MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Do You Hear "All Immigrants Are Animals" or "MS-13 Are Animals"?

Forget Yanni vs. Laurel. Donald Trump's latest controversy gets at the heart of what divides us.

Forget whether you hear Yanny or Laurel, the audio clip now dividing America with a ferocity not seen since the early days of Right Twix, Left Twix, "The Dress," or Bush v. Gore.

This below is the viral clip that is dividing America. It comes from a White House gathering held yesterday to discuss illegal immigration, deportations, and sanctuary cities. Is President Trump calling out all immigrants or is he referring to members of the violent MS-13 gang when he declares "These aren't people, these are animals"?

The popular viral news site Now This News tweeted that clip, which deletes the question Trump was answering. It was about MS-13, the gang that started in California with deep roots in El Salvador, Honduras, and other Central American countries. News sources presumed to be openly hostile to Donald Trump quickly posted headlines such as "Trump on deported immigrants: 'They're not people. They're animals'", "Trump on immigrants: 'These aren't people. These are animals,'" and "Trump says undocumented immigrants 'aren't people, they're animals.'"

After pro-Trump Twitter went bananas and charged obvious bias, a number of mainstream outlets have changed, altered, and revised their headlines to read "some immigrants" or add mentions of MS-13 in their accounts.

Here's the full question and answer:

Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims: Thank you. There could be an MS-13 member I know about—if they don't reach a certain threshold, I cannot tell ICE about it.

President Trump: We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in—and we're stopping a lot of them—but we're taking people out of the country. You wouldn't believe how bad these people are. These aren't people. These are animals. And we're taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that's never happened before. And because of the weak laws, they come in fast, we get them, we release them, we get them again, we bring them out. It's crazy.

The video below includes the full exchange, which begins around the two-minute mark.

But your immediate reaction to the story and the phrase "these aren't people, these are animals" surely says something about our political hard-wiring just as hearing Yanny or Laurel or seeing a white-and-gold or a black-and-blue dress says something about our auditory and visual presets. Of course, how we feel about certain words, concepts, and people isn't the same sort of thing as how our eyes see or our ears process audio. We have much more control over our mental reactions than we do over our physiological ones. That helps to explain why societies change attitudes towards all sorts of things, such as gay marriage, pot legalization, and interracial relationships over the years.

But that's the long run, right? Is there any way that people who see or hear very different things when it comes to politics can reach some common ground rather than immediately act out the most-partisan scripts they can think of? Yes, at least when it comes to basic facts. In the immigrants/MS-13 case, the first step would be to actually double-check the context of the offending statement. Trump is himself a master of taking things out of context and it behooves his admirers and opponents alike to rise above his documented willingness to bend the truth if not lie.

In the current case, there is no question that he is specifically talking about MS-13, not even all illegal immigrants (whom he has previously referred to in starkly dehumanizing terms). Presenting the clip without that context is deliberately incendiary and it misrepresents Trump's point. Outlets that decontextualized Trump's quote might have gained a rush of traffic, but they do so at the cost of confidence in the media, which is already in the crapper. Gallup reports that over 80 percent of Americans believe the media are vital to a flourishing democracy and also believe the media are failing across a wide variety of measures:

GallupGallup

Reason, Georgetown Book ShopReason, Georgetown Book ShopDecontextualizing Trump also has the added effect of hardening his supporters in the position that the media traffics only in fake news and is deliberately out to get their man in the White House. On the other side, anti-Trumpers can bask in the glow that they are absolutely right about the racist ugliness of the pussygrabber-in-chief.

None of this is to say that because Trump was talking about violent gang members, there's no issue with his figures of speech. There is a long and disgusting history of likening foreigners and racial and ethnic minorities to animals, and anyone invoking dehumanizing language in the context of immigration can (and should, in my opinion) be castigated for it (my Irish and Italian grandparents were routinely likened to apes and rats back in the early 1900s). This includes nativists such as Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who has likened immigrants to "livestock" while making the case for electrified border fences. But's not difficult to engage and debate Trump or anyone else in good faith and with proper context. Indeed, it's a necessary prerequisite if you want to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

If many journalists are failing to report basic facts without proper context, news consumers are guilty of similar crimes against basic comprehension. As Michael Socolow, a journalism professor at the University of Maine, has told Reason, the social-media age requires a different form of literacy that all of us should keep in mind. To paraphrase: "Don't share news that doesn't have substantiating links, be wary of stories that perfectly confirm your pre-existing biases, and (for god's sake!) always ask yourself why you're talking in the first place."

We know that Donald Trump is incapable of being the adult in the room, of speaking thoughtfully, carefully, and inclusively. That's deeply regrettable in a president, but what can you do, really? The genius of America is that we are supposed to be our own adults and think for ourselves. A big part of Trump's m.o. is to pull people around him down to his level. To each his own, I suppose, but as a journalist, reader, and citizen, I know that when you wrestle a pig in his pen, you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it. And, in the case of Trump, he seems to be winning too, at least based on approval ratings. Hey, anti-Trumpers, it's time to try a different strategy.

Video clip produced by Austin Bragg.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • DajjaI||

    Poor Trump. He's running out of groups to demonize. My suggestion? "Sidewalk Hezbollah": These are the people who walk on the wrong side of the sidewalk and force you to either bump into them as a form of suicide-by-pedestrian or walk on the wrong side and thereby risk your life and that of innocent bystanders and you could get body-checked into the pavement. These people are the real terrorists and they don't value life and the life of their own children and they are a threat to the country's self-determination as is the right of any nation.

  • Homple||

    The anti-Trumpists, on the other hand, will never run out of Trump to demonize.

  • DajjaI||

    The scariest thing about Sidewalk Hezbollah is that by conceding to them you are actually forced to join their ranks. Think about it.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    My biases are superior to your biases.

  • Tony||

    If he came out against spandex-wearing cyclists who slow me down in traffic, whom my father refers to as the Speedo Banditos, I might have to become a Trumpist.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    America could truly unite in our hatred of cyclists.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Bicycle cops are the worst.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Worse than horse cops?

  • ThomasD||

    Nothing is worse than a Segway cop.

  • Brandybuck||

    A fat Segway cop?

  • Tony||

    There are thin cops?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Imma cyclist, but I despise cyclists who stubbornly ride on busy arterials and bottleneck traffic. They deserve savage beatings for doing so.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    The squirrels are threading posts for us now?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Imma cyclist, but I despise cyclists who stubbornly ride on busy arterials and bottleneck traffic. They deserve savage beatings for doing so.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    LOL, "Speedo Banditos", I may have to steal that. I run into a lot of that in my daily commute.

  • WhatAboutBob||

    Aren't you a Muslim Daijal? That would explain you taking the side of gangs that like to dismember innocent people. You're not an American.

  • DajjaI||

    ^ Sidewalk Hezbollah

  • DenverJ||

    I really hate those people, with the ones wgo walk on the wrong side of the hallway. Bastards.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This below is the viral clip that is dividing America.

    Its not dividing America. Most Americans don't care about this.

    Most Americans are for securing borders. Some minority of Americans are against that.

    All the open border hype is blending together and mostly being ignored by supporters of securing American borders.

  • ThomasD||

    The clip isn't dividing America. This isn't some vague Roshomon like incident. It's people pre-conditioned to hearing what they want to hear, rather than what was actually said. Unfortunately those people are an ostensible source of news for much of the country.

    They are the ones seeking to divide America.

    And this is Gillespie trying to pretend that the issue is something deeper, and more open to interpretation.

    IOW, it's a variation on the standard Reason editorial approach to anything that makes the left look bad - declare a pox on both houses.

  • StackOfCoins||

    IOW, it's a variation on the standard Reason editorial approach to anything that makes the left look bad - declare a pox on both houses.

    Nice. Well said.

  • The_Hoser||

    Yeah, it's not telling at all that Nick waits until after two embedded videos and the third graph to tell you, "Oh, well, by the way, this was completely out of the actual context of the discussion."

  • Iheartskeet||

    Perfectly put ThomasD

  • DarrenM||

    If Trump thought more like a politician, he would have been clearer in who he was talking about. It didn't sound like specifically MS-13, but rather generic "bad guys" which would include MS-13.

  • Juice||

    Most Americans are for securing borders.

    Replace "borders" with "their job," "their market share," "the price of the product they sell," "the market value of their home," etc. and it reads the same.

    But I'll bet a very small minority are in favor of securing all the borders that surround them, like county and state borders. So maybe you could be more specific in your statement. Are you for open borders between US counties and states or are you in favor of secure borders?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Nice try. More secure United States border.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Hey juice, in context, everyone knows that exactly what the fuck LC1789 means. Everyone. Nice try at that pointless semantically argument though. I'll bet some campus first semester freshman would be impressed with that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its easy to understand English when you are not constantly trying to undermine articulate comments people make to further your agenda.

  • The_Hoser||

    I dunno, Elias. Nick wrote an entire piece about something the press manufactured by editing the video to their bias.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    This article is too long and gives Trump too much slack. This is what he said:

    "We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in—and we're stopping a lot of them—but we're taking people out of the country. You wouldn't believe how bad these people are. These aren't people. These are animals. And we're taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that's never happened before. And because of the weak laws, they come in fast, we get them, we release them, we get them again, we bring them out. It's crazy."

    In other words, gang members are swarming into this country thanks to "weak laws". The Trump administration is heroically tossing them out "at a level and at a rate that's never happened before", but, thanks to those damn weak laws, they come pouring back in again. No, he didn't say that every immigrant is a gang member, but he, and Jeff Sessions, repeatedly insist that we are being inundated by "animals" pouring across the Mexican border. As Reason has repeatedly pointed out, immigrants are not, REPEAT NOT, contributing to the "carnage" that is supposedly occurring across America and from which Jeff and Donnie claim to be rescuing us.

  • damikesc||

    So, it gave him "too much slack" by discussing what he said in response to a specific question and not your opinion.

  • WhatAboutBob||

    Shorter Alan: I'll just ignore what this post is about and pretend I can read Trump's mind and pretend he said stuff that he didn't actually say!

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "As Reason has repeatedly pointed out, immigrants are not, REPEAT NOT, contributing to the "carnage" that is supposedly occurring across America and from which Jeff and Donnie claim to be rescuing us."

    In context, Trump is referring specifically to ILLEGALS. Not legal immigrants. Reason tends to obfuscate that fact conveniently. Reason also does this when discussing immigrant crime.

    Trump is correct. MS-13 is a real problem. Our border policies, and all this sanctuary city/state horseshit help MS-13 thrive. Time to change that.

    No more illegals.

    Build the wall.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We know that Donald Trump is incapable of being the adult in the room, of speaking thoughtfully, carefully, and inclusively.
    Seems like people like Nick cannot be the adult in the room.

    Trump is more popular than every because most of his actions are good for America and what most Americans want.

    Nick is in a minority on many of his non-Libertarian positions and he hates that. He prefers to call Trump the child without looking in the mirror. The Jacket would take up most of the mirror but still.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Meanwhile, I'm still anxiously waiting to hear what Reason thinks of "Operation Crossfire Hurricane" now that the most venerated media entity in America, the New York Times, has confirmed that the whole thing is real.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The media is literally the liars and Trump was correct. The US government was spying on him and his campaign.

    They really hate Trump because he has been right so many times and does not need the media to pass his information along.

  • damikesc||

    Yeah, when is Clapper, noted sooth-sayer, going to go back on air and recant his whole "This is the DEFINITION of fake news" line about this? He hasn't evne said a thing on Twitter than I'm aware of (and Twitter is where he goes to try and burnish his whole "I am down the middle" credentials)

    Because, it turns out, Trump was 100% correct. They were. Far more than any of us realized.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Time to start prosecuting the Obama's people for their criminality. I would squeeze them all hard to see if any of them will give Obama up. He is the one who should be in prison, not Trump.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Imagine that it had come out that George W. Bush had used friendly surrogates in the FBI and the CIA to run a counterintelligence operation against Obama, using the Kenya and Indonesia bullshit and all his shady past associations as the justification for it all, during the prime months leading up to the 2008 election.

    Welch, Gillespie, and all their friends in the liberal would STILL be screaming bloody murder about it today! There would be books written and Hollywood movies made about such an abuse of power for the next generation.

    But instead, we get deafening silence. Why? Where is the outrage over this outrageous behavior?

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    I've been around for the Bay of Pigs, the Kennedy(s) assassination, Chappaquiddick, Cointelpro, Watergate, Iran/Contra, Waco, the Clinton impeachment and dozens of lesser events. This is easily the biggest political scandal of my lifetime and my favorite magazine/website ignores it. Not even a link in their daily news summary or whatever they're calling it now.

  • Mezzanine||

    They weren't spying on Trump, they were investigating Russian attempts to influence the election and discovered several people in Trump's campaign had questionable ties to Russians. The people in question then were interviewed and lied to the FBI about their Russian ties; of the 4 people from Trump's campaign who have been indicted 3 have pleaded guilty. So the investigation turns out to have been completely warranted. If the goal was to affect the election the FBI wouldn't have waited until after Trump was elected to make the investigation public.

    But go ahead and enjoy the paranoid delusional fantasy world you appear to be living in.

  • ThomasD||

    A large swath of the press gets caught peddling an outright lie and Gillespie thinks it's chin tugging time.

    And people wonder why we say they are all just playing for a better writing gig.

    Hint for you Nick: It's the kneepads that give you away.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    As I started reading, I really thought this article was going to objectively talk about how the MSM keeps taking clips like this out of context and how this is poor journalism, etc. I don't know how he gets from the first bit which is all about the MSM headlines like:
    "Trump on immigrants: 'These aren't people. These are animals,'"

    to this statement:
    "A big part of Trump's m.o. is to pull people around him down to his level. To each his own, I suppose, but as a journalist, reader, and citizen, I know that when you wrestle a pig in his pen, you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it."

    Specifically in this case, Trump did nothing more than answer a question. The "journalists" have clearly taken the clip out of context and somehow Trump is the pig in the pen?

    I'm all for open borders on the merits of limited government and maximum individual liberty. I'm constantly disappointed in Reason's (Dalmia and Gillespie, primarily) inability to articulate that based on principles and not on emotions and ad hominem attacks on the opposing viewpoint.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    What do you expect? When people know they're not going to win on the basis of principles and reason, because too many people don't share their principles, this is what they do.

    It's an expression of their lack of confidence that their position will prevail in a free and open debate.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    It's a sign of weakness in one's position for sure, but it doesn't mean that the position is wrong.

    In my opinion, it's impossible to justify requiring a government permission slip to live and work in a country with the NAP and principles of limited government and individual liberty. Yet this never seems to be the focus of Reason's reporting on immigration. It seems that, of all places, a libertarian publication would focus on libertarian principles to support their arguments rather than emotion (at Reason of all places) and ad hominem.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Not a fan of ad hominem, but appealing to emotion is how you change most people's minds.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Yet somehow Shika almost always looks like a buffoon on the subject.

    Emotion may play in the mainstream but logic, reason, consistency in principles should play better among libertarians. Reason is in a unique position IMO to convert true limited-government (libertarian-leaning) conservatives on this particular issue. You're not going to reach these particular people by tugging on their emotions.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Nah, I don't think you are going to convince conservatives to be immigrant-friendly while their daddy makes it his pet issue. The arguments have been made. It's free market economics 101. But now that the tribe daddy has tossed free market principles, tribe alliegance trumps (ahem) alliegance to any principles supposedly espoused by the tribe.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Well then I guess we might as well go back to making bad puns and poor attempts at humor.... You know, our normal shtick.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    It looks to mine eyes as if there's a possibility to hijack the normal social pattern via neurology. That pattern is a function of a low-trust environment. We could hack the pattern by building trust. Actions that are rational in a low-trust environment become irrational in a high-trust environment.

    Theoretically, anyhow, humans are weird.

  • DenverJ||

    Not all opposition to open borders come from conservatives or Trump supporters. As long as we have government welfare and our neighbors have shitty economies, reality demands enforced borders.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    True. Bernie Sanders is also against open borders.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    As long as we have government welfare and our neighbors have shitty economies, reality demands enforced borders.

    Why? Because the welfare would bankrupt us? The anti-immigration groups out there estimate that illegal immigration costs taxpayers somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 billion to $150 billion per year in the form of welfare. Even assuming these estimates are accurate, this figure should be put into context of the federal deficit alone which was $666 billion last year. That is not counting all of the spending of state and local governments. Even if all undocumented immigrants vanished tomorrow, it would not fix the government finances. What is bankrupting us is our own poor choices, not illegal immigration.

  • D-Pizzle||

    "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon, we're talking about real money."

  • Microaggressor||

    Reason's primary mission is to persuade the non-libertarians, not preach to the choir.

    Principles first is a notoriously ineffective strategy. People won't embrace your principles if they believe it leads to bad outcomes.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Maybe I'm mistakenly assuming that the readership at Reason who aren't already in the choir tend to be represented by the commentariat. That is, that they are primarily libertarian-leaning conservatives who generally disagree with Reason's position on immigration. These people already have a distrust in government authority, and generally have a principled anti-government view on economic issues. These are the people that Reason could reach by employing libertarian principles on the topic of immigration.

    Maybe I'm being naive. The current, emotional, approach doesn't seem to be working much though.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    If they really had a principled anti-government view on economics, they would be pro-immigration.

  • TuIpa||

    "they would be pro-immigration."

    unless they were also anti-welfare

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Most of us conservatarians simply want to treat the borders as is prescribed by the constitution. Which is a recurring theme. We are not anarcho capitalists with some fantasy vision of a stateless world where everything is done by private contracts.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Most of us conservatarians simply want to treat the borders as is prescribed by the constitution

    Immigration isn't naturalization. That Constitutional argument won't work.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Leo, once again you are incorrect. The Constitution provides enumerated power to regulate immigration after 1808.
    Section 9.
    The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    LC1789, that clause is referring to the slave trade, not to immigration generally.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Most of us conservatarians simply want to treat the borders as is prescribed by the constitution.

    What if the Constitution is wrong on this point?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    What if the Constitution is wrong on this point?

    Do you mean wrong according to the latest political fashion? By that logic, pretty much the entire Bill of Rights can be interpreted as "wrong" when it's convenient.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No I mean "wrong" as in, the Framers screwed up. They weren't gods you know. Saying "I support closed borders because Constitution" is a cop-out. Explain WHY you want closed borders.

  • WhatAboutBob||

    Reason's primary mission is to persuade the non-libertarians, not preach to the choir.

    It ain't working!

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Especially when they publish the kind of rotting garbage Shakia Dalmia calls her writing. In fact, I would gladly present her work to non progressives, as a means of convimcimg them to strengthen our borders and build the wall.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    The case for free movement in labor has long been proven from economic and moral perspectives.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    It's easy to catch the mistakes of others. When we see people making the same mistake, it seems to be a natural inclination to attempt to stop everyone else from making that mistake. Especially since people in the middle of making mistakes seem to be particularly bad at realizing it in time to minimize the damage. They think what they're doing makes sense. We can see how their trajectory will not end well, and try to intervene - getting pissed off, since their trajectory is taking us with them, is also an option.

    The immeasurably difficult part is realizing that "everyone" includes us. We appear to be wired to overlook our mistakes. People can rarely see it, when it's them doing it.

    We need a mechanism for telling people they might be making mistakes in a manner which they will actually listen. That mechanism appears to be malfunctioning at the moment.

    My take, anyhow. I've been pondering this one.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    A possible problem with stopping people from making mistakes is that mistakes are generally good teachers. Sometimes you can only learn to stop making mistakes by making them in the first place. The best you can try to do is show someone where you discovered your mistake and hope they'll take it into account.

    My 2¥

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    That's a valid point. One could say, to continue that thread, that all lasting human progress is the sum of the mistakes we collectively learned to stop making. But then, stability breeds fragility, so can humans ever truly progress? And if so, to what point?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    It does seem like as time goes on fewer people are pushing the boundaries of known and unknown. I doubt progress will ever stop, but it does seem to be slowing. I'd bet that there will be a breakthrough that really jump-starts things for a while like has happened in the past.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    I rather agree, though I think I get there by a different route. Static systems tend to continue to their point of failure. (Ye olde Peter principle, only bigger.) If we cannot find a method to introduce adaptation and flexibility into the status quo, the end result is predictable.

    At which point, fragility will turn around and breed stability. Things will just be a bit noisy in the interim.

    Innovations can arise when people have problems that desperately need to be solved. Fat, contented people with no problems can have less motivation to innovate something new.

  • Nardz||

    Socrates figured this out 2400 years ago - ask questions, then keep asking questions.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    "I'm all for open borders on the merits of limited government and maximum individual liberty. I'm constantly disappointed in Reason's (Dalmia and Gillespie, primarily) inability to articulate that based on principles and not on emotions and ad hominem attacks on the opposing viewpoint."
    My sentiments exactly. Reason could articulate a compelling case for individual rights. Instead we get lefty screeds and TDS.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Unlike the biased America-hating cucks in the MSM, I know that Trump was merely expressing a deeply Singerian view that denies the moral distinction between human and non-human animals on the basis of self-awareness or self-determination, both of which are observable in some non-human animals to some extent and neither of which are well understood by current neuroscience.

    Of course, being the erudite fellow that he is, Trump is also tapping into a long buddhist tradition of denying the metaphysical primacy of personhood as a basis for moral or spiritual consideration. Like any good lama, he is brusquely reminding us all that when we go looking for that which endures, the sine qua non of personhood and individuality, it is forever beyond our grasp. He wants us to focus less on the quotidian concerns of these evasive, impermanent things we call our personal selves, and focus instead on our contributions to the vast cosmic dharma. For only that way lies nirvana.

  • Libertymike||

    You are a good teacher. You really seem to care. About what I don't know.

  • Yellow Tony||

    I need to frame one of your posts and hang it up in my bathroom so when I take a huge and painful shit, I can just read one of your art pieces and forget about the agony my anus is going through.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Lactose intolerance is an awful thing. My thoughts and prayers are with you.

  • Yellow Tony||

    Nah, it's when I drink too many smegma shakes.

  • Aloysious||

    How do you know if a man has strong swimmers? If you have to chew them before you swallow them.

  • Yellow Tony||

    This is under the assumption that his swimmers weren't balled up and deep-friend beforehand, correct?

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    We need a Tartan Tony. Can you make that happen?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    This is why Hugh is one of my favorite commenters.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    This is why Hugh is one of my favorite commenters.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Hugh, if you're going to play opposite of OBL, you have to bring the references down to a level that your targets will understand. Singerian view, erudite, and Buddhist philosophy aren't going to appeal to your target audience.

    Throw in some pithy hashtags while you're at it.

  • Hank Ferrous||

    Nicely done. Thanks, rare to get any high-level wiseassery here.

  • Shirley Knott||

    All humans are animals.
    Somehow the basic truth of biology never sinks in.

  • Yellow Tony||

    Yeah, he should have used "beasts," "asukafags," or "Capitals fans."

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    "asukafags,"

    You're a damned Reifag too? Jesus, Tony. Get a grip.

  • Yellow Tony||

    I don't know about this dimension's current me, but like hell I am. Reifags are shit too, but asukafags have been shown to be even bigger faggots. Case and point: moot.
    Plus, we all know who real best girl is deep down in our penises. (Hint: it's not Misato.)

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Ugh. Normally I'm a fan of the Neil DeGrasse Tyson School of Scientific Correctness, but this is hardly the time for it.

  • Tony||

    Depends on how you define animal. Sort of like how it depends on how you define marriage. Or person vs. fetus. It's not biology, it's semantics.

    Trump means to classify these immigrants separately from other people, like a Nazi.

    Buttsex, wedding cakes, and occupational licensing.

    Now that's an efficient post.

  • MarkLastname||

    "Like a Nazi"

    Yes, everyone who has ever disparagingly referred to bad people (or do you consider violent Salvadoran gangsters good people?) as animals is a Nazi engaged in a calculated dehumanization campaign.

    Does that make one a Nazi if one calls Nazis animals though?

  • Tony||

    Does that make one a Nazi if one calls Nazis animals though?

    Mind explosion.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony keeps ignoring the fact that Nazis are socialists.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Omnivorous primates with stories.

    Knott gets it.

  • Jerryskids||

    There is a third option, you know. His very next sentence is "And we're taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that's never happened before." Do you seriously believe that Trump is talking about taking out legal immigrants? I'm quite certain he's clearly talking about illegal immigrants. Now as to whether his "animals" remark applies to everybody he's taking out or just the ones that you wouldn't believe how bad they are, the claims I've seen that he's referring to all immigrants are just silly. And, I suspect, are specifically designed to conflate illegal immigration with legal immigration. "If you don't like a flood of Central Americans pouring across our border unchecked, you must hate your own great-grandparents because they were immigrants, too." Yeah, my great-grandparents swam across the Atlantic and snuck across the fence at Ellis Island just like all those other Germans, Irish, Italians and Jews were doing in 1890.

  • Homple||

    Reason contributors make little if any distinction between legal or illegal migrants or immigrants. There's no point bringing up the difference. As well try to teach a potato plant the difference between ale and lager.

  • KevinP||

    Reason willfully conflates legal immigrants with illegal immigrants.

    Legal immigrants have been fingerprinted and have been through criminal background checks many times before becoming permanent residents, so it is not surprising that they are more law abiding than average. Something as small as shoplifting is enough to reject an application.

    Illegal aliens have not been vetted by anyone, and in many cases don't even possess traceable documents issued by their own home country. Sure, there are many farm worker illegal aliens who are not criminals, but there are large numbers of illegals who are criminals, usually preying upon their own ethnicities. In Texas alone, in a four year period, 39% of murders were committed by illegal aliens.

  • KevinP||

    Reason willfully conflates legal immigrants with illegal immigrants.

    Legal immigrants have been fingerprinted and have been through criminal background checks many times before becoming permanent residents, so it is not surprising that they are more law abiding than average. Something as small as shoplifting is enough to reject an application.

    Illegal aliens have not been vetted by anyone, and in many cases don't even possess traceable documents issued by their own home country. Sure, there are many farm worker illegal aliens who are not criminals, but there are large numbers of illegals who are criminals, usually preying upon their own ethnicities. In Texas alone, in a four year period, 39% of murders were committed by illegal aliens.

  • KevinP||

    Reason willfully conflates legal immigrants with illegal immigrants.

    Legal immigrants have been fingerprinted and have been through criminal background checks many times before becoming permanent residents, so it is not surprising that they are more law abiding than average. Something as small as shoplifting is enough to reject an application.

    Illegal aliens have not been vetted by anyone, and in many cases don't even possess traceable documents issued by their own home country. Sure, there are many farm worker illegal aliens who are not criminals, but there are large numbers of illegals who are criminals, usually preying upon their own ethnicities. In Texas alone, in a four year period, 39% of murders were committed by illegal aliens.

  • KevinP||

    Sorry for the Reason squirrel that triple posted the above.

    Undocumented Immigrants, U.S. Citizens, and Convicted Criminals in Arizona


    Quotes:
    Using newly released detailed data on the Arizona state prison from January 1985 through June 2017, we are able to separate non-U.S. citizens by whether they are illegal or legal residents. Undocumented immigrants are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes and serve 10.5% longer sentences, more likely to be classified as dangerous, and 45% more likely to be gang members than U.S. citizens.
    ...
    Young convicts are especially likely to be undocumented immigrants. While undocumented immigrants from 15 to 35 years of age make up slightly over two percent of the Arizona population, they make up about eight percent of the prison population. Even after adjusting for the fact that young people commit crime at higher rates, young undocumented immigrants commit crime at twice the rate of young U.S. citizens. These undocumented immigrants also tend to commit more serious crimes.

    If undocumented immigrants committed crime nationally as they do in Arizona, in 2016 they would have been responsible for over 1,000 more murders, 5,200 rapes, 8,900 robberies, 25,300 aggravated assaults, and 26,900 burglaries.
  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Much like the War on Drugs, the medicine in the War on Immigration can be just as bad as the "problem".

    90% of the commenters on Reason don't trust the DEA, the police, or the FBI (or most other government agencies for that matter). Yet roughly half seem to want to give ICE more authority at the expense of individual liberty.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I know, right?

    I don't quite get the cognitive dissonance between the two positions of "yeah we want more ICE agents running around the country kicking out the illegals" and "how dare those police shoot dogs and harass innocent people".

    I mean it makes sense for a Republican, because modern day Republicans are all about sucking cop dick at this point.

    But for libertarians?

  • TuIpa||

    I guess it's because some people think that they aren't going to do what they always do, but what they're supposed to do instead.

    It isn't hard to understand unless you're an idiot. But you don't understand it. So...um...yeah.

    Psst, it's called "naivete"

  • ThomasD||

    My money is on the spud.

  • Libertymike||

    Text, without context, is pretext.

  • Nardz||

    Pithy

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I still think there's a long history of referring to people negatively as animals, regardless of ethnic background or immigration status.

  • Yellow Tony||

    Orcs and elves aren't people, you human-hating piece of shit. Just because they're bipedal and possess intelligence slightly above that of a dog, doesn't mean they should have the same rights as us noble homo sapiens. The fact that we let the knife ears exist in ghettos within our great cities and the brutish savages near our civilization's borders is already a travesty. (Think of our women, our tradition, our children!) Thus you can't truly believe that they deserve more than our derision, ire, and animus, right? However, maybe you do; you do live in Seattle where droves of unwashed peasants wander about the city like a sea of feces. Let met tell you, friend: compassion ends where mankind ends.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Do they have trolls in your dimension?

  • Yellow Tony||

    Let preface my post with a FACT: these unsightly abortions (i.e. anything not part of the human race) are everywhere regardless of dimension. These sad state of affairs were brought about by the capricious gods of chaos. I'd like you to be more considerate when making light of humanity's eternal struggle with the impure.
    To your question, corporeal trolls were extinguished during the First Purge. As it turns out, those disgusting piles of shit truly must live under bridges. Thus all pertinent infrastructure was abolished as to eliminate their habitat. Sadly, the few remaining rock-throwing beasts collectively prayed to the gods of chaos so that they might permit the trolls to exact revenge. As is their propensity, the chaos gods answered their wishes. So now the disgusting scum wander around as spirits possessing humans. They force man to trick and ruse their fellow brothers and daughters as to bring about distrust among mankind. With the advent of ubiquitous internet accessibility, the vagabond spirits of trolls have had their mission made considerably easier.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Hey--now wait just a minute.

    I haven't heard any of these prayers you're talking about.

    Not a one--and believe me, even with the piping, I listen. Usually it's just gibberish--because anyone who'd direct prayers my way has left sanity so far in the rearview that they're in danger of slamming into it from the other side.

    So don't go blaming US for your troll-ghost infestation.

  • John||

    Trump does these things by design. Today we have his enemies in the media either telling an easily refutable lie harming their credibility or defending MS13. He does this all of the time. He says something provocative that baits his opponents into defending something that looks bad. You would think his enemies would learn to stop talking the bait. But they seem to be untrainable

  • Eidde||

    and Trump is a master baiter.

  • Microaggressor||

  • Libertymike||

    This morning, I witnessed this passion play manifest itself with an interaction between my 82 year old client and her financial advisor.

    My client is an 82 year old woman who is a stalwart FDR democrat who had threatened to move abroad if Trump won. The financial advisor is a funny bastard Trump convert (he claims to be an old school, Edmund Burke, conservative) who could not help but needle our mutual client.

    She insisted that Trump meant all immigrants. The financial advisor kept asking her, "did you hear the question which preceded Trump's response?"

    In this case, I stayed on the sidelines.

  • John||

    People like Nick seem incapable of understanding that no one other than the politics obsessed who have made up their minds anyway care about the comedy of manners and outrage that goes on between Trump and the media.

  • Tony||

    So he does this to make his poll numbers improve? To stop the impeachment train? What's his purpose again?

  • John||

    Yes it does. That is why his approval ratings keep going up and why he is President.

  • Tony||

    –13.5% approval. Not a single day in office not underwater. You don't think perhaps there are more efficient ways to higher popularity than being the world's biggest troll?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    According to lefty sources. Those same lefty sources said Hillary would be president.

  • John||

    His approval is higher today then when he won the election. He is going to be re-elected. You might as well accept that.

  • Tony||

    Looking at the average of polls on a graph, he was extremely unpopular before the election and reached his peak basically just after election day, and it's been getting slowly worse since. He had a little anomalous bump recently that no doubt all the rightwing freaks you get your info from latched onto like mother's tit.

  • MarkLastname||

    Did you just pull that number out of your ass? 538 says it's 42.2%.

  • DesigNate||

    Tony pulls everything out of his ass.

  • Tony||

    Net spread or whatever you nerds say.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    As a member of the Reality-Based Community, it's clear to me Drumpf meant ALL immigrants are "animals." The statement was an obvious dog whistle to his racist, white nationalist, white supremacist base. I was deeply troubled by his earlier reference to "shithole countries," but this latest example of his racism is even worse.

    On the plus side, this should give my favorite libertarian writer Shikha Dalmia material for her next few columns.

    #NoBanNoWall

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Well if he meant ALL immigrants, shouldn't that mean everyone but Native Americans?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Native Americans came from Asia.

  • Eidde||

    "when you wrestle a pig in his pen, you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

    That's what I told the judge, but he said "oink" means "no."

  • SIV||

    STFU, APE

  • Eidde||

    By the way, if you're complaining about comparing people to animals, don't in the same post go and compare Trump to a pig.

  • John||

    Trump's critics never seem to hold themselves to the standards they hold him to and in most cases lack the self awareness to even realize they are doing it

  • Libertymike||

    Can you say Andrea Mitchell, NBC News?

  • damikesc||

    I sincerely hope, at some point, that my wife loves me with half of the vigor that Andrea loves Hillary Clinton.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    I'm sure that shrieking harpy Shika is furiously banging out an article at this very moment. Of course the headline'll be something like "Trump Implies Immigrants Should Be Sent to Gas Chambers"...

  • Rhywun||

    my Irish and Italian grandparents were routinely likened to apes and rats back in the early 1900s

    And presumably they were good folk, and not running around cutting up teenagers and throwing their body parts around the forest. I don't know what it takes to call a person an "animal" but frankly I have no problem using it in this case.

  • Yellow Tony||

    I got called an animal for jacking off on a train and listening to the Sultans of Swing. (Fucking statists!) I don't want to be conflated with these people.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Well, yeah, because "Romeo and Juliet" is a far sexier Dire Straits song.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Surely "Heavy Fuel" was more appropriate for such an activitu.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Did you get a blister on your thumb?

  • Yellow Tony||

    I expected sympathy--nay, empathy--from my fellow libertarians, but I'm just getting bullied! You assholes don't even understand why Sultans of Swing pairs well with choking the chicken! This is why we'll never have anybody elected into a significant office! Hihn was right all along!

  • Vin_Decks!!!||

    Ahhh... such intellectual honesty on the left. Just like Tony. The people that are trying to sell DJT's calling ALL IMMIGRANTS animals are the ones who were crying loudest that "You didn't build that" by B.O. was taken out of context...

    Mendacious little cunts.... just like Tony.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    He's right. MS-13 gang members are human beings. Hamas terrorists are human beings. Recognizing this basic fact of biology does not in any way endorse or support their illegal violent actions.

  • ||

    Also, humans are neither vegetable nor mineral.

  • Nardz||

    Define human being

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    With this guy, what's the "H" in IMHO stand for?

  • Rhywun||

    Hubristic?

  • lap83||

    half-witted?

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    I've heard of this game. The answer is Hitler.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Hitler isn't an adjective you dolt... Hitlerian.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    I'm never going to be able to picture you as anything but Alex Trebrekian, now. The image is there, and it's stuck.

  • ThomasD||

    That Gillespie chose not to tell us his interpretation of the event certainly speaks volumes.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    If you read down a bit, he actually does tell the truth here in this case (for once).

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    In the *broader* context, the sheriff launches into this long winding monologue about the problems she is having with respect to the shifting law and the court cases concerning the undocumented immigrants in her custody, and then at the end of her rant, gives a hypothetical about a scenario in which IF she had an MS-13 gang member in her custody, that her hands would be partially tied concerning what she could do about this particular individual. And then Trump responds and gives his infamous "these people are animals" response.

    IF you give Trump the benefit of the doubt, that he is only responding to the hypothetical presented at the end of the sheriff's monologue, and not to the entirety of the sheriff's complaint, then yes, he is calling only MS-13 gang members "animals", and not all undocumented immigrants.

    I am wondering why he should be given the benefit of the doubt in this case, particularly concerning his previous derogatory comments about undocumented immigrants broadly, not confined to MS-13 gangbangers.

    YES, media outlets who rush to publication with stories that confirm their biases should be condemned for not following through on their higher duty to inform the public rather than to just inflame them.

    ON THE OTHER HAND, Trump could stand to be more disciplined in his comments and respond more thoughtfully, not just in this context. If Trump had made it clearer in his response whom in particular he meant by "these people", this wouldn't be a story at all.

  • Yellow Tony||

    If Trump had made it clearer in his response whom in particular he meant by "these people", this wouldn't be a story at all.
    Isn't it tacitly understood that "these people" or any variation thereof refers to the Jews?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    With Trump, you never can tell!

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Only when written as (((these people))).

  • damikesc||

    I am wondering why he should be given the benefit of the doubt in this case, particularly concerning his previous derogatory comments about undocumented immigrants broadly, not confined to MS-13 gangbangers.

    Because he was ASKED about MS-13 gang members. That is why.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    He was asked IN PART about MS-13 gang members, at the end of a much larger comment about undocumented immigrants generally.
    Did you watch the clip or read the transcript fully?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Because the initial remark that everyone is tying this comment to was ALSO about criminal illegal Mexican immigrants and, as with this one, the media immediately mischaracterized it as being against ALL Mexicans.

    Since they've lied before on this exact subject, Trump not only gets the 'benefit of the doubt', but trumps.

    Because he's right no matter how you look at it.

  • Jerryskids||

    What I'm really surprised at here is the lack of any criticism of Trump's obvious lie in claiming he's deporting illegals in unpresidented numbers. And after all the times I've seen Trump's deportations defended by means of two-Koching ol' Chocolate Jesus' deportation numbers. Sad.

  • John||

    What is sad is that someone still doesn't know that Obama's deportation numbers are the result of him changing the definition of deportation to include anyone turned away at the border. I have no doubt more people are being deported, as in people who are inside the country illegally being kicked out of the country and not just turned away at the border, today than under Obama.

    Obama changed the definition of deportation to cover up his drastic reduction in actual deportations.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Leave Trump and immigration issues out of this for the moment. If the context is deliberately edited out of a quote to make it mean something other than what was intended, then that is not a matter of point of view, it is dishonest reporting. The journalism profession's history of beclowning itself by such low devices long preceded Trump. It is why the legacy media are not trusted. Hell, it was why a number of Reason's contributors are not trusted in what they write.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • MikeP2||

    The press gets caught in outright twisting of truth, and yet Nick pens an article filled with caveats pushing the blame on Trump.

    Yeh, Trump speaks incessantly in hyperbole. We should hope for more. But this is not new in politics. This is not just Trump speaking this way. Or perhaps "bitter clingers" or "deplorables" has been airbrushed from history.

    and perhaps some people may think "animals" is too aggressive, but frankly I put that on par with racist and Nazi, which is thrown around freely these days towards anyone right of center.

    You are part of the problem, Nick.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    +1

  • John||

    Somehow just telling the truth instead of lying or engaging in false equivalence became something journalists don't do. Nick is incapable of admitting that sometimes the media and the left are just wrong and there is no pox on both houses.

  • lafe.long||

    Or perhaps "bitter clingers" or "deplorables" has been airbrushed from history.

    -1 Superpredator.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Forget whether you hear Yanny or Laurel, the audio clip now dividing America with a ferocity not seen since the early days of Right Twix, Left Twix, "The Dress," or Bush v. Gore.

    My disengagement from the news cycle is paying off. Never heard of Yanny or Laurel.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yanny is that Greek singer, and Laurel is a deceased comic actor.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The dude that hung out with Shirley McClain? I think I remember him.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    My coworkers were all forwarding that nonsense around. No conclusions were reached.

  • lap83||

    Sooner or later some psycho is going to figure out how to brainwash the masses with one of those memes, if it hasn't happened already. I guess we wouldn't know the difference

  • Yellow Tony||

    Meme is a meme. So it's already happened.

  • ||

    Or the Mandela Effect is real and in our universe the word is 'laurel' and sounds like 'yanny' but in the next one, the word is 'yanny' but sounds like 'laurel'.

  • Jeep's Blues||

    The Donald Trump 'Resistance' and its many avatars in media seem to have entered some type of shared psychosis where President Trump has become a Rorschach on which to project all of their darkest, most deeply repressed ideations and fears. He's Keyser Soze to their Verbal Kint. For lack of a better word, it's fascinating to watch.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    All I hear is Trump saying "Mi No Speako Inglich!"

  • lap83||

    The John Hardwood tweet reminds me of a running joke from King of the Hill. It involved Peggy saying that some commonly known fact was "in her opinion" because she thought it was her personal insight, which made it seem simultaneously arrogant and simple (and funny) like "In my opinion, the day after Thanksgiving is the busiest shopping day of the year"

  • Yellow Tony||

    "In my opinion" is often used too much in people's writing. It's usually salient when one's stating their opinion on the matter. Alas, people enjoy anything that can pad out their fucking thoughts.
    Also Peggy is fucking annoying.

  • Easter Lemming||

    Trump re immigrants:
    -Mexicans, "rapists & criminals"
    - Haitians have AIDS
    - Latin countries, "shit-holes"
    - Africans live in huts
    - Judge Curiel unqualified because he's "Mexican"
    Now:
    "We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — and we're stopping a lot of them — but we're taking people out of the country. You wouldn't believe how bad these people are. These aren't people. These are animals."
    Even ignoring "dog whistle" phrases which have a long Republican history the immediate antecedent to the phrase is "We have people coming into the country..."
    BTW, I didn't realize Reason was part of the Wednesday morning conservative group that coordinates talking points to get a steamroll effect in the media.

  • Yellow Tony||

    Why would you link your FB page? There are sick individuals posting and lurking these comments!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I know, right?

    We have Trump's long, long history of making disparaging comments against immigrants broadly and undocumented immigrants specifically, and somehow, it's beyond the pale to suggest that when Trump refers vaguely to "these people", he means *just the MS-13 members* that were just one part of a long rambling comment about undocumented immigrants generally?

    Yes, sure that is one possible interpretation, but that would be called "giving Trump the benefit of the doubt" when his history on this subject clearly shows that he doesn't really deserve the benefit of the doubt.

  • John||

    The judge was biased because he was an active member of a pro open borders organization not because he was Mexican And the countries these people are coming from are shit holes. And you know it and claim as much when you are playing for sympathy to let them in.

    Why don't you stop lying and come back when you have something to say other then the usual lies and ad hominem. Pro tip, if chem Jeff likes a post, it is almost certainly idiotic and dishonest.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh good Lord John. The "open borders club membership" excuse was only trotted out after three or four times Trump whined about Curiel's supposedly unfair rulings and repeatedly brought up his Mexican heritage, even calling him a Mexican when he's not.

    Here it is explicitly, in an interview with Jake Tapper:

    TAPPER: I don't care if you criticize him [Judge Curiel], that's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying, if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job.
    TRUMP: I think that's why he's doing it. I think that's why he's doing it.

    http://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/.....index.html

    Get over yourself and stop shilling for the man.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If you are a judge and supposed to arbitrate some dispute, don't you think you recuse yourself if you are a passionate volunteer to one side or the other?

    Judges don't like to self-recuse because they tend to be lefty shitbags and would miss out on legislating from the bench.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Here, let me lay it out in even more explicit detail:

    Trump initially complained about Judge Curiel's rulings in the Trump University as being 'unfair' explicitly based on the judge's Mexican heritage, and because Trump had proposed to build a wall, which pissed off a bunch of actual Mexicans.

    It was only several days after his comments that his campaign put out a statement with the lame explanation of "oh, Trump really meant the judge's membership in some open borders club".

    For God's sake, Trump even accused the judge of being an actual Mexican, not merely an American of Mexican heritage.

    I mean, if you are really going to buy his campaign statement that what Trump meant all along that he was complaining about the judge's membership in this open borders organization, then you are either hopelessly naive or a complete shill.

  • Azathoth!!||

    You're allowed to say that a member of La Raza is giving you shit because of his race.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Look at the shitlib standing up for MS-13 gang members.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Who precisely is "standing up" for MS-13 gang members?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I guess you didn't read the article.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh I read the article.
    No one is "standing up" for MS-13 gang members.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Talk to Soylent Grin up above there. two of you seem to be the only ones getting bent out of shape that a conversation about MS-13 gang members getting deported to whine about MUH NOBLE LATINX.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No one is claiming Latinos are "noble".
    Failing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt in an ambiguous reference is not the same as "standing up for MS-13".
    My God you really are a piece of work.
    It doesn't even matter to you what Trump really said or the context of his words. Everything is just an excuse to push a narrative.

  • josh||

    I live in that world in between the people who give Trump too much credit or not enough. You know...reality. Oddly enough, the two sides squeezing the middle seem to run the world.

  • Raoul Duke||

    This doesn't reveal a damn thing about personal bias. However, if you read/hear the full comments and think he's talking about all immigrants, it reveals that you lack reading/listening comprehension skills.

    It also reveals that the media, yet again, find a jewel of a soundbite and run with it, nevermind the full context. This is the most shocking thing since he dumped all that fish food in the pond in Japan! My god, when will it end??!?!?

  • Haha, charade you are||

    Trump absolutely could be better on immigration, but it is clear he was referring to ms-13 and other violent offenders with his "animals" comment. Yes, he could do a better job differentiating the violent individuals from those that only hopped the border, but all the intentional misquotes are only helping him.

  • ||

    Despite popular idiotic confabulation, the dress was blue and black, the word is laurel, and MS-13 are immigrants, humans, and animals.

    Is there a Twitter feed about dead musician's unintelligible lyrics? Seems like that would be a gold mine of news stories. Pompatus? Colitas? What did you hear?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "Wandering through the antelope"; And why was Prince singing about red spherical dresses, anyway?

  • damikesc||

    Keep in mind, Trump is MORE than willing to sign virtually any immigration bill. He is hardly a hardliner on it.

  • MarkInSF||

    You really think leaving out the question he was responding to, which specifically referenced MS-13, is honest?

  • MarkInSF||

    When it's ambiguous, you're just being a prick if you're going to assume the worst interpretation, and you're a P.O.S. if you're going to cut out the part that provides context. Conservatives media did the same thing to Obama with his "you didn't build that" comment.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Conservatives media did the same thing to Obama with his "you didn't build that" comment.

    No, they didn't. In Obama and Warren's idiotic diatribes there were repeated references to this--

    You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.

    As if people who start businesses don't pay the taxes that build the infrastructure just like everyone else. THAT was what made people livid.

  • Dan S.||

    The President seems to be deliberately ambiguous on the question of who he meant. He says "We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in." How would ICE/CBP or whoever stops them know that particular people are MS-13? They wouldn't. So he wants his listeners to generalize his comments to all people who enter the country illegally, while still retaining the out of being able to say "I was talking about MS-13." It's a technique that he uses. A dangerous one.

  • Mark22||

    Well, you are entitled to your opinion, deranged as it may be.

    However, Americans would do well to consider illegal migrants for what they actually are: criminals.

  • wreckinball||

    He was answering a question. The subject of the question was MS-13.

    So he was referring to MS-13 Duhhhh!

    And oh yes the predictable "both sides" do this argument. Obama dealt with this all the time Its Reason or maybe better titles Lack of Reason LOL

  • bernard11||

    No. You are the ones doing the decontextualizing. Do you really think Trump was focused specifically on ms-13 because the sheriff mentioned it.

    The context of Trump's tweets and rants suggests that he is making his usual bigoted outburst without reference to anything real. And his history of bigotry, which you acknowledge, supports that.

  • damikesc||

    He has been ringing the bell on MS-13 for a long while now.

  • BruceMajors||

    When MS-13 grabs your pussy you don't get it back.

  • Mark22||

    Do you hear "Immigrants are animals?" or "MS-13 are animals?" The answer says as much about you (and the media) as it does

    What that out-of-context clip and tweet actually tell me is that Reason has abandoned any pretense of impartiality or rational discourse and has gone full TDS. You people are as bad as Hillary.

  • MBmb||

    As a compromise, I propose that all people are animals. Yes, Americans too. Even American journalists. Thinking and speaking animals (ensouled animals), not necessarily dumb animals, but animals nevertheless.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online