Most interesting thing I'd ever seen on that show. Even though I think Geraldo was possibly right about the tenuousness of the link between the drunk driver's immigration status and the death of the girl, the context of that probably helped push O'Reilly over the top on this one. (Shortly before the argument, there was a clip of the girl's parents giving an interview right after her funeral, with the father stating O'Reilly exact position. I would think that gives the debate a little more gravitas than the clip and bemused commentary seems to imply.) Worth noting that they were both yelling at (or at least berating) each other. I don't watch it daily, so I assumed they had gotten this heated before.
Geraldo used to be a Legal Service Lawyer back in his youth fighting the good fight for the poor. Flashes can return. Geraldo, of course, was right. GERALDO RIVIERA. Born in New York City, New York, U.S., 4 July 1943. B.S., University of Arizona, 1965; JD. Brooklyn Law School, 1969; postgraduate work at University of Pennsylvania, 1969; attended School of Journalism, Columbia University, 1970. Married 2) Edith Bucket "Pie" Vonnegut, 1971; 3) Sherryl Raymond, 1976; 4) (divorced); 4) C.C. Dyer, 1987; children: Gabriel Miguel, Isabella. Member of anti-poverty neighborhood law firms Harlem Assertion of Rights and Community Action for Legal Services, New York City, 1968-70; admitted to New York Bar, 1970 http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/R/htmlR/riverageral/riverageral.htm
As much as I hate to agree with you, Geraldo was exactly correct. OReilly was making zero sense in his argument. And I have agreed with Bill before. The larger problem is: why exactly is this a story? People get killed all the time. I'm tired of seeing sob stories on the news to evoke reactions. MADD has been doing it for years. I'm willing to start DAMM. Drunks Against MADD Mothers. Who's with me?
I'm not a fan of illegal immigration. I feel if you've been found to be illegal, you go back. But this story wasn't about this, and shouldn't have been exploited as one. Ironically, the wall that Bush proposed, as weird as it sounds, makes a lot more sense than it would at first glance. There are very few crossable areas on the Rio Grande. You fence those areas up, and you have a virtual Alcatraz swim to get across.
No, this is a stupid stupid counter-factual argument that can be made about anything in the context of history. What if Neville Chamberlain hadn't been a dumbass and decided not to appease the Nazis? Does World War II not happen? So if this guy was deported, perhaps another drunk comes along the next day and recreates this tragedy. This counter-factual bull**** put out by O'Reilly was exactly what Geraldo called it - a cheap political point created out of a tragedy that had everything to do with drunk driving and nothing to do with immigration. And you know, it's a political point because if it was a guy who was say violating probation and the police just missed it or ignored it (which happens frequently), then this issue doesn't appear on his show, despite the fact that the guy SHOULD have been arrested for violating probation and consequently this problem never happens. Counter-factual arguments are weak weak excuses for arguments because they can't be disproven or logically disputed.
Bill played this on his radio program this morning. Funny, and yes would be even funnier if it was staged. Its possible. With that, we know Geraldo for being a fraud, especially in Afghanistan acting as if he was being shot at, and then getting busted and having to apologize on the air. Doesn't surprise me that a guy named Geraldo is defending an illegal. "Illegals commit less crimes than citizens" Well excuse me screamer but being illegal is a crime in the first place. You don't displace criminals. The victim wouldnt be dead if this guy had not been here in the first place. Forget the booze because that's seconday. Geraldo sounds like he's being an advocate for illegals almost.
Yep I agree too. Even if it was Romanski, and he was an illegal alien from Russia, he should be deported too. NOTHING to do with him being Mexican. As for the argument over all, that's "Fair and Balanced" showing the views of both sides I guess. rofl.
The pro-illegal immigration crowd is really going about this fight the wrong way, which is why they are struggling to advance their goals. They should not be defending an illegal act. If they want to earn the respect of American citizens, they need to abide by America's laws. They must respect them. Demanding benefits of citizenship is very wrong. This 'gimme gimme' mentality, which by the way is not their typical workplace attitude -- they do work hard -- is going to alienate them. Waving Mexican flags in the streets is probably the dumbest thing they could possibly do, yet that doesn't stop them. They're shooting themselves in the foot, imo... The reasons all of them haven't been deported is: 1) Our economic engine depends on them. Heck, I'd have paid a lot more for my house if there weren't illegals doing the paint, carpentry, cleaning, sheetrock, etc. Booting all the illegals out would drive consumer prices much higher and damage our productivity rate. We need low cost labor and they supply it. 2) Bleeding heart liberal sympathy for poor people -- a stupid reason, but a reason that exists nonetheless. They are illegal because they broke the law by sneaking into this country. There is no getting around that. I say give them a long, arduous path to citizenship that includes learning English and paying back taxes, and let them EARN their way here. Sneaking into the country in the back of a tractor-trailer does not grant you the rights to citizenship. Period.
Hilarious. There is no "pro-illegal immigration crowd." But if there were one, it would be led by your boy Bush who is pushing a path to citizenship harder than any Democrat. And I'm not aware of any Democrat or liberal on this board admitting to breaking the law by hiring illegal workers like you admitted to here. And you pretend to be a part of the anti-illegal movement? Weak as always, Jorge. I wonder if you even know what you believe in.
In T_J's defense, there are quite a few people who seem to have no problem at all with illegal immigration. It may not equal "pro-illegal immigration" but it's close.
That's not in his defense. Jorge proudly supports the number one advocate of citizenship for illegals. And he proudly announced that he saved money by using illegal alien labor on his house. As longtime (and short time) readers of this forum well know, Jorge is a fake and a fraud. This has nothing to do with being for or against immigration (legal or illegal) and everything to do with being a class-A hypocrite.
Most illegal aliens are able to work by means of false documents, so they do in fact have federal income taxes withheld by their employers and contribute a substantial amount (I forgot the exact number, but it is in the billions per annum) to the social security fund with no hope of seeing the benefits.
To be fair, most illegals are paid under the table. They might pay a "sales" tax, as we all do, but most of the money they are paid, believe it or not, goes into Western Union. Have you not not noticed all the "Check Cashing" places? Exactly why would they be there, otherwise? EDIT: In fact, I would like to see some documentation on your statement. The honest reason why Mexico is creating pamphlets is because there are people who are willing to cross a river illegally to bolster the mexican economy. While I have absolutely no problem with a good person here, hispanic or otherwise, it behooves us as Americans to build the wall and let them in freely, with a background check. To those who say "DEPORT" as O'Reilly did, it doesn't solve the solution. They're coming. Make them earn it. Don't make our borders porous.
Western union has nothing to do with taxes, it is so they can wire money to support their families. And yes, I have noticed check cashing places. they are there to cash checks. Anyway I'd like to see some documentation of your assertion that most illegal aliens are paid under the table. This article indicates the exact opposite: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/b...tml?ex=1270353600&en=78c87ac4641dc383&ei=5090 You seem to be just repeating myths just like Trader-horhay.
Jorge, a substantive post for you. Congratulations. 1) Good to see you acknowlege an economic benefit to at least you from undocumented immigrants. 2 Of course you consider sympathy for poor people to be stupid. YOu are being true to your version of the GOP. 3) Read the news about immigration law, if nothing else. The path to citizen is pretty long and arduous.
