GOP Candidates Debate Immigration‏ and Michele Bachman WINS!

An urgent post from www.PeterMorrisonReport.com about Michele Bachman being the only GOP presidential candidate even addressing excessive immigration. This follows this post about a national E-Verify bill in the House Judiciary Committe which is needed since states like California are rejecting any immigration enforcement! This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants such as the 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso, where President Barack Obama recently bashed immigration enforcement!  For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read the very interesting book shown HERE!

And Remember when contacting public officials to please be firm but respectful. Any over the top messages could result in law enforcement action against you. Just let these politicians know that you are aware of what they have done and that you intend to remove them from office in the 2012 elections.



GOP Candidates Debate Immigration‏

The Republican Presidential Primary election campaigns have been
heating up. Gov. Rick Perry has come under attack from other
candidates due to the Gardasil scandal and his signing of a bill
that allows illegal aliens to pay in-state tuition rates. These
two items became the focal points of the most recent debate, with
many of the other candidates attacking Governor Perry for his
support of the so called Texas DREAM Act. Unfortunately, most of
them are little better than Rick Perry when it comes to
immigration. In fact, only Michelle Bachman stands out from the
crowd, as she is the only one brave enough to say that our
immigration policies worked well up until the 1960s. Send a fax to
her and thank her for taking a stand:

http://www.morrisonreport.com/fax_test/index.php?faxID=101

Full Report:

Rick Perry entered the race for the GOP presidential nomination
relatively late, and immediately became one of the front runners in
polls. He immediately came under attack from the other candidates
though, who have raced to point out a few aspects of his record
Perry generally prefers to not talk about these days, such as the
Gardasil vaccine scandal and his signing a law allowing illegal
aliens to pay in-state tuition rates at Texas colleges and
universities. At the recent GOP candidate's debate in Tampa, many
of the other candidates harshly criticized Governor Perry for these
aspects of his record. Rep. Michele Bachmann told him that leaving
any part of the border unfenced is giving up our national
sovereignty, and said we have to "stop giving taxpayer-subsidized
benefits" to illegal aliens or the children of illegals.

It doesn't appear likely that Rick Perry will attempt anything
again like the Gardasil vaccine controversy after the massive
groundswell of opposition that rose up all over the state, so today
I'd like to talk about immigration, as it continues to be a huge,
ongoing problem in Texas and around the nation. Furthermore,
despite all their criticisms of Rick Perry's in-state tuition law,
most of the other GOP candidates aren't much better than him when
it comes to immigration.

This is appalling, especially in today's harsh economic
environment. Nationally, the unemployment rate stands at 9.1%, and
this doesn't include people who have given up looking for work, or
those who want full time jobs but can only find part time work.
The government stopped including these people in the official
unemployment rate back in the 1990s. If they were included today,
the official unemployment rate would be well over 20% nationwide,
according to one well known economist. In California, the official
rate is 12%. For African-Americans nationwide, the official
unemployment rate is nearly 17%.

Millions of American citizens are unemployed, while illegal aliens
hold millions of jobs. We always hear that illegals are only doing
jobs that Americans won't do, but that simply isn't true. A few
months ago, McDonald's held a nationwide hiring day. At many
locations, hundreds of people showed up to apply for a handful of
low wage jobs. There is no excuse for not doing everything we can
to reduce immigration when millions of our own citizens are out of
work. Conservative Republican politicians, who love to talk about
law and order, and the importance of working for a living and not
relying on government handouts, should be in the forefront when it
comes to doing something about unchecked immigration when millions
of Americans are out of work. Unfortunately, with a few rare
exceptions such as Tom Tancredo, that hasn't been the case.

NumbersUSA is a non-profit group dedicated to reducing all levels
of immigration to the United States, and they've given each GOP
candidate a grade for their stance on immigration, ranging from B-
to F. One candidate received a B-, two were awarded a C-, three
are ranked at D-, and the other two got an outright F. (This isn't
including candidate Gary Johnson, who didn't poll high enough to be
included in the debate.) The actual rankings were Michele Bachmann
B-, Mitt Romney C-, Herman Cain C-, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman and
Newt Gingrich D-, and Rick Santorum and Ron Paul F.

Keep in mind that these rankings are largely based on the most
recent statements by the candidates, not their past records. As
we're all well aware of, GOP candidates tend to "run to the right"
during primary season, often giving the impression that they're far
more conservative than they actually are. They talk tough about a
particular issue, but once they've secured the nomination or
actually been elected, they backtrack on their previous statements,
saying "the time isn't right" or "it wouldn't be practical right
now" to justify not keeping their promises. So it's important to
note that none of the candidates for the GOP presidential
nomination has ever been known as a consistent and aggressive
opponent of illegal immigration. In fact, one of them, Newt
Gingrich, actually brags about crafting the original 1986 amnesty
for illegals. Given their lackluster history when it comes to
opposing illegal immigration, it's hard to get excited about any of
the current candidates on this issue.

Furthermore, the NumbersUSA grade is based on a dozen different
factors, such as support for or opposition to amnesty, E-Verify,
birthright citizenship, local enforcement of immigration laws, etc.
One of their criteria is whether or not the candidate is not only
opposed to illegal immigration, but also wants to reduce the number
of legal immigrants we allow in. This is very important, because
almost every candidate parrots the line that while we should crack
down on illegal immigration, we should actually increase the number
of legal immigrants we allow in every year. Mitt Romney's
statement was typical: "We can't talk about amnesty, we cannot
give amnesty to those here illegally, we've got 4.7 million waiting
in line to come here legally, let's let those people come here
first, and those who are here illegally shouldn't have a special
deal."

Unfortunately, Romney and the other candidates that endorse this
line of reasoning are off base; letting 4.7 million more people
into America is the last thing we should be doing, legally or not.
With millions of American citizens out of work, we shouldn't be
importing millions of foreigners to compete with them for jobs. In
today's troubled economy, immigration should be brought to a
complete halt until we've got our own house in order. Even in a
robust economy, there are severe problems with our current system
of legal immigration, which must be addressed if America is going
to reverse its ongoing slide into permanent socialism.

Until 1965, America's immigration laws were crafted with the
interests of American citizens being paramount. The number of
immigrants allowed in per year was low, and the vast majority of
them came from European countries, which meant they were easily
assimilated, as they shared our same roots. In addition, they were
generally expected to possess valuable job skills so we could be
reasonably confident they wouldn't wind up on welfare.

Liberals didn't like that, because it stood in the way of their
vision of turning America into a socialist paradise, so they
decided to "elect a new people" by changing our immigration
policies. Led by Ted Kennedy, they passed the Immigration and
Nationality Act of 1965, which threw open the doors to over a
million legal immigrants a year, with 90% of the immigrants being
from Third World countries and without any desirable job skills.
Kennedy and others swore that this wouldn't change the ethnic
balance of the country, but that was an outright lie. It's
impossible to import over a million low skilled people a year from
different ethnic groups without changing America's demographics.
It's equally impossible to change a nation's demographics without
radically altering its political outcomes.

What we're seeing now is the direct result of that massive change
in our legal immigration policies. Shortly after the 2008
election, the Boston Globe pointed out that it was the 1965
Immigration Act which paved the way for the election of Barack
Obama. We have imported tens of millions of people from Third
World countries, and given them citizenship and voting rights.
Well, their voting patterns are pretty much what you would expect
of people from Third World countries - they vote heavily in favor
of big government, i.e., they vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.
In fact, if America's demographics had been the same in 2008 as
they were in 1976, John McCain would have won the 2008 election.

A key part of this has been legal immigration, and it continues to
this day. It's obvious why Democrats would be in favor of
importing millions of future Democrats, but it's impossible to
understand why conservative Republicans support a policy that is
guaranteed to make the GOP a permanent minority party in the next
few decades. They should be calling for an immediate halt to all
immigration, legal and illegal. Yet nearly all of them are calling
for even more legal immigration.

The only GOP presidential candidate who seems to have some
understanding of this is Michele Bachmann. During the debate in
Tampa she stated that "one thing we do know, our immigration system
worked beautifully in the 1950s, right up until the early 1960s."
She's exactly right. That's because prior to 1950 the priority was
an immigration policy that would benefit America, not one that
would benefit millions of Third World residents. Unfortunately,
Rep. Bachmann didn't expound on this topic any further, but it's
nevertheless refreshing to hear a presidential candidate admit that
there is a huge problem with our legal immigration policy.

The fact that immigration, both legal and illegal, is massively
changing the demographics of our nation is by far the biggest
problem with immigration. In-state tuition for illegals, as
outrageous as it is, is small potatoes compared to the fact that we
are importing millions of people who consistently vote for bigger
government and more handouts. If we don't stop this trend
immediately, we are soon going to reach a point where it's
impossible to elect a conservative president, and it will get
harder and harder to elect conservative Senators and
Representatives. We need Republican presidential candidates who
understand this, and will actually do something about it, beyond
the usual campaign rhetoric.

Take Action:

Fax Rep. Michele Bachmann and congratulate her for standing up to
Rick Perry for giving in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens,
and for finally broaching the topic of fixing our disastrous
policies on legal immigration as well. Encourage her to make
restricting immigration, both legal and illegal, her top campaign
priority.

http://www.morrisonreport.com/fax_test/index.php?faxID=101


The Peter Morrison Report
http://www.PeterMorrisonReport.com
http://www.facebook.com/morrisonreport

Sources:
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2011-04-19-mcdonalds-hiring-day.htm

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/2012-presidential-hopefuls-immigration-stances.html

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/11/11/obama_victory_took_root_in_kennedy_inspired_immigration_act/?page=full

http://www.cis.org/griffith/111108

http://www.westernyouth.org/articles/presidential-debatesomeone-finally-addresses-legal-immigration/