Cannon's choreography
Over the last decade, immigration reform has been a key issue to the Third Congressional District's conservative voters. But understanding Congressman Chris Cannon's stand on the issue has always been elusive for his consituents.Cannon doesn't want to impair the U.S. economy by cutting off its supply of cheap labor, but he knows the conservative core of his district wants tough enforcement and "rule of law."
Cannon has developed a flat-footed dance on the issue that allows him to support a moderate approach—guest worker status, etc.— yet say he is tough on enforcement when election time rolls around (being inarticulate helps him immensely).
In an in-depth story, the Deseret News attempts to nail down Cannon on immigration reform. The article turns up at least one example of Cannon's Immigration Fandango:
Cannon's new ad sent to voters in his district does not mention the one stand that has brought opposition from groups opposing undocumented workers: support for a "temporary guest worker" program.The DN piece s not a fun read, but if you have the misfortune to live in the Third Congressional District, you ought to sit down with it.In fact, when President Bush gave a 2004 speech to propose allowing illegal aliens to achieve renewable, temporary legal status as a possible pathway to citizenship, Cannon was among a few whom the White House invited to cheer on the president in person. Since then, Cannon has been seen as a leader in Congress for that proposal.
11 Comments:
Thanks, Glen, for pointing folks to the article that shows obvious inconsistencies in what Cannon says right before an election and the way he votes and talks the rest of the election cycle.
I am so sick of having my congressman assume I am too lazy and/or stupid to actually research his positions, to read his welcoming speech(es) to people who have CHOSEN to come here illegally and to flip-flop only before he's about to be out of a job.
And the phrase "catch-and-deport"? I heard that first from Jason Chaffetz. We all know - including President Bush, apparently, that Cannon's way is "catch and naturalize".
Having dealt with the LEGAL immigration system for the last 20 years, it is infuriating that the people that try to do things the "right" (read: Legal) way are punished, stone-walled, discriminated against and more. Those who come here illegally, well, they may as well just have won the lottery - jobs (with no taxes), free health care, in-state tuition and cries of "racism" against the folks (the majority, I believe) who believe in following the LAW. It certainly is easier to do it illegally though . . . .
Cannon's a has-been. Too bad he doesn't have the wisdom to bow out gracefully.
Mr. Warchol, I am new to your blog. Only a few times have I read your postings, but I must say I am extremely disappointed. Let me first say that I am not the biggest fan of Congressman Chris Cannon. I understand that a lot of people are not, and that's fine. But you, as a reporter for the Salt Lake Tribune, have taken it upon yourself to post some extremely mean-spirited and rude postings about the Congressman that, in my opinion, damage the trust you should engender as a reporter working to inform the public. I am totally for reporters exposing contradictions made by politicians like Congressman Cannon. I completely agree with the idea the the press should be a watchdog for the public and keep a close eye and ear on what goes on and what is said. But members of the media need to remain impartial and be someone whom the average Joe can trust to deliver the news accurately and objectively. Since you are reporting for the Salt Lake Tribune and have written stories for the paper dealing with Congressman Cannon, I find it totally inappropriate and unethical for you to display such a blatant bias toward Congressman Cannon, and insult the man with titles like "semi-sane Congressman Chris Cannon", and even calling it a misfortune for people to live in the Third District. Your obvious bias (and, as it seems to me, near hatred) for Congressman Cannon spews from your blog; in light of your job as a reporter entrusted with presenting news accurately and objectively, your blog crosses the line. I would feel the same way if you demonstrated such a bias against a Democrat, Libertarian, or Green Peace member. I invite you to respond personally to my comment and answer to the other readers who, hopefully, would like to understand exactly why you do this.
Cannon has been a say one thing, vote another for years. There is a reason, as someone recently wrote, that he is the favored choice for the illegal immegration lobbiests.
Concerned USA citizen: I've begun to notice that, for some, politics is an ugly business. Chris Cannon's flip-flopping is off the charts. I listened to his position on all the issues before convention and, I must say, it's almost impossible to believe this is the same man. He has either changed his mind, depending on which way the polls are leaning, or he simply can't remember where he stands on any particular or important issue. What a disappointment. If this man is re-elected we deserve exactly what we've been getting. We've got to make changes people. Let us not let Mr. Cannon think that since he's the incumbent we believe he's needed in Congress. On the contrary, you must agree that we need new leadership. He has shown me no capacity for that and he's been there far too long. We can't take more of the damage he is causing. Let's get our country back by getting rid of Mr. Cannon before he allows the situation to worsen. Thank you Mr. Warchol, for giving us this forum to speak out.
The Cannon dance is further illustrated by the fact that he receives an award from MALDEF and yet has the courage to say that he is tough on immigration. I'm telling you, he relies on an uninformed citizenry (which unfortunately most of us are) to continue winning reelection. It's time for change. Not for change's sake, but for truth's and clarity's sake. Give Chaffetz a chance. If he pulls the same crap, throw him out as well. We need a representative in the House.
Understandable. You don't sell candy by advertising that it can rot your teeth. So, naturally, Cannon isn't going to advertise things that his constituents (myself included) don't like about him.
Someone needs to do so, though, and I'm glad that some are. Cannon has disappointed me a bit too often. I'm looking for an improvement on June 24th, which is why Chaffetz has my full support.
On immigration, Cannon has been all over the map, but don't let his recent "conversion" deceive you. He has consistently supported amnesty, sanctuary, drivers licenses, and in-state tuition (among other things) for illegal aliens.
If anyone doubts this, all they have to do is check his legislative record. Here's a start:
Rep. Cannon voted as part of the House Judiciary Committee AGAINST the King Amendment to H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003. The King Amendment required that aliens and their families must be in the United States legally in order to get citizenship on the basis of military service.
Rep. Cannon has taken no action to reduce
the rewarding of illegal immigration by giving citizenship
to anchor babies.
Rep. Cannon voted against an amendment (H. Amdt. 294) to offered by Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO). The Tancredo amendment would prohibit funds from the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill from being distributed to states and localities that have "sanctuary policies" in place that prohibit or inhibit communications between Federal and state/local authorities.
Rep. Cannon is a cosponsor of H.R. 371, the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act of 2007. H.R. 371 is an amnesty for agricultural workers. Of the 1.2 million illegal aliens currently working in agriculture, an estimated 860,000 plus their spouses and children could qualify for this amnesty, so the total could reach three million or more.
Rep. Cannon voted against the King Amendment to H.R. 5441, the fiscal year 2007 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations bill. The amendment would deny federal homeland security funding to state and local governments who refuse to share information with Federal immigration authorities. The King Amendment would be a huge incentive to rescind the policies that protect illegal aliens, criminal aliens, and, potentially, terrorists, by denying states and localities that enact them some Federal funding. Sanctuary policies bar public officials, including police officers, from asking an individual's immigration status and from reporting illegal aliens to federal authorities.
Rep. Cannon voted against the Sullivan Amendment to H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. The Sullivan Amendment requires full implementation of the automated entry-exit system that was instituted by Congress in 1996. As well, it requires the removal of unlawfully present aliens unless they fear persecution at home or are seeking asylum.
Rep. Cannon voted against the Norwood Amendment to H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. The Norwood amendment clarifies the existing authority of State and local law enforcement personnel to assist in the apprehension and detention of illegal aliens.
Rep. Cannon voted against H. Amdt. 288 to H.R. 2862, the the Science, Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations, 2006 Act. The amendment, offered by Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) would deny federal funding to states and cities that are in violation of section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. This is the provision that specifically prohibits state and local governments from enacting sanctuary policies that bar public officials, including police officers, from asking an individual's immigration status to determine eligibility for public services and from reporting illegal aliens to federal authorities. Despite that, cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston, still have sanctuary policies in place.
Rep. Cannon voted against an amendment (H. Admt. 138) to H.R. 2360, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2006. The amendment would deny federal homeland security funding to states and local governments who refuse to share information with Federal immigration authorities.
Rep. Cannon voted against the Obey amendment (H. Amdt. 144) to H.R. 2360, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill. The Obey amendment provided $100 million to fund grants under the REAL ID Act to assist States in conforming with minimum drivers' license standards.
Rep. Cannon was a cosponsor of H.R. 3364, the Central American Security Act. H.R. 3364 is an amnesty for up to 2.3 million illegal aliens. It would extend the massive NACARA amnesty for Nicaraguans and Cubans to illegal aliens from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras and potentially serve as an incentive for new illegal migration by holding out hope illegal aliens will eventually be rewarded with amnesty.
Rep. Cannon voted against the Norwood Amendment, to H.R. 1817, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill. The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Norwood (R-GA), clarifies the existing authority of State and local law enforcement personnel to assist in the apprehension and detention of illegal aliens. This amendment would not only help deter future illegal immigration, but gradually begin to reduce the current 10-12 million illegal alien population in the United States.
Rep. Cannon is a cosponsor of H.R. 884, the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act of 2005. H.R. 884 is an amnesty for agricultural workers. Of the 1.2 million illegal aliens currently working in agriculture, an estimated 860,000 plus their spouses and children could qualify for this amnesty, so the total could reach three million or more.
Rep. Cannon voted against the King Amendment (H. AMDT 655) to the Commerce, Justice, State, Appropriations Act of 2005, H.R. 4754, that would have increased funding to the Justice Department for enforcing current federal law against sanctuary policies for illegal aliens.
Rep. Cannon voted AGAINST an amendment (H. AMDT 583) to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2005, H.R. 4567, that would prohibit homeland security funding from going to states or cities that have violated Federal law by enacting sanctuary policies.
Rep. Cannon cosponsored of H.R. 2843, the Andean Amnesty Act of 2003. H.R. 2843 would have rewarded illegal aliens from Peru and Colombia with amnesty, provided they had been in the U.S. since December 31st, 1999.
Rep. Cannon cosponsored the Border Security and Immigration Improvement Act, H.R. 2899. This bill would have created a legalization process for almost all illegal aliens who would then be eligible for green cards after 6 years.
Rep. Cannon cosponsored of H.R. 1684, the Student Adjustment Act of 2003. H.R. 1684 would have granted in-state tuition and amnesty to illegal aliens under the age of 21 who had been physically present in the country for five years and were in 7th grade or above. Such a reward for illegal immigration serves as an incentive for more illegal immigration.
Rep. Cannon cosponsored H.R. 1300, the Central American Security Act. H.R. 1300 was an amnesty for up to 2.3 million illegal aliens.
Rep. Cannon was a cosponsor of H.R. 1918, the Student Adjustment Act of 2001. H.R. 1918 would have granted in-state tuition and amnesty to illegal aliens
Rep. Cannon cosponsored the Central American Security Act, H.R. 4037 that would have expanded the 1997 NACARA amnesty to an estimated 2.3 million Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans who are now living illegally in the United States.
Rep. Cannon voted FOR H RES 365, which was brought up and passed in a new form in March of 2002. The vote in favor of the bill was a vote in favor of rewarding illegal aliens via a four-month reinstatement of Section 245(i). That is an expired immigration provision that allows illegal aliens with qualified relatives or employers in the U.S. to pay a $1,000 fine, to apply for a green card in this country, and to be allowed to stay in this country without fear of deportation until their turn arrives for a green card years, and even decades, later.
Rep. Cannon voted on the floor of the House IN FAVOR OF a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1885, a four-month extension of Section 245(i), which is a de facto amnesty in that current federal policy did not deport illegal aliens once they applied for Section 245(i) and allowed them to remain in the U.S. for years until they were allowed to become official immigrants.
Rep. Cannon cosponsored H.R. 3142, the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2003. H.R. 3142 would have created an amnesty for certain agricultural workers. Of the 1.2 million illegal aliens then working in agriculture, an estimated 860,000 plus their spouses and children could have qualified for this amnesty, so the total could have reached three million or more.
Given the chance to vote against a notorious pro-illegal immigration program called Section 245(i), Rep. Cannon declined. The Section 245(i) program dealt with certain illegal aliens who were on lists that could qualify them eventually for legal residency. It provided them a loophole in which they could pay a fee and avoid a 1996 law's provision that punishes illegal aliens by barring them for 10 years from entering the U.S. on a legal visa as a student, tourist, worker or immigrant.
I should have attributed NumbersUSA.com for the previous legislative summaries.
Wow Dave, thanks for that summary of Cannon's pro-illegal immigration voting record. It's pretty hard to hide who the man is and what he represents when it's all down in black and white like that!
I think the double talk is a big contribution to why many in the third district don't like and don't trust Cannon. Coupled with the fact that over the last 12 years nothing has been done by the republicans to fix the mess. In fact, they've made it worse. It's time for some new blood, which is why I will be voting for Jason Chaffetz on June 24.
I'm impressed with the list that Dave D. put together of Cannon's voting record on immigration...rather telling. There has been much talk of Jason Chaffetz flip-flopping on this issue, but I have been receiving his literature and also attended a cottage meeting with him. I have not seen changes in his immigration policy. It is time that we took a strong stance on illegal immigrants and sent them back to their countries of origin. If they want to come back, they need to do so through the legal channels and not "cut in line" before those who have been trying to immigrate into the US legally in the first place. It is not racism to live by the rule of law. Legal immigration is difficult, and those laws need to be addressed, but in the mean time, they are the laws and those wishing to come here must abide by them or stay in their native lands.
Post a Comment
<< Home