Posted under Election 2012 & Immigration
WorldNetDaily has the story:
Twice during the interview, Dobbs mentioned plans to legalize millions of illegal aliens in America, saying “we need the ability to legalize illegal immigrants under certain conditions.”
“What isn’t working is a penalty to those who are in this country illegally for whom we can both be building a bridge to the future in which there is legalization and at the same time constructing an environment in which everyone is clear and unequivocal about the need for border security and a regulated flow of immigration,” Dobbs told Telemundo.
Does this mean Dobbs is running for NJ Senate, or has he made the CFR payroll?
Whatever the reason, Dobbs just committed political seppuku on TV. Dobbs’s base won’t give support, and the media will accuse of “extremism”.
Cthulu for president! Why choose the lesser evil?
RedPhillips on 27 Nov 2009 at 12:31 am #
What a joke!
The Western Confucian on 27 Nov 2009 at 2:35 am #
If I were talking to a hot Hispanic chick, I’d sell out, too.
But seriously, I don’t really see this as selling out, rather as a rational acceptance that you can’t put toothpaste back into the tube, so to speak. He did emphasize “under certain conditions.” Border control seems a rational place to begin.
My top issue is the restoration of the Republic and the dismantling of the Empire, so Mr. Dobbs earned my respect with his recent calls to bring the troops home not only from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from Germany, Japan, and Korea, where I live.
Kirt Higdon on 27 Nov 2009 at 5:29 am #
I don’t think Dobbs is “selling out”. If he is, what’s the pay-off since this can’t possibly benefit him politically? There are only three alternatives to dealing with the millions to tens of millions of illegal immigrants who reside in the US. 1] Expel them all. This probably cannot be done and even the attempt would ignite a civil war throughout large areas of the country. 2] Maintain the status quo. This at least has the merit of offering a very long term solution to the problem of illegality. Immigration will taper off (actually already is tapering off) with the decline of birthrates in Latin American and other source countries and as the relative and perhaps absolute decline in US living standards makes immigration to here less attractive. Resident aliens and their citizen offspring would gradually be absorbed. Or 3] Legalize the vast majority of those here and seek to deport only bad actors. This is the best solution and what Dobbs is now advocating, combined with control of the border and channeling of immigrants and visitors through easier to control ports of entry.
Weaver on 27 Nov 2009 at 5:59 am #
Mr. Guzzardi at VDARE:
It sounds like a double standard to me. Operation Wetback was a success, albeit dealing with fewer people.
Simply enforcing the laws would drastically reduce the number. Lacking jobs, many illegals would return home, no?
RedPhillips on 27 Nov 2009 at 6:10 am #
WC and KH, No! No! No! he says while stamping his feet. I don’t think that all the current illegals can be “rounded up,” certainly not easily. But we do not want to legalize them because that sets them on a path to become voting citizens, citizens who will invariably vote for liberal Dems. They need to stay in their current illegal status and be sent home if apprehended. If not apprehended then they remain illegal without the possibility of becoming voting citizens. No rounding up is necessary. What is the problem with this strategy? We need a moratorium on legal immigration and any form of amnesty would by definition not be a moratorium.
S.L. Toddard on 27 Nov 2009 at 1:03 pm #
“They need to stay in their current illegal status and be sent home if apprehended. If not apprehended then they remain illegal without the possibility of becoming voting citizens”
That’s what Buchanan recommends, and I agree. Deport all illegals that pop up on the radar in our criminal justice systems. Seal the border with a border wall. Prosecute all businesses that hire illegals.
Kirt Higdon on 27 Nov 2009 at 4:12 pm #
So basically, Dr. Phillips, you agree with the second alternative I mention, maintaining the status quo. Even the moratorium on legal immigration which you propose is coming into effect since the economic decline of the US makes immigration even less attractive for legals than for illegals. I’d never propose immigration policy on how people are likely to vote; in fact there are few things I consider less important about any person. Still, about half of new citizens will vote for someone and if not for liberal democrats then for conservative republicans, which is just as bad and in fact indistinguishable as far as policy is concerned.
But in any event, you apparently don’t consider immigration much of a problem and I, for my part, don’t consider it a problem at all in itself. But it is not a make-or-break issue with me, so Dobbs’ emerging good sense on immigration are to me far less important than the stand he has taken against war and global imperialism. I’ve signed his on-line petition to bring US troops home from all foreign countries.
S.L. Toddard on 27 Nov 2009 at 5:13 pm #
“Dr. Phillips, you agree with the second alternative I mention, maintaining the status quo”
I don’t believe that’s correct. Dr. Phillips – don’t you favor sealing the border?
RedPhillips on 27 Nov 2009 at 9:26 pm #
Of course I don’t support the status quo. I support a moratorium on legal immigration, sealing the borders with a wall and enhanced security, and an end to birth right citizenship which is a misinterpretation of the Constitution anyway.
I don’t get the “we have to do something with the current illegals” objection. No we don’t. Why do we? That is a canard.
I’m not crazy about how “conservative” Republicans govern either, but it obviously matters how new immigrant citizens are going to vote. This is why immigration is really the number one issue. Because all the other changes we want rise or fall on stopping our demographic and cultural dissolution. Good luck getting limited government, cutting taxes, saving babies, or protecting marriage if the voting base continues to change in the current direction. There will be pockets of conservatism only in a sea of liberalism.
S.L. Toddard on 27 Nov 2009 at 10:02 pm #
I often wish I was one of these people who never think about politics, never read the news, and are completely unplugged from current events. It seems that the following is what is going to happen, that there is zero chance it won’t happen, and that the process that is unfolding is absolutely and literally inexorable: the corporate/political elites (CPE) that run this country will keep the borders open and flood America until Americans are a powerless minority, the new immigrants and their offspring will vote unwaveringly and perpetually to expand the power of our federal government (which is owned by our corporate/political elites), wealth will continue to be centralized away from the people and in the hands of those same elites, the federal government will continue to grow and usurp power from the increasingly powerless states and people, and the media (owned by the those same elites) and academia will continue to wage their wars against traditional America (religion, culture, government, society) until it is eradicated. They will win and we all will lose.
Am I wrong? Is it not that hopeless? Maybe it just seems so up here.
Weaver on 28 Nov 2009 at 12:12 am #
“They will win and we all will lose.”
You can’t have everything. You’ve just got to cut your expectations: put family first and start from there.
I’d cut it short there but I risk coming across as snooty… My unnamed solution is future secession.
Sean Scallon on 28 Nov 2009 at 5:59 pm #
Politics can do strange things to a man. Typical.
Bede on 29 Nov 2009 at 11:08 pm #
Kirt Kigdon leaves out a 4th option, and possibly most viable: attrition. Make it difficult for them to live here (e.g. workforce raids, no free healthcare, etc.), and they will leave.
Bede on 29 Nov 2009 at 11:11 pm #
Dobbs has always given lip service to “comprehensive reform,” but only when “all conditions are met,” which is unlikely. In other words, I can’t see him supporting amnesty in the foreseeable future.
Weaver on 30 Nov 2009 at 2:34 am #
Even if this isn’t a new position, politically he’s got to oppose “comprehensive reform”.
As you point out, attrition is a very reasonable and safe solution.
S.L. Toddard on 30 Nov 2009 at 1:36 pm #
“My unnamed solution is future secession.”
Joe Sobran made an excellent point about secession: “Peaceful secession was a state’s ultimate constitutional defense against Federal tyranny. Without it, the Federal Government has been able to claim new powers for itself while stripping the states of their powers. Lincoln neither foresaw nor intended this when he crushed secession. But today the states are helpless when, for example, the Federal Courts suddenly declare that no state may constitutionally protect unborn children from violent death in the womb. If even one state had been able to secede, the U.S. Supreme Court would never have dared provoke it to do so by issuing such an outrageous ruling, with no support in the Constitution.”
Was there much talk of secession down south during the tumult of the 60s?
Deportation on 27 Dec 2009 at 2:08 am #
Deportation using the funds we sieze from the illegal gains gotten from illegals while illegally here . You never reward criminal behaviour … the point we missed here was the rule of law. Government should not be able to pick and choose which laws to enforce. If the people want no laws then “we the people ” can change them. Deportation deportation deportation..