# WTF? Bill O'Reilly just called Mexicans "wetbacks!" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 7, 2003, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-bill-oreilly-just-called-mexicans-wetbacks/153370 "2003-02-07T03:06:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-bill-oreilly-just-called-mexicans-wetbacks/153370/141 "2003-02-10T02:04:03Z")
> [@](#): > > _yosemitebabe_ > And the military never “detains” people? The military shoots and kills, no matter what the context? Cite please? The military detains prisoners of war. We are not at war with Mexico. It is [illegal](http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm) to use the military for domestic law enforcement. The purpose of the military is to defend the US against violent aggressors. Illegal immigrants do not qualify as hostile invaders. What I am objecting to is O’Reilly’s red meat rhetoric. It is absurd to continually characterize illegal immigrants as “invaders” who need to be met with military force. That is not only inaccurate, it is blatant fear mongering. He’s making it sound like we are under attack, and that we need to attack back. I don’t think the context of the “wetback” remark matters because, while I think you’re right that he meant to say “coyotes” and got mixed up, I think it betrayed, subconsciously, at least, a contemptuous attitude towards Mexicans. (that’s only MHO, no proof) This is bolstered by the fact that he seemed to feel no need to apologize for his mistake or clarify any distinction between “wetbacks” and Mexicans in general. Plus you’re right about another thing, I just can’t stand the guy and I see him through shit-colored glasses. I have a visceral loathing for the man which makes me _want_ to pit the smug prick about once every six or eight weeks. You’ve got me there, I admit it. ---
**Author:** ![CBEscapee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@CBEscapee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBEscapee)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-bill-oreilly-just-called-mexicans-wetbacks/153370/142 "2003-02-10T02:35:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rick\_Colunga \* > \*\*You can’t blame someone for wanting a better life than the one fate handed them. Mexico is a jacked up country with very little respect for it’s lower class citizens. The darker you are in Mexico, the less chances you have of every becoming anything in Mexico. Mexico has driven it’s darker and Indian citizens to the borders of Mexico in it’s effort to make it’s country look more European. If you have ever been to Monterrey, Mexico, you’ll notice the rich and upper class look alot like Europeans and nothing like the ones picking watermelons in the feilds of the United States. > \*\* You have no idea of what you’re talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-bill-oreilly-just-called-mexicans-wetbacks/153370/143 "2003-02-10T02:53:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CBEscapee \* > \*\*You are wrong on a number of points. The _matricula_ gives the Mexican no rights in the US. It is only considered an official Mexican government ID and as such accepted for ID purposes by some places in the US. > > 1. The _matricula consular_ is a requirement of the Mexican government for it’s citizens that reside in a foreign country. It facilitates entering and leaving Mexico for it’s holders. It is a substitute for a passport (required to fly out of the country) for a Mexican citizen who leaves Mexico by air. > > 2.Mexican consulates by all means issue passports, the same as some American consulates overseas issue passports for US citizens. Mine was issued by the American Consulate in Guadalajara. BTW they only issue passports to Americans residing in Mexico, with a few exceptions, so I guess they discriminate also. > > 1. The _matricula_ is **not** a substitute for a US entry visa. It is issued by Mexico. an entry visa is issued by the US government. \*\* I stand corrected on the passport issue; thank you for pointing it out. But I think we are coming from different directions over whether the m.c. gives rights to illegal immigrants, and whether it is a substitute for an entry visa. You give the “official” purpose of the m.c., as stated by the Mexican government. The actual use of this document is somewhat different. For instance, the m.c. is accepted as legal identification by many police departments. This prevents the deportation of illegal immigrants because without identification, the police are required to establish identity, which can lead to the discovery of illegal status. (Of course, since several major police departments such as those of San Francisco, LA, Houston, Chicago, and New York have an official policy of non-cooperation with the INS, maybe it doesn’t matter much anyway.) Also, the m.c. can be used when applying for welfare, enrolling in a public school, and getting state-paid health care, such that the agency providing the benefit need not verify legal residence by means which may reveal illegal immigration status. When I say that the m.c. is a substitute for a U.S. entry visa, I mean that it may be used by illegals for the same purpose as identification that would have been legally obtained using an entry visa, as I described above. The fact that it is issued by Mexico, not the U.S., makes it all the greater a threat to immigration control and U.S. sovereignty. Hey, this debate is getting way too civil for the Pit. Shit, felch, squick, balls, etc… by Rick\_Colunga… \*\*Mexican immigrants proudly do jobs that are below the average American drop-out and for alot less than “Joe Smith dumb-ass” will do it for. I find it hard to believe that America is so bored that is can get all fired up about unskilled jobs being taken away from Americans. As Americans, were given the opportunity to 12 years of free education as well as affordable college education so why are we concerned with ditch-digging jobs going to immigrants. If an Amrerican has to compete against an immigrant to wash dishes for a living, it’s your damn fault you smoked too much shit in school and threw away your chance for an education in the first place. \*\* You are an asshole. If you hold your fellow citizens in such contempt, maybe you should move to a country where the people all measure up to your standards, which apparently include economic and political passivity and a willingness to mow your lawn for $5. ---
**Author:** ![fatmac98](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3ec8ea/32.png) [@fatmac98](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fatmac98)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-bill-oreilly-just-called-mexicans-wetbacks/153370/144 "2003-02-10T05:53:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Audrey Levins \* > \*\*Since this is the Pit, and I can say this…_drumroll please_ > > Fuck you! How does someone in “Greater Canadia” know jack shit about “race relations in Texas?” Being a fifth-generation Texan, and a very proud one, I am happy to inform you that race relations in Texas are in pretty damn good shape. San Antonio, where I live, is one of the most multi-cultural cities in America…we celebrate all the cultures that have made us who we are. > > I myself am marrying a Hispanic man; his family’s been here for five generations but it’s people like that asshat O’Reilly who make sure that nobody will ever forget he has ancestors in Mexico…and make no distinction between anyone who happens to have brown skin. I personally feel very badly for the illegals who cross into this country, and if anyone should be under attack for their presence, it’s the greedy employers who hire them for next-to-nothing wages. > > For the record, “wetback” is considered a _very_ derogatory term down here…and you, **Spiff,** can keep your crackpot opinions to yourself, because it’s obvious you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. \*\* Thank You Audrey. . . I couldn’t agree with you more. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-bill-oreilly-just-called-mexicans-wetbacks/153370/145 "2003-02-11T04:16:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > \*\ ***Brutus** , how hard is it for you to understand that it is a RACIAL SLUR on par with “nigger”??? \*\* The hell it is. How hard is it for you to understand that ‘wetback’ is a derogatory term specifically referring to illegal Mexican immigrants who illegally swim/wade/row across the border? You people spend so much time crying over words. It’s pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-bill-oreilly-just-called-mexicans-wetbacks/153370/146 "2003-02-11T04:20:48Z")
**Joe\_Cool** -and some people insist that “nigger” only refers to the black people who are assholes. Same difference. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-bill-oreilly-just-called-mexicans-wetbacks/153370/147 "2003-02-11T09:17:56Z")
—Same difference.— SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP! ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-bill-oreilly-just-called-mexicans-wetbacks/153370/148 "2003-02-11T10:35:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > The military detains prisoners of war. We are not at war with Mexico. It is [illegal](http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm) to use the military for domestic law enforcement. The purpose of the military is to defend the US against violent aggressors. Illegal immigrants do not qualify as hostile invaders. OK, good point. However, I think that O’Reilly is also concerned about hostile terrorist-types slipping over the border too, so that may be how he is justifying the use of the military. And also, no matter how grumpy he is, I can’t believe for a second that he really wants the military (or _anyone_) to gun down the Mexican immigrants. > [@](#): > > It is absurd to continually characterize illegal immigrants as “invaders” who need to be met with military force. Once again, his tone changed considerably after 9/11. Before then, I think many of us thought that the immigration problem was bad (it is, in California and other border states) but hey—we weren’t losing a lot of sleep over it. But after 9/11, when we may inadvertanly let some terrorists in along with the Mexicans who merely want to work here and live a better life (and my heart goes out to them) that seems scary. Real scary. Things are completely different now. > [@](#): > > I don’t think the context of the “wetback” remark matters because, while I think you’re right that he meant to say “coyotes” and got mixed up, I think it betrayed, subconsciously, at least, a contemptuous attitude towards Mexicans. Hmmmm…No, that comment alone isn’t enough. You may feel that way because you despise him already, but on its own, it isn’t enough. If he truly feels that way, other comments and attitudes he’s displayed will give that away. But this wasn’t one of them, IMO. He flubbed and got the wrong slang word. His comment was very specific. He was talking _ONLY_ about those creeps who take advantage of the people who want to get across the border. Just them. But, since you hate him with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns, you made the most of it. I saw the same comment you did, and since I have more apathetic feelings towards him, I gave myself a moment to try to figure out what had happened with the slip-up comment. This is not to say that I am absolutely clear-headed about him, just that I don’t see him through rose-colored glasses _or_ shit-colored glasses. > [@](#): > > I have a visceral loathing for the man which makes me _want_ to pit the smug prick about once every six or eight weeks. You’ve got me there, I admit it. Well, it was pretty obvious, wasn’t it? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-bill-oreilly-just-called-mexicans-wetbacks/153370/149 "2003-02-11T16:54:49Z")
Actually, it’s not that good of a point that it’s currently illegal to use the military for border patrol. All that it would take is a change in the law. Such a change would not be unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-bill-oreilly-just-called-mexicans-wetbacks/153370/150 "2003-02-11T20:55:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\*—Same difference.— > > SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP! \*\* Wow! What a witty and insightful retort. Thank you for your thoughtful contribution. Your debating skills amaze and astound. I happen to think that “wetback” is not simply a descriptive term for illegals; it seems clear to me that it _has been_ used as a pejorative to make generalizations about all Hispanics, and therefore could be considered a nasty slur by many. And quite frankly, I find it difficult to take seriously a thing **Joe\_Angry** and **AllLibsAreStupid&Naive Brutus** have to say. If others don’t believe it is the equivalent slur as “nigger”, perhaps “negro” is a better example. Not quite as strong, but still considered _ **in this day and age** _ to be a derogatory term (when used by those other than African-Americans). Imagine if Bill had “slipped” with _that_ word. Would that be enough to raise your ire and bring your condemnation? ---
**Author:** ![CBEscapee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@CBEscapee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBEscapee)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-bill-oreilly-just-called-mexicans-wetbacks/153370/151 "2003-02-11T21:15:40Z")
Here’s another viewpoint. For non-Spanish speakers, the English verses will sum things up pretty good. From Molotov’s hit song **Frijolero** : Frijolero Yo ya estoy hasta la madre de que me pongan sombrero escucha entonces cuando digo no me llames frijolero. Y aunque exista algún respeto y no metamos las narices nunca inflamos la moneda haciendo guerra a otros países Te pagamos con petróleo e intereses nuestra deuda mientras tanto no sabemos quien se queda con la feria. Aunque nos hagan la fama de que somos vendedores de la droga que sembramos ustedes son consumidores. Don’t call me gringo, You fuckin beaner stay on your side of that goddamn river don’t call me gringo, You beaner. No me digas beaner, Mr. Puñetero Te sacaré un susto por racista y culero. No me llames frijolero, Pinche gringo puñetero. Now I wish I had a dime for every single time I’ve gotten stared down For being in the wrong side of town. And a rich man I’d be if I had that kind of chips lately I wanna smack the mouths of these racists Podrás imaginarte desde afuera, ser un Mexicano cruzando la frontera, pensando en tu familia mientras que pasas, dejando todo lo que conoces atrás. Si tuvieras tu que esquivar las balas de unos cuantos gringos rancheros Las seguirás diciendo good for nothing wetback? si tuvieras tu que empezar de cero. Now why don’t you look down to where your feet is planted That U.S. soil that makes you take shit for granted If not for Santa Ana, just to let you know That where your feet are planted would be Mexico Correcto! ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-bill-oreilly-just-called-mexicans-wetbacks/153370/152 "2003-02-11T21:43:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by leander \* > **I happen to think that “wetback” is not simply a descriptive term for illegals; it seems clear to me that it _has been_ used as a pejorative to make generalizations about all Hispanics, and therefore could be considered a nasty slur by many.** I happen to think “The” is not simply a definite article, but a derogatory term for people taller than 7’2". :rolleyes: It doesn’t matter that you and a few others choose to be offended by a word. That does not affect its meaning. And “wetback”'s meaning is: a Mexican who covertly crossed a water border (Rio Grande) into this country in order to gain entrance illegally. You can compare it to any word you like when constructing your strawman, but that does not change its meaning one bit. When used in its proper context, “wetback” is a legitimate descriptive term. It can be used offensively only in implying that all Mexicans are illegal immigrants. In this case, “wetback” itself is not an insult. Rather, it is in implying that legal Mexican immigrants or Americans of Mexican ancestry are illegal immigrants that it can be an insult. A better comparison would be a term like “whore,” which has a legitimiate usage - a woman who solicits and performs sex in exchange for money. “Whore” itself is not intrinsically insulting, as there are many people who are, in fact, whores. Calling a woman who **does not** have sex for money a whore is insulting by implication, not word choice. > [@](#): > > And quite frankly, I find it difficult to take seriously a thing Joe\_Angry … [has] to say. Gosh, that was funny! Did you think it up yourself, or did you hire a writer? ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-bill-oreilly-just-called-mexicans-wetbacks/153370/153 "2003-02-11T21:46:22Z")
Actually, I made a mistake. Comparing Wetback to Nigger wasn’t really a strawman, merely nonsense. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-bill-oreilly-just-called-mexicans-wetbacks/153370/154 "2003-02-11T22:02:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joe\_Cool \* > \*\*. A better comparison would be a term like “whore,” which has a legitimiate usage - a woman who solicits and performs sex in exchange for money. “Whore” itself is not intrinsically insulting, as there are many people who are, in fact, whores. Calling a woman who **does not** have sex for money a whore is insulting by implication, not word choice. \*\* only if you can demonstrate that a ‘woman who solicits and performs sex in exchange for money’ doesn’t consider the term ‘whore’ to be insulting. I believe those in Nevada who do this legally are termed “sex workers” and prefer that term. Let’s think about the whole ‘is this term insulting’ concept. Do you object to being referred to as a “Fundie”?? have you in fact heard others object to it? (I have). Yet, the word “Fundie” is simply shortened version of “Fundemental Christian”. By your reasoning (since it’s a technically accurate term), some one shouldn’t feel offended by said term. Yet many do. (there’s been threads on these boards detailing that fact). how do you answer that? (and no, not all people using the term ‘fundie’ mean it as an insult, that, too was made clear by former threads) ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-bill-oreilly-just-called-mexicans-wetbacks/153370/155 "2003-02-11T22:04:23Z")
Thank you for proving my point(s), **Joe\_Angry**. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d26b3c/32.png) [@UncleBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBill)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-bill-oreilly-just-called-mexicans-wetbacks/153370/156 "2003-02-11T23:54:36Z")
[Webster](http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=wetback) > [@](#): > > Main Entry: wet·back > Pronunciation: 'wet-"bak > Function: noun > Etymology: from the practice of wading or swimming the Rio Grande where it forms the U.S.-Mexico border > Date: 1929 > sometimes offensive : a Mexican who enters the U.S. illegally Sometimes. And for comparison: > [@](#): > > Main Entry: 1whore > Pronunciation: 'hOr, 'hor, 'hur > Function: noun > Etymology: Middle English hore, from Old English hOre; akin to Old Norse hOra whore, hOrr adulterer, Latin carus dear – more at CHARITY > Date: before 12th century > 1 : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : PROSTITUTE; also : a promiscuous or immoral woman > 2 : a male who engages in sexual acts for money > 3 : a venal or unscrupulous person No mention of offensive nature. If Garbage Collectors don’t like being called Garbage Collectors, that doesn’t innately make it offensive. That describes what they do. ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2003, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-bill-oreilly-just-called-mexicans-wetbacks/153370/157 "2003-02-12T00:29:55Z")
[Encarta](http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861713075&nowarning=1) > [@](#): > > whore > > whore [hawr] > noun (plural whores) > > 1. an offensive term for a prostitute > > 2. an offensive term for somebody regarded as being sexually indiscriminate > > 3. an offensive term for somebody who is regarded as willingly setting aside principles or personal integrity in order to obtain something, usually for selfish motives ( insult ) > > intransitive verb (past whored, past participle whored, present participle whor·ing, 3rd person present singular whores) > > 1. an offensive term meaning to work as a prostitute > > 2. an offensive term meaning to be a regular customer of prostitutes > > [Old English hôre . Ultimately from an Indo-European base meaning to desire that is also the ancestor of English cherish, caress, and Kamasutra.] [Oxford](http://www.askoxford.com/dictionary/whore) > [@](#): > > whore > /h:/ noun 1 prostitute. 2 derogatory promiscuous woman. whorehouse brothel. [Cambridge](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=whore*1+0) > [@](#): > > whore > noun [C] > DATED, OR TABOO SLANG > a female prostitute or a woman whose behaviour in her sexual relationships is considered immoral ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2003, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-bill-oreilly-just-called-mexicans-wetbacks/153370/158 "2003-02-12T00:34:15Z")
[Encarta](http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861712503&nowarning=1) > [@](#): > > wetback > > wet·back [wét bàk] (plural wet·backs) > noun > > a taboo term for a Mexican person recently arrived in the United States, especially somebody who has entered the country illegally to work as a laborer ( taboo ) [American Heritage](http://www.bartleby.com/61/44/W0104400.html) > [@](#): > > SYLLABICATION: wet·back > PRONUNCIATION: wtbk > NOUN: Offensive Slang Used as a disparaging term for a Mexican, especially a laborer who crosses the U.S. border illegally. [Cambridge](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=wetback*1+0) > [@](#): > > wetback > noun [C] > TABOO SLANG > a Mexican worker who illegally crosses the border to get work in the US > This is an offensive word. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d26b3c/32.png) [@UncleBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBill)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2003, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-bill-oreilly-just-called-mexicans-wetbacks/153370/159 "2003-02-12T13:13:46Z")
Webster’s has not gone PC yet. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2003, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-bill-oreilly-just-called-mexicans-wetbacks/153370/160 "2003-02-12T15:16:26Z")
Neither has Oxford, as Leander was kind enough to point out. Don’t you hate it when your cites work against you? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-bill-oreilly-just-called-mexicans-wetbacks/153370.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-bill-oreilly-just-called-mexicans-wetbacks/153370.md?page=9)