Border Backlog Crisis
In all the fulminating going on about the children in the current border "crisis," there is one problem I have yet to hear addressed, by either side in the debate. Mostly, I suspect, because it would cost a lot of money to fix. Americans who are unfamiliar with the problems immigrants face and who have never personally had to deal with an immigrant can be excused for not even being aware this problem exists. Conjuring up gauzy images of Ellis Island, such Americans wonder: "Why don't the immigrants follow the law and come in legally?" One of the big answers to that question is the monumental backlog they face. A backlog it would take a lot of political effort -- and a whole lot of money -- to fix.
Just look at the current political debate to see how hard this problem would be to truly solve. President Obama has deported more people than any other U.S. president. Just ask the immigration reform groups who represent Latinos -- they'll tell you, in no uncertain terms, that Obama is the "Deporter-in-Chief." For all this effort (which has cost Obama a lot of political capital with one of his key support demographics) he gets precisely no credit from his political opponents. Under Obama, the Border Patrol's budget has grown enormously. The bipartisan Senate immigration bill would have doubled the number of Border Patrol agents. But, to listen to Republicans, the federal government is doing absolutely nothing about border security, and Obama has actually made things worse.
I'm not sure if this is an ideological disconnect on the Republicans' part, since it boils down to a reality they are often uncomfortable admitting: government services cost money. Why, after all, have we had precisely zero detailed plans from the House of Representatives on how to achieve the total border lockdown they so desperately crave? They've had years to come up with some such plan, and early on they announced they'd be passing it separately from any "comprehensive immigration reform" bill. So where is the House plan to secure the border? Where's the "enforcement-only, moats-and-alligators" Republican plan?
It doesn't exist. This could be due to Republican infighting or ineptitude, of course, but that's a stretch because pretty much all of them are on board with the basic concept of shutting the border down as tightly as is humanly and technologically possible. The problem, I suspect, is the price tag. Flooding the border with what would essentially be an occupying force would not come cheap. There's nothing to stop Congress from passing a budget which would provide 24/7 coverage of the border in a ratio of one agent per mile (or per thousand yards, or whatever). This isn't an impossible problem to solve. But it would be incredibly expensive to do so.
Obama has just asked Congress for $3.7 billion (a pretty paltry amount, as federal budgets go), and already they're balking. What would they do if he asked for hundreds of billions to completely shut down the border? This, in a nutshell, is why we have yet to see any Republican plan to do so -- because they simply don't want to pay for such an effort.
But Democrats aren't blameless in this debate either. Because there's another problem independent of the border, and Democrats don't seem all that interested in solving it -- again, likely because it would take so much money to do so.
This is where we return to that Ellis Island imagery. Many Americans have an idea that legally immigrating to this country is just a matter of waiting in a line and then answering a few questions -- the way it used to be. Given this picture, it's easy to wonder why anyone would undertake a dangerous border crossing and then an undocumented existence in America. But the image is wildly out of date. Because while legal immigrants do in fact follow the same basic framework, they must wait in a horrendously long line to do so.
In the recent scandal at the V.A. hospitals, the American public was shocked at the waiting times veterans faced. Averages of over 100 days were reported, with some individual horror stories of having to wait years. Now, the two situations are not comparable in any other way, I merely bring them up to compare timelines. Because some people who have followed every American immigration law and legally applied to become American residents have been waiting over two decades to have that hearing and be welcomed in to the United States. These people are not allowed to move to America during this wait, either -- it is supposed to happen in their home country.
Now, just for a minute, imagine how you would feel if you called up a government agency (Social Security, perhaps) and were told: "Well, let's see when you can have an appointment... how does 2035 sound?" Just imagine hearing that. Puts all those motor vehicle department jokes in perspective, doesn't it? One of the Republican positions on immigration reform is that the 11 million people here already should not have any "special path to citizenship" and should instead "go to the back of the line." That line is over 20 years long, though -- this is the part they never admit.
Some immigrants in differing categories have shorter waits. But even in the fastest categories (such as the new spouse of an American citizen, for example), it can routinely take years to even get an appointment. This is not your great-granddad's Ellis Island, folks. The only other federal agency I've even heard of with such insane paperwork backlogs (and problems) is the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Exactly what it would take to fix the backlog I do not know, beyond "a lot more political attention and a lot more money." Would quadrupling the number of officials who handle this paperwork be enough? Would it require ten times more? I have no idea. But whatever the magic number of immigration officials necessary, it's not going to come cheap.
The problem, however, is never going to even be addressed until the media and the public decides it is worthy of the "scandal" or "crisis" label. If there was a hue and cry with plenty of people weeping on camera, perhaps the political will could be found to even start talking about the problem. The answer to the question "why don't people come here legally?" is obvious -- because they have to wait over twenty years to do so. Now imagine that a lot of money was thrown at this backlog, to the point that it fell to even "two or three years." That's a much more reasonable and humanitarian time to wait, just for the chance to have your case heard. People considering the costs and benefits of legal immigration to America versus illegal immigration would have a whole different set of facts. Waiting a couple of years is one thing, but waiting twenty-plus years is a whole different prospect.
The immigration backlog problem will never be solved, though, if it continues never to even be addressed in the political arena. Immigrants don't vote, after all, until they fully complete the process of becoming citizens (once you are granted citizenship, you never have to deal with the immigration service ever again). To put this another way, the only constituents dealing with this problem are family members of people going through it -- none of whom are eager to complain to the government about poor service, in fear of their petition being denied.
In the current situation, media references to the backlog (such as they exist) are always rather oblique: "The children are released to family members until their case is heard, which often takes years." No emphasis on why it takes years -- it is just mentioned in passing. Now, I'm not saying that fixing this problem would do anything about the current problem at the border with children, and I'm not saying this is an answer to everything that is broken about immigration law -- not by a long shot. But I do wish the backlog was at least a subject for discussion in the whole immigration debate. Currently, Republicans want a border that is completely secure, but they certainly don't want to pay for it (they don't even seem willing to pay a few billion to fix the current problem with the children). Democrats insist that any legislation passed include a path to citizenship for the people already here. But when this was being discussed, I think the shortest pathway I heard was 13 years long. And nothing much was said about fixing the path that was already 20-plus years long. Fixing the backlog should be a centerpiece of any immigration reform, but so far nobody's willing to champion the idea and nobody's willing to pay what it would take. Maybe if the media started calling it a "crisis" Congress might start working on an actual fix.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
The bipartisan Senate immigration bill would have doubled the number of Border Patrol agents.
That's EXACTLY why I said that the Senate Immigration bill is what is needed. It concentrates on Border SECURITY first..
But, to listen to Republicans, the federal government is doing absolutely nothing about border security, and Obama has actually made things worse.
He has made things worse. This much is evidenced..
Which is why the House won't pass the Senate Immigration bill until the GOP controls the Senate..
Michale
As one who is often saying, "Why don't illegals just immigrate legally" I found this commentary especially informative...
But, as you can probably guess, it didn't change my mind..
Yes, it's a long line..
Yes, it takes forever...
Yes, it's inconvenient...
None of which is a reasonable excuse to break the law...
It's inconvenient that Joe Blow doesn't have enough money to buy a good meal for his family.. Does that mean he has the right to break into a grocery store and steal?? After all, "I am just looking for a better life for my family", says Joe....
By all means, let's fix the system.
By all means, let's commiserate and sympathize with the immigrants who want to do things the legal and lawful way..
But what we simply CANNOT do is allow the laws of the land to be broken, simply because it serves a particular political agenda..
It simply is not fair to the ones who DID obey the law, who DID things the legal way, the moral way, the ethical way...
Michale
One of the silver linings of the southern border debacle is that states will likely have little to no trouble passing voter identification laws...
Michale
Cliven Bundy broke the law, repeatedly, along with his militia-styled body guards. They all seem to have gotten a pass.
The uber wealthy who smuggle out their money to hide it in overseas banks, to avoid taxation, break the law. Don't see any of them going to court.
Darrell Issa broke the law and now he's a Congressman.
Michele Bachmann and Steve King broke campaign funding laws but the House Ethics Committee just keep delaying and delaying their investigation/decision until these two finally finish up their terms in Congress and leave at which time their cases will be dropped by the committee and they'll get off scot-free.
Cliven Bundy broke the law, repeatedly, along with his militia-styled body guards. They all seem to have gotten a pass.
Do you REALLY want me to start listing all the times that liberals and progressives broke the law to make their point??
I think CW would ask me to quit after a few thousand entries... :D
Darrell Issa broke the law and now he's a Congressman.
Clinton broke the law... He is still the Democrat's poster child...
If you REALLY want to go tit for tat on law breakers, I can answer each one you bring up..
"One of them, one of us"
HEROES
:D
Michale
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/07/must-see-video-black-americans-confront-pro-illegal-immigrant-supporters-in-murrieta/
Anyone have an answer for these black Americans???
Anyone???
Michale
What's their question, Michale?
What's their question, Michale?
Why don't Americans take care of American children first before taking care of illegal immigrant children??
What kind of employment picture are black Americans going to have if you add another couple million low income Americans to the job pool??
These are legitimate questions that Democrats refuse to answer...
Michale
Why can't Americans do more than one thing at a time?
Why does it always have to be an either/or proposition?
Why can't Americans take care of their own children AND fix their legal and illegal immigration problems?
I don't understand why a country like the US cannot do these things.
Why can't Americans do more than one thing at a time?
Why does it always have to be an either/or proposition?
When you have a finite amount of resources, shouldn't they be spent on one's OWN people first??
Why can't Americans take care of their own children AND fix their legal and illegal immigration problems?
Because our political leaders are more interested in their own cushy jobs than they are in actually helping the country...
I don't understand why a country like the US cannot do these things.
Talk to the incompetent moron.. He lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue...
Michale
Hardly enlightening, I'm afraid.
Michale -
When you have a finite amount of resources, shouldn't they be spent on one's OWN people first??
You mean, like not starting pointless wars in foreign countries? Liberals have been saying that for a decade, now.
:-)
-CW
Hardly enlightening, I'm afraid.
My point is that THEY have a point... But it seems everyone would rather just play politics rather than address the issue..
A perfect case in point..
CW,
You mean, like not starting pointless wars in foreign countries? Liberals have been saying that for a decade, now.
Iraqis don't think it was "pointless" getting rid of the scumbag Hussein (Saddam, not our POTUS)
Regardless, you hit the nail on the head.
A DECADE ago....
Obama is POTUS now..
What has he done for us lately??
Why are his approval ratings in the toilet and heading down???
At what point is OBAMA and the Democrats responsible for ANYTHING???
Michale
Liz,
You want enlightening??
http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-crisis-on-the-border-1405029753
THAT is enlightening..
THAT is illuminating..
At what point to normal rational people ditch their ideological enslavement and say, "This ain't right!"??
I guess we're not there yet.. I guess we're still at the stage where Democrats are pure as the driven snow and it's all the mean old evil Republicans fault...
And so it goes... And so it goes.....
Michale
I don't come here for links, Michale. I've got enough of my own to read.
I might have mentioned that, once or twice before.
I want to know what YOU think on these matters and questions I raised ...
Elizabeth,
Has Michale EVER changed your mind to his point of view?
Well, Kevin, we have agreed on a thing or two, over the years, you know.
I'm just trying to bring him out of his shell and tell us what he really thinks ... :)
If you want factual "enlightenment" instead of Michale's usual unsupported conservative opinions that "its all Obama's fault..."
http://www.npr.org/2014/07/09/329848538/whats-causing-the-latest-immigration-crisis-a-brief-explainer
Republicans claim, with no evidence at all, that Obama's Dreamer's policy is the cause of the crisis at the border. The ignore the fact that the dreamers policy doesn't affect new immigrants. That the only ones claiming it does are Republicans. That the problem of unaccompanied minors illegally crossing the border has been around for years and has been intensifying for years. That most of the immigrant minors are from Central America where a Bush era law guarantees them asylum hearings, instead if immediate deportation, that, do to huge backlogs, effectively grant them years of legal residency.
Which is a good deal to people fleeing violence and poverty. And which is, in spite if claims by Michale, taking advantage of the law, not breaking it. Michale is just fine with Conservatives creative abuse if the law to get what the want. But he claims immigrants doing it to save their lives is indefensible. Obviously he has prioritization, ethics, morality, and hypocrisy issues, in addition to being challenged by the whole "rule of law" concept.
As always, Michale, thinks its unfair not to blame Obama for everything that happens--just because!! He likes to pretend its "ideology" to place blame on the actual people and circumstances that cause problems, instead of placing the blame on Obama, everytime, all the time.--Its called projection. Michale is all about projecting his misconduct, and the misconduct of Republicans in general onto Democrats, liberals, and anyone else who doesn't share his mindless prejudices.
Tell you what, Michale, we can have a conversation about when things are the Democrats fault right after we come to an understanding on things that result from the actions of Bush being Bush's fault. That things that result from the actions of Republicans being Republicans' fault.--No matter who currently occupies the Oval office.
I'm willing to apply the same standards to Obama and Democrats. Are you?
If you want factual "enlightenment" instead of Michale's usual unsupported conservative opinions that "its all Obama's fault..."
Of course, by "factual" enlightenment, LD means that ya'alls Messiah is blameless and is not responsible for ANYTHING bad that happens in his administration...
I'm willing to apply the same standards to Obama and Democrats. Are you?
Asking you to be critical of Obama is like asking a religious fanatic to be critical of their god..
It ain't gonna happen...
I *CAN* be critical of Republicans. I have done it time and time again..
You have NEVER, NOT ONE SINGLE TIME, been critical of Obama..
So, of the two of us, which one is the devout fanatic??
I'll give you a hint.. It ain't me.. :D
Michale
I want to know what YOU think on these matters and questions I raised
My point is that THEY have a point..
Do you think they have a point.
Do YOU think that it is evil or wrong for Americans to take care of Americans first??
You DO realize that black Americans have an unemployment rate that is TWICE the national average, right???
Give that FACT, where is the logic in creating millions of NEW unskilled workers that are going to take jobs away from black Americans??
The ONLY logic about it is when you realize that the agenda is to mint millions of fresh new Democrat voters.
Once you realize (in ya'alls case, 'admit') that, then the "logic" becomes clear...
Democrats are throwing black Americans under the bus in favor of the Hispanic vote.
If you can find ANY fault in my logic, by all means...
But ya can't, because the logic is as impeccable as it is dead on ballz accurate.. :D
Michale
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/382338/black-americans-true-casualties-amnesty-j-delgado
I'm just sayin'....
Michale
Has Michale EVER changed your mind to his point of view?
That simply illustrates the stubborn and illogical manner in which ya'all refuse to accept reality..
Like I often say, convincing ya'all that Obama and the Democrats are wrong is like trying to convince religious fanatics that their god is wrong..
But I'll always keep trying to get ya'all to see the light... :D
The light of political and ideological agnosticism... :D
Michale
Well, Kevin, we have agreed on a thing or two, over the years, you know.
I know, right!?? I would be willing to wager that we agree on more than we disagree..
Take Israel kicking Hamas' ass.. I am sure we all agree that THAT is a good thing...
Ya'all just need to come to the realization that Obama and the Democrats are NOT always right and that I and the Republicans are NOT always wrong...
I'm just trying to bring him out of his shell and tell us what he really thinks ... :)
Saying what I REALLY think has never been a problem for me.. :D
Michale
I have recently been accused of not knowing anything about history..
Immigration Reform Proponents Must Consider Results From 100 Years Ago
http://cdn.rollcall.com/news/immigration_reform_proponents_must_consider_results_from_100_years_ago-234569-1.html?popular=true&cdn_load=true&zkPrintable=1&nopagination=1
Apparently those who support open borders and immigration amnesty are the ones who are TRULY ignorant of history...
Color me shocked... NOT....
Michale
Black Americans have a disproportionate unemployment rate because they are disproportionately denied call-backs for job interviews. Disproportionately arrested and incarcerated resulting in disproportionate criminal backgrounds limiting employment opportunities. Disproportionately denied mortgages resulting in disproportionate residency in impoverished areas with poor schools and poor job opportunities. And disproportionately provided substandard educations due to the de facto reimposition of school segregation.
But you don't want to talk about institutional racism and its effect on black Americans, Michale. You want to deny it. You want to blame immigrant minors who, even if allowed legal residency, wouldn't even enter the job market for a years. And you want to scare the ignorant with the lie that jobs are a finite resource in scarce supply. When the truth is that the number of jobs is dependent on the demand for goods and services. More demand, more jobs.
You, and Republicans, don't give a damn about the plight of black people. You object to immigrants because immigration would hasten the demise of the white majority in this country. Although you're always careful to try to make it sound a little better by claiming immigrants equal new Democrats. Wonder just why you're so sure they won't become members of the new white people's party, aka Republicans?
Which is why you always rail against illegal immigrants for being criminals and not following the law.--Until they show up and legally apply for asylum. When suddenly your against legal immigration as well.
You're simply trying to exploit black people to benefit yourself, at our expense. Which is what white America has always done. America's white majority maintaining their ability to discriminate against people of color will harm black people far more than thousands of new immigrants, who might actually benefit black people by eroding the racism that keeps blacks impoverished, while creating more jobs and strengthening the economy. Which would benefit everyone.
BTW, Michale [24],
You've just proven you're not only ignorant of history, you've reading comprehension issues, as well. Your cite doesn't say immigration was responsible for black unemployment. It says racism was responsible for black unemployment.
If your historical analogy is true then reducing immigration will also reduce black unemployment only when employers run out of white workers.
Color me shocked! The plan you think such a splendid idea would massively benefit whites, if anyone. And, one day, might even do something for black people!
But you don't want to talk about institutional racism and its effect on black Americans, Michale.
Oh, I'll talk about institutional racism..
I LOVE talking about institutional racism...
It's DEAD....
Find me ONE instance of institutional racism in the here and now..
You can't because none exists...
Just like Bashi couldn't find an accurate whatsowhosits...
Institutional racism is dead.. It died the day we elected a black man as POTUS...
If you can find ONE instance of bona fide and PROVEN institutional racism, by all means.. Let's hear it..
You can't because none exists..
Your cite doesn't say immigration was responsible for black unemployment. It says racism was responsible for black unemployment.
It helps if you actually READ the link..
This is a prescription that has worked well in the past. Perhaps the most stunning example was 100 years ago, when the outbreak of World War I abruptly stopped a three-decades-old massive importation of immigrant labor into the United States. Northern manufacturers responded by aggressively recruiting, training and employing the still-living freed slaves and their descendants. Since the 1880s, manufacturers had virtually ignored this source of workers, preferring to send ships to Europe to bring in immigrants to expand their factories. But 1914 began a domestic people movement from plantations to cities that has been celebrated in literature and art as “The Great Migration.” It was the start of a decades-long mass movement of black Americans into the non-agrarian economy of the nation and the building of a large black middle class. But it happened only after easy access to foreign labor was removed.
Not a WHIT about racism..
There is no racism here... Except where it ALWAYS is.. Your fevered and hysterical imagination..
The entire article is about how companies were more interested in hiring foreign workers rather than black Americans..
Just like now.. Companies and corporations are chomping at the bit to have millions and millions of new low paid workers.. While they will, again ignore black Americans..
Those who support open borders and immigration amnesty are supporting pushing black unemployment to unheard of heights...
I actually kinda feel for you..
You simply HAVE to be torn.
On the one hand, you have your messiah which you have sworn unfettered fealty to. You HAVE to support whatever your messiah decrees...
On the other hand, you have such high unemployment amongst your fellow black Americans which will shoot massively higher if Democrats get their way to mint fresh new Dem Voters..
Like I said. You simply MUST be torn..
But don't take my word for it..
Listen to black Americans..
They are speaking out AGAINST immigration amnesty and Obama's debacle at the southern border...
Michale
Although you're always careful to try to make it sound a little better by claiming immigrants equal new Democrats. Wonder just why you're so sure they won't become members of the new white people's party, aka Republicans?
Oh, that's easy..
Illegal Immigrants = criminals
Democratic Party = Free Ride Party
Ergo, Illegal Immigrants will be Democrats because ALL criminals love a free ride...
Duuuhhhhh.... It ain't rocket science...
Michale
Like I said, Michale,
"Reading comprehension issues."
"Since the 1880s, manufacturers had virtually ignored this source of workers, preferring to send ships to Europe to bring in immigrants to expand their factories."
That, Michale, is racism. Black were employed only when there weren't white workers available. And they weren't employed until white workers became unavailable. That's the history. Not your fairytale about immigrants.
And I already gave multiple examples of institutional racism, as its practiced today.--You simply insist on being willfully ignorant.
Oh, and Michale,
I am a Black American, you idiot. No one needs to tell me what I think.
Exclusive: Border Patrol Warns MS-13 Using Nogales Processing Center as Recruitment Hub
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/07/11/border-patrol-ms13-using-nogales-processing-center-as-recruitment-hub-entrance-into-us-n1861082
Open borders!! What a great idea!!!
What could POSSIBLY go wrong...
You know who is going to be blamed when these scumbag gang-bangers start killing Americans??
Obama and the Democrats...
Democrats would do well to remember the story of the origin of Spiderman...
Michale
That, Michale, is racism. Black were employed only when there weren't white workers available. And they weren't employed until white workers became unavailable. That's the history. Not your fairytale about immigrants.
It's only in your mind that it was racism..
The more likely explanation is that immigrant labor was cheaper labor..
But you, inadvertently, I am sure :D prove my point for me.
To you EVERYTHING is racism.. There is NO OTHER POSSIBLE explanation, save that of racism for you..
You got a HUGE chip on your shoulder, my friend...
And I already gave multiple examples of institutional racism, as its practiced today.--You simply insist on being willfully ignorant.
You haven't given me one..
But, I can give you one.
The ONLY case of institutionalized racism that this country has left is Affirmative Action...
That's the ONLY institutionalized racism left in this country...
Michale
Incidentally, Obama's approval ratings have dropped below 41%.....
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
Democrats are toast this mid term election....
Michale
Lol. Really, Michale!
You think it "more logical" that it was cheaper to pay to ship immigrants from overseas that to hire black people who would transport themselves at their own expense ("Great Migration", remember?) if only employers would agree to hire them.
Are you trying to prove how ignorant of history you are?! How determined you are to deny the existence of racism. Past and present? Because that too is racist.
And we're talking about northern racism. Republican racism. Since you also like to pretend that if there ever were such a thing as "racism" it could only have been in the distant past, and could only have been practiced by Democrats.
That, Michale, is racism.
You really ARE ignorant of your own history, aren't you??
The Northern Industrial states were run by Republicans (ya know?? The ones that ENDED slavery.. Democrats were the slave owners... ya know?? remember???) were NOT about racism. They were about the bottom line. And it was cheaper to import immigrants and put them to work...
When bringing in immigrants proved too costly at the outset of WWI, that is when the industrial states turned to black Americans..
Racism had little, if anything, to do with it...
Now flash forward to today...
Companies and corporations are chomping at the bit to hire low-intelligence, low pay workers for menial, fast food, housekeeping kinds of jobs..
Do you know which racial group predominantly fills those jobs now??
I'll give you 3 guesses, but yer only going to need one..
Now, pay attention, this part is important..
If one racial group holds the vast majority of low end low pay jobs and then ANOTHER racial group is thrown into the mix by the MILLIONS that are eligible (AND LIKELY) to work those low end low pay jobs... what happens???
The availability of low end low pay jobs becomes scarce to non-existent and the racial group that has unemployment which is more than TWICE the national norm will see that unemployment SKY ROCKET...
So, that means that a member of the said racial group will have to ask himself or herself??
Do I support my messiah??
Or do I support those of my race???
If you can find a flaw in my logic, by all means.. Point it out...
But you can't unless you just make shit up.... :D
Michale
And we're talking about northern racism. Republican racism. Since you also like to pretend that if there ever were such a thing as "racism" it could only have been in the distant past, and could only have been practiced by Democrats.
So, now you are rewriting history where it was the DEMOCRATS who were against racism and it was REPUBLICANS who were the racists.. :D
So, Abraham Lincoln, was a Democrat now, right?? :D
You have truly well gone off the deep end... :D
I guess I called it.. You ARE just making shit up... :D
Michale
Still waiting for you to name institutionalized racism in the here and now besides Affirmative Action...
And waiting... and waiting... and waiting.... :D
Michale
Ya know... With all this animosity flying back and forth over Obama's Border catastrophe, it was nice to hear that Texas Governor Perry relented and decided to meet Obama at the airport...
http://sjfm.us/temp/perry1.jpg
I mean, it's nice to see leaders putting partisanship aside...
:D
Michale
Let's see, Michale,
How about a twofer? Blacks need college degrees to get jobs given to whites with high school diplomas. That's both institutional racism and a rebuttal of your immigrants will take low-end jobs from blacks argument.
Now, if the immigrants in question were white you might have a point. But there's a reason immigrants from south of the border are so less welcome that those from Europe. The same reason blacks weren't "preferred workers" a hundred years ago... They aren't white Europeans. Which means even blacks are hired before they are! And minimum wage jobs aren't subject to wage pressure from workers willing to work for even less.--Unless, of course, its the employers who are the "criminals."
The refusal to address immigration reform isn't about criminality, or economics, its about racism. Its yet another manifestation of institutional racism you're so desperate to deny.
How about a twofer? Blacks need college degrees to get jobs given to whites with high school diplomas. That's both institutional racism and a rebuttal of your immigrants will take low-end jobs from blacks argument.
And if you have PROOF of that, that it is happening right now, then you MIGHT have a case..
But you don't, so you don't..
The refusal to address immigration reform isn't about criminality, or economics, its about racism.
Yes, LD... EVERYTHING is racism..
It's ALL racism... :^/
Maybe on your planet...
But not here...
Michale
Michale,
You admit that one racial group has unemployment at "twice the national norm" but insist there's no such thing as institutional racism?!
And just why, exactly, does one racial group have unemployment "at twice the national norm?"--Let me guess... Because they're lazy?--Nothing racist about that is there?
Michale, one if the reasons I value being able to publicly debate you is that you are such a classic racist bigot. Totally convinced that you are both right and righteous, and not the least bit racist. Living deep in denial and torturously twisting facts, history, and current events to rationalize and justify your bigotry.
I'm gratified to be able to publicly call you on your lies, in no small part because you are so representative of modern American Conservative Republicans.
The ONLY people who keep crying "RACISM!!" are the racists themselves...
Michale
You admit that one racial group has unemployment at "twice the national norm" but insist there's no such thing as institutional racism?!
There are HUNDREDS of factors and possibilities that could explain..
Even if it WAS racism, you would have to prove a co-ordinated and ongoing conspiracy...
Even if you COULD prove an co-ordinated and ongoing conspiracy that would necessarily mean it was "institutionalized"...
You simply CAN'T win here LD because all the "racism" you claim is in your head...
Michale
Michale, one if the reasons I value being able to publicly debate you is that you are such a classic racist bigot.
You know who is always convinced that other people are racist??
Racists.... :D
Michale
Michale,
http://thinkprogress.org/education/2014/06/25/3452887/education-race-gap/
Would have preferred to provide link to the Forbes article since you'll only dismiss this as liberal spin. But I couldn't get the link and you'd only deny it in any case. Just with a different excuse.
Michale,
Institutional racism doesn't have to be coordinated or organized. Its usually uncoordinated and disorganized. Your constant redefinition of terms in attempts to justify your prejudices are pathetic.
Still no evidence of institutionalized racism...
You have a lot of statistics that could be explained by a lot of different factors..
Let me give you an example of institutionalized racism..
Ordinary racism is two cops over a cup of coffee talking about how fun it is to throw black people in jail...
Institutionalized racism is orders coming down from the Police Chief to throw black people in jail...
You don't have institutionalized racism..
You don't have ANY racism whatsoever..
You have a bunch of statistics that COULD POSSIBLY indicate that some school administrator with a wild hair up his or her ass is a racist..
That is ALL you have...
"There are lies, there are damn lies and there are statistics"
-Mark Twain
All you have are statistics...
Put together by a bunch of racists with a racial agenda..
That's ALL you have...
Michale
hmm. give this a watch:
http://youtu.be/GTvU7uUgjUI?list=PLmQKDDqgraoQkwFrkEx5gKj7EaYvkZD9E
The ONLY institutionalized racism in this country is Affirmative Action.
THAT is the textbook definition of institutionalized racism...
Racists ignore that ironic twist... :D
Michale
hmm. give this a watch:
http://youtu.be/GTvU7uUgjUI?list=PLmQKDDqgraoQkwFrkEx5gKj7EaYvkZD9E
Has nothing to do with Institutionalized Racism..
But I did find it interesting..
Why did this black woman who was telling the story feel the need to say that the women behind here were "elderly white women"....
What does their color matter to the obvious racism of the cashier???
That indicates to me that the black woman is already predisposed to take color into account in her daily activities...
Which, in turn, indicates to me that there were more racists involved in that story than just the cashier..
Regardless of all that..
No one is saying that racism does not exist...
No one is saying that there aren't scumbag racists out there..
There are...
White **AND** Black racists..
But there is simply NO reliable or empiracle evidence that there is institutionalized racism in this country, save one example..
Affirmative Action..
And, until Affirmative Action is abolished, black people have NO RIGHT to point the racist finger at ANYONE but themselves..
Because Affirmative Action is, BY DEFINITION, racism...
It is government sanctioned racism which is, ALSO BY DEFINITION, institutionalized racism...
Michale
Michale,
Institutional racism was every business in the north refusing to hire blacks, as your own cite testifies to. Institutional racism is every bank refusing to provide a market rate mortgage to black customers.
Not every racist is stupid enough to call a meeting to declare "we're going to make the black man a one-term President by opposing and obstructing anything he tries to do." Institutional racism is the result of long-standing cultural and societal prejudices, not just orders from on high. Jim Crow racism didn't come into being because the South held a meeting. It came into being because the South held nearly universal prejudices.
--Like I keep saying, Michale, you're ignorant of history and in deep denial of racism.--You also, apparently, need a good dictionary.
Institutional racism was every business in the north refusing to hire blacks, as your own cite testifies to.
Your only evidence to support your claim is that they were black and they weren't hired..
THAT is no evidence. THAT is hysteria...
Institutional racism is every bank refusing to provide a market rate mortgage to black customers.
Fine.. Show me CONCLUSIVE evidence of that in the here and now and you might have a case..
But you can't so you don't...
Jim Crow racism didn't come into being because the South held a meeting.
Keep in mind that if Jim Crow were a real person, he would be a democrat..
Michale, you're ignorant of history
This, coming from the guy who claimed Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat.. :D
Michale
Just let me end my participation in this discussion with a re-iteration of what I said before..
As long as Affirmative Action exists, NO ONE has any moral or ethical foundation to accuse others of racism...
Se fini'
Michale
As long as Affirmative Action exists, NO ONE has any moral or ethical foundation to accuse others of racism...
Se fini'
Damn!!!
I HATE spoiling a great exit...
OK, let me amend that to say...
Anyone who supports Affirmative Action has no moral or ethical foundation to accuse others of racism because Affirmative Action is the TEXTBOOK definition of racism...
Anyone who fights against racism and doesn't put Affirmative Action first and foremost on their list is not serious at all about fighting racism...
NOW... fini....
Michale
Michale,
"The guy who claimed Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat" is you.
"Institutionalized racism is a form of racism which is structured into political and social institutions. It occurs when institutions, including corporations, governments and universities, discriminate either deliberately or indirectly, against certain groups of people to limit their rights. Race-based discrimination in housing, education, employment and health for example are forms of institutional racism. It reflects the cultural assumptions of the dominant group, so that the practices of that group are seen as the norm to which other cultural practices should conform (Anderson and Taylor, 2006). Institutional racism is more subtle, less visible, and less identifiable than individual acts of racism, but no less destructive to human life and human dignity. The people who manage our institutions may not be racists as individuals, but they may well discriminate as part of simply carrying out their job, often without being aware that their role in an institution is contributing to a discriminatory outcome.”
Reference: http://institutionalracism.net/default.aspx
That is the definition of "institutionalized racism." Affirmative action is not institutionalized racism. It is not an effort to limit someones rights. It does not reflect cultural assumptions of the dominate group seen as the norm. It is an affirmative attempt to redress ongoing institutionalized racism.
If you had even the remotest idea if what you are talking about you'd know that "institutionalized racism" does not mean "racism by an institution." There is nothing about affirmative action that is institutionalized racism or any other form of racism.
Merely being race-related or race-dependent isn't automatically "racism." In typical Conservative fashion you redefine terms to suit your prejudices. You, and Conservatives, want to redefine racism so you can pretend people complaining of racism afe "racist." That "the real" racists are black people. That the real victims are whites. That taking affirmative measures against institutionalized racism is institutionalized racism.
You want to redefine "racism" so the racists become the victims and their victims become the racists. You want to redefine "institutionalized racism" so that racism becomes legally protected and preventing racism is outlawed.
You pretend statistics aren't facts or proof unless they prove what you want. But unsupported rightwing Op-Eds are "proof." What "everybody knows" among wingers is proof. Your standards of "proof" for winger conspiracy theories is nonexistent. Your standard of "proof" for counter claims is insurmountable.
"Proof" to you is entirely based on what suits your prejudices. But in reality your insistence that there's no proof of racial discrimination against blacks in northern hiring prior to 1941. No proof that there's any institutionalized racism in America, except Affirmative Action. And your claim that only racists say there's racism, only prove that you are racist.
That taking affirmative measures against institutionalized racism is institutionalized racism.
Taking affirmative measures BASED ON RACE is the very definition of institutionalized racism as you have defined it..
You prove my point for me.
See, here's your problem.
You think JUST because a person is black and didn't get their way, it MUST be racism...
You have absolutely NO PROOF whatsoever of institutionalized racism.. You rely on a simple IF/THEN formula that has NO EVIDENCE of racism whatsoever.
IF a black person is denied a job, THEN it is racism...
IF a black person is denied a loan, THEN it is racism...
IF a black person is denied an education, THEN it is racism...
That's it.. That constitutes your ENTIRE thought process..
You think NOTHING of the character of the black person in question.
Remember what MLK said???
Don't judge people by the color of their skin but rather by the strength of their character??
Ringing any bells??
You care NOTHING of character.. For you, it's ALL about the color of the skin..
If the skin is black, then the person is wronged...
A black person was screwed over. It MUST be racism..
As we saw in the Trayvon Martin shooting it doesn't even have to be a white person involved..
It could be ANOTHER minority...
Your ENTIRE argument is simply, "A black person got scrooed, so it MUST be racism"...
That's why there is no hope of logical discourse with you.
Anyone who disagrees with you MUST be racist...
I just wanted to make sure you understand why I will no longer participate in this particular thread with you...
You're black. I'm not. So, in your eyes, anything I say in disagreement with you MUST mean I am racist...
It's the Weigantian version of the Journo-List. Accuse ANYONE who disagrees with you of being a racist. THAT'll shut them up..
Michale
Reading back over my previous comment, I came across that I was upset or pissed..
Nothing could be further from the truth..
I am VERY grateful for these types of conversations with you, LD.. It has brought about a fundamental change in my outlook and how I perceive other people around me..
Yer a great guy, LewDan.. Thank you for showing me that such a thing IS possible. :D
Michale
Michale,
How does Affirmative Action meet the definition I cited? It does not take away anyone's rights. There is no right to white privilege. Affirmative action isn't used in place of fair and open selection processes like lotteries, or even "first come first served." It amends selection processes that are predisposed against blacks due to institutional racism.
Affirmative Action is a reflection that institutional racism imposes "norms" and attempts to mitigate them by processes that doesn't rely on those norms.
Nor are black complaints of racism isolated incidents as you would pretend. Black people notice that they are treated differently by whites because its a frequent experience suffered by generations. You choose to ignore evidence of just how widespread the problem is as "just statistics," while pretending each and every incident is an outlier because "there's no evidence." There's plenty of evidence, you simply aren't interested in it. You simply reject it out of hand as "just statistics."
So, I've presented the definition of institutional racism. You claim affirmative action meets it. How? Specifically. Because the only part of the definition that I see it meets is government intentionally discriminating based on race. But it only meets part of the definition because it doesn't discriminate to limit anyone's rights. Whites have no right to benefit from institutionalized racism. Affirmative action isn't a result of racist norms, it replaces norms because they racist.
If you're going to define any race-related discrimination as "racist." Then you can't claim that "racism" is automatically bad. You want to take the term "racism" which has always referred to unjustified and unwarranted racial discrimination, and is recognized as unacceptable, redefine it to mean any decision using race as a factor, and still claim, with no justification, that its always unacceptable.
Your convenient view of racism is to only recognize it if it adversely affects whites. To claim that racism shouldn't even be recognized when directed at nonwhites. That nothing should ever be done about racism unless its directed at whites. Because recognizing racism or proactively addressing racism is "racist" under your definition and always unacceptable, except when whites are affected.
In other words, you're redefining racism away. You'd do nothing about it but try to stigmatize anyone black who complains about it, and prevent any attempt to do anything about it.
You claim affirmative action is racist. But you're fine with opposing affirmative action, which, by your definition, is just as racist. And, unsurprisingly, you don't see opposing affirmative action as racist. You don't see recognizing affirmative action as racist as "racism." Its only when blacks decry racism and try to do something about it that they are "racist." When whites supposedly do it its noble, colorblind. You don't see attacking affirmative action and trying to end it as "racist" because you're racist.
You claim that anything race based is "racism," a definition so broad as to be useless. So, "racism" to redress the grievances of blacks is wrong. But, "racism" to redress grievances of whites?! That's not "racism!"--You want the word "racism" to be racist!
You're not colorblind, your willfully blind. You want to pretend that doing nothing to resolve injustices suffered by tens of millions of blacks is the same as not having any injustice. But not eliminating something that adversely affects existing white privilege? Now that's great injustice. And, as with every racist act in the history of America, you want to pretend your racism "just happens" to benefit whites at the expense of blacks. That it has nothing to do with racism.
That's the new racism in America. The same as the old racism in America. Just trying to justify itself as self-righteous instead of self-evident. But still based on lies, prejudices, hypocrisy--and racism.