O'Reilly blamed killing of two alleged burglars on "Houston's sanctuary city policies"
During the December 5 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, discussing Pasadena, Texas, resident Joe Horn's November 17 killing of two illegal immigrants who were allegedly robbing his neighbor's home, host Bill O'Reilly stated: "All right, look, these two illegal aliens are dead because of Houston's sanctuary city policies. That's why they're dead. Not Horn. Horn panicked. Horn got emotional. He probably shouldn't have done what he did. I hope he's not prosecuted ... But these guys are dead because of chaotic immigration policies. That's why they're dead." O'Reilly also stated that the shooting "is an immigration issue in the sense that it never should have happened because these guys never should have been in the country."
O'Reilly's assertion that this incident is the fault of "sanctuary city policies" echoes his claim about the deaths of nine people -- one adult and nine children -- in a March 7 fire in the Bronx. As Media Matters for America documented, 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 describing New York City as a "sanctuary city" and 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 December 5 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: It's an immigration issue in the sense that it never should have happened because these guys shouldn't have been in the country. All right? They never should have been in the country. So that's why it's an immigration issue. So they're dead, and Mr. Horn's life hangs in the balance because if he gets prosecuted and he gets convicted, he goes to jail for life, probably. So it never would have happened if the United States of America and Houston had control over the problem. It doesn't. But let's just walk through it here. Mr. Horn was believed -- because he said it on that 911 tape -- that he was within his rights to go out and shoot those individuals. Your research says what?
EDD HENDEE (Houston radio host): The research is that the "castle law," which was just amended and signed into law September 1, 2007, you have a right to defend your home and your neighbor's home and property and to respond with deadly force if you believe your life is in danger.
One of these men came across his property. There's no question. Bill, you're two and a half times more likely to be murdered in Houston, Texas than in New York City. Those are the statistics from 2005. We're in a war zone here.
O'REILLY: OK, how do you see it, Mr. Hernandez?
DANIEL HERNANDEZ (criminal defense attorney): Well, as far as the legal aspect of it, he wasn't in imminent danger. The -- and I've got to commend that 911 operator, who tried to calmly tell him to stay in his house.
The police showed up about 10 seconds after he shot those two men dead. As far as the immigration issue goes, that's correct. First, this is a crime issue. As far as the immigration issue is, you are 100 percent correct. We need to fix it.
Now you know, DPS [Texas Department of Public Safety] and ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] and FBI are trying to organize this deal to try to round up people with these fake IDs from Puerto Rico. Well, then we might as well start rounding up every single teenager that's ever had a fake ID to get beer. That's not going to work.
O'REILLY: Well, you know, I disagree -- no, I agree with you. I'm going to shock you, Mr. Hernandez. I agree with you. OK, it's got to start at the simple level of when Houston PD, Harris County sheriff, anybody, any local or state takes -- arrests an alien, all right, and they find out that they're either not in the country legally or they don't know, ICE gets a call right then and there. Because then, then you can confine the person. You can confine him. Go ahead.
HERNANDEZ: But here's the problem with that, Bill, is that they're going around, and they're arresting people on these Class C violations. Basically, what could happen is you could have somebody who is a resident, who is a citizen, who's here on a work visa, who --
O'REILLY: Well, then prove it.
HERNANDEZ: -- forgets their driver's license at home --
O'REILLY: Then prove it.
HERNANDEZ: -- gets pulled over. They get arrested. And they have to sit there, and we're spending millions of tax dollars --
O'REILLY: Now you're going off the deep end. Mr. Hernandez, if they can prove it, then ICE doesn't want to get involved. ICE has got it right up to here with --
HERNANDEZ: I understand, but --
O'REILLY: -- people who are in this country illegally. All right, let me go back to you, Mr. Hendee.
HERNANDEZ: But do we want to spend that kind of money?
O'REILLY: Yeah, we do. We want to protect some lives here.
All right, look, these two illegal aliens are dead because of Houston's sanctuary city policies. That's why they're dead. Not Horn. Horn panicked. Horn got emotional. He probably shouldn't have done what he did. I hope he's not prosecuted. I don't think he will be because the law is too murky here.
But these guys are dead because of chaotic immigration policies. That's why they're dead. Now, Mr. Hendee --
HERNANDEZ: Well, they're --
O'REILLY: Look, look, I don't get Houston. I don't get Houston. OK? Because I agree with you. Everybody knows the crime problem. Everybody knows the illegal alien thing's out of control. Then why do they elect a guy like [Houston Mayor Bill] White? And why is [Harold L.] Hurtt the police chief there?
As someone who lives in the Houston area, I will ignore the hubris O'Reilly shows by criticizing the choice of local citizens to elect a mayor they believe that represents them. Perhaps O'Reilly should read a little of the Houston Chronicle that points out that the 911 operator told him not to go outside. This is not an immigration issue, it is a matter of someone taking the law into their own hands. Horn did not panic, he called 911, he picked up his shotgun and then went OUTSIDE to shoot these men. If O'Reilly truly believed in the rule of law, he would encourage Horn to seek out his day in court to attempt to vindicate himself.
I agree. I heard the play-back off the call. He wasn't pannicked. He saw someone trying to steal something and WHILE HE WAS ON THE PHONE WITH THE COPS, who were telling him to stay inside, etc... He says "No, I can't tlet this happen." And goes a shoots these men. They probably were criminals, but burglary does not carry a capital sentence. Cops were called, no one's life was in imminent danger. No one had a gun pointed at HIM or ANYONE ELSE. He's a vigilante and a murder pure and simple.
You're on crack. This is a 100% immigration issue. Both of these illegals were previously arrested - one was deported and came back, the other was put in jail and released (not reported). These were two illegals who should not have been here at all, should not have been breaking into someones house. Mr Horn took it upon himself to protect not only himself, but his neighbors land and belongings from stupid illegals should are not allowed to be here. Blame it on Mr Horn if you want, but he is a hero to the American people for standing up against illegals when the liberal democrats wont let us. If you want to blame anyone, blame Houston for letting one go after a conviction on drug charges, or blame your own democratic party for wanting to give them amnesty and not shut them down at the border.
These two were scum, and got exactly what they deserved. Let this be a lesson to other illegal bastards. Come on our lawn to start trouble, and you too will be hollowed out with a slug.
Damn the laws! Shoot anyone committing a crime, anyone you suspect of a crime or anyone who doesn't look like you!
(That was extremely sarcastic.)
This captures the right-wing belief that anyone they do not deem to be a citizen has no rights or legal protection.
A person not a citizen is not protected by US citizen rights. So that is correct.
Everyone has the right not to be shot. Are you suggesting that it is now open season on anyone here illegeally? This is a not a case of self defense, but a case of defense of property. Go ahead, tell us all american citizens can shoot illegal immigrants.
Everyone deserves the right not to be shot? really? Everyone?
The y shoudnt have been herre. If they werent here they'd be alive...or possibly shot dead in another country for trying to steal someone else's stuff.
Should they have been shot dead for burglary? Probably not but let's not shed too many tears for a couple of bad guys. Maybe they get away and the next house they break into, well, maybe the owners arre home and get real unlucky.
He also gave them a clear verbal warning. They had a lot of choices that , had they made them differently, they might still be here.
1. coming here illegally
2. Breaking into someone's house
3. Attempting to flee
Three choices to Mr. Horn's one...Let's be fair about this.
Horn had a lot of choices.
1) call 911
2) wait on 911
3) stay in the house
4) go out of the house and confront the unarmed burglars
5) lure them into his house
6) shoot a cop by accident
7) shoot himself by accident
Horn chose to confront people who were not a danger to him and to shoot to kill. Premeditated murder.
"1) call 911" - ok, he did that.
"2) wait on 911" - ok, he did that while watching 2 people rob the house next door, and then proceed towards his own home.
"3) stay in the house" - he did that until the robbers approached his own hom.
"4) go out of the house and confront the unarmed burglars" - how in the world would anyone know if they were armed? Have you ever heard of a concealed weapon?
"5) lure them into his house" - this doesn't even make sense.
"6) shoot a cop by accident" - sure...the concerned citizen who dialed 911 in an effort to report and prevent crime is going to shoot a cop? Please. The only reason he opened fire was because the police were NOT there.
"7) shoot himself by accident" - the man was obviously clear and sober on the phone. He was attempting to prevent crime by calling 911. The last thing this upstanding citizen would have done is shoot himself by accident.
When you listen to the call, this is clearly not a case of a vigilante at work. The 911 operator urges the man to stay inside for his own safety. The man makes it clear on the phone that the robbers had a bag of loot and were approaching his property. The police were not showing up, and the man felt threatened. He went out and defended his property from robbers. The officers came, the man had set down his gun and cooperated with the officer's commands. No innocents were injured. Two illegal immigrants who had committed a crime and were coming towards a second house are dead. I see nothing wrong here at all.
Oh, give me a break.
Whether those two men were here legally or illegally is irrelevant. They are still human beings, and didn't deserve to be shot like animals, especially for a non-violent crime.
Mr Horn escalated the situation so he could act big and tough and shoot him some people.
He called 911, he stayed on the phone and gave them updates. That's great. He could have hunkered down by a window told the dispatcher everything he saw. He could have stayed in his house, relatively safe from harm, whether they were armed or not. If the two had tried to get into his house, I'd be a bit more sympathetic, but the fact is they didn't. He was itching to go after them when they were on his neighbor's property, and them stepping foot on his lawn was all the excuse he needed.
The police were seconds away. The dispatcher told him that. There were plain clothes officers responding. The dispatcher told him that. If a Hispanic plain clothes cop showed up, chances are he would have been shot. By going outside he exposed himself to greater risk, as well as responding officers.
Put a gun in a lot of people's hands and their IQ drops by at least half. I learned firearm safety and operations from law enforcement personnel. He probably learned from Rambo. He was probably so wound up if he tripped he would have shot his foot off. He was probably about 20 seconds from being shot by the police as well.
This moron was pumped to go out there and show those two he was a MAN. Instead he committed a murder and is now a rallying cry to all the racist supremacy groups out there.
When you listen to the call, this is clearly not a case of a vigilante at work. The 911 operator urges the man to stay inside for his own safety.
Joe Horn, 61, told the dispatcher what he intended to do: Walk out his front door with a shotgun. "I've got a shotgun," Horn said, according to a tape of the 911 call. "Do you want me to stop them?"
"Nope, don't do that - ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?" the dispatcher responded.
"Hurry up man, catch these guys, will you? 'Cause I'm ain't gonna let 'em go, I'm gonna be honest with you, I'm not gonna let 'em go. I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this ----."
Horn: "They just stole something, I'm going out to look for 'em, I'm sorry, I ain't letting them get away with this ----. They stole something, they got a bag of stuff. I'm doing it!"
The man makes it clear on the phone that the robbers had a bag of loot and were approaching his property. The police were not showing up, and the man felt threatened. He went out and defended his property from robbers.
Dispatcher: "You gonna get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don't care what you think."
Horn: "You wanna make a bet?"
Dispatcher: "Stay in the house."
Horn: "There, one of them's getting away!
Dispatcher: "That's alright, property's not something worth killing someone over. OK? Don't go out the house, don't be shooting nobody. I know you're pissed and you're frustrated but don't do it."
Horn: "They got a bag of loot."
Dispatcher: "OK. How big is the bag?" He then talks off, relaying the information.
Dispatcher: "Which way are they going?"
Horn: "I can't ... I'm going outside. I'll find out."
Dispatcher: "I don't want you going outside, Mister......"
Horn: "Well, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."
Dispatcher: "Don't go outside."On the tape of the 911 call, the shotgun can be heard being cocked and Horn can be heard going outside and confronting someone. "Boom! You're dead!" he shouts. A loud bang is heard, then a shotgun being cocked and fired again, and then again.
It wasn’t HIS property. The were running AWAY from him NOT towards him or his house. HE choose to go outside his house after the 911 operators told him not to. You nor Horn knew they were illegals until AFTER they were dead. Horn only knew the were brown skinned but I guess that says something in it’s self.
"It wasn’t HIS property." - Read up on the Castle Law in Texas, it gives him the right to defend his neighbor's property.
You also failed to leave out the part where Horn gets back on the phone and states that "they were right there in the yard with me" (well, at least one of them was). You also forgot to take into account that police did find weapons on the robbers.
"You nor Horn knew they were illegals until AFTER they were dead." --That is correct, but it just makes it that much sweeter to find out they were.
"Horn only knew the were brown skinned but I guess that says something in it’s self." -- So, you know for a fact these men were not wearing ski masks or something else to hide their faces/skin color? Please prove that. Additionally, prove that mr. horn would have let the 2 criminals get away without any trouble if they were white. I seriously can't believe you hate white males so much that you would look at this as racially motivated.
It wasn’t HIS property." - Read up on the Castle Law in Texas, it gives him the right to defend his neighbor's property.
Not sure how it will apply considering the 911 operator told him over and over to stay in his house. He also told the 911 operator that he was going outside to kill them which sounds premeditated.
You also failed to leave out the part where Horn gets back on the phone and states that "they were right there in the yard with me" (well, at least one of them was). You also forgot to take into account that police did find weapons on the robbers.
Yeah he said that AFTER he shot them. Convenient to have a cover story. They had crow bars as apposed to a loaded shotgun. Horn also stated that when he left his house is was with the intent to kill them PERIOD!
"You nor Horn knew they were illegals until AFTER they were dead." --That is correct, but it just makes it that much sweeter to find out they were.
You are a sick sick individual. Horn only knew they were brown skin which makes your “much sweeter” comment quite telling about the kind of bigot you are.
"Horn only knew the were brown skinned but I guess that says something in it’s self." -- So, you know for a fact these men were not wearing ski masks or something else to hide their faces/skin color? Please prove that. Additionally, prove that mr. horn would have let the 2 criminals get away without any trouble if they were white. I seriously can't believe you hate white males so much that you would look at this as racially motivated.
I love how you state on the one hand it was "sweeter" that they were illegals that he killed which would make them brown skinned and then question ME on this being "racially" motivated.
I love all good, decent, kind, caring about their fellow man type of man no matter what color they are, period!. I absolutely hate people who assume to take the law into their hands. I hate people who have so little regard to human life that they think that property is more important than ANY human life and then go around and have the nerve to call themselves “Christian”. They weren’t white cause Horn had looked out his window and saw them with the loot. He was not threaten in any way shape or form so what he did was commit COLD BLOODED MURDER no matter WHAT color they were!
"Not sure how it will apply considering the 911 operator told him over and over to stay in his house." - Well, thats for the police and courts to decide.
"He also told the 911 operator that he was going outside to kill them which sounds premeditated." - He did? Where? You quoted pretty much the conversation, and he never mentioned killing anyone. Why would you make something like that up, when it's not even in the direct quote that you provided?
"They had crow bars as apposed to a loaded shotgun" - So if I go rob a house and have a crow boar with me, it would be considered a deadly weapon? Crow bar or shotgun, they are both deadly weapons. You have no point here.
"Horn also stated that when he left his house is was with the intent to kill them PERIOD!" - Thank you for repeating your made-up point. I know you wish he had stated that, but as the transcript of the conversation shows, he never said anything like that.
"Horn only knew they were brown skin which makes your “much sweeter” comment quite telling about the kind of bigot you are." - Nice, avoid providing any kind of conclusive evidence that the robber's were NOT wearing ski masks or something else to cover their faces/skin color. You are assuming, with no evidence, that Horn knew their skin color. If he knew this, don't you think he would have used it to describe the men to the 911 operator? Your assumptions are weak and show that you seek only to label Horn as a racist white premeditated murderer, when you have no evidence for any of it.
In terms of dead illegals, yes, dead illegals in the US are better than living ones. They might be illegal mexicans, illegal chinese, illegal arabs, or illegal white europeans, it doesn't matter. You are the one inserting race into the equation. Illegals come in all shapes, sizes and colors; and not 1 of them is good for America.
In terms of dead illegals, yes, dead illegals in the US are better than living ones.
Jebus. I don't want Horn or you for my neighbor.
That's pretty messed up stuff.
He didn't intend to kill them? Let's say for the sake of argument that he didn't directly say so. Let's look at what Pearlene posted later in the thread;
Horn: "They just stole something, I'm going out to look for 'em, I'm sorry, I ain't letting them get away with this ----. They stole something, they got a bag of stuff. I'm doing it!"
Going out to look for 'em? Ain't letting them get away with this? Certainly suggestive.
Dispatcher: "Mister, do not go outside the house."
Horn: "I'm sorry, this ain't right, buddy."
What an interesting comment. Of course it's not right, that's obvious. Is that what someone says when they plan to hold a criminal or execute justice on their own?
Dispatcher: "You gonna get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don't care what you think."
Horn: "You wanna make a bet?"
Sounds like he's prepared to not even give anyone else a chance to shoot him.
Dispatcher: "Stay in the house."
Horn: "There, one of them's getting away!
Dispatcher: "That's alright, property's not something worth killing someone over. OK? Don't go out the house, don't be shooting nobody. I know you're pissed and you're frustrated but don't do it."
Horn: "They got a bag of loot."
This is the most telling statement of all. After being told not to shoot anyone, his response is that they have a bag of loot. Not "I'll try not to" or "I'm just going to hold them until the police get here" or anything of the sort. If I wasn't intending to shoot someone and I was told not to do it, I would be a little insulted. Not this guy.
Dispatcher: "OK. How big is the bag?" He then talks off, relaying the information.
Dispatcher: "Which way are they going?"
Horn: "I can't ... I'm going outside. I'll find out."
Dispatcher: "I don't want you going outside, Mister..."
Horn: "Well, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."
Ready to fire, obviously.
Dispatcher: "Don't go outside."On the tape of the 911 call, the shotgun can be heard being cocked and Horn can be heard going outside and confronting someone. "Boom! You're dead!" he shouts.
Boom, you're dead? Sounds like he enjoyed doing it to me. That's bloodlust. That's vigilantism.
A loud bang is heard, then a shotgun being cocked and fired again, and then again.
Notice that the shots are fired after he says "Boom! You're dead!". So this wasn't some matter of a need for immediate action. And more importantly, it proves that he fired with the intent to kill. That's indisputable.
Whether or not he knew what color they were is irrelevant. And I don't know this sort of thing is legal in Texas or not. But don't try to pretend that this wasn't intentional.
Nice xenophobic rant there. It's a shame you didn't post it in time to be included in that "culture of death" book.
I'm sure I have heard the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" somewhere. Or is that going to phased out, too?
Haven't you heard? The republicans think that Constitutional protections only count for citizens and non-terrorists. Therefore, if you assume that everyone is either an "illegal" or a terrorist, you can do whatever you want to anyone you want and you are a hero to the right-wingers.
One more thing:
"The research is that the "castle law," which was just amended and signed into law September 1, 2007, you have a right to defend your home and your neighbor's home and property and to respond with deadly force if you believe your life is in danger."
If you believe your life is in danger. Now go back and look at the situation. The burglars were leaving. That's what he was upset about, that they were getting away. Nowhere does he indicate that he feared for his life. That does not come across in any way, directly or implied. So it would be a pretty tough sell to argue that you killed someone in some sort of self-defense when you're on record saying that the reason you're going after them is because they're getting away with a crime. And especially if they were shot in the back, that defense goes straight down the drain.
I think that's obvious enough that everyone should be able to understand it, no matter what the Texas justice system actually does about it.
I will be fair: his choice was murder. This is the taking of human life. If people honestly believe that their citizenship status can allow them to be killed there is nothing left to do but weep for what this nation has become.
Horn committed cold-blooded murder. Period. At that moment, he was in no danger nor was anyone else. He deliberately chose to kill over a bag of household goods. O'Reilly should be ashamed of himself for defending a murderer who could have made the choice not to kill but chose otherwise.
As the 911 operator said in trying to keep Horn from going outside, a bag of stuff isn't worth a human life, even if that human life isn't properly documented.
Actually, the Constitution doesn't say you have to be a citizen of this country to be treated with the same rights as a person who is a citizen. That's YOUR sides logic - and it doesn't wash with the Constitution.
This is one reason why Republicans are anti-American. They don't give a damn about the Constitution, only what they want, what they can get, not caring at whose expense.
So you want to be able to shoot people on sight, ignoring the orders of the police? Seems to me like Mr. Horn needs prosecution. Killing someone who ends up being an illegal alien doesn't make killing them right. Why can't you folks get that through your heads?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that ALL men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these rights are life, etc."
You're also wrong in implying that non-citizens, even illegal immigrants are outlaws. This post, and your previous rant, indicate you should change your moniker to Freebaser.
A person not a citizen is not protected by US citizen rights.
Wrong.
Non-citizens have many rights defined both in international legal conventions and the Bill of Rights:
Immigration Law: The Constitutional Rights ofNon-Citizens
The Rights of Non-Citizens
An excellent post, Blueneck. Especially liked the references you cited. Your note should be forwarded to our resident white-house redneck. Of course, he's probably incapable of reading it, an inability shared by the illiterates objecting to the points you've made. But then, elementary literacy is NOT a prerequisite to being POTUS. All you need is to be part of some NUCULAR family!
Thanks TadekKorn. I appreciate the fact that at least a few people around here make, and appreciate efforts to make, sound arguments supported by credible sources. Best wishes and have a good weekend.
You are flat out WRONG. Read the Constitution, rights are not given to CITIZENS, except in some issues about voting, it is given to PERSONS. Is there a rule of law? Why would you just give to someone the right to carry out a summary execution, did he CHECK their illegal status? Your kill them all and let God sort them out attitude is duly noted.
Hey Freethinker, I dare you shoot an entire illegal family and their children (especially if they are under 10), since you claim they are open season. Call the police then to clean up the bodies and tell them exactly what happened. Since they weren't exactly citizens, I'm sure you'll be vindicated.
Oh wait, it's murder, and non-citizens are protected.
Well that was certainly a lot of garbage wrapped up in far too many words. The immigration status of the dead burglars was unknown when Horn shot them. This is completely an issue of crime and what level of violent response is appropriate. Running out of your house with murderous intent is not valid self defense, especially when you know that police response is coming.
There are massive problems with this country's immigration policies and enforcement, but that is a completely secondary issue to this particular story.
Did you happen to notice that during this same week a messed up teen shot up a shopping mall for no good reason? If only he had been an illegal immigrant we could sidestep the real troubling aspects of that story too and focus on the boogieman of "those damn illegals."
They were here illegally. If we controlled immigration, then the neighbors house would not have been broken into by them, and they would not have been shot by Mr. Horn. Spin it however you want, but the responsibility falls on: 1. Govt immigration policy, 2. Houston for letting one go, 3. breaking into house. Those are the three things wrong. If they broke into my neighbors house, I would have shot them too.
Your outrage is misplaced. I agree that illegal immigration is an issue in this nation that needs to be corrected; however, killing people doesn't solve the problem, Mr. Hitler.
Moonbat made the point better than I could: At the time these people were shot, their residency status was unknown. Mr. Horn is a vigilante and should be prosecuted, as vigilanteism isn't legal here. Mr. Horn was just excited to be able to shoot someone. He was calm, cool and collected while on the phone. He was ordered not to go outside. He willingly and maliciously went outside to kill these people. To me, that's first degree murder. He planned it, calmly, disobeyed orders and took the law into his own hands.
And you twits want to let him go because he only killed some illegals? What, are illegals not human beings? Illegals deserve to be shot at?
What spin? Turning this into an immigration issue is spin. It is unlawful and exactly the definition of vigilante justice to shoot people who do not pose an immediate threat to you. It would also have unlawful had the police driven up and opened fire without warning or provocation. We have these kinds of laws so that we can live in a society that is mostly safe even though we do very little to control the availability of firearms.
Statistically there is a certain percentage of any population that is prone to criminal behavior. This percentage is known to be higher among the lower economic levels. Illegal immigrants are primarily poor and they are also already one step in towards becoming criminals just by virtue of having come here in the wrong way. That means that there will be a higher percentage of them that commit crimes. Simple averages here, not any real comment on the character of illegals as a whole.
But stopping illegal immigration is not going to significantly reduce the crime rate of this country. We do just fine with good old citizen criminals.
But don't let that make you go limp after you got so excited at the prospect of shooting people. That's your problem.
Boy, if you engaged in vigilante justice in my neighborhood, I'd hunt you down just like Clint Eastwood in Hang em high. He who does not live by the laws deserves no justice.
On another note, any devil warshippers here?
Well, I don't know if this counts, but I'm toying with the idea of celebrating Mithrasmas this year. I read somewhere that Zoroastreans believe the god Mithras was born in late December, in a field, surrounded by shepherds. Since he bounced out of a rock, it was a kind of virgin birth wouldn't you say?
As for devil worship, I just don't know where to go to find Satan. BilldO says it's Markos, and Imus says it's Hillary.
Zoroastrianism is an interesting religion. It is said that Zoroaster himself, long before the birth of Christ was asked about God and he said it was, Spenta Mainyu, that is creative intelligence a sort of description of what we would call the Holy Ghost, God the father, and his son who was yet to come. They have interesting beliefs about the nature of evil and why it is in the world and a somewhat dualistic nature in that it is said the reason we are here is to learn to choose. I find it fascinating.
Agreed Solon. It influenced alot of religeous thinking that came out the middle east in other religeons that emerged after it.
Sounds like devil worshippingism to me.
BillO for Pope.
"He who does not live by the laws deserves no justice."
Umm...would this possibly apply to the burglars?
Way to pick up on the point. Try reading it again, and look for sarcasm this time.
Well, I wouldn't want to see anyone killed, but getting you off the streets is mighty tempting... Perhaps you could get a cell with the other freak, share a bar of soap, and whine to each other about how unfair it all is for the next 25 years, *lol*
This guy left his house locked and loaded after being told repeatedly not to... He went there to kill them... If that's not a case of premeditated murder, I don't know what is...
As for you... you're not even human, let alone American...
Would you have shot them if the burglars where two 16 year olds, who live in the neighborhood and were sons of your hunting buddy?
My point exactly. Killing someone is wrong, no matter if they're legal or illegal. It's just wrong. Anyone who says otherwise is in favor of lawlessness and murder.
You're on crack.
You came down on me pretty hard for comments far less harsh than that.
I agree, and I apologize. I didnt even look who posted. Im just sick of this illegal immigrant stuff, and sick of people defending them - even in cases when they ahve proven to be criminals.
"have been proven" That dear poster is what would have happened in a court of law IF they had not been gunned down. Listen to yourself, your are advocating that people should ignore the instructions of the 911 dispatcher (who are trained to handle these situations) grab a gun and confront someone they SUSPECT is commiting a crime. I have direct contact with law enforcement officers, elected officials, court officers, judges and others in local goverment daily (tech support guy, the new bartender, I hear all the tales of woe) : every single one of them agrees, this shooter must be tried as a murderer, maybe pre-meditated murder. He may be aquitted, but he was never in danger as was no one else. There is not a clear line that has to be crossed to qualify your actions as self defense, and in this situation, the shooter is in a gray area, which requires a trial to determine guilt.
As usual if you reverse the situation you will see more clearly the fallacy of your argument. A licensed repo agent shows up, starts to reposess a motorcycle, an illegal immigrant, assumes a theft is taking place, calls 911, ignores the dispatchers instructions, grabs a gun and shoots the repo agent dead. Who is guilty of murder now?
Do they deserve to die because they are illegal or because they broke into a home? Or should they die because they were both illegal and burglars? If your 19 year old son broke into a home and was arrested for it, should his life be spared? Or should he die for his offense because you said these two deserved exactly what they got. No one is advocating for the burglars, I am advocating not taking the law into your own hands. If your property or life is being threatened then you absolutely have a right to defend yourself with any means. However, we can't allow citizens to start mowing down people they see committing a crime. So did they deserve to die becasue they were here illegally and committed a crime? She would start putting to death illegals who committ non violent offenses? Good thing you right wingers have no power. Ya'll have the panderers who you vote for, but even those guys know you're nuts.
It's about time we have some people like you with real common sense that are looking at the real issues & not what they personally feel. All of the small minded simpletons that look at Joe Horn as a hero, are really saying that, it is something I would never have the balls to do in my dreams, so they are riding on Joe's coat tail. So if you really feel he did the right thing then go do it & see if you will be as lucky as good ole' Joe is gonna be! It is stupid idiots like the ones you have to comment on that will get those politicians taking back the bill that was signed by Perry this year!
They will think we are all idiot citizens armed with guns and no understanding when we can lawfully use them!
By the way, you know O'reily is a fool who makes his living as a fool!
Newsflash: Bill O'Reilly, dressed for fishing trip and mistaken as whitetrash burgalar, shot to death by Mexican man while stopping to buy a loofa in an unfamiliar neighborhood.
My thoughts: "I hope the Mexican is not prosecuted ... in the sense that it never should have happened because <BillO> never should have been in that neighborhood."
Oops, I forgot - It's sad that I have to clarify my own post, but I'd better flag this one as SATIRE. Notice how I mimic your words in "My thoughts", Bill? (I should have written "Talking Point Memo" there really, I guess?). I don't want BillO again labeling MMFA as vile and hateful - or worse yet sending his boys after me.
It's a joke, Bill! (there, that should work - works for you anyhow) I really don't hate you. I love the sinner, hate the sin.
But for the Government allowing the illegals into the Country. This never would have happened.
But for the government allowing this guy to own a gun not as part of an organized militia, this never would have happened.
That's ridiculous. If the framers really thought that there should be no INDIVIDUAL gun ownership they would have said so. For pete's sakes owning a gun was part of life during that time. They understood that a disarmed populace was doomed to be at the complete mercy of tyrannical government.
The man did have a right to own a gun. That I believe. The others, whil ehere illegally and commiting a crime, should have been arrested, tried and jailed and/or deported. The cops were called, but this red-neck jack-hole didn't want to let the system work here. He shot two men dead for no reason at all. That's neither a gun issue or an immigration issues. (And if he's tried and convicted it's not a capital punnishment issues either.) He's a vigilante and a murderer. And hopefully he will be tried and punnished for his crimes.
well stated
Calm down, dude. I was just turning the argument around on Sueeld in a joking fashion.
I've got a question. One of the dominant arguments for personal gun ownership is to prevent a tyrannical government from taking over and instituting anything but democracy. Do you really believe that, as diverse a nation as we are today, and how completely wide-spread the populace is, that we as citizens would really be able to prevent tyranny by taking up arms? If this tyrannical government controlled the United States Armed Forces, do you really think we would be able to go up against them?I'm not anti-gun, but I don't like them. If you wish to own a gun, that's your business, and I believe your privilege under U.S. Law. But does it really seem likely that a group would be able to take up arms against our government in this modern age?
OK - it's a bit silly, but did you see the Movie "Red Dawn?" How about that scenario, but with islamo-facsist terrorists? Let's say they (whoever "they" are) concquored Canada. Shouldn't be too hard - no one owns a gun! But could you see them trying to take Detroit? Or Oakland? Or LA? Or West Virginia? We are probably the most heaviliy armed general-population in the world! Now I'm not proud of that (or feel any safer) when a story about an idiot like this guy comes out, but YES - I could imagine a citizens militia defending a city against a forein invader, even asuming our own standing military wouldn't be sufficient. (Which is somewhat laughable, but I digress.)
Actually, if you saw Bowling for Columbine, you would have seen the discussion about how Canada actually has more guns per capita than the US. They just aren't paranoid and crazy like we are, so they shoot each other FAR less frequently than we do.
Do you really believe that, as diverse a nation as we are today, and how completely wide-spread the populace is, that we as citizens would really be able to prevent tyranny by taking up arms?
We couldn't even VOTE a tyrant out of office.
Oh, crap. That's not what the 2nd Amendment says or has ever been interpreted to say by any supreme court. There is no constitutional right to for individuals to bear arms. If there was, they then states couldn't restrict access to handguns, like in New York, the feds couldn't limit automatic weapons, etc. Read the court cases rather than depend on legal hacks for your information.
They also never anticipated that we would have a standing army, which they considered, quite rightly, to be a danger to liberty. That is why citizen militias were so important, hence the 2nd Amendment.
Find: .Replace: ,
And still, it's a terribly constructed sentence
I agree with you.
It would have been better if it was two qualified American burglars, from whom they took the jobs from, were shot dead.
I'm sick of these illegals coming over here and taking our burial plots.
awesome. you hit it right on the head. well said
IF Hitler's parents would have not had sex WWII would have never happenned. Such logic is disingenious when you are dealing with reality.
The fact these guys were illegals is only a side story to what happenned here. It's a way for O'Reilly to disassociate himself from a hot button issue in which he isn't sure how his audience views this, so he makes it all about an issue in which "the folks" will agree with him. This is a story about a redneck who was in no imminent danger, left his home, and killed two HUMAN BEINGS. For those who see his actions as applaudable, then I guess it will be now o.k. to start shooting shoplifters and kids who steal car stereos. The Taliban couldn't agree more.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I'm returning your nickel from the other day. Thanks for the loan.
Good job. That is it exactly
"The fact these guys were illegals is only a side story to what happenned here."
It sounds like we had a couple of career criminals that came to a bad end. They slipped through the net of immigration and domestic law enforcement. We need a better net.
Go down to your local hardware store and buy enough net to make yourself feel safe.
"Go down to your local hardware store and buy enough net to make yourself feel safe."
Typical materialistic response.
No I was speaking to your irrational fear of foreign burglers. Lots of threats in the world, these guys don't even make the top 100 threats for me.
Lots of laws on the books dealing with illegal foreign nationals. Many are not enforced now.
The most effective thing, I feel, to do is to help these countries become places that do not abuse their own populations. Not a simple thing, but not really expensive. Though one of our most effective actions would be to stop abusing the people in those countries that are in the employ of companies based in our country. They might claim that this will hurt them. This is admiting several things about them. Not the least is a pretty bogus mythology.
I would say I agree with you, except the part about an irrational fear of foreign burglars.
"Lots of laws on the books dealing with illegal foreign nationals. Many are not enforced now."
That was my initial point. The law tried to help these two shooting victims: 1) don't immigrate illegally 2) don't burgle.
I'm not saying it justifies the shooting, but it does seem to mitigate it.
How were these guys illegal immigrants? I thought they were Puerto Ricans?
I thought that also upon first read. It is a confusing sentence, but I garnered that they are referring to the fake id's being Puerto Rican.
They were Columbian's; here illegally.
I believe they were columbian, not puerto rican. One was arrested & deported then came back, the other was arrested in Houston on drug charges, jailed then released w/o the city notifying the ICE. Bad Bad - its law to have to notify the feds of illegals - but thats why Houston claims to be sanctuary. The illegals got what they deserved - now its time to get rid of the police chief and mayor since they are harboring illegals and stop all federal funding to the city of Houston, include welfare.
The illegals got what they deserved
Can you state that more clearly? Are you suggesting the death penalty for illegal immigrants?
In all honesty, no i dont believe they deserved to be shot. I do think they deserved to be deported - but that wouldnt solve anything, as one of them was deported and came back again. I think Mr. Horns actions were overboard, no doubt, but so many people in the US are just getting sick of this whole illegal immigration thing. People want them out, but the govt is goign back and forth not doing a damn thing about it. With all the talk of rewarding them in sancuary cities, driver licenses, and discounts for college, its getting ridiculous. If the govt doesnt act fast, people will start taking it into their own hands - and it wont just be a case of targeting someone who is in the middle of a criminal act. The only ways to start enforcing so know one else gets hurt is to shut down companies who employ them, close the borders, get rid of birth right laws ,and not allow them to use our medical, school, or social services (welfare, etc).
but so many people in the US are just getting sick of this whole illegal immigration thing.
Has nothing to do with the shooting. From what I heard of the tape, Horn did not think they were illegal immigrants.
Regardless, it wouldn't have in any way justified this shooting. Not 10%, 5%, or 1% justified. The police were summoned, on their way, Horn was in no danger until he disregarded the 911 operator's instructions (and even then, it's doubtful he was in danger because the guys he killed were unarmed.)
Correction - the shooting had nothing to do with illegal immigrants. But the publicity of the story is only further making a case that many in this country have been pissed off about - that the sanctuary cities are harboring people like this, and that the federal government is not creating a secure country by not properly enforcing its borders and needs to stop giving these people a reason to try and get here illegally.
No, THIS story shows that one guy decided that he was above the law and could shoot two guys when there was no justification for doing so.
Being "pissed off" about something isn't justification for shooting people.
You're right, BitterMarv. If being pissed off were justification for shooting people, we might not have any leaders in this country...
"The only ways to start enforcing so know one else gets hurt is to shut down companies who employ them, close the borders, get rid of birth right laws ,and not allow them to use our medical, school, or social services (welfare, etc)."
Make desparate people more desparate and prone to criminal acts? Conservatives are ridiculous, man. No desire to understand why people behave the way they do. No desire to extricate flesh and bone people from the oppression that breeds suffering.
Just kill 'em all man. Let God sort 'em out. Screwball. Totally screwball.
Free,
Were you one on one of those campuses where the College Republicans had Illegal Immigrant hunts? Even though those were bizarre, they were PRETEND! This is real life. How do you suppose they deserved to die?
Do you think Americans who overstay their visas in foreign countries deserve to be shot? I am not making note of any crime because you didn't either. I think your racist comments from the previous page limit your credibility, but I look forward to your response.
No, they dont deserved to be "sentenced" by civilians, i was a bit overboard, but just outraged by this whole thing.
Im well past college. I think these illegals need to be punished more than just deporting them, because they keep coming back. Sanctuary cities, federal funding for sanctuary cities, birthright laws, and allowing them to benefit from our tax money (schools, welfare, medical) is just giving them a reason to come here. We need to secure all the border with walls and guards, shut down companies who employ them, stop birthright laws, and stop letting them use any form of citizen tax payed services (schools, welfare, medical). We need to give them a reason not to come. If they are here legally on visas, and follwing the legal methods to citizenship, then I have no problme with them. If they are paying FEDERAL taxes, then I dont care if they are here. But other than that, they are leaching off our taxes, creating havok in our working world, and at times committing heinous crimes when they shouldnt even be allowed here.
i was a bit overboard, but just outraged by this whole thing.
You and Mister Horn as well, it's just to bad that he didn't take the time to do as the operator told him and calm down and stay in his house. If he had, the law, which this nation is built on, would have been able to arrest and deport them.
Thats one outcome - however, the city of Houston is a SANCTUARY CITY where they do NOT notify authorities and deport them. As was the case with one of the illegals who got shot. You dont think the people in that area know that, and are fed up with it, and starts to make them take the law into their own hands? When the local governments are not obeying federal laws, why would the citizens around those cities obey the local laws?
Doesn't matter that they were illegal. The cops would have captured them, the courts would have tried them, and they'd have gone to jail.
You are failing to address the point that they already were caught once by the cops, and somehow still managed to be in the USA committing more crimes.
You're assuming that illegal immigrants are the only people carrying out criminal acts.
The fact that these two guys were illegal immigrants in no way makes them at fault for being murdered.
My last statement by no way inferred that illegals are the only ones committing crimes, nor did it state that they were right to be shot.
I clearly stated that they were caught once, one was let go after being in jail, and both managed to committ crimes again the US. So Im asking you again to comment on that.
My comment is what it was before: it in no ways makes them at fault for their own murders.
Our justice system doesn't move quickly, and is deliberate in its processes. It makes mistakes. Still, it's the best the planet has to offer, and it should have been used in this case, regardless of your beliefs about illegal immigration.
Neither the slow and deliberate justice system nor the status of these two victims mitigates Horn's responsibility for their deaths. He acted outside of the law, and doesn't even have the excuse of ignorance of the law, given that he was informed over and over that he should not go out side and should not shoot anyone.
So are you saying the only person at fault here is Mr. Horn, and that the illegals were at not at fault for breaking several laws in order to put themselves in the position that ended up in their death?
Nothing they did justified murdering them. So yes, I'm saying they're not at fault for their own murder. Please, by all means, state, own, and defend the opposing viewpoint.
Not to speak for BitterMarv, but YES, Mr. Horn IS responsible for the deaths of the two men.
Your're saying that Mr. Horn isn't at fault because the two men who were shot were where they shouldn't have been. Seriously, use your brain. They wouldn't have been kiilled if Mr. Horn hadn't pulled the trigger on his shotgun - not only once, but at least twice. Mr. Horn wanted to kill these two men. He even told the dispatcher that he wanted to kill them. Why do you keep dodging this fact?
Maybe you SHOULD speak for me! =)
Because this is one single case that reflects on the entire immigration issue. The bottom line is simple:
1. Mr. Horn shouldnt have taken the law into his own hand, and whether he is actually charged will be determined by the authorities.
2. Those two men brought upon the situation themselves, with the help of the corrupt Houston local government.
If Mr. Horn is prosecuted, so too should the mayor of Houston for not following federal laws which state that he must report illegals to the federal immigration agencies - which would have deported them out of the country or kept them in jail for years due to their crimes.
The mayor didn't shoot anyone, did he?
Horn didn't take anyone's status into account when he blew them away. This has nothing to do with the burglar's immigration status. If the two slain men were legal residents, the same people would be saying he was a hero, and the same people would be saying Horn should be charged with murder.
Those with an ax to grind about illegal immigration are the ones who WANT to use this case to score points. But it doesn't fly. While obviously acting illegally in a number of ways, NOTHING ... N O T H I N G the men did justified them being murdered. NOTHING.
Wow - you're pretty good at making up excuses for premeditated murder.
Some years back in Detroit someone set up an electric wire net as a trap for a burglar who repeatedly broke into his store.
The burglar died in the trap.
Now, there's not a lot of sympathy to be had for criminals. They are criminals after all. And one could argue that if the burglar hadn't broken in, then he wouldn't have died.
But it's still illegal. By the same logic you could put land mines in your front yard and then say "well they shouldn't have been tresspassing". In a civilized society, the punishment is set at an appropriate level for the crime, and is executed by the legal system.
Freethinker, illegal immigrants who work do pay taxes and actually get fewer benefits (like social security). And why should children of illegal immigrants who are born here be punished as illegal immigrants as well?
The childrens would be punished - in fact, the family and their childrens can apply and take the legal route of citizenship. But providing a way for someone to gain citizenship by illegally coming into the country to say (which is a crime in itself), then having a child is only attracting and promiting the illegal route into the US.
The childrens (sic) would be punished - in fact, the family and their childrens (sic) can apply and take the legal route of citizenship.
Anyone born here IS a U.S. citizen.
I meant to say the "children would not be punished".
Yes, i know the birthright law. What im saying is that it is just another reason for these people to come here illegally. I want that law gone, and make their entire family and children, regardless of where born, to apply for citizenship legally. By coming here illegally to have a child should not make that child legal - its not the childs fault obviously, but this is another form of providing an incentive for them to come illegally.
That "birthright law" you're referring to is also known as the Fourteenth Amendment.
Why are people in this country so eager to amend the Constitution to take rights AWAY?
Notice how it's always people on the right who want to amend the Constitution to take rights away from people?
When is the last time you heard of a leftie saying, "Let's amend this GD Constitution. People have just too many rights."?
I was trying hard not to generalize, but yeah, was thinking that. Off the top of my head, conservatives (generally speaking) want to amend the Constitution to
And you notice how there's always a "them" involved, too. Gays, hippies, Hispanics...
And these are the same jingoistic sorts who claim we're fighting in Iraq for our freedoms.
Correction - its a FACT that the United States Military is of republican majority. So there is no "this is what WE are fighting for in Iraq". Especially when majority of people on this site, as well as liberals in general, have called our troops murders, criminals, and stating that the war is unjust and accomplishing nothing but death. So please tell me, not you ahve changed your mind to say that the war in iraq truly has meaning and they are there fighting for your rights because the opposition is trying to take them away? thought so.
Especially when majority of people on this site, as well as liberals in general, have called our troops murders, criminals,
LIE. AN ABSOLUTE LIE. DEFEND THAT STATEMENT OR APOLOGIZE PUBLICLY.
and stating that the war is unjust and accomplishing nothing but death.
And? What of it? It's supporters of OUR war (it is being fought in my name, regardless of my support) and occupation of Iraq who claim it's about freedom. And yet those same people tend to be the same who are so willing to take those very freedoms away.
And further, I never said our military was fighting for our freedom. I never believed they were. What I said was
"And these are the same jingoistic sorts who claim we're fighting in Iraq for our freedoms. "
Maybe you don't know who I meant when referring to "jingoistic sorts."
"Especially when majority of people on this site, as well as liberals in general, have called our troops murders, criminals, and stating that the war is unjust and accomplishing nothing but death."
BITE YOUR TONGUE! How much money have you sent the troops? Point to ONE EXAMPLE on this site of what you speak of! Also, have you fought or are you going to be someone later in life like Romney who will say "I regret not fighting."
I support candidates who support the troops when they get home. I vote for the ones funding health benefits, who advocate shorter tours and more benefits for these guys.
So, now, you are not only a racist, but also a liar?
You've revealed yourself to be quite the flaming sphincter, haven't you? I don't think I've ever seen anyone call our troops murderers, at least not without getting pummelled by all us anti-troop liberals.
It is also a FACT, at least it's being reported as such, that the Republican majority in the military is diminishing rapidly, with less than 35 percent of military members and their families supporting the war and approving of Bush's performance in office.
the first part of your post does not really deserve a response other than no liberals and everyone on this siite do not say those things about our troops, but many conservative pundits accuse us of it. I guess if you here it repeated often enough that serves as proof to some.
The bigger point is why is it that conservatives who call themselves partiots and claim to love our country so much and worship the military are the ones that say that we need to arm ourselves against the same country and military.
Who really loves the country more? Those who critize the actions of the country or those who arm themselves against it?
You are a LIAR AND A FOOL. The majority of liberals NOR the majority of people on this site have NOT called the troops murderers you moronic lying troll.
Because you should not be ENTITLED to rights of the constitution if you are put into a situation to garnish them due to ILLEGAL ACTIONS. Simple concept.
Reward for breaking the law? yeah, that makes sense.
How did a child break the law by being born here?
What is so wrong with extending our Constitutional rights to people who are "undocumented' or "illegal"? Why shouldn't we, as the greatest nation on earth, a nation who prides itself on spreading democracy world-wide, NOT afford everyone (whether in this country legally, illegally, undocumented or on vacation or business) the same rights we enjoy? What makes us so much better than everyone else, especially when we are trying to encourage every other country in the world to embrace American democracy?
So you're saying that if you break the law, you don't deserve the protections of the Constitution? Wow...you need to get on the horn and let defense lawyers nation-wide know that they have been practing law incorrectly - and let the judges know that they have been ruling incorrectly for all these years.
You're a fool.
Oh by the way Freethinker, I am sick of people denying gays equal rights, but I do not say, "You damn dirty Christian." Now do I? No. You're "dirty Mexican" comment was uncalled for.
This has nothing to do with gay rights. And freedom of religion says that christians do not have to agree with gay lifestyle or gay rights. The constitution defines the legality for gay rights, not christians or any other religion.
"This has nothing to do with gay rights"
Yes, I know, but I do not insult a religion nor do I call someone what is basically a racial epithet (since "Mexican" was pretty much a way to describe anyone Hispanic to you) like you did just because I disagree with their opinion.
"Freedom of religion says that Christians do not have to agree with the gay lifestyle or gay rights."
Yes, I know, just like you don't have to agree that these unarmed immigrants should have been spared their lives. But again I did not use a racial epithet and was more civil.
Free - what you're failing to realize is that people, no matter how outraged they become, still must comport themselves as law abiding individuals. It's called taking responsibility for yourself. It's illogical to say that since the government "won't" take care of the illegal immigration problem, that normal, everyday, tax-paying citizens are "forced" to take the law into their own hands. No one was forced in this situation. To say it's the government's fault is misplacing blame and anger. Mr. Horn brought this upon himself. If he would have just stayed inside his home, as directed, the police would have arrived and taken care of the burglars. Where is Mr. Horn's personal responsibility. Why are you blaming the government for him taking the law into his own hands when you know - and Mr. Horn knows - that such an action as shooting people who are posing no threat to Mr. Horn is wrong. Mr. Horn is responsible for his actions and should be held accountable.
Any other time, you right-wing bedwetters are complaining that people don't take responsibility for their actions. Why is this situation different?
Not all, but some would argue that Mr. Horns actions took personality responsibility for to stop a criminal action. Right or wrong, is not up to me to determine as I am not the court of law.
That in regards to the government and law, it is the goverment who is solely responsible for the problem - and not just on the federal level. First off, these two came into the country illegaly. Secondly, they were both arrested at different times in Houston - one was deported and came back illegally, the other was convicted & put in jail, then released without notifying the federal government to deport him. Thirdly, they both ended up in the US illegally again, only to committ another crime. So who is truly to blame for these two being in the situation and getting shot - besides their own actions? The local govt (houston), the federal governemtn (border security). If those two were enforced the way they should be, this whole situation would not have taken place. No one ever said Mr. Horn knew these guys were illegals, so this was clearly not a hate crime on his behalf of targeting illegal aliens. It was Mr. Horn going against what he was told, and doing what he felt he needed to do to protect his neighbors property and bring these two down. Was he right? No, I dont think so. Buts a lose-lose situation. He shoots them, now people want him prosecuted. If he lets them go and perhaps the police dont make it in time to arrest them - maybe those two go on and kill an innocent american somewhere. There hundreds of ifs, ands, or buts....BUT the initial responsibility on this entire situation resides on the local and federal governments not doing what the law says, and not properly enforcing the borders to ensure security of its citizens. Mr. Horn may or may not be tried - but this will definately open the eyes of the local and federal government as many are placing blame on them, and they need to take the initative fix the immigration problem.
You're still wrong. Bottom line is this: the two men would still be alive (probably in jail, being punished like you want them to be) if it weren't for the actions of Mr. Horn and his itchy trigger finger. The government does have a responsibility to crack down on illegal aliens. But, as we all know, this Mr. Horn didn't know they were illegals, so this whole illegal argument is wholly irrelevant. The man shot two people who were not posing a threat. He's a murderer and should be tried and sent to prison.
Im still wrong lol, okay. I like how you lefties run away from every illegal immigration topic because there is no defense for it. Please, just tell me this and enlighten me....what do you think should be done about immigration? what do you think we should have done to make sure the two illegals who got shot werent in that situation to begin with? what do you think we should do about sanctuary cities?
You want to know what I think should be done about immigration. Fine. Here's my solution. But don't complain because it's not exactly what you'd like.
I believe that we should make our naturalization process easier. Right now, immigrants who come into this country legally have to know more about American history, politics and government than even naturally born Americans who go through our educational system. I propose that we make it easier to immigrate to the U.S. I believe that if we make it easier to come here, many might decide to choose the path to citizenship. We need to make the process of naturalization more attractive to prospective immigrants. We need to make immigrants feel more welcome - to embrace the ideals of democracy that we hold dear. At the same time, we should screen immigrants. Those who are fleeing countries because they are criminals should be turned away. If they are here outside of the naturalization program, we should humanely deport them. Many have reasons for not going through the system - and we can help them instead of hating them. I believe this is one way (and only a start) to showing the world that we are compassionate people, not hate-mongering jingoists. Once we begin changing the way we do things, immigrants might be more inclined to come here through the naturalization process.
While this is only the beginning of a solution to this issue, there is a lot more work that needs to be done. We are a nation of immigrants. We should continue to build upon that.
Good ideas.
what do you think we should have done to make sure the two illegals who got shot werent in that situation to begin with?
Easy. Don't shoot them.
Sorry, but shooting two people who pose no threat to you is not considered behaving responsibly - no matter how you try to dice it.
Furthermore, Mr. Horn acted alone, against the orders of the authorities. He should take responsibility for killing two men - in cold blood.
And, again, you're wrong. The government isn't the only entity at fault with regards to our failed immigration policy. Look at your right-leaning business owners who hire undocumented workers in order to save a buck. Again, GREED is part of the issue.
How do you propose we punish illegal immigrants? By putting them in jail - so we can pay for them? Do you want to torture them so they won't come back when they're eventually deported?
What kind of punishment do you suggest?
Physical punishment is not a way to deter them. The way to punish them is to take away everything that makes them come here illegally. Take away the birthright law, enforce the borders like many countries do - you come across by force and you will be shot - as well as building a fence accross the entire length of the border, shut down companies who employ illegals, and not permit them any access to federal tax benefits like welfare, social security, medicaid, SCHIP, medical hospitals, etc.
Its simple. It causes no physical harm, takes away the reasons to come illegally. If they get caught here illegally more than once, then hold them in jail for a minimum of 10 years. I would rather pay to have them in jail, then let an unlisted person roam around on my streets with the potential to committ a crime and not knowing who he/she is.
FORCE them to apply for citizenship legally, or obtain legal work visas. If they overstay their visa, even by 1 day, then deport them and never allow them return to the country ever again.
Its simple. It causes no physical harm, takes away the reasons to come illegally. If they get caught here illegally more than once, then hold them in jail for a minimum of 10 years. I would rather pay to have them in jail, then let an unlisted person roam around on my streets with the potential to committ a crime and not knowing who he/she is. - The Not So Free Thinker------------------------------------------
So you are for causing pain and hardship on people. You must be one of those "special Christian" folks who want to punish people who don't see things your way. For God's sake man, why are you so hateful? Many of us here on the Left want a solution to the immigration issue. I want immigrants to be legal. But you don't think about the fact that even IF it were possible to round up 12-15 million illegals, doing so would be a tremendous drain on our economy. "Illegals" pay taxes, whether you want to admit it or not. They aren't the drain on the economy as many on the Right believe.
It's funny to me that people on the Right who claim to be Christians are some of the greediest people in this country. What ever happened to Jesus' teaching [and I'm quoting from memory, not directly from the Bible] "What you do to the least of us, you do to me?" "Illegals" (damn, I really hate that term - as I don't believe people can be "illegal") are people too - and many times they are very poor, living on very little, sending the majority of their pay back to their country of origin to feed their kids. They are doing exactly what YOU would do if you were in their situation - take care of their families at all costs.
And you want to put repeat "illegal" offenders in jail for 10 years? Really? That seems to go against your Republican greed.
Let's not forget that "illegals" came from somewhere, somewhere they could have stayed and lived out a decent life. We shouldn't feel bad about expecting them to stay there until they can come here legally.
"I would rather pay to have them in jail, then let an unlisted person roam around on my streets with the potential to committ a crime and not knowing who he/she is."
Sure, you'd rather pay for that now, in theory. But as soon as any politician tells the obvious truth that we need to raise taxes to cover that expense, you'll be outside his house carrying a torch and a pitchfork.
Sheeplethinker wants the citizens of Houston who PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAX to lose all federal dollars because he disagrees with their policies. He is scum and I hope HE gets what HE deserves.
How about the city of Houston having officials (police chief and mayor) who abide by the federal laws? they are already hurting their tax paying people.
Lets suppose what you say is true though I do not agree. YOU would collectively punish the PEOPLE of Houston for the decisions made by the Mayor and Policechief. That makes sense HOW?
First, I'm not sure what there is to debate about Houston being a sanctuary city by the direction of its Mayor, Bill White. This has been in place since 1992. The Mayor himself, has instructed the Houston police not to inforce immigration policy because he claims its a "federal matter". Why does he do this? Thats easy - local taxes are brought in from basic sales tax. The more people in your city, the more tax money you get for the city. Therefore, the Mayor has made it his policy NOT to follow federal law by reporting all illegal aliens found to the federal immigration authorities.
Second, the Mayor of the city of Houston is punishing the people in his city - not the government. Federal funding comes from a "basket" of taxes from all citizens in the US. Why should my tax money, and the tax money of americans in general, go to the city of Houston for the Mayors disposable, when he doesn't follow federal law? By not giving his city federal funding, it will in turn, require him to follow federal law like he is supposed to. Do you really think the citizens of his city would allow him to defy the federal government if there were penalties that would effect them involved? No. They would kick his sorry butt out of office.
So you want to punish people who have nothing to do with the immigration issue by taking away badly needed Federal funds?
You really like to punish people - even innocent people, don't you?
You believe that people should be FORCED to do things or be punished. That's not the American way. You, sir, are anti-American.
I am not disputing the Sanctuary City thing. I know why they do that. So that illegals can be approached by the police to solve violent crimes without them worrying about being sent away. That is a sort of priority law enforcement. I dont care if you agree or not that is the decision they made. YOU would punish the entire populace of the city because of that decision saying that it ISNT doing so is ludicrous on the face of it. The people of Houston pay federal taxes and you would take away FROM TAX PAYING CITIZENS federal money THEY pay into. It is stupid, flat out stupid. You dont get to SAY how your tax dollars are spent. I dont like MY tax dollars going to pay for the war in Iraq nor building nuclear weapons nor corporate wellfare. Tough. Neither of us get to make that call. Your bigoted posts are disgusting and make me want to puke. Those were human beings. Not any less so because they were brown or here illegally. Being here illegally OR burglarizing a house does NOT call for a death sentence. The man needs to go STRAIGHT TO F$&^?KING PRISON, directly after being found guilty at his fair trial, that same fair trial he DENIED the two housebreakers. That you cannot understand this simple concept is sad and pathetic.
Almost every federal law passed down to the States gets enforced by the threat of withholding federal funds, e.g. the age 21 drinking law, no child left behind, speed limits. The Feds are always tossing in benchmarks and requirements for the various block grants.
And by the way, I really hope Mr Horn is charged with murder. He shot and killed two men who posed no harm to him, did not invade his property, he did not have permission from (didn't even know) the neighbor. If this is ruled to be OK, it will mean that it's OK to kill anyone you see who you can assume has committed a crime.
He wont be charged, and thank god for that. The two illegals will not garnish much sympathy from the legal american citizens - especially in texas. Too many americans are getting sick of this, and getting tired of the government not acting on it.
Free,
You said you went overboard and now you are saying that Mr. Horn does not deserve to be charged, which is it?
Also, do you think that Americans that overstay their visas deserve to be shot as well?
I think americans who overstay their visa's should be held accountable and charged by the laws of the country they are in. If that country has harsh penalties, then maybe the american should have thought about that before going there.
I dont think Mr Horn should be charged with murder, but should be charged with some sort of crime for not obeying the police. If the man was running towards his door, then by all means shoot him.
The point is, that if cities obeyed federal law, and the govt would crackdown on illegal immigration, Mr Horn & these two illegals would not have been put in this situation. But on the flip side, if the government is not going to crackdown on immigration, that just leaves the door open for more people to be here, and more crimes to be committed. That does not show security for its citizens. If I was in the same positition as Mr Horn, and saw someone breaking into my neighbors home, and ahd the chance to shoot him down, I would - it wouldnt be to kill, but it would be to inflict enough damage to make sure he stays down until the authorities get there. This case, the authorities were only seconds behind, but often times - especially in the big city, these guys get away and its just not right.
The key here, Free, is that Horn knew the authorities were only seconds behind. That is why he should be held liable for some sort of homicide.
I suggest, if you are to be taken seriously (and you do make some well thought-out posts), you re-visit the remarks you made about Mexicans a few pages back. I think an apology might be in order.
The two illegals will not garnish much sympathy from the legal american citizens - especially in texas.
And why should they, right? It's not like they're humans or anything.
Whether they "garnish" sympathy from the locals or not is meaningless.
This guy will be ,tried by the impartial judicial system, not by sympathetic locals.
That remains to be seen - and if he is tried, who do you think the jury will be? The neighbors in his city that he went out of his way to protect - no thanks to the city of Houston.
Texas is loaded with people full of common sense and who don't want some whackjob living next door who will shoot people indiscriminately.
You sure do love painting with broad brushes.
He didnt protect ANYBODY. No one was at risk. At BEST he was protecting property. There is NO SELF DEFENSE motive here.
I know if I were his neighbor I'd be none too pleased that bullets were flying around on the streets my daughters play on.
The man is an irresponsible pig. He has no right to endanger innocent lives the way he did.
Where to begin with the "never would have happened" stuff when it comes to undocumented immigrants?... How about 1/2 the food on your table, the new roof on your house, your pristine landscaped yard, etc.?
As the son of a once "illegal immigrant" (if you insist on calling them that), I suppose I "never would have happened" either if my father was not given the opportunity to eventually marry, become a citizen, and raise a family - just like MOST "illegals" are doing.
Of course, my father had one big plus going for him, though - he was white!
How do you feel about American workers whose wages are being undercut by illegals? Is this fair to them? How about employers who knowingly hire illegals? Should they be punished? How about the strains on our education and health care system? How about those that immigrate legally and wade through the system with patience while abiding by our laws? Is it fair that someone who sneaks into the country and breaks our laws gets a pass and a place in line before them?
Of course Houston's sanctuary policy is not directly to blame for this crime. But these policies have not worked, they need to be suspended and O'Reilly is right about one thing - federal funding needs to be halted to those cities who continue it.
Funding is a big part of the problem. State and local governments are being asked to pay for enforcing the Federal Immigration laws.
Money from the Federal Government to the states has decreased at the same time that the states are being asked to shoulder more of the burden.
I don't know the answer, but I know this is not a black and white issue.
But then these days, everything has to be either black or white. That's why our government is not working.
If no one is willing to compromise, nothing will ever get done.
Compromise is supposed to be a sign of political maturity.
We need to grow up.
Worrier,
The reason for these sanctuary city policies orignially is so illegals wouldn't be afraid to report crime, its intention was a good one - but just look at LA for example, it has not worked. It is time to suspend it and see how that works.
That is compromise.
"How do you feel about American workers whose wages are being undercut by illegals?"
I think that angle is crap. Employers will seek to pay as little as possible regardless of immigrant status.
How do you feel about American wages being undercut by companies emmigrating good paying maufacturing jobs out of the country?
Ask a misplaced worker whose wage has been cut from say $15 an hour and is now being paid to an illegal for $8. It's not crap at all, it's reality.
It's amazing how Democrats always say they look out for the little guy. Now, that's crap.
So blame the desparate laborer instead of the unethical employer?
Totally bogus. We need to uderstand immigration within the framework of worker exploitation if we are to find mutually beneficial solutions for citizens and immigrants.
Read my first post, you're incredible the way you can't discuss this without misrepresenting my position, which is why you must not have a leg to stand on.
First off, you never addressed my point of undercutting wages except to call it "crap", then you say I want to ignore employers, where I specifically said they should be punished.......so I don't know what your point is, do you?
I most certainly did address undercut wages...within the framework of worker exploitiation, which went ignored. It was ignored because it doesn't fit the deregulation frame for business.
Furthermeore, I am not talking about punishment. That's the black and white conservative answer to everything. Punish it, kill it, whip it. Please. Whatever. Punishment has its place in some things, but not in all things.
I am talking specifically about finding solutions that help. I'm talking about laws that protect workers rights, I'm talking about rewarding employers for getting back to their roles as community stewards and leaving behind the dogma of profit over people.
Mutual responsibility.
Live in your theoretical world while hard working Americans are losing their jobs to those that are in this country illegally. Or look the other way when employers break the law and hire them.
So much for worker's rights. What about our citizen's rights?
Geez, talk about ignoring valid points. That takes the cake.
It is absolutely within the authority of our democratically elected representatives to institute laws that reward ethical business practices.
Suit yourself, live in the unenlightened dark ages the rest of your days. The rest of us will progress and evolve.
No, the topic is not unethical business practices, it is illegal immigration.
Actually the topic is O'Reilly's defense of a murderer. But since you wanted to go off topic, I didn't think you would mind if I made a related point too.
Read the headline and tell me again the topic is not illegal immigration.
O'Reilly blamed killing of two alleged burglars on "Houston's sanctuary city policies"
Nice try tommy. My point is valid.
So, your veering off topic to talk about unethical business practices is just as valid as the 70+ posts addressing illegal immigration?
Now that's a nice try.
The unethical exploitation of laborers around the world is a root cause of human migration.
IMHO, Tommy, the topic isn't illegal immigration. That's the way O'Reilly framed it. It's about a guy with a gun who disobeyed law enforcement orders, went outside, shot two humans (not knowing their status, even thinking they were African-Americans). How could Mr. Horn have known that these men were illegals? This nonsense just amazes me.
CSL,
Mr. Horn needs to be prosecuted to the extent of the laws in his jurisdiction. I do not advocate otherwise.
Then we are in agreement, for once. :)
Also, the exploitation of laborers around the world is a large part of the root cause of human migration.
Unethical busines practices and illegal immigration are symbiotically intertwined.
Shouldn't there be consequences for hiring illegal immigrants? This is a major issue and a compassionate approach is not always the best answer. The government is knowingly allowing people to break the law and doing nothing about it. Menawhile, REAL CITIZENS and those who acutally follow the process to come here are the ones being punished.
It's just the way I am. Compassionate. I was born that way. And I am one of those real citizens and I have not been punished by economic refugees.
I have been punished by NAFTA style trade deals that hand the dignity of the American laborer to the filthy, job pilfering corporate executives. So don't merely fine them for unethical behaviour, take away their ability to exploit people and reward them for fostering community values.
You understand that the companies are employing illegals because they can pay them under the table, saving money, and get the same pay. If the illegals were in fact legal, they would require higher wages & have to pay federal tax. In that case, the illegal would not be able to afford to live on that wage in the US. Thats why US workers cannot take those landscaping jobs - because the illegals will work illegally, and the companies are at fault for operating illegaly. You force the companies out of business, then solve one the illegal immigration policies because you can refuse them work.
Whose fault is it that employers are hiring undocumented workers?
Also, a lot of illegal immigrants have faked documents which they provide when asked. This results in them being taxed and paying into social security -- the latter they'll never get back.
You're painting with way to broad a brush.
And Why? Big Business. The "if I have this made in China by 14-year-old illiterate farmworkers, it'll cost 2 cents less per unit" profit motive that rules the world.
isnt that funny? the right wing blames the dispossessed Mexican migrant moving back to his or her ancestral lands, stolen a handful of generations ago, looking for opportunities to to improve their socio-economic status.
So, open the borders? Good solution.
lol, is that your idea of an argument? thats a classic strawman. good work on destroying an argument i never made. im simply agreeing with the post above me
So why do you want to close the borders then if you feel Mexico is entitled to their land back? Why should they have something closed to them that is their ancestral land? Makes no sense.
Of course it makes no sense, you're totally reshaping everything i said, and its disingenuous, but you know, whatever floats your boat. I didnt say Mexico was 'entitled to its land back' despite the fact it was taken illegally. I'm simply putting hte economic disparity between the two countries in the context of the wrongs committed against Mexico. I don't think the southwest should be given back to mexico at all. I think the idea of not prosecuting a man who shot and killed two migrants, 'illegal' or otherwise, is dispicable, especially when you consider the historical narrative that has left many mexicans impoverished, and desperate enough to migrate to a country that clearly has the potential to rabidly hate their presence.
So we should just give back the Southwest back to Mexico. Perhaps you should move from your home and give it back to the Native American tribe who inhabited the area in which you live.
ok well thats not what i said, I'm simply pointing out how ridiculous it is to blame poor mexicans for taking the opportunities presented to them. I dont begrudge anyone who is so desperate they will illegally enter a country and live in constant fear of imprisonment or deportation simply to provide for their families. If people like O'Reilly have so much room in their heart for hate, for these kind of people, i think that's really sad.
AS for American Indians... well I dont live in the United States, im visiting. I live in New Zealand, and we have a shared treaty with out indigenous people whereby they maintain rangatiratanga, or gaurdianship. We dont live under the ethnocentric doctrines of the united states, "take hope, war is elsewhere, you were chosen, this is gods land." yeah.
Point taken about where you live. It looks I inserted my foot in my mouth there, sorry about the assumption.
Perhaps I misunderstood you but it seems you attempted to frame an argument that these people were somehow entitled to come here because it was their ancestral land. I also don't begrudge a person for wanting to come to America and have a better life. I do beleive that we area nation of LAW. The rule of law is the glue which holds us together. Letting people break the law to the detriment of others is not o.k. Perhaps you would see this different if millions of illegal immigrants were invading New Zealand.
sure in hindsight my point was blurry. like i said, i was putting 'illegal immigration.' it would be a pretty radical idea to suggest Mexicans had an indigenous right to live in the southern states, despite how valid the argument may or may not be.
i dont think you put your foot in your mouth it was a fair assumption. and NZ is a different country in a different context. we do have a lot of polynesian immigrants. but the point more, i think, is that 'sanctuary city' policies and amnesty for migrants is not part of the problem, but more an attempted solution. the problem is the economic disparity, the historical injustices, the half-hearted attempts to keep mexicans out beceause they do provide an advantage for business in terms of low wages, and agreements like NAFTA which exascerbate the economic problems.
For O'Really to blame migrants and local governments attempting to deal with the problem is absurd. and to now suggest its acceptable to shoot criminals, perhaps especially if they're 'illegal' migrants, is bordering on evil.
I AM a displaced worker - I hang drywall for a living, and the pickings have been getting pretty slim, thanks, in large part, to the general contractors in my area hiring largely illegal crews - (I'm not just assuming Mexican crews are illegal crews, there have been several raids and quite a bit of press about it in the area) I believe stridently in stricter enforcement of immigration policy - I feel we need to get our own economic house in order before we bring in more children to the American "family." That said, these men should never have been shot. "we hold these truths to be self-evident - that ALL MEN are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." the emphasis is obviously mine. Nowhere does it say the the men in question must be U.S. citizens to be endowed with these rights.
Well said South, Of course this man who shot them should be prosecuted. We don't operate in a vigilante system and take the laws into our own hands.
I am sorry to hear you have displaced by employers who care more about cheap labor than following our laws and providing a decent well paying job for American citizens, it is reprehensible, and you are far from alone in your situation. Good luck in your future endeavors.
It's nice to know that those who understand your plight and realize the reality of what is going on, are not just spewing "crap".
Thanks, man. I'm just one guy trying to "put food on his family" :-)
You're very welcome, I commend your restraint as well. If I had lost my job to an illegal I am not so sure my emotions wouldn't overtake any compassion I may have for those who break our immigration laws.
You're to be admired.
Nah. if i actually HAD a family, I might be a little more hot-headed... the above comment was just poking a little gentle fun at the comedian-in-chief. My compassion stems from an understanding of the human condition - people need to eat, and to feed their families - it's the whole "would you steal bread to feed your starving children" dichotomy. I'm sure illegals understand entering the country illegally is a crime, but their options are fairly limited. Unfortunately, the law is the law, and there is only so much bread to go around. I wish the situation wasn't so damned nuanced, but such is life. American families need to eat too - and I'm really tired of hearing the worn-out old "jobs Americans don't want" line - I am quite fond of my job, when i can get it... Skilled labor pays well - hanging drywall is not something any bum off the street can come in and do without some decent training. I guess I get tired of my skills being devalued and farmed out to people who, for whatever reason, will perform the tasks for a third of what I feel they are worth. Oh well, rant done.
How do you feel about American workers whose wages are being undercut by illegals? Is this fair to them?I feel it's about as fair to them as the jobs being outsourced overseas.
How about employers who knowingly hire illegals? Should they be punished?If they are being hired into full-time positions that could be filled by real citizens, yes.
How about the strains on our education and health care system?And the "cheap labor" provided to our economy is no offset for that?
Is it fair that someone who sneaks into the country and breaks our laws gets a pass and a place in line before them?No, but do you have a solution that would work without making them all criminals? I can name a lot of policies that aren't "fair".
Now, does crime follow some immigrants? No doubt, some - but most are honest law abiding people. It's easy to use a broad brush to paint the picture based on the actions of a few. Read your history books - we've always had ethnically based bias toward the most prevalent group of immigrants for that time. Ask anyone of Irish, Italian, Polish, or German decent of the horror stories in their families regarding the persecution their fathers experienced. Personally, I truly believe this to be more of a racial issue than anything. If the Canadian economy was to somehow crumble and there was a huge influx of English speaking immigrants from the "Great WHITE North", I sincerely doubt these neocons would be 1/2 as angry and hateful as they seem to be.
PJ - If the Canadian economy was to somehow crumble and there was a huge influx of English speaking immigrants from the "Great WHITE North", I sincerely doubt these neocons would be 1/2 as angry and hateful as they seem to be.
I'm not so sure about that, what with their Universal Health Care, Gun Control & Gay Marriage - the neocons may still get quite irate.
You apparently don't even know what a neocon is, or you wouldn't use it in this context.
And to imply a racial motive to those that want our immigration laws enforced is sooooooooo typical, it's nearly laughable anymore. And not worth dignifying any further.
I read a LOT of bloggs besides MM - on both side of the issue. I try to stick with websites that allow anyone to participate and where posts are not hand-picked or censored.
All I will say is that even if it is not the "intent" (Larry Craig catchword) of whoever is making an arguement against "illegal immigration" - the argument, and promoting ideas like a fence between Mexico, fuels the fire for the huge number of racist comments that I see on these bloggs.
There is a large segment of our population who would rather not see another additional "person of color" introduced into their world. Let's be honest and realistic about it.
There are racists who hate Mexicans.
Then there are people who want the sovereignty of our country and our immigration laws upheld because it's the right thing to do, the fair thing to do and the law abiding thing to do.
then those people should be all over impeaching/replacing this entire Bush administration that is doing ZERO to enforce the U.S.'s laws...
Trust me, as a conservative, I am not in favor of Bush's view on immigration - as most conservatives arent. However, majority of the republicans in congress have a drastically different viewpoint on how to handle immigration than Bush - and it doesnt involve amnesty. We allowed amnesty a while back, and that solved nothing as we have the same issue again.
However, majority of the republicans in congress have a drastically different viewpoint on how to handle immigration than Bush
They were in the majority in Congress for six years. Why didn't they do anything?
As for the amnesty not solving anything, weren't you the one complaining that illegals don't pay any taxes because they're undocumented? So all those that were granted amnesty are presumably now paying taxes and such, right? So it solved that big problem you were concnered about, didn't it?
And to imply a racial motive to those that want our immigration laws enforced is sooooooooo typical, it's nearly laughable anymore. And not worth dignifying any further. - Tommy
------------------------------------------------
Tommy, take a look at FreeThinker's post re: Mexicans - and then you can amend what I quoted you as saying above. It's ridiculous to say that at least some, if not a lot, of the hatred toward undocumented immigrants isn't based in racism.
Since you belong to the cult of the "free market", what's the problem?
Hiring illegals is just like sending jobs overseas. It's called "staying competitive in a global economy". Are you suggesting that the wasteful (and therefore evil) government step-in and tell companies not to hire these people? Blasphemy!
And the strain on our government and our taxes? Wouldn't the "Almighty free market" save us from this?
But then again, maybe you are thinking of the poor CEO's who would end up paying taxes to support these illegals' use of these institutions. Then yes, it would in fact be better if we sent these jobs overseas instead of hiring illegals. Poisioned toys from China be damned!
Hiring illegals is illegal.
Entering this country illegally is illegal.
If you're illegally in this country and working, that is illegal.
It's quite simple.
And only wanting to target the southern border while ignoring the far longer northern border or the cuban connection is a racist policy.
I don't believe I have advocated either one, but nice straw argument anyway.
I didn't make a straw argument or imply you advocated it. I just added to your statement. You should stop assuming that if I respond to you, it's always a negative response. I've supported you on several occasions...
Snoop, I know that, but why introduce it at all then as a response to me? I have never said anything like that, and one could easily assume from your response that I have.
I guess I didn't think of it that way, tommy. I will do a better job of making it known I'm adding to the list when I do that in the future.
Thank you, I think we all have done it on occasion, appreciate it.
Here's a good tip to use if you insist on trying to have a conversation with Tommy ( I really don't recommend it:) Don't associate any actual ideas, solutions or suggestions to him. Because he never offers any of these. Just vapid, bumper-sticker arguments he doesn't have to defend and will deny any responsibility for defending.
Remember, Tommy isn't a Democrat, a Republican, a Conservative, or a Liberal. He's not suggesting anything, he's not offering anything, and he most definitely did NOT say what you thought he said. I think the smarter people on this thread have stopped bothering trying to engage Tommy in any kind of intelligent, adult conversation. It's a real waste of time.
HAHA!!
"I think the smarter people on this thread have stopped bothering trying to engage Tommy"
Which explains your engagement and weird little post on my behalf.
So, get some smarts and ignore me PLEASE!
Um, I wasn't replying to you, idiot. I know better.
Ignore ME, please. I was trying to talk to the grown-ups.
Being that it's Friday afternoon and I could kick you around just for sport and giggles, and as delicious it would be to watch you embarass yourself even more - nah, I am in a sentimental and sympathetic mood, so I will just say have a nice weekend.
Why do ya suppose so many "conversations" with Tommy end in that fashion? What could possibly be the common denominator?
But isn't government interfering with big business?
Hiring illegals is illegal.
Entering this country illegally is illegal.
If you're illegally in this country and working, that is illegal.
It's quite simple.
Are you advocating vigilante justice and instant executions for illegal aliens, Tommy?
I can certainly see how you got that from what I said ~ ~ eye roll ~ ~
The problem is that many of the illegals DO NOT want to be citizens, because that would make them start paying taxes. I lived in Chicago where there is a HUGE illegal population. They work their butts off for 9 months, then take the money back to mexico for their families. When you take from the system, and not put into it, it does hurt the economy. Those are the people we are getting sick of - as well as the ones bringing over drugs and committing crimes. The problem is - you dont hear anything GOOD out there about illegals - because they dont want to be heard or found, they dont want people to know they are here illegally because they will be deported.
Ahh, yes the selfish, leeching "other" meme.
You should stop projecting your hate of taxes onto undocumented workers. And if you think immigrants hurt the economy try removing their labor from the economy. Simple fact is that these folks make your life easy and cheap and they deserve your gratitude.
Here's a positive story of a border crosser that you can ignore.
[link to www.wtop.com]
Border-Crosser Who Rescued Boy Honored December 4, 2007 - 6:40pm
By AMANDA LEE MYERS Associated Press Writer
NOGALES, Ariz. (AP) - An illegal immigrant who rescued a 9-year-old after the boy's mother died in a car accident in the southern Arizona desert was honored Tuesday by U.S. and Mexican officials at a border crossing.
Great , now tonight Olbermann will use this material and name OReilly the "Worst Person in the World" . and we will read about this on Monday .
And yes Oreilly is wrong, I get it .
I think it's obvious by now that no one here is impressed with your psychic abilities.
You should talk to John Edward for advice on how to cash in on your supernatural power of premonition.
Thanks, Miss Cleo.
Another brilliant prediction that nobody but you gives a flying f*ck about .What is your deal, Sueeld?
Wow
You just do not like independent thought and discussion. Not suprising.
Noun, verb, Olbermann. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Noun, verb, Pete. Lather, rinse, repeat
Re-Pete would have been pretty funny, Sue. But that would have required an independent thought, aside from that independent thought that you had a year ago and have posted here every day since.
As i said, you do not like independent thinkers, that is ok, your partisan smells
Soo-EEY! We like independent thinkers- the problem I, and others, have with your posts is that they are repetitive and unoriginal, and lack serious substance... and please contact Olberman personally so you can ask him your question...
Sue,
Some here are more intent on criticizing others than discussing ideas. It happens and is generally aimed at those who don't follow the MMFA line of thought. I think it will always be that way.
By now most of the regulars here have come to the same conclusion and simply talk about the issues, with perhaps a good natured jab thrown in every once in a while. It's much more interesting in my view to find and comment on those posts with whom I disagree with than with those with which I agree.
Your posts, even with an occasional ad hominum attacks, provide much grist for the mill. :-) It would be boring if we all agreed.
oops. I meant to say in the last paragraphs, "the ad hominum attacks toward you...".
Sorry for the confusion.
Thank you AA, I agree ;-)
It has nothing to do with wanting her to agree. It has to do with her psychotic obsession about Olbermann.
If Sue wanted...or was capable of...serious discussion, that would be fine.
Sue,
Why don't you demonstrate all of the independent thinking you keep taking about in the quality of your postings?
The KO/hate rant hardly qualify as independent, original or even relevant in the majority of cases you post it in. Is it independent thinking when you attack people with accusations of partisanship when your challenged? FYI - That isn't a back up to a postion, it's deflecting the argument. Most of the independent thinkers I know welcome debate and are more then happy to back up thier postion.
I just washed my partisan.
Blahst! Now I've got to wash my monitor.
Conchobhar, if that was about my reply, and you figured out which far-away post it was in response to, you're a sharpie. Damn that unpredictable reply-to feature!
As i said, you do not like independent thinkers, that is ok
Let's assume you're right and I don't like independent thinkers.
I like you. QED.
Noun, verb, Olbermann. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Goddammit! You made me spit coffee all over my keyboard.
I know I "hate" it.
At this point, does what you do really qualify as discussion? Is that disdain of Olby's prominence on MMFA really independent thought?
This ain't a dig on you sue, I sometimes wonder why you think you are engaging in discussion or independent thought when what you are really doing is chiding posters for disagreeing with you.
No. We don't like it when people continually post the same the thing, which has nothing to do with the topic you are commenting on.
P.S. I hope you realize that you don't need to continually type this phrase; you can save it on a clipboard and wait for the next article highlighting something stupid and bigoted O'Reilly said (which should be any minute now).
Wow
You just do not like independent thought and discussion. Not suprising.
Independent thought and discussion are sorely lacking in your posts, Sue. They're nothing but mindless right-wing propaganda and drivel.
Obsession is not independent thought. Why not do some honest stalking of Keith or did that TRO scare you away? Your Keith fixation is pathetic. What it ISNT is independent thought which you wouldnt know if it BIT YOU.
I don't think that Bill O. is wrong on the larger issue - the policy of "sancuary cities" needs to stop, and we need to enforce our own borders consistently across the nation.
I see it as a national security issue.
It's the policy, not the person? A murderer should not be prosecuted? O'Reilly is a hypocritical pig. A soft on crime, no personal responsibility hypocritical pig.
We have illegal immigrants in New Zealand too. Some of them commit crimes. But the only reason they don't end up dead is we don't have idiotic gun laws like the United States, with such a prevalence of gun ownership that the average citizen thinks it's acceptable to shoot at people for a crime like theft.
I simply love it when someone from another country points out the lunacy of some of the things that we tolerate or argue about in America. Seriously - a fresh viewpoint from a neutral source is usually the most enlightening.
Tom,
Some would argue that not enough people shoot back. Hence the high crime rate here.
And "some" would argue that Xenu, lord of the galaxy, imprisoned souls here on Earth that now have attached themselves to us and are responsible for all the ills of society.
I'm not saying it's true, just that "some" say that
O'Reillys take on this is absurd. To say that he hopes Horn is not prosecuted despite him gunning down two men is ridiculous. This isn't the Wild West where vigilante justice is tolerated.
O'Reilly needs to find a clue and apologize for this ridiculous take. Moron.
Right on Bruce.
Bruce,
Have you heard the 911 call? I heard it once a few days ago and if I remember correctly, Joe Horn went out to stop these guys and hold them till the police arrived.
He told them to stop and apparently they turned on him. A case of self defense? Maybe.
Have you heard the 911 call? I heard it once a few days ago and if I remember correctly, Joe Horn went out to stop these guys and hold them till the police arrived. He told them to stop and apparently they turned on him. A case of self defense? Maybe AA
AA, you need to listen to that call again. The 911 operator told Horn repeadedly not to go out, stay in his house. Horn boasted to the 911 operator that he had a rifle, cocked the bullet into the chamber and ask the 911 operator "did you hear that" and then told the 911 operator that he was going to kill them. Horn was quite cocky and did not sound frighten at all. It was only AFTER he shot and killed the men did he come back into his house, call 911 and pretend to be frighten and claimed they were coming at him in his yard. Self defense? Hell No! Vigliani justice?.....you bet!.
Yup. In fact, he specifically said he was going out to kill them "I'm gonna kill 'em".
A racist put the 911 call on youtube [link to www.youtube.com] wanna make a bet? I'm gonna kill 'em."
And then right before he shoots: "Yoohoo (or move, maybe), you're dead!" Blam.
If this man is not at least charged with murder, something's wrong.
Fawlty, I heard a lawyer from Texas say that Horn probably won't be charged cause there is some law in Texas where you have the right to defend your property with a gun or something like that. This lawyer said that if the case were taken to a grand jury they would choose not to bring charges cause the guys were robbing his neighbor's house.
Pearlene,
I did hear that. Yes, the guy may be charged with murder. I could tell he was agitated. I'll leave it up to the prosecutor. My guess is the forensics will help in determining if the victims were indeed coming after Horn.
I am not taking his side. I am just acknowledging there might be enough evidence that precludes bringing charges against this man. His vigilante attitude not withstanding, he may not have violated the law.
People say a lot of things. But listening to the tape, where he is admitting that he is "gonna kill 'em", and where it's clear they are not on his property, and no threat to him, reasonably you would have to conclude that the new "castle law" doesn't apply.
I think many who comment on the case simply haven't even bothered to listen to the call and know the facts.
I also find it troubling that supposed Christians think it's OK to kill 2 people over some loot they have in a bag, taken at someone else's house, and who are no threat to you. But that's Texas for you, I guess.
But that's Texas for you, I guess.
Sadly, it's not just Texas.
you have the right to defend your property with a gun.
The keyword being YOUR property - Isn't that the law in most states?
But if Texas has some law that allows you to play vigilante to protect your neighbors property, I wouldn't really be surprised. Texas is like its own little country in lot of ways - Cowboy justice prevails! I'm just glad I don't live there - and wish that everyone who agrees with that kind of thinking would!
PJ
The lawyer said it applied to your neighbor's house as well. To be honest when the lawyer said that the grand jury would be made up of people like Horn and that they would probably not vote to prosecute, I was so pissed, I stopped listening.
Not sure what that lawyer was talking about. There are several caveats in the "castle law", and I haven't seen anything in this case that suggests it would be applicable.
fawlty,
I interpreted Horn as saying, "Move and your dead".
ps. This is from memory. I may not have the exact quote but I remember that was the gist.
AA,
"Move and you're dead" certainly does not sound like self-defense to me.
What was he defending against? The two guys he blew away were unarmed.
Fried,
I am assuming he meant to hold them until the police came. However it doesn't look good for him in my book in that he disobeyed the dispatcher.
I'm not sure of the legal implications or whether given a direction over the phone is the same as being there in person.
It looks to me like this guy was trigger happy to begin with. I feel he was foolish to go out and confront the thieves. I think he was emotionally unstable at the time and felt he had to to do something.
I'm not law expert, but it seems to me that they must've been pretty close to him and if they made a move toward him, legally there might not be a case against him. However I don't know. I was just tossing it out for discussion.
I think it is a tragedy all the way around. Especially for the victims and their families.
I think that it is you who is the moron here. Americans have the right to defend their property, and the property of their neighbours.
But they were ILLEGALS, bro. It is now politically incorrect to be in defense of "illegals", haven't you noticed? In other words, it is politically correct to hate on "the other" (in terms of legality, what language they speak, etc.) It's as if the country is proud of admitting that we're a bunch of intolerant idiots. The presidential candidates' reactions to the various yes or no gotcha questions this year bear this out; the only real question in the (good ol') American mind appears to be whether to hang the Islamofascists with the guts of the illegals or the illegals with the guts of the Islamofascists. This is a truly disgusting story but I'm not at all surprised that O'Reilly would blame the illegals. In the white supremacist consciousness, no people of color really belong here and hence, deserve what they get.
I have NO sympathy for a cold-blooded murderer who ignored the dispatcher's orders.
Dtrain,
I find it hard to have any sympathy for the criminals who were killed. Because of the circumstances I would not describe Horn's actions as 'cold blooded murder'. A tragedy? Yes.
I would instead use that term to describe those at that mall who were innocently shot down by that deranged teenager.
A "Tragedy?" Like a Hurricane or a Flood? Are you for real?
What is "tragic" about a guy loading a rifle, leaving his house, and killing two people? IT'S MURDER. What is with some of you people??
Jam,
Maybe it is murder. I am not so sure. Yes, Horn killed the guys. However he was extremely stressed and I think an argument could be made regarding his state of mind. I have found that I have mixed emotions. Earlier I said I have little sympathy for the victims. I think I should take that back. Thinking it over, I feel it is a tragedy for the deceased and their families.
Should Horn be prosecuted for murder? Maybe. Some people are taught to defend property and fight criminal activities. Horn seems to be one of them. Did he think he was upholding the law? I think a case may be made that he was acting in good faith. Maybe Horn felt that he was defending his neighbors and their property? Did Horn know if they had weapons? Confronting criminals and wondering if one's life is in danger, is that murder? I don't know but my guess is that no it is not. Like I said earlier, I'll leave it up to the prosecutor.
I have seen little discussion regarding how much of the culpability lies with the thieves. Are they blameless? Isn't being shot at an occupational hazzard for thieves? Don't they know that going in? What do those here who feel Horn is a murderer, feel about the criminals? What if Horn let them go and they got away? What about the people who's items were stolen? What about the violation of their rights, property, and sense of security?
All of my questions are simply for discussion. I'd be interested in hearing what many of you think.
I am honestly not sure why this is even debated. The law is clear: if you, your family or your property is being attacked, you have the right to defend yourself, up to and including by killing th assailant. Read the bill: [link to www.capitol.state.tx.us] was attacking Mr Horn or his property. He said "I'm gonna kill 'em." and went out and did just that.
What is unclear here?
The last bit was supposed to be
Nobody was attacking Mr Horn or his property. He said "I'm gonna kill 'em." and went out and did just that.
What is unclear here?
I have seen little discussion regarding how much of the culpability lies with the thieves.
Yes there is culpability for the thieves. Stealing someones property is a crime, however they can never be punished because Horn took the law into his own hands. One of the basic principals in a civil society is law and order not vigilante justice.
Are they blameless?
Absolutely not. They were stealing, but again Horn decided be be judge and jury and executioner. He judged them, found them guilty and sentenced them to death, all for stealing.
Isn't being shot at an occupational hazzard for thieves?
By law enforcement and if their lives are threaten. I hate to keep beating a dead horse but again Horn was not law enforcement and if he had remained in his home as the 911 operator told him he would not have faced any threat, therefore no need for shooting anyone.
Don't they know that going in?
I assume they know the risks in stealing and I'm sure that they know that if they run from police they could face tasering or police dog. I would also assume that they know that if they threaten the police they would be shot, but the police are law enforcement.
What do those here who feel Horn is a murderer, feel about the criminals?
That they were criminals and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the LAW. We are a nation of laws, a civilized society not a group of gun toting people who are judge, jury and executioners.
What if Horn let them go and they got away? What about the people who's items were stolen? What about the violation of their rights, property, and sense of security?
If they got away the police would have tried to find them as police officers do each and every day. People have things stolen all the time. You can NEVER replace a human life with things. People are robbed and their sense of security is indeed lost but I imagine finding two dead bodies on their front lawn won't leave them with a sense of peace nor security.
I don't see how anyone can use their level of "sympathy for the victims" to analyze this situation. Who cares if you like who the victims are or what they were doing? For that matter, who cares if this Mr Horn guy was "under stress?" He loaded a gun, went outside his house, and shot two people dead. Two human beings. The fact that they were thieves or that they were here illegally seems to be way beyond the point.
If Mr. Horn is not charged and convicted for this crime, it's open season on undocumented aliens in the United States. Maybe that's a happy thought for some people.
"However he was extremely stressed and I think an argument could be made regarding his state of mind."
What a touchy-feely liberal argument. Why do you lefties always want to coddle criminals, and make excuses for them?
Haven't there been cases with mentally handicapped people and the death penalty? I don't remember many right-wingers talking about mental states there. Guy's got an IQ of 50 and killed someone? Fry him. Guy was under stress and shot two unarmed burglars? Let's talk it out on Oprah.
"Should Horn be prosecuted for murder? Maybe. Some people are taught to defend property and fight criminal activities."
You could teach your kid to shoplift from Walmart, since they make such big profits and you personally could use the extra cheese. That doesn't make it legal. People should be taught to understand the role of law enforcement and the powers of citizens vs. those of the legal system.
"Did Horn know if they had weapons? Confronting criminals and wondering if one's life is in danger, is that murder?"
No, he probably didn't know. That's exactly why he was told not to confront them, right? If he was armed he could have stayed put, and not have to worry about endangering his life. Seems a little silly to make the deliberate choice to disobey the operator for the sake of "fighting criminals" and then shoot them because your life might be in danger. Who created that risk?
Once you choose to disobey, then the consequences belong to you. That's true whether they prosecute or not.
Because of the circumstances I would not describe Horn's actions as 'cold blooded murder'.
Joe Horn, 61, told the dispatcher what he intended to do: Walk out his front door with a shotgun. "I've got a shotgun," Horn said, according to a tape of the 911 call. "Do you want me to stop them?" "Nope, don't do that - ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?" the dispatcher responded. "Hurry up man, catch these guys, will you? 'Cause I'm ain't gonna let 'em go, I'm gonna be honest with you, I'm not gonna let 'em go. I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this ----."
Horn: "They just stole something, I'm going out to look for 'em, I'm sorry, I ain't letting them get away with this ----. They stole something, they got a bag of stuff. I'm doing it!" Dispatcher: "Mister, do not go outside the house." Horn: "I'm sorry, this ain't right, buddy." Dispatcher: "You gonna get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don't care what you think." Horn: "You wanna make a bet?" Dispatcher: "Stay in the house." Horn: "There, one of them's getting away! Dispatcher: "That's alright, property's not something worth killing someone over. OK? Don't go out the house, don't be shooting nobody. I know you're pissed and you're frustrated but don't do it." Horn: "They got a bag of loot." Dispatcher: "OK. How big is the bag?" He then talks off, relaying the information. Dispatcher: "Which way are they going?" Horn: "I can't ... I'm going outside. I'll find out." Dispatcher: "I don't want you going outside, Mister..." Horn: "Well, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going." Dispatcher: "Don't go outside."On the tape of the 911 call, the shotgun can be heard being cocked and Horn can be heard going outside and confronting someone. "Boom! You're dead!" he shouts. A loud bang is heard, then a shotgun being cocked and fired again, and then again.
Sounds like "cold blooded murder" to me. Oh and he definitely knew what color they were.
Horn: "You wanna make a bet?"
And whoever wrote the transcript was even kind enough to leave out Horn's next sentence: "I'm gonna kill 'em."
It's fun to read that and then go back to AA's earlier post:"Have you heard the 911 call? I heard it once a few days ago and if I remember correctly, Joe Horn went out to stop these guys and hold them till the police arrived."
"'Cause I'm ain't gonna let 'em go, I'm gonna be honest with you, I'm not gonna let 'em go. I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this"
Not gonna let 'em get away with it? That's executing justice.
"They stole something, they got a bag of stuff. I'm doing it!"
Again...
"Boom! You're dead!"
Yes, because that's exactly what someone says when they're acting in self-defense.
That's some filter AA has there. Horn says he's going to kill them, he does it, he gloats over the shootings, and somehow that translates to AA as some sort of good faith effort to help police.
I say Mr Horn is one of the new patriots that we will be seeing more of soon.
The government has waited to long to get things back on the right track and the people are tired of loseing their freedoms, their jobs and their security to thugs, drug dealers, criminals, illigal immigrants, and the ACLU.
True Americans are not going to just continue to be walked on and taken advantage of so my advice for the bad guys is times are changing and if you want to take from us then be prepared to die.
The guy should be prosecuted for murder, if he had a reasonable fear of his life (someone invading his home) he would be justified, there is no justification at all here and O'Liely is wrong, Tommy is wrong, etc...
Tommy said he should be prosecuted, to be fair.
I think everyone is missing one of the most important aspects of tis story and Bill O'Reilly's rage. The shooting took place in Pasadena, TX - which is one town over.
O'Reilly's blaming this incident on the mayor and police chief of Houston is akin to blaming the major of Minneapolis for something that happened in St. Paul.
Excellent observation.
Mr. Horn appears to be a murderer. He should have his day in court. If he is guilty, well, Texas has laws and he will have to be responsible for breaking those laws.
O'Reilly is correct here. When will we wake up to the problems and the causality regarding certain crimes in this country? We need to take the illegal immigration problem seriously...if we want to save more lives, and money. And this fool Hernandez wants to give out DL's like candy.
It's simply a matter of fact:if the government, and Houston authorities, were doing their jobs, these two men would be alive and living in Mexico or in jail, and Horn wouldn't have needed to defend himself and his neighbours' property.
Wow! The lunacy on this website is disturbing. I am new here, and was hoping for some sensible discourse from sensible people. Sadly, what I've found here is people who don't even understand the meaning of the term "illegal alien." Sigh*
So many fools; so little time...
How does O'Reilly manage to dress himself?
I mean, with being terminally stupid and all that...................
I can't believe that anyone can actually defend this guy. This is murder, pure and simple. Only an idiot can argue self defense. For those who keep lying about Horn defending himself, what do you have to say for this?
[link to www.chron.com] shot them in the back. I'm sure that all of the Texas rednecks won't care as long as those being killed aren't white.
If I were god , and had a quirky sense of humor, I'd exchange central america and the baltic countries. American citizens would be asked to be on the lookout for tall blond people with skis strapped on their backs infiltrating our alpine vacation areas. Russian attitudes could be improved by an influx of latino immigrants. Might cause them to veiw the world with less depression.