During Dana Bash report, CNN on-screen text labeled immigration bill "amnesty"
During the June 7 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, while CNN congressional correspondent Dana Bash was reporting on Senate deliberations of an immigration bill, CNN included two separate on-screen texts referring to the bill as "amnesty" and the "amnesty bill," respectively, even though Bash herself has noted in previous reporting that "amnesty" is a characterization of the bill favored by "conservative critics." In fact, when CNN's The Situation Room had aired the same report earlier that day, it had used the less inflammatory descriptor "Immigration Bill" as its on-screen text, suggesting that Dobbs' program was responsible for adding editorial commentary during what was ostensibly a CNN news report.
The first caption read: "Make or Break: Critical Vote on Amnesty," while the second stated: "Senate Likely to Vote Tonight on Whether to Kill Amnesty Bill."
Contrary to the on-screen texts, Bash referred to the bill in her report as "the bipartisan immigration bill."
On the May 18 edition of CNN Newsroom, Bash presented a report in which she quoted Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) saying, "We must meet certain enforcement and security triggers that will let everyone know that we are serious about enforcing our laws and that we're not going to repeat the 1986 amnesty," before noting that "a host of conservative critics labeled it amnesty, vowed to block it, and said McCain and other supporters would pay a price."
During the 4 p.m. ET hour of the June 7 edition of The Situation Room, CNN had aired Bash's immigration report, but in that version, the on-screen text read: "Immigration Bill on Life Support; Setbacks in Senate."
From the June 7 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
BASH: Well, [host] Lou [Dobbs], tonight, we are expected to learn the fate of the immigration bill. The Senate has been debating for about two weeks. Senators will cast a procedural vote, and if that fails, the Senate majority leader vowed the bill is over with, the bill is gone.
[begin video clip]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Majority leader.
BASH: A pessimistic prognosis for the bipartisan immigration bill.
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID (D-NV): This bill isn't going anyplace, but it's not our fault.
BASH: Senate Democratic leaders want a final immigration vote by week's end. To make that happen, they're trying to limit debate, saying two weeks is enough.
Not fair, say Republicans, who argue senators need more opportunities to change the controversial bill.
SENATE MINORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): This is no small matter. It's a big issue, a big problem, and it requires broad bipartisan cooperation to bring a bill like this to conclusion.
BASH: Democrats are already warning that a collapse of the immigration compromise crafted with Republicans and the administration would rob President Bush of victory on an issue that tops his agenda.
REID: The headline's going to be "Democrats vote to continue the bill, Republicans vote against it -- the president fails again."
BASH: But other senators say they are the ones who will look bad if the highly publicized immigration bill fails.
SEN. TRENT LOTT (R-MS): If we can't do this, we ought to vote to dissolve the Congress and go home and wait for the next election. Can't we do anything anymore?
Are we men or mice? Are we going to slither away from this issue and hope for some epiphany to happen? No. Let's legislate. Let's vote.
[end video clip]
BASH: And as we speak, senators are furiously meeting all over the Capitol, trying to find a way to avoid this immigration bill collapsing. In fact, right now, there is a meeting in the Republican leader's office in the Senate. He's got opponents of this immigration bill in there.
They're trying to find a way to whittle down the number of amendments that they want to offer to change this immigration bill, and we're told, Lou, that it could be as many as 300 they're trying to whittle this number down from.
DOBBS: How can, Dana, either senators of either party look at their constituents with a straight face, knowing that this bill provides no support for customs and immigration enforcement for Citizenship and Immigration Services -- all necessary to actually administering the law in this country -- doesn't provide as a condition precedent to any of this border and port security, and talk, as Senator Trent Lott just did, like it was some sort of macho contest when there hasn't been a single public hearing on this legislation?
BASH: Well, that's kind of a hard question to answer, Lou. I can tell you that that is the kind of -- maybe a little bit different language -- but that is the kind of complaint that you are hearing from some of the opponents of this legislation, especially the Republicans, who say, hold on a minute. Yes, we've had two weeks to debate this and we've had a chance to offer several amendments that we think will make this -- from their perspective -- better, but they say they've got a lot more and they want more time to debate it.
DOBBS: All right, Dana. Thank you very much -- Dana Bash from Capitol Hill.
Opponents of illegal alien amnesty won a critically important victory in the Senate by just one vote. Senators supported an amendment to restrict the proposed guest-worker program. A huge setback for big business interests, which had been aggressively lobbying for more, and, of course, for wide open borders.
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the June 7 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BASH: Well, [host] Wolf [Blitzer], to illustrate the state of immigration right now in the Senate, I want to put something up on the wall next to me. It's something that the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said today. He said, "The bill's over with. The bill's gone."
That, he said, if, in fact, a procedural move that we expect by early evening fails -- now, this is something that was obviously a tactical move by the Senate majority leader in order to sway votes as we build up towards that particular vote -- but it is also pretty clear at this time that whether or not immigration lives or dies will probably be decided by the end of the day.
[begin video clip]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Majority leader.
BASH: A pessimistic prognosis for the bipartisan immigration bill.
REID: This bill isn't going anyplace, but it's not our fault.
BASH: Senate Democratic leaders want a final immigration vote by week's end. To make that happen, they're trying to limit debate, saying two weeks is enough.
Not fair, say Republicans, who argue senators need more opportunities to change the controversial bill.
McCONNELL: This is no small matter. It's a big issue, a big problem. And it requires broad bipartisan cooperation to bring a bill like this to conclusion.
BASH: Democrats are already warning that a collapse of the immigration compromise crafted with Republicans and the administration would rob President Bush of victory on an issue that tops his agenda.
REID: The headline is going to be "Democrats vote to continue the bill, Republicans vote against it -- the president fails again."
BASH: But other senators say they are the ones who will look bad if the highly publicized immigration bill fails.
LOTT: If we can't do this, we ought to vote to dissolve the Congress and go home and wait for the next election. Can't we do anything anymore?
Are we men or mice? Are we going to slither away from this issue and hope for some epiphany to happen? No. Let's legislate. Let's vote.
From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the May 18 edition of CNN Newsroom:
McCAIN: We must meet certain enforcement and security triggers that will let everyone know that we are serious about enforcing our laws and that we're not going to repeat the 1986 amnesty.
BASH: As he played up better border security, a host of conservative critics labeled it amnesty, vowed to block it, and said McCain and other supporters would pay a price.
REP. BRIAN BILBRAY (R-CA): You're going to see a lot of people, Democrats and Republicans, be very upset at every one of the senators who think they put together a great compromise, when basically it's going to be seen as a sellout.
AHH, Hello! - it was absolutely amnesty. It relieved the crimes committed by lawbreakers who entered this country illegally.....that is amnesty.
The bill is dead, for now.......Oh happy day!
When it walk likes a duck and quacks like a duck and it is duck season I shoot the duck. Or in this case call it Amnesty
Only misinformation here seems to be MMFA's. They're implying the bill is not amnesty?
Hard to believe anybody's still pushing that drug.
I will agree if the bill explicitly pardon's the crime of illegal immigration or there is absolutely no provision in it to punish violators of the crime of illegal immigration. Do we have proof that the bill does neither of these two things?
If the bill does neither then you have a case. If they don't, CNN wasn't being objective as MMFA suggests.
Illegal immigrants, people who enter this country illegally, are deported. They would not be under this bill. They would be receiving amnesty under this bill.
That is true. But this legislation is new law as I understand it and the punishment of deportment may be modified to another type of punishment. If it has a punishment component that replaces the old punishment, it is still a punitive measure and not amnesty. I don't know if this bill does that, but that is where the bar must be placed in order to fairly claim this is indeed amnesty or it isn't.
That also doesn't mean that it cannot therefore be argued that the punishment should be greater or lesser or should revert back to deportment.
Amnesty is a legal forgiveness or pardon of the crime without sanction. If illegal aliens are punished/sanctioned at all, then you cannot claim it is amnesty. It is really pretty simple.
If CNN is using language that isn't precise, but merely supports one sides interpretation, they shouldn't word it that way. It is only fair.
There is nothing punitive about this bill......the illegals are under no obligation to become citizens, why would they? They will be forgiven the crime they committed of enterting illegally - given a pathway or some such nonsense, that is amnesty - pure and simple. Call it whatever you'd like, but it's a slap in the face of those that have gone through the process.
Well, you're either uninformed or lying. Though the bill was still being hammered out, various fines were attached (I read $2000 in one place, $5000 in another, and scaled fines for certain people depending on age.) Those here less than five years were going to be deported, and limited with regards to future immigration requests.
That's. Not. Amnesty. You can pretend it is, but as is often the case it seems when you get yourself all bent out of shape over something, you'd be just plain wrong.
Your "clarification" of the bill is ridiculous, and flat out wrong....and you accuse me of being a liar, that's rich coming from you.
And even if your facts were accurate, it is still absolving those here illegally of the crime they committed. Even you should be able to figure that out, any idiot can. The minute that bill was signed into law these people would no longer be in this country illegally, that is a fact.
So keep pushing your twisted facts about something in which you are obviously clueless, you and Bush can wimper all day long what this bill was, but it couldn't even get support even though it was bi-partisan - why do you think that was?......those who respect the law know exactly what it is - amnesty. Simple. Even for simpletons.
"The minute that bill was signed into law these people would no longer be in this country illegally, that is a fact." --tommy
Considering that is a "fact", it should be easy for you to provide a legitimate link.
I must admit I am pretty uninformed about this whole thing. It would be nice if people actually produced reliable information to support their claims to help me understand it better.
Instead it seems posters just want to bicker.
The bill (I guess this is the Senate version) is in the LOC. Here's a relevant section.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110q8DSC8:e577628:
Wow. First, I said you're either uninformed or a liar. I didn't say which. At this point, it's still up in the air given your hostility and lack of any facts to back up your "twisted" side of things.
You keep saying "You can call it anything you want..." But it's obvious that YOU are the one calling this bill anything YOU want.
So keep spinning your wheels and filling this site with your invective and refusals to respond to direct rebuttals. It demonstrates beautifully the lack of any intellectual honesty on your part and the part of your regressive political bent.
But thanks, Tommy, for backing down from your mistaken labeling of this bill as "amnesty." At least we agree that's not what it is.
Do you have any legitimate links to backup those statements? If they are indeed true, they would seem to refute the whole "it's amnesty" argument.
[link to thomas.loc.gov]
You are the one that is lying, and this time shamelessly. This abomination of a bill imposes a 5000 USD "fine." Of this, only $200 would be paid immediately and on amnesty. $800 could be paid in installments and the remainder ($4000) was due after 8 years on applicaiton for citizenship.The price of illegal breaking and entering into the country and amnesty for the crime costs a grand total of $200!!
Sorry. It's amnesty. Doesn't matter if they have to pay finesor anything else. That's just a fair price (actually undervalued in my opinion) for a pathway to citizenship. They get ID's right away. Work permission right away.
Spin it however you like...it's amnesty, just like Reagan's. And debating it probably won't matter much cuz by all accounts, this bill is DEAD!
Tommy,
I'm curious about something as to where you stand on this issue:
If the government (as a whole) do nothing at all, as opposed to actually trying to create some kind of law that may or may not help....... isn't that the same as giving them 'amnesty'? Which you seem to be so uptight about.
Or are we/they better off doing nothing at all and letting the corporations continue to have 12 million defacto slaves to slowly destroy 'us' within the middle class?
Enforce the immigration laws that are now on the books. Secure the border.
Which has worked so well in the past. What then when we reach 24 million "illegals?"
Conservatives just need their xenophobic boogey man to trot out when things like the Iraq War blow up in their faces.
Anyone who charges xenophobia against someone who wants the laws and the borders enforced, as I just said in the previous post, only display their absolutely ignorance on this issue. I am not surprised coming from you, however.
Have a good night.
Yep, that's all you've ever said on the subject.
The way you debate is truly shameful. And cowardly.
We are involved in an illegal war. A war that was never declared by Congress, violates the War Powers Act, wasn't sanctioned by the United Nations, violates the Geneva convention and the right wingers supports the bring of laws and yet at the same time screams and hollers about a man or woman pushing a broom in a hotel hallway being in the country illegally.
Amnesty Amnesty AmnestyWill I be kicked off becuase I label this post as Amnesty?
Nope. There's no IQ test to post here.
And yes, I know I'm setting myself up beautifully. =)
During Dana Bash report, CNN on-screen text labeled immigration bill "amnesty"
Well that's because it is!
You've now asserted something that isn't true. Please be providing facts to back up your position.
Sure. The facts are...THE BILL!
And when you go traffic court and they reduce your fine to that of a lesser charge is that Amnesty? Being here illegally is a minor infraction not a felony. The media should do it's job and report the facts not promote the talking points of one particular party. Amnesty means amnesty, not pay a fine, subject yourself to servitude to an American corporation or be deported and then go back to your home country before re-entry into the united State. The bill sucks, on many levels, but amnesty ain't one of them.
Bing, Amnesty means you are absolved of the crime you committed. Illegal aliens who broke the law and entered this country illegally would be immediately absolved of that crime if this bill had passed.
It was an amnesty bill.
No they wouldn't. Don't they have to go back to their country of origin, pay a fine, and then apply, and get at the back of the line?
That ain't amnesty, not by a stretch.
Do lawbreakers get in the back of any line for any other crime? No. Call it what you'd like, it is amnesty. The "line" should be for those who follow the law, period.
I would say that, yes, other lawbreakers do get in the "back of the line" for other things.
Amnesty (from the Greek amnestia, oblivion) is an act of justice by which the supreme power in a state restores those who may have been guilty of any offence against it to the position of innocent persons. It includes more than pardon, inasmuch as it obliterates all legal remembrance of the offence.
Fines. Going home. Those 2 things right there are going to disqualify most people anyway. Do you think the vast majority of illegals in the US have $5000 to pay the fine? Hell, I'd consider myself maker of a decent wage, and I couldn't buck up $5k to pay a fine if someone made me do it. Then they'd have to pay to travel to get home, and then back again. If the law were enacted, the financial ramifications of it would make most just go home anyway, or just stay illegally.
Call it amnesty if you will, but it's just another right winger talking point and re-naming of something that it isn't. Sort of like the "death tax". They love giving catchy controversial sounding names to things to get the public pumped up. But then again, in polls I saw, a vast majority of people in the US agreed with the bill and trying to make illegal aliens/immigrants legal in the US. Then again, if you made them legal residents, or put them on said path to residency, this would obliterate all of the OTHER right wing talking points. You know, the ones where they say they don't pay taxes, leaching off of a system they don't contribute to, and things like that. Giving them legal status would "solve" or at least answer all the questions about how much of a burden illegal immigrants allegedly are to systems that they do pay into, and don't get benefits from. But hey, keep calling it what you will. You'll still just be, well, wrong.
You make a good point. It's not amnesty. It's a joke.
Next time you run across a person who respected our laws enough to enter and go through the laborious immigration process legally, haul off and slap them in the face when you try and explain to them how those that thumbed their nose at the very system they complied with deserve legal status in this country.
Excellent non-response.
"Illegal aliens who broke the law and entered this country illegally would be immediately absolved of that crime if this bill had passed." --tommy
I am getting the impression you are merely speculating here. Can you back up that argument with a good link? I am just trying to sincerely get at the truth here and I think it would be helpful to substantiate these kinds of comments.
I am getting the impression you are merely speculating here
Wow, are YOU ever in a generous mood today. =)
Correct Tommy. However their crime is not absolved. Amnesty would mean that illegal immigrants would pay no penalty. They do. So amnesty is not even close to this. They must become an indentured servant to a corporation for several years, pay a heavy fee etc. etc. That ain't amnesty.
It ain't amnesty, ask Paris.
That's a "rash" statement! ;)
We should get to the bottom of this.
Funny you guys should talk about illegal immigrants while at the same time we are illegal immigrants in the country of Iraq. Poll shows that the citizens of Iraq would like to see the illegal immigrants in their country go back to America.
Maybe you could post on topic. Not every topic is about Iraq. Plenty are. Your post is better suited for one of those threads.