Spokesman: Tancredo doesn’t believe North American Union conspiracy theory

posted at 1:49 pm on November 30, 2006 by Allahpundit

This is going to break some hearts. Sorry, kids. Although if it’s any consolation, I think he’s lying through his teeth. Emphasis mine:

Today, I picked up the phone and buzzed Carlos Espinosa, Tanc’s media guy on the Hill and asked him about this story. He said that Tancredo’s comments were taken out of context and he specifically said that he Tom Tancredo did not believe in the North American Union conspiracy. Carlos then added that Tancredo, “believes Bush wants to open up the borders, but he doesn’t believe he wants to combine the US, Canada, and Mexico and create a unified currency.”

Taken out of context? Here’s how WND reported the original statement. Emphasis mine again:

Tancredo lashed out at the White House’s lack of action in securing U.S. borders, and said efforts to merge the U.S. with both Mexico and Canada is not a fantasy.

“I know this is dramatic – or maybe somebody would say overly dramatic – but I’m telling you, that everything I see leads me to believe that this whole idea of the North American Union, it’s not something that just is written about by right-wing fringe kooks. It is something in the head of the president of the United States, the president of Mexico, I think the prime minister of Canada buys into it. …

“And they would just tell you, ‘Well, sure, it’s a natural thing. It’s part of the great globalization … of the economy.’ They assume it’s a natural, evolutionary event that’s going to occur here. I hope they’re wrong and I’m going to try my best to make sure they’re wrong. But I’m telling you the tide is great. The tide is moving in their direction. We have to say that.”

Which context, precisely, was that bolded part taken out of? John Hawkins elaborates further by e-mail: “According to his media guy, he was just trying to make the point that things were kind of moving that way in general, not that he thought Bush was actually working on it.”

So Bush isn’t actually working on it … but it’s “something in [his] head”?

I think what we have here is a climbdown.

Meanwhile, the sniping between Tancredo and Jeb Bush continues. Tancredo fired back at Bush’s criticism of his comparison of Miami to a “Third World country” with a letter accusing Bush of being naive about immigration. To which Bush responded by calling Tancredo “a nut.” Stay tuned!

Update: Look what Slublog found on the ‘Net. IT’S ALL TRUE!

mexamca_thumb.jpg

northamericanunion.gif


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Why do a poll at all? Just have A-Man open up a thread where people post either “Yes” or “No.”

Slublog on December 1, 2006 at 3:45 PM

othing more to add, I just wanted to be the 200th post.

Valiant on December 1, 2006 at 3:54 PM

Er, Nothing- make that 201

Valiant on December 1, 2006 at 3:54 PM

If he is truly about illegal aliens and not immigrants in general, then he needs to make his position clear.

There is nothing racist about believing that immigration numbers are out of countrol. It’s common sense and backed up by facts. Tancredo has said absolutely nothing to indicate he wants NO immigration. He’s been clear that he wants common sense numbers, enforcement of our laws, and for immigrants to respect our laws and our culture. I don’t find anything racist about that.

No. LEGAL Hispanics wanted both enforcement and a Temporary Worker Program that allowed Mexicans to come here and work and then go back home. That possibility was continually shut down by the border enforcement only proponents.

I disagree. LEGAL Hispanics wanted border enforcement and LEGAL immigration. They are tired of jobs being taken away by Mexican citizens. You know? Those “jobs Americans won’t do” such as …

Construction
Roofing
Restaurant work

Hispanics that voted against Republicans on the immigration issue didn’t vote against Bush. Bush was not on the ballot.

If you don’t think the voting had anything to do with Bush … then this conversation is beyond hope.

That’s what they heard and they understood the Temporary Worker Program was NOT amnesty.

Nobody said the temporary worker program was amnesty. The AMNESTY is the remaining Bush plan which allows all illegals to remain in the country and apply for legal citizenship. THAT is amnesty. Get real!

Gregor on December 1, 2006 at 3:56 PM

Personally, I’d like to do that again. conservatives should agree on their immigration goals, then draft up a five or ten point list of policy proposals that will get us there.

Example:

1. Build a wall.
2. Remove the incentive to hire illegals.
3. Tighten up entitlement programs
and etc…

So would about 85% of Americans … and Bush knows that. The question here is why isn’t he doing it?

The differences in opinion here seems to be that some readers think the answer is that Bush is just too stupid to understand the problem which most 3rd graders can figure out … and the rest of us think it’s because he simply isn’t interested in securing the border at all because he wants to merge the societies and erase the borders.

Which is more believable, based on how obvious the solution is?

Gregor on December 1, 2006 at 4:02 PM

Tancredo presents himself as a racist because he does not separate himself from the anti-immigration crowd who clearly come off as racists.

It’s funny to see all this whining about all the supposed racism on the Tancredo side when it is the Bush allies who are clearly the flaming racists:

“We have an aging white America. They are dying. They are sh—– in their pants with fear! I love it! We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him!”

Jose Angel Gutierrez

– Jose Angel Gutierrez, political science professor at the University of Texas at Arlington, captured on videotape.

Perchant on December 1, 2006 at 4:08 PM

He’s a Bush ally?

Other than being at a state university where Bush was governor, how are he and Bush allied?

Slublog on December 1, 2006 at 4:13 PM

Tancredo presents himself as a racist because he does not separate himself from the anti-immigration crowd who clearly come off as racists.

For those who think believing there’s a problem with the current immigration numbers is racist … watch THIS if you haven’t already. And watch the whole thing.

As I said before … wanting immigration to be reduced to reasonable numbers is not racist. It’s common sense.

Gregor on December 1, 2006 at 4:18 PM

I get annoyed with the comments like this

In order to find a job today in Los Angeles you have to be bi-lingual in Spanish or forget about it.

that are made to sound so scary. So people are speaking Spanish? Lots of legal immigrants and American citizens born here speak Spanish.

If you comment about how horrible it is to here Spanish, I don’t feel like we have much in common on this issue.

Being upset about hearing Spanish is not the same as being frustrated that people aren’t learning English. And honestly, my frustration would be directed a lot more at the moonbats acting like the poor Hispanic kids can’t learn English than at people who haven’t learned a new language because they don’t have to.

MamaAJ on December 1, 2006 at 4:34 PM

Other than being at a state university where Bush was governor, how are he and Bush allied?

They are allies because they are on the same side of the issue. Both are opposed to enforcing our immigration laws and both share the same dream for a “New America”.

Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los
Angeles, Chicago, or West New York, New Jersey … and close your eyes and
listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago or San
Miguel de Allende. For years, our nation has debated this change – some have
praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made
a choice to welcome the New America.

Perchant on December 1, 2006 at 4:39 PM

So there’s no relationship between the two men, and you brought him up just to muddy the issue.

Got it.

Slublog on December 1, 2006 at 4:42 PM

If you are providing services in spanish to illegal aliens, you are making it easier and more attractive for them to come here illegally. If you hear Spanish everywhere, there is no impetus to learn English.

EF on December 1, 2006 at 4:46 PM

Texas Gal

Tancredo presents himself as a racist because he does not separate himself from the anti-immigration crowd who clearly come off as racists.

I suggest you read what he has said on this issue instead of your own perception, which is IMHO utterly false. Read the his book he just published called Mortal Danger where he clearly states he is not against Immigration in general but Illegal Immigration specifically. If you do not want to read his book, here are 3 websites that state his position or have links to his position; Congressman Tom Tancredo Website, Team America Website and The Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus.

Just which anti Illegal Immigration groups do you call racist?
Would that be the minutemen that GWB called vigilantes?

No. LEGAL Hispanics wanted both enforcement and a Temporary Worker Program that allowed Mexicans to come here and work and then go back home.

If you look at the exit polls you are wrong. Only about 30-40% of Hispanic voters agree with your statement. The vast majority want enforcement first, like the plan the House had proposed.

When Bush addressed the Nation on May 15th, he clarified his immigration plan and made a distinction between a Temporary Worker Program (as I described) and an Earned Citizenship program. That’s what they heard and they understood the Temporary Worker Program was NOT amnesty.

Bush’s plan is no different than the Senate Bill 2611 which is Amnesty on Steroids.

It is the most horrific bill imaginable because it is far worse than Amnesty. It includes giving Illegals SS, a guaranteed minimum wage and other rights not accorded Legal US Citizens.

What concerns me with your “ideas” is that you act as if the only goal is to make sure that the RNC does not offend Hispanics. This is nothing more than pandering. On top of that, you want a comprehensive immigration bill for votes and not on principal.

There is absolutely no reason to import a slave labor class into this country to satisfy corporate interests and pandering for the Hispanic Vote. It will create an underclass dependent on Welfare and other social programs costing taxpayers Billions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.

Tom Tancredo is not the only one observing that Miami has turned into a cesspool, the current issue of TIME magazine that describes Miami as a “corrupt, exorbitant mess” where locals are fleeing in droves, the Miami-Dade School District has a 45 percent graduation rate, and there are reports that the city has lost 20,000 residents each year and its growth depends on immigrants, both legal and illegal.

ScottyDog on December 1, 2006 at 4:48 PM

MamaAJ

I get annoyed with the comments like this

In order to find a job today in Los Angeles you have to be bi-lingual in Spanish or forget about it.

that are made to sound so scary. So people are speaking Spanish? Lots of legal immigrants and American citizens born here speak Spanish.

You missed my point entirely. People are being forced to speak Spanish to gain employment. In plain English, Americans are being forced to accommodate a whole group of people that refuse to assimilate.

Why should Americans be forced to press “1″ for English or be forced to be bi-lingual because a group of Illegal Aliens and Legal immigrants refuse to speak English.

The last time I checked, I did not have to press “1″ for German or “1″ for Japanese but in LA you have to press “1″ for English. Not only that, Spanish speaking students are provided translators in the LAUSD at a cost of over 40k a year so they can do their homework.

Previous immigrants to this country did not demand Americans speak their language.

ScottyDog on December 1, 2006 at 5:01 PM

So there’s no relationship between the two men, and you brought him up just to muddy the issue.

The issue is caked in mud. My intention is to turn a hose on it and expose what is underneath the mud.

By the way, I know you advocate incrementalism, sensitivity and not being impolitic but you have to admit that Mr. Gutierrez and those Aztlan parades last summer didn’t hurt the pro-illegal cause one bit. They have the politicians marching to their tune.

Instilling fear into politicians is the path to success on this issue. Tancredo and the Minutemen succeeded in instilling enough fear into enough politicians that there is no amnesty…yet.

Perchant on December 1, 2006 at 5:11 PM

Being *forced* to speak Spanish? That’s so over the top I don’t even know where to start responding.

If at any point in this country’s history you had opened a store in a neighborhood of recent immigrants, you wouldn’t last long if you made no effort to speak their language or hire people who did. It’s not a question of force, it’s giving your customers what they want! You don’t have to live where people speak a language other than English, you don’t have to take jobs that require it, etc.

What you say about the translators in the LAUSD sounds bad. I don’t know enough about it, but it sounds like typical crap from people more interested in creating jobs than helping kids. I’m against many of the stupid policies in LA and other places that are bad in the long term for immigrants, are costly as hell, and encourage people to break laws.

I see a big difference between people speaking Spanish–individuals or companies’ hiring–and official government policies that pander–or appear to–illegal immigrants.

And if you wanted to apply for a job running a sweat shop full of illegal Chinese immigrants, I bet you’d be required to speak Chinese.

MamaAJ on December 1, 2006 at 5:29 PM

You don’t have to live where people speak a language other than English, you don’t have to take jobs that require it, etc.

Really. I suggest you come to LA and try and find a City, County, State, or a large company job that does not require you to be bilingual in Spanish.

In addition, the Walmart a mile from my house now requires Bilingual employees because almost everyone working there is an Illegal Immigrant mostly from Mexico.

This is America and our language is English.

I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask that my country and the businesses in it speak English when conducting business.

BTW-Leo y hablo a español

ScottyDog on December 1, 2006 at 5:42 PM

Gregor:

Tancredo has said absolutely nothing to indicate he wants NO immigration. He’s been clear that he wants common sense numbers, enforcement of our laws, and for immigrants to respect our laws and our culture. I don’t find anything racist about that.

I myself have watched Tancredo being interviewed about enforcement of the border and have heard him interchange the use of the words illegals and immigrants. Every time he does it, I cringe. He only contributes to mudding the issue at hand which is illegal aliens NOT legal immigration.

I disagree. LEGAL Hispanics wanted border enforcement and LEGAL immigration. They are tired of jobs being taken away by Mexican citizens. You know? Those “jobs Americans won’t do” such as …
Construction
Roofing
Restaurant work

Granted my understanding is antidotal based on my own personal circle of friends and coworkers. They say they wanted LEGAL immigration in the form of a Temp Worker Program that would allow Mexicans to come here to work and return home as described by Bush in his May 15th Address.

If you don’t think the voting had anything to do with Bush … then this conversation is beyond hope.

I can see your point. It makes perfect sense that Hispanics who were against Bush’s “amnesty” and for border enforcement voted against the Republicans so they could usher in the Democrats who would be AGAINST amnesty and FOR border enforcement.
/sarcasm off

Nobody said the temporary worker program was amnesty. The AMNESTY is the remaining Bush plan which allows all illegals to remain in the country and apply for legal citizenship. THAT is amnesty. Get real!

Then why did the House refuse to include a Temp Worker Program? Actually nobody in the border enforcement only camp in the House even talked about a Temp Worker Program, they completely shut down any discussion of it and continued to talk about the Guest Worker Program and equated it to amnesty.

For those who think believing there’s a problem with the current immigration numbers is racist … watch THIS

For the record I said: the anti-immigration crowd who clearly come off as racists.
They come off as racists. That is the public perception. They too are not framing the debate in a manner that will gain public support.

ScottyDog

he clearly states he is not against Immigration in general but Illegal Immigration specifically.
Just which anti Illegal Immigration groups do you call racist?
Would that be the minutemen that GWB called vigilantes?

I refer you to my first statement. Tancredo interchanges the use of the words when he speaks on this issue.

I didn’t call them racists, I said they come off as racists.

If you look at the exit polls you are wrong. Only about 30-40% of Hispanic voters agree with your statement. The vast majority want enforcement first, like the plan the House had proposed.

The Temp Worker program was not polled. A pathway to citizenship is what was polled. And the fact that the election was so close and that 30-40% agree with the citizenship program clearly demonstrates that the House Republicans missed the opportunity to insert the Temp Worker Program in lieu of the Earned Citizenship Program.
When Bush addressed the Nation on May 15th, he clarified his immigration plan and made a distinction between a Temporary Worker Program (as I described) and an Earned Citizenship program. That’s what they heard and they understood the Temporary Worker Program was NOT amnesty. As a matter of fact, the exit poll on Earned Citizenship came in around 57% for by the general population. The overall Democrat vote was about 51%.

Bush’s plan is no different than the Senate Bill 2611 which is Amnesty on Steroids. It is the most horrific bill imaginable because it is far worse than Amnesty. It includes giving Illegals SS, a guaranteed minimum wage and other rights not accorded Legal US Citizens.

I suggest you read the transcript of his May 15th Address where he omitted the Guest Worker Program as he had originally proposed and included both a Temp Worker Program that allowed immigrants to come and work and return home (basically the Kyl/Cornyn Bill) and Earned Citizenship for those already here. So I disagree, the Earned Citizenship could be characterized as amnesty (which I didn’t support), but the Temp Worker Program was not. Bush shifted away from the McCain/Kennedy Bill and towards the Kyl/Cornyn Bill but the House was too stubborn. The fact that you don’t know the difference is enlightening.

What concerns me with your “ideas” is that you act as if the only goal is to make sure that the RNC does not offend Hispanics. This is nothing more than pandering. On top of that, you want a comprehensive immigration bill for votes and not on principal.

I beg your pardon, but you are being naive. Votes win elections. Those in control make the rules. There is more than illegal entry into our country at stake here.

I wanted a comprehensive immigration bill that addresses the problems. I didn’t support the earned citizenship and still don’t. I think we need to address other issues first and I think a Temp Worker Program might have helped get some of the illegals to go home and apply as well as help curtail some of the illegal traffic across the border.

Tom Tancredo is not the only one observing that Miami has turned into a cesspool, the current issue of TIME magazine

The point is that Tancredo is an elected official and a member of the Republican Party, Time Magazine is not. His comments are not useful and have no positive impact on the debate.

But after all, this is all water under the bridge anyway. Frankly, I think I’m going to get quite a bit of satisfaction from all whining that I’ll be seeing about the Democratic controlled Congress.

Texas Gal on December 1, 2006 at 6:01 PM

It makes perfect sense that Hispanics who were against Bush’s “amnesty” and for border enforcement voted against the Republicans so they could usher in the Democrats who would be AGAINST amnesty and FOR border enforcement.

You have obviously not been paying attention to this blog for the last few months. If so, you might have noticed all the conservatives who publicly advertised their intention to vote Democrat to PUNISH the GOP for not getting the fence built. You might not have paid attention to the polls which showed conservatives were fed up with the Bush administration’s lack of action. What’s the mystery here?

I myself spent hours on this blog desperately trying to convince these conservatives not to jump ship. Many of them obviously did. We didn’t lose the election because of Hispanics.

Then why did the House refuse to include a Temp Worker Program? Actually nobody in the border enforcement only camp in the House even talked about a Temp Worker Program

You mischaracterize the House bill. The sponsors of the House bill were clear that it was an “enforcement FIRST” bill. It was not an enforcement “ONLY” bill. They simply believe that our efforts need to be toward securing the border and enforcing our existing laws FIRST, before even considering a guest worker program. There was no discussion at all from the Bush people on enforcement. Just the usual dramatic Hollywood scenes such as sending the guard in – to stand there and look pretty, and to approve a fence bill – but no funding. It’s a joke and it’s on us.

For the record I said: the anti-immigration crowd who clearly come off as racists.

To Texas Gal, illegal aliens, and progressives they did. Yes. Not to the other 85% of the population which agreed with the House version of the bill.

They come off as racists. That is the public perception.

The public perception? Again …

Only to Texas Gal, illegal aliens, and progressives they did. Yes. Not to the other 85% of the population which agreed with the House version of the bill.

Gregor on December 1, 2006 at 6:25 PM

By the way, I know you advocate incrementalism, sensitivity and not being impolitic but you have to admit that Mr. Gutierrez and those Aztlan parades last summer didn’t hurt the pro-illegal cause one bit. They have the politicians marching to their tune.

Of course it didn’t help, and I don’t agree with those protestors at all, or the Mecha types.

However, your attempts to equate those of us who disagree with your approach to immigration and the Gutierrezes of the world is weak.

Slublog on December 1, 2006 at 6:35 PM

In addition, the Walmart a mile from my house now requires Bilingual employees because almost everyone working there is an Illegal Immigrant mostly from Mexico.

(I assume you mean everyone *shopping* there.)

I just see speaking Spanish and illegal immigration as separate! The Walmart here probably requires Spanish (English, I wouldn’t assume). I don’t think it’s because of illegals, I think it’s because of customers who speak Spanish.

I think that it’s really easy to mix the two together, esp. when you are living some place like LA that has so many illegals who can’t speak English. My mom tells me lots of horror stories from Tucson about crime and people driving without licenses, etc.

I live in Del Rio, TX. The city is 81% hispanic, according to Citydata.com. Lots of middle class Mexican Americans who speak Spanish and English. Lots who are first or second generation who speak Spanish more fluently than English.

I’m also 3rd generation Mexican American. (Which means I didn’t know “leo” meant “I read” til I looked it up!) I’m used to people speaking Spanish while having been born in this country.

It’s not about being politally correct, it’s about being clear and correct on what the issues are.

MamaAJ on December 1, 2006 at 6:49 PM

Well, lets try Bush’s plan. Its not like we did exactly this plan in the 80′s and are revisiting this now because nothing was done except the amnesty last time around. I’m sure the combination will work perfectly and we’ll get secure borders in exchange for some form of amnesty for those already here. I can’t see any problem with this, it’ll be fine.

*Psst, don’t worry, nobody knows enough history to know I’m wrong on all counts here; nobody remembers the ’80s so we’re safe doing this again. Leave it for 2020 to figure out*

gekkobear on December 1, 2006 at 6:52 PM

Oh, I found this about Del Rio:

Enforcement! What a concept!

The comments at the end by the immigration lawyer make me thump my head on my keyboard.

MamaAJ on December 1, 2006 at 6:58 PM

Being an active conservative, I received two direct mail pieces this week fundraising to stop th NAU. Most people are not aware of the ramnifications of Bush’s policies.

Valiant on December 1, 2006 at 6:59 PM

I’m sure the combination will work perfectly and we’ll get secure borders in exchange for some form of amnesty for those already here. I can’t see any problem with this, it’ll be fine.

Except for the fact that his plan not only gives a path of citizenship to all that are here illegally, but to all of their relatives currently in Mexico.

Except for the fact that his plan gives retroactive social security to illegal aliens who have never paid a dime into the system.

Except for the fact that his plan would REWARD every illegal alien for breaking our country’s laws in coming here, thereby spitting in the face of every legal immigrant who did it the correct way.

Gregor on December 1, 2006 at 7:01 PM

If so, you might have noticed all the conservatives who publicly advertised their intention to vote Democrat to PUNISH the GOP for not getting the fence built. You might not have paid attention to the polls which showed conservatives were fed up with the Bush administration’s lack of action. What’s the mystery here?

You mean to tell me that ALL the conservatives on this blog who voted Democrat to PUNISH the GOP are in effect now responsible for ushering in a Democratic controlled Congress that will not fund the fence they all fought so hard to get passed. What a hoot! And here I thought conservatives were … er … never mind.

Y’know Gregor, I’ve really enjoyed our discussion and it’s been every enlightening. An interesting exercise in how I say one thing and you hear another.

BTW, if 85% of the voters agreed with the Republican House, they’d still be in control.

Texas Gal on December 1, 2006 at 7:03 PM

*Psst, don’t worry, nobody knows enough history to know I’m wrong on all counts here; nobody remembers the ’80s so we’re safe doing this again. Leave it for 2020 to figure out*

I sure remember. I also remember pre 80s amnesty, enforcement was better. After amnesty, it just seemed to stop altogether. They sold the amnesty program by swearing up and down they were going to go after employers and levee huge fines and arrest those who violated the laws. What a joke! It was a huge lie and it was under Reagan.

EF on December 1, 2006 at 7:04 PM

“idea of a North American Union” vs “idea of a north american union”

Notice the difference? There is no basis in what he said for the the transcript to have it capitalized. Think about the distinction of what it means in the English language to have those words capitalized and that there is no basis for it and you have the explanation why this is not a conspiracy theory nor is it even wrong.

Resolute on December 1, 2006 at 7:39 PM

Considering that in Jan. of 06 Americans were intimidated to the point we thought twice before saying anything derogatory about illegal migration;That the contributions by Congressman Tancredo towards what has become a national movement to change the ‘immigration betrayal policies’ of our Government cannot be negated.
Remember that great strides have been achieved this year and also remember the circumstances from which we started.
I personally appreciate a Congressman who is and has been unfailingly on our side, for a change.

Speakup on December 1, 2006 at 7:47 PM

If a united North America (i.e. North American Union) comes about, what makes some of you think the outcome will have to be disastrous?

A successful merger would just as likely enhance the United States of America rather than diminish it. Do you think the center of government would shift to Ottawa or Mexico City? I see such a union forming more along the lines of the ancient Latin League, where Rome was the dominant power.

The combined territory, resources, and manpower of North America would only increase our dominance and power, and would usher in a golden age for Anglo-Hispanic culture, bringing our civilization to new heights in the arts and sciences. We would truly become the American Empire.

Mexico would be forced to reform its laws and address its corruption. Canada would be forced to assume a greater role in territorial defense. Migration would stabilize because wealth would be spread over a wider area. It would be much easier to secure our borders. Christianity would take a more prominent role. Liberty would spread.

Now…before I am accused of being a moon bat, let me add that I’m not advocating such a union. But with the dangers that Western Civilization faces today, I don’t see a united North American continent as out of the question, or even necessarily a bad thing (as long as the U.S. is the driving force): it might be the only choice before us if we care to preserve our civilization in the tumultuous times ahead.

I don’t have an opinion one way or another on the conspiracy possibilities. The idea of uniting the North American continent isn’t a new one though, and it isn’t an unlikely future reality.

zoyclem on December 1, 2006 at 8:03 PM

Considering that in Jan. of 06 Americans were intimidated to the point we thought twice before saying anything derogatory about illegal migration;

Immediately after the 2004 election, Bush announced his guest worker program. Republican shills like Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved were pushing it all they could. If people called their radio programs to complain, they were called stupid, crazy, and racist, and hung up on. This went on for a couple of months. With much resistence, they started softening their position but you knew it was all b.s. It’s still happening: the republican hardliners are going to shove this down our throats.

EF on December 1, 2006 at 8:26 PM

Tex Gal

An interesting exercise in how I say one thing and you hear another.

Funny. You didn’t argue that I missed any of your points when I outlined them earlier. Obviously I’m hearing you quite well. Maybe you would like to give me an example of something that I “heard wrong” rather than just didn’t agree with?

BTW, if 85% of the voters agreed with the Republican House, they’d still be in control.

Now THIS is an example that YOU aren’t listening to what anyone here has said. Nobody here said that voters voted for Democrats because they didn’t agree with the House bill. In fact, I specifically told you that the GOP lost because voters LIKED the house bill and were pissed off at the GOP for not getting it done. You might have noticed that the House bill FAILED! Voters were PISSED at that.

You mean to tell me that ALL the conservatives on this blog who voted Democrat to PUNISH the GOP are in effect now responsible for ushering in a Democratic controlled Congress that will not fund the fence they all fought so hard to get passed.

Yes, those who voted Democrat, didn’t vote, or voted independent in order to punish the GOP for lack of border security are definitely party responsible for us losing our majority, but … I won’t blame them for the fence not getting built or any failure on immigration issues. Why? Because the GOP wasn’t doing anything more than the Democrats and they weren’t showing any sign of that changing.

In case you don’t believe me … look for yourself. Click here and read Allah’s post first, and then follow the comments. It got quite animated.

Just to spare you the searching, Allah started it off with the following quote:

if Bush insists on doing Mexico’s bidding again, if he can’t bring himself to endorse even a symbolic measure of border enforcement, then I hereby swear before the Hot Air readership that I’ll vote a straight Democratic ticket next month. I live in New York so it won’t matter, but one symbolic turn deserves another.

That fence was not going to be built regardless of who won the election. Even the PROPOSED fence is a sham. If it ever DOES get built, they’ll build it in an area that has absolutely no impact on illegal entry.

Gregor on December 1, 2006 at 11:57 PM

zoyclem said:

If a united North America (i.e. North American Union) comes about, what makes some of you think the outcome will have to be disastrous?

Mexico would be forced to reform its laws and address its corruption.

Why? What makes you think the reverse wouldn’t take place? What would stop Mexico’s corruption from spreading into our own government and police forces (not that there isn’t already corruption, but not on Mexico’s scale)? Do you really think the Mexican government would simply stop being corrupt because WE said they had to? And if we told them that … why would they be interested in joining a union?

Canada would be forced to assume a greater role in territorial defense.

Why? What makes you think Canada would agree to that. Isn’t it more likely that in the formation of a Union, Canada would demand to have a say in military decisions? And if so, isn’t it more likely that we would end up being bogged down in our ability to make our own decisions, possibly putting us in a situation where Canada vetos a move that we need to make?

Migration would stabilize because wealth would be spread over a wider area.

Why? What is going to suddenly create hundreds of thousands of jobs in Mexico that will cause the population to suddenly stop migrating when our borders are open up for free travel? Isn’t it more likely that the sudden flood of immigrants would drag our economy into the mud? How many of these immigrants will now be eligible for welfare and other financial aid? Who’s going to pay for that?

It would be much easier to secure our borders.

Why? How would it be easier to secure borders, when there ARE none? If we have no border security here at home, how can we possibly expect to now be able to be responsible to secure the border around Mexico too?

Liberty would spread.

Huh? Liberty? Is there liberty in Mexico, under a brutally corrupt government? Is there “liberty” in Canada, with it’s socialist society? If these governments somehow merge or partnership with our own, even on a small scale … isn’t it more likely that THEIR beliefs will start to TAKE AWAY the liberty we already THINK we have? If we have small town governments in the U.S. – in places such as Seattle – who have actually considered the possibility of having “Sharia Law communities”… what makes you think merging three different governments and cultures into our own will have a “positive” effect?

Gregor on December 2, 2006 at 12:18 AM

Otherwise … I know from experience that it would get bombarded by votes from “referred” readers who have been alerted by others to help slant the poll. I don’t want that from either side. I truly want to know an accurate number.

Gregor on December 1, 2006 at 3:44 PM

Somewhere in Queens, AP is laughing at us…

Jaibones on December 2, 2006 at 12:40 AM

Arguments aside, just look at what actually (not perceptually) is and you will be able to draw your own conclusions.

Chances are that you will want to preserve America, too.

Our diversity is our greatest strength as well as our greatest weakness.

We must decide if our nation is worth preserving. I believe that it is – what do you think?

Emmett J. on December 2, 2006 at 1:33 AM

My point, Gregor, was that such a merger doesn’t have to be detrimental. Instead of taking the negative view, and automatically assuming the worst, I laid out another possibility.

zoyclem on December 2, 2006 at 9:22 AM

The betrayal does indeed run very deep.

While I can recall many accolades for the Mexican immigrants and for Mexican-Americans (one white congressman even gave me a “high five” when recalling that Californian Hispanics were headed for majority status), I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them “rednecks,” and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself. Jefferson and Madison would have perhaps understood why this is so—enthusiasm for mass immigration seems to be correlated with examples of undermining the “just and constitutional laws” they devised.

One leading Republican senator over a period of months was advising us, through a mutual acquaintance, about which mechanisms to follow and which other legislators to lobby in order to ensure passage of the amnesty proposal. In the meantime, he would speak on television about the need to “militarize” the border. This senator was recently singled out by a taxpayer’s advocacy group as a leader in “pork”-related politics.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back706.html

If only the American public had any idea of just how deeply they have actually been betrayed.
I don’t doubt that riots would occur at our centers of government and that tar and feathers would be in short supply.
To achieve the mission of national soveriegnty, the only action needed is to pursue the education of the public.
The facts will win the battle.
Get the word out and the traitors will run like the frightened chicken hens they really are.

Speakup on December 2, 2006 at 1:19 PM

I pasted the article quote a second time and the block quote didn’t go in the right place. Sorry.

Speakup on December 2, 2006 at 1:22 PM

Speakup

Great find on that paper written by Mexican insider Fredo Arias-King.

I found this passage illuminating:

Bill Richardson, who had served in Clinton’s cabinet and later became governor of New Mexico, kindly stopped to speak to our delegation at the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles. He commented favorably to us: “What do Hispanics want? Fully funded government programs!”

..and this:
“Those that have come out supporting amnesty are also associated with other attempts to undermine the Jeffersonian and Madisonian model of democracy. Sen. Arlen Specter, for instance, a leading supporter of amnesty, years ago proposed another bill that would have changed the outcome of elections based on quotas, whereby electoral outcomes could be changed by a federal judge.”

“Some legislators had also mentioned to us (oftentimes laughing) how they had “defanged” or “gutted” anti-immigration bills and measures, by neglecting to fund this program or tabling that provision, or deleting the other measure, etc. “Yes, we passed that law, but it can’t work because we also…” was a usual comment to assuage the Mexican delegations.”

I encourage people like Texas Gal to read this article and realize that GWB sees you as a fellow traveler. A dupe to change our country into an elitist run Government that benefits only the ruling class.

Especially when Fredo said this is what they believe about mass immigration from Mexico:

Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself. Jefferson and Madison would have perhaps understood why this is so—enthusiasm for mass immigration seems to be correlated with examples of undermining the “just and constitutional laws” they devised.

Also curiously, the Republican enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the end, even with “converted” Latinos. Instead, these legislators seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms. In that idealized “new” United States, political uncertainty, demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general would “go away” after tinkering with the People, who have given lawmakers their privileges but who, like a Sword of Damocles, can also “unfairly” take them away. Hispanics would acquiesce and assist in the “natural progress” of these legislators to remain in power and increase the scope of that power. In this sense, Republicans and Democrats were similar.

ScottyDog on December 2, 2006 at 3:26 PM

Fredo Arias-King from March 1999 to July 2000 was an aide to presidential candidate Vicente Fox Quesada of Mexico, largely handling the foreign relations of the campaign along with Dr. Carlos Salazar, who handled the foreign relations of Fox’s party, the PAN. After the July 2000 victory, Arias-King declined government jobs but agreed to represent the PAN at both the Republican and the Democratic national conventions in Philadelphia and Los Angeles, respectively. In 14 trips to Washington and to both party conventions, he spoke extensively to U.S. public figures, including 80 members of Congress, about the bilateral relationship. His role in the Fox campaign has been recognized in several books published in Mexico. A Harvard-trained businessman and Sovietologist, his academic work focuses on the post-communist transitions, and he is the founding editor of Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, published in Washington.

Even with all of that …

The usual suspects will soon be calling this guy a nutbag hack.

Let’s not forget … Tony Snow and Carlos Espinosa both told John Hawkins that it aint true. Will Hawkins be giving Fredo Arias-King a “buzz” next? I look forward to his next post, detailing that conversation.

Gregor on December 2, 2006 at 4:38 PM

ScottyDog and Speakup …

Please email me at worldsreality at yahoo dot com

Gregor on December 2, 2006 at 4:49 PM

So much betrayal has occured over such a long time the it’s nigh on impossible to print it in one place.

The 80% of Americans who are rightfuly pissed, would go balistic if only the truth could be shared.

So many people deserve prosecution that a commission would have to be formed to replace them fast enough.

After Pelosi is impeached who gets to be Pres. next?

Speakup on December 2, 2006 at 4:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3