California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman offers a guest editorial entitled "immigration reform, with respect" (link). Here are some of the ways she's trying to mislead voters. She says:

California has the most to gain from sensible immigration reform, and the most to lose from the failed status quo... While I am a strong proponent of legal immigration, I am 100% opposed to granting amnesty to immigrants who entered the country illegally.

Whitman has already made it clear that she does in fact support amnesty, she just doesn't call it amnesty. In the quote at the last link she supports a path to legalization via a plan like comprehensive immigration reform. Whitman and others (such as John McCain) just play word games, pretending that the "comprehensive immigration reform" or "sensible immigration reform" they support isn't amnesty; see the reform not amnesty page for a longer discussion.

Too often, the rhetoric surrounding this issue has been overly divisive and disrespectful to Latino American citizens. The country needs to have a thoughtful debate about how we stop the tide of illegal immigration that strains budgets and angers taxpayers. But the immigration debate must take place in a measured way that reflects our national aspirations toward tolerance, hope and opportunity... [then, later on:] Taken together, these steps would make a significant difference in reducing the burdens of illegal immigration without casting unneeded and discourteous aspersions on Latino American citizens and driving them away from the Republican Party.

She's basically calling those who oppose massive illegal activity - including a large portion of the GOP base - racists. By doing that, she's giving more power to far-left racial power groups that also want to smear those who oppose massive illegal activity, such as the National Council of La Raza. Whitman isn't taking on such far-left racial power groups, she's helping them.

As a Republican, I believe it's important to both continue our rich tradition of protecting the rule of law while diligently reaching out to the millions of Latinos who share our values.

What exactly are those values? Per Whitman, they include looking the other way on massive illegal activity and those who've supported it. Whitman would have the GOP reach out not just to those Latinos who support our laws, but also to those who don't support our laws. Whitman isn't drawing a line in the sand; she's including those who think the border is a false construct. She's not drawing the line against extremists or those who hold questionable views.

...To remove [the jobs magnet encouraging illegal immigration], we have to give employers the tools they need to do the right thing, and then we must strictly enforce the law... We also need to crack down through legislation on sanctuary cities like San Francisco that shield illegal immigrants from federal immigration laws.

The amnesty that she supports would give even more power to the far-left and to the Mexican government. Neither of those groups have much use for immigration enforcement. Whitman doesn't explain (probably because she doesn't realize it or doesn't care) how she'd enforce the laws from an even weaker position than the current one.

But the real key to this issue rests in the hands of Congress and the president. The bottom line is we need more federal Border Patrol resources at the Mexican border. The California congressional delegation needs to work together with other border-state representatives to get something done on border security once and for all.

This is "boob bait for Bubba"; see the secure the border page noting that she falls into the camp of those who harp on border security to mask how weak they are on the other aspects of this issue.

I have been criticized for opposing Proposition 187, which was on the California ballot in 1994. It is true that I am opposed to cutting off public education and healthcare services to immigrant children. I do not believe that kids should be punished for the sins of their parents.

No "immigrant children" were involved, only those here illegally; that's probably not an innocent mistake. It would also be possible for her to oppose some provisions of that law while supporting others, and it would certainly be helpful for her to come out against the under-handed way how the law - supported by about 59% of voters - was blocked.

Steve Poizner isn't a walk in the park, but he's stronger on this issue than Whitman. And, since it's rare to find a major candidate who's at least strong-sounding on immigration, it's important for those who care about these issues to support him, even if that only means defending him against Whitman's misleading attacks.

UPDATE: I corrected a couple of typos, including adding the last "only": even if you don't support Poizner you can still defend him against someone who's bad on this issue. Doing things like that is, of course, too nuanced for some.