Grades on Immigration

Nick Gillespie | July 22, 2006

Here's another political report card to pore over, this one from a group called Americans for Better [read: Lesser] Immigration.

It's an interactive map that grades senators and representatives from A+ (Colorado's Tom Tancredo is, unsurprisingly, first in this class) to F.

How tough is the curve? Restrictionist deluxe Rep. James Sensebrenner (R-Wisc.), who spearheaded efforts to, among other things, sentence people to five years in jail if they "encourage" immigrants to enter the country illegally, only pulls a C+.

So check out the report card here and then consider just who you might support. Or not.

Update: Meant to throw this in when I posted: The report card is an effort from the Coalition for the Future of the American Worker, an "umbrella group" of various organizations opposed both to immigration and outsourcing.

Comments

|7.22.06 @ 12:21PM|#

Woo-hoo!

Massachusetts Senators: D

Massachusetts House: F

Entire Massachusetts Delegation: F

And this is a from a top-ten immigration state. Makes me want to get some delicious, hand-crafted, delicately-spiced Thai food for dinner.

|7.22.06 @ 12:36PM|#

Well, at least they're straightforward with their xenophobia. I wish more of the people who post here were.

Gimme Back My Dog|7.22.06 @ 12:39PM|#

All of my local congressmen received A's with one B+. I haven't been this ashamed of where I live since Real Housewives of Orange County aired.

Robert|7.22.06 @ 12:52PM|#

Ron Paul got A-.

Meanwhile people are writing in the next thread as if his not having an outstanding score in Citizens Against Gov't Waste's rankings is a reason to doubt CAGW's methodology! We got a cult of personality going here.

OregonCoast|7.22.06 @ 12:59PM|#

You said it Joe

My Senate critters both got F's! And so did my Rep!

That almost gives me a reason to vote for Senator Smith again....on second thought....nah

I'm off for a giant breakfast burrito..mmmmm

|7.22.06 @ 1:28PM|#

my rep (Raul Grijalva, D-AZ) got an F. That district happens to be right on the border, including Tucson. Little surprise there.

Most of the northern Arizona reps got high grades, and most of the southern Arizona reps got low grades. Welcome to Arizona, the immigration powder keg capital of the US.

|7.22.06 @ 1:56PM|#

I'm guessing Paul got such a "high" score because he's also against federal benefits?

|7.22.06 @ 2:25PM|#

The report card is an effort from the Coalition for the Future of the American Worker, an "umbrella group" of various organizations opposed both to immigration and outsourcing.

We should start a group called the Coalition for the Future of the American Consumer.

Thomas Paine's Goiter|7.22.06 @ 2:33PM|#

My state got a bunch of C's. But there are no immigrants in this state west of Hazleton, so I'm not sure what that means.

Jennifer|7.22.06 @ 2:35PM|#

I was never so happy to refer to my legislators as a bunch of borderline failures.

Connecticut: lots to be embarrassed about, but things could be worse.

|7.22.06 @ 3:09PM|#

D's for my Senators, F for my Rep.
I've never been prouder. (sniff. dab eye with hanky.) Well, Durbin and Obama could have gotten F's. I guess they're underachievers.
Maybe I'll go to New Rebozo for some upscale Mexican in a downscale storefront to celebrate.

|7.22.06 @ 3:48PM|#

Go ahead, laff it up. You might not think it's so funny when los Rocketerios Irredentistas start lobbing high explosives labeled "Hecho en Mexico" at the San Diego suburbs. And you know what we'll hafta do then don'cha; we'll have to down there and pound the shit out of them Guatamalans, until them Mexicans knock it off.

|7.22.06 @ 4:32PM|#

From the "Credibility" link on the site:

ABI has no ideology and is supported by liberals, moderates and conservatives � Republicans, Democrats and Independents.

Sounds good, until we get to the end:

ABI�s attitude about immigration is that it should not be used to drive down wages of American workers, to bust unions, to force population growth to the detriment of the environment and quality of life just so land speculators, developers and mortgage institutions can make more money.

I think that may just contain a hint of an ideology...

|7.22.06 @ 5:11PM|#

""ABI?s attitude about immigration is that it should not be used to drive down wages of American workers, to bust unions, to force population growth to the detriment of the environment and quality of life just so land speculators, developers and mortgage institutions can make more money.""

""I think that may just contain a hint of an ideology...""

I agree. The benefits of Globalism equalizing the life styles of world citizens have "hit the wall" here with archaic notions of patriotism and "America." So what if some profit more than others? So what if they donate money to lobbies, opinion makers and politicians to acutalize their goal of increasing profits? Increasing profits is good. For labor costs that can't be outsourced overseas we need to insource more immigrants to depress wages and increase total income.

|7.22.06 @ 5:28PM|#

That site has a page listing 2006 candidates and their responses to a survey.

Of the 8 Libertarian candidates who returned the survey (admittedly a very self-selected bunch), 7 show up in green, meaning they are regarded as supporters by ABI. That's pretty sad.

I didn't look at all the particular survey responses, but it appears that California governor candidate Art Olivier's positive evaluation is due to his stance against welfare for immigrants.

Robert|7.22.06 @ 7:15PM|#

What's amazing is seeing the number of LP nominees recorded as supporting worker/workplace verification.

You really do have to look at individual question responses. When I ran as Republican nominee for NY Senate in 2002, I answered a survey and wound up with NARAL and an anti-abortion group having me down as "pro-life" or "anti-abortion". I never could get an answer from them as to how they figured that. It wasn't on the basis of the Medicaid question, because it didn't work that way with other candidates. I don't remember all the questions, but they might have asked if I thought Roe v. Wade was properly decided, and THAT I'd say "no" to, but otherwise I'm pretty extremely pro-choice. I'm even for legal infanticide by consent of parents, as long as it's done painlessly.

What the heck...I wasn't campaigning on that issue anyway, and it didn't seem to hurt me in the votes, but it leads me to distrust candidate survey reporting.

|7.22.06 @ 7:33PM|#

I live in London, so I don't get to join in the main point of the thread. Instead I'll add that you could do worse than point to the example of unlimited immigration from Poland to the UK as a positive example.

Here's a Guardian article that gives a bit of an idea of what's happening. The authors try to highlight the problems, but if you read to the end the good side definitely comes through
http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,,1825627,00.html

|7.22.06 @ 11:44PM|#

I took the ABI surveys for the gubernatorial and the congressional candidates.

Of the 18 questions on the two surveys, I agreed with the presumed ABI position zero times. Of course, to avoid the impression that I might agree with these people in any way, I answered "undecided" for the two welfare questions and the three "I wouldn't design it that way, but it's better than your preference, ABI" questions.

For a flavor of the surveys, here's one question...

Until 1976, U.S. immigration had averaged about 250,000 a year; since 1990, it has averaged 1,000,000 a year. Do you favor reducing overall immigration numbers back toward traditional levels?

...and here's how it appears on the page comparing the candidates' answers...

Federal Forced Doubling Of U.S. Population With Immigration

Robert|7.23.06 @ 2:33AM|#

So to "oppose" "forced doubling of US Population with immigration", one must "favor" reducing immigration? That makes the Libertarian Party nominees who show up in the "oppose" category even stranger looking!

|7.23.06 @ 1:54PM|#

I'm even for legal infanticide by consent of parents, as long as it's done painlessly.

Maybe this is why we aren't addressing you as "Senator" today.

|7.23.06 @ 9:01PM|#

crimethink,

This: "...to bust unions, to force population growth to the detriment of the environment and quality of life just so land speculators, developers and mortgage institutions can make more money."

reads like the words Ayn Rand would put into her villians' mouths, not a statement from people who are actually involved in labor or environmental politics. "...but unions," what is this, 1933? "...force population growth" reads like a 60s sci-fi movie.

I have seen a lot of anti-immigrant activists posing as friends of the working man, and for the most part, they're people who wouldn't have bothered to walk around a picket six months ago. Ditto with the pose of environmental concern - it's just NIMBYism on a national level.

The nativist, racist argument about unassimilated brown people, like Pat Buchanon's book, doesn't poll well among Americans, so the movement activists have been casting about for a more effective message.

Robert|7.24.06 @ 1:11AM|#

"I'm even for legal infanticide by consent of parents, as long as it's done painlessly."

`Maybe this is why we aren't addressing you as "Senator" today.'

I doubt it, because they had me down as pro-life.

|7.24.06 @ 1:46AM|#

How do a D+ and a D average out to a C- ? (My state's 2 senators and the average for the state's senators).

The people who made this piece of shit really need the grading.