Don Lemon: White Guys Biggest Threat...

[seer]

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: I keep trying to point out to people and not to demonize any one group or any one ethnicity. But we keep thinking that the biggest terror threat is something else, someone people who are marching, you know, towards the border, like it's imminent.

And the last time they did this, a couple hundred people came and they -- you know, most of them did get into the country, most of them tired-- you know, got tuckered out before they made it to the border.

So, we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them. There is no travel ban on them. There is no ban on -- you know, they had the Muslim ban. There is no white guy ban.

So, what do we do about that? And first of all, let me just say this. Maurice Stallard is the name and Vicki Jones. And they have been lost in all of this. Two people who were killed on Wednesday that you talked about.

They have been lost in this, and I know that people feel that this story has not gotten enough coverage, and we will honor them tonight in our program.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...white_men.html

OK, a couple of points. First, he says that we should not demonize any one group or any one ethnicity, then he goes on to demonize white men! Second, even if white men did cause the majority of terrorist acts, that would not be unusual since they are a much larger portion of the population, what on earth does that have to do with immigration?

[carpedm9587]

OK, a couple of points. First, he says that we should not demonize any one group or any one ethnicity, then he goes on to demonize white men! Second, even if white men did cause the majority of terrorist acts, that would not be unusual since they are a much larger portion of the population, what on earth does that have to do with immigration?

He is being inconsistent.

The problem is not white men. It's white Christian men from the New England area.

[seer]

It's white Christian men from the New England area.

Well I can't ague with that!

[Sparko]

We can all have what we want.

I propose that we run an exchange program. Since liberals want to let in illegal immigrants and liberals don't like white men, why don't we do this:

We send one liberal white man to Honduras for every one immigrant we let have asylum from the caravan.

[carpedm9587]

Well I can't ague with that!

Nor should you...

[carpedm9587]

We can all have what we want.

I propose that we run an exchange program. Since liberals want to let in illegal immigrants and liberals don't like white men, why don't we do this:

We send one liberal white man to Honduras for every one immigrant we let have asylum from the caravan.

Warning - the emphasized text above is an outright lie promulgated by the right. Some liberals want "open borders" - which eliminates the concept of "illegal immigration" entirely. Some want a broader definition of "asylum." Still others want secure borders, but compassion to be shown to those who have been born here as the children of illegal immigrants, brought here when they were too young to have a choice (i.e., the "Dreamers") or have been allowed to be here for decades due to poor immigration policies and enforcement. There are few (I know of none) liberals who "want illegal immigration." The statement above is a "whip up the masses" lie designed to further separate the left and right. I have no idea if Sparko himself is lying - because I don't know if he knows the statement is false and is saying it anyway. But it is an oft repeated lie from many on the right.

I am of the latter two groups. I want secure borders using common-sense and effective means - and compassion for those already here - so long as they are not guilty of any crime (other than crossing here illegally).

[Sparko]

Warning - the emphasized text above is an outright lie promulgated by the right. Some liberals want "open borders" - which eliminates the concept of "illegal immigration" entirely. Some want a broader definition of "asylum." Still others want secure borders, but compassion to be shown to those who have been born here as the children of illegal immigrants, brought here when they were too young to have a choice (i.e., the "Dreamers") or have been allowed to be here for decades due to poor immigration policies and enforcement. There are few (I know of none) liberals who "want illegal immigration." The statement above is a "whip up the masses" lie designed to further separate the left and right. I have no idea if Sparko himself is lying - because I don't know if he knows the statement is false and is saying it anyway. But it is an oft repeated lie from many on the right.

I am of the latter two groups. I want secure borders using common-sense and effective means - and compassion for those already here - so long as they are not guilty of any crime (other than crossing here illegally).

I was making a joke. And as a general "platform" the democrats are for allowing the illegal immigrants into the country. So, no, I was not "lying" Mr. Picker of nits.

[seer]

Warning - the emphasized text above is an outright lie promulgated by the right. Some liberals want "open borders" - which eliminates the concept of "illegal immigration" entirely. Some want a broader definition of "asylum." Still others want secure borders, but compassion to be shown to those who have been born here as the children of illegal immigrants, brought here when they were too young to have a choice (i.e., the "Dreamers") or have been allowed to be here for decades due to poor immigration policies and enforcement. There are few (I know of none) liberals who "want illegal immigration." The statement above is a "whip up the masses" lie designed to further separate the left and right. I have no idea if Sparko himself is lying - because I don't know if he knows the statement is false and is saying it anyway. But it is an oft repeated lie from many on the right.

I am of the latter two groups. I want secure borders using common-sense and effective means - and compassion for those already here - so long as they are not guilty of any crime (other than crossing here illegally).

See, I don't really have a problem with amnesty as long as there are no felonies involved. But this is the problem, we were snooker with the amnesty under Reagan. They never secured the border like they promised (both parties were at fault). And until they slow illegal immigration down to a trickle I don't want to hear it... Border security first...

[carpedm9587]

See, I don't really have a problem with amnesty as long as there are no felonies involved. But this is the problem, we were snooker with the amnesty under Reagan. They never secured the border like they promised (both parties were at fault). And until they slow illegal immigration down to a trickle I don't want to hear it... Border security first...

We weren't "snookered." As best I can tell - it was simple failure to follow through from one administration to the next. I agree it should not happen again. That doesn't mean we cannot take the people already here out of "limbo" and give them an (arduous) path to citizenship. I don't think it should be as simple as someone who enters legally - but I think it should exist.

AND I think we need to adjust our admissions to reflect our employment and growth needs, adequately provide asylum as our share of the overall world load, and take reasonable steps to secure our borders. The fact is we have over 8,000 miles of border. There will ALWAYS be illegal immigration. Our best bet to stopping it is not to build huge walls - it's to help the nations from which it most comes to deal with their problems and create a better quality of life - so there is less incentive to make the arduous trip here.

All of this incredible hype about "the caravan" is so much political posturing. There have been caravans before. They get to the border and are processed for asylum. Many drop off along the way. Most are families with small children, risking life and limb to make the trip. The idea that we are on the receiving end of a "dangerous invasion" is just so much hype. And the incredible conspiracy theories around who is organizing and funding it are just off-the-rails. That anyone would believe such obvious nonsense simply amazes me.

[seer]

We weren't "snookered." As best I can tell - it was simple failure to follow through from one administration to the next. I agree it should not happen again. That doesn't mean we cannot take the people already here out of "limbo" and give them an (arduous) path to citizenship. I don't think it should be as simple as someone who enters legally - but I think it should exist.

Like I said, I don't want to hear it until the border is secure. And I would not offer citizenship, but a permanent work visa - citizenship for their kids.

AND I think we need to adjust our admissions to reflect our employment and growth needs, adequately provide asylum as our share of the overall world load, and take reasonable steps to secure our borders. The fact is we have over 8,000 miles of border. There will ALWAYS be illegal immigration. Our best bet to stopping it is not to build huge walls - it's to help the nations from which it most comes to deal with their problems and create a better quality of life - so there is less incentive to make the arduous trip here.

That is just silly, we can not solve all of the world's problems. As far as employment, do we really need millions of low skill or no skill workers?

All of this incredible hype about "the caravan" is so much political posturing. There have been caravans before. They get to the border and are processed for asylum. Many drop off along the way. Most are families with small children, risking life and limb to make the trip. The idea that we are on the receiving end of a "dangerous invasion" is just so much hype. And the incredible conspiracy theories around who is organizing and funding it are just off-the-rails. That anyone would believe such obvious nonsense simply amazes me.

Hey Trump did not start this, and he should exploit.

[carpedm9587]

Like I said, I don't want to hear it until the border is secure. And I would not offer citizenship, but a permanent work visa - citizenship for their kids.

I'm not willing to hold the people already here hostage to political policy.

That is just silly, we can not we can not solve all of the world's problems. As far as employment, do we really need millions of low skill or no skill workers?

So let me see..."adequately provide asylum as our share of the overall world load" was turned into "solve all of the world's problems?" So since you're not responding to what I actually said - I'm not sure I need to respond to your transmutation. I also did not say "million" anywhere. I said our immigrant policy (setting aside asylum) should align to our employment needs. Sometimes our employment needs are for high-skill - and sometimes for basic labor - and everything in between.

You seem to regularly take perfectly rational proposals, spin them into extreme right-wing interpretations, and then object. It might help if you responded to what I actually said, and not what you exaggerated it to be...? maybe?

Hey Trump did not start this, and he should exploit.

Exploiting a group of immigrants looking to better their lives for themselves and their families, at extreme risk to both, is not justified, IMO. Need I remind people that "applying for asylum" is a perfectly legal way to request admission into the U.S? Perhaps if people sent less time paying attention to immigrant scare tactics, and took a bit of time to explore the actual makeup of this caravan, the history of such caravans, and the process they are required to go through before they are admitted, we'd have less "scare tactics" and a bit more humanity.

[seer]

I'm not willing to hold the people already here hostage to political policy.

That is the penalty they should pay for breaking into our country. It is no more political than you offering citizenship.

So let me see..."adequately provide asylum as our share of the overall world load" was turned into "solve all of the world's problems?" So since you're not responding to what I actually said - I'm not sure I need to respond to your transmutation. I also did not say "million" anywhere. I said our immigrant policy (setting aside asylum) should align to our employment needs. Sometimes our employment needs are for high-skill - and sometimes for basic labor - and everything in between.

People in their own nations need to fix the problems in their own countries. And who says what our share is? And we need low skill labor less and less, we have enough of our own low skill labor. So that category can pretty much be dismissed.

Exploiting a group of immigrants looking to better their lives for themselves and their families, at extreme risk to both, is not justified, IMO. Need I remind people that "applying for asylum" is a perfectly legal way to request admission into the U.S? Perhaps if people sent less time paying attention to immigrant scare tactics, and took a bit of time to explore the actual makeup of this caravan, the history of such caravans, and the process they are required to go through before they are admitted, we'd have less "scare tactics" and a bit more humanity.

It is a good opportunity to create political capital to put a stop to these endless invasions.

[Cow Poke]

Come on, I know full well this thread is about me.

[carpedm9587]

That is the penalty they should pay for breaking into our country. It is no more political than you offering citizenship.

Not all of them - not the children and newborns who had no choice in the matter. As for the rest, there were two factors at play: their desire to be here - and our poorly structured and enforced immigrant laws. Putting it all on their backs eliminates our taking responsibility for our part. That is why I advocate a (challenging) path to citizenship, without holding the process hostage to political policy.

People in their own nations need to fix the problems in their own countries. And who says what our share is?

That's easy math for me - of all of the people seeking asylum, "our share" is what we can reasonably absorb given our enormous wealth as a nation, and significant space and resources. We could divide it with every other nation by population, by wealth, by land resources, or any combination thereof. After all, whosoever does this for the least of mine, also does it for me, right?

And we need low skill labor less and less, we have enough of our own low skill labor. So that category can pretty much be dismissed.

Really? I suggest you review this article. There are many industries where immigrants dominate, and employers cannot find enough Americans who want to do the work. Most are manual labor of one kind or another. That food you ate tonight? There's a 60% chance that immigrant hands ensured it was fit to eat. A common-sense immigration policy matches gaps in the workforce to immigrants wishing to enter.

It is a good opportunity to create political capital to put a stop to these endless invasions.

We're not being "invaded" by any stretch of the imagination. That's right-wing exaggeration. The illegal immigrant population in the U.S. has been dropping (slowly) since 2008. They certainly have not been given a path to naturalization - so the obvious explanation is that the rate of illegal immigration is now below the rate of repatriation. In 2000, over 1.6M entered the country illegally. In 2017 the rate was about 317K. A combination of factors have contributed to that significant decline, and continued efforts to control the situation should produce additional declines. Note that MOST of that decline occurred under the Obama administration - and mostly he took flack for his increased deportations from the left, and flack for "not doing enough" from the right. Yet a decline of over 80% WAS achieved. And the current rate amounts to less than 0.1% of our population - and dropping.

The immigration flack is a political flag to rally Trump's base. It has no actual merits on the face of it. It just helps is Trump can get a lot of people to hate immigrants and scare the crap out of them that we're being "invaded." You're smarter than this, Seer. Don't fall for the hype.

[rogue06]

Warning - the emphasized text above is an outright lie promulgated by the right.

The moment you get the leaders of the Democrats and a majority of the MSM to stop conflating illegal immigration with legal immigration you would be right. But not until then.