Is it betrayal if it was anticipated?

I hate being right . . .

Urgent Action

Congress first time in 2010, promising to stop immigration from hurting jobless Americans -- What a DISAPPOINTMENT these freshman congressmen have been!

It is not a happy 4th of July for millions of Americans who are greatly restricted in their liberty and pursuit of happiness because this Congress has done nothing to change the immigration status quo, leaving them unemployed and struggling to provide for their families.

Take a look at the list below. Note the freshman in your state who promised to support changes in nearly every part of our immigration system but has stood by and allowed the government to issue permanent work permits to nearly 2 million more immigrants. Furthermore, these Congressmen have failed to support Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith in his effort to mandate E-Verify to open up jobs held by more than 7 million illegal aliens.

Here is the list of Representatives who took the NumbersUSA survey in 2010 and promised to be True Reformers but who have failed to move against mass importation of immigrant labor or to aggressively challenge illegal immigration:
Florida

• Southerland, Representative Steve (R-FL-02)
• . . . .

My regular readers may remember that, in a couple of posts two years ago, I expressed skepticism about Southerland’s commitment to reducing immigration, notwithstanding his NumbersUSA “True Reformer” rating.  I did this because of the weakness of his stated position (which, I note in passing, didn’t even make his House website), the endorsements he received from immigration lobbyists, and the fact that, in our private communications, his staff was even weaker on the subject than his public pronouncements.

That staff is now saying candidly that Rep. Southerland has flip-flopped on question #11 of the 2010 questionnaire – “Should Congress institute safeguards that will prevent importation of foreign workers any time they would threaten the jobs or depress the wages of American workers?” – while supporting “guest-worker” schemes and possibly even walking back his earlier support for e-Verify as well.

How did NumbersUSA fumble this badly?  Was Southerland really the best we could do?

A couple of possible answers:

• With a consistent overall “B” rating, Southerland is voting much better than Allen Boyd was by the time he left office.  Our main complaint is that he seems quite content to let John Boehner spike all immigration legislation and amendments well before they make the floor.  That’s disappointing, but it’s not the same as empowering a Democrat majority that’s actively trying to destroy the American nation.
• Southerland won the primary on the first ballot in a four-way race.  To the extent his nomination was inevitable, NumbersUSA may have calculated that taking his questionnaire responses at face value then and playing the betrayed constituent now gave us more leverage than backing a doomed challenger.

Thoughts?