Tom Tancredo Hired Illegal Laborers to Renovate His McMansion

[Caladan 19]

Unlikely, as a sociological explanation. I think the claim that much of the anti-illegal side is obsessed with brown skin is that if you scratch the facade of someone pretending to care just about immigration status, about 90% of the time, you get someone who doesn't know anything about immigration law (cf., Dobbs, I believe, interviewing Giuliani, or "why don't you just marry your fiancee and bring her here if the visa process is so hard" types) but screeches about Mexicans and retreats to a bunch of stereotypes about gatecrashers, criminals, mariachi bands, &c.

I should add that VJ is actually marginally better in this respect than the general public.

Edited December 1, 2007 by Caladan

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Unlikely, as a sociological explanation. I think the claim that much of the anti-illegal side is obsessed with brown skin is that if you scratch the facade of someone pretending to care just about immigration status, about 90% of the time, you get someone who doesn't know anything about immigration law (cf., Dobbs, I believe, interviewing Giuliani, or "why don't you just marry your fiancee and bring her here if the visa process is so hard" types) but screeches about Mexicans and retreats to a bunch of stereotypes about gatecrashers, criminals, mariachi bands, &c.

I should add that VJ is actually marginally better in this respect than the general public.

If you scratch the surface of illegal lovers, you will find people who don't know anything about economics and are less than forward thinking. They FEEL, thinking is an afterthought. What they feel rules them, and if it feels bad to be anti-illegal immigration, that is all they want to know.

I understand immigration, I think, and I am anti-illegal immigrant.

PS - When I see illegal lovers whining and crying about the bad breaks given to legal minorites, blacks and browns, who are losing jobs to illegals, FEELING bad about them, then we will have made a break through.

Edited December 1, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[Caladan 19]

I understand immigration, I think, and I conclude that deporting 12 million people, using the annual budget and rate of deportation of ICE as a guide, is not a feasible solution, politically or economically. I understand immigration, I think, and I see that many of the immigration violations that give conservatives the vapors aren't even criminal offenses, leading me to conclude that outrage, outrage, outrage is either an irrational response or stemming from something else.

I have neither whined nor cried. My motivations for amnesty aren't bleeding heart. I'm not for open borders, just against stupid legislation proposed in this case by a guy who thinks that we need a legal immigration freeze who can't figure out that construction is an industry where there is a lot of illegal work.

Edited December 1, 2007 by Caladan

[Sofiyya 1,687]

What amazes me, and will continue to amaze me, is people who this doesn't impact negatively cannot see what it does to those who it does impact negatively. To you, insulated as you are, it is a minor matter - pooh pooh. You can afford to champion illegals and turn your back on the problem. I refuse that luxury.

So, one guy, Tom Tancredo, is the source of your accomodation of illegals?

Edited December 1, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes, I did make an assumption, I assumed that the only way he could have ended up employing illegal immigrants (via his contractors) is if he chose to pay less for his construction work than what would be a reasonable amount to pay for legal contstruction workers.

The only other possible explanation is that the contractor made a larger than normal profit by charging him rates that one would expect to pay for legal workers and then using illegals.

Of the two, I would bet on the former, but of course I don't know.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Yes, I did make an assumption, I assumed that the only way he could have ended up employing illegal immigrants (via his contractors) is if he chose to pay less for his construction work than what would be a reasonable amount to pay for legal contstruction workers.

The only other possible explanation is that the contractor made a larger than normal profit by charging him rates that one would expect to pay for legal workers and then using illegals.

Of the two, I would bet on the former, but of course I don't know.

Ok, well, thanks for admitting that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Feelings, nothing more than feelings . . .

[Peikko 1,575]

Drawing reasonable conclusions from presented evidence is only feelings?

Maybe it's time we got rid of the jury system then?

[Caladan 19]

What amazes me, and will continue to amaze me, is people who this doesn't impact negatively cannot see what it does to those who it does impact negatively. To you, insulated as you are, it is a minor matter - pooh pooh. You can afford to champion illegals and turn your back on the problem. I refuse that luxury.

Down with the homies in the mansions...

Just as a datapoint, the area I live in has a relatively high proportion of illegal immigration. Restaurant workers & construction workers, mostly. The problems in the community here have far more to do with the factories closing down and the university as the center of employment than they do illegals, because the problems started before most of them were here. It's a minor matter because it's not the real problem here. We could deport them all tomorrow and what you'd mostly see is a string of abandoned shops, not sudden economic plenitude.

What amazes me, and will continue to amaze me, is people who this doesn't impact negatively cannot see what it does to those who it does impact negatively. To you, insulated as you are, it is a minor matter - pooh pooh. You can afford to champion illegals and turn your back on the problem. I refuse that luxury.

So, one guy, Tom Tancredo, is the source of your accomodation of illegals?

No, non-workable solutions are. Tancredo just happened to be the subject of this thread, and a symptom of a problem, i.e., people acting emotionally about immigration rather than thinking about the logistics of deporting 12 million.

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

What amazes me, and will continue to amaze me, is people who this doesn't impact negatively cannot see what it does to those who it does impact negatively. To you, insulated as you are, it is a minor matter - pooh pooh. You can afford to champion illegals and turn your back on the problem. I refuse that luxury.

So, one guy, Tom Tancredo, is the source of your accomodation of illegals?

There are a lot of things affecting each and everyone of us negatively, just in terms of governmental policy or lack of... our energy policy, our trade policies....I could go on and on. It's really a matter of perspective, which is what Caladan is pointing out. If, think about this...if all those who are here illegally (and remember nearly half of them are overstayed visas), had gone through the legal channels, how would that have any impact on what you deem as an economic negative? In other words, is our immigration policy designed in such a way that its purpose is to protect our economic interests? Because our trade policies sure don't. The criticism that Caladan and many others here keep trying to point out is that you and many others here are so myopically focused on one single issue of a larger problem. If we could just magically snap our fingers and make all people that are in this country illlegally disappear, the larger problems with our economic policies will not go away.

Edited December 1, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Drawing reasonable conclusions from presented evidence is only feelings?

Maybe it's time we got rid of the jury system then?

Ok, so now you're not knowing anything about jury trials either.

[Dan J 277]

What amazes me, and will continue to amaze me, is people who this doesn't impact negatively cannot see what it does to those who it does impact negatively. To you, insulated as you are, it is a minor matter - pooh pooh. You can afford to champion illegals and turn your back on the problem. I refuse that luxury.

So, one guy, Tom Tancredo, is the source of your accomodation of illegals?

There are a lot of things affecting each and everyone of us negatively, just in terms of governmental policy or lack of... our energy policy, our trade policies....I could go on and on. It's really a matter of perspective, which is what Caladan is pointing out. If, think about this...if all those who are here illegally (and remember nearly half of them are overstayed visas), had gone through the legal channels, how would that have any impact on what you deem as an economic negative? In other words, is our immigration policy designed in such a way that its purpose is to protect our economic interests? Because our trade policies sure don't. The criticism that Caladan and many others here keep trying to point out is that you and many others here are so myopically focused on one single issue of a larger problem. If we could just magically snap our fingers and make all people that are in this country illlegally disappear, the larger problems with our economic policies will not go away.

Illegal immigration is a scapegoat for larger economic issues.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

What amazes me, and will continue to amaze me, is people who this doesn't impact negatively cannot see what it does to those who it does impact negatively. To you, insulated as you are, it is a minor matter - pooh pooh. You can afford to champion illegals and turn your back on the problem. I refuse that luxury.

Down with the homies in the mansions...

Just as a datapoint, the area I live in has a relatively high proportion of illegal immigration. Restaurant workers & construction workers, mostly. The problems in the community here have far more to do with the factories closing down and the university as the center of employment than they do illegals, because the problems started before most of them were here. It's a minor matter because it's not the real problem here. We could deport them all tomorrow and what you'd mostly see is a string of abandoned shops, not sudden economic plenitude.

Here? It's all about where you live? No, it's not. Because it doesn't affect you negatively where you live is no reason for the rest of us who see a problem to see things your way.

What amazes me, and will continue to amaze me, is people who this doesn't impact negatively cannot see what it does to those who it does impact negatively. To you, insulated as you are, it is a minor matter - pooh pooh. You can afford to champion illegals and turn your back on the problem. I refuse that luxury.

So, one guy, Tom Tancredo, is the source of your accomodation of illegals?

No, non-workable solutions are. Tancredo just happened to be the subject of this thread, and a symptom of a problem, i.e., people acting emotionally about immigration rather than thinking about the logistics of deporting 12 million.

The solutions are not workable because the illegal lovers and the corrupt employers and Mexico appeasers are in the same bed having an orgy. Tancredo is not a symptom of the problem. Apathetic, it doesn't bother me types are.

What amazes me, and will continue to amaze me, is people who this doesn't impact negatively cannot see what it does to those who it does impact negatively. To you, insulated as you are, it is a minor matter - pooh pooh. You can afford to champion illegals and turn your back on the problem. I refuse that luxury.

So, one guy, Tom Tancredo, is the source of your accomodation of illegals?

There are a lot of things affecting each and everyone of us negatively, just in terms of governmental policy or lack of... our energy policy, our trade policies....I could go on and on. It's really a matter of perspective, which is what Caladan is pointing out. If, think about this...if all those who are here illegally (and remember nearly half of them are overstayed visas), had gone through the legal channels, how would that have any impact on what you deem as an economic negative? In other words, is our immigration policy designed in such a way that its purpose is to protect our economic interests? Because our trade policies sure don't. The criticism that Caladan and many others here keep trying to point out is that you and many others here are so myopically focused on one single issue of a larger problem. If we could just magically snap our fingers and make all people that are in this country illlegally disappear, the larger problems with our economic policies will not go away.

Illegal immigration is a scapegoat for larger economic issues.

Not a scapegoat, a solid part of the larger economic issues.

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

What amazes me, and will continue to amaze me, is people who this doesn't impact negatively cannot see what it does to those who it does impact negatively. To you, insulated as you are, it is a minor matter - pooh pooh. You can afford to champion illegals and turn your back on the problem. I refuse that luxury.

So, one guy, Tom Tancredo, is the source of your accomodation of illegals?

There are a lot of things affecting each and everyone of us negatively, just in terms of governmental policy or lack of... our energy policy, our trade policies....I could go on and on. It's really a matter of perspective, which is what Caladan is pointing out. If, think about this...if all those who are here illegally (and remember nearly half of them are overstayed visas), had gone through the legal channels, how would that have any impact on what you deem as an economic negative? In other words, is our immigration policy designed in such a way that its purpose is to protect our economic interests? Because our trade policies sure don't. The criticism that Caladan and many others here keep trying to point out is that you and many others here are so myopically focused on one single issue of a larger problem. If we could just magically snap our fingers and make all people that are in this country illlegally disappear, the larger problems with our economic policies will not go away.

Illegal immigration is a scapegoat for larger economic issues.

That's the conclusion that I've come to and I think many others who don't get caught up with the emotions of it.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

What amazes me, and will continue to amaze me, is people who this doesn't impact negatively cannot see what it does to those who it does impact negatively. To you, insulated as you are, it is a minor matter - pooh pooh. You can afford to champion illegals and turn your back on the problem. I refuse that luxury.

So, one guy, Tom Tancredo, is the source of your accomodation of illegals?

There are a lot of things affecting each and everyone of us negatively, just in terms of governmental policy or lack of... our energy policy, our trade policies....I could go on and on. It's really a matter of perspective, which is what Caladan is pointing out. If, think about this...if all those who are here illegally (and remember nearly half of them are overstayed visas), had gone through the legal channels, how would that have any impact on what you deem as an economic negative? In other words, is our immigration policy designed in such a way that its purpose is to protect our economic interests? Because our trade policies sure don't. The criticism that Caladan and many others here keep trying to point out is that you and many others here are so myopically focused on one single issue of a larger problem. If we could just magically snap our fingers and make all people that are in this country illlegally disappear, the larger problems with our economic policies will not go away.

I'm 54 years old, Steven, and I've been paying attention most of that time to economic issues, large and small. You don't know the half of it, and it is you and those who support illegals who are myopic, not I. It's been a slow, incremental progression that you don't see how it started, and that's why you can't see where it's going.

If you think the problem is economics, how does supporting illegal immigration change policy to the advantage of Americans and legal immigrants? How does it benefit low income minorities? Point that out to me since you believe you know better in your criticism of me

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

What amazes me, and will continue to amaze me, is people who this doesn't impact negatively cannot see what it does to those who it does impact negatively. To you, insulated as you are, it is a minor matter - pooh pooh. You can afford to champion illegals and turn your back on the problem. I refuse that luxury.

So, one guy, Tom Tancredo, is the source of your accomodation of illegals?

There are a lot of things affecting each and everyone of us negatively, just in terms of governmental policy or lack of... our energy policy, our trade policies....I could go on and on. It's really a matter of perspective, which is what Caladan is pointing out. If, think about this...if all those who are here illegally (and remember nearly half of them are overstayed visas), had gone through the legal channels, how would that have any impact on what you deem as an economic negative? In other words, is our immigration policy designed in such a way that its purpose is to protect our economic interests? Because our trade policies sure don't. The criticism that Caladan and many others here keep trying to point out is that you and many others here are so myopically focused on one single issue of a larger problem. If we could just magically snap our fingers and make all people that are in this country illlegally disappear, the larger problems with our economic policies will not go away.

I'm 54 years old, Steven, and I've been paying attention most of that time to economic issues, large and small. You don't know the half of it, and it is you and those who support illegals who are myopic, not I. It's been a slow, incremental progression that you don't see how it started, and that's why you can't see where it's going.

If you think the problem is economics, how does supporting illegal immigration change policy to the advantage of Americans and legal immigrants? How does it benefit low income minorities? Point that out to me since you believe you know better in your criticism of me

You claimed that the mere presence of illegal immigrants in this country is effecting many Americans negatively...I'm assuming you meant on economic level, no? So how would changing their status to legal change that? Do you follow me?