Stephen Miller vs. Jim Acosta: No Holds Barred

Jon Gabriel, Ed.
Jon Gabriel, Ed.
12332
 

Despite CNN’s protests, there might be a reason White House staffers don’t call on Jim Acosta more often. On Wednesday, the aggrieved correspondent had an intense six-minute back-and-forth with Trump aide Stephen Miller on the administration’s immigration reform plan. It got … testy.

Throughout the exchange, Acosta seemed less a reporter than a Democratic candidate. Who do you think got the better of the debate: Miller or Acosta?

Published in Immigration, Politics
Tags: , , ,

Join Ricochet!
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 123 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Join Ricochet
  1. NYLibertarianGuy Inactive
    NYLibertarianGuy
    @PaulKingsbery
    2:45 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 4, 2017

    Terry Mott (View Comment):

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    Matt White (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):
    Liberty, Justice, Opportunity – pursuit of happiness. To take root in Europe with the leadership of the American Example.

    Its the Quintessential Monument to American Exceptionalism, and therefore the liberals must recast it, into a immigration siren. A femme fatale.

    Thats what I think the Statue of Liberty means.

    But that’s the thing: what makes America is the value we place on liberty, justice, and opportunity. That’s why I favor immigration. I want people to come here so they can have liberty, justice, and opportunity. I want people to be free.

    That’s why the Statue of Liberty, which stands for those things, is symbolically tied to immigration and immigrants.

    You mean you want a small proportion of the worlds poor to be free. If you really wanted people to be free you would need to advocate for an American empire where we impose free enterprise, freedom of speech, etc. on all those many nations unable to arrange it for themselves.

    I dont think anyone is rationally supporting the idea that these values should be imposed on the world, but rather that they be exported to the world to be embraced by the multitudes.

    But what’s being discussed here is not exporting freedom to the world, it’s importing people to the U.S.

    Fred Cole (View Comment):
    That’s why I favor immigration. I want people to come here so they can have liberty, justice, and opportunity. I want people to be free.

    Fred wants people to come here so they can be free, but the whole world can’t immigrate to the U.S. — we don’t have room or welfare state enough to hold them. There have to be limits placed somewhere, don’t they? Assuming you agree that some limits are necessary, then the rational debate should be about what those limits should be. In such a discussion, emotional appeals are beside the point unless you find yourself debating someone who wants zero immigration. I’ve not seen anyone arguing for that in this thread.

    Generally agree with some qualifications.  But please check out Mr. LaRoche’s comments.

    • #121
  2. Matt White Member
    Matt White
    @
    5:20 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 4, 2017

    Terry Mott (View Comment):

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    Matt White (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):
    Liberty, Justice, Opportunity – pursuit of happiness. To take root in Europe with the leadership of the American Example.

    Its the Quintessential Monument to American Exceptionalism, and therefore the liberals must recast it, into a immigration siren. A femme fatale.

    Thats what I think the Statue of Liberty means.

    But that’s the thing: what makes America is the value we place on liberty, justice, and opportunity. That’s why I favor immigration. I want people to come here so they can have liberty, justice, and opportunity. I want people to be free.

    That’s why the Statue of Liberty, which stands for those things, is symbolically tied to immigration and immigrants.

    You mean you want a small proportion of the worlds poor to be free. If you really wanted people to be free you would need to advocate for an American empire where we impose free enterprise, freedom of speech, etc. on all those many nations unable to arrange it for themselves.

    I dont think anyone is rationally supporting the idea that these values should be imposed on the world, but rather that they be exported to the world to be embraced by the multitudes.

    But what’s being discussed here is not exporting freedom to the world, it’s importing people to the U.S.

    Fred Cole (View Comment):
    That’s why I favor immigration. I want people to come here so they can have liberty, justice, and opportunity. I want people to be free.

    Fred wants people to come here so they can be free, but the whole world can’t immigrate to the U.S. — we don’t have room or welfare state enough to hold them. There have to be limits placed somewhere, don’t they? Assuming you agree that some limits are necessary, then the rational debate should be about what those limits should be. In such a discussion, emotional appeals are beside the point unless you find yourself debating someone who wants zero immigration. I’ve not seen anyone arguing for that in this thread.

    It’s not so much about the number of immigrants, but the purpose.  Should immigration policies serve our interests or the rest of the world?

    • #122
  3. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN
    5:36 AM EDT ⋅ Aug 5, 2017

    Michael Barone on this debate:

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/stephen-miller-is-right-lazarus-immigration-poem-is-not-us-law/article/2630657

     

     

    • #123
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Join Ricochet