The Deaths of Two Illegal Aliens Near Houston...

Bill O'Reilly's December 6th Talking Points Memo

I think we'll see this as a classic O'Reilly argument as we move towards the future. What Mr. O'Reilly does is take an isolated instance involving someone he wishes to target for a broader issue and relate the two as though they are tightly bound together. In the end, though, the two cases are completely unrelated. So here's the story as I see it. Joe Horn, a business owner in Houston, is robbed by two burglars. He calls 911 to alert the authorities and then decides to take justice into his own hands by grabbing a shotgun and shooting the two burglars. The two burglars happen to be illegal aliens. For me, the critical issue here would be vigilante justice. Mr. Horn's life was not in danger. The burglars were running away. It is the police's responsibility to apprehend the felons and serve justice, not Mr. Horn's. But Mr. O'Reilly has a different take on this. The whole event would never have happened if not for the fact that the burglars entered the United States illegally. And Houston is directly responsible as a "Sanctuary City." I think the key here is to look at border enforcement. With or without laws deporting illegal aliens whenever they are found in the United States, those two burglars would have entered the United States. Now both were at one point arrested, and one was even deported and returned illegally to the United States. I suppose my view on this is that the fact that these people were illegal aliens has no bearing on their crime. It could have been two United States citizens just as easily (and more often would have been). But Mr. O'Reilly is citing this instance as a reason why Houston should be cooperating more with Homeland Security regarding Illegal Immigrants. Now if Mr. O'Reilly could show me significant statistics on crimes and illegal immigrants that would be interesting to see. Are illegals more likely to commit a crime? Are illegals more violent than citizens? That would be relevant and important data. Instead, he has chosen to take one isolated case and mark it as a generalization for how illegal immigrants are causing deaths.

That brings me to another point. O'Reilly asks "how many more people have to die before the federal government denies federal funding to sanctuary cities?" That's an interesting question because in the isolated example he's citing, the only people who died were the illegal immigrants themselves, whom he hasn't shown much value to their lives anyway. So in his pressing example, there were actually no American deaths involved. Now certainly there are examples of illegal immigrants killing American citizens as the murder of Nick Erpol shows. But again, is the problem with sanctuary cities or is the problem with border enforcement? And even so, is the purpose of denying immigration to a foreigner to limit the number of crimes committed in the United States or more for population control? Would it be a big story if a legal immigrant committed those crimes? Should we be concerned that legal immigrants commit more crimes than American-born citizens? I think it would be racial profiling if we looked at the statistics and went out targeting immigrants (legal or illegal).

The issue is not complex for Mr. O'Reilly. We simply notify Homeland Security every time an illegal alien is arrested and he will be deported. But it's not quite as clear cut as Mr. O'Reilly would have us believe. Who pays for the Homeland Security personnel who will be tasked with this project? Who pays for the prisons we keep the illegal aliens in before they are deported? Who pays for the transport of these illegal aliens back to their originating countries? The answer is the taxpayers. I have no problem paying taxes. I think it is an important role for any American citizen. But people don't get elected saying they are going to raise taxes. So, without raising taxes, where does this money come from? Education, social security, local law enforcement, local fire departments, national defense, and any other government program that will be cut or downsized because of it. I personally think this country has bigger fish to fry than worrying about illegal immigration to this level. But that's just my opinion. And when you cast your vote for President next November, you'll have to decide where illegal immigration falls on your prioritization of issues. Mr. O'Reilly simply believes "we should not vote for any presidential candidate who doesn't support the immediate confinement of criminal aliens." I don't know about you, Mr. O'Reilly, but I'm a bit more concerned about what my candidate thinks about the war in Iraq, diplomacy with Iran and North Korea, education, the environment, and the economy. So if Candidate X says he wants to invade North Korea and Iran and is also for the immediate confinement of criminal aliens, but Candidate Y says he is interested in diplomatic solutions to Iran and North Korea and isn't too concerned about immediately confining criminal aliens, I will have to vote for Candidate Y. And so we all should make our own choices.

And that's "The CounterPoints Memo."