By Matthew Langston
Following the sole debate between Republican Dan Bishop and Democrat Dan McCready, the two major candidates in the Sept. 10 special election for North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District, the Congressional Leadership Fund attacked McCready for his supposed views on immigration.
The CLF began a blog post from Aug. 30 by accusing McCready of “appealing to the radical left on immigration” and pointed to quotes McCready made in the debate and a radio interview.
The CLF describes itself as “a super PAC exclusively dedicated to winning a Republican Majority in the House of Representatives.” The group has previously been criticized for making misleading or false claims in its ads, as seen with an ad from the group about McCready’s position on tax cuts.
Bishop, the CLF and other Republican-aligned groups have sought to make immigration a central issue in the election, and UNC FactCheck has written multiple stories about claims on the issue.
With this background information noted, let’s examine the accuracy of the CLF’s latest claims about McCready and his views on immigration.
The Claims
The first claim is that McCready “admitted he’d fight tooth and nail to stop America from building the wall,” and cites McCready saying, “we don’t need 3,000 miles of wall.”
While it is accurate to say that McCready opposes President Donald Trump’s proposed wall on the Mexican border, it’s a stretch to suggest that McCready said he would “fight tooth and nail” against it when looking at exactly what he said.
The CLF’s language also seems to imply that McCready had not previously expressed opposition to a border wall before this debate. That is false, as he has been on record as opposing a wall since at least August 2018.
In addition, the CLF misquotes what McCready said in the debate, which can be seen in the CLF’s own video. The group’s blog post simply doesn’t include everything McCready said on immigration.
“We absolutely need a secure border,” McCready said. “If Democrats are saying we don’t need a secure border, that’s crazy. Now, I don’t think we need 3,000 miles of walls to do it. I think we can use the technology I used over in Iraq… to supplement the physical barriers that are there to secure the border.”
The CLF follows that up by alleging that McCready “endorsed sanctuary cities” when he said that Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, was right to veto legislation that would have required sheriffs to comply with ICE detainer requests.
The referenced legislation is HB 370, which was passed by the Republican-controlled state legislature on party-line votes and then vetoed by Cooper.
In his veto message for HB 370, Cooper made several criticisms of the bill, which he said was “simply about scoring partisan political points and using fear to divide North Carolina.”
“As the former top law enforcement officer of our state, I know that current law allows the state to jail and prosecute dangerous criminals regardless of immigration status,” wrote Cooper. “This bill, in addition to being unconstitutional, weakens law enforcement in North Carolina by mandating sheriffs to do the job of federal agents, using local resources that could hurt their ability to protect their counties.”
When asked in an interview if sheriffs should be required to cooperate with ICE officials, McCready accused Bishop of “playing politics with our public safety” and attacking law enforcement. McCready did also say Cooper’s decision to veto HB 370 was “the right call.”
While it is debatable if sheriffs not complying with ICE detainer requests can be described as “sanctuary city” policy, the claim that McCready supports sanctuary cities is not debatable.
In a comment to PolitiFact, McCready spokesman Matt Fried specifically said, “No, Dan doesn’t support a ‘sanctuary city.’ Violent criminals belong in jail in every city.”
Sanctuary cities have also been banned under state law since HB 318 was signed into law in 2015. The law prohibits the “adoption of sanctuary ordinances,” and it says counties and cities can’t have “any policy, ordinance, or procedure that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws.”
The blog post then asserts, “There’s just no difference whatsoever between a vote for him and a vote for radical socialists like Elizabeth Warren who are funding his campaign.”
This isn’t the first time McCready has been compared to Warren during the campaign.
While Warren has sent out fundraising emails in support of McCready, it’s misleading to suggest there’s no difference between “radical socialists like Elizabeth Warren” and McCready, who has promoted himself as both a moderate and a capitalist.
Warren and McCready also differ on a number of prominent issues. For example, Warren supports Medicare-for-All, the Green New Deal and impeaching Trump, while McCready has said that he doesn’t support any of those positions.
A CLF spokesman ends the blog post by claiming, “Even when it comes to keeping families safe, McCready would rather side with the open borders socialists that have taken over the Democratic Party than do what’s right for North Carolina.”
While McCready is sometimes vague when it comes to specifics on immigration, the CLF claiming that McCready sides with “open borders socialists” is false and easily contradicted in a number of ways.
There’s the fact that McCready has frequently sought to distance himself from the more liberal immigration positions that are associated with the national Democratic Party.
When asked in an interview if he believed illegal immigrants should get free health care and be eligible for welfare (a position that isn’t exactly what most Democratic presidential candidates have said they support), McCready simply replied, “No.” He then argued that many Americans are struggling to get by and said, “We need to fix health care for Americans.”
In addition to McCready specifically saying in the debate that “If Democrats are saying we don’t need a secure border, that’s crazy,” the issues page on McCready’s website also has a section titled “Securing our Border while Protecting our Values.” Here, he talks about his belief that the border should be secured by reinforcing physical barriers with technology like infrared cameras and drones.
In the end, it’s difficult to see how the CLF’s claims against McCready, and in support of Bishop, can be seen as anything more than scare tactics, falsely charging that McCready supports “open borders” or sides with “open borders socialists.”
