U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

August 11, 2014 04:06 PM UTC

Gardner says "legal ambiguities" motivated immigration vote

1 Comments
by: Jason Salzman

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

In what appears to be senatorial candidate Cory Gardner’s first direct comment on his vote against ending an Obama policy of allowing young undocumented immigrants to avoid deportation for at least two years, Gardner emphasized the legal "ambiguities" in ending Obama's initiative, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

Gardner said on KNUS radio Sept 4 that the bill overturning DACA “had some serious legal ambiguities to it…you create a significant legal ambiguity problem that’s going to lead to children having the rug pulled out from underneath them, winding us in court, and creating a judicial ambiguity that is unacceptable in this country."

Listen to Cory Gardner talk about his DACA vote on KNUS Sengenberger 8.2.14

It makes sense that in his conversation with KNUS radio host Jimmy Sengenberger Sept. 2, Gardner de-emphasized the human costs of deporting the young immigrants, called dreamers, who were brought here as children and know only the United States as their home. It was mostly legal ambiguities that apparently troubled him.

This is consistent with Gardner's longstanding view that border security issues need to be solved to his unspecified satisfaction before consideration is given to the dreamers.

And that's still Gardner's position, as reported by The Denver Post's Mark Matthews over the weekend:

There's a story that Rep. Cory Gardner likes to tell when he's asked about his position on illegal immigration. Although the details sometimes vary, it always involves a high school student from rural Colorado whom he met several years ago. When they meet for the first time, the young woman — whom Gardner doesn't mention by name — is on pace to become valedictorian. But because she was brought into the U.S. illegally as a baby, she's unable to attend college in Colorado at in-state rates. So she asks Gardner whether he supports changing the rules right away so she can afford a higher education. His response then — as it is now — is no. "Allowing passage of such a policy was avoiding the real problem," Gardner recounted in testimony to Congress last year. "We can't start with in-state tuition because we have to pursue meaningful immigration reform first."

Fast-forward a few years. Gardner meets the young woman again — this time working at a restaurant in that same rural town. "The valedictorian of her high school, waiting tables," he said with a downward glance.

The lesson, according to Gardner, is that Congress needs to get serious about passing immigration reform. But in such a way that it addresses security first — before tackling the needs of students such as that valedictorian-turned-waitress.

In light of this, what doesn't make sense is another Gardner quote in the same Denver Post article, in which Gardner explains his June 6, 2013, vote to end DACA, subjecting the dreamers to deportation.

Gardner told The Post in a statement, "The immigration debate is in a different place than it was."

Then why does Gardner still stand opposed, as Matthews put it, to "tackling the needs of students such as that valedictorian-turned-waitress?"

Why is Gardner still talking about "legal ambiguities" rather than the dreamers' humanitarian plight, if, indeed, immigration reform is in a different place than it was?

What different place is it in now, versus last June? What gives?

One thought on “Gardner says “legal ambiguities” motivated immigration vote”

mamajama55 says:

August 11, 2014 at 6:14 pm

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit."

Gardner is just hoping to baffle his constituents with smart-sounding, but meaningless, word salad.

As far as the substance of it, the DACA policy is very clear. It gives undocumented youth a 2-year breathing space in which, if they commit no crimes, the immigration authorities agree not to deport them while they go to school. It's really not that hard to understand, and not legally ambiguous.

I don't think that this obvious CYA on Sengenbrenner's show will change anyone's mind on immigration policy. I'll paraphrase it:

"Look at me! I use big words and I like Latinos! I even talked with a young lady who should be in college, but has to wait tables now because of my votes! Arriba!"

Log in to Reply

Login

Lost Password

Gardner says "legal ambiguities" motivated immigration vote

Comments

One thought on “Gardner says “legal ambiguities” motivated immigration vote”

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Recent Comments

Posts about

Posts about

Posts about

Posts about

Posts about

Newsletter