Tom Tancredo went on Neil Cavuto's show on Fox News and explained why he won't be participating in a Spanish language presidential debate.
Tom hits it right on the head when he brings up the fact that to become a US citizen you must speak and read English. In other words every US citizen is required to know and understand English. This leads into the fact that only citizens can vote. Which of course leads back to the logical conclusion that if you can vote then you are a citizen which means you speak English.
Bravo for Tom Tancredo for putting his principles and beliefs before pandering for votes like the other candidates are doing. Which country are the other candidates running for President of?
Here is another question, "Why are the other candidates actually participating in a spanish language debate?" The language in Mexico is Spanish. The language in the United States is English. I guess the lines, on our side, have been so blurred now that even the presidential candidates are not sure which country they belong in. That would make sense as they were the ones whose confusion led to this mess in the first place.
Posted by: John Press on December 7, 2007 01:30 AM
The Washington Times reported last week that a study that examined years of polling found just 52 percent of Hispanic naturalized citizens speak English well or pretty well. That means that 48% don't speak English well.
Naturalization requires ability to understand basic English. Proficiency is not necessary. It's common sense that those that wish to get the votes of the 48% of Hispanic naturalized citizens who don't speak English well use Spanish.
Posted by: Ralph on December 7, 2007 05:04 AM
That's why back in the early 1900's they had to do presidential debates in Italian and German too right Ralph?
They don't have to now. It's not required. Tancredo is free to chose to not participate.
But those of us who were sober in grade school are aware that prior to 1965 many jurisdictions required would be voters to pass a literacy test to be permitted to vote. Encouraging voting by all citizens wasn't very common at that time in the history of our country.
So much about fighting illegal aliens is sending a message. This is definitely sending the wrong message and lets the democrat candidates off the hook for participating in miami's spanish language debate.
Any political gain could result in greater loss by those of use who want the illegals DEPORTED.
Way too many who say they want immigration laws enforced go weeble wobble soft and send very mixed messages, including, I hate to say, Ron Paul on C-Span. In an informal talk with the grown child of illegal aliens RP said he thought the idea of a border fence was silly (although he voted for it).
Now Lou Dobbs has said twice in two weeks he doesn't support deportation of illegals. Can someone explain this?
Posted by: ken pope on December 7, 2007 05:55 PM
Now Lou Dobbs has said twice in two weeks he doesn't support deportation of illegals.
I know what you are referring to Ken. Lou did say that, but it was in response to someone saying he has called for mass deportations. He then said "I have never called for deportations...". He obviously misspoke if you watch the segments again in context and meant that he has never called for mass deportations of all illegal aliens as that was the point he was rebutting.