Either way, it could be bad news for Sandoval, a Latino candidate who has argued for harsh penalties on employers that hire undocumented workers. He joins California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman (R) and political commentator Lou Dobbs, both fellow advocates of tougher anti-illegal immigration laws, in what seems to be the scandal du jour.

If it is true, of course, Sandoval would not be the only person in the U.S. to hire undocumented workers. As I mentioned before, illegal immigrants make up a large proportion — about 27 percent — of the maids and housekeepers in the U.S.

Let’s juxtapose that information with Dobbs’ statements on illegal immigration, also via The Nation:

It was difficult to nail down whether Dobbs knew the workers were undocumented — he declined to comment — but one worker indicated others close to Dobbs may have known they did not have legal status to work in the U.S.:

When I asked whether the Dobbs family knew that undocumented workers were caring for their horses, Gomez responded by saying that at least in the case of Hillary Dobbs, “I believe she knew.” The stable owner knew “that some people didn’t have papers,” Gomez said, and had even taken precautions to keep the workers away from the immigration agents who often patrol the areas around horse shows. Gomez said it was hard to believe that Dobbs’s daughter, who was in close contact with these undocumented workers almost every weekend, could have been unaware of their status. [...]

I asked Mike Sedlak, the owner of Sedlak Landscaping, the contractor that maintains the grounds on Dobbs’s West Palm Beach property, whether Dobbs has ever inquired about the status of his employees. Sedlak said only, “I don’t feel comfortable talking about it,” and quickly got off the phone.

One small note in defense of Dobbs: The workers were hired through the landscaping company and horse stable — not by Dobbs himself — meaning these companies would likely be legally responsible as their employer. Still, as a vocal proponent of higher wages for workers and harsh penalties for hiring illegal immigrants, it is surprising Dobbs did not check more fully into the status and payment of the workers who maintained his property.

For more on Dobbs’ views on illegal immigration — and his views on my views on the topic — give this interview a listen.

Listen to the full audio clip here.

Immigration remained a divisive political issue in 2009, although it largely simmered on the sidelines as Congress and the president focused their legislative efforts on other priorities. A comprehensive immigration reform bill wasn’t even introduced in Congress until mid-December. Still, the new administration stepped up the enforcement of immigration laws, laying the groundwork for 2010 proposals for broader reform, including opportunities for legalization of some undocumented immigrants. These five individuals had the greatest influence the immigration debate in 2009.

Click here to begin slideshow.

This poll finds a sizable chunk of the country–41 percent of Americans–holding a favorable view of “the Tea Party movement. Those numbers break down perfectly in a three-way race, where 36 percent of voters would back the Democrats, 23 percent would back the Tea Party, and only 18 percent would back the Republicans. That makes it seem like this is the conservative movement, cleaved in two. But some sort of ideological screen would be useful here. What does the “Tea Party” stand for? Fiscal conservatism, sure, but a lot of that is only in the context of a recession, with people grasping for economic answers. The anti-immigration surge happened in a similar context, with average voters breaking from party orthodoxy to demand answers to a problem that they didn’t really have ideological answers for.

“While Mr. Dobbs claims his positions have not changed, however, that is not the perception of many of our mutual supporters,” said William Gheen of ALIPAC, in a press release. “His recent comments on Telemundo and his national radio show supporting some kind of path to citizenship for illegal immigrants is inconsistent with positions of ALIPAC and the views of most American citizens.”

ALIPAC is a stalwart opponent of what it and Dobbs have long derisively called “amnesty” for illegal immigrants. The PAC cites a recent Pulse Opinion Research poll finding that “78% of likely voters were opposed to legalizing the status of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., with only 19% supporting it.”

No lawmakers are actually proposing legalizing all 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, but some have proposed creating a path to legalization for those who have lived and worked in the United States for several years, have not broken any criminal laws and are willing to pay back taxes and a fine.

Dobbs recently fueled speculation that he may run for political office when he appeared on Telemundo and said he would support legalization for some undocumented immigrants. He also floated the possibility during an appearance on former Sen. Fred Thompson’s (R-Tenn.) radio show.

“Our internal polling shows that over 70% of our supporters are upset with Mr. Dobbs’s comments on Telemundo is support of legalizing illegal aliens. ALIPAC opposes any path to citizenship form of Amnesty for illegal aliens currently in the US,” said Gheen.

“Therefore we are dropping our support for Lou Dobbs and suspending the fan sites we have created.”

Dobbs recently left CNN, reportedly with an $8 million payoff, after Latino and immigrants’ advocates campaigned the network to oust him for vilifying Latino immigrants on his nightly news show. In announcing his departure, Dobbs promised to continue to “be a leader in [the] national conversation,” which he’s suggested could include a run for political office.

That may be why he told Maria Celeste on Telemundo that “I am one of your greatest friends and I mean for us to work together.”

The Los Angeles Times notes that the wealthy Texas-born host lives on a 300-acre farm in Northwest New Jersey, where he could launch a run for a Senate seat. Unless his sights are already on the presidency.

What reason is there to believe that Dobbs, a bottom-feeding broadcaster who struggled to draw 800,000 nightly viewers, has a ready pool of voters waiting for him? All I see is a 2006 Rasmussen Reports poll suggesting that a third-party candidate who talked about ending immigration, as Dobbs does, would score 30 percent of the vote. A Dobbs boomlet makes more sense that the truly foolish “Unity 08″ boomlet of 2007, when some retired campaign consultants suggested that some combination of independent-minded politicians should run for office, just because.

To some media professionals whom I admire because you don’t let anyone tell you to sit down and shut up, please keep making the idiots’ heads spin. Thank you for not taking our Freedom of the Press for granted, you bold and patriotic, fair and balanced media folks. Keep calling it like you see it: Amanda, Andrew, Ann, Bill(s), Bob, Cal, Dennis, Dick, Eddie, Fred, Glenn, Greta, Hugh, Joey, John, Jonah, Larry, Laura, Lou, Mark, Mary, Michael, Michelle, R.A.M., Rich, Rush, S.E., Sean, Tammy, Walter… and there are more. I join you in standing up for what is right. Remember that as your voice is heard and your spine is stiffened, the spines of others are stiffened, too.

Who’s who? Here are my best guesses for most of them: Amanda Carpenter of The Washington Times, Ann Coulter, Bill Kristol, Bill O’Reilly, Cal Thomas, Dennis Miller, Fred Barnes, Glenn Beck, Greta Van Susteren, Hugh Hewitt, Jonah Goldberg, Larry Kudlow, Laura Ingraham, Lou Dobbs, Mark Levin, Michael Reagan, Michelle Malkin, Rich Lowry, Rush Limbaugh, S.E. Cupp, Sean Hannity, Tammy Bruce, and Walter Williams. Why not use their whole names? Good question.