Tom Tancredo No Longer Supports Rand

[anaconda]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...-paul-immigration_n_2935485.html#slide=834436

Tom Tancredo Bashes Rand Paul For Immigration Stance, Sticks To 'Self-Deport' Strategy

The Huffington Post | By Elise Foley Posted: 03/22/2013 5:45 pm EDT | Updated: 03/22/2013 6:09 pm EDT

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), who has devoted much of his career to advocating for stricter immigration enforcement, disavowed Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Friday for supporting reform -- and for speaking Spanish when he did so.

"Rand Paul began his speech in Spanish and it went downhill from there," he wrote in an op-ed titled "Why I No Longer Stand with Rand Paul" for The Christian Post. "His speech was filled with virtually every single discredited pro-amnesty cliché you could imagine."

Paul gave a speech to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday outlining his plan for immigration reform, which would include allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States, work legally, and eventually become citizens. He also called for increased border enforcement and has rejected the claims that his proposal should be considered "amnesty" or even a "pathway to citizenship."

Tancredo, though, was quick to apply that label and said he no longer supports Paul, despite previously endorsing him. He argued that Paul was wrong to imply that the two options are either legalization or deporting the entire undocumented population.

"The problem is that not one congressman or major commentator has called for deporting all 12 million illegal immigrants," he wrote. "Rather, we argue that strict enforcement of employer sanctions and allowing local police to cooperate in immigration enforcement will encourage most illegals to, in Mitt Romney's words, 'self-deport.'"

Of course, the "self-deport" strategy didn't work well for Romney, the failed 2012 GOP presidential nominee whose rhetoric on immigration is considered part of the reason for his dismal showing among Latino voters. Most Republicans, including the Republican National Committee as a whole, have rejected the "self-deport" language and other statements that they believe alienated Latinos.

Tancredo said it could be people like Paul who are alienating Latinos.

"Rand Paul said that the only reason why the GOP is losing the Hispanic vote is because we have turned them off with 'harsh rhetoric over immigration,'" Tancredo wrote. "Paul doesn't give a single example of what that 'harsh rhetoric' was. Presumably it could have included his pre-flip flop position on immigration."

Latinos are likely to be supportive of the senator's shift: Polling consistently shows that most Latino voters support comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Tancredo left Congress in 2009, after failing in his efforts to establish English as the official national language and to put a moratorium on almost all legal immigration until the undocumented population significantly decreased. He made a failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, when he focused largely on the issue of immigration and ran an ad in Iowa graphically depicting a terrorist attack that he said could happen because of the country's immigration policies.

Since then, he has continued to be a harsh critic of immigration enforcement efforts -- including Arizona's contested SB 1070 law -- and has vowed this year to do what he can to advocate against comprehensive reform packages being shaped in Congress.

Tancredo has been similarly disappointed with an immigration reform framework put forward by the so-called "gang of eight" in the Senate. The group proposes that undocumented immigrants be legalized, then allowed to obtain green cards and eventual citizenship once certain border security requirements are met.

"[W]hat they offered represents the worst from both parties," he wrote of the group in a January Townhall op-ed. "The comprehensive immigration reform they offer reflects the tired scheme of amnesty and massive increases to legal immigration in exchange for vague promises of enforcement."

 

[compromise]

Original op-Ed:

In 2010, I endorsed Rand Paul for US Senate, and my Political Action Committee that supports anti-amnesty candidates contributed to and raised money for his campaign. Rand Paul's platform stated, "I do not support amnesty. Those who come here should respect our laws." He supported Arizona's SB 1070, opposed birthright citizenship, an "electronic fence" and stated, "our greatest national security threat is our lack of security at the border."
Now, I am regretting my endorsement and contribution to his campaign. Since Obama's reelection, Rand Paul has repeatedly waffled on immigration. In a speech before the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday, he completely flip-flopped.
Rand Paul began his speech in Spanish and it went downhill from there. His speech was filled with virtually every single discredited pro-amnesty cliché you could imagine. He said our conversation on immigration must begin "by acknowledging we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants." He said he opposed amnesty, but then went on to promote just that arguing "The solution doesn't have to be amnesty or deportation-a middle ground might be called probation where those who came illegally become legal through a probationary period."
The problem is that not one congressman or major commentator has called for deporting all 12 million illegal immigrants. Rather, we argue that strict enforcement of employer sanctions and allowing local police to cooperate in immigration enforcement will encourage most illegals to, in Mitt Romney's words, "self-deport."
Rand Paul's speech actually came out against E-Verify, which even John McCain and Barack Obama support. That's not the only way that Paul is softer than Obama on immigration. Both Obama and the Gang of 8 say that the illegal immigrants must pay a penalty for legal status, while Rand Paul told reporters after his speech he is not "not as a big a stickler" on these items, because the illegals would not be able to afford the fines.
Rand Paul said that Hispanics were "natural" Republicans who the GOP should be able to attract through "Defense of the unborn and defense of traditional marriage." In reality, according to exit polls after the 2012 election, whites opposed gay marriage 50-47%, while Hispanics supported gay marriage 59-32%. Moreover, Hispanics are twice as likely as whites to have abortions. This, along with the fact that Hispanics are more likely to support big government and describe themselves as politically liberal than whites is a major factor for why they vote Democratic.
Like us on Facebook
Instead, Rand Paul said that the only reason why the GOP is losing the Hispanic vote is because we have turned them off with "harsh rhetoric over immigration." Paul doesn't give a single example of what that "harsh rhetoric" was. Presumably it could have included his pre-flip flop position on immigration.
Rand Paul concluded his speech by quoting (in Spanish) the Chilean poet Pablo Neruda. Paul did not mention that Neruda served as a Senator for the Chilean Communist Party.
Rand Paul has poised himself as a GOP insurgent, but his stance on immigration is in line with the usual Democratic and RINO establishment. It's not surprising that Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer both praised Rand Paul's speech. I doubt the grassroots conservatives who elected Rand to Senate and whose support he expects if he runs for president in 2016 feel the same.
When I endorsed Rand Paul, I did not expect to agree with him on every issue. I respect people with strongly held beliefs regardless of what they are. Most importantly, I felt that I could trust him to maintain his campaign promises. I was wrong. Oh how I long for a Republican leader who exhibits true courage and integrity. That's the stuff leaders are made of. By endorsing the McCain-Obama immigration policy when it became politically expedient, Rand Paul has shown himself to be just another politician.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Am I strange that I don't care about this debate at all?

 

[jkr]

it matters because of banking & accounting philosophy that are incompatible

 

[Slutter McGee]

Nice to know who the idiots are.

Slutter McGee

 

[anaconda]

Am I strange that I don't care about this debate at all?

I hear ya, except I think Tancredo was kind of the Republican poster boy for the most intolerant stance on immigration. He built his whole 2008 primary around it. Sort of like Bachmann & Obamacare in 2012.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Is this Tom speaking on behalf of the Constitution Party?

 

[anaconda]

Paul doesn't give a single example of what that "harsh rhetoric" was.

"Deport yourself until further notice" might be an example.

 

[anaconda]

He supported Arizona's SB 1070, opposed birthright citizenship, an "electronic fence" and stated, "our greatest national security threat is our lack of security at the border."

Did Tom manage to miss the unique feature of Rand's proposal (border security first approved yearly by Congress)? And how it is completely consistent with his 2010 campaign platform for border security?

 

[anaconda]

People like Tancredo, that don't understand liberty, get very confused when a liberty proposal appears "left-wing." Immigrants are good for our country. Welfare for immigrants is not. Immigrant labor helps grow the economy, rather than "steal jobs." Recent attempts to label Rand a "moderate" are because they don't understand what a real conservative actually looks like. Reminds me of when Dick Morris called Ron Paul "the most left-wing radical to run for President in the last 50 years.."

 

[itshappening]

Do we have to get out his voting record ? I bet it's horrible, like him.

 

[erowe1]

Has Rand ever supported employer sanctions?

If not, then how does his current lack of support for them equal a flip flop?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Am I strange that I don't care about this debate at all?

I don't care particularly much but my inclination is toward immigration restrictions not really being justified as long as we aren't giving them welfare and private property owners aren't forbidden from discriminating against them (Well, or anyone else but different topic.)

People like Tancredo, that don't understand liberty, get very confused when a liberty proposal appears "left-wing." Immigrants are good for our country. Welfare for immigrants is not. Immigrant labor helps grow the economy, rather than "steal jobs." Recent attempts to label Rand a "moderate" are because they don't understand what a real conservative actually looks like. Reminds me of when Dick Morris called Ron Paul "the most left-wing radical to run for President in the last 50 years.."

+1.

 

[jmdrake]

Let's see. Tancredo consistently polled lower than Ron in 2008. Just sayin.

 

[juleswin]

I know it can be frustrating when guests to your house force you to bent their way. But Rand's position is the only one that would allow him to lose the least amount of support without losing himself.

Deporting 12 million people stance is now a losing fight and only an idiot will engage in a losing battle that is not a life or death one.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Who were the last three GOP presidential nominees? Bush, McCain and Romney...all soft on immigration.

Who were the big losers? People such as Tancredo.

 

[FrankRep]

Is this Tom speaking on behalf of the Constitution Party?

Tom Tancredo speaks for Tom Tancredo.

 

[fr33]

Tancredo's ancestors immigrated here illegally.

 

[fr33]

Every native nation refused to recognize US citizenship. Of course we know they killed off anybody willing to enforce such laws.

Using rhetoric like Tancredo's: Go back to Italy. That's where you belong you damn invader.

 

[Carson]

Yeah Tom Tancredo!


Self deportation seems all we've been left with unfortunately.

Here is my two-step plan.

We may have to kiss the keisters of the illegal invaders, it is still a felony to aid and abet them.

If some honest men and women in law enforcement, would go after the lowlifes in the government, business, and the general population that have been aiding and abetting them, by the time they had enough of a handle on the job to raise their heads and look around, I don’t think many illegal aliens would still be left.

We don't need any new laws to do this either. Just some honest men and women in law enforcement that take their oaths of office seriously!

Finding them is the first step!



Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(B)(ii)

"Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):
A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:
* assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or
* encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.