The Things Republicans say these days...
- The Presidents plan sucks
- NAFTA was a disaster
- There is no such thing as an 'American Company' any more
It's a good interview. Here are some of the things that Tancredo had to say about Bush and immigration reform:
Tancredo: Because he [Bush] ruins it. He ruins the, when he starts talking about enforcement, we can, as I say, get sort of enthusiastic. But it is ruined entirely by his commitment to amnesty. It is a terrible public policy. And I do not believe, first of all, I have to tell you I am leery about the administration’s commitment to the concept of enforcement. And so, I'm not willing to give them a package that includes amnesty and a guest worker plan.
Tancredo: Secondly, how do you deal with the people who are presently here? You do not have to do this, round them up, all this draconian talk about how we’re going to deport 13 million people.
All you have to do is something that I admit is a kind of a radical idea around here, and that is enforce the law. Enforce the law. If you do that, if you go after employers who are creating the demand side of this equation, you will see an attrition. People will leave the country and go back to the country of origin, because there really are no other alternatives.
Tavis: But back to the earlier point, though. So many of these employers, come on, you and I know the truth here. So many of these employers are your friends. They're Republicans. They ain’t trying to hear that.
Tancredo: Well, I don’t care what they're trying to hear, and yeah, I'm a Republican, and have been one all my life. But I'm telling you that we have to stop the demand side. It is imperative. It’s the core. It’s the core principle. You can do a lot of stuff on the border, but as long as the magnet of jobs still pulls people into the country, they’ll come. So you have to go after them.
Tavis: Yet there are a number of people who feel that the failure of NAFTA is always left out of this conversation about immigration, and you can’t separate those two things. Do you agree or disagree?
Tancredo: I agree. I agree. NAFTA was a disaster, especially for Mexico, especially for the small subsistence farmer in Mexico who can no longer compete. They went out of business. They came north; they went to the maquiladoras, the factories on the border. Then last year, of course, because of the globalization of the economy, the maquiladoras lost 800,000 jobs to China. So where did those people go? They came north.
Tavis: I got 45 seconds here, can we legitimately blame U.S. corporations for making more money at home, sending more jobs abroad? They don’t give a living wage to these people in the countries where they work, and because they get exploited there, they come here looking for a better life. You wanna blame American corporations at all?
Tancredo: I'm telling you, I don’t even know what an American corporation is anymore, frankly. For the most part, these multinational corporations have absolutely no loyalty to a particular country. They have a loyalty to the bottom line, and they couldn’t care less about what happens in the United States. They are looking at their profit margins. I think it’s getting more and more difficult to actually identify an American, quote, corporation.
I noticed a couple of points in Bush's speech the other night that I haven't heard being commented on in the MSM or the Blogosphere.
First, Bush talked about deporting illegal's and how his plan calls for increasing the number of 'beds' to hold these people while waiting for deportation. He talked about non Mexican immigrants taking more resources to deport because you can't just drop them off over the boarder. This got me to thinking about the reports recently about the $400 million contract with Halliberton to build 'detention centers' to hold 'mass migrations of peoples across our boarders or other future government programs'.
The second thing I noticed was the way he tried to protect those same corporations who, as Tancredo says, "couldn't care less about what happens in the United States" by claiming that with out his new worker ID program, have a real hard time distinguishing legal from non legal workers. That part says to me that Bush's plan has no interest in going after companies that hire non legal workers. Why is it that so many call un-documented aliens 'criminals' but we rarely hear that term used for the companies and businesses that illegally hire them?
Maybe we should save some space in those 'detention centers' for the criminals who hire illegal's!
In a 'News Hour' program about the issue they had one man saying that every job that an illegal worker takes is taking a job away from an American. But, in the same program that said that businesses have said that if the gravy train of cheap labor gets derailed by immigration reform they will have to send many of the jobs overseas to find other cheap (slave) labor. This brings me to a point that no one seems to make on the news. These workers who sneak over the boarder are not taking jobs that Americans won't do. They are taking jobs that companies won't pay more for.
One last thing about the Tancredo interview. He has a possibly telling slip of the tongue in the interview where he says:
I think that there are enough Republicans even in the Senate to perhaps sustain a veto.
Then corrects himself:
I said that wrong. To perhaps sustain a filibuster.
Was this a slip of the tongue or a veiled threat to the President that if they put up a bill that gets vetoed by Bush, the Republicans can over ride it?