FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM

Building a Political Movement: A Guide for

Community-Based Activism
2


About This Guide

When people hear the word lobbyist, it conjures up images of slick Washington insiders
lugging around attach cases full of money to grease the political palms for their clients.
It is a reputation that is not altogether undeserved, but it is also not the only kind of
lobbying that goes on in Congress, the state legislature, or even the city council. You
dont need an $800 suit, or a pair of imported Gucci loafers to lobby your elected
representatives. Ordinary citizens can, and do lobby effectively, at all levels of
government, for causes and concerns that are important to them and their communities.

The art of lobbying is creating a mutually beneficial relationship between yourself and a
government official. When lobbying for a big corporation, the lobbyist can generally
promise a hefty campaign contribution in exchange for a favorable vote on a tax break
or a government contract for his client. When ordinary citizens lobby their
representatives, they are promising political support for a representative who serves the
interests of the community.

Anyone can be a lobbyist for immigration reform. When you write, phone, fax or e- mail
an elected representative regarding your concerns about immigration, you are acting as
a lobbyist for immigration reform. When you sit down face-to-face with your
representatives and express your desire that immigration policy be changed: that is
lobbying. It is a basic form of republican democracy and the most effective way to get
your voice heard.

Table of Contents

Talking Points

Amnesty...................................................................................................... 4

In-State Tuition and Financial Aid............................................................... 6

Sanctuary Policies ...................................................................................... 9

Top Questions to Ask Officeholders about Immigration............................... 13

Guides to Take Action

Attend a Town Hall Meeting ..................................................................... 15

Meet with Legislative Staff ........................................................................ 17

Write a Letter to the Editor........................................................................ 21
3


Write an Op-Ed......................................................................................... 22

Participate in a Tele-town Hall .................................................................. 23

Start a Petition.......................................................................................... 24

Draft Email Alerts...................................................................................... 25

Start a Letter Writing Campaign ............................................................... 26

Additional Resources........................................................................................ 28

Appendices ........................................................................................................ 29


4



FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM

TALKING POINTS: Amnesty

1 Amnesty is not immigration reform.
It will not solve the problem once and for all.
The 1986 amnesty granted legal status to 3 million illegal aliens, and today, the
estimated illegal alien population has quadrupled to about 11-12 million.
The 1986 amnesty did not stop illegal immigration, it encouraged more illegal
immigration.

2 Amnesty does nothing to secure the borders.
The Department of Homeland Security does not have an official metric for determining
whether the borders are secure.
Granting amnesty will not only fail to secure the border, it will make securing the borders
harder as a wave of illegal aliens flood the border hoping to partake in the new amnesty.

3 Granting Amnesty to illegal aliens undermines the rule of law.
It rewards law breaking and is inherently unfair to individuals all over the world who are
patiently waiting in line to come to the U.S. legally.

4 Amnesty hurts American workers.
It will increase competition for scarce jobs.
Adding millions of illegal aliens to the workforce will exacerbate the depressed labor
market, depress wages, and make it more difficult for the 22 million
unemployed/underemployed U.S. citizens and legal immigrants to find employment.

5 Amnesty hurts the American taxpayer.
A 2007 Heritage Foundation study found that an amnesty would cost U.S. taxpayers at
least $2.6 trillion over the course of 25 to 30 years.
Additionally, the cost of amnesty in 2013 will be significantly greater given the passage
of the Affordable Care Act in 2010which makes newly amnestied aliens eligible for
subsidized health care.

6 Granting amnesty will not grow the U.S. economy.
It will do nothing to increase the number of individuals paying into the economy, and will
only increase the number of individuals eligible for government assistance.
3

Amnestied aliens will continue to work in unskilled jobs, will not be net taxpayers, and
will continue to send money back to their country of origin in the form of remittances
instead of spending it on the U.S. economy.
Amnesty may slightly increase the wages of illegal aliens who were paid less than
minimum wage, but Americans will be forced to pay taxes to subsidize these newly
legalized aliens, who may be immediately eligible for many state and local benefits, and
later for federal benefits.

7 Granting amnesty endangers national security.
Granting amnesty to approximately 11-12 million illegal aliens through a process that will
overwhelm our immigration agencies is an invitation to fraud.
It also invites terrorists to sneak through the system and get documents and passports
while ensuring that ordinary criminals stay underground.



























6


FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM

TALKING POINTS: In-State Tuition and
Financial Aid

1 Granting In-State Tuition Rates or Financial Aid to Illegal Aliens
Hurts Taxpayers.
The national average tuition rate per year for in-state students at public four-year
colleges and universities is $8,655 versus $20,823 for out-of-state students. Illegal
aliens, who by definition are foreign nationals with no legal right to reside in the U.S.,
currently pay out-of-state rates. If the estimated 11.7 million illegal aliens who live in the
U.S. are provided in-state tuition rates, state colleges and universities would lose billions
of dollars a year.
Many colleges and universities are already experiencing budget crises. Class sizes have
increased, courses have been cut and tuition has been raised. Granting in-state tuition
or financial aid to illegal aliens would only serve to further damage and strain delicate
budgets and impose additional burdens on taxpayers, who heavily subsidize post-
secondary public education, to make up the loss.
Schools, students, and taxpayers should not be made to bear such a burden, especially
considering illegal aliens have flagrantly broken our immigration law and have no right to
permanently remain in the United States.

2 Granting In-State Tuition Rates or Financial Aid to Illegal Aliens
Creates Competition for Scarce Resources.
As a result of budget cuts and high demand, many public colleges and universities
across the country are increasingly limiting enrollment. By extending in-state tuition rates
or financial aid to illegal aliens, which effectively provides a financial incentive for them to
enroll in colleges and universities, some U.S. citizens and residents with legal status will
be denied the opportunity of a higher education.
Subsidizing illegal aliens, in effect, punishes citizens and legal residents who have done
nothing wrong themselves.

3 Granting In-State Tuition Rates or Financial Aid to Illegal Aliens
Promotes Illegal Immigration.
State policies that offer the benefit of in-state tuition rates or financial aid to illegal aliens
serve as a perverse incentive for illegal alien families to move to those states.
7

Illegal immigration is a burden to every state as it results in higher costs of living,
reduced job availability,
1
lower wages,
2
higher crime rates,
3
fiscal hardship on hospitals
and substandard quality of care for residents,
4
burdens on public services, increasing
their costs and diminishing their availability,
5
less security and safety in the community,
6

and a reduction on the overall quality of life.
States that offer in-state tuition rates or financial aid to illegal aliens are actively working
against the federal governments effort to combat illegal immigration.




1
1here ls no such Lhlng as an lllegal allen [ob." lllegal allens and naLlves compeLe for Lhe same [obs, and
naLlve workers are lncreaslngly dlsadvanLaged because employers have access Lo a sLeady supply of low-wage
forelgn workers. lllegal lmmlgraLlon has a dlsproporLlonal lmpacL on poor Amerlcans. 8ecause a large proporLlon of
lllegal allens are low-skllled workers, Lhey are more llkely Lo compeLe wlLh and undercuL Lhe wages of low-sklll
naLlve workers. 5ee !effrey S assel and u'vera Cohn, A lotttolt of uoootbotlzeJ lmmlqtoots lo tbe uolteJ 5totes,
ew 8esearch CenLer, Aprll 2009, aL 11-12, ovolloble ot hLLp://pewhlspanlc.org/flles/reporLs/107.pdf.
2
ln Ceorgla, where Lhe lllegal allen share of Lhe labor force wenL from abouL 4 percenL Lo 7 percenL from
2000 Lo 2007, a sLudy by Lhe lederal 8eserve found LhaL Lhe lllegal labor caused a 2.3 percenL wage drop overall
and a 11 percenL drop ln consLrucLlon wages over LhaL Llme perlod. 5ee !ulle L. PoLchklss and Myrlam Culspe-
Agnoll, 1be lobot Motket xpetleoce ooJ lmpoct of uoJocomeoteJ wotkets, lederal 8eserve 8ank of ALlanLa,
lebruary 2008, aL 36, 39, ovolloble ot bttp.//www.ftbotlooto.otq/flleleqocyJocs/wp0807c.pJf. Parvard unlverslLy's
Ceorge 8or[as concluded LhaL lmmlgraLlon reduced wages for Lhe pooresL 10 percenL of Amerlcans by abouL 7.4
percenL beLween 1980 and 2000 wlLh even larger effecLs for workers wlLh less Lhan 20 years of experlence. Ceorge
!. 8or[as, locteosloq tbe 5opply of lobot tbtooqb lmmlqtotloo. Meosotloq tbe lmpoct oo Notlve wotkets,
8ockqtoooJet, CenLer for lmmlgraLlon SLudles, May 2004, aL 1, ovolloble ot
hLLp://www.cls.org/arLlcles/2004/back304.pdf.
3
1he lederal 8ureau of rlsons reporLed LhaL, alLhough lllegal allens only make up an esLlmaLed 3.7
percenL of Lhe unlLed SLaLes populaLlon, non-clLlzens accounL for 26 percenL of Lhe federal [all populaLlon. 5ee
unlLed SLaLes ueparLmenL of !usLlce, lederal 8ureau of rlsons, 5tote of tbe 8oteoo aL 3 (2010), ovolloble ot
hLLp://www.bop.gov/news/uls/sob10.pdf. uPS esLlmaLes LhaL non-clLlzens naLlonally comprlse 20 percenL of
lnmaLes ln prlsons and [alls. 5ee CenLer for lmmlgraLlon SLudles, lmmlqtotloo ooJ ctlme. Assessloq o coofllcteJ
lssoe aL 1 (november 2009), ovolloble ot hLLp://www.cls.org/arLlcles/2009/crlme.pdf. Lven so, every crlme lllegal
allens commlL ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes was poLenLlally prevenLable lf Lhe lllegal allen had been ldenLlfled,
apprehended, and removed before Lhey vlcLlmlzed anyone.
4
1he naLlonal annual sLaLe and local cosLs relaLed Lo healLh care for lllegal allens ls $3.8 bllllon. 5ee lAl8,
1be llscol 8otJeo of llleqol lmmlqtotloo oo uolteJ 5totes 1oxpoyets (2010), ovolloble ot
hLLp://www.falrus.org/publlcaLlons/Lhe-flscal-burden-of-lllegal-lmmlgraLlon-on-u-s-Laxpayers.
3
lllegal lmmlgraLlon cosLs unlLed SLaLes Laxpayers abouL $113 bllllon a year aL Lhe federal, sLaLe and local
level. 5ee lAl8, 1be llscol 8otJeo of llleqol lmmlqtotloo oo uolteJ 5totes 1oxpoyets (2010), ovolloble ot
hLLp://www.falrus.org/publlcaLlons/Lhe-flscal-burden-of-lllegal-lmmlgraLlon-on-u-s-Laxpayers. 1he bulk of Lhe
cosLs - some $84 bllllon - are absorbed by sLaLe and local governmenLs. lJ.
6
8eporLedly, over half of Lhe 48 lndlvlduals convlcLed or Lled Lo recenL LerrorlsL ploLs ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes
elLher were Lhemselves lllegal allens or relled upon lllegal allens Lo geL fake lus. 9/11 Commlsslon SLaff, 9/11 ooJ
1ettotlst 1tovel. 5toff kepott of tbe Notloool commlssloo oo 1ettotlst Attocks upoo tbe uolteJ 5totes (AugusL 21,
2004), ovolloble ot hLLp://govlnfo.llbrary.unL.edu/911/sLaff_sLaLemenLs/911_1err1rav_Monograph.pdf.
lmmlgraLlon vlolaLors parLlclpaLed ln Lhe flrsL aLLack on Lhe World 1rade CenLer, Lhe Los Angeles Mlllennlum
bomblng ploL, Lhe new ?ork subway bomblng consplracy, and Lhe 9/11 LerrorlsL aLLacks. lJ.
8

4 Granting In-State Tuition Rates or Financial Aid to Illegal Aliens
Rewards Illegal Behavior.
Prospective immigrants have little incentive to pursue the legal paths to immigration
when they can side step the process and gain more benefits.
Granting in-state tuition rates or financial aid to illegal aliens insults legal immigrants who
patiently waited for months and years for the State Department and Department of
Homeland Security to approve their application and paid thousands of dollars in travel,
legal and medical fees to abide by the entry, employment, health and processing laws
and regulations.
7

States should implement policies that reward those who abide by our laws, not those
who break them.

5 Granting In-State Tuition Rates and Financial Aid to Illegal Aliens Is
Illogical and Unfair.
If aliens are illegally residing in the United States, they cannot be legal residents of the
state in which they are applying for admission to a state institution of higher education.
Federal law prohibits employers nationwide from employing illegal aliens.
It makes no sense to expend tax dollars on illegal aliens higher education, rather than
on students who can legally work here.
Illegal alien graduates will likely seek work illegally, competing with citizens and legal
residents.












7
5ee Mlchelle Malkln, Amoesty Cooq 1btows low-AblJets uoJet tbe 8os, 1CWnPALL, !anuary 30, 2013,
ovolloble ot hLLp://Lownhall.com/columnlsLs/mlchellemalkln/2013/01/30/amnesLy-gang-Lhrows-lawablders-
under-Lhe-bus-n1300802/page/full/ (resldenL Cbama and Lhe blparLlsan Cang of LlghL ln WashlngLon who wanL
Lo creaLe a 'paLhway Lo clLlzenshlp' for mllllons of lllegal allens have senL a message loud and clear Lo Lhose who
follow Lhe rules: ?ou're chumps! Pave you paLlenLly walLed for monLhs and years for Lhe SLaLe ueparLmenL and
ueparLmenL of Pomeland SecurlLy Lo slog Lhrough your appllcaLlon? ?ou're chumps! Pave you pald Lhousands of
dollars ln Lravel, legal and medlcal fees Lo ablde by Lhe LhlckeL of enLry, employmenL, healLh and processlng
regulaLlons? ?ou're chumps! Pave you sLudled for your naLurallzaLlon LesL, Laken Lhe oaLh of alleglance Lo hearL,
embraced our Llme-LesLed prlnclple of Lhe rule of law, and demonsLraLed LhaL you wlll be a flnanclally
lndependenL, producLlve clLlzen? ?ou're chumps!").
9


FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM

TALKING POINTS: Sanctuary Policies

1 Sanctuary policies pose a serious threat to public safety.
Sanctuary policies create safe havens that facilitate criminal activity, especially in regard
to drug- and gang- related crimes, human trafficking, and identity theft.
Cities that institute sanctuary policies become magnets for illegal immigration and illegal
immigration results in higher crime rates.
8

Accommodating those who violate our laws only encourages more lawlessness.
Even the average illegal alien, who some claim is otherwise law-abiding, violates
numerous laws, including, but not limited to, laws prohibiting identity theft, forgery, and
driving without a license or insurance, often creating real victims

2 States and cities that institute sanctuary policies become magnets
for illegal immigration.
Illegal immigration is a burden to cities and states as it results in higher costs of living,
reduced job availability,
9
lower wages,
10
higher crime rates,
11
fiscal hardship on hospitals

8
1he lederal 8ureau of rlsons reporLed LhaL, alLhough lllegal allens only make up an esLlmaLed 3.7
percenL of Lhe unlLed SLaLes populaLlon, non-clLlzens accounL for 26 percenL of Lhe federal [all populaLlon. 5ee
unlLed SLaLes ueparLmenL of !usLlce, lederal 8ureau of rlsons, 5tote of tbe 8oteoo, aL 3 (2010), ovolloble ot
hLLp://www.bop.gov/news/uls/sob10.pdf. uPS esLlmaLes LhaL non-clLlzens naLlonally comprlse 20 percenL of
lnmaLes ln prlsons and [alls. 5ee CenLer for lmmlgraLlon SLudles, lmmlqtotloo ooJ ctlme. Assessloq o coofllcteJ
lssoe, aL 1 (november 2009), ovolloble ot hLLp://www.cls.org/arLlcles/2009/crlme.pdf. Lven so, every crlme lllegal
allens commlL ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes was poLenLlally prevenLable lf Lhe lllegal allen had been ldenLlfled,
apprehended, and removed before Lhey vlcLlmlzed anyone.
9
1here ls no such Lhlng as an lllegal allen [ob." lllegal allens and naLlves compeLe for Lhe same [obs, and
naLlve workers are lncreaslngly dlsadvanLaged because employers have access Lo a sLeady supply of low-wage
forelgn workers. lllegal lmmlgraLlon has a dlsproporLlonal lmpacL on poor Amerlcans. 8ecause a large proporLlon of
lllegal allens are low-skllled workers, Lhey are more llkely Lo compeLe wlLh and undercuL Lhe wages of low-sklll
naLlve workers. 5ee !effrey S assel and u'vera Cohn, A lotttolt of uoootbotlzeJ lmmlqtoots lo tbe uolteJ 5totes,
ew 8esearch CenLer, Aprll 2009, aL 11-12, ovolloble ot hLLp://pewhlspanlc.org/flles/reporLs/107.pdf.
10
ln Ceorgla, where Lhe lllegal allen share of Lhe labor force wenL from abouL 4 percenL Lo 7 percenL from
2000 Lo 2007, a sLudy by Lhe lederal 8eserve found LhaL Lhe lllegal labor caused a 2.3 percenL wage drop overall
and a 11 percenL drop ln consLrucLlon wages over LhaL Llme perlod. 5ee !ulle L. PoLchklss and Myrlam Culspe-
Agnoll, 1be lobot Motket xpetleoce ooJ lmpoct of uoJocomeoteJ wotkets, lederal 8eserve 8ank of ALlanLa,
lebruary 2008, aL 36, 39, ovolloble ot bttp.//www.ftbotlooto.otq/flleleqocyJocs/wp0807c.pJf. Parvard unlverslLy's
Ceorge 8or[as concluded LhaL lmmlgraLlon reduced wages for Lhe pooresL 10 percenL of Amerlcans by abouL 7.4
percenL beLween 1980 and 2000 wlLh even larger effecLs for workers wlLh less Lhan 20 years of experlence. Ceorge
!. 8or[as, locteosloq tbe 5opply of lobot tbtooqb lmmlqtotloo. Meosotloq tbe lmpoct oo Notlve wotkets,
8ockqtoooJet, CenLer for lmmlgraLlon SLudles, May 2004, aL 1, ovolloble ot
hLLp://www.cls.org/arLlcles/2004/back304.pdf.
11
5ee sopto noLe 8.
10

and substandard quality of care for residents,
12
burdens on public services, increasing
their costs and diminishing their availability,
13
and a reduction on the overall quality of
life.
Conversely, cities that cooperate with and assist the federal government in its
immigration enforcement efforts see a dramatic decrease in illegal immigration and
crime.
14


3 Sanctuary policies are expensive.
Because of the difficulties states have in collecting taxes from persons who are not
lawfully present, many are utilizing state and local benefits and resources without
contributing their fair share.
Jurisdictions with sanctuary policies shift the costs of illegal immigration onto citizens
and legal immigrants.

4 Sanctuary policies promote further illegal immigration.
Accommodating those who violate our immigration law encourages others to follow the
same path and gives prospective immigrants little incentive to pursue the legal paths to
immigration when they can side step the process and gain the same benefits without
fear of capture and removal.




12
1he naLlonal annual sLaLe and local cosLs relaLed Lo healLh care for lllegal allens ls $3.8 bllllon. 5ee lAl8,
1be llscol 8otJeo of llleqol lmmlqtotloo oo uolteJ 5totes 1oxpoyets (2010), ovolloble ot
hLLp://www.falrus.org/publlcaLlons/Lhe-flscal-burden-of-lllegal-lmmlgraLlon-on-u-s-Laxpayers.
13
lllegal lmmlgraLlon cosLs unlLed SLaLes Laxpayers abouL $113 bllllon a year aL Lhe federal, sLaLe and local
level. 5ee lAl8, 1be llscol 8otJeo of llleqol lmmlqtotloo oo uolteJ 5totes 1oxpoyets (2010), ovolloble ot
hLLp://www.falrus.org/publlcaLlons/Lhe-flscal-burden-of-lllegal-lmmlgraLlon-on-u-s-Laxpayers. 1he bulk of Lhe
cosLs - some $84 bllllon - are absorbed by sLaLe and local governmenLs. lJ.
14
lor example, Lhe u.S. ueparLmenL of Pomeland SecurlLy (uPS) esLlmaLed LhaL Arlzona's lllegal allen
populaLlon grew from 330,000 ln 2000 Lo 360,000 by 2008, one of Lhe fasLesL raLes naLlonally. AfLer Arlzona's S8
1070 sLrlcL enforcemenL and cooperaLlon law passed, however, Arlzona's lllegal allen populaLlon dropped by 18
percenL from 2008 Lo 2009. Cfflce of lmmlgraLlon SLaLlsLlcs, uPS, stlmotes of tbe uoootbotlzeJ lmmlqtoot
lopolotloo keslJloq lo tbe uolteJ 5totes. Iooooty 2009, ovolloble ot
hLLp://www.dhs.gov/xllbrary/asseLs/sLaLlsLlcs/publlcaLlons/ols_lll_pe_2009.pdf. Arlzona also experlenced a
slgnlflcanL decrease ln vlolenL crlme. lederal 8ureau of lnvesLlgaLlon (l8l) crlme daLa reglsLered a ma[or drop from
2003 Lo 2010 ln vlolenL crlmes ln Arlzona - by 14.4 percenL compared Lo a 10.4 percenL drop naLlonally. roperLy
crlmes decllned more sLeeply - by 21.4 percenL, l.e., more Lhan Lwlce Lhe reducLlon naLlonwlde of 10.7. 5ee
lAl8, keceot uemoqtopblc cbooqe lo Atlzooo. Aootomy of ffectlve lmmlqtotloo kefotm leqlslotloo, ovolloble ot
hLLp://www.falrus.org/publlcaLlons/recenL-demographlc-change-ln-arlzona-anaLomy-of-effecLlve-lmmlgraLlon-
reform-leglslaLlon-2012. AfLer rlnce Wllllam CounLy, vlrglnla lnsLlLuLed a pollcy of cooperaLlon wlLh uPS, lLs lllegal
allen populaLlon decreased slgnlflcanLly ln [usL Lwo years, resulLlng ln a reducLlon ln vlolenL crlme and hlL-and-run
accldenLs. CenLer for Survey 8esearch, unlverslLy of vlrglnla, volootloo 5toJy of ltloce wllllom coootys llleqol
lmmlqtotloo ofotcemeot lollcy llNAl klOk1 2010, ovolloble ot
hLLp://www.pwcgov.org/governmenL/bocs/uocumenLs/13188.pdf.
11

5 Sanctuary policies are unfair to legal immigrants.
Policies that thwart enforcement of immigration law insult legal immigrants who patiently
waited for months and years for the U.S. State Department and DHS to approve their
application and paid thousands of dollars in travel, legal and medical fees to abide by the
entry, employment, health and processing laws and regulations.
15


6 Sanctuary policies conflict with federal law.
Recognizing the adoption of sanctuary policies as a growing impediment to combating
the wave of illegal aliens residing in the country, Congress adopted The Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
16
that barred state and
local governments from prohibiting employees from providing, receiving, or sharing
information on illegal aliens with federal government immigration officials.

7 Sanctuary policies undermine national security efforts.
Sanctuary policies enable terrorists and individuals of national security concern to go
unnoticed and carry out their activities unimpeded by immigration law.
Reportedly, over half of the 48 individuals convicted or tied to recent terrorist plots in the
United States either were themselves illegal aliens or relied upon illegal aliens to get
fake IDs.
17

Immigration violators participated in the first attack on the World Trade Center, the Los
Angeles Millennium bombing plot, the New York subway bombing conspiracy, and the
9/11 terrorist attacks.
18

At least five of the 9/11 hijackers were illegal aliens, of which fourringleader and pilot
Mohammed Atta, pilot Hani Hanjour, pilot Ziad Jarrah, and muscle Nawaf al-hazmi
came into contact with state and local law enforcement several times before the attacks

13
5ee Mlchelle Malkln, Amoesty Cooq 1btows low-AblJets uoJet tbe 8os, 1CWnPALL, !anuary 30, 2013,
ovolloble ot hLLp://Lownhall.com/columnlsLs/mlchellemalkln/2013/01/30/amnesLy-gang-Lhrows-lawablders-
under-Lhe-bus-n1300802/page/full/ (resldenL Cbama and Lhe blparLlsan Cang of LlghL ln WashlngLon who wanL
Lo creaLe a 'paLhway Lo clLlzenshlp' for mllllons of lllegal allens have senL a message loud and clear Lo Lhose who
follow Lhe rules: ?ou're chumps! Pave you paLlenLly walLed for monLhs and years for Lhe SLaLe ueparLmenL and
ueparLmenL of Pomeland SecurlLy Lo slog Lhrough your appllcaLlon? ?ou're chumps! Pave you pald Lhousands of
dollars ln Lravel, legal and medlcal fees Lo ablde by Lhe LhlckeL of enLry, employmenL, healLh and processlng
regulaLlons? ?ou're chumps! Pave you sLudled for your naLurallzaLlon LesL, Laken Lhe oaLh of alleglance Lo hearL,
embraced our Llme-LesLed prlnclple of Lhe rule of law, and demonsLraLed LhaL you wlll be a flnanclally
lndependenL, producLlve clLlzen? ?ou're chumps!").
16
ulvlslon C of ub.L. 104-208, 110 SLaL. 3009-346.
17
9/11 Commlsslon SLaff, 9/11 ooJ 1ettotlst 1tovel. 5toff kepott of tbe Notloool commlssloo oo 1ettotlst
Attocks upoo tbe uolteJ 5totes (AugusL 21, 2004), ovolloble ot
hLLp://govlnfo.llbrary.unL.edu/911/sLaff_sLaLemenLs/911_1err1rav_Monograph.pdf.
18
lJ.
12

for various reasons such as speeding or driving without a license.
19
If those state and
local law enforcement agencies had been working with federal immigration officials, the
9/11 terrorist plot might have been thwarted.
ICE has just 20,000 employees, only half of which are dedicated to the apprehension
and removal of illegal aliens. The cooperation of state and local police forces, which
number about 800,000 strong, is vital to ferreting out those among us who wish to harm
us.





















19
lJ.aL 139, l8l, wotkloq utoft cbtoooloqy of veots fot nljockets ooJ AssoclaLes, aL 131, 138, 172, 177,
179, 202, 278 (nov. 14, 2003), ovolloble ot hLLp://vaulL.fbl.gov/9-1120Commlsslon208eporL/9-11-chronology-
parL-01-of-02 and hLLp://vaulL.fbl.gov/9-1120Commlsslon208eporL/9-11-chronology-parL-02-of-02.
13



FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM


What to Ask Your Elected Official: Top Immigration Questions

It is important to come prepared with questions and statistics when attending town hall
meetings. Below is a list of suggested questions to ask your legislator (or his or her staff) at
these events. If you have any questions, or would like additional guidance, please contact a
FAIR Field Representative.

1 Despite 22 million out of work and underemployed Americans, legislators are pushing bills
that favor or would grant amnesty to the 11-12 million illegal aliens in the United States. If
legalized, these newly amnestied aliens will directly compete with Americans for scarce
jobs and depress wages. Do you oppose amnesty, including legislation that includes
a path to citizenship or any other provisions that would legalize or regularize
the status of illegal aliens? How does amnesty help the American worker?

2 In recent months, Members of Congress have introduced legislation and stepped up their
calls for expanding guest worker programs. However, the U.S. already imports over
800,000 guest workers annually (both skilled and unskilled), while millions of Americans
go without jobs or full-time work. Do you oppose expanding guest worker programs?
How would the importation of additional labor help the American worker?

3 Since taking office, President Obama and his Administration have ignored the will of
Congress and worked to circumvent U.S. immigration law by granting backdoor amnesty
to illegal aliens. The Administration has done so under the guise of prosecutorial
discretion, which has no basis in law and is unreviewable by the courts. This includes
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitanos June 15, 2012 policy memo creating a
program in which illegal aliens up to the age of 30 are granted a two-year reprieve and
receive work authorization. It also includes several policy memos issued by the nations
chief immigration officer, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director, John Morton,
instructing immigration officers to ignore the vast majority of illegal aliens they encounter
unless the alien has committed certain offenses. Do you oppose extending state and
local benefits to recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and
other administrative amnesty programs?

4 E-Verify is a program managed by the Department of Homeland Security that helps
employers verify the work authorization of new hires. The program consists of an online
system through which an employer submits a new employees name and Social Security
number, already collected by law through the I-9 form, to Social Security Administration
and Homeland Security databases. The program consistently receives high-marks from
employers, and automatically confirms the work authorization of new hires over 98.5% of
14

the time. With jobs being the number one magnet of illegal immigration, do you
support making E-Verify a requirement for all employers?

5 Businesses are rarely held accountable for hiring illegal aliens. And, under the Obama
Administrations policies, when enforcement action is actually taken against employers
who hire illegal aliens, the illegal aliens face no consequence for being in the country
unlawfully or working without authorization. Rather, the Administration turns a blind-eye to
illegal alien labor, allowing them to simply walk down the street and submit an application
to the next willing employer. Do you support worksite enforcement policies that target
both the illegal workers and the employers?

6 The term sanctuary cities generally refers to cities that through an act, ordinance, or
policy limit police and/or other government employees from inquiring about immigration
status or assisting federal immigration authorities seeking to apprehend and remove illegal
aliens. Such policies and acts, however, violate federal law prohibiting governments from
forbidding the sending or receiving of immigration status information to the federal
government. Accordingly, such policies undermine U.S. immigration law and perpetuate
the problem of illegal immigration by providing a safe haven to illegal aliens. Do you
oppose sanctuary city policies? Would you support legislation requiring
government officials to cooperate fully with federal immigration authorities?

7 The 287(g) program allows U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to enter into
agreements with local law enforcement agencies to deputize or cross-designate law
enforcement officers to act as immigration agents within their jurisdictions. As such, this
program is critical in allowing state and local governments the ability to combat illegal
immigration in their jurisdictions. However, the Obama Administration is effectively
dismantling the program by refusing to renew 287(g) agreements, tying the hands of local
law enforcement from being able to address illegal immigration in their communities. Do
you support use of the 287(g) program to enforce our immigration laws against
illegal aliens? What will you do to support state and local law enforcement
cooperation with federal immigration agents?



13



FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM


Activism Guide: How to Attend a Town Hall Meeting

What is a town hall meeting?
Officeholders generally hold public town hall meetings where they can meet with and address
the concerns of their constituents. Call around to the offices of all your elected representatives
and ask for a schedule of town hall meetings and similar events.

Take advantage of these opportunities. The issues that come up at meetings like this are viewed
by politicians as a barometer of what is on the publics mind. If a politician is peppered with
questions about immigration, you can bet he will begin thinking about the issue.

There are two types of town hall meetings: in person or an electronic/tele-town hall via your
phone or internet.

Find out the dates & locations

To find out when town hall meetings will be held, monitor your officeholders website, sign up
for their email alerts, or periodically call for event updates.

Officeholders usually hold town hall meetings in different areas around their district. While its
best to attend the one closest to your home, dont hesitate to also attend meetings in other parts
of your district.

Before you ask a question
Make sure to have your question prepared in advance.
Limit yourself to ONE question and try not to let the questions posed before yours
influence what you say.
Raise your hand immediately when the officeholder asks for questionsthe longer
you wait, the more competition you will have for the microphone.

What should you ask?
Avoid yes or no questions or questions requiring a commitment.
If the media is present, officeholders will be more likely to resist making spontaneous
commitments.
If you ask questions about specific legislation, be prepared to quickly explain what
the legislation does.
Thousands of bills are introduced each year and officeholders dont have them all
memorized.
Ask a question based on an action.
16

A good way to phrase a question is to base it on an action. (i.e., What will you do
legislatively to solve X? or What have you done to hold President Obama accountable
for Y?) Doing so makes it harder for the officeholder to give an answer using only
talking points.
Do your homework!
Dont hesitate to do some extra research on the officeholder before the town hall. If you
feel they voted incorrectly on a bill or issued a statement in which you disagree,
those are great points to bring up when you are given the microphone. (i.e., Could
you tell me why you voted against the X bill last week, which would have done Y?)

Be polite

Your question will be best received if it is phrased respectfully and tactfully. Rude or off-color
language will ensure a more guarded response from the officeholder and could even turn the
audience against you.

Dont leave early
Stick around after the meeting
If you arent given the chance to ask your question during the meeting, or you have
additional questions, hang around afterwards. Most officeholders stick around for a
few extra minutes to take additional questions one-on-one.
Find a staff member
If your officeholder does not stick around after the town hall, or you have trouble
accessing him/her, locate a staff member and speak to them instead. They can take your
comments, answer questions, and refer you to appropriate staff members.
Bring business cards
Bring a business card to give to the staff member to help him or her follow up with your
question.

Network with other attendees
If anyone else in the audience asks questions about immigration that are in line with your
views, talk to them after the meeting is over. Thats a great opportunity to get them involved
in activism.


17




FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM


Activism Guide: How to Meet with Legislative Staff

If you would like to ask detailed questions or learn more about your elected officials positions
on immigration topics, rather than simply calling and leaving a comment, you may ask to set up
a meeting with a member of their staff. Meetings can take place in a person or via conference
call.

How to Set Up a Meeting
Ask for the L.A.
If you wish to speak directly with the staff member who manages immigration issues, ask to
speak with the Legislative Assistant (L.A.) handling immigration. If you cant meet in person,
ask to set up a phone meeting.

Do your research
BEFORE you call to speak to the immigration L.A., make sure you understand the issue
for yourself and are versed in accurate facts. Any materials FAIR provides for you are a good
source of information, while chain emails, blog posts, and mere anecdotes are not.

Scheduling a meeting
When you call an officeholders office, you may ask the person who answers your call if you can
speak to the L.A. who handles immigration issues. Sometimes, the L.A. might agree to speak to
you right then so be prepared for a conversation. In most cases, you will have to call back or set
up an appointment for a future date.

If the L.A. is not available to speak at that moment, ask to set up a phone call between the two of
you in the near future. Be flexible with dates and times. You should expect any phone call you
set up to last for at least ten minutes and at most thirty minutes, depending on the staffers
availability. Make sure you get the best phone number to reach him/her at.

On the State and Local level, each official has his or her own policy about arranging these
meetings, so it is best to contact the office and ask the best way to go about it.

Always leave a voicemail
If you are sent to the L.A.s voicemail, dont be offended. L.A.s are notoriously busy because
their time is spread thin between different issues (most handle several different policy issues).

18

Leave a detailed message, including your name, phone number, and specific topic of
inquiry (e.g., say youd like to know more about the officeholders position on E-Verify or
amnesty rather than simply stating immigration) and give them a day or two to get back to you.

When to follow up
If you dont hear back from the L.A. within two or three days, feel free to try calling them again.

Strategies for a Successful Phone Meeting
Be aware of time
When you reach them, ask if they are available right now to speak for ten minutes. If they say
yes, do not let the phone call run longer than the agreed upon time.

In fact, do not allow the meeting to last longer than the amount of time originally agreed upon,
unless the staffer encourages it. If a staffer feels like his/her time is being encroached on or
wasted, they will be less likely to speak with you again in the future.

Be polite
During the phone call, be courteous and respectful, in spite of any frustration. Directing anger
at the staff member, or employing insults, off-color humor, or obscenities will severely
reduce the effectiveness of your call.

Advising the advisor
Remember that the L.A. you speak to directly advises the officeholder on this issue. Therefore,
make sure you convey all information clearly. You should also directly state what you would
like the officeholder to do (support a particular policy, cosponsor or oppose a certain bill, sign a
letter, join a certain caucus, etc.).

Stay on topic
During your meeting, stay on topic and avoid erroneous subjects that will distract the staffer
from the true issue at hand. If you want to discuss other matters, do so in a separate phone call.

Make it local
Do your best to paint a clear picture of how that offices constituents are directly affected by
the matter. Staffers and legislators are much more likely to take notice of issues that have a
clear relation and impact on those they represent.

Explain the basics
Because legislative staffers time is stretched extremely thin between many different issues in
addition to immigration, they might not be familiar with all the details of an immigration-related
bill or issue. Never assume a staffer knows what you are talking about. Be detailed and ask if
they are familiar with a particular issue before you begin discussing it. Be ready to provide
background information.


19




Refer them to FAIR

Dont hesitate to refer them to the FAIR website, http://www.FAIRUS.org, for additional
information. They should know they can use FAIR as a resource for information in the future.

Follow up with a thank you note
Even if you did not meet with a staff member in person, its smart to take a few minutes to write
a thoughtful thank you note or e-mail. Staffers are rarely thanked, and this small effort goes a
long way towards helping your issue.

Meeting with a Staffer in person
Time your arrival
Legislative offices can be hectic, and staff is always busy. Never show up unannouncedall in-
person meetings should be planned in advance. Also, show up to your meeting no more than
five to ten minutes early. Most importantly, DO NOT BE LATE!
Meeting length
You should expect any meeting you set up to last between 10-30 minutes, depending on
availability.

Anticipate last minute changes
If you arrive at the office to find that you will be meeting with a different staff member, do not
be offended. L.A. schedules frequently change at the last minute due to unscheduled votes,
committee hearings, and more. If this happens, speak to the staff member assigned to your
meeting as you would someone who is not familiar with the issue of immigration and include
basic information.

Be patient
During your meeting, be courteous and respectful, in spite of any frustration. Directing anger
at the staff member, or employing insults, off-color humor, or obscenities will severely reduce
the effectiveness of your discussion, will likely cause it to end early, and could even get you
kicked out of the office.

Influence the Influencer
When you speak with an L.A., remember that this person directly advises the officeholder.
Therefore, make sure you convey all information clearly, and directly state what you would like
the officeholder to do (support a particular policy, cosponsor or oppose a certain bill, sign a
letter, join a certain caucus, etc.).

Stay on topic
During your meeting, stay on topic and avoid erroneous subjects that will distract the staffer
from the true issue at hand. If you want to discuss other matters, do so at another time.
20




Make it local
Do your best to paint a clear picture of how the officeholders constituents are directly affected
by the matter. Staffers and officeholders are much more likely to take notice of issues that have a
clear relation to and impact on their district.

Go over the basics
Because legislative staffers time is stretched extremely thin between many different issues in
addition to immigration, they might not be familiar with all the details of an immigration-
related bill or issue. Never assume a staffer knows what you are talking about. Provide details
and ask if they are familiar with a particular issue before you begin discussing it. Be ready to
provide background information.

Watch the clock
Do not allow the meeting to last longer than the amount of time originally agreed upon, unless
the staffer encourages it. If a staffer feels like his or her time is being encroached on or wasted,
they will be less likely to speak with you again in the future.

Follow up with a thank you note
Remember to send a thank you note to the staffer for taking the time to meet with you.























21




FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM


Activism Guide: How to Write a Letter to the Editor

Letters to the editor are often one of the most popular sections of a newspaper or online news
site. However, the competition can be fierce to get your letter printed.

Follow the guidelines below to make your letter stand out and get published.

Research your chosen publication
Where are you sending your letter to the editor? Is it a print newspaper with a daily edition or
does it only print on Sundays? Go to the website for the publication and find the guidelines for
that individual outlet. What do they require to be submitted? Can you e-mail your letter or snail
mail it? What is the deadline?

Identify yourself
Be sure to include your name, address, e-mail address, and phone number at the top of the letter.
Also, if you can identify yourself with a local organization, that will increase the chances of the
outlet publishing your letter. While generally, such personal information will not be printed, it is
important to include so that the editor can follow up with you if needed.

Get to the point
Your letter should be between 150-200 words. Longer letters rarely get printed due to space
considerations. To achieve this word limit, write in short sentences and try to use an active tense
to make a precise point. Be sure to check the word length of the media outlet you are
contacting since many vary on letter length.

Be polite
Always be respectful and polite when writing a public letter to the editor. Insults, names, threats
and rude language will not be printed. Your letter has a far greater chance of being published if
you are respectful of the subject matter. Newspapers are responsible for what they print, even if
it is opinion and rarely will publish anything that could be deemed slanderous.

Proofread
Proofread your letter. Letters without spelling and grammar errors are more likely to be printed.

Try to email your letter
When completed, submit your letter to the editor, via e-mail if possible.

Look for an online news source
22


Because online news sites have a greater demand for content, they are more likely to publish
your letter. If there is a popular online news outlet in your community, start there.


FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM


Activism Guide: How to Write an Op-Ed

Many newspapers have op-ed pages where longer opinions can be expressed. Take advantage of
these opportunities to get your immigration policy ideas published. Op-eds are a great tool to
connect your community to the issue and suggest solutions.

Follow the guidelines below to make your op-eds stand out and get published.

Make it current
Your op-ed will receive the most attention and be more likely to be printed if it is related to some
topical story or event. Make note of that connection in the cover letter to the op-ed page editor.

Keep it tailored
Unlike letters to the editor, which should be kept between 150-200 words, op-eds should run
about 750 words. Be sure to check the word length of the media outlet you are contacting
since many vary on length requirements.

Stay on target
Keep the op-ed focused on just a few main points. You cannot cover all aspects of the issue in
750 words, so dont try. A few strong, clearly written points will be more persuasive than a long,
undeveloped list of reasons.

Use plain language
Avoid unnecessary use of jargon or clichs. Remember, your audience will have many intelligent
readers, but most will not know the issue as well as you.

Provide a plan
Editors and readers prefer op-eds that offer a solution, not merely tell what the problems are.
Contact a FAIR Field Representative for assistance developing strategies to address immigration
issues in your community.

Proofread
Proofread your op-ed before submitting it. Op-eds without spelling and grammar errors will
appear more credible and are more likely to be printed.

See Appendix A for a sample op-ed piece.
23







FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM


Activism Guide: How to Participate in a Tele-Town Hall

What is a tele-town hall meeting?
Many officeholder, especially Members of Congress, host town hall meetings by telephone (aka,
tele-town halls) when the legislature is in session and they are unable to travel to their districts.
Tele-town halls can be conducted through the internet and broadcast live on video or as a
conference call.

Your Member will contact you
Tele-town halls are not typically announced publicly, like regular town hall meetings. Instead, a
randomized list of constituents is generated in advance, and only those people included in the
randomized list receive a call asking them to join the tele-town hall meeting, which usually
begins immediately.

Ask a question!
Most tele-town hall meetings give listeners the option to ask a question. Take advantage
of this opportunity!
Limit yourself to one question. Asking two questions ensures less thorough responses
from the officeholder.
Instead of asking philosophical questions (e.g., What do you think about X?), which
will evoke a response consisting of talking points, ask questions based on actions (e.g.,
What will you do legislatively to solve X? or What have you done to hold
President Obama accountable for Y?).

Be polite
Be respectful and tactful when you ask your question. Threatening language will cause the
officeholder to give a more guarded answer or may cause you to be removed from the call.

Always leave a message
Most tele-town halls give listeners the opportunity to leave a message at the end of the tele-town
hall. Take advantage of this as well.

24





FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM


Activism Guide: How to Start a Petition

Petitions are an effective way to request action, propose legislation, and inform politicians and
government officials of their constituents position on issues.

Petitions on the state and local level make the biggest statement when they contain signatures
from a large number of local constituents. Direct your petition to the appropriate audience: to
politicians or officeholders who have the authority to take the action you request. Make sure to
always find out how many signatures are needed for a particular petition. For example, in the
case of initiatives and referendums, some jurisdictions require a certain percentage of registered
voters to sign before they will consider a course of action or place the appeal on a ballot.

Follow the guidelines below to make your petition persuasive and effective.

Address what action you want to see occur
Provide this information first as a request for action. Remember to be specific and realistic.
Town council members or state officials are not in a position to change federal immigration law,
but the can have important roles in crafting local immigration-related legislation.

Explain why this action is important
Convey this information in a preamble, or a brief description of background information
regarding what of concern is happening in the community.

Persuade your audience
Your petitions body paragraphs should include well researched and clear facts supporting the
petitions appeal. FAIR can supply you with information you need to effectively voice your
concerns.

Conclude
Reiterate your appeal in a quick call to action.

Show your support
Attach a signors form to the end of your petition. Dont forget to look up exactly what form the
signers form and signatures must take. Many state and local governments require that in
addition to a name, the signature must also include the signatories home address or zip code.

23

See Appendix B for a sample petition.


FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM


Activism Guide: How to Draft Email Alerts

Email alerts are the quickest and most cost-effective way to notify your members of whats
going on in immigration reform. Treat these emails like a call to action, letting your members
know when their voice can make the biggest impact on the reform movement. Staying connected
is an important component of managing a political movement. Use these emails to encourage
activism by notifying supporters of introduced or moving legislation, recent statements made by
local officeholders, upcoming town hall meetings, rallies, panel discussions, debates, or
circulating petitions of interest.

Follow the guidelines below to help make your email alerts effective.

Call to action
Whether youre informing activists of new legislation, an event, or a position taken by an elected
official, be sure to specify early on in the email what it exactly the activists should do to help.

Supply relevant talking points
Arm your activists with well researched and clear facts. With talking points, your activists will
feel more confident approaching officeholders or other reformists. FAIR can supply you with
information you need to effectively voice your concerns.

Keep it quick
Email alerts should provide just enough background information and relevant statistics to
illustrate why the call to action is urgent. Keep the length to about three-quarters of a page and
provide links to additional sources of information.

Provide contact info
The less effort it takes to send a letter, make a phone call or register for an event, the more
people you will get to participate.

Be prudent
Be careful to not overload your members inboxes. Email alerts should only be sent out at critical
moments to notify supporters when their help is most needed. Sending alerts out too frequently
can cause your supporters to lose sense of the urgency in their action.

See Appendix C and D for sample email alerts.


26




FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM


Activism Guide: How to Start a Letter Writing Campaign

Starting a letter writing campaign is another great way to message a politician and lobby for
immigration reform. There are many options for transmitting written communications. In
addition to entrusting it to the U.S. Postal Service, you can fax or e-mail a letter expressing your
concerns.

Urgency is often the determining factor in the method you choose. If your views need to be
registered immediately, then fax and e-mail are your best bet. If you have the luxury of a little
more time, a good old-fashioned letter is the most effective way of communicating.

The individual letter
The more personal and individual the letters, the more attention they will receive from the
officeholder who receives them. When you organize a letter writing campaign, encourage
participants to write their own letters. If the goal is to get your officeholder to support a
particular bill, all the letters ought to contain that primary idea, but the more individualized the
letters are, the more effective they will be. You dont need to be William Shakespeare to
compose a letter expressing your own views. Officeholders are not looking for style, perfect
grammar or spelling. They respond best to the sense of passion and concern that the letter
conveys.

The form letter
The less effort it takes to send a letter, the more people you will get to participate. Writing a
personal letter takes time and effort, and even supporters with a great deal of commitment to this
issue may not be able to find the time to get one out. A form letter requires nothing more than
affixing a signature and putting it in the mail. Form letters are not as effective as personal letters,
but that drawback can be offset by the sheer volume of mail that can be generated by a form
letter.

Tips for letters and letter writing campaigns
Personally written communications, whether e-mail, faxes, or letters, carry much more
weight than a form letter.
Dont put too many issues in one letter.
Target the letter writing campaign and give your group goals such as contacting the entire
state delegation, or particular committees or subcommittees, etc.
Provide participants with enough background information, statistics, and talking points so
they can write their own letter.
Provide a sample form letter for participants to use as a guideline or to send as their letter.
27

Copy a form letter in your own handwriting if you do not have the time to draft your
own.
Follow up your letter with a phone call after a few weeks if you do not receive a reply or
he or she does not follow the action you requested.
Dont be discouraged if an officeholder , other than your own Senator or Representative,
does not answer your letter. Receiving stacks of postcards and other materials will
convey a sense of urgency and can be crucial to his or her decision-making.If your
officeholder does support your issue, or takes a stand you support, be sure to write and
thank him. Positive feedback is always more important than negative feedback.

Letters should include

Appreciation for any support or leadership he or she has shown on the issue in the past.
Brief description of you, and/or your group, and its objective.
Description of the particular issue as you see it.
What you believe is the solution, such as legislation currently in the legislature that
should be passed or defeated, or legislation that should be introduced.
Request for specific action - pass a bill, cosponsor a bill, defeat a bill, etc.
Reaffirmation of your groups interest in his or her position.

See Appendix E for a sample letter.

28





FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM


Additional Resources

FAIRUS.org
Please visit www.FAIRUS.org for more information on how to take action in your community
and on fighting the push for amnesty in 2013.

Federal Activism Toolkit
Visit FAIRs Federal Activism Toolkit for updated information on grassroots activism.

Visit ImmigrationReform.com
Updated each day, add ImmigrationReform.com to your regular reading list to stay up to date on
immigration issues.


29




FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM


Appendix A: Sample Op-Ed

The Department of Justice Must Sue California

The ink was barely dry on Gov. Jan Brewers signature when the U.S. Department of Justice
announced in July 2010 that it was suing Arizona to block that states immigration enforcement
policy, S.B. 1070, from going into effect.

In announcing the lawsuit, Attorney General Eric Holder stated unequivocally that, Setting
immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility. Moreover,
Holder argued, Arizonas efforts to identify and detain illegal aliens would divert federal
resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal
records will impact the entire countrys safety.

The federal governments suit against Arizona rested on the argument that the administrations
policy in this case focusing its resources on the removal of criminal aliens took precedence
over immigration statutes, which call for the removal of all aliens unlawfully present regardless
of whether they have committed other crimes.

Fast forward three years. Over the past week, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a series of bill
granting new benefits, privileges and protections to illegal aliens. Among the bills signed by
Brown was AB 4, also known as the Trust Act. That legislation explicitly prohibits law
enforcement in California from honoring most requests by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) to detain foreign nationals who have been arrested and charged with other
offenses. Instead, these aliens, who are being sought by ICE for deportation, will be released if
they can post bail.

In other words, Californias new law runs contrary to Holders assertion that enforcing
immigration laws is a national responsibility. It is clearly designed to impede the Obama
administrations policy of deporting aliens with criminal records and will undoubtedly impact
the entire countrys safety. There should be little reason why government attorneys at the
Department of Justice (assuming they havent been furloughed) should not be hard at work
drafting a complaint against Californias law and seeking to have it enjoined.

Anyone waiting by the courthouse door for Justice Department to file such a suit had better bring
a good book and some snacks. Based on precedent, it is extremely unlikely that the Obama
administration will take legal action against California for impeding the enforcement of
immigration laws the way it did against Arizona and other states that attempted to facilitate the
enforcement of those laws. The Justice Department has ignored policies adopted by local
jurisdictions in California and across the nation that deny detainer requests from ICE.
30


The gauntlet thrown down by Gov. Brown comes amidst efforts by the Obama administration to
promote a comprehensive amnesty for current illegal aliens by assuring a skeptical American
public that immigration laws would be vigorously enforced in the future. The failure of the
Justice Department to back up Attorney General Holders own words with legal action against
California would validate that skepticism. If the administration will not act to defend its right to
remove criminal illegal aliens from the United States, why would anyone believe that they would
act to secure our borders, or prevent the next wave of illegal aliens from occupying jobs in this
country?

The failure by the Obama administration to respond to Californias obstruction of their policies
will also make it more difficult for congressional Republicans to support the sort of immigration
reforms sought by the Obama administration. Even Republicans who support amnesty in
exchange for promises of future enforcement have accused the administration of being selective
in its enforcement of immigration laws.

In addition to the disparate treatment of states attempting to enforce U.S. immigration laws
versus those obstructing enforcement of those laws, there are other inconsistencies that cannot be
lost on Republicans. The administration did not hesitate to sue states controlled by Republicans
in an effort to defend its claimed right to enforce (or not enforce) immigration laws as it sees fit.
Declining to sue California a state wholly controlled by Democrats would send an
unmistakable message that the administration will only take punitive action against Republican-
led states.

Ironically, Gov. Browns decision to sign AB 4 may have put the Obama administration in an
untenable political position. They must either sue California, or abandon any pretense that they
intend to enforce any immigration laws now, or in the future.




31




FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM


Appendix B: Sample Petition

The Louise Law: Establishing Public Safety for Nebraska
To the Nebraska Legislature (Legislature): We, the undersigned registered voters of the state
of Nebraska, hereby respectively petition for the Legislature to pass a law that would prohibit
state and local sanctuary policies for the following reasons:

1. SANCTUARY POLICIES PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS
WHO HAVE BROKEN THE LAW. Those who show a blatant disregard for U.S.
immigration laws can be expected to have little respect for other areas of law.
2. SANCTUARY POLICIES VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW. Federal laws (8 USC
1373 and 1644) prohibit state or local policies that limit or in any way restrict state or
local officials from communicating with federal officials regarding immigration status
information, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States.
3. SANCTUARY CITIES ATTRACT ILLEGAL ALIENS. Accommodating illegal
aliens encourages others to violate U.S. immigration law and gives prospective
immigrants little incentive to pursue the legal paths to immigration when violating the
process provides the same benefits.
4. SANCTUARY POLICIES ARE COSTLY FOR NEBRASKA CITIZENS AND
LEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Because of the difficulties in collecting taxes from illegal
aliens, many utilize state and local benefits and resources without contributing their fair
share. In 2010, FAIR estimated this cost Nebraska taxpayers an estimated $262 million
of its annual state and local fiscal costs.
5. SANCTUARY POLICIES DENY U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT CRITICAL ASSISTANCE. ICE needs state and local assistance to
accomplish its statutorily mandated mission to identify and ultimately remove illegal
aliens who are in state or local custody.
6. SANCTUARY POLICIES UNDERMINE NATIONAL SECURITY EFFORTS.
These policies create an environment in which individuals who endanger national
security go unnoticed and uninterrupted.

We propose the Legislature enact the following language to establish public safety in Nebraska:

THE LOUISE LAW
MAINTENANCE AND EXCHANGE OF IMMIGRATION STATUS INFORMATION BY
STATE AGENCIES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS CIVIL PENALTY.
32


Be it enacted by the people of the State of Nebraska,
(A) This act shall be known as the Louise Law.
(B) No official or agency of this state or any political subdivision thereof, including,
but not limited to, an officer of a court of this state, may adopt a policy or practice
that limits or restricts communication between its officers and federal immigration
officials in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1373 or 8 U.S.C. 1644, or that restricts the
enforcement of this act. If, in the judgment of the Attorney General of Nebraska,
an official or agency of this state or any political subdivision thereof, including,
but not limited to, an officer of a court in this state, is in violation of this
subsection, the Attorney General shall report any violation of this subsection to
the Governor and the state Treasurer and that agency or political subdivision shall
not be eligible to receive any funds, grants, or appropriations from the State of
Nebraska until such violation has ceased and the Attorney General has so
certified. Any appeal of the determination of the Attorney General as considered
in this section shall be first appealed to the circuit court of the respective
jurisdiction in which the alleged offending agency resides.
(C) All state officials, agencies, and personnel, including, but not limited to, an officer
of a court of this state, shall fully comply with and, to the full extent permitted by
law, support the enforcement of federal law prohibiting the entry into, presence,
or residence in the United States of aliens in violation of federal immigration law.
(D) Except as provided by federal law, officials or agencies of this state or any
political subdivision thereof, including, but not limited to, an officer of a court of
this state, may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending,
receiving, or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, lawful or
unlawful, of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal,
state, or local governmental entity for any of the following official purposes:
a. Determining the eligibility for any public benefit, service, or license provided
by any state, local, or other political subdivision of this state.
b. Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or
domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued
pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding of this state.
c. Acting pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1373 and 8 U.S.C. 1644.
(E) A person who is a United States citizen or an alien who is lawfully present in the
United States and is a resident of this state may bring an action in circuit court to
challenge any official or head of an agency of this state or political subdivision
thereof, including, but not limited to, an officer of a court in this state, that adopts
or implements a policy or practice that is in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1373 or 8
U.S.C. 1644 or a violation of this Act. If there is a judicial finding that an
official or head of an agency, including, but not limited to, an officer of a court in
this state, has violated this section, the court shall order that the officer, official, or
head of an agency pay a civil penalty of not less than one thousand dollars
($1,000) and not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each day that the
policy or practice has remained in effect after the filing of an action pursuant to
this section.
33

(F) A court shall collect the civil penalty prescribed in subsection (E) and remit one
half of the civil penalty to the Nebraska State Department of Homeland Security
and the second half shall be remitted to the Nebraska Department of Public
Safety.
(G) Every person working for the State of Nebraska or a political subdivision thereof,
including, but not limited to, a law enforcement agency in the State of Nebraska
or a political subdivision thereof, shall have a duty to report violations of this act.

34




FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM


Appendix C: Sample Email Alert 1

Tell Gov. Christie:
Don't Subsidize Illegal Aliens with Taxpayer-Funded In-state Tuition
Recent news reports indicate that Governor Chris Christie has changed his position and
expressed support for providing illegal aliens taxpayer-funded in-state tuition rates at New Jersey
public colleges and universities.
Your help is needed to tell Gov. Christie that New Jersey citizens and legal residents will not
tolerate policies that put the interests of illegal aliens ahead of New Jersey's citizen and legal
resident families and students.

Call Gov. Christie today at 609-292-6000.
Universities are able to provide citizen and legal resident students in-state tuition rates because
public colleges and universities are heavily subsidized by taxpayer money.

For the 2013-2014 school-year, the largest public university in the State of New Jersey,
Rutgers University, will provide its New Jersey resident students with an in-state tuition
rate $14,000 less than the rate for nonresident students. Illegal aliens, who by definition are
foreign nationals with no legal right to reside in the U.S., currently pay nonresident rates. If the
estimated 525,000 illegal aliens who live in New Jersey are provided in-state tuition rates,
state universities could lose billions of dollars a year.

As a result of the weakened economy, many colleges and universities are experiencing budget
crises. As of 2012, New Jersey's total outstanding debt was estimated at $33.4 billion, with
37% of state spending already attributed to education. In attempts to balance the budget,
Gov. Christie has severely cut New Jersey's education budget far below the levels needed for
children to achieve academically, as established in the state's school funding formula the
School Funding Reform Act of 2008.

The Education Law Center estimates that over the last five years the loss to New Jersey
school districts will grow to over $5.1 billion. Furthermore, over the past three fiscal years,
Gov. Christie cut Rutgers University's budget by over $29 million, forcing the school to increase
tuition, reduce the number of classes available to students, limit staff, freeze faculty salaries, and
reduce dining hall hours, along with countless other subtractions.

Granting in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens would only serve to further damage and strain
delicate budgets and impose additional burdens on taxpayers, who heavily subsidize post-
secondary public education, to make up the loss. Schools, students, and taxpayers should not
33

be made to bear such a burden, especially considering illegal aliens have flagrantly broken
our immigration laws and have no legal right to reside in the U.S.
Call Gov. Christie today and tell him to oppose granting illegal aliens in-state tuition rates at
public colleges and universities.

Please take five minutes and call Gov. Christie today at 609-292-6000.
36





FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM


Appendix D: Sample Email Alert 2

Yesterday afternoon, the California Assembly passed AB 4, the so-called "TRUST Act,"
which prohibits state and local law enforcement from honoring U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) detainers in all but a very limited number of circumstances.
This is similar to the anti-detainer bill that Californians like you were able to stop when Gov.
Jerry Brown vetoed it last fall.

Now we need to tell him to repeat his veto and stop AB 4 from becoming California law.
Call Gov. Brown right now at (916) 445-2841!

If signed into law, this bill would impede state & local law enforcement from working with the
federal government to enforce immigration laws.

An ICE detainer request serves to advise a state or local law enforcement agency that ICE seeks
custody of a particular alien for the purpose of arrest and removal. If ordered by law to ignore
ICE detainers, state and local jails have no choice but to release criminals criminals who have
no right to be in the United States back onto the street.

Call Gov. Brown at 916-445-2841 and urge him to keep Californians safe by vetoing this
bill.
Laws such as AB 4 are so dangerous that former ICE Director John Morton even wrote a letter to
FAIR last August and explained they undermine public safety.

Use the talking points below to help when calling Gov. Brown at 916-445-2841 and urge
him to veto AB 4!
AB 4 undermines public safety in my community.
AB 4 prohibits state & local law enforcement from working with ICE when illegal aliens
are arrested for crimes.
AB 4 is designed to impede the federal governments ability to enforce immigration law.
37




FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM


Appendix E: Sample Letter
Dear Governor Brown,
I am a concerned California citizen urging you to protect the interests of our states citizens and
legal residents by vetoing AB 4 and AB 60.
AB 4 and AB 60 undermine public safety in California and across the nation. If ordered by AB 4
to ignore ICE detainers, state and local jails have no choice but to release criminals criminals
who have no right to be in the United States back onto the streets. These criminals endanger
our communities. With the highest illegal alien population in the country, California law
enforcement should cooperate with federal immigration officials, rather than impede their
efforts. AB 4 is a bad policy that puts the interests of those who break the law above those of
United States citizens and legal residents, who deserve the highest standards of public safety.
AB 60 rewards illegal aliens with drivers licenses, despite the fact that, unlike legal aliens,
illegal aliens have never been subject to any background checks or face-to-face interviews. Also,
illegal aliens, by definition, do not have valid U.S. identification or work authorization
documents and often depend on foreign or forged documents. AB 60 expressly authorizes
California DMV officials to accept a slew of foreign documents as proof of identification. The
California DMV does not have the capacity to verify the validity of such documents. Overall,
AB 60 cannot be effectively implemented while guaranteeing the safety of our communities.
Despite what proponents of AB 60 argue, the bill will in no way guarantee safer roads or that
illegal aliens will purchase insurance. The state of New Mexico grants driver's licenses to illegal
aliens AND has the second highest percentage of uninsured drivers in the country. While
California law requires all motorists to have auto insurance, there is no reason to think that
illegal aliens, having disregarded so many other laws, will obey this one. The purported benefits
of AB 60 are far-fetched and come at a high price to our citizens and legal residents.
Both AB 4 and AB 60 will hurt Californias unemployed citizens and legal residents. The
California unemployment rate is 8.6%, which surpasses the national unemployment rate of 7.3%.
Thwarting enforcement of immigration law and granting driver's licenses to illegal aliens makes
it easier and more practical for illegal aliens to live in California. If they stay, they will work,
albeit unlawfully. Because employers get away with paying illegal aliens lower wages, this
undercuts opportunities for those with legal work authorization in the U.S. and yields little to no
tax revenue for the state.
38

Together, AB 4 and AB 60 encourage more illegal immigration into California. Illegal
immigration results in higher costs of living, reduced job availability, lower wages, higher crime
rates, fiscal hardship on hospitals and substandard quality of care for residents, burdens on public
services (increasing their costs and diminishing their availability), and a reduction on the overall
quality of life. Policies that facilitate illegal behavior hurt our state and our nation. I urge you to
veto AB 4 and AB 60 and support the interests of your constituents. Californians cannot afford
any more policies that reward and facilitate illegal conduct.
Sincerely,
[Concerned citizens name]