Skip to comments.Time Selects Question for Tancredo: 'Why Do You Hate Mexicans?'
Posted on 06/05/2007 5:11:20 PM PDT by chronotrigger
It's been eight weeks since Time magazine redesigned itself, and part of that refurbishment is handing over the "Ten Questions" interview inquiries to the readers instead of Time's reporters. In the June 11 edition, Time's interviewee was Rep. Tom Tancredo, a presidential contender and one of the nation's leading opponents of illegal immigration. Among the questions Time selected for Tancredo was a whopper from Ubaldo Padilla of Oroville, California: "Why do you hate Mexicans?" It wasn't the only snotty question Time picked. There was also James Smith of Phoenix, who asked: "I recently found out my family came from Holland without permission in the 1600s. Should we be sent back?" For the questions: www.time.com
[This item, by Tim Graham, was posted Monday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
Since Time Managing Editor Richard Stengel introduced the new format in the March 26 edition, there haven't been any Democrats interviewed. But in the March 12 edition, Time's Massimo Calabresi had ten (mostly softball) questions for Ted Kennedy, one of the nation's leading advocates of an amnesty for illegal immigrants. No one at Time asked him about immigration and why he supposedly hated Americans.
(Excerpt) Read more at mrc.org ...
1) Why do you hate Mexicans?
No one said anything about hating anyone - but, rather, I very much love America and want to preserve her unique culture, language, and identity - not sell it down to the river so some mega corporation like GE can make a few extra bucks. What youve done is smear me with a lie painted as a question and the first thing Im going to do when Im president is to take a serious look at media ownership rules.
2) I recently found out my family came from Holland without permission in the 1600s. Should we be sent back?"
I just recently found out that several innocent men have been freed from jail after having been falsely imprisoned; does that mean we should abolish the justice system?
In mathematics, there is a phrase that is often used in mathematical proofs: reductio ad absurdum, reduction to an absurdity. That assertion was a prime example of one. The fact is, under your logic, everyone would either have to go back from where they came (Asians to the Middle East and eventually Africa - American Indians to North America, then Asia, then the Middle East, and then, eventually, Africa - Africans back to specific parts of the continent ) or, everyone who wanted into the country should be allowed in. Thats insane. Billions would come. The citizens of this country have every right to determine who - if anyone - is allowed in; pointing to an outlier in order to justify an illogical argument is well, insane. Its clear to me that Time has a tremendous bias here and is attempting to impugn my integrity and my legitimacy, both as a political figure and as a human being - something that is hardly journalistic," a phrase that I will never again use to describe your biased, politically motivated publication.
My question for TIME: “Why do you hate America?”
I hate it when Mexicans reduce all immigration issues to an ethnic question. Do they think we’re stupid, ignorant racists?
“Are you still beating your wife?”
Tancredo plays right into their hands with his over the top retoric.
I am going to point something out here that some on the Right are going to want to hear. The simply fact is we have had these arguments before.
If you are really interested in an honest historical comparison instead of one that merely fits your political opinions, read about the Know Nothings.
Comparing people who voluntarily come to this country with the slaves kidnapped and forced here is absurd.
Some of the arguments being thrown around on the Right today are almost word for word repeats of the same arguments the Know Nothings made against the Irish and the German immigrants in the 1840s.
These are the arguments where you lose me. I can agree with the arguments that base themselves on the idea that this is an overly bureaucratic, unworkable bill. That adding another layer of bureaucracy is a mistake. However. some of the other arguments being put forward are pure emotion based rantings with utterly NO basis in any factual reality.
The argument that the immigrants will some how destroy the Republic or Demographics are fate are pure nativist rantings.
There is utterly no evidence that Hispanic Immigrants will do any such thing. Anymore then the Germans, the Jews, the Irish, the Blacks, the Chinese, the Japanese et al did. So if you want to argue this issue, I suggest Tancredo stick to the economic or small Govt argument and leave the rest out of it. But when he starts arguing that the Hispanics are the Wrong sort of Immigrants, he loses.
Every immigrant group has it share of problem children. But we have gangs and thugs that are native born Americans too. Most of the Hispanics I meet, or served with in the US Military, are descent hard working respectable people. Average voters see the same thing in their daily lives in the Hispanics and they are going to dismiss the sorts of over the top rantings Tancredo engages in as the mindless drivel of either a bigot or nut case.
So if Tancredo wants to win this argument, I suggest he leave the more emotional, over blown rhetoric behind and concentrate on making a calm rational factual argument.
Many of the people who a Presidential Candidate need to convince to vote for him have ancestors that faced the same sort of Nativist opposition when then came to this country. They are not going to be swayed by these sorts of Nativist arguments.
So if Tancredo wants to argue this issue and win, he needs to argue it on the merits NOT on some hysteric nonsense about the Mexicans are coming, the Mexicans are coming.
They do think we are stupid.
And we are.
It’s, “When did you stop beating your wife?”.
Uh, yes, as a matter of fact they do.
In 1600, there was no United States and immigration laws.
If there is a James Smith of Phoenix, he is incredibly ignorant.
In 1600, there was no United States and immigration laws.
Hmmmm. Tancredo. Tancredo, Tancredo, Tancredo...
Izzat a Guamanian surname??
There is a taxpayer funded safety net that is already underfunded. It is a financial obligation we will be required to meet through higher taxes.
This was not the case 100 years ago.
American Indians did not secure the borders. Today it is considered a “tragedy” and they have almost completely lost all traces of their culture.
I think it would be easier to point out the United States did not exist in the 1600s.
“Uh, yes, as a matter of fact they do.”
That doesn’t stop them from coming here, does it?
Look, these people are here illegally, they are not citizens, and they have no business telling those of us who are how to run the country.
Why do you hate “the Right”?
Wow. Much more of a brain under Tom's skull than I gave him credit for. Great job!