Does anyone have a list of pro amnesty or pro guest worker politicians?
I just need the names of the people in DC and I'll collect up all the
phone numbers and repost it here. I'd like to get the word out to as
many people as possible and make it as easy as possible for them to
call and complain.
Maybe V-DARE or NumbersUSA or another organization that specializes in immigration control can provide what you want or at least guide you in the right direction.
Liberty and Self-Determination for Everyone
Has anyone else noticed in your area how the local TV news station will not, for the most part, tell us of our local representatives stance on the immigration situation. I have contacted all four of the local alphabet network stations and asked them why they saturate us with these hucksters during the election cycle, and will not put them on the hot seat when we, as the electorite, need to know where they stand. I think if the more apathetic voter were reminded of the situation, Congress would be hearing far more revolt.
LAWMAKERS LOVE LAWBREAKERS
LAWMAKERS LOVE LAWBREAKERS
Wow, somebody's really done their homework here re "Flimsey" Graham, the despicable slimeball who slithered all the way to Washington from Seneca, SC, about 45 minutes from me. The pics, the splash, the links to his hate speeches—by God, it's all there!
http://dumplindsey.org/Edited by: Nelson
Promote the NationalisTimes—order and deploy extra copies—bring all whom you know into the Forum! Fresh opportunities arise constantly. ANU.ORG is THE number one news page of them all. \"JUST DO IT”...
My thoughts on NumbersUSA's guide/report card.
It is clear that Ron Paul is not a "champion of our white cause." However, is the immigration chapter in Liberty Defined, that consists of 8 out of 328 pages in the book, the writings of a man who is advocating the destruction of the white race? Of course not.
The passages cited by NumbersUSA to justify the F rating it gave Paul in some cases were selectively edited.
Paul begins his immigration chapter writing, "There seems to be two extreme positions on immigration: completely closed the borders and totally opened borders. The Constitution, common sense, and the philosophy of freedom offer a principled alternative to this two rash options."
Paul, right from the beginning, makes clear he is not in the camp of the open borders libertarians that some have put him in. If he is he has a funny way of stating it. NumbersUSA did not cite this.
Paul continues his critique of libertarians writing, "The libertarians who argue for completely open borders for the free flow of goods and people fail to realize that a truly libertarian society would not necessarily be that open. The land and property would be privately owned and controlled by the owners, who would have the right to prevent newcomers from entering without permission. There would be no government havens or welfare benefits and new immigration would come only after a sponsor's permission."
The alternative position Paul is advocating was consistently misconstrued by NumbersUSA's in the most baseless manner. Take for example NumbersUSA's failing grade given to Paul on Implementing an Entry/Exit program.
NumbersUSA said, "Although several years ago he voted for an amendment that would have implemented the Entry/Exit system so that we can keep track of visitors, his new book expresses opposition to requiring U.S. citizens to go through the same procedures when leaving and entering the country"
Is it reasonable to give a negative score to Paul because he believes that American citizens going on a trip to Canada who can show proper identification should be treated the same as a Somali visitor coming into America with no identification?
Article: Tell Ron Paul how he can do better on immigration - NumbersUSA - December 1, 2011
NumbersUSA takes a pot shot at Paul writing, "Paul waxes lyrical on what would occur in an ideal libertarian society. In such a world, he says, "borders would be blurred and open. It would be something similar to what the Constitution did with the borders between the various states."
NumbersUSA purposefully did not include the whole statement. Paul's full statement continues,"...Civilization has not yet come even close to being capable of such a policy, though it engages some in a theoretical discussion."
It is clear that Paul dismisses the utopian libertarian open border vision which he believes is confined to a small group of libertarian writers and discussion groups who believe they are participating in a Plato "ideal" republic theoretical discussion that has no bearing on governance.
This apparently went over the head of NumbersUSA who took Paul's dismissal of this utopian "ideal" libertarian socio-political state and then attributed it to his cause and views.
It is true that Paul does not believe there is the determination or ability to deport 12-15 million illegals. He does inflect a compassionate tone when it comes to breaking up families saying that "this would hardly be a Good Samaritan approach to the problem." Unlike most libertarians, Paul recognizes that there is a problem.
Paul also understands that the call to grant amnesty to 15 million illegals is a political death nail for the GOP because the evidence exists that they don't vote for Republicans.
NumbersUSA claims that Paul supports a "defacto amnesty" because of his "refusal to back enforcement measures." Paul's stated position on amnesty is, "No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws."
In The New American Joe Wolverton has an overview of the NumbersUSA-Ron Paul issue and whether Paul's position has actually changed.
Article: Anti-Illegal Immigration Group Awards an "F" to Ron Paul - The New American - May 9, 2011
That's valuable -- a sane quote from RP on the subject. First time I sen anybody catch NumbersUSA in an error. Other than that they're a godsend.