Over the past week, the anti-immigrant group, Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), has been urging its followers to flood Congress with phone calls demanding lawmakers vote “no” on the DREAM Act. ALIPAC’s president, William Gheen, ordered “Call your own representatives then call them all or as many as you can! When the offices close, fill those voice mail systems!”

However, due to the fact that Gheen is telling people to call as many offices as possible — regardless of whether they are a constituent of the respective representative or not — some of those calls are being met with skepticism. One commenter complained, “called, aide asked where I’m from, I didn’t have zip or town. Told aide about illegal aliens calling in favor of Dream, and legal U.S. citizens should have more say, evn [sic] if out-of-state.” Another similarly wrote, “All of the email forms, ask for zipcodes. They may be going through anyway but I get notices saying they cannot respond to those outside the district. I am warning them, though, about the deluge of lobbying from non-citizens.” Finally, a fellow commentator advised, “Here are a few with their zip codes: Don’t forget to block your calls *67, I hope it is free. I have been told by two different people that it is free to block your number.” A commenter affirmed, “Yes, that is what I do when I have a local office address, I just use that town and zip.”

Today, ALIPAC officially announced that it was sharing a list of zip codes for their supporters to provide when calling into offices of lawmakers who don’t represent them:

NEW TIP: We have added towns and zips of district offices beneath the DC contact info. If a staffer challenges you for town and zip to disuade [sic] your call, you may give them the ones we provide or you can say “If you are listening to illegal aliens today, you can listen to me because I am an American.”

There’s nothing wrong with grassroots advocacy that’s focused on putting pressure on key lawmakers. However, actually calling Congressional offices and pretending to be a constituent isn’t just disingenuous, it disrupts the democratic process. In other words, lawmakers may be duped into thinking an overwhelming majority of their constituents stand strongly against a policy when the people who are calling their office make up a small, vocal minority that doesn’t even live in their district.

In reality, many of the constituents lawmakers represent probably do support the DREAM Act. Polls show that 70 percent of all Americans do.

Earlier this week, the Houston Chronicle reported that Texas clergy members were meeting with Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) that they would “have his back if he risks becoming a target of that anger by helping craft and pass comprehensive immigration reform.” Cornyn responded by punting on the issue and saying that it is up to President Obama to lead. Members of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) responded urging its 30,000 members to flood Cornyn’s phone lines “asking Senator Cornyn to turn down Obama, Graham, Schumer and McCain’s requests for him to support comprehensive immigration reform amnesty.” Today, ALIPAC patted itself on the back and took credit for Cornyn stating “I do not and will not support amnesty” after the calls were made.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-TX) has indicated that he will not go forward with the comprehensive immigration reform bill that he is working on with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) if they cannot find another Republican co-sponsor. Given that fact, if ALIPAC did succeed in bullying Cornyn out of supporting an effort that a majority of the American people want to see, ALIPAC can also credit itself with bringing the nation another step farther away from fixing the nation’s broken immigration sytem.

Chances are it’s more complicated than that. To begin with, Schumer and Graham aren’t proposing simply pardoning 12 million unauthorized immigrants and overlooking the fact that they have broken the law by entering and most likely working in the country without proper documentation, as the term “amnesty” implies. Schumer and Graham have proposed putting undocumented immigrants on an “earned path to legalization” that would involve paying a fine, registering with the government, learning English, and undergoing a background check. It’s possible that Cornyn is against “amnesty,” but is open to the approach that Schumer and Graham have put forth.

What’s more likely is that Cornyn is simply playing politics with the White House. Cornyn has repeatedly said he is willing to work on comprehensive immigration reform, but that it’s up to President Obama to lead:

I applaud President Obama’s commitment to addressing comprehensive immigration reform this year, and stand ready to work with him to produce a product that represents the best interests of America, including respect for the rule of law, national security and economic security (4/9/2009)

“I’d like to see the president’s plan,” Cornyn went on. “That’s part of leadership, and that’s the only way this is going to get done with the president laying out for the members of Congress what his plan is and rallying people to try to deal with this very difficult and complex issue.” (4/30/2009)

“What we need is not another photo op at the White House. What we need now is a plan from the president,” said Cornyn, ranking member on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security. “The president doesn’t write legislation, but he does have the bully pulpit,” Cornyn said, adding that right now “it’s unclear how they can get it finished.” (6/23/2009)

“Immigration reform should make it easier for businesses to hire legally and for our economy to retain highly skilled workers. Obama must lead on immigration by offering specific proposals to secure our borders, upholding the rule of law and treating illegal immigrants with justice and compassion.” (1/12/2010)

“There isn’t a bill,” said Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), who met last week with Schumer to discuss immigration reform. “I told Senator Schumer I’d like to work with him and find common ground. More than a year later, it continues sliding down his priority list behind health care, climate change and adding trillions to the national debt over the next decade. If we are going to truly reform our immigration system, it’s time for President Obama to do that which the people elected him to do: lead.” (3/16/2010)

Today, the White House punted the ball back to Cornyn — and any Republican that has used Obama’s lack of leadership as an excuse to sidestep the issue of immigration reform. This afternoon the White House released a statement endorsing the Schumer-Graham plan and indicated the next steps involve crafting the legislative language and finding Republicans who are bold enough to ignore the small, but vocal minority that ALIPAC represents and get on-board with the effort to fix the nation’s immigration laws.

Today, at a luncheon at the National Press Club on the future of the Republican Party in Washington, FreedomWorks chairman and tea party strategist Dick Armey slammed former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and other anti-immigration activists for “alienating a ‘natural’ constituency [Latinos] that could help the party win elections.” Armey admitted that as House leader, he made sure Tancredo didn’t have a stage to speak on. The Daily Caller reports:

Former Republican House leader Dick Armey said staunch anti-immigration opponents such as Rep. Tom Tancredo are destructive to Republicans — and are alienating a “natural” constituency that could help the party win elections. “Who in the Republican Party was the genius that said that now that we have identified the fastest-growing voting demographic in America, let’s go out and alienate them?” Armey said, referencing Hispanics, during a luncheon in Washington at the National Press Club.

“When I was the majority leader, I saw to it that Tom Tancredo did not get on the stage because I saw how destructive he was,” Armey said of the Colorado congressman and 2008 Republican presidential candidate known for his opposition to illegal immigration. [...]

Armey also said “the Republican Party is the most naturally talented party at losing its natural constituents in the history of the world.” “This party was born with the emancipation proclamation and can’t get a black vote to save its life. How do they do that?”

Tancredo has long been a target of Armey’s criticism. In an interview with Charlie Rose that aired earlier this month, Armey went as far as to list former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) as representing part of the “tea party tent” that he feels “uncomfortable” with. In 2006, Armey referred to Tancredo as the “cheerleader of jerkiness in the immigration debate.”

Armey’s remarks have clearly made “nativist-extremist” groups that are trying to exploit the momentum of the tea party movement nervous. Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC) quickly came to Tancredo’s defense and started urging its members to attack Armey’s immigration position and make their voices heard. According to ALIPAC, Armey has been fighting to “keep the illegal immigration issue out of the Tea Party movement.” On an organizing conference call hosted by NumbersUSA, callers dismissed Armey as not being a “true tea party patriot,” but also sought tips on how to translate their anti-immigrant views to fit the tea party narrative. “We’ll be a whole lot better off if when [sic] we talk about illegal immigrants we leave off the Hispanic-Latino stuff,” advised NumbersUSA executive director Roy Beck.

While Armey’s remarks might delegitimize nativist tea bagger-wannabes in the eyes of those who value his funding and leadership, he’s ultimately the one responsible for giving their voices a megaphone. Armey may have kicked Tancredo off the stage in the House, but now he’s built a platform that’s open to any wingnut who wants to capitalize off of the anger and frustration that the tea party movement encapsulates.

Finally, while critiquing the GOP, Armey himself falls into another trap of the Republican Party: failing to offer workable solutions on immigration. While Armey is quick to critique the federal government’s immigration agency, the only solution he has offered is to privatize the U.S. immigration system. Currently, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is the lone Republican working on comprehensive immigration reform. A second Republican co-sponsor is, so far, nowhere to be found.

Yesterday, the anti-immigrant group Americans for Legal Immigration PAC sent out an email blast urging its members to comment on a video clip of a 2007 speech by FreedomWorks chairman and tea party operative Dick Armey. The group chides Armey for supporting “AMNESTY for illegal aliens” and accuses him of fighting to “keep the illegal immigration issue out of the Tea Party movement.” In the taped remarks ALIPAC forwarded, Armey sympathizes with undocumented immigrants:

I’ll tell you something — I don’t run stop lights. But you put me on the road at 2am on the way to the all-night drugstore to get medicine for my babies and give me a stop light that is stuck on red and no traffic in sight, and I’m going to go through that red light. Cause feeding my babies and taking care of them is more important than obeying the law.

And if you take a look at these very good people here, they’re trying to feed their babies. And if you got an agency in the federal government that’s dysfunctional, then they’re going to go across that border illegally because they’re gonna feed their babies — bless their heart...My general attitude is if you love liberty, and you’re willing to obey the law, and you’re trying to feed you’re babies, then you should be welcome in this country. That is not always a popular view…there’s a meanness about this border discussion that is very unsettling to me — it’s unkind, it’s disrespectful.

Watch it:

Armey’s message doesn’t go over well with a group that has extensively documented nativist ties. The Center for New Community describes ALIPAC as being “characterized by hysterical fear-mongering and xenophobic, anti-Latino conspiracy theories.” The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) reports that ALIPAC “is supported by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, recently designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project, and allied with various Minuteman factions.” ADL accuses ALIPAC of promoting “virulent anti- Hispanic and anti-immigrant rhetoric” and “adopting the tactics and rhetoric of racist groups and moving it into the mainstream.”

However, ALIPAC may be right that Armey and others are going out of their way to prevent anti-immigrant forces from co-opting to the tea party movement. Recently, conservatives have been grappling with an internal debate on how to approach the immigration issue. While many remain hostile towards immigrants, Armey likely belongs to the camp of conservatives who are urging their members to adopt a more inclusive immigration approach that will likely score much-needed political points with the indispensable Latino electorate. However, Armey can’t control the fact that groups like ALIPAC associate themselves with tea baggers. And as long as Armey takes credit for organizing tea parties, he must also be held responsible for the nativist extremists who SPLC warned would begin exploiting the tea party anger that Armey helped foster in an effort to recruit more supporters to join their hateful cause.

Earlier this week, the anti-immigrant group, Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), endorsed senatorial candidate and former U.S. representative, J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ). While Hayworth proudly touts ALIPAC’s endorsement on his website, Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) campaign claims that it’s nothing to be proud of. James King of the Phoenix News Times reports:

“J.D. Hayworth’s lavish praise for the social theories of noted anti-Semite and xenophobe Henry Ford sparked a major controversy during his losing 2006 campaign, causing many Arizonans to question Mr. Hayworth’s judgment. It is astounding that Mr. Hayworth would today accept the endorsement of a group that the Anti-Defamation League reports is backed by white supremacists, neo-Nazis and anti-Semites. Mr. Hayworth should immediately disavow this group’s support,” says Brian Rogers, the McCain campaign’s Communications Director…

Rogers claims some of the country’s most notorious hate-mongers support the group, including members of the National Socialist Movement and David Duke, a former “Grand Wizard” of the Ku Klux Klan and one-time presidential candidate from Louisiana.

ALIPAC was quick to jump on Rogers and dismiss his comments as “offensive false information.” However, Rogers was simply citing public facts. The Center for New Community has extensively documented ALIPAC’s nativist ties, describing the group as being “characterized by hysterical fear-mongering and xenophobic, anti-Latino conspiracy theories.” The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that ALIPAC “is supported by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, recently designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project, and allied with various Minuteman factions.” ADL accuses ALIPAC of promoting “virulent anti- Hispanic and anti-immigrant rhetoric” and “adopting the tactics and rhetoric of racist groups and moving it into the mainstream.” Members of Hayworth’s own Party have pointed out that his anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy platform cost him his House seat in 2006.

While the McCain campaign is wise to highlight Hayworth’s nativist ties, McCain has allowed himself to be intimidated by Hayworth’s hard line immigration views and has moved his own platform further to the right.

Yesterday, the anti-immigrant group Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) announced its endorsement of Massachusetts state Senator and GOP Senate candidate Scott Brown. ALIPAC commends Brown for opposing “amnesty” and for denying undocumented immigrants drivers licenses as a state legislator and his opposition to granting undocumented youth in-state tuition:

“Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee (ALIPAC) is endorsing Scott Brown for U.S. Senate today due to his campaign’s focus on the issue of the illegal immigration and his opponent Martha Coakley’s support for Amnesty for illegal aliens.

Scott Brown has publicly stated he opposes Amnesty for illegal aliens while Coakley has state she supports Amnesty,” said William Gheen, president of ALIPAC. “His vote in opposition to Amnesty will be needed in a few weeks as President Obama, with Democrats in the Senate and House, and a handful of misguided Republicans attempt to pass new Amnesty legislation.”

ALIPAC states that it is making a donation to Brown’s campaign and is urging its 30,000 members to donate, volunteer, and vote for him. Meanwhile, the Southern Poverty Law Center points out that the group “is supported by” the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a designated hate group. ALIPAC claims to only support “candidates who make illegal immigration reduction a top priority.”

Brown’s challenger, Martha Coakley, is attacked by the group for having “clearly stated she supports Comprehensive Immigration Reform Amnesty.” It’s true that Coakley has pledged to “reform our system to ensure illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.” Yet while amnesty is defined as an action that unconditionally pardons a group of people without imposing any penalties, a path to citizenship usually implies an earned process of legalization which would involve registering with the government, submitting to background checks, paying taxes, learning English, and paying a fine. Coakley and Brown are in a tight race for the Senate seat of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) — a champion of immigrant rights and a tireless advocate for comprehensive immigration reform.

The anti-immigrant group American for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) was crushed to hear Dobbs say that he supports a path to legalization for undocumented workers in an interview on Telemundo late last month after all the years he dedicated to railing on “amnesty.” Yesterday, Dobbs brought ALIPAC president William Gheen on his radio show and bemusingly proclaimed that his Telemundo interview was not a flip-flop, but rather the re-articulation of the same views he has always expressed:

GHEEN: It’s been a pretty rocky weekend for us…We’ve got a website up supporting you if you run for Senate or President. And we have an organization that has a rule against endorsing or supporting any candidate who would support a change in the law to accommodate illegal aliens currently in the United States…you have been a champion for us.

DOBBS: And I remain so. And I remain a champion for rational, effective and humane immigration policies…

You do know that I have never called for the deportation of illegal immigrants in this country. And I still don’t and I’m going to stand up with whomever wants to discuss this issue…William, I hope you’ll join me at the table as we talk about this…William, how bout it?

GHEEN: I can respect you deciding to do that. Me — I don’t think it’s worth our time. I think these [advocacy] groups are enemies of the United States. I think these people are bordering on treason against the people of the United States of America. They support the invasion of this country. They support open border policies that put our people at risk of crime, disease, and terrorism.

Listen:

Dobbs didn’t go as far as to challenge any of Gheen’s disturbing attacks against immigrants and advocates, but he did dedicate a significant amount of time to defending himself. Dobbs insists that he has always encouraged a rational discussion on the issue and has long supported a path to legalization and humane immigration reform as long the borders are secured and immigration controlled. Yet his stance is new to most people’s ears. Latinos aren’t buying it, xenophobes are furiously skeptical, and Dobbs would probably still have his job at CNN if that were the case.

In fact, in 2007 Dobbs proclaimed, “When this president [Bush] and open-borders, illegal-alien-amnesty advocates say, ‘You can’t deport them,’ my answer is, ‘You wanna bet?’ Because this is the United States.” Politifact found no evidence of Lou Dobbs ever saying “point blank” that he opposes a path to legalization, though he “certainly gave the impression that he didn’t much care for it.” He has also accused President Obama of “pandering to the pro-amnesty open-borders lobby,” despite the fact that Obama similarly indicated that there cannot be immigration reform with a path to legalization until the government shows that it is capable of enforcing the laws which are currently in place.

In his Telemundo interview Dobbs also tried to erase the past by claiming that he never said that immigrants are bringing leprosy to the U.S. and attacked host Maria Celeste for bringing up a report from four years ago. However, just two years ago Dobbs did in fact air and defend the leprosy report, affirming “If we reported it, it’s a fact.”

Gheen has announced that ALIPAC members are in favor of publicly dropping their support for the “new” Lou Dobbs and disabling websites they have created such as www.LouDobbsforPresident.org.