Posts
New to the blogroll is Numbers USA, an activist website wherein you can obtain information and e-alerts on immigration-related legislation and generate free faxes to your congressional delegation on immigration issues.
The site is by no means perfect. For instance, while of course seeking a reduction in immigration and opposing any amnesty, Numbers USA's style comes off as squishy and moderate. In its eagerness to avoid looking "racist" (and you know it will be called racist anyway), its talking points are quite vague about what the problems actually are. Further, it doesn't allow users to personalize the text of the faxes that will be sent on their behalf, but only pick from a menu of pre-written communiqués.
Still, Numbers USA is the only website that I've found that provides these services. As the only game in town, it is definitely worth signing up for.
3 comments:
Anti-immigration folks will be called racist by certain segments of the left regardless of what they say and how they say it, but whether or not the pro-immigration people will be successful in their attempts to tag antis as such does depend pretty heavily on how they present their argument. That's why the moderate tone is important.
Fair enough, assuming that I get to count the NYT as among "certain segments of the Left":
"The Nativist Lobby"
Numbers USA even took credit for a storm of blast faxes and phone calls to Congress that helped to kill a major immigration bill in 2007.
What is less well known, the [SPLC] report says, is what the groups have in common: histories connecting them to a retired Michigan eye doctor [John Tanton] with a long-held interest in eugenics, racial quotas, and white nationalism.
Guilt by association!
Come now. I'm sure that the New York Times would be just as aggressive in pursuing connections between a liberal cause (pro-choice, to pick a random example) to eugenics.
Right?
To more directly answer your question, I would say yes, the NYT counts as among those that cannot be counted on to portray the issue with even a remote degree of even-handedness. At the same time, people don't take what they say as gospel. It's helpful not to feed their attempts to frame the issue as one of Good Americans vs Grubby Racists.
I guess I can really only speak for myself to say that I am relatively moderate on the merits of the subject of immigration. I'm suspicious of amnesty, I support some measures to cut down on illegal immigration... but I'm off-put enough by the framing of the issue from folks on your side that more often than not I side with the other.
More voices with a moderate tone would go a way towards alleviating my fears of taking up some of the border-control causes and be more willing to give voice to my concerns with the high levels of immigration. As it stands now, it feels like whenever I do I feed a somewhat nasty fire.
Post a Comment