Kirk Attempts To Squelch Immigration Ad Campaign

On Wednesday, we highlighted a new Spanish-language ad campaign from the group Illinois Immigrant Action attempting to highlight Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kirk's insensitive and misguided rhetoric on immigration reform.  The campaign includes radio, internet, and print spots.  Here's an excerpt from script for the radio ad (translated into English):

I wonder what goes on inside the mind of a Congresman when he states that the solution for immigration is to send condoms to Mexico! Yes, he said that! I know it is hard to believe but Congressman Mark Kirk has suggested on the floor of the US Congress that the solution to illegal immigration is sending birth control to Mexico! Imagine that!  I think it is ridiculous!

Citing Mark Brown's Sun-Times column on the matter, Kirk and his D.C. lawyers are now threatening local radio stations with legal action if they run the spot, which they claim "contains false and misleading statements."  Here's the argument from the Patton Boggs law firm in a September 2 letter:

As reported by today's Sun-Times, this advertisement falsely claims that Congressman Kirk advocated "condoms" as a solution to illegal immigration. ... This is patently false. ... There is no record of Kirk ever mentioning "condoms" or "birth control" in connection with immigration or Mexico. ... [I]f your station airs this advertisement after gaining knowledge that it contains false and misleading statements, you are subjecting your station to potential liability.

This is getting a bit ridiculous.

First of all, it's technically true that Kirk never uttered the word "condoms" during the 2007 floor statement in question.  But the whole point of the underlying amendment was to allow the U.S. to provide aid to international organizations that distribute "contraceptives."  And Kirk explained his support for the measure by stating that it would slow the "rate of growth of Mexico's population" and "reduce long-term illegal immigration pressure on America's borders."

Here again is the meat of the amendment:

That, in order to prevent unintended pregnancies, abortions, and the transmission of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS, no contract or grant which includes funding for the provision of contraceptives in developing countries, shall be denied to any nongovernmental organization solely on the basis of the policy contained in the President's March 28, 2001, Memorandum to the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development with respect to providing contraceptives in developing countries, or any comparable administration policy regarding the provision of contraceptives. 

Would Patton Boggs still be threatening legal action if the Illinois Immigrant Action campaign had used the term "contraceptives" instead of "condoms"?  If not, then this whole episode is pretty silly.   

There's also this from the Patton Boggs letter:

We also note that Cong. Kirk is a fluent Spanish speaker who went to school in Mexico.  As a Congressman, he worked to improve the lives of Latino constituents by sponsoring a family reunification program (Project Abuelita) and securing a grant to teach English to young Latina mothers to boost their ability to help their kids with schoolwork.

And here's the response from Illinois Immigrant Action:

The Congressman’s lawyers claim that the Congressman is fluent in Spanish. Therefore, Illinois Immigrant Action challenges Congressman Kirk to debate IIA Board Member Joshua Hoyt, in Spanish on Univision Radio, on how to best end illegal immigration and fix our broken immigration system. Let us enjoy free and fair democratic debate, and hopefully leave behind his offensive rhetoric and work together in favor of workable solutions that uphold our nation’s values and move us forward together.

Well played.

Comments

I was talking to another politician (not Latino) mulling a run for higher office who was interested in debating an opponent in Spanish.

Could Spanish language political debates be in our future?

Could be, Carl. Though the prospect of having two fluent candidates still seems like it would be a rare occasion.

Mark Kirk is a worthless career politician who think his militiary uniform will save him from criticism. You picked the wrong state to run in, Kirky. Back to New Trier, they'll let you teach a class for sure...

Regardless of any of this nonsense, the fact is this..."Comprehensive immigration reform" as it is fondly called, is D.O.A. when it hits the senete floor. The major backlash with the health care "reform" attempt has ensured this. The Obama administration is now trying to find any type of legislation regardless of what it is just so they can save face and claim some minor victory with health care. Now, it will be a cold day in hell before any politcian puts their political career on the line for another major fight. And they all know that health care was easy compared to what immigration would bring. Oh, another quick fact...Barack Obama is now a one term President. You can bet the farm on that one folks.

From a humanitarian perspective, our fellow human beings, who migrate to support their families, continue to suffer at the hands of immigration policies that separate them from family members and drive them into remote parts of the American desert, sometimes to their deaths. This suffering should not continue.

Now is the time to address this pressing humanitarian issue which affects so many lives and undermines basic human dignity. Our society should no longer tolerate a status quo that perpetuates a permanent underclass of persons and benefits from their labor without offering them legal protections.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Progress Illinois' intention is to foster community and to maintain a comfortable and constructive blogging environment. While we encourage and appreciates different points of view, we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.

Discussion on this site is moderated. All comments submitted will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.

We will not publish comments that we consider:

  • off-topic
  • long-winded or containing excessive text from another source
  • inflammatory
  • commercial promotion

Please leave a name or nickname when commenting, as it makes it easier for others to respond directly.