The Four Word Film Review Fourum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Return to my fwfr
Frequently Asked Questions Click for advanced search
 All Forums
 Off-Topic
 General
 U.S. Amnesty Bill's Worst Provisions
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Send Topic to a Friend
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Stalean 
"Back...OMG"

Posted - 06/24/2007 :  18:23:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I just received this in my Inbox. As we all know, concerning politics, any side can be 'spun' to appear great or rotten. Is this 'spin' correct? If so, the legal, tax-paying American people are, decidedly, being bitch-slapped.

http://www.forthecause.us/media/ftc-video-CNN-AmnestyBillsWorstProvisions_070523.wmv

Information about Lou Dobbs.

GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."

Posted - 06/24/2007 :  18:34:18  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Stalean

I just received this in my Inbox. As we all know, concerning politics, any side can be 'spun' to appear great or rotten. Is this 'spin' correct? If so, the legal, tax-paying American people are, decidedly, being bitch-slapped.

http://www.forthecause.us/media/ftc-video-CNN-AmnestyBillsWorstProvisions_070523.wmv



I'm not as up to date on illegal immigration legislation in the United States as I probably should be as a Californian, but if what Dobbs is saying is correct, then my intuition tells me that the bill won't see the light of day in its current form.

Edited by - GHcool on 06/24/2007 18:34:51
Go to Top of Page

turrell 
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "

Posted - 06/25/2007 :  05:48:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The bill as written is dead. The problem is the is an economic need for this labor. If their weren't an economic need, this labor would not come here. Lou Dobbs, Tom Tancredo, Pat Robertson - they all tell you that immigration is taking away our jobs but that simply isn't true - we are in the US at near natural unemployment - that is there will always be some unemployed becaus ethey are looking for new jobs or moving between jobs or temporarily out of work (and then there is the GHCool factor - people who want a break from jobs). The fact is there are jobs that immigrants are willing to take that most Americans are not at the current level of benefits and pay. The alternative is to legally move these jobs to mexico and South America through outsourcing, or make the jobs tand the workers legal, make them pay taxes and bring everything above board.
Go to Top of Page

Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"

Posted - 06/25/2007 :  14:14:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
As a general rule, immigration is good for the economy. So I guess people who think hard-working productive members of the community should be treated like criminals must be anti-capitalist and want to weaken our country.
Go to Top of Page

RockGolf 
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."

Posted - 06/25/2007 :  14:15:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I haven't opened the link of the wmv file, but as for Lou Dobbs, he has become a professional scarmonger and race-baiter. As an example, he frequently stated that "over 7,000 cases of leprosy" had been reported in the US in the last 3 years, and tried to link it to Mexican illegal immigration. See this New York Times article for the real facts, and how Dobbs weaseled around them.

quote:
The whole controversy involving Lou Dobbs and leprosy started with a �60 Minutes� segment a few weeks ago.

The segment was a profile of Mr. Dobbs, and while doing background research for it, a �60 Minutes� producer came across a 2005 news report from Mr. Dobbs�s CNN program on contagious diseases. In the report, one of Mr. Dobbs�s correspondents said there had been 7,000 cases of leprosy in this country over the previous three years, far more than in the past.

When Lesley Stahl of �60 Minutes� sat down to interview Mr. Dobbs on camera, she mentioned the report and told him that there didn�t seem to be much evidence for it.

�Well, I can tell you this,� he replied. �If we reported it, it�s a fact.�

With that Orwellian chestnut, Mr. Dobbs escalated the leprosy dispute into a full-scale media brouhaha. The next night, back on his own program, the same CNN correspondent who had done the earlier report, Christine Romans, repeated the 7,000 number, and Mr. Dobbs added that, if anything, it was probably an underestimate. A week later, the Southern Poverty Law Center � the civil rights group that has long been critical of Mr. Dobbs � took out advertisements in The New York Times and USA Today demanding that CNN run a correction.

Finally, Mr. Dobbs played host to two top officials from the law center on his program, �Lou Dobbs Tonight,� where he called their accusations outrageous and they called him wrong, unfair and �one of the most popular people on the white supremacist Web sites.�

We�ll get to the merits of the charges and countercharges shortly, but first it�s worth considering why, beyond entertainment value, all this matters. Over the last few years, Lou Dobbs has transformed himself into arguably this country�s foremost populist. It�s an odd role, given that he spent the 1980s and �90s buttering up chief executives on CNN, but he�s now playing it very successfully. He has become a voice for the real economic anxiety felt by many Americans.

The audience for his program has grown 72 percent since 2003, and CBS � yes, the same network that broadcasts �60 Minutes� � just hired him as a commentator on �The Early Show.� Many elites, as Mr. Dobbs likes to call them, despise him, but others see him as a hero. His latest book, �War on the Middle Class,� was a best seller and received a sympathetic review in this newspaper. Mario Cuomo has said Mr. Dobbs is �addicted to economic truth.�

Mr. Dobbs argues that the middle class has many enemies: corporate lobbyists, greedy executives, wimpy journalists, corrupt politicians. But none play a bigger role than illegal immigrants. As he sees it, they are stealing our jobs, depressing our wages and even endangering our lives.

That�s where leprosy comes in.

�The invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of many Americans,� Mr. Dobbs said on his April 14, 2005, program. From there, he introduced his original report that mentioned leprosy, the flesh-destroying disease � technically known as Hansen�s disease � that has inspired fear for centuries.

According to a woman CNN identified as a medical lawyer named Dr. Madeleine Cosman, leprosy was on the march. As Ms. Romans, the CNN correspondent, relayed: �There were about 900 cases of leprosy for 40 years. There have been 7,000 in the past three years.�

�Incredible,� Mr. Dobbs replied.

Mr. Dobbs and Ms. Romans engaged in a nearly identical conversation a few weeks ago, when he was defending himself the night after the �60 Minutes� segment. �Suddenly, in the past three years, America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy,� she said, again attributing the number to Ms. Cosman.

To sort through all this, I called James L. Krahenbuhl, the director of the National Hansen�s Disease Program, an arm of the federal government. Leprosy in the United States is indeed largely a disease of immigrants who have come from Asia and Latin America. And the official leprosy statistics do show about 7,000 diagnosed cases � but that�s over the last 30 years, not the last three.

The peak year was 1983, when there were 456 cases. After that, reported cases dropped steadily, falling to just 76 in 2000. Last year, there were 137.

�It is not a public health problem � that�s the bottom line,� Mr. Krahenbuhl told me. �You�ve got a country of 300 million people. This is not something for the public to get alarmed about.� Much about the disease remains unknown, but researchers think people get it through prolonged close contact with someone who already has it.

What about the increase over the last six years, to 137 cases from 76? Is that significant?

�No,� Mr. Krahenbuhl said. It could be a statistical fluctuation, or it could be a result of better data collection in recent years. In any event, the 137 reported cases last year were fewer than in any year from 1975 to 1996.

So Mr. Dobbs was flat-out wrong. And when I spoke to him yesterday, he admitted as much, sort of. I read him Ms. Romans�s comment � the one with the word �suddenly� in it � and he replied, �I think that is wrong.� He then went on to say that as far as he was concerned, he had corrected the mistake by later broadcasting another report, on the same night as his on-air confrontation with the Southern Poverty Law Center officials. This report mentioned that leprosy had peaked in 1983.

Of course, he has never acknowledged on the air that his program presented false information twice. Instead, he lambasted the officials from the law center for saying he had. Even yesterday, he spent much of our conversation emphasizing that there really were 7,000 cases in the leprosy registry, the government�s 30-year database. Mr. Dobbs is trying to have it both ways.

I have been somewhat taken aback about how shameless he has been during the whole dispute, so I spent some time reading transcripts from old episodes of �Lou Dobbs Tonight.� The way he handled leprosy, it turns out, is not all that unusual.

For one thing, Mr. Dobbs has a somewhat flexible relationship with reality. He has said, for example, that one-third of the inmates in the federal prison system are illegal immigrants. That�s wrong, too. According to the Justice Department, 6 percent of prisoners in this country are noncitizens (compared with 7 percent of the population). For a variety of reasons, the crime rate is actually lower among immigrants than natives.

Second, Mr. Dobbs really does give airtime to white supremacy sympathizers. Ms. Cosman, who is now deceased, was a lawyer and Renaissance studies scholar, never a medical doctor or a leprosy expert. She gave speeches in which she said that Mexican immigrants had a habit of molesting children. Back in their home villages, she would explain, rape was not as serious a crime as cow stealing. The Southern Poverty Law Center keeps a list of other such guests from �Lou Dobbs Tonight.�

Finally, Mr. Dobbs is fond of darkly hinting that this country is under attack. He suggested last week that the new immigration bill in Congress could be the first step toward a new nation � a �North American union� � that combines the United States, Canada and Mexico. On other occasions, his program has described a supposed Mexican plot to reclaim the Southwest. In one such report, one of his correspondents referred to a Utah visit by Vicente Fox, then Mexico�s president, as a �Mexican military incursion.�

When I asked Mr. Dobbs about this yesterday, he said, �You�ve raised this to a level that frankly I find offensive.�

The most common complaint about him, at least from other journalists, is that his program combines factual reporting with editorializing. But I think this misses the point. Americans, as a rule, are smart enough to handle a program that mixes opinion and facts. The problem with Mr. Dobbs is that he mixes opinion and untruths. He is the heir to the nativist tradition that has long used fiction and conspiracy theories as a weapon against the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, the Jews and, now, the Mexicans.

There is no denying that this country�s immigration system is broken. But it defies belief � and a whole lot of economic research � to suggest that the problems of the middle class stem from illegal immigrants. Those immigrants, remember, are largely non-English speakers without a high school diploma. They have probably hurt the wages of native-born high school dropouts and made everyone else better off.

More to the point, if Mr. Dobbs�s arguments were really so good, don�t you think he would be able to stick to the facts? And if CNN were serious about being �the most trusted name in news,� as it claims to be, don�t you think it would be big enough to issue an actual correction?


Go to Top of Page

Stalean 
"Back...OMG"

Posted - 06/25/2007 :  15:00:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I'm not up-to-minute on this issue either, but taking what Lou Dobbs is describing isn't a matter of whether there is a need for immigrants in the U.S. labor force or that they're not very hard-working, but that the way the legislation is/was written would be a nightmare for 1) our legal system, e.g. amnesty for gang members, and 2) degrade our system of government, e.g. Americans paying taxes for Mexicans to stay in their own country! What's that about?


Edited by - Stalean on 06/25/2007 15:32:41
Go to Top of Page

Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."

Posted - 06/25/2007 :  15:17:21  Show Profile  Reply with Quote


The "7000 cases of leprosy" sounds rather like the style of a certain Junior Senator from Wisconsin.

Immediately you know this guy is an integrity-free zone.


Go to Top of Page

Sal[Au]pian 
"Four ever European"

Posted - 06/25/2007 :  15:22:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown

As a general rule, immigration is good for the economy. So I guess people who think hard-working productive members of the community should be treated like criminals must be anti-capitalist and want to weaken our country.

Yep, immigrants are dynamic, hard-working, resourceful and flexible. That's on top of the fact that they're prepared to do jobs that a country's existing residents often won't deign to do.
Go to Top of Page

MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"

Posted - 06/25/2007 :  17:54:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
They do the jobs Americans don't want to do because the pay is shit and often well below the legal minimum wage. I hate the idea that the're "just doing jobs Americans don't want."

And quite frankly, they are treated like criminals because that is in fact what they are. Let me state that I am in now way demonizing all immigrants (I'm second-generation myself), or even demonizing illegal immigrants. In their situation, I would certainly be doing the same. I do not advocate revoking their human rights. But they are breaking the law, a law that's there for a reason. Before you can tell me that illegal immigrants shouldn't be treated like criminals, I need to hear a good reason for immigration laws to be removed.

The leprosy thing, of course, is stupid, and I'm kind of amused that leprosy was the disease they chose. I hope they're accused of carrying The Plague next.
Go to Top of Page

Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"

Posted - 06/25/2007 :  19:08:45  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
They do the jobs Americans don't want to do because the pay is shit and often well below the legal minimum wage. I hate the idea that the're "just doing jobs Americans don't want."


If you're suggesting that they're unfair competition for legal workers and lower the average wages, there's no real evidence that's the case. Most studies have shown that the United States economy consistantly grows to accomodate the growing workforce. While it does happen occassionally that someone gets let go in favor of "cheaper labor," in the long run, it means more jobs for EVERYBODY.

quote:
But they are breaking the law, a law that's there for a reason.


What's the reason? Don't say, "security," because we could have just as much "security" without keeping the number of legal immigrants (and available Green Cards) so artificially low. The reason these people are coming here illegally to work is simply because they're not able to come here legally to work.

quote:
Before you can tell me that illegal immigrants shouldn't be treated like criminals, I need to hear a good reason for immigration laws to be removed.


I already did. I said immigration is good for the economy. People come here, they get a job, they earn money...and they start buying stuff. They have to buy themselves food, clothes, and housing. That means the money they earned is getting pumped right back into the economy, and since the poor spend a much higher percentage of their income than the rich, virtually every penny they earn gets spent. That creates new jobs. And yes, they're paying taxes, too...in the form of sales taxes, property taxes paid by their landlords (passed on the tenants as part of the rent), and usually, Federal Social Security/Medicare and Income taxes.

See, this isn't kindergarten where we all whine, "that's not fair, he cut the line!" It's so pointless to waste time and resources worrying about the people that are contributing to our economy but "broke the law" in order to do it. Shouldn't what's best for America come first? We've all gotten those emails with lists of "crazy, wacky laws" that don't get inforced anymore...but they're still laws. What is it about an immigration law that we MUST enforce it, whether it's in our best interests or not? And y'know, what's so funny is that part of the bill would make it so much easier to hire guest workers, making it easier for foreigners to work here LEGALLY, which might reduce the number of new illegals in the future. And we're blocking it because first we need to get rid of the illegals? Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

Talk to almost ANY corporate employer, especially in the technology sector, and ask them what they think about this issue. Almost all of them will tell you the same thing: our immigration laws are INSANE. You've got huge corporations with TONS of jobs to fill, and there isn't enough qualified talent here to fill them all. They'd love to hire more legal immigrants - people that would be setting down roots here, buying homes, raising families, BECOMING AMERICANS - but it's so hard, because the amount of paperwork you have to go through to get someone a Green Card is just unreal, and there's a set number per year and once that quota's filled, that's it.

Meanwhile, people sit around wondering why so many tech jobs are going overseas. Jeez, you think Dell and EMC like the idea of handing part of their business over to some fly-by-night company in New Delhi where they have limited control over the production process? Think again! They'd much keep those jobs in America, but our immigration laws prevent it. So you should be THANKING that immigrant who stayed here illegally when his F1 student visa expired and is working illegally as a technology consultant using a fake SSN...that's one less job shipped overseas.
Go to Top of Page

Stalean 
"Back...OMG"

Posted - 06/25/2007 :  19:49:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Posts can become rather heated when discussing legislation/politics, and I'm not saying anyone has, so far, but just a reminder to keep the topic focused on the issues and try to be nice with your replies. We are all trying to learn, and to do that we must listen to all sides. Thanks.
Go to Top of Page

MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"

Posted - 06/25/2007 :  23:13:30  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I just spent an hour figuring out how to respond to Downtown, because I needed to figure out 1) what my position was, and 2) what Downtown thought my position was. I may have phrased my response badly, I want to stress that I'm not against immigration (again, second-generation) and that I'm well-aware of how hard it is to get into this country legally. But I think the confusion springs from the fact that we have splintered into two different discussions, #1 Those Goddamn Mexicans� and #2 whether to let in more immigrants total. Assuming the answer to #2 is "Yes," would that solve the problem of #1? If we loosened the floodgates on legal immigration, we'd still have the option of picking and choosing who we want in this country, right? I have to believe we'd still filter out a lot of the Mexicans in favor of the jillions of people who want to get in from China, India, the Phillipines, etc, so that we can have the best and brightest we can possibly get, even for menial labor jobs. Or is the idea to give these jobs to the Mexicans because we can't keep them out anyway and this way we can screen them for leprosy? I'm writing this off the cuff without research, so feel free to correct me in any way.
Go to Top of Page

Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"

Posted - 06/25/2007 :  23:52:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
A lot of the unskilled laborers coming in illegally in the Southwest end up as migrant farmworkers, which is seasonal work. That could easily be covered by the Guest Workers provision of the proposed bill, which would give all those hypothetical guest workers a luxury they don't have as undocumented immigrants: they could easily go home again when the work is done. Once an illegal is here, they're here permanently because they know if they leave the United States they might never be able to get back in again. As guest workers, they can come and go as work is available for them, which would allow them to do there part to boost our economy without taking Americans' jobs when they get scarce...and they'd be covered by labor laws, too, so they'd earn minimum wage (in theory...don't hold your breath, but that's something you need to blame the employers for, not the workers).

Think of it this way: when "pro-working man liberals" and "corporate interests" President Bush are in favor of the same bill, that should tell us all something. In blocking this bill and not supporting their President, the GOP is resorting to classic "divide and conquer" politics by appealing to the uglier side of peoples' fears, especially ignorant people. And it's really not in this country's best interests.

People looking for work and "the American Dream" have been entering the United States illegally for over 200 years. We haven't run out of jobs - or space - yet, and it doesn't look like we will any time soon. Anyone who's willing to work should be welcome here.
Go to Top of Page

Stalean 
"Back...OMG"

Posted - 06/28/2007 :  23:53:43  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Senate Drives Stake Through Immigration
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer
44 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush's immigration plan to legalize as many as 12 million unlawful immigrants while fortifying the border collapsed in the Senate on Thursday, crushing both parties' hopes of addressing the volatile issue before the 2008 elections.

The Senate vote that drove a stake through the delicate compromise was a stinging setback for Bush, who had made reshaping immigration laws a central element of his domestic agenda. It could carry heavy political consequences for Republicans and Democrats, many of whom were eager to show they could act on a complex issue that has sparked deep public concern.

"Legal immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people and Congress' failure to act on it is a disappointment," a grim-faced Bush said after an appearance in Newport, R.I. "A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn't find common ground. It didn't work."

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., his party's lead negotiator on the bill, called the defeat "enormously disappointing for Congress and for the country." But, he added: "We will be back. This issue is not going away."

Still, key lawmakers in both parties predicted that further action on the contentious issue was unlikely this year, dooming its prospects as the political strains of a crowded presidential contest get louder.

"I believe that until another election occurs, or until something happens in the body politic, that what occurred today was fairly final," said Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., the GOP chairman.

"I don't see where the political will is there for this issue to be dealt with," said Martinez, a crafter of the bill.

On the other side of the Capitol, House Democratic leaders signaled they had little appetite for taking up an issue that bitterly divides both parties and has tied the Senate in knots for weeks.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who chairs the Judiciary subcommittee that was to draft a House version of the bill, said the Senate's "inability to move forward effectively ends comprehensive immigration reform efforts" for the next year and a half.

"The Senate voted for the status quo," the California Democrat said in a statement.

Already Thursday, the vote had prompted a round of partisan finger-pointing. Howard Dean, the Democratic Party chairman, called it "a reminder of why the American people voted Republicans out in 2006 and why they'll vote against them in 2008."

The measure was the product of a liberal-to-conservative alliance led by Kennedy and Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., that forged an immigration compromise designed to withstand challenges from the left and right.

They advocated the resulting measure as an imperfect but necessary fix to the current system, in which millions of illegal immigrants use forged documents or lapsed visas to live and work in the United States. It paired the Democratic goal of legalizing those millions with the Republican desire to fortify the border and prevent undocumented workers from getting jobs.

Ultimately, though, what came to be known as their "grand bargain" commanded only lukewarm support among key constituencies in both parties, which was no match for the vehement and vocal opposition of Republican conservatives who derided it as amnesty.

"The end result was a blanket that was too small to cover everyone," said Tamar Jacoby, an analyst at the conservative Manhattan Institute who was a strong supporter. "By its nature, because it was a compromise, it was hard to muster intense support. But the opposition was very intense."

Conservative foes' were among the loudest voices during the debate, led by Sens. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and David Vitter, R-La. Their views were amplified by talk radio TV hosts who repeatedly attacked the bill and urged listeners to flood Congress with calls, faxes and e-mails.

The conservatives hailed the demise of the bill as a fitting death of an effort that had thwarted the will of the American people. They faulted Bush and their own party for trying to push through a measure that lacked public support and placed Republicans in a politically tough spot.

"They made a big mistake. I think the president's approach didn't work," Sessions said. Republicans "need to be careful we don't walk into such an adverse circumstance again. This did not work out well. Our own members were placed in difficult positions."

Bush made an unusually personal appeal for passage of the legislation, appearing at a luncheon with Senate Republicans earlier this month to urge them to put aside their skepticism. He dispatched Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, as well as his top policy aides, to spend hours in Capitol Hill meetings with senators over a period of months to craft and then help push through the deal.

Advocates of the bill said lawmakers would pay a price for their inability to deal with the issue.

"Immigrant workers and families will continue to live in fear, die in the desert, and be subject to exploitation. Local communities will continue to be roiled by federal inaction and local ordinances. Voters will continue to ask why their elected leaders seem incapable of solving tough problems," said Frank Sharry, the executive director of the National Immigration Forum, one of several liberal groups that was pushing hard for passage of the measure despite misgivings about key elements of the bill.

The bill's Senate supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate.

Voting to allow the bill to proceed by ending debate were 33 Democrats, 12 Republicans and independent Joe Lieberman, Conn. Voting to block the bill by not limiting debate were 37 Republicans, 15 Democrats and independent Bernard Sanders, Vt. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., who has been absent from the Senate all year due to an illness, did not vote.

All of the Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate voted to end debate and advance the bill. Among the Republican candidates, only Sen. John McCain of Arizona voted to keep the measure alive. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., at first voted with McCain, but switched his vote when it was clear the bid to end debate would fail.
___

The bill is S 1639.

Go to Top of Page

GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."

Posted - 06/29/2007 :  04:54:10  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by turrell

Lou Dobbs, Tom Tancredo, Pat Robertson - they all tell you that immigration is taking away our jobs but that simply isn't true - we are in the US at near natural unemployment - that is there will always be some unemployed becaus ethey are looking for new jobs or moving between jobs or temporarily out of work (and then there is the GHCool factor - people who want a break from jobs).



Um... I think I'm ready to be off of my break. I actually had an interview today that went really well, but they said they wouldn't need me for another two months or so.
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Send Topic to a Friend
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
The Four Word Film Review Fourum © 1999-2024 benj clews Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000