Thread: The Truth-O-Meter :Did Lou Dobbs oppose amnesty?

Did Lou Dobbs oppose amnesty? He doesn't oppose it now.

Before resigning as a CNN anchor Nov. 11, Lou Dobbs made a name for himself opposing illegal immigration. So we were surprised to see him a few weeks later on the Spanish-language network Telemundo declaring himself a friend to Latinos.

"Whatever you have thought of me in the past, I can tell you right now that I am one of your greatest friends and I mean for us to work together," Dobbs said during a half-hour interview with Maria Celeste on the news program Al Rojo Vivo. Dobbs said he was considering his options and might make a run for public office.

For most of the interview, Celeste grilled Dobbs about news reports aired on his CNN show that she said were inflammatory and denigrated immigrants. Dobbs said he made mistakes and corrected them, which Celeste disputed. One of the top examples was a report Dobbs ran in 2007 that said undocumented immigrants were responsible for 7,000 new cases of leprosy spread over three years, a claim that has been widely debunked. (There were actually 431 new cases between 2003 and 2005.)

Dobbs said on Telemundo that the United States needs a "rational, effective humane policy" for immigration that emphasized securing the border. But also said, "We need the ability to legalize illegal immigrants on certain conditions."

That last point surprised us, because we thought Dobbs opposed efforts to offer citizenship to undocumented immigrants, commonly called amnesty.

We went poring through the files, and interestingly, we found no point-blank case where Dobbs himself said he personally opposed amnesty.

But he certainly gave the impression that he didn't much care for it. He was particularly opposed to a 2007 immigration bill promoted by President George W. Bush and Republican Sen. John McCain that included eventual citizenship for some illegal immigrants. In one show, he called the bill "idiotic," "just bizarre" and "a horrible piece of legislation."

He asked his viewers to vote on the following question: "Do you believe the Senate, the White House and those who support amnesty for millions of illegal aliens are simply ignoring our existing U.S. law and the will of the American people? Yes or no? Cast your vote at loudobbs.com," he said on May 23, 2007. Later, he reported, "The results of our poll tonight: 97 percent of you responding that the Senate, the White House and those who support amnesty for millions of illegal aliens are ignoring not only existing U.S. law, but the will of the American people."

Dobbs gave another provocative answer to reporter Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes when she interviewed him in May 2007.

"He all but campaigns against the president's guest worker proposal and seemed to suggest that all illegals should be rounded up," Stahl said, then asked him directly, "But I wonder if you think that we can possibly deport all of those people?"

"I've never called for their deportation," Dobbs said. "But at the same time, when this president and open-borders, illegal-alien-amnesty advocates say, 'You can't deport them,' my answer is: 'You want to bet?' Because this is the United States. ... I think this country can do anything it sets its mind to."
We next turned to two advocates on different sides of the immigration issue to see what they thought of Dobbs' recent comments to Telemundo.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has criticized Dobbs for promoting anti-immigrant views and false news reports. The center's director of research, Heidi Beirich, said that Dobbs has claimed many times to be a friend to immigrants, even though he brings on anti-immigrant guests who make false statements.

"He's let his guests say things that he hasn't challenged many, many times," Beirich said, "He'll sit there and make comments like, 'Incredible,' 'Amazing,' 'Mind-boggling.'"

Of his comments on Telemundo, Beirich said, "It seemed to me very cynical and opportunistic, based on the idea that he wants to jump into politics."

We also spoke with Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and the author of The New Case Against Immigration, Both Legal and Illegal. Krikorian said he differs with Dobbs in that Dobbs generally favored legal immigration, opposing citizenship only for those who entered the country illegally.

"He was clearly opposed to legalizing illegal aliens, period. There is just no question about it," Krikorian said. "Everyone who cared about immigration thought he was against amnesty."

We asked Krikorian if there was any sort of middle ground here in which someone could favor citizenship for some undocumented immigrants but still be opposed to amnesty.

Krikorian said he didn't think so. "That's what amnesty means -- letting illegal immigrants stay," he said. "He was against legalizing illegal immigrants, and now he says he's for it."

We reached a spokesman for Dobbs, Robert Dilenschneider, who said that Dobbs does indeed believe that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the country under certain conditions.

"I think you're going to see a new Lou Dobbs in the next year or two, a man looking for solutions, not for problems," he added.

In ruling on whether Dobbs changed his position on citizenship for undocumented immigrants, it's clear that he now favors legalization under certain circumstances. We have not been able to find statements in the past where Dobbs said specifically that he opposed amnesty. But he gave the distinct impression that he opposed it, and many people clearly thought he did oppose it. Now, at a minimum, Dobbs is significantly changing his tone on the issue. We hesitate to give him a Full Flop because we found his older position to be slippery and unclear. So we rate his position a Half Flip.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... pose-it-n/

Half-flip Dobbs! I love it!
And I guess we have no entered a new era of discourse. What you do not say is more important that what you do say.

Dobbs did not say on Telemuno he was a new best friend to Latinos he said he was a new best friend to Telemnudo.

Telemundo influences many Latinos but Telemundo is no more monolithic for Latinios as Fox News is for whites.

W

Here we go again. It didnt happen...smoke and mirrors. We all know what Lou Dobbs used to be about, and what he is about now. We have all tuned into his show, and watched his videos. Lou used to be against amnesty and now he is not. Think about it. Not only did the anti illegal groups understand this...the pro illegal groups understood this as well. So the ENTIRE PUBLIC HEARD HIM WRONG? Both sides of the fence understood him to be anti amnesty all those years. Both sides....consistently. That is why our side liked him so much and the opposition hated him so much. Lou Dobbs saying he was always in favor of amnesty is like Murguia saying she was always against it. Give me a break. This smoke and mirrors game is becoming a regular thing. Not just on immigration issues, but on many issues. Oh....it didnt happen that way...sure. Right...we just "misunderstood." LOL

Half Flipped Dobbs is more accurate.

This whole Dobbs thing has me hearing the twighlight zone theme everytime I hear about it! Gahhh!

Originally Posted by redpony353

..... It didnt happen...smoke and mirrors. We all know what Lou Dobbs used to be about, and what he is about now.....

.... Not only did the anti illegal groups understand this...the pro illegal groups understood this as well. So the ENTIRE PUBLIC HEARD HIM WRONG? Both sides of the fence understood him to be anti amnesty all those years. Both sides....consistently. That is why our side liked him so much and the opposition hated him so much. Lou Dobbs saying he was always in favor of amnesty is like Murguia saying she was always against it. Give me a break. This smoke and mirrors game is becoming a regular thing. Not just on immigration issues, but on many issues. Oh....it didnt happen that way...sure. Right...we just "misunderstood." LOL

Great points!!!

"He was ALWAYS for AMNESTY, we just misunderstood him...."

Yeah right, give us a break...even Janet Murgia and Luis Gutierrez misunderstood him so badly that they were vehemently on a campaign to have Lou Dobbs fired from CNN. Those two would have latched on to him like leeches with so much suck power they would have prolapsed Lou's entire body if he had ever given one small inkling that he was in their corner on this issue! You know it, I know it, THEY know it and worst of all, Lou Dobbs knows it!

There are only two things that I believe would make someone like him denounce himself, his work and his public persona....MONEY (lots of it) or threat of death. Remember, he was shot at and he was threatened by them thar hard working folks who just come here for a better life AT YOUR EXPENSE and their Birkenstock wearing, tree hugging, smelly liberal supporters who like to give away things that don't belong to them.

Some how I still can't believe with all of the unrelenting pressure and gusto he put into his investigative reporting on the issue that he could REALLY be that slimy, untrustworthy and downright dishonest deep inside. I don't like the stance he now takes and if he really doesn't feel the way he is trying to portray himself to feel, I have to fault him for back peddaling on his principles and selling out.

.....like leeches with so much suck power they would have prolapsed Lou's entire body......

LOL...that is a very funny visual. But you are right. They would have been on that for all it was worth. THEY WOULD HAVE AT LEAST BEEN QUOTING HIM OUT OF CONTEXT. If there was ANY....ANY....show of being in favor of amnesty, they would have maximized it.

Possible quote from the opposition if Lou had EVER mentioned ANYTHING about being in favor of amnesty:
"Even Lou Dobbs, who is against illegal immigration, agrees that there should be SOME path to citizenship for illegals."

Something like the above would have come from the oppostion camp. But...never a word in favor of ANYTHING Lou Dobbs had to say. Never. So WE ALL JUST MISUNDERSTOOD.

Originally Posted by vortex

Half-flip Dobbs! I love it!
And I guess we have no entered a new era of discourse. What you do not say is more important that what you do say.

Definitely, especially with those who have an eye on a political career.

Reminds me of the old canard, "It depends what your definition of "is" is."