The following dramatic story was passed on to me (hat tip to Steady) about Jesus Manuel Cordova — an illegal immigrant who helped resue a 9 -year old boy after his mother died in a car crash by the Arizona border. The Santa Cruz sheriff who expressed that Cordova likely saved the boy, had this to say:
"For a 9-year-old it has to be completely traumatic, being out there alone with his mother dead," … "Fortunately for the kid, (Cordova) was there. That was his angel."
Upon reading the story, I immediately thought about Bill O’Reilly’s now infamous April interview with Geraldo Rivera about an illegal immigrant who caused a death through drunk driving. In the video O’Reilly very dangerously uses the drunk driving tragedy to further his anti-immigration agenda. Check out O’Reilly’s face as he crescendo’s with: "He doesn’t have a right to be here! HE DOESN’T HAVE A RIGHT TO BE IN THIS COUNTRY!!! He should have been deported! HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEPORTED!!!"…
Anyway, if you haven’t already seen the video, here it is. And if you want to see the connection between how mainstream hate like O’Reilly’s can help fuel sinister hatred from white supremacists, we refer you to our past: Immigration to Hateration in Two Videos.
VIDEO: Geraldo and Bill O’Reilly Square Off
(Note: You have probably already seen this)
Now that you have seen the video, would O’Reilly consider picking up THIS story about Jesus Manuel Cordova? Especially since he works for such a "fair and balanced" network. Or better yet, after his reckless vitriolic April tirade, does O’Reilly have an OBLIGATION to cover this story? …Feel free to pass along to him this memo…
Modi,
Thanks for calling out the hypocrit that is Bill O’Reilly. Oh I just bet there is an illegal immigrant in his life somewhere, some way, some how (if you catch my drift).
It’s an absolutely tragic story for this now orphan boy at 9 years old. Fortunately he had his encounter with Jesus. Hoping Jesus above continues to care for and guide us all.
Wow, the first thing I thought of when I read about Jesus Manuel Cordova was how poor Jesus must have been exhausted after walking to the boarder, and after a night in the cold after having given his jacket to the kid and waited with him for help. I thought about how he must be suffering from some exposure, tired, cold, and hungry. I guess at least in jail he’ll at least get fed and a place to sleep.
I thought about the poor kid; he had just lost his dad a couple months before. Now his mom is gone. I wondered at weather Jesus was told his story, neither speaking the others language.
And Jesus Cordova – he was there with the boy when his mother succumbed, trapped under the vehicle – I thought about how this experience would haunt him.
Bill O’Reilly ? Never gave him a thought.
Maybe you just need to get a life ?
Why should O’Reilly or anyone who believes we should actually enforce laws, be shamed by this story?
I guess the better question to you would be, would you say a rapist shouldn’t go to jail if he pulled a woman out of a sinking car?
Todd, perhaps our thought sequences operate a little differently. Perhaps the story begins and ends with the story to you. Perhaps you don’t think about media like I do (this is a media watch website)? Perhaps you have that luxury?
The fact is that hate groups have risen by 40% since 2000 and The Southern Poverty Law Center cites the immigration issue as the primary reason for increased hate group recruiting. That tells us that it is incumbent on the mainstream media to handle the subject with care and without inflammatory rhetoric. O’Reilly’s mainstream reckessness and vitriol will help fuel those with much more sinister intentions. So I am sorry to hear that you never gave him a thought.
DavidMac, to your rapist question, no I wouldn’t. I think that the point has been missed. I never said that O’Reilly should be shamed by the story, and I have no problem with individuals who want to “enforce laws”. What I said is that, based on the previous video, he should COVER the story. This is not a statement on law, but on fair media.
When he chose to manipulate that drunken driving story and turn it into a story on illegal immigration, O’Reilly showed his true colors — again! His anger and rage expressed in the video at the non-story (immigration-wise) only served to fuel an already existing hatred in the public. The story about Cordova is one about reaffirming the humanity of people O’Reilly contributes to their hatred. By railing against a drunk driver who just so happens to be an illegal immigrant, O’Reilly should now be morally required (in the name of “fair and balanced” of course!) to cover an unrelated story where a like is SAVED! Had O’Reilly never gotten into the video tiff with Geraldo, O’Reilly would have no moral obligation to carry this story.
DavidMac, it is important to understand the difference between having a pragmatic position on any given issue, and perpetuating hatred. O’Reilly does the latter and it is extremely dangerous.
O’Reilly still has no moral obligation to cover the story. The illegal alien saving the kid is nothing that demonstrates the good in illegal immigrants. They still are dangerous and they still do not deserve to be here, how does this change that?
Why does this deserve time on the O’Reily Factor? How does not covering this make him a hypocrite?
“The illegal alien saving the kid is nothing that demonstrates the good in illegal immigrants.”
Yes, it does. It is an example that establishes their humanity, Something that needs to be recognized by all REGARDLESS of one’s position on illegal immigration. By having one’s humanity established, the discussion changes from one fueled by reasonable pragmatic differences and away from one fueled by hate and bigotry.
“They still are dangerous and they still do not deserve to be here, how does this change that?”
Whether an illegal immigrant is “dangerous” and whether that individual “does not deserve to be here” are two entirely different questions. By morphing the two, you are following Reilly’s reckless footsteps. Not only was Cordova not “dangerous”, but he was able to save a life. Perhaps you need to grapple with that some more.
“Why does this deserve time on the O’Reily Factor? How does not covering this make him a hypocrite?”
Did you watch the O’Reilly video with Geraldo? Did you watch him use a drunk driving case as a referendum against illegal immigration. O’Reilly purposely used the story to fuel and perpetuate hate. He could have easily had the same stance on immigration without being so transparantly inflammatory. If this twisted logic can be used when a life is lost, then he owes it to his viewers to use THE VERY SAME LOGIC when the life is gained. this would be the only “fair and balanced” approach.
“Yes, it does. It is an example that establishes their humanity, Something that needs to be recognized by all REGARDLESS of one’s position on illegal immigration. By having one’s humanity established, the discussion changes from one fueled by reasonable pragmatic differences and away from one fueled by hate and bigotry.”
No it doesn’t. No one denies their humanity. I occassionaly listen to O’Reily and when he talks about illegals he doesn’t demonize them as sub/non humans. So I take it you are just projecting your bias of those against open borders on what you hear O’Reily say, that may be fine for you but it doesn’t fly with me.
“Whether an illegal immigrant is “dangerous†and whether that individual “does not deserve to be here†are two entirely different questions. By morphing the two, you are following Reilly’s reckless footsteps. Not only was Cordova not “dangerousâ€, but he was able to save a life. Perhaps you need to grapple with that some more.”
I would say they are the same. If you walk into my house without my permission, regardless of your motives, you are a danger to me the home owner, because I don’t know why you are there. That is the simple fact. They are undocumented people entering the country and we don’t know who they are and why they are here, they are extremely dangerous because their motives are unknown. As for Cordova not being dangerous, that still isn’t proven. How do you know he isn’t a fugitive on the lam, how do you know he didn’t just rob someone, how do you know he didn’t molest some kid, and just decided he didn’t want to see one die. The answer is you don’t, the same way you don’t know he is good just by saving the kid. Like I said in my first post a nice act doesn’t constitute a good person. The simple fact that he broke the law to get over here and seems like he wasn’t ashamed to be here speaks volumes to me. He has no respect for the country he is living in.
“Did you watch the O’Reilly video with Geraldo? Did you watch him use a drunk driving case as a referendum against illegal immigration. O’Reilly purposely used the story to fuel and perpetuate hate. He could have easily had the same stance on immigration without being so transparantly inflammatory. If this twisted logic can be used when a life is lost, then he owes it to his viewers to use THE VERY SAME LOGIC when the life is gained. this would be the only “fair and balanced†approach.”
Yes I did see the clip, I saw it when it aired actually. He was right the drunk driving incident was exactly the reason why they are dangerous. They are in the country “ILLEGALLY” and killing “AMERICAN” lives. That is a huge problem, how is a illegal saving a kid negate the fact that he is ILLEGALLY in the country. How does that make what he has done ok? Again I present the question, if a murder saved a kid from drowning would you say he is a good man and that all murders are good? I don’t understand the point you are trying to make. The fact is you are not using logic at all when you wonder why O’Reilly doesn’t do a report on this, the only thing I want to see him report on is if that guy was deported after he was found to be illegal. If he doesn’t bang the drum for him to be deported then you could call him a hypocrite.
I’m going to jump into this argument because David Mac it seems like you are missing the point. Here’s my take:
It’s disingenious to use an example of an illegal immigrant driving drunk and killing someone as an arguement against illegal immigration, UNLESS it is accompanied by FACTS that illegals are more likely to drive drunk and kill people. I haven’t heard any such facts and so I presume they are not true in which case the status of the immigrant who caused the death is irrelevant. If the driver was an american citzen or in the country legally on a work visa, it would be just as likely that he would have driven drunk and killed someone. There are plenty of legitimate arguements against illegal immigrants however this isn’t one of them. If it were, by that same logic you would have to use an example of an illegal immigrant saving someone’s life as an argument for illegal immigration. Which as you have pointed out is a flawed argument.
So a responsible journalist would cover neither story AS IT RELATES to the immigration debate. But to cover one and not the other is slanted and biased and not fair and balanced. Which is what Modi seems to be calling O’Reilly out for.
This is the reason I can’t stand to listen to Bill O’Reilly and the majority of the other talking heads on tv. It’s not I disagree with their positions, I just can’t stand how they skew and distort everything to fit into their point of view.
Bill O’Reilly would never cover any story that did not fit his agenda. He has the morals and ethics of a snake. Lately he has become almost completely unhinged because so many are calling him out on his “no-spin” bullsh!t. Circus contortionist can’t twist and turn better than O’Reilly.
Very useful postsJones and Miranda.
DavidMac,
With your stance and broad stroke, here’s hoping that you are accorded the very same benefit-of-the-doubt that you reserve for others. The beautiful thing about the good ‘ol US of A is that the chickens do come home to roost. Plus, many who recognize that they are not the center of the universe also know that the Great Equalizer has great disdain for all ugliness. Some say God hates ugly. What BO does (that you’re supporting with your posts) is irresponsibly dangerous AND ugly.
Jones says
“It’s disingenious to use an example of an illegal immigrant driving drunk and killing someone as an arguement against illegal immigration, UNLESS it is accompanied by FACTS that illegals are more likely to drive drunk and kill people. I haven’t heard any such facts and so I presume they are not true in which case the status of the immigrant who caused the death is irrelevant. If the driver was an american citzen or in the country legally on a work visa, it would be just as likely that he would have driven drunk and killed someone. There are plenty of legitimate arguements against illegal immigrants however this isn’t one of them. If it were, by that same logic you would have to use an example of an illegal immigrant saving someone’s life as an argument for illegal immigration. Which as you have pointed out is a flawed argument.”
The drunk driving incident was icing on the cake, not the sole reason for his rant against illegal immigration. The primary reason his dislikes illegal immigration is mainly because it is illegal, he has said this on his radio show and tv show countless times before the Geraldo incident. The drunk driving murder case was just another event he was trying to use to get his audiences attention on how dangerous a problem it is.
As for the fair and balanced aspect, he was fair an balanced when dealing with that story because he had opposing view points on during the segment.
I understand what MODI is saying, I simply do not agree with it at all.
I agree with you about how O’Rielly skews things to fit his view and I actually agree that O’Rielly is a hypocrite, but not on the immigration issue.
Steady Says:
“DavidMac,
With your stance and broad stroke, here’s hoping that you are accorded the very same benefit-of-the-doubt that you reserve for others. The beautiful thing about the good ‘ol US of A is that the chickens do come home to roost. Plus, many who recognize that they are not the center of the universe also know that the Great Equalizer has great disdain for all ugliness. Some say God hates ugly. What BO does (that you’re supporting with your posts) is irresponsibly dangerous AND ugly.”
I tried to find some intelligence or meaning in your post, but I couldn’t do it. What is your point steady? I don’t like ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, because it is ILLEGAL, so my checkens are going to come home to roost? Get a life.
O’Rielly is correct, illegal immigration is dangerous to the nation, whether it is a drunk driver killing someone, a group of MS-13 gangsters killing those 4 college kids up in New Jersey, leaching of the economic system of US. or etc., and the fact that a illegal immigrant saved a kid from drowning does not change that at all.
DavidMac–
With your invitation for Steady to “get a life”, you’ve opened the proverbial can DavidMac. You’re a hypocrit and this observation is based solely on your modified tone here. Just look in the mirror and you will see the chickens coming home to roost.
It’s not about the illegality of immigrants coming over the borders. That’s the simpleton rhetoric. It’s brought to you by local politician and MSM. We’re talking about a media that can incite a mass to hysteria through its demonization of circumstances/eventsand unabalanced reporting.
Since you displayed an inkling of reasoning above with this:
“I agree with you about how O’Rielly (sic) skews things to fit his view and I actually agree that O’Rielly (sic) is a hypocrite, but not on the immigration issue.”
Then I can let you in on a thought slightly broader than the moral high ground you seek.
The immigration battle in the US is about race and class. It’s about the browning of America and the proliferation of the Spanish language in the US. The holier than thou “Clockwork Orange” beatniks now serving as border guards say nothing about the illegal Russians and Eastern Europeans coming here in droves. Oh, I forgot, they’re mail-away brides and serve a useful purpose. Does your staunch stance cover them too Corporal America? So, they’re just so smart to learn how to beat the system to enter here “legally”?
It is useless to continue to convey to you the danger of a one-sided inflammatory media if you want to reduce it to a simple lame episode about law & order.
While you’re at it, educate yourself about the illegal acts being carried out by illegal Americans against Indian Nations in the US TODAY. The Natives have long cried out and have much to say about illegal immigrants. Simpleton.
You are way off base with your assessment of O’Reilly. He is not “anti-immigration” as you put it. He is anti-”illegal” immigration. There is a big difference. I don’t understand why people like you cannot wrap your brain around the concept of law and order. Immigrants from all over the world have always been welcome in America, but they should have to go through the proper channels. That is not “anti-immigration.”
What I don’t understand about all this illegal immigrant rhetoric, is why don’t they punish the businesses that employ them? I’ve lived a few places in my life, and I could tell you where the illegals are working. It isn’t like it is hard to figure out. Clamp down on the businesses, and without the demand for illegals, the supply will be cut down.
Isn’t it against the law to employ them? Who do you think are in the fields picking strawberries and oranges? Who do you think is in the chicken plant processing the chickens? I think it’d be pretty easy to crack down on Columbia farms since they’re the ones employing them.
Why does enforcement have to be mutually exclusive gmp? Why do you have a problem with them going after the illegals? I don’t mind them going after them, I agree with you whole fully that we should also go after the businesses, but you dont have to stop going after one to go after the other.
I don’t have a problem with them going after illegals. I have a problem with people pretending that deporting illegals or building walls is going to solve the problem. People blame illegals for coming up here for jobs that are supplied by big companies. Why don’t these same people blame the big corporations for giving them employment?
I don’t hate on any person trying to provide for their family. I’ve lived in the southwest a huge part of my life. I’ve lived a less than mile away from the Mexican border (El Paso), and could see their houses on my way home from work. I don’t blame any person for trying to get away from that. That is my problem with people blaming the individual immigrant. These are people doing what people have always done, they’re trying to eat and seek a better life. I am also not a hypocrite. I’m no bleeding heart, but I know if I’m hungry and need to supply for my family, I’m pulling out all the stops.
So like I said, I don’t blame the individual for trying to escape and create a better life for themselves and their family. I blame the corporations for dangling the carrot. And I blame the politicians and others for their half ass ‘build a wall’ solutions.
You said it all gmp. I know very well what you’re talking about in El Paso, TX. I was there. I saw it with my own eyes.
Wow Modi,
It seems as if the proliferation of your writing is now reaching a new market, lol. I’m happy that people of differing opinions are now reading your stuff and even joining in a discussion. Yet I’m sorry that the discussion breaks down into name calling and an appearance of two sides to the arguement; I feel like I’m sitting in on a congressional session.
I think this is a great post and an important discussion.
Indeed gmp, why is nobody going after businesses that employee illegal immigrants? I think that is a question that should be asked again and again. Is it that most economists agree that if we deported 11 million people that all hold jobs which pay minimum, or below, wage our economy would go into a tailspin? Perhaps Bill O’Reilly doesn’t like the idea of orange juice costing $10 a quart.
The reality is that illegal immigrants have always been in this country and we have always had an unspoken agreement with them: work all the shitty jobs that nobody else wants, get paid less than minimum wage and have NO health benefits, and we’ll give your kids citizenship and a chance at the “American Dream”.
Nobody believes that we will, or even could, deport 11 million people. This is just a convienient “problem” for the current admistration to wave in front of us so that we don’t focus all of our attention on the debacle that is Iraq. It also allows them to continue this facade that we are all in danger of another terrorist attack, as if anyone believes that the 9/11 terrorists came across the border. But fear is what sells and this administration is gonna keep going to that well until it’s dry. If we all live in fear and continue attacking each other, and those we see as inferior to us, then we have no collective strength to hold the government accountable to us; all of us.
But let’s blame the actual individuals themselves, that gmp so adequately points out are only looking out for their families, rather than the system that creates, and perpetuates, this “convienience”.
“So a responsible journalist would cover neither story AS IT RELATES to the immigration debate. But to cover one and not the other is slanted and biased and not fair and balanced. Which is what Modi seems to be calling O’Reilly out for.”
Jones, I’ve been away but your post #9 would have been exactly my response. thank you.
“We’re talking about a media that can incite a mass to hysteria through its demonization of circumstances/eventsand unabalanced reporting.”
Thank you steady! I don’t know why this point is being missed. A mass hysteria is EXACTLY what has happened which can be measured in the proliferation of hate groups. Any responsible journalist that even AGREES with O’Reilly’s stances on illegal immigration would not carry themselves in this recless manner to fuel and inspire more hate. Why is this a hard concept to understand?
– good post CJ, COSELLOUT is branching out!!!
DavidMac, you write:
“The drunk driving murder case was just another event he was trying to use to get his audiences attention on how dangerous a problem it is.”
There is no need for this utilization. The utilazation itself is what is highly dangerous. It does more to spread hate to inform readers. As Jones said, do you have any information that illegal immigrants are statistically more likely to kill someone driving than legal ones. And if they are LESS likely to kill someone driving drunk, then would you or Bill O’Reilly cite that as a positive aspect? (which brings this merry-go-round back to the rescue story) No need to answer. At this point you get the logic or you don’t. So moving on… you state:
“As for the fair and balanced aspect, he was fair and balanced when dealing with that story because he had opposing view points on during the segment.”
This line of reasoning does not fly. If a topic ITSELF is absurd it makes no damn difference whether you have any opposing viewpoints. When a news show selects any given topic it LEGITIMIZES that topic as worthy of rational discussion. Using your logic tonite O’Reilly can have a pro-con debate on “should we bring back Roman Gladiators?”, tomorrow he could air a segment on “should we reverse the women’s right to vote”, and then on Thursday we could discuss the finer points and counterpoints of reinstituting slavery. No, i don’t see anything wrong with this reasoning at all so long as these wholesome discussions contain “opposing viewpoints”.
– Brian, I think you are complaining about a typo (not saying “illegal”)and nothing more.
I stumbled upon an interesting article about immigration, so I thought I’d share (yes, I realize this is primarily a sports blog but the author raises arguments I hadn’t heard before.). David Mac, you probably should just skip it.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/72735
Jones, thank you very much and I really hope davidMac reads the article. But if not, I’ll reprint one paragraph for him about all those “dangerous” illegal immigrants. Seems like you are SAFER in areas more populated with legal and illegal immigrants (where there are more legal ones there are almost always more illegal ones)
“What’s certain is that first-generation immigrants have played almost as important a role in making New York more secure as the vaunted hard line on crime taken by Mr. Zero T…. The “Safest City” awards published a few days ago by Congressional Quarterly back up this kind of thinking. Among the top 10 with populations over 500,000, four are in Texas: Fort Worth, San Antonio, Austin and the border town of El Paso, which is the second-safest big city in the country. Two are in California: San Jose and San Diego, which, again, is right across the line from Mexico. The safest city of all is Honolulu, with its very diverse population, while New York City ranks fourth. (New York City also looks as if it will have fewer murders this year than at any time since reliable statistics became available, in 1963.) “I would say, if you want to be safe, move to an immigrant city,” Robert J. Sampson, chairman of the sociology department at Harvard University, told me on the phone this afternoon.”
I read your site, and I find that it is wrong.
Here are some sites as well.
http://www.californiaconservative.org/immigration/illegal-immigration-inconvenient-truths/
Illegal immigration increases crime crime: The inconvenient truth is not whether illegals commit more crime than other groups. The truth is that every crime committed by an illegal immigrant is a crime that would not have been committed if they weren’t here. Whether it’s murder or shoplifting, these are crimes that did not have to be committed.
Illegal immigration harms the education system: This is a huge inconvenient truth. Would there be overcrowding in our local school systems if illegal immigrants were not in those classrooms? How does the lack of English skills impact overall school performance? Even higher education is adversely affected. Every illegal immigrant admitted to a college or university deprives a citizen or legal resident of that educational slot.
———–
How about this
http://morningcoffee.wordpress.com/2006/07/31/forum-on-illegal-immigration-focuses-on-crime/
Illegal Immigrants comprise less than 9% of the US population yet make up 29% of those incarcerated in federal Prison. In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding homicide warrants are for illegal immigrants, and 75% of the Los Angeles Most Wanted list also happen to be illegal immigrants.
Gang Violence is also a major concern with the Illegal Immigrant community, with MS-13 being one of the most brutal. The FBI estimates that MS-13 has as many as 10,000 active members dispersed in 33 states. Members have been accused of burglaries, drug sales, weapons smuggling, extortion, illegal firearm sales, auto thefts, murder and rape.