About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Baltimore Sun, San Antonio Express-News endorsements wrongly suggest McCain still supports comprehensive immigration reform

February 13, 2008 11:14 am ET

SUMMARY: In endorsing Sen. John McCain's bid for the Republican presidential nomination, The Baltimore Sun asserted that McCain has "stood his ground" on "immigration reform." However, while McCain now says that border security must be addressed first, he previously said that border security could not be disaggregated from other provisions in the legislation on immigration reform. Similarly, the San Antonio Express-News claimed in its endorsement of McCain that his "advocacy for comprehensive immigration reform" is among the positions that may "be attractive" to "independent voters"; but McCain has said he "would not" vote for his own comprehensive immigration reform proposals.

19 Comments

In a February 10 endorsement of Sen. John McCain (AZ) as the Republican presidential nominee, The Baltimore Sun claimed McCain has "stood his ground" on "immigration reform." The editorial added that McCain's "recent overtures to his party's conservative wing could undercut his appeal to independents," but did not relate this to his position on immigration. Similarly, the San Antonio Express-News asserted in a February 10 endorsement of McCain that his "advocacy for comprehensive immigration reform" is among the positions that have "earned him the mistrust of some party loyalists" but "may actually be attractive points for independent voters." In fact, by his own words and logic, McCain no longer supports comprehensive immigration reform. McCain recently stated that he "would not" support his own comprehensive immigration reform proposal if it came to a vote on the Senate floor. Moreover, while McCain now says that border security must be addressed before any other reforms can be made, he previously said that border security could not be disaggregated from other provisions in legislation on comprehensive immigration reform, or else it would be ineffective.

During CNN's January 30 Republican presidential debate, McCain asserted that he "would not" vote for his own immigration proposal in the Senate:

JANET HOOK (Los Angeles Times staff writer): What I'm wondering is, and you seem to be downplaying that part, at this point, if your original proposal came to a vote in the Senate floor, would you vote for it?

MCCAIN: It won't. It won't. That's why we went through the debate.

HOOK: I know, but what if it did?

MCCAIN: No, I would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the border secured first. And so to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate, it won't. We went through various amendments which prevented that ever, that proposal.

In his February 7 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), McCain asserted that "[o]n the issue of illegal immigration, a position which provoked the outspoken opposition of many conservatives, I stood my ground aware that my position would imperil my campaign." After claiming that "we failed" on immigration, McCain stated: "I accept that, and have pledged that it would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration." Similarly, during his January 27 appearance on Meet the Press, McCain claimed that he would secure the border first, and only after that would he pursue other changes to immigration laws:

McCAIN: The lesson is they want the border secured first. That's the lesson. I come from a border state. I know how to fix those borders with walls, with UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles], with sensors, with cameras, with vehicle barriers. They want the border secured first -- and I will do that. And, as president, I will have the border state governors secure -- certify those borders are secured. And then, we will have a temporary worker program with tamper-proof biometric documents, and any employer who employs someone in any other circumstances will be prosecuted.

But in a March 30, 2006, Senate floor statement, McCain said: "While strengthening border security is an essential component of national security, it must also be accompanied by immigration reforms." He added: "[A]s long as there are jobs available in this country for people who live in poverty and hopelessness in other countries, those people will risk their lives to cross our borders -- no matter how formidable the barriers -- and most will be successful." Arguing that "[o]ur reforms need to reflect that reality," McCain said, "We need to establish a temporary worker program that permits workers from other countries -- to the extent they are needed -- to fill jobs that would otherwise go unfilled."

From the February 10 San Antonio Express-News editorial:

John McCain seems like an unlikely candidate, let alone undisputed front-runner, for the GOP nomination in 2008. Yet for Republicans, the choice should be clear. McCain is the best nominee to lead the Republican ticket in November.

The Arizona senator's tendency to be a political maverick has earned him the mistrust of some party loyalists. The campaign finance reform measure that bears his name and his advocacy for comprehensive immigration reform and climate stewardship are considered to be examples of his past apostasy by some opponents.

In a general election, these may actually be attractive points for independent voters.

On core conservative issues, however, there should be no doubts about McCain. And since his own brush with scandal shortly after arriving in Congress in the 1980s, he has been an outspoken advocate for accountability and ethics.

From the February 10 Baltimore Sun editorial:

In the Republican primary, John McCain is our choice. The veteran Arizona senator whose political obituary had been all but written has risen like a phoenix to presumptive nominee status. He has stood his ground on tough issues such as immigration reform, campaign finance and torture, and we praised him for it. He is principled and has been willing to compromise. But his recent overtures to his party's conservative wing could undercut his appeal to independents.

And Mr. McCain's passionate support of the Iraq war deeply concerns us. Despite the war's $10 billion monthly drain on the Treasury -- money urgently needed for domestic priorities -- he says he is willing to keep American troops in Iraq indefinitely.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by IRONY 101 (February 13, 2008 11:37 am ET)
         
      Let's all be patient here. As soon as John McCain figures out exactly what he must say in order to be elected President I'm sure he will clarify his position(s). <sarcasm>
      Report Abuse
    • Author by isit2009yet (February 13, 2008 11:41 am ET)
         
      I used to live in San Antonio.  We called the paper "The Excuse-for-News".  I'm sure they're actually proud of being enshrined here. It's publicity!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (February 13, 2008 11:56 am ET)
         
      McCain has been left with no choice but to bow to the Band-Aids on the Border lobby.  They simply won’t stand for a more realistic approach.  The moment you start talking about addressing root causes and making a comprehensive effort, you’re doomed.  It doesn’t matter if you’ve always been in favor of increased border security.  If you attempt to package it with anything else, it means you’re a liberal who favors illegal immigration and does not favor solving the problem.  Look no further than the crowd reaction at CPAC for proof.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (February 13, 2008 12:12 pm ET)
           

        I find it ironic that Ronald Reagan commanded the Soviet leader to "tear down that wall" and we want to build one.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by KennyG (February 13, 2008 2:21 pm ET)
             

          C'mon!  You're kidding right?  The walls being discussed are completely different.  The wall the Soviets built was to keep their own people from running away from an oppresive government.  The wall we would build will force those who want to enter to do so legally. 

          When you put that big deadbolt lock on your door, is it to keep your family locked inside or keep others from just walking in? 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (February 13, 2008 4:15 pm ET)
               

            They would both serve the same purpose:  keeping desperate people on one side from crossing over to the other.

            "The wall we would build will force those who want to enter to do so legally. "

            How high and how thick will the wall be? 

            How much will it cost?

            How effective do you think it be against the desperation and determination of people who live in abject poverty?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by mefirst (February 13, 2008 6:43 pm ET)
                 
              there is no comparison between the berlin wall and a wall/fence along our border.  there is a right to leave your own country, there is no right to enter another country without permission. 
              Report Abuse
              • Author by pete592 (February 13, 2008 7:08 pm ET)
                   
                That doesn't invalidate my comparison between two oppressed peoples yearning for a better life. 
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mefirst (February 13, 2008 9:11 pm ET)
                     

                  and your comparison ends there.  they do not serve the same purpose.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by pete592 (February 14, 2008 12:54 am ET)
                       

                    Oppressed and desperate people on one side, opportunity on the other, and wall separating them.  This trait would be shared by both of them so long as there are employers willing to break the law.

                    Politically, there is no comparison. 

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mefirst (February 14, 2008 6:57 am ET)
                         
                      ok, then the argument then becomes there are billions of desperately poor people in this world.  are they all entitled to come here?
                      Report Abuse
    • Author by brianswine (February 13, 2008 12:47 pm ET)
         

      Get used to this kind of thing.  It is effective in a country where anti-intellectualism rules. Obama, Clinton, McCain - all are preferable to the GWB fiasco of the past seven years.  So we have lowered our standards to the point where my dog could be seriously considered for the office of President. 

      Now we have to see crap like this and hear all the bickering about how Dems didn't do the same to Bush when he exploited the backdrop and popularity of his daughters (or did he "pimp them"?)  Here we go with all that nonsense.

      McCain and Clinton are products of the dumbing-down of the election process.  We elected GWBush, so now any old Centrist can win.  There is, however, still one voice of moderation in the race - Go Obama!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by lostlogic (February 13, 2008 1:46 pm ET)
           
        Ok then so in your view a substance filled discussion with detailed policy plans that Clinton speaks of is classified as dumbing down but somehow hope and inspiration speeches lacking any substance now that is raising the intellectual bar.  Apparently, your "bar" is slightly askew.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (February 13, 2008 6:48 pm ET)
           
        basically, obama is getting a pass.  no one discusses the fact that he had all the other candidates removed from the ballot in his first race in 1996, by challenging signatures on their nominating petitions.   that will look good in the presidential debates when he starts talking about being inclusive. 
        Report Abuse
        • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (February 14, 2008 1:02 am ET)
             

          Little-known candidate Marc Ewell filed 1,286 names, but Obama's objections left him 86 short of the minimum, and election officials struck him from the ballot, records show.

          City authorities had just completed a massive, routine purge of unqualified names that eliminated 15,871 people from the 13th District rolls, court records show.

          Ewell and other Obama rivals had relied on early 1995 polling sheets to verify the signatures of registered voters—but Obama's challenges were decided at least in part using the most recent, accurate list, records show.

          Askia filed 1,899 signatures, but the Obama team sustained objections to 1,211, leaving him 69 short, records show. Leafing through scrapbooks in his South Shore apartment, Askia, a perennially unsuccessful candidate, acknowledges that he paid Democratic Party precinct workers $5 a sheet for some of the petitions, and now suspects they used a classic Chicago ruse of passing the papers among themselves to forge the signatures. "They round-tabled me," Askia said.

          "We looked at those petitions and found that none of them met the requirements of the law," Dobry said. "Alice's people, they'd done it in a great hurry. Almost all her petitions were signed a day or so before the deadline." According to Davis, Palmer "had kids gathering the names. I remember two of her circulators, Pookie and Squirt." Palmer to this day does not concede the flaws that Obama's team found in her signatures. She maintains that she could have overcome the Obama team's objections and stayed on the ballot if she had more time and resources.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (February 14, 2008 6:53 am ET)
               
            that all may be true but the fact is that it looks like he just set out to eliminate any opponents.  if they came up a few short, that means that a lot of the signatures were accurate and the candidates thought they had enough.  why not just let other candidates run and let the voters decide? 
            Report Abuse
            • Author by BillJ-MN (February 14, 2008 8:36 am ET)
                 
              Yes, of course.  Obama had a lot of nerve expecting other candidates to meet the official requirements and follow the legal procedures that his campaign did.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mefirst (February 14, 2008 6:45 pm ET)
                   
                that still ignores the fact that he began a systematic campaign to take others off the ballot.
                Report Abuse
    • Author by oscar the grouch (February 13, 2008 8:44 pm ET)
         
      No, that doesn't invalidate your comparison. Over the years that this problem has been discussed on this site, I remember very few people against immigration, but there are a lot of us that are against illegal immigration.  The door to my house is open to most that come announced (door-to-door salespersons and religous prostelizers excluded), but I don't leave the door unlocked for the general public to enter.  If we are to have immigration reform, it must start with control of the borders, South and North, to a greater degree than we are doing today. We can't, on one hand, be for open borders and at the same time complain about the stagnation of wages in this country on the other hand.
      Report Abuse