Matthews allowed Tancredo to falsely claim McCain-Kennedy bill silent on border security, illegal hiring
SUMMARY: Chris Matthews failed to challenge Rep. Tom Tancredo's (R-CO) false assertion that an immigration bill co-sponsored by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) does not contain provisions to improve border security or impose tougher sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants.
On the May 1 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews failed to challenge Rep. Tom Tancredo's (R-CO) false assertion that an immigration bill co-sponsored by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) does not contain provisions to improve border security or impose tougher sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants. Matthews also suggested Kennedy was "[m]aybe pro-illegal immigration," even though Kennedy stated during an earlier segment of the program that his immigration bill is critical because "you have to do something" about illegal immigration.
Tancredo made his comments in response to Matthews's statement that Kennedy -- during his interview earlier on the program -- had pledged that his was a bill "with teeth in it," that would enhance border security and punish employers who hire illegal immigrants, while providing for a guest worker program and establishing legal status for immigrants who have already been in the country for a number of years. Matthews added that Kennedy "says his package ... answers all th[ose] questions."
Tancredo responded with a "guarantee" that Kennedy's proposal "answers none of those questions," calling the plan "an amnesty plan, pure and simple." He added that Kennedy's claim that his proposal toughened border security and sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants was "not the truth."
But as Media Matters for America previously noted, Kennedy's proposed immigration legislation includes numerous provisions to increase border security. On March 27, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved an immigration bill based on the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act" -- sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and co-sponsored by Kennedy. A fact sheet provided by Kennedy stated that, in addition to providing a guest worker program and a path for illegal immigrants to gain citizenship, the bill that emerged from the Senate Judiciary Committee would:
- Double the strength of the Border Patrol by add[ing] 12,000 new agents (2,400 each year for the next 5 years)
- Double interior enforcement by adding "1,000 investigators per year for next 5 years"
- Create a "[n]ew [s]ecurity [p]erimeter" by "add[ing] new technology at the border to create [a] 'virtual fence' "
- "Tighten[] [c]ontrols" by "expand[ing] exit-entry security system at all land borders and airports"
- Call for the "[c]onstruction of [b]arriers" by "mandat[ing] new roads and vehicle barriers at borders"
- Call for the "[c]onstruction of [f]ences" by "provid[ing] additional border fences at specific vulnerable sectors"
- "[A]uthorize new permanent highway checkpoints near border"
- Demand a "[c]omprehensive [s]urveillance [p]lan" that would "mandate[] new land and water surveillance plan[s]"
- "Create[] new crime for construction, financing, and use of unlawful tunnels."
Additionally, the Washington Post reported on April 4 that "[a]s it passed out of the Judiciary Committee, the Senate immigration bill" would "toughen penalties on employers and others who aid illegal immigrants."
Notwithstanding the provisions in Kennedy's legislation to strengthen borders and discourage employers from hiring illegal immigrants, Matthews suggested that Kennedy's "very pro-immigration position" was "[m]aybe pro-illegal immigration." But during his interview earlier on the program, Kennedy had expressed support for legislation that would -- in Matthews's words -- "[s]lam the door on illegal immigration," maintaining that the bill he co-sponsored would do just that. Kennedy also stated that "you have to do something" about illegal immigration.
From the May 1 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: There's two sides to this fight over immigration, it seems. There's the tough guys like Tancredo, who's going to be on this show, who want to really close the door and get the illegals out of the country. There's guys like you on the liberal side who want to give them a break and a chance to become citizens. Why don't you put it all together? Slam the door on illegal immigration. Allow people to come in as guest workers, but also legalize the people here and get tough on business that hires cheap labor. Why can't you do it all?
KENNEDY: I'm for it. You just described the McCain-Kennedy bill as modified --
MATTHEWS: Including tough on illegal hiring?
KENNEDY: Absolutely, absolutely. We are a strong support -- we recognize that there are three issues. One is national security. We have over 400,000 coming in here; we don't know who they are. So you have to do something there. Secondly, you need to be tough on employers who are going to hire undocumented because they are driving wages down and exploiting and creating an underclass. And you're also going to have to recognize that the people that are here, the 10 or 12 million, by and large, are the people that care about the kinds of things that you and I care about, that most Americans care about. Working hard, devoted to their religion, devoted to their country, their new country, 70,000 of them in the armed forces of this country. And we're saying, "Look, you pay a tax, you pay a penalty, you go to the end of the line. You obey the law, you learn English. And if you can demonstrate all of that over an 11-year period, then you have the opportunity to earn citizenship."
MATTHEWS: So you're for requiring learning English to become a citizen?
KENNEDY: It's earning -- that's part of our McCain-Kennedy bill.
[...]
MATTHEWS: We just had Ted Kennedy here. He's a liberal. He's a Democrat. He has a very pro-immigration position. Maybe pro-illegal immigration. I'll go that far. But he says he's willing to sign on to a true compromise, a bill which would have teeth in it, in terms of the border. Teeth in it, in terms of illegal hiring and sanctions for people who hire people illegally, and a chance to legalize people who have been her for many years, and a chance for guest workers. He says his package, McCain-Kennedy, answers all the questions. Your response?
TANCREDO: Two different things. He is saying that he is signing on to something new and he's talking about his own package, which, I guarantee you, answers none of those questions. His package is an amnesty plan, pure and simple. It is the -- terrible policy.
MATTHEWS: So you're saying he was dishonest when he said he was backing a tougher border and tougher sanctions on employers who hire illegally?
TANCREDO: They're not the same thing. He said you -- the way you presented it, you said -- he said he's backing that and that McCain-Kennedy is that. That's not the truth.
that Matthews did not invite them both at the same time to let them discuss their positions. Is Matthews afraid that Tancredo cannot win that discussion?
i don't live in colorado and i am not too familiar with tancredo outside of this issue, but on illegal immigration and border enforcement he is a champion and to be admired. he has the cajones to go against his party and the president often on this issue, unlike other politicians who wouldn't dare buck their own party for anything.
when he attacks Kennedy/McCain, he does come further then: he lied. He does not provide information why he thinks Kennedy lied on border control etc, no quotes from the proposal or whatsoever. Although, as you say, he might be a champion on border control and migration, to me he seems stuck in a circle of 'I am right and others are wrong' without verifying his standpoints. Therefor, I think he would have had a hard time against Kennedy. Still, I would enjoy a debate between the two, wouldn't you?
i would enjoy watching a debate anytime between kennedy and any republican, but don't look for it. he rarely, if ever, enters into any arena where he may be challenged or confronted on his stances. he prefers softball, easy going interviews and becomes very indignant when things don't go his way. sadly, he is not alone, there are but a handful of right and left politicians who shy away from any discussion that's not scripted their way.
absolutely correct. Some politicians are verbally not that gifted or not ad-rem enough to discuss their proposals or points of view. Others seem to not even know what they are talking about when they discuss their proposals, or are unable to place it within the current and historic context.
Our exhaulted leader.
Tom, the representative who said...
I have to tell you that we are facing a situation, where if we don't control immigration, legal and illegal, we will eventually reach the point where it won't be what kind of a nation we are, balkanized or united, we will actually have to face the fact that we are no longer a nation at all. That is the honest to God eventual outcome of this kind of massive immigration combined with the cult of multiculturalism that permeates our society.
and this...
If Western civilization succumbs to the siren song of multiculturalism, I believe we're finished.
and this...
Brazil is a country, very eclectic in nature, you cannot look at anybody and say they are Brazilian. You have no idea. They're black, they're white, they're brown, they're everything. So they're given Brazillian documents and move them to the United States.
and this...
Illegal immigrants need to be found before it is too late. They're coming here to kill you, and you, and me, and my grandchildren.
Seriously, Tom comes across sounding like he supports a U.S. version of Aryanism. I'm all for immigration reform, but not for Tom's reasons and not using his methods.
although i assume you have your quotes correct here, would you provide the source for them please. however, it's so typical when many liberals run out of points to honestly argue, they can't resist throwing out the bigot/racist charge. there is nothing racist about wanting our borders controlled and being anti-illegal immigration.
it's so typical when many liberals run out of points to honestly argue, they can't resist throwing out the bigot/racist charge
Do you want the quotes cited, or do you want to pick a fight?
If you want a rational conversation, then cut the crap. If you want to try to bow-up and act like you're smarter than everyone else, then get lost.
And by the way, the KKK votes republican.
your post just proved the point i was making. no facts usually means the race card to follow.
go ahead.
I made an assertion to challenge your's (that Tom is a hero) and provided quotes to back it up. Your response? That my assertion is "typical." If you want to dispute what I said, at least learn how to argue logically instead of resorting to the fallacy of an ad hominem attack.
As for the quotes I posted, most of them are from an interview Tom gave. You can probably find it online by googling some part of the quotes.
i wasn't disputing your quotes, i merely asked their source. what i was taking issue with was your accusation that tancredo is a bigot. perhaps you don't agree with him, fine. but to label him a bigot is unwarranted and unfair.
As you note, you disputed my assertion that Tom's a xenophobic bigot. I provided some quotes from Rep. Tancredo supporting my assertion. That's not actually the full basis for my opinion of Tom, but is representative of the types of things he has said which have lead to my opinion of him.
Of course, my real point in this was to challenge your assertion that Rep. Tancredo is a hero. I don't expect you to buy in immediately to my assertion that he's a bigot. You should reserve personal judgment until you have the opportunity to do more research on Tom. However, I think his statements I quoted definitely are cause for questioning his being an immigration hero.
Which definition did you have in mind when you implied that I'm a "liberal?" If you meant a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties (Merriam-Webster, liberal 2c then thank you.
why doesn't our President do anything to stop Illegal Immigration? Answer: His Business Buddies like the high profit/low tax business the Illegals provide.
for either side to discount their opposite. Any one of these radio shows or tv shows can find someone, who seems to be credible, and have them back up the main point of the day on the show. Usually knocking down something that their opposition has publicly stated or influenced. It doesn't matter what was actually done or said, once on television or behind a microphone, you can say what ever you want, no matter how dishonest or untruthful your comments may be. All in the name of telling your audience exactly what they want to hear.
but I wanted to share it with y'all.
The Islam in Morroco is further then Christianity:
[link to www.cnn.com]
Although I'd rephrase that do be "further than Catholicism." A number of Christian churches already have female preachers/priests.
but the vatican still denies women positions of leadership, and I find it interesting to see that the 'faith of destruction' (Robertson and others) is trying to become more progressive to decrease the weight of fundamentalist preachers.
I am also not sure, but the christian right (that seems to be entangled with the GOP) is also against those positions for women.
Just interesting, thats all.
I also agree that there are luckely many progressive streams in the US churches fighting back against the fundamentalist christians perspectives!