The Golden Path!

The New York Times mini crossword for today

Do you know what happens to a toad joke when it’s struck by lightning?

Oodelally oodelally!

“Open sounds” (which, I assume, refers to continuants) and bilabial sounds aren’t mutually exclusive.

When you pronounce the /w/ at the beginning of “one”, your lips round (purse) and touch each other at the corners, but they don’t form a full closure. So, the oral tract is still open, but the articulators (moving mouth parts) are still touching.

This could be reworded as “the middle of your lips don’t touch each other”, but multiple commenters are correct in that your lips absolutely do touch each other when you say “one” in English.

deleted by creator

Regardless of the severity of the offense, sovereign nations ultimately have the right to decide who is or is not allowed into their countries.

If someone finds you trespassing in their garden, they make you leave. If you’re drunk in Kroger, once again, they make you leave. This is perfectly in keeping with the nature of the crime - if you’re in a place where you’re not allowed to be, including nations, you have to leave.

I fully agree with a legal path to emigrate to any and all countries, but only if done ahead of time and through the proper legal channels. (And it goes without saying that once those channels have been gone through, resident status should not be revoked without serious reason to do so, followed by due process.)

Breaking a country’s laws by entering illegally is already serious evidence against your being a good citizen; plus, regardless of how good a citizen you are, countries have a right to decide which non-citizens are or are not allowed to enter their countries in the first place, based on any and all conditions they alone deem relevant.

If you break in to my house and then ask me for a job, even if you’d be the best worker in the world, I’m still gonna respond with, “Get the hell out of my house”, and I’d be right to do so.

There shouldn’t be a path to legality - that just incentivizes more illegal immigration, because they know they’ll get residency eventually.

To be clear, I think what’s going on in El Salvador is abhorrent, and that at this point ICE is basically the Gestapo, but that doesn’t mean that countries shouldn’t have the right to decide who is and who isn’t allowed across their borders.

If I illegally crossed the border into Canada because I don’t like what Trump is doing, for example, they have every right to kick me out.

From what the article says, it seems like that should read, “Being in the country illegally has Detroit woman facing deportation”.

Blink. Winks are voluntary.

That might not be the best criterion, since that’s basically all that George Carlin did too.

From the last answer, it sounds like they would only need to turn in their SIM card.

Sorry, but I still just do not see how stating the obvious fact that “if you come here illegally you will be arrested and deported” can in any way be seen as “propaganda”.

Thanks for the good-faith discussion. :)

So, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like in that case the “Visit Mexico!” ads I saw when I was growing up in the US would be Mexican propaganda then, correct? Since they’re advancing a specific political cause, namely increasing tourist revenue and the government’s share of that revenue.

In that case, an ad saying “hey, don’t try to get into our country illegally because we’ll arrest and deport you” feels much less like propaganda to me than “hey, come visit our country so we can get your money!” does.

Edit: So, (aside from the comment that mentioned that this may be a mistranslation), if what you say about the situation is correct, to me it’s starting to sound like this might just be the Mexican government being intentionally incendiary and a bit hyperbolic in their language because they’re pissy about the US government going over their head and speaking directly to their people, which may be due to the (accurate or not) perception that the Mexican government isn’t doing enough to prevent illegal immigration. In that case, it seems like my original comment implying that this isn’t really propaganda is still mostly accurate.

Ah, that makes a lot more sense, thanks for the explanation. It definitely feels discriminatory. That’s a terrible translation if this is the case.

You’ll have to explain who you’re talking about, or how that’s relevant.

In any case, this may help. Let me rephrase: “TIL that if you’re American, buying an ad in Mexico saying ‘if you come to our country illegally, we will arrest and deport you’ is propaganda.”

TIL that saying “if you come to our country illegally, we will arrest and deport you” is propaganda.

Edit: oops, I seem to have accidentally posted a reasonable thought that goes against the circle-jerk. I’ll try to be a bit less objective and a bit more filled with myopic, conformist, unquestioned rage next time I comment here.

Don’t worry, I still believe that disappearing people to El Salvador is a terrible thing, and it makes me really angry, so I think I still pass the tribalist purity test.

This is an example of folk etymology. The original word was Spanish cucaracha, but English speakers couldn’t make anything meaningful of that when they borrowed it into English, and so they folk etymologized it into cock “male chicken” and roach “a type of fish”, that sounds similar enough to cucaracha to be reasonable.

The same thing happened to Cayo Hueso “Bone Key” as “Key West”, for example.