Ignoring own reporting, AP claimed McCain "is respected by many Hispanics for refusing to pander to anti-immigrant sentiment"
SUMMARY: An Associated Press article claimed that Sen. John McCain "is respected by many Hispanics for refusing to pander to anti-immigrant sentiment over the years." But the AP reported in November 2007 that McCain now "emphasizes securing the borders first" and quoted McCain stating: "I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift. ... I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders."
A July 13 Associated Press article, headlined "Hispanic voters pose challenge in their diversity, making for awkward outreach by candidates," asserted that Sen. John McCain "is respected by many Hispanics for refusing to pander to anti-immigrant sentiment over the years." However, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, McCain has reversed his position on immigration to more closely conform to the views of the GOP base. McCain now says that "we've got to secure the borders first" -- a position at odds with his prior assertion that border security could not be disaggregated from other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform. McCain further stated during the January 30 Republican presidential debate that he would not vote for the comprehensive reform bill he co-sponsored with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) if it came to a vote on the Senate floor. A November 4, 2007, AP article reporting on McCain's reversal noted that McCain now "emphasizes securing the borders first," and also quoted McCain stating: "I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift. ... I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders."
From the November 4, 2007, AP article (retrieved from the Nexis news database):
John McCain spent months earlier this year arguing that the United States must combine border security efforts with a temporary worker program and an eventual path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants.
Now, the Republican presidential candidate emphasizes securing the borders first. The rest, he says, is still needed but will have to come later.
"I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift," McCain told reporters Saturday after voters questioned him on his position during back-to-back appearances in this early voting state. "I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders."
The shift in approach is likely to draw criticism from McCain's GOP opponents. Immigration has been a flash point in the race, with rivals Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson all seizing on it.
McCain, who has led on the issue in the Senate with Democrat Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, got a wake-up call of sorts in June when Congress again failed to enact a broad immigration proposal that he championed and that split the country.
The measure also exposed deep divisions within the Republican Party, and McCain's high-profile support for it hurt him politically. During debate on the issue as spring turned into summer, the Arizona senator saw his poll numbers in some early primary states slip and his fundraising wane.
Early in the year, McCain told Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina voters the country must take a comprehensive approach strengthening the borders as well as creating a temporary worker program and providing millions of illegal immigrants the opportunity to earn citizenship if they meet certain criteria.
Over the past few months, he has stressed border security first and said border-state governors should certify their borders are secure before making other needed immigration changes.
McCain said he listened to what the public was saying when the legislation failed and responded accordingly.
"I said, OK. We'll secure the borders, but after we secure the borders, we'll have a temporary worker program, we'll have to address the 12 million people here illegally, and I think the best way is the proposal that we had," McCain said.
"It's not a switch in position. I support the same solution. But we've got to secure the borders first," he added.
In a March 3 New York Times article, Elisabeth Bumiller wrote, "Senator John McCain likes to present himself as the candidate of the "Straight Talk Express" who does not pander to voters or change his positions with the political breeze. But the fine print of his record in the Senate indicates that he has been a lot less consistent on some of his signature issues than he has presented himself to be so far in his presidential campaign." The article stated that McCain "has also expressed varying positions on immigration, torture, abortion and Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary." On immigration, Bumiller wrote:
Mr. McCain has also moved from his original position on immigration. In 2005, he joined forces with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, to co-sponsor an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws. Although the legislation included toughening border security, its center was a provision that would have provided a pathway to citizenship for many of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States.
Conservatives immediately branded the bill as amnesty and fired steadily at Mr. McCain. After seeing his campaign and his fund-raising efforts derail last summer -- which his advisers attributed in large part to his position on immigration -- Mr. McCain now says that he got the message from voters. These days he speaks almost exclusively about border security, although he does say that it is not possible to deport 12 million illegal immigrants and that he would never deport the mother of a soldier serving in Iraq.
Additionally, in a June 20 Politico piece, contributing columnist and Washington journalist Gebe Martinez reported on McCain's reversal on immigration:
McCain, the Arizona senator, dismayed Latinos last year when he stepped back from his immigration bill that would have tightened the borders and legalized undocumented immigrants. As boos and hisses from angry Republican conservatives grew louder at campaign events, he switched course and vowed to "first" secure the borders. Were his failed bill to come up again, he would not vote for it, he said.
[...]
Trying to regain Latino support, McCain has chastised Republicans who stoke the fires of the immigration at election time. And at a private meeting with Chicago-area Latinos last week, he promised to push for a comprehensive immigration bill.
"It sounds like he's trying to have it both ways, and it's not convincing anyone," said Frank Sharry, who also was involved in immigration bill negotiations when he headed the National Immigration Forum.
This is not the McCain Hispanics thought they knew. Even after the 2001 terrorist attacks placed an emphasis on national security, McCain's speeches to Latino audiences and on the Senate floor prioritized the compassionate side of the immigration argument.
He understood that border security "first" means "deportation only" in the eyes of immigrant activists, and he championed a broader approach.
As the Senate mulled immigration in 2006, McCain often stood in the Capitol's corridors, pounding his fist in the air, arguing that border enforcement would not work without simultaneously penalizing employers who hire workers illegally, creating a temporary worker program and finding a way to bring 12 million illegal immigrants "out of the shadows" of society.
"It won't work! It won't work!" he protested of suggestions to do enforcement first. The stool cannot stand on one leg.
From the July 13 AP article:
Both candidates are pressing their case in three speeches in as many weeks to Hispanic umbrella groups and working in other ways to make their outreach more sophisticated. Republicans have opened an office in Orlando, where most of the state's Puerto Ricans live, and Obama opens one this week in Ybor City
They've both got their work cut out for them in appealing to a large and growing segment of the population that has leaned Democratic but has not always been motivated to vote. A recent AP-Yahoo News poll found Obama leading McCain 47 percent to 22 percent among Hispanic voters, with 26 percent undecided.
McCain is respected by many Hispanics for refusing to pander to anti-immigrant sentiment over the years. Yet he is viewed in some Latin quarters as a sequel to the unpopular President Bush, a problem he has with voters at large, too.
Obama's vitality and soaring oratory appeal to Hispanics just as they do to others. Whoops of approval were heard throughout his speech this week to the League of United Latin American Citizens' convention.















Yup, that's some real strong respect there for McSame...
Amazing and here I thought La Raza was mostly a social organization. What gave them away as "a (an?) insurgent dangerous organization that would swamp America with acontinuous influx of poor from third world countries." How insideous, how are they accomplishing this ultimate attack on Amerika? Seditious, absolute fanatical, Hitting all the hot buttons there, examples, proof?Anti-sovereignty advocates? anarchist's maybe? Somehow and after much pushing by the Justice Department, how many successful cases of voter fraud have been sustained in the courts? How many legal citizens have been deniged the right to vote by voter caging?
Ah you've managed to slime both the population and Fairness Doctrine in one sentence.
In short your quite a piece of work. Feel free to attually try to back up any of your accusations with evidence, or continue to spew, character assasinate, carry on like you know what your talking about. You have a good comand of neocon talking points, You got anything besides them?
How the weather up there in the mountains? Got enough guns, ammo and canned food? Just be careful - you never know when "they'll" be coming for you!
I love it. A strawman argument being made by someone who "if they only had a brain"...
Wait, wait, wait.
What's the problem here?
This is only a contradiction on the AP's part if one assumes that McCain's shift on illegal immigration was brought about by people who are anti-immigrant and/or bigoted. MMFA is assuming that opposition to "comprehensive immigration reform" was only from those who were bigoted and not at all from those who disagreed with granting legal status to those who flouted American law as well as those who were concerned that we would see a repeat of the mistake President Reagan made two decades ago when he made illegal aliens citizens but left the borders unchecked.
I highly doubt that Conservative voters defend any of those things. But I, as a Conservative voter, do not wish to allow illegally invading parasites to come over here unchecked, even if it is to make a better life for themselves. Go through the process no matter what, become legal, and if you don't like the amount of time it takes....tough...stay home. Its bad enough that I have to pay my already high enough taxes to support the underpriviledged here already because of the ever increasing lefty programs without having to pay for the healthcare of those among us who shouldn't be here in the first place.
I highly doubt that Conservative voters defend any of those things.
Anybody that voted for Bush in 2004, a republican in 2006, or any republican in 2008 is defending all of those crimes. Luckily, most of America is not willing to defend such horrible actions.
Also, luckily most of America realizes that throwing a pair of bootstraps at somebody is not an effective or logical policy. Regardless of any type of ethical or moral argument, it just doesn't work and ends up costing more money in the long run from a variety of different angles.
Jawill:
Nice points--Conservatives and Neocons ignore the Bush regime's law-breaking and concentrate on laws broken by the destitute.
Immigration is a hairy issue--for example, how much responsibility should we accept for situations we have caused/aggravated in other countries? Should that affect how we accept immigrants from those countries (like Iraq or Colombia)? Illegal immigration is a problem, and I wish I had a simple solution for it. Unfortunately, there isn't one.
It's a very complicated issue. One that would never be solved by a fence. I have a fence in my backyard and everyday it is overcome by raccoons, cats, and rabbits.
I think that we need to look at it in a reasonable and humane way. People are coming over to better themselves. We will never be able to stop that as long as what they have here is so much better than what they are leaving. Severe punishment will not stop that, and even if it did, is it the right way to go? My opinion is that the people here need to be brought into the legal system and we need to come up with an easier way to make legal immigration a practical option for people, but ultimately put diplomatic pressure on Mexico to improve their domestic situation. Nobody wants to talk about that part because our corporate culture is geting too many sweetheart deals from the Mexican regime, and that is the only important thing to them. They love the fact that they have those deals, the cheap labor, and an issue that they can rile up their base with. Why would they ever want to change that?
I'm largely in agreement with you. Our bizarre trade and imigration policies have created a situation where people are coming here to find work (in part) because of our own policies, and the people who seem to most despise illegal immigration are those who have set up and benefit from the situation as it is. We aren't enforcing the laws we have, draconian punishments are not effective, and we need to get people into the legal system. Rabid hatred of immigrants is not the answer, nor is blanket amnesty; we need to address the causes before we can solve the problem.
the idea that a fence will not work is false. one of the biggest was approved and constructed during the clinton administration, along the tijuana-san diego border. it cut illegal crossings dramatically. and if mexicans are unhappy with nafta, they have a simple solution. vote in a government that will withdraw from it. it takes 6 months notice. we also do not need to pretend that our problems with immigration will be solved by allowing more people in legally. we have enough people in this country. the public school system in california is on the verge of collapse. families of students are being asked to make cash donations to keep teachers from being fired, and many school districts are considering cancelling sports programs. my niece attends college in the l.a. area and there are non stop traffic jams from early morning until well into the evening. we need to return to the relatively low levels of immigration that have been the norm for most of this country's history. anyone advocating more people is advocating more destruction of the environment, the depleting of our resources, and making goals like energy independence harder to achieve.
Surprise, they automatically contribute to our system. Income taxes, SS, etc, automatically deducted, like the majority of working stiffs in this country. Do they get all the advantagous of a legal worker? Course not.
Failure to deal with the root causes of the "Wave" of immigration is to be able to critisize something while doing zip to cure it. Surprise again, the root cause ain't the folks heading north. Their merely an effect, among a number of socially corrosive effects sponsered in part, sometimes wholly, by some of our own companies. This is a national security issue. It deserves more attension to causes than effects. As much fun as it might be to bash a part of that effect.
An interesting proposition, which if you're paying attension, I did. The brown tide is just a convenient other for you to hate. Your path would continue to be an easy one, and as no solution is present there, just someone else's problem. Theoretically you could continue to screech about it to your dying day.
Swell hobby there. Swell up again sometime.
What's the proposition? I don't think you are paying attention as much as you claim. You stated that they pay their fair share of money to offset their burden on the US. I said they didn't. I'm sure you already know I'm right.
I have no problem with a "brown tide" as long as they don't cost me and they are here legally. As of now, they are simply parasites on the US taxpayer.
Parasites - isn't that what the Nazis called the Jews?
With ONE DAY of Iraq funding, we could identify and deport thousands of illegals. So there - make your pick - more war and death or more rule of law. Is that a trade-off you would make? Or are you still too scared of the big bad Arabs that we have to keep killing them?
You've offered no figures to support your claim. No evidence, opinions sure. Guess how many opinions I see here every day.
We do have conservatives here who back up what they say. You don't appear to be one of them. Surity of tone, you've got some chops there. A lot of the trolls are very good at it.
Get past it, offer something besides your opinion.
Illegal Immigrants Cost the U.S. More Than the Iraq War
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year.http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare and Social Services by the American taxpayers.http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two-and-a-half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border. Homeland Security Report. http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States'.http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
Total cost is a whooping... $338.3 BILLION A YEAR!!!
Snopes is provided for doubters:http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/bankofamerica.asp