Out-Tancredoing Tancredo at GOP's Anti-Immigrant Debate

Tom Tancredo, the immigration-crazed congressman from Colorado, is never going to be the Republican nominee for president. But Wednesday's night's CNN/YouTube debate confirmed that he has prevailed in the contest of ideas -- if raw xenophobia can be called an idea.

For much of the first stretch of what should have been a critical debate for candidates who are racing toward Iowa caucuses that are now just six weeks away, the Republicans who would be president stumbled over one another to out-Tancredo Tancredo. And, while they did not quite rival the congressman's rabid rhetoric, the other contenders made it clear that they can be just as crudely aggressive as the Coloradan when it comes to rejecting the Biblical injunction to welcome the stranger.

After former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney tore into Rudy Giuliani for being insufficiently hateful toward immigrants during his time as mayor of New York, Giuliani ripped Romney for employing undocumented workers in his home.

The two leading Republican contenders, who were standing next to one another on the stage in St. Petersburg, Florida, raised their voices to levels rarely heard in presidential debates as Giuliani accused Romney of operating a "sanctuary mansion."

Noting that during Romney's tenure as governor six Massachusetts cities had committed to treat immigrants with respect and sensitivity -- identifying themselves as "sanctuary cities" -- Giuliani growled, "In his case, there were six sanctuary cities. He did nothing about them. There was a sanctuary mansion -- at his own home, illegal immigrants were being employed."

Romney angrily denied the allegation before attacking the candidate who actually poses a bigger threat -- at least in Iowa -- to his tenuous front-runner status, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, for being soft on children.

Huckabee, who is now essentially tied with Romney among likely Iowa caucus goers, allowed as how it was reasonable to provide education to the children of undocumented immigrants -- on the theory that children ought not suffer because of the status of their parents.

That might be a position that George W. Bush would respect, but Romney was having none of it. Insisting that giving the children of immigrants equal access to education amounted to "preferential treatment," Romney sneered at Huckabee, "Mike, that's not your money, that's the taxpayers' money. Illegals are not going to get better breaks than our own citizens."

Of course, equal access to education is not a "better break" for anyone. But logic is not required at a Republican debate where immigrant-bashing is on the agenda.

Indeed, it fell to the Tancredo to offer the most reasonable assessment of the evening.

The most explicitly anti-immigrant candidate for the presidency since the demise of the Know-Nothing Party observed that the other -- supposedly more credible -- Republican contenders were attempting to "out-Tancredo" him.

On this point, there could be no debate.

Comments (49)

1. WEll, Mr Nichols, hang on for next fall...

   Don't expect ANY of the Dems to push for the "open borders"/La Raza agenda either.

   Maybe not "Tancredo'ism"...but it ain't going to be what you want from THEM either!

   Posted by Mask at 11/28/2007 @ 9:53pm

2. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. GUEST WORKER PROGRAM.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/28/2007 @ 10:09pm

3. ooooh,

   look who's scared of the mexicans.

   ooooh.

   they might want to cut my lawn or clean my toilet or hack apart the beefy flesh i consume or god forbid, feed my kids while i'm at the spa.

   aaaaaaaaaaaaah,

   help! help!

   here come the mexicans.............................

   aaaaaaaaaaaggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/28/2007 @ 10:12pm

4. Progressives who'd like to be anti-xenophobic should reach out to the 50% to 70% of Dems who oppose illegal immigration and tell them how they're wrong. They should point out the benefits of helping crooked banks and businesses profit from illegal activity. Saving literally a few cents on lettuce for one.

   However, I will point out that talking about the "children of immigrants" reveals that Nichols has no real knowledge of this issue [lonewacko.com], so perhaps some other progressive should take up the charge to support massive government corruption.

   Posted by HotSopDotCom at 11/28/2007 @ 10:14pm

5. The government should be run to the benefit of the country! When orderly, legal, diverse, & fair immigration is compared to a disordered bum's rush flow primarily from one country, I think the former can easily be seen as more beneficial than the later. Both are immigration, the ordered version of immigration is in my view more welcoming.

   To suggest we don't "welcome strangers" is unfair of course as we have always had lots of immigration. Yes those who harbor prejudice against foreigners taint the argument, so forget them, focus on what is more beneficial, order or disorder.

   Posted by blurbster at 11/29/2007 @ 06:29am

6. Nichols is a moron. He continually tries to paint the anti-ILLEGAL immigration folks as anti-immigration and it simply is false. It's so easy to distinguish between the two that it's dishonest to intentionally try to group them together. Nichols needs to find his journalistic integrity (if he ever had any) and try it on to see if it still fits.

   That would be a good question for Nichols...should we give ILLEGAL immigrants spots in our colleges and universities instead of or ahead of AMERICAN citizens? If he agrees, he's a moron (which would be nothing new). If he disagrees, he's a hypocrite (which would be nothing new).

   Second point--Romney, who I liked to win, lost this debate and nomination on the "Bible question." He knew this was a big issue for conservatives, particularly Christian conservatives, and he should have been prepared to knock it out of the park. Unfortunately, he hemmed and hawed when he should have been able to speak confidently on the subject. He looked as uncomfortable as John Kerry did when Kerry had to answer the "federal funds for abortion" question.

   Posted by usc1 at 11/29/2007 @ 07:01am

7. Posted by USC1 11/29/2007 @ 07:01am

   Problem is your compatriot LVLIB (and others) don't trust a "heretic Mormon" (LL said yesterday he'd stay home if Mitt won the nom)....s'why Huckabee is climbing in Iowa and elsewhere.

   Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 09:28am

8. Mask:

   Exactly what I mean. Romney should have been ready to assuage the concerns of the Christian conservatives with his answer but he missed badly...and looked uncomfortable while doing it. There is no excuse for that lack of preparation. That's why I think he just lost the nomination last night. (Well, actually, I think he missed on a couple of other issues last night as well...altogether a disappointing showing.)

   Posted by usc1 at 11/29/2007 @ 09:41am

9. should say

   "looked uncomfortable and sounded evasive"

   Posted by usc1 at 11/29/2007 @ 09:42am

10. romney is a typical shit spewing repugnant.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/29/2007 @ 10:19am

11. IB:

    Funny, I think the same things about the dump o'craps...all of 'em are F.O.S.

    Posted by usc1 at 11/29/2007 @ 10:47am

12. Posted by USC1 11/29/2007 @ 09:41am

    Actually from a certain point of view (as Obi-wan once said)...

    a defeat of Romney would be a blow to those who always worry about "all it takes is a lot of money to win the nomination" campaign finance reform folks.

    Look....Mitt has dumped TONS of cash into Iowa (more than some of his rivals combined)...and if he loses to an "upstart" like Huckabee....then the theory that you can "buy the nomination" (and if "Big Money is behind you") kind of falls apart, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 10:52am

13. William Greider in The Nation 2 November 2007

    '...A much grimmer portrait of the future was described by Professor Thomas Johnson, an agricultural economist from Missouri. Johnson warned the Fed conference of the emerging specter of "isolated rural communities" where most of the large factory farms and packinghouses are located. The food factories will operate with the most advanced technologies, yet local public services, especially education, will be minimal. Incomes will be significantly lower, populations stable or declining, the tax base weak and eroding. "These communities will rival inner cities as the primary destination of international immigrants," Johnson said. "These immigrants will largely work at close to minimum wages for value-added agricultural processing or other manufacturing firms." The pattern is already visible in rural backwaters and on Indian reservations--sites chosen by agribusiness on the assumption that very poor people will not object to anything that promises a little income. ...'

    'Don't criticize what you can't understand.' - Robert Allen Zimmerman (Bob Dylan) 'Paredon!' - Ernesto 'El Carnifero' Guevara............................ ..................................... .. Lan Astaslem

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 11/29/2007 @ 11:08am

14. Mask:

    Not entirely. The message is still important, but no question that money still makes it easier to get the message out. Look at it this way...if Romney had been better prepared for just 1-2 more questions, then I think he would still be the man to beat.

    Posted by usc1 at 11/29/2007 @ 11:21am

15. What do illegal Latino immigrants, who work hard for law-breaking employers, have in common with legal resident aliens, who hijack airliners and crash them into buildings?

    The color of their skin.

    This is the essence of the Tancredo "Illegal Immigrants = Terrorists" message.

    Posted by samcrossett at 11/29/2007 @ 12:26pm

16. Posted by USC1 11/29/2007 @ 11:21am

    Easier, but not vital. Huckabee is proving that...even if he doesn't win in IA.

    Plus the charge is always "Big Money gets behind somebody and everybody else is left out in the cold with no cash...we need public financing"....but...

    look at Ron Paul. Raising more in a DAY than Giuliani or Romney have ever raised...all small donations.

    Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 12:38pm

17. This nation is existentially under attack by Mexico. What else would you consider twenty million people flooding across a border? The tactic is laissez-faire government in both Mexico and the United States. This serves big business and hypernational corporations-and it got into high gear under that criminal piece of corporate shit NAFTA, a TOTAL failure in its PUBLICLY-stated goals of preventing just such an illegal immigration problem as we now have... its real hidden capitalist-corporatist-fascist agenda haa been a success however. Step one is the abolition of NAFTA.

    This illegal immigration does not serve the public good in either country. In Mexico, the safety valve of immigration has prevented the social revolution necessary in that country. In the US, it has heightened the class and race divides ("our lazy minorities won't work like Mexicans- nor for 'reasonable' pay" is the underlying theme), and helped destroy unions and thus impoverish workers, just as Cesar Chavez predicted when he fought against open borders and bracero programs. So alarm about out-of-control immigration is not 'racism' -it is concern about providing for the nation's citizens.

    In a recent survey in Mexico, 50 million people say they would emigrate to the US if the borders were open. Then to be fair, we should open the borders to every other nation - can't be racist! -and see how many more billion try to get in. Mexico and the world have an overpopulation problem, and people are only trying to find a viable place to live. However, sadly, it is dragging this nation down to Mexico's social standard - a few rich and the rest poor.

    Mexico is like a bad neighbor, who lets their pack of kids run roughshod all over your home and yard. But since the landlord (capitalist governments run by corporations) of both houses gets 'rent' from the situation, nothing will be done about it by this landlord. World Overpopulation is the elephant in the political room, but neither (especially those hypocrites) Republicans or Democrats address this issue. Mexico does need help on a massive scale, and we should have turned our energies to aiding Mexico and Latin America rather than squander them on an illegal war in Iraq. But the war in Iraq of course is a criminal hi-jack of oil reserves. And a bullet will always be cheaper than a book. So there's money in it for the Bush Crime Family. Helping Mexico? That would just mean fewer exploitable workers. No money in that! And arresting management for using illegal crossers that have NO power over wages? Why that is positively anti-money! Can't have that!

    So Pat Buchanan actually has a few points I will begrudgingly give him - including calling for the impeachment of George Bush. And though you are a great journalist, Mr. Corn, I would ask you to reconsider what unfettered immigtation means to this country... from anywhere!... and you will see it is the same as unfettered capitalism. A great danger!

    Posted by sanfred at 11/29/2007 @ 12:48pm

18. And though you are a great journalist, Mr. Corn, I would ask you to reconsider....Posted by SANFRED 11/29/2007 @ 12:48pm

    This article was written by John Nichols.

    David Corn left some weeks ago.

    Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 12:55pm

19. OK, let's abolish NAFTA - but while we're at it, let's abolish the WTO and other 'free trade' treaties aimed at giving away America's industry to sweatshop dictatorships like China.

    Let's also raise tariffs on imported petroleum, to forestall the financing of terrorism by oil dictatorships like the Saudis.

    As for immigration, why not offer a green card to any alien willing to give up a set of fingerprints and a DNA sample? It would make more sense than a 'guest worker' program which encourages immigrants to remain here illegally while doing nothing to stop the erosion of American wages by law-breaking employers.

    Posted by samcrossett at 11/29/2007 @ 1:08pm

20. I thought we were past using "illegal immigrant." How can a person BE illegal? The correct term is undocumented.

    Posted by stizzolps at 11/29/2007 @ 1:15pm

21. This nation is existentially under attack by Mexico.

    Posted by SANFRED 11/29/2007 @ 12:48pm

    maybe they're just trying to take back their territory.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/29/2007 @ 1:25pm

22. Mexico ........ an overpopulation problem

    Posted by SANFRED 11/29/2007 @ 12:48pm

    http://app1.chinadaily.com.cn/star/history/00-02-29/f01-mexico.html:

    Mexico's birth rate dropped to 2.5 births per woman in 1998 from 7.3 in 1965, while infant and maternal mortality rates plummeted. The population grew an estimated 1.8 per cent in 1999, compared to 2.7 per cent in 1980.

    you can format this:

    total fertility rate (mexico): Year 1955 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 (prognosis) 2015 (prognosis) 2050 (prognosis) Total fertility rate (Average number of children) 6.87 6.96 6.82 5.30 3.61 2.75 2.50 2.16 1.85

    and for the u.s.

    Year 1955 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 (prognosis) 2015 (prognosis) 2050 (prognosis) Total fertility rate (Average number of children) 3.45 3.71 2.55 1.79 1.92 2.05 2.11 2.08 1.85

    http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?country=US&indicatorid= 138

    looks like fertility rates for the u.s. and mexico are now about the same.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/29/2007 @ 1:40pm

23. Mexico is like a bad neighbor, who lets their pack of kids run roughshod all over your home and yard.

    Posted by SANFRED 11/29/2007 @ 12:48pm

    hey, let me talk to you about neighbours....................................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/29/2007 @ 1:42pm

24. Hello xenophobes. It's good to see that hatred and ignorance are alive and well in the good ol US of A!! Not really. Since most people here are posting a bunch of utterly debunked nonsense against immigrants, I figured I would grace yall with a little enlightenment, although you really don't deserve it. 1. Immigration is a problem that needs to be addressed. (no surprise there) 2. Immigration is caused by economic destabilization. 3. The US helped American farmers run Mexican farmers out of business with NAFTA through subsidies by making US produce artificially cheaper inside Mexico. (most of are too stupid to understand what this means) 4. American produce sold in Mexico was cheaper, because of US taxpayer dollars, to sell than what it costs Mexican farmers to grow the same crops. 5. Mexican agriculture, the backbone of the Mexican economy, was utterly devastated. (again, most of you are too stupid to understand the consequences.) 6. WHat happened next is the downfall of the agricultural economy in Mexico started a chain reaction that affected the entire Mexican economy. 7. Seizing on this opportunity, American mega conglomerates sent recruiters into Mexico to waive wads of cash to the Mexicans offering and promising them steady jobs and lots of cash. 8. The Mexicans, faced with the choice of starvation or the ability to feed their families, many of you will be surprised, chose to leave their families behind to travel to an unfriendly country in order to earn a living and feed their families. 9. The "illegal" immigrants came to the US not to invade us, not to bring drugs, not to live a life of crime, steal our jobs, or to turn the US into Mexico. They came to feed their families. 10. Big business, saw an opportunity to exploit these people. 11. RAcist organizations began to lie, kick, and scream that the illegals are destroying America. 12. Republicans, ever the champions of truth and morals, and reeling from their failure to govern effectively, decided to join the bandwagon. 13. The nation, sadly, a largely ignorant nation, buys the crap without checking the facts. 14. The truth of the matter is, and study after study proves this, immigrants contribute more to the US economy and to payroll taxes than they enjoy in services. 15. If instead of demonizing, criminalizing, and dehumanizing immigrants, we allowed them to earn residency, and citizenship, allowed them to work free of persecution, and allowed them to unionize, it would be a win win for the American worker and the American middle class. 16. Instead, because of the persecution by you racist, ignorant, sob morons, they are forced to remain underground and in the shadows of American society. Hence, they are much more easily exploited by big business, which in turn, drives down wages. 17. FDR once said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." You people are a bunch of pussies. 18. You people don't bother to research all the crap that Lou Dobbs and all the other millionaire racist, immigrant bashers tell you idiots. 19. Your anger should be directed at the businesses that are shipping jobs overseas, the government that makes it harder for workers to unionize, yourselves for shopping at walmart, and for being so fucking lazy that instead of electing government representatives who will work hard fo r the middle class, you sit on your asses and complain about immigrants. 20. If hope you all end up in a Tijuana prison with a 300lb transvetite named Paco.

    Posted by stoplying at 11/29/2007 @ 1:45pm

25. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/29/2007 @ 1:25pm |

    LL, how is that a "lie"?

    I said you'd "stay home if Mitt won the nom"...

    and to the question "are you going to sit out the 2008 election REGARDLESS who the Dem is, if Romney is the GOP nominee?"

    you said "I was actually about to do just that".

    So if I say you'll stay home if Romney is the nom...and YOU say you'll sit out the election if Romney is the nom....what's the semantical difference?

    Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 1:46pm

26. If Conservatives are so concerned about illegal immigrants,

    Why don't Conservatives simply boycott food farmed with illegal immigrants? Maybe even invent a new kind of certification system much as Hippies invented "Organic"?

    (Because, Conservatives would never pay the extra)

    Posted by conshame at 11/29/2007 @ 1:58pm

27. Posted by STOPLYING 11/29/2007 @ 1:45pm

    excellent.

    hit

    return

    after

    each

    point.

    it makes it much easier to read.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/29/2007 @ 1:58pm

28. If Conservatives are so concerned about illegal immigrants,

    Why don't Conservatives simply boycott food farmed with illegal immigrants? Maybe even invent a new kind of certification system much as Hippies invented "Organic"?

    (Because, Conservatives would never pay the extra)

    Posted by CONSHAME 11/29/2007 @ 1:58pm

    yes, but it would be ironic sending the illegal nanny to pick up the legalwash produce.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/29/2007 @ 2:00pm

29. STOPLYING Great post! I, too, would have liked to see spaces after each point for easier reading, but otherwise it was great.

    There are many reasons for Mexicans wanting to come to this country, but a desire to undermine our way of life is surely not one of them. They come here to provide a living for themselves and their families - an opportunity that has been denied them because of US and world economic policies. And they also come here because America is supposedly the land of freedom. Gee, those are terrible reasons for them to want to be here!

    For someone like Giuliani, whose family members were originally Italian immigrants, to demonize immigrants is absurd. I realize that undocumented immigrants are different from "legal" immigrants, but our country was founded on the notion of "give us your poor" and other similar sentiments. I recently read an article (I can't remember where, so I can't provide statistics) in which the percentage of immigrants in the US compared to native born citizens was discussed. I was amazed at the historically huge numbers of immigrants. And, of course, most of them - from Italians to the Irish - were also demonized and considered not-quite-as-good in turn.

    There's so much hypocrisy involved in putting down ethnic groups, making villains out of people who come here often for the very values we are supposed to espouse, and criminalizing those whose livelihoods have been thrown into turmoil by forces out of their control.

    I've heard that in New York City alone, almost all restaurants and hotels would have to close down if the undocumented immigrants left. There would also be no one in this country to pick lettuce or clean toilets or drive cabs. Americans don't want these jobs because they don't pay living wages. People who come from abject poverty are willing to live in the "better" poverty these jobs provide.

    Here's a better idea than policing our borders and turning human beings into "illegal" entities. How about if all Americans had a living wage? Not a higher minimum wage, but wages that actually allowed one working family member to support that family with dignity. What if the $3,000 (and more) spent every second in Iraq went toward national health care and education? What if the US promoted healthy global trade and economic practices?

    "Illegal" immigration might become rather insignificant. It's just so easy to blame problems on the weak and defensless.

    Posted by LeeAnnG at 11/29/2007 @ 2:24pm

30. Conservatives: You vote at the supermarket

    Posted by conshame at 11/29/2007 @ 2:25pm

31. Thanks JN for raising the bar on this issue. That bar: a biblical reference to the prophets that helps those (self)righteous with a moral foundation for decision making rather than pragmatism as the sole modus operandi. I have the greatest admiration for Cornel West for evoking the biblical prophets for real societal change in addition to his rigorous background in the American pragmatists (Charles Pierce, Henry James, John Dewey, et. al.) and his erudite and immensely wise insights. Too many of the shallow pragmatic type arguments I occasionally read on this site are of the business convention sort and have about as much culture changing power as the Fox evening news. If you claim to be "pragmatic" about the situation, you are already xenophobic and exploitive.

    All of you "saved", "chosen", "elect", (anyone, including me, who thanks god that they are not like the sinners), read your own bible, but do it in another country other than mine. Mine is far more diverse than you have vision for and greatly faltering as a ‘democratic' society, if not yet dead as a democracy. I'd suggest a country for you to go, however I'd be afraid of the genocide you'd reek on the population already there. See, it appears to me that the prophets were the hardest on their own hommies – you know- the "chosen." If the biblical god is preferential to anyone, the bible is irretractably explicit that she/he loves the marginalized, poor, disenfranchised and powerless more than us may be not be in those categories.

    In the meantime, fork your doctrinal orthodoxy. It means zilch to me or anyone else except your exclusive clubs unless it is acted upon in a direction that addresses issues raised in the prophets – John mentions a good one already. Even more important for you bible-knockers who think the bible as the literal word of god--duh!, since maybe the picture should be clearer. Just try to use a bit more humble lens and look at your own finite, historical constituted understanding, often suggesting by your actions and ideology that the "Wealth of Nations" should be added to the NT and Malthusian anthropology tied to god's understanding of humankind. You folks are about as critically self-reflective, and self-denying as large bullfrogs on individual lily pads belching to each other. It may be intelligent and poignant to you, but meaningless babble to others.

    If we should start with primacy in that god (should you be religious) favors the powerless, it may help with the rigorous and hard legal work as the beginning to address the difficult matter of immigration.

    Mask: witty as your posts may be occasionally, do you have any beliefs that you are willing to stick your neck out for? Your forecasts sound like a thinker who studies the track-side news for the week in order to pick a good trifecta, but nothing more constructive than that.

    Posted by steve foster at 11/29/2007 @ 2:36pm

32. How is voting 3rd party, staying at home?

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/29/2007 @ 2:09pm

    Oh, I see that now. I apologize. I was wrong.

    Cool...which third party?

    Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 2:38pm

33. Mask: witty as your posts may be occasionally, do you have any beliefs that you are willing to stick your neck out for? Your forecasts sound like a thinker who studies the track-side news for the week in order to pick a good trifecta, but nothing more constructive than that. ----Posted by STEVE FOSTER 11/29/2007 @ 2:36pm

    Sure....name some issues, happy to give you my take on them.

    On the original topic of this thread, I've made that clear over on Ms vanden Heuvel's thread on immigration...

    the fix to illegal immigration from Latin America is....to fix Latin America. To get an economy and less corrupt governmental system across the region so the folks down there want to stay down there, or if they want to come to the USA, do so legally with lots of cash in their pockets.

    Others?

    Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 2:41pm

34. http://bajatimes.com/realestateDetail.asp?sid=290

    Baja Times Volume XXX, Number 22, November 16-30, 2007 REAL ESTATE

    Retiring to Latin America: 10 Tips From People in the Know By Marla Dickerson (c) 2007, Los Angeles Times

    So you want to retire south of the border? Here`s some advice from expatriates who`ve been there:

    1. Date awhile before committing. Take six months to a year to get to know a town. Watch the seasons change. Run errands. Meet the locals. Explore. Many a remorseful overseas retiree has found out that the reality of living in a foreign country doesn`t match the romance of a vacation. Hold on to your U.S. home while you decide.

    2. Resist the sales hype. ...

    3. Learn from the pros....

    4. Do the math. People assume Latin America is dirt-cheap. That might be true, depending on where and how you live. Big cities and areas with a lot of expats cost more. Some things in Latin America are more expensive than in the U.S., such as telephone service in Mexico. Pencil out a budget and look for a place to fit it.

    5. Weigh the trade-offs. ...

    6. Find your spot. Areas that cater to Americans bring U.S.-style housing, consumer conveniences, English-language publications and familiar social networks to plug into. They also attract crowds of fellow Yanks who dilute the Latin flavor that attracted many in the first place. Finding a place that strikes the right balance for you is key.

    7. Talk it over. ...

    8. Try to learn Spanish. You may never speak like Queen Isabella, but being able to converse in Spanish will make life easier and enrich your experience. You`ll open yourself to a wider circle of friends and win the respect of locals.

    9. Relax, and quit whining. If you do relocate, you`ll be much happier focusing on what you like about your new community rather than obsessing about what`s wrong. ...

    10. Remember, you can go home again. You might live at the beach a few years, then decide that a mountain climate is more suitable. You might have to return to the U.S. for personal or health reasons. Nothing has to be permanent.

    'Don't criticize what you can't understand.' - Robert Allen Zimmerman (Bob Dylan) 'Paredon!' - Ernesto 'El Carnifero' Guevara............................ ..................................... .. Lan Astaslem

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 11/29/2007 @ 2:43pm

35. a short diatribe on how slippery a 'pragmatic' type argument can be, especially on this issue.

    Spitzer had a very practical solution for auto insurance coverage and costs of premiums due to unlicensed drivers who are illegal immigrants. It was smart (others states, like california, did at least for awhile) and helped with a number of other issues (who's who and where) that included a move in a 'moral' direction that begins to address immigration at least at the state level.

    However, 70 percent of the new york staters went ballistic, hurting his relationship with constituency and other state political leaders. Further, the national democractic leadership probably could not make it to the bathroom after he pressed so hard for what I thought was a good step forward. So, pragmatically, he had to withdraw the initiative or we'd have a clothing shorage from all of those people shitting themselves.

    A good pragmatic soluation that caused another pragmatic problem. Moral of the story: Stick your so-called pragmatic arguments in a bodily orfice and then go to that tiajuana jail that houses the 300 lb. transvestite as suggested above. (liked your post stoplying)

    Posted by steve foster at 11/29/2007 @ 3:05pm

36. appreciate it mask. I am with on that one, just as long as the gov't and economy are not tied to the neoliberal connudrum that continues to feed all manner of dysfunction.

    Posted by steve foster at 11/29/2007 @ 3:10pm

37. 10. Remember, you can go home again. You might live at the beach a few years, then decide that a mountain climate is more suitable. You might have to return to the U.S. for personal or health reasons. Nothing has to be permanent.----Posted by HONESTLIBERAL 11/29/2007 @ 2:43pm

    also known as the "CHIMICHENGA Clause"...heheh

    Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 3:24pm

38. Posted by STEVE FOSTER 11/29/2007 @ 3:10pm

    Should be culturally appropriate too. A "living wage" silliness can't be applied since American (US) views on what is appropriate would probably seem like a dang fortune, and price out the wages in most countries.

    Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 3:28pm

39. absolutely mask. any analysis of who's poor and who isn't must be done regionally with as many of the contingencies involved that are able to be interpreted. one size will never fits all

    Posted by steve foster at 11/29/2007 @ 3:36pm

40. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/29/2007 @ 4:23pm

    As noted, I can only hope it does. Still, I'm sure voting for an adulterer who's pro-choice (Giuliani) won't influence that...right?

    Posted by Mask at 11/29/2007 @ 4:34pm

41. This nation is existentially under attack by Mexico. What else would you consider twenty million people flooding across a border? The tactic is laissez-faire government in both Mexico and the United States. This serves big business and hypernational corporations-and it got into high gear under that criminal piece of corporate shit NAFTA, a TOTAL failure in its PUBLICLY-stated goals of preventing just such an illegal immigration problem as we now have... its real hidden capitalist-corporatist-fascist agenda haa been a success however. Step one is the abolition of NAFTA.

    This illegal immigration does not serve the public good in either country. In Mexico, the safety valve of immigration has prevented the social revolution necessary in that country. In the US, it has heightened the class and race divides ("our lazy minorities won't work like Mexicans- nor for 'reasonable' pay" is the underlying theme), and helped destroy unions and thus impoverish workers, just as Cesar Chavez predicted when he fought against open borders and bracero programs. So alarm about out-of-control immigration is not 'racism' -it is concern about providing for the nation's citizens.

    In a recent survey in Mexico, 50 million people say they would emigrate to the US if the borders were open. Then to be fair, we should open the borders to every other nation - can't be racist! -and see how many more billion try to get in. Mexico and the world have an overpopulation problem, and people are only trying to find a viable place to live. However, sadly, it is dragging this nation down to Mexico's social standard - a few rich and the rest poor.

    Mexico is like a bad neighbor, who lets their pack of kids run roughshod all over your home and yard. But since the landlord (capitalist governments run by corporations) of both houses gets 'rent' from the situation, nothing will be done about it by this landlord. World Overpopulation is the elephant in the political room, but neither (especially those hypocrites) Republicans or Democrats address this issue. Mexico does need help on a massive scale, and we should have turned our energies to aiding Mexico and Latin America rather than squander them on an illegal war in Iraq. But the war in Iraq of course is a criminal hi-jack of oil reserves. And a bullet will always be cheaper than a book. So there's money in it for the Bush Crime Family. Helping Mexico? That would just mean fewer exploitable workers. No money in that! And arresting management for using illegal crossers that have NO power over wages? Why that is positively anti-money! Can't have that!

    So Pat Buchanan actually has a few points I will begrudgingly give him - including calling for the impeachment of George Bush. And though you are a great journalist, Mr. Corn, I would ask you to reconsider what unfettered immigtation means to this country... from anywhere!... and you will see it is the same as unfettered capitalism. A great danger!

    Posted by sanfred at 11/29/2007 @ 4:41pm

42. All through history, we have seen the demonization of a group of society and the labeling of them as the cause of all of our problems. This country was built by immigrants, and it belongs to them. It is simply ridiculous to believe that every person who came here in the past came here "legally". No one can be illegal, and if someone has the courage to leave their home because they believe they can make a better life here, then that bravery should be respected. It takes guts to do what they do; they at least still believe in this country, which is more than I can say for myself. Every human being, regardless of citizeship, nationality, race, sex, age, color, creed or whatever man-made divisions we've concocted, should be treated with dignity and compassion. The issue may be moot anyway; very soon white people will be the minority and both parties may be mostly black and brown. That fact is probably what's fueling the racism in the republican party.

    Posted by penguins1 at 11/29/2007 @ 10:40pm

43. Posted by PENGUINS1 11/29/2007 @ 10:40pm

    go forth and hybridize!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/29/2007 @ 10:41pm

44. Thursday, November 29, 2007

    There is no dough that Mr. Tancredo like most Republicans is using immigration as his cleaver wedge issue. John you called it raw xenophobia I call it a big problem. In the last 40 or so years the US population has increased about 100 million. Most of this population explosion is the result of immigration, about a quarter to a third illegal. In 1966 the US Spanish population was just under 4% today its about 17% the fasting growing segment in the US.

    With a world population approaching seven billion the US is very limited in its abilities to save humanity from itself.

    For good reason most working Americans are not anti-immigrant but they are especially anti-illegal immigrant, and for good reason.

    We know our wages suffer because of an overabundant of workers. We can't have national health care, who wants pay for illegals care? We passed comprehensive immigration 20 years ago, please not again? We need to take care of the people here now before any more come. We the people need to control our government, not our corporations. We are not anti-immigrant, but our laws need to be respected and enforced.

    John, for over forty years the low wage average worker in America has lived with no increase in their wage adjusted for inflation. Put yourself in our shoes, illegal immigration costs workers.

    Michael E. Pelela, Olympia, WA

    Posted by mikepelela at 11/29/2007 @ 11:41pm

45. Sorry, I tiried to space it but it posted that way. I'll try again.

    Hello xenophobes. It's good to see that hatred and ignorance are alive and well in the good ol US of A!! Not really. Since most people here are posting a bunch of utterly debunked nonsense against immigrants, I figured I would grace yall with a little enlightenment, although you really don't deserve it.

    1. Immigration is a problem that needs to be addressed. (no surprise there)

    2. Immigration is caused by economic destabilization.

    3. The US helped American farmers run Mexican farmers out of business with NAFTA through subsidies by making US produce artificially cheaper inside Mexico. (most of are too stupid to understand what this means)

    4. American produce sold in Mexico was cheaper, because of US taxpayer dollars, to sell than what it costs Mexican farmers to grow the same crops.

    5. Mexican agriculture, the backbone of the Mexican economy, was utterly devastated. (again, most of you are too stupid to understand the consequences.)

    6. WHat happened next is the downfall of the agricultural economy in Mexico started a chain reaction that affected the entire Mexican economy.

    7. Seizing on this opportunity, American mega conglomerates sent recruiters into Mexico to waive wads of cash to the Mexicans offering and promising them steady jobs and lots of cash.

    8. The Mexicans, faced with the choice of starvation or the ability to feed their families, many of you will be surprised, chose to leave their families behind to travel to an unfriendly country in order to earn a living and feed their families.

    9. The "illegal" immigrants came to the US not to invade us, not to bring drugs, not to live a life of crime, steal our jobs, or to turn the US into Mexico. They came to feed their families.

    10. Big business, saw an opportunity to exploit these people.

    11. RAcist organizations began to lie, kick, and scream that the illegals are destroying America.

    12. Republicans, ever the champions of truth and morals, and reeling from their failure to govern effectively, decided to join the bandwagon.

    13. The nation, sadly, a largely ignorant nation, buys the crap without checking the facts.

    14. The truth of the matter is, and study after study proves this, immigrants contribute more to the US economy and to payroll taxes than they enjoy in services.

    15. If instead of demonizing, criminalizing, and dehumanizing immigrants, we allowed them to earn residency, and citizenship, allowed them to work free of persecution, and allowed them to unionize, it would be a win win for the American worker and the American middle class.

    16. Instead, because of the persecution by you racist, ignorant, sob morons, they are forced to remain underground and in the shadows of American society. Hence, they are much more easily exploited by big business, which in turn, drives down wages. 17. FDR once said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." You people are a bunch of pussies.

    18. You people don't bother to research all the crap that Lou Dobbs and all the other millionaire racist, immigrant bashers tell you idiots.

    19. Your anger should be directed at the businesses that are shipping jobs overseas, the government that makes it harder for workers to unionize, yourselves for shopping at walmart, and for being so fucking lazy that instead of electing government representatives who will work hard fo r the middle class, you sit on your asses and complain about immigrants.

    20. If hope you all end up in a Tijuana prison with a 300lb transvetite named Paco.

    Posted by stoplying at 11/30/2007 @ 12:35am

46. 20. If hope you all end up in a Tijuana prison with a 300lb transvetite named Paco.

    Posted by STOPLYING 11/30/2007 @ 12:35am

    uh, that would be "paquita".

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/30/2007 @ 01:19am

47. Keep telling the truth, "StopLying"! You saved me a lot of trouble with your wonderful posting.

    There really is a crying need to enlighten people about the real causes of Mexicans' economic woes and ours, which are really the same: too much power for investors and bosses, not enough power for workers. The real solution is international worker solidarity, a phrase that I doubt the racist crowd can read, pronounce, or understand.

    Unfortunately, Lou Dobbs has basically hooked millions of his viewers upon a hate drug that makes them virtually immune to facts. Dobbs, Tancredo, and the Republicans have recommended the false solution of choice for the mean-spirited: Blame somebody who looks different from ourselves, who has less power than we do, and build a wall between us and them. For the racist dittoheads, that feels so good that no other solution will do, not even if all the facts speak for it.

    The most ludicrous lie is that immigrants "drive wages down." When workers are paid too little, whose fault is it, theirs or their bosses'? How about realizing that part of the solution is simply to raise the minimum wage and to punish the bosses who undercut it, not the workers who already suffer the consequences?

    When you hear a politician blame the workers, ANY workers, regardless of color or place of birth, here's one thing that you can know for sure: This politician is trying to divert your attention from the real guilty party here. He has no plan to hold the bosses responsible, which is to say that he does not actually favor attacking the real cause of low wages. He's also trying to divide workers against workers, so that they'll fight each other while the bosses rake in the profits -- from which generous contributions will soon be diverted to the racist politicians' campaign war chests.

    The bosses, you see, know where their power comes from: Not from immigrants, but from native-born nincompoops who imagine they can improve their own lot by making people who are less fortunate than themselves suffer even more hardship.

    It's in old trick, this divide-and-conquer strategy, and mercy, do you ever have to be selfish and stupid to fall for it, but millions do.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 11/30/2007 @ 05:35am

48. jakobfabian, well said!

    Posted by stoplying at 11/30/2007 @ 12:00pm

49. Don't expect ANY of the Dems to push for the "open borders"/La Raza agenda either.

    There is no La Raza agenda you idiot. We are all Americans. The Spanish arrived and claimed lands in North America that would eventually become California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas prior to the arrival of the Pilgrims in New England.

    The main cultural difference between our European ancestors (the British and Spanish) in the Americas is, the Pilgrims brought their wives and the Spanish took Indigenous wives. This act by the Spanish produced the Mexican race.

    We Mexicans have been in the Americas since before the United States was established. We have the right to settle anywhere on this continent, we were here first; we tamed this land and we settled in it. We have just as much right to our American heritage as anyone who's ancestors came to this country from Europe.

    Go back to Mexico? Never! Not even if you put on your white robes and burn as out, murder us, steal our inheritance. We are here to stay and we will fight you in the streets for our right stay.

    Remember the Alamo!

    Posted by mocoseco at 11/30/2007 @ 1:41pm