Lou Dobbs' Undocumented Worker Problem

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 09:15:00 AM EST
Tags: Lou Dobbs, immigration reform (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Nation has a feature article alleging Lou Dobbs employed undocumented workers.

Based on a yearlong investigation, including interviews with five immigrants who worked without papers on his properties, The Nation and the Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute have found that Dobbs has relied for years on undocumented labor for the upkeep of his multimillion-dollar estates and the horses he keeps for his 22-year-old daughter, Hillary, a champion show jumper.

From The Nation's editorial: Make it Legal:

On any given day, we've all probably eaten fruit harvested by undocumented workers or meat they butchered. These workers also make possible the lifestyles enjoyed by wealthy Americans like Dobbs and Whitman, with their estates and grounds and stables. How these millions of workers could be extracted from their jobs and deported without causing massive disruption not only to their lives but to the entire economy defies the imagination. Yet this is what Dobbs demands with his call for ever tougher enforcement.

The solution:[More...]

If immigrants had a straightforward path to legalization, they could step out of the shadows of the US economy and stand with American workers to demand decent treatment for all. That might make it slightly more expensive for Lou Dobbs to maintain his multimillion-dollar properties—but it's a price he ought to pay.

Lou Dobbs responds:

"The only person who would have been an illegal in any context would have been a landscaper who was working for the contractor working on my house in Florida. That may have happened," admits the former CNN anchor and fierce anti-illegal immigration crusader. Dobbs is a frequent critic of companies that hire illegal workers.

"But that isn't my employee nor is it the reason I would have contracted with that landscaper. And to suggest I hired the person who is illegal if, indeed she can document there was someone illegal, is an absurdity," said Dobbs. "I have hired no illegal immigrants, no company of mine has hired illegal immigrants and that is the essential fact."

< Schapelle Corby: Six Years in an Indonesian Prison | Bank of Amercia Suspends All Foreclosures >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Lou Dobbs' Undocumented Worker Problem | 70 comments (70 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The landscaper thing I can understand (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 11:27:07 AM EST

he hired a landscape maintenance co and they, in turn, hired undoc'd workers and sent them to work on his (and the landscape co's other customers, I assume) properties.

The horse care is a different thing, imo. From what I've seen people generally are really involved in their horses, especially, for example, champion show horses, and choose their horses' keepers very carefully...

I live in an area of MD where there (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Anne on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 11:56:09 AM EST

are a lot of horse (and other) farms, and one of my daughters rode and showed for years; when we would do "A" cicuit shows, most of the big-time barns in the region had (mostly) Latino grooms working (I used to hear, "but WHY can't we have grooms, too?" to which I would reply, "uh, you're looking at your groom - it's me!"), and certainly, they are many also working the race tracks as grooms, exercise riders and hot walkers.

There are lots of Latinos working at the local farms and barns - and I have no idea whether they are documented or not. What I do know is that they are extremely hard-working, dependable and conscientious workers - and it's hard to find people willing to do the manual labor that is horse and farm work.

At the level at which Dobbs' daughter is competing, it's hard to say how much Dobbs knows; he probably has a barn manager and other managerial staff before you even get to the level of those who muck stalls and throw hay, manage the turn-out, and do general clean-up and repair. I would be a little surprised if he really knows all of the people who work in his barn, especially if it's a reasonably good-sized operation.


Well, there you go. (none / 0) (#16)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 12:06:03 PM EST

And google agrees with you:

and he had sent word that Salinas could be hired on as a groom at the Vermont stable contracted to care for the Dobbs Group horses.

The horse care is contracted out just like the landscaping.


The horses are in VT Dobbs lives in NJ. (none / 0) (#17)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 12:07:09 PM EST

And dollars to doughnuts, he (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Anne on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 12:34:04 PM EST

moves the whole operation to Florida (or California) for the winter - these people show and train year-round, so you go where the shows are, and they aren't in Vermont in the winter!

I spent a week with my daughter in Culpeper, VA, at a summer show, and never worked so hard in my life - from before the sun came up until well after dark - we all had a wonderful time, but it was brutal.


: Yup. (none / 0) (#22)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 12:36:19 PM EST

Every November, all five of The Dobbs Group's show-jumping horses must be transported from their summer stables in Vermont to their winter stables in Wellington, Florida.
I know Culpepper, my MIL lives close by...

Clean Hands of the Rich (none / 0) (#20)
by squeaky on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 12:29:37 PM EST

How convenient for Lou. I wonder how much investigative reporting he has done on others who hire undocumented workers.

Disgusting. He is responsible, particularly considering that hiring undocumented workers is such a big issue for him.


Info per Think Progress post (none / 0) (#18)
by MO Blue on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 12:08:53 PM EST

At one point during the investigation, Macdonald asked an undocumented worker she refers to under the psuedonym "Pedro Gomez" if he believes that the Dobbs family knew that many of the workers they were hiring were undocumented. Gomez replied that he believed at least Hillary Dobbs knew, and that the stable owner at the Dobbs estate definitely knew "that some people didn't have papers...and had even taken precautions to keep the workers away from the immigration agents who often patrol the areas around horse shows." ThinkProgress

I think there's a better than even (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Anne on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 12:28:54 PM EST

chance that Hillary Dobbs had at least some idea about the immigration status of those with whom she was in close contact at her barn, especially those who were directly caring for the horses she's showing.

It's hard work, and long hours, and unless someone really loves horses and has an independent source of income, it's not work a lot of people are willing to do for any dependable length of time.

There's a reason why there's a saying that the way to make a small fortune in the horse business is to start out with a large one - it is incredibly, incredibly expensive - one reason why wages at the groom/stable worker level are very low. And why most "Americans" don't want to do it.


Bottom Rail on Top (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Rojas on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 12:51:32 PM EST

"When Gomez worked for the Vermont-based stable contracted by Lou Dobbs, his wages were $500 per week, and he typically worked sixty-five hours, meaning he was earning only slightly above minimum wage. ......he says he was never paid overtime"

"At the Vermont stable that cared for the Dobbs Group horses from spring through autumn while Gomez worked there, the workers lived right at the horse barn. ..... according to Gomez, their quarters--a two-bedroom apartment on the top floor of the barn--were extremely crowded. When Gomez lived there, nine workers were packed into the small apartment, and he had to share a bedroom with four of them"

Course she does (none / 0) (#24)
by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 12:43:15 PM EST

If you are on any of those road shows, you know...we all know.


We all know? (none / 0) (#41)
by DaveCal on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 04:16:40 PM EST

Wait, so now we ARE supposed to profile and presume they're illegal?

If we investigate them or fire them, we violate the law and trample their civil rights.

If we keep employing them, we're vilified and called hypocrites because "we all know"?

And how exactly is it exploiting them? Even if the supposition I read in this thread about pay is true, they're getting about minimum wage. How is that exploitation?

Heck Meg Whitman paid $23/hour. At that rate I only have one question: "Where do I sign up to exploited?"

The hypocrisy is in being (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Anne on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 04:41:27 PM EST

publicly opposed to the employment of the undocumented, and publicly calling for the punishment of those who employ undocumented workers, and then - oops! - it comes to light that the person him- or herself employs undocumented workers.

It's do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do that is the hypocrisy.

And the employer is supposed to be responsible for verifying the resident status of the employees, so it doesn't violate any law that I'm aware of to either not hire, or fire, someone who is found to be undocumented. In the Whitman situation, no one has said that Whitman should not have fired her employee, but the fact that she was undocumented did not give Whitman the right not to honor the contract with the employee when she was working for her.

And for the last time, Whitman paid for 15 hours a week, regardless of how many more hours her employee worked, so that $23/hour drops lower for every hour over 15; is that fair?

As for the minimum wage in this country - it's not a living wage, regardless of one's status; but that's another subject.


Oh please (none / 0) (#43)
by DaveCal on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 04:51:56 PM EST

He didn't hire them, his contractor did.

So I'll ask you the question that never seems to get answered... "What would you like people to do?"

Do you want the illegal workers deported?
Do you want them unemployed?
Do you want them working?

And what should Lou and Meg have done?

They employed contractors and agencies so the contractors and agencies would do the background/documentation work.

If the contractor/agency gets it wrong, or the workers commit fraud and perjury, what have Lou and Meg done wrong?


I can't believe that someone who (5.00 / 3) (#45)
by Anne on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 05:12:39 PM EST

thinks he is as smart as you do can't figure out the answer: if you are going to be a public figure, and sit in judgment of the actions and behavior of others, it's usually a good idea to make sure that you can't be tarred with the same brush you're using on others. You know, kind of like not preaching family values if you've got mistresses on the side, or not advocating against homosexuality if you're having hot gay love - this is the same thing.

Duh.

So, if you're a Meg Whitman, you do the actual due diligence - and then some - on the agencies you contract with, and on the potential employees that agency sends you - you don't plead ignorance - the same kind of ignorance you publicly do not believe others should be able to claim.

Sound like more work that way? Well, then maybe that means our immigration policy sucks, and maybe instead of fostering wholesale xenophobia among the masses while employing undocumented workers themselves, the Meg Whitmans and the rest of the brown-people-are-bad crowd could apply their energies to granting these employees enough respect to help them become, if not citizens, then fully documented residents: if they're willing to hire them, and willing to pay them, they should be willing to go the rest of the way.


Again... (none / 0) (#65)
by DaveCal on Mon Oct 11, 2010 at 03:46:31 PM EST

What are they supposed to do? Honestly.

Meg used an agency that got all the government required documents form "Nicky". Driver's License, Social Security Card. Nicky committed fraud and perjury. And you want to indict Meg for not doing due diligence?

So do you want employers to be able to investigate people MORE with respect to their legal/illegal status? I thought that was profiling and bad?

Honestly, I'm trying to get a straight answer here.


What I want is a better (none / 0) (#66)
by Anne on Mon Oct 11, 2010 at 03:59:42 PM EST

immigration policy - I thought that was clear.

But I also want those in high-profile positions to stop saying one thing and doing another, as if it is only other people who should have to be accountable for their actions; the excuses that people like Whitman and Dobbs don't accept from others should not be their own safe haven from accountability, should they?

What don't you understand about that?


Better Policy? (none / 0) (#67)
by DaveCal on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 01:26:15 PM EST

Ok. And until that "better" policy comes along, please answer my question and tell me what exactly Meg should have done?

Meg followed the law (whether you think its a good policy or not, it is the law). Nicky committed fraud and perjury to make it appear she was legally entitled to work in the US.

What should Meg have done?

Should she accept the fraudulent documents, since BY LAW she's not allowed to do more investigation?

Should she violate the law and do more investigation anyway (you said "due diligence")? Wouldn't that be profiling?

If she shouldn't accept the fraudulent docs alone (not enough "due diligence"), and she shouldn't violate the law by doing further investigation, should she simply not hire Nicky in the first place?

If she follows the law, accepts the docs as presented, Nicky gets hired and gets to work. But you don't seem to like that scenario.

If she violates the law, and does more investigation, what then? If she realizes Nicky lied and isn't legal, then Nicky doesn't get hired and doesn't have work. Is that the result you want?

I'm trying to understand what result you would have liked in this situation.

I understand that you want to rail on Meg because you don't like her politics. But what exactly did she do wrong? What exactly should she have done? What should have been the result?

I think you like to point fingers and call names, but you don't have answers. At least you haven't given me one.

Poor, poor Meg. How she manages to (none / 0) (#68)
by Anne on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 01:55:14 PM EST

bear up under the crushing burden of hiring household help is hard to imagine.

My problem with Meg is that she has very publicly excoriated others for the hiring of undocumented workers under the exact same scenario in which she hired Nicky. My problem is that she doesn't accept as an excuse from anyone else that they trusted their agency, or thought the paperwork looked valid - and yet, that's the first thing she squawked about when this whole mess broke: "I didn't know! The agency was supposed to check all that out!"

Boo-hoo just doesn't cut it - sorry.

There have been numerous plans and ideas for providing a path to - if not citizenship - documented residence, but all people like Whitman want to do is build walls and round people up and send them back where they came from, separate parents from children, punish children who had no control over where they lived, which are not only not viable alternatives, but do little more than foster suspicion, paranoia and xenophobia.

What should Meg have done? She should have put her money where her mouth is, and hired an American - I mean, isn't that part of her whole shtick? That "illegals" are taking jobs away from Americans who want to work? So, why didn't she hire an American who wanted to work instead of someone whose status she could only home was documented?

I'm pretty sure you will take that to mean that I am anti-immigrant, but you would be wrong; I'm coming at this from your question, telling you what the anti-immigrant Meg Whitman should have done if she didn't want to be branded as just another do-as-I-say-and-not-as-I-do wannabe politician.

It's not exactly rocket science: if Whitman wasn't a public figure, if she didn't have well-known anti-immigrant views, no one would even know - or care - and Nicky would probably still have a job.


ughhhh --- dodging again (none / 0) (#69)
by DaveCal on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 03:34:23 PM EST

I wasn't asking what you think Meg should have done just to avoid being seen as hypocritical in your eyes.

I was asking what YOU would like to have seen done in this case.

Besides, even the answer you gave was BS. Hire an "American"? Are you saying she should discriminate and only hire people who can prove their citizenship? Or are you saying she should have avoided any hispanic candidates, and simply hired a caucasion? Yeah, I'm sure you would have found those approaches completely acceptable. Give me a break.

What I was asking, and what you dodged, was what result YOU would like to have seen in this case.

What are law abiding citizens supposed to do in the case, like Meg, where they ask for the proper documents, and get forged/fraudulent docs?

Do you want them to accept the docs and hire the worker? That's what Meg did, and Nicky had work. But you apparently find that unacceptable.

Do you want them to assume the docs are fake, and do more investigation (you said more 'due diligence')? That violates the law. And people would be screaming that it's profiling. Are you saying you find that acceptable? Is that the proper result?

If they do more due diligence, and find out the docs are fake/improper, do you want them to avoid hiring the worker? Ok so now all the Megs are violating the law, and all the Nickys are not finding work. Is that what you want to happen?

Your disdain for Meg is palpable, but what does ANNE think is the proper result for all the Megs and Nickys out there?

: Not playing anymore. (none / 0) (#70)
by Anne on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 06:01:43 PM EST

I have a low tolerance for intentionally dense people, for concern trolls and people just looking for a fight.
I've covered the issue to my satisfaction, stated the perils of saying one thing and doing another; I have no sympathy for Meg Whitman having backed herself into a corner.
Cheers!

I'm not talking about firing them (none / 0) (#48)
by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 09, 2010 at 10:01:12 AM EST

or deporting them, how silly. What I'm talking about is dropping my baloney story about how these people aren't in my life, just exercising my dogs.


Ya know... (none / 0) (#44)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 04:59:53 PM EST

the word hypocrisy is thrown around a lot, but I'm not sure it's always being used properly...

Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have.

iow, if he believes those who employ illegal workers are doing wrong, or whatever, and says so, but also (knowingly or unknowingly) employs illegal workers himself, I don't think that being a hypocrite.

For him to be a hypocrite he must say that hiring illegal workers is wrong, or whatever, but not really believe it's wrong.


Ah, playing at parsing (none / 0) (#46)
by christinep on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 10:35:08 PM EST

Dobbs and Whiman are hypocrites. Or, as Anne so aptly put it, saying one thing and doing another. We all know what that means. And, it isn't good.


: Not so much parsing, actually.. (none / 0) (#50)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Oct 09, 2010 at 11:53:25 AM EST

And it's a point I bring up every now and again, regardless of who's ox is being gored...

I call bull on the unknowingly (none / 0) (#49)
by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 09, 2010 at 10:01:45 AM EST

Fine by me. Whether knowingly (none / 0) (#51)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Oct 09, 2010 at 12:09:09 PM EST

or unknowingly, it doesn't change the meaning of the word "hypocrisy."

From wiki:

Hypocrisy is not simply failing to practice those virtues that one preaches. Samuel Johnson made this point when he wrote about the misuse of the charge of "hypocrisy" in Rambler No. 14:
Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself.[1]

Hypocrisy is basically lying about your beliefs.

iow if you say "I believe doing (whatever) is wrong" but in fact don't believe it is wrong, that is hypocrisy.

But if you say "I believe doing (whatever) is wrong." and in fact do believe it, despite having desires yourself to do (whatever) and/or whether or not you act on those desires, that is not hypocrisy.


Samuel Johnson (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by christinep on Sat Oct 09, 2010 at 12:49:36 PM EST

The quote which you cited, suo, focuses on one who "expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice...." Again, I would posit that Whitman and Dobbs APPEAR to have displayed hypocritizal behavior (as hypocrites do) because they have gone significant steps beyond merely not meeting, as it were, the goals and beliefs they espouse. Also: Their behaviors have been publicly revealed to strikingly deviate from a simple "...and may honestly recommend to others." In that regard, these two individuals have stridently addressed others/disparaged others about particular behaviors from which they themselves not only deviate but actually act in opposition.

Look, you make some fascinating arguments. I find philosophy and the intricacies thereof and attendant belief systems compelling as well. But, my honest belief is that you are cornering yourself with wordplay. This type of situation--undoubtedly painful to those on the receiving end of Dobbs' & Whitman's activist polemic--is about much more than wikipedia or other shorthand evaluation. (Actually, a central part of hypocritical actions--whether the exegesis is found in literature such as The Scarlet Letter or philosophy such as the works of John Paul Sartre or The Bible with lessons about "removing the mote in one's own eye" etc.--explicitly stress the ACTIONS as evidence of hypocrisy. Psychological evaluations or conscience evaluations represent something else entirely.)


I don't really think it's merely wordplay, (none / 0) (#58)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Oct 09, 2010 at 05:27:48 PM EST

and wordplay is certainly not my intent, but more of understanding the English language and using it correctly. And I'm still working my way through this one, like you say, it's not a cut and dried issue.

But, words do matter, see "illegal aliens" vs. "undocumented workers."

That said, I'm liking the thought of someone's actions being hypocritical more than accusing that person straight-up of being a hypocrite.

Basically, like jondee points out below, you just don't know what another person really believes, so how can you know that person is in fact a hypocrite?

That person's actions, however, are for all the world to see. If they be hypocritical, then they be hypocritical.

Gotta say, there are dozens, probably, of hypocritical acts I do every day.

For example, speeding is dangerous and we should not do it, I do truly believe. I encourage everyone I know to drive slowly and carefully. However, I speed probably every single day. 'Cause the stuff I need to get done is so very important, doncha' know...

Anyway, I'm not a hypocrite on speeding - I'm not lying when I espouse that others drive safely by driving slowly and carefully.

However, for me, it is a constant, daily, minute-by-minute, battle with myself to slow the heck down when I drive, and I often fail at doing it.

Somebody much smarter than me said something like: "Do I contradict myself? Then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes." Contradiction do not, I think, make one a hypocrite.


: You make some good points, (none / 0) (#60)
by Anne on Sat Oct 09, 2010 at 06:05:48 PM EST

and I don't disagree with the examples you'e raised, but bringing in jondee's point that we can never truly know what others are thinking, or what they truly believe, we're left with only being able to take what people say, on the one hand, with what they do, on the other.
Which, if we can't definitively know if they meet the definition of "hypocrite," does seem to make them members of the "do as I say, and not as I do" school, when one does not comport with the other.
If it's any comsolation, I hate that almost no one knows how to correctly use the word "comprise;" on the bright side, this love of words comes in very handy when doing crossword puzzles...I'm pretty sure that one day,