> Unless you aren't a native speaker, I'm inclined to believe that you are being willfully disingenuous by spreading that the latter was what he meant to say.
I'm a native speaker but "they're" makes sense to me here?
> They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us.
The way I read it, at this sentence the first "they" refers to Mexico, while the second refers to the people who (illegally?) immigrated. He then says
This "they're" follows directly after and again refers to the immigrants because they are "bringing" drugs and not "sending" drugs, or at least that was my interpretation.
Well, I'm not 100% sure I understand what you are saying, but I believe you are saying that "they're rapists" makes sense if you assume that the verb is dropped. If that's the case then yes, it could be:
"They're [sending their] rapists."
Which is essentially the same meaning as ", their rapists".
But the ridiculous interpretation that many people have extrapolated from "they're rapists". Is, "They [are all] rapists. Which is absurd, even for Trump.
I'm a native speaker but "they're" makes sense to me here?
> They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us.
The way I read it, at this sentence the first "they" refers to Mexico, while the second refers to the people who (illegally?) immigrated. He then says
> They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.
This "they're" follows directly after and again refers to the immigrants because they are "bringing" drugs and not "sending" drugs, or at least that was my interpretation.
Is that wrong?