Thread: Lou Dobbs - May 8, 2007

Lou Dobbs Tonight - partial transcript - May 8, 2007

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... dt.01.html

Congress today trying to determine who should be allowed into the country and who should not be. A majority of immigrants currently granted green cards is related to someone already here. But some in Congress now believe that a skill or merit-based system is a far better way to legally bring people into this country.

And church leaders are ignoring separation of church and state by interfering directly in the political issue of amnesty, but they may not be speaking for most church-goers.

Lisa Sylvester now reports on whether family ties should determine who gains access to a path to citizenship. Casey Wian reports on church leaders who may not be representing the beliefs of many of their own parishioners in the amnesty debate.

We turn first to Lisa Sylvester. Lisa?

LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, lawmakers have been meeting behind closed doors, trying to figure out what to do with the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens living in the United States. But the debate is not only focusing on whether they should be put on a glide path to citizenship, but also whether that door should be opened to their extended family.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SYLVESTER (voice-over): It's called "chain migration," legal immigrants to the United States who are now citizens are allowed to sponsor extended family to also become citizens. Last year, nearly 250,000 people came to the United States this way. That included over 63,000 adult siblings, 46,000 adult children, and over 122,000 parents.

REP. PHIL GINGREY, (R) GA: It's not just their parents and maybe their spouse's parents, but it includes adult brothers and sisters, siblings, it includes aunts and uncles and cousins.

SYLVESTER: Congressman Phil Gingrey says that based on current legal immigration trends, each citizen could bring in as many as 273 relatives. The issue is a concern as lawmakers debate whether to give citizenship to 12 to 20 million illegal aliens.

The White House has reportedly floated a proposal backed by Republicans that would stop giving citizenship based solely on family ties. Instead, immigration policy would be set based on applicants' skills. REP. STEVE KING, (R) IA: While nuclear families should be united, we need to eliminate other family preference categories and refocus our priorities on those who possess the education and skills we need to be competitive in a global economy.

SYLVESTER: Democrats and other critics are lashing out.

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE, (D) TX: I just think that the bush administration proposal certainly undermines family values, and it's harsh.

BILL ONG HING, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS: This is partially a debate over what the nuclear family is, and, you know, I and many other people include it to define people, children that are above the age of 21 and brothers and sisters.

SYLVESTER: Children under the age of 21 and spouses would be allowed in under the proposal, but the chain would end there.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SYLVESTER (on camera): Lawmakers are expected to begin debate on a Senate immigration bill next Monday. Now, many senators were hoping to see the language of that legislation as early as tomorrow. But as of now, there is no consensus. Senate judiciary ranking member Senator Arlen Specter is now pleading with the Democratic leadership to give them more time. Lou?

DOBBS: You know, as long as this has been debated in this country now, over at least, I think one can say with considerable comfort, certainly the past three years, a national dialogue to look at all of the issues that this Congress has refused to acknowledge and critically important issues, whether it be chain immigration, whether it be the skills and the educational levels that this nation seeks in its immigrants, to have this only coming to the forefront now.

And the Congress of the United States, and in the Senate of the United States, there should be considerable embarrassment on their part, and not to even be contemplated by, you know, the great advocate of so-called comprehensive immigration reform, President Bush. I mean, this is breathtakingly short-sighted.

SYLVESTER: There were many members, Senator Jeff Sessions, for instance, who wanted to have this very debate last year, but he was not allowed to have the debate. They did not allow many amendments. So all of these very critical, important issues, even the cost of this immigration proposal, the comprehensive immigration proposal. It has been ignored up to this point.

DOBBS: Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation says point blank that the amnesty legislation contemplated through the Strive Act (ph), or through the so-called Kennedy-McCain legislation that was passed in the senate last year. He's talking about $2 trillion. And this Congress hasn't even begun to look at the fiscal impact of any of this legislation that they're contemplating. And with a week, just about a week away from Senator Reid's deadline of next week to be taking up this issue, there is literally no understanding of what the leadership is trying to create and what the White House is coordinating with that leadership, and the senators at large and Congress at large. It is a mind-bogglingly just ridiculous approach.

SYLVESTER: They have essentially set these artificial deadlines because they are trying to ram this through before the election. Everybody knows it. They're trying to ram this through to get something done before Memorial Day so that they will be able to get something before next year's election, but they're not looking at the facts of the details or the long-term implications on this at all, Lou. You're absolutely right.

DOBBS: Lisa, thank you very much. Lisa Sylvester reporting from Washington.

Well, Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony continues to disregard separation of church and state. He is heavily lobbying for amnesty for illegal aliens. Cardinal Mahony may also be disregarding the views of many of his parishioners. Casey Wian has our report.

(BEIGN VIDEOTAPE)

ROGER CARDINAL MAHONY, LOS ANGELES ARCHDIOCESE: We will pray for you and all who are part of our community.

CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony is an outspoken advocate of amnesty, even marching with illegal aliens and their supporters.

MAHONY: We're here to try to find a just way for them to be recognized as individuals and to give them the opportunity to be out in the open making our country great.

WIAN: But the cardinal's politics have angered some life-long Catholics, including former religion teacher Jerry Mazenko, who has two nuns and two priests in his family. He says Mahoney is ignoring the Catholic catechism, the church's official teachings on matters of faith.

JERRY MAZENKO, LIFELONG CATHOLIC: What the cardinal does not say is that the church actually puts limits on immigration and actually imposes requirements on the immigrants themselves.

WIAN: The catechism approved by the past and present pope states, "Political authorities may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions," and it says, "Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."

To underscore the divide, seven leading amnesty opponents in Congress spoke out Tuesday, four of them are Roman Catholic. REP, BRIAN BILBRAY, (R) CA: No matter how much you want to candy coat it, amnesty is not only wrong from the common sense point of view, it's immoral.

WIAN: Surveys of practicing Catholics also reveal discord. A recent Pew Research Center poll asked Catholics if they would quote, "support allowing undocumented immigrants who have been in the United States for several years to gain legal working status and the possibility of citizenship in the future." Sixty six percent favored the idea, 32 percent were opposed.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WIAN (on camera): But a year ago, the Pew Center asked a different question of non-Hispanic Catholics, using the word "illegal immigrants" instead of "undocumented immigrants." Only about a quarter of the group favored allowing illegal immigrants already in the United States to stay permanently, Lou.

DOBBS: And I believe that same poll and also and certainly the Zogby poll revealed that just about two thirds of all Catholics believed in strict border security and a very tough immigration law that should, should congress actually begin contemplating it.

WIAN: Absolutely.

DOBBS: What is -- how does this Cardinal Mahony, how does he square his view up with Pope Benedict, with the direction of the church and the fact that most of his parishioners view the world quite differently, in point of fact, the opposite that the he does?

WIAN: Well, the cardinal's spokesperson has not returned our phone calls, but leading Catholic figures who we have spoken with say that he is taking the stance that the church has an obligation to protect the poor. He is not advocating law violations, he is advocating the law be changed.

So they say that he is well within the rights of a church leader, Lou.

DOBBS: You know, we had a viewer write in, and I apologize for not knowing the name of the writer. We'll check it out. But made an interesting suggestion. That if the cardinal, the good cardinal believes so strongly, why would he not then bring in illegal aliens who are here into the Catholic educational system, into the Catholic schools, bring them into Catholic hospitals for their care, and relieve that burden on the taxpayer? Interesting idea, don't you think, Casey?

WIAN: I think we all know about the answer to that question, Lou, they have to pay for it.

DOBBS: I believe we do. Thank you very much, Casey Wian from Los Angeles.

+++++++++++

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Well, Republican leaders in the House today reinforced their opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens and any immigration legislation. Joining me now, one of those leaders, Congressman Lamar Smith, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. Good to have you with us, congressman.

You also authored the open letter to the U.S. Senate along with some of your colleagues, saying that -- let's just show our viewers what you did say in that letter. "Amnesty rewards law-breakers with the objective of their crime and it grants them the benefits with withhold from those who have played by the rules and are waiting their turn."

What do you think? Is the Senate going to be persuaded or a sufficient number of its members?

REP. LAMAR SMITH, (R) TX: Well, Lou, we thought it would be helpful to the process if we really drew a line in the sand and said we're not going to support amnesty, and what you're doing is amnesty. Now, we all know we need border security. We need to enforce current laws. Maybe we need to pass more laws for better border security, but we don't need amnesty to secure the borders, and we wanted to make that point clear to the Democratic leadership, since it seems like the bill they're considering would quite frankly give amnesty to, we don't know how many people in the country, 12 million, 20 million, but it would give amnesty to most of the people who are in the country illegally.

DOBBS: What is the reason for the complete, it seems, breakdown in the congressional process, both the House and the Senate, for that matter, in that there is no discussion of the fiscal impact or the broad scope of what amnesty would mean or the direction of U.S. immigration policy?

I mean, on the one hand, we're talking about skill levels and a merit system, and then chain migration where as many as 273 family members can be brought into the country under this silly idea.

SMITH: That is true. Very few countries have the rules that we do, the chain migration. Very few countries don't have preferences. We have no preferences at all. Most every other industrialized country has preferences they give for individuals like education and skills, and those are the individuals that will contribute to the economy and be able to take care of their families.

But what amnesty does is it really puts law-breakers ahead of those who are law abiding. It puts foreign workers ahead of American workers. And of course, it's going to encourage even more illegal immigration, because other people will think they're going to get amnesty in the future.

DOBBS: Bottom line, what will happen in the House and the Senate this year?

SMITH: Good guess. [b]I think in the Senate it's 50-50, and I think most senators are saying that. And even if the Senate passes something, I think it's only 50-50 that the house will get to it, as well. There is a real concern, I think, on the folks, both Republicans and Democrats. This is bipartisan concern about amnesty. But just because someone is in the country illegally doesn't mean we should put them on the path to citizenship.[b]

And some people really want to, basically, sell the greatest honor our country can bestow, citizenship, just for the price of a fine. And I think most people in the House do not favor that.

DOBBS: Congressman Lamar Smith, we thank you for being here.

SMITH: Good to be with you.

DOBBS: What is the reason for the complete, it seems, breakdown in the congressional process, both the House and the Senate, for that matter, in that there is no discussion of the fiscal impact or the broad scope of what amnesty would mean or the direction of U.S. immigration policy?

It's called...........

The HAIL MARY AMNESTY Bill
This is the last ditch effort to throw the AMNESTY BOMB into the end zone.