#appeal immigration decision

[lexlawuk]

Appealing a Decision at the First-Tier Tribunal

If your UK visa or immigration application has been denied, our expert immigration appeal lawyers can evaluate the viability of appealing to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). We will assist in preparing your immigration appeal and provide representation at your appeal hearing. Understanding the First-Tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber (FTTIAC) Navigating…

[immigrationz]

immigration appeal lawyers

Our dedicated immigration appeal lawyers provide strategic advice and representation for your appeal. Reach out to secure your best chance at a successful outcome."

know more: https://nzimmigration.info/immigration-problems/immigration-appeals/

[mourning-again-in-america]

found a case even more unpleasant to listen to than google v. gonzalez: a case involving whether or not remedies granted under a petition not of right must be exhausted before appealing in an immigration case

[schoolhater]

About her heritage:

Harris’s family illustrates how caste, class, and global mobility are linked through access to state jobs, upper-class education, social networks, and opportunities for immigration. Harris’s grandfather, P.V. Gopalan, one of her “favorite people in the world,” was an imperial officer—a position which made possible his daughter’s immigration to the US. [...] Kamala Harris is the product of a “triply selected” Indian diaspora, as described by Chakravorty, Kapur, and Singh in The Other One Percent. This group of migrants is first selected through the caste hierarchy in India that determines access to land ownership and higher education. Next, they are selected by an examination and education-financing system that limits the number of people eligible for immigration to the States. Lastly, they are selected by a capitalist immigration system selectively admitting those who match the country’s needs.

About her policies:

As District Attorney (DA) of San Francisco, Harris increased DA drug arrests by 25% within just three weeks of her appointment. She went on to introduce California’s inhumane “three strikes” law, in which a second felony resulted in a harsher sentence and a third felony led to an automatic 25 years to life imprisonment. She also created the egregious anti-truancy program to threaten parents with legal prosecution and appealed a judge’s decision to make the death penalty unconstitutional in California. [...] While serving as California’s “top cop,” Harris allowed law enforcement agencies to use secret surveillance technology to monitor protests and BIPOC activists. [...] For years, Sikh activists have been pushing Harris to apologize for dismissing a lawsuit filed by a Sikh man who had been denied a job as a state corrections officer for refusing to shave his facial hair, a pillar of his faith. [...] Harris seeks to return to a liberal internationalist world order when American hegemony ran unchecked, “security” was the utmost priority, and “repressive and corrupt dictators” were not allowed to stay in office. She has joined a Presidential campaign that employs an Islamaphobic Hindutva sympathizer. Unsurprisingly, Harris has stayed largely silent on the rise of Hindutva forces both in India and the US.

[aaronjhill]

LAW SCHOOL MELTDOWN Professors are in a furor. Keep going! Do not stop! Triggering professors sounds like a dream job. These rulings “have unsettled the foundational premises of our professional lives.” (LMAO! Maybe find a hobby? Yes, POTUS has broad powers to restrict immigration into the Untied States.)

[menalez]

on refugees in europe

this post feels necessary because of how pervasive far-right populist rhetoric is, including in supposed “radical feminist” spaces, where such rhetoric is becoming more and more normalised in the name of “protecting european women”. these posts include a lot of misinformation about the reality of refugees. i will preface this by saying i am a woman of colour, an immigrant, and live in germany. for work, i help traumatised refugees receive psychological support. this means in more ways than one, i am quite familiar with refugees in germany. 

plenty of people seem to be under the impression that being a refugee is easy, that they’re just “illegal immigrants” too lazy to fix issues in their countries. this is false. refugees are overwhelmingly people being specifically targeted *for trying to fix the oppression in their nations*. an overwhelming portion of the refugees i have worked with were political prisoners, meaning they were active in opposition political parties or actively speaking against their governments. as a result, many have experienced torture, sexual violence, police brutality, and have felt their lives were under threat. after facing immense trauma and danger, they had to flee to preserve their lives. that’s part of what being a refugee means. 

another bit of misinformation is the implication that refugees are just “illegal immigrants” with “nothing to lose”. this is also false. refugees flee their countries because they face imminent danger. many of them, if deported to their countries, are bound to be killed. refugees without stable status in germany live in constant fear of their claim to asylum being rejected, because of the fear of being killed in their home countries. this means that to be deported from germany is to potentially lose the one thing no one can afford to lose: their lives. so no, refugees aren’t people with nothing to lose. they’re people who have already lost a lot and are afraid of losing even more. moreover, they’re not in the country illegally, they have their fingerprints taken and have heavy restrictions placed onto them by the government. they undergo a pretty tiresome, thorough legal process and often require lawyers to represent them. this process takes months, sometimes even longer than a year. their application being accepted does not mean their status in germany is safe for good, either.

i’ve also seen someone call refugees “illegal economic migrants”… also a myth. many refugees actually lived more luxuriously in their home-countries. sure, some lived in extreme poverty, but a significant amount say openly that they wish they could go back to their country. they say that they lived in a bigger home, and lived more comfortably, before having to flee for whatever reason. this is not the reality of economic migrants, who leave their countries to live in a country where they can have a better class status and earn more. there is no economic incentive for the majority of refugees. there is no secret luxuries to being a refugee.

claims that refugees are “undocumented”: untrue. as mentioned before, their fingerprints are taken. they are thoroughly investigated. many, even if their case is legitimate, have their claim to asylum rejected initially and then have to combat that. sometimes nothing works and they do have to be sent back to their countries, and potentially are killed once sent back. 

another false belief is the idea that it’s very easy to be a refugee and anyone can just claim to be a refugee and then be allowed to stay in a european country, no questions asked. even in germany, one of the better countries to refugees, this is not the case. for example, 50-66% of refugees from iraq had their application rejected. in germany, you can appeal this decision, but most appeals are rejected, too. the people who receive the highest percentage of positive responses to their claims to asylum are syrians (0.1% rejection rate in 2023), afghans (1.0% rejection rate in 2023), and somalis (5-6% rejection rate in 2023). i hope it goes without saying why that is the case. IF their application is accepted, they receive a residence permit that is valid for 1-3 years (depending) and their stay is evaluated again upon the expiry of their residence permit. if their country is deemed safe enough to be sent back to, they lose the right to stay in germany. if, before coming to germany, their fingerprints were taken in another EU country, they are likely to be deported to that country even if that country will inevitably deport them back to their country. 

there are many more false claims i’ve seen spread in “feminist” spaces, but the point of this post is: please stop blindly believing misinformation. please educate yourselves on what a refugee is and the actual process of asylum applications in the EU. if you’re european, maybe go outside more and try to volunteer somewhere to personally get to know some refugees. they are just human beings, like you and i. just because their skin colour is more likely to be brown does not mean they are walking caricatures of a disney villain. 

[alatismeni-theitsa]

In "KAOS" nothing is anything, and everything is wrong

Two disclaimers: I am no stranger to modern art, and I have no issue with queerness in shows, or in my own mythology (I'm Greek). I am also aware that KAOS is a comedy. It's in the gutter of British comedy, but still part of the genre. At least I laughed every time they said "Oh God!". I don't believe this is the same person who wrote the great and amusing "End of the F**king World"! The premise of "The gods in our modern world" appeals to me a lot, so that wasn't my problem either. My general issue with KAOS is its horrible delivery, bad writing, and piss-poor Greek representation.

This is gonna be long and full of stupid gifs, so sit comfortably, grab a coffee or some popcorn and... pame!

The "ILoveGreekMythology" Kid

Art without context is just a pretty thing to look at. Most of the time, this context can be found within the art piece itself, as the artist has taken care to weave it in. KAOS refuses to connect itself to any context besides the names and a few vague powers. It aims to exist outside of those "boring old stories of the Greek myth" and be entirely "fresh and modern". Something impossible when the entire show and the meanings are based on ancient recorded material. In other words, KAOS is so meta that it ends up being nothing. KAOS cannot stand on its own because you need more than the viewers being familiar with the Greek myth basics to pull such a show off.

KAOS tells us "See? I know all the names of the gods, and what they did, and I know all the locations, so I am qualified to tackle this". More or less like any Western kid who takes all their knowledge from PJO and Marvel and proceeds to unironically hate ancient deities and make a girlboss out of Medusa.

Here's a Greek word for you guys, ημιμάθεια, meaning "half-knowledge". Α Greek saying very well declares "Half-knowledge is worse than no knowledge". The confidence of thinking you know enough often leads you to grave mistakes whereas the humility of not knowing prevents you from touching shit that you shouldn't. When you have no idea what the original myth is trying to say and spit on its meaning, knowing a few names and locations is just smoke and mirrors. I don't believe the audience fell for that.

And don't get me started on the "subversions". A good subversion is intriguing and thought-provoking. In KAOS, every twist was hollow - Greek myth related or otherwise.

"What if Euridice doesn't love Orpheus?" I don't know, babe. What if??? What was the point of that? What did you show us? That women's stories are dominated by men and men don't listen to women, perhaps? And you chose to twist... the love story of Orpheus and Euridice to show this?? One of the best and most tragic love stories Greek mythology has to offer?? You just mocked the myth, you didn't make anything profound out of it.

The Greek Stuff (Nothing salvageable)

I was surprised to see they had a Consulting Producer (Georgia Christou) and an Assistant Script Editor (Isabella Yianni) who happen to be Greek. And I stress that because those people probably weren't hired or utilized for being Greek. We are not sure they were involved in cultural decisions because we have no evidence and because shows with no Greek elements can have more Greeks than that on their staff.

Okay, perhaps they took 5 seconds to ask Isabella about a greeting - which they proceeded to say in a wrong intonation 🙄🤌It's where Poseidon says "ya sás" in the Fates, by the way. How he said it sounds more like "for you (pl.)" than "health to you (pl.)".

Surprise! The only Greek actor present (Peter Polycarpou) has less than 5 minutes of screen time and plays the caricature of an immigrant with a thick (and inaccurate Greek) accent. He has a canteen, selling falafel which is not Greek, and Dionysus buys from him an unidentified tortilla wrap (which... is also not Greek, if you haven't caught up).

For the show they brought in actors of Maori, Nigerian and Sierra Leonean, Pakistani, Black American, Latvian-Jewish, Iranian, Egyptian, Indo-Fijian and Malay descent and you tell me it was impossible for them to seek and find an English-speaking, skilled actor of Greek descent in a show regarding Greek heritage. Sometimes I wonder, do y'all hate us so much?

They considered Greeks only to give us a simple (and wrong) greeting and a stereotype. Crumbs, we are supposed to be happy with. By the way, there are over 70.000 Greek immigrants just in the UK, usually in the urban centers, many of them students or fairly young employees in the corporate workforce. Not the largest minority but not hard to spot either.

Another plague of Anglophone shows: Almost everyone's Greek name is shortened. Yes, we know their full names but we are told that we will use the short ones. Greeks and their "long and difficult" names am I right fellas? Because saying "Ariadne" apparently requires 5 years of Greek language training, and no English word ever has more than two syllables.

Coincidentally, short names are cool in Anglophone imaginary universes and the "long" names are not. it's so strange Anglophones never make universes where it's cool for Greek names to be spoken in full hmmm... They don't even want to practice saying a whole Greek name for just 2 minutes in preparation for a show full of Greek names. And don't give me that "Greek is hard" shit when we only talk about a few syllables. If Greek kids can learn English since first grade and people here can sing English songs and spell English names, you have no excuse.

They also said the name "Fotis" means light, which is close enough but... ugh.. It's like saying Sebastian means "respect". I am not sure if they asked anyone or what their research was here. If I had the writers in front of me, I'd be like:

(This character from an all-time favorite Greek show is called Fotis)

They also made the flag of "Krete" an alteration of the Greek flag and the local Cretan flag. Which is the stupidest move, because they had to remove the religious symbol of the cross to make the flag fit the universe. These are flags created based on 1) Christianity 2) the Greek Revolution of 1821.

National Greek flag to the left, local Cretan flag to the right:

Flag of the KAOS' "Krete":

The only time they seriously took into account anything Greek, was the time when they decided to remove the religious symbol of our ethnoreligion AND (from what I could observe) keep the nine stripes?? The nine stripes of our national flag represent the syllables in "Freedom or Death". The colors are from the white foustanela of the mainland attire and the dark blue vraka of the island attire, the clothing of the Revolution fighters. (That's more of a meta explanation but the characteristics of the flag were decided during and nearly after the Revolution.)

I think I don't have to explain it more but it's not a homage to put the nine stripes in an ancient era where they have no meaning, and to replace a cross??? Let's... not replace religious symbols on national flags, okay? Thank you.

Another cultural element they changed was making everyone have a dedicated coin to pay Charon. Orpheus has Euridice's coin, "her coin", and he's meant to put it on her before she got buried. In Greek culture, any coin would do. Sorry that our culture restricts your script, dear writers. I guess you had to bend this too, in order to create a cohesive plot with a semblance of a twist.

Finally, the many "Kerberus" dogs were cute and I can understand the creative decision behind that. However, in a show full of inaccuracies, this made me roll my eyes a little. I think the showrunners know that Kerveros is not a breed of dog, and there can only be one of him because he doesn't have any other "Kerveros" to breed with. On the other hand, as demonstrated from art/writing on the internet, quite a lot of Westerners are not exactly aware of how our monsters work, so forgive my uncertainty 😅

Nothing is Anything

Every element KAOS played with ended up meaningless. In the words of a Lifo article:

“Zeus is a paranoid authoritarian dictator in mid-life crisis who fears losing his power and murders his aides to vent. Hera is a promiscuous goddess who repeatedly betrays Zeus and has mutilated mute priestesses for protection. Dionysos is a spoiled and immature zoomer who, apart from pranks, indulges in orgies with all genders. Poseidon a sadistic god of the sea, who tortures the crew on his ship for fun. Prometheus is gay and killed his lover so he could overthrow Zeus. Orpheus is a famous pop singer and Eurydice does not love him. Theseus is black and gay. The Erinyes are tough-as-nails mechs that look like they stepped out of ‘Sons of Anarchy’. The Fates resemble a three-member jury in a talent show. The Trojans are a terrorist group that acts against the gods. Crete is more reminiscent of California than the Mediterranean.”

The "River Styx" is a sea, the "River Lethe" is a lake, the gods are nothing more than spoiled humans, the Moirai are drag queens, the Cave is a club where you have to take a quiz to enter the underworld, and generally everything is modern, flat, mundane and anticlimactic. The producers aimed to achieve a work so meta that a "river" is now a concept, a metaphor, whatever you have in your heart. And those who want to see a river when we speak of a river are probably uncultured swines and don't understand postmodernism. Never mind that rivers are rivers in Greek mythology for a reason. That's not culturally interesting enough to explore compared to the new, cool approach of not assigning meaning to anything. That totally shows love for the original rich and meaningful material...

And the reason behind all this subversion? Probably the shock factor. They brought the characters to a point where they said "We have to save the world from Zeus" - Zeus! The father of gods, heroes and humans! - just because they could. It gives off a certain type of smugness that I personally don't like. I mean, I would like the smugness and cheekiness of KAOS if it wasn't a vapid and practically meaningless show. As nothing symbolizes anything anymore, we are just led from hollow plot point to hollow plot point.

If you cut it out of any cultural influence and see it as a story then it's... okay, I guess. But when you consider that it's meant to derive from certain material and it fails spectacularly, it's not a good story. It forgets its bases and doesn't play with the ancient elements at all. Disney's Hercules did it better, FFS!

Bad Writing (pt.1)

KAOS is not without recognizable themes but their demonstration is so juvenile and heavy-handed that it fails to influence a viewer of average intelligence. For instance, "Riddy" says to her religious mother "You dedicated your whole life to Hera, what about me?" Okay, KAOS, we get it. At the same time, this theme nulls itself because it turns out that Ridy's mother was right to do what she did, as she had a greater goal in mind. (And this, kiddos, is called Bad Writing, because your themes and scenes contradict each other)

The biggest theme I spotted was a criticism of religion and religious people who say "Do as I say, not as I do" and create exceptions for themselves. Only, it's not a criticism of anything real, in this case. It's a fact that some people in the clergy tend to preach peace and love and then they do harm, but we don't know, for example, that The Goddess of Marriage is a cheater and yet she pressures everyone into strict marriages. By focusing their wrath on divine beings who are not known for their hypocrisy, the creators missed the mark.

I can give KAOS props for how it handled Trojans to reflect real issues regarding how immigrants and war refugees are mistreated and blamed. I'd argue it was the only (nearly) well-done theme in the whole show because it had the least on-the-nose delivery and some genuine/serious scenes. But that's it.

More Bad Writing!

Jeff Goldblum's Zeus is shit. He'd crap his pants in an argument with a stern Greek dad/uncle his age. Is this character supposed to be intimidating? (Laughs in Mediterranean) That's not to say that Goldblum is not a good actor, but this role wasn't for him. The same can be said for the other actors, too. They are competent but they only give off the air of "The Greek gods if they lived in London, from the minds of people who think beards and body hair are an affliction". In addition to being misplaced, the actors cannot show their talent when following a script that resembles a children's book.

Why does THE GOD Dionysus have the maturity of a 15-year-old? I repeat, The God Dionysus. He's a freaking deity, and a very old one at that. He is not a teenager neither in appearance nor in experience. In our culture, he is mystical, mighty, wise. Why did they downgrade him so? Just for the plot? This is not Dionysus just because you named him so.

The dialogue rarely takes itself seriously to the point it has you wondering at times "Do people talk and behave like that?". In a comedy where everything is meant to be already extreme and parodied. Even in comedies, something must occasionally be serious so there is a healthy fluctuation in tone and the funny moments can hit you. In KAOS very few scenes treated their impactful dialogue as it should be treated.

The queerness and diversity (good elements, in general) were worse off for being in KAOS. Like, I want these elements to be there. I'm just sad about the whole situation. It's not enough that the show is shit, now you also give an additional reason for conservatives to shit on diverse and queer characters because they are part of a stupid narrative.

I'm the type of person who doesn't mind the queerness of Astyanax and Theseus being lovers in the context of this specific show but they're still the oddest pairing to me because they're from the most irrelevant myths and eras. Also, Astyanax in my mind is a baby who died tragically, for little reason if we are honest, so to bring him back and make him a love interest is... ekh.

In addition, isn't Astyanax supposed to be crippled after a fall from the city walls when he was a baby? Sorry to change subjects but the show is so convoluted and with so many issues that it's extremely difficult to stay on track with what's wrong.

To the person who thought this show was a good idea:

Whatever. Bye. I'm fucking done.

[simply-ivanka]

Why Trump’s Conviction Can’t Stand

It rests on an intent to violate a state law that is pre-empted by the Federal Election Campaign Act.

By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley Wall Street Journal

Donald Trump runs no risk of going to prison in the middle of his campaign, thanks to Judge Juan Merchan’s decision Friday to postpone sentencing until Nov. 26. The delay gives his lawyers more time to prepare an appeal. Fortunately for Mr. Trump, his trial was overwhelmingly flawed, and a well-constructed appeal would ensure its ultimate reversal.

A central problem for the prosecution and Judge Merchan lies in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which makes federal law the “supreme law of the land.” That pre-empts state law when it conflicts with federal law, including by asserting jurisdiction over areas in which the federal government has exclusive authority.

Mr. Trump’s conviction violates this principle because it hinges on alleged violations of state election law governing campaign spending and contributions. The Federal Election Campaign Act pre-empts these laws as applied to federal campaigns. If it didn’t, there would be chaos. Partisan state and local prosecutors could interfere in federal elections by entangling candidates in litigation, devouring precious time and resources.

That hasn’t happened except in the Trump case, because the Justice Department has always guarded its exclusive jurisdiction even when states have pushed back, as has happened in recent decades over immigration enforcement.

The normal approach would have been for the Justice Department to inform District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who was contemplating charges against Mr. Trump, of the FECA pre-emption issue. If Mr. Bragg didn’t follow the department’s guidance, it would have intervened at the start of the case to have it dismissed. Instead the department allowed a state prosecutor to interfere with the electoral prospects of the chief political rival of President Biden, the attorney general’s boss.

Mr. Trump was indicted under New York’s law prohibiting falsification of business records, which is a felony only if the accused intended “to commit another crime” via the false record. Judge Merchan instructed the jury that the other crime was Section 17-152 of New York election law, which makes it a misdemeanor to “conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” Prosecutors alleged that Mr. Trump violated this law by conspiring with his lawyer, Michael Cohen, and Trump-related businesses to “promote” his presidential election by coding hush-money payments as “legal expenses” when they should have been disclosed publicly as campaign expenses or contributions—matters that are governed by FECA.

FECA declares that its provisions “supersede and preempt any provision of state law with respect to election to Federal office.” The 1974 congressional conference committee report accompanying enactment of FECA’s pre-emption language states: “It is clear that the Federal law occupies the field with respect to reporting and disclosure of political contributions and expenditures by Federal candidates.” Federal Election Commission regulations likewise declare that FECA “supersedes State law” concerning the “disclosure of receipts and expenditures by Federal candidates” and “limitation on contributions and expenditures regarding Federal candidates.”

The New York State Board of Elections agreed in a 2018 formal opinion that issues relating to disclosure of federal campaign contributions and expenditures are pre-empted because “Congress expressly articulated ‘field preemption’ of federal law over state law in this area” to avoid federal candidates’ “facing a patchwork of state and local filing requirements.”

In using New York’s election law to brand Mr. Trump a felon based on his actions with respect to a federal election, Mr. Bragg subverts FECA’s goal of providing predictable, uniform national rules regarding disclosure of federal campaign contributions and expenses, including penalties for noncompliance. Congress made its goals of uniformity and predictability clear not only in FECA’s sweeping pre-emption language but also in its grant of exclusive enforcement authority to the FEC for civil penalties and the Justice Department for criminal penalties. Both the FEC and Justice Department conducted yearslong investigations to ascertain whether Mr. Trump’s hush-money payments violated FECA, and both declined to seek any penalties.

Prior to Mr. Trump’s New York prosecution, it would have been unthinkable for a local or state prosecutor to prosecute a federal candidate predicated on whether or how his campaign reported—or failed to report—contributions or expenditures. In 2019 the FEC investigated whether Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign failed to disclose millions in contributions from an outside political action committee. The agency deadlocked, and no penalties were imposed. In 2022 the FEC levied $113,000 in civil penalties against Mrs. Clinton’s campaign for violating FECA because it improperly coded as “legal services,” rather than campaign expenditures, money paid to Christopher Steele for production of the “dossier” that fueled the Russia-collusion hoax. In neither instance did any state or local prosecutor indict Mrs. Clinton under state election law based on failure to disclose these contributions or expenditures properly. If New York’s Trump precedent stands, Mrs. Clinton could still be vulnerable to prosecution, depending on various states’ statutes of limitation and the Justice Department’s potential involvement.

Mr. Bragg’s prosecution of Mr. Trump is plagued by many reversible legal errors, of which the failure to accord pre-emptive force to FECA is the strongest grounds for its reversal on appeal. The prosecutor’s interference in the 2024 presidential election process has created legal and political problems. The Justice Department’s failure to intervene before the trial is a dereliction of duty.

The department aggressively prosecuted Mr. Cohen based on the same hush-money payments, so it was well aware that New York’s prosecution invaded its exclusive FECA jurisdiction. This is another stark example of the Biden administration’s incompetence—or, worse, the distortion of justice through a partisan lens. It is left to the appellate courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, to clean up the mess Mr. Bragg and the Justice Department have made.

Mr. Rivkin served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations. Ms. Foley is a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law. Both practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington.

[gancegancerevo]

Rides to Lake Silberneherze Thoughts

It was great. The second major visit to Kjerag sees us return three years after the previous event to see how the nation has built itself up after the Saintess reforms the political system of Kjerag and accepts the Silverash clan’s plans to open the country to outsiders.

Degenbrecher is the main selling point of the event in my opinion and damn did they work hard to make her appealing. She’s not only very strong, very skilled, very pretty, and a lot less long-winded than the other politicians, she’s also got her own story. It’s quite beautiful to see someone immigrate to a new country and have it just be a story of finding a home you can settle with. She’s the kind of character who’s physically strong enough to survive hardship. And in a sense, she is emotionally strong as she does not hold any grudges against her old nations. Probably in part because she’s beaten up the ones she needs to and let go of what she doesn’t need. She’s very much her own person and she herself has decided she wants to stay in Kjerag as one of its people. Makes you think about all the immigrants who makes their homes in new countries and how that experience is unique to them.

Leto was adorable in this event. The way she takes everybody she passes by and makes them her friends is hilarious and wonderful. It’s also great that they made her a competent field operator. She was able to sense and threaten a Trillby Asher all by herself even if that went awry. She also knew when to call up her superiors when she needed help.

One of the best parts about her arc here is how they turn the classic father-daughter reunion on its head. Because for one, Tatyova, her mother, is alive and well. And seems to be perfectly capable of continuing to care for Leto. Leto ultimately doesn’t care about her father, as she should. Arctosz’s decision to make his family leave for political safety makes it obvious that he knows nothing about the wider world. His privileged upbringing means he has no idea about how others would treat a single mother and what it means for a child to grow up without a father. The thing that really brings it into perspective for me is the attack on Chernobog. If you don’t know how bad it was, read the Ursus Student Group side stories. It makes every excuse Arctosz make seem extra moronic. This story takes the “looking for a long lost father” trope and makes it an ode to all the mothers who had to deal with single-parenthood themselves.

Harold is quite interesting. He’s your classic bumbling high-spirited old man except he’s also a Victorian military officer. Like Degenbrecher, he’s someone who also adjusts well to Kjerag life finding work as a veterinarian and doing old man things. In spite of this, he remains loyal to Victoria and when told that he would need to attack the people he’s lived with for months, he ultimately sides with his country. This is an interesting contrast to bring in this story. About how some people would throw away their old countries while others would remain loyal. Though overall, he was just fun to watch. Especially when paired with Leto or others who humor him.

By far my favorite part of visiting Kjerag is seeing the Saintess and Enya and Kjarr do not disappoint.

Before I gush about yuri though, I should say I love how Enya, and especially her relationship with  Enciodes has evolved. She’s much more active in the goings-on of the nation and is willing to use the Saintess as a state official rather than just a ceremonial position. She and Enciodes managed to separate their personal lives from their work in nation-building and it’s so interesting to see it play out. Enya inserting herself when Enciodes tries to avoid more direct interactions. The whole banquet scene with Harold. It was great especially when they both admit that the Head of the Silverash clan and the Saintess have a similar vision and plan for Kjerag’s development and both go silent when others ask about the relationship between Enya and Enciodes Silverash as siblings.

Enya and Kjarr have to be the most wife and wife coded characters I’ve seen in Arknights so far. Like a pair well into their golden years, they have a mutual respect and trust of one another while still disagreeing on some issues. There’s also that sense of both of them playing an active role in the relationship rather than the usual one stays at home and one works sort of dynamic. I especially like when Kjarr is like “babe, are you sure I shouldn’t use my god powers?” and Enya keeps insisting that they can’t rely on god to fix things for them. And of course the eternal pestering of Kjarr for a statue adjustment. If she can’t ask Enya for it, she’ll let Degenbrecher and the Trillby Asher do it. I always love Enya and Kjarr and this has cemented my favorite Kjerag dynamic even more.

Lastly, I really appreciate the way they included the Doctor this time. It’s not the take control of a situation you’ve only been aware of for a few hours. Instead, they made reasonable assumptions about what others are plotting and taking a few small steps to push pieces into the best place possible. Kinda like how they can’t rely on Kjeragandr, they also can’t rely on the Doctor of Rhodes but that doesn’t mean either of them can’t do one small move themselves.

P.S. What do you mean Kjerag has a battleship under Lake Silberneherze. Though it might be more shocking that Enciodes expressed approval of Sciurus before Ratatos did AND that Ratatos liked Sciurus naming the battleship Walnut to mess with her kids.

[actualarcanist]

It's Time to Have That Talk About Racism

It's no great secret that China has a colorism issue, where fair skin is considered attractive while dark skin is considered ugly. This beauty standard had influenced not only the Chinese diaspora in places like Taiwan or Hong Kong, but also vessel states of Old China like Japan or Korea. So when white people came along and offered these people honorary white status and helped them develop into industrialization, they assimilated into values of racism and white supremacy easily.

Of course Chinese players don't give any fuck about racism or brown people; they never have to suffer racism in their own country, and are in fact very often the perpetrators of racism against immigrants from South East Asia, Africa, and beyond. They are "developing" along one Western political ideology or another, and most of these ideologies involve exploiting labor from the Global South and other marginalized communities to shore up the work their own people don't wanna do.

When you consider how Brazil has its own problems with racism and colorism - where the white Brazilians take up all the spaces and leave nothing for the black and indigenous Brazilians - the reasons behind Bluepoch's decision becomes clear: better to appeal to the majority demographic of white Brazilians with money, instead of taking any chances with showing black or indigenous Brazilians at all. The same logic as the "white Australia" from Uluru Games, to be honest.

Of course, white Brazilians are NOT considered white enough by the standard of white Americans or white Europeans, but that had never stopped people from punching down. East Asians had never and will never REMOTELY look like or be considered white, but they do plenty of punching down against indigenous and black people. Just look at all the Japanese Trumpsters marching on the streets, or Taiwanese politicians stanning Donald while screeching for liberal democracy.

Yes, nationalism had never been anything more than a tool of control to align us with Western Imperialism and American Capitalism, by elevating SOME of us to the status of oppressors and slavers so we control our fellow people for the sake of our white masters. Yes, it is lamentable that such events happen in our time, but that is not an excuse. Even if we live in a era of white patriarchal capitalism, you still always have a choice, and you don't have to choose racism.

[lexlawuk]

UK Visit Visa Refusals: Implications and Next Steps for Success

Where the Home Office refuses your visitor visa application, you will receive a letter or email outlining the grounds for the decision. Refusals mean missed opportunities; whether you intended a family visit, a business trip, a quiet getaway, or a chance to tick off your bucket list. At DJF Solicitors, we provide expert guidance on your refusal and strong legal representations to ensure a…

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

As President Joe Biden mingled on the House floor following his State of the Union address Thursday night, Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) gave the official Republican response, a stern but bizarrely delivered rebuttal that focused heavily on immigration and the economy.

The freshman senator is considered a rising star in the party. But her speech’s intense tone—with an over-the-top dramatic cadence that was delivered in a kitchen—left political operatives and observers struggling to make sense of it.

The performance was so bad that some Republicans watched the high-profile speech with a grimace. A GOP strategist told The Daily Beast that Britt’s delivery quickly became a gossip item Thursday night among operatives connected to Donald Trump—something that could have potential implications for her consideration as a vice presidential pick on the 2024 ticket.

“Everyone’s fucking losing it,” this Republican said, requesting anonymity to discuss private conversations. “It’s one of our biggest disasters ever.”

Several popular social media influencers in the MAGA camp also panned the speech; the account Catturd tweeted Britt was "awful" to his 2.4 million followers.

The setting of the kitchen table—more so the kitchen than the table—for Britt’s speech also left some seasoned Republican strategists confused.

“Senator Katie Britt is a very impressive person. She ran a hell of race in [Alabama],” Alyssa Farah Griffin, a former Trump White House communications adviser and Nikki Haley supporter posted on X. “I do not understand the decision to put her in a KITCHEN for one of the most important speeches she’s ever given.”

Olivia Perez-Cubas, the former spokesperson for Haley’s 2024 presidential bid, also said in a post on X that while Britt “is incredibly impressive, unsure why she felt the need to deliver the SOTU response from a kitchen.”

Tim Miller, the former Jeb Bush aide turned ex-Republican, called the kitchen setting “creepy” and said it made former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s much-maligned response to Barack Obama in 2009 “look like the Finest Hour speech.”

Brendan Buck, a former senior adviser to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), also acknowledged that Britt’s “delivery was unfortunate.”

“She was clearly overcoached,” Buck said on MSNBC.

Britt went for a dramatic performance with her State of the Union rebuttal, casting Biden as a failed president and arguing that the GOP was the best option for regular working families.

But the senator's delivery turned out to be so dramatic that it ended up being distracting at best and disingenuous at worst.

Allie Beth Stuckey, a conservative commentator, posted on X Friday morning that Britt had genuine appeal in coming across like "the moms at the school drop off" and praised the kitchen setting.

"But the delivery was parody-level terrible, and I promise that didn’t sway any of those suburban moms we’re trying to reach," Stuckey wrote.

State of the Union responses from rising stars in the opposing party are notorious for generating awkward, unflattering moments that can follow a politician through an otherwise solid career. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is still remembered for awkwardly taking a sip of water during his response speech over a decade ago.

The GOP strategist who called Britt's performance a disaster likened it to Rubio’s water moment—but they said Britt was actually worse and that she “lowered her stature” in doing it.

A Britt spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Michelangelo Signorile at The Signorile Report:

Four years ago, as she was ascending to the Supreme Court, I wrote right here on The Signorile Report that “Amy Coney Barrett will destroy marriage equality.” And now she’s appeared to confirm it’s coming, writing the majority opinion last week in Department of State v. Muñoz. Barrett and others in the majority were called out by the three liberals on the court in a powerful dissenting opinion—and even by Justice Neal Gorsuch to an extent, in a concurrence—who zeroed in on how Barrett and other conservatives unnecessarily, and disturbingly, stripped the rights of marriage in a ruling on an immigration case.

The case centered on Sandra Muñoz, a Los Angeles woman and U.S. citizen, who argued that her constitutional rights were violated when the federal government denied a visa to her Salvadoran husband, an undocumented immigrant. As The Los Angeles Times notes, the case is “a major setback for Americans with foreign spouses because it explicitly rejects the idea that a citizen has a constitutional right to attempt to bring their noncitizen spouse into the country.” More than that, as Justice Sotomayor wrote in her very strong dissenting opinion, which opened by quoting from the court’s Oberbefell marriage equality decision, the majority’s decision stripped marriage as a “fundamental” right that is a “matter of tradition and history.”

Muñoz demanded to know the reason why her husband was denied a visa, since, as is standard practice, the State Department would not tell her. Via her lawsuit, the claims of which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed—ruling her husband should get a visa because not doing so infringed on Muñoz’s marriage rights—she found out the dubious reason: The government claimed her husband had tattoos that were gang-related, something an expert on gangs refuted. And, as Gorsuch wrote, that should have been the end of the case. Muñoz got what she sought—the basis of the government’s denial—and, even as the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s decision, she and her husband could try to get a visa again. There was absolutely no reason for the Supreme Court to go any further than that.

[...] Biden and the Democrats got the “Respect for Marriage Act” passed—a bill that foresaw the possible overturning of Obergefell, after Thomas’s concurring opinion in Dobbs. The law will not stop states from banning marriage equality in their own states if the court sent the issue back to the states, as it did with the issue of abortion. But it codifies recognition by the federal government of same-sex marriage—for the purposes of Social Security survivorship, for example—and mandates that states that ban same-sex marriage in their own states must recognize marriages of gay and lesbian couples married in other states, even if their own residents go to another state to marry. You can bet that if Donald Trump and the GOP get into power, they'll repeal the Respect for Marriage Act. More than that, only with Democrats and Biden in power can we pressure both to finally move forward on expanding the Supreme Court.

As SCOTUS Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in the dissent for the Department of State v. Muñoz case that cited Obergefell, marriage equality is under serious danger.

[ngdrb]

The Dangers of the MAGA Movement: An Objective Analysis

The "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement, popularized by former President Donald Trump, has been one of the most influential and polarizing political movements in recent American history. While it has garnered a significant base of support, it has also raised concerns about its potential dangers. This blog post explores the various aspects of the MAGA movement, analyzing its possible risks and the implications for the future of American society.

Historical Context

The MAGA movement originated during Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, with the slogan "Make America Great Again" appealing to many Americans who felt left behind by globalization and economic changes. The movement's core message was to restore America's former glory by focusing on national interests, reducing immigration, and renegotiating trade deals.

Potential Dangers

1. Polarization and Division

One of the most significant dangers of the MAGA movement is its contribution to political polarization and division. The rhetoric often used by its leaders and supporters can be divisive, pitting different groups against each other based on factors such as race, religion, or political affiliation. This polarization can lead to a fractured society where constructive dialogue becomes difficult, and consensus on critical issues is nearly impossible to achieve.

The Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, spearheaded by former President Donald Trump, has sparked significant controversy and raised concerns about its potential impact on the fabric of American society. While the movement's rhetoric appeals to a sense of patriotism and a desire for national prosperity, it has also been criticized for promoting divisive and extreme views.

One of the primary dangers associated with the MAGA movement is the perpetuation of divisive rhetoric and the potential for fueling social tensions. The movement's narrative often portrays a stark divide between "true Americans" and those perceived as outsiders or threats, leading to a polarized and fragmented society. This divisiveness can undermine the principles of unity, inclusivity, and respect for diversity that are fundamental to a healthy democracy.

Additionally, the MAGA movement has been linked to the rise of extreme ideologies and fringe groups with radical agendas. While the movement itself may not explicitly endorse violence, its rhetoric and messaging have been co-opted by individuals and organizations that promote hate, intolerance, and in some cases, violent extremism. This association raises concerns about the potential normalization of extremist views and the potential for escalating tensions and conflicts.

Furthermore, the MAGA movement's skepticism towards mainstream media and its embrace of alternative sources of information have contributed to the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories. This erosion of trust in authoritative sources and the blurring of fact and fiction can undermine the ability of citizens to make informed decisions and foster an environment where disinformation thrives.

It is crucial to acknowledge that the MAGA movement represents a diverse range of perspectives and individuals, and not all supporters espouse extreme or divisive views. However, the concerns raised about its rhetoric, associations, and potential consequences for social cohesion and democratic norms should be carefully examined and addressed through open and constructive dialogue.

2. Undermining Democratic Principles: A Narrative of Decay

One of the primary concerns surrounding the MAGA movement is its alleged erosion of democratic norms and institutions. Critics have pointed to the movement's repeated allegations of widespread voter fraud and its refusal to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election as undermining trust in the electoral process. Additionally, the movement's attacks on the free press and labeling of unfavorable coverage as "fake news" have been seen as attempts to discredit a vital component of a healthy democracy.

The MAGA movement has also been criticized for its divisive rhetoric and embrace of extreme views. The movement's nationalist and populist messaging has been accused of fostering an "us versus them" mentality, pitting different groups against one another based on race, religion, or political affiliation. Additionally, some fringe elements within the movement have been linked to white supremacist ideologies and conspiracy theories, raising concerns about the normalization of extremist views.

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of the MAGA movement is its potential for inciting violence. The movement has been blamed for emboldening individuals and groups with a propensity for violence, as evidenced by the events surrounding the January 6th insurrection at the United States Capitol. The inflammatory rhetoric and unwillingness to accept electoral outcomes have been cited as contributing factors to the violence witnessed on that day.

As the MAGA movement continues to evolve and shape political discourse, it is crucial to maintain a critical and objective perspective. While the movement may resonate with some segments of the population, its potential impact on democratic institutions, its divisive rhetoric, and its association with extremist elements and violence should be carefully examined and addressed.

3. Divisive Rhetoric and Extreme Views

The MAGA movement has been criticized for its divisive rhetoric, which often targets minority groups, immigrants, and political opponents. Extreme views and conspiracy theories have found a foothold within certain factions of the movement, fueling an "us versus them" mentality. This polarization can erode social trust, undermine democratic institutions, and potentially lead to violence.

The MAGA movement has sometimes been associated with extremist groups and individuals. Events such as the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, highlight the potential for violent actions stemming from extreme ideological beliefs. The normalization of extremist rhetoric can lead to an increase in hate crimes and domestic terrorism, posing a threat to public safety and national security.

The movement's stance on immigration and its often-nationalist rhetoric can have adverse effects on minority groups. Policies perceived as anti-immigrant or exclusionary can foster an environment of fear and discrimination. This can lead to social unrest and a further divide between different communities within the country, undermining the principles of equality and unity.

While the MAGA movement promises economic prosperity, its protectionist and isolationist tendencies could have unintended consequences. Strained relationships with international allies, trade disputes, and a focus on domestic industries may hinder global competitiveness and economic growth in the long run.

It is crucial to examine the MAGA movement through an objective and fact-based lens, recognizing both its potential benefits and risks. A balanced and inclusive approach, grounded in democratic values and respect for diversity, is essential to address the concerns raised and foster unity within the nation.

4. Strained International Relations

The MAGA movement, centered on "America First," prioritizes domestic interests over global cooperation, which can strain international relations. Policies such as renegotiating trade deals and withdrawing from international agreements reflect an isolationist stance that may provoke tensions with other nations. This approach risks diminishing America's influence globally by reducing its role in collaborative efforts and undermining established alliances. The emphasis on unilateral actions could hinder international cooperation on crucial issues like climate change, security, and economic stability. Furthermore, it may isolate the United States diplomatically, weakening its ability to shape global policies and responses effectively. In essence, while "America First" policies aim to prioritize national interests, they potentially sacrifice broader international partnerships and leadership roles, impacting both global stability and America's standing on the world stage.

Conclusion

While the MAGA movement has undoubtedly resonated with a significant portion of the American population, it is essential to consider its potential dangers. The risks of increased polarization, erosion of democratic norms, rise of extremism, negative impact on minority groups, and strained international relations are serious concerns that need to be addressed. Moving forward, all political movements must strive for unity, uphold democratic principles, and promote inclusivity to ensure a stable and prosperous future for all Americans.

By understanding and acknowledging these potential dangers, we can work towards mitigating them and fostering a more cohesive and resilient society.

[todaysdocument]

Telegram to President Woodrow Wilson from Jane Addams and Other Women Regarding the Deportation of Emmeline Pankhurst

Record Group 85: Records of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Series: Subject and Policy Files File Unit: Appeal of Mrs. Emmeline Pankhurst for admittance for visit, English Suffragette

This telegram petitioned the Department of Labor and their decision to deport Emmeline Pankhurst, a British suffragette. The authors wanted the board to reconsider and maintain "America's devotion to liberty."

Telegram The White House, Washington 6 PO.FD. 283 139 extra 10:25 p.m. Sa, Chicago, Ill., October 18, 1913. The President. Whereas, the Associated Press reports to the American public that Mrs. Pankhurst's deportation has been ordered by the board of inquiry at Ellis Island and, Whereas, such action is in direct violation of the traditions and customs of the United States which has always been hospitable to the political offenders and revolutionists of all nations, and, Whereas, our sister republic, France, is at the present moment sheltering Christabel Pankhurst, Now, therefore, be it resolved: That we, the undersigned women of Chicago, protest against this flagrant violation of our long established public policy, and, Be it further resolved: That we respectively petition the Department of Labor in reviewing the case of this distinguished English woman to reconsider the decision of the Board of Inquiry and to admit Mrs. Pankhurst; thus maintaining the high traditions of America's devotion to liberty and right of free speech. (Signed) Jane Addams, Louise DeKoven Bowen, Mary Rozette Smith, Mary McDowell, Margaret Dreier Robins, Harriet Taylor Treadwell, President Chicago Political Equality League; Margaret A. Haley, Business Representative Chicago Teachers' Federation; Ida L. M. Furstman, President Chicago Teachers' Federation; Mrs. Harriet S. Thompson, Director Chicago Political Equality League; Edith A. Phelps, Anna Nichols, Laura Dainty Pelham,

Telegram The White House, Washington 6 PO. Sheet 2- Chicago, Ill., Octo. 18, 1913. to the President. Stella Miles Franklin, Kathleen Hamill, Mary Foulke Morrisson, Anna Monroe, Edith Wyatt, Caroline Packard, Leonora Pease, Secretary Socialist Women's League; Mrs. L. Brackett Bishop, Marion M. Griffin, Margaret B. Dobyne, Mary E. Galvin, Judith W. Loewenthal, Agnes Nestor, E. Beatrix Dauchy, Belle Squire, Anna Willard Timneus, Emma Steghagen, Grace Wilbur Trout, Florence Holbrook, Catharine Goggin, Mary Anderson, Sophonisba Breckinridge, Edith Abbott, Esther Dresden, President Young Women's Suffrage Association; Amy Walker, Francis Harden, Anna Harden, Catharine Goggin, Mary V. Donoghue, Wilma Rhinesmith, Julia Donoghue, Serina Hayes, May E. Brown.

[mitchipedia]

Trump threatens to jail adversaries in escalating rhetoric ahead of pivotal debate.

The Associated Press, via the Las Vegas Sun:

Trump’s message represents his latest threat to use the office of the presidency to exact retribution if he wins a second term. There is no evidence of the kind of fraud he continues to insist marred the 2020 election; in fact, dozens of courts, Republican state officials and his own administration have said he lost fairly.

Just days ago, Trump himself acknowledged in a podcast interview that he had indeed “lost by a whisker.”

While Trump’s campaign aides and allies have urged him to keep his focus on Harris and make the election a referendum on issues like inflation and border security, Trump in recent days has veered far off course.

On Friday, he delivered a stunning statement to news cameras in which he brought up a string of past allegations of sexual misconduct, describing several in graphic detail, even as he denied his accusers’ allegations. Earlier, he had voluntarily appeared in court for a hearing on the appeal of a decision that found him liable for sexual abuse, turning focus to his legal woes in the campaign’s final stretch.

Earlier Saturday, Trump had leaned into familiar grievances about everything from his indictments to Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election as he campaigned in one of the most deeply Republican swaths of battleground Wisconsin.

“The Harris-Biden DOJ is trying to throw me in jail — they want me in jail — for the crime of exposing their corruption,” Trump claimed at an outdoor rally at Central Wisconsin Airport, where he spoke behind a wall of bulletproof glass due to new security protocols following his July assassination attempt.

There’s no evidence that President Joe Biden or Harris have had any influence over decisions by the Justice Department or state prosecutors to indict the former president.

…

Harris campaign spokesperson Sarafina Chitika responded to his comments with a statement warning that, if Trump is reelected, he will “use his unchecked power to prosecute his enemies and pardon insurrectionists who violently attacked our Capitol on January 6."

…

As Trump was campaigning, Harris took a short break from debate prep to visit Penzeys Spices in Pittsburgh’s Strip District, where she bought several seasoning mixes. One customer saw the Democratic nominee and began openly weeping as Harris hugged her and said, “We’re going to be fine. We’re all in this together.”

Harris said she was honored to have endorsements from two major Republicans: former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter, Liz Cheney, the former Wyoming congresswoman.

“People are exhausted, about the division and the attempts to kind of divide us as Americans,” she said, adding that her main message at the debate would be that the country wants to be united.

“It’s time to turn the page on the divisiveness,” she said. “It’s time to bring our country together, to chart a new way forward.”

Trump held his rally in the central Wisconsin city of Mosinee, with a population of about 4,500 people. It is within Wisconsin’s mostly rural 7th Congressional District, a reliably Republican area in a purple state.

During his speech, he railed against Harris in dark and ominous language, claiming that if the woman he calls “Comrade Kamala Harris gets four more years, you will be living (in) a full-blown Banana Republic" ruled by “anarchy” and “tyranny.”

Trump also railed against the administration’s border policies, calling the Democrats’ approach “suicidal" and accusing them of having “imported murderers, child predators and serial rapists from all over the planet."

Many studies have found immigrants, including those in the country illegally, commit fewer violent crimes than native-born citizens. Violent crime in the U.S. dropped again last year, continuing a downward trend after a pandemic-era spike.