Thread: Historic Number of Campaigns Promise Immigration Enforcement

Historic Number of Campaigns Promise Immigration Enforcement in 2008

October 13, 2008

CONTACT: ALIPAC, press@alipac.us, (866) 703-0864

A historic number of Federal campaigns are presenting their stances to voters in 2008 on illegal immigration and promising more immigration enforcement and opposition to Amnesty according to the research of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC).

While the two leading Presidential candidates, Obama and McCain, have pro-Amnesty stances that are identical to each other and identical to the failed Bush policies, Congressional candidates are taking opposing stances. Luckily for Americans, the US Constitution gives Congress the power over immigration laws and not the Executive Branch.

"We are seeing three times as many candidates make promises to oppose Amnesty or a path to citizenship for illegal aliens this year than in 2006 or 2004," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "Very few candidates are openly promoting the Obama, McCain, Bush amnesty plan because they know it would hurt their campaigns, since a super majority of voters oppose Amnesty."

National public polls and internal campaign polls show that American voters favor immigration enforcement over Amnesty by 2 to 1 margins or more. Candidates that wish to be elected are mirroring those public sentiments.

"The Presidential campaigns are barely mentioning immigration in their campaigns because each time they do, their polling numbers drop. Their unpopular stances harm the McCain campaign more because approximately 80% of Republicans oppose his stance, while approximately 55% of Democrats oppose a path to citizenship."

The massive growth in the number of campaigns addressing the illegal immigration issue proves that this issue is alive and well and foremost on voters minds along with the economy and the war.

ALIPAC has endorsed over 154 candidates already this year, which exceeds the 116 endorsed in 2006. Volunteer researchers are combing through hundreds of Federal campaigns so the list of endorsed candidates is expected to grow rapidly between now and election day, as candidates that want to win seek to align themselves with the pro-immigration enforcement views of the electorate.

To view a list of endorsed candidates or find more information, please visit www.alipac.us

###

Paid for By
AMERICANS FOR LEGAL IMMIGRATION PAC
Post Office Box 30966, Raleigh, NC 27622-0966
Tel: (919) 787-6009 Toll Free: (866) 703-0864
FEC ID: C00405878

added to homepage

http://www.alipac.us/article3630.html

The question in my mind (I'm such a skeptic, wonder why?) is how many of these candidates actually mean what they say and won't change their stance once in office taking the same road congress did in the bailout. Doing what they think is the right thing (so they'll justify) instead of representing their constituency. Which is their actual purpose, to represent. Hence the term representative.

William,

This would be great news if it holds up! To be sure, Republicans are very much on the defensive this year; but perhaps their Democratic challengers are more of the conservative variety? I understand that a good number of them are younger Iraq war vets. The Democrats should be sticking up for their traditional constituency---American workers. Instead, so many greedy, power-hungry union leaders---grubbing for more dues payers and for their own bloated salaries---have been jumping with both feet into the "immigrat rights" hysteria, and the Democratic Party has been only to happy to respond.

If Barack Obama is elected there will be a barrage of idiotic proposals targeted at "fairness" that will further increase the instability and weakness of the United States. I was just looking at some of the more recent demands that my union has been advocating. It is no wonder that American companies start looking for cheaper and less troubling workforces. With all the liberal currents in American society it will be a miracle if the younger generation even understand what work and productivity are.

Now when is the NY Times and Washington Post going to report this?

Just read another misleading MSM report this morning that (despite all the contrary evidence) Americans support "comprehensive" reform (i.e., amnesty). This is how it was phrased:

"Despite the harsh rhetoric that has flared over immigration during the past few years, some observers believe there is broad-based support among voters for the comprehensive immigration overhaul that both candidates generally favor."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 12UGI6.DTL

We have to get the word out that this is false. Valid polling using neutral langauge confirms that Americans do not support amnesty despite what "some observers" may wish to believe.

Originally Posted by Populist

"Despite the harsh rhetoric that has flared over immigration during the past few years, some observers believe there is broad-based support among voters for the comprehensive immigration overhaul that both candidates generally favor."

Those "some observers" are the cheap labor and LaRaza groups. These groups refer to bogus polls which don't match reality.

Originally Posted by Bowman

Originally Posted by Populist

"Despite the harsh rhetoric that has flared over immigration during the past few years, some observers believe there is broad-based support among voters for the comprehensive immigration overhaul that both candidates generally favor."

Those "some observers" are the cheap labor and LaRaza groups. These groups refer to bogus polls which don't match reality.

Your absolutely right Bowman! Unfortunately, there are Americans across this country who may read such a headline, and perhaps second guess their own convictions, because they have been led to believe they might be in the minority to oppose any sort of amnesty.

The NY Times knows this and that is why they continue to publish such misleading statements. This is all part of their efforts to promote their beloved amnesty/open borders agenda...