Entry: Exporting America Lou Dobbs specials Wednesday, December 17, 2003

Do not miss these series. May have begun back in June 2003.

Lou Dobbs Exporting America CNN

Lou Dobbs Broken Borders CNN

Guest panelists have been extremely interesting.

Index: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/index.html

The Dec. 17th Exporting America segment focused in part on the "outsourcing of jobs to India" and other countries. One of the guests started to run down a list of companies outsourcing, then left us with a shocker when revealing that Housing and Urban Development also outsources jobs, to India. There just wasn't time to go into more detail, so search for yourselves.

A, B, C Outsourcing jobs


More agencies of federal government which can outsource jobs

February 12, 2001 with links

The following is only part of the transcript. The segment featured a report about California considering allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote

Dec. 16, 2003 transcript Lou Dobbs series


Dec. 16, 2003 transcript

Lou Dobbs is just terrific interviewer. He asks point blank.


DOBBS: Last week's boycott by illegal alien advocacy groups in southern California was driven by, of course, the repeal of a law granting driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Now a new UCLA-funded study goes even further, calling for voting rights for illegal aliens, and that caught our attention despite all of the other distractions in this country. Casey Wian has the story from Los Angeles.


CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center has released a study laying out a road map for securing voting rights for non-citizens, including illegal aliens. Voting rights attorney and UCLA law school lecturer Joaquin Avila wrote the paper.

JOAQUIN AVILA, UCLA LAW SCHOOL: Either you lessen the restrictions on the citizenship process, or you make some changes on the requirements for voting. But the important thing is, is that we have a growing segment in our society that contributes to the economy, pays taxes, is subject to the military, and yet is not able to participate effectively in the political process. There's something wrong with that.

WIAN: Avila points out that non-citizens are the majority in a dozen California cities and more than a quarter of the population in 85. He calls the law preventing them from voting "political apartheid." Opponents of expanded rights for illegal aliens are fighting back.

RON PRINCE, SAVE OUR STATE: People who are here illegally do not have a constitutional right to vote in our elections. They would like to have them. And since we are rolling over, as it were, giving up the sovereignty of our border, the integrity of our border, giving up our claim on national security in order to make it easy for illegals to come here, why not give up the protection of our voting rights?

WIAN: Prince is one of the original backers of California's Proposition 187, which sought to deny government benefits to illegal aliens. Voters approved it in 1994, but court challengers and former governor Gray Davis kept it from becoming law. Now supporters are gathering signatures for a similar measure for next fall's election. It would amend the state constitution and require government workers to verify the legal status of those applying for government benefits or a driver's license. It would also invalidate the Metricula Consular (ph) Mexican ID cards many government agencies and banks now accept.


The updated version of Proposition 187 makes no mention of schools because federal law requires public education regardless of immigration status. Supporters hope that will allow the measure to survive court challenges. The state's legislative analyst estimate it would save taxpayers more than $100 million a year -- Lou.

DOBBS: Casey, thank you. I mean, that is a stunning report. And it has the imprimatur of UCLA, one of the nation's most respected universities, calling for voting rights for illegal aliens?

WIAN: Well, a UCLA spokeswoman called me after my interview with Mr. Avila today, trying, it seemed, to distance the university from this study. She said it's not a UCLA report. And I asked her, Well, isn't the UCLA Chicano research organization funded by the university, and she said, Yes, partially, also by the University of California. It has obviously troubled some people at UCLA.

It didn't make much -- many waves here in the local media, in part because so much attention was being focused on the boycott last week that you mentioned. Only a couple of newspapers, none of the big newspapers in the state even covered the story when the study was released late last week, Lou.

DOBBS: Not to put too fine a point on it, Casey, but when you have boycotts by illegal immigrant advocacy groups calling for driver's licenses, which is by any -- by any reasonable standard, a privilege that is granted to U.S. citizens, and now calling for voting rights without citizenship -- what is emboldening these people to think that this is even rational? And what in the world are the state officials of the state of California doing?

WIAN: Well, I think what it demonstrates is the increasing polarization of people in California over the issue of illegal aliens. As we mentioned in our report, we have people trying to bring back a new version of Proposition 187, which would deny most social services to illegal aliens. That was very controversial here. A lot of people thought it was gone for good.

Yet you've also seen some evidence of politicians knuckling under to the will of illegal alien advocacy groups. Just witness Governor Gray Davis -- former governor Gray Davis's flip-flop on the issue of driver's licenses for illegal aliens. Many people saw that as a clear pandering to the Latino vote. Ultimately, it did not work for him, and as we know, he was recalled. Governor Schwarzenegger was quoted in one of the papers that did cover this issue as saying he does not favor voting rights for non-citizens, Lou.

DOBBS: And he made it clear that he would see that SB-60, as it was called, permitting illegal aliens to have driver's licenses, would be repealed. It's remarkable, this story. That's why we're following it here day in and day out because it's critically important. Along with Proposition 187, Casey, perhaps someone in California might think about also another component in this, and that would be severe, heavy penalties against companies and businesses that hire illegal aliens because they are certainly, as we have learned here, a big part of the problem. Casey Wian...

WIAN: We haven't seen a proposal yet, but we might some day, Lou.

DOBBS: OK. Casey Wian, as always, thank you, sir. Outstanding.

We want to hear from you on this issue in tonight's poll. The question: Do you believe illegal aliens should have voting rights in this country? Yes or no. It's that simple. Cast your vote at cnn.com/lou. We'll have the results for you later in the broadcast.



Performance review report on HUDThe Department of Housing and Urban Development's Use of Performance Based Management

Virginia L. Thomas is Senior Fellow of Government Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

HUD's first report on its performance with taxpayer dollars missed an opportunity to provide the Congress and the public with a truthful, objective depiction of what is working and what is not working at HUD to reduce poverty in America. Six years ago, a study of HUD's ineffectiveness and inefficiencies by the National Academy of Public Administration stated that, "If after five years, HUD is not operating under a clear legislative mandate and in an effective, accountable manner, the President and Congress should seriously consider dismantling the department and moving its programs elsewhere."18

We can only hope that future Performance Reports will live up to the expectations that Congress, in its wisdom of passing the Government Performance and Results Act, had.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/Test092600.cfmVirginia L. Thomas Senior Fellow of Government Studies at The Heritage Foundation.


Jack Larmore
April 28, 2005   07:41 PM PDT
why Exon and other gas companies are posting billion dollar profits for the quarter and we pay over $2.00 at the pump, do you suppose we were BUSH whacked again?

Who in this world can tell what the stocks and bonds will be worth in 10--------40 years from now?
March 10, 2004   08:45 AM PST
You don't know the facts! Suggest you go to http://urbanlegends.com for the real truth to your lie!
Larry G.
January 29, 2004   07:13 PM PST
Why do I have the feeling this is just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to elected officals perks?
Larry G.
January 29, 2004   07:13 PM PST
Why do I have the feeling this is just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to elected officals perks?
Jack H. Daniel Name
January 23, 2004   06:51 PM PST
Robert Taylor
January 16, 2004   11:27 PM PST

(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.

Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of
course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their
rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for
themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own

benefit plan.

In more recent years, no congress person has felt the need to change it.
After all, it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this:

When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.

Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments.

For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may
expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand
Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their

This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two

Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more
during the rest of their lives.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH....

This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick
up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly
from the General Funds;


From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into,
-every payday until we retire (wh h amount is matched by our employer)- we can
expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.

Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly
benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under
the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the
rest of us ... then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it.

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and
maybe good changes will evolve.

How many people can YOU send this to? >>

Leave a Comment:


Homepage (optional)