“60 Minutes” reporter Lesley Stahl interviewed anti-illegal immigration stalwart Lou Dobbs tonight introducing him as “a Johnny-one note” and “relentless”on the issue of the negative impact aliens have in the U.S. Representing the other side, briefly and ineffectively, was the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Mark Potok who unimaginatively called Dobbs a “fear monger.”

Taken as a whole, the piece was not very informative, especially for VDARE.COM readers who are for the most part, Dobbs fans. Dobbs repeated his message that he is against illegal immigration and opposes benefits for illegal aliens. The exception Dobbs would make is medical care which he indicated he supports. And while Dobbs said “I have never called for the deportation of illegal aliens” he told Stahl it would be easily done since the U.S. can do whatever it puts its mind to.

Of greater interest were insights into Dobbs’ personal life. Born in Texas, raised in Idaho, Dobbs claims to have worked alongside migrants in the field. Although poor, Dobbs did well in school and ended up at Harvard where his classmates and professors took him for a hayseed. Dobbs, who ultimately became a managing editor at CNN, fooled them all.

Dobbs is married to a Mexican-American (who agrees with him on illegal immigration and said that she often tells him “He doesn’t go far enough”) and lives on a 300-acre farm in New Jersey with his extended family as well as 25 horses, four dogs and one cat.

Dobbs had the better of it tonight. He came across as a reasoned patriot who sees illegal immigration as an issue that has many more negatives than positives.

And while we at VDARE.COM would like to see Dobbs expand his criticism to include legal immigration, we’re happy to have him as a nightly anchor raising awareness nationwide about illegal aliens.

[VDARE.com note:The transcript is here, on one page. If you want to comment, or read the comments, go here.]

This is from City Journal, which publishes both Heather Mac Donald and Tamar Jacoby:

The Sopranos, the HBO series entering its final season on Sunday night, won fame by depicting a Mafia crew whose members had begun assimilating into middle-class suburban life—moving into McMansions, raising kids who attend Ivy League schools, discovering the psychiatrist’s couch (or armchair).

Interestingly, it was HBO, nearly 20 years ago, which first gave us a look at what the real mob was like when it started to go suburban—and the picture is nothing like The Sopranos. The now-forgotten Confessions of an Undercover Cop, a fascinating 1988 documentary, traced the decline and fall of the very Jersey crew that inspired The Sopranos—the crime family of Ruggerio “Richie the Boot” Boiardo, whose gang was less introspective, even more violent, and a lot less glamorous than Tony’s fictional mob.Unglamorous Mobsters, A Review by Steven Malanga

The article doesn’t mention immigration, so I will. The padrone of the Boiardo family was an immigrant back in the Ellis Island era of immigration, long before immigration was restricted by the act of 1924. In fact, it’s arguable that it was people like him, as much as the Immigration Restriction League, that caused Congress to pass the Immigration Act Of 1924.

Ruggiero Boiardo was born on November 8, 1890, in Naples, Italy (some documents show the date of his birth to be December 8, 1890). Ruggiero Boiardo was also known as Richie Boiardo, and Richie “The Boot” Boiardo. While working as a milkman in 1910, he began a small bookmaking operation. As a young man he had a reputation as a flashy dresser, often wearing a diamond belt buckle for which he paid $10,000. He also had a reputation for brutality in his street dealings.[Ruggiero Boiardo - Newark "Godfather" FBI Files]

Boiardo never lived to see the Sopranos, but he was convinced that he was the model for Don Vito Corleone in The Godfather. He had the New Jersey estate, the vegetable garden, and other similarities, but lacked anything of the (entirely imaginary) wisdom and honor that Mario Puzo attributed to Vito Corleone. I don’t think anyone wanted to tell him that, though, because he had a private incinerator on his estate, which was said to be used to dispose of bodies.

Boiardo lived to be 95, and I don’t think anyone could call him assimilated. His sons, also Mafiosi, were born in America, so of course America was stuck with them. But they weren’t really part of mainstream American society either.

When Steven Malanga refers to Tony Soprano as assimilated, he’s talking about externals. If the sons and grandsons of the modern Russian Mafia want to assimilate, I would suggest that they not do it by attending Ivy League colleges, or drinking coffee instead of tea, or playing high school football.

I would suggest that they assimilate by not whacking people. That’s not much to ask, is it?

Ms. Royal lost an election today that could have been won. Sarkozy wasn’t an incredibly strong candidate. Many of those voting for him didn’t really trust him. The key to Sarkozy’s success has been the ability to get a portion of the electorate that voted for Le Pen in prior elections. Those people typically aren’t rich. Those folks are often struggling–and minor differences in economic policy make a big difference to them. Royal talks about having a fairer economy, but quite simply a lot of folks doubted her ability to deliver that while maintaining open borders.

Neither Royal or Sarkozy were really going to seriously clamp down on immigration to France. The real difference in their immigration policy is how much control they are likely to exert on recent immigrants. Royal seems to think you can have substantial levels of immigration with a rapid path to citizenship and maintain the social services important to the French. Sarkozy is willing to tolerate substantial numbers of guest workers–if they “know their place” in French society.

Basically the French opted for a corporate oppressor who was willing to loosen the thumbscrews on French workers just a little in the area of immigration policy.

What French politics desperately needs is a political figure that steadfastly and realistically stands for French workers and their interests. The real entry level opportunities for French workers have stagnated. Quite simply: the French aren’t having children because it is so difficult for young French people to provide the kind of environment for children they themselves grew up with.

The Le Pen voters understand this quite painfully.

What needs to be made clear is that France can have a sane immigration policy without cracking the heads of recent immigrants or giving huge unearned gifts to France’s most wealthy citizens. It must be made clear that France can move towards a more fair and sustainable economy and seriously restricting immigration may be part of that package.

Walt Bogdanich and Jake Hooker write in the New York Times:

Researchers estimate that thousands have died. In many cases, the precise origin of the poison has never been determined. But records and interviews show that in three of the last four cases it was made in China, a major source of counterfeit drugs.From China to Panama, a Trail of Poisoned Medicine - New York Times

What they are referring to are cases in which counterfeit medications are resulting in deaths. Many of those dying are poor people in poor countries.

What does this have to do with immigration? Well when we promote immigration from a country we are electing to become more like that country in some ways. (See this 2003 case in Florida.)Do we really want the US to become more like countries like China and India?