I didn't watch the video now and haven't seen it in months, but isn't O'Reilly's argument basically saying immigrants are dangerous due solely to their illegality, accusing all illegal aliens of thoughtcrime?

Pretty much.  Though at least its somewhat rational compared to some of the crap I have heard him string together.

No. I mean they would claim the people who could of deported him were complcit for not deporting him when they knew he had a history of drunk driving which means that he was a public danger.

Since it was in there power to deport him... when he had a vast history of drunk driving, they're complicit because they could of stopped the tradgedy from happening legally within there power.

Either way... I don't see why it's fearmongering, or just wrong when you say "This person was here illegally this tradgedy wouldn't of happened if he wasn't here."

Cause, it's basically true... and it is an issue when there are people who are committing crimes and dangers to the community who aren't being deported.

Not that i saw.  His arguement seemed to be that he wasn't supposed to be in the country... and if he wasn't in the country he wouldn't of been drunk driving... and that the state knew he was a risk since he's gotten DUIs before.

But the argument that there is a public danger doesn't hold up to the (apparent) fact that illegal immigrants are LESS criminally-inclined than the general population [edit:  other than in the area of immigration obviously].  Why should homicide or vice or gang-oriented law enforcement spend special effort going after illegals in particular if they are LESS likely to be doing those crimes? 

And to continue the L&O references, we constantly see the detectives there turning a blind eye to "minor" crimes like prostitution and drug possession in order to facilitate cooperation.  Total zero tolerance crackdown from all corners of law enforcement on all crime may well be counterproductive even discounting the additional strain placed on the courts/jails. 

If the system failed here it was because they didn't put a stop to this guy's drunken dangerous behavior -- just like dozens of other similar cases I have heard of who weren't illegal immigrants -- before it ended in a fatality.  Not because they didn't deport every Mexican they could lay hands on.

And using immigration as a wedge issue has really benefited one of the two major political parties. I wonder which one and I wonder why?

Something I was thinking about before:

No matter how good Obama and his administration are, things aren't going to be pretty in the next few years. We will probably see the worst economic crisis most living people have seen. Millions unemployed, countries, states and cities running out of funds and requiring a bailout, etc.

Of course (and fortunately for Obama), the crisis is starting before he actually gets into office, but the worst part will surely happen while he's in office. Unless he really screws up some aspects of the crisis, smart people know that he's not to blame, but many others will (consciously or not) blame him.

Obama will need a lot of hard work, and perhaps a lot of luck too to be able serve a second term. Racists and extremists will be having a field day trying to put the blame on him.

Why, that is a really funny video.

Somone who was arrested 4 times for drunk driving is less criminally inclined then normal people without DUIs?  That's your argument?

They do what they can to stop people with DUIs within the framework of the law.  With illegal immigrants they can do more and they didn't.

The Democrats because hispanics are the largest growing group in the nation and even hispanics tend to side with illegal ones?

The Democrats get way more out of being lax on it then the republicans do for wanting to enforce the laws.