Did I say "Wetbacks should be shot on sight"?
“NO” I DID NOT.
I said “OUR BORDERS CAN BE RESPECTED BY CHOICE OR BY FORCE AND CHOICE IS NOT WORKING.
Did I use the term Wetback?” Yes”.
Did I use the term illegal immigrant? “Yes”
Would I use the term undocumented worker? “Not likely”
Mapp went on to say he never advocated for the use of deadly force.
I WOULD NEVER ADVOCATE THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE UNLESS IN FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE OR FAMILY.
I SAID THE USE OF FORCE IS OK.
FORCE MEANS BY USE OF A MEANS OF DETOURING TO TURN AROUND AND GO BACK WHERE YOU CAME FROM OR TO NOT WANT TO TRESPASS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
IF YOU ARE CONFRONTED AND CHOOSE NOT TO TURN AROUND THEN YOU MIGHT RUN THE RISK OF BEING FORCED PHYSICALLY TO DO SO.
Mapp, however, did write that illegal immigrants should suffer "consequences" if seeing a weapon isn't enough to turn back.
"IF A VERBAL COMMAND OR THE SIGHT OF A WEAPON WILL NOT PERSUADE YOU THEN YOU MIGHT SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF A BAD DECISION. (I never said shot, did I)?" Mapp continued.
Mapp is one of a group of third-tier Republican candidates running against Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) in the GOP primary. Mapp is extremely unlikely to beat Cornyn.
Read Mapp's whole post here.
(Photo credit: Chris Mapp for Senate)