I've defended Lou Dobbs on this forum not because I 100% agree with his position, but because most people who oppose him, do so for the wrong reasons. It's the cheap labor interest using corporate money to reframe the issue in the context of race. Sure there are racists who are also against illegal immigration. That doesn't justify illegal immigration. Those who mention race in the context of illegal immigration aren't much better than the hate groups. It's almost as racist to advocate for a race as it is to advocate against a race. Most hatred towards illegal immigrants comes from hatred towards illegal immigration, regardless of race. This is not a race issue. Anyone who tries to make it one is playing into the hands of the corporations who just want cheap labor. They don't care about the health and well being of illegal immigrants they defend for anything more than the cheap labor they provide. They actually benefit more from them being illegal citizens than they would if those citizens had amnesty. If amnesty laws were passed, they would probably fire those with amnesty and hire more illegal citizens for cheaper wages.

I agree with Lou's basic premise that you can't reform immigration until you can control it and that there's no need for amnesty. I doubt our immigration laws need to be any more lenient. I think that they just need to be enforced. An unenforced law is worse than no law at all. But I'm open-minded enough to know that we may find-out that our immigration policies are too strict once we attempt to fully enforce them. I doubt we will ever know just how strict they actually are until then. Where I may differer with Lou is on how to enforce them. I don't think much needs to be done in the way of controlling the supply of illegal immigrants. I'd put more focus on controlling the demand. We can stop illegal immigrants by giving them less of a reason to enter illegally or stay than we can by attempting to deny them access.

As for amnesty. I don't see how the "pay a fine and back of the line" policy would work without some incentive to pay the fine. If paying a fine gives them the right to stay and work here, then it's not really a fine, but instead a purchase of near citizenship. That's just a lesser form of amnesty than outright forgiveness.

Here's my 3 step solution on the issue of illegal immigration:

Step 1) Stop mixing the issues. We don't have a legal immigration problem. We have more than enough people willing to migrate legally to this country. We have more than enough American citizens willing to fill those job positions that would be filled by immigrants as long as its for a fair wage in the mean time. The only thing we don't have is corporations willing to pay what the American job market will bear for those American jobs. There is simply no excuse to use illegal immigrants for labor; so we can and should address illegal immigration separately.

Step 2) I know many are going to hate this, but we need national I.D. cards, at least for employment. Every citizen can pay for their own if they want to work in this country. Applicants have been paying for everything else involved in the hiring process. An employable citizen I.D. shouldn't cost more than the gas and dry-cleaning required for a few job interviews.

Step 3) Crack down harder on illegal employment. If we just did this, we wouldn't need a border fence or deportation for the vast majority of illegal immigrants. Most of them are just seeking work.

Aside from the cheap labor, there are also National Security issues with illegal immigration. I take the same "focus on demand" approach to solving those as well. We can stop spies and terrorists easier by giving them less of a reason than we can by attempting to deny them access. If we followed step 3, then the terrorist and spies would have a harder time entering illegally because they wouldn't have those illegal immigrants seeking employment to hide amongst.

I posted this in the other thread. What do you think of this concept, bill?




http://www.aspenpost.net/2008/04/15/illega...-is-not-working

Great idea for a dictatorship

Instead, Open the borders to anyone and everyone

This is the land of the free, anyone is FREE to come here and stay here. No papers needed. That is my solution.

Maybe we should get RID of anyone after 20 years who doesn't do their fair share who was born here without their ancestors coming in chains.
All those born here Americans who take up space...maybe we should exile them as they are a waste of space. (just being ironic here).

After all, none of US own the world or this country.
We all just rent space here for a limited time only.

Or as the saying goes, "There but for the Grace of God go I"

Immigration and gun control are two topics for Democrats to avoid until after the election.

I agree with it. The third way mentioned by Mike McGarry is the same as what I mention in step 3. It's dependent on step 2 to preempt the excuses that employers will have for not checking.

I like all three of these ideas, although I know that the national ID cards would face an uphill battle.

There has been a lot of discussion about farmers not able to plant and/or harvest without illegal immigrants. There was a time in this country when that was not the case. The County I grew up in is a large, rural agricultural County in Florida. We are known for peanuts, watermelons, cantalopes, cucumbers, sorghum and other produce crops. In my generation, every male teenager worked in the melon fields during the summer. Many purchased their first vehicles with the money the earned. There came a time when some of the bigger farming concerns began to hire illegals. They were paid less and it was harder and harder for locals to get summer work. Now, illegals are hired in other jobs besides farming, so owners are having to pay higher wages to compete. In a lot of cases they are having to pay higher wages than they ever paid high school kids. I do not feel sorry for farmers who now have to depend solely on illegals to bring in their crop. Some of them created these problems themselves many years ago. I also do not buy the "illegals only do jobs Americans don't want" line. That is the same line used by anyone to justify why we should look the other way or open the borders or provide amnesty.

And while we are on the subject of borders; every Country has them. Most borders have expanded, contracted, or otherwise changed during a country's existence. Sometimes those borders changed with violence or chicanery. We are no different. The only way I would be in favor of opening our border, is if we annex Mexico and make it a State. Then we'll see how they like living with our laws, minimum wage requirements, business regulations, building codes, health codes, OSHA regulations, etc..

minimum wage

ha

who do you think pays the people under minimum wage and shall continue doing it?
Who imports clothes and other items at under minimum wage?
Who makes billions off of that (the rich).

The poor meek gentle person from south of the border is not the problem
I hope more companies go to Mexico and desert the USA
Serves us right for being so greedy and prejudicial if that happens.

But it's easier to whine about people who are no threats,(the kind gentle souls from south of the border), than to go after the people (the Bush's and Clinton's) who are.

Every 12 year old in America goes into movies that are rated R with fake id
I guess you all think the kind gentle souls from south of the border are stupid or something and won't get the same ID as needed

And if there is a nationalID card (maybe a yellow star etched in one's forehead or something???) give it to people free with their citizenship
along with say $50,000 a piece.
Tax the people who make $100000 or more and make them pay for it. Greedy MF'ers that they are. They can all afford to open their pockets a little bit for humanity sake.
Tax those over 10 million, say an excise tax of 20 % extra, as thanks for helping out the poor.

Nobody in the world needs more than $4 million dollars to live lifetime decently invested half well.

Take the rest and give to the poor. The love you feel in your heart will be worth alot more than that.

You cannot start with the little person at the bottom of the ladder. You need to change at the top, with the richest of the rich.
As said, they are greedy mf'ers...and the sad thing is, when they fall, who picks them up, but those same kind gentle meek people with nothing
who rescue them in their hour of need. (unlike the other way around).

This post is just nonsense.

I don't think he even reads the threads before he posts. He just reads the titles and assumes he knows what's being said in the rest of the thread.

Why?

WHat is nonsense is being afraid of the little people, when its the top 1/2 percent that needs to be afraid of.

It's like kicking a union down like Reagan did, then complaining the workers get squat

The lowest rung should all be unionized and empower the unions to where they were

They lowest rung are the heroes, the top rung the enemies. To take the top down, you need strength in numbers, and the more the merrier on the bottom signing up unionizing

You can't back the rich and be against the poor, then claim you don't like the wage system.

Grant immediate citizenship to all, but make all of them vote. Instead of thinking they are the enemies, open ones mind and see they are our friends and the ones that will save us, instead of wanting to drop bombs or shoot to kill every single one who comes through the gate.

It is their country too.
As we have advertised for years for all to come here (or was that just propaganda, and meant for the white folks, the elite?)

Why are people with guns, actually scared little puttycats?
And those against guns not scared?
Ironic isn't it?

I will love to see if they got rid of all the poor people, who would end up providing the food, clothes, big cars, etc. that the rich man uses? They wouldn't know what to wipe their rear ends on when there is no toilet paper cause it doesn't exist because they got rid of all the poor people from coming in because they were scared of their own shadow.

again, there but for the grace of God go I.

He's not even on the same page.

Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.


"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."


Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Every American citizen needs to read this!

But by racists being against illegal immigration -- and being given a forum on Dobbs' prgoram actually diminishes Dobbs' argument because it makes it look like the only people he can get to come on his program and defend his position are racists...

Corporate America may be doing that --- but Dobbs is helping the perception by no using a more credible element to speak out against illegal immigration.

If he used professors and members of the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, etc. he would be on a much stronger foundation.

The same goes for his incredible statements that leprosy is rising in this country because of illegal immigration...

Leprosy is rising in this nation -- but most of it is because of legal emigration...



I agree with the first part of the statement...

BUt you cannot control illegal immigration and not offer amnesty --- because the only way to not have amnesty is to force illegal immigrants to leave the country and you cannot force all the illegal immigrants to leave the country --- without absorbing huge costs to underwrite getting them out...

The bigger problem is the border...we need to secure the border...and I think that is a higher priority than getting illegal immigrants already in the country out...

We have limited financial resources and how we use them is quite important...without amnesty --- we cannot devote the resources to the border...which in my mind is the top priority.



If we started better enforcement -- it would work...

The key is better enforcement...

BUt we will never get to the enforcement level you suggest - because of limited resources.

Here's my 3 step solution on the issue of illegal immigration:



WE do because it takes so long to process legal immigration...to this country.

Look at all the Iraqis that want to emigrate to this country.

BUt they are in line to get in -- and many have been waiting for years.

Many more who are here want to stay and the process is a mess...

[b]Step 2) I know many are going to hate this, but we need national I.D. cards, at least for employment. Every citizen can pay for their own if they want to work in this country. Applicants have been paying for everything else involved in the hiring process. An employable citizen I.D. shouldn't cost more than the gas and dry-cleaning required for a few job interviews.[/b]

I think you are right onb two counts -- people are going to hate it -- we do not trust the government many of us ---

But the sad thing is a national ID card may necessary --- but very hard to administer...

I think national ID cards can only work if the government pays for them...

I do not think you can make the citizens pay for them...

Step 3) Crack down harder on illegal employment. If we just did this, we wouldn't need a border fence or deportation for the vast majority of illegal immigrants. Most of them are just seeking work.

Aside from the cheap labor, there are also National Security issues with illegal immigration. I take the same "focus on demand" approach to solving those as well. We can stop spies and terrorists easier by giving them less of a reason than we can by attempting to deny them access. If we followed step 3, then the terrorist and spies would have a harder time entering illegally because they wouldn't have those illegal immigrants seeking employment to hide amongst.

May 6, 2008
Editorial
Death by Detention
A chilling article by Nina Bernstein in The Times on Monday recounted the secrecy, neglect and lack of oversight that are a few of the shameful symptoms of the booming sector of the nation’s prison industry — the detention of undocumented foreigners.

Ms. Bernstein chronicled the death of Boubacar Bah, a tailor from Guinea who was imprisoned in New Jersey for overstaying a tourist visa. He fell and fractured his skull in the Elizabeth Detention Center early last year. Though clearly gravely injured, Mr. Bah was shackled and taken to a disciplinary cell. He was left alone — unconscious and occasionally foaming at the mouth — for more than 13 hours. He was eventually taken to the hospital and died after four months in a coma.

Nobody told Mr. Bah’s relatives until five days after his fall. When they finally found him, he was on life support, soon to become one of the 66 immigrants known to have died in federal custody between 2004 and 2007. Mr. Bah’s family still does not know the full story of when or how he suffered his fatal injuries.

It is shameful, though hardly a surprise, that they remain in the dark. There is no public system for tracking deaths in immigration custody, no requirement for independent investigations. Relatives and lawyers who want to unearth details of such tragedies have found the bureaucracy unresponsive and hostile. In the case of Mr. Bah, records were marked “proprietary information — not for distribution” by the Corrections Corporation of America, a private company that runs the Elizabeth Detention Center and many others under contract with the federal government.

Secrecy and shockingly inadequate medical care are hardly the only problems with immigration detention. Immigrants taken into federal custody enter a world where many of the rights taken for granted by people charged with real crimes do not exist. Detainees have no right to legal representation. Many are unable to defend or explain themselves, or even to understand the charges against them, because they don’t speak English and lack access to lawyers or telephones.

What standards do exist for the treatment of immigrants in federal custody are only recommendations. A detainee, family member or lawyer who finds a violation has no way to force the government to correct it.

As authorities at the federal and local level continue rounding up illegal immigrants in these harsh days of ever-stricter enforcement, the potential for abuse will continue to grow — largely out of sight. Although immigration law is every bit as complex as tax law — and the consequences for violators more dire — the detention system seems designed to sacrifice thoughtful deliberation and justice to expediency and swift deportation.

Many detainees may have a valid defense — and at any rate have committed only administrative violations such as overstaying a visa or entering the country without authorization. Yet their cases are handled with a toxic mixture of secrecy and inattention to basic rights. This mistreatment of a vulnerable population, which advocates for immigrants trace to the roundups of Muslims after 9/11 and the subsequent clamor for tougher immigration laws, is hostile to American values and disproportionate to the threat that these immigrants pose.

Congress has failed repeatedly to enact meaningful immigration reform, and the prospects in the next year or so are slim. It can act on this. The government urgently needs to bring the detention system up to basic standards of decency and fairness. That means lifting the veil on detention centers — particularly the private jails and the state prisons and county jails that take detainees under federal contracts — and holding them to the same enforceable standards that apply to prisons. It also means designing a system that is not a vast holding pen for ordinary people who pose no threat to public safety, like the 52-year-old tailor, Boubacar Bah.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/opinion/...agewanted=print

Taz, I'm not even going to respond to the article you posted of how illegal immigrants are treated ones they are here because it has nothing to do with this thread. Start another thread if you want to talk about the humanitarian issue. This thread is about minimizing illegal immigration, not making life more comfortable for illegal immigrants here. We should be concerned about humanitarian issues everywhere in the world. But we shouldn't mix the issues. All that does is obfuscate.

Try watching the show before you make that claim. Lou interviews plenty of people who are not known racists. He interviewes plenty of congressmen and senators on the issue dispite the fact that most politicians avoid the issue. I could provide a list, but it's not worth my time to dig it up. For now I will just cite Brian Bilbray, the congressman from my district who has been on the show several times. Part of the reason why he was able to win that seat an retain it for the Republican party (despite my vote) after Randy "Duke" Cunningham was hauled off to jail for corruption, was because his democratic opponent was on the wrong side of the illegal immigration issue. Bilbray won on that issue.

Lou also interviews many law enforcement agents on the issue. Who knows the cost of immigration law enforcement better than law enforcers?

You just won't let that go will you? One inaccuracy out of 1000's of reports, that nobody except his opponents is even talking about. You don't hear his racist fans talking about Leprosy. Sorry Taz, his credibility isn't ruined from one bad report.

That's funnySo when Beamer says it you agreed. But when I say it you disagree. Hmmmm!!!!

So now your talking about the cost of forcing them out again despite my step 3. Make up your mind. Do you agree with the 3rd way or not?

Oh! So now you are for tightening the border? What's that going to cost? Take away there reason to be here first, and then tighten the border if you need to.

That's all Lou has been advocating for. You're blaming him for the hidden agendas of his racist fans that never get promoted on his show. You're saying that Lou "promotes" racism and xenophobia. He does nothing of the sort. Even if he occasionally interviews a racist and doesn't announce the racist affiliation, it makes no difference if the racism isn't mentioned on the show. Show a Lou Dobbs quote where he agreed with a "racist point of view" like you said in the other thread. Even if he agrees with a point of view from a racist, that doesn't mean he has agreed with a racist point of view.

It's not like they are wearing white sheets during the interview either. And even if they were, should they be denied a voice? You don't have to agree with what they say; but censorship would be worse than hearing them. And what if they speak the truth? What if someone were wearing a white sheet calling for an end to global warming?

Lou simply calls for enforcement of our immigration laws. It probably wouldn't even be his pet issue if the rest of the mainstream news media had the guts to report on it.

Limited resources?

I advocate for focusing on the demand for illegal immigrants instead of the supply of illegal immigrants. Enforcing employment laws would cost much less than securing the border, which you are now advocating for. You are talking about denying access, when we both know that if they want in bad enough, they will find a way. They are digging tunnels under the border. That's not going to stop until we take away there reason for wanting to come here.

That's still not an excuse to allow illegal immigrants. There's simply no excuse to allow illegal immigrants. The line is long, but that's an administrative problem, not an immigration policy problem.

They'll pay for them if that's what stands in the way of employment. They can just call it an employment license. We pay for registration of our drivers license and vehicle. Why wouldn't we pay for an employment license?

delete

C-SPAN debate on Immigration Reform

The event is after the Book TV interview about 1 hour and 3 minutes into the video. Just used the slider to skip to the debate.

Well, I cannot agree with your take on Lou Dobbs.

He is seeking ratings and he is doing it by giving voice to hateful elements of our society.

This does not show good judgment.

That said, I did enjoy his program last night excepting his dealing with the border issue stuff in which he appears a demagogue.

But on the FDA isuses he was dead on.

because they are unable and unfit to deal with those even verbally, you assess?

i agree that dems would avoid them like virtue would devil, at all costs.

if dems wont the presidency, however, the only course would be to tackle these loud and clear and then some. pluss all other repub strongholds.

but making strong statements with decisive backup isn't really dem style no more...

should make a poll: will dems choose to forfeit presidency (again) rather than suffer growing a public backbone on controversial and hotly debated issues?

hmm, i'll go and make it promptly

Certainly, your prerogativee. However, one would think if a comprehensive solution to the problem is going to be achieved --- and if mass deportation is going to be one of the solutions --- one would think that any person would embrace the theory that detainees deserve to be held in a safe and humane space where they need not have to fear for their health and well being. This is particularly troublesome since persons like Lou Dobbs embrace massive deportation as a means of Is it impossible for you to at least embrace these sentiments.



Yes he does. The problem: not only does Dobbsb provide a forum for the racists to talk, but he endorses the point of view of the racists giving them credibility.



Indeed he does. He interviews a lot of people. The question is not whether he interviews a lot of people or not. Lou sees himself as a advocacy journalist which is fine. He can see himself as whatever he likes. The problem is when he used racists as part of his advocacy effort by embracing the positions they take on his show.



And you just will not accept the reality that the dozens of posts I have provided on the other threads call into question his facts and figures in a number of areas.



Some common ground.

The problem is how amnesty works. Say you get your national ID system. Thousands of immigrants are caught in the ID requirement and scheduled for deportation. How to we detain them if the conditions for detention now is such that people are dying? How to we afford to How much more money in taxes are you willing to spend so that new illegal immigrant detention facilities can be built.



I had not heard you say that you did not favor shipping them out.

More common ground indeed.

You said that you agreed with Dobbs on the issue and he is against amnesty and for deportation --- so my apologies if I confused your position with his.



Well, the border needs to be tightened. I thought we all agreed and had common ground on the reality that we support the enforcement of the US's immigration laws. To enforce the laws you have to close the border don't you? The closed border was not just to stop illegal immigration from Mexico, but my thinking was always that it was a national security issue as well. Granted we have not seen dozens of al Qaeda fighters crossing the Rio Grande (that we know of) but it still is a concern.

I agree with step three -- more common ground...

But I do have concerns how we afford to check the businesses? How many new officers would be needed nationwide?



Well, how long are we talking?

I figure before this all could be implemented it would likely be 5-7 years. Can we wait that long to secure our borders?



Seems a little circular to me...

Well, in a simple way, yes. But the question is once you have enforcement what do you do? Lou wants the people deported. We do not. How are they to be handled.

I am afraid on Lou we are going to have to agree to disagree. First, I have demonstrated a number of times where he plays loose with the facts --- and at least one time where when confronted with the evidence that he was wrong --- he refused to admit his mistake and said he stood by the reporting. That is called lying in my book.

Second, he does not promote overtly the racist aspects of their points of view, except to the extent that he endorses their call for control of the borders. Now you can mince words all you like, but when a popular cable news host has you on his show a couple of times and agrees with your point of view --- you may try and say he is not promoting the person making the statement --- but I think that it a stretch IMHO.

I never said that Lou Dobbs was a racist. I said he promotes persons who have racist points of view by giving them a forum on his show and agreeing with them. I do not believe that Lou is or ever has been a racist. I do believe that by shading the truth and providing a forum for people who run racist websites and the like, instead of the dozens of other people who are out there that do not promote racism or intolerance with their point of view, Lou is acting in an intolerant manner.

In addition, by distorting the truth by publishing incorrect statistics and information he is fearmongering.

He is being dishonest in trying to promote his point of view.

I think that hurts his cause.

Additionally, it has been shown that his show promotes intolerance in studies by the Southern Poverty Law Center and Yale University.



Frankly, BIll its worse than wearing white sheets. You may think that is a gross overchracterization, but I suggest that it is worse because Lou is using his purported news program to provide a forum. People tune into the news to get the facts. If they get the facts from racists --- that gives the racists added credibility. Some might say -- well if they are right about this -- then maybe they are right about other things.



He does more than that. He has stated that he is against amnesty and he is against McCain/Kennedy's legislation to solve the problem.

And I guess it is also what he does not say which is the problem as well. He gives hints about how he feels about things, but he offers no solution. He purports to be an advicacy journalist, but he provides no details.

By not actually examining the costs that would be involved for the different solutions he is disserving his audience IMHO.



Yes, limited resources. In order to establish the employer regulatory scheme you are suggesting you would need hundreds of new agents to check with employers and make certain they were in compliance. There is no free solution. There are costs to all solutions.

I understand what you are saying about taking away the reason for them wanting to come here, but do you reallly expect it to have that much of a deterrent effect?

I think even if there is no employment for illegal immigrants they will still come because they feel the health sevrices and the unemployment in the US is better than the health services and unemployment in Mexico. Because they may be the lucky one to be able to scam the system.



You may not want to acknowledge that its a problem which adds to the illegal immigration problem, but that does not mean that it just goes away. Its still there.

So, how much more of your income are you willing to provide to improve the system?

$2,000 per year?

$5,000 per year?



Bill, I think you are being a little unreasonable in this regard. How many immigrants with green cards drive? Not many. And how do they pay for their ID when they need the ID to get a job so they can pay for their ID?

Gabrielle:

Great to see you.

Hope you have been well.

Wow.

I guess someone is not on the Democratic bandwagon for 2008.

Well, if you ever change your mind -- our tent is big enough.

All the best.

This is the same straw-man lie that Obama told that got him on Lou's bad side. Show a Lou Dobbs quote that proves he embraces mass deportation.

We don't need to detain or deport. We just need to deny employment.

Show me a 50-foot fence and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder.

You're just as conservative if not more than Lou on this.

With the money we save from not having to provide for illegal immigrants.

Probably less than the new border patrol agents if we didn't crack down on illegal employment.

Well, you're figures are probably wrong. We can crack down on illegal employment now. This would drastically lower the cost and requirement to secure the border.

Lou thinks it's circular to think that you can reform immigration without controlling immigration. I think it's circular to try to secure the border without cracking down on illegal employment.

Again, prove that Lou advocates deportation for anyone besides the criminally dangerous.

If you have the type of enforcement I'm talking about , illegal immigrants go home voluntarily because there is nothing here for them.

Intolerant of what? Law breaking?

And what's this "instead of" lie. First of all, Lou doesn't "promote" anyone but himself. Lou gives interviews and debates with the entire spectrum. I've told you this before and you keep repeating the same lies. You must think that if you get the last lie in, enough people will believe it. I've seen Lou invite his opponents on the show for debate more than he invites the people you call racists.

Taz, I don't even know why you are still trying to assassinate Lou's character on this thread. This thread is about solving the illegal immigration problem. I can see why you would bring up Lou's admitted positions for debate, if you even know them. But, spreading lies about Lou and speculating on his hidden agendas is not going to solve the illegal immigration problem. I thought you were here to debate the issue.

So you are acknowledging that there is a cost to the tax payer just having illegal immigrants here. The solution is simply, deny any government-paid benefits to anyone who can't prove citizenship.

This question is irrelevant obfuscation. If the problem needs to be solved, the cost is unavoidable. It's like asking how much are you willing to pay to win the Iraq war, when you know citizens don't make budget decisions.

So 12 million illegal immigrants are going to have no job, and no social services (except religious) and they are not going to be arrested or detained --- they are just going to magically get the fare back to Mexico and go there to live out their lives...

Now Bill, you were starting to make sense. BUt even you have to admit this is quite a stretch.



Well Bill --- I do not know how to convince of this --- because I could deluge your thread with the same evidence I have provided on other threads which you conveniently ignore...statements from Latino groups --- which point out since Dobbs started campaigning against illegal immigrants --- violent crimes against Latinos have increased...


December 05, 2007

FBI Statistics Show Anti-Latino Hate Crimes on the Rise
New FBI statistics suggest anti-Latino hate crimes have risen by almost 35 percent since 2003. In California—the state with the largest number of Latinos—the number of hate crimes against Latinos have almost doubled. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the violence engulfing Latinos is part of a backlash over the immigration debate in this country. We speak with Mark Potok of the SPLC


AMY GOODMAN: New FBI statistics suggest anti-Latino hate crimes have risen by almost 35% since 2003. In California, the state with the largest number of Latinos, the number of hate crimes against Latinos have almost doubled.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the violence engulfing Latinos is part of a backlash over the immigration debate in this country. For years, the Southern Poverty Law Center has been tracking examples of physical and psychological violence waged against Latinos.

Mark Potok joins us now from Montgomery, Alabama, editor of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s quarterly Intelligence Report, which monitors hate groups in the US.

Thanks for joining us, Mark. What have you found?

MARK POTOK: Thanks for having me, Amy.

Well, basically, it’s an anecdotal report. The FBI statistics, like all hate crimes statistics, are extremely shaky. But the direction that things are going in is obvious. I mean, what we did was essentially compile a list of horrors, stories about, you know, a teenager in Houston being sodomized with an umbrella patio pole in an anti-immigrant attack; you know, a kid attacked at a fair by the Klan in Kentucky; you know, another teenager, a Latino teen, chased around a room in Long Island by neo-Nazis with a running chainsaw, saying, you know, “This is how you run for the border.” And these crimes also include a great many people who aren’t affiliated with any kind of hate group or anything like that.

So, really, the point of our report, really, the cover story in our forthcoming Intelligence Report, is that the country seems to be awash in these kinds of crimes. And I would say, beyond that, that these crimes, I think, are clearly the outcome of the kind of rancid political debate that you’ve been talking about on your show and in fact were talking about with Lou Dobbs yesterday.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I actually wanted to turn to an excerpt of the conversation that we had yesterday with CNN anchor Lou Dobbs. During yesterday’s broadcast, we played this report from Lou Dobbs’s show, Lou Dobbs Tonight, about former Mexican President Vicente Fox’s May 2006 visit to the United States.

CASEY WIAN: This Mexican military incursion was fully authorized: a Mexican air force jet carrying President Vicente Fox, who was not just invited to Utah, but encouraged to visit by Governor John Huntsman.

PRESIDENT VICENTE FOX: We fully support the businessmen from Utah and Mexico…

CASEY WIAN: It’s estimated Utah has about 100,000 illegal aliens, and the number is growing rapidly. Utah is also a part of the territory some militant Latino activists refer to as Aztlan, the portion of the Southwest United States they claim rightfully belongs to Mexico.

You could call this the Vicente Fox Aztlan tour, since the three states he’ll visit—Utah, Washington, and California—are all part of some radical group’s vision of the mythical indigenous homeland, Lou.

LOU DOBBS: Casey, thank you very much.

AMY GOODMAN: After we played this clip for Lou Dobbs, we pointed out the Southern Poverty Law Center criticized CNN for airing that report, in part because it featured a map of the United States highlighting the seven Southwestern states that Mexico supposedly covets and calls Aztlan. The map was prominently sourced to the Council of Conservative Citizens, which is considered by many to be a white supremacist hate group. We asked Lou Dobbs for his response.

LOU DOBBS: I mean, we weren’t hiding anything. We had no idea what they were. The field producer who used it went on the web, pulled—did a “grab,” as it’s called, and put it up. And she was suspended for a day for doing so.

Did you guys know that we have sent our producers and our reporters down to the Southern Poverty Law Center years ago to make certain this sort of thing doesn’t happen? That’s how seriously we take the issue. And for you to talk about the incursion, you forgot to point out that that was coming out of rather jocular discussion of the incursions by Mexican forces along the border and the response of the US government.

JUAN GONZALEZ: But—

LOU DOBBS: And, I mean, are you offended?

AMY GOODMAN: Lou, did you say you have no idea what the Council of Conservative Citizens is?

LOU DOBBS: Did I say I don’t?

AMY GOODMAN: Yes.

LOU DOBBS: I certainly do now. Absolutely. What did I—you didn’t hear what I just said?

AMY GOODMAN: I just want to—

LOU DOBBS: They’re acknowledged as a hate group. Absolutely.

JUAN GONZALEZ: See, but the problem, this—

LOU DOBBS: What is the problem here?

JUAN GONZALEZ: Projecting the image to your viewers that there’s a Mexican desire to reconquer, the Reconquista of the Southwestern United States, does create images—and especially in people who are not necessarily as intelligent as you necessarily or who have studied as much as you have—

LOU DOBBS: Thank you for conceding that.

JUAN GONZALEZ: —that the country is under siege.

LOU DOBBS: My god, are you so self-important that you don’t think people have a sense of humor when Casey Wian says this is an authorized incursion by the Mexican government? You don’t think people have a sense of humor about that? The reality is, I think most people do. The other thing is, who are you trying to protect America from? I’m a little confused, because the reality is that there is a strong radical group of Reconquistas and Aztlan aficionados, and I have had them demonstrating against me in a couple of cities over the past few weeks. Don’t sit here being disingenuous—

JUAN GONZALEZ: I’m not.

LOU DOBBS: —and sanctimonious, because, let me tell you something—

JUAN GONZALEZ: I’m not being disingenuous.

LOU DOBBS: —there are many idiots on either extreme of this debate, and don’t kid yourself—

AMY GOODMAN: But, Lou, I think what’s important here—

LOU DOBBS: —and you know it.

AMY GOODMAN: —once again, is the pattern. It’s the pattern—

LOU DOBBS: The pattern—come on, please.

AMY GOODMAN: No, let me make my point, because what I talk about is facts.

LOU DOBBS: OK, let’s look at the pattern. The pattern is, for five years, we’ve been reporting on illegal immigration. The pattern is that we have been reporting on the impact of illegal immigration. It doesn’t suit your partisan views—and that’s understandable—or your ideological views. But don’t get carried away with yourselves, for crying out loud!

AMY GOODMAN: OK, Lou, let’s talk about some of the guests you’ve had on your show.

LOU DOBBS: Sure.

AMY GOODMAN: For example, Barbara Coe, leader of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform,—

LOU DOBBS: She’s not a guest. You’re reading from the Southern Poverty Law Center—

AMY GOODMAN: —quoted—just one second—

LOU DOBBS: She was not a guest.

AMY GOODMAN: I am going to look at the—as you said, you actually felt that the Southern Poverty Law Center was so important—

LOU DOBBS: It’s a joke.

AMY GOODMAN: —in getting information—

LOU DOBBS: It’s a joke.

AMY GOODMAN: —that you sent your producers down there to get information so that you wouldn’t represent hate groups on the air.

LOU DOBBS: In their responses, they’re nothing but a fundraising organization—

AMY GOODMAN: So let me—

LOU DOBBS: —and they’re indulging in pure BS.

AMY GOODMAN: OK. Now, let me just—

LOU DOBBS: And so are you, when you quote them.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Lou Dobbs on our broadcast yesterday. Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, your response?

MARK POTOK: Well, I mean, I guess I find it amusing that Lou first cites us as an authority to show that he looks into the allegations of racism seriously and then says we’re nothing but a fundraising operation that cranks out a lot of “BS,” as he says. He has also called us, on the air, a fascist organization for what we’ve said about this.

Look, I mean, the real point is the point you made: this is a part of a pattern. It’s not that his producer happened to accidentally grab this particular graphic; it’s what that represents, that Dobbs is really pushing these completely bogus ideas, racist conspiracy theories.

It’s worth saying that in addition to the Reconquista theory, the Aztlan theory, he has pushed very heavily the idea that there is a North American Union, an entity which is planned by Bush and other neoconservatives, which would merge the countries of Canada, Mexico and the United States. He has pushed this on his website, with polls asking people are they concerned. He has mentioned it repeatedly on the air. At this point, eighteen state legislatures have passed resolutions condemning the so-called North American Union. One small problem: there is no such thing. This is a figment of the imaginations of people on the radical right. The theory essentially comes from the John Birch Society and related kinds of organizations. You know, it’s utterly bogus. But it’s the same idea as the Aztlan theory. The Mexicans, the Canadians, in this case, are out to do us in.

AMY GOODMAN: And how the Minutemen tie into this, if they do, Mark Potok?

MARK POTOK: Well, the Minutemen, in a lot of ways, and the vigilante groups, in general, have been transmitters of theories like this. You know, the Aztlan theory, for instance, was pushed very heavily early on by a hate group called American Border Patrol. This idea that Mexico and native-born Chicanos in the United States were involved together in this plot then made its way out into the Minutemen groups and eventually landed on Lou Dobbs, on any number of AM radio shows. It’s been talked about by US congressmen. And so, it’s become a part of this debate, and yet it has nothing to do with what’s actually going on.

And this is really the point we’ve tried to make with Dobbs, is that, you know, you are not contributing in any way; you are detracting from any kind of democratic discussion of immigration. I think it’s obvious that immigration is not only an issue, but a problem, something that must be dealt with, that, you know, people in a democracy have every right to debate. But when the debate becomes about, you know, they are bringing leprosy, they are coming here to rape our children, they are destroying the economy, they’re wrecking the culture, they’re more loyal to the Catholic Church than they are to our government, and so on, one is poisoning the debate.

AMY GOODMAN: Mark Potok, I want to thank you for being with us, editor of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s quarterly Intelligence Report, which focuses on far-right hate groups in the United States

And what's this "instead of" lie. First of all, Lou doesn't "promote" anyone but himself. Lou gives interviews and debates with the entire spectrum. I've told you this before and you keep repeating the same lies. You must think that if you get the last lie in, enough people will believe it. I've seen Lou invite his opponents on the show for debate more than he invites the people you call racists.



Because you said you were not going to talk about Dobbs on this thread and then above your proceeded to talk about Dobbs.

And who is doing more obfusctaing now. I have posted reports from yale university, the southern poverty law center, and media matters -- a non-partisan media watchdog regarding Lou's positions and you have ignored them.

It seems you are hopeless.

You refuse to face reality on Dobbs.



I never denied there was a cost to taxpayers having illegal aliens here. There is also a cost having legal aliens as well.



Yes, but who is obfuscating now. You are a proponent of these reforms. You are a strong believer. If you are unwilling to quanify how much you would pay as a supporter, what about all those who do not or can not in this economy afford such costs...

This is a real question, you have a choice. You can answer it. Or obfuscate. After all, you don't want to take my crown from me do you?

I didn't say I wouldn't talk about or mention Lou. I said I would talk about the issues. I only mentioned Lou to debate his positions on the issues. Anything else I said about Lou was in response to you continually trying to attack his character while dodging the issues.

Just because I don't respond to something you post doesn't mean I'm ignoring it. Much of what you post is so obfuscating and trivial that it's not worth responding to. I read enough about it to know that it's just more character assassination of Lou. In answer to your question, It is you who is still obfuscating. You keep trying to bring up things that have little or nothing to do with what this thread is about. Who Lou chooses to interview has nothing to do with the illegal immigration problem. A rise in hate crimes towards immigrants may have a little to do with the illegal immigration problem, or the increase may be proportional to an increasing immigrant population. But you are implying that it has more to do with Lou, which makes it not part of this issue of solving the illegal immigration problem unless you think that censoring Lou would solve the illegal immigration problem.

Oh King of Obfuscation, again, this is not about Lou!!!! If you want to talk about Lou's positions, that's different. But you can't seem to lay off Lou's character and alleged hidden agendas because you can't handle debating issues.

I never said you denied it. Why are you so defensive?

And what do legal immigrants have to do with it. This thread is about illegal immigrants.

It's a real question that is irrelevant to the discussion. How would me giving you a dollar amount add to the debate when neither you nor I have the access to the federal budget information required to debate this issue on that level? You're just trying to complicate the discussion with trivial numbers and stump me with questions that I can't answer, despite the irrelevance. There seems to be no end to the amount of trivial stuff that you are willing to post in order to change the subject when you can't rebut a point directly with another point of your own.

In sink with this approach, if labor legislation was adequately enforced, processes that keep the
immigration problem a problem would dry up.

Illegal immigrants make it more difficult to enforce labor laws. Illegal employers know that illegal immigrants won't complain about workplace benefits, workplace safety, not being paid a minimum wage, and they won't unionize.

Well, we have common ground there --- what we do not have is common ground regarding the reality that a solution will have costs.



We have a proponent of a number of solutions --- who wants the laws enforced --- and does not want the illegal immigrants deported or to have access to any taxpater funded resources and benefits -- so I guess the alternative is that the illegal immigrants who can not find employment are left on the streets to die wince they can not get money to get back to their country --- they cannot find employment and they cannot find refuge on the streets...

And this further ignores the reality that illegal immigration from Mexico to the United States will continue whether or not there are jobs in the United States.

So long as the standard of living in the United States for the poorest Americans is better than that in Mexico for the poorest Mexicans illegal immigration will be a problem. This is a reality that Bill does not seem to want to address as well.

I have signed on to his national ID approach --- acknowledging that many Americans themselves would likely not be in favor of such an approach because Americans do not like to be tracked...and I have signed on to the employer enforcement approach as well...

But Bill does not want to acknowledge that there are costs associated with these aprpoaches -- their administration (seeting up a national ID system) and implementation (training and hiring additional employer immigration inspectors) in order to make them effective ---costs which the federal government does not have at this moment --- additional costs that would need to be borne by the taxpayers --- but Bill is unwilling to even set a value at how much more he and his family are willing to be taxed to pay for these costs.

I have posted information in other threads about these costs ---

And then Blll does not want to acknowledge other costs --- he says he wants the laws enforced --- but he is unwilling to provide money to upgrade or modernize detention faciltiies so that people are not dying in them like they are now --- so that immigrants are treated humanely will they are awaiting deportation...

It just seems like a lot of questions that still have to be answered --- for Bill's approach to work --- but BIll sees these costs as straw men in the equation...

They are not straw men - they are reality...

Bill:

Is the national ID system you recommend similar to the legislation introduced by Ron Paul?

More straw-man obfuscation. Where have I denied that a solution will have costs?

They found their way here with little or no money. They can find their way back with little or no money. It's easier to cross the border going back.

Nobody is ignoring that reality. The point is that it will reduce illegal immigration. You seem to be the one with unrealistic expectations here. We all know that there's no perfect solution. What's your point?

Are you going to keep saying that "Bill doesn't want to address" every point you make? Is this another one of your obfuscation ad hominem tactics? When you bring up a NEW point, at least give the person a chance to address it before you accuse them of not wanting to address it.

We have a higher standard of living. So what. It's not like they will automatically have the same standard of living just by being here. They won't reap the benefits of a higher standard by being here any more than you will reap the benefits of living in Beverly Hills just by going there.

And again, you keep bringing up reasons why illegal immigrants will come here as if there is a perfect solution. The goal is to reduce illegal immigration. I don't see you coming up with a perfect solution.

More lies and misrepresentation of my position. Do you even know how to debate an issue without attacking your opponent?

You keep saying that I don't want to acknowledge that there are costs. This is your obvious tactic of obfuscation. I know there are costs, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not the cost outweigh the benefits. There are also the costs of doing nothing.

Again, neither you nor I are in a position to debate this issue over the dollar amounts. This is just your obfuscating tactic of pretending that we are, so you can change the subject. We both know that there will be cost. Stop pretending that you are capable of figuring out what the actual costs will be. You can't win a debate just by raising a question that neither you nor I know the answer to. If your so smart, answer your own questions. Show the math as to why you think my solution wouldn't work.

Is this all you know how to do? Misrepresent your opponents positions? You think just repeating the lies over and over again will make people believe them? How many times do I have to say that I am not for deportation. I don't think it's necessary. So your cost of detention facilities is irrelevant to anyone but you. You are the only one talking about deportation. Deportation was never part of my solution. The law enforcement I talk about is against employers and facilitators.

I guess you don't know what a straw-man argument is. The cost are not the straw-man. The cost are just you're way of changing the subject. The straw-men are the arguments and positions that you keep bringing up and falsely accusing your opponent has having those position. You can't debate directly against your opponents stated positions, so you fabricate positions that try to label them as your opponents position, like saying your opponent is for mass deportation when he is not. And it's getting old. Anyone can read your posts and see you doing this over and over again.

FOR THE LAST TIME. THIS THREAD IS ABOUT SOLVING THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION PROBLEM. THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT YOUR AD HOMINEM DEBATE IF LOU HAS HIDDEN AGENDAS OR IS CREDIBLE REPORTER. THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT HOW TO MAKE LIFE COMFORTABLE OR HUMANE FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. IF YOU ARE NOT HERE TO DEBATE SOLVING THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION PROBLEM, DON'T POST HERE. QUIT HIJACKING THE THREAD WITH YOUR OBFUSCATION BS!!! TRY STAYING ON F**ING TOPIC FOR ONCE!!!!

You have not denied that it will have costs. What you have not provided is any way of funding the change. It will cost money. Tax increases are unlikely to be the solution in the present political environment and you yourself would not even give a figure you would be willing to pay in order to finance your changes. I provided my figure and I do not think its as big a problem as you do.

So, how do you pay for your additional enforcement?

With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our present economic situation, the need to harden our defenses with regard to homeland security, our deteriorating transportation infrastructure, and the need to invest in energy technology we do not have the money to make your changes. In order for there to be feasibility for them they have to be funded.



Bill, you remain in denial. I raise issues and you obfuscate with these silly comments. Come on --- let's have a debate here. You might have a realistic solution here but so long as you are willing to not engage

Additional enforcement of employers violating the law will not only penalize them but will also likely yield more arrests of illegal immigrants. BUt you say you are not for deportation --- but you are for enforcing the law. WELL GUESS WHAT BILL THE LAW CALLS FOR DEPORTATION!!!!

So under your system Bill -- how are you going to finance the additional detention centers necessary to enforce the law and modernize the ones we have?

You are in denial BIll because you think you have carved out a solution to the problem but when pressed to discuss the finer points you charge those willing to discuss them with you with obfuscation...



You say it will reduce illegal immigration. Who are you? This is your conjecture. You believe less access to jobs will reduce the illegal immigration denying the reality that people would rather be poor in the US than they would in Mexico.

You have no desire to deport the people --- but you want the law enforced --- imagine when news of that becomes available in Mexico -- no more deportations in the US under Bill's plan ... the border will be flooded.

And imagine when it gets out that there is no effort to build a fence in the near term --- forgetting national security concerns that a porous border raises...



No, it is just advising the reader that while Bill advertises that he wants to discuss the issues --- when pressed -- he really does not want to discuss the issues --- what he really wants is someone to come to this thread --- and say --- BIll -- fine idea my man --- good work --- we need people like you in government who aren't afraid to come up with creative and fullproof solutions to our problems...

At least that is what it seems you want --- because you do not respond with any substance to my critiques -- you only try and confuse or trivialize the issue by saying no solution is perfect --- etc.



No one is saying that they will have the standard of living. But they believe that they will have access to health care --- better than they would receive in Mexico --- and they believe that they by being here -- may have a chance at a better life no matter what the law is --- since they do not believe they have any chance at a b