posted October 20, 2005 03:26 PM            

October 20, 2005

Modified:October 20, 2005

Summary

A conservative group pushing for a $4-billion security fence along the Mexican border has run a TV ad showing the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center while claiming "illegal immigration from Mexico provides easy cover for terrorists."

The ad identifies a real problem – scores of persons from Middle Eastern countries are caught each year trying to slip across the southern border, and many more doubtlessly go uncaught. But statistics show twice as many come across the Canadian border. And so far we have little or no evidence that any of them are terrorists. Furthermore, all the 9/11 hijackers had visas and entered the US legally, mostly through Orlando, Miami, Washington, or New York. None came across the Mexican border. To that extent, the ad is misleading.

Analysis

The group Let Freedom Ring, Inc. has been running a pair of ads promoting the idea of building “a state-of-the-art border security fence” along the US boundary with Mexico. It said it bought $100,000 worth of air time for the ad, which was seen nationally on CNN and Fox News.

The group is led by Colin Hanna, a Republican and former commissioner of Chester County , Pennsylvania, where he gained some national attention for refusing to remove a plaque of the Ten Commandments from the county courthouse.

quote:

---

Let Freedom Ring, Inc TV Ad: "Easy Cover"

(On Screen : " U.S. Mexico Border Apprehensions, 872,395 in 2004")

Announcer: If we don't fix the illegal immigration problem at the border,

the problem will grow in far more dangerous ways

(On Screen: "Special Interest Aliens Apprehended Near Border Iran - 7, Indonesia -13, Afghanistan - 8, Sudan - 3, Lebanon - 8, Syria - 5)

Because illegal immigration from Mexico provides easy cover for terrorist, they try to exploit our weak immigration laws...

(On Screen: Washington Times 8/31/05 & 6/30/05)

....and blend in with the thousands who cross the border day and night....

(On Screen: Busy city street)

...leaving this country vulnerable to another attack.

(On Screen: Images of plane crashing into World Trade Center )

We need to secure the border.

Go to www.weneedafence.com to learn more.

---

"Easy Cover" for 9/11 Terrorists?

The ad “Easy Cover” says that “illegal immigration from Mexico provides easy cover for terrorists” while showing video of a hijacked plane slamming into the second World Trade Center tower on September 11, 2001. The narrator says “we need to secure the border.” Viewers are directed to a website promoting the building of a 2000-mile security barrier similar to those built by Israel: 50 yards wide and including a ditch, coils of barbed wire, two tall wire fences, and sensors to warn of any incursion, at an estimated cost of between $4 billion and $8 billion.

But, according to the 9/11 Commission, none of the 9/11 hijackers entered the United States by crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, and all of them had visas issued by the US State Department. According to a staff report from the commission, some of the 19 hijackers entered the US several times, always through US airports. The report said, on pages 7 and 8, that the first hijacker flew in through Los Angeles International Airport on Jan. 15, 2000. " All others entered through 8 airports on the East Coast, including 11 entries through New York area airports and 12 through Florida airports." One would-be hijacker, Mohamed al Kahtani, tried to fly in through Orlando but was turned away when he aroused suspicions of an alert Immigration official and later became hostile and gave evasive answers when interrogated.

In fact, according to the 9/11 Commission's final report, al Qaeda selected many of the hijackers based largely on how easily they could obtain legal entry into the United States. For example, according to the commission, Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Midhar, two of the five al Qaeda terrorists who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77, had few other qualifications for a mission to the US:

quote:

---

9/11 Commission Report, p. 215: Their only qualifications for this plot were their devotion to Usama Bin Ladin, their veteran service, and their ability to get valid U.S. visas. Neither had spent any substantial time in the West, and neither spoke much, if any, English.

---

In fairness, the ad does say that illegal immigration is "leaving this country vulnerable to another attack" – in the future. But the ad could easily give viewers the impression that a fence would have stopped the attack on the World Trade Center itself, which is false. We asked Let Freedom Ring's chairman Hanna if he was misleading viewers, and he had this to say:

quote:

---

Colin Hanna: I don’t agree with that inference at all. Numerous terrorism experts conclude that the most likely place for a terrorist to enter the U.S., even with a suitcase bomb, is the Southwest border.

---

But in fact, as we shall see, Hanna is focusing attention on the wrong border. More persons who his ads suggest are potential terrorists are actually coming in over the northern border than over the southern border.

quote:

---

Let Freedom Ring, Inc Ad "Fence"

(On Screen: Images of a desert landscape)

Announcer: The U.S southern border extends nearly two thousand miles. It is a vast, open region. Reports document the infiltration of this border by foreign nationals from terrorism-sponsoring countries including...

Iran ...

(On screen: Word on center screen " Iran ." Also on screen Indonesia , Sudan , and Pakistan )

....and Syria .

(On screen: Word on center screen " Syria ." Also on screen Indonesia , Sudan , and Pakistan )

In an age of global terrorism, America cannot afford this risk.

It's time to secure the border. It's time for a state of the art border security fence.

Go to www.weneedafence.com to learn more.

---

"Infiltration" by whom? And where?

A second ad called “Fence” says that “reports document the infiltration of this border by foreign nationals from terrorism-sponsoring countries including Iran and Syria." That echoes a message also contained in the first ad, which states that "special interest" aliens have been caught near the Mexican border from several nations with Muslim majorities. Together, the two ads name seven Muslim countries: Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Lebanon, Pakistan, Sudan and Syria.

The term "special interest" could mislead some viewers – it means nothing more than that the individual apprehended comes from a country that US officials deem to be of "special interest," and not necessarily because of terrorism. It doesn't mean the individuals themselves have done anything to arouse suspicion other than attempting to enter the US without legal permission.

posted October 20, 2005 03:33 PM            

However, the Border Patrol has released such figures to Rep.Tom Tancredo, a Republican from Colorado and a crusader for increased efforts to stop illegal immigration. Tancredo has released the figures publicly, and the Border Patrol doesn't dispute their authenticity.

The figures confirm that large numbers of non-Mexicans are caught coming across the Mexican border illegally each year, and a tiny fraction of them are from the seven nations mentioned in the ad. During the three years immediately following the attacks of September 2001 – the years covered by the figures Tancredo has released so far – the Border Patrol reported capturing a total of 946 persons from the seven nations attempting to enter illegally. However, only 320 of those were caught at the Mexican border, where the ad's sponsors want to build a fence. Nearly twice as many were caught coming in from Canada and other points. In all, 472 were apprehended at the Canadian border, and 154 were apprehended in the Miami, New Orleans and Puerto Rico regions of the Border Patrol.

As "documentation" for their ad, Let Freedom Ring posted a less complete set of statistics which they attributed to the Border Patrol. These take in only the nine months ending June 30, 2004 and the nine months ending a year earlier. But even these fragmentary statistics tell the same story as Tancredo's figures covering three full years: for the seven countries mentioned in the ads, more than twice as many persons were caught at the northern border than at the southern border.

In summary, the best evidence available, as well as the evidence cited by the sponsors of the ad, makes a better case for building a fence at the Canadian border than it does at the Mexican border – that is, if Let Freedom Ring's object is truly to stop illegal immigration from Muslim countries rather than from Mexico and Central America.

When we asked Hanna about this, he said "93 per cent of OTM (Other Than Mexican) illegal aliens cross the southern border.” That's true, but the vast majority of those "OTM's" crossing the Mexican border come from non-Muslim nations such as El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and elsewhere in Central American and South America. When asked if he believes the US should build a fence on the northern border, Hanna said, “Yes. I think we need to seriously consider it but we must begin with the southern border.”

Who's Paying?

Let Freedom Ring isn't saying where it is getting the money to run these ads. The group is a conservative organization created in 2004 to support President Bush's re-election agenda, but it is organized as a lobbying group under section 501(c)4 of the federal income-tax code and doesn't have to disclose its donors as required of political organizations organized under section 527.

According to an article by John Fund in the Wall Street Journal in September of 2004, Let Freedom Ring “is attracting wealthy Christians who don’t want to be seen as political.”

Also, Hanna confirmed to us that a major donor to Let Freedom Ring is its chairman Dr. Jack Templeton, who is the son of John Templeton – who owned Templeton Funds until 1992.

--by Brooks Jackson and Matthew Barge

Sources

Jerry Seper, “Report shows how terrorists exploited immigration laws,” The Washington Times, 31 August 2005

Janice L. Kephart, “Immigration and Terrorism: Moving Beyond the 9/11 Staff report on Terrorist Travel,” Center for Immigration Studies, September 2005.

Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft , U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 303 F. 3d 681 (6th Cir. 2002).

Michael Marizco, “Some entrants to face swift ouster,” Arizona Daily Star, 14 August 2004

John H. Fund, “Taste—Houses of Worship: Ballots and Believers,” Wall Street Journal, 24 September 2004

The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report on the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States —Authorized Edition, New York : Norton, 2004.

posted October 24, 2005 09:03 PM            

Forrester says 15 votes were for "higher taxes." Corzine says the same 15 votes were "to lower taxes."

October 24, 2005

Modified: October 24, 2005

Summary

Anyone who doubts that political ads are a poor source of reliable information might wish to examine the absurd degree of fact-twisting taking place in New Jersey's gubernatorial campaign, where Sen. Jon Corzine is the Democratic candidate and Doug Forrester is the Republican.

Both men are making exaggerated claims about Corzine's voting record on taxes, with Forrester claiming Corzine cast 133 votes for "higher taxes" and Corzine saying he cast 70 votes "to lower taxes." Both lists are padded with multiple votes on the same tax measure, and most of the votes Forrester says are for "higher taxes" actually would not have resulted in any tax increase at all. Laughably, both men are counting some of the same votes.

Analysis

Republican Doug Forrester's ad condemns "liberal Jon Corzine" for voting for "higher taxes 133 times" while Corzine's ad says he voted to "lower taxes 70 times." Neither side is giving an accurate picture of Corzine's record on taxes.

{quote]Forrester for Governor Ad

"More of the Same"

Announcer:Liberal Jon Corzine. He's voted for higher taxes 133 times.

(On Screen: Senate Roll Call Votes, 2001-2005)

One-hundred-thirty-three times. Incredible.

But while Corzine was voting for higher taxes on seniors and working families, he was also voting to give himself and his multi-millionaire friends a huge tax break.

(On Screen: Senate Roll Call Votes, 2001-2005; Philadelphia Inquirer; "Corzine reported to have voted for own tax break;" The Bergen Record; "Corzine vote aided investment deal")

A tax break that saved them millions of dollars.

(On Screen: "It saved Corzine and his partners millions of dollars in Tax Payments;" The Bergen Record, 3/15/2005)

Jon Corzine. More tax hikes. More sweetheart deals for himself. More of the same.[/quote]

"Higher" or "Lower?"

A close look at each side's claims shows that 15 of the votes that Forrester lists for "higher taxes" are the same votes Corzine says were "to lower taxes." Clearly, both can't be right.

For example, on March 25, 2003 Corzine voted for Senate Amendment 330 – a Democratic proposal that would have cut taxes. Corzine claims it as a vote to lower taxes, which of course it was.

Forrester claims it was a vote for "higher" taxes, because it would have resulted in a smaller tax cut than the one proposed by President Bush. But that claim is deceptive. Taxes would not have been higher than people were paying at the time, only higher than the levels Republicans favored – particularly for those with the highest incomes.

Specifically, the Democratic tax cut favored by Corzine would have provided an average tax cut of $569 per household in 2003, while the plan approved by Senate Republicans would have averaged $692 per household, according to analyses by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. And – for those making more than $1 million per year – the Corzine cut would have been only $815 on average, while the version favored by Senate Republicans produced an average cut of $73,790.

Another vote on both men's lists came June 12, 2002. Corzine voted for Senate Amendment 3831– to reduce the estate tax rather than eliminate it. It was clearly a vote "to lower taxes" as Corzine's ad says. Forrester again argues deceptively that this is a vote for "higher" taxes, meaning higher than the Republican alternative, not higher than people were paying at the time. And in this case, even by Forrester's reasoning, Corzine's vote would have resulted in "higher" taxes only for multi-millionaires. The measure he supported would have eliminated the estate tax entirely on estates of less than $3 million for an individual and $6 million for a couple.

quote:

---

Corzine for Governor Ad

"Seventy Times"

Announcer: The truth on taxes: Jon Corzine has voted to lower taxes 70 times.

And Doug Forrester? As a mayor and councilman, Forrester raised property taxes 200 percent.

(On Screen: Bergen Record; 6/6/05)

Now he's proposed a plan that eliminates property tax rebates for seniors and the middles class and gives tax credits to the wealthy.

(On Screen: Trenton Times; 6/13/05)

It's a plan that will require deep cuts in education, healthcare and emergency response.

Doug Forrester: the wrong answer for New Jersey.

---

133 Times…Not Really

Forrester's misleading ad uses the same tactic President Bush used when accusing John Kerry of casting 350 votes for "higher taxes," a claim we de-bunked in the 2004 campaign. Like Bush, Forrester pads his list with votes that wouldn't have raised taxes at all. By Forrester's own accounting, only 22 of those 133 votes would have actually resulted in a tax increase.

The list includes 37 votes against tax cuts, which of course would have left taxes unchanged, not "higher." The rest were votes that would have resulted in lower taxes, though not as low as Republicans proposed:
10 votes for Democratic tax-cut alternatives, 53 votes to reduce the size of proposed tax cuts, and 11 votes to slow the implementation of proposed tax cuts.

Padding the Lists

Both sides pad their lists with multiple votes on the same tax measure. Corzine's list of 70 votes "to lower taxes" includes 40 votes on various motions and amendments to just two pieces of tax legislation: Bush's 2001 tax cut and Bush's 2003 tax cut. And Corzine voted against both those measures on final passage. Most of the votes listed by Corzine were in favor of Democratic amendments that often failed by party-line votes. Still others were procedural votes related to the legislation, not the straight up or down votes that this ad leads voters to believe.

Forrester pads his list in the same way. His list of 22 Corzine votes to raise taxes includes 16 on just two pieces of legislation, the budget resolutions for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Furthermore, even those two budget measures could not have raised taxes by themselves. They set targets for taxes and spending. To actually raise taxes, separate tax legislation would be required.

So once again we advise voters, when you hear a claim about "higher taxes," always ask, "higher than what?"

-- by James Ficaro

Sources
David Kocieniewski, "Spending Sets Record in the Race for Governor," New York Times, 12 Oct 2005: 6B.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session, " Vote 150 ."

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress- 1st Session, " Vote 95 ."

Table T03-0072 , "Senate Democratic Jobs and Growth Plan: Distribution of Individual Income Tax Change by AGI Class, 2003," Tax Policy Center, 6 May 2003.

Table T03-0098 , "Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 as Passed by the Senate: Distribution of Income Tax Change by AGI Class, 2003," Tax Policy Center, 16 May 2003.

"Corzine Ad Back Up: Seventy Times," Corzine for Governor, 7 Oct 2005.