More on-screen "amnesty" from Lou Dobbs Tonight
During the June 14 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, the politically charged word "amnesty" once again appeared in captions beneath news reports by CNN correspondents on deliberations over the Senate immigration bill. It was at least the second time in two weeks that a caption bearing the word "amnesty" has appeared in a news report airing on Dobbs that did not appear in similar reports during other CNN programs. This time, separate reports by White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux and congressional correspondent Dana Bash were accompanied by on-screen text referring to "Bush's amnesty push," "pro-amnesty senators," and the "amnesty bill," even though both Malveaux and Bash have noted in previous reporting that "amnesty" is a characterization of the bill favored by "critics." When CNN's The Situation Room had aired similar reports earlier that day, the accompanying on-screen text featured the less inflammatory descriptor "Immigration deal," suggesting that Dobbs' program was responsible for adding editorial commentary to what was ostensibly a CNN news report.
On the June 14 edition of The Situation Room, during Malveaux's report on the White House's offer "to spend an additional $4 billion to secure the border," the on-screen text read: "Immigration deal sweetener: Pres. Bush offer to GOP":
But when the identical report aired later that evening on Lou Dobbs Tonight, the on-screen text read: "Bush's amnesty push: Bush makes new offer":
Similarly, during Bash's live report from Capitol Hill on the June 14 edition of The Situation Room, in which she reported on a possible "breakthrough," the on-screen text read: "Immigration deal making: Close to a new agreement":
But during Bash's live report on Lou Dobbs Tonight, the on-screen text read: "Pro-amnesty senators reach 'deal' to revive amnesty bill":
In previous reports on the congressional debate over immigration, both Malveaux and Bash have noted that "amnesty" is a term used by critics of reform proposals that would make citizenship possible for illegal immigrants currently in the United States. On the May 16, 2006, edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, Malveaux, in a report about a previous immigration bill, noted that "[c]ritics" of Bush's immigration plan called it "amnesty" and described this characterization as an "argument." From that report:
MALVEAUX: The second component of the president's immigration reform plan, a temporary-worker program, is also running into trouble from members of the president's own party, specifically the proposal to allow some illegal immigrants to earn U.S. citizenship. Critics say that amounts to amnesty.
REP. J.D. HAYWORTH (R-AZ): The longer and the more flagrantly you have broken our immigration laws, the easier it will be to get on the so-called path to citizenship. I don't believe the American people will appreciate that. And I think they reject it.
MALVEAUX: To blunt the argument that such a plan is amnesty, Mr. Bush used some new words, which put the issue into moral terms.
Similarly, as Media Matters for America previously noted, on the May 18 edition of CNN Newsroom, Bash presented a report in which she quoted Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) saying, "We must meet certain enforcement and security triggers that will let everyone know that we are serious about enforcing our laws and that we're not going to repeat the 1986 amnesty," before noting that "a host of conservative critics labeled it [the Senate immigration bill] amnesty, vowed to block it, and said McCain and other supporters would pay a price."
From the June 14 edition of CNN's The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer:
BLITZER: Our congressional correspondent, Dana Bash, is watching it.
What do we know right now, Dana? Where do the negotiations stand?
BASH: Well, all throughout the day today, Wolf, senators have been meeting in a very small room right off the Senate floor, and they've been trying very hard to revive this immigration bill.
And, of the senators we talked to coming out, just even in the past half-an-hour or so, said that they were actually cautiously optimistic. One source inside the room actually said that they may be even on the verge of a breakthrough -- a breakthrough that could -- could -- bring this immigration bill back to the Senate floor by late next week.
From the June 14 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
DOBBS: President Bush, today, making a new effort to win over opponents of his amnesty legislation. President Bush now offering to spend an additional $4 billion to secure the border, but one leading opponent of the president's amnesty plan, Congressman Duncan Hunter [R-CA], a presidential candidate, blasting the offer. Congressman Hunter said border security shouldn't be conditional on amnesty.
Suzanne Malveaux reports from the White House.
[begin video clip]
MALVEAUX: In a desperate effort to get immigration reform through Congress, President Bush is offering this compromise: pass the bill, and immediately nearly $4.5 billion will go to strengthening the border.
BUSH [video clip]: The need for reform is urgent.
MALVEAUX: The urgency in securing the border is a transparent effort by Mr. Bush to convince his critics, mostly conservatives of his own party, that the government is serious about border enforcement. A senior administration official involved in the negotiations says this compromise is meant to address the mistakes of the immigration bill signed in 1986.
BUSH: Most Americans agree that the 1986 immigration law failed -- didn't work. It failed because it did not secure our border.
MALVEAUX: White House aides say the money would initially come out of the U.S. Treasury to create this $4.5 billion account. The account would be paid off using the fees and penalties collected from the nation's 12 million illegal immigrants over a two-year period.
TONY SNOW (White House press secretary) [video clip]: Think of it as a direct deposit right now on border security.
MALVEAUX: But with no idea of how many illegal immigrants are really in the United States, or how many would comply with the law and pay penalties, even White House aides acknowledge they're not certain the numbers would add up.
SNOW [video clip]: You're absolutely right. No, I hadn't -- no 100-percent guarantees here, but it is based on the best estimates.
MALVEAUX: But for some Republicans, any funds for border security that are tied to illegal immigrants becoming U.S. citizens is unacceptable.
HUNTER [video clip]: The security of American borders should not be conditioned on amnesty.
[end video clip]
MALVEAUX: Now, Lou, despite Congressman Duncan Hunter's reservations -- and he obviously says he is not in support of this plan -- those aides who I spoke with, White House aides, say they are confident that the president believes that this immigration reform bill will move forward, and the one reason they say this is because the president addressed what most concerned -- most of the Republicans who are concerned about, when they met behind closed doors on Tuesday with the president, and that is whether or not this administration would commit the resources to enforce the immigration, the laws, the border there.
And they believe that this $4.5 billion will add to what has already been requested, the $12 billion for border security, and that that will help in actually making this kind of support, building this support from the Republicans -- Lou.
[...]
DOBBS: Pro-amnesty senators tonight, reaching a tentative agreement to revive their amnesty legislation, but it is unclear whether the Democratic leadership supports their efforts.
Dana Bash has the report from Capitol Hill -- Dana.
BASH: Well, Lou, right now the senators who are trying to revive the immigration bill say they are on the verge of a breakthrough -- a breakthrough that they hope could bring immigration back to the Senate floor by next week. Now, as we speak, the Democratic and Republican leader in the Senate are meeting behind closed doors to figure out whether or not that can happen.
the 1986 amnesty did not work because the enforcement terms and funding were picked apart by the same people demanding amnesty now. and call it what you want. becoming citizens, and being able to bring your family members here on top of it, is a reward. we'll be doing the same thing in ten years. we cannot keep adding people like this. we are looking, by conservative estimates, at a nation of 400 million by 2050. we just passed 300 million last october. we've added over two million people since then.
This is just another reason to end the "welfare state" in this country. Some know they can come here for free emergency room care and other services and live off the public trough incognito for years. It is bankrupting us.
Border security. Crack down on employers which removes a big incentive if the illegals know there are no jobs. End the free lunch.
Do those things first, then the "comprehensive" talk can begin.
I'd back you on employer crackdowns and streamlining the admission process. But "welfare" as you defined? Sorry, there is potentially just as much cost to be incurred from letting them run around sick as there is to treating them. In fact, given the wrong disease, we could have another cholera outbreak. Not very smart to deny basic medical attention.
Now, don't accuse me of saying I'm being lite on them, I'd certainly like to see immigration better managed. Just think we could be a little smarter about how we go about it is all.
Snoop,
You act as if every medical visit is to treat some third world disease. It is not. Most use the emergency room as their primary health care.....just look at King Drew in LA as an example.
And medical care is just a part of the services our government freely provides them, if they know how to work the system. It's shameful.
C'mon Tommy, you know me better than that. I don't think in extremes when it comes to medical care. I hear ya, but really, aren't you talking about an issue that americans are also abusing? I don't believe you are blaming the immigrants for abusing the system, but you are being silent on why we aren't fixing the overall problem.
Absolutely Americans are abusing it.......I couldn't agree more.
So you would agree also that if we correct the abuses, that this could be a better approach to controlling the immigration problem (related to those that come here for free "under the radar" services) ?
Tommy,
While I agree with almost everything you have to say about immigration, it's unfair to pin our nation's emergency medical problems on illegal immigrants. Unless our country had universal health care for all citizens, and illegals were able to access this care, they are not really taking advantage of the system any more than your average citizen. The Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act requires that no one be denied emergency treatment regardless of the patient's ability to pay, not their legal status. Sure, on average, illegal immigrants are more likely to be unable to pay for such services than legal citizens and residents. Likewise, you could say that illegals take advantage of a country that has such a policy in place. But place the blame where you really mean to: on poor people in general, not just illegals. If you looked at current poverty levels, and assuming that all illegal immigrants live below current poverty levels, poverty-stricken Americans outnumber illegal immigrants 4 to 1. And let's be honest. The poor aren't the only people unable to pay for serious medical care. I certainly don't consider myself poor, and I have decent health insurance, but I would be in a pickle if something really serious happened to me.
The immigration debate is so multifaceted that I doubt any poster on MMFA will figure it out. Congress never has. Immigration involves aspects of civil rights, national security, labor, trade, the global economy, currency, culture, language, to name a few. That's not to say we should give up. But looking at how fiercely divided the nation is on so many issues, I'm not optimistic that an issue as complex as immigration will be successfully legislated in the near future.
Who says we have to let them run around sick? DEPORT them and let mexico take care of it's own. Thet are it's responsability not ours!!!!!!!!!!!! As long as we don't put our foot down nothing changes, and the LEACHES know that.
i assume you heard the story of the woman who died in the emergency room in los angeles. and that was a horrible incident. but i read that hospital receives federal funding and they are still overwhelmed with too many people using the emergency room for minor illnesses. los angeles has had several emergency rooms close for that very reason.
Thank you, I just referenced the same hospital. It was incredibly sad.
Well, golly gee, imagine that! Emergency rooms being overburdened by those poor destitute losers who can’t afford a visit to the doctor. They deserve to be turned out, without care.
That inundation of emergency rooms is the very example of the hidden costs imbedded in a society of uninsured people.
No free lunches? End welfare? Are ye daft lady? The expense of treating the uninsured vastly outweighs the moral and economic cost of providing healthcare for every American. That was Snoop’s point. It was a damn good point.
Make healthcare affordable for citizens so they can have access to preventative care and they won’t clog the emergent care system. Then the emergent care health professionals can provide essential care for undocumented citizens in accordance with their Hippocratic oath.
Off topic but…
I recently finished watching Michael Moore’s Sicko (it’s a great documentary that everyone should see). It’s not about the 47 million Americans who don’t have health insurance, it’s about some of the 250 million who have/had healthcare insurance and in spite of that their lives were ruined. It dispels a lot of the myths espoused by those on the right such as long waiting lines, higher taxes and the doctors being paid close to nothing. It goes into why HMOs were established and how their primary purpose is to deny claims. Advancement in these companies is based upon how many claims an employee denies and any claims that are actually paid out are seen as a failure. He goes to countries like Canada, England, France and Cuba and talks to citizens of these countries to get their take on their country’s healthcare system. He also goes to hospitals and emergency rooms in these countries to get the take of the people there and when he ask “How much do you pay?”, they all laugh at him. Moore sums up the film by saying that the rest of the western world practices “We” healthcare while Americans practice “Me” healthcare.
yeah and they also pay 70% of their income to the government for their "free" health care. Socialized medicine sucks. I know because I'm from Europe. Anything that the government has it's hands in is no good for the people.
yeah and they also pay 70% of their income to the government for their "free" health care.
Do you have a link to back up this nonsense?
"I know because I'm from Europe. Anything that the government has it's hands in is no good for the people."
Is it worse than having an accident where two of your fingers are severed and the hospital only reattaching one because you don’t have the money to have them both reattached? Is it worse than going homeless because your copays and deductibles have wiped you out? Is it worse than working into your mid-eighties just so your wife can have the medication she needs? Is it worse than having an insurance company deny your claim because you had a yeast infection five years ago? Is it worse than having your toddler who is going deaf both ears only approved for a hearing implantation device in one ear? Is it worse than insurance company refusing to pay for surgery to remove a brain tumor because it’s not life threatening and then dying from the non-life threatening tumor? Is it worse than taking your severely sick toddler to a hospital and the doctors refusing to treat her because you have the wrong insurance? Your daughter then goes into cardiac arrest and dies in route to hospital that takes the insurance. There are many more examples like these in the movie.
It's 'BANKRUPTING' us? LMAO. What's 'BANKRUPTING' our nation, is the Right-Wing, Neo-Fascist scum like you and Bush handing out TRILLIONS of dollars in tax breaks to about a thousand SUPER-WEALTHY A-HOLES, mortgaging our future every minute of the day. Spare us this tired rhetoric that these immigrants, legal or ILLEGAL are bankrupting this nation...lol
Yet another splendid example of an overly emtional liberal unable to defend a position like an adult.
Visit any southern border city and you will find overly crowded hospitals and schools. Hopsitals are SHUTTING DOWN thanks to the costs vs. the funding they receive.
Tax incentives for businesses help them grow and provide work.
I do think that Bush is spending like a Democrat though.. why the heck do we need to send $15B to Africa for AIDS issues when we have enogh problems to deal with at home?
Faith based initiatives. They're over there informing them about the dangers of condoms. and other important things that make the people employed by the programs feel good about themselves.
Similar people helped our own children, thought the abstinence program, become guilty about sex. this was more important than its sucess or failure visavis unplanned pregnancies.
I can't really explain to you why social conditions in Africa are important to us. Time, space and ability work against me here. Badly, these people need to believe there is hope in their future. Without it strapping explosives to ones body becomes attractive.
And Another Ill-Informed Right-Wing Response Steeped In Demagogeury As Opposed To Facts...
And the fact of the matter is the problem you outline of overcrowded schools and hospitals is not just a border problem. Indigent care is a huge issue with hospitals who treat such everywhere, and schools are overcrowded throughout the nation.
It has nothing to do with immigration.
And here is a FACT for the deportation crowd, an allegory that is repeated everywhere:
An illegal waiting for his paperwork to be processed is arrested in Westmoreland County, VA and deported. He is the sole breadwinner for his wife and eight children... who are BTW legal.
For those questioning the cost of welfare and indigent care as a result of the current immigration bill... there are illegals supporting legals all over this country (not just in Mexico). What will be the cost to our welfare and other indigent care programs when we begin deporting 12- to 20-million illegals across the board.
What will be the cost in business? It's easy to say we need to raid and close down those businesses, but prepare to pay higher rents for leasing your business space... or pay higher prices at WalMart... if you wish to shut them down.
And, yes... there's a price for letting illegals stay and have an easier path to citizenship. But there's also a huge price for wholesale deportation.
The anti-illegal crowd is trying to close this barn door not just after the cow got out... but the cow has made it cross-country.
it's true that indigent care and school overcrowding occur in other places across the country. but i found this at calacep.org, the website for the california chapter of the american college of emergency physicians: "los angeles co. is under particularly severe financial strain because nearly one in three of those under 65 lack health insurance, double the national rate". it doesn't take much of a leap to connect the dots in such an area overwhelmed by illegals. hospitals, unable to accept the burdens of emergency room care, simply shut them down, causing strain on the fewer remaining. you are also factually incorrect that immigration is not affecting schools. native born americans have a birth rate of about 2 per woman. immigrants about 2.7. that's mathematics, not opinion.
We need to send $15B to Africa for AIDS issues because there is a need.
In some countries in Africa entire villages are gone because of the AIDS epidemic. In other villages there are no adults left.
In Zimbabwe, one third of the population between the ages of 15 and 50 is infected with the virus. The average life span is 35 years old.
"[W]e cannot keep adding people like this."
Why? Are we going to capsize and sink?
thanks for the brilliant commentary. no, the answer would be because an increasing population adds to urban sprawl, puts an even bigger strain on our water resources, and negates any progress we make on energy independence and fighting pollution. the late liberal senator gaylord nelson was the father of earth day as we know it, and he was for limiting immigration because of it's effect on population growth and it's subsequent effect on the environment. there will also be huge infrastructure costs with it. i thought it was kind of self evident, but you apparently want to see any questioning of our immigration polices as ignorance. i think there tends to be just as much ignorance on the other side with this blind acceptance by some people that it's the more the merrier on immigration.
here's "why". from an associated press story by seth borenstein: "the populations of 20 common american birds--from the fence sitting meadowlark to the whipporwill with it's haunting call--are half of what they were 40 years ago, according to an analysis released thursday. suburban sprawl, climate change and other invasive species are largely to blame, said the study's author, greg butcher of the national audubon society....many of the species listed as declining in the study depend on open grassy habitats that are disappearing, said butcher...". that "suburban sprawl" is largely the result of an increasing population. pretending doesn't change the fact that one and one still makes two.
here's another "why". droughts used to be gotten through with a minimum of sacrifice in most places. cobb county georgia has watering restrictions of one day a week, as do many counties in florida. alabama, georgia and florida have fought for years over water delivered into florida through the apalachicola river and ultimately into apalachicola bay, which is one of the most productive seafood areas in the country and requires a balance of fresh and salt water. the sprawling evergrowing atlanta suburbs require water from somewhere. ground sources are also under pressure and no new well permits are being issued in many georgia counties. again, more people mean more sprawl and more water use.
Immigration has nothing to do with population growth.
That would be the birth-rate vs. death-rate. We would have an exploding population in the United States with or without immigrants... legal or illegal.
you are plainly and simply wrong. take a math class.
to further clarify, you are completely wrong on two points. you would have a point on births vs. deaths only if there were no immigration. immigration adds to the net population. second, our population growth gets a double whammy from immigration, the immigrants themselves and their higher birth rates in this country. we would be just at about replacement level if immigration was not a factor.
Yeah, Right, Tell me another one. LOL !!!!!!
No just go to the DOGS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Liberals hate this bill.
Conservatives hate this bill.
Only Bush, who speaks for the big business corporatist wing of his party addicted to cheap labor........and the rest of the open border crowd support this horrible piece of legislation. Now Bush is promising big bucks for border enforcement as a carrot to his base. Forget it, it's a ploy. He has no interest in securing our borders, he has shown that for 6 years. Enforce the laws on the books now.
Write your legislators to stop this bill, one last time.
Agreed. 100%
A farly prominent company in the region was raided by ICE recently. Only 60 of 300 employees on file had legitimate SS numbers. Heard that there were plenty of "legals" in line the next day for those jobs. We won't do the job? Only because business can find someone to do it a little (or a lot) cheaper. Secure the borders, go after the employers! Enforce the laws on the books before enacting more laws that will not be enforced.
I will support that, definitely enforce the laws on the books. Business has had real easy sailing these last years either through lack of enforcement or the dreaded H1-B visa. A lot of qualified engineers are getting just as much of a shaft watching their jobs move to india...
The $4.4 Billion is not a "gimme". It is a loan against penalties and fines the line-jumpers will pay. However, there's one very serious problem with that, the $2.7 Trillion dollar cost of this amnesty bill is double what the penalties and fines will cover...WE pay the rest.
I've also done some considerable number crunching from several sources and illegal alien numbers here now are much closer to 25 million than the 12 to 20 million estimate they have been using for some time until recently. This means that their relatives, which will be brought in very quickly, will raise the total to approximately 60 million...How's THAT for "capsizing and sinking"!?
The medical costs are a heavy consideration as our recent history provides an abundance of evidence if you haven't already personally felt the incredible sting of healthcare costs but, they are by no means the only other costs we will incur from this invasion and you can bet that's exactly what we would call this if this nonsense becomes law.
Enforce our laws, seal the border and lets talk OPENLY without amendment limitations nor time limits...Everyone except Ted Kennedy waited 21 years to do anything about this and he and the ACLU merely made the situation worse, as usual.
LIBERALS hate this bill? Sorry, Tommy the MORON, but EXTREME LEFT-WING MORONS hate this bill. Calling them 'LIBERALS' is insulting. But, then again, Right-Wing scum like you have ALWAYS tried to demonize the term...lol
Based on your jnior high school vocabulary I'm guessing you are a left-wing nut? Can't you respond to anything on the boards like an adult?
This bill was designed behind closed doors by McCain and Kennedy with input from the racist organization La Raza. The BEST they could do was come up with a bill that members of both parties hate. Pelosi was vehemently against it when it came out.
Check your facts moron...
Couldn't agree more Tommy. I'm almost done editing my letters to my elected representatives. They should go out soon.
Write letters. Make phone calls. Make your voice heard. Special interests are guiding this issue and they have many politicians in their pocket. We need to remind them who they work for.
Why are republicans against immigrants when apparently, they can't find a single qualified american in the nation's most populous state to be the republican state deputy political director?
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/14/doing-the-jobs-americans-aren%e2%80%99t-willing-to-do/
This is Amnesty any way you slice it. Lou is calling a spade a spade. Period.
If you come and break our laws and get to be in the front of the line, without paying back taxes, that's Amnesty.
Why can't I pay $5000 to skip paying taxes over the last 10 years?? Sounds like a great deal to me.
I'll ask my brother that question if he ever gets out of jail for refusing to pay $1,100 in taxes because he thinks the federal tax illegal...
But I will have to ask, if having them pay back taxes is important to you, is it equally important that we refund them whatever they paid into SS and medicare that they will never be able to collect on? Inquiring minds want to know...
About 80% of illegal immigrants pay taxes.
About 80% pay into Social Security and probably won't ever see that money back
If true, then those 80% of illegals are breaking federal laws by filing fradulent tax returns with fake SSN's. You or me? We do that and we go to jail.
As to getting taxes back, they consume more than the give in social services and healthcare.
Who said they were filing tax returns?
What is your source for these ridiculous statments? Some people just write what ever comes into their head. Are you talking about sales tax? Hell 100% of Americans pay that. As for SS tax, How can you pay taxes without a SS#? If your illegal NO SS#, Right? Right! Next time you have a dream like that keep it to yourself !!!!!!!!!
Ummm, it has been documented that certain businesses have helped create phony ss numbers, and also some illegals have been able to purchase phony ss numbers as well.
Re:
Ummm, it has been documented that certain businesses have helped create phony ss numbers, and also some illegals have been able to purchase phony ss numbers as well.
And that makes it all ok? What kind of drugs are you on? So then both are criminal felons and both shoud do time in prison...you or I would if we did that...food for thought!
And that makes it all ok? What kind of drugs are you on?
Which part of his post says that was/is okay?
RE:
About 80% of illegal immigrants pay taxes.
About 80% pay into Social Security and probably won't ever see that money back
80 % do? Really? ...and how do they do that? Stolen identities? Most likely! Courtesy of the GAO and the Heritage Foundation, illegal aliens are a net-negative to the U.S. They drain the school system, the health care system and the welfare system. The burden of these costs lie on the back of the American taxpayer. They send 10's of billions of dollars annually, in remittances, back to Mexico or wherever else they may come from. That money is NOT being put into the U.S. economy. If this amnesty passes, the cost to the American taxpayer at its onset will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 trillion dollars and this is priobably a conservative estimate. Another concern of this amnesty bill if passed should be a fast-track to the North American Union. We won't have to worry about borders, social security or anything else for that matter because there will be none of the aforementioned! That is a fact. Any doubts aboth the BNorth American Union, the google it and while you're at it, google the word AMERO. The Amero will be the new currency to replace the U.S. Dollar, the Canadian Dollar and the Mexican Peso. Bill Clinton's NAFTA played a huge part in this formulation of the NAU as well.
The bottom line here is that illegal aliens broke the laws by skipping accross the borders without permission so to reward them with legalization ahead of all of those who are waiting patiently in line, some for many years, is wrong. We came here the right way and it was no easy process. We also came here without expectations and demands or any sense of "entitlement". Thats what it's supposed to be all about. Being an American citizen is not a right but rather it is a priviledge and inalienable rights are those only granted to American citizens and not to illegal aliens. Wake up people before it's too late and it's all gone!!!
"Being an American citizen is not a right but rather it is a priviledge and inalienable rights are those only granted to American citizens and not to illegal aliens."-Deutsche
Sorry, that's not what my copy of our founding document says. Take a read and tell me where those UNalienable rights are reserved for American citizens alone:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Now if you want to talk about billions being sucked from the economy, take a gander at that Middle East debacle the Republicans orchestrated. Anyway, these Mexican immigrants are doing exactly what any desperate person would do. They are fleeing poverty. And all these pious dolts who decry poverty stricken immigrants, as subhuman should remember that Jesus said, “blessed are the poor.”
"This is Amnesty any way you slice it."
Only if you redefine the word "amnesty." And that's the crux of this article. Debate the bill. Come out strongly against it and report on those against it.
But report fairly. Describing it as amnesty when it's not isn't fair or honest journalism or punditry. This bill provides for penalties -- you might say they're too weak and that's a reasonable position to take in the debate -- but that alone means it isn't amnesty. To use that word taints the debate.
You could say the same thing for the word punishment. It's not what you call it, it's what you do. Paris was sentenced to 'house arrest'. It's still an arrest, but it's not the same as time in a prison cell.
Calling a $5k fine that can be financed ove 8 years a fine is a stretch. Throw in the fact that illegals can bring five family members in under their visa is also a stretch.
What about the thousands of people that have spent 5-10 years paying fees, returning to home countries, filling out paperwork, etc.? How do they benefit from this bill? They DON'T. The processes wrapped around this bill are basically unenforcable. Who will verify if illegals go home or not? Who will process all of these applications? It's all a friggin pipe dream. Just like the 1986 bill.
Re:
Only if you redefine the word "amnesty." And that's the crux of this article. Debate the bill. Come out strongly against it and report on those against it.
But report fairly. Describing it as amnesty when it's not isn't fair or honest journalism or punditry. This bill provides for penalties -- you might say they're too weak and that's a reasonable position to take in the debate -- but that alone means it isn't amnesty. To use that word taints the debate.
Anyone who trusts or believes them (the government) is truly a fool. None of those provisions will be enforced and it is my guess that when the Senate and House go into Conference, all will be eliminated and just a free pass will be the end result. No fimes, no border security and no new border patrol agents. Just look at the 1986 amnesty...nothing was enforced and here we are today with probably at least 30 million illegal aliens with about 1000 more coming every day!Not to mention that we will all get a giant screw job
"nothing was enforced and here we are today with probably at least 30 million illegal aliens"
Most estimates put the number of illegal immigrants between 7 to 20 million.
This bill, from what I have read, sounds a lot like a game we used to play. One of us would leave class early for lunch (supposed emergency Bathroom break) and be the first in line at the cafeteria. When the rest of our group showed up, that person would allow us to "cut" into line with him/her. If we allow those that came to this country illegally to "cut" into line ahead of those that are doing it the right way. So instead of amnesty, maybe we should dub it "Cuts."
THAT'S BECAUSE IT IS AMNESTY YOU DUMB ASSED MORON!
DAMN QUEERBAIT IDIOTS....
AND I'M A POPULIST AND I CAN SEE AMNESTY, WHEN I SEE IT! YOU ALL NEED TO WAKE UP AND SMELL THE DAMN COFFEE, YA JACK ASSES!
Well done, Pop. Post your drivel in big, bold letters, and no one will notice what a (knee) jerk you are.
Is there anyone here that is totally sold on this bill and thinks its the right thing to do? IF so, I'd love to here what your reasons are. And if not, what the hell are OUR representatives in Washington doing? I know it sounds hard to believe, but they might actually be supporting this bill for political gain. Sounds crazy, dont it?
Big surprise. Dobbs has always been very conservative on immigration. It's basically the only issue he's conservative on. Media Matters doesn't mention Dobbs' left wing views on most other issues. It's convenient for them to try to paint Dobbs as being a conservative simply because he's conservative on one issue.
Dobbs use to describe himself as conservative but now he calls himself a populist.
hahaha. more of MM "proving" lou's program is opinionated, as if people didn't already know that, the show starts off with saying "NEWS, DEBATE, AND OPINION". he always gets attacked fromt he left AND the right. he's "anti-immigrant", or he's a "protectionist", and on and on. cato insitute, or splc.
the bill IS an amnesty. it's not like getting your car back from the impound after "paying a fine". if someone steals something, they don't get to keep it after they've been punished! it's interesting to note the 1986 amnesty ALSO had requirements like fees, a "fine" (certainly not as large, but still), background check, etc.
Liberals dislike this bill for two reasons: the fence is a huge joke that will cost $7 billion or so, and do... nothing. They never do.
And the other thing that's repulsive about it is permanently enshrining a second-class citizen called a guest worker. The bill has everything for the employer, and nothing to enforce standards in the workplace, which is what will get the illegals out by not giving business a massive inducement to hire illegals. The big thing wrong with the bill is that it sets up a lot of people to work as indentured servants, the next thing to slavery.
you can think what you want about fences, but they do work. why do you think so many illegals end up trekking through the desert in arizona now. because the places they used to cross the border in california now have fences. they would not be making the trips through out of the way places if the fences were not stopping them.
Way to ignore the fact that guest worker is another term for second class citizen.
Furthermore, the will to live free and prosper will not be bound by fences. The human spirit knows nothing of borders.
i was not adressing his point about second class citizens. that's his opinion. i'm not going to change it. as far as the rest of your post, it's a lot of drivel.
Humanizing humans is drivel? ou're a peach.
You're a peach, that is.
i'm not going to sit here and exchange hallmark platitudes with you. do you think we have the right to enforce our borders?
Enforce our borders? What does that even mean?
Keep out undesirables? Keep in all that is good?
I know you and I are on the side of humanity; we shouldn’t be backbiting each other.
Yes. Overpopulation is a looming crisis; it’s a security issue to be sure. But, dang man, we are talking about people who have been victimized by our unrestrained market. I will not accept those macho conservative enforcement, tougher on immigration frames until they include reining in our own profligate market.
first of all, there is a very simple solution to what you're talking about. mexico can opt out of nafta if they want to. not to mention that mexicans were crossing into this country in large numbers well before nafta. and i'm assuming your answer is no, we have no right to enforce our border.
And I can assume you have no interest in the plight of your fellow human beings. I know that was a sucker punch, I’m just giving what I’m getting.
Yeah, there was migration before NAFTA and our market still killed competition before NAFTA. I wasn’t even talking about free trade agreements, I was talking about market fundamentalism
There seems to be an assumption that the Mexican people can just pull out of the NAFTA agreement. They can’t. Their government could, but obviously that isn’t in interest of the ruling class or maybe they don’t have that option. Ever read “Confessions of an Economic Hit man”?
no you cannot assume that, because i have never said anything like that. you're just making yourself look ridiculous at this point. i guess you would have no problem with a billion people coming here? two? and correct me if i'm wrong, but hasn't your buddy redking railed about illegal aliens being hired for jobs in his area?
What does Redking have to do with what we are discussing? Ohhh. Are you still smarting over that tiff you and I had because I showed some support for Redking’s Green principles? I offered you a sincere apology over my poor behavior on that thread, an apology that was not acknowledged. But I look ridiculous now? OK. I can cope.
That jab I nailed you with over a perceived lack of empathy was offered, in like manner, to demonstrate how tasteless your tactics of misrepresenting my position was. Your counter was that I don’t support border enforcement when I issued no such statement. Border enforcement is a vague term what does it mean? That is what I asked. Does it mean build a wall and keep everyone out?
Building walls has never stopped the human will. Hadrian’s wall couldn’t stop it. The Berlin wall couldn’t stop it. The Great Wall couldn’t stop it. This is a shrinking globe with shrinking resources, we must as a people, find ways to live together like good neighbors or we’ll kill ourselves vying for nothing worth having.
Is it safe for me to assume that you have no problem with allowing zero immigrants enter our country? That we should round up people, a la “Children of Men”, and send them somewhere to live or die?
Do you feel the sting of dishonest characterizations of your position? Sucks huh?
We can disagree without vitriol, Mefirst.
My argument is that, in the same way terrorism is best neutralized by removing its impetus, immigration can likewise best be dealt with by ferreting out its root causes.
i brought up redking because i'm sure he made the statement i said he made. so it would be hypocrisy on your part not to comment on him. and i could care less about some disagreement we had. apparently it means a lot more to you, but your introducing it into this argument is just a deflection. and do i really have to explain enforce the border? how about stopping people from crossing illegally? and i will ask you, again, a direct question. is there a limit on people you would allow into this country? one billion? two?
Hmm? Just checked this thread, I don’t see any Redking posts prior to our conversation. Why would you assume I have read all of his posts? Now, who exactly is practicing deflections?
Yes, I would like you to define what you mean by border enforcement. It can mean anything from, a simple monitoring process of who is passing back and forth to building a wall with armed guards.
Of course there must be limits on how many people come to our country. We can’t accommodate billions. I just think a militarized border is the kind of argument that is akin to declaring war on a verb and in no way creates a long term solution to the causes of immigration.
i never said that redking was on this thread, nor even implied it. i just asked if he had made those statements before. if you did not know, then that would be the appropriate answer. you're the one that came in here with an attitude. and any way you want to do it, a fence, more guards, the army. and you say that we cannot accept everyone? so the only difference between you and me is the cutoff point.
Yeah, I came with attitude, I usually do.
I mistook your Redking reference; I couldn’t gauge your intentions through this impersonal computer screen.
Thanks for the spirited back and forth; I can always count on you to make your points with pizzazz.
I guess our views can coexist, it seems that a combination of tighter immediate border security with tighter long term market regulations could produce a sensible outcome in the long view.
Thanks again and keep on keepin’ on, Mefirst!
ok. i made the redking remark kind of off the cuff, and it distracted the conversation. the fact is i know and like many immigrants. i don't think they are bad because they want to come here to work. i just don't think we can solve the problems of the world by mass immigration to this country. that doesn't mean i don't want a better, and more just, world.
And no. Calling the guest worker program a path to indentured servitude is not just opinion. What else would one call a person, if not an indentured servant, who has the ‘right’ to work for less than living wages and the ‘right’ to shut the h*ll up or get sent home.
You don’t like being promised a contract for X amount of dollars by American labor recruiters in your homeland, only to be given the opportunity to work for less and pay your employer for rat infested housing? Go home illegal.
This crap happens and it happens because our subsidized agricultural exports kill true market competition and drives Mexican farmers from their native land. What would you do to feed your family? What distances would you travel?
Fight the real enemy. It isn’t the economic refugees that come here. It’s market fundamentalists who perpetuate the dynamics that make third world countries our economic slaves.
I guess that ll of these "border haters" hate this country. We have a right to our sovereignty. A country that cannot enforce its borders is no longer a country. France finally woke up and saw the writing on the wall....They closed their borders and are deporting all of their illegal aliens. Never thought I'd hear myself say this but...the French are smart!
Imagine you have a busted pipe in the upstairs bathroom. You scream at the kids to help find towels to clean up the mess. You wipe and damp and wipe and mop and yell for more towels.
Why not turn off the water first?
THIS is what we are asking... put up a wall and stop the flow of people aorund 5-8,000 per DAY). BUiLD a wall first, then deal with our visitors as humanely as possible.
Some approximate numbers:50% of illegas are from Mexico. 25% are from other Latin American countries. 25% are from Europe and Asia. How many of this 25% are terrorists that want to kill all of us (no matter what side of the spectrum you fall on). This is about NATIONAL SECURITY first.
Wake up people.
A plus on fearmongering Cannonball. Fear of immigrants has an old and hory history. Stand proud in those ranks of .... well who ever they were.
We don't remember your predicessors because, they were all wrong. Your chances of bucking this trend are of the type any bookie would dream of.
leftists love to use the strawman argument of "you don't want ANY immigration, do you?" no one wants a "children of men" scenario that asks everyone for their papers. what we want is integrity returned to the immigration system we have built. enforcement of the border, worksite enforcement, employer sanctions, etc.
this idea that "human will can go through any wall" is a great for literature, but it's not reality. fencing has worked wonderfully in san diego, and it can work across the whole border. it only needs to be matched with the proper amount of staff and technology.
Illegal Aliens are NOT immigrants. They are criminal trespassers.
Immigrants are new citizens and residents who are here LEGALLY.
Any action taken to avoid enforcing current laws is indeed an act of amnesty.
There is no way around this reality.
Illegal aliens are not human beings; they are literally law breaking extra-terrestrials.
Sooo...
People illegally in the country will greet us as liberators.
They will line up in droves to pay $5000 for their deportation and placement at the end of the legal immigration waiting list.
It’s not about the oil, I mean, cheap labor.
Their deportation will pay for itself and create higher paying jobs for Americans.
And the exodus will be short?
No thanks Lucy, I'm not trying to kick that football again.
Bottom line to all this illegal alien BS is WE THE PEOPLE want border enforcement, AND, NO AMNISTY for illegal aliens, And a BIG FENCE to keep'm OUT. Don't get in front of me in a line or I'll knock you outta the line. Same attiude I have towards these illegal line jumping LEACHES invading OUR country. Bottom line !!!!!!!!!!!!
Give me a fense to keep me away from you!
Leeches? We use way more resources per person than any other country, yet we manufacture very little anymore. some might call us leeches. Maybe the rest of the world could build a wall around us so we don't continue using up all the world's energy and raw materials.
perhaps but we also give the most money of any country in the world and we have the most generous immigration policy of any country in the world...about 3 million legal immigrants annually. We also foot most of the cost for that sham called the United Nations!
Media Matters promotes itself as an organization devoted to exposing “instances of misinformation” though often the focus is on what the writers clearly believe to be disinformation. When it comes to CNN’s use of ‘amnesty’ MM has become a purveyor of mis/disinformation.
When our military started using “collateral damage” to refer to innocent civilians killed during military attacks, we Democrats were disgusted with their blatant attempt to use vague, neutral terminology to manipulate public attention away from the harsh reality of war that more accurate terminology would expose. We recognized it for what it was…disinformation, spin, propaganda.
But last year, when the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ) provided a list of unacceptable immigration terms to the American press, and helpfully provided their preferred substitutions, a lot of the media fell right in line. In every instance, the preferred substitution was a vague, neutral term obviously intended to manipulate public opinion about those who enter and/or stay in this country illegally.
Amnesty wasn’t on the NAHJ list. But now that polls repeatedly show Americans are strongly opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants, there’s been considerable effort to ‘redefine’ amnesty or, better still, declare it an unacceptable term - as Media Matters puts it, because it’s “politically charged” and “inflammatory.” Just as we did with the military’s use of “collateral damage”, we should recognize this effort for what it is…disinformation, spin, propaganda.
These words the NAHJ doesn’t want us to use are in our immigration laws, placed there generations ago with absolutely no malicious intent toward anyone. But now we’re told not to use these words because, with regard to the word ‘alien’ for example, the NAHJ says “the dictionary also includes other, darker, meanings for the word, such as a non-terrestrial being, strange, not belonging to one, adverse, hostile.”
Perhaps African-Americans should demand that ‘blacks’ no longer be used to refer to them as a group because the dictionary has other darker meanings for ‘black’ including dirty, full of anger, dishonorable, evil. And maybe they should also demand that ‘equal opportunity initiative’ be used instead of affirmative action because that term has become “politically charged.” Oh, and Muslim Americans should ask that we stop using the terms ‘radical Islamist’ and ‘terrorist’ and provide some more vague, neutral, acceptable terms for us to use because these words have become offensive to them. Where does this self-serving silliness end?
Amnesty is a legal term that accurately describes a provision in the Senate’s proposed legislation. I am strongly opposed to the use of offensive names that are clearly intended to insult and denigrate a group or class of people. But twisting and distorting word definitions and banning words that aren’t intrinsically offensive to suit one’s political agenda, is deceptive, dishonest, misleading and wholly unacceptable.