O'Reilly didn't mention Giuliani's 1994 invite to illegal immigrants who "work hard"
SUMMARY: On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly noted a viewer's complaint that during his August 14 interview with Rudy Giuliani, O'Reilly failed to confront Giuliani "about what he said 10 years ago on illegal immigration. He protected illegals." O'Reilly did not bring up a 1994 speech in which then-Mayor Giuliani reportedly vowed to "protect" illegal immigrants and stated: "If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city."
On the August 15 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly noted a viewer's complaint that during his August 14 interview with Republican presidential candidate and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, O'Reilly failed to confront Giuliani "about what he said 10 years ago on illegal immigration. He protected illegals." O'Reilly called this "a legitimate question," and added, "I did, however, ask him about the New York City situation." O'Reilly then played a previously unaired portion of the August 14 interview. But, in the clip, O'Reilly merely stated, "Here in New York City, you've got a million illegal aliens, many of whom came when you were mayor," and went on to note that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney "is saying, 'Hey, you were "sanctuary city" guy. Now you're a tough guy. What about back then?' " In response, Giuliani claimed that he was forced to offer services to illegal immigrants because the "immigration service was deporting no more than 1,500 or 2,000 a year." However, O'Reilly did not bring up a 1994 speech in which then-Mayor Giuliani reportedly vowed to "protect" illegal immigrants and stated: "If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city."
As an August 8 ABCNews.com article reported, "New York became a sanctuary city, where illegal immigrants enjoy some measure of protection, through an executive order signed by Mayor Ed Koch in 1989, five years before Giuliani became mayor in January 1994." According to the article, though "Giuliani inherited the policy, he reissued it and seemed to embrace it." Indeed, a June 10, 1994, New York Times article reported that, in a speech the week before, Giuliani had given a "spirited defense of illegal immigrants, virtually urging them to settle in New York City." From the Times:
While political leaders across the country talk loudly about illegal immigrants as a costly burden, the two most prominent politicians in New York [Giuliani and then-Gov. Mario M. Cuomo] go so far as to describe them as a boon.
[...]
Last week, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuiliani gave an even more spirited defense of illegal immigrants, virtually urging them to settle in New York City. Standing before television cameras, he criticized the growing hostility toward illegal immigrants across the country as simplistic and unsophisticated.
"Some of the hardest-working and most productive people in this city are undocumented aliens," Mr. Giuliani said. "If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city. You're somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive, which is really unfair."
ABCNews.com also reported that "[a]t a speech in Minneapolis in 1996, Giuliani defended Koch's executive order, that, in his words 'protects undocumented immigrants in New York City from being reported to the INS while they are using city services that are critical for their health and safety, and for the health and safety of the entire city.' "
Yet, in asking Giuliani about GOP criticism that he has been inconsistent on the issue of illegal immigration, O'Reilly did not note that as mayor, Giuliani reportedly offered to "protect" illegal immigrants who "work hard."
O'Reilly has attacked other mayors for their illegal-immigration policies. For instance, on the April 6 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, while discussing a March 30 automobile crash that killed two teenage girls -- reportedly at the hands of an illegal immigrant -- O'Reilly blamed Virginia Beach Mayor Meyera Oberndorf in part for the accident, saying that what O'Reilly described as Virginia Beach's "sanctuary city policy" prevented police from detaining and deporting the driver, despite three previous alcohol-related convictions. O'Reilly added that Oberndorf "should be baking pies, not running a major city." On the April 11 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, O'Reilly again attacked Oberndorf, claiming that "she has no clue at all" and stating: "[T]he honest reporting is that Mayor Oberndorf has no clue, none, shouldn't be there and neither should the police chief. And that's the truth. And if you don't get them out of there, you're gonna have more dead girls in the street."
From the August 15 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Time now for "The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day." I got a few letters criticizing my interview with Rudy Giuliani last night.
[Viewer], who lives in Beaverdam, Virginia, wrote, "You blew the interview with Rudy, Bill. You should have confronted him about what he said 10 years ago on illegal immigration. He protected illegals."
Well, it's a legitimate question, but last night's conversation was focused on what the mayor would do as president about illegal immigration. I did, however, ask him about the New York City situation.
Roll the tape.
[begin video clip]
O'REILLY: Here in New York City, you've got a million illegal aliens, many of whom came when you were mayor. And Romney is saying, "Hey, you were 'sanctuary city' guy. Now you're a tough guy. What about back then?
GIULIANI: What I had to deal with was a situation in which we had 400,000 illegals at the time in New York. The immigration service was deporting no more than 1,500 or 2,000 a year. I couldn't deport them. So I had to do something with it.
And what I did with it is, I put the kids in school, because if they weren't in school, I was going to have terrible problems. We allowed them to report crimes that were committed against them so we could catch criminals. And we allowed them to get services in the hospitals, which, anyway, we're actually required to do by federal law. So these were sensible programs.
[end video clip]
O'REILLY: All right. And there is his explanation of that. And you can decide if the mayor's answer was ridiculous.
The Mayors answer was ridiculous Bill, where is your outrage like it was in the Virginia Beach situation?
13 years ago? Geico caveman......yeah, I have a responce...uhh....WHAT?
Well done MMFA.
Guiliani has done a 180 on illegal immigration, and O'Reilly, being a Republican apologist, wouldn't call him on it - nice work Bill.
At this point, the major Republican party nominees are the biggest bunch of flip-floppers and phonies who will apparently say anything to get the nomination. I am sensing a developing allergy to polling places come next November.
I agree Tommy, OReilly can not be a serious commentator on this subject if he is going to be two faced which again he is .
He left Rudy off the hook.
Billy must want to stay on the good side of Giuliani just incase the little twit [God forbid]is the Republican nominee.
That should read LET not LEFT.
In the imaginary world of non vacillating politicos one can find a doctor to prescribe an appropriate nose-douche for the nasal congestion and a good salve for that rash but there is no known cure for the ills of the pandering politicians of progressive persuasions.
Errr...English, please.
Meer ramblings from the mind of the insane through space and time at the behest of the nothingness found there in. But to this....
I am sensing a developing allergy to polling places come next November.
ACHuuuu!
Huh?????
Its those damn blue antihistamines...OTC of course.
What's a "meer"??
An old Russian space station, a small animal that lives in Aferica, a device used to see ones self in, a hillbillys female horse, the least of many........
I am not convinced anyone on either side of the aisle has the cajones to address the immigration issue honestly. It is almost completely out of contention as a voting factor in my mind anymore.
Strangely enough, I am most closely aligned with Tancredo's "let's enforce the laws we already have" stance - although I disagree with just about everything else he stands for.
I can't disagree. Each party is afraid to touch it with any seriousness. The conservatives are pushing their party to enforce the borders, hence Guiliani's sudden wakeup call. Yet many in their party, the WSJ crowd, want the cheap labor.
The Democrats want the constituency, yet many on the left realize it's hurting the working poor the most.
So they pander to their respective supporters with tough talk and no political will. This is one issue where the public, in my opinion, has had an affect......let's hope it continues. I have never seen an issue where the politicians are so out of touch and basically thumb their noses at all of us. Make 'em squirm, I say.
It's very scary and somewhat embarrassing to admit that I agree with Tancredo on much of anything since I think the man is nutty, but I do agree with him on that as well. We need to enforce the laws we have before instituting new grand schemes that may not be enforced either. I think if they enforce the current laws it would make it more difficult for undocumented workers to find employment and they will go home if they can't find the jobs they came looking for. I also want to see the Mexican citizens force their country to change and become more responsive to the needs of their citizens. The Mexican government is a disgrace.
I could not agree more Lynn.
While everyone likes to jump on the corruption of the Mexican government for our immigrations woes, it seems everyone forgets how corrupt our government has been. In fact, lately our government seems more and more like a third world government: free for all for the rich, look the other way when political allies commit crime, rule of law overruled when inconvenient etc…
The thing that really annoys me about the “bad Mexican government” meme is that it ignores the huge demographic explosion in Mexico in the last 50 years. Although birth rates have recently stabilized, few economies could have completely absorbed all the new people. Only a superpower with global reach could have kept up.
Also people seem to forget that the Mexican government has been cooperating with our economic elites for years with policies such as Nafta. Its not like they have elected a Chavez or a Castro who challenges our free market globalist economic policy. Remember, nafta did nothing to protect Mexico from the same Chinese industrialization that has decimated our manufacturing. Imagine if half the stuff at Wal-Mart said “Made in Mexico” instead of “Made in China”. Instead of building up our neighbors we took the greedy route to get everything as cheap as possible. I am sick of hearing about how victimized we are instead of looking for solutions that work for everyone. At least 10 years ago it seemed like Rudy could think outside the box. Those days are over. Pitiful!
So what would you suggest? Open our borders and flood our country and our economy with Mexico's ills and poverty? Their government is corrupt and their people need to force the change within their borders, we can't be expected to absorb that. Do we have a stake and interests there? Of course, but it is first and foremost up to their citizens. We have enough problems here, we can't afford to shoulder their responsibility.
We need to enforce our borders first, then overhaul our immigration system.
Straw man alert: Anyone who finds the immigration debate repulsive and undignified, not to mention overblown, is advocating open borders and a flood of immigrants. Look, if you want to solve the problem, at least try to understand what is really going on. Instead we get hysteria. My god, do you really think our only choices are walls and deportation verses a massive flood of foreign child rapist? The fact that neighbor to the south is loaded with cheap labor is not the end of the world. Of course in our Dobbs/Fox driven political discourse, our culture and language and way of life are so weak and shallow that our only hope is to crawl in our shell and shut the doors.
It is really pathetic that we can’t seem to handle the fact that our neighbor to the south has a lot of people willing to work for next to nothing. If we had our act together we would use this to our advantage and the advantage of Mexico. Instead we complain about how awful it is to live in a country where people where people want to come here to get a better life. Would you rather live in the country where everyone is leaving?
And this is why we are clearly a declining power: Not because Jose is moving next door but because we can’t even handle the fact that we face challenges in our neighborhood. Again I repeat, what if half the stuff in Wal-mart was made in Mexico and then ask yourself who dropped the ball?
Lynn,
Who would have thunk you and I would agree with Tancredo of all people? I figured I would get hammered by posting that.
Anyway, I kind of agree with EB on part of this as well with regards to Mexico. I don't blame Mexico for doing what they think is in their own best interests. I don't expect them to solve our own problems for us on this. We are responsible for our own border integrity and policies regarding employment. It seems disingenuous to blame a foreign government for what can only honestly be seen as our own failures.
on the other hand, he is going out of his way to defend the mexican government which is quite corrupt and has been for decades. when vincente fox, bush's good pal, was in office it was discovered that some relatives of his were using child labor on a ranch they owned. to which fox replied, what does that have to do with me.
I have no illusions about Mexico. I think it is pretty much a developing country with massive corruption. That said, I think it is pretty irrational to expect the Mexican government to operate at the behest of American taxpayers. There are simply too many benefits of exporting illegal labor to the US and getting much of that income back into their economy through wire-transfers from the US. They should be expected to serve their own interests as every country does. Do you think that is an unreasonable position?
Putting the focus of criticism on something we cannot easily control is not very productive IMO. I suppose if you want to criticize Mexico, that is okay, it just isn't going to do anything at all and comes off to me as gratuitous. Enforcing our own laws would seem to be a more productive area of critical focus, but there is plenty of blame to go around on our side of the border and it is hard to blame any one thing or group as pundits and the media often try to do.
i'm not saying that mexico won't do what they think is in their best interests. the question here is the corruption in the government of that country. eb seems to be "annoyed", his word, by any such criticism. of course, we should be enforcing our own laws, but i don't think it's disingenuous, as you put it, to comment that the situation in mexico contributes to their problems. it's fine for people to talk about "debate" of the issues, as eb does, but he really doesn't want any debate. he's right and you're ignorant if you disagree. but he still has not addressed the information that i posted about population growth in this country. he's probably quick to talk about the degredation of the envrionment, but when it comes to the question of immigration driven growth, he won't admit that is a detriment to the environment.
Open,
I believe that Mexico policies are selfish and oligarchic. They are not being responsible towards their citizens. They have turned them into economic refuges and essentially forced them from their homes. I believe that if jobs were available in their own country they would not leave it in such large numbers. That's what I meant, they don’t have a responsibility to us but they do to their own people. It isn’t fair. My heart goes out to the immigrants that come here but they should INHO force their own government to be more equitable and to create an economy that supports the majority of the Mexican people and not simply contain wealth to a small top elite tier.Yeah, they remind me of John Kerry.
Even though Bill did not mention the fact that the Mayor accepted illegals he did on the previous evenings show.
here's one very large reason why we need to slow down immigration. last october we passed 300 million in population. we are now at 302,622,000. we will easily add 3 million people in a year, and immigration, directly and through the higher birthrates of immigrants, contributes significantly to that growth. everyone is discussing how we will pay to rebuild our infrastructure. but we not only will need to rebuild the present infrastructure, but build to accomadate the 400 million plus population projected by 2050. and that is without the tens of millions who would be eligible to enter under present law, if illegals now here become citizens.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html
these estimates in this link from 2000 represent the "middle" projection of the census bureau. they do not include the effects of legalization of present illegals. and the estimate of 338 million by 2025 already seems out of date. at the rate we are increasing, it's likely we could hit that number in the early 2020s or before.
http://www.prb.org/Articles/2000/ImmigrationComesAliveinNewestUSPopulationProjections.aspx
We have around 300 million and Mexico has around 100 million. Our population is aging while theirs is much younger. That could be a good match with the good leadership on both sides.
The infrastructure problems in both countries are immense and not just limited to bad bridges. The issue for both countries is how to make life livable for their growing populations. Of course our media does a lousy job of informing us of the challenges both countries face. It is far easier and advertising friendly to demonize.
so any questions raised are just prejudice? and we have the third largest population in the world, after china and india. as for our population getting older, every poll taken shows that baby boomers want and expect to work after they retire. what you are saying is that this country cannot make it without an endless flow of immigrants. and what about the effects of that increasing population on the environment?
here is a group that is an offshoot of the sierra club, and calls for sustainable population growth. the old song says it best, "wishin and hopin" is not going to do the job.
http://www.susps.org/
No, I never said anything about open immigration, floods of dirty disease ridden criminals or English language destoying Aztecs. What I am saying is that the media is giving us the same service they gave us on the war on terrah which is superficial and polarizing.
I only brought up the demographics because solving the problem will require understanding the issues of the whole continent. Controlling immigration can be done intellegently or hysterically. With our current debate it seems that hysterical approach will win the day, just like it did in our reaction to 9-11.
There is no reason why we can't work together to find a way to improve people's lives in both countries. Of course I won't hold my breath when obvious the leadership in this country cares not a wit for the average citizen and the media is more interested in pandering to base fears and simplistic feel good solutions.
i think you're one of the people who wants to take both sides of the issue and not really say anything. you say you're not for "open immigration", but you don't seem to want to do anything to enforce the present law. and i've heard all the arguments about how nafta has affected mexico. but it has affected this country greatly too. there are plenty of manufacturing jobs that went to mexico.
this link discusses 2 population commissions that issued reports in 1972. one headed by john d. rockefeller 3, and the other by the president of notre dame, father theodore hesburgh. both commissions recommended that our population be stabilized and that levels of immigration be a part of that solution. our population then? 203 million.
sorry: link
http://www.balance.org/asap/asapimmenv.html
I never said "don't enforce the law". You seem to think that if I disagree with the way the debate is being conducted in the media that I am against enforcing the law. I never said any such thing. What bothers me is how lousy this issue is framed. I suspect that is why any criticism of the pundits must be a traitor or something. Its another version of "your either with us or against us".
I want to see the problem solved too. I don't think we are off to a good start.
what "way the debate is being discussed"? if you don't think that the major media support mass immigration, then i've got some swamp land to sell you. it's called a never ending supply of cheap labor. i really don't know what you are trying to say, because you are saying nothing.
Solving the problem means understanding the problem. The very fact that you want to make this into either a let them all in or fense them all out issue is a clear indication that our media is failing us. Mexico is not an endless supply of cheap labor. The United States is not some poor victim of the foreign hordes. This type of oversimplification of the problems we face is a clear indication to me that we are becomeing more and more incapable of really solving the problems we face.
Since actually educating the public of the complexity of the issue requires some work rather than entertainment and self absorbtive victimhood, I guess we will take the low road.
I all am saying is that a great nation can make it in their interest to help their neighbor and themselves at the same time. A Clumsy declining power builds walls and deports.
If we do choose the wall route, I would at least hope that it would be the result of a serious and deep debate rather than a champain of feel good slogans addressing our hopeless victimhood. We desearve better.
Just remember how the media walked us down the path of invading Iraq. This is a repeat, I am afraid.
you don't seem to want to debate anything. i offered a lot of links, statistics, and studies about a very serious aspect of this issue. and all you can seem to do is respond with a lot of cliches. and to repeat the point that you seem to have ignored, most of the mainstream media supported the so called immigration reform. i have been on this site almost since it started, calling iraq a huge mistake. if you have something specific to dispute about any of the information i provided or some specific proposals to make, i would be interested in hearing. and i don't mean more of your huffing and puffing about how much more enlightened you are.
You make good points EB.
How has US foreign policy placed, or kept, in power oppressive governments which people are forced to flee?
What role have international trade agreements had in creating or exacerbating people's urge to flee their homelands? If capital is going to freely cross borders, should people and labor be able to do so as well, going where globalization takes the jobs?
Also, as a side note: cheap labor. Those are two words that should never be placed one in front of the other. We should fight for a living wage, we should not accept that the natural way of markets is to reduce cost of labor to the lowest possible number. Instead, work should be compensated on the basis of contribution to society. Floor cleaners, waitresses, vegetable pickers etc,,,these guys do the work and pay the taxes that enable and susidize companies to disproportionately prosper. It's about damn time employers realize they are treated with much more generosity by the public than they give back.
so will you answer the question? should anyone be able to cross borders at any time? thst's what you seem to be saying in regards to mexico.
Nobody here seems to be saying "open the border" except you. Maybe your problem is that you think all the issues between Mexico and the United States and the unequal value of labor is a mere border issue. All I am saying is it is much more complicated than this.
Of course, you could have the army shoot anyone that goes near the border on sight. We could also pave the Rio Grande and turn it into a big wall. I am sure there are a lot of ways we could "solve" this problem, consequences be damned.
To me the open border is mostly a straw man. You say the media promotes open borders and I fail to see this. What network? CNN? FOX? CNBC? Instead I notice than any critique of the media and the debate is interpreted to be for an open border. My only issue to debate is that the misinformation and hysterics do not serve us well.
Sure, we can shut down the border - deport the millions - build the wall. I'm sure that will make many of us feel better. Getting rid of Saddam made many of us feel better too. Until I see all the issues on the table and a real debate and not raw emotion and sensationalism, I will remain unconvinced that these are our only options.
Another sample of misinformation. The immigration reform was not amnesty or an open border. Illegals had to pay fines/back taxes etc. The proposed law also contained enforcement provisions. While its merits can be debated, mislabeling it amnesty is exactly my point. The media creeps would rather hysterically misinform than really discuss the issue. It seems we are no longer capable of debating the provisions of a proposal, instead we sling mud.
see my post below. and i never said that the media favored open borders, i said they favor mass immigration because of cheap labor. and your comments about shooting people are just typical of someone who has no argument. i believe that's called a "strawman".
I agree that the legislation was not "amnesty", but it seemed entirely unworkable, unrealistic and a huge waste of time. I don't see how that bill would have changed anything at all in the current situation. It seemed to be completely oblivious to how things really work. Few illegals would accept paying thousands of dollars and a potentially expensive and hazardous trip back to Mexico in order to become legal. I believe that people don't stop breaking the law for much other than the fear they might be caught. The higher the likelihood they will be caught, the higher degree of compliance with the law. Not much in the bill would give any illegal alien a real reason to fear that they would ever be caught - therefore why bother paying thousands of dollars and go back to Mexico (forgoing any wages they might have gotten during that time) just to end up in pretty much the same situation when they get back - minus all that time and money.
It should also be noted that many of these illegal immigrants plan on saving money to return to Mexico and have no desire to become citizens here. What is their incentive to become legal? I don't see it.
most of the major newspapers in this country supported immigration reform as written. and maybe you can take some reading comprehension lessons. he asked if capital can cross borders freely, then should workers be able to do the same. so i asked if that meant anyone should be able to cross the border from mexico. a reasonable question to what he seems to infer, no? and you claim that you don't want open borders and you want the law enforced, but i have yet to see any evidence of that. in fact all you do is argue the opposite. do you want an open border? no double talk. yes or no?
it should be "good leardership" not "the good leadership". I think our leadership is bad.
It's normal for Bill and Fox News to leave out the facts. They don't want to p.o. the GOP or that phoney, staunch Republican Roger Ailes (I wish he retire soon).
These people are phoneys to the core.
Michelle Malkin has a great piece about Rudy's sanctuary policy at:
[link to michellemalkin.com] the NY Times recently had an article about Rudy's "friendship" with Roger Ailes. So how could Rudy NOT received kid gloves treatment on Fox, even from Papa Bear Bill O'Reilly.
Great point about O'Reilly berating the Virgina Beach mayor for her sanctuary policy but not Rudy.
And just think: Rudy and Hillary are both pro-choice, pro-domestic partnership, pro-gun control (although Rudy modified his position on that), pro-amnesty for illegals (Rudy calls it "regularization") and both are Yankee fans.
Rudy truly makes me ill.
Actually, there are a lot of things about Giuliani that O'Reilly chooses not to acknowledge. There's the harsh condemnation that the International Association of Fire-fighters levied against him (men in uniform, for Christ's sakes!), his stubborn insistence to put the command and control center back in the World Trade Center, his incredibly liberal positions on social issues (not a problem with me but O'Reilly we're talking here), his total disinterest in police brutality, etc., etc.. And did you notice, too, the differential treatment between Giuliani and Senator Dodd? Dodd, right, not only does he get disrespected by O'Reilly but then Mr. Fair and Balanced has the balls to drag out Dennis Miller for what can only be described as an adhominem melt-down. Outrageous. For more on this and other O'Reilly hypocrisy, please check out paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com.