California’s most dangerous criminals happen to have been here illegally: http://ag.ca.gov/wanted/info.php. How about we actually enforce laws? Maybe it’s a blunt method that will include punishing some otherwise peaceful people, but it’s worth it to rid our society of the dangerous uber-scum that needs to be eliminated.

2) Agreed on the leaving this argument for another time.

3) See, I don’t know if we would have a lot fewer of these tragedies. Sure, in this case, the tragedy would have been avoided. And even if I were to endorse the idea of a sanctuary city (which I haven’t, yet) I’d agree that someone who committed a crime other than simply being here illegally should be deported. However, I don’t think you can generalize between illegality (in terms of status) and irresponsibility, and thus I don’t see the utility in deporting illegal immigrants. Personal feeling - based on absolutely no evidence at all - is that someone who would risk their life crossing the desert to get a job and send money back to their family is probably a little more responsible than the average college student.

4) I don’t stick to principles because they’re principles, I stick to them because they’re good principles. You’ll not hear me saying “it’s the principle of the matter” unless I believe that there’s a reason behind the principle. And as far as principles go, I’ll take mercy over “justice” any day.

Like I said earlier, the reason behind laws against illegal immigration is one of aggregation. I see the reason for that, and support controlling our borders for that reason BUT as far as the individual illegal immigrant goes, I see no reason to deport him unless, like Ramos, he presents a danger to society.

2. I don’t want to continue arging about a ten second clip out of a much longer debate, so here is my final word on it. If I had to summarize what happend, Geraldo was trying to say that the Ramos thing was completely about drunk driving, saying that there was no link between that and his being an illegal alien, while O’Reilly wanted to say that if Ramos had been deported after being convicted previously, the whole fiasco would have been avoided. It was probably a poor choice of words on O’Reilly’s part, but I honestly do not think that O’Reilly intended to make the kind of general link that you ascribed to him when you wrote “not because the actual act of crossing the Rio Grande and coming here is in any way immoral (or linked to drunk driving, Bill O’Reilly’s arguments to the contrary notwithstanding.”

3. You too want to say that the issue in the Ramos case was only drunk driving. But the point still stands that if in these sanctuary cities they report people like Ramos, that have been shown to be irresponsible, and also don’t have a right to be here in the first place, then we would have that many fewer of these types of tragedies to deal with.

4. I agree that there are other crimes that are far more morally reprehensible than not telling on the dude at the meat packing plant, but I find it odd that YOU, a man who I usually see as championing the principle of the thing, to say that we should be picking our battles in this case. I find your “there are more harmful crimes” arguement to be as weak as the “It’s wrong because it’s illegal” argument that you are lambasting.

1) I sincerely apologize if I offended you by calling you “son.” If you knew me personally, you’d know that I use the term as a friendly nickname and not to in any way imply my superiority over its recipient.

2) I did in fact watch the entire segment, and let’s talk about those two lines you cite. Geraldo tried to paint O’Reilly as racist by saying O’Reilly was saying there’s a link between being Latino and being drunk (which O’Reilly clearly was not saying). O’Reilly replied that he wasn’t generalizing toward Latinos (which he wasn’t) and says it’s about Ramos. But in the very previous line, which I quoted, he says there’s a link between illegality and drunkenness. So if you take everything he’s saying together, it seems like the best summary would be this: “There’s a link between being here illegally and being irresponsible, and a link between being irresponsible and being a drunkard. Being a Latino has nothing to do with either of those.” Given the context of the whole debate, there’s no way you can honestly argue that O’Reilly was completely making it about Ramos. He was using it to make a point about immigration policy. I understand what you’re saying about if the policy had been enforced, Ramos wouldn’t have been here in the first place, but honestly, the real problem here is drunk driving, not illegal immigration. O’Reilly seemed to lose sight of that.

3) The point to my argument is very limited in scope. All I’m saying is that I think simply saying “it’s a crime, and thus you are an accessory” doesn’t make a very strong argument. Now, I’ll concede that you’re right when you say “Unless you feel that there is an overwhelming moral reason to disobey the law, then you shouldn’t.” But I also think that there are a lot of other crimes that people in general are accessories to that are far more harmful than not telling the federal government that the dude in the meat-packing plant is an illegal alien. So if we’re going to pick our battles, why this one?

“I agree with what you say about Ramos, but that’s not what Bill O’Reilly said.”

Actually, I took all of the stuff I said about Ramos is exactly what O’Reilly said. But, then again, I actually watched the entire segment. I don’t want to say you are intellectually lazy, but if not, then I will have to call you just plain stupid and I don’t want to do that either.

As for the quote you use, had you quoted the next two lines, O’Reilly explicitly says that his statement was directed to Ramos alone, and not a generalization to Latinos or illegal immigrants in general. Perhaps he shouldn’t have said it in the first place, however, it was in the middle of a heated debate, and the point he was trying to make was not that illegal immigrants are drunkards, but that this man with previous alchol related convictions should have been deported because he was an illegal immigrant and had alcohol related convictions.

To the obstruction of justice thing, hiding evidence counts as obstruction of justice. If the city knows that someone is an illegal immigrant, and they don’t cooperate when a federal agent conducting an investigation, then i feel that that sould count as obstruction of justice. But, I will conceed that there is some question as to whether this measure counts as obstruction of justice.

Lastly, don’t call me “son”. I am not your child, don’t treat me like one.

They had a similar approach to a “no recruiters in schools” referendum which was actually a “no recruiters in schools, if only we wouldn’t lose funding.”

I agree with what you say about Ramos, but that’s not what Bill O’Reilly said. He specifically said that drunk driving was related to being an illegal immigrant, because they both correlate with being “irresponsible.”

“GERALDO: There’s no cause and effect between his illegality and his drunkenness.

O’REILLY: Sure there is. He’s irresponsible.”

As far as obstruction of justice goes, it really depends on if Megan is correct in her interpretation of “refusing to co-operate” as actually meaning “preventing.”