You've probably seen the campaign ad: U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall supports giving food stamps to illegal immigrants.

The claim by former congressman Mac Collins is one of the latest salvos against Marshall, D-Ga., in the battle for Georgia's 8th District seat.

Marshall has repeatedly denied any desire to allow illegal immigrants to receive food stamps. And the way the Collins' camp is using one of Marshall's votes in 2004 to back up its advertising campaign and public statements is misleading. The vote dealt with the sponsorship of legal immigrants, not illegals as the ad suggests.

But the issue is more complicated than that. It boils down to an interpretation of what the vote means in practical terms and whether one vote that did not explicitly deal with illegal immigration can really mean that Marshall wants illegal immigrants to receive food stamps.

Marshall has often split with his own party on immigration issues, voting with a majority of Republicans and earning a high grade from a conservative immigration lobbying group called Americans for Better Immigration. But Collins has pushed immigration issues throughout the campaign, painting Marshall as a liberal politician sympathetic to illegals.

This strategy also is playing out in other congressional districts as the Republican Party looks to hold onto its majority in Congress, and Democrats look to take over. Campaigns targeting incumbent Democrats on the food-stamps-for-illegals issue are under way against incumbent Democrats in Texas' 17th Congressional District, Iowa's 3rd District and Georgia's 12th, where U.S. Rep. John Barrow will face Max Burns in November's midterm election.

Various reasons are cited in these races to back up the idea that Democratic candidates want to give illegal immigrants food stamps, but in the 8th District, Collins' campaign is pointing to one vote.

On July 23, 2004, Marshall voted against an amendment to House Resolution 4766. The amendment would have called for enforcement of a particular section of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, section 213a. That section of the act deals with immigrants who are in the country legally and have a sponsor who has promised to keep them from becoming a burden to the government.

Nowhere in the section does it mention illegal immigrants. But the Collins campaign stands behind its ad campaign and frequent assertions that Marshall "voted to give illegal immigrants food stamps," as the campaign argues in Collins' online blog.

The Marshall camp takes exception.

"That's like saying Jim Marshall voted for food stamps for pandas," Marshall press secretary Doug Moore said.

"This bill has nothing to do with illegal immigrants," Moore said. "Mac just lied."

Section 213a deals with legal immigrants who, because of their income levels, are required to have a sponsor who agrees to keep them from getting government welfare benefits such as food stamps. The section also gives government agencies the power to sue sponsors who don't make good on their agreement. But the code section is not enforced.

"No entity has ever sought reimbursement," said Rosemary Jenks, an immigration attorney in Washington, D.C., who said she wrote the amendment in question.

Jenks, as well as a spokesman for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, agreed that Section 213a of the immigration act has nothing to do with illegal immigrants getting food stamps. But Collins campaign manager Ted Prill argues that, if the section was enforced, it would make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to get food stamps. That's because government entities would check to make sure recipients are in the country legally and that they have a sponsor.

Jenks said that's reasonable. But, asked if the amendment she wrote would have prevented illegal immigrants form getting food stamps, Jenks answered "no."

"It only deals with immigrants that have sponsors, which are legal immigrants," she said.

Shawn Saucier, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman, agreed that section 213a has nothing to do with illegal immigrants.

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank that favors tighter controls on immigration, said it would be "hard for me to make a case" that a politician who voted against the amendment also would be serious about tightening immigration controls. Still, when asked whether voting against the amendment is the equivalent of supporting food stamps for illegal immigrants, Krikorian replied: "It could be, but it doesn't have to be."

Jenks works for Numbers USA, a group that lobbies to lower the number of immigrants entering the United States. That group is connected to Americans for Better Immigration, which publishes congressional report cards on immigration issues.

For his career, Marshall gets a B+ grade from Americans for Better Immigration.

Collins got an A+ from the group for his time in Congress. More information is available at www.betterimmigration.com.

By comparison, California Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi, whose record on immigration the Collins' campaign has repeatedly paired with Marshall's, is one of 10 current members of Congress to receive an F- from the group.

The Telegraph attempted to interview Collins for this article, but Prill declined to make him available without assurances that Marshall, too, would be quoted directly.

"We stand behind (our assertions)," Prill said. "(It's) a fair representation."