Skip to comments.Updated Immi. Ratings on Pres. Candidates
Posted on 01/23/2008 12:14:50 PM PST by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
More than half of you will be voting in Presidential Primaries over the next few weeks.
To the right are my latest overall assessments of each candidate based on immigration promises and past actions.
I hope that you will be placing significant weight in your choice based on a candidate's commitment to protect American workers, communities and the environment from current immigration levels that are set to add another 100 million people over the next few decades.
The point totals are the sum of four ratings:
All immigration actions in the past while in political office.
Promises to oppose amnesty for illegal aliens and to cause them to go back to their home countries over time.
Promises in many specific areas of enforcement to stop future illegal immigration.
Promises to reduce future legal flows of foreign workers to protect American workers, communities and natural resources.
We are most interested in what the candidates are promising most recently, how publicly they have made the promises and in what kind of specificity.
We encourage all candidates to turn away from bad or poor positions of the past. And we reward them with improved ratings when they adopt the preferences of the majority of Americans for far less overall immigration.
Nonetheless, it matters what a candidate has done in the past, so 25% of these ratings is based on past actions while in office, since a longer term commitment to less immigration suggests consistency and perhaps a deeper commitment to the promises being made.
As the campaign has progressed, the poor immigration candidates have gotten worse, promising to use high levels of legal and illegal immigration to do more harm to America's poor, its middle classes, its natural environment and its taxpayers. (You see their names in the list to the right printed in black and red.)
The fair-to-good immigration candidates have been growing progressively better in their promises, although none yet qualify as excellent on the issues (now that Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo have withdrawn).
So, what you now see are two clearly defined groups of candidates at the upper and lower ends, with nobody in the middle.
Be sure to look at all 16 of the immigration ratings for each candidate at: www.CongressGrades.org.
Please note that our ratings do NOT amount to endorsements. Nor do they convey anything about the character, the strength or any other positions about the candidates. We know that every one of these candidates has supporters among the users of NumbersUSA for a lot of different reasons.
in this email:
Latest OVERALL Presidential Candidate Ratings On IMMIGRATION
How Good Are The Promises of Each Candidate to PROTECT Workers, Communities and Taxpayers FROM OVER-IMMIGRATION? (SEE TEXT TO LEFT AND BELOW FOR HOW POINTS WERE ASSIGNED ON 36-POINT SCALE ... NumbersUSA does NOT endorse candidates.)
Mitt Romney (28 points)
RON PAUL (24 points)
MIKE HUCKABEE (24 points)
RUDY GIULIANIA (7 points)
JOHN McCAIN (5 points)
JOHN EDWARDS (5 points)
HILLARY CLINTON (4 points)
BARACK OBAMA (4 points)
Look at full ratings in 16 categories at Presidential Candidate Ratings website.
Which one? The Mitt who a ways back thought McCain-Kennedy was hunky dory? Or the new, improved Mitt?
And that will be “Good” enough for me.
What are Alan Keyes (R) ‘s ratings on this issue?
Actually, they have him at Very Good. Wonder how much he paid for that?
If you insist, figure it’s the new, improved Mitt.
Although they rated his performance as Governor, and he rated very well, so it’s also the old Mitt. In fact, on existing record he had actually outperformed Fred Thompson.
There’s a reason Tom Tancredo felt comfortable endorsing Mitt Romney.
Huck is “good” though hopefully not for giving illegals free tuition
Romney should be rated “unknown”. But at least he has one rating that’s not squishy.
3 years and 50 weeks into his presidency, he'll do something about it.
.... that's if he's a one term president. If he's a two-termer, he'll wait till 7 years, 50 weeks.
I started as a Fred voter but he's no longer an option.... Mitt is the best of what's left IMO. If he's out I'll be sitting back and watching Hillery win the White House......Because I heard some one say, "Sometimes it takes a Carter to get a Reagan" and I agree with that thought.
Please convince me otherwise....Here's your opening to influence my vote before March 4.
I included the entire NumbersUSA email. For complaints, see them!
To me, this is the most important issue of them all...open borders and amnesty will change America...and those changes are irreversible once they happen.
From the site:
What has been the previous record of immigration actions while in elected office?
ABYSMAL -- John McCain
BAD -- Rudy Giuliani
BAD -- Hillary Clinton
BAD -- Barack Obama
BAD -- John Edwards
BAD -- Mike Huckabee
GOOD -- Ron Paul
GOOD -- Mitt Romney
So who would you choose as the candidate for the conservative's if you could choose any living person to run?
Thompson, Tancredo, Hunter, and Keyes got “shut out”.
Keyes is still in the race.
I’ve had enough of Democrat crossover voters influencing our choices.
The Republican party needs to relegate these crossover states to the end of the line.....your choices have a funny way of narrowing down by then.
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.