About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

On Fox News Sunday, Wallace failed to challenge Steele's claim that Hispanic leaders support border security first

February 01, 2009 3:18 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace failed to challenge RNC chairman Michael Steele's claim that Hispanic leaders support a "secure our borders first" approach to immigration. In fact, many of the nation's leading Hispanic organizations advocate for comprehensive immigration reform, not a "secure our borders first" approach.

25 Comments

During the February 1 edition of Fox News Sunday, after Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele stated that the Republican position on immigration is "secure our borders first," host Chris Wallace failed to challenge Steele's assertion that "you talk to those leaders in the Hispanic community, they will tell you the same thing: They understand the importance of making sure the United States borders are secure." In fact, many of the nation's leading Hispanic organizations advocate for comprehensive immigration reform, not a "secure our borders first" approach.

For instance, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) states: "The CHC opposes immigration enforcement measures that will only serve to push immigrants further into the shadows where they live in fear and are more likely to be exploited. We are committed to improving our national security, but see piecemeal adjustments of immigration enforcement as counterproductive if they are not included in a broad, comprehensive package overhauling the whole immigration system."

Other leading Hispanic organizations also advocate for comprehensive immigration reform that includes both enforcement and other measures:

  • League of United Latin American Citizens: "LULAC opposes any legislation that threatens the rights of immigrants, criminalizes them or those who provide them assistance, and harms Latino communities. Legal residents and naturalized citizens should have the same benefits due native-born citizens. LULAC opposes the militarization of the border and vigilante attacks on immigrants, as well as the mistreatment of immigrants in the United States regardless of their status. LULAC supports comprehensive immigration reform that provides an avenue for undocumented workers to legalize their status and expands the number of legal immigrants allowed into the U.S. to meet our needs."

Further, a September 15, 2006, LULAC press release stated:

LULAC is in favor of border security but wants a comprehensive approach to solving the problem that is reasonable and fair. Each year, more than 400 immigrants die attempting to cross into the United States from Mexico. Building a wall between Mexico and the United States will force many migrants toward even more dangerous avenues resulting in increased loss of life along the border. Any comprehensive immigration legislation passed by Congress should be designed to reduce border deaths, not increase them. The Republican controlled Congress has failed to work with Democrats in passing meaningful comprehensive immigration reform this year.

  • National Association of Latino Elected & Appointed Officials: "The NALEO Educational Fund has adopted principles on comprehensive immigration reform [click here] that provide a road map to the work that needs to be done on this important national issue, including the need for a path to U.S. citizenship for those immigrants who have played by the rules and are contributing to our society. Our principles also envision a system which promotes family reunification and reduces immigration backlogs; provides a meaningful opportunity for immigrant students to pursue a college education; protects our national security with effective and fair enforcement measures; and promotes the civic integration of newcomers. We urge members of the U.S. Senate to work toward those principles for true comprehensive immigration reform."

Further, according to a NALEO survey following the 2008 election, "[o]n the issue of specific immigration reform proposals, Latino voters, across all subgroups, strongly support a comprehensive approach that seeks to address both border security and deal with immigrants in the United States at the same time. Nearly half, 49% of Latino voters, say they support a comprehensive approach, while 24% support proposals that would deal with immigrants first and 17% who believe we should deal with border security first."

  • National Council of La Raza: "NCLR supports comprehensive immigration reforms that combine reasonable enforcement with reduction in family immigration backlogs, a legal path for future immigrant workers, and a path to citizenship for those living and working in the U.S."
  • National Hispanic Leadership Agenda: "NHLA stands with the strong majority of Americans in urging prompt federal action in enacting comprehensive immigration reform to restore the rule of law to the nation's immigration system and strengthen our commitment to basic fairness, opportunity for all, and equal treatment under the law."

Moreover, according to an October 26, 2006, statement, NCLR, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), NALEO, and LULAC all oppose the Secure Fence Act, which former President Bush signed into law that same day. In the statement, John Trasviña, then-interim president and general counsel of MALDEF, and Arturo Vargas, executive director of NALEO, criticized Congress and the president for passing such a bill rather than a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

From the statement:

Noting that the construction of 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border will do little to fix our broken immigration system or deal with the 12 million undocumented immigrants who live and work in this country, the leaders of the nation's leading Latino organizations made the following comments:

Janet Murguía, President and CEO, NCLR

"This law doesn't solve the immigration issue, it makes it worse. By authorizing 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border without appropriating any funding, this law reflects everything that is wrong with the immigration debate. It is a symbol of Congress's and the Administration's failure to achieve meaningful immigration reform."

John Trasviña, Interim President and General Counsel, MALDEF

"The Secure Fence Act should be called the Secure Election Act. It is a travesty that Congress utterly failed in achieving comprehensive immigration reform and could only pass in its waning days a bill for a fence that will take years to complete and does nothing to address America's immigration or labor needs. The President's signing into law of this bill simply reiterates that failure."

Arturo Vargas, Executive Director, NALEO

"The President committed himself to passing a fair and complete immigration package, but the border fence bill takes us farther away from achieving that goal. By signing the bill into law, he has clearly taken a step back from his commitment. We will continue to work with Congress and the President for effective immigration reform that recognizes the valuable contributions newcomers make to our nation's economic and civic life."

Brent Wilkes, Executive Director, LULAC

"The Latino community expected Congress to enact feasible and humane immigration policies that would restore the rule of law and enhance security, reunite families, protect workers, promote citizenship and civic participation, and help local communities. Instead, the House leadership played politics with the issue and ended up with this meaningless gesture."

From the February 1 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:

WALLACE: Well, let's talk about how you reach out. And that's part of the key to this, because, at this point, the Republicans -- if you look at the last election -- are a minority party. Let's talk about how you reach out to some of the groups that may feel alienated from the Republican Party. In November, John McCain got 31 percent of the Hispanic vote. Four years ago, President Bush did 13 points better. Does the GOP need to change its position on immigration reform -- guest worker, path to citizenship -- to reach out and say to Hispanics, "You have a home in the Republican Party"?

STEELE: No, well, I think the GOP's position on immigration is very much the position of many, many Hispanics who are in this country. We have --

WALLACE: But wait a minute. Is the GOP --

STEELE: Hold up. Hold up.

WALLACE: But is the GOP position the position of George Bush and John McCain, which is for immigration reform?

STEELE: The GOP -- the GOP's --

WALLACE: Or is it the position that was "build the fence"?

STEELE: The GOP's position is: secure our borders first. Let us know and let us make sure the American people know that we've taken care of the important business of dealing with the illegal immigration into this country. You cannot begin to address the concerns of the people who are already here unless and until you have made certain that no more are coming in behind them.

WALLACE: So no change in the position of the party?

STEELE: No change in the position on the party on that --

WALLACE: You are one of the --

STEELE: But how we message that is where we messed up the last time. We were pegged as being insensitive, anti-immigrant, and nothing could be further from the truth. Because, you talk to those leaders in the Hispanic community, they will tell you the same thing: They understand the importance of making sure the United States borders are secure.

WALLACE: You are one of the co-founders of something called the Republican Leadership Council --

STEELE: Yep.

WALLACE: -- which supports candidates who favor abortion and gay rights.

STEELE: Yep.

WALLACE: Does the GOP need to do a better job of reaching out to people who hold those views?

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
      • Author by pete592 (February 01, 2009 4:38 pm ET)
           

        They're down, but not out.

        They're looking for someone to lead their inevitable "Contract With America II" that's coming in the midterms.  Rush Limbaugh is calling all the shots, of course, but they need to find the next Newt Gingrich to serve as the cover model for whatever desperate stunt they intend to pull in the 2010 election. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by ukobserver (February 01, 2009 6:19 pm ET)
             

          Is there just one functioning braincell in that large republican hivemind? Hillary Clinton gets 18mil+ votes so the republicans choose palin with the thought that those 18mil+ will jump over to them. The people vote in Barack Obama as POTUS so the republicans think that by choosing steele a large amount of the populace will jump over and vote republican. Do these idiots not realise that it was their POLICIES that led to people moving away from them? And what is their great idea to encourage those who moved away from them to go back? MORE OF THE SAME?!?!?!?!?!?

          These people really REALLY don't have a clue.  

          Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (February 01, 2009 9:11 pm ET)
               

            As you've pointed out, the last thing that functioning braincell has left is Hail-Mary gimmickery.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (February 01, 2009 7:34 pm ET)
             

          Interesting, isn't it? They are drowning out any discussion about the current stimulus plan with platitudes to the platform they ran on last election. I guess someone forgot to tell them their pair lost.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by princeofwheels (February 01, 2009 6:18 pm ET)
         
      A drug addict and a thief...Why can't the Real Republicans see this? Stand up and kick out the CONS. And a black man running the party. Wonder what the thinking is down yonder in them good ol' really red states?? Billy Boy and Joe Bob must really be confused!!!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (February 01, 2009 7:52 pm ET)
         

      I LOVE that they chose this guy. Why? What was one of the first statements he made upon being elected? He believes that the old GOP is doing just fine, and doesn't need to be changed much.

      Good luck with that one chump! 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (February 01, 2009 8:07 pm ET)
         
      Good for Steele, I wish him the best. But too bad for the GOP. They elected him not because he was the best, but because they thought they had a problem with blacks that needed fixing. But that's not the case here, they have so alienated the black populace they can kiss them off for the next 100 years. Right now the only chance the GOP has is with the hispanic populace, and - surprise! - they are now alienating them in record numbers. The GOP should have voted for an Alberto Gonzalez to run their party. In the business world, you don't go after the hardest problem first, you primarily target low hanging fruit while working the bigger issue in the background. For the party of big business, they sure get some crappy advice from their base...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Tbone Slickens (February 02, 2009 12:12 am ET)
         

      Oh yeah, quote a bunch of FAR left RADICAL groups...La Raza, LULAC?!  You've got to be kidding me! 

      I lived in El Paso for five years and I can tell you this an ongoing debate.  There are plenty of Hispanic leaders that are for the secure borders approach.  Especially at the local level.  Here's a high profile for starters:

      Govenor Perry

      Yes our border towns are quite the liberal bastions!  Here is what's happening in my former (but often visited) home town:

      El Paso/Juarez violence

      Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (February 02, 2009 12:43 am ET)
           

        Unfortunately, for the border fixated crowd, too many Americans know too many immigrants... and we like them as human beings. In these times, as we realize just how close our plights really are to those who flee the oppression of massive economic inequality, it will be essential to care enough about our southern neighbors to fight for sensible trade reforms that protect workers' rights around the globe. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Tbone Slickens (February 02, 2009 7:54 am ET)
             

          Maybe true for people that live RIGHT on the border Round, but the problem isn't with those folks that live within say a 20 mile radius of most border towns.  It's the itinerent people that are getting hung up and where the trouble starts. 

          In the past the people you're talking about enjoyed a fairly porous border and could come and go as they pleased.  There is some debate about the anchor babies and now hospitals (two that I know of) in El Paso are actually checking and ENFORCING US only mothers unless of course it's an emergency.  I understand your sentiment though.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (February 02, 2009 1:19 am ET)
           

        Perry is Hispanic?  I've guess I've learned something new. 

        Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (February 02, 2009 2:26 am ET)
           

        "Yes our border towns are quite the liberal bastions!  Here is what's happening in my former (but often visited) home town:"

        What point are you trying to make? Seriously. I'm not sharp shooting with you here. I'm being for real because you linked to a very leftwing cite to make your point that border towns aren't(?) liberal bastions. I'm only confused because you decried MMFA for quoting what you called far left groups, yet as far as I can tell, you linked up a very pro-migrant blogger.


        Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (February 02, 2009 7:35 am ET)
         

      to tell the truth, they really do not support it at all, other than lip service.  they don't want "militarization of the border", in other words troops.  or a fence or barrier, which is what the border patrol says helps them make the most effective use of their manpower.  nor do they want workplace enforcement, not when a hispanic congressman calls immigration agents "gestapo" for doing workplace raids.   what they do want is another amnesty, which we were promised in 1986 would be a "one time" thing, and then they will work to chip away any enforcement, which is what happened then.  and then in a few years we will face yet another call for amnesty.  sorry, i don't believe the promises.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (February 02, 2009 10:53 am ET)
           

        here is a link that discusses the amnesty of 1986, written by someone who has been funded by the ford foundation in the past, so it's not some right winger.   "fourthly, the icra's offer was described as a one-off deal, never to be repeated."   and the author notes the reason given for the "one-off" claim was that it did not want to encourage those who would cross in the future and expect another amnesty.  well, guess what we're talking about now?  he also notes the massive fraud that seemed to be present, people applying for amnesty under the agricultural program who obviously never did that in their life, talking about picking strawberries using a ladder.  but in the end,  most all applications were approved because the ins just gave up.  and that was three million people, and we are talking a minimum [ i would bet money it's far higher] of 12 million this time?

        http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back105.html

        Report Abuse
    • Author by cwasten (February 02, 2009 8:59 am ET)
         
      The more they spread false information *like this* the better for the Democrats. They are just lying to themselves and reinforcing views held by the repub base. They won't gain any new voters from their misinformation.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (February 02, 2009 9:10 am ET)
         

      The alphabet soup organizations referenced by mmfa have one thing in common...the mistaken conception that hispanics have a right to immigrate to the U.S.

      They have no right to immigrate or be in this country unless we invite them.

      Here's a little  comprehensive immigration reform that should be enacted:

      Declare there will be no amnesty for those here illegally, then...secure the borders...enforce the current labor laws in regard to hiring illegal aliens...deport all illegal aliens as they are discovered and forget about the bogus family re-unification for illegal aliens...enact a workable guest worker program that allows hispanics to temporarily come here for work and then return home...streamline the system of normal immigration.

      Caught here a second time? Enjoy a couple of years R&R at the new federal resort run by Joe Arpaio in Arizona...complete with lovely pink underwear...a scrumptious diet of good old home-made bologna sandwiches...a comfortable cot in a spacious tent...and the wonderful Arizona climate.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (February 02, 2009 10:16 am ET)
           

        I think some of the things you propose would be great, if the right wingers would allow them to happen (guest worker program for one). This is something that I actually agreed with Bush on when he proposed his program back a couple of years ago, but it was brought down mostly by his own people.

        I don't think it would be possible to deport ALL illegal immigrants. Unfortunately, there are just too many of them.

        How are you going to secure thousands of miles of border both on the Northern side, and the Southern side? It's just not feasibile, economically, or physically. It just won't ever happen.

        At this time, getting caught as being an illegal immigrant/alien is a civil offense. I think you'd have to change the law statues in order to detain them in a tent in Arizona and all.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by wesley (February 02, 2009 10:35 am ET)
             

          mags...you've got to get over your out-dated and simplistic talking points. There are many conservatives that support guest worker programs...like the vile Heritage Foundation:

           -- Real Immigration Reform Needs Real Temporary Worker Programs --

          Certainly securing the borders is a heavy task...but being hard doesn't mean it should be abandoned. Same goes for deportation...they didn't all get here over night and we can't deport them all over night...but we can sure as hell get started.

          Change the statutes? Yep...and that includes the "new" federal illegal alien resort in Arizona.


          Report Abuse
          • Author by magnolialover (February 02, 2009 11:08 am ET)
               

            I was speaking more specifically about the Congressmen and Senators from the right wing who did not support the guest worker program at all. Of course, it was tied up in the rest of the legislation, but I do seem to remember party leaders crumbling on that point as well.

            See, securing the borders (notice plural there) isn't going to be easy, nor is it feasible, strictly from a cost standpoint, and from the standpoint that it's never going to work. See for instance, how many people got through the iron curtain when it was up, along with how many still get through Israel's border, and those are/were tightly controlled militarily, and on a much smaller scale. Fences won't work. Ever. How else are we going to secure it completely?

            Deportation would also cost a lot more than it would it you did give them all "amnesty" as some like to call it. Make them take a path to citizenship, pay fines for the time that they were here illegally, and make them useful members of our society (many of them already are actually, just make it legal like). In the long run, it would cost less, and prove more beneficial (just my opinion).

            As for an Arizonan Gitmo, yeah, not too sure about that really. Sounds more like a "concentration" camp.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by mefirst (February 02, 2009 11:33 am ET)
                 

              actually, one of the biggest fences was constructed along the tijuana/california border during the clinton administration and it cut crossings dramatically.  and the fact is that the israel border barrier did what it was intended to do, which was stop the suicide bombers who were constantly crossing.   and what you are proposing will simply cause ever more illegal crossings.  there's no end.  and it is amnesty.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by wesley (February 02, 2009 11:33 am ET)
                 

              I hear ya...we just have some disagreements on the issue.

              Here are some interesting statements from the Center For Immigration Studies in Jul08 concerning "deportation".

               -- Monthly data collected by the Census Bureau through May 2008...ndicates that the illegal immigrant population may have declined by over one million in the last year.

               -- Our best estimate is that the illegal immigrant population has declined by 11 percent through May 2008 after hitting a peak in August 2007.

               -- The implied decline in the illegal population is 1.3 million since last summer, from 12.5 million to 11.2 million today.

               -- The estimated decline of the illegal population is at least seven times larger than the number of illegal aliens removed by the government in the last 10 months, so most of the decline is due to illegal immigrants leaving the country on their own.

               -- There is good evidence that the illegal population grew last summer while Congress was considering legalizing illegal immigrants. When that legislation failed to pass, the illegal population began to fall almost immediately.

              Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (February 02, 2009 11:18 am ET)
           

        "Caught here a second time? Enjoy a couple of years R&R at the new federal resort run by Joe Arpaio in Arizona...complete with lovely pink underwear...a scrumptious diet of good old home-made bologna sandwiches...a comfortable cot in a spacious tent...and the wonderful Arizona climate."

        The trouble is, Arpaio's prison may feel like Club Med compared to what they're fleeing from in Mexico.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by wesley (February 02, 2009 1:06 pm ET)
             

          Trouble? They should welcome our compassion in creating the Club Med for them.

          And just think of the stimulus involved supporting a brand new city with a population in the millions. Jobs, roads, industry...and all the while demonstrating our compassion for their miserable plight in Mexico...it looks like a win-win.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by roundhouse (February 02, 2009 2:09 pm ET)
         

      Fabulous! Steele wants to tack harder right, wants to embrace his authoritarian conservative roots. More punishmnet, less empathy. More elitist rule, less egalitarianism. More political power for billionaires, less voice for we the people. More destruction, less building.

      Basically, he wants to distance himself and his Party further and further from our founding fathers ideals of equality, he wants to inhibit life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

      Meanwhile, a plurality of rank and file Republicans want to follow him straight down the path of idiocracy.

      Report Abuse
The Fox Effect
Media Matters Connect

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.