O'Reilly loses it... and I mean LOSES IT!
I would never have thought this day would come. I have clapped for Geraldo! He calls O'Reilly out on his xenophobia saying that O'Reilly is "making cheap political points". He goes as far as to call what O'Reilly is doing, "a sin."
O'Reilly's head practically explodes. The best O'Reilly clip EVER!
Hat tip to Crooks and Liars.
Tags:
13 comments:
I never thought I would say this, but good for Geraldo.
One of the best moments in the history of television. They ought to just get it over with already and fuck.
Tim, my thoughts exactly.
Manila, there is an undercurrent of something! So much passion!
Wankers like O'Reilly and his ilk piss me off.
Shame he cut O'Reilly off when the twat was about to say something about "American crime..." compared to crime committed by people who aren't supposed to be here?
What was it I wonder, American crime is somehow a little bit more legal than illegal alien crime? American crime is patriotic, alien crime isn't? American crime is better than alien crime? American crime is MEANT TO HAPPEN, as opposed to alien crime because THEY'RE NOT MEANT TO BE HERE?!
Obviously you know this is a personal matter to me because my wife is not British and for a couple of weeks last year she was "not meant to be here". Does this automatically make her into an evil person? If she had committed a crime it would somehow be worse than a British person?
I hate that bastard Newspaper Daily Mail. Especially when an individual has committed a crime, and they feel it necessary to mention that they are from another country other than Britain.
I hate xenophobics, extreme patriots and anti-immigration movements. In fact I pity them for having such low and banal views of the world. The world which they obviously don't go out and explore as they must respect those in other countries who, like them, don't want them to be there.
If there ever was an argument for human evolution it would be these types of people who show that their brains have not evolved from the Jurassic period and are still the size of walnuts.
Sorry Kel, out of character for me but I can only view these people on a level with Nazism.
Just for the sake of argument, does that mean you believe that nations shouldn't have the right to control their borders and that tax payer funded social systems (schools, hospitals, emergency services, etc...) should be free to all comers?
Jason,
Of course borders need to be controlled. The main objection to what O'Reilly was doing was that he was making the fact that the man was an illegal immigrant more important than the fact that he was drunk.
Alex,
I agree that on the subject of immigration there is more hypocrisy spoken than on any other. Leaving aside the specifics of this man's crime; ie, he was drunk, what crime have illegal immigrants committed other than a desire to escape poverty?
And, as none of us had anything to do with where we were actually born, which of us would say that we wouldn't - if we found ourselves in similar circumstances - attempt to move our families from, say Sudan, to somewhere where our children might have a better life?
Are we criminals if we wish to do this?
Jason,
My wife is Canadian, she pays taxes but does not have rights to claim any benefits until she becomes a citizen (I think it's 5 years but we won't be here that long).
With regards to refugees, which is more immoral- 'protecting' the borders making sure unAmerican/unBritish criminals don't get in, or shutting out people fleeing from a despotic regime.
Or let's put it another way. If your dark-skinned neighbours wife was constantly beaten and one day plucked up the courage to leave his house and seek refuge next door at your house- would you shut the door in her face? That's pretty much what it's about.
What's more immoral is the fact that many refugee and illegal aliens who come to the US and the UK WANT TO WORK- but are not allowed to WORK AND PAY TAXES! Instead they're made to either beg or the lucky few get to claim benefits- along with all the Americans and Brits who could work but claim.
I'm all for immigration control- but a pro-human control- not anti-human which is where we lean at the moment. I say that we follow America's lead (historically) where we take refugees, and give them work permits. They will happily do the job that many Brits and Americans will not do.
Kel,
He may have been making that point, but I took the his point to be that if the laws are enforced, he should have been deported when he was arrested. Because the laws were not enforced and he wasn't deported when the cops had him before, he had the opportunity to commit further crimes (drinking and driving) and as a result two girls died. The parents of one of the girls was interviewed yesterday and what they asked for simply is that our laws be enforced.
Alex,
With regards to refugees, which is more immoral- 'protecting' the borders making sure unAmerican/unBritish criminals don't get in, or shutting out people fleeing from a despotic regime.
I can't speak for the UK, but the US has legal means of accepting these people.
If your dark-skinned neighbours wife...
What does skin color have to do with the argument?
What's more immoral is the fact that many refugee and illegal aliens who come to the US and the UK WANT TO WORK- but are not allowed to WORK AND PAY TAXES!
There;s no shortage of unscrupulous employers in the US willing to hire illegals, and them not being able to work is not an issue here. That's why most of them are here.
I say that we follow America's lead (historically) where we take refugees, and give them work permits.
America remains a very pro-immigration nation, and as of 2006 anyway, we accept more legal immigrants than the rest of the world combined. However, we want it controlled and done legally. We do not have the resources to be able to open up the flood gates and accept the entire world just because things are worse where they came from.
They will happily do the job that many Brits and Americans will not do.
That's part of the problem. Americans will not do these jobs because they pay too low. They pay too low because employers know that they can exploit cheap illegal labor. Nobody's claiming that in general these aren't good people who are very hard workers.
Those who are playing by the rules to get in here legally are also hurt by this. I just hope my nation gets a handle on its border problem. I am very pro-immigration, and would even be for increasing the numbers we allow in each year, but it needs to be done legally.
He may have been making that point, but I took the his point to be that if the laws are enforced, he should have been deported when he was arrested.
Oh, that was also a point he was making but it was flat wrong.
The man had been arrested, but he had been arrested for things like being drunk in public, he had never committed a felony.
I'm no expert on your laws when it comes to this, but Geraldo was inferring that you need to commit a felony or (something else that I couldn't properly hear what he was saying) before deportation would be appropriate.
He said that everyone followed the law from the governor to the mayor.
Oh, that was also a point he was making but it was flat wrong.
How could "he should have been deported" been flat wrong? If I'm not mistake (I haven't double checked), illegal immigration has recently been made a felony. In any event, the policy of referring them to ICE is up to the jurisdiction and not federal law. Federal law certainly requires that illegal immigrants be deported, however some jurisdictions follow a "don't ask don't tell" policy. LA for example would only inquire as to a subject's immigration status after being arrested for a fellony or having been arrested for multiple misdemeanors. This gentleman certainly could have been referred to immigration when he was arrested the first time, but the jurisdiction chose not to.
What does skin color have to do with the argument?
Why do people like O'Reilly not complain or refer to British, Canadian, German, Italian, Australian or other Ayrian European illegal aliens.
Why is it that they ONLY seem to get upset and debate MEXICANS.
It's the same here in the UK. American, Canadian, French, German, South African, New Zealand... illegal aliens get almost zero press coverage. But then talk about someone from the Middle East, the Baltic states or Asian origin.
I have a big problem altogether with being born of the wrong race or nation making you an automatic criminal simply for being in the wrong place.
Border control is not about protection- it's about tax and about sustaining governments. Never be fooled into thinking it's about protecting citizens or jobs- that's the rhetoric used for elections.
Why are the United States not separated out into separate countries with borders like Europe is. Would this not afford each State better security and economic stability?
Or let's ask why you give your white neighbours to the North a much better deal than you're dark-skinned neighbours to the South? Is it because you are able to rip Canada off for its logging? Ask yourself what is the difference between Canada and Mexico (besides climate and race)?
I tell you now that if the US invested in Mexico, in helping that country to get off it's feet and produce a growing economy- it would solve its immigration problem.
But more than that, this was about a drunk driver. Would O'Reilly and everyone be happy if it was an American drunk driver?
Would we now see headlines that someone died by a drunk driver, but it's ok because he was American? That is what this argument is about.
Why is it that they ONLY seem to get upset and debate MEXICANS.
I'm going to go with geography on that one. We don't happen to have milions of Europeans pouring across our southern border.
I have a big problem altogether with being born of the wrong race or nation making you an automatic criminal simply for being in the wrong place.
Being born that way doesn't make one a criminal, breaking laws makes one a criminal.
Border control is not about protection- it's about tax and about sustaining governments
It's about lots of things, including sufficient tax base to support the demand on public services, and security.
Why are the United States not separated out into separate countries with borders like Europe is.
Europe was formed from various tribal entities at war with each other who partitioned their territory into states basically, the US was formed by settlers prmarily from England who sought common cause. The states almost did break into separate territories but instead decided to unite and adopt the Constitution. Then, as now, collective security and unified trade was more beneficial to everyone.
Or let's ask why you give your white neighbours to the North a much better deal than you're dark-skinned neighbours to the South? Is it because you are able to rip Canada off for its logging? Ask yourself what is the difference between Canada and Mexico (besides climate and race)?
You're implying a racism that doesn't exist. NAFTA regulates the trade between the US, Canada, and Mexico. It's the same agreement.
I tell you now that if the US invested in Mexico, in helping that country to get off it's feet and produce a growing economy- it would solve its immigration problem.
The US invests heavily in Mexico and Mexico has a strong economy. Mexico has abundant natural resources. Mexicos problem is their government, and corruption. Mexico actively encourages its poor to make a run for the border. Millions of dollars flow into the Mexican economy from these illegals working in the US. It is not in Mexico's interest to try and stem the tide.
But more than that, this was about a drunk driver. Would O'Reilly and everyone be happy if it was an American drunk driver?
Having watched O'Reilly before, and not just isolated clips on YouTube, I know that he goes after judges who let people off for crimes who then go out and commit horrible crimes. He spends a lot of time for example reporting on judges who let pedophiles off easy who then go and re-offend and or kill someone. In a similar vein, he has been going after jurisdictions who arrest illegals and then let them go who then proceed to commit a major crime, generally stating that our laws need to be enforced the first time. The man seems consistent in his views where he goes after instances where criminals who commit horrible crimes should have not had the opportunity to commit those crimes were it not that law enforcement and/or the judicial system wasn't aggressive enough.
I'm going to go with geography on that one. We don't happen to have millions of Europeans pouring across our southern border.
No you don't... but as I mentioned you do have Canadians, who, up until recently were free to come and go as they please from the US to Canada without restriction. Mexico however needs a guest-worker program and a fence.
Being born that way doesn't make one a criminal, breaking laws makes one a criminal.
Then I have a problem with laws that apply to certain races/nationalities and not others.
It's about lots of things, including sufficient tax base to support the demand on public services, and security.
Last time I checked illegals were not able to claim benefits for public services (for fear of being caught), and what state can offer security to it's citizens- really- is there such a thing in existence. Most security is a state of mind- not a reality. There is nothing to stop me now taking a gun going to my next door neighbour and shooting him in cold blood.
The states almost did break into separate territories but instead decided to unite and adopt the Constitution. Then, as now, collective security and unified trade was more beneficial to everyone.
Thankyou for making my point.
You're implying a racism that doesn't exist. NAFTA regulates the trade between the US, Canada, and Mexico. It's the same agreement.
What is NAFTA doing about the American firms that move to Mexico to exploit cheap labour? What about the impact on Mexican agriculture by forcing down prices? What about the duty imposed on Canadian wood imports? Chapter 11?
Mexicos problem is their government, and corruption.
And American companies that exploit that corruption.
Mexico actively encourages its poor to make a run for the border.
Specifically the Maquiladora's, which are encouraged by US companies and NAFTA.
The man seems consistent in his views where he goes after instances where criminals who commit horrible crimes should have not had the opportunity to commit those crimes were it not that law enforcement and/or the judicial system wasn't aggressive enough.
He's consistent alright. Consistent in stupidity and arrogance. I've seen enough of his shows to see that he doesn't invite people on for debate, he invites them on to tell them what he thinks. If they display an opinion differing from his he will simply try to shut them down. He is not interested in other opinions, only attacking them.
Post a Comment