At this point you need to reread my post because it looks an awful lot like you're deliberately misconstruing my point.  It's based on what Geraldo said about relative crime rates in the immigration population vs. general population.

Also, do you think I'm wrong about what I said earlier?  And I haven't researched the specific incident but apparently from what they said he hadn't been deported because they don't investigate [the immigrant status of] people who aren't accused of felonies or misdemeanors involving moral turpitude.  Geraldo is claiming no one broke the law by not deporting him and I hear he's a lawyer (not that that is conclusive).

That point is completly irrelvent in regards to this person... since he was someone with a past that showed he was at risk.  Broadening out the issue so you don't have to deal with the singular case is nothing but a defense against a weak arguement.

Also as for not investigating the immigration status of people who aren't accused of felonies or misderminiers... how is that even possible? 

The person has to be processed.  To process someone you need to have their ID... and look up there records.

This makes simple ignorance an impossibility... he would be flagged illegal as soon as he was identified.

All Geraldo is doing is deflection from the real issue.

Also drunk driving is a misdermeanor in California.

Besides which... did California ever pass the driviners liscenses for illegal immigrants legislation?  If not, that itself is a misdemeanor.

So he committed at least one DUI and then wasn't deported under the IIRAIRA like he was supposed to.

Oh, because illegal immigrants never have fake ID. 

California has nothing to do with it, since this happened in Virginia. 

Whatever should have been done with this one individual, is a different argument than accusing the city of being a "sanctuary city" and letting illegal immigrants run rampant and whatever O'Reilly was saying in the previous show.  This one guy not staying in jail or being deported is not that different from all the other drunk drivers that fall through the cracks of the justice system all over the country.  Geraldo was accusing O'Reilly of using the one incident to paint a broad untrue picture, and that accusation is what I am defending.  Don't broaden out the issue.

[edit:  As far as the IIRAIRA:  How many law enforcement officers in that area had the training and authorization established in that act?  Were they involved in this case?  Should they have been?]

If he had a fake ID that in of itself would be a crime.

Also the crimes wouldn't be in his record... which they are.  Which means he had to be identified correctly at some point.

Drunk Driving a misdemeanor in VA too.  Under the law in some states shoplifters have to be deported.

How is focusing on the one guy broadening out the issue?  It's narrowing it to that one guy that's the point.  There are people like him that are a danger that should of been deported.  Though... anyone here illegally technically should be deported... what being here illegally.

Like I edited the previous post:  the IIRAIRA provides for training and authorization of local/state law enforcement to pursue immigration crimes they encounter in the course of their duties.  What reason do you have to believe that anyone was negligent in this case?  Was there such an authorized person involved in this case who failed in his duty?  Should there have been such a person? 

Geraldo said in response to O'Reilly asking why he wasn't deported, "because he didn't commit a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude".  In what way is this answer insufficient? 

And you are saying that Geraldo was wrong to accuse O'Reilly of falsely accusing this mayor and town of letting immigrants run out of control and commit crimes all over the place, correct?  O'Reilly [edit:  saw the earlier portion of the show and he's just rampant fearmongering.  He goes WAY beyond this one incident and talks about the situation in general terms using the specific case only to pull on heartstrings].  So the issue is actually a general one.  If you're not broadening the issue, you're changing the subject.

Even if you want to look at it from that angle.

Illegal Immigrants are people who don't deserve to be in this country.  They don't "replace" regular people... and even if they comit crimes at a lower rate then regular people they are only adding to the crime rate.

Anyone here illegally who comits a crime is adding to the crime rate and should be deported. (Though everyone here illegally should be... since they are here illegally.)

People can be deported for any misdemeanor anyway.  Moral terpitude doesn't need to be involved.

Also drunk driving is infact a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.

Wikipedia says you're wrong.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_turpitude

Agreed that the illegal immigrant crime rate is more than zero, but why should it be a priority to go after people who commit FEWER crimes than the national average?  [edit:  And, in fact, if they are lower than average then they by definition are lowering the general crime rate.]

And why would Geraldo bring up that point about the severity of the crime if it didn't matter?  I don't know.  But it might have to do with deportation being more a function of the executive branch than the judicial.  (sez Wikipedia)  Do you know why he might say that if it didn't matter? 

Drunk Driving would fall under Gross Indeceny... and at the very least so would being arrested for... well public indecency.

Also, how is it a priority?

When someone does something illegal... deport them.  Bam.  I mean that's likely why the crimre rate is so low anyway.  They're afraid of being deported.

Why would Geraldo bring it up?  Who knows.

Either way... you just kidna proved O'Reily's point no?  Mayors being executives?

Really?  Not just "drunk or reckless driving"?  Why the double coverage?  What's your source?  Remember this has to be true where he WAS, not California or whatever.

Crimes all the time have double coverages... infact people who get a DUI can also be charged with Reckless endangerment.

Though I was wrong on that... had it confused with something else.

I still don't remember moral terpitude being in there at all.

However drunk driving without a liscense is a moral turpitude...in some areas atleast.  Once again that's around California so i'd have to double check virginia.  It may have never come to court around Virginia in which case i'm not sure how it works legally.