Tucker Carlson: Omar 'living proof' US immigration laws are 'dangerous'

[jj22]

At least Socio has sympathy and believes in hate crimes. Even if it's only for those victims of European descent....

Baby steps.

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2019, 05:26 PM)jj22 Wrote: You mean of Tucker racist comments and history?

Now you are just playing a fool cause I know you know Tucker.

See Bfine. That's how you get thrown in with "those people" (even if you don't consider yourself one). You got to give a little especially when it comes to common knowledge we both know you know about (Tucker). I respect you, and you are wise about a lot of stuff, but your tendency to suddenly you play dumb when it's something you don't agree with is unfortunate.

There's no reason to act like you don't know Tucker or his history. I'm certainly not going to play along. Youtube him if you really care. But like the Mueller report, I doesn't seem like you do. So your request for "proof" is played out (in my book).

Again, I'm not here to attack or accuse you of anything. You have my respect (even if we rarely agree) as a poster.

Let's have it your way.........Carson Tucker is a racist!!

What in the article quoted is racist? If you've been judged a racist does that mean every point you make about society can be dismissed by screaming RACIST!!?

Seems we could advance quicker as a society if we discussed the issues rather than calling each other names.

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2019, 05:29 PM)jj22 Wrote: At least Socio has sympathy and believes in hate crimes. Even if it's only for those victims of European descent....

Baby steps.

That's quite unfair. I'm pretty sure you understood his point. 

[masonbengals fan]

(07-10-2019, 03:29 PM)jj22 Wrote: Nothing like a racist comment to excite the base.

You guys are seeing how far away America is from getting past it's ugly history.

Now imagine how many people in power think like Masonbengals.

And think of how they've treated minorities over the years in these positions.

Now you know the struggle.

 So now I'm a racist too. Nothing in that article is racist. Obviously you know nothing about me or my race.

[Dill]

Interesting thread. In some ways. Apparently lots of posters are wearing shoes that fit.

A slightly more oblique question: what do people suppose Carlson's intention was?

E.g., was it simply to "state facts" and inform Americans of a dangerous hole in immigration policy,
or does anyone discern a more partisan intent to amplify existing grievance in a target audience?

My first question after reading the report of what Carlson said was--what, exactly, is the evidence that Omar "hates" America?
Did she say that some where? ("By Allah, I HATE the US and all it stands for!")

Or is Tucker inferring that she does based upon some specific actions or action?

He says she "criticizes" the US, and then concludes immigration policy should be more restrictive?

But isn't Carlson criticizing the US when he says the US' flawed immigration policy allows in "critics" rather than, what, the uncritically thankful?

Also, he addresses the issue of "assimilation"--and Omar is, apparently, someone who hasn't or doesn't want to, as evidenced by, what? Her election to Congress? Her religion? Funny clothes? "Maybe the problem is we are importing people from places whose values are simply antithetical to ours." Could "socialistic" Norway count as such a place? Somalia seems clearly such, perhaps also Kenyan refugee camps. He's "just asking."

Should the no-criticism criterion apply only to immigrants from "certain places," or to all immigrants, or perhaps to all "natural born" Americans as well? Perhaps only to applicants for immigration--including children?

I leave Carlson's argument feeling short changed on specific support. Is there perhaps a subtext here, assumptions the audience is expected to make or know but, left unstated, could be denied? What does he count on his audience knowing or assuming, if they are to take ungrateful immigrants from certain places as an issue serious enough to warrant public discussion and policy revision?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-10-2019, 07:23 PM)Dill Wrote: Interesting thread. In some ways. Apparently lots of posters are wearing shoes that fit.

Interesting statement, please elaborate.

Quote:A slightly more oblique question: what do people suppose Carlson's intention was?

To reduce immigration by pointing out an example of an immigrant who, in his opinion, got everything they have from this country and yet still dislikes it.

Quote:E.g., was simply to "state facts" and inform Americans of a dangerous hole in immigration policy,
or does anyone discern a more political intent to amplify existing grievance in a target audience?

How about both?

Quote:My first question after reading the report of what Carlson said was--what, exactly, is the evidence that Omar "hates" America?
Did she say that some where? ("By Allah, I HATE the US and all it stands for!")

Let's say you start dating someone and move on to telling them you love them.  Immediately after you start pointing out numerous ways you want to change that person.  Did you really love that person if you have several ways you want them to change?  Now, a country is certainly different, but allow me to flip the script, when has she ever professed a deep affection for the United States?  I can point to her recent speech to high schoolers as an example of the opposite.

Quote:Or is Tucker inferring that she does based upon some specific actions or action?

Didn't he do exactly that?

Quote:He says she "criticizes" the US, and concludes immigration policy should be more restrictive?

Not really the point he was making, no.

Quote:But isn't Carlson criticizing the US when he says the US' flawed immigration policy allows in "critics" rather than, what, the uncritically thankful?  

Depends on whether you think the government and the nation are synonymous.

Quote:Also, he addresses the issue of "assimilation"--and Omar is, apparently, someone who hasn't or doesn't want to, as evidenced by, what? Her election to Congress? Her religion? Funny clothes? "Maybe the problem is we are importing people from places whose values are simply antithetical to ours."  Could "socialistic" Norway count as such a place? Somalia seems clearly such, perhaps also Kenyan refugee camps.

Yes, a Norwegian socialist would absolutely fit that bill.

Quote:Should the no-criticism criterion apply only to immigrants from "certain places," or to all immigrants, or perhaps to all "natural born" Americans as well? Perhaps only to applicants for immigration--including children?

Is that a question he's asking, or you?  Also, did he say no criticism was allowed?  You can disagree with his position but overstating what it was doesn't help your argument at all.

Quote:I leave Carlson's argument feeling short changed on specific support. Is there perhaps a subtext here, assumptions the audience is expected to make or know but, left unstated, could be denied?  What does he count on his audience knowing or assuming, if they are to take ungrateful immigrants as an issue serious enough to warrant public discussion and policy revision?

I leave Dill's argument feeling somewhat short changed on specific support.  Is there perhaps a subtext here, assumptions he expects some to know, but left unstated, could be denied? (BTW the "dog whistle" trope has been as worn out by the far left in this country as accusations of fascism)

There is an odd undercurrent to this thread that I won't imply, but simply point out.  Lot's of people complaining about Carlson while engaging in the same behavior they decry in him.  Very interesting.

[6andcounting]

Omar terk err Congressional jerbs

[CJD]

What the hell does it mean to "make them assimilate?"

Like...is he suggesting America impose some form of law that mandates that immigrants give up their culture or something? If so, how would that even work?

I'm not trying to put words in his mouth, I'm just asking.

[Dill]

(07-10-2019, 07:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: Interesting thread. In some ways. Apparently lots of posters are wearing shoes that fit.
Interesting statement, please elaborate.

Sure. See posts #32 and #34 in which posters reference shoes fitting.

(07-10-2019, 07:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:E.g., was simply to "state facts" and inform Americans of a dangerous hole in immigration policy,
or does anyone discern a more political intent to amplify existing grievance in a target audience?

To reduce immigration by pointing out an example of an immigrant who, in his opinion, got everything they have from this country and yet still dislikes it. How about both?

An intent to simply inform AND to amplify grievances would simply be an attempt to amplify grievances, not "both."  Clearly not all are aggrieved by "ungrateful" immigrants though.

(07-10-2019, 07:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:My first question after reading the report of what Carlson said was--what, exactly, is the evidence that Omar "hates" America?
Did she say that some where? ("By Allah, I HATE the US and all it stands for!")

Let's say you start dating someone and move on to telling them you love them.  Immediately after you start pointing out numerous ways you want to change that person.  Did you really love that person if you have several ways you want them to change?  Now, a country is certainly different, but allow me to flip the script, when has she ever professed a deep affection for the United States?  I can point to her recent speech to high schoolers as an example of the opposite.

If your analogy holds, then was there some point where Omar was telling the US she "loved" it (as in her tweeted response to Carlson) before she unfairly tried to change it?

Also, if this analogy is to argue, then there must be an unstated premise that an attempt to "change" someone whom one claims to love via criticism means one doesn't really love that someone, or has overstepped some boundary.  It that's so, then the analogy, if valid would render any criticism of a government evidence one really doesn't love that government, or has overstepped some boundary.

Are you trying to supply the evidence for Carlson's argument when you "flip the script"?  A--one--recent speech to high schoolers shows Omar has "never professed a deep affection for the United States"? 

(07-10-2019, 07:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Or is Tucker inferring that she does based upon some specific actions or action?
He says she "criticizes" the US, and concludes immigration policy should be more restrictive?

Didn't he do exactly that?
Not really the point he was making, no.

In your view, then, what is the "problem" he speaks of that is "not sustainable," if it is not an immigration policy which accepts "ungratefuls"?

(07-10-2019, 07:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:But isn't Carlson criticizing the US when he says the US' flawed immigration policy allows in "critics" rather than, what, the uncritically thankful? 

Depends on whether you think the government and the nation are synonymous.

Does Omar's "criticism" also depend on that?  Is there one of these terms one should not criticize? Seems one gets closer to the heart of the matter if one replaces nation and government with "Party": it is not criticism of government and/or nation when one party's policies are criticized, but it is when the other's are criticized.

(07-10-2019, 07:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Also, he addresses the issue of "assimilation"--and Omar is, apparently, someone who hasn't or doesn't want to, as evidenced by, what? Her election to Congress? Her religion? Funny clothes? "Maybe the problem is we are importing people from places whose values are simply antithetical to ours."  Could "socialistic" Norway count as such a place? Somalia seems clearly such, perhaps also Kenyan refugee camps.

Yes, a Norwegian socialist would absolutely fit that bill.

Carlson spoke of places. You speak of a person. A "far leftist"?

On your interpretation, would Carlson "absolutely" consider Norway one of the places with antithetical values? Can you provide an example of a place with values not simply antithetical to ours?  Scotland maybe?   

(07-10-2019, 07:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Should the no-criticism criterion apply only to immigrants from "certain places," or to all immigrants, or perhaps to all "natural born" Americans as well? Perhaps only to applicants for immigration--including children?

Is that a question he's asking, or you?  Also, did he say no criticism was allowed?  You can disagree with his position but overstating what it was doesn't help your argument at all.

That is a question I am asking. The reason why is because Carlson says Omar "criticizes" America, and then with no additional evidence, concludes that she exemplifies his thesis, that no country can import people who hate it and survive. She is "an alarm" and "warning to the rest of us."
 
The problem here is Carlson's "UNDERstating." If criticism of America makes Omar an exemplary warning, and further implies immigration policy ought not to be letting critics in, then it is Carlson's job to explain what he means, whether criticism is bad in itself or only when certain people do it.  I don't overstate anything by asking for clarification.

(07-10-2019, 07:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I leave Dill's argument feeling somewhat short changed on specific support.  Is there perhaps a subtext here, assumptions he expects some to know, but left unstated, could be denied? (BTW the "dog whistle" trope has been as worn out by the far left in this country as accusations of fascism)

There is an odd undercurrent to this thread that I won't imply, but simply point out.  Lot's of people complaining about Carlson while engaging in the same behavior they decry in him.  Very interesting.

Dill assumes people understand something of logical inference, implication, and entailment. Are those liberal dog whistles? 

If Tucker claims a country should not let in people who hate it, and he identifies people who hate the US by their criticism of it, then he is definitely saying we should not allow people who criticize the US to immigrate here, even if he does not state "We should not allow critics in." 

Further, if people should be kept out because they criticize the US, that logically implies criticizing the US is bad, even if Tucker does not explicitly say "criticizing the US is bad" or distinguish between levels and types of criticism.  But since he is criticizing US policy, that implies it is ok when some people do it. People like him. Hence my questions regarding how "ok" is decided.

Still further, he only refers to general, not specific or particular criticisms of the US. Usually people only do that when they think criticism in general is bad.

And my questions about Carlson's argument are still unanswered. He says Omar's criticism makes her a "Warning to us all."   If you agree, then you can fill in the gaps in his argument.  Who is allowed to criticize the US? From what social status, under what conditions?

[Dill]

(07-10-2019, 08:53 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: What the hell does it mean to "make them assimilate?"

Like...is he suggesting America impose some form of law that mandates that immigrants give up their culture or something? If so, how would that even work?

I'm not trying to put words in his mouth, I'm just asking.

When he does not spell out what he means with specifics, then readers/listeners have to fill in the blanks. That might have been intentional. 

Where are those places with values antithetical to the US? His exemplary warning is a Muslim from Somalia via Kenya who became a Democrat. Some may "know" he means Muslim-majority countries, others may picture non-white African countries, still others might include countries that produce "socialists." Some may figure "all of the above."  But don't YOU go there C-Dawg because he never specified ANY of that.  Keep the image of Omar, but hold your mind blank regarding places lol.

And he isn't saying he knows for sure WHAT the problem is, just that there IS a problem--and it flows from immigrants, from places with values antithetical to ours, who criticize the US.  

At the very least, he seems to be saying that immigrants should be vetted, especially from places "antithetical to American values," in a way that would grade their ability to assimilate.  Which ones are more likely to become more like us, which not?  Has nothing to do with religion or race, just "criticism."

Those immigrants already here should be nicer, less critical, learn our language and ways.

[BakertheBeast]

I always thought that Tucker Carson was a part of a mans body that is used to urinate but I don't know if he really is racist. Maybe he plays that role on the air so the execs at Trump tv let him keep his job.

[CJD]

(07-10-2019, 10:31 PM)Dill Wrote: When he does not spell out what he means with specifics, then readers/listeners have to fill in the blanks. That might have been intentional. 

Where are those places with values antithetical to the US? His exemplary warning is a Muslim from Somalia via Kenya who became a Democrat. Some may "know" he means Muslim-majority countries, others may picture non-white African countries, still others might include countries that produce "socialists." Some may figure "all of the above."  But don't YOU go there C-Dawg because he never specified ANY of that.  Keep the image of Omar, but hold your mind blank regarding places lol.

And he isn't saying he knows for sure WHAT the problem is, just that there IS a problem--and it flows from immigrants, from places with values antithetical to ours, who criticize the US.  

At the very least, he seems to be saying that immigrants should be vetted, especially from places "antithetical to American values," in a way that would grade their ability to assimilate.  Which ones are more likely to become more like us, which not?  Has nothing to do with religion or race, just "criticism."

Those immigrants already here should be nicer, less critical, learn our language and ways.

So you're saying that he said a whole lot of nothing, but implied a whole lot of racist stuff that he can simply deny by pointing out he didn't explicitly say it?

[GMDino]

(07-11-2019, 07:28 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: So you're saying that he said a whole lot of nothing, but implied a whole lot of racist stuff that he can simply deny by pointing out he didn't explicitly say it?

The right's media arm has developed and evolved into a well oiled machine.  Limbaugh wrote the road map and others have followed the course.

But what your wrote is a good breakdown.  

Purely from a media perspective the right has a better operation in getting messages out and having opinion people who can say thing without saying them explicitly.

The left is also always hamstrung by having to first show how the right was lying/spinning THEN explain their own side's view.  Almost always playing from behind even when the Democrats are in power.  Purely from a media perspective, IMHO.

That's why one needs to take an entire body of work into consideration with someone like Tucker.  It's rare to see an outlier like James O'Keefe who is just so bad at what he does that one can point it out very easily.

[CJD]

(07-11-2019, 08:55 AM)GMDino Wrote: The right's media arm has developed and evolved into a well oiled machine.  Limbaugh wrote the road map and others have followed the course.

But what your wrote is a good breakdown.  

Purely from a media perspective the right has a better operation in getting messages out and having opinion people who can say thing without saying them explicitly.

The left is also always hamstrung by having to first show how the right was lying/spinning THEN explain their own side's view.  Almost always playing from behind even when the Democrats are in power.  Purely from a media perspective, IMHO.

That's why one needs to take an entire body of work into consideration with someone like Tucker.  It's rare to see an outlier like James O'Keefe who is just so bad at what he does that one can point it out very easily.

All joking aside, it's frustrating when discussing racism because maybe 0.1% of racism is "I hate *insert race/minority group*." And in those cases, it's often behind closed doors.

And, to certain people, if a person isn't just blatantly displaying their hatred for a race, they have plausible deniability when it comes to discussing things like this thread.

Tucker seems to have really mastered the art of leading his viewers to where he's going without explicitly saying what he's clearly relaying to the people who agree with him.

I'm grateful whenever I see these types of shenanigans exposed, even if it does cause some people (who probably will never side with you in the first place regarding race anyway) to dig even deeper into their holes and deny the prevalence of racism in this world. 

Each generation, race relations have gotten a little bit better, so we really just have to remain patient...Maybe my children or their children will be able to live in a world where racism is actually as rare as some people seem to think it is.

[Dill]

(07-11-2019, 07:28 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: So you're saying that he said a whole lot of nothing, but implied a whole lot of racist stuff that he can simply deny by pointing out he didn't explicitly say it?

I wouldn't say he is saying "nothing." There are--have already been--electoral consequences following this sort of xenophobic discourse.

First I would put it this way: the implication of his argument, as given, is that immigrants should be "grateful," and being grateful includes supporting, not criticizing, Republican policies; that sort of criticism = hating America, even if you don't explicitly SAY you hate America, and even if you explicitly say you love it.  (A WaPo writer calls this the Orwellian test: You've got to love Big Brother.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/11/tucker-carlson-proposes-an-orwellian-test-immigrants-theyve-got-like-us-back/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5724ae42a200

That argument is not aimed at people who think the US is stronger with immigrants from all over the world, regardless of race or religion, or that criticism of government is necessary to a functioning democracy. An MSM audience. It is rather aimed at people who think THEY are taking over America (with help from Far Left defenders who want to change what America is) and if you don't salute the flag you should leave.  Tuckers' is the kind of argument that activates/reinforces existing prejudices/stereotypes and channels them into political action against specific targets, not from Norway.

So, yes, that kind of argument is aimed at people with specific grievances who can "fill in the blanks." And then dare you to "play the race card." (Where did Carlson mention "race"? Show me!) And if you can find a Christian Somalian who passes the Orwellian test, then it can't be about race or religion, right? It's just about making America stronger by not importing trouble. That's all.

Carlson himself has a long, xenophobic history of such grievance and what kind of media response it can be counted on to elicit, how to say it without saying it. 
https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2019/03/11/unearthed-audio-shows-tucker-carlson-using-white-nationalist-rhetoric-and-making-racist-remarks/223105
He knows that critics hearing his argument will still draw out and attack its implications, while his supporters wil defend him by invoking what he didn't say. And it's not just Carlson. This is the Fox model.

PS on a side note: just silly to think that mostly white Christians from Minnesota elected a Somali American because she "hates" America.

[*bfine32*]

(07-11-2019, 07:28 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: So you're saying that he said a whole lot of nothing, but implied a whole lot of racist stuff that he can simply deny by pointing out he didn't explicitly say it?

I suppose you could suggest the fault lies in the implication or the inference.

[CJD]

(07-11-2019, 01:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose you could suggest the fault lies in the implication or the inference.

I suppose you could suggest that.

Are you suggesting that?

[GMDino]

**OPINION PIECE**

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/tucker-carlson-ilhan-omar/593602/

Quote:Tucker Carlson Has Failed to Assimilate
The Fox News host betrayed core American values in his attack on Representative Ilhan Omar.


While I favor granting citizenship automatically to children born in the United States, I was reminded of birthright citizenship’s biggest downside Tuesday while listening to Tucker Carlson on his Fox News show.

Unlike immigrants, natural-born citizens such as Carlson are neither screened nor forced to pass a citizenship test nor made to swear an oath. And when they stray from the American way, no one thinks to tell them that they’re failing to assimilate.  


But isn’t “failure to assimilate” an accurate way to characterize Carlson’s angry identitarianism? Carlson, who broadcasts to millions of viewers on national television, keeps fueling xenophobia and needless social strife by singling out people who weren’t born in America for special ire, then attributing negative qualities to whole groups. He just can’t get with the program of the American experiment.
A case in point was his monologue last night about Ilhan Omar, a Somali-born woman who came to the U.S. as a 12-year-old refugee and is now, at 36, a member of Congress. *

Carlson purported to characterize her views. “Omar isn’t disappointed in America,” he said. “She’s enraged by it. Virtually every public statement she makes accuses Americans of bigotry and racism. This is an immoral country, she says. She has undisguised contempt for the United States and for its people.”

A review of Omar’s public statements shows that isn’t true. Although Omar is frequently critical of the United States, she tends to attack what she regards as the country’s failure to live up to its lofty values. “She was almost like a cliché of a civic-minded new American,” one of her college professors told The New York Times. “She would quote the Declaration of Independence asking, ‘Why have we come up short?’”


The same article quotes Ilhan saying: “I think back to the orientations I went through a little over 20 years ago in the process of coming to this country, and in those orientations they did not have people who were homeless. There was an America that extended liberty and justice to everyone. There was an America where prosperity was guaranteed regardless of where you were born and what you looked like and who you prayed to. I wasn’t comfortable with that hypocrisy.”

I don’t always agree with Omar. And I don’t expect Carlson to, either. If Carlson had simply quoted Omar’s views and dissented on the merits, even harshly, I would not be writing on the subject.


But Carlson suggested that because Omar came here as a child, she doesn’t have the right to voice critical opinions about America—that her gratitude for citizenship should result in silence. And then he cited her views as if they bear on the attitudes of immigrants generally, before engaging in sweeping, negative generalizations about them.


“Ilhan Omar is living proof that the way we practice immigration has become dangerous to this country,” he said. “A system designed to strengthen America is instead undermining it … She’s a living fire alarm, a warning to the rest of us that we ought to change our immigration system immediately, or else.”

What an odd conclusion to draw from Omar’s example. Isn’t getting elected to Congress a great achievement, and proof of assimilation? There is no more establishment, Founding Father–approved way of seeking change than winning elected office and proposing new laws. Whether or not Omar overestimates the relative degree of injustice in America, seeking to remedy its ills through official channels is the opposite of dangerous.

The notion that Omar alone proves anything about America’s immigration system, for better or worse, is absurd. If Carlson wants to make the case that the immigration system is broken, he should find evidence, not an avatar to rile up his audience. What’s a term to describe someone who insists that whole groups of people are bad in the same way, and ceases to treat members of that group as individuals?


Tucker Carlson is that term.


“Maybe we’re importing people from places whose values are simply antithetical to ours,” Carlson continued. But isn’t it Carlson who holds views antithetical to American harmony? Perhaps Carlson provides “living proof” that it is dangerous to grant citizenship to San Francisco–born, La Jolla–raised white men.


If that sounds like a parody of what a “grievance studies” professor would believe, Carlson is the real-life, nativist analogue of that parody, fit for a tenured chair at Trump University. For other examples of his generalizations about foreign-born people, I refer you to his fear-mongering monologue concerning Roma refugees in America and his appearances on a morning radio show, where he called the citizens of Iraq “semiliterate primitive monkeys” for whom he has “zero sympathy.” He has also suggested that immigration “makes our own country poorer and dirtier and more divided.”

I think Carlson divides America. And I’d rather hear the views of the first 100 immigrants listed in the Boston phone book than those of Carlson and his Fox producers. Many call Carlson’s show “racist,” which I would resist—strictly speaking, it is more accurate to call it xenophobic, animus-filled, prejudicial, poorly reasoned, and bigoted.


As a natural-born American like Carlson, I hope no one groups us together and makes assumptions about me based on his views. I ask not to be judged for his words.

This falls short of calling Tucker a racist.  Maybe I look at a phrase like "semiliterate primitive monkeys"more racists than others do (even if not speaking about blacks).  I just look at his "body of work".  So call him a "nativist" if you want.  It's all the same to me.  Tucker thinks people who look and act like him are "good" for the country and anyone who comes here and complains about anything is "bad".  

[jj22]

(07-11-2019, 07:28 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: So you're saying that he said a whole lot of nothing, but implied a whole lot of racist stuff that he can simply deny by pointing out he didn't explicitly say it?

Exactly. Cause the base knows exactly what he's saying. Again, they don't talk like this about European immigrants, so no, this has nothing to do with immigration as they lamely try to tell you to cover for their fear of colored people and them taking over America. Hell, if you listen to conservative media, European immigrants don't even exist. Illegal or otherwise.

Just those brown people who are all rapist (the only time they seem to care about rapist) and drug dealers.

[CJD]

(07-11-2019, 03:54 PM)jj22 Wrote: Exactly. Cause the base knows exactly what he's saying. Again, they don't talk like this about European immigrants, so no, this has nothing to do with immigration as they lamely try to tell you to cover for their fear of colored people and them taking over America. Hell, if you listen to conservative media, European immigrants don't even exist. Illegal or otherwise.

Just those brown people who are all rapist (the only time they seem to care about rapist) and drug dealers.

Well, the first lady is a former (possibly)-illegal European immigrant, so they can't be opposed to those, right? XD