O'Reilly baselessly claimed that Dallas Morning News columnist favors open borders
On the October 21 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly baselessly claimed that Dallas Morning News columnist Macarena Hernandez "and her ilk want open borders."
O'Reilly first took aim at Hernandez in response to her October 15 column (registration required), which cited a specific example from O'Reilly's radio show to illustrate how "the anchor and the callers constantly point to the southern border as the birth of all America's ills." Media Matters for America documented O'Reilly's initial attempts to take the Hernandez column out of context and, later, his false denials of her allegations.
Now O'Reilly has targeted beliefs that it appears Hernandez has never espoused. Neither Hernandez's initial column nor her October 21 column responding to the controversy advocate or even mention open borders. Spurred by the recent killings of several immigrants in Georgia and rising levels of anti-immigrant violence nationwide, Hernandez's complaint with O'Reilly focused on how the immigration debate is rhetorically framed, regardless of the substantive dispute over whether or not one should limit the flow of illegal immigration. As Hernandez wrote on October 15: "It is one thing to want to secure the borders and another to preach hate, to talk of human beings as ailments."
A Media Matters review of Hernandez's Dallas Morning News columns has found no instance of advocacy for repealing controls of the border. Although a far cry from advocating a policy of open borders, Hernandez did write in her October 21 column that "Much of our anti-immigrant sentiment starts with people who don't know the border or understand Latin American poverty. They don't realize that a geographical boundary will never keep out the hungry and the desperate."
From the October 21 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: All of this is done -- it's not hard to do, if you impose discipline on the system. But Ms. Hernandez and her ilk want open borders. Anybody comes, anybody does what they want. That's what this movement is all about. And that is just insane.
[...]
O'REILLY: Now, as far as the border is concerned, you get a lot of people who feel very sorry for the poor people of Latin America, including Mexico. They're very sorry for them. And this Hernandez is one of them. She's a Latina, and she identifies with the poverty in Mexico, feels very bad for them. And they say that we as a rich nation should open our borders so that all the poor people can come here and have better lives.
[...]
O'REILLY: OK, but it's a moral issue in the sense that if you exploit an illegal alien, you're doing a bad thing. I agree with that. Anybody who harms an illegal alien is harming a human being, and they should be held accountable for that harm. But it isn't a moral issue on the sense that we have a moral obligation to take in all the world's poor and suffering, which is what Macarena Hernandez and her crew believe.
It's not enough that he's smeared this woman for daring to call him on his BS, now he's putting words in her mouth.
Assuming one would believe what O'Reilly says about Hernandez putting words in his mouth, surely a smart person would know better than to attempt to do the same.
But "smart" is not exactly a word one would use to describe The Awful Falafel.
Bill Almighty knows all. He can magically ascertain your viewpoints using little to no evidence. He can name your tune in one note.
How Ironic - just today on the radio I heard BO say that he would not interview on newspapers because they always selectively take what he says out of context. He also was complaining about cowards that are afraid to appear on his show.
Bill OReily once again is making anyone who challanges him into an extremist. Could it be that someone who is critical of his extremism is actually not an extremist? What if the Dallas columnist is not for open borders? Answer: It does not matter - if you disagree with Bill your "far left" by definition and thereby discounted.
Notice also that as things get worse for the administration - the topic of discussion becomes "safe" issues like crime, the border, raising moral children.
Open borders is a relative term, so how can you tell whether O'Reilly is right or wrong?
"so how can you tell whether O'Reilly is right or wrong?"
He opens mouth.
The objection that O'Reilly was raising was the statement by Hernandez in her opinion piece, that he, on his TV show:
'Were the complainers angrier about the red, white and green Mexican flag fluttering in the Georgia air than they were about the horrific murders? Do they watch Fox's The O'Reilly Factor, where the anchor and the callers constantly point to the southern border as the birth of all America's ills? (Sample comment: "Each one of those people is a biological weapon.")' - - A direct quote from the Hernandez article.
But that's just plain not accurate. There are no callers on his TV show (OK, that one's a pass). However, O'Reilly has never pointed to the southern border as the source of all of America's ills. A national security threat; yes. An issue for border states that end up supporting the less fortunate illegal immigrants that end up on public assistance; yes. That some of the illegal immigrants end up committing heinous, violent crimes; yes.
O'Reilly has repeated stated that if he were a poor Mexican citizen, he too would go across the border to the US to work and send money back to family in Mexico.
Let's face it. In the Hernandez opinion piece, there were significant factual errors. That is without a doubt.
Funny, the number of columnists that are misleading their readers. Such dishonesty in media, print, TV or radio, is a disservice to us all, and threatens our democratic republic. In order for a democratic republic you need three things:
1). Government officials elected by the people, who maintain the people's best interests in the forefront of their public service focus.
2). A factually based reporting from the press that has freedom of the press so that they can keep tabs on the elected government officials and their activities. This coverage must be factual and not opinion based. It must be without a political agenda.
3). An interested, educated, and engaged electorate that reads the press reporting of the activities of the elected officials, and then decide, based on these fact, who next to vote into office.
If any of these three principals are forsaken, the entire democratic republic started to degrade and fall apart. How many of these three things are working they way that they should in our democratic republic now?
None of them.
Shouldn't that be something that we all should be worrying about? Shouldn't that be the purpose of an organization called 'Media Matters'?
"Let's face it. In the Hernandez opinion piece, there were significant factual errors. That is without a doubt."
Curious. You neglected to point any factual errors out. Srange, indeed.