Fact Checking The Sunday Shows - July 4, 2010

Fox News Sunday

CLAIM: Sen. DeMint Accused Democrats Of Promoting "Amnesty" For Illegal Immigrants "Because The Democrats Want More Votes."

SEN. JIM DEMINT: Major, we need to be clear here what the president's talking about. When he says comprehensive reform, what he's talking about is amnesty and voting rights for those who came here illegally. I don't think we can reform our immigration policy by rewarding those who came here illegally. [...] There's no reason to even talk about an immigration plan if we can't control who's coming and going in our country. This is a dangerous situation. The president is playing politics because the Democrats want more votes. They want more union members. Uh, and this is pretty clear by who's organizing the whole effort to promote amnesty among those who came here illegally.

FACT: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Is Not Amnesty — But Opponents Use That Word To Undermine Reform Efforts.

"Amnesty" Is A Loaded Word Used To Delegitimize Reform. The Los Angeles Daily News reported in 2005: "Opponents say giving legal status to those who came illegally amount to that most provoking buzzword of all: 'amnesty.' George Lakoff, a Democratic political consultant and linguist at the University of California at Berkeley, said anti-immigration groups so far appear to be winning the language war, and the word 'amnesty' is their most powerful rhetorical weapon. 'Amnesty' assumes that there's been a serious crime. I mean, you don't have amnesty for shoplifters,' Lakoff said. 'It's seen as an attack on the country.'" [Daily News, 11/21/05, via Nexis]

2006: Senate Immigration Reform Bill Is Not Amnesty

McCain On '06 Senate Bill: "That's Not Amnesty." When asked if the immigration-reform bill passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee "effectively" constituted "amnesty," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said, "[T]hat's just absolutely false. It allows them to earn citizenship. What it does, it takes a $2,000 fine, it requires a background check, it requires learning of English, it requires six years of working and then eligibility for a green card, and five years after that. That doesn't fit any dictionary definition of amnesty. In fact, it's very, very tough, and that's, that's a major provision of it. That's not amnesty." [ABC's Good Morning America, 3/28/06, via Nexis]

Bush On '06 Immigration Legislation: "That's Not Amnesty." In a 2006 speech, President Bush said of immigration legislation proposed at the time, "[P]eople have been here legally, somebody who pays their dues, pays their taxes, pays a fine, proven to be a good citizen, they get at the end of the line. Someone said, well, that's amnesty -- that's not amnesty." [Bush White House website, 5/18/06]

2007: Calling Reform Amnesty Is Misleading

FactCheck.org; "Amnesty" Label Is "Misleading And A Classic Case Of Mislabeling." In 2007, FactCheck.org wrote:

[O]pponents of the immigration legislation also describe the bill as granting "amnesty." We find that label to be misleading and a classic case of mislabeling. Several dictionaries define "amnesty" as a pardon of past offenses, or clemency. But while the legislation would allow millions of persons who are in the country illegally to remain, it does not overlook violation of U.S. law. It would require illegal immigrants to pay a $1,000 penalty for having entered the country illegally, plus $2,000 in fees, and meet several other requirements before they could qualify for a temporary visa.

[...] 

The American Heritage Dictionary defines "amnesty" as "a general pardon granted by a government, especially for political offenses," and several other dictionaries give similar definitions. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary defines "amnesty" as "a general overlooking or pardon of past offences, by the ruling authority." But the Senate bill doesn't grant a general pardon. Instead, it would allow aliens who are in the country illegally to remain in the country on a probationary visa, called a "Z visa," after paying a fine and fees amounting to thousands of dollars. 
 
Each alien would have to pay a $1,000 "penalty" and $2,000 in fees for the temporary Z visa, pass a background check, and submit proof of employment and fingerprints. The American Immigration Lawyers Association calculates that for a family of four the total in fees and penalties for Z visas could reach $9,000, including fees for "derivative" applicants such as spouses and children. And after an initial four-year period, the bill requires additional processing fees for renewal, which the AILA figures could amount to $6,000 more. [FactCheck.org, 6/27/07]

Bush White House On '07 Legislation: "MYTH: This Is Amnesty." From the Bush White House website:

• FACT: Amnesty is the forgiveness of an offense without penalty. This proposal is not amnesty because illegal workers must acknowledge that they broke the law, pay a $1,000 fine, and undergo criminal background checks to obtain a Z visa granting temporary legal status
• FACT: To apply for a green card at a date years into the future, Z visa workers must wait in line behind those who applied lawfully, pay an additional $4,000 fine, complete accelerated English requirements, leave the U.S. and file their application in their home country, and demonstrate merit based on the skills and attributes they will bring to the United States.
• FACT: Workers approved for Z visas will be given a temporary legal status, but they will not enjoy the full privileges of citizens or Legal Permanent Residents, such as welfare benefits and the ability to sponsor relatives abroad as immigrants. [Bush White House website,6/8/07]

2010: Graham-Schumer Legislation Similar To Other Proposals That Weren't Amnesty Bills Either

Outline Of Current Schumer-Graham Proposal Also Includes Penalties, Waiting Period. In a Washington Post op-ed previewing their current proposal, Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) wrote: "For the 11 million immigrants already in this country illegally, we would provide a tough but fair path forward. They would be required to admit they broke the law and to pay their debt to society by performing community service and paying fines and back taxes. These people would be required to pass background checks and be proficient in English before going to the back of the line of prospective immigrants to earn the opportunity to work toward lawful permanent residence." [Washington Post, 4/19/10]

CLAIM: Sen. DeMint Falsely Claimed That President Obama "Has Refused To Secure Our Border," Despite Obama's Actions To Improve Border Security.

SEN. JIM DEMINT: The president has refused to secure our border. And as others have said, uh, he is holding border security hostage to his political agenda. This is a serious problem when states like AZ have to take matters into their own hands because their people are being kidnapped and murdered. The president is the one who's playing politics with this. We need to secure our borders first.

FACT: President Obama Has Increased Resources For Border Security...

PolitiFact: President Obama Has Increased Overall Border Security Funding, And GOP Talking Point Is "False." In May, the nonpartisan fact-checking website PolitiFact.com examined a similar charge by Rep. Mike Pence:

The fact is, between 2007 and now, while spending on border fencing has gone down, overall spending on border security has increased.

Let's get to some numbers. 

[...]

The 2011 proposed budget, for example, includes $94 million to expand the number of Customs and Border Patrol officers -- putting the country on target to reach Bush's goal of 20,000 officers. Between 2007 and 2011, the Border Patrol budget increased from $2.3 billion to $3.6 billion. The budget for inspections at ports of entry increased from $1.8 billion in 2007 to $2.9 billion in 2011. In addition, Obama's proposed 2011 budget calls for $1.6 billion for customs enforcement programs to identify and remove illegal aliens who commit crimes; and $137 million to expand immigration-related verification programs.

"I would not say the Obama administration has cut back on border enforcement in general," said Marc Rosenblum, senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. Rather, Democrats have shifted funding from border fencing to other border security items, such as increasing the number of border patrol officers.

"Most immigration experts will tell you that adding personnel is much more important than additional fencing," Rosenblum said. "No one thinks building fences, in and of itself, is very effective."

That's a policy debate.

But when Pence said "this administration and this Congress have been systematically cutting funding to border security since the Democrats took control," that's wrong. Funding for fencing is down, but funding for border security is up. In fact, discretionary spending on border security is up 55 percent between 2007 and 2011, even with a small proposed cut in 2011. We rate Pence's claim False.

[PolitiFact.com, 5/2/10, emphasis added]

...And Stopped Wasting Tax Dollars On A Fence That Doesn't Work.

The Obama Administration Cut Back "Virtual Fence" Funding Amid "Cost Overruns And Missed Deadlines." According to the New York Times: "Citing a plague of 'cost overruns and missed deadlines,' Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Tuesday that she would cut millions of dollars intended for a high-tech 'virtual fence' along the Mexican border that has produced little more than headaches for the federal government. Ms. Napolitano said her department would divert about $50 million in federal stimulus money intended for the project to other technological needs on the border, including laptops, radios, thermal-imaging devices and cameras requested by border guards." [New York Times, 3/16/10]

Government Accountability Office: Fence System "Over-Promised And Under-Delivered."  According to the New York Times: "Those first, limited segments of the fence are now expected to be delivered to the government early next year, and the Government Accountability Office has estimated that it would take several years to cover the entire border with equivalent technology... The accountability office has previously said Boeing pushed forward with designing the system without consulting with the Border Patrol, whose agents would be the primary users. It has released 14 critical reports that, taken together, point to a system that 'was over-promised and under-delivered,' said Richard Stana, director of homeland security and justice issues for the office. The office's latest report, to be released Thursday, says the department and Boeing have not designed tests well enough to assess the program. In some cases, the tests appeared designed to achieve positive results instead of evaluate the system." [New York Times, 3/16/10, emphasis added]

ABC News: Virtual Fence Plagued By "String Of Technical Glitches And Delays."  According to ABC: "An ambitious, $6.7 billion government project to secure nearly the entire Mexican border with a "virtual fence" of cameras, ground sensors and radar is in jeopardy after a string of technical glitches and delays. Having spent $672 million so far with little to show for it, Washington has ordered a reassessment of the whole idea." [ABCNews.com, 2/3/10]