A Day Without Immigrants

[Deacsfan27]

Obviously, my edit and your response crossed in Cyber-ia. In my anecdotal (but not uncommon) case, mehburger. That's the problem with protests.

If you want to change something, get really good at something and demand attention. You will get it. Average shmucks like YHC are the populace in the stage production of life. Even were I inconvenienced, I'm one vote in a purple state, and even I don't matter. Getting really good at something, though, has worked for thousands of years. Taking a day off of work is a step in the wrong direction.

Alright, so you disapprove of the protest yesterday and how they went about doing it.

How would you organize a protest if you were in their situation so that it would appeal to the masses and get the point across?

 

[Deacsfan27]

How many marches, speeches, and protests did it take for anything to be done 50 years ago? It wasn't just one march on one day that changed everything. It was a combination of relentless protests and marches over several years that led to small changes, that eventually led to bigger changes.

 

[Deacsfan27]

It's so incredibly easy to armchair quarterback it and say "well that didn't work, well that didn't work", but if you are going to criticize it then I would like to hear how you would attack the situation. If you want to say "I wouldn't be doing anything except going to work if I were an immigrant" that's fine too, we can abandon the conversation.

 

[jhmd2000]

Alright, so you disapprove of the protest yesterday and how they went about doing it.

How would you organize a protest if you were in their situation so that it would appeal to the masses and get the point across?

That's a good question because I don't know that I would. Obviously, I don't share the view that obstructive, disruptive behavior is necessary or persuasive. I tend to think that our society is more welcoming than you guys do (especially when compared to a lot of societies in the present and certainly the past). I am more likely to be sympathetic to actual, real people in my life than sign-waiving strangers on t.v. yelling and calling me (also a stranger) a racist, for instance.

If pressed, I would highlight cases of abuse and injustice that are relatable to people. Not being able to drive to my job (where I work and pay taxes and benefits for myself and for others, including the protestors blocking my commute) is likely to be alienate my attention to their cause. Show me the mother of four who has worked, contributed and been a good citizen who becomes the dolphin in ICE's tuna net and you've got my attention. Remember that your audience doesn't share the protestors contentment with attention; they must be persuaded. Be persuasive rather than just loud. Loud is unpersuasive.

 

[Deacsfan27]

That's a good question because I don't know that I would. Obviously, I don't share the view that obstructive, disruptive behavior is necessary or persuasive. I tend to think that our society is more welcoming than you guys do (especially when compared to a lot of societies in the present and certainly the past). I am more likely to be sympathetic to actual, real people in my life than sign-waiving strangers on t.v. yelling and calling me (also a stranger) a racist, for instance.

If pressed, I would highlight cases of abuse and injustice that are relatable to people. Not being able to drive to my job (where I work and pay taxes and benefits for myself and for others, including the protestors blocking my commute) is likely to be alienate my attention to their cause. Show me the mother of four who has worked, contributed and been a good citizen who becomes the dolphin in ICE's tuna net and you've got my attention. Make sense?

I really appreciate the genuine effort at a conversation here.

Just because a society is "more welcoming" than a lot of societies in the present and past doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of injustices.

To highlight---you feel that people causing a disruption in your daily routine makes it less likely that you will pay attention to "their cause", while other people on this thread (and yourself included) said that you weren't impacted by it, so you also didn't pay attention to it. It's a lose-lose, and demonstrates that there is no "right way" to protest to get the attention of people who simply don't care about their plight or the injustices being done.

These immigrants are also paying their taxes, working their jobs, and providing benefits and services to people here in America as immigrants, and they are still looked down upon and not treated as equals by the President, as well as a lot of people who feel America is for only people of fair skin and Christianity.

That is what yesterday was about---showing that immigrants are Americans too, and demonstrating that just because you don't "look American" or speak with an accent different from people born here, doesn't mean that they are any less of a citizen than somebody born here.

 

[bcobbdeacs]

Jhmd,
You mean like the lady who was picked up last week that had been here working for 20 years,paying taxes raising children but had a conviction for using a fake social security number and is now deported?

 

[jhmd2000]

Jhmd,
You mean like the lady who was picked up last week that had been here working for 20 years,paying taxes raising children but had a conviction for using a fake social security number and is now deported?

That is the story I was thinking of.

 

[jhmd2000]

I really appreciate the genuine effort at a conversation here.

Just because a society is "more welcoming" than a lot of societies in the present and past doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of injustices.

To highlight---you feel that people causing a disruption in your daily routine makes it less likely that you will pay attention to "their cause", while other people on this thread (and yourself included) said that you weren't impacted by it, so you also didn't pay attention to it. It's a lose-lose, and demonstrates that there is no "right way" to protest to get the attention of people who simply don't care about their plight or the injustices being done.

These immigrants are also paying their taxes, working their jobs, and providing benefits and services to people here in America as immigrants, and they are still looked down upon and not treated as equals by the President, as well as a lot of people who feel America is for only people of fair skin and Christianity.

That is what yesterday was about---showing that immigrants are Americans too, and demonstrating that just because you don't "look American" or speak with an accent different from people born here, doesn't mean that they are any less of a citizen than somebody born here.

I believe you are making a few assumptions here, including several not so subtle accusations. Do you have a basis for these, or just a suspicion? I can believe in our immigration laws (which are grounded in sovereignty, history, reason and economics) and still not necessarily hate people who don't look like me, right?

eta to the bold: Sure, but not every inequity is the result of an injustice. Often, many, but not all. As Ben Shapiro is fond of pointing out, there aren't many 5'8" white Jews from the suburbs of L.A. (his upbringing) in the NBA. Sometimes the market produces a result that does not reflect our demographic mosaic. When every problem contains a (very) thinly-veiled accusation, the narrative is off-putting. When people begin to scream an off-putting narrative and condemn the off-put as racist heretics, you get Presidencies like Donald Trump. This last part is (all kidding aside) what I hope my friends on the left will finally internalize about last November.

 

[Deacsfan27]

I believe you are making a few assumptions here, including several not so subtle accusations. Do you have a basis for these, or just a suspicion? I can believe in our immigration laws (which are grounded in sovereignty, history, reason and economics) and still not necessarily hate people who don't look like me, right?

Where in my post did I even remotely insinuate that you hate people who don't look like you?

I'm talking at a macro level here, not to you specifically.

The only part of that post that was directed towards you was the part about "how to protest", and that it's hard to make an impact on you specifically because you find that protests are ineffective when they don't impact you (didn't influence anything in your life yesterday), as well as when they do impact you (you stated that somebody who would block you from getting to work would make you less likely to support their cause).

 

[jhmd2000]

Where in my post did I even remotely insinuate that you hate people who don't look like you?

I'm talking at a macro level here, not to you specifically.

The only part of that post that was directed towards you was the part about "how to protest", and that it's hard to make an impact on you specifically because you find that protests are ineffective when they don't impact you (didn't influence anything in your life yesterday), as well as when they do impact you (you stated that somebody who would block you from getting to work would make you less likely to support their cause).

Here.

I really appreciate the genuine effort at a conversation here.

Just because a society is "more welcoming" than a lot of societies in the present and past doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of injustices.

To highlight---you feel that people causing a disruption in your daily routine makes it less likely that you will pay attention to "their cause", while other people on this thread (and yourself included) said that you weren't impacted by it, so you also didn't pay attention to it. It's a lose-lose, and demonstrates that there is no "right way" to protest to get the attention of people who simply don't care about their plight or the injustices being done.

These immigrants are also paying their taxes, working their jobs, and providing benefits and services to people here in America as immigrants, and they are still looked down upon and not treated as equals by the President, as well as a lot of people who feel America is for only people of fair skin and Christianity.

That is what yesterday was about---showing that immigrants are Americans too, and demonstrating that just because you don't "look American" or speak with an accent different from people born here, doesn't mean that they are any less of a citizen than somebody born here.

 

[Deacsfan27]

That has absolutely no insinuation at all pointed at you JHMD. That was a macro-level assessment based on what I have heard out of our President and folks across the country when they talk about immigrants.

The "you" is once again a global one (and in this context actually aimed at immigrants, not YOU specifically). It was actually a poorly worded sentence reading back through it because the pronouns are ambiguous.

 

[jhmd2000]

That has absolutely no insinuation at all pointed at you JHMD. That was a macro-level assessment based on what I have heard out of our President and folks across the country when they talk about immigrants.

The "you" is once again a global one (and in this context actually aimed at immigrants, not YOU specifically). It was actually a poorly worded sentence reading back through it because the pronouns are ambiguous.

Understood, but you can imagine that a reasonable member of the target audience---who may have heard some form of that accusation once or 10,000 times before from the left, starts to be able to see it coming, couldn't you?

 

[Deacsfan27]

Understood, but you can imagine that a reasonable member of the target audience---who may have heard some form of that accusation once or 10,000 times before from the left, starts to be able to see it coming, couldn't you?

If you are looking at what I wrote then, quite frankly, I don't see how you drew that I was calling you specifically racist, or lumping you into that group.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

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.

How are you concluding that illegal immigrant numbers have remained stagnant? What number are you looking at, exactly?

The so-called policy change under Bush pertained to catch and release and really isn't relevant to this conversation. The issue with catch and release is just what it sounds like. You would catch them, then release them and they would never return to their home country. Thus, catch and release aliens were overwhelmingly not showing up in either the removal or return column except in those rare cases when they actually did engage in voluntary departure (a poorly acronymed process known as VD) and it could be tracked. So the end of catch and release is a nice way to blame Obama's deportation problems on Chertoff and Bush, but again it's extremely misleading. Those catch and release numbers weren't showing up in either column prior to the 2006-7 time frame when the policy was "officially" ended. So it isn't simply a matter of borrowing what was previously in the return column and moving it into the removal column with the end of catch and release because most of those guys weren't in either column to begin with.

There was a concerted effort by the Obama admin to process removals at the point of least resistance where they don't need to go through an IJ or have to set a court date. They issue papers and bus them back. These are folks who were going back regardless and were going to show up in the return column previously. These were not simply people who were previously classified as catch and release aliens. If they were, you'd expect to see the removal numbers rise and the return numbers stay relatively constant, which didn't happen.

 

[jhmd2000]

If you are looking at what I wrote then, quite frankly, I don't see how you drew that I was calling you specifically racist, or lumping you into that group.

I was responding as "average white guy watching the protest", in light of your commentary. If you don't see the accusation-embedded in your sentence, I can't help you. It's there. You wrote it.

 

[Deacsfan27]

Alright, seems that we've run our course of reasonable discussion. I enjoyed that JHMD. Wish you engaged in well-intentioned conversation like that all the time.

 

[jhmd2000]

Alright, seems that we've run our course of reasonable discussion. I enjoyed that JHMD. Wish you engaged in well-intentioned conversation like that all the time.

I'm not trying to punt, I'm telling you what the audience hears when the "what people look like" trope gets trotted out. Eyes glaze after the first 10,000 renditions. I know that you guys on the left never tire of that discussion, but if you're really asking how I would attempt to reach people not already in your camp (and I believe you when you said you were), I would be more sensitive to the dullness of that particular knife.

 

[JuiceCrewAllStar]

Respectability politics in overdrive here.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

Alright, seems that we've run our course of reasonable discussion. I enjoyed that JHMD. Wish you engaged in well-intentioned conversation like that all the time.

 

[PhDeac]

I don't believe for one second that if the BLM movement took another name or a different approach that would be more palatable to white folks, there wouldn't be the same amount of criticism about some other part of their methods or underlying ideology.

This. White people flipped their lids because a backup quarterback sat down during the national anthem. Let's drop the charade that opposition to the idea that black lives matter has anything to do with lack of non-violent action.

True, but there would be less annoying consistent bitching about the name.

What name did you have in mind? The current name is a sentence that shouldn't be controversial at all. Black Lives Matter.