Dobbs' "amnesty" captions appear below three more CNN correspondents' reports
SUMMARY: On Lou Dobbs This Week, the politically charged word "amnesty" appeared in captions beneath news reports by CNN correspondents who have noted in previous reporting that "amnesty" is a characterization favored by opponents of the immigration bill, continuing a pattern on Dobbs' programs of adding editorial commentary to what are ostensibly CNN news reports.
During the June 16 and 17 editions of CNN's Lou Dobbs This Week, the politically charged word "amnesty" once again appeared in captions beneath news reports by CNN correspondents on deliberations over the Senate immigration bill. A report by congressional correspondent Andrea Koppel and a panel discussion featuring senior political correspondent Candy Crowley and chief national correspondent John King were accompanied by on-screen text referring to "Amnesty Push: Illegal Alien Amnesty Agenda," even though all three correspondents have noted in previous reporting that "amnesty" is a political characterization favored by opponents of the immigration bill. As Media Matters for America has documented, Dobbs' weeknight program, Lou Dobbs Tonight, has previously aired reports on immigration legislation using the word "amnesty" in the text at the bottom of the screen -- reports that had aired during other CNN programs without that word, suggesting that Dobbs' program was responsible for adding editorial commentary to what was ostensibly a CNN news report.
On the June 15 edition of The Situation Room, during Koppel's report on a deal among senators to bring the Senate immigration bill back to the floor for further consideration, the on-screen text read: "Immigration Reform Revival: What's Next?":
But on the June 16 edition of Lou Dobbs This Week, when a report of Koppel's on the same topic aired, the on-screen text read: "Amnesty Push: Illegal Alien Amnesty Agenda":
The same on-screen text appeared on the following day's edition of Lou Dobbs This Week during a segment that included reports from Crowley and King:
In previous reports on the congressional debate over immigration, Koppel, Crowley, and King have all 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. During a report on the May 17 edition of CNN's The Situation Room on the proposed Senate immigration bill, Koppel reported that "Republicans strongly opposed to offering illegal immigrants a path to citizenship -- what they call amnesty -- said they'd vote against it":
KOPPEL: Even though negotiations brought together the most liberal and the most conservative members of the Senate, some of whom voted against last year's immigration bill, both sides acknowledge this deal is a fragile one, which opponents of compromise will try to tear apart.
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): Please, please, please, don't let the good be -- the perfect be the enemy of the good.
KOPPEL: Already in the House, Republicans strongly opposed to offering illegal immigrants a path to citizenship -- what they call amnesty -- said they'd vote against it.
Similarly, during a report on the June 5 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, Crowley contrasted the positions on immigration held by Republican presidential candidates Sen. John McCain (AZ) and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. After airing a clip of McCain's statement that the Senate immigration bill he sponsored would allow illegal immigrants currently in the United States to eventually "be eligible for citizenship in this country," Crowley then reported that some Republicans -- including Romney -- "think pathway to citizenship is code for amnesty." From the June 5 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:
CROWLEY: The rift is as simple as it is real. It is embodied in an ongoing to-and-fro between John McCain and Mitt Romney. It is about those who favor a pathway to citizenship for the country's millions of illegals.
McCAIN: It's as long as 13 years -- 13 years before that they would be eligible for citizenship in this country.
CROWLEY: And it is about those who think pathway to citizenship is code for amnesty.
ROMNEY: They do not have to go home permanently. They stay here for the rest of their lives.
CROWLEY (on camera): In the end, the party split may well influence who Republicans pick for their nominee. But in the general election, the faithful are far more likely to overlook differences when the White House is at stake. Candy Crowley, CNN, Manchester, New Hampshire.
And on the May 20 edition of CNN's Late Edition, while interviewing Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, King said that the word was part of "the political debate" and that "in the political debate, amnesty has taken hold across this country." From the May 20 edition of Late Edition:
KING: He's talking about the technical aspects of the bill, Mr. Secretary. You know, in the political debate, amnesty has taken hold across this country. And the opponents, frankly, are winning the definitional debate right now in terms of politics.
The administration says this is not amnesty because those who came into this country illegally would have to pay a penalty, would have to pay back taxes, would have to come into the system some way. But if it's not amnesty, what is it?
If there's somebody sitting in Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico who wants to come to the United States today to make a better life for his or her family, somebody that's in the United States, whether it's been for six months or six years or 10 years illegally, that person broke the law to get here and can get a Z visa when this program is in place. How is that not at least jumping the line or an easy pass, if not amnesty?
From the June 15 edition of The Situation Room:
WOLF BLITZER (host): Our congressional correspondent, Andrea Koppel, is here joining us -- Andrea, what's next in this push for a new immigration bill?
KOPPEL: Well, Wolf, as you know, Democratic and Republican leaders agreed to whittle down hundreds of potential amendments to a list of about 20, clearing the way now to bring back immigration reform to the Senate floor as soon as next week.
KOPPEL: At the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast, new hope an immigration deal could be within reach.
BUSH: Gracias. Siéntese, por favor.
KOPPEL: And a new appeal from President Bush.
BUSH: Thank you for making comprehensive immigration reform your top priority. I share that priority.
KOPPEL: And from some of the bill's biggest Republican and Democratic boosters.
SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D-MA): This is in our national interests. This represents the best opportunity to make a difference for our country. And failure is not an option.
SEN. MEL MARTINEZ (R-FL): The battle is long and the battle is hard. But I know that with your spirit and with your faith, that we will continue and we will prevail and persevere.
KOPPEL: The breakthrough, just one week after immigration reform seemed to hit a dead end, came after President Bush made a rare visit to Capitol Hill this week to meet with Republicans and after Mr. Bush pledged to support over $4 billion for border security, a key demand of conservatives.
From the June 16 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs This Week:
DOBBS: Pro-amnesty senators have reached agreement on a plan to reintroduce that legislation in the Senate. However, the amnesty legislation faces powerful opposition, particularly from members of the president's own party, and, of course, a little-considered group called the American people. Andrea Koppel reports from Capitol Hill.
KOPPEL: Lou, under the agreement reached, each side will get to offer at least 11 amendments for a total of at least 22 amendments. The breakthrough came after much arm-twisting, brinksmanship, and yes, even some cajoling by President Bush himself, who made a rare visit to Capitol Hill this week to meet with Senate Republicans. On Friday, President Bush reiterated why reaching an immigration deal is such a domestic priority.
BUSH [video clip]: Each day our nation fails to act, the problem only grows worse. I will continue to work closely with members of both parties, get past our differences, and pass a bill I can sign this year.
KOPPEL: Now according to one Republican senator and a couple of Democratic aides I spoke with who are intimately involved with these negotiations, they said that President Bush's announcement late this week that he was prepared to ante up another $4.4 billion to beef up border security as well as workplace enforcement played a key role in brokering a final deal.
Now, that said, there was still no agreement on the content of these amendments. And as you well know, Lou, they are still far from certain there will be a final immigration deal -- Lou.
From the June 17 edition of Lou Dobbs This Week, which also included CNN Washington correspondent Lisa Sylvester:
CROWLEY: Well, I think the president has already taken the political risk -- I mean, when he signed on to this bill. I'm not sure this makes him any more culpable about supporting it than he was before, but what we don't know is what this bill's going look like. All we know is that the processes now seem to be in place that there will be X many number of amendments, but I'm not sure we know what it's going look like.
DOBBS: Lisa Sylvester?
SYLVESTER: Well, I think that what you have is Republicans have been bolting from the president on this issue. They believe that he's absolutely tone deaf and he continues to go down this road, even though many members of his party both in the House and the Senate object.
DOBBS: John King?
KING: Well, you have a number of grassroots groups, Lou, now working to stop them from getting the 15 votes they needed for cloture last time and failed on it. The risk to the president? He's not on the ballot again and he has believed in this from day one, and so he wants this, very much so; he views it as a legacy item. But the risk for the Republican Party is a lot of conservatives think if you pass this legislation, some of the base will stay home in the 2008 elections, and you will have even more damage after the heartache of 2006 for the Republican Party. That is the calculation. The president and his team disagree, but many conservatives think if even of if a little bit of our base stays home, more trouble.
Sadly,
Lou has turned into an arrogant, bloviating, knuckle-head.
Lou is so far gone he'll probably deny that the captions were used. (Like he denied making his wildly inaccurate comment about immigrants being responsible for a huge increase in leprosy.)
Dobbs is an absolute cartoon.
He's also a liberal on every issue other than immigration. You should like him.
Are you suuuuuuuuure about that?
MMFA has over 40 items on Lou Dobbs, very few of which are immigration related.
Plus, he's on CNN. How liberal can he be?
Media Matters also has a lot of items on Chris Matthews, who is a partisan Democrat. Anybody who doesn't toe the liberal line 100% of the time will get criticized by Media Matters. CNN is overwhelmingly liberal. They don't have any conservatives working there. At least MSNBC has a couple of conservatives. CNN has 0.
That's a classic!
Con poster- Dobbs is a lib(no backup)
Lib poster - no he's not, here is evidence(MMFA links)
Con poster - MMFA has lotsa stuff on Chris Matthews,who is also a liberal, .(no backup)
Summary- Since MMFA has documented numerous examples of one person spreading conservative misinformation, and cons insist he is a liberal, then, anyone else documented spreading similar conservative misinformation is a liberal.
Un-fooking-believable !
You are so full of it. Matthews is a partisan Democrat who VOTED FOR BUSH AT LEAST ONCE? When are you going to learn that no matter how often you say something this stupid it will never magically become true.
"Anybody who doesn't toe the liberal line 100% of the time will get criticized by Media Matters."
This coming from someone whose name refers to his quest to purify the Republican Party so that no one other than a far right neo-conservative is allowed membership.
RINO HUNTER:
I realize you rightwingers love to claim that Chris Matthews is "liberal" because he once worked for Tip O'Neill.
Well, OK. 30 years ago, he did work the Dem side of the fence. So did Dick Morris.
Tell you what. Since Ronald Reagan was a Democrat before he became a Republican ... a conversion similar to Matthews ... I want you to declare every time you say Matthews is a Democrat based on his past, that Ronald Reagan is a Democrat based on the same standard.
Ronald Reagan, Liberal and Democrat. Rolls off the tongue.
In other words, you rightwingers must forsake your greatest ICON, in order to justify your "logic" about Matthews. How about it? In the mood to be CONSISTENT??? Or, as is the case with so many rightwing contradictions, will you claim "That's DIFFERENT."?
You never heard of Glenn Beck?
Rino
I would not call Lou Dobbs a liberal, he at one time was very pro wall street allthough changed after Enron. Yes he does not like Bush and attacks him regularly, however that criteria does not make one a liberal considering over 70% of the nation does not like Bush and even the Michael "in the closet" Savage seems to really hate Bush.
Somebody here come up with another word for the dreaded "amnesty" and forward it to Dobbs etal. I favor "Cuts", but there has to be another word (or two) to convey the meaning of this bill than the dreaded "amnesty."
referendum would be nice, but that's not an option. We must submit to the will of those who claim to know just what we want...
I know, how about decree?
Go Lou!!
It appears some people here can't handle the truth.
Not only is it an amnesty bill, anyone still foolish enough to still think any of the enforcement parts of the bill will be enforced has their head up somewhere like in the sand
Agreed.
Here is what we need to do:
Seal the border shut with an impregnable wall or fence, reinforce the Border Patrol with the National Guard. Deport criminals permanently. Send all others back to their place of origin, and let them get in line to eventually return legally. Allow a small regulated temporary guest worker program to exist. Establish a 5-10 year moratorium on immigration to allow us to get our house back in order.
Another words let's get serious.
You forgot to add that ALL of this has to be done WITHOUT raising taxes to pay for it all, right?
Now who's serious?
Deez,
Our taxes are already being consumed for services for Illigal Immigrants. You honestly don't think our taxes are going to skyrocket if the mishmash of Bill passes? Ha! Think again.
If my taxes are going up I'd rather it go to regulating our borders & immigration.
Of course if we weren't spending billions in Iraq...just think where all that $$ could be going!
Based on a 1998 NRC study, whether illegal immigration is a cost or a benefit depends on who - or more to my point here, where - you ask. It tends to be a substantial net cost at local and state levels, but a small net benefit nationally. That suggests to me that the best solutions may indeed be mostly local efforts.
and how does the local government do anything about it?
Jeter2,
There's no such thing as "an impregnable wall or fence." If you build a good fence on the Southern border, won't they come in through Canada?
I think you're too smart to be sucked into the dimwit wing of the Con party.
Debunked,
I've often suggested here that we should consider sealing up our northern border as well...and I've gotten pummeled by some here saying it's impossible & the cost would be too heavy. So this time I left out that part of what I believe is an otherwise doable plan. To me the cost would be worth it...if we're truly serious about this topic...or should I say our so-called leaders were really serious. Which is just one reason this current Bill is a joke. We haven't enforced the present Laws on the book...WHY does anyone believe new Laws will be honored?
Walls/Fences can be impregnable IF we're willing to also use the Border Patrol & the National guard as reinforcements.
Even if you could build an impregnable wall (which I maintain is impossible) that would not address the significant number (>40%) of illegal immigrants that enter legally but overstay. Enforcement at the source of employment is the only viable "wall"; however, the business lobby has seen to removing the mortar.
Have you been anywhere near the northern border - esp. from Minn. to Wash? You ain't sealing anything.
there are basic difference between the southern and northern borders. first, canada cooperates with us on the issue of immigration. mexico insists their people have the right to enter this country. second, there are not nearly the number of canadians trying to enter this country illegally. some, yes, but not the millions of mexico. and the argument is made that mexicans will just go to canada and cross there. except that is a complicated process. that's why they don't do it now.
Our own country is responsible for protecting our own borders. We just simply aren't doing that well at all. I don't think we even need to discuss what other countries do as it is not their job to protect us. I don't count on Mexico or Canada to give a cr_p about who gets into the US. Why should they?
I have become a bit of a fatalist on the issue of illegal immigration. It looks like a problem the people want to fix, but the politicians on both sides don't want to fix. The politicians pass utterly meaningless legislation in the hopes to convince the rest of us they are really doing something, when they aren't doing anything at all.
why should canada and mexico care about who gets into this country? the same reason we should care about who gets into theirs. my point would be that mexico insists that their citizens have a right to enter this country and they will not cooperate with us to stop them on any level. instead they condemn us for taking steps to control illegal immigration.
They have to pay at least 5000 $ in fines and go back at least once to their home countries then again at least every two years. I fail to see how that is AMNESTY since the word means
Definitions of amnesty on the Web:
Since they ARE being punished and forced BACK to their own country in order to gain a path to citizenship I dont see how the word AMNESTY applies. I get why people might think this is weak on illegal immigration, but words have meanings and I dont see how the word AMNESTY can possibly be seen as describing the path to citizenship as this bill has described it.
I'm appalled by Lou Dobb's relationship with CNN. He's allowed to blur the line between straight news with commentary on a nightly basis. (Actually, "blur" doesn't quite describe it--"destroy" is closer.) CNN's unwillingness to demarcate between news and Dobb's commentary couldn't be any more clearly shown as in CNN's use of CNN.com to promote Dobbs. CNN.com's most prominent feature is a listing of "TOP STORIES" at the top of the page, with links to the news stories. About every two weeks or so, right there with stories about war, politics, and other straight news, they insert a "TOP STORY" that it is in the format "Dobbs: (x)" where X stands for the theme of some new commentary by Dobbs. So, Dobbs isn't REPORTING the top news, he IS top news, according to CNN. It's shameful.
I believe we need to secure our borders before we start looking for words spoken to insult the speaker of said words. On a nightly basics Lou Dobbs says we need to secure our borders first. If you take time to read it, The Constitution says it's the job of our leaders to do this. We have enough laws to cover illegal immigration that if they had been enforced over the last 20-30 years we wouldn't have this problem. A lot of this is blowing smoke up our backsides for purely political reasons on the Dems side (votes) and keeping the illegals in the shadows to be used as cheap labor on the Repubs side. There has been close to a million construction workers such as myself who have lost their jobs to illegal immigrants because they will work for half the pay as I and others recieved. It seem like many who post here don't know the definition of illegal also
It really pisses me off when those on the right cannot be fair.
If they're against this bill, let them explain that stance.
Why do they have to lie about this bill being amnesty in order to argue against it?
Force of habit?
Amnesty is a legal term. If you want an accurate and complete definition of a legal term, you go to an authoritative source for legal terminology, not Webster’s Collegiate or some other generic dictionary. Black’s Law Dictionary is reportedly the reference of choice for definitions in legal briefs and court opinions. It is also described in some places as the definitive law dictionary for U.S. law. According to the Abridged 8th edition of Black’s Law Dictionary – Amnesty is defined as “a pardon extended by the government to a group or class of persons.” Pardon is defined as “the act or an instance of officially nullifying punishment or other legal consequences of a crime.” Therefore, using a simple process most of us learned in junior high school, if not earlier -- Amnesty is an act extended by the government to a group or class of persons that officially nullifies the legal consequences of a crime. The operative words here are “the legal consequences of [the] crime.” In other words, the consequences specified in the law for that crime. No matter what conditions (including penalties, fees, statements, documents, time requirements, etc.) the government might impose in granting the act, when the government sets aside the legal consequences as described in the law for that crime, the government is granting amnesty. And that, no matter what George Bush and others want to tell us, is how amnesty has been defined throughout our history. A few examples, all of which are historically referred to as ‘amnesty’: During the Civil War, President Lincoln issued an amnesty proclamation that was conditional because it required Confederate soldiers to declare their allegiance to the United States and it excluded high-ranking officers. In 1868, President Andrew Johnson granted an unconditional amnesty to all participants in the Civil War. In 1974, President Ford granted amnesty for Vietnam War deserters and draft evaders. Few took advantage of it because his conditional amnesty required them to spend two years doing public service work. In 1977, President Carter issued an unconditional amnesty for those deserters and draft evaders.
The commonality in all of these amnesties, including President Reagan’s amnesty for illegal immigrants in 1986, is the ‘offenders’ were relieved of the prosecution and the punishment ascribed in the law for their crime.
Despite the many frenzied efforts to redefine this word, ban it, or kick up enough dust to dirty it up a bit (as MMFA is doing with its proclamation that the word is "inflammatory" and "politically charged") amnesty will continue to be used because it accurately describes a major provision in this legislation.
That was a good post. But MMFA doesn't like the word "amnesty" so, you know, this is their website.
The word isnt accurate its just that simple
No it doesnt they have to pay a 5000$ fine and return to their country. That just isnt Amnesty unless you redefine the word
SOLON, It appears you believed George Bush when he helpfully informed America that "Amnesty is forgiveness without penalty." It's beyond ludicrous to me that anyone would take language lessons from George Bush.
If illegal immigrants have to pay a legal fine, is that not a punishment as a consequence of the fine?
Your legal description of amnesty says "officially nullifies the legal consequences of a crime." It appears that the fine is a direct legal consequence of the crime. Does it not?
If there was no penalty for committing the crime, I would agree with your account. However, it appears that is not the case here.
OPEN_MIND, If I'm understanding you correctly, you seem to also believe George Bush's statement that it's only amnesty when you get off without ANY penalties or punishment at all. That isn't true. Amnesty relieves you of the legal consequences, the very SPECIFIC legal consequences, that are already established for the crime you've committed. For example:
The first time you enter the country illegally, the legal consequences (already established by law) are prosecution and deportation.
The second time you enter the country illegally, the legal consequences (already established by law) are prosecution, possible imprisonment, possible fine, followed by deportation.
If those legal consequences, the ones already established in the law, are set aside by the government for a group or class of people, the offenders are being granted amnesty... EVEN if some different penalties or conditions or punishments are imposed in exchange for the amnesty.
It has been that way throughout our history. It's also true in other areas. When amnesties are declared for illegal possession of firearms, those in possession are freed from the prosecution and the established punishment for illegal possession of firearms (i.e., the legal consequences of their crime), as long as they turn in the firearms within some specified period.
Same is true with amnesties for tax evasion, you still have to pay your back taxes, you may even be charged a reduced fine) but you aren't prosecuted for tax evasion and you aren't facing imprisonment.
"OPEN_MIND, If I'm understanding you correctly, you seem to also believe George Bush's statement that it's only amnesty when you get off without ANY penalties or punishment at all. That isn't true. Amnesty relieves you of the legal consequences, the very SPECIFIC legal consequences, that are already established for the crime you've committed." --indeevoter
It seems that is a matter of interpretation and not an empirical observation. I can see your point of view and I can see President Bush's point of view. I think both have merit. I don't see that it is clear cut one way or the other. That would tend to make me believe media outlets should not use words like "amnesty" if not just to avoid the unnecessary appearance of advocating one side over the other on this issue.
I am not in favor of this legislation at all, but I don't want or need the media to carry my water either. That is what this is about. Using words like "amnesty" also give people reason to avoid some of the central arguments that should be discussed as well.
As a moderate liberal, I am often torn between the extremes of both parties and this debate about immigration is no exception. While the argument about the word amnesty seems a bit off-the mark, it is interesting to see both political extremes agreeing on the larger issue of immigration -- the far left apparently want an influx of new voters that will be loyal Dems....the far right apparently want a cheap source of labor to advance their corporatist agenda. Both positions hurt some of their mainstream constituencies; organized labor on the left, and social conservatives on the right. All that being said, here is my moderate opinion; first, increase the border patrol and regulatory body to strictly enforce existing workplace laws and better secure the borders. Second, create new guest worker program that does not under-cut Americans willing and able to do the work (if the wages were not artificially lowered by an illegal pool of workers). Third, set/create a legal avenue for a manageable number of legal immigrants to come into the country. Fourth, have all existing illegals return to their country of origin to request legal entry into the country. And for the record, while the proposed measures may not strictly be an "amnesty" for illegal aliens in the narrow sense of the word, the fact that they are allowed to remain in the country and do not get arrested and or face the normal punishment for their actions would indicate some sort of special dispensation offered to them and hence the term amnesty appears appropriate in my view. The fact that it's become a controversial word indicates the level of controversy of the proposal. Hey, I'm one guy, and that's my opinion.
It is amnesty.
Current immigration laws do not include a preference for millions to come from Mexico and only a few thousand from other nations.
The fact that there is a time span in it as to who does and does not qualify for this clearly indicates that it is an amnesty program and not a reform, as a reform would not have time limits targeting specific individuals for preferences that can only be applied retroactively.
It's only amnesty if you refuse to think and just react. There are many penalties and hurdles to achieve this "amnesty" which makes it a lot less like real amnesty. If you want to be overly simplistic and inflammatory then by all means call it what you will. If you want to fix the problem you would define the problem and possible solutions accurately. Calling this amnesty shows incredible ignorance and simple mindedness to accommodate an unreasonable belief. If you don't think the penalties are enough then say so, but don't mislabel it as being amnesty.
This is the common con tactic of using language to stifle actual debate in it's tracks. It's more convenient for the lazy people who would prefer to just complain than get to the work of solving the actual problem. Instead we sit here and debate the misuse of a word to get people angry.
which makes it a lot less like real amnesty.
Actually, it makes it into something that is not amnesty. Period.
That's the crux of these articles about Dobbs. Criticize the bill all you want. Just don't call it something that a) it's not and b) that is guaranteed to inflame the unthinking Right Wingers into thinking people get off without punishment.
People constantly post about what articles do and don't belong on this site. If any article does, this one does. This is Right Wing Bias at it's purest, simplest form. Using a word that is absolutely inaccurate because it inflames, and use it repeatedly until (as we see here) people believe it.
Just use accurate language to debate this issue. It's quite simple. The problem is, the accurate language probably doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.
'If it fits, it's sh*t'.If it's anything else, it's sh*t' ... I know, but it will be better...
Whether the bill is amnesty or isn't is a matter of opinion and not fact. The media should stick to reporting facts instead of engaging in advocting one point of view over another.
"There has been close to a million construction workers such as myself who have lost their jobs to illegal immigrants because they will work for half the pay as I and others recieved."
Your beef is with the person who is hiring the help. Of the construction co.s I know of here (Seattle area) - granted only three - most of the non-American workers are legal immigrants. The construction company is following the basic tenets of capitalism - finding the cheapest labor. You need to develop a skill that is more marketable in the current labor environment. At least that's what I was told when Microsoft hired several immigrant Indian programmers for much less $$$ than native programmers were receiving.
the beef is also with the government for allowing that to happen. there have been instances all over the country of american programmers let go after training their legal immigrant replacements.
Hey, Mefirst... I saw that on a documentary- what was it?... i realize it wasn't personal to me , but i found it totally in synce with American Capitalism, and it's eventual demise...
i didn't see the documentary. i've just read various news stories about it over the years. there was a guy in orlando who went to the news stations a few years ago with his story.
Everyone thinks that all Democrats like this immigration bill. Well I have been a Democrat for 37 years and because of the stand the Democrats are taking, and I agree that it is amnesty, I will not be voting for any Democrat that promotes and votes for this bill. I doubt I will vote for a Republican, but if they vote to stop this bill they may just get my vote.
I have seen with my own eyes how the main stream media reports a story and can tell you from first hand experience that they are inventing the news, not reporting it. Even when I have been on the location of an event and have pointed out what the La Raza and anarchist are doing they refuse to report it. This includes raising a Mexican flag over a federal post office, vandalizing 8 cars, throwing frozen bottles of water at people carrying American flags. This happened in Maywood California and ABC, NBC, CBS, UNIVISION, and PBS were all there but not one reported any of what went on. PBS even did a half hour special on the Maywood protest and did not mention any of it, even after I pointed out to them all the signs saying White people go back to Europe and how reporters never show what the anarchists do.
Lou Dobbs was the ONLY one who reported the truth. Like I said "I was there" so I know who is reporting the truth.
Calling this amnesty shows incredible ignorance and simple mindedness to accommodate an unreasonable belief. If you don't think the penalties are enough then say so, but don't mislabel it as being amnesty. It's only amnesty if you refuse to think and just react.
BINGVANGORDEN, I'm not much into attacking the intelligence of people I don't know, so I'll do my best to refrain from doing so in your case.
The raging debate about amnesty was launched when just about every member of the 'grand compromise' included in their brief remarks at its public introduction, "This isn't amnesty." It continued on this page, when MMFA introduced it with their article about Dobbs' captions. And it continues on this page because people like yourself who condemn its debate and discussion are right here debating and discussing it.
I'm completely confident in my understanding of the word...but I'm also interested in your reasoning as to why it ISN'T amnesty. Personally, I LOVE to think. You've brought some heat into this debate, how 'bout some light.
People constantly post about what articles do and don't belong on this site. If any article does, this one does. This is Right Wing Bias at it's purest, simplest form. Using a word that is absolutely inaccurate because it inflames, and use it repeatedly until (as we see here) people believe it. -- bittermarv
BITTERMARV, I am a lifelong Democrat, who has never voted for a Republican (with the exception of my votes for a Republican Congresswoman elected repeatedly here in heavily-Democratic Montgomery County, MD). But I will not ever again vote for a Democrat who supports this legislation.
I'm opposed to this bill because the people it will hurt most are the ones I, as a Democrat, have always cared about most...the poor, uneducated and undereducated, low-skilled people in our society, many of whom will live and die without ever achieving THEIR American dream.
It's AMNESTY pure and simple. They are not going to be deported, they get to keep their jobs, their homes, their welfare, their Section 8 housing and if they can't pay the five grand fee, so what?
IF they cannot pay the fine, they still WILL NOT be deported, they will simply be given an extension until such time as they can.
Does ANYONE believe this crud about having to return every two years? Seriously?
This is the worst bill on Earth. It grants so called Z visas IMMEDIATELY whether or not you are a criminal. Once given a Z visa you can never be deported. Anyone NOT see this as amnesty is a blockhead.
The illegals LOSE NOTHING, and gain everything. Might as well simply open the borders.
What is to stop fifty million other illegals from all over the world showing up? Why bother with doing it legally when all you have to do is now show up and claim you were here all along?
AND so what if Lou puts his own captions on reports. Lou is a COMMENTATOR. So what? And this crap about his continuing to spew lies about leprosy has been proven not to be. The haters have taken an 8 second bit of a report from 2 and a half years ago to suddenly attack Lou.
I find it rather interesting that MMFA attacks Lou all the time now considering he is the only news person out there fighting for middle class America. He's the one that brought up the selling of our ports to the Middel East. He's the one fighting outsourcing of American jobs. He's the one fighting H1B visas that put Americans in their own country out of work so greedy corporations can bring in cheap labor from India.
Did anyone see the video Lou showed yesterday of a law firm that advises H1B companies how to get around the laws and keep Americans out of work so they can bring in cheap labor? Mindboggling.
BUT WHAT I REALLY FIND AMAZING:
MMFA is SUPPORTING PRESIDENT BUSH on the amnesty for Illegals?
Since when has ONE SINGLE idea of Bush's been worth a damn? He hasn't been right on ANYTHING...EVER! Now MMFA is supporting amnesty for illegals? Because Bush wants it?
Seriously, if Bush is pushing something then you know it's bad for America and great for his corporate butt buddies.
Illegals are helping to turn America nto a third world economy and granting them amnesty is the wrong thing to do and sends the wrong message out to those who are working hard to come here legally.
I am amazed that MMFA is supporting Bush.
A fine? BFD!
NO AMNESTY for illegals!! No granting legal status to people who pizz on our laws. No amnesty for people who destroy other people's credit by stealig the SS numbers. AND we need to hit employers hard, very hard.
I will NOT vote for anyone who votes to pass this Amnesty for illegals, no matter what party they belong to.
I am NOT a good little lock stepping soldier for the corporate global elites and I will not cheerfully fall into line and swallow the lies and manipulations of the greedy like a good little soldier.
It is Amnesty.