrialized countries would have that very issue to deal with. And I don't think that's quite the case. Most certainly not anywhere near to the extend we do. So if your argument is that one evil necessitates the other, it simply doesn't hold water.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

So if your argument is that one evil necessitates the other, it simply doesn't hold water.

Noted: Two wrongs make a right is the centerpiece of the pro-illegal position.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Absolutely a hit piece....no details whatsoever.

As far as this goes - Tancredo doesn't really need help to disparage him; as he seems to do a pretty good job of doing it himself. Isn't that the guy who suggested that it might be a nice idea if muslim holy sites were nuked in retaliation for a terrorist attack?

I don't support the article or indeed the way it is written - but Tancredo seems to be a pretty ridiculous figure.

Whether or not he's ridiculous in other areas doesn't add credit to this piece.

Agreed. But I think Steven had a point there when he said that some of the comments in this thread appear to have been taken as a slur on their position on illegal immigration.

The article, flawed as it is - is about Tancredo, not about what different people here believe with regards to the illegal immigration debate. As to why Steven posted it - well... that's a bit different.

Given how nuts Tancredo appears to be - I don't understand why anyone would take ownership of him and his views any more than I would of Al Gore - re: environmental issues. Flaws/contradictions in the alleged beliefs and behaviour of a public official don't extend to flaws in yours or mine.

Edited December 2, 2007 by Number 6

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Tom is well liked by his constituancy here in Colorado. He had been in state office before he was in the US Congress. He is portrayed as loony by the lefty media, and he can provide some off color sound bites, but he is not as much of a looney as you may think. He has held his own in Congress and deserves a lot of credit for holding back the pro-illegal establishment. His faults aside, he has served his purpose re this issue and I applaud him for that.

Edited December 2, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't know when or at what point I went down in the column of supporters of our out-of-balance trade policies. But even with those, illegal immigration doesn't necessarily and inevitably follow. Else, all industrialized countries would have that very issue to deal with. And I don't think that's quite the case. Most certainly not anywhere near to the extend we do. So if your argument is that one evil necessitates the other, it simply doesn't hold water.

I didn't think you were, Reinhard...as neither am I. The EU has provisions within their trade policies which are much more fair to all the players than what we have. Secondly, within the EU it is much easier for people to travel from country to country, including finding work.

My contention is since we already have open the flood gates in terms of a global free market, is form an alliance with Canada and Mexico similar to the EU. That my friend is the most honest solution to our illegal immigration problem. That's not defeatism....that's forward thinking.

[Fandango 1,439]

Wow! I am speaking to a colleague of mine who worked in the welfare office. And boy is he telling me how it all works, and I'm getting sooo frickin angry!

He told me he also worked for a tax preparation firm for a bit....the supervisor of a group of illegals would come in with a truckload of illegal workers. The workers would all have ss#s. He said one guy came in, gave a social, was claiming 5 children, and wound up paying $700 throughout the year in taxes. He said the guy qualified for the earned income credit, then the guy gave him receipts from a federally approved daycare, so he got the child care credit. The RETURN amounted to $3,800. My colleague, in passing, asked the guy where the guy's kids went to school, and the guy rattled off a school in Mexico. My colleague then told the guy that he couldn't get the credits for the kids if they lived in Mexico....and readjusted the return which then turned out to him owing $100. The guy got up, and actually went to another location of the franchise and got his $3800 credit, and my colleague got chewed out by the supervisor, as it was not his place to verify any information, and they were only in the biz of doing the actual return.

Whoa.