Which children?
Citizens born here from illegal parents or children that are brought here?
Why do you only concerned with illegal immigrants that come through the Southern border?
Printable View
Lots of sources.
Just one: http://cmsny.org/publications/jmhs-v...s-border-wall/
I don’t think it I’d surprising at all. But I guess I could see how it would surprise someone that listened to a Trump rally or watches Fox News.
You're beating up a straw man there. I think everyone is in favor of removing people who are here illegally regardless of how they got here. If you are hoping for some racism angle the vast majority of illegal immigrants are from Mexico and Central America (Vast Majority) regardless of how they got here. I would say that at least if they came in with a Visa they received some approval to be in the country. People crossing the border illegally have no such screening.
We had an acquaintance recently that was deported for overstaying his visa. His girlfriend expected it would take him a few months to make it back across the border, but he was back within a month. I wonder if he would be counted as an overstay or a border crossing?
My father in law is from El Salvador (Tech grad!) and some of his family still lives there. I had some discussions with him about the caravan and the conditions in El Salvador that people are fleeing and applying for asylum. He's probably more hard line on illegal immigration than I am, but certainly short of Dawg80's kill them all and let God sort them out policy.
I haven't quite progressed to the "kill them all" position yet. That implies being proactive. Nope. My official position is "let them kill themselves." Motion-detector machine guns/minefields are passive deterrents. You set them up...with fences and warning signs (in English)...and if some idiots choose to test the defensive systems and get killed, that's on them.
Screening is over-rated. Sure it is better than not screening, but...
“According to authorities, all of the hijackers who committed the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were foreigners. All of them entered the country legally on a temporary visa, mostly tourist visas with entry permits for six months. Although four of them attended flight school in the United States, only one is known to have entered on an appropriate visa for such study, and one entered on an F-1 student visa. Besides the four pilots, all but one of the terrorists entered the United States only once and had been in the country for only three to five months before the attacks.”
http://www.fairus.org/issue/national...911-terrorists
My assumption wasn’t a naked one. It was based on several other facts that made my theory far more likely than the alternative. The primary one being that you have to be a petty avid CNN watcher to purposely watch Don Lemon’s show and catch that line, the second most compelling reason is that the Daily Wire article on Lemon’s statement was trending at the time he made the post. The third is that I don’t think most white people would catch the reference in the context it was used.
But even if he meant the word as it is sometimes used in slang vernacular, it isn’t a dog whistle - just an inappropriate insult meant in jest. It isn’t a statement meant to signal a specific message to a base that believes in the message.
Its ok Guiss, we know, we know.
https://stayhipp.com/wp-content/uplo...harlie-DAY.jpg
Don't be an idiot. I did not see him say it live, I saw the same stupid article you did (probably because it was trending). Apparently you are frequenting the same "extreme right wing media" that I am. My point was that it's idiotic to hold him accountable for using a phrase just because it has some negative connotation among a certain group of people. I guess that's too hard for you to understand though.
I googled after your post and saw the top articles and when they were posted.
Not that Lemon dogwhistled, but if someone does inadvertently dogwhistle and then learns that they did - that their language signaled their support of a cause that they don’t actually support - most reasonable people would clearly and unambiguously disavow any support for such a cause.