The McCain-Obama Immigration Wars (Pander Wars)

[peejay 327]

Peejay sez: Why is it that every time articles like this appear in mainstream media that the reader comments at the end of the articles are always overwhelmingly against amnesty for illegal aliens? Where is this "majority of Americans" that supposedly want amnesty and a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens? Maybe these pro-illegal polls are taken at ACLU, La Raza, LULAC, and MALDEF meetings? LoL. Most American do not want any more illegal alien amnesties. There have been 7 amnesties already. A vast majority of Americans want the border secure and the law enforced. Click the link and see for yourself.

The McCain-Obama Immigration Wars

July 14, 2008 7:34 AM

Today at the National Council of La Raza convention, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., will try to make his case.

"I spoke recently at both the NALEO and LULAC conferences, as did Senator Obama," McCain will say, according to prepared remarks provided by his campaign. "I did not use those occasions to criticize Senator Obama. I would prefer not to do so today.

"But he suggested in his speeches there and here, that I turned my back on comprehensive reform out of political necessity. I feel I must, as they say, correct the record. At a moment of great difficulty in my campaign, when my critics said it would be political suicide for me to do so, I helped author with Senator Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform, and fought for its passage. I cast a lot of hard votes, as did the other Republicans and Democrats who joined our bipartisan effort. So did Senator Kennedy. I took my lumps for it without complaint. My campaign was written off as a lost cause. I did so not just because I believed it was the right thing to do for Hispanic Americans. It was the right thing to do for all Americans.

"Senator Obama declined to cast some of those tough votes. He voted for and even sponsored amendments that were intended to kill the legislation, amendments that Senator Kennedy and I voted against. I never ask for any special privileges from anyone just for having done the right thing. Doing my duty to my country is its own reward. But I do ask for your trust that when I say, I remain committed to fair, practical and comprehensive immigration reform, I mean it. I think I have earned that trust."

**

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, yesterday before La Raza did indeed attack McCain on immigration, saying, "McCain used to buck his party on immigration by fighting for comprehensive reform – and I admired him for it. But when he was running for his party’s nomination, he abandoned his courageous stance, and said that he wouldn’t even support his own legislation if it came up for a vote. Well, I don’t know about you, but I think it’s time for a President who won’t walk away from something as important as comprehensive reform when it becomes politically unpopular."

Obama said "we need a practical solution for the problem of 12 million people who are here without documentation – many of whom have lived and worked here for years. That’s why we need to offer those who are willing to make amends a pathway to citizenship."

He said that voters are "counting on us to rise above the fear and demagoguery, the pettiness and partisanship, and finally enact comprehensive immigration reform."

**

As we've covered in this space before, both candidates' charges against the other are essentially accurate.

When McCain was asked during a January 2008 GOP debate if he would vote for his original immigration reform proposal if it came to the Senate floor, McCain said, "No, I would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the border secured first."

Watch HERE.

McCain has also been charged with double-talk on this issue by opponents of immigration reform.

But the charges McCain will level today are true as well, as we've noted before.

There was a cohesive bipartisan group led by Sens. McCain and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass, that worked to defeat amendments that would hurt the overall bill's chance of final passage -- amendments that were too liberal for the Republicans and too conservative for the Democrats.

And on at least five occasions, Obama voted for amendments against the wishes of the bipartisan group, including Kennedy.

These included an amendment Obama offered that would have sunsetted the merit-based evaluation system for immigrants after five years; two amendments from Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-ND, to sunset both the temporary guest worker visa program and the Y-1 non-immigrant temporary worker visa program after five years; and two amendments from Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-NM, that would have removed the requirement that 'Y' non-immigrant visa holders leave the United States before they are able to renew their visa, and would have lowered the annual visa quota for guest workers from 400,000 to 200,000 per year.

Obama voted for all five; Kennedy voted against all five.

Now when McCain asserts that these amendments "were intended to kill the legislation," that gets into the intent of Sens. Obama, Bingaman, and Dorgan. And all three would assert that they were trying to improve the legislation, not kill it.*

But from the perspective of the fragile bipartisan coalition led by Sens. McCain and Kennedy, the intent of the amendment sponsors was irrelevant -- the fact is they were taking actions that threatened a very delicate legislative dance. So McCain's assertion that the amendments were intended to kill the bill is his view, and not supported by any demonstrable evidence of conspiracy.*

But that said, McCain worked much harder and risked far more to pass that immigration bill than Obama did.

Moreover, the Obama camp engages in a misleading response when pushing back on this matter.

Obama spox Hari Sevugan says "Obama has been a leader on the issue, working hard and in a bipartisan manner for comprehensive reform. And you don’t have to take our word for it… take the word of John McCain himself who praised Obama’s work on comprehensive reform or that of top McCain surrogate Senator Mel Martinez who wrote Senator Obama to thank him for his support of the comprehensive immigration reform bill and praised his leadership."

It is true that McCain praised Obama as one of a small bipartisan group of Senators who “stood together to make this legislation possible.”

But that was in 2006.

With a different bill and a different legislative effort entirely.

In June 2007 letter to Obama, Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., did thank Obama for his support of the immigration reform bill in this letter. It looks to me like a cursory form letter, but Martinez did indeed send it.

The facts remain: McCain tried to pass the 2007 bill, then backed off it after its colossal failure, emphasizing border security first though he always maintained the need for there to be a path to citizenship.

Obama, for his part, took actions that were contrary to the desires of the bipartisan coalition that may have helped sink the bill.

On the 2007 bill, McCain took great political risks then tried to minimize the damage; Obama took little-to-no risks.

- jpt

* These two paragraphs were added at 11:55 am ET after the Obama campaign rightly pointed out that McCain's assertion that the amendments were drafted to kill the bill was his opinion and not a clear fact.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...ccain-obam.html

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If the majority of Americans don't want amnesty, why are the two major party candidates perpetually supporting the opposite?

[SteveLaura 0]

I support amnesty for pandas. Cute little fellows.

[SMOKE 1,426]

If the majority of Americans don't want amnesty, why are the two major party candidates perpetually supporting the opposite?

to get the vote of the Americans that do want it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If the majority of Americans don't want amnesty, why are the two major party candidates perpetually supporting the opposite?

to get the vote of the Americans that do want it.

If that's true it puts the idea of "the majority of Americans don't want amnesty" into some doubt. Surely...

[almaty 19]

obama and mccain are on the same vein on this issue....illegals are here to stay and the usa may as well, create a guest work program, cause nothing is going to change in the near future

[SMOKE 1,426]

If the majority of Americans don't want amnesty, why are the two major party candidates perpetually supporting the opposite?

to get the vote of the Americans that do want it.

If that's true it puts the idea of "the majority of Americans don't want amnesty" into some doubt. Surely...

when the last amnesty bill was shot down, with many changing their votes after pressure from voters. i think it answered all doubts.

[SMOKE 1,426]

obama and mccain are on the same vein on this issue....illegals are here to stay and the usa may as well, create a guest work program, cause nothing is going to change in the near future

we'll see about that in the future. more & more Americans w/o jobs due to the economy will be changing many amnesty supporters minds shortly.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If the majority of Americans don't want amnesty, why are the two major party candidates perpetually supporting the opposite?

to get the vote of the Americans that do want it.

If that's true it puts the idea of "the majority of Americans don't want amnesty" into some doubt. Surely...

when the last amnesty bill was shot down, with many changing their votes after pressure from voters. i think it answered all doubts.

But surely it can't be about courting voters then - if majority rules and the majority don't want amnesty then there's no political advantage in pandering to a minority of opinion and the majority candidates wouldn't be taking a "minority" position.

[SteveLaura 0]

They can also be useful in keeping down the aggressive growth of bamboo in this country.

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

I think most Americans would like to see that the laws can be enforced and the borders secured before any amnesty. If there is a way to cross the border and prosper here even if you are here illegally then what will stop it after another amnesty?

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

If the majority of Americans don't want amnesty, why are the two major party candidates perpetually supporting the opposite?

to get the vote of the Americans that do want it.

If that's true it puts the idea of "the majority of Americans don't want amnesty" into some doubt. Surely...

when the last amnesty bill was shot down, with many changing their votes after pressure from voters. i think it answered all doubts.

But surely it can't be about courting voters then - if majority rules and the majority don't want amnesty then there's no political advantage in pandering to a minority of opinion and the majority candidates wouldn't be taking a "minority" position.

We are a republic, we elect people and then they are supposed to do what is best for our country. We only have a vote in who is elected but not how they vote after they are in office. We can choose to not vote for them the next time but unfortunately the majority of voters have no idea of the voting record of their elected officials. As long as they hear what they want to hear then they will vote for that person.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Funny thing, how all the pandering is in one direction.

No one's pandering to the haters. I wonder why. Must not be too many of them

They're shrill, but small in number.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I dunno - I find it hard to believe that people would vote for a candidate who doesn't represent their self-interest. If curbing illegal immigration is such a priority to so many people you'd think that politicians would be flocking to court their votes and make it a frontline issue.

I rather suspect that its because people have other priorities.

[almaty 19]

Edited July 16, 2008 by almaty