Originally posted on my blog, Century of the Common Iowan.Last weekend I attended a campaign event in town held by Republican Tom Tancredo. This was my first Republican event I attended, so I wasn't quite sure what to expect. I went having a couple questions that I hoped would be answered (mainly about immigration) and hoping that Tancredo would give some crazy far right comments.
Tancredo began by telling the story of him serving in the Department of Education under Reagan and Bush in the 1980's. He said that he got the call and he was honored to serve under Reagan, but had to decline because he doesn't believe there even should be a Department of Education, so how could he work there. Tancredo's idea was to shut the Department of Education down. The Reagan administration responded by saying that is exactly what we want you to do.
The rest of Tancredo's speech was about immigration, immigration, and immigration. If he was asked about health care, he would tie the answer to immigration. If he was asked about education, he would somehow fit immigration in there. If he was asked about trade, he would fit immigration in there. He briefly mentioned that he was against abortion while touting his Conservative background and shockingly he did not even mention Iraq once.
Tancredo began discussing immigration by framing it as a security issue. He wants to first tighten security on the southern border and then the northern border. He said that we need to know who is coming in, for what reasons, and how long they are staying. Then he said we are basically importing a servant class into our nation. The ones who benefit are the employers because the cheap labor is only cheap for them. It is everyone else who must pay for it. Tancredo disagrees with people who say they can't find people to do work. He said what they really mean is they can't hire people to work for the price they are willing to pay. If you want to do something for low wage workers, then secure the borders. Tancredo laid out a simple solution that is just words long... enforce the laws.
I basically agree with every one of those points that Tancredo said about immigration. However, I felt Tancredo was emphasizing the wrong points in his speech. Here are some of the things that I didn't agree with Tancredo when it comes to immigration.
Tancredo said he would outlaw bilingual education. I worked in a bilingual school that taught everyone English and Spanish. It was amazing to see English speaking students become bilingual by the time they were in 3rd and 4th grades. It was a tremendous opportunity for these students. It helped the Spanish speaking students because to learn a new language it is important to have the basics of reading down in your native language. By learning to read and speak Spanish correctly, these students are able to learn English quicker and better.
Tancredo had a lot of stories about immigrants who receive all of the health care they need. I can't argue that a large number of immigrants do not have health insurance and receive some sort of health care. However, the quality of that care is not as good as the health care people with insurance have. Also, it is morally wrong to deny health care or education for that matter to people based on the fact their skin is a different color, they speak a different language, and they come (or their parents come) from a different country.
He stressed not redefining amnesty. He said all of the candidates are basically trying to redefine amnesty by inserting a path towards citizenship. If you don't give a path towards citizenship, then what do you do with the 12-20 million illegal immigrants in the nation? This was exactly the first question asked by the audience. Tancredo's answer was why not. He said to not let candidates tell you that it can't be done because if you believe it is the right thing to do and have the will to do it then it can be done. I agree that technically we could round up 12-20 million people. However, I only see 3 ways in accomplishing that and none of them are realistic at all. First, we could use every single law enforcement officer in the nation. Take them away from the police force, the mall security, FBI, etc and have them go looking for illegal immigrants. Second, we could bring all of our national guard out of Iraq and other countries overseas and have them round up all of the illegal immigrants. Finally, we could declare marshal law and set a curfew. Anyone out past a curfew would get tossed in a van and dumped on the other side of the border. Technically, all of these would work, but there would be a huge price to pay economically and eroding away with our civil liberties.
At the end of the speech, Tancredo did say that jobs are the magnet bringing immigrants here. If you crack down on employers and the immigrants wouldn't be able to find a job, they would go back home on their own. This is an example of how he should answer the question. This type of statement should be first point he makes, instead of talking about having the will to round up 12-20 million people.
Tancredo strongly made the point that we can't have a society based on diversity. He stressed that we need something to hold our society together. The things that hold our nation together is our border, our language, and our culture. I totally disagree with this. We are a nation of immigrants, dating back to the Pilgrims. It is like Tancredo has never read any history of the United States prior to the 1950's. The thing that holds our nation together is our freedoms. It doesn't matter what language you speak, you have the freedom of speech. It doesn't matter what culture you have, you have the freedom to practice your religion however you wish. It is our freedoms that make our country great. Trying to solve the issue of immigration and national security by taking freedoms away is not the answer.
Tancredo comes across as being mean and heartless because he says things that sound like he is attacking the immigrant and referring to them as something other than a human being. If he focused on the job markets, employers, and had an ounce of compassion when speaking about immigrants, Tancredo would come off much better.
Tancredo also spoke about No Child Left Behind and free trade agreements. I had a lot in common with him on both of these issues. Tancredo voted against NCLB because he doesn't believe the Federal Government has any right to be involved in local education. He came out strongly against free trade agreements because there is no reason you have to sacrifice sovereignty for trade. Tancredo voted against NAFTA and CAFTA and said they are part 2 of a 3 step process of making North America into a North American Union. No my reasons for opposing NCLB and free trade a slightly different, I was pleased that Tancredo has taken such strong stands against them.
I was also surprised at how much he bashed Bush in his speech. He had comments against Bush at least 3 times. One, he jokingly said that he doesn't get invited to the White House much and that is just fine with him. The audience laughed and didn't seem to mind the Bush bashing.
After hearing Tancredo speak, I was surprised at how much I actually agreed with him on immigration. However, I am not sure how much Tancredo would be willing to compromise on the things I did disagree with him on. He seemed pretty much set in his ways. When I left, I had gotten my couple questions answered at the event. However, I left with a quite a few more questions about topics that were brought up.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
