Greg Orman misleads on immigration using cookie cutter talking points

[UPDATE: Orman supports the 2013 Senate amnesty bill, see below]

Greg Orman is the independent candidate for Senate from Kansas. His thoughts on immigration are completely unoriginal and just as deceptive.

In July, Orman was asked weak immigration questions by KSN [1]. How his cookie-cutter talking points are misleading is included inline (the "NOTE" parts). The only thing I can say in his favor is that he's learned his lines well:

KSN: Immigration is a big issue. How would you solve the problem?

Orman: For us to deal with our current immigration system, we have to adopt a policy that’s tough, fair, and practical. (NOTE: see amnesty require) By tough, I mean we need to secure our borders. (NOTE: see secure the border) It’s something that we’ve been working on, but we’re not quite there, but we need first make sure we secure our borders. It’s got to be fair to tax payers. So, if someone’s in this country and is undocumented, I think they need to go an register with the INS (NOTE: the INS hasn't existed for over a decade. It was replaced with parts of the DHS), they need to pay a fine or perform community service as an acknowledgment that they’ve broken the law, they need to pay taxes, hold down a job, obey our laws, learn English (NOTE: most amnesty plans are very loose on those requirements), and ultimately at that point, if they want to get in line (NOTE: see immigration line) and apply for citizenship, they should be able to do that. By the same token, it has to be practical. It’s just not practical to say that we’re going to find and send back to other countries 11 million undocumented people. And frankly, it’s not even advisable. (NOTE: see deportations false choice) We’ve got whole industries in Kansas that would go away. We’ve got towns that would be decimated if we took such drastic actions. Towns like Dodge City and Garden City, much of the agricultural community in Kansas would be absolutely devastated if we took a real harsh position on that. (NOTE: see the related crooked town stories, and see immigration agriculture for what Orman won't discuss) In that regard, it needs to be tough, fair, and practical.

KSN: When you say, “secure the borders,” so you mean fence? Border Patrol/troops?

Orman: We’ve dramatically increased the number of border security agents that we have on the border over the last 10 years. In fact, I think in 2004 we had something along the order of 10,000 security agents, now we’re closer to 21,000 people working in border security. I think we need to continue the commitment to the number of folks there. I do think we need to look at an evaluate whether or not there are opportunities to employ technology to do a better job of securing the border and we don’t create a perception that we have poor border control. Another thing to think about, just in terms of immigration policy is all the unintended consequences of having 11 million people living here who are sort of living outside of the system. (NOTE: see living in the shadows) We’re talking about increased instances of certain diseases, and it doesn’t surprise me that with 11 million people who might be afraid to go and get vaccinations. And so there are lots of unintended consequences for not solving the problem. And the other thing that I’d point out, is that if we look at this problem over a long period of time, when Senator Roberts was elected to the house, we had 2.1 million undocumented workers in this country, and today we have 11 million. (NOTE: see immigration terminology; they're illegal aliens and not all are workers) Both sides like to talk about being tough on immigration and immigration reform, but frankly both sides have had control of Congress and the White House for extended periods of time, and neither side has really done anything about it. It’s because there are large vocal constituencies in both parties on either side of this issue. So I think that immigration is just yet another example of how Washington is failing us by failing to act on a constructive solution.

The implied "constructive solution" Orman supports is comprehensive immigration reform, i.e., legalizing millions of illegal aliens. One alternative is attrition but, of course, Orman misleads by ignoring that using the deportations false choice above.

If you're an Orman supporter, then please see the links above for how he's trying to deceive you using hoary old talking points. If anyone is still not convinced, contact @24AheadDotCom_ and I'll go into as much depth as possible.

For those who are tired of hacks using deceptive talking points, search for those who support @OrmanForSenate and make the points above to them.

10/9/14 UPDATE: From a report by John McCormack of the Weekly Standard ( ):

But when I asked Orman during the press conference if he would vote for the 2013 Senate immigration bill if it comes up in a future Congress, he replied: “I would.”

"John McCain, Lindsey Graham, 14 Republican senators supported that bill. They do not believe it's an amnesty bill," Orman continued. "They believe it's commonsense comprehensive immigration reform. Like those Republican senators and like Senator Dole before them, I'd want to have a very practical policy on immigration reform, and not one that's driven simply to win elections." [Pat Roberts] voted against the 2013 bill.

[1] ksn . com/2014/07/24/raw-video-interview-with-greg-orman/