secure the border
"Secure the border"
When someone harps on "securing the border", that's sometimes a clue that they're trying to fool people, as John McCain tried to do. After the border is "secure", some of them will push for an amnesty of some kind. We do need to secure the border, and not all those who harp on securing the border are being deceptive. Their other policies need to be taken into account.
For instance, if they say "secure the border first", you need to find out what's second and make sure it isn't some form of comprehensive immigration reform, aka amnesty.
GOP "Standards for Immigration Reform": how it's wrong, how it won't work, what you can do - 01/30/14
The GOP "Standards for Immigration Reform" have been released. It's a short summary of the guidelines the Republican Party leadership will use for their own amnesty push.
First I'll quote the full document, followed by a discussion of some of the ways it won't work and it misleads. That's followed by some very effective things you can do to stop the GOP effort.
Ted Cruz wants to legalize most illegal aliens, double legal immigration, increase H1B cap to 325,000 - 09/29/13
On the video below , Senator Ted Cruz of Texas finally confirms just how bad he is on immigration. Rather than strongly opposing the Senate amnesty bill and completely opposing any form of mass legalization, Ted Cruz wanted to "fix" the Senate bill.
On the video, Cruz talks about what his amendments would do. This is what he supports:
Catholic College Presidents promote bad, immoral immigration policy (ACCU letter to Congress) - 07/19/13
Yesterday 93 presidents of Catholic colleges and universities sent a letter to all members of Congress demanding that they support comprehensive immigration reform (see the link for the downsides of that plan).
I'll quote the letter and then briefly describe how it deceives and promotes bad policy. From the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities ("ACCU") letter :
Senator Rubio is exactly right on the need to fix our broken immigration system. I support the principles he's outlined: modernization of our immigration laws; stronger security to curb illegal immigration; and respect for the rule of law in addressing the complex challenge of the undocumented population. Our future depends on an immigration system that works.
Kentucky senator Rand Paul is just the latest Tea Party leader to capitulate on an immigration amnesty for illegal aliens. From this:
The section about immigration in the Democratic Party 2012 platform is below. It only has broad outlines and countless Democratic leaders have repeated these same things many times before.
They were wrong then, and the platform is wrong now (see each link for the details):
In Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, an ambassador visited an outpost for a few days, schmoozing with the locals. After he'd left, an official went to the leader of the outpost and said (paraphrasing), "we analyzed the ambassador's remarks, and he said absolutely nothing all the time he was here."
The Texas GOP has passed their 2012 platform, and it includes an immigration plank that some will present as somewhat "liberal" or "lenient".
10 things Obama's "Blueprint for an America Built to Last" doesn't tell you (immigration) - 02/01/12
After the State of the Union speech, the Barack Obama administration released a "Blueprint for an America Built to Last" . I'll briefly describe what the section about immigration doesn't tell you. Here's the section of the Blueprint that deals with immigration:
Tonight CNN will be conducting a GOP debate in conjunction with the Teaparty Express organization. Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available.
Public Religion Research Institute's misleading poll (immigration, DREAM Act, Brookings Institution) - 09/06/11
The Public Religion Research Institute ("PRRI") has released a poll called "What it Means to be American: Attitudes in an Increasingly Diverse America Ten Years after 9/11" (publicreligion.org/research/?id=680) which includes a few questions about immigration. I'll explain how two of the poll questions are misleading (see immigration poll for other misleading polls about this issue).
With millions unemployed, Ag Secy Tom Vilsack demeans American workers, promotes amnesty, opposes enforcement, uses bogus talking points, opposes eVerify - 05/27/11
Secretary of the Department of Agriculture Tom Vilsack held a press conference on Wednesday in which he demeaned American workers, promoted immigration "reform", opposed immigration enforcement, and used a series of bogus immigration talking points.
An account of his remarks is here, with more excerpts at .
1. Vilsack ran down American workers, saying: "While some American citizens step up and take (farm) jobs, the truth is even when farmers make their best effort to recruit a domestic workforce, few citizens express interest. In large part that's because this is hard, tough work." The idea that growers want to recruit Americans is more than a bit dubious; many run down American workers as much as Vilsack. Growers tend to prefer lower-wage, more compliant illegal aliens. And, we sent a man to the moon and won World War II, now Vilsack falsely says that most Americans don't want hard work. That's also more than a bit dubious because a good percentage of those doing farm work are in fact Americans. And, there's the fact that the presence of large numbers of illegal aliens tends to reduce farm wages at the same time as decreasing safety in farm jobs.
The pro-American alternative would be for Vilsack to oppose illegal immigration and push something like this plan to get unemployed Americans working temporary farm jobs until the economy improves. That would answer the labor shortage complaints of farmers, improve working conditions on farms, and would save money overall (considering that most of those unemployed will be getting unemployment insurance and considering the costs of illegal aliens).
2. Vilsack supported comprehensive immigration reform, aka amnesty. See the link for the downsides of that plan .
3. One of the key selling points of immigration "reform" is that it would include stepped-up enforcement. Vilsack seems not to be such a fan of enforcement, saying: "It's difficult to know when someone is documented and when someone isn't. It's difficult when there are efforts at enforcement that basically disrupt not only undocumented folks but also documented … which we've seen in some of the processing facilities." If "reform" passed, does anyone think Vilsack would do a 180 and support "disrupt[ive]" immigration raids?
4. Vilsack used a long list of bogus talking points. The first item above is the jobs Americans wont do canard, but there were several more. From the article:
Reforms would result in "a reliable, legal workforce," said Vilsack. Reforms would also:
* Continue efforts "to secure the borders."
* Hold accountable "businesses that break the law by undermining American workers and exploiting undocumented workers."
Vilsack also used the deportations false choice, saying "The reality is, if you tried to deport all 12 million it would take several hundred years. That isn't practical." See the link for how he tried to mislead.
5. Vilsack also ran down the eVerify program, at least as a standalone solutiion, saying: "The E-Verify system creates a potential difficulty, particularly for smaller businesses... That's because they'd have to invest resources in equipment and training to participate."
"Our concern is that without a legal agricultural guest worker program in place – or without comprehensive immigration reform – you have roughly 500,000 workers out there that, frankly, would be screened out (by) a mandatory E-Verify program. If that happens, the risk of production losses, or production moving outside the country, is very real... If you just put in a mandatory E-Verify program, there's suddenly a huge gap in agricultural that must be filled from somewhere. Otherwise, the crops won't be planted and harvested. That's the reality."
 Vilsack: "There needs to be a comprehensive immigration system that deals with the 12 million people here, many working in our farm fields."
 Vilsack: "I've met farmers and ranchers all over this country who are worried about the broken immigration system... Simply put, our broken immigration system offers little hope for producers trying to do the right thing and make a living...
Obama misleads on immigration at Facebook; Zuckerberg and incompetent/corrupt GOP, Teaparty leaders help - 04/21/11
Barack Obama spoke live over Facebook yesterday at an event sponsored by that company. He misled about immigration and promoted an anti-American bill. He got direct help with his attempt to mislead from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and he got indirect help from corrupt or incompetent GOP and Teaparty leaders:
Mississippi governor Haley Barbour is so bad on immigration that in 2001 he lobbied for the Mexican government on a "mini-amnesty". If you aren't familiar with that government's activities inside the U.S., see that link.
Now that his lobbying activities  have come to light, he's responded by misleading about amnesty and promoting very bad policies. From a statement he released in response :
"Before there can be immigration reform, we must secure our borders. Only after that can any reforms be achieved, and those can’t include amnesty... Everybody knows we are not going to put ten or twelve million people in jail and deport them. Once the border is secure, we should develop a responsible guest-worker program and it can’t include amnesty."
1. As it says on the secure the border page, when someone harps on securing the border *first*, you have to ask them what comes next. Thankfully, in his case he's making it clear: some form of legalization program. See #4.
2. He's using the reform not amnesty canard. His "reform" would be perceived by millions of potential illegal aliens as amnesty, no matter what he wants to call it. See that link for the details.
4. The guest worker program he promotes would result in one of two things: either a very large underclass of "second-class non-citizens" akin to the situation of Turkish "guests" in Germany, or some form of "path to citizenship" in which former illegal aliens would eventually be able to become citizens. The last is more likely, and it's certainly the one that the Democratic Party would pull out all the stops to obtain starting from Day One. So, most likely his plan would turn out to have the same effect as amnesty, even if applicants had to jump through a few minor hoops first. See the comprehensive immigration reform and guest workers pages for more.
But, wait, there's more. Barbour's press office has responded to  with this:
In their work on immigration issues, BGR [Barbour's lobbying firm] never advocated amnesty for illegal aliens.
Barbour's lobbying concerned Section 245(i) of the Immigration Act (link) which involved allowing certain illegal aliens to adjust their status, i.e., become legalized and get a green card. See the description in . Getting a green card put them on the "path to citizenship". So, word games aside, what he was lobbying for was in fact amnesty.
ADDED: We know Barbour promoted amnesty, but it's important to use his terms if you ever get a chance to discuss this with him. If you ask him about supporting amnesty, he'll do what John McCain and others do: simply deny he supports amnesty. So, that will go nowhere. If you get to ask Barbour a question, it has to be about specific aspects of what he supports and you need to make sure you aren't letting him deflect the question by playing word games.
 From this:
According to a Justice Department filing by Barbour's former lobbying firm, The Embassy of Mexico decided to retain Barbour's services on August 15, 2001, to work on, among other things, legislation that would provide a path to citizenship for foreigners living illegally in the United States—what opponents of immigration reform call “amnesty.”
“Haley Barbour and I will lead the BG&R team,” wrote Lanny Griffith, Barbour's former business partner, in the filing. According to subsequent filings, Barbour's work included “building support in the legislative branch for passage of a bill related to Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.” As part of that work, Barbour's firm arranged meetings and briefings with “Senators, members of Congress and their staffs, as well as Executive Branch Officials in the White House, National Security Council, State Department, and Immigration & Naturalization Service.” Barbour's firm charged Mexico $35,000 a month, plus expenses.
At the time, Mexico was seeking an extension of a provision that allowed undocumented immigrants living in the United States to receive legal visas or green cards without returning to their country of origin, provided they pay an additional fine. In practice, the provision generally helped out undocumented family members of legal immigrants or undocumented immigrants who were eligible for visas based upon certain job skills. Without the provision in place, undocumented immigrants who received legal papers had to return to their country of origin, for three or 10 years, before returning to the U.S. The Congressional Research Service estimated that an extension would benefit about 300,000 undocumented immigrants.
At the time of Barbour's lobbying, the 245(i) effort was referred to as “mini-amnesty” in conservative circles.“This amnesty loophole allowed aliens who broke our laws to pay a $1,000 fine and go to the head of the line in front of prospective immigrants who complied with our laws,” opined Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the Eagle Forum, in a 2002 column.
Among the other supporters of extending 245(i) was President George W. Bush, who had called for an extension of the provision before meeting with then-Mexican President Vincent Fox in 2002. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted out the extension, but in the post-September 11 atmosphere, the extension failed to win approval in the Senate.
Newt Gingrich supports some parts of DREAM Act; supports guest workers; uses false choice; sounds like Hoffenblum - 12/06/10
The audio below (also at peekURL.com/vkhylh1 ) has Newt Gingrich clarifying his immigration stance to Laura Ingraham. A round-up is here. In the interview, Gingrich supports at least one part of the anti-American DREAM Act:
"I think that it’s legitimate to say, if you’re willing to risk your life for two or three years, serving to protect the United States, we will be willing to consider you for citizenship."
However, he claims to oppose broad programs that would give a "pathway to citizenship", preferring instead the more George W Bush-like approach of a massive guest workers plan. Such a plan would have huge social costs such as are to be found in Germany. And, the children of those "guests" would be U.S. citizens, making it very difficult to deport them. Our "guests" would never leave but instead would stay here as second-class citizens of a sort.
And, he also sounded like Allan Hoffenblum:
Gingrich replied that no election, including the Colorado governor race that saw the openly anti-illegal Tom Tancredo lose to his Democrat rival, has been won on the idea that 11 million people can be deported. This led to a heated argument between the two conservatives, with Ingraham saying that both Republicans and Democrats have “fallen down” in their basic responsibility to enforce the border.
Tancredo supports attrition rather than mass deportations, so Gingrich either doesn't know or lied about Tancredo's position. And, Gingrich engaged in the deportations false choice by failing to acknowledge attrition as an alternative to mass deportations or a legalization program.
And, as with every other hack, Gingrich supports secure the border:
Gingrich said he is in favor of deporting illegals who are gang members or arrested for a felony, and is “committed 100-percent” to enforcement of the US border, noting his past accomplishment as Speaker when he helped enforce the first control of the San Diego border. He also said he committed to having English as the official language of government.
In other words, he does want to deport hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, but he thinks 11 million is too many to deport. And, whether he'd support English only laws is unclear, but it is slightly ironic since Newt Gingrich is promoting bilingualism.
Newt Gingrich: And our very deliberate goal, as with the San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, is we’re talking about how can we create a space that is sort of center-right, pro-jobs, pro-entrepreneur but where the entire Hispanic community feels comfortable arguing, talking, and thinking. We’re going to be putting the DREAM Act on that space and we hope to have, before the beginning of the year, with Jeb Bush’s efforts and others, a very lively debate about whether or not we can develop a step by step solution to help everybody in America come out from outside the law and find a way to ultimately have every person in this country living within the law. That’s got to be our goal.
...Jorge Ramos: So if you say, as one of the most prominent Republicans, that you are for immigration reform, you know many Republicans are going to follow you. They are going to follow your lead. Are you for immigration reform?
Newt Gingrich: I am for immigration reform and the person who I think has had the most courageous position in this is Jeb Bush. Jeb Bush is co-author of a report on immigration reform, which is much bolder than the Republicans will be ready to be in Washington, but he moves us in the right direction.
Utah Compact would encourage illegal immigration (Mark Shurtleff, Chamber, Sutherland, Catholic Church) - 11/11/10
Earlier today a group of business leaders and public officials signed "The Utah Compact" (utahcompact.com), a small set of principles on immigration. Rather than curbing illegal immigration, their ideas would encourage more of it. Those involved include Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, the Utah Chamber of Commerce, the Sutherland Institute , the Catholic Church, and Salt Lake City mayor Ralph Becker .
Here's their first of five points:
Immigration is a federal policy issue between the U.S. government and other countries - not Utah and other countries. We urge Utah's congressional delegation, and others, to lead efforts to strengthen federal laws and protect our national borders. We urge state leaders to adopt reasonable policies addressing immigrants in Utah.
We don't allow states to set their own foreign policy (even if some localities try to work around that), but immigration is much more than just an abstract policy between countries. In many cases it causes harm to states and massive illegal immigration indicates a dereliction of duty on the part of the federal government. Simply "urg[ing]" Congress to do something isn't enough. Their point would allow Congress and the rest of the federal government to continue the current situation. As for their "reasonable policies", one can only wonder what those would be. Shurtleff supports both drivers licenses and in-state tuition for illegal aliens (see DREAM Act), so perhaps we have a clue. As for "protect our national borders", see secure the border.
Their second point:
We respect the rule of law and support law enforcement’s professional judgment and discretion. Local law enforcement resources should focus on criminal activities, not civil violations of federal code.
In other words, they're against the 287g program. Considering that the Department of Homeland Security does relatively little interior enforcement, they'd be sending a message that all illegal aliens have to do is keep their nose clean (aside from the odd identity theft here and there) and they'd get to stay here.
Strong families are the foundation of successful communities. We oppose policies that unnecessarily separate families. We champion policies that support families and improve the health, education and well-being of all Utah children.
That's an example of false compassion. If they oppose separating families then they should be opposing illegal immigration. Unless we declare open borders, encouraging even more mixed-status families will only lead to more separation instances. The vast majority of illegal aliens came here of their own free will and fully knowing the risks. They're the ones who put themselves and their families in a precarious position. The Utah Compact would seek to blame U.S. laws and the citizens who want them enforced for the situation.
Utah is best served by a free-market philosophy that maximizes individual freedom and opportunity. We acknowledge the economic role immigrants play as workers and taxpayers. Utah’s immigration policies must reaffirm our global reputation as a welcoming and business-friendly state.
Their "free-market philosophy" is more than a bit skewed. Most illegal aliens and many legal immigrants are lower-skilled, and lower-skilled labor is massively subsidized (an example). Their idea of a "free market" is actually an example of "privatizing the profits and socializing the costs": those who'd profit from the labor of illegal aliens (or from their bank deposits) wouldn't pay the full cost of that labor but would shunt the costs of incarceration, schooling, welfare, and so on to the residents of Utah or to the federal government.
Immigrants are integrated into communities across Utah. We must adopt a humane approach to this reality, reflecting our unique culture, history and spirit of inclusion. The way we treat immigrants will say more about us as a free society and less about our immigrant neighbors. Utah should always be a place that welcomes people of goodwill.
This is the paragraph were they most try to conflate illegal and legal immigration, and it too is an example of false compassion. Their "humane" approach would encourage more illegal immigration, leading to more mixed-status families, more family separation, and angrier residents as the laws continued not to be enforced. That paragraph is also a Utah-specific version of the immigration tradition fallacy.
And, as a bonus, the announcement for their signing ceremony indicates that their goal is to "create a constructive, civil community dialogue about Utah’s role in fixing the nation's broken immigration system" which uses the misleading system is broken canard.
Those involved in the Compact would encourage more illegal immigration and create more problems for Utah and the U.S. Don't fall for their false compassion.
 From sutherlandinstitute.org they're a "conservative, non-profit, state-based public policy group".
 Others involved are listed at
 From this (Deseret News, 12/10/06 ):
Shurtleff also has cultivated strong ties to the Latino community because he has been sympathetic to the plight of illegal aliens. He has weighed in on various issues, such as allowing the children of illegals to have drivers' licenses and to pay in-state college tuition. As a result, he has been criticized him for being pro- illegal aliens.
Rupert Murdoch of Fox News testified before Congress today in support of comprehensive immigration reform (aka amnesty) and in support of massive immigration in general. And, two studies he used to buttress his argument are from the leftwing, Obama-linked Center for American Progress.
News Corporation CEO Rupert Murdoch said he supports amnesty for “law abiding” illegal immigrants because as legal residents they can help the nation’s economy by adding to “our tax base.” He also said he supports securing the border to prevent more illegal immigrants from entering the United States.
Most illegal aliens are low-skilled workers, meaning they couldn't help that much and in most cases would end up costing more (see the 1997 NAS study, not yet discussed here). And, as with most others who are weak on or supporters of amnesty, he throws out the secure the border bone.
"While supporting complete and proper closure of all our borders to future illegal immigrants, our partnership (the Partnership for a New American Economy) advocates reform that gives a path to citizenship for responsible, law-abiding immigrants who are in the U.S. today without proper authority..."
It is nonsense to talk of expelling 12 million people,” testified Murdoch. “Not only is it impractical, it is cost prohibitive."
Murdoch cited a study that gauged “the price of mass deportation at $285 billion over five years,” which amounts to $57 billion per year, adding that “there are better ways to spend our money.”
“A full path to legalization--requiring unauthorized immigrants to register, undergo a security check, pay taxes and learn English--would bring these immigrants out of a shadow economy and add to our tax base,” said Murdoch.
He continued, “According to one study, a path to legalization would contribute an estimated $1.5 trillion to the Gross Domestic Product over 10 years.”
1. In the first paragraph he's advocating for amnesty.
2. In the second paragraph, he's engaging in the deportations false choice fallacy.
3. The study referenced in the third paragraph is a study from the Center for American Progress that uses a highly flawed methodology to arrive at that figure.
4. In the fourth paragraph, he uses the living in the shadows canard and also doesn't reveal the huge flaws in comprehensive immigration reform. Those include the background checks either taking somewhere between five to ten years or those checks being cursory at best. And, once again, the great majority of newly-legalized illegal aliens would owe little taxes and some might even get a tax refund of some kind.
5. The last paragraph references another flawed Center for American Progress study.
You'd think that relying on two bogus CAP studies would be enough to earn him a break from his new friends, yet Andrea Nill of ThinkProgress writes this (thinkprogress.org/2010/09/30/murdoch-immigration-fox):
Earlier this year, Murdoch indicated that the media should be involved in the push for comprehensive immigration reform. However, Fox News employees don’t seem to agree. The Wonk Room shows that more than any other network, Fox News has repeatedly and consistently advocated against immigration reform and referred to Murdoch's proposal as "amnesty."
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) called Murdoch out on the blatant contradiction later in the hearing, pointing out, "it does not appear that what you are talking and the way you are discussing it is the way it is discussed on Fox." Murdoch defended his position and his network:
I'm not really that shocked that Nill or Waters would be in favor of Murdoch turning Fox into a propaganda outlet for amnesty. I am, however, just a little shocked that they'd be so overt about it.
And, obviously, the fact that those Murdoch is promoting and helping have no use for him unless he agrees with them 100% probably flew right over his head; he was too distracted by the dollar signs from the fantasy he's promoting.
Obama thinks illegal aliens are Americans; forgets about massive unemployment; promotes massive immigration - 09/29/10
1. He referred to illegal aliens as "us"; he's given them citizenship in his own mind or he's confused about basic American concepts...
2. He seemed not to remember that millions of Americans are unemployed...
3. And, he generally promoted massive immigration. He did that with a series of canards and at one point sounded just like George W Bush.
Video of the appearance is at peekURL.com/v26f71b and for the first, here's what he said :
Now, unfortunately, right now this is getting demagogued. A lot of folks think it’s an easy way to score political points is by trying to act as if there’s a “them” and an “us,” instead of just an “us.” And I’m always suspicious of politics that is dividing people instead of bringing them together. I think now is the time for us to come together.
Obviously, there is a "them" and an "us". The "us" are U.S. citizens, including those who voted for Obama. The "them" are foreign citizens. Obama has either naturalized all 12 million or so illegal aliens in his mind, or he's unclear on the very concept of U.S. citizenship. Considering his past comments it could be either one of those or a combination; he hasn't shown that he has a fundamental grasp of American concepts in past speeches (this, this are just two examples)
For the second, as if he hadn't paid attention to what's been going on with the economy for several years, he said:
[immigration] means our economy's more vital, and we've got more people in the workforce who are gonna be out there workin' and startin' businesses and supporting us when we're retired, makin' sure Social Security is solvent, all those things are important
He sounded just like George Bush both in content and in delivery. Did he forget about the millions of unemployed, the stimulus plan, and all of that? Pretending he's speaking about long-term gains isn't going to wash since those gains can be wiped out by protracted downturns such as the one we're currently experiencing, including where we have five workers for every job opening.
Other than those two, the rest was a regular Festival of Canards.
He used, as one might expect, the nation of immigrants canard. Of course, he also hastens to remind us - as they all do - that we're a nation of laws too. Then, he uses a variant of the safe legal orderly shibboleth ("we have to make sure our immigration system is orderly, and fair.")
He then admits that allowing illegal immigration isn't fair to those in other countries waiting to come here legally. However, that follows him blaming the system for that, a variant of system is broken.
He then states we need to "affirm our immigrant traditions"; see immigration tradition fallacy.
He then states, "yes, let's secure our borders"; see secure the border.
Making a false claim about policy, he thinks if we made legal immigration easier we'd reduce illegal immigration. He ignores the fact that there are about 6.5 billion people outside the U.S. (and about 5 billion of them are poorer than Mexicans). And, a large percentage of those people would come here if they could. So many would want to come here that we could raise legal immigration from now til doomsday and it would only make illegal immigration worse.
He wants to crack down on employers, but the only reasons he mentions are from the perspective of illegal aliens: he doesn't want them to be underpaid, etc. I don't want that either, but the more relevant reason to crack down on employers is to make sure they hire Americans or legal workers. See the somewhat related immigration wage floor, although he didn't mention the impact of illegal aliens being hired on Americans at all.
He then expresses support for comprehensive immigration reform; see the link for the downsides he didn't acknowledge.
He also says "economically, immigrants can also be a huge source of strength", mentioning that we have a younger workforce than Europe or Japan. Except, their population is much more educated than most of our immigrants.
Harry Reid recently announced he'd offer the anti-American DREAM Act amnesty as an amendment to the Defense bill. Now, four days later, the most his opponent Sharron Angle has done in opposition is to appear on Fox News and oppose that anti-American amnesty from procedural grounds.
Not only that, but she seems to be adopting an immigration stance that's weaker than her previous comments. She appears to now be taking a "secure the border first" posture which begs the question of what exactly she'd support after the borders are secured. If she won't oppose a smaller anti-American amnesty now, exactly what would she support if she makes it into the Senate?
Angle was interviewed about various topics yesterday by Bret Baier; a video is at peekURL.com/vxhfdig Comments after the transcript:
ANGLE: He's incentivizing amnesty, this is just one of those ways. But, he's politicized this, he's looking for votes, he's looking for votes in those places where he thinks he can find them. And to attach them to the defense bill is truly an outrageous act of political maneuvering...
BAIER: Some Republicans support [the DREAM Act]. You're obviously not one of those.
ANGLE: Well, obviously, the American people believe that we're a country of the rule of law and anytime that we start to go around that rule of law and make one segment of our society outside the rule of law we're in trouble. The answer to these problems is first of all, secure our borders and then enforce the laws that we have. Then we can deal with the internal problems that we have left. But, first we've got to get those borders secure. We're a sovereign nation. We have a northern border that is more porous than our southern border and of course our coastal borders are also porous so let's get the borders secured, enforce the laws, and then we can talk about these other things but don't incentivize illegal behavior.
Note that she can't answer a straight question. Anyone who truly opposes amnesty in any form would answer directly that they oppose the DREAM Act. Angle just dances around the question . This is the same opposition to Reid's amendment that some GOP senators have offered, such as McCain: purely on political and procedural grounds and not based out of any real opposition to the DREAM Act.
A glimmer of a good argument does shine through in the "one segment of our society" part, but then she dashes all that with a stock GOP establishment response of securing the borders. Yes, obviously, the borders need to be secured. However, harping on secure the border - as discussed at the link - is frequently a dodge some use to mask how weak they are on illegal immigration and amnesty.
She then apparently realized she needed to fill space - instead of directly opposing the anti-American DREAM Act amnesty - and went off on a tear about our Canadian and coastal borders.
The final part is not in any way an unmitigated opposition to amnesty. In fact, she's leaving the door open to her supporting an amnesty after the borders are secure.
If you're an Angle supporter, read her comments or watch the video: nothing she says is something that John McCain or other politicians who are soft on amnesty couldn't have also said.
 That same dance is one I'm familiar with: in a Twitter conversation I had with her months ago she refused to come out against comprehensive immigration reform, and that's despite me suggesting she take the time to answer.
[See the updates too]
Sharron Angle goes after Reid on issues outside his control, won't press hard on immigration - 07/23/10
The video at peekURL.com/vc2rep7 is a new campaign ad from Sharron Angle in which she says: "Harry Reid says he does more for Nevada... He's done more for unemployment... He's done more for the foreclosure rate...