O'Reilly: Gays not "being persecuted" in Mexico; in Cancún, Acapulco, and Puerto Vallarta, "there's gay everything"
On the February 14 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, during a discussion of the asylum petition of Mexican citizen Jorge Soto Vega, which was recently granted based on his claim of persecution in Mexico because of his sexual orientation, host Bill O'Reilly told Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly: "If you go to any of the resort areas, Cancún or Acapulco, as I mentioned, Puerto Vallarta, any of them -- come on, it's gay parade time. Don't tell me they're being persecuted." Kelly responded that she "didn't recall that," but O'Reilly maintained: "There's gay bars; there's gay restaurants; there's gay everything."
O'Reilly attributed the result in the case to the "9th Circuit Court of Appeal[s] again trying to impose its wacky view of the world on us." Kelly exclaimed that "[a]mazingly ... [t]his has been happening for years. There are hundreds of people who have gotten asylum in the United States based on the fact that they are homosexual." O'Reilly and Kelly were apparently referring to a May 3, 2006, decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that overturned immigration judge John D. Taylor's ruling denying Soto Vega's asylum claim. The 9th Circuit held that Taylor had improperly ruled that even though "the testimony of [Soto Vega] did demonstrate past persecution,' " Soto Vega must also prove that he reasonably feared future persecution as well. The 9th Circuit stated that according to its precedents, "[o]nce a petitioner has established past persecution, a rebuttable presumption exists that the petitioner has established a well-founded fear of future persecution." The government has the burden of showing "a fundamental change of circumstance or that petitioner could reasonably relocate to another part of the country." The 9th Circuit sent the case back to the immigration judge to determine if the government could make that case. Upon rehearing the case, Taylor granted Soto Vega's asylum claim.
O'Reilly praised part of Taylor's original decision, subsequently overturned by the 9th Circuit, which, according to the Los Angeles Times, stated that Soto Vega "could return to Mexico since 'it would not be obvious that he was homosexual unless he made it obvious himself.' " O'Reilly asserted: "I think the immigration court made the right decision, basically saying, 'Look, you could be anybody. Just go back there and don't wear a dress... and you'll be OK.' "
However, O'Reilly took issue with another part of Taylor's original decision, the ruling that Soto Vega's testimony that he had been subjected to persecution was credible. O'Reilly noted that Soto Vega claimed that "the [Mexican] police beat him with a flashlight because he was gay." He asked if there were "any proof of that." Kelly responded that "[e]ven the immigration judge said his testimony was fairly credible" on that point, to which O'Reilly asserted: "But it's just his testimony. ... I didn't see a shot of the policeman beating him." He asked Kelly if she saw "bruises" or "doctors' testimony." Kelly responded that she had seen neither.
From the February 14 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: OK. Does this have any merit? It's a 9th Circuit Court of Appeal again trying to impose its wacky view of the world on us.
KELLY: Amazingly, it does have merit. And this guy Soto Vega is not the only one. This has been happening for years. There are hundreds of people who have gotten asylum in the United States based on the fact that they are homosexual.
What happened in this case was this guy grew up in Mexico. He immigrated -- well, he was an illegal immigrant here in '88 --
O'REILLY: Right.
KELLY: -- went back home. Came back to the United States and said, "You know what? I'm going to try to do it legally this time and I'm going to ask for asylum because I was persecuted for being gay while I lived in Mexico."
So, the immigration judge said, "Nice try, but no." And the -- his reasoning was, "You don't look gay. You don't sound gay. You can pass for being straight. So, go back to Mexico and do that."
Well, he appealed to the 9th Circuit, saying, "What? What kind of standard is that? Why should I have to act heterosexual in order to get asylum?"
Well, he -- the 9th Circuit agreed and said, "That's not the standard." They said the standard is if you were persecuted in the past, then you have a reasonable likelihood of being persecuted in the future.
O'REILLY: Well, what happened to the guy in the past? What did he bring in to prove he was persecuted?
KELLY: He says that the police beat him with a flashlight because he was gay.
O'REILLY: OK, does he -- does he have any proof of that?
KELLY: Yeah, the -- even the immigration judge said his testimony was fairly credible on the persecution he had suffered.
O'REILLY: But it's just his testimony.
KELLY: Just his testimony.
O'REILLY: I didn't see a shot of the policeman beating him. Did you?
KELLY: No. No.
O'REILLY: Did you see bruises?
KELLY: No, I saw nothing.
O'REILLY: Did you see doctors' testimony?
KELLY: Just the guy's testimony.
O'REILLY: OK. So he comes in and goes, "Hey, somebody beat me up." Now, if this is the standard, then every gay person in the world --
KELLY: Yes.
O'REILLY: -- can come in and do this.
KELLY: Yes, and it's happened. People from Iran, people from Lebanon, people from all over the world have sought --
O'REILLY: But you'll get beheaded -- you'll get beheaded in Iran. And I'm serious --
KELLY: Yeah, yes. Right. That's true.
O'REILLY: -- because you can get killed. It's a different thing when you're a homosexual and you get killed --
KELLY: Well, that's true.
O'REILLY: -- than this guy, because, with all due respect to this guy, he might have spit on the cop. He might have done anything to the cop. Look, if you go to Mexico -- have you been?
KELLY: Yes.
O'REILLY: All right. If you go to any of the resort areas, Cancún or Acapulco, as I mentioned, Puerto Vallarta, any of them -- come on, it's gay parade time. Don't tell me they're being persecuted.
KELLY: I don't recall that.
O'REILLY: There's gay bars; there's gay restaurants; there's gay everything.
KELLY: Well, Bill -- Bill --
O'REILLY: Don't give me this.
KELLY: Not just in Mexico. There are plenty of gay people here and anti-gay people here in the United States. That's the thing is that the United States is not just this, you know, welcoming country where there are no homophobes. I mean, there are anti-gay --
O'REILLY: No, that's right, he could get beat up here --
KELLY: -- there's anti-gay discrimination in this country, as well.
O'REILLY: -- but here's what I'm worried -- here's what I believe happened here. I think the immigration court made the right decision, basically saying, "Look, you could be anybody. Just go back there and don't wear a dress" --
KELLY: Yeah, but to say you've got to --
O'REILLY: -- "and you'll be OK."
Media Matters: Limbaugh's Off the Wall spin on Michael Jackson's death
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
O'Reilly and his ridiculousness aside, this man's asylum claim should have been denied, in my opinion.
I agree Tommy. O'Reilly's typical buffoonery aside, this court's decision was bogus.
BTW Mexico offers an array of vacation spots catering to Gays. I seriously doubt Gays would vacation there if they were being persecuted.
Type Gay Vacations Mexico into google.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gay+vacations+mexico&btnG=Google+Search
Exactly, Google gayvacations in Iran and see what you get.....probably a guillotine in your seaside room.
That would be a sword, Tommy, and probably a slightly dull one at that.
You kind and compassionategentlemen might want to reflect on the fact that few Mexicans can afford to live in Cancun, Acapulco, and Puerto Vallarta.
I don't know whether the man's claim has merit or not. I just don't think the presence of gay-positive resorts in a handful of Mexican cities is proof positive there is no persecution of gays in Mexico.
So we are to give asylum to people because they cannot afford to live in an area of their country which will be nice to them?
I made no such assertion. I said, quite clearly, that I don't know if the man's claim has merit - I just don't agree with the logic that because "it's gay parade time" in a couple of resort towns, that there is, ipso facto, no persecution of gays in México
Silly Val, the poor must be punished because they don't have the proper moral fortitude to become wealthy in a third world economy.
Now learn how to be a good conservative hater of the underprivileged.
Val, There's "persecution" and a level of hatred here in certain parts of this country if you're gay.
Tommy, if I've ever condescended to you so blatantly, I do apologise. That was probably the stupidest comment you've ever made.
Val, you know full well that this was NOT the stupidest comment Tommy has ever made!
I can vouch for that.
Mexico still has anti-homosexual laws on the books, by the way. (That doesn't mean Mexicans are opposed to accepting money from gays in Cancun.)
I don't think the Mexican government cares if the local laborer or street sweeper is gay or screwing sheep. However, if someone writes a critical op-ed or is an activist, then Mexico can be a very uncomfortable place to live--and sexuality would become an item of interest.
You got it. Mexico, as we know, has a very rich minority class and a very large impoverished remainder. Just because Mexicans take money from gays does not mean they suffer from any less an amount of homophobia. They just need the money. More dumbguy connections from O'Reilly...
Not to mention... "...Just don't wear a dress"? Proof that O'Reilly still thinks the calendar reads "1943".
susannah, where did you hear that mexico still has anti homosexual laws? Distrito Federal and Cohuila have passed domestic partnership laws that allow gays to marry, in fact just last week a lesbian couple had a ceremony in Saltillo. I have alwasy heard that Mexico has never had an anti-sodomy law in it's history. That being said I am sure there are many towns with a corrupt police force that beat up gay people. But I live in a large city in mexico and that dosn't seem to be such an issue.
Sure, Jeter. Just be sure to clear your internet history before the little woman goes there.Might be some splainin' to do. ;oD
Actually Beach I did the google search at work...and was quick to delete it from my internet history...wouldn't want anyone here getting the wrong idea and thinking I was Gay.
Not that there's anything wrong with that ;-)
Tommy, Jetter
Yeah those vacation spots exist, but for gay US citizens vacationing in Mexico. The locals are still attacked and abused, but vacationers bring money to hte area so they are treated better.
"If you go to any of the resort areas, Cancún or Acapulco, as I mentioned, Puerto Vallarta, any of them -- come on, it's gay parade time. Don't tell me they're being persecuted." Kelly responded that she "didn't recall that," but O'Reilly maintained: "There's gay bars; there's gay restaurants; there's gay everything."
These are resort areas that cater to tourists... if foreign tourists spend money Mexico doesn't care about their sexual orientation. I would imagine some Mexican tourist areas are regarded as gay friendly. That's about economics...
But the issue this man was raising was "alleged" persecution of gay Mexican citizens in every day life. I'm sure gay tourists are not being "persecuted"... they're being served drinks on the beach. But there very well could be insidious bigotry towards gay Mexican citizens in every day life. I don't know if that is true or not. None of us is in a position to intelligently comment on the merits of his claim without knowing more. The man may very well have had a weak case both in terms of evidence and the law. But the reference to tourist areas in Mexico that have gay reataurants and bars is nothing more than a bogus smokescreen... it has nothing to do with what this man was talking about. If Mexico is, in fact, intolerant to its gay citizens then its concern should be that world will spread in the international gay community and gay foreign tourists will begin to bypass "Cancun or Acapulco". That's Mexico's problem...
But even if the man's claim was lacking merit, for a U.S. judge to tell him to go back and not act gay is an embarrassing act of ignorance. I don't care what side of the argument you fall on, but the arguments of people like Bill O'Reilly and this judge lack intellectual integrity.
Your right Irony,
Let me share some info. On a vacation with a group of friends to Cancun we stayed at a "gay" resort, although it was for everyone, we were part of a group, with a guide, etc.
One the first day the guide told us, "there are a couple of gay bars in the area and while as a group we might vist some of these bars, we should not go on our own, without the group and guides." "If we went we would be in danger of attacks and in general, abuse." (BTW that weekend, a local gay man was attacked outside a bar and had his skull crushed with a 2x4).
The third day, my friends Tommy and Ritch went out to a market to buy snacks and some trinkets. When they returned to the hotel, the tour organizers would not let Tommy back into the hotel. He's a fourth generation US citizen of mexican heritage. They thought he was a local and refused him entery into the hotel because of that. (lucky for him, he had a passport, drivvers license, etc. with him)
So it really it is not just about lack of money and being able ot live in safe areas. The locals are barred from the gay resorts, unless they work there. The tourist areas are safe, but not accesible to locals.
(BTW: The guide told us if we are attacked on the street to yell, "I'm from Canada" because they may be attacking you for being gay or for being a US citizen.)
Hey Irony,
O'Reilly is a buffoon [I think we can both agree with that] but I still agree with him that this guy's asylum petition should have been denied. There was NO proof other than the guy's testimony.
As far as the Gay Vacation stuff...well that was sort of tongue in cheek. While I agree Gay tourists might be better treated than Gay citizens, unless there is hard evidence that the Mexican government or any nation's government is persecuting their Gay citizens I don't believe we should be granting asylum for Homosexuals just because their lifestyle might be ridiculed or looked down upon....hell that still happens right here in the US.
"this guy's asylum petition should have been denied"
You are orobably correct... but my point on that was that we don't know exactly what the evidence and legal issues were other than what was reported in a semi-sensational fashion.
The remainder of my comments were not based on any personal experiences but just that what O'Reilly said about gay tourist areas struck me as totally irrelevant. It seems more likely to me that if Mexico catered to gay tourism it was probably in more of a protected setting and probably bore no relation to what it was like being a gay Mexican citizen.
The case may have reached a legally correct decision... I just thought the comments of O'Reilly and the judge were dumb.
One last word...
O'Reilly's comments really annoy me sometimes because he literally tries to pass himself off as an "intellectual"... I have actually heard him use this word to describe himself. (I think it was with reference to his having authored several books.) But, in reality, his inability to blend facts and sound logic to back up his arguments, aside from the way he tends to sometimes distort facts, leads me to conclude that he is somewhat less than the "intellectual" he professes to be.
this guy's asylum petition should have been denied
Wrong legally.
What the court record shows is a credible assertion of past persecution which legally establishes a well-founded fear of future persecution if returned. The lower court incorrectly ignored the second part of that; the appeals court did not.
The business about "only his testimony" is irrelevant and ignorant. The legal point is, the court believed him. Do you want to say that courts are incapable of judging issues of credibility? I invite you to consider how many cases could not be decided, how many disputes would be thrown beyond the reach of a legal determination, if we agreed to that.
Wrong ethically.
So you shouldn't be able to establish an asylum claim in the absence of rock-solid evidence? Have you even thought about the impact of what you're saying? How many victims of persecution, of torture even, could meet such a standard?
"What, you don't have videotape of the police beating you? Where are your bruises? What do you mean, they healed while you were waiting for your court date? A broken arm, you say? You have x-rays? How do we know this didn't happen because you were falling-down drunk? I see no permanent scars anywhere. Where is your iron-clad proof?"
There was a time not so long ago - during the Reagan administration, in fact - when our government made just such arguments about refugees from the civil war in El Salvador when they claimed to be victims of government goon squads because the White House position was that the government of El Salvador, which we supported, did not do such things. They have no irrefutable proof, the White House said, therefore they should be denied asylum.
That was considered manifestly unjust and something of a moral outrage at the time because it was an impossible standard to meet short of a confession by the guilty oppressors. I see no reason to think differently now.
In 2005, CONAPRED (the National Advidsory Board for Prevention of Discrimination - Consejo Nacional para la Prevención de la Discriminación) reported that more than 100 homicides of gay men are reported in Mexico every year. CONAPRED estimates that an average of 8 to 9 gay men are killed every month in Mexico. Most cases of homicides of gay men go without an investigation and the murders are never resolved. Gay activists say that the authorities do not do proper investigations when the victims are gay men. Since 2004, 5 gay activists have been murdered as violent acts of homophobia.
If you think that Cancun or Puerto Vallarta are proofs of a gay paradise en Mexico, fine, but just dont step outside the hotel...
way to go 9th circuit court of shlameels, thanks for the loophole! you will now see a sudden jump in gay mexican men and their gay wives asking for asylum. hahahahaha i love california, you can't make this stuff up.
dont forget their gay 9 year olds. in fact i predict every mexican national here to come out of the closet! San Fransicko would be proud
Colonel, Ya don't help........
it's a good point, what is to stop any illegal from asking for asylum under the guise of homosexuality? You don't really have to prove it. It's free citizenship cart blanche
Col, I got your point - I just think it can be rephrased with "San Fransicko"
meant without
come on it's cute and a little folksy
i love a little fascism in the morning btw
. . .and in the evening, and the middle of the afternoon. la de la de la. . .
come on it's cute and a little folksy; i love a little fascism in the morning btw - col.roycampbell / Thursday February 15, 2007 07:21:05 PM EST
Yes, I guess it would be cute to a guy who believes all the victims of the Holocaust are burning in Hell right now.
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
way to go 9th circuit court of shlameels - Kernel
One of the three judges who unanimously decided the appeal is from the conservative Eighth Circuit.
Billy-boy, do think you stand a snowball's chance in hell with the comely Ms. Kelly if you go spouting off all your knowledge of the seamy gay Mexican sub-culture? That's a one way ticket to Rejectionville.
I read in many places that the loudest gay-bashers are usually gay themselves.
"San Fransicko?"
Who would be stupid enough to say that?
Oh right, our resident "Col."
i cant take credit for that one, i got it from savage ;)
Figures.
An absolutely asininie term from an absolutely asinine radio talk show bigot.
again, at least he isnt a single celled organism
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
And don't run away this time.
google your name
Don't need to, just look here for my "feathersona."
(Persona)
http://us-p.vclart.net/vcl/Artists/Slippy/Colored%20Gifts/archae_color.jpg
Your're right. He hasn't got a single cell. . . BRAIN CELL!
Why do so many insults mention a lack of intelligence?
As our elections show, lack of intelligence is a virtue. We favor someone we'd rather have a beer with, not some smart-aleck. And we want leaders who go with their gut and act quickly, not ones who carefully gather facts and weigh alternatives in committees.
And we sure as hell don't like science, or serious news reporting.
My rule for voting for president--He/she has to be at least as smart as I am. Sadly, it hasn't been that way for 6 years.
That's debatable.
Savage is another sad closet case, Kernel.Should have guessed your boosting your stuff from him.
"You shall know him by the fruit he bears", or something like that. No offense to the proud & out fruits out there.
Why all the flack?
The judge said he found the man's testimony credible. So it doesn't matter what all of you think.
...this man's asylum claim should have been denied...
...this court's decision was bogus.
...thanks for the loophole!
I'm interested in how you guys are forming your opinions. The Ninth Circuit opinion (linked above) is less than three pages long and should be fairly easy for non-lawyers to understand. Here's a summary:
Soto Vega was appealing a decision by the immigration judge (IJ) denying his request for asylum.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an applicant for asylum need only show that he "is unable or unwilling to return to...his native] country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of...membership in a particular social group, or political opinion..." Under caselaw, homosexuals are "a particular social group" for INA purposes.
The IJ found the Soto Vega successfully demonstrated past persecution. At this point the IJ should have shifted the burden to the government to show that circumstances in Mexico had changed, or that Soto Vega could have REASONABLY relocated to another part of the country. The IJ failed to do this. It was simple reversible error.
You can argue that the policy of allowing asylum is wrong, but I don't think you can argue that the Ninth Circuit decided the case wrong. O'Reilly just loves to use the Ninth Circuit for a punching bag, without having a clue what he's talking about. Don't be fooled.
How does O'Reilly know so much about the gay scene in different Mexican resorts?
I'm really curious about his comment "there's gay everything". Bill seems to know what this means. I sure as hell don't.
I caught part of this segment. It seems like BOR was trying to tie two of his favorite boogabears together. Gays and illegal immigrants.
Gay illegal immigrants. What next? Gay illiegal immigrants with ACLU membership?
Gay illiegal immigrants with ACLU membership waging war on Xmas !
I wish I were making this up, but the newest cause of hysteria among these clowns is illegal immigrants with credit cards.
Which makes you wonder if Bill O'Reilly's jingoism is up there with certain scions of the British "red-top" tabloid press (K. Rupert's The Sun and News of the World included) as are fond of xenophobia targeting especially popular Spanish resort areas like Ibiza and Mallorca in the crudest and most depraved of terms.
And recommending, in the process, that "right-thinking Brits" would be better off staying in England's Green and Pleasant Land for their holidays--Blackpool in particular.
Why does O'reilly always have that pen in his right hand waving and pointing with it?
What I want to know is why Billo is such an azzhole.
Seriously, what is his problem?
I have never seen such a lying hateful, spiteful, meanspirited man on TV...well except that bufforn Rush Osmabinlimbaugh.
Oh and Sean "I have no shame" Hannity.
And Savage.
Ah geez, why is the rightwing so full of mean hateful UNINTELLIGENT morons? And why does anyone listen to them? Are their listeners that danged stupid? Or just as hateful, mean and spiteful as their leaders?
I just don't understand the politics of hate that permeates the rightwing in America.
Hmmm all the way from Billo to most of the rightwing.
O'Reilly success is because he simplifies matters so they sound right to his audience (primarily straight white men) who have as little experience on the issues as he does. He's not gay, his idea that the guy wouldn't be persecuted if he just didn't wear a dress. He's not Mexican either (nor am I).
I've posted a longer refutation of this crap on Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly says life in Puerto Vallarta is all “gay parade time”.
Gay parades in Puerta Vallarta, loose, do-anything little girls in Thailand. Bill's had quite a world tour. I bet he was in Puerta Vallarta when he decided to take a swim and got caught in the rough surf.
The skinny Mexican cabana boy approached his pale white, sagging charge, who was still trying to catch his breath. He stared up at the cabana boy with his frightened blue eyes. The cabana boy smiled.
"I thought you drowned out there snorkel man," he said, handing Bill a pina colada and some zinc oxide.