Its been about a week and on neither politifact or factcheck

[133743Hokie]

can I find anything regarding Stephen Miller's comments about the Statue of Liberty poem in the Accosta exchange

Is this some kind of bias by omission reporting?

What do you think needs to be reported?

Accosta disputed Miller's account of the history of the poem, calling it revisionism. I thought these political fact check sites were made for moments like this. What disqualifies it?

Miller was trying to disassociate the poem from the statue. That's utterly ridiculous. The poem is about the Statue of Liberty and was part of it's history before it was constructed.

Yes, it was written about the statue. But at the time the statue was about "Liberty". It was proposed and ultimately designed, gifted and constructed as a monument to US independence; a shared sacrifice between the US and France. It was not about immigrants. It was only after the fact, after the statue was erected and the poem inscribed at the base, and immigrants began coming by it on their way to Ellis Island, that people began to associate the statue and the poem with "welcoming immigrants".

At least you seem to agree that the Statue of Liberty and the poem are linked to the welcoming of immigrants.
As for the timeline, between the time of the unveiling of the staute, and 1903, millions of immigrants came to the US and passed by that Statue of Liberty. It is one of the reason the Colossus poem was attached to the statue. By 1903, the Statue was already a major symbol of immigration. So, for the last 100+ years, the Statue has been meaningful for immigrants.
To try and minimize the link between the Statue and immigration b/c the Colossus wasn't part of it until 1903, is as disingenuous as you can get.

It is NOT the reason the poem was attached to the statue. The statue is about liberty and celebrating the US/France relationship. The poem was written to celebrate that. Only much later was it al tied tge the immigrants.

[133743Hokie]

Accosta disputed Miller's account of the history of the poem, calling it revisionism. I thought these political fact check sites were made for moments like this. What disqualifies it?

Miller was trying to disassociate the poem from the statue. That's utterly ridiculous. The poem is about the Statue of Liberty and was part of it's history before it was constructed.

Yes, it was written about the statue. But at the time the statue was about "Liberty". It was proposed and ultimately designed, gifted and constructed as a monument to US independence; a shared sacrifice between the US and France. It was not about immigrants. It was only after the fact, after the statue was erected and the poem inscribed at the base, and immigrants began coming by it on their way to Ellis Island, that people began to associate the statue and the poem with "welcoming immigrants".

At least you seem to agree that the Statue of Liberty and the poem are linked to the welcoming of immigrants.
As for the timeline, between the time of the unveiling of the staute, and 1903, millions of immigrants came to the US and passed by that Statue of Liberty. It is one of the reason the Colossus poem was attached to the statue. By 1903, the Statue was already a major symbol of immigration. So, for the last 100+ years, the Statue has been meaningful for immigrants.
To try and minimize the link between the Statue and immigration b/c the Colossus wasn't part of it until 1903, is as disingenuous as you can get.

Since we're just making emotional/"feelz" non-arguments - funny it's called the Statue of Liberty and not the Statue of Immigration.

Yeah, a lot of people sailed by it - so what? A lot (or even most, depending on the period) sailed right back.

As for the rest of your post, you're (purposely) trying to conflate the statue with the poem riveted inside pedestal which nobody cared that much about until Democrats made a big deal about it to import new democrat voters in the 60's (see a trend here?).

A poem has no precedent in a policy discussion. Will you even agree with that?

The symbolic meaning of the Statue of Liberty, to immigrants, is real, and is based on the feelings of the immigrants that passed by the Statue and took great joy in seeing it as they came to America. To belittle the emotional symbolism of the Statue, whether you want to call it a symbol of liberty, or immigration, is ignoring the whole point of a freaking statue.

The Statue of Liberty was a symbol to immigrants long before the 1960s, and that's the important point. And while I agree that the poem is not meaningful in a policy discussion, the immigration policies that have brought millions of people past the Statue of Liberty, is meaningful, and some of the elements in the poem are in line with past immigration policy.

This is yet another example of the WH putting together a policy that has merit and doing a shite job of selling the good points. Simple truth is that we're a technology driven society that has little need for increasing the manual/unskilled labor pool, but could benefit from more people who can do technology jobs. And there are lots of people all over the world who would be good immigrants to help that need. And in the early 1900s, and maybe even into the '70s, the number of people in the world who spoke their native language, and English, was probably relatively small. Today, that number is pretty high. There is a large pool of english speaking immigrants to choose from, so why not give them priority, rather than burdening our school systems with more ESL learners?

I think much of the policy is good. I think Miller presented it horribly.

The statue was a symbol of liberty to immigrants.

[UpstateSCHokie]

Looks like the WaPo decided to fact check Miller on this exchange. The begrudgingly admitted Miller was right, but then inserted their own opinion about how Lazarus was the first to make sense of the Statue of Liberty. Really? Before her poem people thought the statue was a mystery?

=============================

Everyone is used to Trump & Co. being on the wrong end of the liberal media’s brigade of “independent fact checkers.” The Washington Post “Fact Checker” team arrived on what they accurately called the “debate” between Miller and Acosta. Michele Ye Hee Lee insisted this was more about checking Miller: “The Fact Checker is not a media critic, and we generally do not fact-check members of the media — certainly not the opinions of individual journalists.”

Isn't that extraordinary? It is below the media to analyze themselves. But here’s what’s surprising: she had to admit Miller was correct on all three statements she evaluated. First, Acosta lectured that Miller was trying to “change” immigration policy by requiring English, and cited the Emma Lazarus poem about the huddled masses “yearning to breathe free.”

Lee ruled “Miller is correct that English proficiency currently is a requirement for naturalization.” She tried to soften the blow by declaring “Neither got it quite right about the Statue of Liberty. The statue, indeed, was a gift from France as a symbol of liberty enlightening the world — not about immigration.” But then she weirdly asserted the biographer of Emma Lazarus believed “Emma Lazarus was the first American to make any sense of this statue.”

Acosta kept badgering Miller about English proficiency, and “that’s never been what the United States has been about.” Miller called that “shockingly ahistorical in another respect, too, which is if you look at the history of immigration, it’s actually ebbed and flowed. We’ve had periods of very large waves, followed by periods of less immigration, and more immigration.”

Lee ruled: “Miller is correct. Immigration levels ebbed and flowed throughout U.S. history, and the flow was controlled through restrictive legislation until 1965.” Liberals can despair over it, but that’s history.

Then Acosta really fell on his face: “But this whole notion of, ‘Well, they could learn — you know, they have to learn English before they get to the United States,’ are we just going to bring in people from Great Britain and Australia?”

Miller went for the knockout: “I am shocked at your statement that you think that only people from Great Britain and Australia would know English. It reveals your cosmopolitan bias to a shocking degree…It’s so insulting to millions of hard-working immigrants who do speak English from all over the world.”

The Post fact checker ruled: “Miller has the edge here. English is an official language in dozens of countries other than Great Britain and Australia, and is spoken in roughly 100 countries. It is the most commonly studied foreign language in the world.”

When Miller was done, Acosta complained "You called me ignorant on national TV!" The Washington Post "fact checker" squad must have agonized as they underlined Acosta as the ignorant half of this exchange. If so, kudos to the Washington Post for breaking the mold.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ti ... ndle-facts

=================================

Here's a little something for Acosta and the libs on this board:

[HokieDan95]

upstate kind of beat me to it but here's a write up from daily wire about WaPo's fact check
http://www.dailywire.com/news/19547/boz ... bozell-iii