• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

CNN: Dreamers will leave the US if DACA falls through

fagin said:
'k

The website linked, and the 'adorable' bit was twitchy.com, not CNN, but you know that, don't you?
Click to expand...

The twitchy post starts, right at the top, with a tweet from CNN. If you like, you can click on it and go straight to that same tweet in CNN's own feed.

Hopefully the fact that CNN actually published this is not really controversial.
 
I saw the link, and actually read the CNN article. My points were that the twitchy.com site was unpleasant, that they used 'adorable', just like TBD likes to do (ie. in an insulting manner), and most important, nowhere on either page does it say that they are 'threatening' to leave, that was TBD's spin.

As I said in my post, leaving voluntarily is an option to being deported. Not a 'threat'.

But we won't comment any more on 'Knuckleheads, amiright?'
 
fagin said:
most important, nowhere on either page does it say that they are 'threatening' to leave, that was TBD's spin.'
Click to expand...

headline:

Well … BYE: CNN frets because Dreamers ‘threaten’ to leave the US if DACA deal isn’t reached

so.... yeah....
 
Ok, my apologies - you didn't make up 'threatens', the twitchy website did. You just carried on espousing their bollocks. And rephrased it as 'threatening'.

The original CNN article, and the actual people reported on didn't use that term, or indeed, appear to be trying to express that intention.

Spin away....
 
In fact, from the original, they seem resigned to the situation (note no use of threat in any form.)

Alex and Daniela Velez have come to peace with the difficult choice they will need to make if Congress doesn’t reach a deal for those covered by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program by its March 5 deadline: They will leave the country.

Effectively leave instead of either becoming illegal or getting deported.
 
fagin said:
In fact, from the original, they seem resigned to the situation (note no use of threat in any form.)

Alex and Daniela Velez have come to peace with the difficult choice they will need to make if Congress doesn’t reach a deal for those covered by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program by its March 5 deadline: They will leave the country.

Effectively leave instead of either becoming illegal or getting deported.
Click to expand...

Can't you feel the aggressive entitlement inherent in their abject resignation?
 
Last edited:
fagin said:
Ok, my apologies - you didn't make up 'threatens', the twitchy website did. You just carried on espousing their bollocks. And rephrased it as 'threatening'.

The original CNN article, and the actual people reported on didn't use that term, or indeed, appear to be trying to express that intention.

Spin away....
Click to expand...

"Espousing their bollocks."

The only bollocks is the claim that IF they don't get what they want THEN they are going to leave. Sounds like a threat to this actual person. Sure it is a *********** stupid threat and like the mutts who threatened to leave when Trump won, no one really expects them to do it.

But I am all for them making good on their word, and wish them a hearty:

Bye, Felicia.
 
So, what they're (the dreamers) saying is:

"If you don't let us stay we'll leave"

Do I have that right?
 
fagin said:
One thing is not the same as the other.

See if you can work it out...
Click to expand...

Ok. I'll try.

Angry people who support one party scream that they'll leave the country if their candidate doesn't win.

Angry illegal aliens scream they'll leave the country if we don't let them stay.


You know, you're right. They're not the same. But both are equally stupid and in the end only hurt their cause when reasonable people hear that nonsense.

How'd I do working it out?
 
Kings Full said:
How'd I do working it out?
Click to expand...

Rather poorly, but at least you're trying.

How does a reasonable person think less of the Dreamers who say they'll follow the law and leave the country if they're not allowed to stay? That seems like a very unreasonable thing to do, and not even close to people who threaten to leave if their political choice doesn't win as far as stupidity goes.

Spin it as 'angry and screaming' all you want, it doesn't make them similar. I'd characterize the Dreamers as sad, scared, and disappointed before 'angry screaming'. Plenty of those who support them staying though are very, very angry. This doesn't make them wrong or stupid.
 
The Big Dog said:
Actually my interpretation was that you had completely failed to read the article.

They are not being thrown out, they are threatening to voluntarily leave.
Click to expand...

Evidently you failed to completely read the article, because it's fairly apparent that the (one) Dreamer making the statement is not "threatening" anything, but simply acknowledging the fact that they will have to leave one way or another, and that they would prefer to do it voluntarily rather than live in fear until the day the Gestapo arrest them for not having papers whereupon they'll have to spend an indefinite and miserable amount of time imprisoned before being deported to some place not of their choosing and almost certainly without any assets.
 
tyr_13 said:
Rather poorly, but at least you're trying.

How does a reasonable person think less of the Dreamers who say they'll follow the law and leave the country if they're not allowed to stay? That seems like a very unreasonable thing to do, and not even close to people who threaten to leave if their political choice doesn't win as far as stupidity goes.

Spin it as 'angry and screaming' all you want, it doesn't make them similar. I'd characterize the Dreamers as sad, scared, and disappointed before 'angry screaming'. Plenty of those who support them staying though are very, very angry. This doesn't make them wrong or stupid.
Click to expand...

Well, there's your problem.

When someone equates "if this happens, my family will have to leave" as "threatening," you realize that logic has gone out the window, and political ideology and cognitive dissonance rule the day.
 
Checkmite said:
Evidently you failed to completely read the article, because it's fairly apparent that the (one) Dreamer making the statement is not "threatening" anything, but simply acknowledging the fact that they will have to leave one way or another, and that they would prefer to do it voluntarily rather than live in fear until the day the Gestapo arrest them for not having papers whereupon they'll have to spend an indefinite and miserable amount of time imprisoned before being deported to some place not of their choosing and almost certainly without any assets.
Click to expand...

Thank you for expressing it well in more words than I was willing to use on grumpy dog and his regal mate.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
Evidently you failed to completely read the article, because it's fairly apparent that the (one) Dreamer making the statement is not "threatening" anything, but simply acknowledging the fact that they will have to leave one way or another, and that they would prefer to do it voluntarily rather than live in fear until the day the Gestapo arrest them for not having papers whereupon they'll have to spend an indefinite and miserable amount of time imprisoned before being deported to some place not of their choosing and almost certainly without any assets.
Click to expand...

Well, also, if you leave on your own, you and your family can apply to come back as legal residents. If deported, most likely not.

A very convoluted legal knot. I knew an undocumented alien (from Mexico) who voluntarily contacted the INS, left voluntarily, and was allowed to come back 6 months later. I'm not exactly sure why these hoops were necessary; I can only assume that decades of immigration law produces such results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom