Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Army Cracks Down in Iraq; Great American Giveaway
Aired December 17, 2003 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, the army cracks down in Iraq, rounding up dozens of suspected insurgents and terrorists. "TIME" magazine correspondent, Michael Ware, one of the few American journalist whose have been with the insurgents. He joins us from Baghdad.
In "The Great American Giveaway," the United States signs a free- trade agreement with four central American countries, but thousands of American workers stand to lose their jobs. Lisa Sylvester reports.
In "Broken Borders" a city in Connecticut has been inundated with illegal aliens, now struggling to provide housing, education and health services for its legal citizens. Bill Tucker will have special report.
In face-off tonight, should illegal aliens be given the same rights and privileges as U.S. citizens. I'll be joined by two people with very different views on this highly controversial issue.
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Wednesday, December 17. Here now, Lou Dobbs.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Good evening. Tonight, a judge said John Hinckley, the man who tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan in 1981 can make unsupervised visits to see his parents, but the judge said Hinckley will not be allowed to stay with his parents overnight and he must remain within 50 miles of Washington.
Tonight, Nancy Reagan strongly criticized the judge's ruling. The former first lady said, "we continue to fear for the safety of the general public."
Justice correspondent Kelly Arena has the report for us -- Kelly.
KELLY ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Lou, Hinckley will be allowed six day visits with his parents within a 50 mile radius of Washington D.C. and that is to be followed by two overnight visits, also within that 50 mile radius.
Hinckley has been a patient of St. Elizabeth's Hospital for the last two decades. Now, hospital staff told the court that these visits are part of his ongoing therapy. And that he does not pose a danger to himself or public at this time.
And it isn't the first time he'll be out in public. He's gone on several outings with hospital staff. But this time it will be up to his parents to supervise him.
Now, the judge has placed some conditions on those visits. Hinckley has to follow a very detailed itinerary. He's not allowed to contact the media or even his ex-girlfriend, who was also a patient at St. Elizabeth's. Now Hinckley had asked for unsupervised visits to his parents' home in Virginia, which was denied.
And the wife of the former White House Press Secretary James Brady who was injured in the attack, had written to the judge to oppose Hinckley's release. We did hear, as you said, from Nancy Reagan. And the government had argued that Hinckley had shown a pattern of deception and that he should not be let out, supervised only by his elderly parents.
but the judge said he took the government's concerns into account and he fells this incremental approach this right way go, Lou.
DOBBS: And Kelly, when does this begin?
ARENA: Well it will begin after the holidays. So, he will not be allowed out before Christmas. Things have to be worked out, the itineraries have to be worked out, his parents have to sign paperwork so this won't happen for a few weeks yet. And the Secret Service will be alerted when he leaves hospital grounds.
DOBBS: While he will not be supervised, is there any kind of surveillance of any kind on this man who has shot a president and others?
ARENA: First of all, his parents have to sign a paper saying he will not go out of their sight for a moment while he's released. The second thing is that Secret Service is stationed outside St. Elizabeth, even when he walks around the grounds. So it is expected that Secret Service agents will be loosely surveilling him as well, though, the government said they couldn't guarantee that, there's no reason to think that they'll change their strategy now versus what they've done before.
DOBBS: Kelly, thank you very much. Kelly Arena, our justice correspondent.
Joining me now is CNN's legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin. Jeffrey, the first question is, this is remarkable. You have the prosecutor saying do not release Hinckley, you have the former first lady saying do not release this man, you have Mrs. Brady saying don't release this man. What is the judge thinking about?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: But you have the government's own experts saying he's not -- he is in remission from mental illness. The government could not come into court and say, he represents a danger to the community if he gets out. And I think that was really the key issue here, because the standard is, is he reasonably likely to be a danger to himself or others? And there was no psychiatrist who went to Judge Freedman (ph) and said, yes. So I think the result is not all that surprising.
DOBBS: That's a very important point Jeffrey. The government's own witnesses, the prosecution saying do not release this man, supporting Hinckley's attorneys
TOOBIN: Supporting them on the issue of whether he is still suffering from active mental illness. Also, he has been out more than 200 times over the past several years. This is not a dramatic change. What's different is he will no longer be supervised by hospital personnel, he will only be supervised by his parents and this apparent loose Secret Service protection but he is not -- this not a dramatic change in his circumstances.
DOBBS: The very idea that the United States secret service, which has very important business to conduct and taxpayer dollars relatively precious are going to be spent in permitting Hinckley to visit his parents. Is that remarkable situation.
TOOBIN: This is the consequence of the government losing the trial in 1981. Because, by being found not guilty by reason of insanity, this the standard the judge has to follow. It's not optional on the part of the judge. If he had been sentenced to a determinate number of years, that's what he would have gotten. But because he was found not guilty by reason of insanity, the rules are unless he's not reasonably certain to hurt somebody, he can start to be let go.
DOBBS: Is this a precursor for Hinckley to be absolutely unsupervised, unfettered very quickly?
TOOBIN: Certainly not very quickly but I think, clearly, the trend is, whether people like it or not, for greater and greater freedom. The next likely step is to be allowed to go more than 50 miles, to his parents' home in Williamsburg, Virginia. That's the way these incremental changes have been made.
But, I think ,since he's a relatively young man, it is likely that he will be virtually free at some point in his life.
DOBBS: There is always a great deal of question about the effectiveness, absolute certainty from an inexact science, to say the least, and that is psychiatry itself. What is the record of the psychiatric profession, in making these prognoses for people who are -- who have committed violent acts like John Hinckley?
TOOBIN: It's good. It's not perfect. And it's a risk. And I think that is what everyone, with any degree of common sense who knows what he did, which was so horrible, that that's the worry everyone has. But it is a good record but, of course, not it's just not perfect.
DOBBS: I guess good would leave us wondering just how large is the risk. 60 percent, 40 percent? Do we have to leave it in qualitative terms TOOBIN: I think it's lower than 40 percent. Judge Freedman (ph) is a careful judge. This is a 50 page opinion, where he goes through the evidence very carefully. He's not anxious to release someone whose going do something again, especially knowing how high profile this is, but it's a risk, no doubt about it.
DOBBS: Jeffrey Toobin, thank you very much.
We want to hear from you about this subject in our poll tonight. The question, "do you agree with the judge's decision to allow John Hinckley unsupervised visits? Yes or No." Please cast your vote at cnn.com/lou. We'll have results later.
In Iraq, more than 2,000 American troops today carried out a second day of searches for insurgents and terrorists in the town of Samarra, about 60 miles north of Baghdad. The soldiers used sledge hammers, crow bars and explosives to smash their way into homes, workshops and warehouses in Samarra. Those troops arrested another 30 suspects in addition to the 70 they rounded up yesterday. Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr has the report -- Barbara.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Indeed Lou, heavily armed troops, hundreds of them have now sealed off the city of Samarra, conducting a number of raids looking for insurgents.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COL. FREDERICK RUDESHEIM, 4TH INFANTRY DIVISION: Last night, we conducted a number of target raids and cordoned search operations which led to the capture of about 30 individuals. These operations continue, and that number may increase over time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STARR: And indeed it did. The military now saying it controls the city, and in recent hours, the number of suspects arrested has increased. Now, as you say, up to more than 70.
This is called "Operation: Ivy Blizzard," that's the name for the operation. So far it has led to the detention of many people, including one high level target we are told, believed to be responsible for financing anti-coalition activities.
And even today, we are learning more still about the immediate hours following the capture of Saddam Hussein over the weekend. Defense officials telling CNN that in the immediate hours following his capture, as the news began to emerge around the world, the military significantly increased its surveillance, aerial and ground surveillance in key areas of Iraq to make sure that suspected insurgents didn't cut and run. They were very concerned that people might start moving.
And that surveillance continues, at this hour, in key areas, especial in there border areas to make sure people aren't escaping and moving across the borders. Officials say now what they call a full-court press is on across Iraq, looking for insurgents. And they say the evidence continues to turn up perhaps as many as 14 cells of insurgents work across Baghdad alone. Still no evidence of real central command and control over these cells. It is clear that Saddam Hussein, they said, had information in his possession about the insurgent, but whether he was directing them still is an open question -- Lou.
DOBBS: It's fair to assume, is it not, Barbara, we're not going to learn here in the public, about what was contained in those documents and intelligence accompanying Saddam Hussein for some time?
STARR: That's right, Lou. They're going to work off this intelligence, they will continue to work off of it. We are going to see raised, see more people being taken into custody. Every indication they are continuing to get a payoff from these documents but nobody's going to spell it out in public just yet.
DOBBS: Barbara, thank you very much. Barbara Starr from the Pentagon.
Interrogators questioning Saddam Hussein are not only asking him about insurgent but about the former regime's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. So far, interrogators have found no evidence his regime was actively developing nuclear, biological or chemical weapons when Baghdad fell to American troops.
Our national security correspondent David Ensor has the report.
DAVID ENSOR, NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: They will privately tell you the search has not gone as they hoped it would. David Kay, who's in charge of it for the CIA is home for the holidays. His team in Iraq has been cut back some, personnel has been shifted back to efforts against insurgent in Iraq for obvious reasons. Partly for personal reasons it's not entirely clear David Kay will be going back to Iraq. There have been discussions over what the next step should be in the hunt for weapons. As for Saddam Hussein, all we have from him so far is denials that he has any weapons. His capture could, in the view of some officials convince some Iraqi scientists to talk and tell what they know. There's some hope there. President Bush and his advisers are counseling patience. Mr. Bush says no weapons have been found quote, "yet" and used that word several times yesterday. Secretary Rumsfeld said there may be more than one hiding hole in ground in Iraq
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: In your mind's eye picture the hole he was in. That hole was what 6 and half feet by 8 feet or 10 feet in the dirt. And think of the quantity of biological weapons that could fit in that hole alone, could kill tens of thousands of human beings.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ENSOR: But David Kay's team has only found evidence of weapons programs thus far, blueprints, components, dual use labs, a missile program that cheated on U.N. rules but they have not found any actual weapons. The report is now due from David Kay's group around June. They said six to nine months, and that's when it runs out. As to whether he will be filing the report or someone else, that question is in the air tonight -- Lou.
DOBBS: David, plenty of questions remain. Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida say the Bush administration told him and other senators that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction but also the means to deliver those weapons to East coast cities.
Do you know anything about this?
What are sources telling you?
ENSOR: I looked into that today, actually. It was in an unclassified October, 2002 report that the CIA made public and it's on the CIA's Web site today. And what it says is that Iraqis do have a UAV program, unmanned aerial vehicle program. And it goes on to say, that technically it would be possible for the Iraqi, if they had wanted to to put a chemical or biological warhead on one of those weapons, to put it on a freighter off the East coast, to fly it a few with hundred miles in and to attack a western city. The report does not say they had that capability, it just said it was technically feasible. It may be the senator was extrapolate little bit too far from what was in the report -- Lou.
DOBBS: David than you very much. David Ensor, national security correspondent reporting from Washington.
The capture of Saddam Hussein has given President Bush a significant boost in his approval ratings. The latest CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup Poll says President Bush's approval rating jumped from 54 percent last week to 63 percent this week. The poll also found the number of people who support the way the United States is handling Iraq now has increased 20 percentage points over the past two weeks up to 65 percent.
"TIME" magazine's Michael Ware is one of the few western journalists to have met with insurgents in Iraq. He wrote about his experiences in the current edition of "TIME" magazine. Michael is the winner of numerous journalistic awards, including the Magazine Publisher Association's prestigious "journalist of the year" in 2001. Michael joins me now from Baghdad. Michael thank you being here.
We are watching a sharp uptick in the activity against the insurgents. What is your sense of the direction of the U.S. forces, the coalition is headed now against the insurgents and their likely success?
MICHAEL WARE, "TIME" MAGAZINE: Well, it's still going be a very long road from everything I can tell. It's clear that there has been an upsurge, but to some degree, given that there's been an increase in the number of suicide bombings, perhaps some of the foreign element, which though small is potent, has picked up the ball and is run with it. Some of the Iraqi cells that I am familiar with, I know two of them have suspended their operations temporarily to assess the new American tactic, while others have gone out and unleashed a new wave of attacks. But a period of reconstitution, their reorganizing and watching how things develop in the days and weeks to come.
DOBBS: You have actually spent time with the insurgents in a remarkable a piece, as I said in this week's "TIME" magazine, talking about --- reporting deftly, the mind-set of a number of the insurgents or the terrorists, in some cases. This is hardly a homogeneous group who formed the insurgency in Iraq. Of them, who would you judge to be the most dangerous?
WARE: Well, certainly in terms of high profile political strikes like suicide bombings and car bombings on embassies, hotels and other installation, from what I can gather, this is being conducted by foreign jihadis. However, they're not operating alone. While they'll plan and conduct the operation, they're doing it with the logistical support of Iraqi units or fighters. However, the day-to-day drip feed of attacks is very much a home-grown Iraqi affair and this continues.
DOBBS: The striking thing, in your report this week, is the mind-set, obviously, of the radical Islamic suicide bomber, in party with the Ba'athist. With no ideological connection other than a hatred of Americans, of course, how do you think that will play out? Is that an alliance that can stand a test of U.S. force and time?
WARE: I think it will hold as long as they all perceive that they still have a common enemy. However, there are strong divisions between these groups, even within organizations operating together.
For example, a Fedayeen commander of Saddam's former militia was saying that he's prepared to sacrifice ten Iraqis for one dead American. Well, his former mujahedeen, former military officers objected to this. And at the end of an argument, the Fedayeen commander jokingly said, when the last American leaves, I'll begin killing the mujahedeen. Well, by the looks on their faces, not if they get him first.
DOBBS: Michael Ware, thank you very much. "TIME" magazine, reporting from Baghdad
Tonight, the State Department warned all non-essential foreign diplomats and their families to leave Saudi Arabia. Officials say private citizen's should also consider leaving because of the potential for further terrorist activities. Last month, terrorists killed 17 people and wounded more than 100 others when they attacked a housing compound on the Saudi capitol of Riyadh. U.S. and Saudi officials say the bombing and other attacks, the work of al Qaeda.
Coming up next here, "Exporting America" tonight. An American state government exporting jobs to cheap overseas labor markets. That's right, a state government. Peter Viles will report.
And the "Great American Give Away," expanding so called free trade, it's going so well the Bush administration has struck out with a new deal. Lisa Sylvester will report.
And "Broken Borders." Tonight, one small down overwhelmed by illegal aliens.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If 400 residents from Ecuador can come to Danbury, undocumented, unaccounted for, and not tracked think about how easy it is for members of al Qaeda or terrorist cells to come into Danbury or any other community in the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: Bill Tucker will report on how this nation's broken borders are putting the country at a great risk and putting a great burden on cities and towns.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Surprising and disappointing news tonight about the exportation of American jobs and just how widespread this problem is. The state government of Washington has hired an Indian company to rework some of its computer systems and tonight, this broadcast has learned that the same Indian company did work for the federal government during the Clinton administration. Peter Viles has the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PETER VILES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Officials in Washington State confirming that they, too, have hopped on the off shoring outsourcing bandwagon awarding a $3 million contract to a partnership between Texas- based Health Axis and India-based Satyam Computer Services. Why send jobs overseas?
A spokesman for Washington's state's health care authority tells CNN the Health Axis/Satyam bid was the low bid and, quote, "the state's policy is to get the best bang for the buck for taxpayers." The contract signed last year, discovered by Washtech, the organization fighting to keep high-tech jobs in America.
MARCUS COURTNEY, PRESIDENT, WASHTECH: It's outrageous. It makes absolutely no sense that our state government is using taxpayer dollars to create high-tech jobs in India when high-tech workers not only in Washington State but throughout the country face double-digit unemployment.
VILES: The Washington State deal is a small disaster. It's five months behind schedule. The winning bid was so low that Health Axis is now telling investors it will lose money on the deal. If you haven't heard of Satyam, it's time you did. The company says its business model is not outsourcing but, quote, "rightsourcing." Claims to do business with 87 of the Fortune 500. Lists as one of its current business challenges, quote, "backlash and legislative challenges due to increased unemployment in the United States."
It also boasts that it has provided end to end IT resources for what it calls a "major U.S. federal agency." The agency in question, according to Satyam's Web site is the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the project was so well received that then Vice President Al Gore named it one of the best e-government applications for the year 2000.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VILES: Many, many unanswered questions tonight about this HUD contract. We don't know the dollar value of this contract or whether it was a subcontract or contract directly with the federal government. Most importantly, we don't know exactly where the work was performed. Possible some of it was done in the United States. But this is an Indian company's business model. It's based on getting the job in United States and doing the work in India. No comment tonight on any of those issues from Satyam, the Indian company.
DOBBS: And Satyam, of course, is doing what it should do.
VILES: Oh, sure. It's a business model.
DOBBS: The state government of Washington is doing exactly what it should not be doing. It's remarkable.
VILES: We've heard from a couple of state legislators who want to do something about it. Pass laws that says the state should keep the jobs in the United States or even in the state but they have no guidance like that. They take the low bid. This bid is so low they're losing money on it.
DOBBS: The idiocy of all of this. The state government, you said, saying "We look for the best bang for the buck for the taxpayer." That sounds terrific until you think, well, it's the same reason that companies are shipping those jobs to cheap laborers to get the best bang for the shareholder. Everybody's forgetting the employee, the American worker, the impact on the tax base in the future of this economy. It's mind boggling.
VILES: Sure it is and we want to do more work on this federal government contract to find out exactly how it was because many federal government contracts must be performed by U.S. citizens. We want to know how that worked in this particular case.
DOBBS: Absolutely. We look forward to that piece. As always, outstanding job and get over that cold. Peter Viles.
VILES: I'd like to export it.
DOBBS: Taking a look now at the companies that our staff has confirmed to be exporting American. Now these are U.S. companies sending American jobs overseas, choosing to employ alternatively, foreign labor instead of American workers.
We are working to confirm the thousands of companies that you have notified us of. These are the companies confirmed today.
Adobe Systems, Avery Dennison, a leader in the making of adhesive labels, Cendant, Eastman Kodak, Electroglas, that's a semiconductor equipment and materials company, Goodrich, Greenpoint Mortgage, Guardian Life Insurance, ITT Educational Services and Education Training Services Company, McData Corporation, a computer networking equipment company, Network Associates, Northwest Airlines, Parsons Enc (ph), an engineering and construction company, Primus Telecommunications and Time Warner, the parent company of this network.
Keep sending us the names of the companies you know to be exporting those jobs, we'll continue to work to confirm them and report them to you here each evening. Send them to us at LouDobbs@CNN.com. We will continue, of course, to report them.
Coming up next, broken borders. Tonight, one American community has been swamped by illegal aliens. What does that say about the lack of security along this country's borders? What does it say about the lack of a national immigration policy. Bill Tucker will report.
And in "Face-off" tonight. Should illegal aliens in this country be afforded the same privileges and rights as American citizens? Two leading experts on immigration face-off on the issue. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: LOU DOBBS TONIGHT continues. Now, "Broken Borders."
DOBBS: Tonight we take a look at one Connecticut town inundated with illegal aliens. The town of Danbury, Connecticut, was first brought to our attention by a viewer who had read about the town's problem in "The Hartford Courant." And as Bill Tucker now reports, it is a problem putting a strain on the city and its ability to deliver basic services to all its citizens.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): These are illegal alien day laborers in Danbury, Connecticut's, Kennedy Park, waiting to be picked up for work. It doesn't exactly fit with the traditional view of New England. But a lot about the city of Danbury is surprising. Officially, Danbury's home to 175,000 people and unofficially to another 15,000 illegal aliens. They were drawn by a strong economy and plentiful demand for cheap labor, word of which is talked about in communities as far away as Sao Paulo, Brazil. But the large number of illegal aliens is creating problems for the city and its taxpayers.
MAYOR MARK BOUGHTON, DANBURY, CONNECTICUT: It's a large health issue. Many of the young children that come here have not been immunized. We had -- we've had in years past cases of tuberculosis, cases of sort of third-world diseases that have -- people have not been inoculized against when they've come here to Connecticut, and we've had to deal with those. TUCKER: There is a lack of affordable housing for low-income workers, some people in town taking advantage of those workers by renting out their garages for $1,500 a month off the books.
(on camera): One of the places that the strain is the most evident is here in the city schools. Danbury High School is one of the largest in the state.
(voice-over): And voters are soon to be asked to approve a $55 million school bond to build a new elementary school and renovate the two existing middle schools. And there are additional demands placed on the police department.
CHIEF ROBERT PAQUETTE, DANBURY POLICE DEPARTMENT: Well, obviously, it does affect negatively the police department. There are many, many more demands that are placed on it. One of the biggest demands that we find, and one of the biggest problems that we find is communication.
TUCKER: On the typical arrest for minor offenses, the police don't ask about a person's legal status unless a serious crime is committed, the police chief saying doesn't have the time, manpower or jurisdiction to arrest illegal aliens. In other words, it's a federal problem.
BOUGHTON: I do think that the federal government has got to deal with this issue. In a post-9/11 world, it's critical to know who's among us. If 400 residents from a small town in Ecuador can come to Danbury, undocumented, unaccounted for and not tracked, think about how easy it can be for members of al Qaeda and terrorist cells to come into Danbury or any other community in the United States.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: And because the federal government doesn't track them, doesn't count them, it is left to the taxpayers in Danbury and other local communities across the country to pick up the tab for the social services -- Lou.
DOBBS: And that's's the pattern we're seeing across the country.
TUCKER: Right.
DOBBS: People are shifting the burden and the cost to others. Growers, those hiring illegal aliens in the Southwest, are really saying to the taxpayer, You take care of the health benefits. You take care of the police burdens and education burdens. We're going to have cheap labor, and we're going to exploit the situation.
TUCKER: Exactly.
DOBBS: Bill Tucker, thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Tonight's "Face Off": Should those who break U.S. law by entering this country illegally be afforded the same rights as U.S. citizens? My guests tonight have two very different views as to the answer to the question. Ben Johnson is the director of the Immigration Policy Center at the Immigration Law Foundation. He says illegal aliens are simply vital to our economy. Roy Beck is the executive director of the NumbersUSA Education and Research Foundation and calls illegal immigration theft. Both join us tonight from our studios in Washington, D.C. Good to have you with us.
ROY BECK, EXEC. DIR., NUMBERSUSA: Thank you.
BENJAMIN JOHNSON, DIR., IMMIGRATION POLICY CENTER: Thank you.
DOBBS: Let me ask you this to just start things out. Why should anyone who has broken the law to enter the country have any rights whatsoever?
JOHNSON: Well, I mean, it's less a question of rights and more a question of how do we deal with people who are coming here to do jobs that we need them to do. So -- and what's happening is states is very frustrated with the fact that the federal government won't effectively deal with the issue of undocumented immigration. And as a result, they're forced to issue driver's licenses to people because they know that if they don't issue driver's licenses to people, they're not going to go away, they're continue to drive on roads and they're going to continue to need educational services. So I mean, that's what drives this debate, is the fact that we have jobs that we want these people to fill, and we need to figure out a way to provide a legal status for them to be here to do that.
DOBBS: Roy?
BECK: Well, these are not jobs that we need foreign workers for. We don't need illegal workers. We've got 18 million Americans who cannot find a full-time job right now. The economy has adjusted to the fact that these 8 to 10 to 12 million illegal workers and their families are in the country, but it's been something that's been harmful for the economy as a whole.
There is much that the federal government can do and should do to help these cities. In the situation of the city that you just profiled, there is a bill, S-1906, before the Senate, and a companion bill in the House, that would require the federal government to come to any town in the country when a local policeman finds an illegal alien. Right now, the federal government will not pick up most illegal aliens when a policeman calls them.
DOBBS: Well, Roy, you know, police in this country can't even ask the question. That's an infringement of rights.
BECK: Well, there are some cities who have barred -- and I would say probably illegally -- have barred their policemen from asking the question. But these policemen are authorized by federal law to ask the question. These bills that are proposed do not require a policeman to ask about immigration status, but...
DOBBS: Well, Roy, what I'd say to you is why don't we -- why don't we have our Congress, if we're serious about this -- you know, the heck with the issue on the illegal alien and having hard-pressed law enforcement officers rounding up illegal aliens. Why don't we just slapping start stringent fines and penalties against those who hire illegal aliens?
BECK: Well, that -- yes, that would be very helpful. The federal government stopped doing that over 10 years ago, and this is one of the reasons why the immigrant population has ballooned, is because the federal government has stopped doing workplace enforcement.
DOBBS: Tom, let me ask you this. We have just heard -- Casey Wian reported last night from Los Angeles, California, a UCLA study, a UCLA professor urging that the state of California give illegal aliens the right to vote. As you know, Senator Gil Sedillo (ph) of California wants all illegal aliens to have driver's licenses. What is really going on there is really a very straightforward and not very subtle attempt to give immense political power to a group of people who are illegal in this country in one blanket, sweeping move, is it not?
JOHNSON: Well -- you're talking to me?
DOBBS: Yes.
JOHNSON: Yes. That's not -- I mean, it's clear from the Constitution that you have to be a citizen in order to vote in federal elections. And there's no question we need be careful about -- about diminishing the value of citizenship in this country. But for the most of the...
DOBBS: Well, why would we say "but" after that, Ben? I'm just -- we want...
JOHNSON: Because I think...
DOBBS: We don't want to diminish citizenship in this country, but -- what possibly could follow after you just made that statement?
JOHNSON: Well, what will follow after that is that for most of the history of this country prior to World War II, we do -- we have allowed non-citizens to vote in very local elections, and it didn't diminish the value of citizenship. I think that this is a question for local communities to decide. If local communities decide that they want non-citizens to be voting in local school board elections or very local small elections, as a way to begin to incorporate them into society, then I think that that's within the power of the local communities to do that.
DOBBS: My gosh!
JOHNSON: It's clear that...
DOBBS: Now, wouldn't that scare the dickens out of you? I mean, you're talking about turning over, effectively, immigration policy -- and by the way, it may be de facto already occurring in some of our border states, including California. You're saying, in effect, that a small community would have the opportunity, the power de facto to grant citizenship.
JOHNSON: No, that's not the case. Citizenship is very different from the ability to participate in local elections. There are lots of...
DOBBS: What would be the difference? If you're participating in a local election, what other right would you say citizenship should carry with it?
JOHNSON: Well, citizens...
DOBBS: It's the most precious right.
JOHNSON: It absolutely is the most precious right. Citizens are the only ones who can run for federal elected office. Citizens are the only ones who can vote in federal elections. Citizens never face the threat of deportation. If they commit some offense they're not going to face deportation. Those are all things that non-citizens can't do and risks that no-citizens face.
DOBBS: All right, Roy -- Ben, let me interrupt you. Roy, we -- we have just -- Bill Tucker has just reported from Danbury, Connecticut, a community of 70,000 people is really a community of about 90,000 people. No one seems to care, not national immigration authorities, not those charged with the responsibility. The fact is that a lot of people are employing those people. They're -- as Bill Tucker reported, rents are flowing in. And everybody's making a buck. What's wrong with this, Roy?
BECK: Well, illegal immigration's not a victimless crime in many ways. But No. 1, illegal immigrants steal wages. They steal from the wages of American workers, especially American workers that are in the occupations they compete with. And so it may be fine for the wealthy of the country and for the powerful of the country to put this on the backs of American workers, but these are wage thieves. Now, they may be nice people in other ways, but they're thieves. And you're exactly right that they've been able to kind of run roughshod.
I would say this, though, that there are improvements. As bad as things are, they're better than they were a year ago. The visa tracking bill that was passed in 2002 -- a number of the provisions have been implemented. We...
DOBBS: Well, first, Roy, we got to find out if it works. It doesn't start until the beginning of the year.
BECK: No, actually -- actually, a number of things have been implemented already, but the administration has already missed about a third of the deadlines. We have a report coming out tomorrow on that. So the administration is slower than it needs to be, but there are improvements.
The Congress just last month passed something, that will not go into effect for another year, that will allow every business in the country to just get on the phone and find out from the Social Security Administration whether a person they're hiring is illegal. This was not allowed -- it's not allowed even right now.
JOHNSON: Let me, if I can...
DOBBS: Sure. You get the last word, Ben.
JOHNSON: Yes. Let me...
DOBBS: Briefly.
JOHNSON: ... be very clear that illegal immigration is clearly a problem that we all want to solve. The question is, how do you solve the problem? And you can only solve the problem by coming at this from both the enforcement and from the immigration reform perspective. We've spent billions of dollars on immigration enforcement, and we've got more illegal immigration and more deaths at the border.
BECK: Enforcement at the border.
JOHNSON: What we need to do is now address the issue of a failed immigration policy. We've got to find way for these workers to come in to the United States legally, and then these problems will be addressed. We don't want illegal immigration, but we do want these workers in the United States in a legal status.
DOBBS: You know, what? I think the three of us just agreed on something. We need a national immigration policy that works. Do we all agree on that?
JOHNSON: Absolutely. But we can't have that by having enforcement policies only. We've got to have the political will...
DOBBS: We can't have that until people, Ben, start talking honestly about what they're trying to do, move the hidden agendas off the table, start talking straight, start looking at facts and being -- everybody be honest about what's happening in this country.
(CROSSTALK)
BECK: We don't have enforcement policy right now.
JOHNSON: I absolutely agree with that. But one of the things we...
DOBBS: Ben Johnson, Roy Beck, we thank you both. Come back, and we'll argue some more about this, as we continue this dialogue on immigration in this country. Thank you both.
Coming up next, we'll share some of your thoughts about the escalating problem of immigration, illegal immigration. And the United States signs a new trade agreement with Central American countries. The only problem is, it'll probably cost thousands of Americans their jobs. What's new? Lisa Sylvester reports. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) DOBBS: Well, in "The Great American Giveaway," we focus on CAFTA, the trade agreement reached between the United States and four Central American nations. The Bush administration says that deal will strip away barriers to trade. Opponents of the deal, however, say it will strip away more American jobs. Lisa Sylvester has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): U.S. trade negotiators are quite pleased. They managed to hammer out a deal that they say will open new Central American markets to American businesses.
ROBERT ZOELLICK, U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE: CAFTA is an important milestone in our journey towards hemispheric free trade. This agreement signals that these Central American partners are ready to join the United States, Mexico, Canada and Chile as free trade leaders in this hemisphere.
SYLVESTER: Under the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, duties on more than 80 percent of consumer and industrial products will be eliminated.
But who benefits from CAFTA depends who you talk to. Large multi-national corporations stand to gain, but textile groups say CAFTA will cost them hundreds of thousands of jobs and could be catastrophic to their industries. One provision, for instance, allows some of the Central American countries to buy yarn from China and other Asian countries at rock-bottom prices and sell the finished products in the United States. The union of Needle Trades, Industrial and Textile Workers say they'll be shut out of the United States, their own market.
MARK LEVINSON, UNITE: And if we allow for products from third countries to be used, then we're not just losing the apparel workers, we're also losing the textile workers.
SYLVESTER: Sugar beet farmers are also bracing for a flood of imports. The Central American countries turn out two million tons of sugar annually, more than the U.S. is currently importing. Senator Byron Dorgan says farmers in his state could be run out of business.
SEN. BYRON DORGAN (D), NORTH DAKOTA: In trade agreement after trade agreement, we have been dealt a losing hand by our negotiators, and I fear that will be the case with respect to the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
SYLVESTER: But lawmakers by Dorgan will have a chance to have their say. The CAFTA agreement has to be approved by Congress.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: Critics of CAFTA say if you want to know what impact the trade agreement will have, just take a look at NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement signed 10 years ago. A U.S. trade surplus with Mexico has turned into a trade deficit. U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost. And those jobs that NAFTA brought to Mexico have already moved off shore to other countries like India and China -- Lou.
DOBBS: Well, you can see why anybody would want to sign up for this agreement right away. Lisa Sylvester, thank you very much.
Coming up next, your thoughts on our series, "Broken Borders" and the growing problem of illegal immigration. Also ahead tonight: The French president, Jacques Chirac, wants to ban Muslim head scarves and other religious symbols from schools in France. Kitty Pilgrim will report. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: It's time now look at some of your thoughts, many of you writing in about our "Broken Borders" report last night on a political movement in California to give illegal aliens the right to vote.
From Madison, Maine. "The fact that any U.S. citizen is even considering giving such a cherished right -- the right to vote in our country -- to persons here illegally is shameful by any thinking persons's standards." Beth Swain.
From Las Cruces, New Mexico. "Voting rights for illegal aliens? Why, sure! In fact, I think we should send absentee ballots to everyone in Canada and Mexico to save them from having to travel to the U.S. to vote." Jim Warren.
From Honolulu, Hawaii. "My family worked hard to earn the privileges of being a U.S. citizen. To let others cut ahead of the line is an insult to all who go by the rules." Frank Garcia.
From San Mateo, California. "Dear Lou: I am tired of ultra- liberals trying to soft-pedal criminal activities with names like `undocumented immigrants.' They are not legitimate immigrants, and the only reason they are not documented is due to the fact that they snuck past customs checkpoints." Michael Killelea.
From Yuba City, California. "With all the demands the illegal immigrants from Mexico are making, why don't we just annex Mexico or make it our 51st state?" Bob Ping.
We love hearing your ideas. E-mail us at loudobbs@cnn.com. A reminder to vote in tonight's poll. Do you agree with the judge's decision to allow John Hinckley unsupervised visits? Yes or no. Cast your vote at cnn.com/lou. We'll have the results later in the broadcast.
Coming up next: French president Jacques Chirac speaks out against religious fanaticism in public schools and calls for a ban on religious symbols in those schools. Separation in church and state, French style. Kitty Pilgrim reports.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: French president Jacques Chirac today called for a law to ban Islamic head scarves and other religious symbols from French public schools. He said religious fanaticism is gaining ground in France. President Chirac said France would sacrifice its heritage if it followed the American example of allowing minorities to protect their separate identities. Kitty Pilgrim reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): These French school girls were expelled for wearing a traditional Muslim head scarf. The separation of church and state has been part of French law for nearly a century, but up until now, French public schools have set their own policies, sometimes expelling students for wearing scarves. Now French president Jacques Chirac supports a national law to ban conspicuous religious symbols in schools and other public institutions.
JACQUES CHIRAC, FRENCH PRESIDENT (through translator): If we're talking about Star of David or Hand (ph) of Fatima or a small cross, those are acceptable. But when it's very obvious -- in other words, when they're worn in a means that people can immediately see what religious faith they belong to -- that should not be accepted.
PILGRIM: Two thirds of French citizens support the ban on head scarves. France has one of the largest Muslim populations in Europe, Some five million people.
DANIELLE PLETKA, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: In France, they are far more determinedly secular than we are here in the United States, and they are going to be very, very rigorous in making sure that there are no public displays of religion.
PILGRIM: In the United States, a 6th-grader in Muskogee, Oklahoma, is suing her school district after being suspended for wearing a head scarf. The school says it's allowing her to wear it to class while the legal issues are sorted out in federal court. Legal experts say even though there is separation of church and state in the United States, freedom of religion has always been a constitutional right.
FRED MARCUSA, ATTORNEY, KAYE SCHOLER: In America we have a fundamental ability to encourage freedom of expression of all sorts of things, including religion. And I think that dominates here in a way that it probably doesn't in France.
PILGRIM: Therefore, experts say, an outright ban of religious expression is not likely to gain ground.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
Now, the U.S. Department of Education says there's no national policy. This is a state and local decision. In Oklahoma, they made the decision to just get on with the education and let the courts decide. But this is very much a test case, Lou, and this will be challenged repeatedly, legal experts say.
DOBBS: Well, this is America. They test everything in courts here, right? It is one of those things, however, that probably deserves a good test because it is part of the issue of majority rule and minority right in this country in which we need to swing to balance. Kitty Pilgrim, thank you very much.
Coming up next: the right stuff, celebrating the first major milestone in what became a long legacy of American aviation excellence over a century of accomplishment. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Now the results of tonight's poll: 32 percent of you say the judge's decision today to allow John Hinckley unsupervised visits was appropriate and you agree with it; 68 percent say absolutely not.
And finally tonight, today marks the 100th anniversary of Wilbur and Orville Wright's historic flight manned flight from the beaches of Kittyhawk, North Carolina. The launch, of course, began a century of great accomplishments and achievement in aviation. And today thousands gathered to honor and reenact the Wright brothers' remarkable accomplishment, even delays and wet weather today not enough to dampen the spirits of the crowds at Kittyhawk.
And that brings us to tonight's "Thought" about exploring the unknown in search of greatness. "Whether outwardly or inwardly, whether in space or time, the farther we penetrate the unknown, the vaster and more marvelous it becomes." That from legendary American aviator Charles Lindbergh.
That's our show for tonight. Thanks for being with us. And for all of us here, good night from New York.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired December 17, 2003 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, the army cracks down in Iraq, rounding up dozens of suspected insurgents and terrorists. "TIME" magazine correspondent, Michael Ware, one of the few American journalist whose have been with the insurgents. He joins us from Baghdad.
In "The Great American Giveaway," the United States signs a free- trade agreement with four central American countries, but thousands of American workers stand to lose their jobs. Lisa Sylvester reports.
In "Broken Borders" a city in Connecticut has been inundated with illegal aliens, now struggling to provide housing, education and health services for its legal citizens. Bill Tucker will have special report.
In face-off tonight, should illegal aliens be given the same rights and privileges as U.S. citizens. I'll be joined by two people with very different views on this highly controversial issue.
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Wednesday, December 17. Here now, Lou Dobbs.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Good evening. Tonight, a judge said John Hinckley, the man who tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan in 1981 can make unsupervised visits to see his parents, but the judge said Hinckley will not be allowed to stay with his parents overnight and he must remain within 50 miles of Washington.
Tonight, Nancy Reagan strongly criticized the judge's ruling. The former first lady said, "we continue to fear for the safety of the general public."
Justice correspondent Kelly Arena has the report for us -- Kelly.
KELLY ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Lou, Hinckley will be allowed six day visits with his parents within a 50 mile radius of Washington D.C. and that is to be followed by two overnight visits, also within that 50 mile radius.
Hinckley has been a patient of St. Elizabeth's Hospital for the last two decades. Now, hospital staff told the court that these visits are part of his ongoing therapy. And that he does not pose a danger to himself or public at this time.
And it isn't the first time he'll be out in public. He's gone on several outings with hospital staff. But this time it will be up to his parents to supervise him.
Now, the judge has placed some conditions on those visits. Hinckley has to follow a very detailed itinerary. He's not allowed to contact the media or even his ex-girlfriend, who was also a patient at St. Elizabeth's. Now Hinckley had asked for unsupervised visits to his parents' home in Virginia, which was denied.
And the wife of the former White House Press Secretary James Brady who was injured in the attack, had written to the judge to oppose Hinckley's release. We did hear, as you said, from Nancy Reagan. And the government had argued that Hinckley had shown a pattern of deception and that he should not be let out, supervised only by his elderly parents.
but the judge said he took the government's concerns into account and he fells this incremental approach this right way go, Lou.
DOBBS: And Kelly, when does this begin?
ARENA: Well it will begin after the holidays. So, he will not be allowed out before Christmas. Things have to be worked out, the itineraries have to be worked out, his parents have to sign paperwork so this won't happen for a few weeks yet. And the Secret Service will be alerted when he leaves hospital grounds.
DOBBS: While he will not be supervised, is there any kind of surveillance of any kind on this man who has shot a president and others?
ARENA: First of all, his parents have to sign a paper saying he will not go out of their sight for a moment while he's released. The second thing is that Secret Service is stationed outside St. Elizabeth, even when he walks around the grounds. So it is expected that Secret Service agents will be loosely surveilling him as well, though, the government said they couldn't guarantee that, there's no reason to think that they'll change their strategy now versus what they've done before.
DOBBS: Kelly, thank you very much. Kelly Arena, our justice correspondent.
Joining me now is CNN's legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin. Jeffrey, the first question is, this is remarkable. You have the prosecutor saying do not release Hinckley, you have the former first lady saying do not release this man, you have Mrs. Brady saying don't release this man. What is the judge thinking about?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: But you have the government's own experts saying he's not -- he is in remission from mental illness. The government could not come into court and say, he represents a danger to the community if he gets out. And I think that was really the key issue here, because the standard is, is he reasonably likely to be a danger to himself or others? And there was no psychiatrist who went to Judge Freedman (ph) and said, yes. So I think the result is not all that surprising.
DOBBS: That's a very important point Jeffrey. The government's own witnesses, the prosecution saying do not release this man, supporting Hinckley's attorneys
TOOBIN: Supporting them on the issue of whether he is still suffering from active mental illness. Also, he has been out more than 200 times over the past several years. This is not a dramatic change. What's different is he will no longer be supervised by hospital personnel, he will only be supervised by his parents and this apparent loose Secret Service protection but he is not -- this not a dramatic change in his circumstances.
DOBBS: The very idea that the United States secret service, which has very important business to conduct and taxpayer dollars relatively precious are going to be spent in permitting Hinckley to visit his parents. Is that remarkable situation.
TOOBIN: This is the consequence of the government losing the trial in 1981. Because, by being found not guilty by reason of insanity, this the standard the judge has to follow. It's not optional on the part of the judge. If he had been sentenced to a determinate number of years, that's what he would have gotten. But because he was found not guilty by reason of insanity, the rules are unless he's not reasonably certain to hurt somebody, he can start to be let go.
DOBBS: Is this a precursor for Hinckley to be absolutely unsupervised, unfettered very quickly?
TOOBIN: Certainly not very quickly but I think, clearly, the trend is, whether people like it or not, for greater and greater freedom. The next likely step is to be allowed to go more than 50 miles, to his parents' home in Williamsburg, Virginia. That's the way these incremental changes have been made.
But, I think ,since he's a relatively young man, it is likely that he will be virtually free at some point in his life.
DOBBS: There is always a great deal of question about the effectiveness, absolute certainty from an inexact science, to say the least, and that is psychiatry itself. What is the record of the psychiatric profession, in making these prognoses for people who are -- who have committed violent acts like John Hinckley?
TOOBIN: It's good. It's not perfect. And it's a risk. And I think that is what everyone, with any degree of common sense who knows what he did, which was so horrible, that that's the worry everyone has. But it is a good record but, of course, not it's just not perfect.
DOBBS: I guess good would leave us wondering just how large is the risk. 60 percent, 40 percent? Do we have to leave it in qualitative terms TOOBIN: I think it's lower than 40 percent. Judge Freedman (ph) is a careful judge. This is a 50 page opinion, where he goes through the evidence very carefully. He's not anxious to release someone whose going do something again, especially knowing how high profile this is, but it's a risk, no doubt about it.
DOBBS: Jeffrey Toobin, thank you very much.
We want to hear from you about this subject in our poll tonight. The question, "do you agree with the judge's decision to allow John Hinckley unsupervised visits? Yes or No." Please cast your vote at cnn.com/lou. We'll have results later.
In Iraq, more than 2,000 American troops today carried out a second day of searches for insurgents and terrorists in the town of Samarra, about 60 miles north of Baghdad. The soldiers used sledge hammers, crow bars and explosives to smash their way into homes, workshops and warehouses in Samarra. Those troops arrested another 30 suspects in addition to the 70 they rounded up yesterday. Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr has the report -- Barbara.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Indeed Lou, heavily armed troops, hundreds of them have now sealed off the city of Samarra, conducting a number of raids looking for insurgents.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COL. FREDERICK RUDESHEIM, 4TH INFANTRY DIVISION: Last night, we conducted a number of target raids and cordoned search operations which led to the capture of about 30 individuals. These operations continue, and that number may increase over time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STARR: And indeed it did. The military now saying it controls the city, and in recent hours, the number of suspects arrested has increased. Now, as you say, up to more than 70.
This is called "Operation: Ivy Blizzard," that's the name for the operation. So far it has led to the detention of many people, including one high level target we are told, believed to be responsible for financing anti-coalition activities.
And even today, we are learning more still about the immediate hours following the capture of Saddam Hussein over the weekend. Defense officials telling CNN that in the immediate hours following his capture, as the news began to emerge around the world, the military significantly increased its surveillance, aerial and ground surveillance in key areas of Iraq to make sure that suspected insurgents didn't cut and run. They were very concerned that people might start moving.
And that surveillance continues, at this hour, in key areas, especial in there border areas to make sure people aren't escaping and moving across the borders. Officials say now what they call a full-court press is on across Iraq, looking for insurgents. And they say the evidence continues to turn up perhaps as many as 14 cells of insurgents work across Baghdad alone. Still no evidence of real central command and control over these cells. It is clear that Saddam Hussein, they said, had information in his possession about the insurgent, but whether he was directing them still is an open question -- Lou.
DOBBS: It's fair to assume, is it not, Barbara, we're not going to learn here in the public, about what was contained in those documents and intelligence accompanying Saddam Hussein for some time?
STARR: That's right, Lou. They're going to work off this intelligence, they will continue to work off of it. We are going to see raised, see more people being taken into custody. Every indication they are continuing to get a payoff from these documents but nobody's going to spell it out in public just yet.
DOBBS: Barbara, thank you very much. Barbara Starr from the Pentagon.
Interrogators questioning Saddam Hussein are not only asking him about insurgent but about the former regime's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. So far, interrogators have found no evidence his regime was actively developing nuclear, biological or chemical weapons when Baghdad fell to American troops.
Our national security correspondent David Ensor has the report.
DAVID ENSOR, NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: They will privately tell you the search has not gone as they hoped it would. David Kay, who's in charge of it for the CIA is home for the holidays. His team in Iraq has been cut back some, personnel has been shifted back to efforts against insurgent in Iraq for obvious reasons. Partly for personal reasons it's not entirely clear David Kay will be going back to Iraq. There have been discussions over what the next step should be in the hunt for weapons. As for Saddam Hussein, all we have from him so far is denials that he has any weapons. His capture could, in the view of some officials convince some Iraqi scientists to talk and tell what they know. There's some hope there. President Bush and his advisers are counseling patience. Mr. Bush says no weapons have been found quote, "yet" and used that word several times yesterday. Secretary Rumsfeld said there may be more than one hiding hole in ground in Iraq
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: In your mind's eye picture the hole he was in. That hole was what 6 and half feet by 8 feet or 10 feet in the dirt. And think of the quantity of biological weapons that could fit in that hole alone, could kill tens of thousands of human beings.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ENSOR: But David Kay's team has only found evidence of weapons programs thus far, blueprints, components, dual use labs, a missile program that cheated on U.N. rules but they have not found any actual weapons. The report is now due from David Kay's group around June. They said six to nine months, and that's when it runs out. As to whether he will be filing the report or someone else, that question is in the air tonight -- Lou.
DOBBS: David, plenty of questions remain. Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida say the Bush administration told him and other senators that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction but also the means to deliver those weapons to East coast cities.
Do you know anything about this?
What are sources telling you?
ENSOR: I looked into that today, actually. It was in an unclassified October, 2002 report that the CIA made public and it's on the CIA's Web site today. And what it says is that Iraqis do have a UAV program, unmanned aerial vehicle program. And it goes on to say, that technically it would be possible for the Iraqi, if they had wanted to to put a chemical or biological warhead on one of those weapons, to put it on a freighter off the East coast, to fly it a few with hundred miles in and to attack a western city. The report does not say they had that capability, it just said it was technically feasible. It may be the senator was extrapolate little bit too far from what was in the report -- Lou.
DOBBS: David than you very much. David Ensor, national security correspondent reporting from Washington.
The capture of Saddam Hussein has given President Bush a significant boost in his approval ratings. The latest CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup Poll says President Bush's approval rating jumped from 54 percent last week to 63 percent this week. The poll also found the number of people who support the way the United States is handling Iraq now has increased 20 percentage points over the past two weeks up to 65 percent.
"TIME" magazine's Michael Ware is one of the few western journalists to have met with insurgents in Iraq. He wrote about his experiences in the current edition of "TIME" magazine. Michael is the winner of numerous journalistic awards, including the Magazine Publisher Association's prestigious "journalist of the year" in 2001. Michael joins me now from Baghdad. Michael thank you being here.
We are watching a sharp uptick in the activity against the insurgents. What is your sense of the direction of the U.S. forces, the coalition is headed now against the insurgents and their likely success?
MICHAEL WARE, "TIME" MAGAZINE: Well, it's still going be a very long road from everything I can tell. It's clear that there has been an upsurge, but to some degree, given that there's been an increase in the number of suicide bombings, perhaps some of the foreign element, which though small is potent, has picked up the ball and is run with it. Some of the Iraqi cells that I am familiar with, I know two of them have suspended their operations temporarily to assess the new American tactic, while others have gone out and unleashed a new wave of attacks. But a period of reconstitution, their reorganizing and watching how things develop in the days and weeks to come.
DOBBS: You have actually spent time with the insurgents in a remarkable a piece, as I said in this week's "TIME" magazine, talking about --- reporting deftly, the mind-set of a number of the insurgents or the terrorists, in some cases. This is hardly a homogeneous group who formed the insurgency in Iraq. Of them, who would you judge to be the most dangerous?
WARE: Well, certainly in terms of high profile political strikes like suicide bombings and car bombings on embassies, hotels and other installation, from what I can gather, this is being conducted by foreign jihadis. However, they're not operating alone. While they'll plan and conduct the operation, they're doing it with the logistical support of Iraqi units or fighters. However, the day-to-day drip feed of attacks is very much a home-grown Iraqi affair and this continues.
DOBBS: The striking thing, in your report this week, is the mind-set, obviously, of the radical Islamic suicide bomber, in party with the Ba'athist. With no ideological connection other than a hatred of Americans, of course, how do you think that will play out? Is that an alliance that can stand a test of U.S. force and time?
WARE: I think it will hold as long as they all perceive that they still have a common enemy. However, there are strong divisions between these groups, even within organizations operating together.
For example, a Fedayeen commander of Saddam's former militia was saying that he's prepared to sacrifice ten Iraqis for one dead American. Well, his former mujahedeen, former military officers objected to this. And at the end of an argument, the Fedayeen commander jokingly said, when the last American leaves, I'll begin killing the mujahedeen. Well, by the looks on their faces, not if they get him first.
DOBBS: Michael Ware, thank you very much. "TIME" magazine, reporting from Baghdad
Tonight, the State Department warned all non-essential foreign diplomats and their families to leave Saudi Arabia. Officials say private citizen's should also consider leaving because of the potential for further terrorist activities. Last month, terrorists killed 17 people and wounded more than 100 others when they attacked a housing compound on the Saudi capitol of Riyadh. U.S. and Saudi officials say the bombing and other attacks, the work of al Qaeda.
Coming up next here, "Exporting America" tonight. An American state government exporting jobs to cheap overseas labor markets. That's right, a state government. Peter Viles will report.
And the "Great American Give Away," expanding so called free trade, it's going so well the Bush administration has struck out with a new deal. Lisa Sylvester will report.
And "Broken Borders." Tonight, one small down overwhelmed by illegal aliens.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If 400 residents from Ecuador can come to Danbury, undocumented, unaccounted for, and not tracked think about how easy it is for members of al Qaeda or terrorist cells to come into Danbury or any other community in the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: Bill Tucker will report on how this nation's broken borders are putting the country at a great risk and putting a great burden on cities and towns.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Surprising and disappointing news tonight about the exportation of American jobs and just how widespread this problem is. The state government of Washington has hired an Indian company to rework some of its computer systems and tonight, this broadcast has learned that the same Indian company did work for the federal government during the Clinton administration. Peter Viles has the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PETER VILES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Officials in Washington State confirming that they, too, have hopped on the off shoring outsourcing bandwagon awarding a $3 million contract to a partnership between Texas- based Health Axis and India-based Satyam Computer Services. Why send jobs overseas?
A spokesman for Washington's state's health care authority tells CNN the Health Axis/Satyam bid was the low bid and, quote, "the state's policy is to get the best bang for the buck for taxpayers." The contract signed last year, discovered by Washtech, the organization fighting to keep high-tech jobs in America.
MARCUS COURTNEY, PRESIDENT, WASHTECH: It's outrageous. It makes absolutely no sense that our state government is using taxpayer dollars to create high-tech jobs in India when high-tech workers not only in Washington State but throughout the country face double-digit unemployment.
VILES: The Washington State deal is a small disaster. It's five months behind schedule. The winning bid was so low that Health Axis is now telling investors it will lose money on the deal. If you haven't heard of Satyam, it's time you did. The company says its business model is not outsourcing but, quote, "rightsourcing." Claims to do business with 87 of the Fortune 500. Lists as one of its current business challenges, quote, "backlash and legislative challenges due to increased unemployment in the United States."
It also boasts that it has provided end to end IT resources for what it calls a "major U.S. federal agency." The agency in question, according to Satyam's Web site is the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the project was so well received that then Vice President Al Gore named it one of the best e-government applications for the year 2000.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VILES: Many, many unanswered questions tonight about this HUD contract. We don't know the dollar value of this contract or whether it was a subcontract or contract directly with the federal government. Most importantly, we don't know exactly where the work was performed. Possible some of it was done in the United States. But this is an Indian company's business model. It's based on getting the job in United States and doing the work in India. No comment tonight on any of those issues from Satyam, the Indian company.
DOBBS: And Satyam, of course, is doing what it should do.
VILES: Oh, sure. It's a business model.
DOBBS: The state government of Washington is doing exactly what it should not be doing. It's remarkable.
VILES: We've heard from a couple of state legislators who want to do something about it. Pass laws that says the state should keep the jobs in the United States or even in the state but they have no guidance like that. They take the low bid. This bid is so low they're losing money on it.
DOBBS: The idiocy of all of this. The state government, you said, saying "We look for the best bang for the buck for the taxpayer." That sounds terrific until you think, well, it's the same reason that companies are shipping those jobs to cheap laborers to get the best bang for the shareholder. Everybody's forgetting the employee, the American worker, the impact on the tax base in the future of this economy. It's mind boggling.
VILES: Sure it is and we want to do more work on this federal government contract to find out exactly how it was because many federal government contracts must be performed by U.S. citizens. We want to know how that worked in this particular case.
DOBBS: Absolutely. We look forward to that piece. As always, outstanding job and get over that cold. Peter Viles.
VILES: I'd like to export it.
DOBBS: Taking a look now at the companies that our staff has confirmed to be exporting American. Now these are U.S. companies sending American jobs overseas, choosing to employ alternatively, foreign labor instead of American workers.
We are working to confirm the thousands of companies that you have notified us of. These are the companies confirmed today.
Adobe Systems, Avery Dennison, a leader in the making of adhesive labels, Cendant, Eastman Kodak, Electroglas, that's a semiconductor equipment and materials company, Goodrich, Greenpoint Mortgage, Guardian Life Insurance, ITT Educational Services and Education Training Services Company, McData Corporation, a computer networking equipment company, Network Associates, Northwest Airlines, Parsons Enc (ph), an engineering and construction company, Primus Telecommunications and Time Warner, the parent company of this network.
Keep sending us the names of the companies you know to be exporting those jobs, we'll continue to work to confirm them and report them to you here each evening. Send them to us at LouDobbs@CNN.com. We will continue, of course, to report them.
Coming up next, broken borders. Tonight, one American community has been swamped by illegal aliens. What does that say about the lack of security along this country's borders? What does it say about the lack of a national immigration policy. Bill Tucker will report.
And in "Face-off" tonight. Should illegal aliens in this country be afforded the same privileges and rights as American citizens? Two leading experts on immigration face-off on the issue. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: LOU DOBBS TONIGHT continues. Now, "Broken Borders."
DOBBS: Tonight we take a look at one Connecticut town inundated with illegal aliens. The town of Danbury, Connecticut, was first brought to our attention by a viewer who had read about the town's problem in "The Hartford Courant." And as Bill Tucker now reports, it is a problem putting a strain on the city and its ability to deliver basic services to all its citizens.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): These are illegal alien day laborers in Danbury, Connecticut's, Kennedy Park, waiting to be picked up for work. It doesn't exactly fit with the traditional view of New England. But a lot about the city of Danbury is surprising. Officially, Danbury's home to 175,000 people and unofficially to another 15,000 illegal aliens. They were drawn by a strong economy and plentiful demand for cheap labor, word of which is talked about in communities as far away as Sao Paulo, Brazil. But the large number of illegal aliens is creating problems for the city and its taxpayers.
MAYOR MARK BOUGHTON, DANBURY, CONNECTICUT: It's a large health issue. Many of the young children that come here have not been immunized. We had -- we've had in years past cases of tuberculosis, cases of sort of third-world diseases that have -- people have not been inoculized against when they've come here to Connecticut, and we've had to deal with those. TUCKER: There is a lack of affordable housing for low-income workers, some people in town taking advantage of those workers by renting out their garages for $1,500 a month off the books.
(on camera): One of the places that the strain is the most evident is here in the city schools. Danbury High School is one of the largest in the state.
(voice-over): And voters are soon to be asked to approve a $55 million school bond to build a new elementary school and renovate the two existing middle schools. And there are additional demands placed on the police department.
CHIEF ROBERT PAQUETTE, DANBURY POLICE DEPARTMENT: Well, obviously, it does affect negatively the police department. There are many, many more demands that are placed on it. One of the biggest demands that we find, and one of the biggest problems that we find is communication.
TUCKER: On the typical arrest for minor offenses, the police don't ask about a person's legal status unless a serious crime is committed, the police chief saying doesn't have the time, manpower or jurisdiction to arrest illegal aliens. In other words, it's a federal problem.
BOUGHTON: I do think that the federal government has got to deal with this issue. In a post-9/11 world, it's critical to know who's among us. If 400 residents from a small town in Ecuador can come to Danbury, undocumented, unaccounted for and not tracked, think about how easy it can be for members of al Qaeda and terrorist cells to come into Danbury or any other community in the United States.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: And because the federal government doesn't track them, doesn't count them, it is left to the taxpayers in Danbury and other local communities across the country to pick up the tab for the social services -- Lou.
DOBBS: And that's's the pattern we're seeing across the country.
TUCKER: Right.
DOBBS: People are shifting the burden and the cost to others. Growers, those hiring illegal aliens in the Southwest, are really saying to the taxpayer, You take care of the health benefits. You take care of the police burdens and education burdens. We're going to have cheap labor, and we're going to exploit the situation.
TUCKER: Exactly.
DOBBS: Bill Tucker, thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Tonight's "Face Off": Should those who break U.S. law by entering this country illegally be afforded the same rights as U.S. citizens? My guests tonight have two very different views as to the answer to the question. Ben Johnson is the director of the Immigration Policy Center at the Immigration Law Foundation. He says illegal aliens are simply vital to our economy. Roy Beck is the executive director of the NumbersUSA Education and Research Foundation and calls illegal immigration theft. Both join us tonight from our studios in Washington, D.C. Good to have you with us.
ROY BECK, EXEC. DIR., NUMBERSUSA: Thank you.
BENJAMIN JOHNSON, DIR., IMMIGRATION POLICY CENTER: Thank you.
DOBBS: Let me ask you this to just start things out. Why should anyone who has broken the law to enter the country have any rights whatsoever?
JOHNSON: Well, I mean, it's less a question of rights and more a question of how do we deal with people who are coming here to do jobs that we need them to do. So -- and what's happening is states is very frustrated with the fact that the federal government won't effectively deal with the issue of undocumented immigration. And as a result, they're forced to issue driver's licenses to people because they know that if they don't issue driver's licenses to people, they're not going to go away, they're continue to drive on roads and they're going to continue to need educational services. So I mean, that's what drives this debate, is the fact that we have jobs that we want these people to fill, and we need to figure out a way to provide a legal status for them to be here to do that.
DOBBS: Roy?
BECK: Well, these are not jobs that we need foreign workers for. We don't need illegal workers. We've got 18 million Americans who cannot find a full-time job right now. The economy has adjusted to the fact that these 8 to 10 to 12 million illegal workers and their families are in the country, but it's been something that's been harmful for the economy as a whole.
There is much that the federal government can do and should do to help these cities. In the situation of the city that you just profiled, there is a bill, S-1906, before the Senate, and a companion bill in the House, that would require the federal government to come to any town in the country when a local policeman finds an illegal alien. Right now, the federal government will not pick up most illegal aliens when a policeman calls them.
DOBBS: Well, Roy, you know, police in this country can't even ask the question. That's an infringement of rights.
BECK: Well, there are some cities who have barred -- and I would say probably illegally -- have barred their policemen from asking the question. But these policemen are authorized by federal law to ask the question. These bills that are proposed do not require a policeman to ask about immigration status, but...
DOBBS: Well, Roy, what I'd say to you is why don't we -- why don't we have our Congress, if we're serious about this -- you know, the heck with the issue on the illegal alien and having hard-pressed law enforcement officers rounding up illegal aliens. Why don't we just slapping start stringent fines and penalties against those who hire illegal aliens?
BECK: Well, that -- yes, that would be very helpful. The federal government stopped doing that over 10 years ago, and this is one of the reasons why the immigrant population has ballooned, is because the federal government has stopped doing workplace enforcement.
DOBBS: Tom, let me ask you this. We have just heard -- Casey Wian reported last night from Los Angeles, California, a UCLA study, a UCLA professor urging that the state of California give illegal aliens the right to vote. As you know, Senator Gil Sedillo (ph) of California wants all illegal aliens to have driver's licenses. What is really going on there is really a very straightforward and not very subtle attempt to give immense political power to a group of people who are illegal in this country in one blanket, sweeping move, is it not?
JOHNSON: Well -- you're talking to me?
DOBBS: Yes.
JOHNSON: Yes. That's not -- I mean, it's clear from the Constitution that you have to be a citizen in order to vote in federal elections. And there's no question we need be careful about -- about diminishing the value of citizenship in this country. But for the most of the...
DOBBS: Well, why would we say "but" after that, Ben? I'm just -- we want...
JOHNSON: Because I think...
DOBBS: We don't want to diminish citizenship in this country, but -- what possibly could follow after you just made that statement?
JOHNSON: Well, what will follow after that is that for most of the history of this country prior to World War II, we do -- we have allowed non-citizens to vote in very local elections, and it didn't diminish the value of citizenship. I think that this is a question for local communities to decide. If local communities decide that they want non-citizens to be voting in local school board elections or very local small elections, as a way to begin to incorporate them into society, then I think that that's within the power of the local communities to do that.
DOBBS: My gosh!
JOHNSON: It's clear that...
DOBBS: Now, wouldn't that scare the dickens out of you? I mean, you're talking about turning over, effectively, immigration policy -- and by the way, it may be de facto already occurring in some of our border states, including California. You're saying, in effect, that a small community would have the opportunity, the power de facto to grant citizenship.
JOHNSON: No, that's not the case. Citizenship is very different from the ability to participate in local elections. There are lots of...
DOBBS: What would be the difference? If you're participating in a local election, what other right would you say citizenship should carry with it?
JOHNSON: Well, citizens...
DOBBS: It's the most precious right.
JOHNSON: It absolutely is the most precious right. Citizens are the only ones who can run for federal elected office. Citizens are the only ones who can vote in federal elections. Citizens never face the threat of deportation. If they commit some offense they're not going to face deportation. Those are all things that non-citizens can't do and risks that no-citizens face.
DOBBS: All right, Roy -- Ben, let me interrupt you. Roy, we -- we have just -- Bill Tucker has just reported from Danbury, Connecticut, a community of 70,000 people is really a community of about 90,000 people. No one seems to care, not national immigration authorities, not those charged with the responsibility. The fact is that a lot of people are employing those people. They're -- as Bill Tucker reported, rents are flowing in. And everybody's making a buck. What's wrong with this, Roy?
BECK: Well, illegal immigration's not a victimless crime in many ways. But No. 1, illegal immigrants steal wages. They steal from the wages of American workers, especially American workers that are in the occupations they compete with. And so it may be fine for the wealthy of the country and for the powerful of the country to put this on the backs of American workers, but these are wage thieves. Now, they may be nice people in other ways, but they're thieves. And you're exactly right that they've been able to kind of run roughshod.
I would say this, though, that there are improvements. As bad as things are, they're better than they were a year ago. The visa tracking bill that was passed in 2002 -- a number of the provisions have been implemented. We...
DOBBS: Well, first, Roy, we got to find out if it works. It doesn't start until the beginning of the year.
BECK: No, actually -- actually, a number of things have been implemented already, but the administration has already missed about a third of the deadlines. We have a report coming out tomorrow on that. So the administration is slower than it needs to be, but there are improvements.
The Congress just last month passed something, that will not go into effect for another year, that will allow every business in the country to just get on the phone and find out from the Social Security Administration whether a person they're hiring is illegal. This was not allowed -- it's not allowed even right now.
JOHNSON: Let me, if I can...
DOBBS: Sure. You get the last word, Ben.
JOHNSON: Yes. Let me...
DOBBS: Briefly.
JOHNSON: ... be very clear that illegal immigration is clearly a problem that we all want to solve. The question is, how do you solve the problem? And you can only solve the problem by coming at this from both the enforcement and from the immigration reform perspective. We've spent billions of dollars on immigration enforcement, and we've got more illegal immigration and more deaths at the border.
BECK: Enforcement at the border.
JOHNSON: What we need to do is now address the issue of a failed immigration policy. We've got to find way for these workers to come in to the United States legally, and then these problems will be addressed. We don't want illegal immigration, but we do want these workers in the United States in a legal status.
DOBBS: You know, what? I think the three of us just agreed on something. We need a national immigration policy that works. Do we all agree on that?
JOHNSON: Absolutely. But we can't have that by having enforcement policies only. We've got to have the political will...
DOBBS: We can't have that until people, Ben, start talking honestly about what they're trying to do, move the hidden agendas off the table, start talking straight, start looking at facts and being -- everybody be honest about what's happening in this country.
(CROSSTALK)
BECK: We don't have enforcement policy right now.
JOHNSON: I absolutely agree with that. But one of the things we...
DOBBS: Ben Johnson, Roy Beck, we thank you both. Come back, and we'll argue some more about this, as we continue this dialogue on immigration in this country. Thank you both.
Coming up next, we'll share some of your thoughts about the escalating problem of immigration, illegal immigration. And the United States signs a new trade agreement with Central American countries. The only problem is, it'll probably cost thousands of Americans their jobs. What's new? Lisa Sylvester reports. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) DOBBS: Well, in "The Great American Giveaway," we focus on CAFTA, the trade agreement reached between the United States and four Central American nations. The Bush administration says that deal will strip away barriers to trade. Opponents of the deal, however, say it will strip away more American jobs. Lisa Sylvester has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): U.S. trade negotiators are quite pleased. They managed to hammer out a deal that they say will open new Central American markets to American businesses.
ROBERT ZOELLICK, U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE: CAFTA is an important milestone in our journey towards hemispheric free trade. This agreement signals that these Central American partners are ready to join the United States, Mexico, Canada and Chile as free trade leaders in this hemisphere.
SYLVESTER: Under the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, duties on more than 80 percent of consumer and industrial products will be eliminated.
But who benefits from CAFTA depends who you talk to. Large multi-national corporations stand to gain, but textile groups say CAFTA will cost them hundreds of thousands of jobs and could be catastrophic to their industries. One provision, for instance, allows some of the Central American countries to buy yarn from China and other Asian countries at rock-bottom prices and sell the finished products in the United States. The union of Needle Trades, Industrial and Textile Workers say they'll be shut out of the United States, their own market.
MARK LEVINSON, UNITE: And if we allow for products from third countries to be used, then we're not just losing the apparel workers, we're also losing the textile workers.
SYLVESTER: Sugar beet farmers are also bracing for a flood of imports. The Central American countries turn out two million tons of sugar annually, more than the U.S. is currently importing. Senator Byron Dorgan says farmers in his state could be run out of business.
SEN. BYRON DORGAN (D), NORTH DAKOTA: In trade agreement after trade agreement, we have been dealt a losing hand by our negotiators, and I fear that will be the case with respect to the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
SYLVESTER: But lawmakers by Dorgan will have a chance to have their say. The CAFTA agreement has to be approved by Congress.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: Critics of CAFTA say if you want to know what impact the trade agreement will have, just take a look at NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement signed 10 years ago. A U.S. trade surplus with Mexico has turned into a trade deficit. U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost. And those jobs that NAFTA brought to Mexico have already moved off shore to other countries like India and China -- Lou.
DOBBS: Well, you can see why anybody would want to sign up for this agreement right away. Lisa Sylvester, thank you very much.
Coming up next, your thoughts on our series, "Broken Borders" and the growing problem of illegal immigration. Also ahead tonight: The French president, Jacques Chirac, wants to ban Muslim head scarves and other religious symbols from schools in France. Kitty Pilgrim will report. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: It's time now look at some of your thoughts, many of you writing in about our "Broken Borders" report last night on a political movement in California to give illegal aliens the right to vote.
From Madison, Maine. "The fact that any U.S. citizen is even considering giving such a cherished right -- the right to vote in our country -- to persons here illegally is shameful by any thinking persons's standards." Beth Swain.
From Las Cruces, New Mexico. "Voting rights for illegal aliens? Why, sure! In fact, I think we should send absentee ballots to everyone in Canada and Mexico to save them from having to travel to the U.S. to vote." Jim Warren.
From Honolulu, Hawaii. "My family worked hard to earn the privileges of being a U.S. citizen. To let others cut ahead of the line is an insult to all who go by the rules." Frank Garcia.
From San Mateo, California. "Dear Lou: I am tired of ultra- liberals trying to soft-pedal criminal activities with names like `undocumented immigrants.' They are not legitimate immigrants, and the only reason they are not documented is due to the fact that they snuck past customs checkpoints." Michael Killelea.
From Yuba City, California. "With all the demands the illegal immigrants from Mexico are making, why don't we just annex Mexico or make it our 51st state?" Bob Ping.
We love hearing your ideas. E-mail us at loudobbs@cnn.com. A reminder to vote in tonight's poll. Do you agree with the judge's decision to allow John Hinckley unsupervised visits? Yes or no. Cast your vote at cnn.com/lou. We'll have the results later in the broadcast.
Coming up next: French president Jacques Chirac speaks out against religious fanaticism in public schools and calls for a ban on religious symbols in those schools. Separation in church and state, French style. Kitty Pilgrim reports.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: French president Jacques Chirac today called for a law to ban Islamic head scarves and other religious symbols from French public schools. He said religious fanaticism is gaining ground in France. President Chirac said France would sacrifice its heritage if it followed the American example of allowing minorities to protect their separate identities. Kitty Pilgrim reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): These French school girls were expelled for wearing a traditional Muslim head scarf. The separation of church and state has been part of French law for nearly a century, but up until now, French public schools have set their own policies, sometimes expelling students for wearing scarves. Now French president Jacques Chirac supports a national law to ban conspicuous religious symbols in schools and other public institutions.
JACQUES CHIRAC, FRENCH PRESIDENT (through translator): If we're talking about Star of David or Hand (ph) of Fatima or a small cross, those are acceptable. But when it's very obvious -- in other words, when they're worn in a means that people can immediately see what religious faith they belong to -- that should not be accepted.
PILGRIM: Two thirds of French citizens support the ban on head scarves. France has one of the largest Muslim populations in Europe, Some five million people.
DANIELLE PLETKA, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: In France, they are far more determinedly secular than we are here in the United States, and they are going to be very, very rigorous in making sure that there are no public displays of religion.
PILGRIM: In the United States, a 6th-grader in Muskogee, Oklahoma, is suing her school district after being suspended for wearing a head scarf. The school says it's allowing her to wear it to class while the legal issues are sorted out in federal court. Legal experts say even though there is separation of church and state in the United States, freedom of religion has always been a constitutional right.
FRED MARCUSA, ATTORNEY, KAYE SCHOLER: In America we have a fundamental ability to encourage freedom of expression of all sorts of things, including religion. And I think that dominates here in a way that it probably doesn't in France.
PILGRIM: Therefore, experts say, an outright ban of religious expression is not likely to gain ground.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
Now, the U.S. Department of Education says there's no national policy. This is a state and local decision. In Oklahoma, they made the decision to just get on with the education and let the courts decide. But this is very much a test case, Lou, and this will be challenged repeatedly, legal experts say.
DOBBS: Well, this is America. They test everything in courts here, right? It is one of those things, however, that probably deserves a good test because it is part of the issue of majority rule and minority right in this country in which we need to swing to balance. Kitty Pilgrim, thank you very much.
Coming up next: the right stuff, celebrating the first major milestone in what became a long legacy of American aviation excellence over a century of accomplishment. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Now the results of tonight's poll: 32 percent of you say the judge's decision today to allow John Hinckley unsupervised visits was appropriate and you agree with it; 68 percent say absolutely not.
And finally tonight, today marks the 100th anniversary of Wilbur and Orville Wright's historic flight manned flight from the beaches of Kittyhawk, North Carolina. The launch, of course, began a century of great accomplishments and achievement in aviation. And today thousands gathered to honor and reenact the Wright brothers' remarkable accomplishment, even delays and wet weather today not enough to dampen the spirits of the crowds at Kittyhawk.
And that brings us to tonight's "Thought" about exploring the unknown in search of greatness. "Whether outwardly or inwardly, whether in space or time, the farther we penetrate the unknown, the vaster and more marvelous it becomes." That from legendary American aviator Charles Lindbergh.
That's our show for tonight. Thanks for being with us. And for all of us here, good night from New York.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
