April 9, 2004

Utah Congressman Chris Cannon digressed Thursday from a scripted speech before the Salt Lake City Chamber of Commerce to respond to "misleading" and "inflammatory" radio advertisements painting the Republican running for reelection as a promoter of mass immigration and terrorism.

Rep. Cannon is, in fact, a promoter of mass immigration as he himself boasts in a speech he gave to the American Immigration Lawyers Assn.

And pointing out the fact that the first WTC bombing was committed by foreigners here under an agricultural "guest worker" plan, like the one Rep. Cannon is pushing now, is not "painting" him as a "promoter of terrorism." It is simply pointing out, as is the right and duty of citizens in a democracy, the dangers of a particular policy, and the lessons we should have drawn from history.

The chamber visit is one of several campaign stops that the four-term congressman will make throughout the state while the House is in recess. But Thursday's speech also was clearly aimed at damage control.

Cannon has come under fire from anti-immigration groups,

Again, advocating a more moderate immigration policy is not "anti-immigration" any more than going on a budget is "anti-money" or dieting is "anti-food."

which over the past few months have spent thousands of dollars on billboards and radio messages

This would be a good place to point out the $146,641 Rep. Cannon had already spent in this reelection campaign by the end of last year, the majority of which came from out-of-state sources, mostly business interests and Washington lobbyists representing clients that stand to gain financially from Rep. Cannon's efforts on immigration policy.

characterizing the 3rd District representative's immigration reform efforts as giving "amnesty" to illegal aliens.

The messages echo and serve to reinforce the 2004 campaign platform of one of Cannon's intraparty challengers, former state Rep. Matt Throckmorton.

The most recent ad blitz -- two days of near-hourly "urgent legislative alerts" on KSL Radio estimated to cost more than $17,000 -- was paid for by the Coalition for the Future American Worker. The messages criticized legislation that Cannon is sponsoring to give farmworkers in the country illegally a chance to become permanent legal residents.

In other words, an amnesty.

But Cannon says the ads go overboard, using "fear" and "half-truths" to distort his efforts to come up with "thoughtful and serious solutions" to the U.S. "immigration crisis."

OK, that's his side. No doubt our side will have a chance to respond here in a minute.

KSL Radio has fielded numerous citizen complaints about the ads, which finished running Thursday, 30 days before the state Republican convention where Cannon will go head-to-head with Throckmorton and a third challenger, Greg Hawkins.

Federal campaign laws prohibit advocacy groups from running ads that mention candidates by name within 30 days of an election.

In addition to claiming that Cannon's plan will "encourage mass immigration" and "cost Utah millions," the ads directly attack the congressman.

"Chris Cannon wants this bill even though classrooms are overcrowded, the state is facing water shortages, 15 million Americans can't find work [and] . . . two of the first World Trade Center bombers were -- you guessed it -- agricultural guest workers driving taxis in New York," the ads state.

Though meant to refer to the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, the ad "is clearly intended to link immigration reform to 9-11, which is fairly disgusting," said Cannon's chief of staff, Joe Hunter.

"More importantly it should be noted that whatever terrorists have gotten into the country have gotten into a broken system that we're trying to improve."

Cannon hammered that point home on Thursday, saying his bill encourages illegal immigrants to come out "of the shadows where terrorists and criminals hide" and get a temporary status to work legally so "we know who they are and what they are doing."

Well, OK, some more unchallenged talking points from Rep. Cannon. Surely, our side will be given a fair chance to respond here in a minute, so we can point out that, like, every one of the seven amnesties Congress has given us since the one-time-only amnesty in 1986 has led to an increase in the size of the illegal population.

Fingerprinting of foreign visitors, temporary work permits and college tuition breaks also restore "human dignity" to the country's immigration policy and will allow immigrants to contribute more to the U.S. economy, he said.

"There are some who maintain that the solution to illegal immigration is simple: We should round all these folks up and send them home, wherever that might be. In the context of an election year, that approach might have some appeal. But it is not a real solution," Cannon said.

(Actually, this quote is taken nearly verbatim off Congressman Cannon's campaign website. Here is Rep Cannon's website version:

"There are some who maintain that the solution to illegal immigration is simple: We should just round all these folks up and send them “home” – wherever that might be. And in the context of an election year, that approach might have some appeal, however, is not a real solution." (Apr 9, 2004)

In any case, this line is one of Rep. Cannon's favorites (though he never says who the "some" are). The tactic Rep. Cannon is employing here is one of the oldest tricks of the politician's trade: setting up a false dichotomy, a bogus either/or situation.

It works like this: Rep. Cannon would like his constituents to believe that there are only two solutions to the complex problem of millions of foreign nationals illegally residing in the United States: either the extreme of mass deportations or the extreme of mass amnesty. He hopes by presenting the problem in this "either/or" framework, he will persuade voters, in spite of their better judgment and instincts, to support his policy of mass amnesty. Rep Cannon understands that, for most Americans, the idea of mass deportations sounds too awful, too harsh. Rep. Cannon would like to exploit this general American decency as a weapon to force Americans into accepting the "only alternative:" mass amnesty.

Of course, in reality, there are all sorts of good and prudent policy choices that lie between these two extremes. We covered this in a ProjectUSA ezine some time ago. (By the way, sign up for the ezine! It's free, it's good, it's once per week, and your email address won't end up in some spammers database.)

While the chamber has not taken a position on Cannon's proposal, representatives of Utah's business community suggested that Cannon could do more to open the nation's borders, such as push for more visas for professionals in technical fields.

Yep, can always count on those cheap labor profiteers.

Cannon acknowledged that his guest-worker bill only will benefit one industry and about 300,000 workers, but said, "It's a first step.

Odd, we happen to know Kirsten spent quite a bit of time while preparing this article interviewing critics of Rep. Cannon's anti-borders policies, yet, in this whole article, not a single quote appeared defending the ads or the position supported by the vast majority of the American people.

BACK

What I bring to the table