Fox & Friends ignore their own interview to mislead on DHS immigration memo
Fox & Friends misled on a Department of Homeland Security memo on immigration reform, falsely claiming it "appears to show the White House has an amnesty plan," which they plan to implement by "going around Congress." The hosts continued to mislead even after White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs confirmed that the administration "doesn't support amnesty" and intended to deal with immigration "through Congress"; Fox & Friends also failed to mention that the DHS memo itself recommended against deferred action, saying it would be "controversial, not to mention expensive."
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.
Gibbs informs Fox & Friends that the White House does not support amnesty
Camerota introduces Gibbs by claiming the White House "appears to have...an amnesty plan"; Doocy asks if WH plans to "get around Congress by using discretionary authority." On the July 30 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, guest host Alisyn Camerota introduced White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs by claiming, "There's a new memo out this morning that appears to show the White House has an amnesty plan." Camerota said to Gibbs: "There's a new poll out this week by the Arizona Republic that shows 62% of Arizonians actually believe in letting illegal immigrants stay in the state if they have a job and no criminal record. Is that the type of amnesty that the White House supports?" Co-host Steve Doocy asked Gibbs if the Obama administration "is exploring the way to get around congress by using discretionary authority to allow people who are in the country illegally to stay in the country."
Gibbs confirms that the administration "doesn't support amnesty." During the interview, Gibbs stated "The White House doesn't support amnesty." From Fox & Friends:
GIBBS: The White House doesn't support amnesty and I think people who support comprehensive immigration reform don't support amnesty either. What we need to do is again, figure out how we're going to secure our borders. Deal with those that are here. But do it in a comprehensive way and do it at a federal level because as frustrated as Arizonians are and we understand that, we can't have a patchwork of immigration laws throughout each of the 50 states.
Gibbs: "This administration believes that the only way to deal with immigration is to do it comprehensively," not by using "discretionary authority." During the interview, Gibbs confirmed that Obama was not planning on using "discretionary authority," saying the "administration believes that the only way to deal with immigration is to do it comprehensively," and "with Democrats and Republicans working together." From Fox & Friends:
GIBBS: This administration believes that the only way to deal with immigration is to do it comprehensively. To do it through congress with Democrats and Republicans working together. We've done it before with members like John McCain. Members like Lindsey Graham, working with Democrats like Barack Obama when he was in the U.S. Senate. We can do that again. We can solve this problem once and for all. We can deal with securing our borders as the president has talked about moving 1,200 national guardsmen to secure the borders and I think we can deal with this comprehensively if we'll all just take a step back to deal with the problem.
Undaunted, Fox & Friends continued to mislead about "a back door amnesty plan" following Gibbs' interview
Briggs: The memo "appears to show the White House has a back door amnesty plan." Later in the show, guest host Dave Briggs again misled on the administration's position, claiming, "There is a new memo out this morning that appears to show the White House has a back door amnesty plan."
Doocy ignores Gibbs' response to continue claiming the White House could "do an end around congress." After airing Gibbs' response that "the White House doesn't support amnesty," Doocy continued to speculate that they "could effectively do an end around congress. Because if they're going to go through Congress for some sort of amnesty or, Robert Gibbs would not use the word amnesty, or some sort of a track to citizenship for the 10, 11, 12, 25 million illegals in this country, that would be an end around from Congress."
Briggs: "The right is saying this is a way to buy off the votes to get the Hispanics and illegals voting in these midterm elections." Briggs continued to speculate that the administration is considering amnesty, claiming, "Nobody wants to use the word amnesty. Nobody on either side of the aisle and the right is saying this is a way to buy off those votes to get the Hispanics and get even some illegals voting in these midterm elections in November. So that's the political spin."
Fox's chyrons go from noting "WH 'doesn't support amnesty'" to discussing "administration's amnesty plan" in a matter of seconds. During the segment on the "Administration's amnesty plan," Fox & Friends ran the following contradictory on-screen graphics:
Fox & Friends ignores that the DHS memo recommends against deferred action
DHS memo: Deferred action "would likely be controversial, not to mention expensive." In the Department of Homeland Security memo that Fox is referencing, deferred action, defined as "an exercise of prosecutorial discretion not to pursue removal from the U.S. of a particular individual for a specific period of time," is recommended against. The memo states:
While it is theoretically possible to grant deferred action to an unrestricted number of unlawfully present individuals, doing so would likely be controversial, not to mention expensive.
[...]
Rather than making deferred action widely available to hundreds of thousands and as a non-legislative version of "amnesty", [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] could tailor the use of this discretionary option for particular groups such as individuals who would be eligible for relief under the DREAM Act.
"relief options to promote family unity, foster economic growth, achieve significant process improvements and reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization"
Amnesty.
You gotta love liberals, they never disappoint. They will never ever tell you what they really want because it will never sell. They can't be honest about their true intentions so they have to cloak it, or spin it, or parse it to the nth degree without just being honest about it so there can be honest debate over it. It's pitiful, it really is.
Just say it Gibbs, you don't need to lie about it, for crying out loud.
You gotta love liberals, they never disappoint. They will never ever tell you what they really want because it will never sell. They can't be honest about their true intentions so they have to cloak it, or spin it, or parse it to the nth degree
Please!!!!! Your actually quoting from the memo, so it seems like they are telling you what they want.
And speaking of true intentions, I would love to know the true intentions of the backers behind fox news. Behind all their spin, what are they trying to do.
I know liberal code. They package and dress up issues with a little lipstick and a fresh new topcoat because it will sell when it's prettier and phonier. This is nothing new.
btw, you are stunning.
In his renewed push for an immigration overhaul this week, President Obama called for Republican support for a bill to address the growing population of illegal immigrants in the country. This time, however, Republicans know better than to tread near the politically toxic A-word.
Part of this aversion is due to what is widely seen as the failure of Reagan's 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. However, one of the lead authors of the bill says that unlike most immigration reform efforts of the past 20 years, amnesty wasn't the pitfall.
"We used the word 'legalization,' " former Wyoming Sen. Alan K. Simpson tells NPR's Guy Raz. "And everybody fell asleep lightly for a while, and we were able to do legalization."
The law granted amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal immigrants, yet was largely considered unsuccessful because the strict sanctions on employers were stripped out of the bill for passage.
Simpson says the amnesty provision actually saved the act from being a total loss. "It's not perfect, but 2.9 million people came forward. If you can bring one person out of an exploited relationship, that's good enough for me."
...
These days, Republicans are also calling for existing laws to be toughened up, which Reagan would have agreed with, Robinson says. In fact, Robinson says, he would have been so upset at the federal government's failure to make good on the 1986 reform that he would have demanded for that law to be fixed first before instituting a new overhaul.
Yes it would be part of a comprehensive reform that makes it more difficult to work without proper documents. Already we see increasing border security and deportations. One reason things have become hotter in AZ is because the fences are up elsewhere.
Tightening identification systems, in my opinion, would work better than any fence and make it next to impossible to take advantage the system. Part of that reform would be that we know who is here already and who really needs to be deported.
And be taxes at a higher rate, huh? Fine, spit on those new citizens who decide to comply with our laws and wade through the immigration process legally to become citizens.
The higher tax rate would apply to only to undocumented workers as a punishment for breaking the law and perhaps would be limited to several years. Those who come forward, demonstrate that they have not violated any other laws, have a job, and are learning English could be given permission to remain here as long as they continue to be law abiding otherwise. They would then go to the back of the line for any other considerations.
I know liberal code. They package and dress up issues with a little lipstick and a fresh new topcoat because it will sell when it's prettier and phonier. This is nothing new.
And conservatives don't use PR on their proposals? The last administration sure knew how to work the crowd.
The article states that the administration wants to work with congress on this issue. If you are advocating deporting 10 million people is as part of a solution, your going to create a lipstick shortage to make that look good.
Go work on figuring out how.
Do you advocate deporting 10 million people?
My reply drifted somehow...
What do you think immigration reform is? Do you want to deport 10 million people?
Do you think that's fair to those who went through the process legally?
I want to be satisfied that our porous borders are as humanly and technologically sealed as possible. If that means more agents, a fence, whatever it takes, that is priority #1 before any talk of "comprehensive" baloney. That and employer crackdowns. Accomplish those two things, hell, even with the laws already in place and then come to us with a plan on how to deal with those already here.
Not before. And not buried and mired in some "comprehensive" reform. I don't trust the politicians from either side, I don't trust their rhetoric, I don't trust what they say or don't say. They have earned that mistrust for 25 years. They need to earn it back.
We don't need to seal the borders much better than we are currently doing. They are pretty damn secure now. It doesn't have to be the priority in order for other things to be done.
And the NPR link I provided debunks almost everything you've said. You say that they messed up 25 years ago - that's right - they did. They didn't actually HAVE a comprehensive solution back then, and so the partial solution they had didn't actually solve the problem.
It's not a matter of gov't being unable to solve this problem. It's about incompetent people thinking that concentrating on ONE solution will do some good - hmmm, people like YOU, for example, who say that we must concentrate on border security BEFORE we do anything else.
You have no credibility. Period. After your spiraling out of control nonsense on debt and deficits, where every reply you got told you were wrong, you still refused to accept it. Everyone, not just "clones" of me. Earlier your ridiculous assertion that being sloppy a$$ drunk is a legal defense against taking a breath test when you were given absolute proof by pong refuting what you claim, you still refused to accept it.
You have no interest in fair and reasonable debate because you are pathological. You defend the indefensible simply because you can't admit you were wrong. Therefore, any credibility you had is completely disintegrated.
There is no point in trying to have a fair, honest or otherwise discussion/debate with you because you are incapable of it. Your stubbornness in the face of facts you won't accept is laughable, you have become the website clown now, and it's of your own doing.
The best thing that can happen to you now is for you to go ballistic and lose it. You will then again be banned as before and you will have time to reflect and get your act together before you invent another screen name and resurface. Maybe, just maybe, you will grow up and act like an adult.
Instead of a spoiled child. You're entertaining and all that, but it's beginning to get gratuitous now. Get some help.
That'd be YOU who has no credibility, doofus, not me. And it'd be ME who caused you to lose the credibility you USED TO have here, and so you're teed off, and you try to strike back with bogus personal attacks. Everyone knows it - it's YOUR failure here, not mine.
After your spiraling out of control nonsense on debt and deficits, where every reply you got told you were wrong, you still refused to accept it. Everyone, not just "clones" of me.
No, not "everyone" - one person besides YOU and your clone, doofus, and clearly, ONE other person besides YOU and your clone is NOT "everyone"! But dishonest paid troll that you are, you CLAIM that ONE other poster, who made ONE post disagreeing with me is "everyone"? Really?
And on top of that, the fact that you and your clone and one other person thought that I was wrong doesn't MEAN that I was wrong. In fact, I was 100%, undeniably RIGHT.
Earlier your ridiculous assertion that being sloppy a$$ drunk is a legal defense against taking a breath test when you were given absolute proof by pong refuting what you claim, you still refused to accept it.
But that's yet another lie from you - I did NOT write that, and I debunked it at the time, and I've debunked it repeatedly since that time too! It's simply another piece of dishonesty from you and your clone.
You have no interest in fair and reasonable debate because you are pathological.
Turn the projector on - that's YOU that you're describing, not me. You're the one who's a paid troll, intent on poisoning the debate on this site in any and every way possible!
You defend the indefensible simply because you can't admit you were wrong. Therefore, any credibility you had is completely disintegrated.
On the very thread you cite above, I got thumbs up for my posts, and you got all thumbs down, yet it's ME who has had their credibility disintegrate? Really? Only if one lives in upside-down world!
There is no point in trying to have a fair, honest or otherwise discussion/debate with you because you are incapable of it.
Again with the projector. It's true that there is virtually NO point in trying to have a fair and reasonable debate with you, or with ANY of the other trolls who infect this site. Your issue is that YOU used to have people here snowed - they USED to think that YOU were a reasonable poster, until I clued them in to your dishonest paid troll behavior.
Your stubbornness in the face of facts you won't accept is laughable, you have become the website clown now, and it's of your own doing.
It's your stubbornness in the face of facts that has been one of the things that has destroyed YOUR credibility here, not mine. You're the one who's done yourself in here. I understand it's frustrating to have that happen to oneself - too bad, so sad.
The best thing that can happen to you now is for you to go ballistic and lose it. You will then again be banned as before and you will have time to reflect and get your act together before you invent another screen name and resurface. Maybe, just maybe, you will grow up and act like an adult.
I've never been banned here before, and you were predicting my downfall virtually immediately when I started posting here almost sa year ago. You've been predicting that I am going to go ballistic and get banned since the second week I posted here I think, and you've always been wrong. You've always tried to make it about me, the messenger, instead of about my message, and that's been your achilles point here - your fatal flaw. You're the one who won't grow up and act like an adult, and concentrate on what I write, but instead you choose to concentrate on this bogus attack on some phantom poster who makes you quake in your boots and wet yourself!
Instead of a spoiled child. You're entertaining and all that, but it's beginning to get gratuitous now. Get some help.
The spoiled child here would be you. You're the person who, when your argument gets thoroughly demolished and you've derailed a thread to a sufficient degree, will simply take your ball and go home, and that gets pointed out to you all the time. You're the paid troll who simply abandons arguments when it's quitting time. And you're the one who needs help.
That might never be possible or worth the expense.
I don't trust the politicians from either side, I don't trust their rhetoric, I don't trust what they say or don't say. They have earned that mistrust for 25 years.
Realize that our society's response to these immigrants in general has been ambiguous. We have been perfectly happy to have them do all the dirty low paying jobs and be a source for cheap labor. Now they are called an invasion. The political reaction to this is not at all surprising.
I heard an NPR interview with Jorge Ramos that Mexico would need to create 1 million jobs a year to provide enough jobs for its population. It would take a lot of investment and growth for any economy to handle that, and the NAFTA policy was designed to help investors, not the working class. Mexico is full of Chinese imports just like we are.
Mexico's population has exploded in the last 50 years but the baby boom has ended. The Mexican birth rates are similar to ours now and the demographics alone could make this problem go away.
We have not found creative ways to help ourselves by helping our neighbor. Policies to encourage economic development in Latin America have been mostly about free trade, which does not encourage people to stay where they are.
Its sad to think about all the billions we have spent in Iraq that could have been invested in Mexico to help them become a middle class country while making us more economically prosperous as well.
This problem could have been made into an opportunity
I do agree that in tough economic times the issue rears it head more, but that should be irrelevant in doing what is right.
They aren't going to do that again - whether or not you'll admit the undeniable is irrelevant!
What they ALSO did in 1986 was NEVER comprehensive immigration reform, and they didn't even follow through on what they had said they'd do and what the law said they'd do!
Anyone with a brain knows that you're a dishonest paid troll who isn't a reliable arbiter of the truth regarding immigration reform, based upon your posting history here on this topic!
Amnesty is NOT something that the Obama White House wants. Your assertion that they are simply being dishonest, and that they really want it but just won't admit it, is likely simply a reflection of your OWN dishonest behavior. Not EVERYONE is as dishonest as you are, RightON.
Besides, anyone who talks of this phony line that now permeates the debate "comprehensive immigration reform" is just code for what happened in 1986. Of course they are all against "amnesty", oh my goodness, can't say that in public or you're fried, but anyone with a brain knows that's exactly what it is. Maybe the debate could finally begin in earnest if they just admitted that, but No, they won't.
So they deserve to be challenged and questioned on it over and over.
Yet again, you're lying.
And the TOPIC of this thread? Totally avoided, once again, by RightON.
He was TOTALLY interested in discussing one of his pet peeves, amnesty, rather than the ACTUAL topic, the fact that FoxNews, once again, ignored the evidence right in front of their face and misled their viewers when they did that! And that misinformation they spouted furthers the conservative agenda by pushing the false idea that the Obama White House supports amnesty.
The Obama White House doesn't support amnesty. RightON doesn't get to create his own definition of "amnesty", despite his heartfelt desire to do exactly that!
Here's a good NPR story about Reagan and amnesty back in 1986.
The definition of amnesty?
Amnesty is a legislative or executive act by which a state restores those who may have been guilty of an offense against it to the positions of innocent people. It includes more than pardon, inasmuch as it obliterates all legal remembrance of the offense.
There's no effort by the Obama White House to give amnesty to any undocumented person currently in the USA.
It's been proven that he lied us into a war. Most liberals knew there were no WMDs in Iraq because we had been following reports based on the UN inspections team, and reading international publications that clearly stated that Saddam was cooperating with the U.S. on having these inspections.
If there were an immigration bill that included amnesty because President Obama suggested it be included (just as Reagan did,) then, and only then would your claim that President Obama is lying be valid.
Oh, but I forgot. You judge before actually hearing/seeing proof positive.
(avoided) topic.
Every pet issue is focused grouped for easier swallowing. And I hate that, from anyone. Say what you mean, exactly.
Debate it from there, not from some phony platform of political chicanery.
You're really going to try to make that argument on this site in front of the intelligent lefty posters here?
The reason we don't accept calling "undocumented workers" "illegal immigrants"? Because it's inappropriate to call them illegal immigrants". We don't describe OTHER people who violate the law that way. People aren't illegal. Their behavior might be illegal, but they aren't.
And YOU cite THAT legit objection to an inaccurate and offensive way to describe those people as evidence that WE won't argue honestly? Really?
Paid troll. Dishonest hack, unwilling to participate in a fair and reasonable debate of the topic.