Democrats Respond to Allard's Comments

Colorado Democrats responded yesterday to comments by Senator Wayne Allard that illegal immigrants are "all the same bad characters." From The Greeley Tribune:

In a statement released Monday, state Democratic Party Chair Pat Waak said Allard's comments were unacceptable. "Here is another example of Republican attitudes toward the Latino community," Waak said. "These generalizations do great harm to efforts to unify the citizens of this state. Senator Allard should not only apologize, but he should take some time to study the historical contributions immigrants have made to America."

Allard was out of the office Monday evening. His chief of staff Sean Conway said his office had yet to see the statement from the Democratic Party and Allard would respond after he'd read it.

Credit a Colorado Pols reader on this one. We didn't know about these comments until a reader pointed them out, and apparently nobody at the Colorado Democratic Party knew about them until we posted on it yesterday. Don't any Democrats read the paper in Greeley?

Comments

[abc]

I challenge Pat Waak to name one illegal that has made a historical contribution. Idiot

[fourthwatcher2]

Washington, Hancock, Franklin, to name a few.

They were all illegals in the beginning. Just ask an Apache, Cherokee or Commanche.

[Clichéwatcher]

We have a winner in Cliché watch. That's right, fourthwatcher2 has finally pulled out the dumbest cliche in the liberal arsenal regarding immigration!

What does fourthwatcher2 win???? Absolutely nothing! Ever! Particularly in the 4th CD!

[jon]

Now that was funny.

[View From the Cheap Seats]

Note that Pat Waak said "immigrants" not illegal. My great-grandfather, which by the way his family was immigrants of Hispanic origin, was a judge in New Mexico.

And by the way, abc, what "historical contibutions" have you made lately.

Can we please cease and desist from this cat fight and move on to the topic at hand - Senator Allard's comments. (My apologies to my two cats.)

[View From the Cheap Seats]

Note that Pat Waak said "immigrants" not illegal. My great-grandfather, which by the way his family was immigrants of Hispanic origin, was a judge in New Mexico.

And by the way, abc, what "historical contibutions" have you made lately.

Can we please cease and desist from this cat fight and move on to the topic at hand - Senator Allard's comments. (My apologies to my two cats.)

[alansmitheee]

I think ABC should ask Tom Tancredo about the contributions of illegals. For example, he can sit in his finished basement and watch "Green Card" in his surround sound home theater built by illegal immigrants. He could fix himself a snack of fruit and vegatables picked by...illegal immigrants. Or maybe he and Jackie will go out to eat at a restaurant where the busboys are...illegal immigrants. And he can take a big sh*t in the bathroom that has been cleaned by...illegal immigrants.
All you Minutemen wanna-bees should get your kid off his butt and make him finish some basements, pick some fruit, and clean some toilets if you want to do something about illegal immigration.
ABC - Enjoy those grapes that Cesar picked for you.

[candyraver]

Col Pols needs to start carding people at the door and stop letting all these children in here.

[Donald E. L. Johnson]

The Senator should reply:

The American people are decendants of legal immigrants, and we all support those who seek a new life in our country and follow our laws and procedures when they come here. We are a nation of immigrants and their heirs, and we are a proud nation of many nationalities, ethnic groups races and religions.

Most important we are a nation that thrives more than any other in the world because we have an open and honest judicial system, and we live by the rule of law. This is why we are not only offended but also mightily insulted by people who break our laws by entering our country illegally. And we're even more offended by governments and politicians who promote and support such illegal immigration and put our security at risk by doing so.

Thus, it is with great sadness that I see one of our great political parties, the Democrats, stooping to the level of the illegal immigrants. It is especially sad to see the Democrats kiss off the foundation of our democracy and repubic---the rule of law.

After years of trying to prove to the American people that they're not soft on crime nor on national security, the Democrats are proving their true natures once again. They are defending the indefensible---illegal immigration by people who break our laws, kill our policemen and flee from justice back to Mexico or where ever they came from.

And the Democrats are not only showing that they are still soft on crime, they are showing that they don't care about national security, because they don't believe in securing our borders. It is particularly alarming to see the chairman of Colorado's Democratic Party be so supportive of criminals.

I call on Colorado Democrats to rally behind the growing national movement to secure our borders, enforce our laws and support the rule of law iln America.

[fourthwatcher2]

fourthwatcher2 was making a joke...geeeze. You guys need to lighten up.

[Duck and Cover]

More than 16 months till the next general election and already the level of nastiness is exploding. I had sort of hoped that the people on this site might actually DISCUSS the issues and interesting political happenings, rather than flaming out their own diatribes.

But then, why would I think that this site wouldn't reflect the general rage going on back and forth across the aisle. No wonder the general public holds politicians in lower esteem than used car salesmen.

[Alfalfa]

It seems like nowdays you can't turn on the TV or radio, read the paper or log on to the web (OK - this website) without a debate about illegal immigration hitting you in the face. And, the debate is often carried out at the level we see above - lots of generalizations and name-calling.

Not diminishing the importance of this topic (bnecause it is important), but what's everyone's sense as to whether this is a Colorado-thing right now, or if this issue is going to be a big one politically across the country in 2006? It seems to be the only thing going on in Colorado politics nowdays - is this true elsewhere??

[pacified]

Why does no one try to solve this problem? The problem is THE PEOPLE WHO HIRE ILLLEGALS. It's just as against the law to hire an illegal as it is to be one.

If you want this all to stop, go raid a handful of Wendy's, and a couple of construction sites across the country. Then, fine the crap out of those who hired the illegals, toss them in jail, levy a multi-million dollar fine against them, and say "we are going to continue to bust folks who hire illegals".

Guess what. People will stop hiring illegals. If illegals can't get jobs, they won't come here. I guarantee.

But I guess that would make sense. And who wants that?

[Donald E. L. Johnson]

The July 4 issue of Business Week says illegal immigration is becoming a national issue. Tom Tancredo certainly is trying to make it one. Most important, people across the country are upset about the impact illegals are having on the costs of health care and eduction. People also are waking up to the fact that a lot of illegals are bringing new forms of TB and other diseases across the border with them, and that is scaring them into demanding that the politicians do something about the problem.

Denial of the problem isn't going to work here or anywhere else in the country.

[duh]

Why can't Pat Waak offer another solution rather than just attacking?

Just another typical Democrat it seems..... I wonder if Howard Dean knows she stole his rhetoric........

[Coloradem]

Duh,

Yup, I agree.

Republican operatives like Karl Rove would never attack Democrats in such a mean spirited way. He treats us with nothing but courtesy and respect!

Waak should take lessons from him (no sarcasm in that statement!).

Incidentally, I don't believe that it is the job of operatives like Waak and Rove to offer solutions. That is the job of elected officials. Allard should be offering solutions instead of name-calling as he has done.

[Hugo O'conor]

Don,

You keep throwing around the phrase "the impact illegals are having on the costs of health care and eduction." Can you tell me just how much this cost is? I've already told you the amount that the average illegal immigrant sends back to Latin America ($2700 per year in case you've forgotten). Illegal immigrants own homes, pay sales tax, excise tax, SS tax, fuel tax, license their automobiles, etc. I guess that doesn't contribute to the economy, right?
Yes, SOME take advantage of the system. I will bet you a beer that they contribute more to society than the thousands of americans who take advantage of welfare, unemployment and free healthcare. But the welfare rolls don't have an impact on rising costs of healthcare and education. At least I've never seen you write anything about that.

Denial of the contributions is not going to make them go away.

[stop the rhetoric]

Donald E. L. Johnson:

"People also are waking up to the fact that a lot of illegals are bringing new forms of TB and other diseases across the border with them"

Is this hearsay, or just a product of you xenophobia?

[Donald E. L. Johnson]

Is this rhetoric or hearsay? ""People also are waking up to the fact that a lot of illegals are bringing new forms of TB and other diseases across the border with them"

See Friday's Investor's Business Daily editorial, "Give us your sick."

"In an article in the Journal of the American Medical Assn., Dr. Reuben Granich, a lead investigator for the Centers for Disase Control and Preention, reports the emergence in the U.S. of a particularly virulent, multi-drug -resistant form of tuberculosis known as MDR-TB.

"Evidence of it has surfaced in 38 of 61 California health jurisdictions, and it could 'threaten the efficacy of TB control efforts,' Granich said. The infected were said to be four times as likely to die from the disease and twice as likely to transmit the disease to others.

"Reluctant to label the infected as 'illegal' or even 'undocumented' aliens, the report notes that of the 407 known cases of MDR-TB, 84% were 'foreign-born' patients, mainly from Mexico and the Philippines who'd been in the U.S. less than five years. The percentage of TB cases among the 'foreign-born' jumped from 29% in 1993 to 53% as of last year."

And Hugo's question is: " I've already told you the amount that the average illegal immigrant sends back to Latin America ($2700 per year in case you've forgotten). Illegal immigrants own homes, pay sales tax, excise tax, SS tax, fuel tax, license their automobiles, etc."

Do you know the cost of a single ER visit by an illegal afflicted with the diseases described above? Do you know the cost of treating an illegal who's never had professional health care? Do you know the cost of treating an uninsured illegal who's been injured in an auto accident or an accident on the job or in domestic abuse? It's a heck of a lot more than any illegal might contribute in taxes in any way.

And by the way, where do you get your statistics? Why should we believe them? I don't.

Don

[Donald E. L. Johnson]

Here's an article, "Illegal Aliens and American Medicine."

http://www.theamericanresistance.com/articles/art2005spring.html

Impact graphs:

"What is unseen is their free medical care that has degraded and closed some of America's finest emergency medical facilities, and caused hospital bankruptcies: 84 California hospitals are closing their doors. 'Anchor babies' born to illegal aliens instantly qualify as citizens for welfare benefits and have caused enormous rises in Medicaid costs and stipends under Supplemental Security Income and Disability Income....

By default, we grant health passes to illegal aliens. Yet many illegal aliens harbor fatal diseases that American medicine fought and vanquished long ago, such as drug-resistant tuberculosis, malaria, leprosy, plague, polio, dengue, and Chagas disease.

What is seen is the political statistic that 43 million lives are at risk in America because of lack of medical insurance. What is unseen is that medical insurance does not equal medical care. Uninsured people receive medical care in hospital emergency departments (EDs) under the coercive Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1985 (EMTALA), which obligates hospitals to treat the uninsured but does not pay for that care. Also unseen is the percentage of the uninsured who are illegal aliens. No one knows how many illegal aliens reside in America. If there are 10 million, they constitute nearly 25 percent of the uninsured. The percentage could be even higher."

I think it's closer to 50%. The Census Bureau says 34% of Hispanics are uninsured. What % of Hispanics are Illegal immigrants? Well, the 2000 census showed 35 million Hispanics of all races. 34% of 35 =11,900,000 == the approximate number of illegal immigrants. The numbers seem to work, eh?

So 11.9 million illegals, most of them uninsured. 11 million is 58% of the 19 million people who are uninsured for a full year and 33% of the 36 million that the Census Bureau says are uninsured at some point during a 12 month period. The Feds are paying hospitals $1 billion to care for the uninsured illegal immigrants.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/10/heallth.illegal.ap/

Are you starting to get the picture?

[Hugo O'conor]

Don,

"Do you know the cost of treating an uninsured illegal who's been injured in an auto accident or an accident on the job or in domestic abuse?"

My guess is the same cost as your cost or mine. BTW, should accidents on the job not be covered by workman's comp?

As for my sources, it's simple math. Companies that wire funds to Latin America are publicly traded and you can do the research as did I. I also have listed my sources previously. I took the total number of remittances (30 billion a year) and divided by the estimated 11 million illegal aliens reported. I'm sure you could figure it out yourself.

As for the 84 California hospitals -which I'm sure were the finest in the nation- that had to close down, if we get rid of illegal aliens they wouldn't have had to deal with:

Reduced funding
HMO's
Frivolous lawsuits
Rising energy costs in California
Should I keep going?

While I'm sure that illegal aliens have contributed to the health care problem, do not use them as a scapegoat for a complex issue.

To illustrate: When ice cream sales go up, more children drown.
Let's ban ice cream and save a child!
Or maybe it could be that more children go swimming when it's warm enough to eat ice cream.
Related? Sure. One causes the other? Absolutely not.

Wake up!

[alansmitheee]

It's great when Republicans work against their own self interest.

ad_icon
washingtonpost.com
Bush Proposal Prompted Surge in Illegal Immigrants
Watchdog Group Claims Administration Sought to Cover Up Data

By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 28, 2005; 7:39 PM

President Bush's proposal for a guest worker program to help stem the tide of illegal immigration actually prompted a surge of illegal border-crossings that the administration then sought to cover up, a watchdog group charged today, citing a 2004 survey by the U.S. Border Patrol.

Judicial Watch, a Washington-based public interest group, said the survey, obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request, showed that 61 percent of a sample of detainees who had been caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexican border in the wake of Bush's proposal said they had been informed by the Mexican government or the media that the Bush administration was offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. Nearly 45 percent said the purported amnesty influenced their decision to enter the United States illegally, Judicial Watch said.

"The results indicated that President Bush's proposal had actually lured greater numbers of illegal immigrants to violate the law," the group said in a 16-page report on the Border Patrol survey. It said the Bush administration aborted the survey on Jan. 27, 2004, within a few weeks after it began, because it was producing "politically inconvenient and/or potentially embarrassing data." The U.S. government never issued a report based on the survey.

"The White House directed Homeland Security public affairs officers to deliberately withhold information from the public and the media about the Border Patrol survey and a related spike in illegal immigration," Judicial Watch said, citing documents it obtained under the FOIA.

The White House referred questions about the report to the Department of Homeland Security, which said the survey was inconclusive and taken out of context.

Kristi Clemens, a spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, a division of Homeland Security, said the survey was initiated "internally" by the Border Patrol and was stopped when it was "compromised" by a leak to the news media.

"As part of normal operating procedure for law enforcement, it's routine for Customs and Border Patrol agents to question illegal aliens to confirm identify, verify potential security risks and . . . obtain operational intelligence to pick up on any potential trends," she said. She said the survey was "part of routine operational intelligence information gathering," but that the findings were incomplete and could not be the basis for a conclusion that President Bush's guest worker proposal was encouraging a spike in illegal immigration.

"I don't know how they [Judicial Watch] could draw that based on inconclusive findings," Clemens said.

In a Capitol Hill press conference to announce the report, Judicial Watch President Thomas Fitton charged that the administration was engaged in a coverup.

"Unfortunately, at a time when the United States faces an illegal immigration crisis and a war on terrorism, Bush administration officials directed Border Patrol agents to mislead the American people," Fitton said.

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), an outspoken critic of Bush's immigration proposal, said, "The timing of the survey's start and early dismissal, and the DHS gag order and stonewalling of Judicial Watch's request, suggest that the administration is playing politics with border security data. I hope that this is not the case."

Judicial Watch describes itself as a nonpartisan, nonprofit group that serves as an ethical and legal watchdog, promotes government accountability and investigates and prosecutes government corruption. The group said the administration has produced only a portion of the documents it requested under FOIA and that it is pursuing a lawsuit in federal court in Washington to force the release of other materials related to the survey.

Among the documents the group has been denied are the orders to start conducting the survey and to halt it, said Christopher J. Farrell, director of investigations and research at Judicial Watch. He said, however, that he had no doubt the survey was done at the behest of the White House, given that it was geared to Bush's Jan. 7, 2004, proposal of a "temporary guest worker" program.

In announcing the proposal, Bush said in a White House speech that Congress should include the program in new legislation that would "serve the economic needs of our country" by allowing employers to hire guest workers for jobs "that American citizens are not willing to take." The proposal promptly ran into opposition in Congress, where many Republicans saw it as a de facto amnesty that would reward many of the 10 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

Among the documents it obtained, Judicial Watch said, was a U.S. Customs and Border Protection paper labeled "internal use only" and entitled "White House Approved Talking Points" on the temporary worker program. "Do not talk about amnesty, increase in apprehensions, or give comparisons of past immigration reform proposals," the paper ordered public affairs officers. "Do not provide statistics on apprehension spikes or past amnesty data."

Farrell said the Department of Homeland Security so far has produced only about half the 1,711 questionnaires that were filled out in the survey. While the survey was poorly designed and of little use for scientific or complex statistical analysis, Farrell said, the raw numbers provided some "residual value."

According to Judicial Watch's analysis of the questionnaires, 88 percent of those in the sample were from Mexico, 5 percent from El Salvador, 4 percent from Honduras and 3 percent from Guatemala. More than four in 10 (43 percent) said they planned to stay in the United States for more than a year, and a fifth said they planned to stay "forever."

Slightly more than 61 percent said they had heard reports of a U.S. government amnesty, and 44.6 percent said that "amnesty rumors" influenced their decision to cross the border illegally. "Yes, I am coming for the Bush amnesty program," one illegal crosser told a Border Patrol interviewer in one of the questionnaires, Judicial Watch reported.

Asked if they would apply for amnesty, more than 80 percent said yes, the survey showed. "Yes, I am not stupid," one respondent replied. Two-thirds said they planned to petition for other family members to join them.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[Donald E. L. Johnson]

Thanks, Alan.

This show how out of step Bush is on illegal immigration. It's good to see that Bob Beauprez, Mark Holtzman and Allard finally are joining Tom Tancredo in his efforts to stop illegal immigration.

[Donald E. L. Johnson]

Hugo,
Do you employ illegals, represent employers of illegals or just believe there are no illegals. I don't employ illegals nor represent any of them. I am only interested in border security and the tremendously negative impact they are having on the costs of health care, education, social services and our economy in general.

Your economic arguments to date don't make sense to me. Why aren't you concerned about border security and preventing the movement of Central American and South American diseases into the U.S. Do you think you and yours would be immune from a terrorist attack or a new TB epedemic, or what?

[Phoenix Rising]

Studies here, studies there, studies, studies everywhere. I've seen studies that "prove" a net positive impact on society, studies that prove a net negative...

The problem, and the solution, lie in the fact that we need to be responsive to the needs of our employers and the desires of our society. Congressman Udall referred to a portion of the problem in his Q&A this morning: our identification requirements are not sufficient to the task of enforcing immigration status. Illegals come here, get fake Social Security documentation or fake green cards, take them to employers (who may or may not know how legit their employees are), and we have few means to expose this. Employers are not required to actually check Social Security numbers against a federal database, and the government is not set up to verify the information as it could.

Bush's amnesty program is a two-pronged failure; on one hand, it does not provide any incentive to force illegals to go through a legal process, while on the other, it provides employers yet another axe to hang over illegals' heads. Any amnesty would best be limited to those who have worked here for numerous years and have a proven record, not for those crossing the border because they've heard of Bush's proposal. Second, we need to re-visit the work visa provisions, to allow foreign workers to apply for other work if their sponsor lets them go; in the past, employers have used the threat of revocation of the work visa to abuse their employees. Third, we need to open our immigration quotas until we find the true number of needed immigrant workers. Border patrols alone won't do it, and we're the ones that suggest tearing down walls, not building them...

The paranoia of the right, the complacency and complicitness of the businessmen, and the sympathy of the left need to be set aside and combined into a workable common-sense policy - identification, modernization, and co-operation will work to solve this problem.