Thread: PHONE CALL CHALLENGE! EVERYONE READ, EVEN NEW PEOPLE!

PAF, see what I posted on the thread from Numbers--it makes good points, but still "no" on cloture to revive the bill. No hiding behind a yes vote.

Just was told by Senator Cochran's staff, he's no on cloture!

Originally Posted by ProudAmericanFamily

Is this our Blitz thread for the day?

I hope so its the link on my RED ALERT!!

www.numbersusa.com

From today's alert & it makes good sense:

We have every reason to believe that the right voices and the right information can still pull a number of the Senators back from supporting S. 1348.

TIP NO. 1: Tell them that the grand compromise of S. 1348 makes Senators accept a huge amnesty in exchange for a promise to end future illegal immigration. But the bill's actual provisions make no promises of lower illegal immigration and set no numerical reduction goals at all.

While most phone calls to Senators recently have stressed the caller's hatred of amnesty, it might be a good idea today to focus on whether the trade-off for the amnesty can work.

There are a number of good reasons to think that many of the Flippin' Fifteen truly believe that, as much as they regret accepting an amnesty, it can be justified because illegal immigration will finally be brought under control.

You need to find every opportunity to tell staffers, Senators and anybody else that the bill is unworkable in fighting illegal immigration. Look at Rosemary Jenks' short summary of the details of S. 1348. (Scroll down to BACKGROUND INFORMATION.)

TIP NO. 2: "Show me the results, not just the money."

Pres. Bush and the chief architects of this giant amnesty for 12-20 million illegal aliens have just now persuaded more than a dozen Republicans to change their votes in part because the President is promising a big increase in spending on enforcement.

But we've seen huge amounts of money spent on enforcement in the past with little result.

Let staffers know that the only thing that counts with you is proof of substantial reductions in future illegal immigration. Even if somebody thinks it a good idea to reward millions of illegal aliens with the right to work and live here, surely it makes sense to withhold any legalization until funding and enforcement efforts have actually resulted in substantial reductions of the illegal population?

TIP NO. 3: Talk facts and details.

Staffers are listening for any details about the bill that show you know what you are talking about. Some of these fence-straddling Senators have been expressing amazement about all the details many voters in their states know about S. 1348.

When Pres. Bush came to their lunch Tuesday, people in the room said his body language and facial expressions showed genuine surprise at the number of Senators who told him that it isn't just the "immigration crazies" who are objecting to the bill. Rather, they said, regular middle class people are expressing their distrust and backing it up with real details from the bill.

TIP NO. 4: Speak calmly.

Staffers' ear drums are ringing from a month of outrage shouted at them through the phones. They're tuning it out now. What gets their attention is a conversational tone from a constituent who sincerely shares a concern. Passion can be expressed calmly. (Always try to think of these staffers as perhaps slightly inexperienced nieces and nephews who could use a litle kindness.)

TIP NO. 5: All "touch back" provisions that require the illegal aliens to leave the country briefly are meaningless to voters concerned about amnesty.

Pro-amnesty leaders use the touch-back provisions to try to fool voters into thinking that the illegal aliens would be allowed to live here permanently in a process no different from anybody else.

In fact, though, the illegal aliens would just be doing the hokey pokey ("put your right foot out / put your right foot in / put your fight foot out / and then you can pretend"). The permanent residence they would be given would be possible only because they broke the law in the first place.

But most importantly, these touch-back provisions so dear to Sen. Hutchinson (R-Texas) have nothing to do with slowing down illegal immigration in the future.

TIP NO. 6: Note to them that Ted Kennedy has already pushed SEVEN amnesties into law. None was followed by a reduction in illegal immigration. Why should anybody believe this one will be?

1. In 1986, Ted Kennedy's blanket amnesty for 2.7 million illegal aliens promised a lot more enforcement but did not set any requirments for actual reductions in illegal immigration. The illegal flow continued.
2. In 1994, Ted Kennedy's Section 245(i) Amnesty gave legal residence and jobs to 578,000 illegal aliens. It was a temporary rolling amnesty primarily for extended family members of immigrants who instead of waiting in line, come on to the country illegally. The illegal flow continued.
3. In 1997, Ted Kennedy's extension of the Section 245(i) rolling amnesty was followed by an increasing flow of illegal immigration.
4. In 1997, Ted Kennedy also won an amnesty for close to one million illegal aliens from Central America. Illegal immigration sped up some more.
5. In 1998, Ted Kennedy won an amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti. The illegal flow continued.
6. In 2000, Ted Kennedy got the so-called Late Amnesty, legalizing another 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed that they missed out on Kennedy's 1986 amnesty. Illegal immigration continued unimpeded.
7. In 2000, Ted Kennedy also won the LIFE Act Amnesty for an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens. It was another reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty., an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens. Illegal immigration accelerated.

Now, Ted Kennedy is saying that this amnesty is necessary if we are ever to stop the flow of illegal aliens. Why would any of these Senators believe him when he says this amnesty bill will end illegal immigration with a track record like his?

Don't forget these Senators either:

The following Senators voted NO on amnesty cloture both last year and last week. But our friends and our lobbying staff believe they need bolstering to keep them from falling for Ted Kennedy's latest amnesty.

Burr (R-N.C.)
Chambliss (R-Ga.)
Ensign (R-Nev.)
Isakson (R-Ga.)
Thune (R-S.D.)


www.numbersusa.com

Senator Chambliss office told me he intends to vote no on cloture!

Any news from Burr's office lately. Line is busy. I've left some very nice voice mails explaining my opposition to the sell-out and really stressed Ted Kennedy role in 7 failed past amnesty's!

I called Sen. Domenici and told his staff to let him know he would look pretty wishy-washy if he changes his vote again. He first voted Yea, then Nay on cloture. I'm pretty sure he will stick to "Nay" to avoid looking ridiculous...and he is up for re-election.

I had to email Isakson and Chambliss, their vioicemails were full. Here's what I said:

Dear Honorable Senator Isakson,

There is no guarantee that the latest ammendment to fund the border with an addtional $4.4 billion will not be stripped out once the bill becomes law. If President Bush is so sincere about securing the border, then why wasn't this in the original bill, more so, why didn't he propose it after the 9/11 attack? If he was sincere about securing the border, the fence bill pased by Duncan Hunter would right now be close to being finished. This President cannot be trusted to do the right thing for America. Please, Senator Isakson, do not go along with his wishes, this whole bill is a sham. NO BILL IS BETTER THAN A BAD BILL. Thank you for your time.

XXX

Originally Posted by Rockfish

I had to email Isakson and Chambliss, their vioicemails were full. Here's what I said:

Dear Honorable Senator Isakson,

There is no guarantee that the latest ammendment to fund the border with an addtional $4.4 billion will not be stripped out once the bill becomes law. If President Bush is so sincere about securing the border, then why wasn't this in the original bill, more so, why didn't he propose it after the 9/11 attack? If he was sincere about securing the border, the fence bill pased by Duncan Hunter would right now be close to being finished. This President cannot be trusted to do the right thing for America. Please, Senator Isakson, do not go along with his wishes, this whole bill is a sham. NO BILL IS BETTER THAN A BAD BILL. Thank you for your time.

XXX

That was great Rockfish, I also could not get through to them I think Chambliss has his fax off, I have been trying to fax him for better than a week, but I will not give up!! I want them to see our fax!!

Originally Posted by Rockfish

I had to email Isakson and Chambliss, their vioicemails were full. Here's what I said:

Dear Honorable Senator Isakson,

There is no guarantee that the latest ammendment to fund the border with an addtional $4.4 billion will not be stripped out once the bill becomes law. If President Bush is so sincere about securing the border, then why wasn't this in the original bill, more so, why didn't he propose it after the 9/11 attack? If he was sincere about securing the border, the fence bill pased by Duncan Hunter would right now be close to being finished. This President cannot be trusted to do the right thing for America. Please, Senator Isakson, do not go along with his wishes, this whole bill is a sham. NO BILL IS BETTER THAN A BAD BILL. Thank you for your time.

XXX

Good job , Rockfish!

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

Originally Posted by ProudAmericanFamily

Is this our Blitz thread for the day?

I hope so its the link on my RED ALERT!!

PAF, I wasn't trying to step on toes and start a "blitz" thread...I just thought an extra little challenge wouldn't hurt things!