I don't think your analogy stands up. Caucasian citizens have a right to be in this Country. Unborn children have a right to their lives. Illegal aliens do not have a right to be in this Country.Well, I think it does. I'll explain further.
In my opinion this death was not caused because the driver was in in this country illegally as BOR's argument implies. He was killed because a drunk got behind the wheel of a car. Whether it was a drunk illegal immigrant, a drunk legal immigrant, a drunk white engineer, a drunk CEO of Coors, a drunk Reverend Sharpton a drunk have a right to be in this country, a drunk have a right to live or a drunk whatever... the common denominator is A DRUNK, nothing else.
If the driver was Caucasian and drunk you wouldn't hear O'Reilly saying a thing, even though the exact same man would be dead at the exact same place and exact same time.
Getting control of immigration is an issue with many valid arguments. This is simply not one of them.
O'Reilly is trying to take an anecdotal instance to fan the fires of illegal immigration. It's obvious by dissecting his argument that he is actually saying that it's OK for a LEGAL immigrant to kill someone while driving drunk, but it's a hair-on-fire crime for an ILLEGAL to run someone over. His complete argument falls apart is one runs it through a bit of logic, but his job is to get people hyperventilating at the sound of the term illegal immigrant. If he succeeds at getting people to foam at the mouth, then he wins the argument. Of course he would also be able to win the argument that 2+2=5, once froth is induced. O'Reilly is using two logical fallacies called 'The Bandwagon' and 'Confusing cause and effect'. The Bandwagon is a fallacy in which a threat of rejection by one's peers is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form: This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because peer pressure and threat of rejection do not constitute evidence for rejecting a claim. This is especially clear in the following example: Steve: "Joe, I know you think that 1+1=2. But we don't accept that sort of thing in our group. " Confusing Cause and Effect is a fallacy that has the following general form: This fallacy requires that there is not, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A and B. This fallacy is committed when a person assumes that one event must cause another just because the events occur together. More formally, this fallacy involves drawing the conclusion that A (illegal immigration) is the cause of B (death) simply because A and B are in regular conjunction (and there is not a common cause that is actually the cause of A and B). The mistake being made is that the causal conclusion is being drawn without adequate justification.
Joe: "I was just joking Steve. Of course I don't believe that."
Geraldo also used logical fallacies. The most glaring was the use of the race card when in face illegal immigrants are not a race. Another fallacy was 'an appeal to emotion'. (These poor hard working Mexicans!) Also a fallacy.
Fact is, illegal immigrants should be deported. The obvious alternative is to declare the entire world a part of the United States and all 6 billion inhabitants natural U.S. citizens. That doesn't make sense of course.