"Stephen Miller is an immigration hypocrite"

[mido9]

How do you propose that they assimilate? How is bringing in more people going to fuel that antagonism? I would prefer if you explained how America is so broken and divided, because otherwise you're speaking in such vague terms that don't really offer a proper line of discussion. You can ignore the discrimination that is there if you like, but that is very much the focus of this thread already.

 

"Most damning is the administration's evident intent to make policy that specifically disadvantages people based on their ethnicity, country of origin and religion."

 

If you think that there is no discrimination, and that discussing it is not for this thread, I encourage you to read the article if you have not already, because that is the subject of the discussion.

They assimilate by having debates and getting educated and etc about the so-called white supremacy around them and other ways to sort out your differences. Also, it is very obvious that there is a huge divide in the people that think white supremacy is a thing vs isn't. Also, bringing in more minorities will of course get more people that believe they're antagonized or oppressed or etc etc.

 

Also, I already gave you reasons why it's justified, crime gangs, terrorism, and america is already broken.

[Phantom Roxas]

"the so-called white supremacy around them"
"people that believe they're antagonized or oppressed or etc etc."
 
Based on these statements, would it be fair to assume that you're on the side that you described as thinking that white supremacy is not a thing? If immigrants should assimilate by having debates and getting educated about white supremacy, should those debates and education guide them towards any particular belief regarding white supremacy?

 

Using crime gangs and terrorists as symptomatic of an entire ethnic group is not a justification. Otherwise we could just as easily cherry-pick mass shootings committed by white men as a justification for why white immigrants should similarly be barred. "America is already broken, so we shouldn't bring in more people that are going to fuel it" only goes so far as suggesting how not to further widen a rift, but does not suggest how that rift could be healed instead.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

(1) American culture has been made predominantly by white individuals. I and seemingly many others in this thread like said culture and don't want to see it eroded away for the sake of diversity, or more honestly, votes.

 

(2) White Supremacy = whites are genetically better and that's why they should reign. 

 

I subscribe to the first, and not to the latter (no real scientific proof). For me it is more of a results based argument. I feel comfortable in conservative culture and don't want that to be removed for the progressive nightmare alternative I am offered. And it's not even race based, I'm not shilling for white people. Ex. White Liberals for example tend to be some of most flawed and obnoxious individuals you can find (IMO)

 

---

 

Miller's uncle thinks Miller is pulling up the ladder he used to climb. I think that's fair assessment and also a fair thing to do if Miller feels that people of his race, no longer share his values. If anyone is being racist here, it is the people who assume people who look like me act like me, and therefore owe them something. 

 

I am convinced the people who look like me who are coming over these days, share non of my values, and merely share my skin tone. That is not a good enough reason for me to support the eradication of a country and values I treasure 

[vla1ne]

1st) American culture has been made predominantly by white individuals. I and seemingly many others in this thread like said culture and don't want to see it eroded away for the sake of diversity, or more honestly, votes.

 

2nd) White Supremacy = whites are genetically better and that's why they should reign. 

 

I subscribe to the first, and not to the latter (no real scientific proof).

 

remember to try sorting that out proper before posting it. it makes far more sense with a second glance, but on the first glance, it looked like you were saying something completely different. i'm closing that particular loop before it really does get taken the wrong way.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

remember to try sorting that out proper before posting it. it makes far more sense with a second glance, but on the first glance, it looked like you were saying something completely different. i'm closing that particular loop before it really does get taken the wrong way.

Fixed, thank you

[Phantom Roxas]

(1) American culture has been made predominantly by white individuals. I and seemingly many others in this thread like said culture and don't want to see it eroded away for the sake of diversity, or more honestly, votes.

 

(2) White Supremacy = whites are genetically better and that's why they should reign. 

 

I subscribe to the first, and not to the latter (no real scientific proof). For me it is more of a results based argument. I feel comfortable in conservative culture and don't want that to be removed for the progressive nightmare alternative I am offered. And it's not even race based, I'm not shilling for white people. Ex. White Liberals for example tend to be some of most flawed and obnoxious individuals you can find (IMO)

 

---

 

Miller's uncle thinks Miller is pulling up the ladder he used to climb. I think that's fair assessment and also a fair thing to do if Miller feels that people of his race, no longer share his values. If anyone is being racist here, it is the people who assume people who look like me act like me, and therefore owe them something. 

 

I am convinced the people who look like me who are coming over these days, share non of my values, and merely share my skin tone. That is not a good enough reason for me to support the eradication of a country and values I treasure 

 

You need to explain how diversity and votes relate to how a white-centric culture will be eroded. Otherwise it sounds like oranges will rot just because apples exist. What is the correlation? You keep repeating some bizarre notion that this country will be "eradicated", but it's coming completely out of nowhere and just seems like hyperbole.

 

This discussion is about the David Glosser challenging the hypocrisy in Stephen Miller's statements, not about how some "progressive nightmare alternative" could eradicate conservative culture. Please stay on topic instead of throwing unrelated potshots against liberals.

 

Whether or not Miller feels that people of his race share his values has never come up, so unless you can provide a basis for why you believe he may feel that way, it presents another risk of derailing this topic. Suggesting who is "really" being racist here doesn't matter, because this is not about whether or not people act like you, or if you owe them something, or if they share your values.

 

Very little in this post actually contributes to this particular discussion. Since you seem to want to start a completely separate conversation, I would prefer if you posted your own thread instead.

[mido9]

Using crime gangs and terrorists as symptomatic of an entire ethnic group is not a justification. Otherwise we could just as easily cherry-pick mass shootings committed by white men as a justification for why white immigrants should similarly be barred. "America is already broken, so we shouldn't bring in more people that are going to fuel it" only goes so far as suggesting how not to further widen a rift, but does not suggest how that rift could be healed instead.

This is dumb whataboutism. Even then, for one, illegal immigrants from Canada still get deported, and I think it's fine fine to block immigration from white countries too for the same reasons.

 

Also, I already told you how the rift can get healed, by having debates and discussions and finding the truth about the divisive issues, with reason evidence and etc over time. It's not like this is the first time ever there were more than one opinion on a topic.(This topic would be too off-topic if I talked about white supremacy and etc)

[Dad]

 

 by having debates and discussions and finding the truth about the divisive issues, with reason evidence and etc over time

 

Do you actually know what you're talking about?  Because I don't.  What does this even mean?

 

You mean you want people of color to create sit-downs, projects, and roundtables about the problems they're facing?  LIKE THEY'RE ALREADY DOING?  Do you ACTUALLY KNOW ANYTHING about people of color and the issues they face?  Or are you just spouting bullshit?

[mido9]

Do you actually know what you're talking about?  Because I don't.  What does this even mean?

 

You mean you want people of color to create sit-downs, projects, and roundtables about the problems they're facing?  LIKE THEY'RE ALREADY DOING?  Do you ACTUALLY KNOW ANYTHING about people of color and the issues they face?  Or are you just spouting bullshit?

I know, just wait more and sort it out more. Preferably with people that aren't identical in opinion to you.

[Dad]

I know, just wait more and sort it out more. Preferably with people that aren't identical in opinion to you.

 

We've been waiting for 400 years.  But I'm not going to argue on that topic anymore because I realize I'm guilty of derailing the topic at hand and I apologize for my wanton ignorance.  I don't have much else to contribute so until I do I'll step out.

[mido9]

We've been waiting for 400 years.  But I'm not going to argue on that topic anymore because I realize I'm guilty of derailing the topic at hand and I apologize for my wanton ignorance.  I don't have much else to contribute so until I do I'll step out.

It's fine, it's fine, I genuinely appreciate that, and you, maybe we'll continue in a different thread or something.

[Phantom Roxas]

This is dumb whataboutism. Even then, for one, illegal immigrants from Canada still get deported, and I think it's fine fine to block immigration from white countries too for the same reasons.

 

Also, I already told you how the rift can get healed, by having debates and discussions and finding the truth about the divisive issues, with reason evidence and etc over time. It's not like this is the first time ever there were more than one opinion on a topic.(This topic would be too off-topic if I talked about white supremacy and etc)

 

And I asked you to elaborate on healing the rift, which is why I asked you to state your position. My issue is that your argument seemed less about finding the truth about divisive issues, and getting people to agree with your perspective. It's conflating whether or not an issue is divisive with whether or not someone is assimilation. If someone does not know "the truth" (Re: agree with you) about divisive issue, then they have not assimilated, and if they disagree with you, that must mean they have not assimilated.

 

I'll repeat my question, but leave out just the last bit so it's somewhat more broad. Should those debates guide them towards any particular beliefs?

[mido9]

 

And I asked you to elaborate on healing the rift, which is why I asked you to state your position. My issue is that your argument seemed less about finding the truth about divisive issues, and getting people to agree with your perspective. It's conflating whether or not an issue is divisive with whether or not someone is assimilation. If someone does not know "the truth" (Re: agree with you) about divisive issue, then they have not assimilated, and if they disagree with you, that must mean they have not assimilated.

 

I'll repeat my question, but leave out just the last bit so it's somewhat more broad. Should those debates guide them towards any particular beliefs?

The whole they "disagree with me" thing is stupid, maybe I'm wrong on something, I'll figure it out and change my mind.  Also yes, I think there are some things that are just wrong and some things that are just right.

[vla1ne]

You need to explain how diversity and votes relate to how a white-centric culture will be eroded. Otherwise it sounds like oranges will rot just because apples exist. What is the correlation? You keep repeating some bizarre notion that this country will be "eradicated", but it's coming completely out of nowhere and just seems like hyperbole.

diversity of thought, does not erode any culture. diversity of race, does not erode culture. it's when immigreation policies actively draw in people who's values are completely against american values, that american culture is eroded. it's not that "bad apples exist and are rotting the oranges" it's "people are protecting the bad apples and oranges. at the expense of the good apples and oranges." the claim that the country will be eradicated, can actually be pointed out. California, the place that accepts the most illegal immigrants, and has the most state funded programs for people who do not work. look at how fa it's falling. the homeless rate is skyrocketing, the gang and drug problems are only increasing, there are protests of ICE for doing their jobs properly, including the protest against the arrests of illegal immigrant drug dealers, and murderers. that is what the so called diversity that is being advocated, is doing. it is granting voting rights to illegal immigrants, resisting the deportation of illegal immigrants, and protesting the separation of lawbreakers from the children they bring with them, even though it is also done in order to prevent child sex trafficking rings from standing unimpeded.

 

that enough of a correlation? forced diversity is allowing illegal immigrants to remain unchecked, and any resistance to it is shouted down indiscriminately using the race card. while votes and social benefits are granted to those same illegal immigrants, who in turn use their votes to keep choking the state's wallet till it's blue. it does not do anything to white-centric culture, because white-centric culture has no definition with substance. what it does harm, is american culture, which values hard work, cultural blending, and innovation. and it does so by stifling the ability of those who come here legally to get a fair grasp at the bottom rungs.

 

I'll repeat my question, but leave out just the last bit so it's somewhat more broad. Should those debates guide them towards any particular beliefs?

the question itself is rather odd. a debate is inherently and attempt to change somebodies mind. if you are debating somebody, then you more than likely have an opinion on a topic, and are attempting to get them to see things your way, you are currently debating mido9, do you not have a viewpoint that you are trying to push forwards?

 

[Phantom Roxas]

The whole they "disagree with me" thing is stupid, maybe I'm wrong on something, I'll figure it out and change my mind.  Also yes, I think there are some things that are just wrong and some things that are just right.

 

I'm trying to understand your idea that people need to be "educated" before they assimilate. You may think it's stupid, but that's because it's how your own argument is coming across. If you plan to figure it out and change your mind, that's great, but that would be a decision you would making yourself, whereas I'm concerned if your idea of assimilation is that people should be forced to think a certain way.

 

diversity of thought, does not erode any culture. diversity of race, does not erode culture. it's when immigreation policies actively draw in people who's values are completely against american values, that american culture is eroded. it's not that "bad apples exist and are rotting the oranges" it's "people are protecting the bad apples and oranges. at the expense of the good apples and oranges." the claim that the country will be eradicated, can actually be pointed out. California, the place that accepts the most illegal immigrants, and has the most state funded programs for people who do not work. look at how fa it's falling. the homeless rate is skyrocketing, the gang and drug problems are only increasing, there are protests of ICE for doing their jobs properly, including the protest against the arrests of illegal immigrant drug dealers, and murderers. that is what the so called diversity that is being advocated, is doing. it is granting voting rights to illegal immigrants, resisting the deportation of illegal immigrants, and protesting the separation of lawbreakers from the children they bring with them, even though it is also done in order to prevent child sex trafficking rings from standing unimpeded.

(Side note: Could you please try to use proper capitalization? Like, at all? It's obnoxious trying to read your posts when you neglect that, when it's really not that hard for you to fix.)

 

It's come up before that some of you think murdering illegal immigrants is acceptable, because their status as illegal immigrants somehow makes them so much less than human that it either somehow doesn't count as murder, or is the "appropriate" response to their crimes, but I'll try to respond to this anyway.

 

ICE has been going after green card holders, legal immigrants, and citizens who have not broken the laws, so ICE has hardly been doing their jobs properly. You may be fine with them deporting illegal immigrants, but when they are going after people who should not be deported, that is giving up on their responsibilities and abusing their authority to deport whoever they want just because they feel like it.

 

What actual drug dealers and murderers are people protesting the arrests of?

 

I recommend reading this article on the idea of "granting voting rights to illegal immigrants."

 

How does separating children from their parents in any way prevent a proliferation of child sex trafficking rings?

 

that enough of a correlation? forced diversity is allowing illegal immigrants to remain unchecked, and any resistance to it is shouted down indiscriminately using the race card. while votes and social benefits are granted to those same illegal immigrants, who in turn use their votes to keep choking the state's wallet till it's blue. it does not do anything to white-centric culture, because white-centric culture has no definition with substance. what it does harm, is american culture, which values hard work, cultural blending, and innovation. and it does so by stifling the ability of those who come here legally to get a fair grasp at the bottom rungs.

 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/apr/30/don-blankenship/don-blankenship-claims-illegal-immigration-costs-1/

 

As this article notes, it's hard to make a rough estimate because there is not enough reliable data, and in fact reports are suspect because they seem to be fudging information in order to generate a desired result. Again, I think claims like "choking the state's wallet till it's blue" are horribly exaggerated.

 

I agree that it does nothing to white-centric culture. My point was that Winter did define American culture as having been predominantly made by white people, and therefore did not want to see that culture eroded.

 

I can hardly see "cultural blending" being a priority when mido9 was saying that people should be assimilated into American culture. That's not blending cultures; that's giving up one so you can "fit in" with a completely separate culture.

 

the question itself is rather odd. a debate is inherently and attempt to change somebodies mind. if you are debating somebody, then you more than likely have an opinion on a topic, and are attempting to get them to see things your way, you are currently debating mido9, do you not have a viewpoint that you are trying to push forwards?

I see a debate as a free exchange between positions. Yes, it is an attempt to change somebody's mind, and as you said, it would be an opinion on the topic. My viewpoint is that white supremacy is very much a current modern, whereas mido9 was saying that it does not exist, and that people cannot assimilate until they realize that it does not exist.

 

That's not a debate in any way. That's "I don't think this is real, and you should not believe it exists either." It is laughably arrogant, and if you want to change somebody's mind, you still need to go through the process of a debate instead of settling for "I think there are some things that are just wrong and some things that are just right."

[vla1ne]

I worry about whether or not to capitalize only when I make a large enough post. The last one was arguably big enough, but most of these posts are done right before I go to bed for the night. I also respond paragraph to paragraph, and any deviation is noted as I go. You didn’t complain about format, but just nipping it in the bud before may I have to.

 

When exactly did anybody on this site advocate killing illegal immigrants, or declare them all as less than human?  Under what context did anybody say that? Seriously, that’s a hefty accusation, especially if you’re claiming I advocate flat out murdering illegal immigrants and if you’ve got the context to back it, I’d like to know when. I do advocate killing anybody who comes after your life, but that applies to literally anybody, not just illegal immigrants, and that’s because if they’re out to harm you, then they had best accept the consequences.

 

ICE was created to go after illegal immigrants who break the law, and to deal with lawbreakers who immigrated legally (if their crime is great enough) that is their specified duty. I am with you if your claim is that they should not be stepping beyond those bounds, but what cases are you talking about?

 

Just a few of many.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56IqwiFCcEM

 http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-drug-raid-immigration-arrests-20170426-story.html(in effect, there were protests against deporting the wife of a drug smuggling illegal immigrant)

the list could go on.

As for your link, look up what you need to vote in California, and then look up what illegal immigrants are being given. You need state ID to vote, illegal immigrants are being given assistance to apply for, and attain, state ID, in combination with the motor voter act. The combination of laws is capable of slipping up. Alongside other minor laws that allow illegal immigrants the ability to vote in other lesser elections. (summed up though: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-motor-voter-act/) it’s part of a slope that can, and likely will, let quite a few illegal immigrants slip through the cracks.

Because not all of those children are with their parents. Some are with adults who simply act like their parents. There are cases of such, and even cases of parents selling their kids for sex. Separating them as you vet them removes the chance o the kid being harmed, and it’s not like they’re thrown in a cage, they’re put in a humane facility with other kids, games, and plenty of adults ensuring things are running smoothly.

 

I’ll go over the article at a later date, I’m tired and need to wrap this one up, but on a simple start, can you really look at California, the largest sanctuary city, and tell me it’s doing well under its current sanctuary settings?  That is what unchecked immigration looks like. The overall cost of illegal immigrants is crushing the state under its own weight, and while that effect may not spread across the board, that’s not thanks to the illegal immigrants. Hell, the state costs alone are likely as high as they are from Cali alone.

Winter’s almost right. Many of the initial family values, a large number of the innovations and additions, ect, were created, or expanded upon by white people. But my argument there would take too long, and he can defend himself well enough, since I’m not 100% aware o his intent, and would likely derail it were I to attempt explaining in this case.

No, it is blending. It’s how you begin adopting American values, while retaining your own traditions. That means you bow to the high laws of the land, but still remember, honor, and celebrate your own culture as well. And possibly even adopt a couple other traditions as well. This cannot be done if the values you hold are at complete 180 to the values of this country. Mexico doesn’t have this issue, or at least aren’t the largest offenders, but that’s another topic.

 

Yeah, its idea exchange, but the goal is to change minds is it not? I also think you might be misreading midos stance. He seems closer to saying that it’s no longer a prominent issue, and should not be treated as an epidemic as it is now. In other words, from here, you seem to be claiming it as the source of many, if not all problems in society, and he’s just saying it’s not as big as all that. I’m on his side in this one. There’s nothing holding people back aside from their belief that somebody is holding them back, which is seriously leading them to make far worse choices, due to the pessimistic mindset such thoughts put them in.

 

Probably glossed over some things, inform me and I’ll be sure to elaborate on them later.

[Phantom Roxas]

I'd have to find it on the status bar later, but basically it devolved into Winter saying that illegal immigrants should be shot on sight. It certainly is a hefty accusation, and I want to draw attention to vile statements, in the hopes that people recognize them for what they are. I don't think you personally are advocating for murdering illegal immigrants, and I apologize if I was accusing of that. I realize I've been getting way too riled up in my responses to you in this thread alone, so I want to rein myself in a bit here.

If you're referring to self-defense, then I completely agree with you on that. What I'm more concerned with is when someone else thinks that an group is out to get them, and wishes nothing but misery on them, regardless of whether or not individuals committed any crimes. By then it's not about self-defense, and merely justifying one's support for murder because of their own paranoia. Some fearmongering against illegal immigrants hinges on that, using specific groups as symptomatic of all Muslims so that discriminating against them can just be stated as "protecting" yourself on your country.

While ICE was created to go after law-breaking immigrants, yes, I think that they are stepping out of those bounds when they should not. Regarding the incident you mention, while I agree with the husband being deported for drug smuggling, deporting the wife does seem out of line because it treats her as if she was just as guilty as her husband. There the issue seems like her status as an illegal immigrant took a back seat to her being married to a drug smuggler. It's placing higher priority on something that she had nothing to do with than the actual crime she committed, if that makes sense.

 

As for my own position on ICE stepping out of line, here are some examples that stood out to me.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lawful-resident-20180628-htmlstory.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/01/22/ice-detains-a-polish-doctor-and-green-card-holder-who-has-lived-in-the-u-s-for-nearly-40-years/

In both of these cases, while the citizens who were taken by ICE had faced convictions, they had served their time long ago. It's trying to deport people well after the fact, and is another reason why I find the "They need to assimilate" argument . It does not matter if they have assimilated, because someone will try to dig up something long ago for the purpose of deporting these people. Essentially, what's the point of assimilating if you could get deported for something you may have done before you assimilated? It suggests that what you try to do to legitimize your status does not matter in the long term, because people will deport you over what you've done twenty years ago without any care for what you've been doing for the past twenty days.

I believe the purpose of the forthcoming REAL ID is to mitigate the problems that come up from granting state ID's to illegal immigrants. As you said, the combinations of laws is slipping up, so for circumstances like that, we do need new laws that could formally unify those laws.

I've seen nothing to suggest that the children who are being separated from their parents are being put into a "humane" facility. Given how Stephen Miller in particular has played a major role in separating children from their families, that subject is perfect for this thread, but I'd rather save that for a separate post later, because this one is getting rather long as it is.

https://www.politifact.com/california/article/2018/aug/01/separating-fact-fiction-californias-sanctuary-stat/

To make a long story short regarding sanctuary laws, this is again trying to conflate multiple issues. The right will claim that the combination of A and B leads to C, rather than looking at how A leads to C, and how B leads to D. It's highly misleading, and uses the idea of "California as a sanctuary state uses policies to release illegal immigrant criminals into our communities" to create a certain narrative that puts California as a whole on the same level of evil that they attribute to immigrants.

mido and Winter talked about how immigrant values were inherently antagonistic into America, and that is why people from those cultures should not be brought in. It gave me serious doubts about any interest in both retaining those cultures and adopt American values. As you mentioned, that cannot happen when those cultures are completely antithetical to American values, but mido and Winter was arguing as if that's always the case with immigrants. Or at least is supposedly the case with the respective ethnic groups that those two were singling out. For what it's worth, I do recognize and appreciate that you said Mexicans would not have this issue to a significant degree.

 

While white supremacists are not as prominent, they still represent a significant danger, and should still be regarded as an epidemic, especially when Trump's response grows from "People sides were bad" to describing Neo-Nazis as "very fine people." The impression I got from mido's comments was suggesting that this problem does not exist at all, not that it is supposedly less significant than I was describing. I take issue with describing it as a "belief" that somebody is holding minorities back, because that suggests that they are merely imagining the people discriminating against them. You and mido seem to be discussing whether the correlation between white supremacy and systemic racism is a fact or a "belief", whereas I'd rather discuss that it actually does exist, and the debate is over if they are operate on a significant or insignificant degree.

[vla1ne]

Knowing winter, he likely just failed at elaborating his original point, and just said “funk it” and went for the shock factor. But considering he is present in this thread somewhat, this would likely be the time to ask for clarification.

 

Not too many people really think illegal immigrants, as a whole are out to get them. Most of them think more along the lines of illegal immigration allows unchecked people to enter the country, and damages the economy by adding a larger burden than it adds support. There’s a legit argument that can be made, but right now would take far too long, and would unquestionably change the course of the discussion. Allowing people into any country unchecked is damaging to the country as a whole. I agree that nobody should be wishing misery on all illegal immigrants, but the fact is, it’s not healthy for the United States, or for Mexico, to allow cities worth of people enter and exit the country unchecked.  The muslim issue is another can of worms, and I’ll leave that at that, until somebody decides to make another religion thread relating to them.

 

ICE was created to go after all illegal immigrants. Illegal immigration means you have already broken the law by entering illegally. Being Deported as an illegal immigrant, is one of the risks of illegal immigration. ICE highly prioritizes (as well it should) those who break the law, but that does not mean they will not, or cannot deport other illegal immigrants.

 

Deporting the wife means you do not break up a family. Not deporting her means you break up a family, and leave a potential connect for the drug smuggler inside our country, which would just be one more person to monitor, when resources are already thin enough. Neither option is a happy end, but at least one allows them both to be together, and lowers the resources used to monitor potential breaches. Her being illegal didn’t take a back seat to her being married to him. Both things added up to her being a liability. They are by no means mutually exclusive.

 

In the first case, he pinged as possibly eligible for deportation, and apparently, upon looking it up further, he was released shortly after. He wasn’t deported; he was just detained, to ensure he had done nothing wrong since then. He was found to be living an honest life and was released. ICE did nothing wrong in that case. It seems to me that they were just checking up on leads. Trying to see if anybody in the database who had prior convictions hadn’t turned their life around.

 

The second case is much the same, he dinged for possible deportation due to two older crimes, and was detained in order to see if he’s doing anything like that now. The article’s written like he was already deported at the time they wrote it, but really he’d only been detained. In fact, they even referenced the fact that this in nothing new to immigrants, and past administrations have actually had people deported for less. Not sure what’s happened since, but considering he’s a doctor, and he’s been living an honest life, I’d bet money he’s still in America.

 

They’ve been shown to be in buildings that appear similar to boys and girls clubs. Not only that, they’ve been shown playing sports and PS4/Xbone games in said facilities. If that’s not humane enough, then I don’t know what is.

 

 

As for the article, the law summed up is basically: “SB 54 prohibits local and state law enforcement from using their resources, including personnel or facilities, to investigate or arrest people for federal immigration enforcement purposes.”

How that doesn’t count as protecting potential criminals, and hindering pursuit of proper immigration enforcement is beyond me. It doesn’t say they don’t have to, it actively prohibits it. It takes the option off the table entirely. In addition, politifact uses that sly ass wording that hides more than it tells you. “SB 54 gives law enforcement discretion to work with federal immigration authorities when undocumented Californians are charged with any of the hundreds of serious crimes listed in the Trust Act. Those include assault, battery, sexual abuse and exploitation, rape, crimes endangering children, burglary, robbery, theft, fraud, forgery, a crime resulting in death, and many more.”

In other words, they have to actually be charged with the crime before police can cooperate with immigration authorities. Meaning suspected criminals have more than enough loopholes to slip through. It misses many of the preliminary crimes that might hint as such people being dangerous, such as missing unspecified domestic violence accusations, animal cruelty charges, suspicion of neglect, and multiple other things. This law essentially says you cannot cooperate properly and efficiently, until somebody innocent has already been badly hurt, or even killed, and the person has been convicted. Sure, you can talk to the inmates, and get info from other sources, but what exactly do these kinds of laws do besides hinder what would otherwise be far more effective coverage and protection of actual innocent people? California as a whole is not evil, it would be far easier to handle if they were, but a large portion of both voters and politicians in California are misguided, blinded by their altruism that they can’t logic certain things out. It’s much harder to convince people they’re wrong there, because they believe they’re doing good things.

 

They talked about how some immigrant values are inherently antagonistic and opposed to American values. And they are correct. There exist no-go zones in quite a few areas as a consequence of allowing too many people whose values overall do not mesh well with western values. Mido and winter could not have been arguing that, because I know for a fact that winter has no issue with European immigrants, or African immigrants, or even Russian immigrants as a whole. Also mido is a weaboo, and would welcome Japanese immigrants with his arms wide open. You might be misreading their posts if you think either of them means all immigrants. They may well mean a large portion of immigrants from certain geographical locations holding certain sets of values, but there’s more than enough evidence to back that kind of assertion up.

 

They can only represent a significant danger, because people all across America have been making the foolish assertion that white people as a whole are the enemy. This in turn allows for persecution against whites. Which then bolsters the ranks of those who hold resentment towards other races. It’s a never ending witch hunt that creates the very same witches that it seeks to destroy, by destroying those who would never have become witches, had the witch hunt never started. As far as trump saying both sides had people who were wrong, he was by no means wrong, both sides had people who came solely for the violence, and the misrepresentation of all white people at said rally as white supremacists grants nothing for the people who merely came as honest protesters, sick of the persecution. Unlike the medis, which condemned only one side, trump stated both sides were acting like kids, and admonished them. How is that wrong? As far as saying not all of the people were bad, if they were, do you really think there would have been so few casualties? No. many people there were working class people who simply came for keks.

 

It is a belief. Minorities have everything anybody could ever want to move forwards. Affirmative action, government assistance programs, scholarships, ect. We have tools today that blacks would have killed for in the jim crow era. And even back then we had black millionaires, and employment rates that matched and exceeded that of white people. So why is it then, that blacks today, with far more tools than they had back then, and far less oppression that we faced back then, and more encouragement than they had back then, cannot make it? I refuse to believe it’s because others are holding us back. it’s all in the mindset. Too many blacks today are stuck in the victim mentality, blacks today have chosen the fast life, instead of the steady growth. By destroying the same values that kept them (and America) strong for centuries, black people have locked themselves into a negative loop. It’s being broken out of, slowly, but surely, but it’s a fact, black people are holding themselves back. constantly telling ourselves “we can’t do it” is leading far too many of us to actually believing that crap.