Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Get Off It Lou Dobbs!
When it comes to immigration, it is hard not to hear about CNN's Lou Dobbs' rants on the topic. Funny, but Dobbs' latest CNN column (here) is entitled "Big media hide truth about immigration." But isn't CNN "big media" and Dobbs perhaps the restrictionist with the highest television ratings in the "big media"?
It is odd, to say the least, that Dobbs, whose commentary appears weekly on CNN.com and his shows appear weeknights on CNN, still thinks that he can colorably claim that "the media" is pulling the wool over the eyes of the American public. His latest anti-immigrant column starts like this:
The Bush administration and the leadership of the Democratic Party are preparing to take another legislative leap at imposing a massive illegal alien amnesty on American citizens. And the mainstream media are complicit in advancing this thinly veiled blanket amnesty. Instead of asking and answering important questions about why our immigration laws aren't being enforced and why we're permitting pervasive document fraud, the national media seem hell-bent on trying to obfuscate the issue, shamelessly playing with language, equating legal immigration with illegal immigration while obviously trying to preserve the illusion of objectivity.
***
Come off it Lou! The "close the borders" message that you endorse is being heard loud and clear. But many Americans hear other messages as well, like that many immigrants, undocumented or not, are good decent people who work and live in our communities. Immigrants are our neighbors and co-workers. immigrants and citizens sit near each other in church and at parent night at local schools.
The truth of the matter is that "big media" is not fooling anyone. It is just the case that, to many informed observers, the reality of immigration and immigrants is much more complicated than Lou Dobbs and other restrictionists report. Moreover, it is nothing less than hypocritical for the epitome of the "big media" to claim that "big media" is fooling the average American, who is much smarter and decent than some might assume. Immigration is a difficult issue and different people have different opinions. Is it always necessary to look for a "conspiracy" of some sort to explain developments that we do not like?
For a critical analysis of Dobbs' anti-immigrant stances, see Migra Matters (here).
Postscript (April 28): http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/101438.html
The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society called on CNN to fire Lou Dobbs after the broadcaster likened immigrant advocates to Nazi propagandists. Dobbs, an outspoken critic of illegal immigration who hosts an opinionated evening news hour, criticized San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom on Monday, saying he and immigrant protection advocates "might as well work for Hermann Goering. I mean, they're running so much propaganda, trying to confuse the debate, the national dialogue, by talking about immigrants rather than illegal aliens and legal immigrants. It's mindless beyond belief." Newsom had said he kept local law enforcement from participating in illegal immigrant raids in part because he believes legal immigrants fear raids as well. Dobbs apparently was referring to Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda chief. Goering headed the Nazi air force. "Comparisons to Nazis, especially in this day and age, are abhorrent," HIAS President Gideon Aronoff said Wednesday. "Mr. Dobbs has crossed the line between responsible television commentary and hate speech propaganda of his own. Keeping him on the air is essentially sanctioning by CNN, which is why we're asking CNN to remove Dobbs from his very public platform." CNN did not respond to JTA's requests for comment.
KJ
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2007/04/get_off_it_lou_.html
Comments
Unfortunately for Horace and Lou, despite the xenophobic and nativist rhetoric pushed hard on CNN and elsewhere, the American people want to grant the people here unlawfully a path to legal status.
Posted by: Justin | Apr 25, 2007 7:32:44 PM
Horace writes: 'Their arguments are mainly emotional hyperbole and chants of racism.'
And then the very next poster, Justin, proves him right with: '...despite the xenophobic and nativist rhetoric pushed hard on CNN and elsewhere...'
"Ethnic activists - along, unfortunately, with most liberals and historians of immigration - refuse to grant that efforts to restrict immigration can be inspired by anything but nativism, racism, and fear of 'the other.'
-- Phillip Gleason, professor emeritus, University of Notre Dame
I am anti-U.S. population growth based on sustainability and ecological concerns. I see it as a responsibility and came to my position conscientiously after reading some rather brilliant writers close to two decades ago. But can people like Justin even hear what I say? Open borders fail the sustainability test miserably. Unfettered immigration has big issue consequences yet the media seems decidedly focused on personalizing it with emotional, sympathetic portrayals of the little guy. Is the big picture simply considered too wonkish or is it advocacy journalism? The individual human side is undoubtedly part of the story but an issue this serious demands more than that alone. Should we take seriously people who basically say 'most of these people aren't so bad, thus who are we to deny any person in the world their right to move to the U.S'? Do these people even consider the implications of their sentiments?
I don't like to generalize, but I detect media sources which are pretty one-sided on the issue. Under Robert Bartley, The Wall Street Journal was and still is ridiculously so. The Washington Post admitted to errors in a recent immigration story which they regret added to a reputation that they are biased on the subject. The L.A. Times recently added Tamar Jacoby and Gustavo Arellano to their editorial board and on the other side...?
Posted by: Jack | Apr 26, 2007 4:07:17 AM
Jack states that he's anti-US population growth. I have to assume that he must be for government control of US citizens reproductive rights. If not his argument is transparent. If so, his argument is simply disturbing.
Posted by: Justin | Apr 26, 2007 7:14:02 AM
Jack: I assume that you believe our government should control the reproductive rights of US citizens. Is that correct?
Posted by: Justin | Apr 26, 2007 7:15:57 AM
Unfortunately for those who want to defend strongly curbed immigration for ecological or population stability concerns, the population of the United States would be falling if not for increases due to immigration.
It's also hard to attack as "emotional hyberpole" claims of racism and xenophobia in the system. Racism has been one of the most long-lasting (if not cherished) traditions of US immigration laws. Now, in a time when issues of immigration and things like "English Only" ordinances are so closely linked (despite Spanish-speaking Puerto Rico), we're supposed to believe our enlightened laws have grown past those days?
Posted by: Kes | Apr 26, 2007 10:52:09 AM
If John Edwards who makes millions in hedgefunds, have $400 hair cut, and twenty thousand square foot mansion can claim to be champion of the poor, if Al Gore whose consumes 20 times more energy usage than a regular America claim to be champion of global warming, why can't Lou Dobb claim whatever he is claiming?
Posted by: ic | Apr 26, 2007 11:30:36 AM
"It's also hard to attack as "emotional hyberpole" claims of racism and xenophobia in the system. Racism has been one of the most long-lasting (if not cherished) traditions of US immigration laws. Now, in a time when issues of immigration and things like "English Only" ordinances are so closely linked (despite Spanish-speaking Puerto Rico), we're supposed to believe our enlightened laws have grown past those days?"
Well, Justin, the facts show that we have gone beyond those days. If you ever looked into the immigration numbers, rather than assuming that you know it all, you'd realize that this country allows more immigrants every year than the rest of the world combined. You'd also realize that Europeans are no longer the predominant ethnic/racial group immigrant group accepted as legal residents every year. So your argument that past practice equates to the present is just plain wrong.
The argument that this country is restrictionist isn't borne out by the facts, as this extract from information found on Wilkipedia idicates. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States
"The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 removed quotas on large segments of the immigration flow and legal immigration to the U.S. surged. The number of legal immigrants rose from about 2.5 million in the 1950s to 4.5 million in the 1970s to 7.3 million in the 1980s to about 10 million in the 1990s. In 2006, legal immigrants to the United States number approximately 1,000,000 legal immigrants per year of which about 600,000 are Change of Status immigrants who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States are at their highest level ever at over 35,000,000. Net illegal immigration also soared from about 130,000 per year in the 1970s, to 300,000+ per year in the 1980s to over 500,000 per year in the 1990s to over 700,000 per year in the 2000s. Total illegal immigration may be as high as 1,500,000 per year [in 2006] with a net of at least 700,000 more illegal immigrants arriving each year to join the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 that are already here. (Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[14]) (See: Illegal immigration to the United States)"
Illegal immigration from Mexico is counter diversive, as well. Hispanics now exceed blacks in percentage as a minority group. Adopting 12 to 20 million currently illegal Hispanics will only assure that diversity will disappear, as it becomes the dominant ethnic group in this country. The Hispanic population as an ethnic group already exceeds that of Germans, French, Italians, Greeks, Dutch, Czeks, Poles, Russians, Turks, Iraqis, Iranians, Swedes, Fins, Lithuanians, Chinese, Koreans, Mongolians, Serbs, etc. when taken as individual ethnic groups. How does adopting millions more illegal alien Hispanics work toward a diverse nation?
Your problem Justin, is that you, like millions of gullible and misguided fools actually believe that our country should punish itself for the past at the expense of our future.
Posted by: Horace | Apr 26, 2007 3:28:25 PM
RE: Migra Matters
Sorry, professor, I couldn't get past charlatan and villain. If he had something to say it was obscured by my revulsion to name calling. Personal attack is last bastion of those who have very little to say as a matter of substance. Seriously, I watch Dobbs regularly, and find that what he's said is well supported by other sources. Your man makes much of number 20 million, but I've heard it elsewhere. 10, 12, 20, 40 million illegal aliens, it doesn't matter. Certainly, the lowest estimate (and no one really knows how many there are) is sufficient an outrage to most of the American people. The scales of economics, common sense and justice are way out of balance against illegal aliens.
And Dobbs is right, very few newspapers and television media do critical thinking about illegal immigration. Most of their stories tend to be on the unfortunate circumstances of illegal aliens, while little is discussed in the way of the economic disaster that could result from adopting millions of potential welfare clients, and the huge cost of managing a guest worker program of 10's of millions, while our current bureaucracy is incapable of handling the current one. As far as media coverage is concerned, the media is on your side. You're being a little too greedy and frustrated, because Lou is successful and you can't control him.
Posted by: George | Apr 26, 2007 4:46:11 PM
He at least since a couple of years ago also wrote short editorials in US News and World Report.
That was one of the main reasons for dropping it. He never knew what he was talking about.
Posted by: Ronald Rutherford | Apr 26, 2007 4:55:10 PM
Thank you for responding, Justin. My apologies if I made you feel singled out. You wrote:
Unfortunately for those who want to defend strongly curbed immigration for ecological or population stability concerns, the population of the United States would be falling if not for increases due to immigration.
It's counterintuitive, but a fertility rate below replacement level does not equal instant population decrease due to 'population momentum'. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-60672/population
http://www.susps.org/overview/immigration.html
Of course, racism should be a constant concern. My peeve is that urgently needed debate is stifled when people are afraid they will be called names--racist, xenophobic, nativist, etc. Or is that primary goal of their use?
'Nativist', is one I find interesting because it's not a simply defined dictionary word like racist or xenophobic and has multiple meanings. Yet it seems to be thrown around loosely and pejoratively as a code word for racist.
Also, 'restrictionist'. Technically, anything less than unlimited immigration is restrictive. Is not a sovereign nation-state with borders restrictive by definition? Do you become a restrictionist if you call for even slightly less total immigration than the status quo? Does a distinction between illegal and legal make any difference? Merely calling someone one of these unclear words means nothing and accomplishes nothing. To foster productive debate, any accusation should be clarified and explained why it is wrong rather than just calling the name and acting like the other side must be wrong due to that word's assumed badness.
Posted by: Jack | Apr 26, 2007 7:23:06 PM
With regards to Dobbs he is a racist and xenophobic nativist. Or at least he plays one on TV.
The problem with the arguments railing against the "illegals" is that they are not based in fact. The studies show that the economy either benefits slightly from their presence or they don't have any really effect at all. But from Dobbs and his friends (with friends like the Council of Conservative Citizens it's a shock he even has a show) all you hear is hyperbole. Dobbs does not address fact. When an argument is not based in fact then other motives must be present. Not calling a duck a duck doesn't make it a swan. Lou should be called what he is.
However, as loud as Lou yells he's failing in his goal. Americans know that this is a country of immigrants. They know that they work side-by-side with lawful and undocumented immigrants and they know they are good folks for the most part. This explains why the polls show most Americans want a path to legalization for hard-working non-criminal migrants and a sensible immigration policy.
Jack: Do you believe that the government should practice forced population control if required to preserve the environment in whatever way you want it preserved?
Posted by: Justin | Apr 27, 2007 12:56:10 PM
Rather than fighting for a change in the requirements to qualify for legal immigration status, anti-American lawyers fight to support these lawbreaking illegals.
They are ILLEGALS. Try and spin that proven fact any way you can, lawyer. These lawbreakers cross the border illegally in order to steal American jobs. The result is that Americans workers' wages are being depressed by the flood of illegals. How can they not be? It's simple supply and demand, and the supply of illegals is estimated at between 12 - 20 million. They are underbidding for Americans' jobs. So the 6% raise that American workers should expect to get end up being 1 - 3%. If that. And that is a direct result of Hispanic illegals in this country.
Lawyers! 99% of them make the rest look bad. And you, lawyer, are right in the middle of that 99%.
Scumbags.
Posted by: Smokey | Apr 27, 2007 1:03:02 PM
Jack: Do you believe that the government should practice forced population control if required to preserve the environment in whatever way you want it preserved?
There's no need for mandatory birth limits (if that's what you are referring to). Limiting immigration is the way to go. That's the frustrating part if you looked at the population graph I linked to. The birthrate dipped below replacement level in 1972 but it's not substantially below like in Europe and Japan. Even with zero immigration, the population would have continued to rise until about 2020 due to population momentum and then leveled off to a pretty flat, stable level. If more were needed than immigration limitation, I would favor much less heavy handed measures than mandatory birth limits, e.g., adjusting tax exemptions for children, such as limiting them to 2, or graduating the amounts down in some way.
Population growth irrefutably leads directly and indirectly to environmental damage so incentives, e.g., tax breaks, which exacerbate the problem need to be looked at. But these will only have marginal effect--the elephant in the room is immigration.
Watch a program like last night's Naked Planet episode on the Everglades (or read this article about the paving over of prime farmland in CA) and then ask yourself if it's wise or responsible to continue with annual immigration in the millions.
http://cbs13.com/topstories/local_story_045190319.html
Here's an article about economic pressure to develop farmland in FL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/business/yourmoney/11natreal.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=b1ce6beaa8deec02&ex=1177819200
Population growth combines a greater need for food with the conversion of farmland to create more housing and shopping. Is it wise to depend on food importation?
U.S. population growth also creates even greater dependence on foreign energy. These are national security issues. And then there is the effect of population growth on species extinction (the Naked Planet show noted there are only about 70 Florida panthers left).
Posted by: Jack | Apr 27, 2007 5:05:51 PM
RE: Migra Matters
George,
It's quite interesting that your "revulsion to name calling" prevented you from seeing any merit in my critique of Dobbs... Yet his likening San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and immigrant protection advocates on Monday to Nazis didn't "obscure" your ability to comprehend Dobbs' message.
I guess your belief that "Personal attack is last bastion of those who have very little to say as a matter of substance" doesn't extend to words like "Nazi" ...but "charlatan" , that's a horse of a different color.
I'll keep that in mind the next time I write about Dobbs. I'm sure I could squeeze in a "Nazi" or "facsist" or two, since obviously you don't find these terms overly distracting or offensive.
Migra Matters.com
Posted by: Duke1676 | Apr 28, 2007 11:15:46 AM
Duke,
As a far as Nazi behavior is concerned, I've seen many Hispanic attempts at supression of free speech and violence against their opposition than has ever occurred by Lou Dobbs, Minutemen and other anti-illegal alien groups. Such incidents only prove that illegal aliens do not deserve the respect of the American people. You can't cite one incident attributable to anti-illegal alien groups similar to the reprehensible tactics of the Columbia incident against Gilchrist and the Minutemen, and the violent street tactics of the Hispanic mobs in California. And that's because your opposition refuses to stoop to your level. You guise the repression of the 1st Amendment rights and use of violent and disruptive tactics in the name of anti-hate demonstrations, but in truth, your tactics are no different from the Nazis or Communists, who also took to the streets with violance to repress their political opposition. To you, the end justifies the means and I suspect that you'll utltimately commit mayhem if legal measures don't work. March away in May, it'll only remind the American people of the Latin American flags and arrogant demands they saw and heard in the first march.
Posted by: Horace | Apr 28, 2007 3:33:22 PM
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to express my recent experiences and labor condition in regards to I.T Field in U.S. and especially in Bay Area California. I have been working in Computer Systems Consultant field for last 8 years and have finished my BS and MBA in computer field from U.S. institutions.
Recently I had many interviews related to my field and some of them were perfectly matched with my background and skills set but I was unable to get consulting position. I had very disturbing experience with Cisco also that I cannot express in short detail. I have outlined reasons below. In order to restrain my personal bias opinion about some specific group of people, I have validated with many recruiters in bay area, my colleagues and other professionals.
Disturbing Hiring Patterns in I.T. field
• Software application and related fields are dominated by Indians national now.
• Companies’ employs Indians tends to hire Indians only.
• When I get call from Indian recruiting agency it is obvious that hiring manager or team is Indian in a company.
• From my experience and after talking to many recruiting agencies, Indians will always hire Indians only.
• I have visited many companies and noticed that companies like Cisco and Oracle, Indians are segregated by floors or in separate buildings and if you don’t belong to this group then you are automatically disqualified.
• Indians are involved with political parties especially with Democratic party to Influence opening up H1 Visa for Indians only and H1 visa is not given to other national in large such as European or Middle Eastern or African etc.
• Created a Hoax that there is shortage of I.T. professionals but in fact there are plenty of candidates belongs to other ethnic group that have limited chance now.
• Cisco, Oracle and Microsoft are one of main companies that discourage employees from other ethnic background. There is no rule, law and nothing can be proved against this hiring these companies.
• If you belong to White, black or any other ethnic group then you have no future in I.T. field.
• One out of ten Indians in a company will be qualified and other has jobs because of nepotism, network and connection and they will be trained to perform a job even they are not qualified for.
Posted by: Javed | May 6, 2007 1:14:46 PM
THE STATUE OF LIBERTY WILL GUARD THE BORDERS
HILLARY IS A GODDESS OF FREEDOM LIKE THE STATUE OF LIBERTY~
THE STATUE OF LIBERTY IS A WOMAN NOT A MAN! Why is freedom symbolized by a woman?
IMAGINE THE STATUE OF LIBERTY IN THE LIKENESS OF HILLARY and THE WORLD WILL WITNESS the TRUE POWER OF FREEDOM IN ACTION
THE STATUE OF LIBERTY IS HILLARY IN ACTION~
Woman are peacemakers, protectors, caretakers and givers of life, hope and truth.
Would the statue of liberty have the same power to inspire and liberate if IT WAS A SYMBOL OF A MAN?
If the statue was a man would it hold the torch of freedom?
Men are violent by nature. They love to play war games. Men love to fight, mame and kill. Their first natural reaction to conflict is to fight.
Think about it? Would there be WARS if the world was made up of women? Would there be Wars if the world was runned by women?
Men love symbols that represent war: war games, guns, knives. blood. They give movie titles names like "THERE WILL BE BLOOD". Men create the wars and women and chidren suffer and die. Unfortunately men die too. Men destroy themselves.
IF YOU A LOOKING FOR REAL CHANGE HIRE A WOMAN FOR THE NEXT AMERICAN PRESIDENT. HILLARY IS A WOMAN! PEACE WILL NEVER HAPPEN WITH A MAN IN CHARGE - THERE WILL ONLY BE MORE OF THE SAME.
America grasp this Golden opportunity "To wittness and experience the Statue of Liberty in Action"
Posted by: Angelspeak | Feb 29, 2008 9:21:54 PM
THE STATUE OF LIBERTY WILL GUARD THE BORDERS
HILLARY IS A GODDESS OF FREEDOM LIKE THE STATUE OF LIBERTY~
THE STATUE OF LIBERTY IS A WOMAN NOT A MAN! Why is freedom symbolized by a woman?
IMAGINE THE STATUE OF LIBERTY IN THE LIKENESS OF HILLARY and THE WORLD WILL WITNESS the TRUE POWER OF FREEDOM IN ACTION
THE STATUE OF LIBERTY IS HILLARY IN ACTION~
Woman are peacemakers, protectors, caretakers and givers of life, hope and truth.
Would the statue of liberty have the same power to inspire and liberate if IT WAS A SYMBOL OF A MAN?
If the statue was a man would it hold the torch of freedom?
Men are violent by nature. They love to play war games. Men love to fight, mame and kill. Their first natural reaction to conflict is to fight.
Think about it? Would there be WARS if the world was made up of women? Would there be Wars if the world was runned by women?
Men love symbols that represent war: war games, guns, knives. blood. They give movie titles names like "THERE WILL BE BLOOD". Men create the wars and women and chidren suffer and die. Unfortunately men die too. Men destroy themselves.
IF YOU A LOOKING FOR REAL CHANGE HIRE A WOMAN FOR THE NEXT AMERICAN PRESIDENT. HILLARY IS A WOMAN! PEACE WILL NEVER HAPPEN WITH A MAN IN CHARGE - THERE WILL ONLY BE MORE OF THE SAME.
America grasp this Golden opportunity "To wittness and experience the Statue of Liberty in Action"
Posted by: Angelspeak | Feb 29, 2008 9:22:32 PM
Lou --
Thank you for the update on the physical fence between the US and Mexico. In particular, I am pleased with your interview with Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas.
I have a proposal . . . and it is based on the popularity of the ABC show "Extreme Makeover." As you are aware, the program features willing homebuilders (and volunteers) massing to build a home for a "family in need."
I'd bet dimes to donuts that literally hundreds of construction companies and raw materials providers -- along with thousands of volunteers -- would ben drawn to our southern border to build the double fence. All they need are the plans . . .
Sure the government would balk that they didn't get the construction contract . . . and unions would complain that workers aren't getting their "just compensation" . . . however, I remember a line from my teens -- "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
Tell you what . . . you get the schematics and plans for the the double fence . . . I'll get the the construction companies and in-kind gifts . . . together we get the volunteer construction workers . . .
Let's just get the job done once and for all! And what a reality program for Lou Dobbs Tonight and CNN!!!
Your friend,
David Larson
P.S. Anyone who balks would be suspect as to "why" . . .
Posted by: David from McCaysville, Georgia | Mar 6, 2008 7:51:31 PM
What an idiot----using the race, xenophobic, and nativist cards because US citizens want the ILLEGAL criminals arrested and deported out of our country!!!
There are millions of people throughout the world who are waiting in line and trying to come into our country through the proper and legal process----Why should the illegals be rewarded/accommodated for breaking our laws, and get to jump in line in front of them?? We cannot bring in the world, so why should the ILLEGAL lawbreakers be rewarded for ILLEGALLY entering the country, instead of those who are trying to enter the proper, legal way??
Also Professor, can you tell me how Lou Dobbs can be a racist, xenophobe, etc.-----when he has been married to a Mexican-American woman for 25 years??? Did you know that her Mexican-American mother and father also live with them??? Did you know that Lou has said numerous times that his Mexican-American wife always tells him that he is not doing enough to wake up citizens regarding the problems of ILLEGALS entering our country by the millions??
Perhaps you need to get your facts straight professor!!! However, we all know that illegal supporters always use the racist, nativist, and xenophobic cards--because they have no other argument or defense as to why US citizens should be willing to reward/accommodate/support the millions of ILLEGALS who are entering our country and taking the jobs of US citizens, lowering wages, destroying our schools, destroying our hospitals, increasing gangs/crime, etc.
Posted by: Bren | Apr 3, 2008 9:22:49 AM
What an idiot----using the race, xenophobic, and nativist cards because US citizens want the ILLEGAL criminals arrested and deported out of our country!!!
There are millions of people throughout the world who are waiting in line and trying to come into our country through the proper and legal process----Why should the illegals be rewarded/accommodated for breaking our laws, and get to jump in line in front of them?? We cannot bring in the world, so why should the ILLEGAL lawbreakers be rewarded for ILLEGALLY entering the country, instead of those who are trying to enter the proper, legal way??
Also Professor, can you tell me how Lou Dobbs can be a racist, xenophobe, etc.-----when he has been married to a Mexican-American woman for 25 years??? Did you know that her Mexican-American mother and father also live with them??? Did you know that Lou has said numerous times that his Mexican-American wife always tells him that he is not doing enough to wake up citizens regarding the problems of ILLEGALS entering our country by the millions??
Perhaps you need to get your facts straight professor!!! However, we all know that illegal supporters always use the racist, nativist, and xenophobic cards--because they have no other argument or defense as to why US citizens should be willing to reward/accommodate/support the millions of ILLEGALS who are entering our country and taking the jobs of US citizens, lowering wages, destroying our schools, destroying our hospitals, increasing gangs/crime, etc.
Posted by: Bren | Apr 3, 2008 9:24:01 AM
Dear Professor,
You are obviously one of the "idiots" Lou frequently refers to in "What in the World are these idiots doing?" When you discover "what you are doing" (with both hands)...wake-up and realize your job too can just as easily be outsourced to Bangalor and Bejing as quickly as the next "nice illegal" or an H1B or L1A visa holder refusing to leave voluntarily, can apply for your post at a much appreciated 35% or greater cut in your salary. "Welcome to the club...you moron!" (Dobb's words...not mine).
One day you and other knuckleheads like you will join thousands of my colleagues in Silly-CON Valley who were laid off at the height of the dot-com bust; many of whom are still looking for work. And, because they're not fluent in Spanish, they're underqualified to pick lettuce or strawberries.
Posted by: Dave St Pete | Jun 16, 2008 4:31:00 PM
You do realise Lou is probably the only thing keeping the CNN news network rolling? They let him remain independant from the elitists because without him they would loose a ton of viewers. Its not who you work for, its what you say and do. As for Lou, he is dead on and should be given a mountain of awards for not pandering to the criminal element controlling this country and the media.
Posted by: Steven New Jersey | Aug 13, 2008 5:20:55 PM
Lou dobbs you are a true redneck, watching you on CNN on black Monday, was very depressing, The world we live is full of hate, anger, and madness that I have never seen in my 62 years. I will pray for you to night. Only God can change and touch your heart. I don't want to be judgemental, but the raged you have is not good, but evil. You are as evil as any one I have seen on TV. Most of them can hide their hate. yours is very real. You can take a evil person and place them next to you. And you both would look the same. Please have some control regarding your staff. you speak to them as if they inhumane, or less than you. I pray for and your hidden secerts.Lou your story
on our education system was full of energy. Folks don't understand that generation will in charge and will be in need of some type of education. It need to be fix to day or you will suffered the the attacks tomorrows.
Posted by: mary stokes | Sep 15, 2008 5:29:58 PM
Professor, you and your advocate friends obfuscate every time you group illegal aliens with actual immigrants, people who also work hard, but acted according our laws and the will of the American people by using due process to gain legal residency. Every time you use the contrivance, "undocumented" immigrant to soften the illegal act that illegal aliens commit by entering this country it's like waving a red flag in front of your opposition. You even put your own spin on a study that referred to the crime rate of immigrants as being lower than that of citizens. Tell me that you weren't obfuscating when you tried to include illegal aliens in that total. The fact is that we know the total number of legal immigrants, and how many have committed crimes, so it's easy to calculate a fairly accurate crime rate. Also, persons given green cards have had background checks, so the criminal element has been eliminated from their group. Unfortunately, we can't deport our indigenous criminal element, so it's hardly rocket science that leads one to conclude that our citizen population likely has a greater percentage of criminals than that of legal immigrants. However, no one really knows the number of illegal aliens in this country, and since our criminal justice system hasn't in the past differentiated between illegal aliens and citizens, we don't even know how many have committed crimes. How can anyone determine a crime rate for illegal aliens when we can't produce a ratio? Lou Dobbs isn't the only obfuscator speaking on this issue. If that's all you have on Lou, it's no wonder why you're frustrated. It's funny, I hear a lot of libel and slander against Lou Dobb's, but rarely do I hear sensible counter arguments from the opposition. Their arguments are mainly emotional hyperbole and chants of racism. It's no wonder they're making no headway in Congress or the American people.
Also, you obfuscate the real issue of illegal immigration by referring to illegal aliens as nice people. Maybe forging government documents, lying, and cheating their way to the front of the line is acceptable to you, but most Americans feel such activity is plain wrong. Coloring illegal aliens as nice people doesn't change the fact that what they've done is contrary to the will of the American people, and the only way of discouraging such activity is by vigorous enforcement of our immigration laws.
Posted by: Horace | Apr 25, 2007 5:48:13 PM