National GOP scurries from Tancredo's stance [Archive]

View Full Version : National GOP scurries from Tancredo's stance

**DONOTDELETE**

09-20-2002, 08:08 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>National GOP scurries from Tancredo's stance

By Michael Riley

Denver Post Staff Writer

Friday, September 20, 2002 -*

<a href="http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%25257E64%25257E870876,00.html">
link to article</a>

 The national Republican Party moved rapidly Thursday to distance itself from Rep. Tom Tancredo on immigration issues, fearing that controversies swirling around his views may spoil efforts to woo Hispanic voters.*
"Clearly Congressman Tancredo speaks for himself and the people in his district. He certainly doesn't speak for the Republican Party at a national level (on immigration), and he doesn't speak for the president," said Sharon Castillo, deputy communications director for the Republican National Committee in Washington.
Her comments were echoed by Rudy Fernandez, director of grassroots organizing at the RNC.
"Tom Tancredo is one of 435 members (of Congress), and he has every right to have his opinion on immigration or any other issue for that matter," Fernandez said Thursday. "When you look at the head of the party, the head of the party is President Bush."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When the immigration issue comes back to bite them in the butt, they'll be singing a different tune.

**DONOTDELETE**

09-20-2002, 08:33 AM

Just like Pete Wilson's stnad on immigration worked spectacularly?

Yeah, sure, and if you believe THAT, then I have a bridge in Chappaquiddick I'd like to sell you. Real cheap.

JonECat

09-20-2002, 08:36 AM

After so many times the RNC has shot themselves in the foot, you'd think they'd have run out of bullets.

This is one of the many reasons I will never return to the party.

**DONOTDELETE**

09-20-2002, 08:42 AM

Scurrying from any hint of controversy is what the GOP leadership does best, next to their well honed art of pre-emptive compromise.

It is so ironic that the most loyal and traditional elements of America are led by the biggest bunch of cowards on the planet.

**DONOTDELETE**

09-20-2002, 01:54 PM

And the head of the `pub party wants to grant amnesty!!

oracle

09-20-2002, 02:09 PM

He's not proposed amnesty.

**DONOTDELETE**

09-20-2002, 03:02 PM

Yes, he has proposed an amnesty, oracle.
http://wwws.house.gov/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=View&VdkVgwKey=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ehouse%2Egov%2Ftancred o%2FImmigration%2FPressReleases%2FAmnesty%5FQuesti ons%2Ehtm&DocOffset=1&Docs Found=19&QueryZip=amnesty&SourceQueryZip=vdkvgwkey+%3Csubstring%3E+%22%2Ftan credo%2F%22+OR+vdkvgwkey+%3Csubstring%3E%22%2FCO06 %22&Collection=members&ViewTemplate=memberview%2Ehts&

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Q: The immigration proposal isn¡t really an amnesty, is it?

A: Although the president recently said "There¡s going to be no amnesty," he immediately went on to contradict himself by saying he favors a plan "that will legalize the hard work that¡s taking place now in America." Any plan that provides permanent residence, and eventual citizenship, to today¡s illegal aliens is an amnesty, however it might be dressed up. Amnesty supporters have been working overtime inventing euphemisms to distract attention from the real nature of the amnesty -- "legalization," "normalization," "regularization," "earned adjustment," and even "phased-in access to earned regularization."

There is a difference between the previous amnesty, enacted in 1986, and the current proposal, but it is one of style rather than substance. The 1986 amnesty was a retrospective amnesty, which granted green cards to illegal aliens who could demonstrate that they had lived in the United States for a certain period of time. The current plan is a prospective amnesty, one which will first re-label the illegals here as "temporary" guestworkers then, after several years of indentured labor, give them green cards.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

**DONOTDELETE**

09-20-2002, 05:13 PM

Well, it's not the fault of employers if people won't take the jobs offered at the wage set.

They have the right to look elsewhere for people who ARE willing to work at the wages the company can afford. If a company does not make a profit, it goes under.

If American citizens won't do the job, then companies will look elsewhere. And to try to prevent them from doing otherwise through our immigration policy, putting them in a situation where they play by the rules and end up going out of business, is wrong.