Gardner's GOP Tent Is Still too Small for the Dreamers

12 Comments

by: Jason Salzman

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Just after the November election, a chastened Cory Gardner told Fox 31's Eli Stokols:

Gardner: “Republicans have always talked about having a big tent, but it doesn’t do any good if the tent doesn’t have any chairs in it. Bringing Latinos to the forefront, bringing women in, is absolutely critical.”

So you'd think Gardner, who represents Colorado's 4th Congressional District, would, over the ensuing six months, at least make room in the GOP tent for the children of illegal immigrants, who were brought to this country through no fault of their own.

You'd think Gardner would get on board with Colorado's ASSET law, which allows colleges to offer these so-called "Dreamers" the normal in-state tuition rate.

But on Monday, the same day that Gov. John Hickenlooper signed ASSET into law, Gardner told KNUS' Steve Kelley, that he still opposes Colorado's new policy of granting in-state tuition to the Dreamers, because Gardner does not believe the U.S. borders are secure enough, and that's his first priority.

Kelley: Comments on Colorado, now. The Governor, last Friday, rescinded a bill, repealed a bill on notification of illegals. This all ties together, by the way, the Boston bombings and all of these are connected. Obviously, you deal with these things on a federal level, but as a state, now, we’ve repealed this notification thing. And then, in-state tuition for illegals in Colorado, you must have a comment on that.

Gardner: I think we’re actually doing everything backwards. The solution has to come from the federal government on border security with an immigration policy that actually works to identify those who want to come into this country legally, who want to work here legally. But we can’t start putting in place in-state tuition, whether it’s other things that are being in placed [sic] by the states, without actually addressing the root problem that will only continue more illegal immigration into this country. And so, that’s why we’ve got to have a policy that actually works, and I believe it starts with border security.

Gardner, who's long opposed ASSET, isn't the only GOP muckety muck who promised to be nice to Hispanics after the 2012 election collapse. Who can forget former GOP lawmakers Josh Penry's and Rob Witwer's clarion call for a more loving Republican Party or a dead one. They wrote of the Dreamers: "These kids grow up in households where parents work hard and attend church on Sunday. These are American values. But yes, some of these kids — through no fault of their own — were not born American citizens."

If Kelley won't ask a guy like Gardner about the substance of his promise to open the GOP tent to Hispanics, I'm hoping real journalists won't forget next time they're standing in front of Gardner and others like him.

12 thoughts on “Gardner’s GOP Tent Is Still too Small for the Dreamers”

Curmudgeon says:

May 2, 2013 at 1:33 pm

Gardner: “Republicans have always talked about having a big tent, but it doesn’t do any good if the tent doesn’t have any chairs in it. Bringing Latinos to the forefront, bringing women in, is absolutely critical.”

Maybe he meant they needed Latinos and women to bring in the chairs, and then politely leave the tent for all the old white guys. Or maybe they could serve refreshments, or something.

Log in to Reply
JeffcoBlue says:

May 2, 2013 at 1:33 pm

Gardner's tent is actually very small, very white, and the "chairs" are musical chairs.

Log in to Reply
Craig says:

May 2, 2013 at 1:35 pm

I don't disagree with your comment about the reporter. However, when I read the quote, it didn't seem that bad to me. He wants to close up the borders in the future. That's part of the basis for the immigration reform package working through Congress. He actually didn't say he opposed ASSET. He said he opposed the timing of ASSET going before border control. Frankly (and as much as you know I personally hate Gardner) that's not an illegitimate argument (as much as I hate to say it). We need to wait to see what happens when and if the immigration package is voted upon by Gardner. And admittedly, some smart reporter (I know, kind of an oxy-moron these days) needs to ask if he would support the ASSET concept, even if we had border control. My guess, he would avoid the question again.

Log in to Reply
1. BlueCat says:
  
  May 2, 2013 at 1:59 pm
  
  Good points, Craig, but the pretty much exclusive GOP concern with the southern border as an entry for illegal immigration seems misplaced.
  
  Rs constantly try to connect this concern with security, especially in connection with the potential for terrorists to gain entry but, so far, all the acts of domestic terrorism have been commited either by US citizens or those here legally from countries not located south of our border, such as the Tsarnaev brothers.
  
  We also know that the lousy economy has been slowing immigration for many years and that in combination with increased security has already made a huge dent in illegal southern border crossing immigration.
  
  Your instinct to feel very uneasy about agreeing with these people is a good one. They only seem to use at least somewhat valid points in the service of ends that don't pass the smell test.
  
  Log in to Reply
2. ajb says:
  
  May 2, 2013 at 2:46 pm
  
  It seems to me that everything Republicans object to is done for the sake of just saying no.
  
  Same day voter registration? Good for ID, MT, WY, bad for Colorado.
  Driver's licenses for undocumented workers? Good for Utah (!), bad for Colorado.
  6% severence tax on oil? Good for Wyoming, bad for Colorado.
  ASSET/Dream Act? Good for TX, NE, KS, NM, bad for Colorado.
  
  Log in to Reply
3. Jason Salzman says:
  
  May 2, 2013 at 3:36 pm
  
  Yes, I think your right that it looks like he'd support the ASSET concept, or at least be open to it if the borders were tight enough for him.
  
  But as it is, if he'd been in the leg this year, he'd have opposed ASSET, based on his statement in my post.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Jason Salzman says:
    
    May 2, 2013 at 3:42 pm
    
    But he said this last June:
    
    "And, of course, I oppose in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. I think it’s the wrong policy. It sets the wrong kind of message to people who are in the country illegally. And I think we’ve got to work on border security before anything else, and I think Metro State has it backwards."
    
    Log in to Reply
allyncooper says:

May 2, 2013 at 4:57 pm

Gardner makes the point all the other stuff (ASSET, drivers licenses, in state tuition, etc.) doesn't address "the root problem that will only continue more illegal immigration into this country". But the root problem is isn't really a porous border, the root problem is illegal employment.

The 1986 Immigration Act that Reagan signed granted amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants, supposedly "secured" the border, and made it illegal to hire an undocumented worker. Problem solved, right?

Then why are we revisiting this whole issue again on a much bigger scale with now at least 11 million undocumented immigrants? Two words – "illegal employment".

So in a sense, Gardner is right. In the 2006 special session a bill was introduced that would have required all businesses in Colorado to E-verify workers, but got shot down by the homebuilders lobbying against it (Larry Mizel of MDC Holdings, Richmond Homes and chief lobbyist for the homebuilding industry Norman Brownstein). The homebuilders needed that low wage illegal labor to produce those 1.6 million units during the boom.

This session HB 13-1098 would have again required every employer in Colorado to use E-verify and provided for heavy fines for employers who didn't, but got shot down in committee 4-7. You can guess who lobbied against it.

We have a undocumented immigration problem because we have failed miserably at dealing with what is an economic issue, i.e. illegal employment . If we don't effectively deal with the "root problem" (Gardner's words) this go round of "immigration reform" we will continue to have an exploited class living in the shadows that we will have to deal with again in 20 years.

Log in to Reply
1. ElliotFladen says:
  
  May 3, 2013 at 7:37 pm
  
  There is nothing conservative about making employment illegal. What is driving illegal immigration isn't lack of enforcing your silly prohibitionism in the immigration context – it is the fact that your silly prohibitionism exists in the first place.
  
  Immigrants who aren't a burden or a threat should be allowed into this country. PERIOD.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Duke Cox says:
    
    May 3, 2013 at 11:18 pm
    
    I agree. Who'da thunk it?
    
    Log in to Reply
  2. Gray in Mountains says:
    
    May 4, 2013 at 10:36 am
    
    also agree
    
    Log in to Reply
Curmudgeon says:

May 4, 2013 at 8:06 am

+10

Log in to Reply