Fair enough. We draw different conclusions.

My point isn’t that **repeatedly** saying *“remigration”* makes my interpretation automatically correct.

My point is that the administration has **repeatedly** chosen that word to describe its own project.

Once a government **repeatedly** embraces the language of *remigration*, **repeatedly** describes immigrants as “poisoning the blood,” and **repeatedly** pursues policies reshaping both legal and illegal immigration, we’re all left to draw reasonable inferences from the totality of the evidence.

Mine is one of them.

Yermin

No, saying "remigration" over and over doesn't make your interpretation the only correct one.

I see the same facts and reach a different conclusion. That's not ignoring the evidence, it's disagreeing with your interpretation of it.

I think we've both said our piece and I'll leave it there.

Politics_And_Law

For MAGA, Remigration Trumps Common-Sense Immigration Economics

No, saying "remigration" over and over doesn't make your interpretation the only correct one.

I see the same facts and reach a different conclusion. That's not ignoring the evidence, it's disagreeing with your interpretation of it.

I think we've both said our piece and I'll leave it there.