Media in ERROR -- Immigration-Reduction did NOT lose at the polls

Get this info out to others -- Toughness on immigration did NOT cost candidates their election

I have some important new statistics that should give you comfort -- and that you may want to share with a lot of others.

Oh, I'm sure you've seen or read discouraging claims from Fred Barnes, Michael Barone, the Wall Street Journal, the L.A. Times, Tamar Jacoby or dozens of ivory tower newspaper editorial writers since the congressional election returns this week.

Their spin is everywhere. According to them, the Republicans' loss of the House of Representatives -- and particularly the loss of Randy Graf and J.D. Hayworth in Arizona -- proves that getting tough on illegal immigration is a political loser.

* 11.5% of all Republican seats in Congress were lost as Democrats took back control of Congress

* But only 6.7% of the Members of Tancredo's Immigration Reform Caucus lost their seats.

I've seen various open-borders organizations even talk about Tancredo's Caucus being decimated!

Members of the get-tough Caucus fared quite a bit better than Republicans in general.

Caroline Espinosa, our NumbersUSA Media Coordinator, tells me most of the journalists to whom she has spoken understand that Republicans were swept from office because of high voter disgust at Republican scandals and frustration with Pres. Bush and particularly the war -- not because most Republican Members of Congress were the only force that stopped Pres. Bush and the Democrats from passing a massive amnesty.

Unfortunately, many other journalists are not bothering to seek balanced information, do not call us and then rush out with the most ridiculous analysis of the election results.

I hope you will help get the real story out to your friends, colleagues, neighbors and family as the subject comes up -- and to the public through letters to the editor of newspapers and by phoning radio talk shows (both local and national).

Take a look at these additional percentages of Republicans who lost their elections:

Loss of Election by Republicans Based on Their Immigration-Reduction Grade of This Congress

in this email: 1. WHAT DID ARIZONA REALLY SHOW? Not a victory for the McCain Amnesty

2. ARE THE NEW DEMOCRATS REALLY CONSERVATIVES who will vote our immigration-reduction agenda?

6. Some final thoughts on VETERANS DAY actions in brief: The constant re-statement of untruths about this election will become "facts" that media will repeat for years to come if we don't attack them now.

1. Type responses on the internet to any website that pushes the kinds of falsehoods noted in this Alert.

2. Write letters to the editor of newspapers and magazines that try to push false analysis of the elections.

5. Circulate this Alert. donate now: This faxing system is 100% financed by the voluntary generosity of the 235,000- plus Americans who use it.

Please click here to make any sized donation to keep this grassroots phenomenon strong and effective. how to reply:

To make a general comment or request tech help, click here and fill out our Help Form.

There simply was no evidence that Members lost support because they were tougher on illegal immigration and on importing foreign workers.

Exit polling failed to show any sign that voters disliked the immigration-reduction positions of the Republicans they were turning out of office. Rather, the polling found they were voting primarily on the basis of scandals and the war.

A number of commentators said the voting by Arizonans proved the lack of popularity of tough enforcement, even in a state with extreme levels of illegal immigration.

And they say that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was the clear winner as voters showed they preferred his amnesty plan to enforcement-only.

They say that because of the defeats of Republican congressional candidate Randy Graf and incumbent Rep. J.D. Hayworth who campaigned against McCain's amnesty and were beaten by Democrats who said they favored the Republican senator's amnesty (although their ads and public speeches obscured that behind a lot of tough talk about borders).

* Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) was re-elected easily in the statewide race in which he clearly opposed McCain's amnesty and the (extremely well-funded) Democrat clearly supported McCain's amnesty. Kyl was particularly vulnerable because he has been a loyal supporter of Bush's war effort which Arizonans apparently hate. But voters there apparently gave him a pass on his Bush ties because of his other qualities, one of the most known of which is his law and order approach to immigration.

* In another statewide show of support for the immigration-reduction position, Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved ballot referenda that further toughen some already tough state laws against illegal aliens. The approved referenda will deny some state benefits to illegal immigrants, declare English the state's official language and bar illegal aliens from collecting punitive damages in civil lawsuits and from getting out of jail on bail if they commit serious crimes.

* Polling of likely voters in Arizona and other battleground states and congressional districts found that large majorities of not only Republicans but of Independents and Democrats in all of them share our NumbersUSA desires for Attrition Through Enforcement on illegal immigration and reduced legal immigration.

Some independent commentators say their loss was not due to their taking strong positions against illegal aliens but to their not talking enough about other issues. There was a sense among many voters that the two didn't have a broad enough agenda, the commentators said.

But Graf was also severely damaged by the fact that the retiring Republican Congressman (Kolbe) refused to endorse him and that huge amounts of national Republican money was used to advertise against him in the primary (which he won) as an extremist who had no chance to win. Then, when he won, the national Republicans refused to help him defeat the Democrat.

The treatment of Graf was one of the developments that has caused many people to contact me with their suspicion that the Bush political machine actually wanted House Republicans to lose their majority so he could work with Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to push through his amnesty.

It is difficult for me to go that far on a Bush Team conspiracy. But there is no doubt that many of that Team are happy that the Republicans' losses have caused so many in the media to suggest that Bush can now get some cooperation on his amnesty.

Graf and Hayworth have been the most talked about election losers because the extravagantly funded open borders media machine pushed their story as being the one that would explain everything about voters' opinions about immigration.

But my statistics at the top of this Alert show that one could just as easily have focused on the losses of Republicans who support McCain's amnesty.

For example, Sen. DeWine (R-OH) was defeated, a tremendous victory for our side, as he has been one of McCain's chief tools on the Senate Judiciary Committee in pushing the open borders agenda. I will not claim that his horribly anti-Ohio-worker immigration stance was the reason he lost. But the somewhat higher incidence of McCain-type Republicans losing than Tom Tancredo-type Republicans losing ought to put a stop to claims that tough immigration positions were behind the Republicans losses.

We also know that in some races, the tough immigration stance helped stave off the anti-Bush tide and allowed a Republican to win. A key example would be the Roskam (R) & Duckworth (D) race for an open seat in Illinois' 6th District. The two traded aggressive charges on each other over the immigration issue, with Roskam pledging immigration toughness and charging Duckworth with supporting an amnesty. That brought Sen. Obama (D-IL) into the fray, saying that both Duckworth and he oppose an amnesty but support Republican Sen. McCain's "comprehensive" legislation. But McCain's bill was defined well enough in the campaign that most voters understood that it would give permanent residence to some 12 million illegal aliens.

Yet, the Washington Post analysis on immigration in the election states that the get-tough approach failed virtually everywhere.

ARE THE NEW DEMOCRATS REALLY CONSERVATIVES WHO WILL VOTE OUR IMMIGRATION-REDUCTION AGENDA?

There was a lot of press before the election and TV commentary the night of the returns suggesting that many of the Democrats who beat Republicans were really pretty conservative and not that different from the Republicans they are replacing.

Then there was a rush of commentary since the election that the new Democrats in Congress may be pro-guns and anti-gay-marriage but that they are really typical economic liberals.

I still owe you a more detailed look at the new Democratic Members of Congress. But my assessment thus far is that most of these three dozen have indeed taken some conservative positions on hot-button social issues and more liberal positions on helping the working classes. But they aren't so much liberal or conservative as they are populist.

If they have some strong populist streaks, we've got a good shot at helping them truly help the working classes on immigration.

Liberal politics' most venerable magazine, The Nation, seems to have confirmed my optimism with an editorial this week that started with the paradox of Hayworth and Graf's defeats and the passage of the statewide anti-illegal alien referenda and then stated:

"It seems voters rejected anti-immigrant vitriol when it spewed from the mouths of candidates, but when that same rhetoric came in the faceless form of citizen's initiatives that mixed fiscal austerity with xenophobia -- voters swallowed the bait. Why should your tax dollars go to services for illegal immigrants? This was the message that anti-immigrant forces took to Arizonans. It was classic Lou Dobbs, class vs. race, and it worked.

"The apparent appeal of this message is what makes me nervous about the rising blue tide of economic populism in the Democratic Party. Raising the minimum wage and beating back the worst of free-market capitalism are all good things, of course. But Democrats have a long history of pandering to white, working-class 'Reagan Democrats' while cutting and running on racial minorities. Most recently, a raft of Democrats voted to build a fence along the US-Mexico border, including Prez. hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It was a do-nothing, symbolic vote, but it doesn't bode well for what will happen next on the "common ground" Bush and Dems hope to find on immigration issues.

"As Roberto Lovato points out, 'The crop of House and Senate members-elect includes many Democrats whose positions on immigration hardly differ from the border first Republicans they ousted.' "

I wish I could be quite so optimistic, but I think the three dozen new Democrats are closer to Graf's and Hayworth's immigration positions than they are to the presumed new Speaker of the House Pelosi's.

It will be up to all of our activism whether they end up voting on their constituents (and our) behalf or on Pelosi's (and The Nation's).

And I have hope that most of these new Democrats will join up with genuine Democratic populists who already are championing our cause -- Sen. Dorgan (D-ND), Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Sen. Byrd (D-WV), Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN), as examples.

It is possible that a revved up core of Democratic populists could become what The Nation fears most and avoid racial polarization in favor of helping Americans of all ethnicities who are economically harmed by massive foreign labor flows. And if that happens, these Democrats could actually improve the "political soul" of the Republicans who are solidly on the side of immigration reduction.

It is around this kind of populist morality that we may see a middle-ground meeting of Republicans and Democrats that will show the true bi-partisanship that the media so desperately seems to covet.

It is also possible that the much larger role of Democrats in the still-Republican dominated immigration-reduction coalition will cause the media and many others to stop thinking of our immigration problems and solutions in terms of "conservative" or "liberal," much broadening the appeal of the solutions as being also "mainstream."

In my time on Capitol Hill after the elections, I got strong assurance from people who work regularly with the Blue Dog Democrat Coalition (most of whom vote with us on immigration) that most of the New Democrats should be inclined to join the Blue Dogs -- and that we will fail to get most of the new votes only if we fail to increase our level of activism.

The media are having a great time wagging their fingers at House Republicans and saying they were fools to think that standing tough against Bush's amnesty would save their majority.

They say that the House Republicans tried to sell the voters a fence when what the voters wanted was "comprehensive" answers to our immigration crisis.

In fact, the House Republicans (with nearly 40 Democrats) last December passed "comprehensive" legislation (H.R. 4437) that dealt (a) with the border, (b) with workplace enforcement, (c) with interior enforcement, (d) with what to do with the illegal aliens already here (arrest somewhat more of them but mainly make life worse for them to cause them to go home on their own -- ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT) and to (e)deal with the labor needs of this country by beginning to REDUCE the annual number of new legal immigrants.

But when the Senate (primarily Democrats, plus McCain and his minority GOP team) and the President indicated they would not budge in September, House Republican leaders timidly forced through only the fence and a couple of other technicalities.

Those of us representing NumbersUSA (and you) on Capitol Hill met in late August and early September with top GOP leadership offices. We warned them that voters would not give Republicans credit -- and would not really trust their sincerity -- if they did not try to force through a substantial part of the workplace enforcement they had passed last December in the comprehensive bill.

We told them that the fence alone would likely not get them any political mileage -- just as the fence alone will not likely do much to deter illegal immigration (especially if we don't have mandatory workplace verification).

And then, Republican national leaders who assembled ads to try to help Republican candidates on the basis of their toughness on immigration tended to miss the powerful populist, pro-worker message.

Joe Guzzardi ran as a Democrat for Governor of California during the recall election a few years ago. He teaches English to immigrants and writes columns in newspapers and on the internet. You can read his entire column at: http://www.vdare.com/guzzardi/061110_chide.htm

To all my Republican immigration reform friends and colleagues, I have two words for you—“Chill out!”

During our movement’s moment of greatest triumph—the complete electoral humiliation of President George W. Bush, we should be basking in our glory at our collective victory.

Instead, most of you are wringing your hands and speculating on a worst-case scenario that would include amnesty for illegal aliens and various guest worker programs that will add greatly to the legal immigrant population.

If we mount our typical fierce counter-insurgent assault on Congressional sensibilities by focusing on proving that amnesty would reduce to almost zero most incumbent’s Congressional 2008 re-election chances and therefore (in the broader picture) on retaining Democratic House control, we can cut the traitors off at the pass.

The election was not so much a triumph for the Democrats—remember, I am one—as it was a mandate for responsible, responsive government.

And if the Democrats should decide to ram through an amnesty in either the waning days 109th Congress or anytime during the 110th, they will rue the day.

If Bush bucks GOP sentiment by double-dealing with Pelosi, he can write off Republican support for prospective legislation during his remaining two years.

And if you are fretting about what might happen when the new Congress takes office in January 2007, consider that these Democratic representatives are only just months off the campaign trail—where they got an earful about amnesty—but within a few months of embarking on their re-election tour where voters will be harshly assessing their progress in the illegal immigration wars.

Do you really think that these new Congressmen—many of whom will face their same 2006 opponents—are going to vote for amnesty? Can you think of any surer way to lose in 2008?

I've quote from the liberal magazine The Nation, the following came from National Review, written by Mark Krikiorian, the head of the Center for Immigration Studies. You can read all of it at: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjM1YmEwZmNiMDBiOGIwOTQ3NDc3N2Q4MWEwMDViM2Q=

Here are some excerpts that I think will add to your understanding of our political situation and hopefully encourage you to be of good cheer and of great engagement in the fight:

Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition.

Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat ...

In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”

And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”

“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.

More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.

What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.

The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.

Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.

Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.

Regardless of your position on the conduct of the war, its rationale or what should happen next, I hope most of you will allow me a few personal comments about all of our (mostly young) men and women who are in uniform today -- and about all the living Veterans who have served during times of danger in the past.

This is not Memorial Day (which honors those who died in service) but Veterans Day, in which we honor ALL Americans living and dead who have donned the uniform and served.

They have answered the call of their elected government to serve their country, many of them to risk giving their lives in service of their country (our national community). I know that those in uniform today have volunteered for this. That does not minimize for me the risk they are taking as part of this assignment. I may or may not agree with the assignment they have been given. It is our job as citizens to influence the assignment. But those in uniform can only accept the assignment. They do it for all of us. And, I think, they deserve our reverence.

In my extended family of siblings, nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, cousins and even double-half-second-cousins-once-removed-descending, we have had a really fascinating time of late as we jointly have delved into our family's piece of the World War II history. I have been serializing diaries and letters of my father and other family members. After each day's entry is sent to the far-flung email list, three generations of family email back commentary, questions and things they have found on the internet to illuminate items mentioned in the diary entries from more than 60 years ago. We deal with just small pieces each day, the better to consider and appreciate what these Veterans experienced.

I think Veterans Day was my father's favorite. From his release after WWII through the last holiday of his life two years ago, he always made sure the flags were up on the Webster County (MO) courthouse square, articles were in the Marshfield Mail and that there were assemblies at the schools that made sure nobody could forget this particular part of citizenship.

Neither Dad nor myself ever believed that serving in the military was the only or the most important way a person could perform civic duty to his/her national community. But the potential risks and hardship are so great that it is only right to set aside one day to honor this type of service.

Sometimes it can seem a little self-serving for a Veteran to promote respect for Veterans. My father was part of MacArthur's Occupation of Japan but did not see combat. Neither did I. Perhaps that gives people like us a little more room to promote "our own kind." And that would be a pretty diverse lot. Dad joined up enthusiastically. I was drafted and dragged into the enterprise kicking and screaming.

Here's a salute to all of you who answered the call in one way or the other. (I would be pleased to see short reflections on your military service and the immigration issue.)

Oh please, give it up!

Republican and Conservative voters surrendered the Congress to the MSM/DNC/OBL/Hollywood, who are obviously much more powerful than the Right.

And in the process of "sending the message", they voted out the only Firewall of Conservatives who could move the President to the right on illegals.

Rightwing voters cannot govern in the majority, they are to prone to Utopian visions, not knowing who the real enemy is, and waiting for their robot-like Conservative savior. Minority bitching is much easier.

It is over.

Media in ERROR -- Immigration-Reduction did NOT lose at the polls

I'd quibble with the title.
I suspect what was really meant was:

Media in ERROR -- ILLEGAL Immigration-Reduction did NOT lose at the polls

I do think the most folks are just steaming mad about Illegal
immigration/invasions.
Relatively well controlled and orderly legal immigration works
for most folks.

It's just that that title "as is" would be easily exploited by the
"you're a xenophobe racist for wanting sanity in immigration and
controlling our borders" crowd.

Oh BS. The Reps DIDN'T stand tall on immigration, they tried to play the base for fools by authorizing a fence they never intended to build. And it cost them.

Get your head out, and deal with it yourself. It's on of the things thats going to keep costing the Reps until they get serious. If we are going to watch liberal practices in Washington, we can damn see to it's the Democrats doing it because we will keep the Reps at home until they convince us they are serious. The sad thing is I think we are going to have to sit out one more election to prove we mean business.

Americans don't want open borders or a pure Senate bill on immigration. However I think its clear that the pure Tancredo stance has not been endorsed by the AMerican people either.

After looking at a year of this I find Most Americans are not that opposed to some pathway to citzenship as long as its fair and rational.

I the fact that some of those ballot issue in Arizona passed doesnt suprise me. In fact some of those hads 50 percent Hispanic support. The key is to see for instance why there was a drop off in Hispanic vote(as well as others) between those ballot issues and then canidates that endorsed the ultra Hardline on immigration.

That position those people appear to have doesnt seem easy to put in a soundbite but its one we should be listening too

And in the process of "sending the message", they voted out the only
Firewall of Conservatives who could move the President to the right
on illegals.

That's the bottom line.
I held my nose and voted "R" because like most adults, I could
think ahead.

Apparently some "purists" and "mushy middles" either lack this
faculty or they are self-flagellating.
But it's a free country and they were free to vote as they pleased.
Or not vote.

And yes, it's over.
I'll probably be ordering my Rosetta Stone Spanish package in
a couple of days.
And I'm NOT being facetious about that.

This seems to be a loosing battle, even though the economy is an all time high, mindless journalists continue to repeat the rhetoric that the US needs and wants more immigrants to do work that is not being done.

Even though the majority of the population is against a comprehensive immigration reform that grants eventual citizenship to 100 million new immigrants, increasing US populating by 33%, the rhetoric is reported that most citizens are now in favor of ‘reform’ as a result of sending the house candidates whom were perceived as being “tough” .

Journalists continue to repeat the rhetoric even though the number of immigrants legal and illegal is now at all time high, representing more than 10% of the population , when historical immigrants were never higher than 5%, we are told that our immigration policies are broken and we need to allow more immigrants.

Journalists continue to repeat the rhetoric even though crime and foreign born gangs are more prevalent than ever before, beheadings from drug lords wars , south of the border, but we are told that terrorism is only occurring in the middle east, and the US is the cause of it.

Journalists continue to repeat the rhetoric even though recent Mexican elections were not resolved peacefully until months after an election was decided, we are told that these people should be made part of our electoral system too, because they have family values and would be responsible voters .

Journalists continue to repeat the rhetoric even though it is legal to drive in this country with an international drivers license, or a foreign issued license, we are told by journalist that foreign visitors to our county need to be issued US drivers licensee’s in order to drive.

Maybe they think if they keep trying to paint the world to how they want it to be, that people will believe them, and for the most part it seems to be true. Journalists do have the power to frame the debate, even with absurd premises. The US population is often so ignorant of the real facts that truth is lost.

Well they say the first thing to be lost in war is truth, and it appears as with the case of immigration, this is a loosing battle for the truth.

The ONLY people who stood tall on Immigration, the US House GOP, got fired.

Oh, Johnnie,Johnnie,Johnnie, you just can't help yourself can you? Graf and a couple others lost because people like you and the DNC supported their opponent!

Tancredo won, Duncan Hunter won and so did a bunch of others as did my rep who only sent out campaign ad on IMMIGRATION enforcement. All the dems ran against illegal immigration that won. Why do you think all those dems voted for the fence just before the election- duh!!! so they'd get voted for!

Conservative News conservativenewsnyc@yahoo.com

We have some very important information for you below. There is a ton of misinformation in the media, both by liberals (e.g. Pelosi) and neocons (e.g. Bill Kristol, Linda Chavez). They are being dishonest about the election and immigration. Every single exit poll shows that voters voted against Republicans in this election because (1) the war in Iraq (2) corruption and (3) (in some states) free trade

It had nothing to do with immigration. In fact, if the GOP had been more anti-immigration and did not have a President who cares more about amnesty than hard-working Americans, the GOP would have done better.

Of the Republicans who lost in this election: only 6.7% of those losing were anti-immigration (in Tancredo's caucus)

34.9 % of those who lost, however, were pro-Amnesty and supported Bush's pro-Amnesty plan. (These people received a grade of D or lower on their Immigration Report Cards)

Here in PA we went for an anti-illegal to a pro-amnesty.

If you are talking about Santorum, he is only recently for "anti-illegal" And Curt Weldon wasn't much better.

http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=PA&VIPID=683 Santorum

Voted in favor of chain migration in 1996

Voted in favor of amendment to create additional guestworker visa categories in 2006

Voted in favor of amendment to increase foreign-worker importation in 2005

Cosponsoring legislation to increase H-2B workers who are present in the U.S. at any one time in 2005-2006

Voted for a foreign worker bill with no anti-fraud measures in 2000.

Voted to allow firms to lay off Americans to make room for foreign workers in 1998

Voted against amendment to fund additional immigration investigators in 2006

Voted against amendment to provide funding for additional Border Patrol agents in 2005

Tried to kill voluntary pilot programs for workplace verification in 1996 [snips]

WEldon

Voted against American workers by voting for worker-importation program in 2003

Voted in 1998 to allow firms to lay off Americans to make room for foreign workers

Voted against amendment to fund program to deny driver's licenses to illegal aliens in 2005

Voted in favor of amendment to strip provision to make it harder for terrorists to get asylum in 2004

Voted in favor of amendment to strip expedited removal for illegal aliens from H.R. 10 in 2004

Voted against enforcing federal laws against sanctuary policies to protect illegal aliens in 2004

Opposed mandatory workplace verification programs in 1996

Tried to kill voluntary pilot programs for workplace verification in 1996

Another reason:How Ted Haggard delivered control to the Democrats

The Republican Party lost the mid-term elections primarily due to the war in Iraq; however, there were other contributing factors. According to the Pew Research Centre, 78 percent of evangelicals in the United States voted Republican in 2004. This week polls indicate that just 50 percent of evangelicals voted for the Republicans, and evangelical turnout was dramatically lower. The Democrats, with pro same-sex marriage, pro-abortion leader Nancy Pelosi, now control the legislative agenda of the U.S. government. How did this happen?

The Rev. Ted Haggard, the defrocked president of the National Association of Evangelicals led a two-year campaign to subject the evangelical church to the laws of global warming. The introduction of the earth movement has confused the church with neo-pagan teachings. In Romans Chapter 1, God warns us not to place creation over the Creator. (snip)

: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp? ARTICLE_ID=52904

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.