Did you know if you support enforcement of immigration laws you're heartless and also support destroying families?
That was the over-the-top sob story offered yesterday by Geraldo Rivera on his "Geraldo at Large" show where he featured a man who was about to be deported, alongside his wife and three of his children.
"Look at these children. Do you want to be responsible for separating these babies from their daddy?" Rivera emoted, making an especial plea to FNC's Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity along with the "most hysterical voice in the bunch," CNN's Lou Dobbs.
"Their hard-working daddy who's done nothing but do good here in this country?" he asserted, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the man (identified as "Jean") had about 30 seconds earlier admitted that he'd been convicted of a drug offense in 1989.
Full transcript, video link, and fact check after the jump.
And Jean who is facing deportation and three of their four children. Hi, honey. So cute. And reverend Donna Scopper [ph] who offered them sanctuary in her church which is Justin [ph] Memorial down in Washington Square Park here in New York.
You know Jean [pronounced French way], Jean [pronounced American way], Jean [French]--I want to say it right--
GENEE [ph]: Jean [American]
RIVERA: Jean [American]. Do you know that I knew your father?
JEAN: Yes
RIVERA: In the 1980s I interviewed your father.
JEAN: Yes.
RIVERA: And you were obviously here then so you've been in this country for how long?
JEAN: 21 years now.
RIVERA: 21 years--
JEAN: --Yes.
RIVERA: Now, uh, you have three children are citizens and Genee, so are you.
GENEE: Yes I am.
RIVERA: So you were born here in the United States?
GENEE: Yes I am.
RIVERA: OK now so what--the reverend has offered you sanctuary so why, why Jean do you think sanctuary is necessary, you've been here so long?
JEAN: Well, I'm facing deportation because of a 1989 during the war on drugs, I was convicted of a drug offense. And I served 11 years in prison--
RIVERA: Oh, you did 11 years on a drug rap?
JEAN: Yes. And I came here legally. I have a green card. I came here with my green card. But because of the hard, harsh immigration law, now I'm facing deportation.
RIVERA: So you came legal but the law changed so your status became untenable so now they're saying you've gotta get out.
JEAN: Yes.
RIVERA: So you now facing a deportation order--
JEAN: --Yes. Back to Haiti.
RIVERA: --to go back to Haiti where poverty is endemic--
JEAN: Yes.
RIVERA: --where just last week that boat filled with 150 immigrants capsized in shark-infested waters, 150 people crowded on a 25-feet boat. That's why people are so desperate to leave. That's where they're sending you back. And they're separating you from your citizen children and your citizen wife.
Take a shot of these children. And I say to my colleague and friend Bill O'Reilly, I say it to Sean Hannity, and especially to the most hysterical voice in the bunch, Lou Dobbs of CNN. Look at these children. Do you want to be responsible for separating these babies from their daddy? Their hard-working daddy who's done nothing but do good here in this country? Is that where we're going with this? Is that where we're going?
Look at the inf--How old is that baby?
GENEE: Two months.
RIVERA: Two months old. Ladies and gentlemen, we have to have a heart. And if the church has to lead the way, God bless them.
Not only was Rivera's segment manipulative, it was also legally wrong. A person who is deported is able by law to bring their children with them. Jean's citizen wife could come along with him as well.
Click here to watch the video thanks to Ian of Hot Air.
—Matthew Sheffield is the creator of NewsBusters and its Executive Editor.
Comments Policy
Hmmm, I wasn't aware that I f
May 14, 2007 - 10:05 ET by Darth DutchHmmm, I wasn't aware that I forced this man to stay in the country illegally after his immigration status changed, forced he and his wife to conceive a child causing the child to be legal, but him to remain illegal, or forced him to commit a drug offense crime. Oh, wait, I didn't. HE created a family in a country where he was illegal, HE put himself in this bind of having to leave his family behind, and HE was the one who commited the drug offense.
Not trying to be heartless here folks, but the law is the law, something that escapes Geraldo everytime an illegal immigration story comes up.
Dutch
Oh I get it now!!!!
May 14, 2007 - 10:09 ET by c5thenBecause the convicted drug offender doesn't want to go back to his native country, we should ignore our laws and feel sorry for him and his family. I see. And we should use that standard for all our laws I presume? If a convicted criminal doesn't like his punishment, the courts should just give in and allow them to go free and be good mommies and daddies, right?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic.
Geraldo
May 14, 2007 - 10:15 ET by Jerry MackIf G.R. had his way, there would not be any borders, border patrol or such a thing as immigration status. We would be one big happy family.
Sorry, the drug crime causes
May 14, 2007 - 10:18 ET by BDSorry, the drug crime causes him to forfeit his rights to be in the country. Even if it was only shoplifting, that would cause him to get a one way ticket out....
Tough love required people....
Maybe if this sanctuary deal
May 14, 2007 - 10:18 ET by CaringwhiteguyMaybe if this sanctuary deal doesn't work out well Geraldo can hide the guy in Al Capone's vault. There's plenty of empty space in there.
Rivera is so absolutely shame
May 14, 2007 - 10:21 ET by GalvanicRivera is so absolutely shameless in his defense of illegal immigration, that he's become insufferable.
The US government isn't splitting this man's family; the man is. And since his children must've been conceived and born after his conviction and sentence (Otherwise they'd be adults now), then properly deporting this criminal after his sentence had been served would've curtailed all this human melodrama about his post-2000 family.
The question that any journalist worth his wait in entry visas should be asking is, How does a man on a green card get convicted in 1989, serve 11 years in jail, and NOT GET DEPORTED UPON HIS RELEASE FROM CUSTODY?!!!
The near-complete failure of an immigration infrastructure and processing system that US taxpayers finance and the Congress is tasked with overseeing ------ That's THE story!
It's no wonder that Rivera missed it.
"Done nothing but good i
May 14, 2007 - 10:23 ET by"Done nothing but good in our country?"
The man spent 11 years in prison for drugs. That is hardly "nothing but good!"
How much did he cost the American taxpayers, being incardinated for 11 years?
And just what law "changed?" He is not an American. Just because he came here legally, does not make him an American. Many people come here legally, but cannot stay.
Geraldo bold faced lied.
Debra...
"How much did he cost
May 14, 2007 - 10:34 ET by sarcasmo"How much did he cost the American taxpayers, being incardinated for 11 years?"
Well, it took the immigration issue, but that's the first time I've seen a conservative speak of the tax and spend drugwar in this way, so I count it as progress!! :)
JMR
SarcWhich drug laws would you
May 14, 2007 - 18:26 ET bySarc
Which drug laws would you rescind? Which drugs?
I used to believe that if weed were legalized but could only be purchased at govt stores (New Hampshire has state liquor stores) then a huge revenue could be generated. I no longer hold that belief as I've seen too many lives wasted and destroyed for me to have a hand in enabling people to waste their life.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
All of 'em. The saying is &
May 15, 2007 - 06:29 ET by sarcasmoAll of 'em. The saying is "the power to tax is the power to destroy," not the power to prohibit. Go to just about any other country and you'll see that in the USA there's already a very high tax on alcohol, and my ideal system would treat most other drugs about the same. I also think product liability lawyers & market incentives would naturally serve to make recreational drugs safer and less-potent, since that's what seems to happen with legal drugs. When I was born, decaf coffee, low tar cigarettes, and no-alcohol "beer" (yech!) didn't exist, and now they all do -- for better or worse in the case of the "beer," IMO, but still it makes my point.
JMR
I got into a big argument w
May 14, 2007 - 10:36 ET by The PresbyterI got into a big argument with my brother over the treatment of the illegal aliens in the movie "Children of Men". For those unfamiliar with the flick here's part of the premise:
The whole world has gone to hell, NYC was nuked, and Britain is the only country that even has any semblance of a functioning society. As a result, most of the world keeps trying to get into Britain. The government is completely Totalitarian and rounds up illegals and puts them in "concentration camp cities". I argued for the governments actions citing that drastic measures need to be taken to protect the last country from being over-run. If the illegals are being treated so badly, but they still want to get in, then that should tell ya something about the state of the world outside Britain. My brother couldn't seem to place himself mentally into such a world and kept arguing about the horrible treatment of the illegals.
It wasn't so black & white, but the government needed to do something.
Exactly
May 14, 2007 - 15:44 ET by kirch66Government's SOLE purpose is to protect the citizens WITHIN the borders of that governing body (i.e. country) from external threats and to ensure equal opportunity to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness within those borders. Everything else is superfluous and arbitrary. Without societal control (laws and enforcement) of some kind you have anarchy and chaos, and therefore no protection for its citizens. If a government focuses only on pleasing those outside the borders, then they cease to work for those within its borders.
"The moment you give up your principles and your values, the moment you laugh at those principles and those values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period." - Oriana Fallaci
100% agree with you. I als
May 14, 2007 - 21:25 ET by The Presbyter100% agree with you. I also have to give kudos to the tag you have. I never heard it before. I think I'm gonna do a little research on Oriana Fallaci.
I have no sympathy for this p
May 14, 2007 - 11:09 ET by KaysguyI have no sympathy for this person. My grandfather came here, legally, in 1918, fleeing the Russian revolution. He worked his way across the country while my grandmother and uncle bounced around Europe waiting for a country to take them in until he was established and sent for them.
Finally, in 1927, the family was reunited.
You don't want to separate th
May 14, 2007 - 11:14 ET by SouthJersey1953You don't want to separate their family? Okay. Tell him to take his wife and child with him. Nobody is forcing them to stay. That is, if keeping the family together is Geraldo's biggest concern, which it isn't. He wants them all to come in and stay.
No RINOs in '08 - Vote for a true conservative!
immigration improvement
May 14, 2007 - 11:51 ET by misterbillGet Geraldo out of the country. One of the best things that could happen to America.
I know I am a broken record but--no one has the right to give away OUR property, rights, freedoms to anyone else. That is why we have immigration LAWS. A LAW is a decision to support an action. It is usually put in place to protect the public. Coming to America without legal authorization is a crime. Lawbreakers should be punished. I am old-fashioned--let the punishment fit the crime--return them from whence they came and warn them if they come again, the father will be jailed and the family will be returned to San Salvador , or wherever without him.
Geraldo sits on top of his wealth with minimum impact from a population of illegal immigrants doing his job for one third the price. He is an extreme danger to America as are all others whose hearts say that everyone who wants should enter America whenever they want. How many American men are carpenters today?? One can hire a group of illegal immigrants to frame a house at a fraction of the cost of American workers. The *^*^$%# foremen and General Contractors will say, "well the house would cost $20,000 more if we hire Americans." There, they are admitting complicity in violating our immigration laws. Furthermore-- and worse- is the fact that they do not reduce the cost of the home by $20,000, they take more profit.
This is the first thread conc
May 14, 2007 - 11:57 ET by Clear thinkerThis is the first thread concerning illegals where I did not have to waste time reading tumblers BS on the subject. Did he get the boot?
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
He's on vacation CT. France
May 14, 2007 - 11:58 ET by MightyMouthHe's on vacation CT. France and Rome, hehe.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Crap, that means he'll be bac
May 14, 2007 - 12:01 ET by Clear thinkerCrap, that means he'll be back.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Like a bad rash. "The
May 14, 2007 - 12:02 ET by MightyMouthLike a bad rash.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Yes CT, enjoy it while you can
May 14, 2007 - 12:03 ET by RJYes, CT, enjoy the reprieve while you can. He'll be back soon enough to shut down intelligent debate on the subject.
Since the French want to try
May 14, 2007 - 12:09 ET by Clear thinkerSince the French want to try being friends again, could we petition their government to keep tumbler and do the USA a big favor?
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
I doubt they'd agree, CT
May 14, 2007 - 12:19 ET by RJI doubt they'd agree, CT, because he's made "racist" remarks about Muslims. For example, he recently said of his experience with Muslims in France "Muslims hardly know they've left Afganistan, they're so bold....."
(When I asked if we could apply the statement to many Mexicans in America, he wasn't pleased....)
CT, RJ, MM - I had successfully--
May 14, 2007 - 12:21 ET by misterbillCT, RJ, MM - I had successfully-- put thoughts of the aforementioned individual comfortably in the back of my mind. I had hoped he had visited the Eiffel Tower and forgotten the way back down. You three have caused the hair on the back of my neck to stand up. You have spoiled my vacation, which is any time the T man is on vacation.
A pox on you three. LOL
You think this could be tum
May 14, 2007 - 12:27 ET by MightyMouthYou think this could be tumbler? If so, I hope everything comes out all right. :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
LMAO Nope, I know it's not--
May 14, 2007 - 12:30 ET by misterbillLMAO Nope, I know it's not--he would be concerned that he may land on an "undocumented worker".
VACATION'S OVER!
May 14, 2007 - 12:27 ET by RJVACATION'S OVER! :^>
Now you have done it----
May 14, 2007 - 12:27 ET by misterbillNow you have done it---- HE IS BACK!!!! You have resurrected him. Another pox!!!!!!!!!!
how about you, clearly unthinking?
May 14, 2007 - 12:29 ET by tumbler_2007I'd ruther YOU keep Tumbler, old pot.
I'm back from the Paris-Rome-Florence holiday. You can direct all your petitions to me, here in NewsBusters.
Well, look who's back-our fav
May 14, 2007 - 14:48 ET by Dave RWell, look who's back-our favorite resident conduit to the illegal immigrant community who has no-doubt returned to resume his role as defender of all things moving north across our southern border.
How nice.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-Neal Boortz.
I am also tired of the "don't
May 14, 2007 - 11:54 ET by EvokeI am also tired of the "don't seperate the family!" rhetoric. What better way to learn about there own "culture" than some good 'ol immersion education?
We now have to face the unbeatable duo--
May 14, 2007 - 12:35 ET by misterbillWe now have to face the unbeatable duo-- Ratman and Bobbin.
In real life, Jerry and Gene. They are the wealthy owners of Border Imports, a highly successful company that some how never sells any goods. Gene recently met with President-to-be Sarkozy. Immedaitely after the meeting, Prez Sarkozy instructed his aides to cancel any and all statements he made about being friendly with America and "NO" he does not want 20 million more "Undocumented workers", thank you!
you're true to form, misterboil
May 14, 2007 - 12:51 ET by tumbler_2007Yeah; we can count on you to torpedo any serious discussion with self-serving humor. It's fine to make yourself laugh; but try saying something substantial instead. You're supposed to be a mature thinking man; and you carry on like Al Franken.
For the record: I don't want any undocumented workers at all. I support our immigration laws. I believe in human rights, but not in allowing illegal aliens free rein. When you suggest (like a barroom drunk) that I want 20 millions more, you just trot out another stupid lie. OK; I know it's typical of you. Go on and please yourself.
I hope O'Reilly picks up wher
May 14, 2007 - 13:13 ET by QueenMumI hope O'Reilly picks up where Geraldo left off. But sometimes I wonder if it isn't just about a sort of "good cop, bad cop" scenario between Geraldo and O'Reilly.
Agree with those who say that it's not necessary for the family to be split up. They can all leave together. This man made bad choices that are now effecting his whole family. Not any different than what happens when any person decides to engage in criminal behavior. Shame on Rivera for being such a sap and for using these children to campaign for amnesty and open borders.
would like to agree-- but
May 14, 2007 - 13:32 ET by tumbler_2007I'm not really in Rivera's camp about anything. But my feelings about individuals and their families isn't limited to the conventional wisdom. Every life is worthy of compassion or at least fairness. When you say: (Queen Mum) "Not any different than what happens when any person decides to engage in criminal behavior," --You're overcompensating for the law.
The letter of the law kills, the spirit gives life. -----No, it's NOT engaging in criminal behavior, to work for a living. It may be illegal; but how can you forget so completely what criminals truly do ? They live by the law of the jungle; they don't migrate illegally. You compare apples to cabbages. An illegal alien (and I don't feel about it as Geraldo might, I'm an American) comes north to WORK. Get the criminality aspect straight. Criminals rarely want honest work!
No, it's NOT engaging in crim
May 14, 2007 - 14:16 ET by Darth DutchNo, it's NOT engaging in criminal behavior, to work for a living. It may be illegal
Hi Tumbler,
I'm sure you realize the complete hypocrisy of that statement; by definition criminal behavior is breaking the law, thus it is illegal. The drug dealer also "works for a living", it just so happens that his choice of "work" is against the law and has a bunch of negative consequences for individuals and society.
However, I do at least respect the fact that you are consistent in your beliefs...even if they are wrong. :)
Dutch
tumbler: The man spent 11 yea
May 14, 2007 - 14:20 ET by QueenMumtumbler: The man spent 11 years in prison for a drug crime. That's criminal behavior. And that's why he deserves to be deported.
Working is not criminal behavior. Crossing our border without proper process is criminal behavior. It doesn't matter why one commits the crime. We have lots of folks in neighboring communities here who would like to have things they can't afford. So they steal those things from local merchants. Should I also feel sorry for them and insist that they not be punished for their crimes because they don't make enough money to afford those things?
I had to laugh at your "law of the jungle" statement. It seems you have a narrow definition for the word "criminal". Let me help you out. A criminal is someone who breaks the law. If you steal $10 from the cash drawer at your place of employment, you're a criminal. If you shoplift a pack of cigarettes from the grocery store, you're a criminal. Doesn't matter if you work for a living. Working for a living doesn't give you license to break the law. The fact that you seem to feel that there's a difference between behavior that is "criminal" and behavior that is "merely" illegal, tells me that you're probably a firm proponent of moral relativism.
not a narrow definition
May 14, 2007 - 14:38 ET by tumbler_2007Sorry, Mum:
Mine isn't a "narrow" definition of criminal; because I'm not referring to this case in particular. I speak of the general thing; a poor man who wants to better himself at any cost. If I have to EXPLAIN something like that to you, we're already hopelessly opposed. I only objected to your use of the analogy-- "no different" from any other who chooses a life of crime. (That's narrow, since it allows for no exceptions.)
As for the rest of your blather: "Working for a living doesn't give you license to break the law. The fact that you seem to feel that there's a difference between behavior that is "criminal" and behavior that is "merely" illegal, tells me that you're probably a firm proponent of moral relativism." -- Form your own opinions of me; I'm strictly opposed to moral relativism. We aren't even talking about "behavior." We speak of human beings, human necessity and human weakness. You shove it all under the heading of criminality. To me that's the argument of a bigot. Try a different tack. You're smart enough, aren't you?
tumbler: Bigot towards what o
May 14, 2007 - 14:56 ET by QueenMumtumbler: Bigot towards what or whom?
You are indeed a moral relativist. Poverty is no excuse for breaking the law. Or as my mama used to say: "Being poor is no excuse for being dirty."
"Human beings .... human weakness" Crimes are committed by human beings. Is there any sort of criminal behavior that you find worthy of punishment tumbler? After all, aren't all crimes committed by human beings with human weaknesses? And isn't the act of committing a crime a form of human behavior? But we can dispense with the word "behavior" if that makes you feel better.
It seems we have a difference of opinion regarding the use of the word "criminal". After all, we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings by suggesting that breaking the law makes one a criminal. I stand by my interpretation.
look up the word bigot
May 14, 2007 - 15:04 ET by tumbler_2007A bigot will never concede any point; he/she MUST have the last say.
I've NEVER made excuses for breaking any law. I support the law. My only complaint here is the use of buzz-words meant to BASH those who make you angry. Just stick to the truth. Stop "teaching" others what criminality is, and afford yourselves some human compassion for the unfortunate.
Otherwise, admit you're too bigoted to think anything but evil of these people. To you and your cohorts, they can simply do nothing good; they're evil to the core.
tumbler: You didn't answer my
May 14, 2007 - 15:27 ET by QueenMumtumbler: You didn't answer my question. Bigoted toward what or whom?
And what "buzz words" do you define as "bashing"?
Who are "these people"? Are you speaking of just those involved in this particular story?
In the context of this particular story, the man is a criminal. He knows it and admits it. I for one do feel sorry for his family. As I do for the families of anyone who finds themselves on the wrong side of the law. In fact, I donate regularly to a prison ministry that provides camps, Christmas gifts, and support for the families of those who are incarcerated.
So, shall we take it one step further and say that anyone who has a wife and young children should be exempt from incarceration or any other penalty under the law? Or should we make an exemption just for those who come here illegally?
BTW, you're not very good at conceding certain points. Does this make you a bigot? Or does it mean you're consistent in your view?
Huh?
May 14, 2007 - 16:23 ET by kirch66"...afford yourselves some human compassion for the unfortunate."
Unfortunate? The unfortunate ones are his family who he brought into this situation. And now he must take responsibility for putting them through this. I feel sorry for the wife and children, but does that require we turn a blind eye to the fact that he broke the law and there is no justified deterant and punishment other than deporting him. They aren't cutting off his foot or poking his eye out, their sending back to his country of origin. He doesn't have a medical condition. He isn't claiming political persecution, and I'll bet he doesn't have a skill set that makes him unique and overtly valuable to the betterment of the country at large. What, other than a weak emotional argument, is there that we should look at to NOT deport him?
Human compassion is to enforce our immigration laws strictly to DETER others from putting themselves and potential future families in this same situation.
How many illegals is the limit? Where do we draw the line? What human emotional circumstance is the point of cut off for our compassion? None? If there is one, who makes the decision? Until that time where we can all agree, are we supposed to just let them keep coming in unchecked? These aren't evil people coming here (well not all of them - there are some though) but they are criminal when they break the law to get here. Then they break the law to get fake ID. Then they break the law to apply for social services without merit. Which one of those laws isn't worth enforcing? And if you say any one of them, then to be intellecually honest and equitable, you'd have to say that we shouldn't enforce those laws for anyone.
You're arguements are all based on emotion. Laws are not an emotional human endeavor. They are meant to be cold so as not to give favor to one group or person over another.
"The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as garanteed by the supreme law of the land are involved." - Associate Justice John Harlan, dissneting in Plessy v Feguson (1896)
"The moment you give up your principles and your values, the moment you laugh at those principles and those values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period." - Oriana Fallaci
Hi Tumbler,I believe I have r
May 14, 2007 - 17:43 ET by Darth DutchHi Tumbler,
I believe I have read in your posts that you are Catholic (I am Protestant), and I believe a verse which speaks very accurately to the illegal immigration debate is Proverbs 6:30-31:
30 Men do not despise a thief if he steals
to satisfy his hunger when he is starving.
31 Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold,
though it costs him all the wealth of his house.
This is taken from the NIV version of the Bible, but other versions have the same meaning. Similar to the thief described in the text, no one blames the illegal immigrant for breaking the law coming, or remaining, in America, but at the same time if he is caught, that is no excuse for his behavior and he must pay the price. As Christians we are called to have compassion on people, but the Bible is also clear that we must obey the laws of the land unless they are in direct violation of God's law.
Dutch
OH MY GOD!I had no idea that
May 14, 2007 - 18:41 ET by Clear thinkerOH MY GOD!
I had no idea that my earlier posting would bring tumbler back to life. I'm begging all of you for forgiveness if I caused his abrupt and timely interloping.
Thirty lashes will be self-inflicted upon myself.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Yeah, shame on you, Clear.It
May 14, 2007 - 18:45 ET by BlondeYeah, shame on you, Clear.
It was a lovely reprieve....alas, over now.
It's like one of those horror movies--
May 14, 2007 - 18:49 ET by misterbillIt's like one of those horror movies-- after the monster is killed, everyone heaves a sigh and relaxes and then BANG!- the monster comes back to life.
He has not changed a whit--I honestly believe he has challenged any and every person who addressed him. Nasty old Trembler--The Lurker is ALIVE!!!!!
Evening, misterbill.I suggest
May 14, 2007 - 19:00 ET by BlondeEvening, misterbill.
I suggest we follow Mean Gene's lead, and just ignore, as best we can, posts on the illegal immigrant subect from him. If no one answers, he'll be left to respond to himself, or better yet, to just be silent (best outcome).
Blonde...Good idea.Other than
May 14, 2007 - 19:06 ET by Clear thinkerBlonde...
Good idea.
Other than Jeraldo and the illegals, tumbler is the only other person in America that refuses to understand what legal Americans are upset about. They claim racism and bigotry, but we all know this is total BS!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
I stopped
May 15, 2007 - 17:55 ET by Mr. BishopI stopped caring what tumbler had to say on Illegal Mexicans in this country months ago now. He hasn't ever contributed anything to the conversation or debate, other then to call us racist for having the audacity to want the borders secured, and kick the illegals back to the country they made into a hell hole. Basically... if he ever decides he wants to genuinely not excuse illegal aliens from their illegal activities, then a conversation might take place... until then -- silence.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Precisely, Bishop.<cricket
May 15, 2007 - 18:16 ET by BlondePrecisely, Bishop.
<crickets chirping> on that subject.
I mean come on, guy.....I know you're a racist and I'm a Nazi, per that poster....what else needs to be said?
So ? Me too
May 15, 2007 - 18:40 ET by tumbler_2007ME TOO, Bishiop. Me too Blonde;
I don't care what you think about illegal imigrants. Why should I ? Your vote is no more valuable to our country than mine. We won't get far at this juncture, trying to win over the opponent. So who cares?
I say Blonde is not a Nazi; she just acts like one. It's my considered opinion. If Bish is a racist I can't say. He sticks to his guns; just as I do. It's a free country. Do I care if he replies to me or doesn't ? NO.
<crickets>
May 15, 2007 - 18:50 ET by Blonde<crickets>
dear darth:
May 15, 2007 - 11:59 ET by tumbler_2007You'll expect a high-five for this? "You are Catholic (I am Protestant), and I believe a verse which speaks very accurately to the illegal immigration debate is Proverbs 6:30-31:
30 Men do not despise a thief if he steals
to satisfy his hunger when he is starving.
31 Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold,
though it costs him all the wealth of his house."
No high-- LOW for you. Nobody's even referring to thieves; we're referring to those who illegally enter our country. They come to work, not steal. Furthermore;
Our Savior said we must LOVE our neighbor, not persecute him. LOVE means good will, compassion, understanding. A NEIGHBOR means, to me-- the man in my neighborhood-- primarily; after him all others who share this world with me.
If my neighbor is working at some taco shop near me, I have the Christian obligation to love him, not hate him. -- James says in his epistle: If you do not love your neighbor, whom you SEE-- how are you to love God, whom we do not see ?
In the OT, God commands the Israelites: "Do no evil to the alien; remember that you too were aliens once in a strange land."
That's ALL I ever meant to convey here in this blogsite; not an open border. Nor skoffing any law. We are to love the illegal immigrant when he's in our own neighborhood. If he's caught in a criminal act, let him be tried and sentenced like any other law-breaking neighbor; or deported. Otherwise, we are to love one another as Christ teaches. --Is this rocket science, Darth ?
Tumbler,In our limited intera
May 15, 2007 - 12:26 ET by Darth DutchTumbler,
In our limited interaction, I think I've been much nicer and civil to you than others on this board. And I do appreciate that you are here on this board; if anything it allows people who disagree to (hopefully) debate issues in a civil way. As I've said before, I respect you for standing by your convictions and having the courage to argue them in a forum in which they are not popular.
But many of your posts to others and, to a lesser degree, to me go beyond debating and go personal (inferring that I do not love people because I advocate enforcing the law, or belittling me with the "rocket science" comment above). And you've said much worse to others, outright calling them bigots who hate the "brown man". I don't think there's any need for that. Either your or my argument will stand on its own merits or it won't. No need for name calling.
That said, I'd say that you and I are in agreement about loving people. Yes, Christ does command that. But where you and I differ seems to be in what the definition of "love" is. As you know, the Bible makes mention in multiple places that loving people is not synonymous with them not having any consequences. You say you don't want the law "scoffed". Fine. In the newspiece above, the law is being upheld by having this guy deported, so by deporting him the law is not being "scoffed". Yet you're against it...????
At some point either you love for the illegal alien is going to overshadow your love of the law, or vice versa. I am not advocating that illegal aliens be beaten, attacked or anything else, just that the law be upheld. But if they have broken the law, then they must bear the consequences, that whole "reap what you sow" thing. No one's saying they can't emigrate to the US, they just have to do it legally and we have a system for that.
Dutch
reply to darth:
May 15, 2007 - 13:02 ET by tumbler_2007Yeah-- I hear you. Thanks !
Nobody seems to realize I'm not "defending" any one person; even the illegal guy here denounced so viciously. I don't back Geraldo either, though he's agreed with much of what I stated before. I hope to bring good counsel to this area of our nation's politics. Our social values. (I sometimes think I'm succeeding, much to the anger of some mean-spirited folks around here. The ones who insist on attacking the messenger.) --Why would anybody, even a non-hispanic, say all that I'm saying; over and over;
To end up in clear support of our immigration law ? Support for our Border Patrol; and for sovereignty of this country ? Isn't that going in circles ?
I do it because every day we were seeing virulent, abusive and crude rhetoric; hate speech-- against them. Right here in this blog. Since I came here, the same offenders have started to measure their words more. It was too apparent even to them; that I'd told the truth. Their anger was unfettered and filled with open hatred which anybody could point to. But even today; we see a number of posts here denigrating Geraldo. One guy saying he ought to be run out of the country. Totally over the top. No trace of American fair play, Let the man have his say. Just fury.
Which, thankfully you don't exhibit here toward me. You're capable of understanding is why. Others have called me a turd; demented, filthy, racist, a spy, a dick he>d, traitor to my country, a troll; -- all manner of insolence and loathing.
You say my love mustn't overshadow the law. I take it you feel nothing can be accomplished toward solving these social problems with anything but the law ?
I say nothing is ever accomplished by law. Because new laws will only arise. There's a law now about to be passed. Amnesty for illegals, with conditions. There'll be much protest. Fury; unhappiness.
Because there is no love. This country rebels against God almost daily. And God is Love ! Love is no longer our norm, if it ever was. And for that reason, soon our nation is going to collapse altogether. It's going to be replaced. I wish this thought weren't recurring to me so very often. I hope I'm wrong. But it all points to that.
You say my love mustn't overs
May 15, 2007 - 13:44 ET by Darth DutchYou say my love mustn't overshadow the law. I take it you feel nothing can be accomplished toward solving these social problems with anything but the law ?
I say nothing is ever accomplished by law. Because new laws will only arise. There's a law now about to be passed. Amnesty for illegals, with conditions. There'll be much protest. Fury; unhappiness.
I think I need to make one point of clarification on my end. First, I agree with you that more laws are not needed. Laws in and of themselves don't make people do anything. You must have the enforcement of the law to help with that. True, even with good enforcement, laws are broken, but for the vast majority of people having the law (what is stated) and having the enforcement (what is done) be in agreement with each other is enough. We simply need to enforce the immigration laws that are on the books and that will cut down on a lot of the problems, in my humble opinion.
The point I intended to make, which admittedly wasn't very clear, was that at some point your stated desire to love the illegal alien and your stated desire to follow and uphold the law will run contrary to one another, and one will win out over the other. So, in the Geraldo case above, you either will side with the illegal alien, or you will side with the position of the government, ultimately.
As a whole the US is a compassionate and caring nation and has a system in place for legal immigration. I've no problem with any person from any country or of any nationality coming in and doing it the legal way. I'll welcome them with open arms. But those who break law roll the dice and take the chance that they will have to pay whatever consequences there are for their actions.
So, Tumbler, even though we disagree on this issue more than we agree, your arguments at the very least make me think about my position and hopefully help me in formulating my opinion and my response. Now I'm off to other forums. :)
Dutch
Please forgive the interrupti
May 15, 2007 - 17:32 ET by QueenMumPlease forgive the interruption, Darth.
tumbler: Why is it that you define those who merely want the laws of the land to be upheld as haters? How is it you assume that those who want this man, or any person who violates the laws of the U.S. to pay for their crime as the law allows, don't "love" the person? Do you believe that one can love the person, but "hate" the crime? You've made a number of generalizations on this thread about how people feel about illegals. You don't know the heart of anyone. You may think you do, based on your own biases. But you don't.
P.S. Well said, Dutch.
dear queen mum
May 15, 2007 - 18:21 ET by tumbler_2007Your questions: "Why is it that you define those who merely want the laws of the land to be upheld as haters?" Reply: Has it escaped your attention that I want the laws of our country upheld and enforced just as well as you ? I'm in favor of capture and deportation in the absence of some mitigating circumstance. Even so; if a known felon claims mitigating circumstances, he ought to go to jail or face deportation. It's all according to the law.
When I debate in favor of love it's not because I wish all felons or lawbreakers might get a free pass. As for the "crime" all others associate with illegally crossing our border, I have real reservations. It's not the kind of act I see as crime. Yes, it's a violation of the statutes. If I'm supposed to "HATE" that "crime" in your view, I can only call that absurd. --I hate EVIL, not illegal entry. Usually it isn't evil or even harmful to us, in any way at all. It's bad, but not a crime.
Now, about-- "generalizations on this thread about how people feel about illegals." OR, knowing the hearts of anyone else. It's not a general feeling of mine. It's my observations of how people speak on the problem. Many are reasonable. Most are not. You've been mostly reasonable. I won't waste your time relating to you here what mean-spirited things have been said about the offenders in this blogsite. ALL under the guise of "protecting our country" and enforcing the law against EVIL men and women from south of the border. That, Queen, is putting everything MILDLY.
I don't "define" those who only intend the security of our borders in any malicious way. I only called those racists and white supremacists who demonstrated it plainly in their diatribes and/or repugnant postings against a helpless ethnic minority. Under a pretext of supporting our laws. Again; these are my observations, not my imagination.
"How is it you assume that those who want this man, or any person who violates the laws of the U.S. to pay for their crime as the law allows, don't "love" the person?" Reply: To put it simply; nobody ever says he loves illegal immigrants in any shape manner or form. More frequently they'll say something demeaning, stupid or false about them. If you and I love somebody, we don't refer to them as DESPICABLE, ignorant, thieving and "criminal" -- because love is good will. Love means trust and forgiveness, understanding. No one here is ever on the side of love, QM. Only me.
tumbler: This country has law
May 15, 2007 - 19:27 ET by QueenMumtumbler: This country has laws and procedures related to immigration. The laws apply to all immigrants, no matter how they come here. And the law has a purpose. That purpose and the laws have existed well prior to 9/11. But since 9/11 it's even more important that the immigration laws are enforced. I'm sure you've heard it before. But the reason that certain illegal immigrant populations seem to be "targeted" is because they are in the majority - not because of where they come from or what their ethnicity happens to be.
For the record, this is what I think needs to be done re: the illegal immigration issue:
1. Strenghthen enforcement of borders and ports.
2. Go after employers who hire illegals.
3. Establish a process for putting illegals who have no criminal background, beyond their entering the country illegally, on a track to citizenship - the same track that every other immigrant must take. Set a time frame for how long they have to have been in the country in order to qualify for this process. In the interim, they should be registered in some way and required to pay all taxes that every citizen pays, as well as Social Security. They must establish and maintain current addresses with Immigration, along with maintaining steady employment. Anyone involved in this process should be eligible for any health care benefits provided by an employer. Those involved in the process would also be eligible for certain government assistance such as Medicaid - depending on their income, just the same as an American citizen. Only those with the special identification associated with the process can apply for government assistance. Emergency medical care would still be provided regardless of an immigrant's status. (It's possible that some of these provisions are already in force. If so, please forgive my ignorance.)
4. Do away with the anchor baby provision.
5. Deport any and all illegal immigrants who have been charged with a crime beyond entering the country illegally. This would include identity theft and buying, selling, or using false identification.
I'm sure there are other things that could be done to help solve this problem. The above are just the things that come to my mind.
After reading what you have to say, I think you're a bit conflicted. I get the idea that, despite the fact that you claim that you want the laws enforced, you want our southern border left wide open. That would be fine with me as soon as Mexico becomes a U.S. territory or the 51st State. As it is, we must do the best we can with the laws as they currently exist. If the laws need to be changed, that can be accomplished. However, we can't just ignore the law because enforcement is lacking.
Actually
May 15, 2007 - 11:24 ET by TheDeuceThe guy deserves to be deported because he broke our immigration law...the drug offense is just gravy. He should have been put on a bus while still inside the prison walls and driven directly to the Mexican border. He shouldn't have been allowed to set foot on American soil as a free man.
This criminal chose to break numerous laws. He is also choosing to be deported without his family. I guess that just makes him 'pro choice', right? What's Geraldo's problem here? I figured him to be 'pro choice'.
"Their hard-working dadd
May 14, 2007 - 13:30 ET by Mean Gene Dr. Love"Their hard-working daddy who's done nothing but do good here in this country?"
So by that rationale, I can go rob a bank and can expect to be not face punishment for it so long as I "do good" from the moment of the robbery on...maybe by giving money to the poor or otherwise support and provide for my family with the stolen money...maybe even pay taxes on the stolen money?
Preposterous!
"Believe what you want. You work your side of the street, and I'll work mine." --Frank Bullitt
Dear Dr; don't be a fool
May 14, 2007 - 13:35 ET by tumbler_2007Come on; stop this ridiculous rhetoric. It's nothing to do with bank robbery.
And approaching from that perspective isn't RATIONALE. It's foolishness.
Tumbler,My point is that just
May 14, 2007 - 13:48 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveTumbler,
My point is that just because someone "does nothing but good" since breaking the law (illegally entering/staying in our country) does not mean that they shouldn't face the consequences of their choice to disregard the law. I know you can't understand that concept especially when it comes to illegal immigration. And if he had been previously convicted of a drug offense since obtaining his illegal status, then he obviously has not been as good as he was portrayed to have been.
And it is RATIONALE...Geraldo is making excuses in attempting to justify the man's illegal status.
Your apologism for illegal immigrants is foolishness.
"Believe what you want. You work your side of the street, and I'll work mine." --Frank Bullitt
there's no point at all
May 14, 2007 - 14:56 ET by tumbler_2007'Just because someone "does nothing but good" since breaking the law (illegally entering/staying in our country) does not mean that they shouldn't face the consequences of their choice to disregard the law.------'
There's no point to your point; you're beating the old dead horse, is all. Geraldo is patently wrong, I concede that much. But I haven't argued in defense of any felons. I've made it plain for months that i support our country's immigration statutes. Is it necessary for you to accuse me falsely of "apologizing for illegal immigrants" --after I tell you so ? Your indictment of the bad guy in this case has just cause against Geraldo's concerns, not mine. I merely suggest that there's nothing basically reprehensible in wanting employment. Employment which AMERICAN employers are eager to offer the illegal immigrants.
When you bloviate about all the EVILS of this situation, at least try not to tell blatant lies about the immigrant alien as a GROUP. Not every one of these is an evil man, or woman. They're simply POOR ! Notice I AM making a valid point.
You are interpolating CRAP in
May 14, 2007 - 16:35 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveYou are interpolating CRAP into the things that I have said. No where did I say things like "all", "every", or "evil". The only "grouping" I do in reference to illegal aliens is: They have all broken our immigration laws. Their economic status or intentions, or other behaviors notwithstanding do not change the fact that they broke the law.
You are so sensitive on the issue of illegal immigration it seems you end up trying to find anything...anything at all to pick at and complain about us "bigots" that are against all forms of illegal immigration. If my aging, poor, and ill grandmother illegally entered the U.S. (or any country) I would not feel one bit bad for her if she got deported.
I should've listened to my inner-self and resisted the urge to break my non-response policy to you Tumbler. So, with the last line below, I will now resume my non-response policy.
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" --Joseph Welch
"Believe what you want. You work your side of the street, and I'll work mine." --Frank Bullitt
mean perry
May 15, 2007 - 12:15 ET by tumbler_2007We have Perry Mason onboard, Gang !
"No where did I say things like "all", "every", or "evil". The only "grouping" I do in reference to illegal aliens is: They have all broken our immigration laws. Their economic status or intentions, or other behaviors notwithstanding do not change the fact that they broke the law." . . . Perry Mason, summing up the case.
Gee, why hadn't I thought of that ? Here's the whole thing in a nutshell: Youz guys are upholding THE LAW !
NOT. You hate Mexicans. (MOST of you.) You have the law as your handy pretext. -- I can tell you why I know this; but don't get me started. It wouldn't penetrate your stone skulls even if I showed you bluntly how I know you hate them; those who crossed over here illegally. Remember, Mean Gene. You are NOT to respond to this post. Allow another "upholder of the law" to do it, please.
Well, Gene it didn't take him long....
May 15, 2007 - 12:39 ET by RJWell, Gene it didn't take him long to go on the attack, did it?
bigot: a person of strong conviction or prejudice who is intolerant of those who differ with him.
There's one person on this board who that fits best. ;^>
...and that person has the au
May 15, 2007 - 12:47 ET by bigtimer...and that person has the audacity to say we all hate Mexicans.
What part of illegal aliens, of any stripe that he can't quite grasp is and always has been beyond me.