ADOS

[largofool]

Should ADOS be proud Americans?

Should black immigrants be proud Americans?

I'm not.

and that’s the difference.
My ancestors had a hand in the creation of this country.
So I can have a sense of pride in it while condemning it’s most evil actions

Then we have self identified black immigrants like Nouss who just because they left their homeland, try to shame ADOS for being proud citizens of a country that their ancestors built up. a country they aren't proud of, but willingly became a citizen of after abandoning their beloved homeland.

 

[RustyShackleford]

It is hard for me not to look at Yvette Carnell as a bad actor. And at best right now she is making herself look like a useful idiot for anti-immigration hardliners. You can't swear your movement is about one thing and is not about hostility to other minorities, but then repeatedly indulge in things you swear your movement is not about.

She is not handling being criticized well, and in her rants in response to the criticism she is often being flippant and disrespectful about immigrants and non black minorities.

Her videos on YouTube video are just filled with petulant behavior now.

Ole girl might have had a strong policy position, but she is doing herself and her "movement" no favors with the buffoonery she engages in.

Maybe I was wrong about her before, maybe she can't do better. Which is unfortunate.

 

[Nouss]

Then we have self identified black immigrants like Nouss who just because they left their homeland, try to shame ADOS for being proud citizens of a country that their ancestors built up. a country they aren't proud of, but willingly became a citizen of after abandoning their beloved homeland.

I see you conveniently skipped over a reply from a fellow ADOS agreeing with me.

Shame you for being a proud american? Lol

Abondoned my home country? Lol

Didnt you say something about bringing up old posts from 2 weeks ago?

 

[hand2handking]

Republicans Pan Democratic Proposal To Study Reparations
2020 candidate Cory Booker floated the idea in a bill this week, but Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) says it’s “not even a realistic possibility.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/reparations-slaves-2020_n_5caf5587e4b09a1eabf8d7dc

WASHINGTON ― Republicans say they’re not interested in studying the idea of reparations for descendants of slaves, which Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) floated in a bill earlier this week.

“I think it’s too remote in time. I think it’s too divisive,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, told reporters this week.

Booker’s proposal, a companion to a measure offered in the House by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) earlier this year, would set up a federal commission to examine the effects of slavery and ongoing racial discrimination on black communities, an effort that would include generating recommendations on reparations for slave descendants.

“This bill is a way of addressing head-on the persistence of racism, white supremacy, and implicit racial bias in our country,” Booker said in a statement on Tuesday, pointing to housing discrimination through so-called redlining as one prime example.

“It will bring together the best minds to study the issue and propose solutions that will finally begin to right the economic scales of past harms and make sure we are a country where all dignity and humanity is affirmed,” he added.

The issue has emerged as a litmus test for 2020 Democratic presidential candidates. Several candidates have expressed some level of support for reparations, including Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro, and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke. Marianne Williamson, a self-help guru and spiritual adviser who is also running for president, has gone furthest in proposing to set aside $100 billion to $500 billion for a reparations program.

But Republican members on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which would be tasked with marking up Booker’s bill, say they do not support studying the matter.

“I don’t think anybody ― black or white, man or woman, whatever your nationality ― is responsible for what somebody else did, somebody else, black or white, did 150 years ago,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said Wednesday.

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), who is the first African-American senator to be elected from the South since 1881, the end of the Reconstruction Era, also said he didn’t support the “concept” of reparations.

The GOP senator associated himself with the remarks of House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), the highest-ranking African-American member of Congress, who said reparations would be “impossible” to implement.

“Essentially a conversation about reparations is just something that’s not even a realistic possibility, so it’s something I don’t think we spend any time conversing on,” Scott told HuffPost on Wednesday.

Scott recently joined Booker and other Democrats in passing legislation that would make lynching a federal crime. He also worked closely with Booker to push through last year’s criminal justice reform bill.

The idea of giving descendants of slaves reparations has been discussed for decades, but recently gained more attention after a series in The Atlantic magazine by author Ta-Nehisi Coates.

 

[nawghtyhare]

its always a issue when we want our reparations
these white folks and "cornball brothas" are so lame

 

[KHUFU]

The methods used in order to further the cause of White Supremacy, has really worked. You have immigrants who are not educated in the matters of white supremacy, america, and how the two go hand in hand. It is intentionally hidden from those immigrants in the form of capitalism. Put some money in their hands, and they soon forget about all of their problems. So much so that if someone speaks of what they are owed due to not being fully represented as a citizen in the US since our forced arrival here, those same immigrants will stand by white supremacy in order to protect their gifts through capitalism. Pseudo freedom in the form of an imagined democracy.

 

[hand2handking]

If you withhold money from a business it goes out of business. That works because the business is wholly dependant upon money

About half of people don't vote in the first place

Black people = 13% of the population

Lets just say 2/3 of those are eligible to vote.

That's about 8%

And half of those actually vote

4%

If we withhold our vote, the system will not collapse. One particular candidate might be impacted heavily but it would only take prolly one election cycle for the whole system to account for the fact that we are not voting at all and they will just plan around that

Or are you trying say that the Dems need us enough to give us a check to vote...

Trump is currently prez, right?

The CANDIDATE from the Dem side can't deliver anything until

they get elected

The people have to be in office

first

And then

Try to do stuff

So the idea of getting reparations by

Not voting

Doesn't add up. Especially since youre
ENSURING that Trump and the Nazis win the actual election

Trump is not.giving you ****

Read that a few more times if its not making sense yet

Also the most important thing is that blacks mainly live in major cities and in the South. So lots of local races and state races we not even a factor in

The effects of aborting nearly 18 million black babies since Roe v Wade bitting us in the ***. You got Dems bending over backwards for Latinos knowing they will be the majority in this country

thoughts?

 

[largofool]

Stay off the coli

this agent done went from reposting articles, which was cool even though there is a pattern to the content, to straight up lifting members of thecoli replies and placing them in this thread w/o context while asking for our thoughts

 

[Maximus Meridius]

 

[largofool]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-...bs-11555283781?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1

White House Weighs Broader Immigration Curbs
New rules would clamp down on countries whose nationals overstay their visas

Many new Trump immigration rules would involve U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. PHOTO: KEITH BEDFORD/REUTERS
By
Louise Radnofsky and
Rebecca Ballhaus
Updated April 14, 2019 7:32 p.m. ET



WASHINGTON—President Trump and his top aides are weighing rules designed to clamp down on countries whose nationals overstay short-term visitor visas as part of a broader push for new ways to curb immigration.

The effort would target nationals of countries with high overstay rates of such visas, which include the African nations of Nigeria, Chad, Eritrea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, according to Department of Homeland Security data. The U.S. as part of a new rule would tell the countries’ governments that if rates don’t reverse, then future visas could be shorter or harder to get, according to an administration official who described the move as putting those countries “on notice.” Ultimately, nationals from countries with high overstay rates could be barred entirely, though the official said no ban is now under consideration.

The White House also is seeking to push through other rules that would tighten student and investor visas, and it is pursuing what some describe as its most ambitious goal on immigration: preventing immigrants from coming or becoming citizens if they are likely to use publicly funded benefits. The overstay proposals, for visas known as B1 or B2s, haven’t been previously reported.

White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said the administration considers it a priority “to reduce overstay rates for visas and the visa waiver program—and it’s well known that the administration is working to ensure faithful implementation of immigration welfare rules to protect American taxpayers.”

Other rules the administration is considering include toughening requirements for investments that qualify a foreign investor for a visa, particularly in rural areas. It is expected to publish a rule pulling work authorization for the spouses of some high skilled H-1B visa holders. And the administration is considering setting a maximum length of authorized stay for student visas.

The moves show the Trump administration is looking to tighten the legal framework around immigration, a core issue for the president, well beyond the much-discussed southern border. Frustration from senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller with the inability of DHS leaders to write and publish the regulations drove the departures of several department leaders last week, including Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, according to administration officials.

It comes as the administration is looking to slow the flow of migrant families at the border, including a review of how to relocate detained immigrants to so-called sanctuary cities after Mr. Trump floated the idea last week.

Critics of the attempt to rework rules about public benefits, in particular, say the administration is trying to do through executive action what it can’t get through Congress.


“It would serve to dramatically constrain the amount of people who are able to come to the United States on any number of visas,” said Doug Rand, a former Obama administration official and co-founder of Boundless Immigration, a technology firm for families navigating the immigration process.


“The implementation will likely cause sharp demographic changes in U.S. immigrants, including shifting legal immigration away from Latin America and towards Europe,” said Sarah Pierce of the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute think tank.

One senior administration official said last week that the administration expected to see its rules blocked by federal courts in the San Francisco-headquartered Ninth Circuit, by plaintiffs seeking out the friendly jurisdiction. But the quicker the regulations were published, the quicker any challenges could be advanced to the Supreme Court, where the administration believes it has more sympathetic justices.

Pushing ahead on the new rules will be officials including acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan; his acting deputy, David Pekoske; the acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Matthew Albence; and acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner John Sanders.

Many of the new rules involve U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the director of which, L. Francis Cissna, has been criticized by administration officials in recent days. Mr. Cissna’s backers believe he is being punished for trying to craft rules that pass legal muster.

A USCIS official said Friday in a statement that Mr. Cissna “is relentlessly focused on advancing President Trump’s agenda forward to the maximum extent permitted under the law, and to say otherwise is false.” The official also pointed to rules published under Mr. Cissna changing the H-1B program for high-skilled immigrants, which were put out earlier this year.

Mr. Trump said Friday he was giving strong consideration to the idea of moving detained immigrants to sanctuary cities, or places that typically refrain from helping federal authorities identify undocumented immigrants for deportation unless they have committed serious crimes. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, speaking on ABC’s “This Week, said of that plan: “We’re looking to see if there are options that make it possible and doing a full and thorough and extensive review.”

That plan drew criticism from Democrats over the weekend. On “Fox News Sunday,” Sen. Ben Cardin (D., Md.) said Mr. Trump’s statement is “clearly a political move.” He said Mr. Trump is “using immigrants as pawns in a political game of chess.”




White House adviser Kellyanne Conway also said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Congress should work to change the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, a law she said has encouraged immigrants to bring children to the border. She also called for congressional action to change a longstanding federal court settlement known as the Flores agreement, which she said forces the administration to “release children into the interior of this country” after 20 days of detention.

—Josh Mitchell contributed to this article.

Write to Louise Radnofsky at [email protected] and Rebecca Ballhaus at [email protected]

Appeared in the April 15, 2019, print edition as 'White House Widens Immigration Focus.'

 

[largofool]

I see why an overwhelming majority of black Americans who aren't #ados want us to vote for the democrats w/o nothing promised in return.

deuce king #tangibles2020. No black agenda, no vote.

 

[deuce king]

largofool if you want to continue to beg white people for a check, that’s on you. You can just sit around waiting for white mommy and white daddy to drop off a big bag of money in your neighborhood just because or you can actually take some initiative and go out there and get your own bag.

That being said if you don’t vote or even worse than that continue to encourage others not to vote you are helping white supremacy......and for free at that. We have to vote to stop the white supremacists from created laws and seating judges on the bench that wish to do harm to black people. When you vote, your not just voting for you but for others as well. largofool stop being so selfish champ and get your head in the game.

#WakeUpLargoFool

 

[gry60]

i meant what i said. the motherland, home of our first ancestors, orgin of all life. i'd feel a way if my folks willingly left behind culture, family, history etc. to live in a racist country that stole my people. All for the pursuit of a bag.

Instead of imagining how Africans in the US live, why don't you see for yourself?

We go back to visit, and we go back to invest. What most of us are doing in the US is taking full advantage of our education and skills (because the US won't let you migrate here on your own without at least a High school diploma and a letter of acceptance from a school, or without prior experience and an offer letter for a job).

Even refugees who come here are not illiterate or without professional credentials. When things calm down in their native lands, they always make sure to go back and rebuild. You keep trying to push this narrative that "Africans abandoned their lands" but it is at odds with reality.

Go sue Harvard, Duke, and all those institutions that took advantage of slavery and stop worrying about African immigrants. They're not the reason American society decided not to invest in Black communities.

 

[largofool]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/14/politics/slavery-reparations-explainer-trnd/index.html

People are again talking about slavery reparations. But it's a complex and thorny issue
By Doug Criss, CNN

Updated 6:02 AM ET, Mon April 15, 2019


(CNN)If you feel like you're hearing more about slavery reparations these days, it's not your imagination.

Compensating the descendants of American slaves is suddenly a hot topic on the campaign trail, with presidential candidates voicing support for slavery reparations. New proposals also seek financial redress for decades of legalized segregation and discrimination against African-Americans in employment, housing, health and education.
But why now? And just how would reparations, focused specifically on slavery, work?
Here's what you need to know about this most controversial of subjects.

Why are reparations in the news?

The idea of giving black people reparations for slavery dates back to right after the end of the Civil War (think 40 acres and a mule). For decades it's mostly been an idea debated outside the mainstream of American political thought.

But writer Ta-Nehisi Coates reintroduced it to the mainstream with a piece, "The Case for Reparations," in 2014 in The Atlantic. And now several Democratic presidential candidates, who need the votes and energy of liberal voters to succeed in the primaries, have said they support some form of reparations for slavery.

• Sen. Cory Booker this week introduced a bill that would establish a commission to study possible reparations.
• Sen. Kamala Harris recently told a radio show host that the idea of reparations should be considered in the face of economic inequality.
• Sen. Elizabeth Warren has spoken approvingly of the need for reparations for African-Americans, as well as for Native Americans whose land was seized by European settlers.
• So has former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro.

How do you put a cash value on hundreds of years of forced servitude?
This may be the most contested part. Academics, lawyers and activists have given it a shot, though, and their results vary.
Most formulations have produced numbers from as low as $17 billion to as high as almost $5 trillion.
-- The most often-quoted figure, though, is truly staggering, as anthropologist and author Jason Hickel notes in his 2018 book, "The Divide: Global Inequality from Conquest to Free Markets":
"It is estimated that the United States alone benefited from a total of 222,505,049 hours of forced labor between 1619 and the abolition of slavery in 1865. Valued at the US minimum wage, with a modest rate of interest, that is worth $97 trillion today."

Keep in mind, the total US federal budget for fiscal year 2018 was $4.1 trillion.
-- Other formulations are more modest, like a 2015 report by University of Connecticut assistant professor Thomas Craemer. He estimated that the labor of slaves was worth at least $5.9 trillion and perhaps as much as $14.2 trillion (in 2009 dollars). Craemer came up with that figure by estimating the monetary value of slaves over time, the total number of hours they worked and the wages at which that work should have been compensated.


Craemer's number is also lower because he only deals with the slavery that happened from the time of the country's founding until the end of the Civil War, so it ignores slavery during the colonial period and the discrimination that blacks endured during the Jim Crow era.
Where would the money come from?
Generally, advocates for reparations say that three different groups should pay for them: governments, private companies and rich families that owe a good portion of their wealth to slavery.
It makes sense that federal and state governments (which enshrined, supported and protected the institution of slavery) and private businesses (which financially benefited from it), would be tempting targets from which reparations could be extracted. But wealthy families?
"There are huge, wealthy families in the South today that once owned a lot of slaves. You can trace all their wealth to the free labor of black folks. So when you identify the defendants, there are a vast number of individuals," attorney Willie E. Gary told Harper's magazine in November 2000, during the height of the last, big time of reparations talk. Gray was talking about how these families could be sued for reparations since they benefited directly from slavery.

As you might imagine, suing large groups of people to pay for reparations wouldn't go over well. Others have suggested lawmakers could pass legislation to force families to pay up. But that might not be constitutionally sound.
"I don't think you can legislate and have those families pay," Malik Edwards, a law professor at North Carolina Central University, told CNN. "If you're going to go after individuals you'd have to come up with a theory to do it through litigation. At least on the federal level Congress doesn't have the power to go after these folks. It just doesn't fall within its Commerce Clause powers."
The Commerce Clause refers to the section of the US Constitution which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states.
But reparations mean more than a cash payout, right?
It could. Reparations could come in the form of special social programs. It could mean giving away land.

That's why people need to check the fine print on the support all of those Democratic presidential candidates have given to reparations. None of them have articulated a concrete proposal that would specifically give a cash benefit to black Americans.
They've talked about developing tax credits that would go to all low-income people, not just blacks, and creating so-called "baby bonds" that would help all of America's children pay for college, not just African-American children.
None of the major Democratic candidates so far have proposed making direct cash payments to African Americans as a way for the country to atone for its "original sin," except for Marianne Williamson, who announced her candidacy in January.

Williamson, a best-selling author and spiritual counselor to Oprah Winfrey, has advocated for reparations for years and proposes giving $100 billion in reparations for slavery, with $10 billion a year to be distributed over 10 years.
Others have suggested a mix of cash and programs targeted to help African Americans.
"Direct benefits could include cash payments and subsidized home mortgages similar to those that built substantial white middle-class wealth after World War II, but targeted to those excluded or preyed upon by predatory lending," Chuck Collins, an author and a program director at the Institute for Policy Studies, told CNN. "It could include free tuition and financial support at universities and colleges for first generation college students."
Reparation funds could also be used to provide one-time endowments to start museums and historical exhibits on slavery, Collins said.
What are the arguments against reparations?
There are many. Opponents of reparations argue that all the slaves are dead, no white person living today owned slaves or that all the immigrants that have come to America since the Civil War don't have anything to do with slavery. Also, not all black people living in America today are descendants of slaves (like former President Barack Obama).
Others point out that slavery makes it almost impossible for most African-Americans to trace their lineage earlier than the Civil War, so how could they prove they descended from enslaved people?
Writer David Frum noted those and other potential obstacles in a 2014 piece for The Atlantic entitled "The Impossibility of Reparations," which was a counterpoint to Coates' essay. Frum warned that any reparations program would eventually be expanded to other groups, like Native Americans, and he feared that reparations could create their own brand of inequality.

"Within the target population, will all receive the same? Same per person, or same per family? Or will there be adjustment for need? How will need be measured?" asks Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush. "And if reparations were somehow delivered communally and collectively, disparities of wealth and power and political influence within black America will become even more urgent. Simply put, when government spends money on complex programs, the people who provide the service usually end up with much more sway over the spending than the spending's intended beneficiaries."
In a recent column for The Hill, conservative activist Bob Woodson decried the idea of reparations as "yet another insult to black America that is clothed in the trappings of social justice." He also told CNN he feels America made up for slavery long ago, so reparations aren't needed.
"I wish they could understand the futility of wasting time engaging in such a discussion when there are larger, more important challenges facing many in the black community," Woodson, the founder and president of the Woodson Center, told CNN. "America atoned for the sin of slavery when they engaged in a civil war that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives. Let's for the sake of argument say every black person received $20,000. What would that accomplish?"
This isn't the first time reparations have come up, is it?
After decades of languishing as something of a fringe idea, the call for reparations really caught steam in the late 1980s through the '90s.
Former Democratic Rep. John Conyers first introduced a bill in 1989 to create a commission to study reparations. Known as HR 40, Conyers repeatedly re-introduced the bill, which has never been passed, until he left office in 2017. Texas Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee has taken up the baton, sponsoring HR 40 in this year's Congress.
Activist groups, like the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America and the Restitution Study Group, sprang up during this period. Books, like Randall Robinson's "The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks," gained huge buzz.


Then came the lawsuit. In 2002 Deadria Farmer-Paellmann became the lead plaintiff in a federal class-action suit against a number of companies -- including banks, insurance company Aetna and railroad firm CSX -- seeking billions for reparations after Farmer-Paellmann linked the businesses to the slave trade.

She got the idea for the lawsuit as she examined old Aetna insurance policies and documented the insurer's role in the 19th century in insuring slaves. The suit sought financial payments for the value of "stolen" labor and unjust enrichment and called for the companies to give up "illicit profits."
"These are corporations that benefited from stealing people, from stealing labor, from forced breeding, from torture, from committing numerous horrendous acts, and there's no reason why they should be able to hold onto assets they acquired through such horrendous acts," Farmer-Paellmann said at the time.
The case was tossed out by a federal judge in 2005 because it was deemed that Farmer-Paellmann and the other plaintiffs didn't have legal standing in the case, meaning they couldn't prove a sufficient link to the corporations or prove how they were harmed. The judge also said the statute of limitations had long since passed. Appeals to the US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court proved unsuccessful, and the push for reparations kind of petered out.
But Coates' 2014 article in The Atlantic reignited interest in the issue. New reparations advocacy groups, like the United States Citizens Recovery Initiative Alliance Inc., took up the fight. Black Lives Matter includes slavery reparations in its list of proposals to improve the economic lives of black Americans. Even a UN panel said the US should pay reparations.
And now major candidates for president are endorsing the idea.
So, what are the prospects of reparations moving forward?
Despite the words of support from these Democratic presidential candidates, slavery reparations still face an uphill battle.
The idea isn't popular with the American public. A 2016 Marist poll found that 68% of Americans don't think the US should pay reparations to the descendants of slaves. Unsurprisingly there's a racial divide to this. Some 81% of white Americans are against reparations, while 58% of African Americans support them. What is surprising is the generational divide the poll revealed. Millennials surveyed were much more likely than Baby Boomers or Gen-Xers to support reparations. Even still, a total of 49% of millennials opposed them.

Those numbers make it difficult for any candidate to try to sell a skeptical American public on the idea and to get lawmakers to pass legislation. And after the failure in the courts of Farmer-Paellmann's lawsuit more than a decade ago, taking legal action to secure reparations doesn't seem like the most promising route either.

Whatever happens, almost everyone agrees that something needs to be done to cut down the huge wealth gap between white and blacks that slavery helped created. Collins, the author and scholar, said his own research showed that the median wealth of a white household is $147,000, which is about 41 times greater than the median wealth of a black family, which is $3,600.
"This can only be explained through an understanding of the multigenerational legacy of white supremacy in asset building," he told CNN.
"People say, 'slavery was so long ago' or 'my family didn't own slaves.' But the key thing to understand is that the unpaid labor of millions -- and the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow laws, discrimination in mortgage lending and a race-based system of mass incarceration -- created uncompensated wealth for individuals and white society as a whole. Immigrants with European heritage directly and indirectly benefited from this system of white supremacy. The past is very much in the present."

 

[largofool]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pres...nce-on-immigration_b_58334df2e4b08c963e34433c


President-Elect Donald Trump's Hard Stance On Immigration Sparks A Nationalism Debate In Black America

8-10 minutes
On the morning of Election Day, I found myself in Tijuana, Mexico on business. It was quite ironic to be there that day, particularly given the positions Donald Trump has taken on immigration. As I came back into the States in time to vote, I thought of Trump’s positions from building a wall, to deportation of illegal immigrants. He campaigned on changing how we approach immigration as a nation.

While in Mexico, a taxi driver named Jorge gave me a fiery analysis on the issue, which I recorded. In his statement he explained why he supported Hillary Clinton from afar. It largely centered on disliking Donald Trump, wanting no part in the wall, and wanting illegal immigrants to be made legal.

While this driver’s position on its face seemed positive, its impact on communities native to the United States that are struggling in poverty is economically problematic to say the least. For a generation as a group African Americans have viewed the issue of immigration through the lens of what I often call Civil Rights Nostalgia, rather than truly critiquing this issue in light of its impact on their community. This nostalgia is a form of analysis that reconfigures struggles, dividing them across the historical landscape of America’s color lines. A type of critique that tilts the lens of the immigration discussion to one where it is examined through the frame of racism built out of slavery, rather than as a form of protectionism that we saw rise up during the era of the depression. A protectionist era during which legislation like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act raised import duties to protect American businesses and farmers from imported competition.

Many will say these differences of racism, or protectionism, derive from similar places, and often are used by the same actors to achieve analogous goals of degradation of the poor. While there may be some truth to that argument, what cannot be ignored is that the issues of traditional American racism, and immigration are in fact different, and must be viewed as such to give a fair review.

In fact, as protectionism rises, we see its tentacles reach well beyond the issues we face at the Mexican border. While Mexican immigration clearly has been the most prevalent point of discussion, to see Donald Trump’s platform as an attack on Mexicans is far too simplistic. From vowing to stop China’s manipulation of their currency, to making claims that Japan may no longer be able to rely on the U.S. for defense, these ideas of realigning American interest put forth by Trump literally stretch around the globe. Here at home, it most clearly presents itself through our approach to Mexican immigration, and the recent creation of sanctuary cities. The rise of these safe havens did not come without great cost, a price that has been particularly borne by African American communities. In areas already facing dismal economic opportunities, illegal immigration only created more negative cost for black families.

One of the foremost experts in the area of immigration is Professor George Borjas of Harvard University. In a speech at UCSD Borjas explained:

“We have got to set up a system that basically discriminates. I don’t mean that in a bad way. Just chooses the winners from the losers in this very big pool of applicants we’re going to get.” He continued stating, “Immigration basically hurts people who compete with immigrants, and people who use immigrants, whether it be employers or consumers or upper middle class Californians who have a gardener, maid and so on those are the people who gain from immigration. So really, it’s the redistribution of wealth at heart… Were not fighting over an increasing pie in a real sense. We’re fighting over a different split of the pie.”

Borjas research paper titled “Immigration and African-American Employment Opportunities” stated:

Subscribe to the Black Voices email.

Amplifying black voices through news that matters.

The 1980-2000 immigrant influx, therefore, generally “explains” about 20 to 60 percent of the decline in wages, 25 percent of the decline in employment, and about 10 percent of the rise in incarceration rates among blacks with a high school education or less.

Taken on its face this would mean that immigration influx has resulted in tens of thousands of additional African Americans serving time behind bars.

It is this reality that has led to a long overdue discussion around immigration, rising in Black America since the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States. A come to Jesus moment, largely built around seeing the true impact of immigration on African American families that descend from a long legacy of American chattel slavery. While some would argue oppressed people should unite, the data surrounding this topic begins to question the ways oppression shows up in daily life, and who is the engine behind how that oppression operates. For a generation, Black Americans have viewed the issue of oppression without dimension through the lens of white males as the group we all need to fight against for resources. While this group may play a major role in the overall market, the reality is when you add layers there are far more players. The creation of the status of minority, as a contrast to the majority white group by the data serves as far too simplistic for viewing these issues. Thus we must challenge the entire way we have in an effort to create unity, divided and aligned ourselves as American voting blocks.

Amidst this immigration discussion a critique has arisen among blacks themselves, largely built around resolving their disadvantage as one of personal choice, and a lack of personal work ethic. One built around a false notion that their youth wouldn’t do the jobs immigrants do, a truly flawed quasi-conservative ideal set. In reply to this view Carol Swain professor of law at Vanderbilt University and author of Debating Immigration stated:

I don’t believe there are any jobs that Americans won’t take, and that includes agricultural jobs, ... (Illegal Immigration) hurts low-skilled, low-wage workers of all races, but blacks are harmed the most because they’re disproportionately low-skilled... Many of the black scholars dance around this hard issue, ... They do their research in such a way that it doesn’t address how immigration affects blacks. There’s a lot of pressure to say the politically correct thing—that immigrants aren’t hurting African Americans. Well, that’s not true.

Too often we have come to view illegal immigrants simply as migrants in agricultural fields. When in fact they do so much more, and even when we discuss agriculture it includes, trucking, packing, and management of these services. According to CNN:

A growing number of undocumented immigrants are landing managerial positions. At the same time, fewer are doing jobs that require manual labor. Some 13% of undocumented immigrants had management or professional jobs in 2012, up from 10% in 2007, according to a new Pew Research Center report. Meanwhile, 29% held construction or production posts, such as a food processor, garment worker or machinist, down from 34% in 2007.

I have written extensively on the topics of African American wealth, and incarceration. Today we live in a time when the middle black family of three is worth a mere $1,700.00 when you deduct the family automobile. This is a time when nearly 700,000 black men are incarcerated, with over another million on some form of probation. While immigration is likely a mere factor in a multitude of reasons for these atrocious numbers, by the data it is a factor. It is this reality that is sparking the debate on nationalism behind the scenes in Black America. A discussion that moves us beyond nostalgia about Civil Rights, to a place where we see the dimensions of America’s economic landscape more clearly.

Antonio Moore, an attorney based in Los Angeles, is one of the producers of the Emmy-nominated documentary Freeway: Crack in the System. He has contributed pieces to the Grio, Huffington Post, and Inequality.org on the topics of race, mass incarceration and economics. Follow him on YouTube Channel Tonetalks.

 

[largofool]

largofool if you want to continue to beg white people for a check, that’s on you. You can just sit around waiting for white mommy and white daddy to drop off a big bag of money in your neighborhood just because or you can actually take some initiative and go out there and get your own bag.

That being said if you don’t vote or even worse than that continue to encourage others not to vote you are helping white supremacy......and for free at that. We have to vote to stop the white supremacists from created laws and seating judges on the bench that wish to do harm to black people. When you vote, your not just voting for you but for others as well. largofool stop being so selfish champ and get your head in the game.

#WakeUpLargoFool

interesting that you would reduce reparations to "begging white people for a check" and equate #ados demands for justice as "sitting around waiting for white mommy and white daddy to drop off a big bag of money".

I will continue to educate and encourage #ados to withhold voting for any democratic candidate who routinely campaigns in black neighborhoods, schools, and churches, who rely on the black vote to get into office, but then pass no substantial policies for ados. it's not about suppressing the vote. it's about leveraging it. this is a stick up. voting by definition and practice is a transactional exchange. you want us to vote for you? do something for us. the data shows you need us to win

blindly voting democratic will not end white supremacy. black people have been voting democrat since the civil rights movement ended and guess what.....still white supremacy. in fact, it was a Democrat who outlined and pushed for mass incarceration which targeted and pillaged our households and communities of its strong black strong black patriarchs.

your attempts to shame me into voting for a candidate that doesn't resonate with my needs are futile. so are your efforts of scaring me into giving it away because of the racists republicans.

I say that to say this......

deuce king #tangibles2020. No black agenda, no vote.

 

[hand2handking]

this agent done went from reposting articles, which was cool even though there is a pattern to the content, to straight up lifting members of thecoli replies and placing them in this thread w/o context while asking for our thoughts

whats the difference between that and a reddit post? or an ig post? or a tweet?

 

[gry60]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pres...nce-on-immigration_b_58334df2e4b08c963e34433c


President-Elect Donald Trump's Hard Stance On Immigration Sparks A Nationalism Debate In Black America

8-10 minutes
On the morning of Election Day, I found myself in Tijuana, Mexico on business. It was quite ironic to be there that day, particularly given the positions Donald Trump has taken on immigration. As I came back into the States in time to vote, I thought of Trump’s positions from building a wall, to deportation of illegal immigrants. He campaigned on changing how we approach immigration as a nation.

While in Mexico, a taxi driver named Jorge gave me a fiery analysis on the issue, which I recorded. In his statement he explained why he supported Hillary Clinton from afar. It largely centered on disliking Donald Trump, wanting no part in the wall, and wanting illegal immigrants to be made legal.

While this driver’s position on its face seemed positive, its impact on communities native to the United States that are struggling in poverty is economically problematic to say the least. For a generation as a group African Americans have viewed the issue of immigration through the lens of what I often call Civil Rights Nostalgia, rather than truly critiquing this issue in light of its impact on their community. This nostalgia is a form of analysis that reconfigures struggles, dividing them across the historical landscape of America’s color lines. A type of critique that tilts the lens of the immigration discussion to one where it is examined through the frame of racism built out of slavery, rather than as a form of protectionism that we saw rise up during the era of the depression. A protectionist era during which legislation like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act raised import duties to protect American businesses and farmers from imported competition.

Many will say these differences of racism, or protectionism, derive from similar places, and often are used by the same actors to achieve analogous goals of degradation of the poor. While there may be some truth to that argument, what cannot be ignored is that the issues of traditional American racism, and immigration are in fact different, and must be viewed as such to give a fair review.

In fact, as protectionism rises, we see its tentacles reach well beyond the issues we face at the Mexican border. While Mexican immigration clearly has been the most prevalent point of discussion, to see Donald Trump’s platform as an attack on Mexicans is far too simplistic. From vowing to stop China’s manipulation of their currency, to making claims that Japan may no longer be able to rely on the U.S. for defense, these ideas of realigning American interest put forth by Trump literally stretch around the globe. Here at home, it most clearly presents itself through our approach to Mexican immigration, and the recent creation of sanctuary cities. The rise of these safe havens did not come without great cost, a price that has been particularly borne by African American communities. In areas already facing dismal economic opportunities, illegal immigration only created more negative cost for black families.

One of the foremost experts in the area of immigration is Professor George Borjas of Harvard University. In a speech at UCSD Borjas explained:

“We have got to set up a system that basically discriminates. I don’t mean that in a bad way. Just chooses the winners from the losers in this very big pool of applicants we’re going to get.” He continued stating, “Immigration basically hurts people who compete with immigrants, and people who use immigrants, whether it be employers or consumers or upper middle class Californians who have a gardener, maid and so on those are the people who gain from immigration. So really, it’s the redistribution of wealth at heart… Were not fighting over an increasing pie in a real sense. We’re fighting over a different split of the pie.”

Borjas research paper titled “Immigration and African-American Employment Opportunities” stated:

Subscribe to the Black Voices email.

Amplifying black voices through news that matters.

The 1980-2000 immigrant influx, therefore, generally “explains” about 20 to 60 percent of the decline in wages, 25 percent of the decline in employment, and about 10 percent of the rise in incarceration rates among blacks with a high school education or less.

Taken on its face this would mean that immigration influx has resulted in tens of thousands of additional African Americans serving time behind bars.

It is this reality that has led to a long overdue discussion around immigration, rising in Black America since the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States. A come to Jesus moment, largely built around seeing the true impact of immigration on African American families that descend from a long legacy of American chattel slavery. While some would argue oppressed people should unite, the data surrounding this topic begins to question the ways oppression shows up in daily life, and who is the engine behind how that oppression operates. For a generation, Black Americans have viewed the issue of oppression without dimension through the lens of white males as the group we all need to fight against for resources. While this group may play a major role in the overall market, the reality is when you add layers there are far more players. The creation of the status of minority, as a contrast to the majority white group by the data serves as far too simplistic for viewing these issues. Thus we must challenge the entire way we have in an effort to create unity, divided and aligned ourselves as American voting blocks.

Amidst this immigration discussion a critique has arisen among blacks themselves, largely built around resolving their disadvantage as one of personal choice, and a lack of personal work ethic. One built around a false notion that their youth wouldn’t do the jobs immigrants do, a truly flawed quasi-conservative ideal set. In reply to this view Carol Swain professor of law at Vanderbilt University and author of Debating Immigration stated:

I don’t believe there are any jobs that Americans won’t take, and that includes agricultural jobs, ... (Illegal Immigration) hurts low-skilled, low-wage workers of all races, but blacks are harmed the most because they’re disproportionately low-skilled... Many of the black scholars dance around this hard issue, ... They do their research in such a way that it doesn’t address how immigration affects blacks. There’s a lot of pressure to say the politically correct thing—that immigrants aren’t hurting African Americans. Well, that’s not true.

Too often we have come to view illegal immigrants simply as migrants in agricultural fields. When in fact they do so much more, and even when we discuss agriculture it includes, trucking, packing, and management of these services. According to CNN:

A growing number of undocumented immigrants are landing managerial positions. At the same time, fewer are doing jobs that require manual labor. Some 13% of undocumented immigrants had management or professional jobs in 2012, up from 10% in 2007, according to a new Pew Research Center report. Meanwhile, 29% held construction or production posts, such as a food processor, garment worker or machinist, down from 34% in 2007.

I have written extensively on the topics of African American wealth, and incarceration. Today we live in a time when the middle black family of three is worth a mere $1,700.00 when you deduct the family automobile. This is a time when nearly 700,000 black men are incarcerated, with over another million on some form of probation. While immigration is likely a mere factor in a multitude of reasons for these atrocious numbers, by the data it is a factor. It is this reality that is sparking the debate on nationalism behind the scenes in Black America. A discussion that moves us beyond nostalgia about Civil Rights, to a place where we see the dimensions of America’s economic landscape more clearly.

Antonio Moore, an attorney based in Los Angeles, is one of the producers of the Emmy-nominated documentary Freeway: Crack in the System. He has contributed pieces to the Grio, Huffington Post, and Inequality.org on the topics of race, mass incarceration and economics. Follow him on YouTube Channel Tonetalks.

In Georgia and Alabama, they implemented very restrictive immigration laws, only to watch their crops rot as nobody wanted the jobs left open by the decline of temporary foreign farmers. This disprove the notion that immigrants are displacing poor Americans (because Americans don't want those jobs). Furthermore, I will guess that foreign farmers are not exactly displacing Black Americans because how many of them live in areas where that kind of work is even available? Not many.

Also, your article does support the position that we need laws that discriminate:

One of the foremost experts in the area of immigration is Professor George Borjas of Harvard University. In a speech at UCSD Borjas explained:

“We have got to set up a system that basically discriminates.

You serious with this?

 

[largofool]

 

[debso]

Yeah...
I still feel like anti pan africanism is some white supremacy bull****. Confusion and division are tactics used by the enemy.

We keep falling into the same traps. Knowledge of self is underrated. We need to know who we are and really understand how our enemy moves.

 

[largofool]

 

[largofool]

 

[theafricandream]

Can immigrants of the diaspora not be supporters and allies of ADOS? Blacks in America have a unique history and have suffered the most. I’m a child of African immigrants, but I can understand & get behind the fight for reparations ADOS.

 

[debso]

So pointing out a group of black ppl trying to divide black ppl to prove that division among black ppl is the thing to do isnt a good argument either IMO given white supremacy.

We arent going to sit here and pretend that white supremacy hasnt affected us all and that division among Africans isnt a tactic used by them. It's the reason we are still here and all speaking various languages. Confusion and division

 

[theafricandream]

Facts bro, I feel you 100%. We don’t need any more division, and “us” vs “them.” Personally, I think Pan-Africanism is the way. We should be able to champion the causes for blacks here, just as well as anywhere throughout the diaspora. I understand the criticism of ADOS not being collective, but I don’t think that’s enough to dismiss their case entirely. Maybe they need a better communications department lol.