Tom Tancredo Hired Illegal Laborers to Renovate His McMansion

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Colorado, where Tancredo is from, has around 150,000 illegals. Around, what, a scant 3% of the population? They may indeed be depressing wages*, but it hardly follows from that either that 1) absent the illegal immigrants, all of those jobs would go to law-abiding Americans (the businesses shutting down is a viable option) or 2) that illegal immigration is a major contributing cause to whatever economic woes are going on.

*This is disputable in some industries. C.'s employers recently fired someone whose papers bounced, but hiring him had no effect on the competitive market wage because he wasn't hired under the table. Construction, child care, and agriculture are intentionally under-regulated industries; if I hire someone to babysit my kids or mow my lawn or paint my house on a short term basis, I'm not required to check for papers. The fudge factor is all in 'short term.'

The free market drives the need for cheap labor, and the potential 'good' of a free market depends on the free flow of goods and services. To me, it seems that the free market proponents (which I'm assuming Tancredo adheres to) can't see the forest for the trees. The first politician who says he's for protecting American jobs by revamping our trade policies along with our immigration and energy policies will have my full attention. But I've already surrendered to the idea that we cannot suddenly embrace Protectionism...we're too immersed into a global interdependency with foreign markets.

How does coddling law breakers and making excuses for illegals make you different from free-traders?

You support an employers greed and exploitation, you just do it from the other side of the coin by couching it in terms such as "hard working", "only looking for opportunity", "wanting a better life". So, who's giving it to them except free-traders? You support open borders and free trade yourself, whether you know it or not.

How deep is your forest, Steven?

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

I asked first. I put out other issues around this issue that you choose to ignore. You told me you're not myopic, so stop stalling and give it up. I am particularly interested in how you would address those 70 men who lost their jobs to illegals in Louisana after Katrina (see the article I posted). Pretend I am one of them and tell me how legalizing law breakers gives me an advantage in the economic sphere. Come on, you must have thought this day would come.

Waiting . . .

I've stated my position on immigration time and time again. Make immigration easy and simple....allow the free flow of goods and labor into this country and out of this country provided we have in place fair trade policies and reasonable labor laws. But see, I'm not the one b!tching about illegals this...illegals that every friggin minute of the day like a parrot on crack. That's the myopic part, sister. In the scope of the larger economic issues, this pales, PALES in comparison...to our energy policy, our trade policies, our foreign policies (particular the cost of war in Iraq). Myopia is a dreadful disease.

Colorado, where Tancredo is from, has around 150,000 illegals. Around, what, a scant 3% of the population? They may indeed be depressing wages*, but it hardly follows from that either that 1) absent the illegal immigrants, all of those jobs would go to law-abiding Americans (the businesses shutting down is a viable option) or 2) that illegal immigration is a major contributing cause to whatever economic woes are going on.

*This is disputable in some industries. C.'s employers recently fired someone whose papers bounced, but hiring him had no effect on the competitive market wage because he wasn't hired under the table. Construction, child care, and agriculture are intentionally under-regulated industries; if I hire someone to babysit my kids or mow my lawn or paint my house on a short term basis, I'm not required to check for papers. The fudge factor is all in 'short term.'

The free market drives the need for cheap labor, and the potential 'good' of a free market depends on the free flow of goods and services. To me, it seems that the free market proponents (which I'm assuming Tancredo adheres to) can't see the forest for the trees. The first politician who says he's for protecting American jobs by revamping our trade policies along with our immigration and energy policies will have my full attention. But I've already surrendered to the idea that we cannot suddenly embrace Protectionism...we're too immersed into a global interdependency with foreign markets.

How does coddling law breakers and making excuses for illegals make you different from free-traders?

You support an employers greed and exploitation, you just do it from the other side of the coin by couching it in terms such as "hard working", "only looking for opportunity", "wanting a better life". So, who's giving it to them except free-traders? You support open borders and free trade yourself, whether you know it or not.

How deep is your forest, Steven?

Do you espouse having a free market? Do you know what laissez-faire means?

Edited December 1, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[mawilson 2,133]

Do you espouse having a free market? Do you know what laissez-faire means?

Not a global free market -- of course not!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I've stated my position on immigration time and time again. Make immigration easy and simple....allow the free flow of goods and labor into this country and out of this country provided we have in place fair trade policies and reasonable labor laws. But see, I'm not the one b!tching about illegals this...illegals that every friggin minute of the day like a parrot on crack. That's the myopic part, sister. In the scope of the larger economic issues, this pales, PALES in comparison...to our energy policy, our trade policies, our foreign policies (particular the cost of war in Iraq). Myopia is a dreadful disease.

I hate to inform you, Steven, but you have a dreadful disease. I know I'm correct in stating that your handle has been the OP on many, if not most, of the threads about illegal immigration, including this one. Just because you're not bithcing about illegals, but loving them up instead doesn't make you any less myopic than you accuse others of being.

You're an illegal lover on crack.

And, for your information, you can't support open borders anarchy - your version of "simple and easy" - without consceding to the fact that you then tip the scales as far as culture, politics, economics, the environment, energy and foreign policy goes. All you want to do is bend over.

It took decades to convince even the few here now that energy, the environment, gender relations, race-relations, and a myriad of social issues needed to be reformed within the historical context of this nation, even then, had only a modicum of cohesion due to a recent past of segregation, foreign intervention and exclusionary immigration policies. Now, you want to throw oen the doors, to hell with legality. Let's see how fast all of your liberal social positions will fall to new crop of conservative voters who are not nearly as liberal as you are, bless their hearts. Maybe then, you will spend more time talking with people who don't think like you, and that would be a good thing!

Still nothing about the impact of illegal workers on minority Americans, and what you would say to those 70 men.

But then, who expected anything other than red herrings when you're asked the hard questions?

Edited December 1, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Do you espouse having a free market? Do you know what laissez-faire means?

I smell red herrings.

[Peikko 1,575]

Illegal workers were employed in the construction/conversion of Mr. Tancredo's mansion.

The question is how did that happen?

Did he know that they were illegal but didn't care?

Did he not know, but also didn't care?

Did he not know, having taken every reasonable precaution to avoid it happening?

I have no particular interest in the real truth to be honest, I simply find politicians a hapless lot who are more often than not caught with their pants down.

However, some people have a vested interest in his having lilly white hands on this issue. The fact that is if he was either foolish (knowing that there is a big problem with illegal immigrants in the construction industry) or he was decieptful.

The other scenario is that he was duped by some unscrupulous contractor who was 'out to get him' because of his stand on immigration. Quite honestly, this latter scenario is very hard to swallow.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I have no answers to any of those questions and neither do you. I am also not invested in what happened to Tom. I am, however, interested in whether those who accuse him can solidly support their liberal positions in regards to illegal immigration, which is the real issue in this thread. It is clear that they have no cohesive arguments, no forward thinking scenarios, no compassion for poor Americans who are losing their job to open border beneficiaries, and lots in common with corrupt employers. They also have no concept of the fact that people don't just come here to work, they come here to live, and by living here without being vetted, change the fabric of this nation in ways impossible to predict.

To hell with low-income Americans! Up with laissez-faire capitalism! I can't tell the players without a score card.

Edited December 1, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[Peikko 1,575]

Today Green-eyed girl, 02:41 PM however, interested in whether those who accuse him can solidly support their liberal positions in regards to illegal immigration, which is the real issue in this thread.

It may be what you think this thread is about but I was just curious how someone in his position, with his views, could get into this position.

They aslo have no concept of the fact that people don't just come here to work, they come here to live, and by living here, change the fabric of this nation.

Of course the complexion of a nation changes, it changes with every birth and death. So what? You think by stopping illegal immigration you're going to hang on to some 'idyll' of what you believe America should be? Good luck with that one. Personally, I rather like multicultural diversity.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Today Green-eyed girl, 02:41 PM however, interested in whether those who accuse him can solidly support their liberal positions in regards to illegal immigration, which is the real issue in this thread.

It may be what you think this thread is about but I was just curious how someone in his position, with his views, could get into this position.

They aslo have no concept of the fact that people don't just come here to work, they come here to live, and by living here, change the fabric of this nation.

Of course the complexion of a nation changes, it changes with every birth and death. So what? You think by stopping illegal immigration you're going to hang on to some 'idyll' of what you believe America should be? Good luck with that one. Personally, I rather like multicultural diversity.

This thread is only about Tom Tancredo because of his positions on illegal immigration. I don't find it at all strange that this could happen to him in 2001. What was there to stop it? That is part of the problem.

When I contract work on my homes, I make it clear that I want only legals, but how can I tell that they are legal? You have made the argument that employers can't tell, even when presented papers. How do expect anyone else to tell? Perhaps this experience helped to galvanize Tom's position on illegals because we have no consistant way to tell who is here legally. I know it has mine.

BTW, are you in favor of the Real ID act? If not, why not?

I don't have an "iydll" of what America should be. I'm the child of legal immigrants and most definitely from a multi-cultural background. I'm not white, I speak several languages, and have lived on 3 continents. I was married to a Christian for nearly 30 years. I walk the walk of multi-culturalism, but supporting multi-culturalism alone is no reason to be pro-open borders and pro-illegal.

Edited December 1, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

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

I have no answers to any of those questions and neither do you. I am also not invested in what happened to Tom. I am, however, interested in whether those who accuse him can solidly support their liberal positions in regards to illegal immigration, which is the real issue in this thread. It is clear that they have no cohesive arguments, no forward thinking scenarios, no compassion for poor Americans who are losing their job to open border beneficiaries, and lots in common with corrupt employers. They also have no concept of the fact that people don't just come here to work, they come here to live, and by living here without being vetted, change the fabric of this nation in ways impossible to predict.

To hell with low-income Americans! Up with laissez-faire capitalism! I can't tell the players without a score card.

But say nothing of our current trade policies or energy policies that are part of the our larger economic issues. Policies which your political ideology support. Myopia at its worst.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I have no answers to any of those questions and neither do you. I am also not invested in what happened to Tom. I am, however, interested in whether those who accuse him can solidly support their liberal positions in regards to illegal immigration, which is the real issue in this thread. It is clear that they have no cohesive arguments, no forward thinking scenarios, no compassion for poor Americans who are losing their job to open border beneficiaries, and lots in common with corrupt employers. They also have no concept of the fact that people don't just come here to work, they come here to live, and by living here without being vetted, change the fabric of this nation in ways impossible to predict.

To hell with low-income Americans! Up with laissez-faire capitalism! I can't tell the players without a score card.

But say nothing of our current trade policies or energy policies that are part of the our larger economic issues. Policies which your political ideology support. Myopia at its worst.

I haven't stated my position, and you should not assume what I think just because you also assume my political ideology. I don't believe you have much of an idea about where I stand re ecnomic policy. You're the "can't see the forest for the trees" free trader, illegal lover, and corrupt employer supporter. How's that orgy workin' for ya?

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what advantages low-income American workers have over illegals when it comes to rebuilding New Orleans. Lay some of your macroecomic theory on me.

Do you have any idea?

Edited December 1, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[Peikko 1,575]

but supporting multi-culturalism alone is no reason to be pro-open borders and pro-illegal.

I didn't say it does or should. I didn't introduce the point, you did. I merely stated that no amount of immigration stringency is going to preserve the status quo of the nation's fabric were the nation's fabric to be it's cultural identity.

Edited December 1, 2007 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Sofiyya 1,687]

but supporting multi-culturalism alone is no reason to be pro-open borders and pro-illegal.

I didn't say it does or should. I didn't introduce the point, you did. I merely stated that no amount of immigration stringency is going to preserve the status quo of the nation's fabric were the nation's fabric to be it's cultural identity.

My point is not about preserving the cultural status quo nor is it "immigration stridency". It's about having a workable and enforced LEGAL immigration policy that allows this sovereign nation to determine who gets in and who doesn't. Such a policy does not make excuses for law breaking aliens to save a buck or enrich businesses who take an unfair advantage over those who follow the law.

Typo - I've lived on 4 continents, not 3.

Edited December 1, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

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

I have no answers to any of those questions and neither do you. I am also not invested in what happened to Tom. I am, however, interested in whether those who accuse him can solidly support their liberal positions in regards to illegal immigration, which is the real issue in this thread. It is clear that they have no cohesive arguments, no forward thinking scenarios, no compassion for poor Americans who are losing their job to open border beneficiaries, and lots in common with corrupt employers. They also have no concept of the fact that people don't just come here to work, they come here to live, and by living here without being vetted, change the fabric of this nation in ways impossible to predict.

To hell with low-income Americans! Up with laissez-faire capitalism! I can't tell the players without a score card.

But say nothing of our current trade policies or energy policies that are part of the our larger economic issues. Policies which your political ideology support. Myopia at its worst.

I haven't stated my position, and you should not assume what I think just because you also assume my political ideology. I don't believe you have much of an idea about where I stand re ecnomic policy. You're the "can't see the forest for the trees" free trader, illegal lover, and corrupt employer supporter. How's that orgy workin' for ya?

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what advantages low-income American workers have over illegals when it comes to rebuilding New Orleans. Lay some of your macroecomic theory on me.

Do you have any idea?

Coming from working under several unions, I used to be all for protecting American jobs. I have since surrendered to the reality that we are immersed in a global market that is based on the laissez-faire principles of economics. The so-called 'conservative', laissez-faire philosophy on economics has won out. We passed NAFTA, we have the WTO. If you think that these policies which your ilk fought hard to have implemented were designed to protect American jobs, I've got a rock to sell you. This is what you (anti-unionists) wanted.

What's your solution? Or more importantly, what kind of economic philosophy do you espouse to?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Coming from working under several unions, I used to be all for protecting American jobs. I have since surrendered to the reality that we are immersed in a global market that is based on the laissez-faire principles of economics. The so-called 'conservative', laissez-faire philosophy on economics has won out. We passed NAFTA, we have the WTO. If you think that these policies which your ilk fought hard to have implemented were designed to protect American jobs, I've got a rock to sell you. This is what you (anti-unionists) wanted.

What's your solution? Or more importantly, what kind of economic philosophy do you espouse to?

So, what you would tell those 70 men is "Too bad, so sad. Bend over like I have."

What you have posted - roll over, give up - is not a solution, Steven. And you may feel high and mighty speaking of those who supported NAFTA, WTO and were anti-union, as "my ilk", as if you know me, but, FYI, you don't know me. I worked against both NAFTA and the WTO, and more. And I am not anti-union. You, however, become incredibly presumptuous, arrogant, and judgmental when losing an argument.

Apparently being a conservative and being anti-illegal alien gives you the impression that you can associate me with a lot of your own demons, but that's not how it works. Because I was an adult when many of the policies in place now were offered, I had the opportunity to study them and support or oppose them. I didn't just accept them. And because I was paying attention, I have seen the changes and, ironically, the laissez-faire attitude that young liberals have embraced as a means of escaping their responsibilities to their heritage.

I'm not going to fall back on my heels and let the rape proceed, as you have already done. You can drink as much of that kool-aid as you want, but do not presume that you can tell me that because you are a quitter, everyone who isn't has something wrong with them.

I don't need to tell you about my economic positions. You can make them up yourself, as you have done so much about me.

Edited December 2, 2007 by Green-eyed girl