Yet you're the one arguing along with Phillips that the black Israelites spewing hate speech at everyone who passed by felt threatened by students who responded to their hate with positivity. Agree with most everything you said here but I'm hopeful that common sense will eventually prevail. Let's also appreciate the irony of celebrity multi millionaires including Kathy Griffin, who made her fame and fortune as an insult comic, attack these young men living in Kentucky for their privilege. People can watch the video and judge for themselves. I'm certain that your perspective is the minority opinion. The kid was put in an uncomfortable situation, made worse by the fact that he was aware he was being filmed. The other students could be heard asking what was going on as they clearly didn't understand what Phillips was doing there. What would you assume if someone had walked right up to you and locked eyes? Would you run away or at least attempt to understand them? If Phillips intention was to deescalate the situation, he could have done so by merely talking to the student, or at the very least preventing his friend from starting a confrontation with another student. The students were simply waiting for their bus to arrive and chose not to engage the black protestors with any verbal or physical violence. The black israelites certainly didn't deserve any better than the jeers and mockery they were subjected to. They definitely did not deserve "protection" as Phillips claims. The fact that you choose to ignore every example I gave of how the young men used restraint just shows that you're trying to cling to your original narrative no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary. The fact that Sandmann is getting sent death threats and online harassment for a smirk, when the video shows the students being verbally attacked by two groups of adult protestors spewing hate speech is the height of lunacy. "When I was growing up, we’d have backed up a respectful distance from one of our elders — of whatever race — or we’d have stepped aside." Would you follow that advice even if the person approaching you does so in a threatening manner? You have no idea how you would have reacted in that situation if you felt under stress. "We would have had our parents grounding us if we’d ever been caught being that rude to an older person" These kids showed more maturity than all the adults that were present. They did not escalate the situation into violence, they did not hurl hatred toward the black israelites, and stood up for their fellow classmate. Sandmann was even able to successfully intervene during an incident where one of the native american men was hurling insults at one of his classmates. "There was an exchange going on between the black group and the white group when Phillips and several other Native Americans walk in between them chanting and banging the drum which immediately calmed the situation down. The black speaker even states several times that he (Phillips) came to protect them." I heard the native american who was with Phillips say that the young men should go back to Europe and that they stole his land. I'm sure that calmed things down quite a bit. And singing and banging a drum is much more effective than calmly approaching another person and maybe saying, "the other group is trying to provoke a reaction out of you, maybe we should both move along". You say your not defending the black Israelites, yet you say that they were having a "civil discussion about the bible" when the evidence clearly shows that they were NOT engaged in peaceful protest. Why would the black speaker need Phillips to protect them when they were constantly provoking everyone walking by? "The students immediately began chanting and the black speaker says they are mocking Phillips." Why would you put any weight to what the black speaker says when in the video he can be heard saying that President Trump is a homosexual and that fa***** don't deserve rights? So you would rather take the word of these people, but the teenagers who released several statements that all corroborate each other are liars? In the CNN Interview, Phillips says he was protecting the Black Israelites because they were outnumbered. Never mind the fact that they were openly harassing the students at that point. The students were sticking up for one of their own who just happened to be black. Sorry, your post is just plain weird. Despite your claims of objectivity, it's apparent you're excusing the actions of those who were being deliberately provocative, and believing the word of Phillips who either sided with those protestors, or who wouldn't bother to engage the teens in a civil manner. If Phillips is to be believed, why did he allow the person he was with to chant racial epithets at the students? Why did Sandmann have to signal to his classmate not to engage with the other Native American man who was with Phillips and telling the teens to go back to Europe? What nonsense. I watched the video too. In the initial CNN report, Phillips told the journalist that he was trying to protect the black activists who were not only vomiting anti gay and anti semitic comments, but harassing black students from the group. It was a fellow student, not a chaperone, who was attempting to have the students back off. However, they continued to be provoked by the black activists while standing there on public land waiting for their bus. If Phillips intention was to calm down both groups, which is not what he said initially, then walking through a crowd (when there was already lots of space to pass through) and banging a drum inches from the boy's face isn't the way to do it. All it conveyed was confusion which can be heard on the tape. The young kids thought it funny at first, but when a fellow Native American started yelling racial epithets at the teens, and telling them to go back to Europe, Sandmann (the boy in the video) actually turns around and successfully communicates to his friend not to engage with him. It's amazing how you can watch that entire video and be wrong about just about everything. Wrong. Phillips got into the kid's face. The boy thought it was funny at first or maybe even enjoyed it. In the words of someone else at the rally, they were all confused that some strange man walked up to this kid and started banging a drum mere inches from his face. If it were me I'd probably get nervous and start laughing too. "Most estimates are around 10-11 million." The research is flawed. Illegal immigrants would have to be vastly overrepresented in crime statistics relative to their population for these numbers to make sense. "Not true. Illegal immigration has been going down for years. It's at a 12 year low. The illegal population is also in decline." They have not gone down dramatically compared to previous decades. "Most of the areas where illegal immigrants live are cosmopolitan cities therefore likely to be melting pots." There is less assimilation in cities that are minority majority. It's less of a melting pot and more like a salad bowl. "Our food is cheap because so many farmers hire them. 53% of hired farm workers are illegal. I know the restaurant industry where I live would collapse. Housing would be much more expensive since they make up 15% in construction." Those blue collar jobs that "no one else wants to do" used to pay their workers a living wage and helped raise a family. These jobs are now being done for slave wages by illegal immigrants. These same jobs are also likely to be be phased out by automation in the decades to come. There is already a housing crisis in the big cities. Single and elderly people are competing with large immigrant families for housing. Most high paying jobs are concentrated in the large cities yet the cost of living has become too prohibitive for college graduates. "You're mistakenly assuming there is no wall. There is. And people keep building tunnels underneath it or climbing over it." There is less migration in areas where there is already a wall. However, much of it needs to be reinforced. It must be said that the wall would not be totally effective on its own. It's only one part of comprehensive reform which would also include better technology. Nobody knows how many illegals are living in the country since we're not keeping track of them. The estimates are anywhere between 12 million and 36 million. The official estimate of 12 million has been that way for years even though we've had record migration since the 2000s. Border states are the ones mostly affected but nearby states are also affected not only by illegal immigration but by white flight. Walls do work in other countries so it goes without saying that a wall would at least be effective in slowing down illegal immigration if not eliminating it. The cost of building the wall is very little in the grand scheme of things. The economic argument is weak since American citizens end up paying for illegal immigration one way or another. The moral argument also makes no sense because crime affects both citizens and immigrants alike. Context is important. Illegal immigration has risen dramatically in the post 2000s. We don't have valid statistics because we don't know how many illegals are living in the US. However, we know that there are illegal immigrants that come to this country who have criminal histories or are gang affiliated. Let me ask you. How many violent crimes is too many? I suspect you won't have an answer. Meanwhile, public mass shootings and assault weapons account for only a tiny portion of gun deaths. Why should only one problem be addressed through legislation and not the other? We also lack the necessary funding to process all these asylum requests and care for those who are in detention. There is already a huge backlog of asylum cases which encourage more illegal immigration. He's on record saying that Mexico will pay for the wall "one way or another". Still, the fact that people keep reverting to this talking point means that they can't defend their position that the wall would be completely ineffective. Even those who support the wall know it is only one part of comprehensive immigration reform. Ironically, those same people calling the wall ineffective fail to give any specifics about how their own measures would help curb illegal immigration in and of itself. I'm all for "technology" as long as it's part of bigger reform. Trump said Mexico would pay for it. He never said they would PREpay for it. No one believed that Mexico was simply going to write a check. Anyway, it's silly to assume that 5.7 billion is too much to protect our border and national sovereignty when we already spend billions upon billions annually on foreign expenditures. People who are not taken in by media spin will not change their position because Trump is obnoxious when making his point. He's still right. Trump has said that the wall is just one part of comprehensive immigration reform. He's also said in his address that it's a humanitarian crisis because we can't afford to take care of those who are currently in detention. Allowing unfettered access for more illegal immigration will result in many unable to get the proper medical care that they need and put more people making the trek in danger. Trump has also offered to increase border troops, immigration judges, and implement research into many technological advancements that democrats are calling for. The problem is many of the reforms the democrats have been calling for are not practical or still in the developmental stages. The democrats who are calling this a manufactured crisis are far more despicable than Trump. Schumer, especially, who calls the wall immoral, is a giant hypocrite for once advocating for a barrier at the border and then changing his mind when it's politically inconvenient. And mass shootings, while terrible and more easily preventable, make up but a fraction of the deaths of people in the US. Illegal immigrant crime is more deadly. I read it somewhat differently. He probably knows something we don't about Hollywood cover ups and is threatening to come forward with the full truth. His only crime for which he didn't pay the price would have been him not coming out sooner. Paul Shraeder, who directed the Oscar favorite First Reformed, expressed interest in working with Spacey as recently as a few months ago and said he had Spacey in mind for his next project. It's oddly coincidental. I'm surprised nobody in the press has mentioned the ending at all and how it eerily informs current events. I'm a little nervous about the second one since so much of what made the movie work was because of Cary's input and as far as I know, he's not coming back in any creative capacity for part 2. The second will be more difficult to adapt as it is.