Imagine what would happen if an amnesty supporter were forced to endure an hour-long, nationally-televised interview just about immigration matters where they were asked a series of tough questions about amnesty and forced to defend what they support.
As long as the questions were tough enough, and they were asked follow-up after follow-up, their lies and misleading statements would be revealed. That would almost certainly result in them losing a great deal of credibility and it would almost certainly have a significant impact on their political careers.
And, that would go a long way towards ending any chance of amnesty, as all the other supporters realize that their arguments could similarly be exposed and they would lose credibility as well.
So, how do we get something like that? The mainstream media is definitely part of the problem: they're completely corrupt and instead of trying to expose the lies by asking tough questions, they work to cover up the lies that politicians tell.
But, there is a way to do an end-around, and I urge everyone who wants to prevent amnesty to take part:
- Choose a politician who supports amnesty, then go to their public appearances and ask them one or more very tough questions designed to reveal exactly how they're wrong and forcing them to defend what they support.
- Publicize their answers (via Youtube, blogs, forums, press releases, Digg, Reddit, etc. etc.)
- Repeat the first two until the politician loses credibility and support.
While you can choose others, I'm recommending concentrating on John Edwards, with Bill Richardson a possibility as well. While Edwards has "concerns about parts of the [latest Senate bill]", he supports amnesty in general. Richardson doesn't appear to have spoken out about the Senate bill, but he too supports amnesty in general. We might force John Edwards to come out whole-heartedly against the Senate scheme, but at the least we'll sharply reduce the credibility of those who support any form of amnesty. You can find Edwards' campaign schedule here, and Richardson's is here.
Here are a few questions to start with:
"Senator Edwards: you've falsely claimed that there are only three options to deal with illegal immigration: the status quo, massive legalization, or massive deportations (listen). You forgot to mention a fourth choice: simply enforcing the current laws and thereby encouraging many illegal aliens to leave voluntarily over time. That would also reduce future illegal immigration. Do you agree that it's misleading to omit that fourth choice? Why didn't you push for the fourth choice when you were in the Senate? In 2003, just four (4!) companies were fined for immigration violations. Why weren't you pushing the Bush administration to enforce the laws when you were in the Senate, in order to help avoid the current situation?"
"Senator Edwards: no matter what it's called, won't millions and millions of people around the world see any form of 'comprehensive immigration reform' as an amnesty, and won't they try to come here to take part in that amnesty or in future amnesties? And, doesn't the federal government's failure to enforce the laws over the past decades strongly indicate that any provisions designed to keep those new prospective illegal aliens from coming here will not be enforced or will be watered down?"
"Senator Edwards: you voted for the DREAM Act (link), which is also part of the latest Senate amnesty bill. In addition to being an amnesty of its own, that Act lets illegal aliens attend college at the in-state rate. Since there are only a finite number of college discounts available, every discount that goes to an illegal alien is one that is taken away from a U.S. citizen. I would like you to tell us exactly what you would say to a U.S. citizen who can't go to college because of the legislation you supported. Please bear in mind that, once again, there are only so many discounts available, and every one that goes to an illegal alien deprives a U.S. citizen of a discount."
"Senator Edwards: In Congressional testimony, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation estimated (PDF) 'that if all the current adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. were granted amnesty the net retirement costs to government (benefits minus taxes) could be over $2.5 trillion.' You might disagree on that estimate, or you might not. But, could you give us a ballpark figure as to the net cost of legalization that you would consider too high? Do you consider a net cost of $1 trillion too high? $2 trillion? $3 trillion? Please give us a ballpark figure, bearing in mind that we're discussing the net cost.
Feel free to offer your own questions in comments, and please leave links in this or future posts if you go out and ask him some tough questions.