O'Reilly targets "compassion crowd" again over deaths in Bronx fire
On the March 12 edition of his Fox News television show, Bill O'Reilly again blamed what he referred to as the "compassion crowd" of "open borders, blanket amnesty," for the "chaotic immigration system" that "directly caused the deaths" of several children -- whose immigration status O'Reilly said he did not know -- in a March 7 fire in the Bronx.
Additionally, during a conversation with Fox News analysts Michelle Malkin and Kirsten Powers, O'Reilly stated: "[L]ook, I live 22 miles outside of the city. In my neighborhood, if you have 17 children living in a home, a dilapidated home like that with no sprinkler," "no fire escape," and "no way out," "[t]he authorities are on that in a heartbeat." Powers countered, saying: "There was no violation. There's nothing to call in. And it could happen in my neighborhood, because I live in New York City. I live in Brooklyn. And in New York City, there were no violations." She later said that "there are legal citizens living in the same exact environment."
O'Reilly's comments were first noted by the weblog News Hounds.
As Media Matters for America documented, O'Reilly offered similar criticism on the March 9 edition of the program, during which he attacked a viewer who complained about O'Reilly's claim that the children killed "may be illegal aliens," by asserting: "Your so-called compassion helped kill those kids."
Additionally, on the March 9 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, O'Reilly responded to a viewer email criticizing him for questioning the immigrant status of the children, by saying: "Now, if the federal government and the secular progressives and the open border crew and the ACLU all worked together, those people from Mali wouldn't have been here. Therefore, the children would be alive today." He concluded: "[T]hese kids are dead because of the pro-open border people. They're dead because of them. So, put that in your secular progressive pipe and you put it where the sun don't shine."
From the March 12 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: In the "Factor Follow Up" segment tonight, as we reported on Friday, 10 children and an adult were killed in a horrendous Bronx fire last week after a small row house went up in flames.
Living in that house, 22 people -- 17 of them children. Some of those kids were buried today in a heartbreaking ceremony.
Now, New York City is a sanctuary city, so we don't know much about these children. But there is no question they were living in terrible conditions. The building had no fire escape, no sprinkler system.
My opinion is this is another example of people dying because of a chaotic immigration system. Last year, 453 people were killed trying to cross the southern border -- all victims of the desert or criminals preying upon them.
In addition, a study by the General Accounting Office of 55,000 incarcerated illegal aliens says that group committed more than 700,000 crimes here in the USA, and all of the crimes had victims.
With us now: here in New York, Fox News analyst Kirsten Powers and, in Washington, Michelle Malkin, also a Fox News analyst.
Now, on Friday, Geraldo Rivera and I had -- and you saw it, I think, Michelle -- very intense discussion about compassion -- compassion. The compassion crowd of open borders, blanket amnesty say that you just have to leave the illegal immigrants alone and let them do what, you know, what they should do to make a living. They're poor. They're hard working.
Then I see this. Then I see this in New York. Now, in your neighborhood, Michelle, could 22 people be in a 3,000-foot row house straight up -- most of the footage in the height -- with two bathrooms. Could that happen in your neighborhood?
MALKIN: No, it wouldn't happen, because there's an attitude in most neighborhoods where people follow the laws and where there's trust with the police that you don't look the other way.
And I think in sanctuary cities like New York City and every other major metropolis in the United States, that's the, either, de facto or official policy of these cities adopted by the city councils or the police departments, that not only are the police not supposed to ask questions or care about the immigration status of people in their neighborhoods, but no government official or public servant is supposed to ask these questions.
O'REILLY: Right.
MALKIN: And I understand that --
O'REILLY: And that's -- right. That's -- look, I live 22 miles outside of the city. In my neighborhood, if you have 17 children living in a home, a dilapidated home like that with no sprinkler, all right, no fire escape, no way out -- the building was built in 1901 -- the authorities are on that in a heartbeat in my neighborhood and yours and in Kirsten's neighborhood, I believe, as well.
The reason they're not on it in a heartbeat in the Bronx is because of the don't-ask, don't-tell policy when it comes to suspected illegal immigrants or suspected immigrants -- that the city basically says, "We're not going to ask them anything."
MALKIN: Right.
O'REILLY: And I believe this directly caused the deaths of those poor little children -- that nobody was looking out for them. Because you don't cram 22 people into a situation like that and think nothing bad's going to happen.
[...]
O'REILLY: Now, how do you see it, Kirsten?
POWERS: Well, there was no violation. There's nothing to call in. And it could happen in my neighborhood, because I live in New York City. I live in Brooklyn. And in New York City, there were no violations. It's not a violation not to have sprinklers in homes like this. It's not a violation not to have a second exit.
If -- in Boston or Chicago, it would be a violation, so this isn't about --
O'REILLY: Can I correct you?
POWERS: This isn't about -- this isn't about illegal immigration.
[...]
POWERS: There are people that are living in houses like this all over New York City.
O'REILLY: And that's wrong. They're putting their children in jeopardy.
POWERS: But it's a building code thing. It has nothing to do with illegal immigration.
O'REILLY: It's not a building code thing; it's a social services thing.
POWERS: There are plenty of illegal -- there are legal citizens living in the same exact environment.
O'REILLY: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, let me get this straight. You're -- wait a minute. I'll get -- you'll have the last word, Michelle.
Let me get this straight. You're OK --
POWERS: No.
O'REILLY: -- with 22 people in a row house -- 17 children. You're OK with that?
POWERS: No, I'm not OK with it. What I'm saying is it doesn't have anything to do with illegal immigration.
From the March 9 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Now, I got this letter from Richard Walsh in Brooklyn, New York: "Bill, you reported the Bronx fire that killed nine African immigrants -- eight children, one adult -- were or may not have been illegal immigrants. Why don't you report the facts only? You use this terrible tragedy to advance your illegal immigration agenda. Nice spinning."
OK, number one: We can't get the facts because New York won't give us the facts. It's a sanctuary city. We suspect they're illegal, at least some of them. But here's really, Mr. Walsh -- and I hope you're listening on [New York radio station] WOR -- here it is: These people died -- the eight children died -- because they were in a chaotic home. Seventeen children were in two small apartments, OK? That is against the law.
In the apartments was a man from Mali, West Africa. We don't know whether he's here illegally or not, because New York City won't tell us. The man had two wives -- two wives -- in the apartment: one on the upper floor, one on the lower floor, OK. That's against the law.
Now, if the federal government and the secular progressives and the open border crew and the ACLU all worked together, those people from Mali wouldn't have been here. Therefore, the children would be alive today. Are you getting this, Mr. Walsh? And all of you bleeding hearts out there? When you let people in unsupervised to the United States of America in conditions like this, they are going to get hurt. I am calling for controlled immigration, stopping the madness and chaos, to protect children. To protect them.
So, you be -- you can be your little liberal feeling good about the immigrants all day long, but it's guys like you who are hurting these people. If they couldn't come here and live in this kind of squalor and chaos, they would be alive. Are we getting it? Everybody getting it?
Boy, this makes me mad. You know, because these people hide behind, "Oh, I'm a liberal. I'm so kind. And that O'Reilly's a bad man, because he wants to control immigration. No. We should let everyone on Earth here. Let them all come here and do whatever they want to do. We have no right to build a wall or put the National Guard or raid businesses that hire illegals. We have no right to do that. So, we'll keep 17 little kids in a Bronx tenement. That's what we'll have. That's good, isn't it?"
You know, I'm telling ya. I'm telling ya, it's part of the culture war. Every day of my life, I see this. You got this portion of our society that is so blind, so ridiculous, and they absolutely are having an effect. And they, you know, these -- I'm telling ya. These kids are dead because of the pro-open border people. They're dead because of them. So, put that in your secular progressive pipe and you put it where the sun don't shine. You know, I'm really angry.
You know, I don't mean to take it out on Richard Walsh. I'm sure he's a good guy. But this kind of thinking, I'm telling ya -- and it's everywhere. It's everywhere. I get to deal with it every day. I'm the bad guy.
Tweedle dum and tweedle dumber.
Glad to see that BillO got Miss Compassionate Conservative herself on to back him up. If they could only have gotten Ann to join them...
What's really ironic is he's telling this to Malkin, herself the product of the "federal government and the secular progressives and the open border crew and the ACLU (that) all worked together." to import her parents too. I can't say enough bad things about these people. Also, I heard the immigrants from Mali were legal, and their children were US citizens? Is that true?
and thus a new right-wing spin term is born....
Sanctuary City
There is nothing right wing spin about sanctuary city. It is a very real and ridiculous policy adapted by many cities in this country......and is one of the reasons illegal immigration is a major problem.
Actually the term sanctuary city is false. there is no city in the US that provides sanctuary for illegal immigrants. The term is most often used to describe cities who have policies in place that keep local law enforcement out of the business of rounding up illegal aliens. For example in Los Angeles there is a policy for the police dept. that keeps an officer from asking a person their immigration status. Unless they've committed a crime, then they can check with the INS. Denver is also tagged a sanctuary city. Not true, as I said. Cities and states do not have the resources to effectively control illegal immigration. It is a federal problem, but their are no sanctuary cities.
Bing, You are not completely accurate. It is not about "rounding up illegal aliens" at all. It is about being able to ask someone who has committed a alleged crime their immigration status.......that's all. In that context, LA is a sanctuary city indeed.
No sir they are not a sanctuary city. The INS is free to do their job and round them up if they so choose. It sounds like a simple premise. Local law enforcement asking a citizen for their citizenship status. It's not practical or even feasible. People don't usually have their birth certificate in their back pocket. Many people have hispanic sounding names but have lived here all their lives legally. How are the police going to handle that? What criteria would be used to determine proper procedure for the asking of citizenship and how far will the community at large be willing to go? As is the case in LA, it is formal policy for the police to not ask for proof of citizenship to encourage eye witnesses to feel safe in coming forward. It's simply impractical for local law enforcement to be required to question citizenship. They don't have the resources, the authority and the public would not stand for a single race of people being singled out to prove their citizenship. And none of that spells sanctuary city.
The people who died in the fire wewre not illegal immigrants.
Yet another transparent attempt by Tommy to change the subject away from something he knows he can't argue with and win.
I never said anything of the sort - check out my posts on this from yesterday. I was responding to Gringo's post, if you can read properly.......
There is nothing right wing spin about sanctuary city.
I agree. The term appears to have originated with cities enacting the related policies.
It is a very real and ridiculous policy
Real? Yes. Ridiculous? Debatable. Requiring a city to investigate federal law violations seems to me the more ridiculous policy...and very unlibertarian.
...and is one of the reasons illegal immigration is a major problem
Can you cite an statistics supporting that assertion?
Just keep repeating it Tommy,
illegal immigration is a major problem.
illegal immigration is a major problem.
A major problem would be something effects almost everyone, not just those whose skill level and education is such that they can be replaced by an illiterate, illegal immigrant with no skills.
Compassionate Conservatives only feel compassion for other, typically wealthy, conservatives...
Hey, that's unfair. He has compassion for these people. He thinks they should live in huge, expensive homes just like him. Had they been living in a huge expensive home, they wouldn't have died. It's all quite simple. They should have gotten a much larger, expensive home.
You forgot the preborn whether rich or poor but all the more better that they be rich and white
I for one am starting to admire Kirsten Powers. The last few times I've seen her on the air she tries to field some display of common sense versus the various rants.
it's funny cause sanctuary usually implies something god-fearing and holy. And everybody knows that New York City is just a scary place with homosexuals and "alternative lifestyles."
This is an attempt to normalize the abnormal. Trying to ridicule and denigrate the very CONCEPT of compassion. Was I supposed to feel foolish or embarrassed for being a compassionate person? O'falafel should be embarrassed for having no heart. Hey Billy O'bullyboy having humanity is a GOOD thing you ought to try it sometime.
I honestly don't think this is about compassion or heartlessness. I think O'Reilly's argument about how "liberal compassion kills" is a red herring. If O'Reilly is trying to normalize anything, it's xenophobia:
"We can't get the facts because New York won't give us the facts. It's a sanctuary city. We suspect they're illegal, at least some of them." - B.O.
If he doesn't have any facts about the legal status of these people, then why does he suspect that "they're illegal"? Simple: irrational prejudice.
And isn't it telling that not even Michelle Malkin will go along with O'Reilly on this one? I mean, for crying out loud, the woman wrote an entire book dedicated to the defense of the United States' internment of Japanese Americans in World War II, and yet not even she can stomach O'Reilly's knee-jerk xenophobia.
I disagree, while I think you are right about the xenophobia he also is putting what he calls the 'compassion crowd' in a demeaning light. He is ridiculing those who he sees as being in the compassion crowd. As if it were somehow foolish to even HAVE compassion, if that were not the object then why the characterization of the compassion crowd why single them out as if somehow they are not exhibiting one of the very traits that define us as human? It definitly looks like an attempt to normalize the abnormal to me. It seems to me like he is trying to imply that those exhibiting the very human trait of caring about those who are in tragic circumstances are doing something WRONG, therfore normalizing the abnormal trait of eschewing decent caring about one another. Like something wrong is being said when we believe we are all in this together and any mans suffering is cause for any concern whatsoever.
O'Reilly is suggesting that compassionate people are weak people, driven only by emotion, who lack his toughness and intelligence... in effect, liberals. The right wing has a history of success in pre-defining people and issues on their own slanted terms, thus gaining initial controlling of the debate. It's an old trick of theirs. But to define compassion, an admirable and desireable human characteristic, in slanted terms to suggest it is a negative trait? I would say that is pretty amazing, but actually it's classic O'Reilly.
It does seem as though the contradictions inherent in American conservatism are reaching a kind of critical mass, doesn't it? Compassion is self-interest; welfare is cruelty and price gouging is fair; peace is only achieved through war; to stop terrorism we must destroy states; we cannot protect your civil rights if we are not allowed to disregard them; dissent is antidemocratic; science is founded on faith but religion is factual...
You can almost hear the sound of an ideological time-bomb clicking slowly towards its inevitable explosion. (And it sounds like the clock on " 24"...)
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
Bill O'Rwell ?
I see your point, and in principle I agree with you. But I'm very reluctant to make prescriptive claims based on notions of normality, abnormality, or universal human traits. Compassion is certainly a human trait, but so is cruelty. As much as I dislike him, O'Reilly is a human being, and his capacity to spin (?) this tragedy into a case against 'compassion' is ugly and reprehensible, but totally human.
I think that O'Reilly truly believes that he's arguing in the tradition of Adam Smith, claiming that self-interest is always better for society than selflessness and sacrifice. For him, the "compassion crowd" aren't showing real, meaningful, effective compassion, since they aren't promoting the good of society by pursuing self interest, which would ultimately better everyone's condition (according to the simplistic interpretation of Smith to which John Stossel, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly subscribe).
But, as the cinematic incarnation of John Nash says in A Beautiful Mind, "Adam Smith needs revision." The notion that compassion isn't good if it's directed towards the truly needy who cannot directly repay it has been disproven again and again, yet people still believe it. So yeah, I agree with you that O'Reilly is taking issue with "liberals" who show compassion for the people who died in this fire, but I think his real priority is to say that "liberals" should show compassion for "us", for "real Americans", for ourselves rather than for others. He's so blindly committed to this notion of compassion through self-interest that he assumes that the people who died in this fire must not be legal residents.
OK, sorry for rambling. I guess I'm just saying that there's nothing "normal" or "abnormal" about compassion -- it's one of many human qualities. The question, from my perspective, is the end to which O'Reilly is marshaling his peculiar notion of self-interested compassion; and in this case, it seems to be nationalist xenophobia.
We disagree on this one small point. I think compassion IS normal and is SEEN as a desirable trait, while cruelty is displayed by humans and in THIS sense can be described as normal people do not SEE it as a desirable trait. It is not normal to denigrate compassion anymore than it is to see cruelty as a desirable trait.
Fair enough. I think I'm just hypersensitive to moral arguments that erroneously equate "normal" with good and "abnormal" with bad. I'm thinking of the conservative position that since homosexuality is "abnormal", i.e. not the norm, to discourage it is justified.
Don't get me wrong, though -- I'm not suggesting that your argument is based on the same kind of rationale as that of the example I just gave. But it seems to me as though your criticism of O'Reilly would be even stronger if it were rephrased in explicitly moral terms, without any appeal to normality or abnormality: He's trying to represent a virtue (compassion, charity and love) as a vice (indifference, or a hardened heart).
On the morality argument, consider this -- "abnormal" character traits are not always undesireable. Take for example, genius or heroism - by definition, they are abnormal in our society, but it is their rarity that makes them treasured. After all, if all of us pulled kids from fires and took bullets for a President, the act would no longer be considered Heroic, because it would be common.
Thanks -- this is exactly the (small) point that I was struggling and failing to make. There's nothing inherently wrong with abnormal qualities and behaviors: the question in any specific case is whether or not there's benefit in doing so.
there's an attitude in most neighborhoods where people follow the laws and where there's trust with the police that you don't look the other way...
not true when it comes to identifying and going after political crooks, war profiteers and corporate malefactors...
Don't worry guys his rants have nothing to do with illegal immigration.
Just ignore the fact that hementioned in 30 time in the conversation.
Hey it was just a JOKE, do you hear me you dammed dirty lie-beral? Just a JOKE, so just shut-up, shut-up, hey pull his mic and call security! besides he never said that and all those tapes are FAKES! yeah, that's the ticket!
oops, sorry for channeling all our Bull defenders for a minute :)
And another thing -- Bill O'Reilly has done more to defend children than you ever will with your so-called "compassion", you liberal! He's looking out for those poor dead children, while you and your "compassion" are responsible for burning them alive! The only children he doesn't defend are the ones who are either here illegally, here legally but with parents that may or may not be here legally, or are kidnapped and sexually abused until they identify with their captor. But other than those cases, which are totally understandable, the man is a defender of children everywhere!
"They'd still be alive"?
Maybe, maybe not. The per capita income in Mali is $470. I'll bet they were getting stellar medical care down there. Which is more dangerous...living in an overcrowded building in an American city, or living in a mud hut and drinking water with feces in it?
I was under the impression that most illegal aliens had left places with worse conditions than the ones they're in here.
I guess if they die back in their native countries, it's far enough away that BilldO doesn't have to be aware of it.
Damn you compassionate liberals for allowing them to come here and force reality on Little Lord Falafelroy.
He's got a point. If compassionate progressives hadn't allowed O'Reilly's ancestors to immigrate, he'd be stuck in Ireland and we wouldn't have to listen to him.
If his parents had used birth control maybe we wouldn't have Bill to annoy us today. Damn Catholics... ;>)
I look forward to hearing about how the construction of affordable housing is coming along in Falafel Bill and Malkin's neighborhoods. I'm sure they'll keep us posted.
Just think how much easier it will be to locate and deport illegal aliens in the communities THOSE two live in, because the authorities will be on it in a heartbeat.
The really funny thing about Bill O'Reilly is his stubborn refusal to back off of any position he's taken, regardless how mindless or cold-hearted it might be. You can almost conjure up an image of O'Reilly screaming insanely at the mirror in his dressing room after such a display of stubborness, "I'm right, damnit! I'm Bill O'Reilly!"
Most people realize when they've done or said something foolish. O'Reilly doesn't appear to be one of them. Instead he goes on the attack against the "secular progressive" monster he's created in his own twisted mind. Very pathetic...
I'm the bad guy.
Sheriff O'Reilly...
Bill O'Reilly missed his true calling in life. He should resign from FOX and run for sheriff someplace where he can wear a big hat, a six-gun at his side, and bust illegal immigrants and secular progressives.
woah. that's terrible. Notice how he says "we don't know if they were illegal" then he says, no doubt in my mind that these children are dead because of open-boarder policy. And what is Malkin taling about!? Of course there's no actual formal policy to look the other way with illegals, and if it is a custom or protocol, I'm sure that there's a practical reason. What does a family that huge do? Eat their kids? These things often happen because of poverty. Why not combat that, Bill!? What I find to be most outrageous is the fact that Bill's form of compassion is turning away from people who come to a country to advance themselves. They may not have a right to be in the U.S., but Bill says: they'd still be alive? They may be starving back at home, O'Reilly. Yet Bill would look the other way in a different way, as long as their not in America. Immigration policy did not kill them. It was bad preventative measures due to a bad appartment layout and poverty. It happens in the Bronx and not Malkin's neigbourhood because people with power don't care about the poor like they would about Malkin.
You don't advance yourself by having two wives and/or having children you cannot afford to have and raise on your own. You set yourself up for a lifetime of poverty for you and your children. Plus a life time of governement aid that the tax payer is saddled with. There is a better, more respondsible alternative that gives you and your children a better chance at the American dream. Less kids! One wife for God's sake! 17 children? My Lord!!!! The cult of multiculturalism is alive and well on this site.
Ok. I'm with ya on that one, but before I say anything about that, I'll just say that multiculturalism is not a cult. Having a mosaik of different walks of life is a good thing. It helps you understand human behaviour and potential, which advances culture for the better. I will say that having that many kids is rediculous, and if they are illegals, it is a strain on the system that ought to be removed. Immigrants with that problem probably should not be degrading the social system, and thus, should not be allowed in. But if they are legal, what do you do...split em up? Me personally, I believe that raising kids is a priviledge to be regulated, and not a right, and when you do have children, it becomes a serous responsibility where you should collaborate with the state for the sake of the child and state. That's probably the most authorian thing I've said, and I know the idea of it has problems, but in my mind, I've devised a system that I think would be fair and stop this kind of poverty from occuring. Although, an explanation would take up way to much space. I'll write a paper about it.
It's all spin so we don't think about the real problems: Iraq, Iran, global warming, the corruption of the administration, big oil, big pharma, big chem, credit complex, military industrial complex in general, housing spiral,....... They ran out of dead girls in Aruba, so they're left with dead children to spin into a crusade against liberal pro open borderniks.
The guy had two wives. One living on the first floor and one on the second. Insane. I suppose this is OK to illegal immigration advocates/multiculturalists. 22 people were living in a row house meant for one family of 5-7. NYC did look the other way and let this chaos develop because they are "compassionate" to "immigrants" and don't ask questions about code violations and crimes. If 17 kids were not living there under horrendous living conditions then the death toll would have been much less.The husband was an illegal immigrant from Mali. No checking on that. He had two wives. That is a felony and was never checked. 22 people living in one house is an obvious code violation and was never checked. If they were, steps would have been taken to remedy the problems. The children would have been taken out of that house and a fire that still may have happened would have not killed anyone or more then likely killed less.In other words NYC looks the other way out of compassion for immigrants but that very same compassion set in motion the circumstances that lead to the fire and the deaths of 10 children.
Netram,
What does it matter if this family was polygamous? If we wasn't married but just legally living with two women with whom he had children, would that make any difference?
NYC didn't look the other way because of their immigration status. They were looking the other way because of indifference to poverty and poor living conditions in general, not because of compassion. The issue here isn't immigration -- it's poor housing and New York's total failure to police its housing code.
Plenty of American citizens live in overcrowded slums. Fires in overcrowded, condemnable apartments take place nearly every year in nearly every American city. To say that American immigration policy is implicated in this fire is totally illogical. If this tragedy puts a spotlight on any problem, its poor housing and the importance of aggressively addressing the issue.