Thread: Jim Pederson: 'I oppose amnesty'

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... erson.html

Jim Pederson: 'I oppose amnesty'

Jim

Pederson
My Turn
Sept. 25, 2006 12:00 AM

I am no Pollyanna. When I got into this Senate race, I knew it would be tough. The philosophical differences between my opponent and me are stark, and I expected those differences to be fodder for television ads.

There's a big difference, though, between highlighting my positions in a negative light and simply fabricating them.

That's why I'm writing to set the record straight: I oppose amnesty for undocumented immigrants.

I have always opposed amnesty, and I always will.

Sen. Jon Kyl's record on that matter, however, isn't so clear.

This may come of a bit of a surprise to those who have seen Kyl's latest television commercial. His ad makes the false claim that I support the amnesty granted to undocumented immigrants by President Reagan in 1986. I don't and never have.

Kyl is basing his claims about the 1986 law on comments I made on a radio show. Here is what I said, in regards to illegal immigration:

"This isn't a problem that has crept up on us over the last two or three years. It's been going on for 20 years. The last effective measure that we had, that passed Congress, was in 1986, 20 years ago, and people like Senator Kyl have sat back there and done nothing."

It is clear from the context of my comments that I was discussing Congress's failure to act over the past 20 years, not praising amnesty. My point in that interview was that Congress should have continued to address these issues. Unfortunately for Arizona taxpayers, they didn't.

The amnesty charge coming from the senator is especially surprising because Kyl himself praised the very 1986 amnesty he accuses me of supporting. He announced his support on the campaign trail while running for Congress, and in 1988, after he was elected to the House, he voted to extend the amnesty provision by seven months.

Now, I'm not suggesting that Sen. Kyl supports amnesty today. If fact, I think that word cheapens the discussion. It's used to elicit an emotional response, which is exactly why Kyl included it in his ad.

But the record is the record, and the sponsor of the amnesty amendment Kyl voted for said this about it on the floor of the U.S. House: "We have a wonderful opportunity with this amendment to gain the best of both worlds; that is to give the bona fide applicant that extra chance to get amnesty . . . ". There is no disputing what the senator was voting for.

From time to time, people say things that politicians like Sen. Kyl can bend and twist. I'm not a lifelong politician, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm not as slick as some of those guys. But I consider that an asset.

I'm not politics-as-usual, and the truth is that if you want to change Washington, D.C., you have to send someone back there who isn't part of what's wrong with it.



The writer is the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate.

Wow! A Dem who opposes amnesty? Is he for real?

jean wrote:

Wow! A Dem who opposes amnesty? Is he for real?

Of course he is - well, at least until the elections are over.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Originally Posted by MW

jean wrote:

Wow! A Dem who opposes amnesty? Is he for real?

Of course he is - well, at least until the elections are over.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Good point!

Kind of reminds you of Senator First, or whatever his name is

He's just trying to counter what Senator Kyl said about him, and I'm not really sure his comments are sincere.