I was thrilled when I found out that my grandmother's interest in politics had been reignited by the Plame Leak scandal last Fall. Every day she looks forward to watching the news. Lou Dobbs, she says, is a straight-shooter that isn't swayed by corporate interests or party politics. Having never watched Dobbs before, I have been shocked and dismayed over what I have seen in the last week in a half. Dobbs is simply a conservative man in liberal's clothing who builds his entire broadcast on xenophobic ideals and basks in the limelight as a "straight shooter" because he will criticize the current administration.
Don't get me wrong, I'm entirely for free speech. I think it's essential that the media present as many points of view as they possibly can (even though they rarely actually do).
Dobbs, however, does more harm than good. He does the public a disservice by completely mischaracterizing the immigration debate. Claiming that "radical factions" have taken control of the movement, Dobbs argues that only people with "special interests" or "corporate influence" are for open borders. He claims that the interest in dealing with the immigration problem is purely many companies fighting to continue keeping low-wage workers. His argument is, functionally, a marginally more sophisticated but equally xenophobic version of "they're stealing our jobs". Anyone who examines the economic effects of suddenly deporting 12 million people is, according to Dobbs, simply bowing to corporate pressure.
This biased opinion is bolstered by equally biased and unscientific polls that frequent his show. Claiming that a Guest Worker Policy is against the will of the people, Dobbs argues that Americans "in poll after poll and survey after survey" have shown that they are "opposed to illegal immigration". Well, that's not hard. I'm sure that most people will admit to erring on the side of the law in most cases. However, saying that people are against amnesty or making the citizenship requirements easier simply because they're against illegal immigration is a basic logical fallacy. Dobbs not only doesn't cite direct data, he doesn't even cite precise or vague sources of any kind for these polls.
He also has polls of his own, which include such unbiased questions as "Before even discussing so-called comprehensive immigration reform, do you believe the president and Congress should first be required to uphold the current laws of the United States which compel them to enforce our borders and uphold our existing immigration laws? Yes or no." Clearly, in order to get a true picture of what people want in immigration reform, you should ask them whether or not Congress should behave legally.
Remember, amnesty is not an option. Dobbs points out that

Schwarzenegger invokes Ronald Reagan's name to declare that we can have immigration policies that both strengthen our borders and welcomes immigrants.
No, Governor, we can't.

He continues by saying that securing our borders is key to any effective immigration policy. While I agree that secure borders are a priority, I object to the basic logical principles of Dobbs' argument. Maybe I've spent a bit too much time studying for the LSATs lately, but it is quite evident to me that Dobbs is operating on a flawed premise. Yes, Mr. Dobbs, we CAN have immigration policies that both strengthen our borders and welcome immigrants. Perhaps this comes in strengthening our ports. Maybe it's a Guest Worker Program, or maybe it's in making the path to citizenship easier to encourage people to actually take the legal and legitimate path to life in the United States. However, there is no concrete reason why strengthening our borders requires adopting the xenophobic and uninformed attitude that Dobbs proposes.