Voters Reject Guest-Worker PLan

You have shown that CIS is a group that most FReepers would agree with.

Would FReepers agree with Chris Cannon's (R-Utah) assessment of CIS:

According to Cannon, “Tanton set up groups like CIS and FAIR to take an analytical approach to immigration from a Republican point of view so that they can give cover to Republicans who oppose immigration for other reasons.”

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3839349.html

"...Support for the Senate bill was lower in the poll for the Center for Immigration Studies because the bill was described as doubling the number of green cards "in the future from 1 to 2 million a year," said research director Steven Camarota.

Experts generally agree with the green card estimate.

"When you tell them that, they don't like that," Camarota said of the proposed legalization plan. "They say, 'What?' "

The poll's methodology was faulted by Tamar Jacoby, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Public Research, which is urging passage of the Senate bill.

"If you look at polling done by all the major polling organizations this past month, voters do think that illegal immigrants here should have a chance to earn their way to citizenship," Jacoby said. "There's been a sea change in public opinion."

The Zogby survey overlapped with an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, conducted April 21-24, in which 61 percent favored letting illegal immigrants stay if they pass a security check, pay taxes and meet other conditions similar to those listed in the pending Senate bill."

Republicans who oppose immigration for other reasons.”

What other reasons?

* Named as a key member of the Open Borders Lobby in the pamphlet The Open Borders Lobby and the Nation's Security After 9/11, written by William Hawkins and Erin Anderson
* Seeks to legalize all illegal aliens currently in the U.S.
* Objected to the creation of a National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, which monitored individuals from countries with known terrorist links
* Opposed the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal, which sought to empower state and local police to enforce Federal immigration laws
* Receives funding from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; the Ford Foundation; and the Open Society Institute

The Washington, D.C.-based National Immigration Forum (NIF) claims that its objective is "to embrace and uphold America's tradition as a nation of immigrants. The Forum advocates and builds public support for public policies that welcome immigrants and refugees and that are fair and supportive to newcomers in our country." It claims to head a coalition of more than 250 national organizations and several thousand local groups. The NIF was founded in 1982 by Dale Frederick "Rick" Swartz, who had directed the immigrant rights project at the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and who had worked closely with the National Lawyers' Guild. Harriet Schaffer Rabb, Ford Foundation Trustee and Co-Director of the Immigration Law Clinic at Columbia School of Law, played a major role in helping Swartz found the new group. Swartz continued his work to secure asylum for Haitian and Central American refugees, to legalize the status of millions of other immigrants and to oppose the English Only movement, which seeks to make English the official language of the United States.

The NIF website is festooned with American flags and the Statue of Liberty. However, its political agenda, personnel and funding make it a component of the leftwing Open Borders Lobby whose ideology is hostile to both flag and nation. Frank Sharry is the current Executive Director of the NIF. Prior to taking over this position from the retiring Swartz in 1990, Sharry had been executive director of Centro Presente, a local agency involved in the Central American sanctuary movement in the greater Boston area that opposed the policies of the Reagan Administration policy to combat the spread of Communism in the region. In 1994, Sharry took a leave of absence from the Forum to serve as Deputy Campaign Manager of Taxpayers Against Proposition 187, a California Initiative to deny social welfare benefits to the state's illegal aliens.

The United States already has the most liberal immigration policy of any major country in the world. Each year, the U. S. grants permanent resident status to between 700,000 and 900,000 legal immigrants. But this not enough for the NIF. The NIF solution to the immigration problem is to "legalize" all illegal aliens currently in the United States who have no criminal records and to dramatically increase the number of visas available for those who want to come into America either to rejoin family members or to work. The idea is to make legal immigration to America so easy that no one will have to resort to illegal means to enter the country. The NIF is particularly keen on opening the borders to unskilled, low-income workers, making them eligible for welfare and social service programs. Under this scheme, the country would be importing a new underclass. The NIF does not project the number of new immigrants this "comprehensive reform" would generate. The NIF believes there are eight million illegal immigrants in the country eligible for amnesty, and it would not be unreasonable to expect the annual number of "legal" immigrants to at least double under their relaxed process.

While advancing its own plan of reform, the NIF is also working to undo the mild reforms enacted in 1996. The NIF considers the 1996 reforms "the harshest crackdown on the rights and opportunities of immigrants in 70 years." It particularly cites the attempt to expedite deportations of illegal aliens (who have no right to be in the country in the first place), the deportation of non-citizens who commit "minor" crimes, the denial of welfare and social service programs to illegal immigrants and attempts to track the arrival and departure of every person crossing our land borders and develop an identification system.

The NIF's opposition to tracking those who enter the United States extends even to those arriving from countries with known terrorist links. The NIF strongly objected to the creation of a National Security Entry-Exit Registration System. The plan as proposed by Attorney General John Ashcroft would apply only to nationals of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and Syria who are here on non-immigrant visas; certain non-immigrant visa-holders from other countries that are determined to pose an "elevated national security risk" by the State Department and the INS; and certain foreign national non-immigrant visa-holders in whom the Justice Department has a special interest. Fingerprints and photos will be taken from these individuals, along with other personal data, when they present themselves for admission to the U.S. The fingerprints will be run through intelligence and criminal records databases to identify people who are wanted criminals or suspected terrorists and keep them from entering the country. After 30 days in the United States and then on an annual basis, certain non-immigrant aliens will be required to present themselves at an INS office. The INS will conduct a review of the alien to ensure that he is complying with the terms of his visa. To Frank Sharry, "these heavy-handed tactics seem more like the old Soviet Union and South Africa."

This objection is interesting because one of the arguments the NIF uses in support of its plan to legalize the illegals and expand legal immigration is "by providing more legal channels for persons who want to come in the future, so that immigrants who now come outside of legal channels can be properly identified and screened." So which is their real concern? In the past, the NIF has objected to burdensome questioning of those seeking to become naturalized citizens, including requiring that applicants account for their residences in the U.S. and travel outside of the U.S. in the last five years, and what organizations the applicant was a member. The National Security Entry-Exit Registration System registered a total of 83,519 people before it was ended on December 2, 2003. Some of those registered were deported, usually for overstaying visas.

The NIF is a sponsoring organization of the Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride Coalition, which seeks to secure ever-expanding rights and civil liberties protections for undocumented workers, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and policy reforms that diminish or eliminate restrictions on immigration.

The NIF also opposed the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal (CLEAR) Act, H.R. 2671 which would empower state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws. And the NIF has voiced the same litany of complaints about tighter security and broader investigations pertaining to immigrants since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as other left-wing groups.

The NIF endorsed the Civil Liberties Restoration Act (CLRA) of 2004, which was introduced by Democratic Senators Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Russell Feingold, Richard Durbin, and Jon Corzine, and Democratic Representatives Howard Berman and William Delahunt. The CLRA was designed to roll back, in the name of protecting civil liberties, vital national-security policies that had been adopted after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Moreover, the NIF was a signatory to a November 1, 2001 document characterizing the 9/11 attacks as a legal matter to be addressed by criminal-justice procedures rather than military means. Ascribing the hijackers' motives to alleged social injustices against which they were protesting, this document explained that "security and justice are mutually reinforcing goals that ultimately depend upon the promotion of all human rights for all people," and called on the United States "to promote fundamental rights around the world."

The NIF has received funding from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; the Ford Foundation; George Soros's Open Society Institute.; the Carnegie Corporation of New York; the Fannie Mae Foundation; and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

In 2001, the National Immigration Forum reported revenues of $2,046,357, expenses of $1,726,885 and held assets worth: $1,826,047.

This profile was adapted from the article "The Open Borders Lobby and the Nation's Security after 9/11," written by William Hawkins and Erin Anderson, and published by FrontPageMagazine.com on January 21, 2004.

http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6506

So you prefer a Soros funded group to one funded by John Tanton? Plus anyone can write an op-ed for the WSJ. Carville and Begala have both had op-eds in the WSJ.

I wonder why you take a Soros group's word for anything. Does it just fit your agenda in this case or are you a Soros supporter?

"What do these numbers mean?"

Not a damn thing, they will be ignored.

so that they can give cover to Republicans who oppose immigration for other reasons.”

I've never heard of Republicans who oppose illegal immigration for the other reasons...What are the reasons??? Who are the Republicans???

Right, these polls mean nothing. Wait untill November and you will realize that these polls do mean something. But of course it will be too late then.

You were wrong about Harriet Miers, wrong about the Dubia Ports Deal and you are wrong if you think immigration will not be a major issue in the November elections.

LISTEN EVERYONE BECAUSE I AM ONLY GOING TO SAY THIS ONCE:

CFS may have commissioned the poll, but it was taken by Zogby International - one of the best polling methods in the world.

If you read the hundreds of articles on this particular poll on immigration, it is probably the most accurate and neutral to date.

Yes, this is probably the most objective, fair and neutral poll taken on how Americans feel about immigration.

"Would FReepers agree with Chris Cannon's (R-Utah) assessment of CIS:

According to Cannon, “Tanton set up groups like CIS and FAIR to take an analytical approach to immigration from a Republican point of view so that they can give cover to Republicans who oppose immigration for other reasons.”

You mean the RINO Chris Cannon quoted below? No, most Freepers would not agree with him on anything to do with illegal aliens. By quoting liberals, like you have on this thread, you lose all credibility.

At the MALDEF Excellence in Leadership award ceremony, of all places, Cannon said:

“We love immigrants in Utah. And we don’t often times make the distinction between legal and illegal. In fact, I think Utah was the first state in the country to legislate the ability to get a driver’s license based on the matricula consular card and of that I am proud.”

Awwww, say it again...

"After all NOBODY cares about illegal immigration, doncha know:"

Of course no one cares about immigration except for a lot of lowly grassroots conservatives. Just drink the kool aid
(SAC)

Immigration will be THE issue. Heads are gonna roll.

"This illegal immigration thing is not a big issue according to some at FR."

Like Harriet Miers this fired up the base. The Minutemen are doing something about this and it will pick up steam.

Bush will bring in the Hispanic vote. The Conservatives will bring the fence.

Actually Zogby does spin this.....

This poll is the first poll to ask the question - using neutral language - whether likely voters prefer the House bill (enforcement-only) or Senate (guest-worker) plan.
snip
Although previous polls showed that more Americans may support a guest-worker plan, the wording of such polls proved at best questionable, at worst blatantly biased. Critics, however, have always been skeptical of previous polls,

If I read between the lines on these statements correctly what he just said is that this issue is sensitive to how the question is worded. Change the wording and you get a major change in how people respond.
I do not find this statement to be of great use for those pushing for open borders though. Like many I have strong doubts about the way the questions were worded in the polls they tout.

Send them all home.

The image “http://minutemanhq.com/b2/media/McCain%201.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

I like this one.

Well, at least we weren't called racists and Bush haters this time.

ping to a poll that tells the truth.

"you heard Frank Sharry of the National Immigration Forum tell U.S. Congressman Tom Tancredo, Pat Buchanan and a national television audience that we should not refer to illegal aliens as such, but rather "future citizens"...."

Bush likes us to use the term "new American".

THE "NEW AMERICAN"

We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.

Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende.

For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.

As I speak, we are celebrating the success of democracy in Mexico.

George Bush from a campaign speech in Miami, August 2000.

You can read the speech here.

Here is an excerpt of a good critique of that speech:

In equating our intimate historic bonds to our mother country and to Canada with our ties to Mexico, W. shows a staggering ignorance of the civilizational facts of life. The reason we are so close to Britain and Canada is that we share with them a common historical culture, language, literature, and legal system, as well as similar standards of behavior, expectations of public officials, and so on. My Bush Epiphany By Lawrence Auster