Another horrific shooting, this one in Texas.
As reported in the New York Times the day after the mass murder: “A man who was asked to stop shooting in his yard because of the noise fatally shot at least five people, including an 8-year-old child, late on Friday night at a home north of Houston, the authorities said.”
As it turned out, the suspected killer (who was finally apprehended on May 2), was an illegal alien from Mexico, while most of the victims were illegal aliens from Honduras.
The suspect’s name is Francisco Oropeza – or is it Oropesa? I’ve seen both spellings in the media. In this article, I’m going with Oropeza.
“The alleged shooter is a Mexican national who has been deported four times," the Associated Press reported on May 2.
However, Bill Melugin reported a day earlier, “Per a second DHS source, Oropesa was deported five times between 2009-2016.”
So, this guy had been deported at least four times, maybe five.
If we had kept Oropeza out of the country, this shooting wouldn’t have occurred.
But what about the immigration status of the victims?
Texas Governor Greg Abbott caught some flak when he called the victims "illegal immigrants," though it later turned out one was a legal resident.
But that probably means the other four were illegal aliens, or it would have been demonstrated otherwise by now.
Is it wrong to point out that, had they stayed in Honduras, they might well be alive today? Of course I can’t prove it, as they could have died there also. But it’s something to consider.
Four of the five victims were illegally in the United States, and they were murdered by a man from another country who was also in the U.S. illegally.
Finally, consider the utter cluelessness of NBC star Chuck Todd, who interviewed DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Meet the Press on April 30, two days before Oropeza’s capture.
Discussing Oropeza, Todd asked Mayorkas this:
“There is some question about his citizenship. He supposedly had – I guess they refer to it as a 'counselor card' from Mexico, meaning he was here legally, but perhaps he had overstayed?”
I’m quite certain Chuck Todd makes a lot more money than I do, and he sure has a lot more prestige and influence than I do. Yet there he is on national television, spewing forth an utterly clueless and incoherent question. Go figure.
To begin with, citizenship and immigration status are two different things. A permanent resident alien is legal but is not a citizen.
Secondly, Chuck – it’s not a “counselor card," it’s a “consular card," known in Spanish as a matricula consular.
This document is issued by Mexican consulates to Mexicans in the United States. Its issuance is almost certain proof that the Mexican receiving it is an illegal alien.
A Mexican who is legally in the United States has a document from the U.S. government and thus doesn’t need the consular card.
The consular card is issued by Mexico to bamboozle American authorities, and only works because many U.S. officials accept it.
I wrote an article about the consular card way back in 2001. Chuck, you ought to read it.
Then there’s this part: Chuck said of Oropeza, “He supposedly had a… card from Mexico meaning he was here legally but perhaps he had overstayed?”
Huh? What would an identification document issued by Mexico have to do with overstaying a U.S. visa?
So, what was Mayorkas' reply to all that?
Mayorkas said, “Chuck, I won’t comment on it because it is an active case.”
Granted, the question was totally illogical. But Mayorkas would have said something like this even if Todd’s question had been coherent.
You can find more of Allan Wall's work at his website.