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.
Always be wary of the Concern Troll.
>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?
deleted by creator
mozz is a huge propagandist, everytime I see him it’s almost defending Biden.
You have made it crystal clear that you regard anything less than worship of Biden as being russian psyops.
Here’s me saying that Biden should stop sending the Israelis aid, because that’s accessory to mass murder.
Here’s me posting an article that says “It lets … duplicitous President Joe Biden be less servile when Netanyahu dismisses the low death toll.”
Valid criticism, I’m fine with, and there is some to give (specifically on Gaza, absolutely). Propaganda and talking points that don’t correspond to reality, I object to. Surely that’s not confusing?
(I mean, I know you’re not actually confused – you’re assigning me views I don’t hold because that’s way easier than addressing what I’m actually saying, and you’re fully aware that you’re being dishonest. I eagerly await your pivot to some other accusation which is just as untethered from the reality, or maybe just repeating this one and insisting on it. Or maybe a little drive-by quippy insult followed by radio silence. IDK. Let’s see what the future holds.)
Here’s me saying that Biden should stop sending the Israelis aid, because that’s accessory to mass murder.
Have you ever called it the genocide it is?
The very first sentence in your link is a standard “Biden is the most [thing Biden emphatically isn’t] ever!” statement, and you want to talk about propaganda and talking points.
Have you ever called it the genocide it is?
Moving of goalposts! Okay, I didn’t have that one on the card, that’s new.
The answer is yes:
Here’s me saying “yes, I think Biden’s complicit to a certain extent in the genocide going on in Gaza.”
Here’s me saying “if you don’t like Biden enabling genocide by not reversing US foreign policy (which, again, I don’t either)”
What’s the new goal posts? My guess is that you’ll read the context for those statements, and say that because I also wrote loads of stuff in them that doesn’t fit your narrative (e.g. the fact, that you objected to, that Biden’s done more anti-Israel stuff than the criminally low bar that is every other US president), they don’t count.
Biden’s done more anti-Israel stuff than the criminally low bar that is every other US president
Yes, that’s the bullshit line. Even Reagan was willing to cut Israel off. I hope Biden moves to the left of Reagan and stops supporting genocide.
Ah, picking one little element and ignoring the rest of the message completely! I need one more for a bad-faith bingo.
However I will tell you that the one piece you picked out also doesn’t hold up. Citation:
The two countries signed strategic military agreements and Washington began stockpiling weapons in Israel officially assigned to US forces but which could quickly be handed to the Israelis.
There were tensions. Israel’s attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981 was done without US approval and prompted Reagan to suspend some weapons shipments. The US administration also soured on Israeli’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon.
But Washington continued to protect Israel at the UN, including vetoing a Soviet move in the security council to impose an arms embargo. Still, the Reagan administration shocked Israel by talking to Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organisation, a terrorist group in Israeli eyes.
Pausing weapons shipments had nothing to do with murder in Palestine; it was because they attacked Iraq and we liked Iraq back then. Reagan, of all people, was just as supportive of the slaughter of brown people in Palestine as he was of it in many other places. And even besides the reasons why he might have been briefly upset with Israel for non-Palestine reasons, he didn’t place sanctions on any Israelis, he didn’t meet pointedly with Begin’s political opponents, and he sure as shit didn’t land the US military in Palestine.
I’m not trying to say that Biden doing those things somehow undoes $10 billion worth of weapons and money to support Israel’s ongoing slaughter. I’m simply saying that it’s factually true that the tiny steps Biden is taking are more than any other US leader in the long line of neoliberals has decided to do.
The only real problem is he gave them a sound bite.
Which, I mean, even if he didn’t, they’d try and manufacture something anyhow.
deleted by creator
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.
This article and, from the sounds of it, Biden’s interview from yesterday both sound like a great refute to trump’s putting down / making fun of Biden for “apologizing” for referring to the man as “an illegal”.
Note that in all this, there is not a single word of censure across the board, by anyone, including herself, for Marjorie Taylor Greene, the embarrassment of a representative that originally used the word “illegal” in reference to a human being that Biden repeated as she heckled him from across the chamber floor.
Note also that Biden takes 100% responsibility for what comes out of his own mouth, regardless of the circumstances, doesn’t use being led into it by a howler monkey as an excuse, and instead acknowledges that “illegal” is a hurtful term and he used it and wishes he hadn’t and that’s all that matters.
This, in a nutshell, is where the rubber meets the road between a person with a working conscience and one without.
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.
I mean, I get it, we should hold the president to higher standards and be more inclusive overall. All I’m saying is don’t forget that Biden, much like all of us, are products of our environment, and that includes our time. At the end of the day he has been far more cognizant and considerate of the diversity in America than his predacesors and many others currently in government. Look no further than that house inquiry to TikTok and how that representative didn’t know the difference between China and Singapore.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
President Joe Biden in a wide-ranging interview with MSNBC on Saturday defended his direct criticism of the Supreme Court for its 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health and said that he regrets having referred to an undocumented immigrant as an “illegal.”
In the statement, a campaign spokesperson responded to news about the passage of a fetal personhood bill in the Iowa state House that could have negative implications for patients seeking in vitro fertilization treatments.
Trump’s record speaks for itself: his Supreme Court pick Amy Coney Barrett refused to say if she would oppose criminalizing IVF,” senior campaign spokesperson Lauren Hitt said in the statement.
Biden said Saturday that in his speech to Congress, he was attempting to highlight the differences between rhetoric offered by himself and former President Donald Trump about the border, pledging not to “treat any of these people with disrespect.”
The president added, “I don’t share [Trump’s] view at all,” saying that immigrants “built the country, [are] the reason our economy is growing,” but still, “we have to control the border and more orderly flow.”
Still, Biden was firm that Israel “cannot have 30,000 more Palestinians dead as a consequence of going after [Hamas],” likely citing figures showing that more than 30,000 people in Gaza have been killed, according to the Hamas-run Health Ministry.
The original article contains 759 words, the summary contains 219 words. Saved 71%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
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?
“Illegal driver” and “illegal doctor” are also terms that nobody uses.
They’re not common, but they most definitely are used, and nobody objects because it accurately describes the situation.
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.
Yes, it does. That’s the whole point of why it’s bad to use the word “illegal” as a noun to describe people. And that’s why people do so. Dehumanization. They’re not an illegal immigrant. They’re “an illegal”. Barely even a person.
That’s the whole point of why it’s bad to use the word “illegal” as a noun
We’re talking about using the word illegal as an adjective: “illegal immigrant”. Immigrant is a noun, illegal is an adjective.
Nobody thinks that the human being is “illegal” whatever that means, it’s the immigration that was illegal.
If you honestly think this, you’re not paying attention.
Has anybody ever been removed from a country when they’ve been caught jay walking?
What kind of argument is this? Jay walking and littering are on the same level, has a jay walker ever been forced to go back and pick up their litter? Cmon, you’re smart enough to understand that different crimes can be at the same level, and still have different punishments.
If you honestly think this, you’re not paying attention.
I’m aware that there is a lot of discrimination against immigrants, both illegal immigrants and legal immigrants. But, that discrimination isn’t caused by referring to them by an accurate term.
What kind of argument is this?
It’s a response to the stupid statement “Literally the law they broke is on the same level as jay walking”, which is clearly not true.
has a jay walker ever been forced to go back and pick up their litter
What does litter have to do with jay walking. Do you even understand what jay walking is?
different crimes can be at the same level, and still have different punishments
No… that’s what makes the “level” different. A crime that is punished more severely is at a more severe “level” than one that isn’t. Come on, this isn’t rocket surgery…
Oh lordy.
So the dehumanizing term should be used because it’s not the reason people are dehumanizing the people.
Are you can fan of racial slurs by chance? Because “it’s just an accurate word for black people” is something racists say about certain words as well.
What does litter have to do with jay walking.
What does leaving the country have to do with jay walking?…
I’m simply using your own flawed logic. And you’re proving my point.
How exactly is rectifying the law broken a harsher punishment? How would it make any sense to just charge them a fine and let them be on their way? That’s like saying you should just fine someone littering and then ignore the fact that they are continuing to actively litter.
>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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
For as good as the SOTU address was, I agree that that one line where he used the term “illegal” came off very wrong when I heard it. I thought it was very out of character for him to use the same language that Republicans use to dehumanize people. I’m glad he at least recognizes that it was wrong.
Props to all the liberals who blindly defend him saying it and then being racist on twitter lol. That class of people who just exist to boot-lick people in power are something else.
You will vote for Trump, won’t you?
How did you gather that from Liberals defending bad actions? Sorry If I don’t want to hang around the people claiming to be allies for POC then going on about how Biden is right to call them Illegals. The shoe must fit for some of you guys.
Every word uttered by a conservative is deception or manipulation. Every word.
There is no “good conservative” alive today.
Centrists don’t like it when people criticize their attempts to get the bigot vote back into the Democratic party.
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.
