Lou Dobbs for President?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I'd consider voting for him on the basis of the editorial below - of course he's just summarizing the opinion of 99.9% of American citizens out there (which Bush long stopped giving a crap about, never mind that whole nonsense about "constituency"):

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/12/Dobbs.June13/index.html



Dobbs: Give it a rest, Mr. President



NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Bush is building his legacy, adding another unfortunate line of hollow bravado to his rhetorical repertoire. To "Mission accomplished," "Bring it on," "Wanted: Dead or alive," and of course, "I earned ... political capital, and now I intend to spend it," he has added "I'll see you at the bill signing," referring to his own ill-considered push for so-called comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

Bush emerged from a midday meeting with Republican senators on Capitol Hill to declare, "We've got to convince the American people this bill is the best way to enforce our border."

No, Mr. President, someone you trust and respect must convince you that kind of tortured reasoning should never be exposed before cameras and microphones. Isn't there anyone in this administration with the guts to say, "Give it a rest, Mr. President"?

Sen. Jeff Sessions came close when he said, "He needs to back off." This president desperately needs to be reminded that he is the president of all Americans and not just of corporate interests and socio-ethnocentric special interest groups.

In what other country would citizens be treated to the spectacle of the president and the Senate focusing on the desires of 12 million to 20 million people who had crossed the nation's borders illegally, committed document fraud, and in many cases identity theft, overstayed their visas and demanded, not asked, full forgiveness for their trespasses?

Illegal aliens and their advocates, both liberal and conservative, possess such an overwhelming sense of entitlement that they demand not only legal status, but also that the government leave the borders wide open so that other illegals could follow as well, while offering not so much as an "I'm sorry" or a "Thank you."

This bill would be disastrous public policy and devastate millions of American workers and their families, taxpayers and any semblance of national security. Yet even in defeat, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, one of the reform bill's chief architects, declared: "Doing nothing is totally unacceptable." Like the senator, Bush says the status quo is unacceptable.

The president and the senator are wrong. It is the sham legislation they support that is totally unacceptable. But if Bush and Kennedy sincerely desire resolution to our illegal immigration and border security crises, I'd like to try to help. But a word of caution, if I may, to our elected officials: Resolution of these crises will require honesty, directness and an absolute commitment to the national interest and the common good of our citizens. Here are what I consider to be the essential guiding principles for any substantive reform:

First, fully secure our borders and ports. Without that security, there can be no control of immigration and, therefore, no meaningful reform of immigration law.

Second, enforce existing immigration laws, and that includes the prosecution of the employers of illegal aliens. As Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, put it, illegal employers are the magnet that draws illegal aliens across our border. Enforcing the law against illegal employers and illegal aliens at large in the country will mean bolstering, in all respects, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Third, the government should fund, equip and hire the people necessary to man the Citizenship and Immigration Services. To do so will ensure that the agency is capable of fully executing and administering lawful immigration into the United States and eliminating the shameful backlog of millions of people who are seeking legal entry into this country.

Those three steps are necessary to the security of the nation and the effective administration and enforcement of existing immigration laws. Those steps should be considered non-negotiable conditions precedent to any change or reform of existing immigration law.

At the same time, the president and Congress should order exhaustive studies of the economic, social and fiscal effects of the leading proposals to change immigration law, and foremost in their consideration should be the well-being of American workers and their families.

The president and Congress should begin the process of thoughtful reform of our immigration laws. Public hearings should be held throughout the nation. The American people should be heard in every region of the country, and fact-finding should be rigorous and thorough. The process will be time-consuming and demand much of our congressmen and senators, their staffs and relevant executive agencies.

The importance of securing borders and ports and reforming our immigration laws is profound, and that security is fundamental to the future of our nation. That future can be realized only with a complete commitment to a comprehensive legislative process of absolute transparency and open public forums in which our elected officials hear the voices of the people they represent. American citizens deserve no less.

[Rick Lee]

Concur 100% with this one, though Lou can be a bit of a demagogue at times. It's nice to see CNN has given him so much more running space since they fired him, watched their rating sink and then begged him to come back.

[Moneyguy1]

I like Lou. He seems to be very measured and thoughtful about issues....unlike so many other of the "analysts" (or pundits and 'bloviators')

[Jim Richards]

agreed

[Jim727]

Go Lou!

[nostatic]

"First, fully secure our borders and ports. Without that security, there can be no control of immigration and, therefore, no meaningful reform of immigration law."

Can someone tell me what that entails though? Nice words, but what does it mean?

[Jim727]

Originally posted by nostatic
"First, fully secure our borders and ports. Without that security, there can be no control of immigration and, therefore, no meaningful reform of immigration law."

Can someone tell me what that entails though? Nice words, but what does it mean?

Simply stated - everyone is required to enter through a Port of Entry with the entrant passing through Immigration to ensure they have a valid entry visa or be entitled to refugee status. Every non-citizen while in the U.S. must posses a passport issued by their country of citizenship. No passport - no entry. No visa - no entry. Being in the country without required documentation which demonstrates legal status and duration of visit is subject to arrest and deportation. It isn't rocket science.

Just like every civilized country I've ever visited.

[scottmandue]

Originally posted by nostatic
"First, fully secure our borders and ports. Without that security, there can be no control of immigration and, therefore, no meaningful reform of immigration law."

Can someone tell me what that entails though? Nice words, but what does it mean?

Lots and lots of people... if we can patrol our freeways and highways by air why not patrol the boarders with cheap air planes or blimps? Then have them report by radio to ground forces. This would also be a good application of unmanned surveillance aircraft.

Same with the ports... we are going to need a bunch more people to check every ship coming into our ports without killing our economy by slowing trade.

[nostatic]

what about people who don't enter through a "port of entry"? Do we build a fence the whole length of our border?

[Neilk]

Originally posted by nostatic
...Do we build a fence the whole length of our border?

Yes and I notice a slight accent in your voice Herr Nostatic, let me see your papers.

[nostatic]

these are not the droids you're looking for...

[Jim727]

Originally posted by nostatic
what about people who don't enter through a "port of entry"? Do we build a fence the whole length of our border?

Well, normally the action taken would be proportional to the problem faced. In our case the flow is a torrent. Usually it would be sufficient to take appropriate action when someone runs afoul of the law (but we don't do that) or when they apply for employment (we don't do that either), or when they request taxpayer-provided services (nope, we don't do that), etc. Only as a last resort would a physical barrier be appropriate, but the nutcases in D.C. are trying to point to a wall as a solution which it isn't unless the normal and prudent actions I mentioned earlier are also implemented.

You know the political drill: it's more important to look like you're doing something than it is to actually do something.

[Rick Lee]

Just shoot a few illegal border crossers and the problem would dry up pretty fast. Then we could concentrate on deportations, starting with every person arrested for other stuff who turns out to be an illegal.

[on-ramp]

Why is it so difficult for them to secure the borders without strings attached? Just do it, for God's sake. Why argue about for years and years on end. 9/11 was in 2001 . Hello? anybody home ?

[on-ramp]

Originally posted by Rick Lee
Just shoot a few illegal border crossers and the problem would dry up pretty fast. Then we could concentrate on deportations, starting with every person arrested for other stuff who turns out to be an illegal.

+1.

I am personally offended when I see Spanish everywhere, to accommodate the millions of illegals in our country. This is America. Learn to read and write the language or get the F out.

[Jim727]

When I was a "guest worker" in Germany it was considered my responsibility to learn German or obtain my own translations. The taxpayer was not expected to foot the bill when government services were required, and businesses did not make a big deal of having employees on staff with English skills - even though the Europeans, in general, are far more language literate than we are.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Rick Lee
Just shoot a few illegal border crossers and the problem would dry up pretty fast. Then we could concentrate on deportations, starting with every person arrested for other stuff who turns out to be an illegal.

psst! Rick, I think this might be a hyperbole example for Supe

[Rick Lee]

No Todd, I'm serious.

[nostatic]

you are personally willing to stand at the border and shoot an unarmed woman or child running across the desert?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally posted by scottmandue
Lots and lots of people... if we can patrol our freeways and highways by air why not patrol the boarders with cheap air planes or blimps? Then have them report by radio to ground forces. This would also be a good application of unmanned surveillance aircraft.

Same with the ports... we are going to need a bunch more people to check every ship coming into our ports without killing our economy by slowing trade.

Probably because some lawyer would sue the government for "racial profiling" and the illegal would end up with a 100 million dollar settlement.