CNN panel descends into chaos after discussion on immigration gets heated
The most contentious moment of the night came when "The View" host Ana Navarro made a comment on illegal immigration versus slavery, which did not land well with CNN contributor Shermichael Singleton.
"There's a hell of a lot of people, other than the Black people who were brought here as slaves, who came to this country illegally. There are a lot of different - " Navarro attempted to explain before being interrupted by Singleton.
Singleton, who is African-American, took issue with Navarro's statement and sharply replied, "They are not the same as Black people who were brought here against our will."
Scott Jennings Responds To Reports That He May Run For Kentucky's Us Senate Seat
Navarro insisted her point was misunderstood, but Singleton remained emphatic, asserting, "There's a big difference."
Read On The Fox News App
Phillip attempted to de-escalate the situation, suggesting that Singleton misheard what Navarro had said, but it didn't work.
"No, he purposely misheard it," Navarro shot back.
"I purposely misheard? So now you're in my brain?" he asked.
The host once again tried to calm the pair down, to no avail.
Navarro described herself as someone who always advocated for Black people and she objected to the idea that such a person would make a comment disparaging African Americans.
"Because you've advocated for Black people. Great. Congratulations. Last time I checked, I'm Black. You're not," Singleton responded.
'View' Co-host Who Supported Harris Says She Made Big Mistake Reaching Out To Republicans
Navarro, seemingly irked by Singleton's response, replied, "That's right. I'm Latino, and my people are being racially profiled. And unfairly treated."
Singleton once again pushed back on Navarro, asking if he had to remind her of the history of his own people.
Phillip, having lost control of the panel, decided to end the segment and cut to break.
As she was delivering her closing to the segment, the two could still be heard loudly arguing off camera.
Abrego Garcia's alleged MS-13 gang affiliation was another hot button topic for the panel, with Phillip once again having to jump in and cool the panel down.
"Effectively, what you all are arguing for, passionately, and what Democrats are passionately arguing for, is for the president of the United States to re-import a dangerous member of a transnational terrorist organization who has clear affiliations with a gang that commits heinous atrocities," Jennings said. "That is not what he was elected to do."
Jennings continued, attempting to explain "the politics" behind the Abrego Garcia case, and why he believes Democrats are fighting a losing battle.
'Maryland Man' Kilmar Abrego Garcia Exposed In Police Records As 'Violent' Repeat Wife Beater
"I'm just going to explain to you the politics of this through telling you what the speaker of the House, Hakeem Jeffries, did today, which is that he told his members, 'Please, for the love of God, stop going to El Salvador and dying on this hill,'" Jennings said. "The politics of this could not be worse for the left and worse for Democrats, because the president knows he was elected to protect us from MS-13. And that is what they are doing."
Navarro claimed none of what Jennings said has been proven, which led the CNN contributor to ask Navarro what she thought of Abrego Garcia's alleged MS-13 gang tattoos.
"I say that what Trump said yesterday was an absolute lie," she responded, referencing Trump's ABC interview on Wednesday where he claimed the deported Salvadoran migrant had MS-13 gang tattoos on his hand.
"Are you saying the MS-13 that Donald Trump claims are legitimate tattoos on this guy are true? Are you saying the Photoshop is true?" Navarro asked Jennings.
The pair continued arguing about the semantics of whether Abrego Garcia's tattoos were actually MS-13 related before Phillip stepped in and ended the conversation.
Abrego Garcia's alleged gang affiliation continued to be a point of contention for the panel, with Singleton becoming especially irritated after struggling to get a word in edgewise over the constant crosstalk.
Jennings later questioned the panel on why the United States could let "20 million people into the country," but when it comes to deporting those who entered illegally, "we have to individually pick out every single person and go through years upon years of paperwork and this and that and the other."
Navarro and CNN columnist Raul Reyes took issue with this question and quickly moved to dismiss Jennings' assertion that Democrats are working to "gum up" the Trump administration's efforts to deport those who've illegally entered the country.
Click Here For The Latest Media And Culture News
"That's not true," Navarro shot back, with Reyes adding, "CNN polling shows 54% of Americans want Mr. Abrego Garcia back."
Jennings, over crosstalk from the panel, reminded them the American people voted Trump into office to carry out the agenda he ran on.
Singleton jumped into the discussion and pointed out that as a sovereign nation, people from other countries aren't allowed to illegally enter the United States whenever they want.Original article source: CNN panel descends into chaos after discussion on immigration gets heated
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
3 minutes ago
- Forbes
Don Jr. and Eric Trump Back New SPAC Focused On American Manufacturing
Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump were named members of an advisory board to a new special-purpose acquisition company seeking to merge with businesses advancing 'U.S. industrial capacity'—lining up with President Donald Trump's stated goal of bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States—but the family has a mixed record using SPACs in the past. Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. were named members of New America Acquisition Corp I's advisory board. Getty Images The SPAC, called New America Acquisition I Corp., will target companies that are "businesses with a focus on American values and priorities," the company said in a press release. The SPAC will seek to merge with a company that plays 'a meaningful role in revitalizing domestic manufacturing,' New America said in an SEC filing. The company plans to raise $300 million in stock by selling shares at $10. In SEC filings, the company said it would 'seek to acquire one or more businesses with an aggregate enterprise value of $700 million or greater.' Don Jr. received 2 million founder shares in the company, according to the filings, while Eric received 3 million. On March 26, 2024, then-candidate Donald Trump used an SPAC to take Trump Media and Technology Group public, and an initial buying frenzy drove up the stock price for the Truth Social parent company. Trump's stake in the company elevated his net worth from $2.3 billion to an estimated $6.4 billion over the course of one day, but TMTG quickly plummeted and has never again approached its record. Forbes estimated Trump's stake in TMTG was worth about $2.6 billion in March, when the stock was trading at $22 per share. The stock was trading at $17.11 per share on Monday morning. Have The Trump Children Backed Any Spacs? In July, a SPAC backed by Donald Trump Jr. took public the company Grab-a-Gun, an online retailer that markets itself as the 'Amazon of Guns,' and offers online deals on firearms, ammunition, magazines, various gun parts, and tactical gear. The deal was backed by 1789 Capital, a venture capital firm that invests in the so-called 'anti-woke economy.' Trump Jr. serves as a partner at 1789 Capital and was given 300,000 shares in the company, according to SEC filings. But the IPO ended in disaster, with the stock price tanking over 20% after opening on the New York Stock Exchange. On Monday, the company authorized a stock buyback program to repurchase $20 million in shares. 'With over $120 million in cash, no debt, and positive earnings, we are in a position to act decisively when the market presents a dislocation,' CEO Mark Nemati said in a statement published on Monday. Two investment firms will act as co-book-running managers for the SPAC—D. Boral Capital and Dominari Holdings. Kyle Wool, the president of Dominari Holdings, will serve alongside the Trump Children as an advisor for the new SPAC. Earlier this year, both Don Jr. and Eric were named to the advisory board for Dominari—although it is unclear whether this board existed before the announcement. Dominari also supported the IPO with $40 million for Unusual Machines, the drone manufacturer who appointed Don Jr. to their advisory board last November.
USA Today
4 minutes ago
- USA Today
Moscow urges everyone, including Trump, to be 'very, very cautious' with nuclear rhetoric
Moscow downplayed President Trump's announcement that he'd ordered two nuclear submarines to "the appropriate regions" after doomsday Russian rhetoric. Moscow broke its silence on President Donald Trump's comments ordering two nuclear submarines to "the appropriate regions" in response to "provocative" remarks by a former Russian president. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told Russian state media on Aug. 4 that the country was "very attentive" to the topic of nuclear non-proliferation and believed "everyone should be very, very cautious with nuclear rhetoric." Peskov also played down the significance of Trump's comments, saying it was clear to Russia that U.S. submarines were already on combat duty. He said Russia had no appetite for getting into a prolonged argument with Trump. Still, Trump's deployment of the nuclear submarines appears to be the first time social media rhetoric has led an American president to apparently reposition parts of the United States' nuclear arsenal. (Trump did not specify whether he was referring to nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed submarines.) Trump said the move was in response to statements from Dmitry Medvedev, who was the Russian president from 2008 to 2012 and prime minister from 2012 to 2020. He is now the deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council. Medvedev, who in recent years has taken to social media to post spiky, rabble-rousing comments aimed at the United States, said in a post on X, formerly Twitter, that Trump's recent threats to sanction Russia, including a tariffs ultimatum, were "a step towards war." Seeking a ceasefire Since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Putin himself has frequently resorted to nuclear threats. The Kremlin has repeatedly suggested that Moscow could use nuclear weapons under certain circumstances. The latest spat follows Trump's trip to Scotland, where he said he was reducing his 50-day deadline for Russia to make moves toward trying to end its war with Ukraine – down to a new deadline of 10 or 12 days. That deadline is Aug. 8. Trump warned of "very severe" sanctions on Russia if it does not commit to a ceasefire. Ahead of the deadline, Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff, a real estate mogul and cryptocurrency trader who has turned into Trump's de facto roaming emissary, is expected to visit Russia on Aug. 6. Peskov said Russia views Witkoff's visit as "important, substantial and helpful," and he raised the possibility that Witkoff might see President Vladimir Putin for talks. Witkoff has made multiple trips to Moscow at Trump's behest. After one of his trips, he returned with a portrait of Trump gifted by Putin. During another visit, Witkoff, who does not speak Russian, arrived without a translator and relied on one supplied by the Kremlin. His last trip was in April. Trump told reporters that if his Aug. 8 deadline arrives and Russia has not agreed to a Ukraine ceasefire, "there'll be sanctions. But they seem to be pretty good at avoiding sanctions," he added. "You know, they're wily characters. … So we'll see what happens."
The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
The BOOTS Act is protectionism masquerading as patriotism
The Better Outfitting Our Troops or BOOTS Act has a noble-sounding name, but it is the exact opposite in practice. Introduced earlier this year, the proposed legislation would prohibit U.S. servicemembers in uniform from wearing any 'optional boot' — that is, boots not formally issued but still permitted — unless the footwear is manufactured entirely in the U.S. Supporters claim the measure promotes quality and readiness, but it's really just a protectionist giveaway to domestic bootmakers that will limit soldiers' choices, increase their costs, and put their well-being at risk. At the BOOTS Act's core is an age-old protectionist formula: It would restrict the market under the guise of patriotism and funnel profits to politically connected industries. In this case, the primary beneficiaries are U.S. boot manufacturers who, unsurprisingly, are lobbying hard for the bill's passage. They stand to gain handsomely by locking out foreign competitors and forcing tens of thousands of American troops to buy from a narrow set of approved vendors. Although protectionism as a general proposition is contemptible, this is far worse. You can't get much lower than trying to make a buck off servicemembers at the expense of their health and performance, which is exactly what restrictions on their footwear options will do. Claims by the bill's supporters that the measure ensures 'high-quality footwear' or that it's 'good for the troops' are laughable when confronted with basic facts. Reducing the range of available boots makes it less likely that soldiers will find the best fit for their unique needs — no small matter when spending long hours in rugged terrain or combat environments. Indeed, the Marine Corps' own combat support systems office recently disclosed that a review of U.S.-made boots yielded a startling 25 percent failure rate. That's not just embarrassing — it's a red flag. The bill's congressional sponsors surely wouldn't spend their own money on footwear of such questionable quality, so why would they force U.S. servicemembers to do so? And this bizarre insistence that fewer choices will ensure more reliable and durable footwear isn't even the most absurd claim they make. One lobbying group behind the BOOTS Act, the U.S. Footwear Manufacturers Association, even argues that eliminating foreign-made options will 'reduce confusion among servicemembers.' Apparently, American troops who operate advanced weapons systems and execute complex battlefield maneuvers are baffled by an excess of footwear choices. The notion is as insulting as it is ridiculous. The bill's backers do, however, raise one superficially plausible argument: A reliance on foreign-made boots 'erodes the supply chain' needed to meet wartime demands. But skepticism is warranted here, too. Marine Corps Colonel Paul Gillikin, the current program manager for Marine combat support systems, argues that having multiple supply sources is vital — particularly in a future conflict where contested environments could make traditional supply lines untenable. The veteran infantry and special operations officer says he wants to see 'all options' kept on the table. Consider a hypothetical conflict in East Asia. In such a scenario, boots manufactured in Southeast Asia might be easier to procure and deliver to frontline forces than those shipped from the continental U.S. A rigid U.S.-only policy could leave troops struggling with insufficient gear. Capacity constraints add to concerns about boot protectionism. In a 2023 wargame exploring vulnerabilities in the defense clothing supply chain, industry representatives revealed they could produce no more than 525,000 pairs of boots per year. Asked whether they could add another 456,000 pairs annually — hardly a far-fetched scenario in a major conflict — they admitted it would only be feasible with advance investment. That's a polite way of saying: 'We're not ready.' So what happens if we close off foreign sources and a surge in demand occurs unexpectedly? We either send troops into the field with inadequate footwear or scramble to rebuild a diversified supply chain we will have intentionally dismantled by passing this bill. Relying solely on domestic suppliers puts all our eggs in one basket — a risky and short-sighted move when it comes to national defense. After surveying the evidence, the more cynically minded might suspect the BOOTS Act is more about bolstering profits than readiness. Each of the six members of Congress who introduced the bill represents a district or state home to (or in close proximity of) members of the American Combat Boot Alliance, an industry coalition that supports the legislation and stands to reap the rewards. The appearance of self-interest is hard to ignore, and the incentives are clear: limit competition, boost profits and wrap it all in the flag. Import restrictions are a well-documented economic loser that force Americans to pay more and get less. But as the BOOTS Act shows, their harm can extend to national security as well. In this case, they endanger troop readiness, reduce operational flexibility, and weaken our ability to respond to future threats. Supporting American industry is a worthy goal, but doing so by shackling our servicemembers to potentially subpar products and higher costs — all while hollowing out our strategic options — is not the way to do it. Our troops deserve the best boots available — wherever they're made. The BOOTS Act ensures they won't get them.
