Thread: NumbersUSA: Duncan Hunter best on immigration

PFWAG wrote:

Another poster mentioned that the info you used came from NUMBERS USA themselves. Why they would send out something based on four categories when their own assessment has 16 I don't know. Regardless, since you are a Hunter supporter, you could take any one evaluation or any combination of the 16 evaluations and Hunter is still #1.

I clearly identified what I posted as an 'excerpt' of an email I received from NumbersUSA - that's why I couldn't link the source. The information did not come directly from their web site. IMO, the email was a little long and wordy - that's why I only posted an excerpt. Personally, I don't understand what your concerns are because even you said:

you could take any one evaluation or any combination of the 16 evaluations and Hunter is still #1.

If you're attempting to imply that I was being deceitful or purposely trying to hide something - you'd be wrong.

It was much more than that in California alone in the 1980s. They were depressing wages. They were getting welfare. The gang situation was getting out of control. But Paul had no problem welcoming this with open arms -- his stated position during the time was this indeed. The problem is indeed much worse, but only due to volume, not the specific problems that illegal immigration poses itself. What California was experiencing in the 80s is comparable to what the rest of the nation is just now waking up to. The stage was being set for what was about to happen. It was in no way acceptable. But it was to Ron Paul. I don't want to scale back the problem to 1980s era proportions. I want the problem eradicated.

First off, the idea of 'I'd rather have 1M males than---' was my statement - not Ron Paul's.

Truthfully, I don't know what was going on in CA in the 80's. I do know what was going on in Texas in the 80's - and that is when the flood began. Prior to that, it was just males and they worked a while and went home. Then the government enticed them to come, bring their families and set up housekeeping. That's when the problem started. Until then, they pretty much obeyed the law, didn't use welfare, etc. While it wasn't right and they did take jobs, they weren't breaking and destroying the communities and schools.

No I don't want 80's level either, but believe me - given the choice right now, many of us would consider it a vast improvement to be saddled with only the illegal problems of the 80's.

Again, don't blame Ron Paul for my ideas -

We are going to have temporary workers of some kind - for a while anyway. To assume that any candidate is going to put a complete halt to that immediately is just not being realistic. Anyone who says he/she will, is not being honest about it.

To suggest that Ron Paul wants to flood this country with foreign workers is just not fair and it isn't right - at least from his speeches.

Originally Posted by MW

If you're attempting to imply that I was being deceitful or purposely trying to hide something - you'd be wrong.

No, but I would say that you have to be careful of any information you use to make a point. A selective portion of the NUMBERS USA data was used to slam Hucklebee right before the first caucus, grossly distorting his overall stance on illegal immigration. While I am not a Hucklebee supporter, that is not right.

Somebody over on one of the Romney threads, making a point on illegal immigration, used the NUMBER's USA data to say that Romney was "good" on illegal immigration, conveniently ignoring a "better" and "best."

You see similar stuff on the Paul threads.

That is why I bothered to actually compute and convert the NUMBERS USA immigration ratings, with ALL 16 evaluation categories, for all the candidates and posted it on the forum.

Here are the actual facts on all the candidate's stand on the most important issue nationally, illegal immigration:

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-96896.html

One can believe the moon is made out of green cheese but that doesn't make it so. Same for political candidates and how they are on illegal immigration.

While I have major issues with anybody supporting a candidate who is unquestionable poor on illegal immigration, i.e. McCain, Guiliaini, or any Democrat, I have no trouble with anybody supporting a candidate who is "good" on illegal immigration. I just get tired of hearing that their candidate is "tough" or the "best" when they can not back up the political rhetoric.

There is B.S. and then there are facts. Most people don't seem to be able to tell the difference.