This is a very long "read". This email is a long discussion, because
it actually contains effectively 5 Articles in one commentary and
information letter from NumbersUSA. The 5 topics explain statistics
and other sound reasons why "amnesty" was not why some Democrats
replaced some Republicans in the 2006 Congressional Mid-term election.
- http://www.numbersusa.com -

Please read this soon, when you can give it your attention, because
it's a crucial piece of commentary with news and information that even
conservatives in the media, and certainly the mainstream media--are NOT

telling like Roy Beck of NumbersUSA is telling it here, with statistics

and sound reasoning.

Whether you agree with Beck or not, knowledge of this position will
provide your own suit of armor in making up your own mind, as you hear
the new Democrat spin and drum bangers continue creating their special
repetitive, resounding media events for public effect. The regular
drum beat of the far-left Democrat Media-headline syncopation (a
regular counterpoint to real issues being ignored) caught the nation's
attention and served as their version of "the squeaky wheel getting the

grease" from their home constituents right up to election day 2006. To

be fore-warned is to be fore-armed--right out of the starting gate of
the next two years before the next Congressional and Presidential
Election! As you learn more on these themes below, please pass them on

with your own thinking, too, to others you know personally.

--Catechizor

From: Roy Beck NumbersUSA
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 11:05 PM
Subject: Media in ERROR -- Immigration-Reduction did NOT lose at polls

From: Roy Beck, President, NumbersUSA
Date: 11nov06 Saturday 11:30 ET

Get this info out to others -- Toughness on immigration did NOT cost
candidates their election

DEAR FRIENDS,

AMERICAN VOTERS DID NOT TURN
AGAINST TOUGHER ENFORCEMENT
OR LOWER IMMIGRATION.

I have some important new statistics that should give you comfort --
and that you may want to share with a lot of others.

Oh, I'm sure you've seen or read discouraging claims from Fred Barnes,
Michael Barone, the Wall Street Journal, the L.A. Times, Tamar Jacoby
or dozens of ivory tower newspaper editorial writers since the
congressional election returns this week.

Their spin is everywhere. According to them, the Republicans' loss of
the House of Representatives -- and particularly the loss of Randy Graf

and J.D. Hayworth in Arizona -- proves that getting tough on illegal
immigration is a political loser.

But consider this:

11.5%% of all Republican seats in Congress were lost as Democrats took
back control of Congress

But only 6.7%% of the Members of Tancredo's Immigration Reform Caucus
lost their seats.
I've seen various open-borders organizations even talk about Tancredo's

Caucus being decimated!

It just wasn't true.

Members of the get-tough Caucus fared quite a bit better than
Republicans in general.

Caroline Espinosa, our NumbersUSA Media Coordinator, tells me most of
the journalists to whom she has spoken understand that Republicans were

swept from office because of high voter disgust at Republican scandals
and frustration with Pres. Bush and particularly the war -- not because

most Republican Members of Congress were the only force that stopped
Pres. Bush and the Democrats from passing a massive amnesty.

Unfortunately, many other journalists are not bothering to seek
balanced information, do not call us and then rush out with the most
ridiculous analysis of the election results.

I hope you will help get the real story out to your friends,
colleagues, neighbors and family as the subject comes up -- and to the
public through letters to the editor of newspapers and by phoning radio

talk shows (both local and national).

Take a look at these additional percentages of Republicans who lost
their elections:

Loss of Election by Republicans Based on Their
Immigration-Reduction Grade of This Congress

9.6%% with an A grade lost

25.0%% with an F grade lost

9.2%% with a B grade lost

6.4%% with a C grade lost

9.5%% with a D grade lost
in this email:

FIVE Headline Topics Below:

1. WHAT DID ARIZONA REALLY SHOW? Not a victory for the McCain Amnesty

2. ARE THE NEW DEMOCRATS REALLY CONSERVATIVES who will vote our
immigration-reduction agenda?

3. WHAT THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS FAILED TO DO RIGHT

4. OPTIMISM for immigration reduction from a DEMOCRAT

5. FROM A CONSERVATIVE MAGAZINE:Optimism for immigration reductions

The constant re-statement of untruths about this election will become
"facts" that media will repeat or years to come if we don't attack them

now.

a. Type responses on the internet to any website that pushes the kinds
of falsehoods noted in this Alert.

b. Write letters to the editor of newspapers and magazines that try to
push false analysis of the elections.

c. Phone radio talk shows to get this analysis out to a larger
audience.

d. Refer all friends to the NumbersUSA.com website.

e. Circulate this Alert.

This faxing system is 100%% financed by the voluntary generosity of the
235,000-plus Americans who use it.

Please click here to make any sized donation to keep this grassroots
phenomenon strong and effective.

how to reply:
Please do not click 'Reply' button to respond to NumbersUSA about this
message.
To make a general comment or request tech help, click here
http://www.numbersusa.com/helpform and fill out the NumbersUSA Help
Form.

There simply was no evidence that Members lost support because they
were tougher on illegal immigration and on importing foreign workers.

Exit polling failed to show any sign that voters disliked the
immigration-reduction positions of the Republicans they were turning
out of office. Rather, the polling found they were voting primarily on
the basis of scandals and the war.

WHAT DID ARIZONA REALLY SHOW?
Not a victory for the McCain Amnesty

A number of commentators said the voting by Arizonans proved the lack
of popularity of tough enforcement, even in a state with extreme levels

of illegal immigration.

And they say that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was the clear winner as
voters showed they preferred his amnesty plan to enforcement-only.

They say that because of the defeats of Republican congressional
candidate Randy Graf and incumbent Rep. J.D. Hayworth who campaigned
against McCain's amnesty and were beaten by Democrats who said they
favored the Republican senator's amnesty (although their ads and public

speeches obscured that behind a lot of tough talk about borders).

But here is the counter evidence:

Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) was re-elected easily in the statewide race in
which he clearly opposed McCain's amnesty and the (extremely
well-funded) Democrat clearly supported McCain's amnesty. Kyl was
particularly vulnerable because he has been a loyal supporter of Bush's

war effort which Arizonans apparently hate. But voters there apparently

gave him a pass on his Bush ties because of his other qualities, one of

the most known of which is his law and order approach to immigration.

In another statewide show of support for the immigration-reduction
position, Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved ballot referenda that
further toughen some already tough state laws against illegal aliens.
The approved referenda will deny some state benefits to illegal
immigrants, declare English the state's official language and bar
illegal aliens from collecting punitive damages in civil lawsuits and
from getting out of jail on bail if they commit serious crimes.

Polling of likely voters in Arizona and other battleground states and
congressional districts found that large majorities of not only
Republicans but of Independents and Democrats in all of them share our
NumbersUSA desires for Attrition Through Enforcement on illegal
immigration and reduced legal immigration.

So, what happened to Graf and Hayworth?

Some independent commentators say their loss was not due to their
taking strong positions against illegal aliens but to their not talking

enough about other issues. There was a sense among many voters that the

two didn't have a broad enough agenda, the commentators said.

But Graf was also severely damaged by the fact that the retiring
Republican Congressman (Kolbe) refused to endorse him and that huge
amounts of national Republican money was used to advertise against him
in the primary (which he won) as an extremist who had no chance to win.

Then, when he won, the national Republicans refused to help him defeat
the Democrat.

The treatment of Graf was one of the developments that has caused many
people to contact me with their suspicion that the Bush political
machine actually wanted House Republicans to lose their majority so he
could work with Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to push through his amnesty.

It is difficult for me to go that far on a Bush Team conspiracy. But
there is no doubt that many of that Team are happy that the
Republicans' losses have caused so many in the media to suggest that
Bush can now get some cooperation on his amnesty.

Graf and Hayworth have been the most talked about election losers
because the extravagantly funded open borders media machine pushed
their story as being the one that would explain everything about
voters' opinions about immigration.

But my statistics at the top of this Alert show that one could just as
easily have focused on the losses of Republicans who support McCain's
amnesty.

For example, Sen. DeWine (R-OH) was defeated, a tremendous victory for
our side, as he has been one of McCain's chief tools on the Senate
Judiciary Committee in pushing the open borders agenda. I will not
claim that his horribly anti-Ohio-worker immigration stance was the
reason he lost. But the somewhat higher incidence of McCain-type
Republicans losing than Tom Tancredo-type Republicans losing ought to
put a stop to claims that tough immigration positions were behind the
Republicans losses.

We also know that in some races, the tough immigration stance helped
stave off the anti-Bush tide and allowed a Republican to win. A key
example would be the Roskam (R) & Duckworth (D) race for an open seat
in Illinois' 6th District. The two traded aggressive charges on each
other over the immigration issue, with Roskam pledging immigration
toughness and charging Duckworth with supporting an amnesty. That
brought Sen. Obama (D-IL) into the fray, saying that both Duckworth and

he oppose an amnesty but support Republican Sen. McCain's
"comprehensive" legislation. But McCain's bill was defined well enough
in the campaign that most voters understood that it would give
permanent residence to some 12 million illegal aliens.

Republican Roskam's immigration toughness approach won.

Democrat Duckworth's McCain amnesty approach lost.

Yet, the Washington Post analysis on immigration in the election states

that the get-tough approach failed virtually everywhere.

There was a lot of press before the election and TV commentary the
night of the returns suggesting that many of the Democrats who beat
Republicans were really pretty conservative and not that different from

the Republicans they are replacing.

Then there was a rush of commentary since the election that the new
Democrats in Congress may be pro-guns and anti-gay-marriage but that
they are really typical economic liberals.

I still owe you a more detailed look at the new Democratic Members of
Congress. But my assessment thus far is that most of these three dozen
have indeed taken some conservative positions on hot-button social
issues and more liberal positions on helping the working classes. But
they aren't so much liberal or conservative as they are populist.

If they have some strong populist streaks, we've got a good shot at
helping them truly help the working classes on immigration.

Liberal politics' most venerable magazine, The Nation, seems to have
confirmed my optimism with an editorial this week that started with the

paradox of Hayworth and Graf's defeats and the passage of the statewide

anti-illegal alien referenda and then stated:

"It seems voters rejected anti-immigrant vitriol when it spewed from
the mouths of candidates, but when that same rhetoric came in the
faceless form of citizen's initiatives that mixed fiscal austerity with

xenophobia -- voters swallowed the bait. Why should your tax dollars go

to services for illegal immigrants? This was the message that
anti-immigrant forces took to Arizonans. It was classic Lou Dobbs,
class vs. race, and it worked.

"The apparent appeal of this message is what makes me nervous about the

rising blue tide of economic populism in the Democratic Party. Raising
the minimum wage and beating back the worst of free-market capitalism
are all good things, of course. But Democrats have a long history of
pandering to white, working-class 'Reagan Democrats' while cutting and
running on racial minorities. Most recently, a raft of Democrats voted
to build a fence along the US-Mexico border, including Prez. hopefuls
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It was a do-nothing, symbolic vote,
but it doesn't bode well for what will happen next on the "common
ground" Bush and Dems hope to find on immigration issues.

"As Roberto Lovato points out, 'The crop of House and Senate
members-elect includes many Democrats whose positions on immigration
hardly differ from the border first Republicans they ousted.' "

I wish I could be quite so optimistic, but I think the three dozen new
Democrats are closer to Graf's and Hayworth's immigration positions
than they are to the presumed new Speaker of the House Pelosi's.

It will be up to all of our activism whether they end up voting on
their constituents (and our) behalf or on Pelosi's (and The Nation's).

And I have hope that most of these new Democrats will join up with
genuine Democratic populists who already are championing our cause --
Sen. Dorgan (D-ND), Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Sen. Byrd (D-WV), Rep.
Lincoln Davis (D-TN), as examples.

It is possible that a revved up core of Democratic populists could
become what The Nation fears most and avoid racial polarization in
favor of helping Americans of all ethnicities who are economically
harmed by massive foreign labor flows. And if that happens, these
Democrats could actually improve the "political soul" of the
Republicans who are solidly on the side of immigration reduction.

It is around this kind of populist morality that we may see a
middle-ground meeting of Republicans and Democrats that will show the
true bi-partisanship that the media so desperately seems to covet.

It is also possible that the much larger role of Democrats in the
still-Republican dominated immigration-reduction coalition will cause
the media and many others to stop thinking of our immigration problems
and solutions in terms of "conservative" or "liberal," much broadening
the appeal of the solutions as being also "mainstream."

In my time on Capitol Hill after the elections, I got strong assurance
from people who work regularly with the Blue Dog Democrat Coalition
(most of whom vote with us on immigration) that most of the New
Democrats should be inclined to join the Blue Dogs -- and that we will
fail to get most of the new votes only if we fail to increase our level

of activism.

A WORD ABOUT WHAT THE HOUSE
REPUBLICANS FAILED TO DO RIGHT

The media are having a great time wagging their fingers at House
Republicans and saying they were fools to think that standing tough
against Bush's amnesty would save their majority.

They say that the House Republicans tried to sell the voters a fence
when what the voters wanted was "comprehensive" answers to our
immigration crisis.

That assessment is both wrong and right.

In fact, the House Republicans (with nearly 40 Democrats) last December

passed "comprehensive" legislation (H.R. 4437) that dealt (a) with the
border, (b) with workplace enforcement, (c) with interior enforcement,
(d) with what to do with the illegal aliens already here (arrest
somewhat more of them but mainly make life worse for them to cause them

to go home on their own -- ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT) and to
(e)deal with the labor needs of this country by beginning to REDUCE the

annual number of new legal immigrants.

But when the Senate (primarily Democrats, plus McCain and his minority
GOP team) and the President indicated they would not budge in
September, House Republican leaders timidly forced through only the
fence and a couple of other technicalities.

Those of us representing NumbersUSA (and you) on Capitol Hill met in
late August and early September with top GOP leadership offices. We
warned them that voters would not give Republicans credit -- and would
not really trust their sincerity -- if they did not try to force
through a substantial part of the workplace enforcement they had passed

last December in the comprehensive bill.

We told them that the fence alone would likely not get them any
political mileage -- just as the fence alone will not likely do much to

deter illegal immigration (especially if we don't have mandatory
workplace verification).

And then, Republican national leaders who assembled ads to try to help
Republican candidates on the basis of their toughness on immigration
tended to miss the powerful populist, pro-worker message.

OPTIMISM FOR IMMIGRATION REDUCTION FROM A DEMOCRAT

Joe Guzzardi ran as a Democrat for Governor of California during the
recall election a few years ago. He teaches English to immigrants and
writes columns in newspapers and on the internet. You can read his
entire column at: http://www.vdare.com/guzzardi/061110_chide.htm

Here are a few excerpts:

To all my Republican immigration reform friends and colleagues, I have
two words for you-"Chill out!"

During our movement's moment of greatest triumph-the complete
electoral humiliation of President George W. Bush, we should be basking

in our glory at our collective victory.

Instead, most of you are wringing your hands and speculating on a
worst-case scenario that would include amnesty for illegal aliens and
various guest worker programs that will add greatly to the legal
immigrant population.

But amnesty ain't happening today, tomorrow or anytime soon.

Here's why.

If we mount our typical fierce counter-insurgent assault on
Congressional sensibilities by focusing on proving that amnesty would
reduce to almost zero most incumbent's Congressional 2008 re-election
chances and therefore (in the broader picture) on retaining Democratic
House control, we can cut the traitors off at the pass.

The election was not so much a triumph for the Democrats-remember, I
am one-as it was a mandate for responsible, responsive government.

And if the Democrats should decide to ram through an amnesty in either
the waning days 109th Congress or anytime during the 110th, they will
rue the day.

If Bush bucks GOP sentiment by double-dealing with Pelosi, he can write

off Republican support for prospective legislation during his remaining

two years.

And if you are fretting about what might happen when the new Congress
takes office in January 2007, consider that these Democratic
representatives are only just months off the campaign trail-where
they got an earful about amnesty-but within a few months of embarking
on their re-election tour where voters will be harshly assessing their
progress in the illegal immigration wars.

Do you really think that these new Congressmen-many of whom will face
their same 2006 opponents-are going to vote for amnesty? Can you
think of any surer way to lose in 2008?

FROM A CONSERVATIVE MAGAZINE:
OPTIMISM FOR IMMIGRATION REDUCTION

I've quote from the liberal magazine The Nation, the following came
from National Review, written by Mark Krikiorian, the head of the
Center for Immigration Studies. You can read all of it at:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjM1YmEwZmNiMDBiOGIwOTQ3NDc3N2Q4...

Here are some excerpts that I think will add to your understanding of
our political situation and hopefully encourage you to be of good cheer

and of great engagement in the fight:

Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow
said the Democratic takeover of the House presented "interesting
opportunities," including a chance to pass "comprehensive
immigration reform" - i.e., the president's plan for an
illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration,
which failed only because of House Republican opposition.

At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this
sentiment ...

Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise
conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs
eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat ...

In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby's cluelessness about
Flyover Land: "The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a
noisy minority. ... Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN's Lou
Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new

Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections,
would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the
minority."

And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed
the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty
and increase legal immigration: "But imagine if Republicans had
agreed on a compromise and enacted a 'comprehensive' - Mr.
Bush's word - immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal
immigrants. They'd be justifiably basking in their accomplishment.
The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be
thrilled."

"Emerging consensus"? "Nativist diehards"? Jacoby and her
fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her
hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream
media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like "comprehensive
reform" and "earned legalization," and offering respondents the
false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.

More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate
but potentially provocative terminology like "amnesty" and
"illegal alien") finds something very different. In a recent
national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of
immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only
2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of
choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters
rejected both the extremes of legalization ("amnesty" to you and
me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this

year's House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population
through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths
of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem
because past enforcement efforts have been "grossly inadequate," as
opposed to the open-borders crowd's contention that illegal
immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration! rules.

...

What's more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the
electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as
tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House
Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South
Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written
by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to
"comprehensive" reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the
national party's "Six for 06" rip-off of the Contract with
America said not a word about immigration reform, "comprehensive"
or otherwise.

The only exception to this "Whatever you do, don't mention the
amnesty" approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who
challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a
Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even
praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a
catastrophe.

Pederson lost.

Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years - to get
her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on
immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about
trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the

Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it's
likely that they'll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM
Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the
indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers).

They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty
limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good
idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but
they aren't the "comprehensive" disaster the president and the
Democrats really want.

Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to
get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers
and in people's workplaces right about the time the next election
season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders
lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad
news for those who supported it.

* * *

Re Subscriptions - http://www.numbersusa.com
Do you want more or less information?
Do you want fewer emails or to UNSUBSCRIBE from receiving any emails?
As a member of the NumbersUSA Action Network, you have four options
about how much email and Alerts you get from us. You can change the
frequency of our communication with you at any time by clicking here to

go to your Registration Form. There you can choose among Total
Activism, Moderate Activism, Limited Activism or No Email. If you feel
like you are not getting enough information from us, be sure to change
your registration to TOTAL ACTIVISM.
Update your NumbersUSA Interest Survey This may be a good time for you
to make sure that you've let us know all of the areas of immigration
reform in which you are interested. Click here to further customize
your Interest Survey and the type of alerts you receive from us.
P.S. NumbersUSA's financial management meets all the criteria of the
IRS as a non-partisan, non-profit organization, and as an authorized
charity of
the Combined Federal Campaign. Handling of donations is overseen and
held
accountable by a Board of independent directors and by independent
Auditors.