Cavuto: Are immigration protests "economic terrorism?"
Fox News host Neil Cavuto asked whether the May 1 "Day Without Immigrants" protests were "freedom of expression or economic terrorism."
Addressing the May 1 "Day Without Immigrants" protests on the May 1 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto asked: "So is it freedom of expression, or economic terrorism?" At various points throughout the program, the on-screen text echoed Cavuto's question, asking: " 'A Day Without Immigrants'; Economic Terrorism?"
During a report on the protests from Fox News correspondent Rebecca Gomez , the on-screen text proclaimed that the protesters were "trying to cripple America's economy."
From the May 1 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: So is it freedom of expression or economic terrorism? My next guest says that Americans would rather pay more than be held hostage by illegals. With us now is former New York City Mayor Ed Koch.
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
So I guess if we just "rounded them up", then our government would be terrorizing our own economy? Hmmm...
put them in Cuba without trial, or just send them abroad as ghost prisoners. There is a new economic oportunity there!
Sad ... very sad.
very sad to use the word that has the connotation of death and destruction withour consideration of any human compassion with hispanics that use their right to assamble and protest.
Sad ... very sad. This white ass don't seem to know anything about the real world, what our soldiers fight against, and what our constitution is about.
What the immigrants did yesterday ain't terrorism. 9/11 was terrorism. How do you tell the difference? One induced terror, the other didn't. It's really quite simple for rational people.
FOX's calling card... connecting the dots in a convoluted manner for the less apt (average FOX viewer)...
The word "terrorist" is thrown around so much by these guys... doesn't matter. Pavlovian response by the viewers at this point. I'm sure there are FOX viewers now who believe immigrants are now terrorists.
...when FOX NEWS trots out one of the pre-paid, pre-screened, "liberals" from the Zell Miller Ward as a backup for Cavuto's Rovian point of view.
Has anyone listened to Koch lately? He shows all the signs of being in the same "makes-new-friends-everyday" phase that Reagan was in mid-way through his second term.
The really sickening part is to hear Cavuto and others of his two-faced, cheap labor loving ilk pound the desk in phony outrage over the lack of immigration reform.
Kinda like the act they put on about the lack of ethics reform.
Boycotts aren't terrorism, idiots. They're a well-established form of political protest. The fact that you disagree with the aims of a boycott doesn't mean it's illegal or immoral.
We could call any extreme pro-business conservative an "economic terrorist" for fighting the minimum wage, resisting regulation, etc.
Maybe we should.
No. I wouldn't call it terrorism. But his comment is just as ridiculous and shouldn't be considered journalism at all.
No, Neil, you Bush bootlicking twit, it's called "Democracy."
America has always welcomed immigrant, they are better treated here than anywhere on earth. What rights are they denied? They are not denied emergency health care, social welfare programs, and free education in OUR public schools. All without having to pay taxes like the rest of us law abiding citizens.
The issue for us "evil" conservatives is the United States has laws that must be respected. If illegal immigrants cannot recpect the laws and sovereignty of the United States then how can they ask to be treated with respect and dignity.
"May Day was a strike against America. It was a show of force, a demonstration of raw street power to force the government of the United States into granting to 12 million illegal aliens, who have broken our laws and broken into our country, not only the full benefits of U.S. citizenship, but full citizenship."
"It was brazen act of extortion to coerce Congress to grant amnesty now, and not to enforce our immigration laws or secure the Mexican border – or to be ready for big trouble in the streets. "
terrorism: the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
Technically, May Day falls under the definition of terrorism. Is it the terrorism we are so familiar with today with the Muslim extremists blowing themselves up..no, but it is terrorism nonetheless.
The irony of it all, is that if Americans wanted to illegally cross the borders and live in Mexico they would be arrested and charged with a felony. Strange don't you think?
do you see unlawful use of force ... ?
And the protesters where not all illegal aliens, but probably mostly legal mexican-americans.
First, let me say that I want our borders controlled, and illegal immigration stopped. Now, regarding your post:
What rights are they denied? They are not denied emergency health care, social welfare programs, and free education in OUR public schools.
They are often exploited because they are not allowed to officially exist. To whom can they complain about exploitation? Also, what about Americans who don't pay taxes but get these services?
"terrorism: the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
The prostesters did not threaten the use of force or violence. However, your definition does describe Bush's attacking Iraq.
if Americans wanted to illegally cross the borders and live in Mexico they would be arrested and charged with a felony
You have no way of knowing this.
Sorry for the extend-a-post.
The issue for us "evil" conservatives is the United States has laws that must be respected.
I'm glad that you say this is important to you. Impeach Bush, and I'll believe it. Until you do, I simply do not believe you when you say that no one is above the law.
I don' t agree with everything Bush does or says, especially regarding illegal immigration. What does impeaching Bush have to do with what I was talking about? Please explain so I can respond.
with respect
The way I see it, the way Bush has twisted, dodged, and outright flouted so many of our well-established laws is the elephant-in-the-room. We can't talk about the US being "a country of laws" with a straight face until we accept that Bush has broken those laws and we hold him responsible.
what specific law has he broken that deserves impeachment?
granted, he might have "dodged some issues", but guess what...American politics are corrupt. On both sides, name one politician that hasn't used his/her power to skirt some rules and regulations, or perhaps break laws. Not saying its right, but i'm not aware of any laws that Bush broke. Not saying it didn't happen, but I don't know about them.
I understand your point, i just want specifics to I can provide an rebuttal if i disagree. And don't say b/c he took us to war.
1. I won't say "because he took us to war," but I will say because he lied to us. I know that there's some debate about this, but it's really the same kind of debate that there is about global warming (meaning, there IS no debate, just obfuscation. The facts are in.)
2. FISA - Again, some people think that there's debate about this, but the law is clear.
3. Plame - Whether or not he did this personally, he's responsible for it.
4. Lying (lies besides WMD) - like that the "mission accomplished" banner was the ship's crew's idea. That's petty, selfish and stupid.
5. Generally being a dumbass - deficit, Ports deal, tax cuts, "bring 'em on," "I'm the decider," "strategery," etc. If the repubs thought that Clinton (who I do not worship) made us look bad...JEEEZ. Bush makes us look like inbred morons.
It called perpetrating a fraud on the US, when you decieve (doesnt even take an outright lie) a government entity like Congress and impede its proper or efficient functioning it is perpetrating a fraud on the US. Two of the watergate conspiritors and two of the Iran/Contra conspiritors were charged with JUST THIS CRIME. Fisa of course. Facilitating torture breaks the law, the convention against torture statute. I wholeheartedly agree, if we want to take the we are a nation of laws seriously Bush should be impeached
I knew that I had missed a bunch of things, but I'm surprized that I forgot the torture thing! Nice catch.
Also, what about pulling us out of the war crimes tribunal, or whatever it is? It bodes ill for us when our leader comes out and says, in effect, "I will not be held accountable for war crimes."
it is not only Bush, it is a whole administration which is additionally supported by many republicans in congres who stall investigations into the conduct of the cabinet and its members and who talk straight everything that is wrong. Further, members like Frist use the floor to win souls by e.g., bring right-religious dogma's to the vote (e.g., marriage amentment). Finally, we have had some serious overreaching from members of congres and the president, as well as his brother in the Chiavo case. Did I forgot to mention the threat that some members utter against judges and pro-abortionists?
I want to see a list of programs they specifically benefit from. Got one, or are you just spouting the same hyperbole? As for breaking and not respecting laws, the only "law" conservatives care about is the $400 fee to apply for a green card. That's the #1 reason y'all have your shorts in a twist. Charge them to come in, then charge them some more to provide "services" related to getting citizenship, and put designed hardships in place to ensure a % of failure so they have to start over again. It was free to enter the country until Republicans changed the entry laws in the 1950's. All you had to do was stand in line and sign your name.
Do you have a link or book or something about the issue of immigration before and after the 1950's?
[link to www.visa2003.com]
We've had quotas, and racism had played a big role in the past. Reference Chinese rail workers in the 1800's and irish immigrants. We've periodically had restrictions based on disease carriers, race or literacy. But the 1st time we started charging a fee to enter was due to the immigration and nationality act of 1952.
thanks for the link and the info!
I went through the process with my wife. It ended up costing us $1700 when all was said and done, and she already had her green card. When I moved from an apartment to a house, I paid a fee. When she changed jobs, I paid a fee. When we moved from Dallas to Austin, I paid a fee. And the funny thing is, when she was finally given her citizenship, the VERY 1st letter she got was hot off the press from Tom Delay welcoming her to America and asking if she wanted to pay the $5000 fee to become part of an exclusive small group of hispanic working women who support the republican party. Money money money, the Republican requirement for citizenship.
Section 286(m) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides for the collection of fees at a level that will ensure recovery of the full costs of providing adjudication and naturalization services, including the costs of providing similar services without charge to asylum applicants and other immigrants. [8 U.S.C. 1356(m)] The INA further states that the fees may recover administrative costs as well. This revenue remains available to provide immigration and naturalization benefits and the collection, safeguarding, and accounting for fees. [8 U.S.C. 1356(n)].
trying to make this a self funding program is exactly why it takes so long to get through the process. If we were serious about fixing the problem, we'd include this in the discussion. My idea? Lower the application fee and then charge all green card holders 1 penny per dollar. Now the extremists can stop whining about those who send money home because we are not only collecting sales tax when they purchase stuff, we get that extra umph! to help fund the process. Will it work? Assume we have 5 million legal immigrants who each paid the $400 fee, the government collected $2 billion. Now say the fee is $75, the government collects $450 million. Average wage of the legal? Say $7.50 per hour or $15,600 a year. That's $156 per legal PER YEAR. 2 years to get citizenship, that's $312 + $75 guess what? You practically get the same as charging it all up front.
There was no unlawful use of, or threatened use of, force or violence. Thus, by your own definition, the rallies were not terrorism.
"My next guest says that Americans would rather pay more than be held hostage by illegals."
I've asked many people this myself. The answer is always in the affirmative; yes, Americans would be willing to pay more to keep illegal immigrants from taking "our jobs."
Yet from the whining and crying going on at the gas pump about the rising price of "our gasoline," it's clear that the American public will not bear any cost or make any sacrifice. The example of the Carter presidency, and his plan for energy independence makes this abundently clear.
The "issue" of "illegal immigration" is, for the Republican Party, this year's "queers," like gay marriage, just another divisive and diversionary wedge issue to inflame the impotent outrage of the angry white male. After the midterm elections this fall, should this "issue" work its magic and return a GOP majority to both Houses of Congress, it will be conveniently forgotten so the Republican Party can continue its primary agenda of looting the national treasury and destroying Constitutional government, as we know it.
"I've asked many people this myself. The answer is always in the affirmative; yes, Americans would be willing to pay more to keep illegal immigrants from taking "our jobs."
That makes a hell of a study: the data he refers to is neither reliable nor valid.
What I find mindboggling is that the same people who say the Mexicans are taking all our jobs will then turn around on a different issue and tout the supposedly low unemployment rates. Hmm, so if everything they say is true then if we deported 12 million people we would have a severe labor shortage.
So, does Cavuto consider labor strikes terrorism? Aren't these people using an expressly free-market device to express themselves? These guys are hypocrites through and through. Their ideology is about as deep and transparent as a kiddie pool.
I am certain that he would classify labor strikes as the same. Remember they don't like organized labor. Remember when Reagan fired the unionized air traffic controllers he became the darling of big business and the anti-labor union crowd. I've never belonged to a labor union but I do know that when unions were in their prime they help elevate wages and benefits for all workers. Makes you wonder, through the efforts of big business and their allies in the Republican party unions are becoming extinct and real wages have become at best stagnate.
Also, notice how terrorism has become the new buzzword. It used to be communism. In fact, labor strikers were often dismissed as communists. It's just as shameful now as it was then. People hate terrorism, so it's a viable political strategy to simply label everyone you disagree with as a terrorist. It has its built in connotation. No explanation needed. Disgusting.
that is why they try to make a stable association between the democrats and terrorists by stating that the talking points are the same and they both critisize Bush et al.
I have a good life largly because of the good wages, benifits and job security provided by that union. From the fact my job has BEEN a union job for more than 100years.
If Cavuto can get away with the term 'economic terrorism' I humbly suggest everyone accuses him of 'intellectual terrorism'...
I'm sorry, where did Wal-Mart start? Oh, that's right, in the United States. See, Cavuto can say that "Americans would rather pay more than be held hostage by illegals," but the fact that Wal-Mart still exists proves that people would rather pay less than care about ANYONE else. At all, legal or illegal.
Because, let's face it, Wal-Mart has locked illegal immigrants in the store over night. Something makes me think that if US citizens cared about whether or not illegals were in the country, they might stop shopping at Wal-Mart, which has a history of not only hiring illegals, but of leading the way in making the working class work harder for less money.
Americans will always prefer to pay less. Always. It's capitalism at its finest.
Soon to followed by:
"freedom of expression or journalistic terrorism"
and...
"freedom of expression or voter terrorism"
cross the borders and live in Mexico, they would be arrested and charged with a felony." - American NeoCon
I live in National City, CA {burb of San Diego}, about 15 miles north of the San Ysidro border crossing into Mexico . . . I have trouble believing that statement, since the SY border crossing is the world's busiest land crossing - and there is thus little need, or incentive, for Americans to cross into Mexico illegally . . .
As for Cavuto and Gomez thinking the protests were "economic terrorism," I heard on Air America radio yesterday a cut from a right-wing radio talkshow host in Memphis, where along this one street a group of Mexican-American businesses were closed as part of the protest . . . the talkshow host was encouraging listeners to remember which businesses had shut their doors and not patronize them in the future . . . now, was that "economic terrorism?"
- Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons
- Deported foreigners who try to re-enter Mexico without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years.
- Foreigners who violate terms of their visa may be sentenced for up to six years in prison.
- Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony.
These penalties are stated in Mexico's General Law on Population.
You know that these laws are followed when US citizens go there?
a Nazi, douche bag? Now can't we stop with the over the top name calling and comparisons?
This is why no one wants or can give an inch in a debate and why everyone hates any politician they know and pundit, if they have nay sense. Someone has to take back civilized debate, or even uncivilized debate as long as it is to a legitimate end.
Actually Cavuto is definitely a douche-bag.
..any employee that went on strike is now an economy terrorist! I knew Republicans don't like unions, but this is getting ridiculous!
Also, I'm not sure if it's due to the immigration protests or what, but I work in a produce department and we were zeroed on a lot of stuff we ordered. Just don't have it. Even worse, it's mostly the organic produce! What's a bleeding-heart liberal to do?!
It was good to see that "National Criminal Awareness Day" did little to cripple the US economy. Nice try, though, lots of media coverage. Maybe all those illegals don't mean as much to the US as they seem to think?
Did the GOP finally decide to release all the incriminating evidence against its members?