Comments

1. jBullfrog wrote:

   wow, I can’t believe I actually liked Geraldo for the past ~2mins.

   Posted 09 Apr 2007 at 11:43 am ¶

2. Carmen wrote:

   Ugh..cannot stand Geraldo. We do have a immigration problem in this country, Don’t know what the answer is, but it is draining our sources..medical, etc.. But didn’t this guy get like 4 other DUI or something..

   Posted 09 Apr 2007 at 12:57 pm ¶

3. susanc wrote:

   I can’t believe I actually agree with Geraldo… Geraldo making sense, isn’t that one of the signs of the coming Apocalypse?

   I’ve never liked O’Reilly, but this is a new low. I find it rather sick that he trys to twist the tragedy to fit his agenda. He totally comes off as a raving lunatic (or more so than usual).

   Posted 09 Apr 2007 at 1:49 pm ¶

4. ren. wrote:

   As much as I dislike O’Reilly and Geraldo, O’Reilly did have a point and groups like Media Matters who helped disseminate this video are being disingenuous in the portrayal of this argument. This was total masturbatory fodder for the left; here’s two people you hate now watch them fight. Not to say that isn’t enjoyable… but let’s not allow the sideshow antics to obscure the issue.

   I can agree that being an illegal alien and being a drunk driver is not a direct correlation. If that was Geraldo’s great point — that DUI fatality was the result of a drunk? Yeah… and the death of a soldier or civilian is the result of war. Naming a component of the issue is not explaining the issue. Wouldn’t it be wise to consider what leads to or sustains that war? The issue is not that he’s a drunk, it’s obvious he’s a drunk. Ramos is a drunk doesn’t explain how he got a license. Did he even own a license? Did he have insurance? Did the car belong to him? Was the car registered to him? What were the penalties of his prior violations? Did they bother to impound his car for his prior offenses? Why didn’t they revoke his license — did they? Did this violation occur during a period of suspension, were his previous violations committed during periods of suspension? Why wasn’t he placed into a alcohol rehabilitation program after his third offense?

   Had those two kids been injured and not outright killed and the family incurred massive medical expenses, nursing, surgery, rehabilitation, costs they could financially ruin them… are they going to worry that Ramos is a drunk or that as an illegal immigrant who’s driving illegally anyways might not have the foresight to purchase ample amounts of liability insurance.

   Previous DUI convictions are not trivial details, they are a criminal offense. In a country where you can be cited for having an open alcoholic container in a vehicle despite not even drinking from it, this dude gets 3 DUI convictions and they want to give him a chance for a fourth while being an illegal immigrant? Far as I was aware, an alien who enters the US legally or illegally is subject to the laws of the US. Who is this guy? Consul Ramos? Diplomat Ramos?

   I understand where Geraldo is coming from, his concerns are very real. We don’t want what we had in the early twentieth century, a US Immigration Commission that heralded the superiority of white anglo-saxon protestants and demonized Jews, Italians, Irish, Slavs… and so on. Just because this one illegal immigrant is a drunk shouldn’t lead us to speculate that all Hispanic illegal immigrants have bad habits towards drinking or reflect lesser moral standards than that of the citizen population. His ethnicity should be kept out of this, but his status as an immigrant does come into question because someone – police chief – mayor – bent the rules and frankly I’m curious to know why.

   Posted 09 Apr 2007 at 5:09 pm ¶

5. Kenda wrote:

   my goodnesss, i think i actually just agreed with geraldo…..and you’re right, susanc, o’reilly is coming off as a lunatic.

   Posted 09 Apr 2007 at 6:05 pm ¶

6. Meg wrote:

   celebrity deathmatch in the making!

   the problem is complicated (and as the video shows emotional) but the argument of “he shouldn’t even have been in this country” creates the impression that ’solutions’ like a giant wall to keep out all the brown ppl would greatly reduce crime and i don’t know that it would. You could highlight every crime committed by every illegal alien in america and all that’d be achieved is the demonising of mexican-americans or others who have legally arrived. Part of the problem is that politicians deliver red faced rhetorical bluster about the evil illegals while simultaneously taking money from business who could probably not afford to employ an entirely american workforce and maintain current profits (i’m not an economist but that’s my guess).

   Posted 09 Apr 2007 at 7:08 pm ¶

7. Tereza wrote:

   Carmen,

   You say that the U.S. has an “immigration problem” and one of the examples you give is that immigrants drain “our” resources.

   First of all, I’d argue that it’s U.S. governmental policy decisions that drain our resources, with the war in Iraq being number one on my list. See this NY Times article, What $1.2 Trillion Can Buy or a website called National Priorities Project, which breaks down some of the budget cuts that the Bush administration has made to such crucial programs as health care and education.

   Contrary to popular belief, immigrants are actually less likely to use health care and social services than non-immigrants. According to research published in 2005 in the American Journal of Public health, “per capita total health care expenditures of immigrants were 55% lower than those of US-born persons ($1139 vs $2546).” See this link for more information. Illegal immigrants, are even less likely to utilize health care services than other immigrants (and native-born Americans), though many pay taxes and purchase health insurance through their employers.

   Take a look at this quote from a 2006 study published by the HARVARD Latino LAW REVIEW: “Undocumented immigrants living in the United States are subject to the same income tax laws as documented immigrants and U.S. citizens. However, because of their status most unauthorized workers pay a higher effective tax rate than similarly situated documented immigrants or U.S. citizens. Yet these workers and their families use fewer government services than similarly situated documented immigrants or U.S. citizens. Moreover, unauthorized workers have been denied remedies under the National Labor Relations Act by the U.S. Supreme Court, and they may be challenged to receive protection under wage and hour, anti-discrimination and workers’ compensation laws. As a result of all these factors, undocumented immigrants provide a fiscal windfall, and may be the most fiscally beneficial of all immigrants.”

   Also, it’s important to note that immigrants actually stimulate the U.S. economy. According to a recently released study released by the Center for an Urban Future, during the past decade. . . immigrants have started more business than their American counterparts, “stimulating growth in sectors from food manufacturing to health care, creating loads of new jobs, and transforming once-sleepy neighborhoods into thriving commercial centers.”

   I am citing all these studies, because I’m sick of immigrants baring the brunt of the problems creating by policy-makers. Please don’t blame immigrants or “immigration” for the resource-draining policies instituted by the Bush administration and others in the seat of power. Instead of scapegoating immigrants, I suggest people stand up for how their taxes are used and against the destructive decisions made in their name.

   Posted 09 Apr 2007 at 9:33 pm ¶

8. Brad wrote:

   I agree with O’Reily that the man should have been deported , he repeatedly broke the law, and put everyone else in danger. Also the authorities should explain why he wasn’t deported or at the very least put in prison.

   However with that said I don’t think O’Reily was right in trying to make this man’s actions represnitive of the vast majority of illegals, even though I do believe illegal immigration is a drain on our economy.

   Posted 09 Apr 2007 at 9:58 pm ¶

9. merq wrote:

   Ren,

   I don’t get it. It seems you’ve half-defeated your own initial point. Yes, if he had been incarcerated/deported/whatever for the previous DUI convictions, he probably wouldn’t have claimed this new victim.

   But guess what… if a red-blooded, flag-waving American had been incarcerated for driving intoxicated, he wouldn’t have claimed a new victim, either, now would he? So the question returns: what does this have to do with the color of his passport?

   Posted 09 Apr 2007 at 11:16 pm ¶

10. Colin wrote:

    That he has admitted to being an illegal alien as well as a drunk is, from what I can tell, not a huge deal except for the anti-immigration Right. The problems that people attest to his illegal status are not exclusively a problem of such status.

    Driving without license or insurance is not an illegal immigrant problem alone, though aliens can commit such offenses for sure. Driving drunk is not an illegal immigrant problem alone, but an immigrant, as we see, can drive drunk indeed. And for many reasons, people are allowed second, third, fourth and more chances to commit the same offense with or without rehabilitative efforts, citizen or not, legal or not. (local news says he had 1 DUI beforehand)

    The suggestion and implication that this is some definitive proof that illegal aliens get “special rights” is not one I find reason for, honestly.

    Posted 10 Apr 2007 at 1:26 am ¶

11. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    Just to clarify, the above Carmen is a different Carmen from me.

    Posted 10 Apr 2007 at 6:41 am ¶

12. commonsense wrote:

    WOW . Bill O’Reilly has lost some marbles!
    I agree with Geraldo it don’t matter if he was an illegal immigrant or a citizen the bottom line is WE ARE NOT SAFE ON OUR ROADS! PERIOD !
    44 THOUSAND are killed on our roads MILLIONS seriously injured and NOT just by illegals. Not just DUI’s either Repeat speeding offenders, drowsy driving, talking/texting on cell phones etc etc.
    Bill O’Reily needs a head check. Take on the correct fight OUR ROADS ARE NOT SAFE FOR ANYONE by ANYONE!
    Take a look here at this site. .
    http://www.crashprevention.org/
    see how bad things are and our great GOVERNMENT covers it up, sweeps it under the carpet and says MAKE them cars safer people! It’s NOT the cars it’s the DRIVERS, just as the saying is” it’s not GUNS that KILL IT”S THE PEOPLE IT”S THE PEOPLE THAT KILL PEOPLE!” Every year the numbers increase and tons are getting away with MURDER!
    Take on the WHOLE Picture here O’Reilly !!!

    Posted 10 Apr 2007 at 7:07 am ¶

13. Tereza wrote:

    Carmen (Van Kerckhove), I thought that must’ve been a different Carmen

    Posted 10 Apr 2007 at 9:51 am ¶

14. ren. wrote:

    I love how I “prove” myself wrong all the time, especially when I end half my sentences with a question mark. I have a good sense of humor, it’s why I love racialicious. I already pointed this out, that immigration status and being a drunk aren’t mutual. But that doesn’t explain anything. Citizens get drunk and kill people too doesn’t explain why Ramos was allowed to stay in this country. I find that silly rationalization. The My Lai Massacre, is that just a case of “wars aren’t safe”? Maybe throw in some statistics of the collateral damage of different sized bombs? Bombs kill more innocent civilians than My Lai did right? Pat Tillman’s family should quit badgering the Pentagon, I mean, Iraqi Militiamen shoot their own sometimes too. Enemy fire – friendly fire, all just inconsequential detail. But I’m a curious dude and I’m not satisfied by that. And it scares me how the left and right are becoming indistinguishable in their reasoning especially on topics they don’t want to discuss.

    I understand nobodies thrilled to see this made into a national platform, O’Rielly makes it a crusade against those harboring illegals, the left wants to take this up as criminalization and demonization of all immigrants legal or illegal. Others want to expound on grand theories of macroeconomics. I just want to focus on Ramos, which everyone seems to be avoiding. Quit telling me that drunk drivers are the reason for DUI fatalities, that’s not the issue BECAUSE it’s a non-issue. We all agree to it, thats a fact. There is no issue over the fact that these two women died due to a drunk driver. The issue is why he, Ramos, was allowed to say here to begin with. If the law enforcing agencies are going to pardon him and look the other way, I want to know the reasons why. The Virginia Pilot (Virginia Beach’s hometown paper?) has an article where they state that Chief Jacocks nixed the right of his officers to question the immigration status of people that they CATCH, not random law bidding immigration-status-ambiguous people on the street, people they catch AFTER committing a criminal offense. That to me is far beyond “implication” that illegal aliens are getting special rights.

    Colin, I can’t accept the vague “many reasons” as a reason for why he was given this many chances considering his status directly violated federal law. If there are so many reasons give me five to mull over. Secondly, there is no obligation for a country to treat its aliens, legal or otherwise, with the same benefits it endows upon its citizens. This isn’t even mandated under international law — so despite perhaps knowing of citizen Fred who got drunk ten times and burned down a nursery and got a pardon for it, doesn’t reflect the necessity for that leeway to be shown to anyone who is a non-national.

    While you’re correct that Ramos had only one DUI, there are those spinning this so that people think Ramos had only one run in with the law. Virginia’s own Court Case Information Database and Automated Information System which is online would contradict that. Perhaps your local news explained why without insurance, license, a fake or stolen license (enough to warrant identity theft) while drunk driving lead to a guilty conviction without penalty? Why charges against having no f’n drivers license or insurance (some states legally require mandatory insurance) were allowed to be dropped? And that a week after the trial, when you’d think he’d lay low, gets arrested for public intoxication in Virginia Beach. If they hadn’t suspended the 90 day sentence at his DUI trial he wouldn’t have been in Virginia Beach on that day or the day of the wreck. So why you people are jumping on the save all illegals bandwagon confuses me, because I could give a rat’s ass about illegals and Ramos and his personal foibles are of real no interest to me. Ramos is an illegal alien, there’s no issue in that. If you couldn’t figure out, my main complaint is with the justice system and this Police Chief.

    Posted 10 Apr 2007 at 3:12 pm ¶

15. merq wrote:

    Ren,

    Perhaps I should space my words out better, ’cause it appears you still aren’t getting it.
    Seeing as his drunkenness (the “one component” some of us are only looking at) wasn’t the real point here, I’m guessing what killed that girl was his illegal status.

    Yes, Ramos was apparently given one too many passes, but if O’Reilly indeed has a point, then I suppose deporting all illegal immigrants will end America’s drunk-driving problems, right?

    Posted 10 Apr 2007 at 7:35 pm ¶

16. jmn wrote:

    According to this blog, the confrontation was 90% an act.

    http://www.paullevinson.net/archives/oreilly_v_rivera_look_again_no.phtml

    Posted 10 Apr 2007 at 8:14 pm ¶

17. Colin wrote:

    ren,

    Five reasons? No, I won’t give you five reasons. (See? I have a sense of humor, too! But for real, though, I’m not doing five, got it?)

    I shouldn’t have used the word “many”, ’cause now I only remember a few reasons, though I believe more are possible.

    -Poor, inefficient judicial decisions that do not deter drunk driving
    -Awful drunk driving laws that didn’t mandate a minimum prison sentence
    -Equally awful drunk driving rehabilitation that is not consistent nor persistent in making sure an offender doesn not repeat

    Ramos was not charged with a felony until now, so he was never asked about his immigration status. But, as an immigration attorney in Virginia Beach said, in the Pilot,

    “But on a misdemeanor summons for a DUI or public intoxication, those questions are not allowed to be asked because you’re getting into civil rights violations; just because your last name might be different than mine doesn’t mean I have the right to ask [about immigration status]”

    Here’s the article link

    http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=122302&ran=40347&tref=po

    The policy was, as it says in the article, followed pretty much to a tee, so who “bent the rules”? It seems that you are more upset that an illegal alien committed this offense than a citizen, which I would say is a wholly inappropriate response to a drunk driving accident like this.

    Posted 10 Apr 2007 at 10:12 pm ¶

18. ren. wrote:

    Merq

    Keep looking, it’ll come to you.

    Colin

    I wasn’t curious as to what was hypothetically “possible”. I was thinking more of what would have been potentially applicable in the Ramos situation. I mean, I could have drawn my own hypothetical.
    - perhaps the judge was smitten with Ramos and just had to let him go.

    What you offered aren’t reasons, they’re broad debate questions that you hope will apply in this situation. You and I don’t have a clue what prompted that judicial decision, that’s why I’m curious to find out. The “awfulness” of a law, reflects the interpretation by a judge. I’m taking a guess on this but you probably don’t have a clue how good the DUI rehabilitation is in VA, hell I’m not sure if they even have a DUI/drug rehab program. So how exactly could you claim that’s a reason for Ramos being let off? Is this still part of your humor? Cause I’m poor at recognizing sarcasm.

    Not sure what a felony has to do with being asked about this immigration status. DHS has a policy of deporting you if you commit a felony as an illegal. I don’t recall anything about not being able to ask a question concerning immigration status until you commit homicide. Frankly the idea that they can only deport you if you create a “grave enough” crime is ridiculous considering an overstay of a visa is grounds for deportation. Will someone actually deport you for an overstay? Highly doubtful, considering DHS lacks the resources to deport those who illegally enter the country. However DHS’s inability to go after each and every person that needs deported is not a sign that it’s permissible.

    Great quote though… it could be a “potential” civil rights violation. Of course when you want to keep prayer out of school lawyer for the religious right find that a potential civil rights violation and when roe v. wade is threatened abortion advocates and their lawyers claim that a potential civil rights violation. I guess the encroachment of civil rights all depends on where the lawyer stands. I’m not all that surprised by the statement… assuming an immigration attorney had made that statement. But he didn’t. You misquoted — this was said by Jimmy Barnes, VA Beach police PR. Nevertheless, had this been the immigration attorney that supported deportation and saw illegals as a direct violation, I’d have possibly defiled myself.

    PR Officer Jimmy isn’t wrong, he’s just limited the definition by narrowing the example. So yes, it would be unlawful assuming (based on his example) you conducted an inquiry on their immigration status due to their having a different name than your own. Why stop at race, it’s also illegal if it is based SOLELY on national origin, sex, or religion. Note the solely as this is important. In order to prove a violation of one’s civil rights, counselor would have to prove that you were singled out based upon your national origin or ethnicity as the PRIMARY reason for suspicion. Good luck counselor. All that means is law enforcement needs reasonable suspicion and not single anyone out based on personal prejudice. Reasonable suspicion, say like, driving drunk with high BAC, no proof of insurance, no license, fake or stolen international license, speaks no English in a country where citizenship requires a minimum English comprehension, I would say that’s enough to establish the asking of a immigrant status question.

    Also you’re confused as to who’s policy it was. It was Officer Jimmy’s VA Beach police that have the don’t-ask policy, while the Chesapeake Police do not, and they are the ones that caught Ramos with the DUI, so not sure what policy they were following to a tee.

    Misquotes I can understand, but this shit is annoying. And you just happen to know that in a comparable case where conditions are exactly the same, I wouldn’t be just as annoyed with a citizen? How many times do I have to say this isn’t about illegal aliens? Did I not say I didn’t give a rat’s ass? For a bunch of guys who don’t want this to be a case focusing on illegal immigration you sure direct the conversation there consistently. Can you not figure out how to discuss this without having to label me an immigrant hating deport cowboy? I don’t recall asking for deportation. I don’t care if illegal immigrants are in the country stealing all the jobs and robbing me of my milk and honey — I give a fuck. All I want, is that they be held to the judicial system of their host country.

    Break the law, face the penalty. If that penalty is determined to be deportation, so be it. I wanted Ramos to face jail time, but even if I wanted him deported – how is that condemnation of ALL illegal immigrants? I’m pretty sure you can deport Ramos without having to deport all illegals especially those who haven’t committed any crimes. If you’re an illegal and apart from your immigration status you do nothing to break the law or warrant deportation, then stay all you like. But stop insulting illegal immigrants by championing Ramos as their figurehead. I find that a disservice.

    If officials in VA Beach or Chesapeake are negligent in their duty or (if this is true) the Chief at VA Beach makes a change in policy with the intention of directly benefiting illegals who commit crimes, when prior to that ordinance asking immigrants their status was allowed… I take issue with that. Want to know where the rules were bent? I could go down the list, they dropped more than just two charges and the DUI sentence for Ramos. But we can have that conversation later Colin, when the trial is underway and actual facts come to light, so neither of us end up being too confused.

    Posted 11 Apr 2007 at 2:29 pm ¶

19. Colin wrote:

    I felt and still feel that there are possible reasons that Ramos’ previous convictions didn’t lead to an investigation into his illegal status, and I wonder why you aren’t wondering about, why you aren’t curious about other aspects than Ramos’ illegal alien status.

    You’re saying that somehow you KNOW, for sure, that because Ramos is an illegal alien, someone in charge “bent the rules” for him, and you still haven’t mentioned how you know this, nor how which rules were bent.

    And I will stop treating you like an “immigrant hating deport cowboy” when you stop talking like one.

    a. “Frankly the idea that they can only deport you if you create a “grave enough” crime is ridiculous considering an overstay of a visa is grounds for deportation. Will someone actually deport you for an overstay? Highly doubtful, considering DHS lacks the resources to deport those who illegally enter the country. However DHS’s inability to go after each and every person that needs deported is not a sign that it’s permissible.”

    b. “there is no obligation for a country to treat its aliens, legal or otherwise, with the same benefits it endows upon its citizens.”

    c. “but his status as an immigrant does come into question because someone – police chief – mayor – bent the rules”

    d. “illegal” used by itself as a noun

    (These are some of the quotes you’ve made here that tell me that when you say that you’re not condemning all illegal immigrants, or that you “don’t recall asking for deportation,” you’re being disingenuous.)

    Posted 11 Apr 2007 at 11:35 pm ¶

20. B.G. wrote:

    Did anyone notice the insinuation of the threat of illegal immigrants “lurking” or whatever near Geraldo’s daughters?

    Posted 12 Apr 2007 at 12:28 am ¶

21. ren. wrote:

    Colin, in your need to see this in terms of opposition, I’ll confess. I can’t stand illegal immigrants. Illegal or legal (sorry roommates). All are spawned from the devil! There, now you can stop tacking that tiring insinuation “because you think Ramos is an illegal alien” to every question you have. But I won’t stop treating you like an *** when you can’t read your own article without blindly trying to twist it to support you.

    By the way, the supposed reasons you were expressing had to do with this claim – “And for many reasons, people are allowed second, third, fourth, and more chances to commit the same offense with or without rehabilitative efforts, citizen or not, legal or not.” — how did these reasons all of a sudden become “possible reasons why Ramos’s previous convictions didn’t lead to an investigation into his legal status”? I’m the one that’s dishonestly making this issue about illegal immigration? Right-o.

    No kidding I didn’t say which rules were bent because I said I was holding off for the trial, when the facts come out, so people like yourself who get confused won’t have to argue with me with points that don’t make sense. Frankly, the rules that were broken really have nothing to do with his being an illegal alien (shocking I know and proof I’m focused on his immigration status), I could go into discussing driving as it’s viewed by the courts as a LEGAL entitlement, the state govt’s obligation to protect citizens on the road, the dubious conditions around the legal registration of his vehicle, fake or stolen drivers license which counts as falsifying govt. documents, etc… — I could go into detail but I know I’m wasting my time with you since you would somehow determine my use of a noun was racist. So do your own homework cowboy.

    Love where the quotes are coming from. This is why I was criticizing you for ignoring the fact that I didn’t want to make this about illegal immigration. Instead of respecting that you continue to push the idea that I’m absolutely opposed to illegal immigrants to which I respond explaining why your points are lame and then you claim my response is proof that I can’t get away from discussing illegal immigration and why can’t I focus on issues not about illegals. Didn’t see that coming. Classic example of “dialogue” with the left, really no different from “debating” with the right. If you didn’t dislike illegals before the conversation, you’ll probably hate them after you talk with their “defenders”. When your reasoning is simply picking out quotes without bothering to write one sentence to prove your point… well, god help you when you defend your dissertation. But I’ll bite:

    a. because you don’t understand what constitutes moral turpitude which can be made grounds for deporting illegal immigrants, not just a proven felony.

    b. This was calling for deportation? This is one of the grounding tenets of international law.

    c. This isn’t about deportation, this is about rule of law. If the Chief really did change city ordinance to benefit _________ who commit punishable crimes then city officials need to be held accountable. What do you not find appropriate?

    d. Oh, dear god. Conversation over.

    Adios (

    Posted 12 Apr 2007 at 3:27 pm ¶