I don't watch the MSM, and I don't believe I've actually heard Dobbs speak. But I've seen the term "populist" bantered around. It's laughably out of sync with the images one finds on Google of the guy -- dressed like a corporate exec.

In America, everything is pure marketing. Take any agenda or product, wrap a label around it, and hope it sells.

You want populism, go to a bar in middle america, have a few drinks. Then start arguing loudly -- so everyone can hear -- that we should take away the second amendment, tax the hell out of the middle-class and working-class, let illegal immigrants drive blue collar wages down to zero, and offshore whatever else is left. See what happens. Populism in action.

The gorilla in the room, that nobody can talk about -- since there are precious few of us who are still honest -- is the below-the-grid nature of illegal immgrants. The demonization of legal immigrants is one thing, often hooked into racism. The observation that illegals are often exploited by unscrupulous employers (the largely ignored "illegal employer" problem), they work below the grid, and therefore drive wages down. The other point which is totally ignored is that offshoring is a camouflage for another mechanism of driving wages down. It is fine for large corporations to move abroad to drive wages down, but illegal for laborers themselves to willy-nilly relocate to improve their own conditions.

We live in a modern day national serfdom, and until we come to terms with this we can't solve anything. If corporations are allowed to offshore, workers should be allowed to move willy-nilly. If employers can pay their illegals under the minimum wage, ignore all sorts of other laws, etc. then workers should be allowed to steal, break various laws to increase their incomes, etc. as well. We need fairness in virtue -- or fairness in vice.

I agree with you Paul Bramscher, I have experienced the illegal employer and illegal employee. Being the legal employee your threatened with say anything and you are out of a job. Meanwhile, the illegal employee is taking part of your hours and income. I watched DemocracyNow when Dobbs was on, and I noticed Amy and Juan didn't want to discuss the economic hardship on the US populace in any detail. I think they had the right to clarify the numbers regarding prison and disease and from there they should have moved on. Dobb's behavior, talking out of line and condescending manner, I could have done without.

For a few years before my Dad died in September at eighty-three he would always have Lou on in the evening because he couldn't stand Fox anymore. He would get all worked up about illegal immigration as Lou Dobbs would come up with more reasons to froth at the mouth about the outrage of illegal immigration, always ready to point out that he "worked the fields" with migrant workers in his youth.

After a while we noticed he was great at blaming everybody he could think of for the mess we find ourselves in but was short on solutions. Turns out to be a great money-maker for Lou who is as good at rolling his eyes as my late Mom was. Same old crap though, Lou sets himself up as the sage old journalist as he encourages "us" and "them" to go out and fight. It is tough for Lou to persuade his viewers to be against something "illegal", for God sakes Lou, have you no shame, who the hell is claiming to be for "illegal", idiot.

When ever he has on a guest from another view point he goes right to the eye-rolling, talk-over, fake-indignation school of journalism.

Phony two bit hack.

We are all going to have to work on the problem of illegal immigration and the longer we spend looking for a "perfect" solution, the longer the problem has to grow worse. We have laws already, just enforce them and do so with the best human dignity we can.
Will there be problems, of course.
Can we simply allow open borders, no.
Must we start now, yes.
Is it more complicated then this, yes but that does not mean we can just do nothing while endlessly debating what to do.

Amy was not well prepared for Dobbs. I'm a big Amy fan, but honestly folks, at the end of the interview he really kicked both of their asses. He was right about her baseless implication that the minutemen were killing immigrants. And Juan bringing in useless arguements about a defunct program should have known he'd get trounced. Immigration is this guys subject, why not prepare for his answers, which are easy to find out by watching him, and not get caught out looking like deer in the headlights. The two of them embarrassed themselves. Move on.

There's a corporate left, and a corporate right. The job of the corporate right is to keep redneck populists angered at other poor people, to fan the anger in as many racial/ethnic ways as possible (except anti-semitism apparently). I'm thinking mainly of Marlon Brando's comments on his infamous Larry King interview, and a protest that I happened to see this morning against KQRS in Minneapolis -- which has caused a coaltion of Hmong, Somali, Native American, black -- and caucasian -- groups to come together. The job of the corporate left is to frame issues into either academic, abstract, circular, diverted or head-banging dead-ends, so that no action can be taken, the hard questions are left unasked.

But the whole left/right thing is a con job. Ironically, it wasn't the "left" which exposed it, but the right. Small government, fiscal responsibility, keeping government and corporation separate, etc. -- all trashed under Bush. He's either the world's biggest liberal, or else the whole left/right thing has been a useless and ill-defined metaphor spectrum from the get-go.

If ANYONE wants to talk honestly about illegal immigration, s/he must include:
1) Why is American labor expensive? What is the single largest encumberance monthly for most Americans? Housing. Real estate, relative to salaries, is way out of hand. We can blame runaway usury for this.
2) The massive offshoring of manufacturing, and IT, is insult to injury. It indicates that there is gross inequality of who/what is able to lower its costs (big corporations) and who is prohibited (the world's workers).
3) The fact that this dynamic bears so much resemblance to serfdom, company towns, chattel slavery, the plantation, etc. is more than mere coincidence. It "enjoys" an unbroken historical development going back centuries.

Until we add those talking points to the "framing" of illegal imigration, the "left" is either being helplessly jerked around by the corporate/up/right, or else something isn't as it appears.

Who speaks for the under-class today? Who speaks clearly, consistently, powerfully, and not as a "professional activist" following the usual formula?

Well, long thread here. But gotta jump in.

Acknowledging his infrequent inaccuracies, Dobbs remains the sole (albeit egotistical) MSM voice against the excesses of global corporatism. I cut him some slack for this.

Of Hispanic origin myself, perhaps am better able to frame his rants as nativism instead of as "racism". BTW, his wife is of Mexican origin.

One wishes he'd more consistently cast the "illegals problem" as an illegal-employer/unfair-trade problem. Moreover, his tenacious one-sided retrialing of Ramos and Compean (they shot a fleeing unarmed pot smuggler in the ass; then lied to investigators, etc.) is disappointing and tiresome. His recent neocon accolades for the "sucessful surge" in Iraq were certainly not populist, thoughtful or pro-worker.

But all this is quibbling compared to the rage we feel when "progressives" (and most Democrats) ignore/deny the wage corrosion enabled by endless waves of "undocumenteds". Cesar Chavez could see this. Why can't John Edwards, etc.?

Hwedoneedno steenkin "guest" worker programs either. If big agribiz or Motel 6 can't afford living wages (and then some) for arduous or unpleasant work, then they're in the wrong business. Yep, our costs would creep up. But laborers would enjoy a larger and fairer share of, yes, a larger pie.

Dobbs is increasingly sharing focus with fair trade, consumer protection, credit card fine print and corporate greed/negligence. His rants about CEO's of Matel, food importers, etc. have been refreshingly blunt.

Contrast Lou Dobbs w/ my other nightly preference Countdown. Keith Olbermann chronicles our imploding beltway but steers clear of kitchen table issues. Countdowners know much more about Scooter Libby then about SHAFTA trade deals.

And yeah, saw Keith's "Worst Person" award to Dobbs this week (illegals shoveling his daughters' horses poop). Still awaiting Lou's reply. Hope it's better than Mitt's.

I like to think I'm not racist. However, when I stop to think about it, I have to say that to a certain degree, I am. I don't know if this is something I've learned growing up in Pittsburgh, PA, or if racism is really just fear of different groups and cultures – something hardwired into all people.

My parents never spoke badly of other people because of the color of their skin or their country of origin. At school, the nuns didn't speak badly of others either. The same can be said of almost all other figures of authority that might have influenced my feelings and thoughts as I grew up concerning the issue of racism.The same goes for the little television I watched as a child; it was much more fun to be outside doing things with friends. So where did this come from?

I know racism is a bad thing, but if I get robbed by a black man, for the next few hours I feel hatred towards all blacks. Or if an Asian person hits my car I'm immediately complaining about how Asians don't know how to drive. And yet I have many good friends of all races. I can say the same about white people, and speak badly of some certain group of whites.

I do my best not to speak badly of anyone because of their race, culture, or religious and political stance. What does matter is the truth. And if you are a journalist, you should tell the truth and not misinform the people or take things out of context to make somebody appear to be something they aren't.

And yes, sometimes the truth is hard to handle. As I said at the beginning of this post, I think of my self as being non racist, but the truth is that to a certain degree I am – if I want to be honest with myself. In my opinion, it's the degree of racism that really matters. And if a person is so racist that even the facts don't change their thinking, then I can say that that person is truly a racist. To finish, I ask the same questions that I asked myself at the beginning of this post. Is racism something learned, or is it a natural instinct – the (in today's world)unfounded fear of different looking people? Most likely, it's a mixture of the two, because I can claim that all Asians are poor drivers but I know that this is just an immediate reaction to an incident and after a little time, the anger goes away.

As for Dobbs, who can really say? He's got an agenda and an image to maintain because he's in the public's eye. Only Dobbs knows the truth here but one's actions certainly do reveal a lot of what a person is.

The article only diverts one from the fact which is there are people here in this country illegally; let me repeat that word illegally. Countries have a right to protect their citizens and one way to do that is to control how many people are allowed to immigrate to it every year. I have no problem whatsoever with LEGAL immigration; its when people just walk (or swim) into the country, take jobs from citizens because they are willing to work for less and with no benefits and use our public provided assistance when they are not even legally in the country; that is when I have a problem. If we were to just let anyone walk or swim or fly in and live here the US would collapse in on itself. Imagine the population of your city doubling or tripling without the infrastructure in place to support it. This is not some fantasy but could really happen and that is why a country has to control the number of people that come in through legallized immigration. I know my post will upset many of you but I am just wanting to be truthful and this is coming from one very liberal (I think of myself as a Socialist) individual.

And here's one more salacious bit of info: the people that most want illegal immigrants here are employers (corporate and non-corporate) and the rich.

I don't much watch CNN, Fox, or any of that invective and proselytizing junk presented as news. It doesn't surprise me that Lou Dobbs would mix economic populism with xenophobia in his appeals to his largely middle-class audience. He's just another mouthpiece of the empire. The middle class( the coordinator class in Micheal Albert's terminology) are the first line of defense against the underclass( the class of which I am a member) whose numbers include recent immigrants and "illegal aliens" ( a term I despise with every molecule of my being). Apparently, Dobbs has been charged with preventing members of the middle-class from turning on the elite class of which he is a member.

Most people in the world are of the opinion that Americans are the biggest terrorists of them all, so perhaps we should seal the border in order that such terrorists aren't let out. Dobbs is an over-opinionated, overhyped, hypocritical, fat old fart --- no point wasting time on him because he sings to his choir. And someone said that his wife was Mexican. So what? She evidently spits on the poor of her country and couldn't care a hoot about her fellows being hunted down in the Oooh S. A. I'm all right, Jack. This whole debate about illegal immigration is a cover for racists to wag their self-righteous fingers at these hard-working unfortunates.

I find it somewhat amusing, that some here have stated, they NEVER have watched the Lou Dobbs program, or read his books, or, seldom have tuned him in, and then offer stong negative opinions about him and say he is a bigot, or a racist, etc. __ Funny.

If Lou Dobbs argues a point with another white person, it's an argument. If however, he disagrees with a Hispanic, he's a bigot and a racist. ____ That makes good sense?

Some say he is obviously no good, because they dislike his body language, he rolls his eyes when he thinks someone else is being ignorant. And some of his guests often are. Some others say, he's a bigot because someone charged he hires illegals, yet that charge is not substanciated. Sort of like burning a woman at the stake, because some school girls say she's a witch. Of course that could never happen in America.

Lou Dobbs comes across to me, as a man who wants to see a decent America and a once again wealthy America, that has a fair amount of respect of the rest of the world's nations. He wants to see our infastructures repaired and updated, he wants to see out-sourcing of middle class citizens jobs come to a halt, he wants to see that immigration is fair and legal, he wants to see our deplorable Congress start to function as our Constitution demands it should. He wants to see that the 25% of our now imported food is safe to eat, he wants to see our open borders, north and south, are well protected.
There are many other important issues he would like to see action on.

Guess Dobbs is a damn fool and a lying, racist, bigot, for wanting to see such unimportant and idiotic things. Lets all now pray and sing a hymn for him. HYMN---HYMN ____ F##k Him.

And another 'fair minded' soul, wrote an enlightening and profound comment for our advancment of honest knowledge.

("And someone said his wife is a Mexican. ___So what? ___ She EVIDENTLY spits on the poor of her country and couldn't care a hot about her fellows", __blah, blah, blah. )

Wow, good to see we have someone here who knows Lou's wife real well and can give us the straight shit on her and her screwed up husband.

The more I read, the more it becomes apparant to me, that either I am blogging on the wrong site, or quite a few others are. What a sorry ass thread this is, for the most part.

So much to say! So little time!

Nothing against immigrants; everything against ILLEGAL immigrants. (Note: not to be called "undocumented" immigrants).

Everything against people hiring ILLEGAL immigrants while failing to pay them a living wage...SO THAT CITIZENS must chip in through taxation to PAY for their children's English lessons in school, social services, their health care, their housing, food stamps, etc.

I don't want illegal immigrants to go to jail (maybe their employers), I want them to go home. We have too many people, too many cars on the road, too much Section 8 housing already.

I wish some people on this list would please quit spouting the same old same old stuff about racism. READ!!! It's not.

Lou Dobbs is interested in maintaining a product for his show's advertisers. If you watch his show, then you're his product.

In a healthy economy, there's a labor shortage -- not an excess. When people are empowered, not dislocated from real estate equity and the political system, they are naturally productive. Nobody wants to live in section 8 housing. We need a new Homestead Act like 1862 that frees up huge expanses of wilderness to naturally productive people. Except in this case, it needs to be freed from the banks.

Lobster: What exactly is the hangup with English? I challenge anyone who's hung up on xenophobia to login to Ancestry.com (might be free at a public library near you) and browse the US federal censuses. You'll see that throughout most of America's history, we were a melting-pot culture and -- yes -- we had to be patient with other languages, teach people English, etc.

The scoundrels who echo linguistic imperialism are victims of racist memes, whether or not they want to admit it, and have failed to look at the situation on the ground. The problem isn't their illegal nature, the problem is that we have a system like ancient Greece (slaves), modern Kuwait (foreigners), Germany (Turks), etc. which relies on below-the-grid labor. The problem isn't the laborers directly, who certainly aren't making fortunes, the problem is the employers who are indeed making good on this arrangement.

As for getting in a huff that it's a one-way cost, that again is a gross misunderstanding. Large segements of regional (mainly southern) restaurant, agricultural, meat-packing and construction industries post the profits they do because they have people willing to work for so little, even sub- minimum wage. Blame the worker? Blame the employer?

I tend to blame politicians above all else, since they're in a position to create tighter laws and see that they are enforced.

PAULITICS December 5th, 2007 11:09 pm

"And what is the picture?"

Robber barons and the return of serfdom.

Paul Bramscher(above)December 6th, 2007 11:11 am. explains this reality.

KEM,

Hey, glad you decided to stick around. Just wanted you to know that I have in fact watched Lou many, many times. I've often felt perplexed about him. I like that he brings up issues of ecomonic populism. He runs one of the only shows on network TV that has allowed the Adbusters Media Foundation to run Buy Nothing Day spots on his broadcast.

As I already have said, I haven't been enthusiastic about his stand on undocumented workers (This is, by the way, the term I think should be used, not illegal immigrants). And recently he's made it his signature issue, to the expense of other coverage. I've felt this was a suck up to the right-wing. Maybe I'm wrong. I think the issue is toxic, though, in large measure because of how it's framed. I think undocumented workers have been sucked into the whole climate of fear engendered by our nation's head long rush into fear brought on by the so-called War On Terror. It's a wedge issue, like abortion. It yields alot of heat, but little light, because the real solution(s) is (are) much more complex, and nuanced.

And Mr C-N-Chimp. If this is indeed your last post, then sayonara. You won't be missed.

HI DRIFT, I tend to agree wiht that. I'm a bit tired of that subject being the major issue too. I always hope he will get on issues like this NIE report and Bush's obvious lies and hammer it for as long as is necessary.

Dobbs should team up with someone like Walter Cronkite. ___ Well, don't think there are any like him anymore.

Amy Goodman has just lost credibility. She says Lou Dobbs Tonight has made two errors of fact over a period of five years? Guess what, news networks and newspapers make errors of fact every week. Just two mistakes in five years is a stellar record. I'll bet Democracy Now (Goodman's show) has made MORE than two errors of fact in the past five years. Her report (about the Dobbs mistakes) is misleading and dishonest.

Then we have all the shouting that Dobbs is a racist. Why? Because he is against unregulated and illegal immigration. Cesar Chavez (the great Mexican-American labor organizer) was also against illegal immigration. Does that make HIM a racist? Chavez once led a march to the California/Mexico border protesting illegal immigrant strikebreakers. Joining him on the march were Reverend Ralph Abernathy (protege of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.) and U.S. Senator Walter Mondale. Does that make THEM racists too?

Next we have all the people here who claim we're a "nation of immigrants," therefor we should have unregulated immigration. OK. So, we're a nation of hunters and fishermen. Should we have unregulated hunting and fishing? We're a nation of motorists. Should we take down all the speed limit signs? The premise doesn't lead to the conclusion, does it?

Those who attack proponents of regulated immigration need to answer these simple questions: Do you think there should be ANY limit on the number of immigrants allowed into the U.S. each year? If so, what is that number?

Keep in mind, the U.S. currently allows more than two million LEGAL immigrants each year, more than all the other countries in the world COMBINED. Keep in mind also, there are five BILLION people in the world living in countries poorer than Mexico.

So again, will any of you answer the question: how many should be allowed in? All five billion? As many as want to come? As many as U.S. employers want?

And be forewarned, if you suggest any limit you are subject to being branded as a racist.

OK Bob, I'll at least begin to take a swipe at it. As I wrote above to KEM, I think this is a wedge issue. We're fighting among ourselves about how to address the symptoms, in this case a wave of undocumented workers and what to with them after they're already here, and not the the root causes of why they decided to leave their own homes and families, risk hardships and even death, and come here in the first place.

I know that a major, perhaps even primary root cause is a worldwide economic scheme that places people over profit. Unjust, undemocratic institutions like the World Bank, and the IMF. Economic policies like the "Chicago School" of Milton Freidman, which Naomi Klien has insightfully branded as disaster capitalism. Regimes like NAFTA which increase the race to the bottom.

Do I want secure borders in the sense that we're able to keep out those who may want to do us harm? Of course. But in a more peaceful, just world there wouldn't be billions of people living in poverty to sustain our unsustainable standard of living. And if we didn't have hundreds of our military bases scattered throughout the world in order to prop up this unjust economic system, there wouldn't be young men and women who conclude that their best option in life is to strap bombs to their bodies or fly planes into buildings.

These are our chickens coming home to roost. Exactly how to move from where we are now to a more just world where these symptoms no longer manifest themselves on our borders is a matter of politics, public persuasion, education, policy, etc. I'm no expert in these areas, so I'll let others chime in.

Well, drift, you dodge all the points I've made and all the questions I've asked, and instead try to change the subject. If that's what you call taking "a swipe at it," you've missed the broad side of the barn.

How about answering the questions: Do you think there should be ANY limit on the number of immigrants (and migrants) coming to the U.S. each year? If so, how many should be allowed?

Drift, Bob has perfect points there and an excellent question.

Of course some here would claim Bob is both a bigot and a racist, for one thing, it sounds like he supports Lou Dobbs and Cesar Chavez.

Lou is a two bit demagogue. I used to respect him when he did Money Line. Now he uses his TV show to lash out at Mexicans and Muslims. He's also a rabid neocon. He vehemently defends Bush shills like Judy Miller. When someone he interviewed made a reference to Miller he cut off the converstaion. He also praised neocon former UN ambassador John Bolton. He promotes sociopathic simpletons like Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter. Lou Dobbs doesn't care two cents about the Middle Class like he claims. Lou Dobbs can go to hell for my part.

And you missed my points, too, Bob. I think you have tunnel vision, and can only focus on the symptoms. You want easy answers where there are none. You want to know how many undocumented workers we should allow in? That's a stupid question on it's face. If I, or someone else attempts to answer it, what will would it look like in it's implementation? Should we have Border Patrol out there taking a tally starting every Jan 1st, letting a certain number of peolpe cross, and when the decided upon number is reached, then they should start to bust people? The proposition itself is absurd.

There are many reasons people are risking their lives to come here, and you've responded to none that I raised.

Drift, in a round-about way you've answered the question. You don't think there should be ANY limit on the number of immigrants and migrants allowed into the U.S. each year.

All industrialized nations have immigration regulations, including ours. But, you think the entire proposition is "absurd."

To be charitable, your opinions are uninformed.

Good try, Bob, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to put words in my mouth. I didn't answer your question, as I said and demonstrated above, because it is absurd. It is a rhetorical ploy, and I'm not falling for it.

Undocumented workers come here because their own homelands are impoverished. My proposition is that this is a result of undemocratic, unjust economic policies and institutions championed by our corporate elite and their lackeys in government.

If there were just policies of fair trade, and democracies in Latin America that were allowed to flourish and act in the best interests of their own peoples without fear of being overthrown by agents of our corporate oligarchy, THEN WE WOULDN'T HAVE THIS PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. People would prefer to stay in the lands of their birth with their own families if they have a good choice, ie not living in poverty and oppression.

Since you've got all the hard facts on this issue, I'd be curious to know what percentage of those undocumented workers crossing our borders since, say 2002, have been Venezuelan? My uninformed guess would be that it would be negligible. Care to speculate as to why that might be, Bob, and what lessons we could draw from it?

What part of these points do you not get, Bob, because you haven't yet responded to any of them.

Drift, you said:

"Should we have Border Patrol out there taking a tally starting every Jan 1st, letting a certain number of peolpe cross, and when the decided upon number is reached, then they should start to bust people? The proposition itself is absurd."

I thought you were making an argument that everyone should be allowed in, without limit. Maybe I was wrong. Perhaps you simply don't understand the basics of national citizenship, passports, visas (and immigration law).

By the way, do you think you are able to travel to other countries without a passport, visa or any documentation and just ignore the laws of those countries? Other countries don't think so. Mexico, in particular, has very strict immigration laws which they vigorously enforce.

The reason I'm not responding to your opinions, frankly, is that your ignorance is too vast to tackle.

I do wonder why you think you are more informed on this subject than Cesar Chavez. Or are you unfamiliar with him as well?

Ha, ha, ha... your're reaching for shit now, Bob. And you still haven't addressed my basic premise.

Yeah, and they're called "undocumented" because they don't have passports, visas, etc. So I get that whole concept. I lived abroad for 3 yrs, and have crossed over 2 dozen borders. Once, between Nepal and India, I managed to mingle into the crowd and get passed the check stations because I'd overstayed my visa in Nepal, and didn't want to pay the stiff fine. So, I guess I've been undocumented, too!

Before the question gets lost too far back in the thread, I asked (Dec. 7, 10:03 a.m.):

"Those who attack proponents of regulated immigration need to answer these simple questions: Do you think there should be ANY limit on the number of immigrants allowed into the U.S. each year? If so, what is that number?

Keep in mind, the U.S. currently allows more than two million LEGAL immigrants each year, more than all the other countries in the world COMBINED. Keep in mind also, there are five BILLION people in the world living in countries poorer than Mexico.

So again, will any of you answer the question: how many should be allowed in? All five billion? As many as want to come? As many as U.S. employers want?"

The first question requires only a simple yes of no answer. The second requires a number. I'll respond to anyone who answers. Responses that avoid the questions don't require a response.

If you oppose immigration regulation entirely, have the guts to say so. In that case, what policy do you actually recommend? None? Open borders? An end to the concept of nations?

Paul, PAUL, PAUL! Please note I mentioned NOTHING about English being required. Though I did have to take a quiz once on what makes a nation...one characteristic of which was a common language. (I've lived in Canada so don't tell me about bilinigual nations.)

If bilingual were so good, why doesn't Mexico adopt a bilingual stance? If fairness is so good, why can't Americans own property in Mexico? And since we're heavy tourists there, why aren't their museum signs in both English AND Spanish? Have you ever heard of illegal immigrants in Mexico...and what happens to them as well as what happens to just some cross-border spring breakers?

If all the respondents here would read the post to which they're replying, a lot of this haranguing would be unnecessary.

And thanks, but I have my own computer and am bilingual (certified).

It's as if some people were copying their stance from a party mail-out.

I dunno, one major thing that divides people of the world, is the language barrier. Lets assume for a moment that all of the millions of people who ever legally came to America, all continued to speak just their own language. They were not required to learn any English to gain citizenship. Would that be a problem in our schools and work places, for bus drivers, hospital staffs, police, the courts, libarians, etc.?

Let's take that a step further, lets say they all flew their prior countries flags and all banded together in seperate groups, like some did for many years when they first arrived. Some still do. But it is not in the majority of places or by most citizens by a long shot.

Personally I don't really let it bother me in the least, but I do wonder why we must have Italian American clubs, Polish, German, etc? The Black Panthers and White supremist and the KKK and the Arian brotherhood, the Hells Angels, Huns, Mongols and the youth gangs of different races to name a few. This is not the America of 60 years ago. We are not really a melting pot of Americans anymore. Maybe we never really were, maybe it was all just a dream, ___ a myth.

This thread is so good I read it all until my neck got stiff from staring at the screen. 100 years ago, the Repubs were anti-Catholic, anti-Irish and anti-Immigrant - nativists they called the R's. My grandparents came from Ireland and never forgot. The R's drove the Irish into the Democratic Party. This will now happen to the Latinos. They are going to start to vote and it will be an overwhelming Democratic vote.

Mexicans I know would love to come here legally if they could but visas are too rare and too expensive. They have to send money home just like my grandparents had to send money home to Ireland. Which they did, thank God.

This nation of morons is again beating the nativist drum. We need three million Mexicans to fill our jobs. Instead the government issues less than a million expensive visas and a long waiting time which hardly any Mexicans can afford. I work with OTMs, the INS designation for "Other than Mexican" and they are all in the same boat.

I am proud of the Catholic Church. For once we are on the right side of an issue.

Jim O'Leary
Corpus Christi, Texas

lobster: What quiz was this? Which countries today are 100% uni-lingual?

Check out this snippet from the Wikipedia, verify independently if you need to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico#Language

"There is no de jure constitutional official language at the federal level in Mexico.[76] Spanish, however, is used as the de facto national language[77] and is spoken by 97% of the population. The General Law of Linguistic Rights of the Indigenous Peoples, however, grants all indigenous minority languages spoken in Mexico, regardless of the number of speakers, the same validity as Spanish in all territories in which they are spoken, and indigenous peoples are entitled to request some public services and documents in their native languages.[78] Along with Spanish, the law has granted them –more than 60 languages– the status of "national languages". The law includes all Amerindian languages regardless of origin; that is, it includes the Amerindian languages of ethnic groups non-native to the territory. As such the National Commission for the Development of the Ingidenous Peoples recognizes the language of the Kickapoo, who immigrated from the United States,[79] and recognizes the languages of the Guatemalan Amerindian refugees.[80]"

As for owning land, I worked with a guy once who found God, became a missionary, and lives in Mexico City. He owns his own house, last I checked, and is still a US citizen.

What's really the crux of the issue you cite? My neighbors could be speaking Klingon, Esperanto, or Latin for all I care. What they do in their bedroom is their business as well. I work in a Big-10 University and hear sometimes 50% non-english chatter in a regular day. It's not threatened me yet.

Kem,

Seriously -- go to your local library and see if they subscribe to Ancestry.com. Check out the various censuses for the largest city in your state. I'm a heavy genealogy and social history buff. I've read that shopkeepers, for instance in Minneapolis, developed pidgin-English to communicate with customers in a great variety of languages. It is sheer racism, linguistic imperialism, smacking utterly of ignorance, provincialism, etc. that Americans can't fathom what it is like to be bilingual, to communicate via body gesture and pidgin dialect, etc. This is one of the areas, as with farming, gardening, the trades, hand craftwork, etc. in which we may have experienced devolution. Apparently we have a rising class of xenophobes, and they don't even see themselves that way.

The KKK, Black Panthers, etc. are racial-separatist organizations. There is no common religion, language, or European (or African) country which unites its members. Some of the ethnic groups in my metro area pass on traditions like folk dance and cuisine. Czech food really is different from Italian cuisine... As is the history, art, literature, etc.

Remember, the authorities-that-be once forced Native Americans to drop the ghost dance and submit to the dominant paradigm. Why should we demand that European Americans to drop their own indigenous traditions as well? They were already forced to give up their own religious systems. Live and let live, I say.

National identity, if we are to take the lead of the US multi-national corporations, is a waste of time anyway. Why should we submit to some rigid, even quasi-mythical, hegemony when our own powers do not?

The desire to force people to submit to the dominant paradigm is really a meme promulgated by Caesar and his more modern Emperors. I find that level of tyranny wholly unneeded.

Most all of the great things came from Greece, not Rome. And I'll wager that trade, ideas, philosophies, etc. flourished in the Mediterranean ports, despite HUGE linguistic diversity, to a degree that would put today's bigots, unwitting or not, to shame.

Bob K. December 7th, 2007 10:03 am wrote:

...So again, will any of you answer the question: how many should be allowed in? All five billion? As many as want to come? As many as U.S. employers want?"

You've asked that question several times Bob; and, you're waiting for an answer. But nobody took the bait. So what is your answer to your own question? You must have something to say in answer to your own question. some? none? just people you like?

I will take issue with this; Amy Goodman has just lost credibility. She says Lou Dobbs Tonight has made two errors of fact over a period of five years? Guess what, news networks and newspapers make errors of fact every week. Just two mistakes in five years is a stellar record.

She did not say he only made two mistakes, Juan and Amy were focussing on comments that Lou Dobbs made that they argued could be construed as racial hate mongering, were disproved, but were left to stand non the less. They made a case that Dobbs used over generalizations to misrepresent the facts and attempted to show historical context to support their contentions. They could be wrong, maybe Dobbs just doesn't give a shit if he fudges the details because he just knows he's right. I think he feels vindicated by the body of his "work".

Here one for you; because you didn't get that whole 2 errors in 5 years thing right, you just lost credibility. Doesn't seem quite fair now does it.

Still having problems posting here. Let's see if this one sticks.

zhongman said, "The employer should not be placed in the position of investigator and enforcer for what should be carried out by the presumably objective law enforcement."

I've said before that employers who claim they "didn't know" their thousands of non-English speaking workers were illegal should be given the same consideration as motorists who claim they didn't know they were speeding. Why should giant corporations have a different standard of justice than ordinary people? And, don't kid yourself, many of these corporations pay contractors to go to Mexico and Central America and recruit workers for them. They know their employees are illegal.

Here are links to articles by two of our brightest progressive writers, which I highly recommend:

David Podvin:

"The Rape of the Working Class"
democrats.com, April 24, 2006
http://www.democrats.com/node/8697

"Comprehensive Moral Squalor"
makethemaccountable.com, June 10, 2006
http://makethemaccountable.com/podvin/more/060610_ComprehensiveMoralSqualor.htm

"Labor Day"
makethemaccountable.com, September 3, 2007
http://makethemaccountable.com/index.php/2007/09/03/david-podvin-labor-day/

Thom Hartmann:

Today's Immigration Battle: Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
truthout.org, March 29, 2006
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/58/18762

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
CommonDreams.org, July 5, 2006
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0705-23.htm

Okay good answer. You are Ok. Any you are certainly correct about one thing, Bob doesn't need any help....I just tend to agree with him, more than I did you.

I do believe Bob answered his question quite well before he asked it, if I read his post correctly.

Of course some are so interested in putting in their own two cents and opinions, that they fail to comprehend what others have previously written. It's that old problem of, humans often don't listen or pay attention to details.

Personally I do believe that speaking english where that is and was the dominent language of the vast majority for over a hundred years, is a better idea for the newly arrived than using sign or body language. It seems to me it would bind us together rather than tend to divide us. __ My final two cents.

I'm having some technical issues with the forum just now. I posted a lengthy response to zhongman last night (immediately below his post), and I don't know if it's here or not. Sometimes I see it (with a note saying "Your comment is awaiting moderation") and sometimes I don't see it at all. Does anyone else see it? It contains the transcription of Lou Dobbs' commentary in response to his critics. I can repost it if needed.

Kem
zhongman December 9th, 2007 3:18 am wrote:

"That number is not an absolute. I can't respond for those who believe in unabated immigration."

That means I favor regulation. As for the number, 2 million as if no more? It doesn't matter because the USCIS has a huge back log and can't keep up. And then there is the FBI. All immigrants must have a background check by them, and you better believe they don't answer to the USCIS. I suspect you are confusing immigrants with visitors. Bob's over he top 5 billion certainly is an unrealistic concern. Do you think he really meant that? Simple solutions will quickly fall apart if they are built off of foundation of racism.

I went back to Bob K's post you tagged and he was talking about open borders. "Next we have all the people here who claim we're a "nation of immigrants," therefor we should have unregulated immigration. OK. So, we're a nation of hunters and fishermen. Should we have unregulated hunting and fishing? We're a nation of motorists. Should we take down all the speed limit signs? The premise doesn't lead to the conclusion, does it?
Those who attack proponents of regulated immigration need to answer these simple questions: Do you think there should be ANY limit on the number of immigrants allowed into the U.S. each year? If so, what is that number?" I skimmed the thread ( I had read it originally but I don't have time to keep reading it over and over again) and while I did find some writing about a 'nation of immigrants' I didn't really see any of the 'unregulated immigration' part. Most certainly not many. That just doesn't seem like a real proposal to me. Immigration regulations in place are designed to ensure if you claim a family tie, it is genuine. And if you are hear to work, you're not taking an American's job. I any case not a criminal. Not all foreigners who come here are considered immigrants, i.e. students. However, some proponents of regulation would have it take a racial tone as if certain races and/or nationalities are prone to criminal behavior. That, of course is what this article is about.

Noble of you to come to Bob K's defense but I don think he needs the help. These words are my own so what do you consider buzz words in my posts? And everybody is free to give as many "cents" as they wish, that's the beauty here. My reference to your comment about my "2 cents" was an answer to your attempt to belittle me, no big deal. I did see your post about your friends which hints to me why you are so emotional on this topic. A tragedy.

Maybe my post was too long. Here it is again, with just a link to Dobbs' response:

zhongman, you're right. No one has yet answered my questions. I think that shows that a few people posting their opinions here haven't really thought them through. When I challenge their opinions with facts, they're flummoxed. They have no answer . . . except to reiterate their continued confidence in their opinions. (And perhaps to express their disdain for anyone who disagrees with them.) They are a little like George Bush in that respect . . . or perhaps like the anti-abortionists, who are religiously wedded to their "abortion is wrong" mantra, and can't be dissuaded by logic or facts.

What is my own answer? I am in favor of immigration regulation. I think the two million legal immigrants the U.S. allows per year (more than all the other countries in the world combined) is enough. I'm also in favor of hunting and fishing regulations, speed limits, environmental laws, etc. But then, I'm in favor of good government and the public good, in general.

I've posted a lot on this issue several times before on several other threads. I've said the problem is the illegal employers. I've said they should be fined and prosecuted for their illegal activities. I've said they should be forced to pay each of their illegal employees a $5000 severance bonus. I've said the penalties should be severe enough to change their hiring practices. I've said, turn off the jobs magnet and the free public benefits, and the flood of illegal migrants will stop and those already here will go home voluntarily. There's no need to build a fence or deport people. I've discussed the harm caused by unregulated immigration—which is more appropriately called corporate insourcing of low-wage replacement workers—at length.

Now, to your comments about the Amy Goodman article. You are wrong on several counts. Goodman strongly implies that Lou Dobbs Tonight regularly presents false information. But, she cites just two examples of factual error. She gives the impression that there are other examples, but never says that directly. Neither does she say (as you point out) "he only made two mistakes," but the two examples she cites are the same two examples which have been cited by Dobbs' critics many times in the past, and no other examples of false or mistaken statements on Lou Dobbs Tonight have ever come to light.

You've also come away from Goodman's article with the impression that "comments that Lou Dobbs made . . . were disproved, but were left to stand non the less." That is indeed what Goodman implies. However, Dobbs had responded publicly to the so-called "mistakes" long before Goodman and Democracy Now ever got involved. Goodman knew that, but chose not to include the information in her article, thereby misleading her readers. I think that is an example of the kind of bad journalism she accuses Dobbs of practicing.

Now to the two "mistakes" cited. It turns out they are not what Dobbs' critics would have you believe. Here's a link to Lou Dobbs' response to his critics:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/29/Dobbs.May30/index.html

Now, having allowed Dobbs to defend himself here on CD forums, I'll ask my questions again:

"Those who attack proponents of regulated immigration need to answer these simple questions: Do you think there should be ANY limit on the number of immigrants allowed into the U.S. each year? If so, what is that number?

Keep in mind, the U.S. currently allows more than two million LEGAL immigrants each year, more than all the other countries in the world COMBINED. Keep in mind also, there are five BILLION people in the world living in countries poorer than Mexico.

So again, will any of you answer the question: how many should be allowed in? All five billion? As many as want to come? As many as U.S. employers want?"

BOB K. No one who has been blogging against Dobbs is going to answer that question, because they all know you are correct. If they give an honest answer, then all they have said previously would be wrong. If they give a stupid answer, they realize they would lose any speck of credibility they may have had.

Kem, you seem to have quite more than 2 cents to offer when it comes to other posters. Bob K's position was not obvious to me based on what I read on this thread until he answered me post. (Thank you Bob for spending you time on someone with such a difficulty in comprehension). Maybe you have a more intimate knowledge of Bob K's opinion from other threads. Having listened to Democracy Now for quite a while, I though Bob's opening statement was a stretch. While you think you have something to teach me, I think you have something to learn from Bob. He understood I had questions regardless of how I challenged his thoughts (he certainly outclassed me), you just ridiculed me.

Bob K, I think that illegal employers are a problem, however, me might differ on who comprises that group. People who knowingly hire illegals and then use that for leverage to gain an advantage (by under paying them or taking advantage of them in other ways) fit the category for me. People who hire those with the necessary documents in good faith are a different story. If when they file the employee SS# info and the Federal Government sees a need to further investigate, then let them. The employer should not be placed in the position of investigator and enforcer for what should be carried out by the presumably objective law enforcement.

There is a shift in immigration policy going on now that entails moving from family based immigration to employer based immigration. I prefer family based. In the interview I got the feeling that these three had some underlying conflict not part of the public discourse. I didn't like how Goodman and Gonzalez teamed up on Dobbs or how Dobbs twisted and downplayed their charges. Maybe he thought they were just going to talk up his book? He kind of blew-off his mistakes and I think they wanted a little more contrition out of him. But you are correct about the article not acknowledging his recent corrections but I noticed his corrections came sometimes years after the mistakes (in the link you provided, he posted them May 5, 2007 in the response to a NYT article). I also think that included in those federal prison stats would be illegal aliens incarcerated in federal detention centers for being here illegally. Some might think that misleading.

We have attracted many bright and talented people here with relatively liberal immigration policies. Some didn't work out but most get it. However our ever increasing obsession with our own economic self interest have begun to attract people here for the wrong reasons. I never understood why we let Mexico flounder while we propped up leaders half way around the world. They have the means and resources at their disposal for prosperity. Immigration cannot be debated in a vacuum. It is presumptuous to assume 5 billion people want to come here. The vast majority want a good life in their own land. How many should be allowed in? That number is not an absolute. I can't respond for those who believe in unabated immigration.

BOB K answered it perfectly in his first post, Dec 7th at 10.03am ZHONGMAN.

I see where your first post to Bob was rather snooty and rude. Your last one to him was very good, I'm pleased to see you were educated by him. That first post of yours was why I replied to you in like manner. That was my 2 cents and I really don't care if you appreciate it or not.

If you cannot comprehend his writng and see that he indeed did answer his own question and quite appropriately in my opinion, then you do have a reading comp problem, perhaps you should seek a different and more professional opinion about that however.

I did indeed learn from his posts and I thought he outclassed just about everyone who did offer opinions here. Of course I agreed with his opinions before I ever heard of him. He has nailed it and asked a darn good question, which obviosly shut up most of the idiots. Since I have agreed with him 100%, I don't fall into that idiot catagory,___ on this thread at least.

Thanks Amy and Juan for calling that hack to task. He has beaten the immigration topic to death and like his pal, Wolf, he tends to be so totally one-sided with his reporting, the skewing is undeniably transparent. I used to just cringe when he cut off the remarks of his guests only to slip in his sound bite of the day. Needless to say, my husband and I turn the channel when his show comes on. Perhaps the most interesting part of the Democracy Now interview (besides watching the worm squirm and get defensive with his usual nasty tone) was contrasting how Amy gives the guest a platform and time to actually say something while the CNN "hit and run" approach is too abbreviated and rushed.

BTW ZHONGMAN, we notice you failed to answer BOB K's fair and easy to comprehend question, instead you dodged it with buzz words. You are an exellent writer.

Still having problems posting. Let's see if this sticks.

zhongman said, "The employer should not be placed in the position of investigator and enforcer for what should be carried out by the presumably objective law enforcement."

I disagree. I've said before, if employers claim they "didn't know" their thousands of non-English speaking workers on their factory floors were illegal, they should be given the same consideration as motorists who claim they didn't know they were speeding. Why shouldn't giant corporations have the same standard of justice as ordinary people? And, don't kid yourself, many corporations pay contractors to go to Mexico and Central America and recruit workers for them. They know their employees are illegal.

zhongman also said, "Immigration regulations in place are designed to ensure . . . if you are hear to work, you're not taking an American's job."

Immigration regulations currently perform no such function. The idea is absurd on it's face. It wouldn't be possible. Plus, of course they are taking people's jobs. Many illegals work in meatpacking, construction, manufacturing, janitorial, and landscaping, for example. Do you think no one was doing these jobs before the illegals came? Was no one slaughtering beef or building houses? Of course these jobs were once done by American citizens. What's more, they were once single-breadwinner jobs with benefits. Today they are becoming sweatshop jobs, where at least two people per household must work full time just to pay for food and shelter. And, this is directly because of corporate insourcing of low-wage replacement workers.

Here are some articles by two of our brightest progressive writers. I highly recommend them. (I've removed the actual links because this is the fourth time I've tried posting this without success, and I'm wondering if the links are the issue.)

David Podvin:

"The Rape of the Working Class"
democrats.com, April 24, 2006

"Comprehensive Moral Squalor"
makethemaccountable.com, June 10, 2006

"Labor Day"
makethemaccountable.com, September 3, 2007

Thom Hartmann:

"Today's Immigration Battle: Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)"
truthout.org, March 29, 2006

"Reclaiming the Issues: It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
CommonDreams.org, July 5, 2006