What? The US Senate is out of touch? Are you kidding me?

Tancredo: House understands border issues, but Senate doesn’t

Tom Tancredo is talking about the border security issue:

During a morning stop in Benson, the Colorado Republican pointed to the recently passes bill in the House that requires building 700 more miles of wall along the southern boundary, along with hiring additional Border Patrol agents and adding more technology to secure the border is the right thing.

But he fears the Senate will not follow suit and fall under the sway of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and big businesses, meaning the House members would have failed in their attempt to protect the country.

Pat Buchanan is with Tancredo. As is usually the case with politicians, I don’t always agree with everything they say and do, but I’m solidly in the “secure the border” camp. With iron-clad border security, of course, we’d still be at a troubling level of risk. But do you leave your car unlocked because the window can always be smashed in?

Critics of strong border security are not only asking us to leave our cars unlocked, but they’re telling us it’s in our best interest if other folks take it for a spin once in a while.

Roger Barnett, a Sierra Vista businessman and Douglas-area rancher, listened to Tancredo and Buchanan. He said Americans are seeing their jobs eliminated because illegal immigrants will work for less.

“Businesses are paying slave wages,” he said.

If the United States does not close down the border and enforce existing immigration laws, more Americans will lose pay and benefits because illegal immigrants will take their jobs, Barnett said. “Big business are the whores,” he added.

The end of the article covers the opinion of Douglas Mayor Ray Borane. Borane opposes Tancredo’s rhetoric.

Being a border mayor, Borane said he has worked immigration issues directly because he understands the two cultures involved in the problem.

In the past, the mayor has called for a guest-worker program, but with assurances there will be no amnesty.

People such as Tancredo come and make a visit to the border and fly back to Washington, D.C., without understanding all the nuances involved with the problem, the mayor said. [emphasis Murdoc’s]

All apologies to the good mayor, but what do “cultures” have to do with securing this nation’s borders? The last thing I want is someone focused on “nuances” to be deciding whether border security is a good idea or not.


  1. Let’s face it – the border issue is about a jobs and votes program for Latin Americans in general, and Mexicans specifically. I suspect Mexicans specifically, and Latin Americans in general, would get all worked up if we specified that the overall legal immigration quota for the rest of the world will go up in proportion to the estimated number of illegal Latin American immigrants who show up stateside. Latin America’s population is perhaps 600m. The rest of the world’s population is 6b. I figure maybe 200,000 Latin Americans come in every year illegally. If we took in 2m legal immigrants from the rest of the world annually, the Mexican government would be criticizing us for driving down the wages of their illegal alien compatriots.

  2. This is issue is vexating me more and more. I really don’t see how this is even a debate. Illegal immigration is, you know, illegal. The debate over how many people and from where we should let into our country is an entirely separate issue. Regardless of where you stand on legal immigration – a lot or a little – this should be a no brainer. Of course, a lot of people who are against tighter border control use the other issue as a smokescreen. Am I some sort of racist for being ‘against’ Mexican immigrants? Well, no. At least not if they came here legally. The debate should be about the mechanics of how, exactly, we are going to secure the border. The major problems are 1) expense and 2) the complicity of the Mexican government. As for expense, I would recommend that we cancel farm subsidies and use the cash for more border security. But whatever works – we need to allocate money to beef up the border, and we need to implement policies that don’t encourage more illegal immigration. When we granted amnesty, all we did was encourage the next, larger wave. When we catch and release, and make no effort to evict illegals we do find, new illegal immigrants are encouraged – they’ll be thinking, ‘Hey, nothing happened to Juan, I’ll be fine.’ And we need to put real pressure on Pres. Fox to stop subtly and not-so-subtly encouraging illegal immigrants from his side of our sort of border. Printing pamphlets on how to navigate the border region is not being a good neighbor. Further reforms in Mexico will, in the long run, reduce immigration northward. I have a hard time understanding the motivation of anyone who opposes a more tightly controlled border. Why, exactly, do you want more illegal immigrants in this country. People who, on their first step into this country, evince a disregard for our laws; who by virtue of their illegal status are unassimilable and will not become Americans; and who are a drain on our resources and a constant temptation to the regrettably weak morals of corporate employers. What kind of person is for all of these things?

  3. I was talking to an illegal immigrant one day and she said that the mexican government was encouraging them to invade us and take back the land we rightfully won from them at San Jacinto – solution: Bomb Mexico!!