Immigration reform ads key to 8th race
By MIKE STUCKA – mstucka@macon.co m
Fights over illegal immigration are taking center stage in the 8th Congressional District race.
This past weekend, U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall, D-Ga., released what is at least the third television attack ad in a he-said, he-said fight with Republican challenger Austin Scott over who can be tougher on illegal immigration.
Some of what’s in those ads is true. Some is misleading. Some is irrelevant, because the legislation addressed in those ads appears to have little effect on illegal immigration.
As big as the fight gets between Scott and Marshall, the candidates essentially agree on the broad outlines of immigration reform. Both candidates say illegal immigration is a serious problem. Both of them want increased security at the border. And both have backed legislation to block employers from hiring illegal immigrants.
Beginning of an attack
The fight began with a pair of 2006 Georgia House bills that Scott, then a Republican state representative from Ashburn, voted on.
Marshall, a Democrat, based the first attack ad on Scott’s vote against House Bill 1238, which aimed to put a 5-percent tax on illegal immigrants’ using Western Union or other services to send money back home. That bill ultimately was gutted, but not before Scott gave a four-minute speech on the floor against it.
“I honestly believe that what we’re about to do is tax people who are doing the best that they can to provide for their families, and I’ve got a moral problem with that, and I’ve got a problem with the fact that I’m afraid that we’re about to move down piecemeal immigration reform when what we really need is meaningful immigration reform at the federal level from our Republican Congress and our Republican Senate,” Scott said, according to a video of the speech provided by Marshall’s campaign staff.
Marshall’s ad zeroed in on the “moral problem” phrase: A narrator intones, “Mr. Scott, what about the problem of illegal immigrants breaking the law?”
That Marshall ad appears to show a story about the House vote on the front page of The Telegraph. The newspaper actually ran a three-paragraph Associated Press story on page 3B, a version that does not quote or mention Scott or any other legislator. A statement by Scott was included in a longer version of the story.
Scott said this month that he opposed the bill because it would have made Western Union an enforcement agent for the federal government. That motive wasn’t mentioned at all in his four-minute speech.
“In the 14 years I’ve been in office, I’ve only voted against one immigration bill, and that’s it,” Scott said.
Counterattacks on the way
Scott launched a counterattack on Marshall. The heart of the ad: “Times are hard, which makes Jim Marshall’s attacks so shameful. But while Jim Marshall talks the talk typical of Washington politicians who failed to secure the border, Austin Scott has walked the walk, voting for the toughest illegal immigration bill in the country, to make English our official language and to stop illegal aliens from getting taxpayer-funded benefits.”
Marshall’s campaign launched an attack against that ad, citing an Atlanta Journal-Constitution article that says Scott’s “toughest” law can’t be enforced.
“Prosecutors say they can’t bring charges under the law because it provides no penalties. But when Austin Scott did have a chance to vote for a tough law, he said, ‘I have a moral problem with that,’” Marshall’s announcer intones.
Both of those ads are factual. Scott helped pass the tougher law, 2006’s Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act. But that law is completely separate from the one Marshall initially attacked Scott on, and Marshall has no obligation to praise Scott for votes he agrees with. The vote on the Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act came weeks after Scott’s floor speech and “no” vote on the bill taxing illegal immigrants trying to send money.
But all this may be moot.
Searching for solutions
D.A. King of the Dustin Inman Society, probably Georgia’s most strident voice against illegal immigration, said the Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act was the toughest bill in the country at the time, and he helped the General Assembly work from a largely blank slate.
The bill aimed to stop governments and private employers from using illegal immigrant labor and to prevent illegal immigrants from getting public benefits.
King says the legislation failed on a critical point: There is no way to enforce the law. He estimates agencies and local governments ignore the law 40 percent of the time when they offer public benefits.
King said efforts to add enforcement have been opposed by the Association County Commissioners of Georgia and the Georgia Municipal Association.
“Enforcement works, so we must find a government in Washington that will secure our borders and will enforce existing law,” King said.
In that, he’s nearly echoing Marshall and Scott.
In a Telegraph interview, Scott said “the debate over immigration should be about protecting America, about protecting our borders and the integrity of our laws.”
Marshall wants to improve the borders but also focus on employers. His last bill got four co-sponsors before it withered in a subcommittee.
“Congress should simply pass the legislation that I’ve drafted, which significantly enhances our current electronic employment eligibility verification, significantly stiffens penalties — both civil and criminal — for failure to use the program, and effectively gets rid of the subcontractor loophole” that lets companies hire contractors that don’t get checked.
To contact writer Mike Stucka, call 744-425 1.
Read more: [1]