Tom Tancredo Supports Arizona Style Immigration Law for Colorado

The denverpost.com asked Tom Tancredo if he supports an Arizona style immigration law for Colorado. This is his answer.

Yes, I strongly support Arizona-style laws to deal with a problem created by the federal government’s lack of enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws. Colorado has an estimated 200,000 or more illegal immigrants who drain over $1.6 billion in taxpayer dollars annually, according to a recent study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Read more…

16 thoughts on “Tom Tancredo Supports Arizona Style Immigration Law for Colorado

  1. Tim Paynter

    Considering Tancredo was in Arizona when rancher Bob Krentz was killed, and used the murder to lobby Arizona Republican legsislators for SB 1070, who would be surprised at this answer?

    The better question is, after national boycotts, billions lost in revenues resulting in a lower tax base for Arizona, WHY would Tancredo continue to support a racist law like the one passed in Arizona? Where is Tom’s leadership on comprehensive immigration reform?

  2. RedPhillips Post author

    Go sell that bull in Arizona Tim. I guess Gov. Brewer and all those Republicans talking tough on immigration are going down to defeat in Arizona this year, right?

    Even McCain has been forced to repudiated amnesty.

  3. G

    Why is it fair that illegals are allowed to stay here and continue draining funds, committing crimes, taking jobs… I could go on. Tancredo is correct in his assessment here.

    Thomas L. Knapp-what planet are you from and why do you support criminals? What an ignorant statement.

  4. Thomas L. Knapp

    G,

    First of all, there’s no such thing as an illegal immigrant — the Constitution delegates no power whatsoever to the US government to regulate immigration. The Supreme Court miracled that power out of its imagination in 1875.

    Secondly, immigrants pay more in taxes (source: Bureau of Labor Statistics), consume less in government benefits (source: Department of Health and Human Services), and are less likely to commit crimes (source: FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports) than “natural born citizens.”

    Immigrants make America a better place. I wish there was a way to guarantee two of them coming here for every child born to a Know-Nothing couple. It would raise the collective income, IQ and civility of the country.

  5. realpolitik anarchist

    Under Article 1, Section 9, the feds obtained co-equal power with the states (which previously held such power exclusively) to “prohibit Migration” in the year 1808.

    Hope this helps.

  6. realpolitik anarchist

    Nope, that was about Migration.
    Slaves don’t migrate, they’re imported.
    FAIL.

  7. paulie

    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

    This makes it clear that it is about importing slave (tax or duty…importation). Limitations on migration were not even on the radar, the debates about this all concerned the slave trade.

    You fail.

  8. Thomas L. Knapp

    realpolitik,

    You should probably re-read Article I, Section 9. It enumerates no power whatsoever to regulate (or prohibit) migration. It specifically PROHIBITS such a power (and another section specifically prohibits amending the Constitution to get rid of that prohibition) until 1808.

    Prohibiting something until no earlier than 1808 is not the same as enumerating a power to do that thing after 1808. The most that could plausibly be construed from it is that after 1808 the Constitution could have been amended to enumerate such a power … but it wasn’t.

    The history is not unclear here. The Federalist framers of the Constitution intentionally left that power out of the Constitution (the anti-Federalists complained about the omission), and Congress understood itself to have no such power until an activist Reconstruction-era Supreme Court made it up for them. The first federal immigration regulation was not passed until 1882.

  9. realpolitik anarchist

    It is quite clear that “Migration” means “Migration.” It means nothing else.

    If the clause were just intended to to be about slavery, it simply would have said “importation.” There are no extraneous words in the Constitution.

    The colonies were able to set or not set Migration quotas for as many as they “shall think proper to admit,” and the States retained that power after ratification.

    If you check the debates over the Alien Friends Act, you will find its opponents cited this clause and Adams violation of it, as he was prohibiting migration against the wishes of the states, and it was not yet 1808.

    Words mean things. “Migration” means “Migration;” and any argument otherwise is disingenuous or just horribly uninformed. That’s the reality.

  10. paulie

    See also

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_9:_Limits_on_Congress

    The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit,

    points to

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_trade

    The explanation section starts

    Although the international slave trade was allowed until 1808, Congress prohibited it on January 1, 1808, the first day it was permitted to do so. Until 1808, however, the Constitution permitted Congress to levy a maximum duty of ten dollars per slave imported into the United States.

    p] That should make it clear what the reference was in regard to.

  11. paulie

    The colonies were able to set or not set Migration quotas for as many as they “shall think proper to admit,”

    The colonies wanted all the immigration they could get.

    Also, if they hadn’t, by what natural right did they have any such power?

    Neither colonies, nor states, and thus not the US are rightfully co-owners of all property contained therein, thus they have no natural right to define trespass; such a right belongs only to rightful property owners.

  12. paulie

    Why is it fair that illegals

    No human being is illegal.

    are allowed to stay here

    Only rightful property owners should be allowed to do such allowing. In your estimation, should the government own or co-own the whole country?

    and continue draining funds, committing crimes, taking jobs…

    Tom addressed this well.

    Additionally, “taking jobs” is based on the economically ignorant notion that there are only so many jobs to go around. In reality, the economic pie is not of a fixed size. Consider what would happen if you limited migration between states.

    Then extrapolate to counties, cities, neighborhoods, blocks, buildings — would you have more jobs? Be better off economically?

    Now, extrapolate back up to the national level.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *