Tancredo for President in 2004(GOP)? Only Hope to Stop Invasion?

Any thoughts on Tom Tancredo as potential GOP candidate for 2004?

Risa

I have this thought. If Tancredo wants to continue to associate with counterproductive anti-Mexican xenophobia, and assuming that, like his Italian ancestors, he is Catholic, he should carefully review the issue of this newsletter of the "American Border Patrol" which does not contain the article promised by the poster but does, on page 2, contain ignorant and bigoted allegations that Our Lady of Guadalupe is a veneer for some pagan Aztec goddess and that Mexicans view her as leading them into the "promised land" of Atzlan. Even Tancredo ought to have a better grip on Mexican history than to believe this tale.

The people who produce this tripe should lay off the peyote. The people who are suckered by this tripe are little smarter than the 19th century Know Nothing Party which sought restraint of Catholic immigration.

If it is the desire of some Americans to restrain the waves crossing our Southwestern borders to seek a far better life than has been available in Mexico since its abandonment of Catholic or even neutral government for thinly veiled communism and world-class naked corruption under its former long-time ruling party, the PRI or Institutional Revolutionary Party, then make reasonable proposals for control of the borders and for assimilating those already here into our society before more arrive.

It is nowhere to be found in our Constitution that the United States is guaranteed to be some sort of Anglo-Saxon society. I am English, Irish, Scottish and German and have no such desire much less such expectation. Muffy and Skipper's social discomfort arising from their own bigoted reeaction to the mere presence of Mexicans does not justify the fantasies of this newsletter against the Roman Catholic Church or the probable porno-violent fantasies of its producers who would give much to see Mexican families machine-gunned at the border because, after all, they are so different from "us.".

The moon doggies who produce this tripe are an embarassment to the conservative movement. Banish the moon doggies. Welcome our future allies as they cross the border.

I don't think Tancredo, or anyone who wishes to reform immigration laws, is bigoted for attempting to do so. There is a major economic problem in this country because of illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants are net welfare receipients, and as such are huge drag to the economy. If people want to come to this country for a better life, they have to do it for themselves. Mexico is so poor, that living on welfare is a step-up for most Mexicans. As such, they have no incentive to work. You will automatically solve the immigration problem, if you deny immigrants welfare benefits for 5 years.

Also, I think tolerating illegal immigration is an affront to our judicial system. The operative word in illegal immigration is illegal. They should be promptly sent back to their nation of origin. Any amnesty proposal will undermine our legal system.

I think a lot of Mexicans are prejudicial towards Americans. They resist any form of assimilation, and consistently boo the national anthem during major league soccer games. A lot of them think that CA, TX, AZ, should be part of Mexico. I am not a big fan of either of those three states, but I do not want to see them becoming part of Mexico.

I was going to flame the xenophobic but you beat me to it. The interesting thing is that Tancredo has the position that Dick Gephardt had until the late '90's when the unions were losing so many members they had to target immigrants to survive. The unions then made Gephardt do a 180.

Good news. I came from the largest annual Republican event in Illinois, the NW suburban Chicago picnic. Although there were many distressing events, the attendance and involvement of those of Hispanic, Korean, Chinese, Asian-Indian, etc ancestry was up. These are pro-life, pro-2d amendment, low tax, freedom loving people. All of us seemed to agree on being friendly and welcoming everyone into the party.

IMO it is the mean spirited, unfriendly apppearance of the Tancredo's that scares away not only people outside the party, but a lot of people inside the party.

Illegal immigrants are net welfare receipients

That is a blatant lie first spread by Dick Gephardt and the unions before they flipflopped. Numerous studies have proven the opposite.

Many illegal immigrants use bogus social security numbers. FICA, Medicare, Federal and State Income tax are witheld from their paychecks. They are low income with large families and thus do not owe any income tax. They have an extremely high rate of not filing tax returns and thus not getting their refunds. They have an extremely high percentage eligible for the earned income tax credit (a bastardization of Milton Friedman's reverse income tax). But they do not fill out the paper work to get their check. When seniors, they return to Mexico (or wherever) and do not receive social security (With the exception of Poles who retire to Poland thanks to Dan Rostenkowski. Do they still vote absentee from Poland? I don't know.)

Mexican immigrants have the highest percentage of people eligible for food stamps, medicare, kid care, etc who do not apply for it. They are too proud. It is a slap in the face of their extended family.

A high proportion of Mexicans here are young, healthy working males with no families here. They pay rent and mortgages on hundreds of thousands of properties which then pay property taxes. If they were suddenly not here, those hundreds of thousands of housing units would be vacant and destroy real estate values and schools and local government dependent on property taxes. Sales tax would suddenly plummet. The rest of you would be asked to make up the difference.

Mexico has no welfare. The extended family is the safety blanket, takes care of those in need, and kicks the butt of a sponge.

To change from being Mexican to being American means to accept the welfare system.

Maybe the problem is us, and not them.

I appreciate your thoughtful response to my post.

I am puzzled, though, about your references to The Lady of Guadalupe and Catholicism, since I did not encounter such material on the Web page to which I referred, nor did I reference or even see such material on a subsequent page.

I also see no sign of Tancredo having endorsed the Border Patrol Web site, or any Web site for that matter. Rather, a group of American citizens express their shared hope in a statesman who seems to share their view on what they perceive to be America's chaotic and uncontrolled immigration policies.

Finally, calling people names like xenophobic, racist, and anti-catholic and other emotionally-loaded terms, because they do not share your immigration policy views, seems to me rather dictatorial, as the only purpose it serves is to silence people, as well as deflect attention away from an open, reasoned discussion of the issues.

Risa

Almost all immigrants receive CHIPS subsidies, medicare costs from emergency room, etc. Their children go to public schools, receive subsidize lunches, etc. Again, the problem is with poor illegal immigrants. They are the ones who are a drag on our economy and the welfare states. Of course, if you are a rich immigrant, you do not receive child care subsidies, etc. The abuses come from people who are at the bottom of the income chain, and they are the ones who are dependant on the state. Having said that, I think that is a side issue. The real point is that illegal immigrants should be sent back, because they are breaking our laws! If they want to come, they should stand in line with everyone else. Once they get here, they should support themselves just like generations of immigrants before them.

My vast personal experience is limited to Illinois. But I read widely. Most immigrant children are here legally. For Mexicans, first the young adults come illegally and work. They send money home to the extended family which is more often parents, grandparents, siblings than wife and children. They enter a mixed marriage (illegal with legal immigrant or citizen). They eventually get papers and become legal. The children come later.

In my NW Chicago suburb 55% of new homeowners have Hispanic surnames (not to mention mixed marriages such as mine where my wife has my non-Hispanic surname.) I would guess that in most cases, the homeowner first came here 10 to 15 years ago illegally. Now he is legal (by whatever means but usually marriage). Living with him and helping to pay the mortgage are his younger brother, or nephew or extended family member who is still illegal. That illegal is also sending money back to Mexico. He will eventually repeat the process of becoming legal.

But it is not that simple. For every 1,000 Mexicans who illegally enter the US, 500 illegal Mexicans are voluntarily leaving the US and returning to Mexico to see their families. (In certain seasons the net flow is more going to Mexico than leaving Mexico due to seasonal jobs.)

Since there are no accurate counts of either those coming, or those going, nobody knows the true numbers. But they are big on both sides. Many times I have stood on a bridge and watched the flow both directions. The marketplace provides a papers rental service. A person wishing to enter the US plunks down whatever the market will bear (my wife paid $5 which is the cheap end. The average is probably $20 and the high end $100.) The immigrant and a rental service employee (usually a young kid) walk accross the bridge and 2 blocks into town. The immigrant gives the rented papers back to the employee who returns to the office in Mexico to rent those same papers to the next person. Given the obvious difference in numbers of people entering during morning rush hour and the few returning during evening rush hour, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the game.

You are wrong about subsidies. Only a small percentage sign up for Illinois KIDCARE. Jesse Jackson is paid $5,000 per person he signs up for KIDCARE (per O'Reilly) and is not signing up many Blacks. The Catholics are paid $50 per person signed up. They cannot find Mexicans who will work for the program. They hire white guilt ridden children of the rich as outreach workers. At Spanish mass the white liberal pastor preaches that signing up for KIDCARE is their Christian duty and they are not good parents unless they provide the best (KIDCARE) for their children. After Spanish mass, the white outreach workers and white liberal deacons stand at the back of the church and try to corner parishioners and badger them into signing up for KIDCARE. Very few sign up.

They are proud Mexicans and do not want to adopt these things from the American culture. From the Mexican perspective. To be Mexican is to be a hardworker who always pays his debts. To be Mexican is to provide the support of the extended family as a safety blanket. But to use that safety blanket sparingly and always give more to it than you take from it or be shamed.

I rented apartments to them. They would lose their job and not have the money. A cousin (meaning anyone from the same village or even same state of Mexico) would come out of no where and pay the rent. Other times I was asked to wait for the rent. Three months after the renter had moved out and gone to Mexico, I had cousins show up out of no where and pay the back rent. As an easygoing, forgiving landlord not interested in money, I never lost a dime off a working poor person of any ethnic group.

I lost my ass off the welfare poor. For Mexicans, the definition of becoming an American is to become sexually promiscuous, go on welfare and abandon support of family. Unfortunately many of them in the 2d and 3rd generations do become AMERICANIZED. Of course, it is our public schools, government and church that teach them this is what it means to be an American.

Maybe the problem is with us, and not with them.

>> Finally, calling people names like xenophobic, racist, and anti-catholic and other emotionally-loaded terms, because they do not share your immigration policy views, seems to me rather dictatorial, as the only purpose it serves is to silence people, as well as deflect attention away from an open, reasoned discussion of the issues. <<

I think it's extremely unfair for folks to try and lump Tancredo in with Pat Buchanan-types simply because they have simular views on immigration (views that the pro-open borders types do not like)

There is nothing wrong with opposing ILLEGAL immigration and wanting to regulate legal immigration. Tancredo is the biggest proponent of restricting immigraiton. This does not make him racist, bigoted, xenophobic, etc., etc., unless he were targeting a certain group. Buchanan came across as such because he was opposed with MEXICAN immigration and saying things like "anglo-Americans are being wiped out" and "Christian beliefs are giving way to a Muslim takeover" or something idiotic like that. Tancredo is simply a spokesman against ILLEGAL immigration, reguardless of it's sourse. I knew a grew of Polish immigrats in Chicago who were mooching off our welfare laws and getting free driver's licenses. If you ask me, they should have (and still should be) deported A.S.A.P. If you asked Tancredo, he'd say the same thing.

Would you label myself or Congressman Tancredo as "anti-white"? Didn't think so. Yet if that same family was latino, we'd get labeled as anti-hispanic. It's a double standard used by the old Clinton crowd to pin the racist lavel on anyone against unlimited immigration.

Of course, Mexican immigration is the subject of the majority of Tancredo's speeches, but that's due to statists. There is far more illegal immigration from Mexico than any other country. If Mexico stopped exporting people tomarrow, and we were instead subject, to say, massive illegal immigration from Albanian, you'd hear simularc comments that we were overrun with Albanians. It is not racist nor xenophobic. It is reality. At current immigration levels, the U.S. population will reach 1 billion by 2100. We CANNOT assimulate all these people THIS rapidly

Furthermore, it's a well known fact that the Democrats want ILLEGAL immigration because illegals = Democrat voters. This is simply due to the folks that come here in illegal being inclined to support handouts. It's not racist anyone than opposing giving convicts "anmesty" is. We all know most convicts would just at the chance to vote for Democrats and the same is true with illegals. We also known that a little under a 1/3rd of hispanics vote Republican. Those hispanics are hard-working, pro-family types who are almost always LEGAL citizens (often born here), and many are (surprise!) just as opposed to ILLEGAL immigration as Tancredo and myself are.

The "anti-Catholic" angle is ridiculous. The biggest proponents of deporting illegals are a large crop of Catholic politicians. I'm Catholic. We've been the largest branch of Christianity in the U.S. since the 1840s! We don't need to import any more Catholics, let alone lapsed Catholics. The best thing we could for Catholism in foriegn countries is to improve the church there where it has been destroyed. I know three Hispanic "Catholics" in California who are the children of Mexican immigrates and NONE of them are "devout" Catholics. Two are agnostics.

Voting trends reflect these numbers. Look at Aurora in the far western suburbs of Chicago. The area is a little over 1/3rd hispanic-- they're probably the biggest ethnic plurality. Many of those hispanicsa are 3rd and 4th generation Americans who came to the area at the turn out of century to work on the railroad (read on the history of the area). Many of the "hispanics" I know out there don't know Spanish anymore than I know German as a German-American. They'd probably be insulted if you ran non-stop ads in nothing but spanish to "woo" their support. The area is heavily Republican and is represented by conservatives on both the state (Larzen) and federal (Hastert) level.

On the flip side, look at Luis Guiterrez's 4th congressional district, a racist gerrymander if there ever was one. The idea was to group together every new "hispanic" neighborhood they could find in Chicago, areas didn't even have any "hispanics" 20 years ago (in other words, enclaves of massive immigration). Most of Luis' consistents can't even vote-- they are either too young to do so or not citizens. But the ones who do manage to vote (legally or illegally) vote for EXTREMELY liberal Democrat candidates. Luis is an advocate of open borders and socialism, and so is his constiutency. It's so bad that a MODERATE Democrat who ran against Luis in the primary tried to attack him for lobbying to have the FALN TERRORISTS pardoned because of their ethnicity (Puetro Rican). Sadly, this honest Democrat was creamed in the primary. The Republican nominee is currently a pro-American hispanic in the Aurora-voter mold, and I bet he'll get creamed even worse than the moderate Democrat. Sad.

And you what? The "legal" children of illegals tend to carry on the same traditions. Luis' district is proof of that. The illegal parents want a handout and their kids may be born here, but they are raised with the liberal, anti-American views of their parents. And that's true for every enclave of illegal immigrations, certainly not just hispanic areas.

We win Hispanic votes by empathizing issues they care about, like pro-life, pro-family, pro-business views. The legal hispanics are all thoughout American and will rspond according. The illegal ones never will, and no amount of pandreing with Spanish-language ads or free goodies from the governmetn will change their Democrat views. You cannot out-liberal the Dems.

And I would be proud to have Tancredo as my congressman. A lot O'Malley Hispanics here in the 1st district would too.

Go to your closest welfare office and try to figure out how many of them are border jumpers. The point is not how many of the illegal immigrants are on welfare, but how many welfare reciepients are illegals. If they want to turn a blind eye to illegal immigration, they've got to stop giving welfare to them. I understand that some people want to stand on their two feet, and will never take welfare. But a vast majority of them do, and that is the problem. I agree that the problem is with us and not with them. If it was their problem, then we would see them battling illegal immigration from Guatemala.

First, I suggested that those who have their knickers in a twist over Mexicans crossing the border (note the cited newsletter is in the Southwest and is obsessed with Mexicans) concentrate on slowing immigfration so that these folks can be assimilated into our culture.

Second, as you may have noticed on many other threads, I am Catholic too. Did you read the second page of the yahoo "border patrol" newsletter???? Did you get the usual anti-Catholic bigotry that accompanies the ravings of these embarassing twits? The part about Our Lady of Guadalupe being a cover for some pagan Aztec goddess who will lead the Aztecs (Mexicans) into Atzlan (former Mexican lands now American states like California, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, et al). If you are Catholic, as I accept that you are, you may believe in the apparitions of Mary to St. Juan Diego in the 1500s. You need not believe. It is not dogma. I do believe and I am a little fed up with know nothings like the imbeciles who publish that newwletter rousing hatered among conservative Protestants and Catholics who ought to be allied. On the other hand, I am not going to take insults to my religion (and yours) lying down.

Tancredo shares little depth with Buchanan other than silly anti-immigration views. He has a long way to go to match Pat's accomplishments even if Pat has lately been seduced as to foreign policy generally (isolationism is not conservatism since Pearl Harbor and please God, may it never be again) and as to losing sleep over the possibility that Peter Brimelow's tow-headed little boy (Brimelow and Mrs. Brimelow, being immigrants themselves: read his Alien Nation) might live to be part of a white minority. If this is what conservatism is degenerating into, count me out.

If you don't like immigrants "legal" or "illegal" "mooching off our welfare laws" then repeal the welfare laws. Were you any more anxious to have native born loafers mooch off our welfare laws. Abolish welfare laws.

The reason why people who obsess over Mexicans crossing our borders without formal advance government approval (although it always seems to be granted after the fact of their immigration by the same government) are called anti-Latino is because Mexicans are Latinos and they oppose Latino immigration. The distinction between having your immigration application stored in Kansas in a warehouse for years by an INS too incompetent to do anything but deport Elian Gonzalez in terror at gunpoint from Miami (which brought us an end to the Clintonistas controlling the White House) and avoiding the bureaucratic BS, entering and getting on with one's life escapes me except insofar as these folks have the courage to do what they must for their families and not play: my turn to curtsy and your turn to bow with a bunch of useless bureaucrats. Since the Supreme Court decided that slaughtering 1.5 million innocent children was not mass homicide but a result of an allegedly constitutionally mandated "woman's right to choose" (to choose what????), the idea of the Rule of Law has had decidedly less appeal. Seeing priests sent to federal prison for saying the rosary on public sidewalks (Fr. Norman Weslin: Buffalo, NY, 2001) has also diminished the Rule of Law.

Arguments from population increases causing discomfort are basically Planned Barrenhood arguments. They are as anti-Catholic as any institution on earth. They are population alarmists. Even in Southern New England, there is plenty of room for more population; particularly in the cities which are bleeding population (i.e., New Haven has lost 1/3 of its population in 50 years. The 160,000 or so of 1950 were 15 to 1 white. Whites are today a minority if you regard Hispanics as not white). What's the difference what race they are?

What kind of argument is the anecdotal tale that 2 of 3 descendants of Mexicans whom you know in California are agnostics and none Catholic? Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Dick Durbin, Tom Harkin, John Kerrey, Barbara Mikulski, Robert Torricelli, Susan Collins, Patrick Leahy, to name a few Senators, claim to be Catholic. Would your Hispanic agnostics be worse in their views of, say, abortion??? The Hispanic immigrants and their immediate descendants tend to be considerably more culturally conservative than the likes of those "Catholic" senators. We ought to be a lot more worried about the Catholic Church in the United States than the Catholic Church in Mexico, Albania or anywhere else, at least from what we have been reading in the papers.

With the exception of Bishop Doran of Rockford, IL, and Bishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln, NE, and a tiny handful of others, I would take Mexico's bishops over ours any day.

As to the political angles raised at the end of your post, Jews voted only 3% of their votes for Nixon in 1968 and 45% for Reagan in 1980 only twelve years later. Gutierrez is a creature of the Chicago machine. This is not typical turf by which to judge. Do you have some evidence that Aurora Mexicans were a GOP voting bloc in 1960? If they are a GOP bloc today, you are proving my point.

The Demonrats are past masters at demonizing the GOP and demonizing conservatives. You guys who obsess about Mexican immigration play right into their hands. If the Mexicans are inclined to vote GOP on family issues, they will be reminded that the GOP Congressman Tancredo and others didn't want them to be able to live here at all.

We are not likely to get much native-born black vote any time soon although they were Republicans not so very long ago. The Demonrats have convinced them that the GOP is the blow-dried Klan. So GOP (or conservative if you prefer) is viewed as anti-black. We are also viewed as anti-woman (not merely by the feminazis but also by some of the gullible). We are also deemed anti-Asian. Everyone knows we are the racist wing of American life. Now, the Demonrats will add anti-Hispanic to our alleged repertoire. Many whites are liberal. We cannot very well compromise with baby-killers, animal "rights" looney tunes, Gaia worshippers, Rembert Weakland clerical types, social gospel types, Lavender Larries or Butch Berthas, fever swamp economic socialists and worse, etc., etc.l, etc.

Wake up and smell the coffee. You cannot concede to the Demonrats everyone other than white, straight males and those females who support them and a handful of eccentrics from other backgrounds and expect to be competitive. Grab the fastest growing minority (already larger than blacks numerically), use wedge politics as necessary to bind them to the GOP and wield them as a weapon against the Demonrats. They are SOCIALLY conservative (including Puerto Ricans who are the most liberal Hispanics) and available to us. Many are, whatever you may say, quite Catholic, a lot more so than Richie Daley (contrasted to his father).

If you concede them to the Demonrats, as the anti-immigration obsessives seem bent on doing, I hope we will be able to find a country in which we and our children may live safely because America is over. If you bind them to the GOP through social issues (however uncomfortable this may make Muffy, Skipper and the rest of the hereditary trust fund Republicans who majored in polo in college before joining Planned Barrenhood or craven crooks like our own George Ryan), then America is not over.

I'll take Jack Kemp over Tom Tancredo any day. Kemp was never a Johnny One Note or a lightweight.

1. Read the second page of the newsletter for the insults hurled at Our Lady of Guadalupe who is a central figure to Mexican Catholicism. If Tancredo associates with such people, he encourages anti-Catholic bigotry. in spite of his own Catholic ancestry.

2. The economic problem is American socialism in the form of our welfare state not that others come here to take advatage of the economic stupidity of our leaders. Abolish welfare and there will be no problem seeing any immigrants working.

3. An affront to our judicial system???? May as well call something a square circle. Our judicial system is a special-interest ridden wasteland and, after Roe vs. Wade, among many other decisions, deserves NO, repeat NO, respect whatsoever. You simply cannot affront a system so corrupt.

4. Don't you also think that a lot of Americans are rather bigoted against Mexicans? Don't worry about this Atzlan baloney. California, Arizona, New Mexico, etc., aren't going anywhere. Chill. I admit that any turn towards soccer from baseball would concern me a lot more and I am not surprised that soccer fans are anti-American.

Go to the web page you cited. At the bottom of page 1, click on More News. At the bottom of page 2, click on archives (days have passed). Under archives, the first item under August 2, 2002, has some nonsense about the pope recognizing a pagan goddess in the form of Our Lady of Guadalupe and the rest of the anti-Catholic drivel.

The Ku Klux Klan may not like communists but anti-communists with any sense will not invite them to anti-communist gatherings. The KKK may not favor gun control but they are not welcome at NRA meetings nor does Charlton Heston address their rallies. Tancredo should make a point of shooting his own dogs too and, if he does not, deserves to be judged accordingly. While it may be true that these twerps have endorsed Tancredo and he may not have endorsed them, it may be noted that you posted the article on Free Republic from the objectionable newsletter. Either you did not notice the anti-Catholicism or you did not care. Which?

He is the one to look towards in respects to immigration policy.

Great posts. Truly well informed prose. You guys make me proud to read Free Republic.

I like what Tancredo has to say about immigration issues and he seems to be one of the very, very, very, very, very, very few elected officials with the guts to say anything about the immigration invasion, however I would like to know where he stands on other issues before pledging my support to him.

Illegal immigrants are net welfare receipients, and as such are huge drag to the economy.

We've got some American welfare recipients. Let's deport them to Mexico too (as long as we're making an economic argument).

Welfare... Welfare...Welfare.... redistribution of income, Socialist Security, etc, etc. .... so many unintended consequences.....

Gutierrez is a creature of the Chicago machine.... The Demonrats are past masters at demonizing the GOP.

Excellent comments and 99% true. A couple clarifications. By appearing mean-spirited, Buchanan-Dole-Dornan-Tancredo do 60% of the self-demonizing as a gift to the Democrats.

Gutierrez is a creature of the PSP-Puerto Rican Socialist Party, which was loyal to the Moscow Communists even after the fall of Gorby. The PSP took over The Bickerdike Redevelopment Corporation (of which I was a founder) and put Gutierrez in to use it as a springboard. Bickerdike was one of the few housing groups that was not a total ripoff of taxpayers.

Then Gutierrez used our taxmoney, via Bickerdike to launch his political career. It was only after 2 terms in the House that he TOTALLY sold out to the Daley machine. His sell out has made the lefist purists heartsick, many of whom were my close friends in the 60's and 70's when we were building anti-Daley coalitions that had both communists and anti-communists in the same anti-Daley coalition for Republicans Ogilvie, Kucharski, Woods, Carey, etc.

>> I am Catholic too. Did you read the second page of the yahoo "border patrol" newsletter???? Did you get the usual anti-Catholic bigotry that accompanies the ravings of these embarassing twits? The part about Our Lady of Guadalupe being a cover for some pagan Aztec goddess who will lead the Aztecs (Mexicans) into Atzlan (former Mexican lands now American states like California, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, et al). If you are Catholic, as I accept that you are, you may believe in the apparitions of Mary to St. Juan Diego in the 1500s. You need not believe. It is not dogma. I do believe and I am a little fed up with know nothings like the imbeciles who publish that newwletter rousing hatered among conservative Protestants and Catholics who ought to be allied. << <<

Oh, give me a break. If there's one thing worse than liberals who cry and complain all day about how "oppressed" and how much "discrimination" they face, it's "conservatives" who want to play the victim game too. It's been a real problem lately on FR, especially with those neo-confederates who scream that you either pander to their anti-Lincoln propaganda or you "hate all southerners"
Catholics are NOT a minority in America -- we're the number one branch of Christianity.Get used to it. The fact that a few PROTESTANT members of an immigration control group happen to be ignorant regarding Juan Diego means nothing. There's a bunch of "experts" out to "prove" the shroud of Turin is "fake" too, but I wouldn't say they are plotting against Catholicism. I would simply say they are ignorant nonbelievers. Besides, the facts show that you cannot prove Juan Diego existed one way or another. It's all a matter of faith. If you're Catholic, you believe it, if you're not, you probably don't.

>> On the other hand, I am not going to take insults to my religion (and yours) lying down. << <<

Oh, but I guess it's okay to take insults to your language, your culture, your nation, and your race lying down. Some of your beloved Hispanic "Advocacy" groups like the racist La Raza run around selling bumper stickers in California with slogans like "WHITES GET OUT! THIS IS OUR LAND!" Of course, I don't play the victim game and CLAIM they represent all immigrants. However, they certainly do represent the ILLEGAL, open-borders types that you want to court. If your concern over your language and culture was as devout as your concern over your religion, then you wouldn't be caught dead supporting these people. Let me know when you find a mainstream "anti-immigrant" group that passes out bumper stickers reading "Catholics get out!" The Know-nothings died out around 1858. This is 2002.

>> might live to be part of a white minority. If this is what conservatism is degenerating into, count me out. << <<

Hey, I'll live in WHATEVER type of country you want me to as long as the people living in it with me are LEGAL. It doesn't matter WHAT race they are. If that idea offends you, then you might as well be counted out of the GOP. That's been our platform since the 1880s. The party has advocated English-only and immigration regulation for over a century and won over minorities just fine until FDR and Lyndon Johnson started lying to them with the victim game. It is you who is out of touch with the party, not Tancredo. He's follow the same platform all Republicans have followed

>> If you don't like immigrants "legal" or "illegal" "mooching off our welfare laws" then repeal the welfare laws. Were you any more eager to have native born loafers mooch off our welfare laws. Abolish welfare laws. <<

Sounds like the death penalty moratorium advocates hanging out with George Ryan. "If you don't like murderers getting out of prison, then just abolish parole laws. Give them all life in prison". Sounds nice in THEORY but it will never happen. And they don't even bother pushing for it. They'd rather abolish the death penalty NOW and let a bunch of murderers get out and walk the streets...then sometime later...oh, when they get around to it, they will somehow find a way to pass a nationwide law to give all murderers life in prison without parole. If a few get out before then and hack up a few people, too bad.
So you want to pull the cart before the horse too. Let us have UNCONTROLLED immigration and let millions of people leech off this country now (we can get their votes!). Then, maybe, sometime in the future...we're abolish all welfare laws nationwide. Yep. But in the meantime, we better not do anything to deport people! We could offend someone!
It doesn't work that way, my friend. The damage is being done NOW. George Ryan and his cronies can talk to be about ceasing the death penalty AFTER they find a way to keep the murderers in prison. You can talk about letting tons of people in this country AFTER you find a way to end all welfare. In each case, you KNOW it's not going to happen, and that's why your current system is wrongheaded and must be stopped.

>> The reason why people who obsess over Mexicans crossing our borders without formal advance government approval (although it always seems to be granted after the fact of their immigration by the same government) are called anti-Latino is because Mexicans are Latinos and they oppose Latino immigration. <<

There you go again, playing the liberal race card. "They're all bigots, I tells ya!!" Scream racism at everybody. I suppose all the Latinos who belong to (and in many cases, actually are in charge of) English-only and border-control groups must be racist against their OWN race! And Catholics who support such groups must be be against their OWN religion too! Again, same logic from the liberals. "The REASON why people obsess over stopping a women's right over her OWN body is because those groups are anti-woman! And the WOMEN who oppose abortion rights are sexist against their own gender! You must be pro-abortion or you HATE women!"

>> Since the Supreme Court decided that slaughtering 1.5 million innocent children was not mass homicide but a result of an allegedly constitutionally mandated "woman's right to choose" (to choose what????), the idea of the Rule of Law has had decidedly less appeal. Seeing priests sent to federal prison for saying the rosary on public sidewalks (Fr. Norman Weslin: Buffalo, NY, 2001) has also diminished the Rule of Law.

The irony of what you say in amazing. Go back in time to 1965, and even planned parenthood told you abortion was murder and a horrible experience. Now it's "removing a nonviable mass of tissue". Go back in time 1965 and illegal aliens were just that, criminals invading our borders. Now they are "undocumented GUEST workers" that we have to pander to and thank our lucky stars for their arrival. I think I'll make an "undocumented purchase" of a VCR at Best Buy. Let's see how well the government treats ME when I break the rule of way.

>> Even in Southern New England, there is plenty of room for more population; particularly in the cities which are bleeding population (i.e., New Haven has lost 1/3 of its population in 50 years. The 160,000 or so of 1950 were 15 to 1 white. Whites are today a minority if you regard Hispanics as not white). What's the difference what race they are? <<

California has 54 members in congress thanks to your slight little population increase. Do you realize how LOPSIDED that is? Everywhere in the Midwest, our states GAINED population and yet managed to LOSE representation. I guess it doesn't bother you that 90% of the nation's fate will be decided by the "people" of California, Arizona, or New Mexico, and Texas. By the way, check out all the "new" districts they've gotten since 1990 (thanks to illegal immigration!) and see if those reps are conservative or liberal. New Mexico used to be one of the most conservative states in the nation until your "conservative" illegal friends arrived and turned it into a welfare state. Watch the election results this year and tell me how great those states are doing with massive illegal immigration. Oh, BTW I don't care what race they are. Millions of ILLEGAL aliens from Western EUROPE would be just as bad, except these happen to be from Mexico.

>> What kind of argument is the anecdotal tale that 2 of 3 descendants of Mexicans whom you know in California are agnostics and none Catholic? Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Dick Durbin, Tom Harkin, John Kerrey, Barbara Mikulski, Robert Torricelli, Susan Collins, Patrick Leahy, to name a few Senators, claim to be Catholic. Would your Hispanic agnostics be worse in their views of, say, abortion??? <<

Okay, let's do a ratio of all the white Catholics in congress. How many are pro-abortion and how many are pro-life? Here in Illinois, it's certainly a majority pro-life -- even a lot of our Catholic Democrats are pro-life like Lipinski. Durbin's not (he used to be), so he's an exception to the rule. Now do a ratio of how many of your "conservative" Hispanic congressman are pro-life. Hmmm. I think 3 or 4 out of perhaps 20 or so. Congressman Bonilla (R-TX) is a pro-life Hispanic. Of course, he's an advocate of tougher borders laws. Must be one of those Hispanics bigoted against himself. Tsk. tsk. < /sarcasm>
I personally think we'd have a lot more pro-life Hispanics in congress...EXCEPT the GOP seems to be trying to court liberal Hispanics with all kinds of special rights. Sort of like how they figured they'd get the gay vote and they ended up with "Republicans" like Jim Kolbe.
Our party isn't supposed to pander to groups. Conservative gays will come to the GOP because they believe OUR values, not if we pledge gay marriage. Ditto with conservative Hispanics. Bonilla didn't show up because the GOP ran ads in Spanish to him.

>> We ought to be a lot more worried about the Catholic Church in the United States than the Catholic Church in Mexico, Albania or anywhere else, at least from what we have been reading in the papers. <<

The Catholic church in Latin America nations has the WORST shortage of priests in the world. I think it's like 1 per every 300 churches or something like that. We've actually had an increase in priests since the molestation scandal, believe it or not. Although we'd certainly have a shortage crisis on par with Latin-America if the open-borders types have their way. No way will the church be able to fulfill the needs at that rate. Let immigration occur SLOWLY and they could.

>>With the exception of Bishop Doran of Rockford, IL, and Bishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln, NE, and a tiny handful of others, I would take Mexico's bishops over ours any day.<<

I take it you're not a fan of Francis George or Bishop Gregory here in Illinois. And yet you're one of those "holier-than-thou" Catholics. Reminds me of the guy on FR who claims he's more Catholic than JPII.
Speaking of Mexico's bishops, most of them are pretty good guys. It's ashamed their citizens are leaving in droves and that their government has destroyed the church since the 1930s. The archbishop of Mexico spoke up on the betrayal of their President, Vicente Fox (the George Ryan of Mexico!) but to no avail.

>> Gutierrez is a creature of the Chicago machine. This is not typical turf by which to judge. <<

Gutierrez was doomed to holding his little seat on the Chicago City Council for life until your friends, the "conservative" illegal aliens showed in droves so the 1990 census reflected an HUGE, unnatural increase in the "Hispanic" population in Chicagoland. The Democrats drove at the opportunity to CUSTOM MAKE a racist district for Gutierrez, and the sheeple there reelect him over and over again. If they tried gerrymandering an all-white district in Chicago, can you imagine the outrage? The guy's "district" looks like an ink blot, for crying out loud!

>> You guys who obsess about Mexican immigration play right into their hands. If the Mexicans are inclined to vote GOP on family issues, they will be reminded that the GOP Congressman Tancredo and others didn't want them to be able to live here at all. <<

More liberal logic. You sound like Arlen Specter complaining about the pro-life plank, as if it's a new thing "Those intolerant right-wingers are obsessed over abortion! They are alienating the suburban soccer mommie vote! Moderate woman who are inclided to be fiscally conservative will NEVER vote Republican until we ELIMINATE the pro-life plank!"
We will continue to speak out against ILLEGAL immigration of ALL races. Hispanic conservatives will too. If liberals don't like that, too bad. The GOP did an excellent job of limiting immigration in the 1920s and got a huge share of the minority vote under Calvin Coolidge, who did not have a racist bone in his body (he was excellent on civil rights)
Chris Smith is the big "single-issue" abortion guy and Tancredo is the big "single issue' immigration guy. The only one they offend are liberals, although both of them could try speaking up on other issues for a change.

>> We are not likely to get much native-born black vote any time soon although they were Republicans not so very long ago. The Demonrats have convinced them that the GOP is the blow-dried Klan. So GOP (or conservative if you prefer) is viewed as anti-black. We are also viewed as anti-woman (not merely by the feminazis but also by some of the gullible). We are also deemed anti-Asian. Everyone knows we are the racist wing of American life. Now, the Demonrats will add anti-Hispanic to our alleged repertoire. <<

This is nothing new. We've been "for the richest 1%" since the 30s and "controlled by the corporations and the special interests" since at least the 1890s, if you look at Democrat campaigns throughout history. Our limited-immigration platform has never hurt our ability to get minority votes -- in fact, it actually HELPED on many occasions. There was a black Republican named Oscar DePriest who represented my district from 1928-1935. You should read up on him sometime. Many more examples abound in history.
As I noted, FDR and Johnson got minorities on the welfare state and that is the problem. Trying to out-liberal the Democrats with promises of amnesty and free driver's licenses has never worked and is not going to. You want to convince them that the GOP is not the KKK, then we ought to be working to get rid of a vocal few in "our" party who praise the likes of Robert Byrd, David Duke, and Nathan Forrest. They are NOT "Republicans", but disgruntled George Wallace Democrats (more Libertarian than Conservative anyway). My family has been conservative, Republican, for at least 4 generations...and we have ALWAYS believed in LIMITED immigration.

>> You cannot concede to the Demonrats everyone other than white, straight males and those females who support them and a handful of eccentrics from other backgrounds and expect to be competitive. <<

I never said we should. I said we should go after the votes of legal Hispanic CITIZENS like we do every other American group. My ancestors didn't need ads in German, Italian, or Irish to vote Republican. They certainly didn't need ballots or driving tests in those languages. Evidentially, the Republican ideal of equality offends you. We're against special rights. If Armenian immigrants can't get ballots in Armenian, neither can Mexican immigrants. Simple.

>> Grab the fastest growing minority (already larger than blacks numerically), use wedge politics as necessary to bind them to the GOP and wield them as a weapon against the Demonrats. <<

Sorry, we don't play one ethnic group against another. That's the Dem party stragedy. We stand with the American people, including Hispanic-Americans, for American culture. That's what distinguishes us from the Democrats, Libertarians, Green Party, and just about all the other open-borders groups.

>> If you bind them to the GOP through social issues (however uncomfortable this may make Muffy, Skipper and the rest of the hereditary trust fund Republicans who majored in polo in college before joining Planned Barrenhood or craven crooks like our own George Ryan), then America is not over. <<

You're the last person who should be invoking the name of George Ryan, the biggest advocate of pandering to illegals that I know of. This is insane. There are a group of Republicans complaining right now that the Illinois GOP was "too conservative" in the 2000 election even though the team of George Ryan and Lee Daniels tried to campaign to the left of half the Democrats in the state. Likewise, it seems a group of Illinois Republicans like yourself are complaing we have been "too intolerant" towards immigrants in this state, even though George Ryan spent the last four years kissing illegal butt and destroyed the party over it. If LICENSES-FOR-BRIBES (remember the dead Willis family? Remember the truck driver who DIDN'T SPEAK ENGLISH and got his license ILLEGALLY from OLD GEORGE?,) doesn't convince you that pandering damages the GOP, nothing will.
Speaking of George Ryan, how's his old buddy Vicente Fox doing? "Conservative" Vicente Fox counts George Ryan and Richie Daley (not to mention Gray Davis!) as among his HEROES, thanks to George sharing his views on rewarding illegal criminals (Vicente thinks the bad death penalty is racist too!) He's liberal on just about every issue, just like George. Campaigned as a conservative and governs as an ultraliberal. That's why he's the George Ryan of Mexico. And if electing George Ryan clones is the best they can do, then God help Republicans who think this represents "conservatism"

>> 'll take Jack Kemp over Tom Tancredo any day. Kemp was never a Johnny One Note or a lightweight. <<

Considering Al Gore (a lousy debater!) mopped the floor with Kemp in '96, I'll take Tancredo. Kemp is great on the issues but is one of those complacent Republicans who doesn't want to get "too personal".
Finally, I would like to note that Republican nominee for Congress in my district, Ray Wardingley, just received the endorsement of the Republican Hispanic Assembly of Cook County. He also received a glowing letter from a constituent in the district, Fenarndo Calero, telling Ray that he would vote for him "in a heartbeat" over Bobby Rush. This was before the RHA endorsement. So what did Ray do to court these Hispanic Americans? Simple. He talked about conservative, pro-family issues they care about. He never ran ads in Spanish or anything ridiculous like that -- in fact, he's been blasting away at Rush for his vote on (i)245 amnesty. Interesting, eh?

I don't fancy myself much of an assimilated American although my last foreign-born ancestor arrived as a British naval veteran in about 1905. I don't care for Abraham Lincoln but that is probably because I majored in history in college and concentrated on the Civil War period. I just came across a relatively pro-Lincoln 100-page thesis that I wrote on diplomatic history of the 1861-1862 period. I was somewhat amazed at how influenced I had been by those who worship Lincoln. I changed my mind about him because I never stopped reading.

Oscar DePriest was eliminated in the early days of the Nash-Kelly Machine by a black Democrat who held the seat for many years thereafter and used his position in the machine and a patronage controversy to dispose of Mayor Kenneally in favor of the Cook County Clerk and Chairman of the slating committee, one Richard Daley the Elder. I am not sure why that or Oscar DePriest is relevant to the discussion.

The problem, BillyBoy, is whether conservatism is a matter of green eye-shades and gartered sleeves typically the attire of monetary bean-counters or whether it is a more comprehensive political and cultural faith embracing social issues general to mankind rather than the special interests of an American elite (and a self-appointed one at that).

My conservatism is not of the Muffy and Skipper down at the yacht club, coupon-clipping, polo-playing variety. Nor is it the conservatism of sterility which says that everything must be left alone or everything will be ruined. Everything will not be left alone and so that position is and always has been and will be a loser. Nor is mine the pseudo-conservatism of the Margaret Sanger/Lothrop Stoddard/Madison Grant/Ayn Rand variety in which self-centered obsessions will justify anything including the mass murder of unborn children so that those who wish to live their lives free of the complexities of parenthood may nonetheless rule society by walling up the borders.

I am a Republican by default (and, except for Indian removal policies, a Jacksonian) because of the moral decrepitude of the Demonratic Party and its capture by the New Left as exemplified by the Arkansas AntiChrist and Mrs. AntiChrist (or Senator AntiChrist as one may prefer.) It is not because my soul thrills to the heritage of looney-tune abolitionists like John Brown, or of the excesses and corruption of Military Reconstruction or of the kind of folks who were Judas Jeffords and his ancestors or of Ulysses S. Grant or of William Howard Taft or of Charles Evans Hughes or of the general run of those who might be generalized as Ditherington Q. Pecksniffs of Republican history. I am not moved to admire Nelson or anyone else named Rockefeller (and I note that the only political office-holder of that clan is now a Demonractic Senator), nor the fashionably attired and vacant-headed John Lindsay nor the likes of George Ryan or Connecticut's John Rowland. Like you, I voted for Pat O'Malley and look forward to doing so again when he is nominated against future Governor Blagojovich (or however he may spell his name) whose election this fall will make me as sick as it makes you. Dying Jim Ryan is very little improvement over Lying George Ryan as a candidate and we need not worry about him becoming governor since he was sooooo reluctant to prosecute either Jesse Jackson or Lying George Ryan.

I am also not very proud to be a member of the party of Barry Goldwater who brought his own daughter to an abortion mill to dispose of an "unwanted" grandchild and went pro-lavender after noting the trends among younger members of his family. Among the available choices, however, the GOP is more likely to have a manly foreign policy, diplomatic backbone, resistance to some taxes, to support some judicial nominees who can read the Constitution, to resist Adam "marrying" Lance, and to, at least, slow the pace of Demonratic policy initiatives.

As to the status of Catholics here, there are approximately 75 million out of a population nearing 300 million. We are, loosely defining Catholicism, 25% of the population, and the largest single denomination in our country. However, 25% can, at best, be a plurality which it is in this case, and can never be a majority.

St. Juan Diego existed without question. His cloak is still enshrined at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe. No Catholic (much less anyone else) need believe in the apparitions of Mary to St. Juan Diego nor that the image on the cloth is authentic. Juan Diego is unquestionably a person who lived in Mexico in the vicinity of Mexico City at the time. That Protestant (or agnostic or atheist for that matter, how would I know? ) anti-Mexican anti-immigration obsessives fancying themselves grandiosely as a "Border Patrol" might not believe that the BVM appeared to St. Juan Diego is perfectly understandable and predictable. We Catholics tend to be a tolerant lot and to have little objection to the disagreements of others with the actual Catholic Faith much less with private revelations which are not dogma. What we need not and ought not tolerate are suggestions that Pope John Paul II is giving his backing to a secret cabal of pagan Chicanos because he accepts the validity of a pagan goddess.

I do not love La Raza, nor the concept of Atzlan, nor LULAC nor any other such nonsense. I do have a life to live and I am not going to answer every point of your post but I will also note that you ought to read Pope John Paul II on the subject of immigration before you go around charging that I am somehow out of touch for suggesting that anti-Mexican immmigration obsessions are anti-Catholic whether exercised by those imagining themselves Catholic or not. Yes, as a matter of fact, one may reasonably be called an anti-Catholic "Catholic" when deviating substantially from the teachings of the Church and of this or any other pope.

No, I am not very impressed with most American bishops. Wilton Gregory is nothing but another AmChurch bureaucrat putting a black face on Americanist heresies for public consumption. I think a lot more of Francis Cardinal George but not as much as I do of Bishops Thomas Doran and Fabian Bruskewitz. De gustibus, non disputandum est, as they say in one of them pesky furrin' languages.

That nominal Catholics are now 75 million or so, does not mean that many of the 75 million have a clue as to the faith itself. They have been poorly taught for several decades (Hi, I'm Father Bruce and I'll be your presider today!). A record percentage do not attend Mass. Many do not confess their sins sacramentally with any regularity. Many imagine that salvation is a given. They defy Rome on birth control. The Catholic abortion rate is as bad as anyone else's. They imagine that people like Ted Kennedy are Catholic as though Catholicism were a race rather than a body of beliefs. Regrettably, one could go on and on.

And how would you control immigration from Mexico? Construct the Great Wall of Texas/Arizona/New Mexico/California, topped by high voltage piano wire, supplemented by a full time crew of helicopter gun ships so that Huey can save us by mowing down the defiant Mexican families seeking a better way of life? Beef up the Coast Guard and blockade incoming traffic from "suspect" nations? Have our television stations play nothing but Jerry Springer and the Simpsons and Phil Donahue to convince Mexicans that no one should want to be caught dead coming to the US? Put ancestrally GOP bean counters on the border to financially examine newcomers as to whether they have qualified in terms of pre-existing trust funds to join our population? Make the INS look at the applications (under the Rule of Law Almighty which also kills 1.5 million kids a year)) for LEGAL citizenship which are stacked, unread, by the hundreds of thousands in a Kansas warehouse becuase the bureaucrats can't be bothered to obey the law which you adore? Let's hear some practical suggestions, BillyBoy.

Actually, the Republican platform or at least the Republican policy of the 1880s also included the Blaine Amendment enthusiasm which sought to guarantee that immigrant (gasp: Catholic!!!!) child slaves of the Vatican and the POPE IN ROME (!!!!!) would be assimilated into "normal" American mainstream Protestantism and "Americanized" by our wonderful public schools. You could look it up. Furthermore, the Know Nothings did not merely fade away. They merged into the early GOP. They joined with Free Soilers, Abolitionist crazies, Hamiltonian and pro-aristocrat "businessmen and gentlemen should rule everything and everyone" types, internal improvement spending champions like Abraham Lincoln, the usual graft-as-you go crowd who collect around public works, anti-Jacksonian Democrats and those who (like the New York Protestant pastor who spoke at James Blaine's request) denounced the Democrats as the "Party of Rum, Romanism and Rebellion (a triple smack at your Irish ancestors and mine) to form: (drum role and trumpet blare) the Republican Party! You could look that up too!

I did not live in Illinois in 2000 but, if I did, I would not have voted for Lying George Ryan. First, the Democrats actually nominated someone worth voting for: Congressman Glenn Poshard, good on guns, babies and taxes. What more ought we to look for in a candidate? I would have voted for Poshard even without the licenses-for-bribes scandal. I knew this in Connecticut. Did you not know this in Illinois? Second I would not vote for anyone who would run with the likes of Corinne Wood as a running mate. I knew this in Connecticut. Did you not know enough to vote against Lying George Ryan here in Illinois? If I lived in Illinois in 2000, I guarantee you I would have known a lot more reasons to vote against Ryan. Why didn't you?

Let me get your final point straight. You are represented in Congress by Bobby Rush? Isn't he the former Black Panther who has not reformed his views? Your biggest problem is nonetheless that socially conservative Mexicans are crossing our southwestern border to become Americans against the Rule of Law Almighty which has killed 40 million innocent kids since Roe vs. Wade? You are impressed that some post-office-Republican candidate in your district is endorsed by the Hispanic Republican Assembly even though he was not polite enough to run Spanish advertising. (If they are going to vote for me, they gosh darn well better learn English!) BTW, I think they ought to learn English and so do they want to learn it so their kids can compete.

Isn't it the function of the Hispanic REPUBLICAN Assembly or the Albanian REPUBLICAN Assembly or the Plutonian REPUBLICAN Assembly or the Andromedan REPUBLICAN Assembly to endorse REPUBLICAN candidates for public office? Sounds like dog bites man to me! Not very interesting at all.

Meanwhile, I think that's a very good idea you have to promote Tancredo for President. Concentrate all your efforts on getting him elected president. Or elect Wardingly or whatever his name is over Bobby Rush or anyone over Bobby Rush. These are worthy efforts for those obsessed with the fact that THE MEXICANS ARE COMING!!!!, THE MEXICANS ARE COMING!!!!