I can think of only one person I've ever met of that age (at the time) who's English was that flawless as a second language. He was a Belgian. You just don't linguistically assimilate that completely, cadence, idioms, the whole shebang -- in three years.
She's either a very cunning linguist or a fakir, and my money's on the latter. And that's an intentional pun (both of them).
I can see where one might think that she is a fake. I really do not care one way or another though - who she is happens to be utterly irrelevant to WHAT she said.
If you happen to think that what she states is reasonable then even if she made it up it is a good point. If you happen to think that what she claims is not reasonable then the source does not suddenly make it so.
I could care less if she was genuine or not - I judge the merits of her statements on their own.
I take it that means the opposite --- that you could [NOT] care less.
Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks
The thing is, her entire content is based on a personal recounting of experience, and that in turn depends on whether she is what she says she is. If that's not the case, then her entire story is made-up crap.
Like I said, I dont agree.
SHE may be trying to use her 'personal' account to strengthen her message but I, in general, find personal account meaningless to the position itself. There is her position and then there is a silly 'background' that neither lends weight or takes it away from the position itself no matter how much she wants to use appeal to emotion to bolster that position.
In this particular case and the way it is presented,

I could care less

if her 'story' is crap or not. It does not lend any actual weight to her statement - at least IMHO.
And from the indications it does not sound like she is what she says, which I believe was the original question here. So if her identity IS made-up crap, then she has no merits of her statements on their own. Her identity is crucial to that. It's how she set it up.
No one can say for sure from this clip but it just doesn't pass the smell test.
You are right, that was the original question and it does not pass the smell test. I think that my grater point here is that the original question is the
wrong one making it pointless and a distraction. The real question in my mind is weather or not there is any merit to the point she raised - should we be welcoming 'Muslims' here rather than seeking out those escaping from them (and yes that is reading a little into her statements).
If the above is utter garbage, and I think it clearly and resoundingly is, then what does it matter what the source of the statement is. She could have a
true story about a harrowing escape from an oppressive Muslim husband and an epic tale of struggle to get here and succeed. It would not change the fact that while her fears may make sense to her, they are irrelevant to creating sound policy. He position would still be asinine.
OTOH, had she made a logical and sound point about immigration policy but her story was utter garbage I would still not discount the logical and sound point. Her deceit does not negate a sound position in the same manner that a logical fallacy does not negate an argument (just a particular supporting point). Personal accounts tend to add emotional support to a point and I do not think political discourse or positions should have anything to do with emotion. Had her story added some sort of proof on knowledge that makes her opinion carry more weight and she established why that might matter but simply existing in a Muslim home in another country does not add something that is worthy of greater weight in her opinions - it is not a grater measure of people in general.