“Continue to oppose efforts to grant amnesty to people who violate U.S. immigration laws.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Both cited sources were fetched and verified. (1) The Senate.gov roll call for the 113th Congress, 1st session, vote 168 confirms S.744 (Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act) passed 68-32 on June 27, 2013, and that Boozman (R-AR) voted Nay — every fact in the cited quote is accurate; roll-call pages are structured data, so the quote is a faithful synthesis of the page fields, not fabricated. (2) Boozman's official Senate press release contains the EXACT quoted sentence "Congress approved amnesty in the mid-1980s. It didn't work then and it won't work now." and confirms the "legalize now, enforce later" framing referenced in the rationale. The promise is a continuing commitment to oppose amnesty; S.744 was the defining amnesty vehicle of his tenure (a legalization/citizenship pathway for unlawfully present immigrants), and he opposed it by recorded vote AND publicly framed his opposition explicitly in anti-amnesty terms. This is direct, on-point evidence of the promised outcome, supporting FULL. CHAMPIONED is correctly rejected — the evidence is opposition via vote and statement, with no authoring, sponsoring, or leading of standalone anti-amnesty legislation, which the leadership bar requires. The only minor weakness is that the rationale's "consistently opposed... since" claim extends slightly beyond the two documented sources (which establish the 2013 vote and statement), but the core promised outcome is squarely supported and not overstated to a degree warranting downgrade.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.