Thread: How many of you will actually vote for Tancredo or Hunter?

Tancredo is my first choice! I believe his determination will get him further than anyone thinks! It is his "I think/know I can against all odds" that is getting him further already than people thought! If we join his thought process of thinking/ knowing he can and supporting him. He will make it! Once again it is up to us!

I would vote for either. Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter.

They are true patriots.

My reason to vote for Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo would be if they were against both the incentives, against business that hire illegals and automatic citizenship for children of illegals. The other stuff do not matter if the incentives are not taken away. I don’t know either stands on both incentives.

Duncan Hunter stand on;
Illegal Immigration ANCHOR BABY CITIZENSHIP
Anchor Baby Citizenship rewards women for becoming illegal aliens and adds more than 200,000 citizens to the United States each year.

Although there is no Constitutional provision or law that requires it, the executive branch of the federal government has long given automatic U.S. citizenship to every baby of illegal aliens.

This practice adds immensely to America's record-breaking population boom. Not only do illegal aliens give birth to more than 200,000 each year, but the babies become anchors that prevent nearly all of their mothers from ever facing deportation. Federal policies prohibit deporting most women who have a citizen child. So that adds not only the mothers to the U.S. population, but also adds the children the brought with them from the home country.
Cosponsoring legislation to deny U.S. citizenship to 'anchor babies' of illegal aliens in 2005-2006


Rep. Hunter is a 1. cosponsor of H.R. 698, the Citizenship Reform Act of 2005, legislation that would end the process of granting automatic citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens. This would put an end to a major source of U.S. population growth and remove an incentive for illegal immigration. It has been, and is currently, U.S. policy to automatically grant U.S. citizenship to the babies born to illegal aliens in the United States -- some 300,000 to 350,000 a year according to a spring 2005 article in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Not only do these births represent additional U.S. population growth, but because the babies of illegal aliens are U.S. citizens, they can then act as 'anchors' to eventually pull a large number of extended family members into the country legally.

http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfil ... &VIPID=133


Some countries which don't offer citizenship to the babies of illegal aliens
A partial list
August, 2002


Algeria
(No)
Father must be Algerian or stateless

Australia
(No)
Children of legal immigrants born in Australia are citizens

Belgium
(No)
One parent must be a citizen of Belgium

Colombia
(No)
One parent must be a legal resident

Czech Republic
(No)
One parent must be a citizen of the Czech Republic

Egypt
(No)
Father must be an Egyptian citizen

France
(No)
Child of foreign-born parents must apply and be approved for citizenship

Germany
(No)
Those born in Germany acquire the citizenship status of their mother

Israel
(No)
If Jewish, a child is automatically a citizen - otherwise must be the child of an Israeli national to be a citizen

Italy
(No)
One parent must be Italian

Japan
(No)
One parent must be a citizen of Japan

Kenya
(No)
One parent must be a citizen of Kenya

Kuwait
(No)
Father must be a citizen of Kuwait

Nigeria
(No)
One parent must be a Nigerian citizen

Norway
(No)
One parent must be Norwegian

Philippines
(No)
One parent must be Filipino

Poland
(No)
One parent must be Polish

Republic of Korea
(No)
One parent must be a citizen of Korea

Saudi Arabia
(No)
Father must be a citizen - child is added to father's passport

Sweden
(No)
If mother is Swedish, the child acquires citizenship at birth - if parents are resident aliens, children acquire the citizenship of their parents

Switzerland
(No)
If child was born before June 1, 1985, the father must be Swiss for the child to be a Swiss citizen - if the child is born after June 1, 1985, the child will be a Swiss citizen if either parent is Swiss

Syria
(No)
One parent must be a citizen of Syria

Taiwan
(No)
One parent must be a citizen of Taiwan

Turkey
(No)
One parent must be a citizen of Turkey

United Kingdom
(No)
One parent must be a citizen or legal resident of the UK

Zaire
(No)
Mother must be a citizen of Zaire

WhatMattersMost wrote:

I honestly don't think the majority of Americans view either of these gentlemen as qualified.

That's not it at all. The problem is, our candidates aren't all over the 6:00 news and on the front page of every newspapers in the country. In other words, they just aren't well known. Wouldn't it be nice if they had an Oprah Winfrey to endorse them routinely on their T.V. show - Oprah has been doing it for Obama. Heck, I believe Oprah was the individual who originally suggested Obama run for president.

I don't know about Tancredo (I doubt his ability to be Commander-In-Chief of our military forces), but in my opinion Duncan Hunter is about as qualified as they come.

Right now, I'd vote for Hunter, Tancredo, or Paul. Heck, I might even hold my nose long enough to vote for Nitt Romney(sp?) if it came down to a choice between him, Obama, or Hildabeast.

We'll see................

For this reason I would not vote for Hunter. He wants to take away a woman’s right to choose, which would not stop abortions.

I would amend the U.S. Constitution and provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception by prohibiting any state or federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn. Likewise, I have also introduced the Right to Life Act, which would legally define “personhood” as the moment of conception and, therefore, guarantee all constitutional rights and protections, including life, to the unborn without utilizing a constitutional amendment.

2. Federal laws relating to abortion and human life protections (e.g, embryonic research and end of life, etc.):

There are several areas of federal law that require human life protections. I have cosponsored the following pieces of legislation:

The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which would amend the federal criminal code to prohibit transporting a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion, if this action circumvents the minor's native state's parental involvement law. I voted in favor of this bill when it passed the House 270-157 on April 27, 2005.
The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2005, which would prohibit and criminalize efforts at reproductive cloning.
The Parent's Right to Know Act of 2005, which would prohibit federal funding to carry out federal family planning programs in which service providers in the project knowingly provides contraceptive drugs or devices to a minor, except in specific circumstances.
The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006, which would require abortion providers to notify women who want to have an abortion 20 weeks after fertilization that the evidence suggests their unborn child feels pain and they may request anesthesia for their unborn child in order to reduce or eliminate the pain.
I have also supported human life protection efforts with the following votes:

I supported the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, banning the practice of fetal farming, the creation of embryos specifically for the purposes of scientific research.
I voted in favor of the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, which would direct federal funding to stem-cell research that does not rely on embryos.
I voted against the Stem-Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, which would have directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem-cells, regardless of the date on which the stem-cells were derived from a human embryo.
I voted against amendments offered to the National Defense Authorization Act permitting taxpayer funded military facilities overseas to be used to support abortions on demand for military women and military dependents.
I voted against amendments providing UN funding to groups that support coercive abortion programs.

Embryos not used are discarded. Either way they die.

Hunter would not get my vote.

dyehard39 wrote:

For this reason I would not vote for Hunter. He wants to take away a woman’s right to choose, which would not stop abortions.

Actually, I support Hunter's stand on abortion, but that is really here nor there for me as an issue at this time. There comes a time when people have to prioritize the importance of issues. Right now, illegal immigration and border security are my #1 issues - they take priority above all other issues with me. The abortion battle has been ongoing for years and will continue to be so for years to come, but if we don't do something about the criminal alien crisis we're currently experiencing - we're sunk as a nation!

The answer comes down to money--Tancredo is suprising people by raising so much in such a short time. He was leading in a poll I saw in Massachusetts, non-scientific of course.

But if you can donate any small amount, it adds up, it gets Hunter and Tancredo noticed--as a side benefit, I got a cool Hunter bumper sticker!

I like both of those guys as well as Ron Paul. I would personally like to see a Tancredo/Paul ticket.

I would not hesitate to vote for Tom!

I WILL vote for either one of them.