A Day Without Immigrants

[ONW]

Also, I'm not a Trump supporter. I just made a bet on him to win. I'm a democrat actually. I'm just not a biased one. There's a difference. Have never and will never vote Republican in my life. I don't need a values police.

LOL

 

[jhmd2000]

So according to JHMD you could have voted for Donald!

This was and is correct. I regret your appalling lack of nuance and simpleton's insistence on a binary worldview. An uncouth vulgarity the likes of which are rarely seen outside the safe spaces of the ideological segregation known commonly as America's sociology departments.

 

[Wrangor]

If you believe black lives matter, then you support Black Lives Matter. It's simple. There's no violence in believing black lives matter. If a few violent black people cause you question whether or not black lives matter, then you can't claim to support the "non-violent portions."

It's sad that you're susceptible to this conservative media narrative. It's been very successful at poking holes at the rights and basic humanity of black people because white people are more fearful of violent black people than of violent white people. They'll shrug their shoulders at everyday crimes committed by white people but any violence by a black person is justification for extralegal violence against black people.

Simply not true. I can believe black lives matter AND disagree with the organization of the BLM movement. When you allow radical elements of your populace (which all movements have) to take a key role (which they have in BLM) then it stifles your message. He physical destruction caused by BLM isn't a media creation. It is most likely over hyped but it is real and it is a part of the movement. BLM would have been much more effective if they had actively worked to rid those activities from the demonstrations. Like it or not your image matters in a protest. You have to carefully plan and execute. As I said earlier - good intentions aren't sufficient. BLM was a well intentioned , extremely poorly executed protest.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Wrangor]

I agree with you that we both are in support of BLM and would have probably taken a different name/ call to action. Here is what I try to understand through. It is not mine or your cause as white males. We can never truly understand what it is like to be discriminated upon. As such it is not our right our anybody else's to stand on a high horse and say "I would do it this way, or that way"

You can't say that because you and me don't get it, and never will because we have never been in those shoes. It is best for everybody to acknowledge the points BLM is bringing up and act accordingly to bring change where we see problems accruing. BLM is bringing attention to real and serious problems that need addressing. When you are bringing real problems to light that would otherwise be unaddressed in a peaceful manner, that is hard to argue against. It is kinda some of the core principles America was founded upon.

I can't comment on what would be most effective? That is ridiculous. Of course I can. In fact there may be no better opinion than that of a white man. That is who the BLM movement should be aimed to impact. It is people like me who the protesters are trying to influence. If not me than what's the point?

I acknowledge and have sympathy for he BLM points. I am not saying I agree with all of them, but I empathize as well as I am able (I do agree that there is a level of empathy I cannot reach because I was not born black). But i reject the notion that I can't comment on proper strategy simply because of my skin color. Wisdom is knowing not only the truth, but knowing how and when to communicate that message. You can neuter a message with an unwise delivery mechanism.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[IamThunderbolt]

Simply not true. I can believe black lives matter AND disagree with the organization of the BLM movement. When you allow radical elements of your populace (which all movements have) to take a key role (which they have in BLM) then it stifles your message. He physical destruction caused by BLM isn't a media creation. It is most likely over hyped but it is real and it is a part of the movement. BLM would have been much more effective if they had actively worked to rid those activities from the demonstrations. Like it or not your image matters in a protest. You have to carefully plan and execute. As I said earlier - good intentions aren't sufficient. BLM was a well intentioned , extremely poorly executed protest.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

To whom are you referring?

And what do you deem as radical?

And as to catamount's assertion that it's a bad name, why?

 

[jhmd2000]

I can't comment on what would be most effective? That is ridiculous. Of course I can. In fact there may be no better opinion than that of a white man. That is who the BLM movement should be aimed to impact. It is people like me who the protesters are trying to influence. If not me than what's the point?

I acknowledge and have sympathy for he BLM points. I am not saying I agree with all of them, but I empathize as well as I am able (I do agree that there is a level of empathy I cannot reach because I was not born black). But i reject the notion that I can't comment on proper strategy simply because of my skin color. Wisdom is knowing not only the truth, but knowing how and when to communicate that message. You can neuter a message with an unwise delivery mechanism.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You are not to comment in this long-sought after open and honest dialogue on race.

 

[MHBDemon]

In fact there may be no better opinion than that of a white man.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Lol

 

[Wrangor]

Lol

Why did BLM protests occur if not to impact white men? Wouldn't you want honest feedback from a White man who is just as interested in the success of all races in this country and actively gives time and money towards that end?

Are BLM protests meant to impact black men? Black women? No, they are out there to make an impression on white men and women, but more specifically as is clearly stated over and over on this board - the power still resides predominately with white men in this country. Wouldn't it be helpful to have constructive feedback?

I have no ill conceived notion that I am always right, and my opinion on this may very well be wrong , but if you are protesting to create change in white America it would seem wise to take the advice of a white America who shares some of your same goals. No different then if you were attempting to impact black America with a message. I would think your first goal would be to find black Americans that shared a similar vision and get feedback on what would be most effective.

Honest and thoughtful response would be appreciated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wrangor]

To whom are you referring?

And what do you deem as radical?

And as to catamount's assertion that it's a bad name, why?

Not sure what you mean by the third question but regarding your first two the easiest answer is the radical elements that take mindless property damage and theft totaling in the millions upon millions of dollars, much of it against their own community. It is radical to destroy your own community in almost any scenario.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MHBDemon]

Not sure what you mean by the third question but regarding your first two the easiest answer is the radical elements that take mindless property damage and theft totaling in the millions upon millions of dollars, much of it against their own community. It is radical to destroy your own community in almost any scenario.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To whom (specifically) are you referring?

 

[Wrangor]

To whom (specifically) are you referring?

The people who committed the damage. There is obviously a point that you are trying to make so go ahead and make it. If you are asking me to personally name individuals I am sorry to say I don't have that list.

Baltimore was around 9m, Fergeson was 6 or 7m. These are massive numbers. They neutered their message by providing an avenue for prejudice to shift. Prejudice is a slippery target. This doesn't mean the message doesn't have validity it simply means that blm missed an opportunity.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MHBDemon]

The people who committed the damage. There is obviously a point that you are trying to make so go ahead and make it. If you are asking me to personally name individuals I am sorry to say I don't have that list.

Baltimore was around 9m, Fergeson was 6 or 7m. These are massive numbers. They neutered their message by providing an avenue for prejudice to shift. Prejudice is a slippery target.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The point should be obvious. That you can't back this up:

Simply not true. I can believe black lives matter AND disagree with the organization of the BLM movement. When you allow radical elements of your populace (which all movements have) to take a key role (which they have in BLM) then it stifles your message. He physical destruction caused by BLM isn't a media creation. It is most likely over hyped but it is real and it is a part of the movement. BLM would have been much more effective if they had actively worked to rid those activities from the demonstrations. Like it or not your image matters in a protest. You have to carefully plan and execute. As I said earlier - good intentions aren't sufficient. BLM was a well intentioned , extremely poorly executed protest.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So this is still true:

If you believe black lives matter, then you support Black Lives Matter. It's simple. There's no violence in believing black lives matter. If a few violent black people cause you question whether or not black lives matter, then you can't claim to support the "non-violent portions."

It's sad that you're susceptible to this conservative media narrative. It's been very successful at poking holes at the rights and basic humanity of black people because white people are more fearful of violent black people than of violent white people. They'll shrug their shoulders at everyday crimes committed by white people but any violence by a black person is justification for extralegal violence against black people.

 

[Wrangor]

The point should be obvious. That you can't back this up:



So this is still true:

Ok, so that damage was a media creation. A vast right wing media conglomerate that is clearly in bed with guys like Donald Trump. That is your stance. I can't really argue with that. If you honestly believe that the quantifiable damage that was done at these protests in the name of BLM is a conspiracy theory pushed by the United States media, then I am going to have to leave you in that belief.

Back to the topic at hand. I think the Day without Immigrants is a decent idea, but I think due to the short term nature of it, it will prove not only unsuccessful, but counterproductive.

 

[PhDeac]

Why do believe damage delegitimizes the idea that black lives matter?

 

[EatLeadCommie]

Alternative facts. The "easy returns" were always counted as removals if there are the harsh consequences associated with removals versus returns. Returns are catch and release, with no consequences, and people would just try again. Obama did not change what removal means -- he just chose to exercise the removal option versus the catch and release, return option. Bush is the one who started ramping up removals versus returns because catch and release was ineffective.

Here is a good article on the strategy started by Bush and effectively employed by Obama, a strategy which is not misleading in any manner. And it has obviously worked because the number of illegal immigrants has not risen under Obama's administration.

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/11/5602272/removals-returns-and-deportations-a-very-short-history-of-immigration

"Many critics of the Obama administration who want more immigrants expelled from the country point to the removals/returns distinction in order to argue that Obama is inflating his record on enforcement. After all, the total of removals plus returns is lower under Obama than it was under Bush. (See the Center for Immigration Studies on this.)

Ironically, the administration is now making this exact same argument — possibly because it's trying to fend off heavy criticism from Latinos and immigrant-rights groups.

But this argument is both overly simplistic and needlessly confusing. The story of the Obama administration on immigration enforcement is that more people than ever are being expelled from the country in a way that prevents them from returning to the US legally or illegally — even though net unauthorized migration has been low and the unauthorized population of the country is down from its 2006 peak.

That's a perfectly suitable definition of "deportation." The government simply can't return more people than are trying to come in to begin with — so returns are partly dependent on the state of the economy. Removals, on the other hand, tell the story of the deliberate policy choices made over the last decade that are having lasting consequences for the people being expelled."

Nice bit of parsing and justification by Vox to say precisely nothing. Let's look at the numbers from the last year of the Bush admin to 2015 (the last year the numbers are available on the website). Pay special attention to the Returns column.

Year Removals Returns
2015 333,341 129,122
2014 407,075 163,245
2013 434,015 178,691
2012 416,324 230,360
2011 386,020 322,098
2010 381,738 474,195
2009 391,341 582,596
2008 359,795 811,263

Removals have stayed relatively constant with mostly a 75k variation from a low point in Bush's last year until Obama set a new low in 2015. Still, by and large, deportations have fluctuated between around 385 and 435k.

Returns, on the other hand, fell off precipitously from 811k in Bush's last year to 583k in Obama's first year. Now, in fairness, most of that can probably be attributed to economic circumstances at the time. Yet it continues to fall to new lows every single year until it hits 129k in 2015. This is an extraordinary drop when you consider that the Bush and Clinton years were seeing numbers in the millions under this column. You simply can't chalk it all up to a shitty economy, nor can you chalk it up to the new removal rule, which did not see a corresponding increase in numbers similar to the decrease in numbers here. And in spite of the new removal policy carrying more official consequences for repeat offenders, it's not like it's a deterrent to illegal immigration. They still take their chances and hope they don't get caught. The new policy simply gives ICE and BP more teeth and the ability to detect patterns in removals.

No, the obvious explanation here is the new policy was a nice cover to point to when somebody criticized your enforcement policies as lax. "But look, I've removed more people than any other President!" Lies, damned lies, and statistics is all that is. His overall policy has been enormously forgiving, even prior to DACA (which also explains some of the drop).

 

[Wrangor]

Why do believe damage delegitimizes the idea that black lives matter?

Why do people not read? I will quote myself (from 3 posts above...not exactly a long scroll).

They neutered their message by providing an avenue for prejudice to shift. Prejudice is a slippery target. This doesn't mean the message doesn't have validity it simply means that blm missed an opportunity.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought that was clear enough, but apparently not. Black Lives DO matter. Just as the plight of the immigrant matters. I am merely discussing the most effective way to bring awareness and change, which should be the goal of any protest. This thread is a perfect example of why these boards can be infuriating. I will let ya'll have it so I can get back to work. I guess we will see what kind of impact a Day without Immigrants has on our economy and on our discussion of the topic. Committed, long term, peaceful protest has been proven to be the most effective vehicle of change. Short term measures are ineffective, and violent measures are dismissed (unless they are so violent that they literally spark a full blown revolution). I think the women's movement that started has some legs to be honest. They seem to be committed to a long term presence, and thus far has maintained a peaceful presence.

Kill people with kindness, heap burning coals of love on top of their heads and you force them to see the world through your eyes. As long as you give them opportunities to dismiss you, or excuse their own behavior, you will never win the long game. In the end you should be striving for real change, and not a media headline. That is only accomplished through the long term lens of peaceful opposition.

 

[WFcatamount22]

Day after, day of no immigrants recap.

Nobody was even slightly inconvenienced. Only people that noticed a difference were school teachers in areas heavy with illegal immigrants. Proving that we are wasting government money to pay for questionable schools to teach people with no skin in the game. Great.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

i sort of wish I had been inconvenienced

 

[Shooshmoo]

Nice bit of parsing and justification by Vox to say precisely nothing. Let's look at the numbers from the last year of the Bush admin to 2015 (the last year the numbers are available on the website). Pay special attention to the Returns column.

Year Removals Returns
2015 333,341 129,122
2014 407,075 163,245
2013 434,015 178,691
2012 416,324 230,360
2011 386,020 322,098
2010 381,738 474,195
2009 391,341 582,596
2008 359,795 811,263

Removals have stayed relatively constant with mostly a 75k variation from a low point in Bush's last year until Obama set a new low in 2015. Still, by and large, deportations have fluctuated between around 385 and 435k.

Returns, on the other hand, fell off precipitously from 811k in Bush's last year to 583k in Obama's first year. Now, in fairness, most of that can probably be attributed to economic circumstances at the time. Yet it continues to fall to new lows every single year until it hits 129k in 2015. This is an extraordinary drop when you consider that the Bush and Clinton years were seeing numbers in the millions under this column. You simply can't chalk it all up to a shitty economy, nor can you chalk it up to the new removal rule, which did not see a corresponding increase in numbers similar to the decrease in numbers here. And in spite of the new removal policy carrying more official consequences for repeat offenders, it's not like it's a deterrent to illegal immigration. They still take their chances and hope they don't get caught. The new policy simply gives ICE and BP more teeth and the ability to detect patterns in removals.

No, the obvious explanation here is the new policy was a nice cover to point to when somebody criticized your enforcement policies as lax. "But look, I've removed more people than any other President!" Lies, damned lies, and statistics is all that is. His overall policy has been enormously forgiving, even prior to DACA (which also explains some of the drop).

You've changed your argument from "He started counting border removals, which were previously not counted as deportations, as deportations. This makes his numbers look "record setting"-- because he changed the definition of deportations/removals to make him look like he wasn't just letting them flow in and stay" to he is returning -- catching and releasing -- less than Bush. Your previous argument was proven untrue -- he didn't change any definitions, there was no "flowing in" of illegal immigrants, so you had to change that argument to keep the conversation going. That's fine, but we are having a different discussion now.

In any event, the new policy was Bush's policy, not Obama's, and came after Bush was criticized because catch and release was failing. Obama just carried it forward and it appears to have worked (if keeping illegal immigrants out of the country is the goal) because the illegal immigrant numbers have remained stagnant during Obama term -- a fact you keep ignoring. I'm sure part of that was because Bush tanked the economy and part is because it is a better way of enforcing our immigration policy, again, if keeping illegal immigrants out of the country is the goal.

 

[Deacsfan27]

Why would Obama want to have a record number of deportations under his watch? That doesn't seem like something he was trying to hang his hat on at all throughout his administration.

Most of the GOP outcry I heard was that he was doing the exact opposite and enabling illegal immigration.