About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

For seven hours, MSNBC hosted only conservatives and reporters to discuss immigration

June 12, 2007 7:43 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

47 Comments

During the seven hours of the June 11 edition of MSNBC Live (9 a.m.-4 p.m. ET), 15 segments aired about immigration or the Senate immigration bill, none of which featured a Democratic or progressive commentator. Indeed, in nine of the 15 segments, the anchor interviewed a conservative anti-immigration activist who had opposed the bill -- including six separate solo interviews with MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan. The remaining six segments consisted of two panels with Buchanan and conservative activist and Manhattan Institute senior fellow Tamar Jacoby (who, alone among the guests, favored the recent immigration bill), an interview with Congressional Quarterly immigration reporter Michael Sandler, an interview with MSNBC terrorism analyst Joe Cantamessa, and two reports from MSNBC congressional correspondent Mike Viqueira.

Buchanan appeared in one segment in each of the first four hours, giving two solo interviews each to MSNBC Live anchors Monica Novotny and Chris Jansing. Buchanan then appeared four times in the next three hours on MSNBC, giving two solo interviews and participating in two panels with Jacoby. Buchanan is a longtime anti-illegal immigration activist, noting on his website that "the [Sen. John] McCain [R-AZ]-[Sen. Edward] Kennedy [D-MA]-Bush-La Raza immigration plan" is one of the "very matters on which we took our stand in those three campaigns," referring to his presidential campaigns of 1992, 1996, and 2000. Buchanan is the author of the book, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America (Thomas Dunne Books, August 2006), which, as the weblog Think Progress has noted, asserts that the United States must keep "Americans of European descent" from becoming the "minority" in order to "survive[]." As Media Matters for America noted, Buchanan was given five appearances in four days on NBC or an NBC-owned cable channel to promote his book.

Buchanan also has a long history of advancing conservative misinformation on the issue of immigration. For instance, in his May 1 syndicated column, he blamed the April 16 shootings at Virginia Tech on lax U.S. immigration policies and baselessly claimed that "in numbers higher than our native born, some [immigrants] are going berserk here."

In a segment during the 10 a.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live, Novotny interviewed Grassfire.org president Steve Elliott. Grassfire.org is a self-described "online conservative issues advocacy organization." Elliot's biography asserts that "Grassfire has been at the forefront of the effort to secure our borders and stop illegal immigration." A July 19, 2006, Arizona Daily Star article quoted Elliot saying that the number of illegal immigrants in the United States "truly amounts to an invasion of our community."

Later on the program, Jansing interviewed William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC). Gheen's writings have appeared on the website VDARE.com, which, as Colorado Media Matters has noted, publishes the work of some "white nationalists," according to its editor, Peter Brimelow. In an April 19 article on ALIPAC's website, headlined "Why the illegals must go!" Gheen concluded: "The hour is late and it is time for Americans to stand up and say with one voice... No Amnesty! No Guest Worker! Secure our borders and enforce the existing laws! Restore the American Republic! The illegals must go. Illegals go home!" Gheen also has a history of conservative misinformation on the issue of immigration, as documented by Colorado Media Matters.

In the 2 p.m. hour, host Contessa Brewer interviewed Jason Mrochek, national director of the Federal Immigration Reform and Enforcement (FIRE) Coalition, an organization whose website declares, "We believe that it is the duty of our government [to] ... effectively secure our nation's borders and vigorously enforce our immigration laws, including repatriation of foreign nationals illegally in the United States." As with Gheen, Mrochek also has a history of conservative misinformation on the issue of immigration, documented by Colorado Media Matters.

A May 21 Washington Post profile called Jacoby a "[c]onservative activist." The Manhattan Institute itself has been labeled "conservative" by several media outlets. Jacoby has come out in favor of the recent immigration bill, writing in a May 29 Los Angeles Times column that the bill was "the essence of democratic politics: Everyone sacrifices a little so that we all can win big."

Hour of MSNBC Live

Guests/Reporters

9 a.m.

Viqueira;
Buchanan

10 a.m.

Buchanan;
Elliott

11 a.m.

Buchanan;
Gheen,;
Sandler

12 p.m.

Buchanan

1 p.m.

Buchanan and Jacoby;
Cantamessa;
Buchanan

2 p.m.

Buchanan and Jacoby;
Mrochek,

3 p.m.

Buchanan;
Viqueira



From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the June 11 edition of MSNBC Live:

NOVOTNY: For more on what the president can do to help push the bill through, we're joined on Capitol Hill by NBC's Mike Viqueira. Good morning, Mike.

VIQUEIRA: Good morning, Monica.

NOVOTNY: So the president plans on meeting with Republican senators tomorrow --

VIQUEIRA: That's right.

NOVOTNY: What's his message going to be?

VIQUEIRA: Well, first of all, this message has been planned for about three weeks, but it's taken on a new urgency since the spectacular collapse of the president's immigration reform bill last week in the Senate, of course. He says, "I'll see you at the bill signing." That is wishful thinking.

[...]

NOVOTNY: Pat Buchanan is an MSNBC political analyst. He's also the author of the book, State of Emergency. Good morning, Pat.

BUCHANAN: Morning, Monica.

From the 10 a.m. ET hour of the June 11 edition of MSNBC Live:

NOVOTNY: Pat Buchanan is an MSNBC political analyst. He's also the author of the book State of Emergency. So, Pat, can the president bring the bill back to life just by sheer force of will this week?

BUCHANAN: I think the president and Harry Reid and the Democrats have a real interest. They really believe in this legislation.

[...]

NOVOTNY: Steve Elliott is president of Grassfire.org, one of the online groups opposed to the measure. So, Steve, how much impact do you think that average voters have had on this debate?

From the 11 a.m. ET hour of the June 11 edition of MSNBC Live:

JANSING: Pat Buchanan is an MSNBC political analyst and author of the book State of Emergency. Good morning, Pat.

BUCHANAN: Morning, Chris.

[...]

JANSING: Joining me now is William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC. Good morning. Thanks for joining us.

GHEEN: Thank you, Chris.

JANSING: So, do you attribute the -- at least stalling, if not the death of this bill, to the success of grassroots organizations like yours?

GHEEN: Most certainly.

[...]

JANSING: Michael Sandler covers immigration for Congressional Quarterly. Good afternoon.

SANDLER: Good afternoon.

JANSING: So, the president gets back tonight. Tomorrow he's meeting with some top congressional Republicans. Does he have a chance to change minds here?

SANDLER: I think he has a chance, but I think it's a pretty tall order right now.

From the 12 p.m. ET hour of the June 11 edition of MSNBC Live:

JANSING: Pat Buchanan is an MSNBC political analyst and author of the book State of Emergency. Hey, Pat.

BUCHANAN: Hey, Chris.

From the 1 p.m. ET hour of the June 11 edition of MSNBC Live:

AMY ROBACH: All right, Pat Buchanan is a former presidential candidate, and an MSNBC political analyst. He's also the author of the book State of Emergency, and he's already laughing at President Bush. All right.

Tamar Jacoby is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and she joins us live from Washington to offer perspective on the conservative grassroots sector playing a role in stopping the immigration bill. Thank you both for joining us.

BUCHANAN: Thank you, Amy.

ROBACH: All right, Pat, so do you think the president can -- can -- will this bill back to life?

[...]

ROBACH: Joe Cantamessa is an MSNBC terrorism analyst and former FBI special agent. Joe, what are you thoughts on using technology versus perhaps a physical structure?

CANTAMESSA: Well, Amy, with that much territory to cover, technology is a critical part to aid in what would be a good response posture that is part of the overall plan.

[...]

ROBACH: Pat Buchanan is an MSNBC political analyst. He is also the author of the book State of Emergency, and Pat, I know at the very least, you disagree about that amnesty part. You say that's exactly what this bill offered.

BUCHANAN: Oh, yeah, this is amnesty, and the whole country knows that and -- and so I think that really is not the argument.

From the 2 p.m. ET hour of the June 11 edition of MSNBC Live:

CONTESSA BREWER: Pat Buchanan is an MSNBC political analyst and author of the book State of Emergency, and Tamar Jacoby is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. It's great to have both of you with me today.

BUCHANAN: Good afternoon, Contessa.

BREWER: So, Pat, do you think the president is going to be able to convince those skeptical GOP lawmakers that this bill, and he keeps insisting, it is not amnesty?

BUCHANAN: I think you ought to give up on that, because there are a number of senators in there that are going to support the amnesty bill, if the president gives them some amendments they want.

[...]

BREWER: Jason Mrochek is with the Federal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Coalition. Jason, great to talk to you today.

MROCHEK: Hi, Contessa. Thanks for having me.

BREWER: Do you think that these grassroots efforts were responsible for stalling the legislation?

MROCHEK: Absolutely, there's no doubt. You know, When Americans hear from politicians that, you know, they're putting lipstick on the pig, so to speak, by saying all the great benefits of this amnesty program and then groups like the FIRE Coalition and talk radio, and bloggers actually get the real information in front of the public, they get pretty ticked off.

From the 3 p.m. ET hour of the June 11 edition of MSNBC Live:

BREWER: Pat Buchanan is an MSNBC political analyst, author of the book, State of Emergency. Hi, Pat. Great to see you today.

BUCHANAN: Hey, Contessa.

BREWER: Let's talk about this argument that the bill is nothing but another way of granting amnesty. I've pointed out the president keeps insisting that it's not amnesty and that if you look up the dictionary definition, amnesty is considered a "pardon, no consequences." And this bill does enforce, impose some consequences on illegal immigrants.

BUCHANAN: Well, it's -- you have 12 to 20 million people who have broken the law, broke into the country, are here illegally and working illegally, and this makes them all legal. I think that's amnesty and that's what the American people understand it as: amnesty.

[...]

BREWER: Does the president really have grounds for that kind of optimism? MSNBC congressional correspondent Mike Viqueira is on Capitol Hill. Mike, the president seems to have a positive outlook. What -- what are you seeing on Capitol Hill?

VIQUEIRA: Well, let's put it this way, Contessa. He's got his work cut out for him if this thing is going to be resuscitated.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by copiousdissent.blogspot.com (June 12, 2007 7:55 pm ET)
         

      Well, for once, the Democrat Party is united on this issue.  Actually, that would be a pretty good story in of itself.

      But, the reason why Republicans were shown is because this issue is tearing the Party apart like something never before seen in politics.

      When Conservative talk-radio hosts blast Bush and Lindsay Graham, this is something to talk about.

      Moreover, the fact that Conservatives attack Bush and Rhinos demonstrates they are more about policy than Party.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sebastion Shaw (June 12, 2007 8:26 pm ET)
           

        Actually, it has been seen before.  The democrat party divided in 1858 over the issue of slavery in to southern democrats and a northern faction thus ensuring a republican victory in the 1860 election (Lincoln).  But it is true that this issue is a pending crisis in the republican party which is basically ignoring it's base.  No party can survive if it does this.  Imagine if the democrats all the sudden turned prolife, the party would die in no time

        Report Abuse
        • Author by roundhouse (June 12, 2007 9:02 pm ET)
             

          Here's an equally ridiculous supposition. The Repubs actually delivers on the promise to ban abortion. How long would the GOP last?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Sebastion Shaw (June 12, 2007 9:06 pm ET)
               

            The point's moot, abortion will never be revoked and I don't exactly care.  My only point is that I agreed that this could be political suicide for the repubs.  But to answer your question if the repubs made this promise they would only strengthen their base, which they are trying so hard to alienate

            Report Abuse
      • Author by clams casino (June 12, 2007 9:24 pm ET)
           

        "Moreover, the fact that Conservatives attack Bush and Rhinos demonstrates they are more about policy than Party."

        Actually, it proves the opposite. Bush hasn't changed his policies; the right wingers have simply changed their tune about Bush as they flee a sinking ship. Bush used to be held up by these very same people as God's own gift to Conservatism, but now that he's failed them, they're going to pretend that he never really was a conservative in the first place. They all knew Dubya's stance on immigration when they elected him the first time around. But now in order to save their party, they're going to use those same immigration policies to prove that Bush was never really one of their's.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Sebastion Shaw (June 12, 2007 9:32 pm ET)
             

          Bush is neither a fiscal conservative nor is he "tough on terror" as he wants people to believe.  Were he as tough on terror as he says he would regulate (notice I didn't say "close") both our borders more thouroughly.  The base also stood against him on Harriet Myers and The ports deal to an Arabic firm.  He is the reason I left the republican party (the week we went to Iraq) and never voted for him again (I was 18 in 2000 so give me a break) in my opinion he is the ultimate rino it just took some of us longer to realize it than others

          Report Abuse
          • Author by copiousdissent.blogspot.com (June 12, 2007 9:54 pm ET)
               

            "Compassionate Conservative" is newspeak for HUGE LIBERAL. Let us examine the facts:

            Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill while in office;

            he is for illegal immigration;

            he added the Plan D prescription drug bill putting our Country in greater debt;

            he refused to veto the McCain-Feingold bill;

            he nominated Harriot Myers to the Supreme Court;

            he created "No child left behind;"

            he defends affirmative action;

            he went on a nation-building campaign in Iraq instead of winning a war;

            he lied about changing the rules of engagement for our soldiers in a war zone;

            and he blasted his base for being a bunch of fear mongers for supporting the rule of law.

            Since when was cutting taxes sufficient to make someone a Conservative? Take a look at John F. Kennedy; actually, on second thought, John F. Kennedy was more Conservative than Bush.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Sebastion Shaw (June 12, 2007 9:56 pm ET)
                 

              And boom goes the dynamite!  The defence rests.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by mefirst (June 13, 2007 7:21 am ET)
                 

              and yet the entire republican party and all the conservatives in the media supported bush through all those "liberal" things he did.  how did that happen?

              Report Abuse
            • Author by ChessGuy (June 13, 2007 9:50 am ET)
                 

              I've never seen somebody so confused as you are! Everything you listed is polar opposite to what a HUGE LIBERAL would do! Except for the affirmitive action.

              You conservatives have been doing the rest for years and loving it.

              Report Abuse
        • Author by RINO Hunter (June 13, 2007 12:45 pm ET)
             

          I hate to admit it, but I completely agree with you. Conservatives were pretty much united in support of Bush when Bush was popular, but now that Bush has become unpopular many conservatives how jumped ship. It has little to do with policy and everything to do with the fact that Bush is now unpopular. You can bet that if Bush was still popular, conservatives would be united in support of him. I have my disagreements with Bush on various issues, but I still think he's been a good President overall. I haven't abondoned him simply because he's become unpopular like many hypocritical conservatives have.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (June 13, 2007 3:55 pm ET)
               

            Rhino, You are putting the cart before the horse. Bush is unpopular with the base because of his stance on many issues. Since he is advocating positions contrary to the base they are withdrawing support. Hence, his popularity is going South.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by Ro (June 12, 2007 10:02 pm ET)
           

        That's the 'democratic' party, Mr. Talking-Points Action Figure.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Sueelldd (June 12, 2007 8:24 pm ET)
         

      I wonder if Keith Olbermann will name MSNBC "Worst Person in the World" for this. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (June 12, 2007 8:43 pm ET)
         

      LO Shaw , haven't seen you for a while. The way it was explained to me is as a dicotomy. The latino population has been defined as conservative in nature. It's the fastest growing population in the country. A lot of potential Republican voters here. Against this is a zenophobic populatin, not to large, but very vocal, of conservative people. Its todays base against, potentially, tomorrows base. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sebastion Shaw (June 12, 2007 9:02 pm ET)
           

        Check the voting trends of Hispanics in the US

        http://www.facsnet.org/issues/faith/latino_voting.php

        Just because they're cons on social issues doesn't mean they're voting conservative.  And I love the "xenophobe" moniker....I don't think I've ever called for mass deportation, I only wish we controlled our border as strongly as Mexico does theirs.  BTW, as far as their voting and political views go....don't you think they've done a STELLAR job with mexico?  Sure is a great political enviroment there right? No corruption at all.  You do realize the average education level in Mexico is 7th grade right?  Can't wait 'till those brainiacs start voting.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by conleytgwinn (June 12, 2007 10:16 pm ET)
             

          Hey, ignorance (lack of education or information) is the only curable defect of mentation. What do you propose to do about yours?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Sebastion Shaw (June 14, 2007 7:12 pm ET)
               

            And what was ignorant in my post?  I stated the truth which is one of the primary things that libs fear.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by cann0nba11 (June 12, 2007 11:00 pm ET)
           

        The latino population has been defined as conservative in nature.

        What? Perhaps they are religiously conservative, but they are definitey Democratic voters. Public services, medical care, unemployment, welfare, quotas, etc. They are all about our government helping them out.

        This thread is losing its steam. Illegal aliens need to be sent home. The border needs to be secured. National security and immigration issues are SEPARATE  issues. I dont know why either party insists on solving both problems in a single bill. I just wish they would enforce the LAST immigration reform package they rammed down our throats back in '86. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mefirst (June 13, 2007 7:26 am ET)
             

          i've been saying that for awhile now.  there is no reason to tie border security to this bill as some bargaining chip.  bush keeps saying the way to control the border is to vote for this bill.  we could pass all the border control things tomorrow and debate the rest in the future.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by valentinian (June 12, 2007 8:44 pm ET)
         

      How about we just leave this thread to the bozos.

      Enjoy yourselves, guys... 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sebastion Shaw (June 12, 2007 9:16 pm ET)
           

        OH NO!  Someone who doesn't agree with everything I say!  RUN AWAY RUN AWAY RUN AWAY!!!!!!

        - Valentinian

        Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (June 12, 2007 8:47 pm ET)
         

      Your coment on the Democrat(ic) becoming pro-life and then dieing. Your logic on this, please.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sebastion Shaw (June 12, 2007 9:13 pm ET)
           

        It's a fundamental view for a majority of Democrats just as encorcing the law and security is to republicans.  The conservative base knows that the question of the border is an important factor to these two concepts.  I was by no means implying that the dems would ever go pro-life but if a party abandons it's base on one of it's defining issues it risks the potential of alienating it's base.  This issue has that potential.  I don't think it will ultimately destroy the party but the potnetial is there.  If the dems consistantly went against their base the same could happen to them.  However, the dems are more politically savvy than the repubs so I don't think their quite as careless with the support of their base.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by conleytgwinn (June 12, 2007 10:21 pm ET)
             

          The unanimity of the Repugnant/Corporate Media response to the conviction of liar and traitor Libby certainly speaks to the depth of conviction of your conservative base as regards enforcing (? assuming that was your meaning ?) the law and securing the nation.

          With friends like those, who needs Al Queda?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Sebastion Shaw (June 14, 2007 7:14 pm ET)
               

            I'm for Libby going to jail (unlike most libs who thought Clinton's perjury shouldn't be prosecuted).  If someone lies under oath they should go to jail.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by eweston8542983 (June 12, 2007 11:10 pm ET)
             

          Ok example use noted. I'm going to have to consider the example for a bit.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by eweston8542983 (June 12, 2007 11:57 pm ET)
               

            If the Republicans cannot attract a population inclined to their values. They lose eventually.

            If The Dems go pro life, they pick up some concerned Evangleicals. Per a recent study by mmfa this equates to somewhere arround three percent of the population. Not a population amount worth the aleination of as you say the base.

            The example isn't true because the potential loses and gains are far from equal.

            That was zenophobic, not zenophobe. That population does exsist. Its voice is much larger than it size. Zenophobe is not a popular self designator, and I did not apply it to you.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by Harlequin (June 12, 2007 9:29 pm ET)
         

      I don't understand what this concern is about controlling the borders or illeal aliens. Bush and the Republicans runs this country Mexico Style.

      The Mexico Style is where 20 elite rich families owns and operates the country. Pretty much the direction Bush and Republican are steering this country towards.

      If we are going to morph into Mexico Style government then we might as well get rid of the border between Mexico and the United States and have it have to whole area ruled by 20 rich elite families. That is what you conservatives what isn't it?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Harlequin (June 12, 2007 9:30 pm ET)
           

        The only next question would be is who will be our Zorro?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Sebastion Shaw (June 12, 2007 9:37 pm ET)
           

        If we are going to morph into Mexico Style government then we might as well get rid of the border between Mexico and the United States and have it have to whole area ruled by 20 rich elite families. That is what you conservatives what isn't it?

         

         

        • - Harlequin

         No, that's what some elitists (onboth sides of the aisle) want.  If you'd pay attention you'd see the true conservative base is trying to avoid this possibility.  Don't forget the name of the bill is MCCAIN/KENNEDY, two men who would love the status quo of rule by elite to continue and one day even devolve to that of the current political scene in Mexico.  The passing of this bill will only expedite this process

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Sebastion Shaw (June 12, 2007 9:58 pm ET)
         

      Well, gotta go kiddies, shall continue tommorow.

      S. Shaw

      Report Abuse
    • Author by StokeyBob (June 12, 2007 10:11 pm ET)
         

      Ted Kennedy was a strong supporter of the 1965 Hart-Celler Act signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson  which dramatically changed US immigration policy.

      <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

      This is what Ted Kennedy said about the 1965 bill.

      <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

      "The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."

      <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

      Kennedy is now the chair of the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship, and remains a strong advocate for immigrants, both documented and undocumented

      <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

      About the same time there wasn't enough room for citizens to have children.

       

       

      The Unacknowledged Holocaust  

      <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

      <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

      Back in the 60’s the Federal Government came into the public schools and brainwashed us as little children with the message that the children we were about to have were unwanted because the population was rising so fast. They launched a program called Family Planning. They pushed birth control pills. I think you and I now both know that you only have to trick people for their few child bearing years and there is no going back.

      <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

      Many of us never had a say.

      <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

      I am the result of two living cells. One from each of my parents. They are the result of two living cells, one from each of their parents. I wasn't just born. I am a continuation of life. I am a living thing that reaches back into time perhaps 400 million years and the result of billions of joining of pairs of cells. It is possible that if you were to follow my cells back to my parent’s cells and beyond that my family tree touches every living thing here on earth. That is if we limit ourselves to believing life was created here on earth. If it rained down from the immensity of the universe it could reach back into that immensity of time and space, and who knows what relationships and who knows what species.

      <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

      At least until I came up against the Federal Government and their plan to control the population.

      <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

      I have seen the Federal Government do little else to control the population.

      <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

      The open border, United States laws only apply to some, is a serious slap in the face. No, not a slap in the face, it reaches well beyond that. Maybe back to the beginning of time and stretch to the bounds of the universe.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (June 12, 2007 11:37 pm ET)
         

      Trippy SB Though the gamete and sperm are niether complete cells. I don't remember the anti baby campain of the sixties.

      Space Time  and Beyond, postulated if you can't tell the difference between two of any type of nuclear sized particle. Then possibly it was the same particle. If so then its all alive.

      Beyond this I'm afraid you have lost me. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by StokeyBob (June 13, 2007 8:38 pm ET)
           

        It was big here in California and I assume the rest of the United States.

        The ads on TV were called, " Zero Population Growth".

        They had many reason such as overpopulation stressing the environment, the roads and the list went on and on. 

        At the same time they were propping open the floodgates for their illegal aliens 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by johnl3453016 (June 12, 2007 11:56 pm ET)
         

      I don't support amnesty, there are already to many mexicans in the country.

      I also think we should adopt all Mexico's rules for foreign worker's because only Mexicans are allowed to get jobs in Mexico no one from any other country is allowed to work their. They don't want other Latinos stealing jobs from Mexicans I guess.  

       We don't need or want America turning into Canada with two languages. 

       Allow immigration but keep it balanced from all countries. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by loislap (June 13, 2007 1:16 am ET)
         

      I say its time for a good old fashioned book burning,followed by a rally round the flag to sing old time hymns about Jesus and his friends.Later we can all proudly pitch in and build a 900 mile 80 foot fence to keep the Mexicans from coming into the country and stealing all our crappy 6 dollar an hour jobs.

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (June 13, 2007 4:03 pm ET)
           

        Ahhh.. Nothing like an open minded liberal to make bigoted and anti-religious comments.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by StokeyBob (June 13, 2007 8:42 pm ET)
           

        All the jobs will be 6 dollar and hour jobs.

         

         

         

        Report Abuse
    • Author by gtskauai3556 (June 13, 2007 1:39 am ET)
         

      Does MMfA really want the left to be more visible on this issue? Seems to me the smart thing to do would be to stand quietly by and watch the right tear itself apart.

      Really kind of silly to complain about a lack of balance on this issue, isn't it? The reason for it is probably because of the above, or because MSNBC knows this and is deliberately keeping their friends off the air.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by kevin1007 (June 13, 2007 11:52 am ET)
         

      MMFA is being a little bit nutty on this one, CNN gave Democrat presidential candidates twice as much air time last week. http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2007/col20070612.asp

      Report Abuse
    • Author by exiled reporter (June 13, 2007 1:12 pm ET)
         

      So, once again the right gets the kiddie table all to itself and the left howls – from the grownup table.

       

      As a conservative, I’d trade with you guys in a second. How about if WE get to dominate the hard news reporting on this subject, while YOU get relegated to the area limited to “opinion”?

       

      Any takers? Didn’t think so.

       

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by jjcomet514 (June 13, 2007 7:10 pm ET)
         

      In the end, no one in power wants to propose the only real solution - to get serious about penalizing employers who hire illegal aliens. Jobs are overwhelmingly the reason most illegals come here in the first place. As long as employers get a slap on the wrist for green-card violations, they'll keep hiring illegals and writing off fines as the cost of doing business. Given the lax enforcement on that end, however, most employers don't have much to worry about. They know that the stream of cheap will labor will keep flowing and that the illegals are the only ones taking any real risk in the process. If the penalties for employing illegal aliens were really punitive - including the possibility of serious prison time - many fewer employers would be willing to take the risk to do so. They might even be forced to raise the pay for those jobs to make them attractive to U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, the government is pathologically predisposed to favor business interests, even when doing so undermines the welfare of majority of the populace, so I'm pretty confident this argument will fall on deaf ears.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.