Video: Dobbs unloads on race-baiting amnesty shill over new AZ immigration law

posted at 12:46 pm on September 9, 2007 by Allahpundit

From Thursday’s show. The shill in question is Democratic legislator Steve Gallardo, who’s convinced himself that a law cracking down on employers for hiring illegal aliens is actually a law cracking down on employers for hiring American citizens who happen to look like, ahem, “brown-skinned illegal immigrants.” As you’ll see, Dobbs has had fully enough of that rhetorical sleight of hand. Haven’t we all.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Thank You Lou Dobbs.
Scary that people of Gallardo’s intellect gain the positions that they do…ugh..

bridgetown on September 9, 2007 at 12:56 PM

How about a comprehensive boot in your as$ son.

Static on September 9, 2007 at 12:56 PM

Wow. Ole Lou ran that Steve Gallardo through the grinder a time or two…

Zorro on September 9, 2007 at 12:58 PM

Go Lou!

amerpundit on September 9, 2007 at 1:00 PM

Note to Gallardo:

a)Tap three times if your gray matter is still working..

b)Pull foot out of mouth..

Now… can you please answer the question?

Mcguyver on September 9, 2007 at 1:05 PM

He’ll only support employer penalties if they’re federal. But they refuse to do it at the federal level, so he knows he’s safe.

Laura on September 9, 2007 at 1:05 PM

Now… can you please answer the question?

Mcguyver on September 9, 2007 at 1:05 PM

¿Gallardo, entiéndame o no?

Mcguyver on September 9, 2007 at 1:11 PM

Gallardo, usted es muy estúpido.

Mcguyver on September 9, 2007 at 1:13 PM

If your intellect doesn’t carry you farther than that, we’re going to have a very short conversation, aren’t we?
Classic Lou Dobbs

Think about how pissed off you get when someone calls you a “racist” just because you disgree with their politics. We need to turn the tables and start calling these people “racists, bigots and traitors.” It is the height of narcissism, selfishness and disloyalty to ignore your own nation’s sovereignty.

I choose nationality over race or ethnicity. Support America or get smacked backwards into your seat.

The Race Card on September 9, 2007 at 1:14 PM

Support America or get smacked backwards into your seat.

The Race Card on September 9, 2007 at 1:14 PM

Great bumper sticker. And would piss off the libs to no end. I have this magnet on the back of my car that says GOD,Country, Capitalism. I get all kinds of grief for that

JiangxiDad on September 9, 2007 at 1:18 PM

Did he say, “unlegal”?

d1carter on September 9, 2007 at 1:22 PM

Ok…..
I have a question.
My arms are brown. My legs are brownish but lighter than my arms. My chest and stomach are white as a sheet.
(No! I will not submit photographic evidence.)
So according to Mr. Gallardo does that make a me a target from both sides?
Or does it make me some kind of muticulteral mutt?
…OR does it just mean I have a farmers tan?

-Wasteland Man.

WastelandMan on September 9, 2007 at 1:30 PM

Dobbs reminded Gallardo that he is supposed to be interested in the people of Arizona. Good stuff.

RushBaby on September 9, 2007 at 1:30 PM

Employers will be held higher standard . . . the horror!
Geez.

least1 on September 9, 2007 at 1:34 PM

I’m no Lou Dobbs fan, but I gotta applaud him for this… especially the way he refused to be bullied by the race card play.

petefrt on September 9, 2007 at 1:34 PM

There’s nothin’ better on a Sunday afternoon than to see a shameless race-baiter get a smack-down. If only more people would react like that when the debate — on any issue — turns to “you don’t like people with dark skin.” Just smack ‘em down with both barrels soon as they say it. Eventually, they’ll stop.

Rational Thought on September 9, 2007 at 1:36 PM

Sweet. Just don’t see enough of this.

gator70 on September 9, 2007 at 1:36 PM

Semi-rhetorical question: just how in the world do smug, self-satisfied, smirking, brainless jackasses like this Gallardo guy get elected? Of course, I just described a goodly portion of the U.S. Congress, but still…geez.

Insomniac on September 9, 2007 at 1:44 PM

So no matter what the issue if you do not agree with anyone who’s skin is “brown” then you are a “Racist”. Low

ronsfi on September 9, 2007 at 1:47 PM

This so typifies the style of those who have only emotion and falsehoods to back up their debate. They’ll say something so outrageous (or even blatantly false) that the host has to interrupt/respond to it. Then the moonbat speaker will say, “Are you gonna let me speak? You’re interrupting my point”
Voila! Instant victim! Shut down by the rethuglikkan/christianist/lackey of halliburton man!

BTW, he did say, “unlegal”.

least1 on September 9, 2007 at 1:49 PM

You mean illegal immigration is not racism? Is that what Mr. Dobbs is saying? Well I’ll be damned.

Wade on September 9, 2007 at 1:51 PM

I’m not always 100% with Lou, but I sure am on this one! Nice smackdown. If I have to hear one more retarded legislator use that all encompassing “comprehensive reform” phrase, I’m gonna explode.

commonsensehoosier on September 9, 2007 at 1:56 PM

There must be an I.Q. cutoff for the Dhemocrat party. Nobody above an I.Q. of 75 is welcome.

Tally ho to Lou Dobbs! I’m rubbing my eyes ’cause there’s a CNN on the screen. Wow!

“Well, happy days!”

Mojave Mark on September 9, 2007 at 1:57 PM

This topic I joined Hot Air.

I have first hand knowledge of how easy it is for illegals to get the ID’s needed to get a job.

I recently worked as a manager for a national restaurant chain. One day I got a call from the payroll department telling that the SS# used by a recent hire was already being used by someone else. They ask me to confirm the number. When I tried the employee walked out the door, never to be seen again. This scared the company into action.

The company contacted the SS Administration and got us an 800 that we could call to confirm the owner of a particular SS#. We would call for EVERY APPLICANT and give them the SS# and name we had been supplied then they told us it matched or didn’t match the information they had. They wouldn’t tell us who the number was issued to only that it was or was not issued to our applicants name.

Over the years I actually had several people leave and come back, hoping I’d not recognize them, a week or two later with a different name and SS# and try again. By the way in my area it’s about $75 to get a state drivers license and SS Card. The copies are good enough to fool the majority of employers.

For me, this issue is about respecting the laws of MY COUNTRY. Nothing more nothing less. If you don’t like the laws don’t come here.

Take care all.

Bogeyfre on September 9, 2007 at 1:57 PM

Gallardo=Maroon

Christine on September 9, 2007 at 2:04 PM

Awesome smackdown. Lou is pretty knowlegeable about this open-borders insanity and obviously has a low tolerance for the BS these brainless amnesty shills spew.

infidel4life on September 9, 2007 at 2:04 PM

Dobbs=The Bomb

Christine on September 9, 2007 at 2:04 PM

The company contacted the SS Administration and got us an 800 that we could call to confirm the owner of a particular SS#. **We would call for EVERY APPLICANT and give them the SS# and name we had been supplied then they told us it matched or didn’t match the information they had. They wouldn’t tell us who the number was issued to only that it was or was not issued to our applicants name.

***I’ll be damned!!!

Chertoff, Toni Snow and et al, went on a media tour empathetically telling us that the employers don’t have the tools to confirm someone’s legal status….

NOW I’M HAVING TO COME UP WITH NEW ‘CUSS WORDS TO DESCRIBE THESE BASTARDS!!!!!!

Will some word smiths please help me?

I’m out of breath!!!

Mcguyver on September 9, 2007 at 2:06 PM

Did he say, “unlegal”?

d1carter on September 9, 2007 at 1:22 PM

Yes, he did. I was going to write up a comment suggesting that Rudy should consider adopting the term, but then I realized that Rudy’s point was that it’s not a crime to be in the country, uh, illegally, so in Rudy’s case perhaps the word, “immigrant” would be the most appropriate replacement for illegal alien.

FloatingRock on September 9, 2007 at 2:15 PM

Classic, it’s a racist law because the state has enacted it but if it was nation wide it would be ok. What a freaking tool. I wonder how he would feel about showing proof of citizenship before casting a vote. I think his job might be in jeopardy if that ever came to pass.

Mojack420 on September 9, 2007 at 2:17 PM

Lou … dude.

You crushed the amnesty crapweasel.

darwin on September 9, 2007 at 2:22 PM

Hats off to Mr. Dobbs…been telling myself to tune into his program but my t.v. hiccups when I hit cnn’s number.

Now if O’Reilly would have that much passion on the same subject instead of rationalizing “it’s the governments fault”. Yeah so, fix it…geeeeez

oldernslower on September 9, 2007 at 2:24 PM

The company contacted the SS Administration and got us an 800 that we could call to confirm the owner of a particular SS#. We would call for EVERY APPLICANT and give them the SS# and name we had been supplied then they told us it matched or didn’t match the information they had. They wouldn’t tell us who the number was issued to only that it was or was not issued to our applicants name.

Bogeyfre on September 9, 2007 at 1:57 PM

So it was just as simple as calling a toll-free number.

I share your frustration, mcguyver!

RushBaby on September 9, 2007 at 2:24 PM

Mr. Dobbs was only half right.

A cry of “Racist!” is never the last resort of the “amnesty shills”. It is always their first.

Because, like Mr. Gallardo, they have learned from experience that when you throw that particular verbal stink-bomb, afterward, no one will oppose you for fear of being metaphorically tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail.

It has become an immediate debate cut-off switch, and an automatic “win” button for those who don’t like the idea of national sovereignty. Or E Pluribus Unum, for that matter.

(They prefer that the many do not become one, because their motto is “divide and conquer”.)

Mr. Gallardo is even more disingenuous than the average. He attempted to use a “bait and switch” maneuver, to avoid taking action at the state level by booting it up to the Federal level where, I suspect, he believes that the fix is already in. Unfortunately for him, that trick has already been used, and by now people are wise to it. (Any con man would tell him, you never pull the same scam on the same mark twice. The second time around, they may have a cop in the next room.)

On the plus side, as Mr. Dobbs stated, if Mr. Gallardo’s “arguments” are the best his side has to offer, they are going to have problems convincing anyone but their own faithful of the “righteousness of their Cause”.

cheers

eon

eon on September 9, 2007 at 2:26 PM

JiangxiDad on September 9, 2007 at 1:18 PM

Nice sticker.

The Race Card on September 9, 2007 at 2:36 PM

I’m no Lou Dobbs fan, but I gotta applaud him for this… especially the way he refused to be bullied by the race card play.

And every freeking rep in the House and Senate better be taking notes. Good job Lou. Way to smack the whack-arrogant Lib around.

auspatriotman on September 9, 2007 at 2:45 PM


Oh! For crying out loud…

Lou Rocks!… sometimes…

Sultry Beauty on September 9, 2007 at 2:45 PM

Dobbs, you magnificent bastard!

gryphon202 on September 9, 2007 at 2:46 PM

Oh, and AP? “Race-bating amnesty shill?” You are too kind!

gryphon202 on September 9, 2007 at 2:47 PM

Part II

Under the current laws employers are not required to do what I described. The laws only requires that you see the documents and complete the I-9 document. The I-9 process is a farce. It did not and will not stop the employment of illegals

When we would call the SS Administration, remember this is the Federal Government, it would sometimes take 15-20 minutes to get the information. Because of the nature of the information only managers could make the call. Anyone who’s been a Restaurant Manager can tell you how tough it is to give up 15-20 minutes on hold while your working.

Keep in mind this does not solve the problem. Any person who has a legally obtained SS# can sell it to someone else. So long as they don’t work for the same company at the same time no one will know. Because only the companies payroll departments are going to notice it. No government agency will notice, or care, that an individual has worked for 5 maybe 10 or more companies in any given time frame.

We need a National Biometric ID program with a data base that can be accessed by employers to confirm the information. Yes I know this scares me too. Big Brother and all.

I believe that it can be done and more importantly, if you want to address this issue, must be done.

Take care all

Bogeyfre on September 9, 2007 at 2:58 PM

me at at 2:06 PM

empathetically emphatically, sorry.
In my anger I didn’t see that.

I share your frustration, mcguyver!
RushBaby at 2:24 PM

I have settled down a little bit….
but boy am I ANGRY!!!

I thought that I had never been angrier after Sean Hannity interviewed Toni Snow back on the radio in June, where Toni accused Sean of being condescending, when Sean was merely pointing out that Toni was condescending!!!

What made me so angry about that interview is that Toni was using their friendship/working relationship for his abusive superiority.

What happened to Toni’s skill in debating?

I guess the old axiom “be careful with whom you associate with……” is very true.

Mcguyver on September 9, 2007 at 2:58 PM

Under the current laws employers are not required to do what I described….
I believe that it can be done and more importantly, if you want to address this issue, must be done.

But the point is they can if they want to.

Mcguyver on September 9, 2007 at 3:01 PM

How utterly and completely refreshing!! Simple truth with passion!! Simple, clear and legitimate questions repeated until answers are given!! Blows away the competition every time it’s tried!

JellyToast on September 9, 2007 at 3:14 PM

“Oh for cry’in out load,”

that about sums up the whole mess. Steve Gallardo is a perfect example of moral relativism and missing the point.
Lets not make any definitive laws because it might hurt someone who looks a certain way? The mercey of the left is scary.

Irenaeus on September 9, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Most employers subscribe to:

“Don’t ask, don’t tell”.

Bogeyfre on September 9, 2007 at 3:18 PM

The shill in question is Democratic legislator Steve Gallardo, who’s convinced himself that a law cracking down on employers for hiring illegal aliens is actually a law cracking down on employers for hiring American citizens who happen to look like, ahem, “brown-skinned illegal immigrants.” As you’ll see, Dobbs has had fully enough of that rhetorical sleight of hand. Haven’t we all. — Allahpundit

What is this ? Is Allah signaling an approving tone concerning Lou Dobbs ? I suppose for today, and for today ONLY Mr. Dobbs will be given some benefit of the doubt, and not be mocked being that TODAY he is clearly on the right side of the issue. But I’m afraid as soon as Mr. Dobbs mentions anything about the NAU his status according to Allah will be back to one of those nutball North American Union Truthers. But at lease Mr. Dobbs will be in good company with a number of conservatives who’s credentials are above reproach, such as, Jerome Corsi, Phyllis Schlafly, Joseph Farah and Tom Tancredo, just to name a few.

Good job Lou, some of us think your a good guy every day of the week.

Maxx on September 9, 2007 at 3:21 PM

For the employers:

If the I-9′s are correctly completed and maintained they won’t be held responsible for hiring illegals. For that to happen the laws have to be changed.

Therefor as I said:

“Don’t ask, don’t tell”.

Take care all.

Bogeyfre on September 9, 2007 at 3:22 PM

Irenaeus on September 9, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Don’t be deluded into thinking that the amnesty shills have missed any point, they have their own agenda promoted by Mr. “Open Society Con Artist” himself, George Soros.

Buzzy on September 9, 2007 at 3:25 PM

“Why should people that look like me have to be held to a higher standard”

Please, pretty please, someone answer that remark with:

“Are you saying that illegal aliens look like you?”

That would lead him into the next question

“Are you admitting the majority of illegal aliens are Hispanic?”

Which could lead him to this statement

“Well I never see any non-Hispanics suing against English only laws”

Someone has to take the cultural aspect head on and not be ashamed of it.

Mitt has been the only candidate to come out strongly against santuary cities. Should he refute multiculturalism publically and promote English as the official language, strip the Civil Rights Act of the requirement to print voting material in other languages, he could be my candidate. As long as all other things are equal, foreign policy, econommic policy, appointing originalist judges, etc.; I would find it real hard not to vote for him. And I have been panting over Fred to get into the race for a long time.

Theworldisnotenough on September 9, 2007 at 3:27 PM

So no matter what the issue if you do not agree with anyone who’s skin is “brown” then you are a “Racist”. Low

ronsfi on September 9, 2007 at 1:47 PM

Idiots like this learned very well from those who USED to be in the most favored minority position. During the 80′s – 90′s, anyone who disagreed with anything any black said or did was branded a racist. Retards like sharpton and jackson were everywhere it seemed, drumming this home. Important issues, trivial issues, sports, anything was fair game, and weak-kneed Whites fell all over themselves to fall in line. The difference now is 9/11 combined with a term (racist) that has worn out it’s shelf life. No one cares anymore, and even the most wussified are sick and tired and are starting to say so out loud. This a**wipe is beneath contempt…

JWS on September 9, 2007 at 3:34 PM

The LEFT has to make everything into a racial issue because that’s all they’ve got. Democratic legislator Steve Gallardo’s attempt to make this Arizona law into a racial issue was clearly laughable, his argument was thinner than a see-through burka, obviously you can be a white man and still be an illegal alien, or any race for that matter. Lou Dobbs nailed Gallardo’s hide to the wall and you can bet Gallardo will be a laughingstock within the Arizona legislature for quite some time to come. That’s as it should be. I sure hope the citizens of Arizona remember this come election day, and if so, I believe Mr. Gallardo will find himself standing in the unemployment line.

Maxx on September 9, 2007 at 3:51 PM

But I’m afraid as soon as Mr. Dobbs mentions anything about the NAU his status according to Allah will be back to one of those nutball North American Union Truthers.

Maybe, just maybe.. he’ll tone down the: Fear The North American Union, rhetoric in order to attract trolls/traffic and instead bring the subject of open borders/illegals into open discussion…without implying a conspiracy or truther speak.

Suspicion is the companion of mean souls, and the bane of all good society –Thomas Paine, in Common Sense.
This was written in the 18th century!

The framers of our country put in all these checks and balances, one of which is open debate. And we in the 21st century have more opportunity, in real time, to keep tab on what is going on. And yet, we allow the conspirators to have a choke hold on the debate of borders and National sovereignty, which is a travesty!

Mcguyver on September 9, 2007 at 3:52 PM

Gallardo used a standard leftist line: “you need to come to the table”. Like “good-faith bargaining”, that phrase apparently means “concede certain points to my side in advance of any actual negotiation”. Unless you give up, you aren’t really ‘negotiating’ in their book.

Keep your eyes and ears open for these shopworn phrases, and when you hear them, stop the person saying them and tell them that you don’t buy into it. You have to challenge everything, especially the implicit assumptions that they try to sneak in under the logical radar.

The Monster on September 9, 2007 at 4:15 PM

We need a National Biometric ID program with a data base that can be accessed by employers to confirm the information. Yes I know this scares me too. Big Brother and all.

Employers generally know who is illegal. C’mon, they hire people who can’t even speak English and then they pretend like they don’t know they are illegal.

We need one simple law enforced to end illegal immigration:

Any business employing an illegal is fined $1,000/day. Then this bogus racist argument goes out the window. We target stationary businesses instead of chasing people and raiding homes.

Zach on September 9, 2007 at 4:24 PM

Mcguyver on September 9, 2007 at 2:06 PM

You might want to mention some dems names. There are plenty of them agreeing with Boosh on shamnesty.

Wade on September 9, 2007 at 4:51 PM

We need a National Biometric ID program with a data base that can be accessed by employers to confirm the information. Yes I know this scares me too. Big Brother and all.

Bogeyfre on September 9, 2007 at 2:58 PM

That’s exactly what we DON’T need. As Benjamin Franklin once said:

Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither – Benjamin Franklin

If you want to give all power to Big Brother, then say goodbye to freedom. There will be no aspect of your life that will go untouched. Terrorism doesn’t scare me at all compared to Big Brother. You will not be more secure after giving such power to government, but you will be a slave.

Maxx on September 9, 2007 at 4:59 PM

At least Dobbs put the blame for the attempted comprehensive travesty where it belonged, with the Pres. and with the Democrats.

Gallardo is typical of the racebaiting liberal open borders crowd, he supports border security and job enforcement with his mouth in public and he’s a slippery crapweasel that screws us all over in favor illegal migrants behind closed doors.

Speakup on September 9, 2007 at 5:05 PM

There’s nothin’ better on a Sunday afternoon than to see a shameless race-baiter get a smack-down. If only more people would react like that when the debate — on any issue — turns to “you don’t like people with dark skin.” Just smack ‘em down with both barrels soon as they say it. Eventually, they’ll stop.

Rational Thought on September 9, 2007 at 1:36 PM

I completely agree. My girlfriend works for a casino here in Arizona where she’s the assistant manager for their steakhouse and she gets the race card alot!

One time a black party of four came in wanting a table for four, she told them they would have to wait a bit as there were only tables for two available.

Anyway, the next party (a party of two) came up after them and were seated immediately, when the lady of the group of four saw it she made a comment to my girlfriend to the effect of “I see, I guess if we were white and not black we would have a table already.” My girlfriend (one of the least confrontational people I have ever know) said “excuse me but I’m very offended by your comment, you not being seated has nothing to do with your ethnicity at all, you requested a table for four and we don’t have any currently available, however if you like I can give you two seperate tables for two and seat you immediately.”

Of course this shut the woman up cold! More people need to stand up and do this when these “race baiters” throw out the race card for a couple of reasons; one they need to learn it doesn’t work and people will not be intimidated, and two when they throw out the race card with no justification in the future people will question their claim of discrimination and turn a deaf ear.

Liberty or Death on September 9, 2007 at 5:31 PM

As almost always is true:

racist – A statement of surrender during an argument. When two people or disputants are engaged in an acrimonious debate, the side that first says “Racist!” has conceded defeat. Synonymous with saying “Resign” during a chess game, or “Uncle” during a schoolyard fight. Originally, the term was meant to indicate that one side was accusing the other of being racist, but once it was noticed that people only resorted to this tactic when all other arguments had been exhausted, it acquired its new meaning of “indicating one’s own concession of defeat.”

Ed Driscoll on September 9, 2007 at 5:37 PM

Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither – Benjamin Franklin

I wondered what the context was in which he said it. (Turns out there’s some dispute if he is the author at all).

The actual quote is “Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.”

From the same source, it seems the context had to do with Indian attacks on settlers in Pennsylvania. The “giving up liberty” part seems to have to do with giving greater control to the Governor (who represented the English), as opposed to letting the PA Assembly (representing the colonists) try to deal with the problem.

If this interpretation is correct, then Franklin isn’t saying that it’s bad to give control to the gov’t in response to an outside emergency; he was choosing between the English or colonial gov’ts.

In today’s parallel, it seems Franklin would be willing to give our US gov’t greater ability and powers to stop terrorists. So not sure if Franklin can be used as an ally in the attempt to stop the use of a national ID card.

JiangxiDad on September 9, 2007 at 5:47 PM

Ed Driscoll on September 9, 2007 at 5:37 PM

Excellent. Except it’s not only used as a tactic when all other arguments have been exhausted. It’s just as likely to be used preemptively…

JWS on September 9, 2007 at 5:49 PM

So not sure if Franklin can be used as an ally in the attempt to stop the use of a national ID card.
JiangxiDad on September 9, 2007 at 5:47 PM

This call for a national ID card is so baseless and completely uncalled for.
And frankly…. a stupid argument from the amnesty proponents.

It is as simple as calling a Toll free number already set up by SS Administration:

The company contacted the SS Administration and got us an 800 that we could call to confirm the owner of a particular SS#. We would call for EVERY APPLICANT and give them the SS# and name we had been supplied then they told us it matched or didn’t match the information they had. They wouldn’t tell us who the number was issued to only that it was or was not issued to our applicants name.
Bogeyfre on September 9, 2007 at 1:57 PM

I don’t know about you…. but I really wonder what part of simple these stupid, arrogant, bloviating, condescending amnesty shills don’t understand!.
Their arguments really amount to a huge pile of post digested bovine feed. Fertilize the roses already.

Mcguyver on September 9, 2007 at 6:42 PM

Booyah! Go Lou!

Dark-Star on September 9, 2007 at 6:45 PM

Maxx on September 9, 2007 at 4:59 PM

While you were typing that, black helicopters were circling your house.

infidel4life on September 9, 2007 at 6:53 PM

This is not about race, it’s about the law, homeland security and greedy elite playing the poor against the poorer to make another copper coin. When you see the elite sending out the race baiters, you know their greed is out of control.

It’s time to put the employers in jail, cutoff sanctuary cities from the federal trough, fine the greedy owners of the businesses and build the fence. In time, illegal aliens will be running for the border or selling dope and stealing for a living.

saved on September 9, 2007 at 7:03 PM

I don’t know whether the AZ law requires employers to check all employees or potential employees in the same way. If it does so, fine, but if not, Gallardo has a point.

Big S on September 9, 2007 at 7:04 PM

infidel4life on September 9, 2007 at 6:53 PM

Yep… I hate it when that happens.

Maxx on September 9, 2007 at 7:06 PM

I don’t know whether the AZ law requires employers to check all employees or potential employees in the same way. If it does so, fine, but if not, Gallardo has a point.

Big S on September 9, 2007 at 7:04 PM

Obviously you were not paying attention to the debate here or you didn’t listen to the interview….. they were discussing the law passed by the majority in Arizona which goes into effect in January, which requires employers to verify employee’s legal status.

[sigh]

Why did I just waste my time responding to you?

Mcguyver on September 9, 2007 at 7:10 PM

the law passed by the majority in Arizona which goes into effect in January, which requires employers to verify employee’s legal status.

[sigh]

Why did I just waste my time responding to you?

Mcguyver on September 9, 2007 at 7:10 PM

I’m all for verification of legal status, but if the law places the burden of verification on the employer only, and does not stipulate that all employees must undergo the same checks for legal status, then it creates a disincentive for employers to hire Hispanics. I don’t know the finer details of the law, but that seems to be what Gallardo is arguing, albeit in a typiclly nutty Lefty way.

Big S on September 9, 2007 at 7:27 PM

[sigh]
Why did I just waste my time responding to you?
Mcguyver on September 9, 2007 at 7:10 PM

Ditto! However, here is the information, if anyone wants to learn the facts. Took all of 10 minutes with Google.

And it appears to be working:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0826sanctionsimpact08260.html

Surprise, surprise. Amazing what a little enforcement can do.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/48leg/1r/bills/hb2779c.htm

Sec. 3. Employer notice
On or before October 1, 2007, the department of revenue shall provide a notice to every employer that is required to withhold tax pursuant to title 43, chapter 4, Arizona Revised Statutes. The notice shall explain the requirements of title 23, chapter 2, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, as added by this act, including the following:

1. A new state law prohibits employers from intentionally employing an unauthorized alien or knowingly employing an unauthorized alien.

………….
5. Proof of verifying the employment authorization of an employee through the basic pilot program, as defined in section 23-211, Arizona Revised Statutes, as added by this act, will create a rebuttable presumption that an employer did not violate the new state law.
6. After December 31, 2007, every employer, after hiring an employee, is required to verify the employment eligibility of the employee through the basic pilot program, as defined in section 23-211, Arizona Revised Statutes, as added by this act.

fred5678 on September 9, 2007 at 7:29 PM

If HildaBeast gets the Dem nomination and Rudolf “Sanctuary City Mayor” Guliania gets the Republican nomination I will be hoping that Dobbs runs on a third party populist ticket so that I will have someone to vote for.

MB4 on September 9, 2007 at 7:42 PM

then it creates a disincentive for employers to hire Hispanics.

There still is the equal opportunity regardless of race, color or religion overriding all this..

I don’t know the finer details of the law,

Yeah, informing yourself before you comment would be appreciated.
Other than this “Bush-like gaffe” you’ve done well.

Mcguyver on September 9, 2007 at 7:44 PM

6. After December 31, 2007, every employer, after hiring an employee, is required to verify the employment eligibility of the employee through the basic pilot program, as defined in section 23-211, Arizona Revised Statutes, as added by this act.

fred5678 on September 9, 2007 at 7:29 PM

That sounds good to me. The only quarrel I have with it is that it does not require the same checks on current employees.

Big S on September 9, 2007 at 7:48 PM

It’s time to put the employers in jail, cutoff sanctuary cities from the federal trough, fine the greedy owners of the businesses and build the fence.

saved on September 9, 2007 at 7:03 PM

If the employers don’t do jail, we won’t hail.

If the employers don’t get fined, we will sure mind.

If the employers don’t hang, it’s got no bang.

If the employers sail, we won’t hail.

If the employers walk, we will talk.

MB4 on September 9, 2007 at 7:51 PM

If HildaBeast gets the Dem nomination and Rudolf “Sanctuary City Mayor” Guliania gets the Republican nomination I will be hoping that Dobbs runs on a third party populist ticket so that I will have someone to vote for.

MB4 on September 9, 2007 at 7:42 PM

For some background, here is the appeal that Guliani made over Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 :
http://lw.bna.com/lw/19990608/976182.htm

fred5678 on September 9, 2007 at 7:57 PM

That sounds good to me. The only quarrel I have with it is that it does not require the same checks on current employees.

Big S on September 9, 2007 at 7:48 PM

I wholeheartedly agree – the law should be tougher and more comprehensive (in the good sense), so it includes ALL employees, and also owners. I believe VA or NC is working on fixing a loophole in their similar law, whereby an owner of a small business is exempt from checks. There was a mad rush for new small business licenses after their law came into effect.

fred5678 on September 9, 2007 at 8:03 PM

Lou battles it out every night like this, on the illegal immigration issue. Good to see him on Hot Air. This fight is far from over, we’re going to need this man big time, the best is probably yet to come on this issue..and please keep Lou coming back..Anyone that rattles Geraldo, should aways be a welcomed guest on HA. And take a few seconds each night to click on Lou’s web site and take his poll vote,,good for his ratings, I’m sure. WE NEED MORE LOU.

Legions on September 9, 2007 at 8:24 PM

Let me translate what Gallardo said….

“I’m for enforcing immigration laws and border security, but I’m against any and all measure that may affect somenoe that looks like me, even if they are here illegally, because loyalty to “la raza” comes before loyalty to the USA.”

Thank you.

moonbat monitor on September 9, 2007 at 8:26 PM

fred5678 on September 9, 2007 at 8:03 PM

I’m glad we agree on this. If all of the loopholes were closed, and the employee verification were to be completely comprehensive, it would not only work more effectively and efficiently, but we would be able to put an end to the arguments over whether or not the Constitutional requirement of due process is met. While some lefty types like to invoke “racism”, it is the fact that such gray areas are left in the law that allows them to do so. Not all of their arguments are completely without merit, although they tend to exaggerate them quite a bit.

Big S on September 9, 2007 at 8:27 PM

Thank You Lou Dobbs.
Scary that people of Gallardo’s intellect gain the positions that they do…ugh..

bridgetown on September 9, 2007 at 12:56 PM

Let me explain how they gain those positions. People vote for them because they are the same race as them, not because they are qualified.

Tim Burton on September 9, 2007 at 9:22 PM

Welcome to your demographic future, America. Millions of Gallardos, or people who think like him.

PRCalDude on September 9, 2007 at 9:22 PM

I don’t know whether the AZ law requires employers to check all employees or potential employees in the same way. If it does so, fine, but if not, Gallardo has a point.

Big S on September 9, 2007 at 7:04 PM

Idiotic post, Big S. Complete, fu*king waste of time.

Familiarize yourself with the blizzard of local, state, and Federal laws and employment regulations that make it suicidal to discriminate on the basis of race, and then rethink your comment.

Knuckleheads like you make possible the environment we have in this country, where even the most basic attempts to control the flood of illegal aliens is met with some Gallardo putz crying “racism!” Get your head out of your arse; no, Gallardo does not have a “point”, nor a brain.

Jaibones on September 9, 2007 at 9:36 PM

Weird to see someone (Dobbs) on CNN who can speak with such simple clarity on a public policy topic. I love clarity.

Jaibones on September 9, 2007 at 9:37 PM

People vote for them because they are the same race as them, not because they are qualified.

Tim Burton on September 9, 2007 at 9:22 PM

That’s exactly how we got Mayor Antonio Viva-Reconquista.

infidel4life on September 9, 2007 at 9:43 PM

Familiarize yourself with the blizzard of local, state, and Federal laws and employment regulations that make it suicidal to discriminate on the basis of race, and then rethink your comment.

Knuckleheads like you make possible the environment we have in this country, where even the most basic attempts to control the flood of illegal aliens is met with some Gallardo putz crying “racism!” Get your head out of your arse; no, Gallardo does not have a “point”, nor a brain.

Jaibones on September 9, 2007 at 9:36 PM

Actually, a law that threatens employers with suspension of their busiess licenses for hiring or employing illegal aliens but does not require that all current employees be checked gives the employers an incentive to discriminate on the basis of race or apparent national origin, by placing an extra burden on the employees who they might suspect are here illegally. The subjective nature of the decision, rather than requiring that all current employees be checked in the same way, leaves it open for challenge on due process grounds.

Big S on September 9, 2007 at 9:51 PM

Big S on September 9, 2007 at 9:51 PM

If you’re not a lawyer, you should be. Only a lawyer could make something straightforward sound so convoluted.

infidel4life on September 9, 2007 at 9:59 PM

If you’re not a lawyer, you should be. Only a lawyer could make something straightforward sound so convoluted.

Bawawawawawawawawa!!

Thanks for the laugh, I needed that!

Mcguyver on September 9, 2007 at 10:11 PM

If you’re not a lawyer, you should be. Only a lawyer could make something straightforward sound so convoluted.

infidel4life on September 9, 2007 at 9:59 PM

Actually, my quarrel with the law is that it’s not straightforward enough. If all employees had to be checked, regardless of when they were hired and by whom, there could be no complaint about discrimination.

Big S on September 9, 2007 at 10:21 PM

Let me explain how they gain those positions. People vote for them because they are the same race as them, not because they are qualified.

Tim Burton on September 9, 2007 at 9:22 PM

I don’t completely agree with this statement. Levying this charge against dems leaves Republicans open to the same charge.

By and large, I believe that people take the time to vote for the person whom they feel is most qualified.

Obviously, ethnicity, culture and race allegiance are a net plus in some voters’ minds. But I think by calling democratic voters racist, we leave ourselves open to the reciprocal charge – that we vote against candidates because of their race.

Racism seems to infect people across the political spectrum.

The Race Card on September 9, 2007 at 10:29 PM

“Racist”?

Tell La Raza.

Go Lou D.!

profitsbeard on September 9, 2007 at 10:46 PM

Big S, could you please explain how verification of all new employees hired after a certain date can lead to discrimination?

FloatingRock on September 9, 2007 at 10:56 PM

Big S, could you please explain how verification of all new employees hired after a certain date can lead to discrimination?

FloatingRock on September 9, 2007 at 10:56 PM

They CAN’T. They have NOTHING other than “Racist!!!” That is their game. And it’s beyond easy to defeat. But it will require a pair of balls. And the repub party has been neutered…

JWS on September 9, 2007 at 11:10 PM

Big S, could you please explain how verification of all new employees hired after a certain date can lead to discrimination?

FloatingRock on September 9, 2007 at 10:56 PM

Sure.

The law seems to take care of the new employees without leaving room for discrimination, and on that level, I agree with it. However, the law also penalizes businesses that currently employ individuals hired before the law takes effect, if they happen to turn out to be illegal. Therefore, the responsibility is placed on the employer to make a subjective judgement as to whether or not their current employees may or may not be illegal aliens, and subsequently on the government to determine if those judgements were in good faith. Such laws will likely lead to different de facto standards of proof for employees with apparent Hispanic background. Because of this, I support mandatory verification of employees’ status regardless of when and where they were hired.

Big S on September 9, 2007 at 11:16 PM

Thanks for the explanation, I wasn’t clear about your point before.

However, as others have pointed out, employers will still be required to abide by other employment and discrimination laws while ensuring that they are in compliance with the new law. If they lay off all of their employees with Hispanic characteristics without verifying their status through the new system, they will be opening themselves up to a lawsuit if they terminate a legal employee accidentally. Likewise, if they fail to verify the status of employees who might, for example, have a European accent, they risk violation of the new law if they’re later found to be here illegally. Employees who’ve been in this country illegally for many years might speak perfect English, so by failing to eventually test everybody, employers are taking a risk.

Employers who are concerned about being in compliance with employment laws are going to do the right thing regardless. I suspect that the reason the law doesn’t require all workers to be verified, (assuming this information is accurate), is to avoid overloading the new verification system.

FloatingRock on September 10, 2007 at 12:01 AM

Another possible reason for not forcing employers to check all of their current employees might be to give the Arizona economy time to adjust to the change. I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t enforce the law regarding employees hired before the date until some point in the future, (if ever), thus allowing time for illegal workers currently in the system to decline through gradual attrition. But I haven’t read the bill or heard much about it and am only making what I think is a reasonable guess.

FloatingRock on September 10, 2007 at 12:09 AM

Dios Mio! LOL

D2Boston on September 10, 2007 at 12:19 AM

FloatingRock on September 10, 2007 at 12:01 AM

I agree with what you are saying. In fact, I think the change to the law will likely be made in response to a lawsuit (they have a tendency to pop up in situations likel this.)

Big S on September 10, 2007 at 3:29 AM

Senor Dobbs was unaware of Gallardo’s infamiliarity with the problem of unlegals.

Teddy on September 10, 2007 at 6:17 AM

Comment pages: 1 2