Thread: Disputing Dobbs on immigration

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... ILMUV1.DTL

Disputing Dobbs on immigration
Ruben Navarrette Jr., San Diego Union-Tribune

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

(

06-21) 04:00 PDT San Diego -- LOU DOBBS was spoiling for a fight. I know, because he wanted to fight with me.

It's not every day that I'm face to face with the person that many Americans trust on the immigration issue. According to a recent poll published in the Washington Post, 37 percent of Americans trust Dobbs on immigration while 31 percent trust President Bush. The rest were undecided.

The 37 percent in Dobbs' corner probably don't include many of the Latino journalists who came together last week in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for the 24th annual conference of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ). As the nation's largest gathering of print and broadcast journalists, the conference drew more than 1,200 people. That's not a bad showing, considering that there are so few Latinos in the business.

According to a survey released in April by the American Society of Newspaper Editors, there were, in 2005, just 2,474 Latinos working in the nation's newsrooms. That's 4.51 percent of the total workforce.

For his part, Dobbs has carved out a niche as a critic of illegal immigration. And so the leaders of NAHJ invited him to be part of a panel discussion of the issue that included New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and former Mexican foreign minister Jorge Castaneda.

It was a controversial decision. Judging from the dozen or so conversations I had with conference participants, there is a concern that "people like Lou Dobbs" have seized on the issue of illegal immigration and used it to grow their fame and fortune.

Either way, Dobbs' ratings are up since he started talking incessantly about "broken borders." His show on CNN, "Lou Dobbs, Tonight," now averages 813,000 viewers. That puts him just behind the No. 1 show in its time period: Fox News' "Special Report with Brit Hume," which has 1.2 million viewers.

I have no problem with fame and fortune. What concerns me is the path one takes to get there.

Before the discussion, I approached Dobbs, introduced myself and thanked him for having me on his show several times in the last couple of years.

"Yes," he said, "I read your column and I like it -- except the ones that call me a racist and a xenophobe."

It went downhill from there.

"Actually, Lou," I said, "What I've written is that you pander to racists and xenophobes. You seem like a pretty good guy, but some of your viewers are certifiable."

"You really think so?" he asked, "I think I have one of the most intelligent audiences on television."

"Well," I said, "Racism and intelligence aren't qualities that are mutually exclusive."

He had this look on his face that suggested he was trying to process what I had just said, until an NAHJ official interceded and said it was time for Dobbs to get ready to go onstage.

"Come back on the show," he said.

Sure. But I enjoyed this format. No sound bites or commercials. Just two guys getting in each other's face.

The panel went pretty well for Dobbs. He got applause for his jabs at employers who exploit illegal immigrant labor and the Mexican elite who are indifferent to the plight of their countrymen. He also made clear that he opposed making illegal immigrants criminals, let alone rounding them up and deporting them.

It helped that he stayed away from the material that might have elicited boos and snickers. He didn't explain something that he often talks about: how he's sure that, if you crack down on employers, illegal immigrants will self-deport. Or why he believes it's appropriate -- on his show -- to couple immigration stories with segments about language and culture. Mixing these things illustrates a contradiction: Dobbs has said repeatedly that the only thing that concerns him is "illegal" immigration. But on his show he sounded the alarm bells when the Heritage Foundation put out a report warning that offering illegal immigrants a path to legalization could mean taking in as much as 100 million more legal immigrants.

If you're sincere about one, why freak out over the other? Unless, of course, you're not as pro-legal immigration as you pretend to be. Unless, of course, what concerns you -- or those you're trying to pander to -- isn't just that people are coming illegally, but that they change the language and cultural landscape of the country once they arrive.

There are words to describe that sort of thing. Unfortunately for those who have trouble accepting the truth about what this debate is really about -- and what it's been about for more than 200 years -- the words all end in "-ism."

Count me in the 37 percent of Americans trust Dobbs on immigration!

had_enuf,

Just thought folks would like to see what the other side is saying.

It is laughable when a racist such as Mr Navarrette speaks of racism in others.


Somebody explain to me just what is the "National Association of Hispanic Journalists"?

All of Lou's assertions are supported by most economists and think tanks including those who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. All these illegal alien handlers know their illegal alien puppets have broken various immigration laws, perpetrated massive document fraud ruining the lives of many Americans through ssn and ID theft, bilked the government and tax payers out of billions of dollars by abuse of welfare, social security and other services, engaged in illegal voting and committed numerous crimes against American citizens and their property. All illegal alien handlers can do is invoke the race card when they are presented with this and have no answers to refute factual data.

Originally Posted by had_enuf

Count me in the 37 percent of Americans trust Dobbs on immigration!

Yep, me too. Unapologetically so.
(Thanks Lou)

Originally Posted by had_enuf

Count me in the 37 percent of Americans trust Dobbs on immigration!

Too bad it's only 37%.

AlturaCt ,

Just what it says, a national organization of Hispanic Journalists.

This meeting got a LOT of coverage down here, because, gasp, they interviewed a member of Castro's regime via web cam from Cuba. Ya know, free speech and all of that silly stuff. The schism in the Cuban community is between those bitterly opposed to anything they see as not strictly anti-Castro and those who want to visit family on the island, oppose the blockade, etc.

I do understand that the bitterly opposed, lost homes, businesses and more importantly, had family members executed by firing squad, when Castro took over. Remember, that my family was executed by the Russians when they took over in Lithuania. So I get what Communists are like.

However, the bitter group basically opposes free speech: agree with them or else. Hmmm, what does Castro do?

Too bad it's only 37%.

Coming out of the Washington Post I'd only put so much credence in those numbers. Everybody knows until very recently Lou was a lone wolf in the MSM on this issue and was very instrumental in bringing the light of day to it. God Bless Lou Dobbs!

Thanks curiouspat! I have to admit though I was being somewhat tongue-n-cheek.

Here this guy is claiming many/some of Lou's audience is racist and he is a member of the National Association of HISPANIC journalist. Maybe it is just me but the hypocrisy is more than I can stand.