Video: Tancredo’s new immigration ad pretty much what you’d expect
posted at 7:08 pm on December 4, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
What really cinches it is the narrator’s inflection on “raping kids.”
Second verse, same as the first. Instead of focusing on jobs and benefits, he turns the issue into a hamfisted “red scare”-era newsreel about barbarians coming to burn and/or pillage America. Those victims’ photos didn’t come from nowhere; as much as the left may pretend otherwise, gang violence is a component of having open borders. But it’s only a component, and the more he tries to inflate it the more sensationalistic and less convincing it becomes.
Even money says his next ad is about illegals importing exotic diseases.
Update: From Slublog in the comments, “He’s turned immigration reform from a serious campaign issue into what looks like a promo for Dateline NBC.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Msunderestimated overstated her case. You don’t have to be Hispanic, Latino or Klingon to realize that.
The Race Card on December 4, 2007 at 8:35 PM
A valid point.
Bad Candy on December 4, 2007 at 8:36 PM
In a perverse way, it all comes down to the Left being pretty good marketers with a ready, cost effective, distribution channel (the MSM). To think they’ll ever approve of anything we do and not attack us is simply laughable. The aren’t stupid or benevolent. But, if we don’t play their game, stand up and speak the truth, the channel can be used against them. It’s been proven. It just takes courage.
TheBigOldDog on December 4, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Several years ago, an acquaintance of an acquaintance was in line to return across the border in Texas. They took their eyes off their toddler for just a second or two, and when they turned around, the child was gone.
A short while later, thanks to the authorities who, once alerted, were being vigilant, the child was found. Unfortunately, it was too late.
Drug enforcement on our side had become so effective that the drugs were stockpiling on the other side, and the drug runners were resorting to increasingly desperate tactics. In this case, the child was gutted and the body filled with drugs, then, while the body was still warm, they attempted to bring it across.
Why did I share an anecdote? Because it is ads like this that reminds every American citizen that if something hasn’t happened to them, they probably know someone who has had something happen to them.
In my case, a kid in my own sphere wasn’t raped, oh no. But, he was GUTTED, STUFFED WITH DRUGS, AND HIS BODY WAS USED AND DEFILED BY A DRUG SMUGGLER. That’s outrageous enough for me.
Mr. Tancredo, thanks for the acute reminder that my country and my countrymen are UNDER ASSAULT.
RushBaby on December 4, 2007 at 8:38 PM
Vizz, none of what you’re saying amounts to anything more than that the Left will make hay with what it can make hay with — and they were doing that, as you yourself acknowledge in your answer, long before the advent of anonymous Internet critics. And ultimately, Baldilocks is right.
Robert Spencer on December 4, 2007 at 8:39 PM
base on what? Your gut or market research showing how to break through the clutter, grab the audience by the throat and shake them? The latter is worth investing in.
TheBigOldDog on December 4, 2007 at 8:40 PM
TheBigOldDog on December 4, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Partially my gut, but also my experience. When I talk to political “independents” (read: liberals) about illegal immigration, telling them about the problems in specific border towns, or the stories of people who were killed by illegals who had previously committed a crime tend to break through the “you’re a racist/nativist” nonsense much more than trying to scaremonger the issue. I’ve had some professional experience with marketing/PR and it’s always clear to me that people respond better to stories than to narrative.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 8:44 PM
Meant to add: people who hear these stories tend to be shocked by what they’ve heard. The biggest reaction is “well, I’ve never heard that before.”
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 8:45 PM
Not in a 30 second spot.
TheBigOldDog on December 4, 2007 at 8:47 PM
Gotcha. So by this criteria, we should go the third party route of politics, alienate everyone in favor of the purity and polemic tone of our own message — distateful as its tone may be to some of the true believers, independents, and future voters — and against everyone’s criticisms, letting the chips fall where they may. Gotcha.
That really sounds like the path to a governing majority. You know, the thing required to get the reforms we’re proposing actually passed.
Vizzini on December 4, 2007 at 8:48 PM
It’s easy to tell a story in a 30-second spot. I would love to see a series of spots based on the 1992 “What Clintonomics Means to Me” Bush ads. Sure, Bush lost, but those ads were powerful, and simple. Simple sells.
Just put a person on camera and have them explain how illegal immigration affects them/has affected them.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 8:49 PM
Uh…yeah, maybe, if Dateline NBC ever did anything except attack American companies with fake accidents. This would seem to differ in that it’s actually true.
Jaibones on December 4, 2007 at 8:52 PM
Here’s an example:
“Hello, my name is ****. On August 4, 2005 my father/brother/sister was killed by an illegal alien who (describe crime). (name of illegal) had committed a number of crimes before killing my (relative) but the government didn’t do its job, and he remained in the country.
My (relative) would still be alive if we enforced our laws. Why aren’t we doing that?”
It’s a simple ad. Just a person standing in a room, holding a picture of their dead relative. It’s sad and personal instead of sensationalistic, and I bet it would move opinion on the issue.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 8:54 PM
Might want to check your source. That urban legend has been around for a while.
sweeper on December 4, 2007 at 8:55 PM
So I missed it. I used the opportunity to hit the rest room. Show me thugs all tattooed up throwing gang signs and I’ll wait to the next commercial to hit the bathroom and so will most average Americans.
Hey, if you personally find these ads offensive because you think they smear your heritage unfairly, I can respect that.
TheBigOldDog on December 4, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Simple and true. That Tancredo went the sensational route should tell you something.
Vizzini on December 4, 2007 at 8:56 PM
As a matter of fact SUV ads have been produced using this tactic.
The same complacency offered in this thread is exactly why we are at this point and also exactly why an flaming ad like this is needed.
If after the many, many outrageous actions from those flooding this country illegally, you don’t share the passion of Tom Tancredo, you deserve the flood.
And just in case you haven’t noticed every time American citizens have been accused of demagoguery and racism the percentage of very angry people in opposition to illegal invasion goes through the roof.
So let the left scream and accuse and point fingers, its a good thing.
Speakup on December 4, 2007 at 8:59 PM
Actually, unfortunately, they don’t. Mexican gangs and violence is a regrettable part of my culture. Some of my cousins are in those gangs, and I am more angry than I can describe about that.
My issue with the ads is that they’re a lost opportunity of sorts. There are a number of ways to tell the story of illegal immigrant violence against Americans, but this ad doesn’t do it all that well, in my opinion. This is an issue that desperately needs personalization.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 9:00 PM
No, Vizz, none of that follows at all. We’re talking about an approach to getting a message across, that’s all.
Robert Spencer on December 4, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Right. I just don’t care enough.
Actually, quite the opposite is true. I care enough to demand better. This issue should be an easy sell. Tancredo is just not doing it all that well.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 9:01 PM
My source might have been the kernel of the ‘urban legend’. In this case, the parents owned a restaurant in my hometown, which suddenly and mysteriously shut down. I found out about the incident after asking someone who coincidentally knew the owners. I confirmed it with people in my local police department and state highway patrol, who I knew very well, for I was in the law enforcement field at the time, myself.
RushBaby on December 4, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Dude, why do you bother? This is an ideological purity test and you and I have already failed. Simple as that.
Allahpundit on December 4, 2007 at 9:03 PM
I see someone gets it :)
- The Cat
P.S. Don’t underestimate the value on shock to the non-politically savy voter.
Kinda like the Canadian PSAs
MirCat on December 4, 2007 at 9:04 PM
That is ridiculous. That is like saying that American’s fighting terrorism only emboldens terrorist or terrorist sympathizers. He is bringing light to a real concern that many Americans have.
riccangolf on December 4, 2007 at 9:04 PM
I WANT AN A+ ON THIS TEST!
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 9:05 PM
I disagree, I think he changed a few minds, sure, he’s not gonna change everyone’s mind, but I don’t think its a total wash.
Bad Candy on December 4, 2007 at 9:06 PM
Ads like that start the conversation. They grab the viewers attention. You get somebody telling a story in a commercial and people – average people – change the channel, hit the head or fridge, let the dog out, etc., etc.
KISS – Keep It Simple Stupid
TheBigOldDog on December 4, 2007 at 9:06 PM
Which is exactly what the ads I’ve described do. Think of the anti-drunk driving ads that use personal anecdotes. They’ve been on the air a long time. No sensationalism, no scare-mongering – just people telling stories, simply.
And they work.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 9:09 PM
No, Allah’s saying Tanc’s ham-fisted approach is counterproductive, just like the “glass parking lot” crowd is counterproductive to achieving what we need to in convincing people to hang in there on the war against jihadists.
Bad Candy on December 4, 2007 at 9:10 PM
To you and like minded people perhaps but not to average Americans. Average American have already changed the channel.
TheBigOldDog on December 4, 2007 at 9:12 PM
Again, these ads have been on the air a long time. Obviously, it’s more than just like minded people watching them and responding to them. If people were simply changing the channel, you’d see a different approach. But you don’t.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Even with the clarification, your anecdote is very similar to several urban legends. It’s sad, because these stories are obviously meant to tug at one’s heart strings.
The version I heard detailed how the child victim was propped up in a car seat to look alive. Such gruesome news events are rarely kept silent; I would love to get the specifics on your story.
If there is an actual source to this particular urban legend, it should be identified.
The Race Card on December 4, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Is it really as simple as that? Or aren’t you now cartoonishly demagoguing what is at issue here?
Robert Spencer on December 4, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Relax, Sweet AP. It’s the other side that purges its “heretics.” :-p
:::And they say women are overly emotional:::
baldilocks on December 4, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Demagoguing demagoguery?
Vizzini on December 4, 2007 at 9:15 PM
I could not agree with you more. Thanks for pointing this fact out.
riccangolf on December 4, 2007 at 9:15 PM
So just who DO you Tancredo, Huckabee, Romney bashers like? Rino Rudy or Rhino McCain?
R D on December 4, 2007 at 9:15 PM
Patterico guest-blogged here at HA with a number of gruesome stories about people being victimized by illegal aliens. Haven’t seen hide nor hair of him in a while, so how’s that “working” for him?
RushBaby on December 4, 2007 at 9:15 PM
They do? Show me the data that says one the ads you described work. They tend to be PSAs that are created for free and run for free by people strictly out of obligation and no imagination.
Why do you think they put the sensational part at the end of that PSA AP had up the other day? Because without it, it would never have any impact at all. With it, it goes viral.
TheBigOldDog on December 4, 2007 at 9:17 PM
“Deport those who don’t belong, make sure they never come back” refers to Central American gang members, correct? I have no problem with that statement at all.
Or, if the argument is that Tancredo actually means “deport all illegals because they don’t belong, and make sure they never come back”, wouldn’t that be saying that deported border violaters should forfeit their chances of ever coming here legally? Sounds like a deterrant to me.
I’m not outraged. I think we are harmed more by RINOs who are unwilling to enforce our boder/immigration laws than we are by Tom Tancredo. And thank God for Ann Coulter.
Dork B. on December 4, 2007 at 9:18 PM
Who’s going to out a family that has gone through a situation like theirs?
Dumb questions deserve dumb answers: Why, the drive-by media, of course!
Well, count me out.
RushBaby on December 4, 2007 at 9:18 PM
Fred
Bad Candy on December 4, 2007 at 9:19 PM
Well then build Fred up and quit acting like democrats and eating your own. Save it for the real fight.
R D on December 4, 2007 at 9:21 PM
so. yes.
RushBaby on December 4, 2007 at 9:22 PM
Heh…did I just kill the thread?
Bad Candy on December 4, 2007 at 9:27 PM
You’re hot tonight.
I like the ad.
jaime on December 4, 2007 at 9:29 PM
Disagreeing with each other is different than “eating one’s own.”
baldilocks on December 4, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Tancredo is a Patriot but its not necessary for him to be POTUS, his message is necessary.
There’s a very good reason why George Bush wanted a calm debate.
We American citizens, lose, again.
Speakup on December 4, 2007 at 9:32 PM
For some, sure. There’s a post linking to this post right now called “When good sites go PC” — because, despite my many posts about immigration and my agreeing in this very post that gang violence is a problem, finding Tom Tancredo’s ad counterproductive is ipso facto “PC.” Another commenter above accused me of dealing with the Beltway too much, which is a neat trick since I don’t “deal” with the Beltway at all.
Allahpundit on December 4, 2007 at 9:35 PM
How can you make the distinction, lately, here at HA? Serious question. I’ve just been staying away, then I come in here tonight to find chunks of allies flying everywhere.
RushBaby on December 4, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Congress has passed 7 separate amnesties for illegal aliens SINCE 1986!
The USA government has a policy of rewarding people who break our laws with the gift of USA citizenship. We should not be surprised that rewarding illegal aliens only encourages more illegal behavior.
ColtsFan on December 4, 2007 at 9:39 PM
So 2 people are enough for you to declare this an ideological purity test. Wow.
TheBigOldDog on December 4, 2007 at 9:45 PM
Yep, that’s what I found too. No one can say anything good about their candidate, so they bash all the others. The chunks are flying alright, and it is starting to sound more like a bunch of………well whatever.
R D on December 4, 2007 at 9:45 PM
When the name calling and the denigration of intelligence begin, time to go read a book (or whatever).
baldilocks on December 4, 2007 at 9:45 PM
If you look into your own heart, and you find nothing wrong there, what is there to worry about? What is there to fear?
- Confucius
MB4 on December 4, 2007 at 9:47 PM
I think Tanc could have done better with the tone – saying “people who have broken the law”, using different music, using a woman narrator as Slublog suggested, flashing statistics perhaps while the narrator spoke – but Allah, I disgree that this ad is that contemptable.
My mom lives in San Antonio, and I really worry about her, especially after the stories of illegal alien drunk drivers in the neighbourhood who get away with it.
It’s surprising to what extent the MSM goes to make illegal aliens just seem like hard workers and gloss over anything bad that falls out from our lack of immigration enforcement, whether it’s identity theft (which is rampant), gang violence, economic stresses, crime, etc. That’s because it doesn’t fall in with the image of the illegal as the hard working, otherwise law abiding citizen. I know there are some people who are here illegally who just want to work and be Americans, but you’re fooling yourself if you think that’s what every illegal alien is.
The truth is, there is an element of the illegal alien population that are violent criminals, it’s just a fact. There is crime in our society; rich and poor do it, whites and non whites commit it, atheists and Christians too. What is alarming is the extent that the MSM, with some complicity from the administration, will go to in order to downplay a person’s illegality if they are accused of a crime. THAT is being disingenuous, and I’m glad attention is being brought to it. It’s one piece of the mosaic of how illegal immigration affects our society, and we need to be honest about the entire picture, and not let people cherry pick information in order to favourably influence the outcome.
linlithgow on December 4, 2007 at 9:47 PM
Good advice. Thanks for the Iran titles you proffered awhile back, btw.
RushBaby on December 4, 2007 at 9:48 PM
Forgive me for shocking your delicate sensibilities. It’s not just two people: scroll up and observe the multiple comments about how it “Must be tough to say the things that people need to but don’t want to hear,” the implication being that Slublog and I “don’t want to hear” about the problems of lax border enforcement. I’ll bear that in mind the next time I’m laying into Huckabee about his scholarships for illegal aliens or drafting a post about some poor bastard killed by an illegal alien drunk driver.
Allahpundit on December 4, 2007 at 9:48 PM
Some like it hot and some sweat when the heat is on
Some feel the heat and decide that they cant go on
Some like it hot, but you cant tell how hot til you try
Some like it hot, so lets turn up the heat til we fry
- Robert Palmer
MB4 on December 4, 2007 at 9:49 PM
AP, there are a lot of knuckleheads out there who don’t want to discuss this – well, or any issue. The discussion here with the various and well-spoken contributors has been both passionate and interesting (for the most part). I enjoyed the give and take; and – if I can generalize – I really enjoyed the fact that we didn’t figure who has the Most Correct position (wink-wink, nudge-nudge).
Tancredo’s ad may well have been over the top, but as RS wrote, what factually exactly was wrong? And as Ms. Baldilocks posited, when exactly did the Other Side ever wait for a screw-up to jump all over Republican/Right talking points? Especially when lies will do quite nicely.
I think that Tancredo’s ad was roughly on par with the anti-Islamism rhetoric on various blogs that Little Green Footballs has indicated may be part of a Euro White Power movement. But maybe Tancredo’s just passionate about this issue. It could happen.
jmuchow on December 4, 2007 at 9:51 PM
Tanc tells the truth. Its a horrible omen to see so-called patriots afraid to tell the truth because they might “offend”.
“Even money says his next ad is about illegals importing exotic diseases.”
Thats because its true! I was down for 6 weeks with one of those diseases the 3rd world invaders brought here.
Come to Texas to really see barbarians at the door. Trying to put a prettier face on it wont help solve anything.
DwnSouthJukin on December 4, 2007 at 9:51 PM
Let me ask this: Should Rudy, Mitt, Fred or Huck roll out the identical ad? Why or why not?
Vizzini on December 4, 2007 at 9:54 PM
No, it’s bloggers such as you who are hurting us by mocking our ownly legitimately conservative candidate. Tancredo doesn’t say anything remotely like Coulter, so your comparison is absurd.
Yes, he rocks. What’s ironic is you give credit to candidates who use the same tactics regarding terrorism. There’s still no legitimate explanation of why you bash Tancredo. All we get is basically that he’s too blunt.
There’s absolutely nothing Tancredo says that’s inaccurate. There’s nothing in his stance on any of the issues that validate the mockery. Is it personal? What exactly is it? Can you give us something other than … he’s just too honest?
Gregor on December 4, 2007 at 9:54 PM
You’re welcome. Here’s another one: Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell.
baldilocks on December 4, 2007 at 9:55 PM
Palmer might be able to make up clever words about “heat” but I doubt that he’s experienced any of the actual sort.
baldilocks on December 4, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Your Grandfathers kept you from having to learn German or Japanese or be lamp shades. But YOU ARE NOT the men or women that they were, not even close.
Once we get our amnesty, we will all come to your country. We will all have at least 10 kids and in a generation we will overwhelm and deport most of you Gringos! Some of you, if you learn Spanish real well, we might let you stay to pick our lettuce or mow our lawns or take care of OUR children in what used to be your houses.
Those who don’t learn Spanish will be deported to Alaska. That is until Al Gore’s global warming heats things up and we want Alaska too, then we will deport you all to New Orleans. It will probably all be under water by then anyway. I hope you Gringos can swim, he, he, he. My bad!!!
So give it up and LEARN SPANISH! You should probably all buy Mexican flags too and fly them in your front yard and on your pickup trucks. If you already have an American flag there it is alright if you keep it, as long as you fly it upside down and below our great Mexican flag.
Now repeat after me – I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of Mucho Grande Mexico, and to the Republic for which it use to stand, one nation under me, with everything for us, and nothing for you.
And remember Gringos,
APRENDER EL ESPANOL!!!
Cuanto, Vincente
MB4 on December 4, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Now that was harsh.
baldilocks on December 4, 2007 at 10:02 PM
By the way, there is an interesting debate on a leftist new source on the issue of illegal criminality. It’s Lou Dobbs on Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now show. I would recommend it, though you may end up wondering just what the facts are. You may even end up agreeing with the leftists on this show. Since the crime angle has never been my issue on immigration, it makes little difference to me.
http://ia360639.us.archive.org/0/items/dn2007-1204/dn2007-1204-1_64kb.mp3
thuja on December 4, 2007 at 10:04 PM
How true…sadly
DwnSouthJukin on December 4, 2007 at 10:06 PM
*repeating slavishly*
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of Mucho Grande Mexico, and to the Republic for which it use to stand
————————————————————-
AAAHHHGGGGGGGG. Caught you in the act, nightmare-peeping!
Tancredo, you magnificent so-and-so!
RushBaby on December 4, 2007 at 10:07 PM
That was my watered down version.
The other version would probably not survive the “Censors”.
MB4 on December 4, 2007 at 10:11 PM
So the guys with the tattooed faces are just in America for Halloween…everyday.
BL@KBIRD on December 4, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Tanc’s the only legitimate conservative? Is that because, unlike Fred, he believes in the North American Union? Talk about a purity test.
It’s not that he’s too blunt. Michelle is blunt. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is blunt. It’s that his ad transparently tries to turn what’s basically a labor problem into cause for widespread panic over rape and murder. You guys keep asking why I care what the left thinks. Answer: I don’t. I care what the undecided voter thinks. The left’s message is that illegals are all basically kind, hardworking people who simply want better for their families. Tancredo’s message in this ad is that they’re coming for your children. To the extent that the average undecided voter has had contact with illegal aliens, which image is more likely to seem closer to the truth to them?
There are two separate questions in this debate. One is whether the ad is effective. The other is whether the ad is fair. Gang violence is a genuine component of the immigration problem and it is fair game to address it, but so far from Tanc all we’ve got by way of depictions of illegals is that they may be terrorists or gangsters. What about fruit-pickers who are taking jobs but otherwise doing no harm? If I was an undecided voter I’d wonder why he’s so focused on the worst examples and won’t address the majority.
Allahpundit on December 4, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Props.
Vizzini on December 4, 2007 at 10:26 PM
Yup.
Bad Candy on December 4, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Why did he focus on this group? For the same reason you chose that image for your screen grab – it grabs people’s attention.
You have to get over the idea that you represent the average undecided voter unless you’ve got some data to show you do.
You’ve got to spend some time reviewing the things you’ve dismissed here on HA because they did not appeal to you and count the number of times you were off and ask why. For example iirc you totally dismissed the Hillary 1984 mashup which, a day later exploded and crossed over in to the mainstream.
Belly button marketing is dangerous.
TheBigOldDog on December 4, 2007 at 10:41 PM
The majority of illegals are the very people who have run Americans out of the communities they’ve known for generations, suppressed their wages, hit their neighbor’s kid while driving drunk, bred the gang banger living in their formerly nice neighborhood, spread a 3rd world culture into their country, brought diseases before almost unheard of in the civilized world (Im living proof of that) and then breeding anchor babies who act worse than the parents….
That IS the majority of illegals. I see it each & every day.
I would think many are glad someone would actually put their own countrymen first instead of crying about the “good illegals” constantly. Im fact, Ive seen that very reaction more than a few times here in Texas when they heard someone, ANYONE finally stand up for actual Americans.
DwnSouthJukin on December 4, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Tanc hasn’t been able to propel himself past 5% in the Republican primary. If the eventual nominee is asked about this particular ad in the general election, they would likely have to distance themselves from it in order to court the undecideds.
Perhaps Tanc has seen Huck climb from the 2nd tier to the 1st, and thinks there’s still hope for him–politicians, like boxers, don’t easily realize when it is time to hang it up. Without the budget to do an ad spend, maybe Tanc is banking on a viral marketing effect, if the ad is sensational enough and people link to it or he gets to defend it on the talk shows.
If the purpose is to get Tanc nominated, or at least to beat up on Huck & Rudy, I think the ad works. It would likely backfire, though, in the general.
dedalus on December 4, 2007 at 10:51 PM
You can’t be serious, coming from a Michelle Malkin employee. The ad has no reason to not work by the way.
Also, I would like to see a more substantive approach from Tanc on immigration, legal and illegal. I doubt he could fit such a thing in one or two ads however.
Free Constitution on December 4, 2007 at 10:52 PM
AP is right if my experience talking about Mormons (and the Romney issue) to two gay boys in their early twenties is any indication. They both knew a nice mormon, despite my pointing out the anti-gay efforts of the LDS church. And most Mexicans are fairly decent people, and most people who know Mexicans are going to know this.
I worry that we perhaps may too nice. Ok, ok the mexicans are good people. Still, does this mean we have to allow unlimited immigration of muslims because some Arab offered us tea one day? Can we stop being nice and wonder about the world our niceness is creating. The Hilary $5000 grant at birth is also nice, really nice–but is it a good idea?
thuja on December 4, 2007 at 10:58 PM
80% of the country, of every walk of life, went ballistic and shut down Washington over the very idea of an amnesty. Don’t worry about the American people thinking the wonderful fruit pickers and landscapers are not a serious issue.
TheBigOldDog on December 4, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Immigration is what you might say, a mature subject, a lot of people know a little or something about it.
An undecided voter might well be put off by this ad and at the same time remember it.
Each time after, a news program that shows any number of different illegal migrant situations that voter could recall this ad, even though they might have been put off by this, an illegal alien committing a despicable act is a whole lot more disturbing.
So far and I’m talking the last four decades, there’s a lot that’s gone under the bridge and so far a great deal of debate and heated discussion has amounted to multiple millions more illegal aliens, not less.
If serious changes are actually going to happen perhaps not the majority of ads should be like the ones Tancredo is producing but some inevitably will, because that is the nature of an enpassioned movement, not just a reasoned debate (or enpassioned debate) that has achieved not much so far.
Many of the phone calls received by lawmakers in response to the attempted amnesties earlier this year were colorful to say the least, altogether they worked.
That’s not to say they all should be nasty, hardly, but some will, its part of the way people react, that’s part of why its more than a debate, its a movement.
Necessarily so.
Speakup on December 4, 2007 at 11:30 PM
My money says the average undecided voter has had contact with the consequences of illegal immigration, AP.
RushBaby on December 4, 2007 at 11:33 PM
Nope. It’s because he’s on the right side of EVERY issue, and always has been. The only other guy in the race who can even CLAIM to be conservative is Fred, and he’s got a few holes in his credentials such as his support for McCain-Feingold and his connection to the Council on Foreign Relations. These are legitimate reasons to bash a candidate. Tancredo does not have such flaws.
Really? Basically a labor problem? I don’t believe your boss believes the illegal immigration issue is “basically a labor problem.” So are the consistent murders and other crimes committed by these illegal aliens some other kind of problem that isn’t directly caused by not having control of our border?
It’s also interesting that you would mention Ayaan Hirsi Ali. There are many (I’m definitely not one of them) who attack her for the exact same reasons you attack Tancredo. They say she exagerates the situation with Islam and plays the fear card. I happen to admire her because she simply speaks the exact truth, and doesn’t allow political correctness to get in the way. This is what Tancredo does, which is different from EVERY other candidate in the race.
And this completely defeats your argument. This is EXACTLY why Tancredo is doing the right thing. We’re not going to win the election by convincing the left that their “message” is correct. We’re going to win it by “showing” the truth, and convincing them that the liberal candidates simply aren’t in touch with reality. But instead, you feel we should join their lies and misconceptions, and assist them in misleading the country to what is really happening? Strange.
This is not true. Tancredo speaks consistently on his anger that illegals are doing jobs that Americans will do for the right price. In fact, he talked about it in last weeks debate. And if the jobs are the most important part of this debate, then why is virtually all of Michelle’s posts on the topic related to CRIMES by illegals?
Oh yeah. And yes, the ad is very effective.
How the Hell do you know what these “fruit pickers” are doing when they’re not picking fruit? Are you saying that a fruit picker who collects food stamps, gets free medical care, has five kids in public schools that taxpayers are paying for … are you saying this clown is “doing no harm?” Do you happen to know what percentage of these “fruit pickers” go straight home after the day’s work, instead of to the local bar where they have four or five beers and then drive head-on into a family of four?
Gregor on December 4, 2007 at 11:36 PM
This would be a grave mistake. The proper response would be to say it’s absolutely a problem and that we currently have no control over who comes across our border. The proper response would be to quote stats, much like Giuliani annoys us with consistently, which indicate the sickening number of murders, deaths, and other crimes each year related to illegal entry to this country.
Any other response would indicate a candidate who is either out of touch, or too much of a wimp to speak the truth.
I want neither of these to run my country.
Gregor on December 4, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Didn’t Rudy operate a sanctuary city while also decreasing crime? Shouldn’t the increase in illegal residents of NYC during his tenure have prevented the drop in crime that began with Dinkins and continued with Bloomberg?
How much do the positive experiences of voters who have illegals help them with child care or who come in contact with illegals in a small business affect the way that they view the Tancredo ad? Its over-the-top production might cause those voters to view it skeptically.
dedalus on December 4, 2007 at 11:50 PM
In order to even make a valid argument either way on this question, you would need to know exactly how many crimes were committed in NY City by illegal aliens, and also … how many crimes committed by illegals failed to even be reported. I don’t believe either of us can possibly know the answer to this. Also, I don’t think there’s any reason to believe that there was some mass rush of illegal into NY City. It’s an expensive place to live. I don’t think it would be their first choice just because it was a sanctuary city.
Gregor on December 4, 2007 at 11:55 PM
Why? Which part of the video seems like it might be taken as fantasy rather than fact? Everything in the video is fact and not opinion.
Simply saying it’s “over-the-top” doesn’t make it so.
Gregor on December 4, 2007 at 11:57 PM
I don’t disagree with your point. It is a problem and quoting stats, or using examples, that convey an accurate picture of the problem is something that most in this thread would agree with. I kinda agree with AP though that ads that take the most extremely violent aspects of the problem and try to sell it as representative of illegal immigrants in general, might not mesh with the everyday experiences of many voters.
dedalus on December 4, 2007 at 11:58 PM
In the past I heard Rudy and Bloomberg quote 500,000 illegals in NYC. I haven’t seen a number recently and it would, ultimately, be a guess. The outer boroughs are cheaper than Manhattan and the bus & subway system can make it less expensive to get around than owning a car. The main draw is the number of jobs. There are a lot of illegals employed in construction, restaurants, and the garment business.
dedalus on December 5, 2007 at 12:06 AM
Gregor,
The harmless fruit picker is also probably committing identity theft. Last I checked that was a federal crime.
Mike Honcho on December 5, 2007 at 12:14 AM
What I said was that the production was over-the-top. I agree with some of the posts above that say it reminds them of Chris Hansen and Dateline NBC, which is “true” but sensationalized. Also, the voice over announcer is a little bit hammy, like he was doing a movie trailer for a summer action/adventure film. The line “Pushing drugs, raping children, destroying lives” is read to sound like we’ve reached the “end of days”.
dedalus on December 5, 2007 at 12:15 AM
Some cases I have worked on recently:
1. IA 1 (Illegal Alien) commits rape of 15 year old. When arrested, we find that he also murdered a police officer in his home country
2. IA 2 abducts and tries to rape a 14 year old. Unable to penetrate in the ordinary manner, he uses his hands to penetrate and causes massive trauma to her internally
3. IA 3 drives drunk again, having been previously arrested and no action possible by ICE because he does not fit the minimum criminal convictions required (they prioritize because they have to), and rear-ends a car stopped at a light, killing the young Marine driver and his date
4. IA 4 is caught driving without a license, and searching him, we find that he has assumed the entire identity of a genuine U.S. citizen, obtaining a near-perfect counterfeit driver’s license in the citizen’s name and using it when pulled over for speeding, and other traffic situations. He also has a credit card in the citizen’s name
5. IAs 5&6 operate a counterfeit immigration identification, Social Security card, and driver’s license operation, making $80,000 cash a year. They are also moving kilos of cocaine through the U.S. They are arrested just before they commit a planned murder
6. IAs 7 is selling drugs and sending $400 to $800 a week back to his home country by cash wire transfer at the local grocery store
7. IA 8 steals the Social Security identity of a genuine U.S. citizen, who now has to deal with the unpaid taxes on the job he didn’t have
8. IAs (unknown exact number – guess between 4&8) bring women into the U.S. illegally and force them into prostitution and porn video production. They are forced to remain slaves by beatings and threats to send the videos to their home townspeople
9. IAs (several – still not sure how many) find a member of a rival gang at a home-invasion armed robbery, abduct him, and take turns stabbing him to death, eventually severing his head
And all of this in a wealthy, suburban “bedroom community.”
Yes, I know that all kinds of people are capable of doing these things. But what if these perpetrators weren’t here. These things wouldn’t have happened. I’ll bet all of these victims and their families wouldn’t have minded a bit.
Help me to understand the “up” side to illegal immigration. I can’t name one, and I have tried.
AmericanDad on December 5, 2007 at 12:21 AM
AmericanDad on December 5, 2007 at 12:21 AM
99 cents for a head lettuce is hardly worth all that tragedy
Joey1974 on December 5, 2007 at 12:40 AM
Well….I guess if you don’t consider the *ahem* “raping” of our welfare system, hospitals and schools “doing no harm”, then yeah…they’re totally harmless.
If Tancredo tried addressing them, then everyone would be screaming about how heartless he is attacking those poor fruit-pickers doing no harm.
It makes sense to address the worst offenders because they’re the ones most Americans would agree that need deporting.
In fact, it should make sense to those harmless fruit-pickers too.
Get rid of the bottom-feeders first and more Americans might be inclined to a reasonable compromise on immigration reform.
The Ugly American on December 5, 2007 at 12:49 AM
Yes, we have more than enough home grown criminals, we don’t need to “import” a whole bunch more.
You cant name one because you are not a plantation owner getting rich off them and the American tax payer.
MB4 on December 5, 2007 at 1:11 AM
Tancredo’s raw truth about terrorism
Diana West
MB4 on December 5, 2007 at 2:59 AM
Yes, there is something surreal about the commercial, but not because of the content. What is surreal is the hysteria that has greeted it. After 9/11, 3/11, 7/7, Amman, Amsterdam, Baghdad, Bali, Beslan, Davao, Hadera, Haifa, Jakarta, Jerusalem, Nairobi, New Dehli, Sharm al-Sheik, Tel Aviv, Tunisia and more, what dolt doesn’t wonder if and when jihadist cowards will attack our own trains, markets, hotels and restaurants? Tom Tancredo has only taken the mature and responsible course – not coincidentally, also the politically incorrect course – by raising this deadly serious issue with the American people. But for this he is castigated as a “fear-monger.”
- Diana West
MB4 on December 5, 2007 at 3:01 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »