Thread: Roy Beck: Rating all Prez candidates on immigration

From: Roy Beck, President, NumbersUSA
Date: Saturday 8DEC07 11:45 p.m. EST

Where do each of the Presidential candidates really stand on 16 immigration measures?

DEAR VOTERS,

Several Presidential candidates are changing their immigration positions one month before the voting begins in the primaries. And most of the changes are moving in the right direction!

See all the changes here:
http://www.betterimmigration.com:80/can ... z2008.html

Nonetheless, you will see that most of the candidates still have room for a lot of improvement.

We have posted a candidate GRID on immigration since last January. But this week, we completely revised the grid, adding a lot of new categories and a more helpful way of rating. I hope each of you will go there now ( http://www.betterimmigration.com:80/can ... z2008.html ) and see how they all stack up.

The GRID contains information that really is quite shocking. Most of you are aware that several of the candidates favor amnesty for the illegal aliens already in this country but claim (as do all 15 candidates of both parties) that they favor stopping FUTURE illegal immigration. But 9 of the 15 are opposing most of the measures that experts agree would be necessary to actually stop the illegal flow. In essence, 9 of the 15 candidates are promising to allow illegal immigration to continue at an outrageously high level. Look at the GRID, you'll see what I mean.

I know that many of you will have questions -- and even arguments with us -- when you see the GRID. Please see below my responses to comments that I anticipate you might make. After you have read that -- and the criteria I used in rating (as posted on the GRID pages) -- please use the CONTACT link provided on the GRID pages to let us know of any information about a candidate's stance that you believe we might have missed.

The GRID is a living rating system and is constantly adjusted based on new information and on changes by the candidates.

I can tell you for sure that you can't really know where the candidates stand on immigration by watching the debates or watching their ads. I couldn't tell, either, until I sat down with all their websites and the voluminous material our Online Content Manager, Mike Betsch, has posted from interviews and speeches on each of the candidates.

WHAT I REALLY WISH YOU WOULD DO
WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL RATINGS

I am emailing this to more than 1.6 million people on our email list (including 525,000 of you who are registered NumbersUSA activists).

Can you imagine the effect on campaign staffs if even one-tenth of you contacted campaign offices this next week and commented about their candidate's immigration position?

Unlike most Americans, you can have a real effect on what the next President does if you will email and phone one or more of the candidates.

Here is what you can do to help:

Find contact information on the individualized pages we have for each candidate. Go to the Democratic grid ( http://www.betterimmigration.com/candid ... _dem1.html ) or the Republican grid ( http://www.betterimmigration.com/candid ... _gop1.html ) and click on the photo of a candidate. That will take you to the full immigration profile of that candidate. You'll see contact information and the candidate's website link there.

Contact a candidate and praise him/her for the stances that we have awarded a green "GOOD" or "EXCELLENT" on the GRID.

Then, pick out one to three items on the GRID that are getting negative ratings (red) or mediocre ratings (black) and urge that the candidate improve his/her stance.

Are you already supporting one of the candidates? If so, you can be especially influential by calling your candidate's offices and telling of your support overall but the importance of the candidate improving on a few immigration items.

Please don't be in the 9 out of 10 who do nothing and then wonder why the candidates don't better reflect the wishes of the public. You have to let them know.

ANTI-DEMOCRAT BIAS?

Quite a number of you have already found the new GRID this week on your own -- and you've let us know what you think.

A few have suggested that our GRID is biased against the Democratic candidates because we use the rating "abysmal" for many of their stances.

I can only respond that we also use "abysmal" for some of the Republicans and apply it evenly, based on merit.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Presidential candidates thus far have been an embarrassment on immigration, compared to a growing number of Democratic Members of Congress who are truly getting serious about combatting illegal immigration.

I urge all of you who are Democrats and Independents to make sure the Democratic candidates are disabused of any thought that they won't be punished politically for holding such open-borders views if they make it to the General election next November.

Our problem, however, is that until at least one Democratic candidate takes a strong stand against illegal immigration, none of them will be punished in the Primaries for being pro-illegal immigration. Can you persuade any of these candidates that the first one who takes a strong stand against illegal immigration has a chance to reap a lot of Primary votes? The majority of Democrat voters favor the things on the GRID that the candidates are against.

And a recent Democratic poll found that political Independents overwhelmingly want tough measures against illegal immigration. In fact, it is the No. 1 issue for Independents. The Democratic candidates are aware of this poll. But until they feel some more direct opposition (like you are going to provide this next week), they apparently hope the immigration issue will just go away.

One thing you can really press these Democratic candidates on is why those in the Senate have not yet co-sponsored S. 2368, the SAVE Act ( http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/attrition.html ), introduced by Democratic Senators Pryor (Ark.) and Landrieu (La.) The Presidential candidates claim that they know that the jobs magnet must be removed from illegal aliens. But if they won't co-sponsor the SAVE Act, which would take most "on-the-books" jobs away from illegal aliens, their claim of opposing illegal immigration is not credible.

Are the Democratic candidates going to put their co-sponsorship where their mouths are, or are they going to show themselves to be hypocrites who really don't want anything to stand in the way of unscrupulous employers hiring as many illegal aliens as they desire?

NOT ENOUGH CREDIT TO TANCREDO, HUNTER AND PAUL?

On Thanksgiving Day, I sent out a long email lauding former Sen. Fred Thompson's fantastic, detailed official position on immigration issues.

We got a lot of criticism from you for giving him that kind of attention. Many of you asked why we haven't highlighted the very good immigration work of the three Republican candidates from the U.S. House of Representatives.

In fact, we did highlight Rep. Tancredo, Rep. Hunter and Rep. Paul early in the year when the campaign first got underway. And we provided links to their websites so you could give money and volunteer help if you wished. I was pleased Thanksgiving to give Thompson the same kind of treatment as he was the first candidate to really try to compete with those three U.S. Representatives on immigration.

The revised GRID allows you to judge for yourself on the basis of 16 factors how you think the candidates rank on our issue.

By the way, many Thompson supporters also chastised me for the Thanksgiving email. But they thought I didn't show Thompson enough respect when I said his record while in the Senate was mediocre enough to require us to watch carefully to see if we can trust his promises. Our motto is "Trust But Verify."

ARE WE BEING GULLIBLE BY CHANGING THE 'GRID' BASED ON LAST-MINUTE NEW POSITIONS OF SOME CANDIDATES?

Some of you are offended that we turned several ratings from red to green for former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.) this week when he came out with his new immigration plan.

"How can you trust him after all that he has done in the past," is the nature of many of your comments.

Just a few days before the new Huckabee plan, a front-page headline in the Washington Times screamed:

" Immigration Group: Huckabee A 'Disaster' "

The second paragraph let be known that the quote came from none other than me, commenting on Huckabee's record on immigration while govenor.

That story then was blasted throughout the webworld late last week.

But yesterday, several newspapers carried quotes from me saying that Huckabee had redeemed himself with his new official stances and promises.

Here is what you have to know about the GRID:

My rating of a candidate's past performance in political office is at the bottom of the grid. It can't be changed by new promises. Hence, even though Huckabee now has a lot of green ratings for promises, he still has a red "bad" for his past work as governor.

The rest of the ratings are indeed based on promises. The GRID is primarily forward looking. We want to know what a candidate says he/she will do as President. Many of you are cynical; you believe the candidates will just lie to get your votes and then will do the opposite of what they promise. I don't see it that way. Part of what all of us are doing during this campaign cycle is forcing candidates to make better and better promises in more and more public ways. I think it will be very dangerous for any of them to back out after being so public.

The GRID is so much more important than anything you have heard in the debates and ads which have mainly majored in the minors. All the argument between Romney and Guiliani, for example, about sanctuary cities has been about something that is important but rather minor compared to most of the other items on the GRID.

WHAT'S IT TAKE TO GET AN 'EXCELLENT?'

Many of you already are concerned about your candidate getting a "GOOD" instead of an "EXCELLENT" in some categories.

To get an EXCELLENT, the good stance usually needs to be reflected in a combination of promises spoken by the candidate, in official statements such as on a website and in actions this year (especially while in political office). Some candidates who are in Congress have had good actions in the past but may not be co-sponsoring a good bill this year, for example.

In the case of the Amnesty category, a candidate cannot get an EXCELLENT merely by pledging to stop any amnesty. No, the candidate also has to be clear about what he/she plans to do with the millions of illegal aliens in this country and that plan needs to be something like Attrition Through Enforcement (although mass deportation would get the top rating, too).

You will see the "poor" rating in a lot of categories for a lot of candidates. That usually is an indication that the candidate is doing nothing about a particular problem -- not talking about it, not co-sponsoring legislation, not including it in official statements. If you can provide us evidence that your candidate indeed has done something in a category, we will upgrade the "poor" rating.

PLEASE CHECK OUT YOUR CORKBOARD AND TAKE THE ACTIONS THERE

NumbersUSA's Action Buffet Team has added quite a number of fax and other action notes to your corkboard ( http://www.numbersusa.com/actionbuffet ) this week.

Several of them are based on how you took your Interest Survey. If you have not indicated your interests, take the survey now ( http://numbersusa.com/survey?action=longlist ) so you can help in more ways.

THANKS,

P.S. We can triple our membership quickly if our members email their friends about us and they in turn email theirs. Polls show that most Americans agree with NumbersUSA's positions but, despite our recent rapid growth, most American voters still have never heard of us. You can help change that by forwarding this email widely. (Note: depending on your email provider, you may need to send this as an "attachment.")

Patriots!!! A call to action!

We have a lot of work to do to influence the Republican Party Presidential Nomination (the Dems are hopeless). Rudy Giuliani is significantly ahead of all other candidates (and seems to be the administration's and republican leaderships choice) for the Republican nomination. See this for the results of many polls on this subject ( http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm ). Other than McCain, Giuliani would be the WORST choice on immigration that the Republicans could make! We need to derail Rudy! Do all you can to derail Rudy and McCain!

Yes, let's make calls based on what Beck outlines. Giuliani supports massive pathway amnesty and a virtual (i.e., non-existent) fence and is the worst among the major GOP candidates.

McCain WILL NOT be elected. He is done. I worry about Giuliani. The only reason he is up there percentage wise, is because of NAME RECOGNITION, AND CONSTANT COVERAGE BY THE MSM, LIKE HE IS SOME KIND OF HERO OR SOMETHING.

Like Hillary, Giuliani is just another sleazy trashy liar.

There are over 300 million Americans in the U.S. Is the list of candidates running for president, the best we could get out of that number? What a dreadful bunch of lieing, coniving, sleazy, trashy, crooked, unscrupulous, wicked, evil, deadheads.

THE ABOVE STATEMENT DOES NOT INCLUDE RON PAUL, TOM TANCREDO, OR HUNTER.

I posted this in other threads, but here is Huckabee on Chris Wallace's show this am. Despite his "no amnesty" pledge, looks like Huckabee is peddling a Hutchison/Pence type of "touchback" amnesty scheme that would probably include family members as well. Please spread this around and alert Numbers etc.:
-------------

WALLACE: Let's turn to immigration, because you put out a new immigration plan this week. You called for building...

HUCKABEE: Yes.

WALLACE: ... a border fence, for cracking down on employers, for telling illegals to go home.

But last year in an interview, you said something somewhat different. You said this, "I think that the rational approach is to find a way to give people a pathway to citizenship."

Governor, in your new plan, the only path is to go home and to get on the back of the line, which, of course, would mean years of waiting. Why the change?

HUCKABEE: Well, I don't think there's an inconsistency. When I said a pathway, I didn't say what the pathway was.

I now believe that the only thing the American people are going to accept — and, frankly, the only thing that really makes sense — is a pathway that sends people back to the starting point.

But this idea of the waiting years — no, I don't agree with that. In fact, look, if we can get a credit card application done within hours, if we can get passports done within days, if we can transact business over the Internet any place in the world within seconds, do a background check instantaneously — it's our government that has failed and is dysfunctional.

It shouldn't take years to get a work permit to come here and pick lettuce. So part of the plan that I have is that we seal the borders. You don't have amnesty and sanctuary cities. You do have a pathway that gets you back home.

But that pathway to get back here legally doesn't take years. It would take days, maybe weeks, and then people could come back in the workforce.

Let me tell you why that's important. Two reasons. Number one, the American people say, "Do something. Do it now. We don't want to have this country ignoring the illegal problem." I get it.

Secondly, I want people who are in this country to hold their heads up high. You know, right now there are a lot of people who really are here because they're trying to feed their families. I don't begrudge them that.

I say every day I thank God I'm in a country people are trying to break into, not break out of. But let's give them a means by which they can get here through the door legally, and when they're here they don't have to hide, they don't have to keep their heads down and hope nobody catches them, they have their heads held high.

Everyone living within the borders of the United States ought to do so with dignity and with a sense of pride, not a sense of fear.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316253,00.html

Huckabee is a Shuck-a-bee!!! He's shucking and ducking, he's a master politician. He's trying to get both sides of the vote! He is very slippery...snake like in my mind. He's only talking about a ridiculous touchback, nothing more. Plus, be sure that he will put these touchbackers into a special class of consideration for citizenship. Don't believe this claptrap! Think about it! Read between the words that Populist posted.

Huckabee is a very good politician, but haven't we had enough of those???

An exercise in taking the qualitative list offered by Roy & Co (NumbersUSA) and translating it into quantitative terms for a bit more detailed comparison. Then you can get a bit more objective and numerically-based set of figures to gauge just how good or bad each is respectively

Here goes -

From the publication referenced in the OP:

Key: abysmal=0, bad=1, poor=2, fair=3, good=4, excellent=5


1a. Historical Weighting Factor = 1 (80 pts total possible)

-------- Promises--Legal--Illegal Immigration-Hist-Total
Tancredo: 5,5,5, 5,5,5,5, 5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5=75; (5) 80
Hunter : 5,5,4, 4,4,4,5, 5,5,5,4,5,5,4,4=68; (5) 73
Thompson: 5,4,4, 4,4,4,2, 5,4,4,2,5,5,4,5=61; (2) 62
Paul : 4,4,4, 2,4,4,5, 3,2,4,4,4,4,2,3=53; (4) 57
Huckabee: 5,4,2, 4,4,2,2, 4,5,4,4,5,5,5,0=55; (1) 56
Romney : 2,4,1, 2,2,1,4, 4,4,5,2,4,5,5,5=50; (4) 54
McCain : 1,3,1, 0,1,0,2, 4,3,4,4,4,3,2,0=32; (1) 33
Guiliani: 2,3,2, 2,2,2,0, 3,3,1,2,4,1,4,0=31; (1) 32

================================================== =====

1b. Emphasis on Voting History (Weighting Factor = 5;
100 total points possible):

-------- Promises--Legal---Illegal Immigration-Hst*5-Total
Tancredo: 5,5,5, 5,5,5,5, 5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5=75; (5x5) 100
Hunter : 5,5,4, 4,4,4,5, 5,5,5,4,5,5,4,4=68; (5x5) 93
Paul : 4,4,4, 2,4,4,5, 3,2,4,4,4,4,2,3=53; (4x5) 73
Thompson: 5,4,4, 4,4,4,2, 5,4,4,2,5,5,4,5=61; (2x5) 71
Romney : 2,4,1, 2,2,1,4, 4,4,5,2,4,5,5,5=50; (4x5) 70
Huckabee: 5,4,2, 4,4,2,2, 4,5,4,4,5,5,5,0=55; (1x5) 60
McCain : 1,3,1, 0,1,0,2, 4,3,4,4,4,3,2,0=32; (1x5) 37
Guiliani: 2,3,2, 2,2,2,0, 3,3,1,2,4,1,4,0=31; (1x5) 36

================================================== =====

1c. Emphasis on Voting History (Weighting Factor = 15;
150 total points possible):

-------- Promises--Legal---Illegal Immigration-Hst*15-Total
Tancredo: 5,5,5, 5,5,5,5, 5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5=75; (5x15) 150
Hunter : 5,5,4, 4,4,4,5, 5,5,5,4,5,5,4,4=68; (5x15) 143
Paul : 4,4,4, 2,4,4,5, 3,2,4,4,4,4,2,3=53; (4x15) 113
Romney : 2,4,1, 2,2,1,4, 4,4,5,2,4,5,5,5=50; (4x15) 110
Thompson: 5,4,4, 4,4,4,2, 5,4,4,2,5,5,4,5=61; (2x15) 91
Huckabee: 5,4,2, 4,4,2,2, 4,5,4,4,5,5,5,0=55; (1x15) 70
McCain : 1,3,1, 0,1,0,2, 4,3,4,4,4,3,2,0=32; (1x15) 47
Guiliani: 2,3,2, 2,2,2,0, 3,3,1,2,4,1,4,0=31; (1x15) 46

================================================== ======

Summary Notes:

The more voting history is emphasized, the more the middle-tier shifts. Tancredo and Hunter consistently remain 1,2 at top, Guiliani and McCain remain consistently at bottom.

Example:

(Least emphasis on voting history; in order-left to right)
a. (Best) Tancredo, Hunter, Thompson, Paul, Huckabee, Romney,
McCain, Guiliani

(Moderate emphasis on voting history; in order-left to right)
b. (Best) Tancredo, Hunter, Paul, Thompson, Romney, Huckabee,
McCain, Guiliani

(Most emphasis on voting history; in order-left to right)
c. (Best) Tancredo, Hunter, Paul, Romney, Thompson, Huckabee,
McCain, Guiliani

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the quantitative breakdown Phred. This is a logical, objective way to analyze this, along with our gut instincts. As it doesn't appear Hunter, Tancredo or Thompson are gaining traction, I'm leaning toward Romney.

The worst (in order; McCain the worst): McCain, Giuliani and Huckabee. IMO Giuliani is still the most dangerous major candidate in terms of stopping illegal immigration as he openly supports massive amnesty. I had a glimmer of hope for Huckabee for about fifteen minutes until I read his Chris Wallace interview (where Huck said illegals would only have to go home for "days").

We all want our guys to be there (mines Tancredo) but the facts are that they won't be,

When I looked at that chart I went off of past accomplishments

Out of the front runners Romney scored the best ,

Rudi is only ahead in the minds of the msm , nobody knows how bad all of their polls are skewed to favor one over another.

I know Romney has some globalist tendencies but he is far better on the immigration issue than the rest of the front runners in my book ,

Plus he isn't a Bush or Clinton, and thats huge

Hillary is on self distruct and I really don't think Obama has a chance , Either one in the general election will be a huge loss for the Dems

At the end of the day , I think it will be Romney

Good points and welcome USANevada.