From the transcript of the speech:
REPRESENTATIVE GREENE: What about Laken Riley?
(Cross-talk.)
AUDIENCE: Booo —
REPRESENTATIVE GREENE: Say her name!
THE PRESIDENT: (The President holds up a pin reading “Say Her Name, Laken Riley.”) Lanken — Lanken (Laken) Riley, an innocent young woman who was killed.
REPRESENTATIVE GREENE: By an illegal!
THE PRESIDENT: By an illegal. That’s right. But how many of thousands of people are being killed by legals?
I don’t see the problem. His response rightly points out that murders happen regardless of the perpetrators legal status.
It’s just how propaganda works.
At any given time, there are a few different anecdotal-type “talking points” that are the new thing everyone’s talking about. You’re going to be hearing about Biden saying “an illegal” for a little while, even though as your transcript notes, it wasn’t even him that chose the wording. People form their picture of the world through these little gestalt-facts, and if you can pick one that will shape the narrative you want to present, and arrange for people to hear it over and over from a variety of sources, and do that in a constant stream that all points to the same types of conclusions, it actually does a pretty good job at controlling how they’ll perceive the totality of the situation.
It’s almost exactly the same as how you will hear over and over that:
- We broke a record for fossil fuel extraction in 2023
- Biden’s climate bill includes giving money to oil and gas companies
… and then all this weight of emotion behind how bad Biden is for the climate, how he’s just the same, how it’s such a shame that I as a good climate-change person can’t support him… etc etc. Because the little factoids are in fact accurate, and properly sized and shaped to stick in your brain, they count as “supporting evidence” for Biden being bad on the climate.
The reality is, the way to analyze Biden’s performance on the climate is to ask what’s the total content of the climate bill he got passed, and what impact it’s expected to have. That’s it. Just like the reality is that how he performs on immigration has nothing at all to do with whether he said “an illegal” in this specific context.
If you hear someone repeating one of these specific little factoids, or if you start to see one specific one that is commonly repeated, my advice is to become suspicious of the message on top of which it is being placed, like a little evidence-cherry.
>You’re going to be hearing about Biden saying “an illegal” for a little while, even though as your transcript notes, it wasn’t even him that chose the wording.
why isn’t he accountable for the words that come out of his mouth?
Dude just give it a rest. The transcript speaks for itself and you or me or any other person can just read it and form their conclusions. If you read it and your conclusions are some specific way, then of course you’re welcome to that opinion.
deleted by creator
when are you going to stop personally attacking other users?
From the quote in the article he seemed surprised it was an issue…
The statement marks an apparent reversal from what Biden said Friday. While at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, the president was asked, “Do you regret using the word ‘illegal’ to describe immigrants last night, sir?”
“Well, I probably — I don’t re — technically not supposed to be here,” he responded.
Probably because he’s been hanging out with republicans again.
The Democrats told Biden that he needed to show more of the fire that was on display in a closed-door meeting with governors when Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte handed him a letter demanding more action on the southern border. Biden flashed a smile, according to two of the governors standing there.
"State of the Union,” Biden said, teasingly.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/07/politics/joe-biden-state-of-the-union/index.html
Dude is 81 fucking years old, and all it takes is five minutes of face time with a Republican till he thinks he’s back in “the good old days” with Strom Thurmond and Mitch McConnell
He planned this stupid shit and legitimately thought it was a good move.
He’s completely out of touch with Dem voters
It’s hilarious to me that while he was Obama’s VP, and even up to a few months ago I was saying Biden is as far right as you can get in a democrat, and that he’s filthy with the blood of the drug war. And everyone would downvote me and defend Biden, now here we are.
Corn Pop was
a bad dude an illegala bad dude
I dislike Biden immeasurably less than Trump, and I plan to vote for him in November, yet:
“It is a red line," Biden said, adding, “but I’m never gonna leave Israel. The defense of Israel is still critical.”
That sounds to me like there is, in fact, not a red line.
Drawing a line without any consequences for crossing it is worse than not drawing a line at all (source: my pedagogy prof, many, many moons ago).
I realize that Biden did not, in fact, say that there were not going to be any consequences at all - but the other thing with lines is that the consequences need to be known in advance, and they need to be adhered to. From all I’m hearing in interviews, the US government seems very hesitant to commit to any consequences, and if the slaughter keeps going, it may save Netanyahu’s political career, but seriously bite Biden in the tush come election day.
Didn’t he say something about a 2 state solution being the eventual goal?
Yes, he has been saying this. What is lacking is a plan to get there. Against the opposition of the current Israeli government.
How does the American president develop a plan when one side is refusing to even say if the hostages are alive and acknowledge the existence of the other party?
It’s so weird that people act like Hamas/Palestinians aren’t required to be a part of the process… when they’re the ones who have turned down the deals Egypt and Qatar have brokered.
Right. The principal parties of such negotiations are the Israeli- and the Palestinian Government, with Hamas in the mix, because they control the Gaza Strip.
Anyone outside those groups can make suggestions, demands, etc., but there are limited means for them to influence such negotiations. The US government can threaten to withhold support (at the risk of being labeled antisemitic or at least anti Israel), but I wouldn’t bet my bottom dollar that it would make a difference in this climate.
I did not mean imply that Biden and his government can make a plan, and expect it to be followed. However, I feel that for his own benefit, Biden has to make a public display of making stronger demands for a resolution of this problem. It may not fix things in the Middle East in the short term, but it will demonstrate that he cares, and that the USA cares.
That’s fair, I would probably agree with most of how you have reframed that. I think the qataris have an outside influence and obviously Iran’s input would mean something.
I think Biden bringing Gantz over for a chat is about as big of a threat to Bibi as you’re going to see though. That’s notable on many levels.
Hamas is part of the process, they have attended the negotiations.
Fact is Israel is the one who keeps refusing to participate.
Israel won’t negotiate until they get a list of names of living hostages. That’s what’s being negotiated, Hamas won’t provide it. Blaming Israel because Hamas won’t come to the table in any reasonable way is ridiculous.
The Qatar’s have threatened to boot Hamas if they don’t start negotiating in good faith is the news coming out lately. Blaming Israel for not negotiating over nothing is just stupid.
Israel won’t negotiate
You could’ve stopped there.
Meanwhile Qatar is threatening to boot Hamas because they’re not negotiating in good faith.
Your narrative doesn’t match reality.
The two state solution here seems to be a border with Israel on one side and Egypt on the other.
This is just willful ignorance at this point, the administration has been saying consistently since at least a month after October 7th, that a two state solution was the only answer to permanently solve the crisis.
And yet they will do nothing to make it happen, just like every administration before them. At what point will you care that it’s just lip service?
It’s like saying “Im sorry I used the N word. Anyway, we’ll be bringing back segregated classrooms to protect white kids from the black crisis.”
Not even close. We’re referring to it as “illegal” not “the I word”.
I’m not happy Biden said it either, but what you’re describing is on a completely different level.
drowning kids in barbed wire is quite a level
And very different from the original point we were discussing.
My point is apologizing for words is pointless when the actions are worse. He’s apologizing for how he refers to migrants, but with actions he is making their lives worse, he and congress are pushing for even more aggressive action at the border, where currently its so bad that women and children have been drowning in barbed wire. He should keep calling them illegals because that’s how he’s treating them, that’s why he called them that in the first place.
deleted by creator
If his conscience worked he wouldn’t be bending over backwards to illegally supply weapons of war to a country engaged in a genocide.
It’s commonly understood that injecting one’s opinion into a discussion that requires facts, is it poor taste.
However, in the interest of fair play, how about you go ahead and prove that Biden is “bending over backwards” to “illegally” supply weapons of war.
Provide evidence that:
A) He’s “bending over backwards
-and
B) It’s illegal.
Otherwise, admit that you’re here to spread false information. So we can flag your comment as propaganda.
He structured (illegal) the arms deals so that they wouldn’t meet the minimum amount for congressional oversight. That would be the bending over backward, and illegal part.
Could you show us a source that shows he did this?
the current security cooperation ecosystem is overwhelmingly subject to the will and preferences of the executive branch, and the ability of lawmakers to shape arms sales decisions or intercede in transfers they oppose is exceptionally circumscribed. President Biden’s use of the AECA’s emergency provision to transfer weapons to Israel despite grave humanitarian and human rights concerns is emblematic of an enterprise that is run by a narrowing set of stakeholders and without sufficient checks and balances that are key to democratic governance.
Thank you.
It wasn’t illegal. Nor was it bending over backwards. Stop with the misinformation.
Also you’ve provided no evidence to support your opinion.
Do you even know what structuring means lol?
Do you know what illegal means lol?
Let me help you out, friend;
Structuring is when criminals make transactions intentionally splitting larger amounts into a series of smaller sums to avoid scrutiny from law enforcement or compliance obligations. In other words, criminals strategically structure deposits just under the threshold to prevent unwanted attention.
The act itself is illegal.
I really dislike the newspeak about “undocumented immigrants” vs “illegal immigrants”. The problem isn’t that they don’t have documents. The problem is that they entered the country illegally.
Yes, they committed a misdemeanor. So when you jaywalk you’re an illegal pedestrian, and when you do a rolling stop at a stop sign you’re an illegal driver.
So what kinds of illegal are you? I’d assume at the very least an illegal pedestrian, likely also an illegal driver. Are you by chance an illegal shopper as well?
So when you jaywalk you’re an illegal pedestrian
Sure, that’s not a term anybody really uses though.
when you do a rolling stop at a stop sign you’re an illegal driver
No, an illegal driver is a driver without a license. It’s a pretty widely used term. There’s also “illegal doctor” for people who are practicing medicine without a license. Normally when the term is used it’s not for a brief violation of the law, but for a persistent status.
So what kinds of illegal are you?
If you think “illegal pedestrian” is a thing, I’ve been that pretty often, but I’ve never been caught. Was this supposed to be some kind of gotcha?
The point is that an illegal immigrant makes it sound like the human being themselves is illegal. Literally the law they broke is on the same level as jay walking. That’s why people shouldn’t be using the dehumanizing term illegal immigrant.
However, I think you already understood that.
an illegal immigrant makes it sound like the human being themselves is illegal
No it doesn’t, that’s why the word “immigrant” is there, to describe what the illegal thing was. So, an illegal doctor is a doctor who doesn’t have a license. An illegal motorist is someone who is driving a car without a license. Nobody thinks that the human being is “illegal” whatever that means, it’s the immigration that was illegal.
Literally the law they broke is on the same level as jay walking
No, it’s not. Has anybody ever been removed from a country when they’ve been caught jay walking? Even a fine is extremely rare. Being in a country illegally is a more serious offense by a pretty large margin.
However, I think you already understood that.
I understood that some people trot out those terrible arguments, but I don’t think even they actually believe them.
>No, it’s not. Has anybody ever been removed from a country when they’ve been caught jay walking? Even a fine is extremely rare. Being in a country illegally is a more serious offense by a pretty large margin.
what makes you think anyone is in the country illegally? in america, people are entitle to a trial by a jury of their peers when they are accused of a crime. it looks to me like the accusation is just that, and you’ll forgive me if i don’t believe the government without proof.
what makes you think anyone is in the country illegally?
Do you understand what illegal immigration means?
in america, people are entitle to a trial by a jury of their peers when they are accused of a crime
Illegal street racers are members of the group who race cars illegally on the street. Any person accused of that crime deserves their day in court. But, that doesn’t change the fact that we know illegal street racing happens, and therefore there exist illegal street racers. Similarly, any individual person accused of illegal immigration deserves their day in court, but when referring to the group of people who have illegally immigrated into the US, “illegal immigrants” is a perfectly reasonable label.
Unless you’re saying that you’re not convinced that anybody has ever violated immigration law, so “illegal immigration” is a myth?
>Unless you’re saying that you’re not convinced that anybody has ever violated immigration law, so “illegal immigration” is a myth?
i haven’t seen compelling evidence about it. but i will say i think borders are immoral and i know my duty vis-a-vis immoral laws.
Ugh, the liberal handwringing over this term is how we make more Republicans. Is that term all that significant in contrast with what the policies will be? No.
Correct. I’m pretty sure that “illegal” is just the short form of “illegal alien”. And is that the accepted legal term for a foreign national who is in the US illegally, right?
Honestly, all of this language policing just turns the average person right off. I mean, I suppose it wouldn’t be necessary if the Republicans weren’t constantly sneering at people, but still. It is better to reclaim terms the Republicans abuse rather than try to language-police hundreds of millions of people. It is very, very off-putting.
