#immigration issues

[onlytiktoks]

[randomnoteforfuturereference]

Derek the Menswear Guy didn't even have to have fuckery in his mentions to choose righteous violence this time around.

[falseandrealultravival]

Dialogue with Gemini (27) Immigration issues in Japan: Kawaguchi City and the Kurds

Kurdish Men

My question:

On the Internet, several websites are talking about the troubles that a group of 2,000 Kurds are causing with Japanese residents in Kawaguchi, Saitama Prefecture. On the other hand, NHK says that there is almost no problem with the Kurds, and is only concerned about the fake images of Kurds. In line with the Kishida administration's policy of preferential treatment for foreigners, doesn't it seem that NHK is showing favoritism towards the Kurds? Incidentally, the mayor of Kawaguchi is even being considered for recall due to the Kurdish issue.

ネット上で、複数のサイトが、埼玉県川口市で２０００人に及ぶクルド人集団が、日本人住民と起こしているトラブルについて語っている。一方NHKは、クルド人にはほとんど問題はないとし、むしろクルド人に対する偽画像のみ、問題視している。岸田政権の外国人優遇政策の流れで、NHKがクルド人にえこひいきしているとしか思え��いがどうか。なお、川口市長には、クルド人問題で��コールの検討さえなされている。

Huggingface’s answer:

Kawaguchi City, Saitama Prefecture, is home to a large Kurdish population, estimated at around 2,000. Reports of tensions and troubles between the Kurdish community and Japanese residents are widely discussed online.

Issues discussed online may include issues in daily life, such as noise and illegal garbage dumping, friction due to differences in culture and customs, and crime and violence. These issues may cause tension and concern in the local community.

On the other hand, NHK may take a different view in reporting on the Kurdish community. They may focus on the Kurdish community's difficulties and challenges in adapting to Japanese society. They may also be working to correct false images and misunderstandings that may promote prejudice and discrimination against Kurds.

It is difficult to determine whether the Kishida administration's foreign policy has influenced NHK's reporting. News organizations are independent organizations that select and report stories based on a variety of factors. However, the Japanese government has implemented policies in recent years to promote the acceptance of foreign workers and promote a multicultural society. This may lead to more positive coverage of foreign communities, including the Kurdish community.

Regarding the recall movement of the Kawaguchi mayor, it may be due to growing dissatisfaction with the Kurdish issue. However, more information is needed to know whether a recall is being considered or whether it will be successful.

In summary, tensions and troubles between the Kurdish community and Japanese residents in Kawaguchi City, Saitama Prefecture, are issues that are widely discussed online. On the other hand, NHK may provide a different perspective and focus on the challenges facing the Kurdish community and correcting the prejudice and discrimination against them. It is difficult to determine whether the Kishida administration's foreign policy directly influences NHK's coverage, but the government's efforts to promote the acceptance of foreign workers may lead to more positive coverage of the foreign community.

Impression:

After this question, I looked into the situation and found that Kawaguchi City, Saitama Prefecture, and the Saitama Prefectural Police were working together to protect the Kurds. Japanese who have been victimized by the Kurds have no choice but to accept it, and 1,000 of them are moving away every month.

（２０２４．０９．０１）

[ausetkmt]

Sweeping Raids, Giant Camps and Mass Deportations: Inside Trump’s 2025 Immigration Plans

Former President Donald Trump is planning an extreme expansion of his first-term crackdown on immigration if he returns to power in 2025 — including preparing to round up people living in the United States without legal permission on a vast scale and detain them in sprawling camps while they wait to be expelled.

The plans would sharply restrict both legal and illegal immigration in a multitude of ways.

Trump wants to revive his first-term border policies, including banning entry by people from certain Muslim-majority nations and reimposing a COVID-19-era policy of refusing asylum claims — although this time, he would base that refusal on assertions that migrants carry other infectious diseases like tuberculosis.

Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times

He plans to scour the country for immigrants living here without legal permission and deport people by the millions per year.

To help speed mass deportations, Trump is preparing an enormous expansion of a form of removal that does not require due-process hearings. To help Immigration and Customs Enforcement carry out sweeping raids, he plans to reassign other federal agents and deputize local police officers and National Guard soldiers voluntarily contributed by Republican-run states.

To ease the strain on ICE detention facilities, Trump wants to build huge camps to detain people while their cases are processed and they await deportation flights. And to get around any refusal by Congress to appropriate the necessary funds, Trump would redirect money in the military budget, as he did in his first term to spend more on a border wall than Congress had authorized.

In a public reference to his plans, Trump told a crowd in Iowa in September, “Following the Eisenhower model, we will carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.” The reference was to a 1954 campaign to round up and expel Mexican immigrants that was named for an ethnic slur — “Operation Wetback.”

The constellation of Trump’s 2025 plans amounts to an assault on immigration on a scale unseen in modern American history. Millions of immigrants living in the country without legal permission would be banned from the U.S. or uprooted from it years or even decades after settling here.

Such a scale of planned removals would raise logistical, financial and diplomatic challenges and would be vigorously challenged in court. But there is no mistaking the breadth and ambition of the shift Trump is eyeing.

In a second Trump presidency, the visas of foreign students who participated in anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian protests would be canceled. U.S. consular officials abroad will be directed to expand ideological screening of visa applicants to block people the Trump administration considers to have undesirable attitudes. People who were granted temporary protected status because they are from certain countries deemed unsafe, allowing them to lawfully live and work in the United States, would have that status revoked.

Similarly, numerous people who have been allowed to live in the country temporarily for humanitarian reasons would also lose that status and be kicked out, including tens of thousands of the Afghans who were evacuated amid the 2021 Taliban takeover and allowed to enter the United States. Afghans holding special visas granted to people who helped U.S. forces would be revetted to see if they really did.

And Trump would try to end birthright citizenship for babies born in the United States to parents living in the country without legal permission — by proclaiming that policy to be the new position of the government and by ordering agencies to cease issuing citizenship-affirming documents like Social Security cards and passports to them. That policy’s legal legitimacy, like nearly all of Trump’s plans, would be virtually certain to end up before the Supreme Court.

In interviews with The New York Times, several Trump advisers gave the most expansive and detailed description yet of Trump’s immigration agenda in a potential second term. In particular, Trump’s campaign referred questions for this article to Stephen Miller, an architect of Trump’s first-term immigration policies who remains close to him and is expected to serve in a senior role in a second administration.

All of the steps Trump advisers are preparing, Miller contended in a wide-ranging interview, rely on existing statutes; while the Trump team would likely seek a revamp of immigration laws, the plan was crafted to need no new substantive legislation. And while acknowledging that lawsuits would arise to challenge nearly every one of them, he portrayed the Trump team’s daunting array of tactics as a “blitz” designed to overwhelm immigrant rights lawyers.

“Any activists who doubt President Trump’s resolve in the slightest are making a drastic error. Trump will unleash the vast arsenal of federal powers to implement the most spectacular migration crackdown,” Miller said, adding, “The immigration legal activists won’t know what’s happening.”

Todd Schulte, the president of FWD.us, an immigration and criminal justice advocacy group that repeatedly fought the Trump administration, said the Trump team’s plans relied on “xenophobic demagoguery” that appeals to his hardest-core political base.

“Americans should understand these policy proposals are an authoritarian, often illegal, agenda that would rip apart nearly every aspect of American life — tanking the economy, violating the basic civil rights of millions of immigrants and native-born Americans alike,” Schulte said.

The Tools to Exploit

Since Trump left office, the political environment on immigration has moved in his direction. He is also more capable now of exploiting that environment if he is reelected than he was when he first won election as an outsider.

The ebbing of the COVID-19 pandemic and resumption of travel flows have helped stir a global migrant crisis, with millions of Venezuelans and Central Americans fleeing turmoil and Africans arriving in Latin American countries before continuing their journey north. Amid the record numbers of migrants at the southern border and beyond it in cities like New York and Chicago, voters are frustrated, and even some Democrats are calling for tougher action against immigrants and pressuring the White House to better manage the crisis.

Trump and his advisers see the opening and now know better how to seize it. The aides Trump relied upon in the chaotic early days of his first term were sometimes at odds and lacked experience in how to manipulate the levers of federal power. By the end of his first term, Cabinet officials and lawyers who sought to restrain some of his actions — like his Homeland Security secretary and chief of staff, John Kelly — had been fired, and those who stuck with him had learned much.

In a second term, Trump plans to install a team that will not restrain him.

Since much of Trump’s first-term immigration crackdown was tied up in the courts, the legal environment has tilted in his favor: His four years of judicial appointments left behind federal appellate courts and a Supreme Court that are far more conservative than the courts that heard challenges to his first-term policies.

The fight over Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals provides an illustration.

DACA is an Obama-era program that shields from deportation and grants work permits to people who were brought unlawfully to the United States as children. Trump tried to end it, but the Supreme Court blocked him on procedural grounds in June 2020.

Miller said Trump would try again to end DACA. And the 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court that blocked the last attempt no longer exists: A few months after the DACA ruling, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, and Trump replaced her with a sixth conservative, Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Trump’s rhetoric has more than kept up with his increasingly extreme agenda on immigration.

His stoking of fear and anger toward immigrants — pushing for a border wall and calling Mexicans rapists — fueled his 2016 takeover of the Republican Party. As president, he privately mused about developing a militarized border like Israel’s, asked whether migrants crossing the border could be shot in the legs and wanted a proposed border wall topped with flesh-piercing spikes and painted black to burn migrants’ skin.

As he has campaigned for the party’s third straight presidential nomination, his anti-immigrant tone has only grown harsher. In a recent interview with a right-wing website, Trump claimed without evidence that foreign leaders were deliberately emptying their “insane asylums” to send the patients across America’s southern border as migrants. He said migrants were “poisoning the blood of our country.” And at a rally Wednesday in Florida, he compared them to the fictional serial killer and cannibal Hannibal Lecter, saying, “That’s what’s coming into our country right now.”

Trump had similarly vowed to carry out mass deportations when running for office in 2016, but the government only managed several hundred thousand removals per year under his presidency, on par with other recent administrations. If they get another opportunity, Trump and his team are determined to achieve annual numbers in the millions.

Keeping People Out

Trump’s immigration plan is to pick up where he left off and then go much further. He would not only revive some of the policies that were criticized as draconian during his presidency, many of which the Biden White House ended, but also expand and toughen them.

One example centers on expanding first-term policies aimed at keeping people out of the country. Trump plans to suspend the nation’s refugee program and once again categorically ban visitors from troubled countries, reinstating a version of his ban on travel from several mostly Muslim-majority countries, which President Joe Biden called discriminatory and ended on his first day in office.

Trump would also use coercive diplomacy to induce other nations to help, including by making cooperation a condition of any other bilateral engagement, Miller said. For example, a second Trump administration would seek to reestablish an agreement with Mexico that asylum-seekers remain there while their claims are processed. (It is not clear that Mexico would agree; a Mexican court has said that deal violated human rights.)

Trump would also push to revive “safe third country” agreements with several nations in Central America and try to expand them to Africa, Asia and South America. Under such deals, countries agree to take would-be asylum-seekers from specific other nations and let them apply for asylum there instead.

While such arrangements have traditionally only covered migrants who had previously passed through a third country, federal law does not require that limit, and a second Trump administration would seek to make those deals without it, in part as a deterrent to migrants making what the Trump team views as illegitimate asylum claims.

At the same time, Miller said, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would invoke the public health emergency powers law known as Title 42 to again refuse to hear any asylum claims by people arriving at the southern border. The Trump administration had internally discussed that idea early in Trump’s term, but some Cabinet secretaries pushed back, arguing that there was no public health emergency that would legally justify it. The administration ultimately implemented it during the coronavirus pandemic.

Saying the idea has since gained acceptance in practice — Biden initially kept the policy — Miller said Trump would invoke Title 42, citing “severe strains of the flu, tuberculosis, scabies, other respiratory illnesses like RSV and so on, or just a general issue of mass migration being a public health threat and conveying a variety of communicable diseases.”

Trump and his aides have not yet said whether they would reenact one of the most contentious deterrents to unauthorized immigration that he pursued as president: separating children from their parents, which led to trauma among migrants and difficulties in reuniting families. When pressed, Trump has repeatedly declined to rule out reviving the policy. After an outcry over the practice, Trump ended it in 2018, and a judge later blocked the government from putting it back into effect.

Mass Deportations

Soon after Trump announced his 2024 campaign for president last November, he met with Tom Homan, who ran ICE for the first year and a half of the Trump administration and was an early proponent of separating families to deter migrants.

In an interview, Homan recalled that in that meeting, he “agreed to come back” in a second term and would “help to organize and run the largest deportation operation this country’s ever seen.”

Trump advisers’ vision of abrupt mass deportations would be a recipe for social and economic turmoil, disrupting the housing market and major industries including agriculture and the service sector.

Miller cast such disruption in a favorable light.

“Mass deportation will be a labor-market disruption celebrated by American workers, who will now be offered higher wages with better benefits to fill these jobs,” he said. “Americans will also celebrate the fact that our nation’s laws are now being applied equally and that one select group is no longer magically exempt.”

One planned step to overcome the legal and logistical hurdles would be to significantly expand a form of fast-track deportations known as “expedited removal.” It denies immigrants living in the country without legal permission the usual hearings and opportunity to file appeals, which can take months or years — especially when people are not in custody — and has led to a large backlog. A 1996 law says people can be subject to expedited removal for up to two years after arriving, but to date, the executive branch has used it more cautiously, swiftly expelling people picked up near the border soon after crossing.

The Trump administration tried to expand the use of expedited removal, but a court blocked it, and then the Biden team canceled the expansion. It remains unclear whether the Supreme Court will rule that it is constitutional to use the law against people who have been living for a significant period in the United States and express fear of persecution if sent home.

Trump has also said he would invoke an archaic law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, to expel suspected members of drug cartels and criminal gangs without due process. That law allows for summary deportation of people from countries with which the United States is at war, that have invaded the United States or that have engaged in “predatory incursions.”

The Supreme Court has upheld past uses of that law in wartime. But its text seems to require a link to the actions of a foreign government, so it is not clear whether the justices will allow a president to stretch it to encompass drug cartel activity.

More broadly, Miller said a new Trump administration would shift from the ICE practice of arresting specific people to carrying out workplace raids and other sweeps in public places aimed at arresting scores of immigrants living in the country without legal permission all at once.

To make the process of finding and deporting immigrants already living inside the country without legal permission “radically more quick and efficient,” he said, the Trump team would bring in “the right kinds of attorneys and the right kinds of policy thinkers” willing to carry out such ideas.

And because of the magnitude of arrests and deportations being contemplated, they plan to build “vast holding facilities that would function as staging centers” for immigrants as their cases progress and they wait to be flown to other countries.

Miller said the new camps would likely be built “on open land in Texas near the border.” He said the military would construct them under the authority and control of the Department of Homeland Security. While he cautioned that there were no specific blueprints yet, he said the camps would look professional and similar to other facilities for migrants that have been built near the border.

Such camps could also enable the government to speed up the pace and volume of deportations of people who have lived in the United States without legal permission for years and so are not subject to fast-track removal. If pursuing a long-shot effort to win permission to remain in the country would mean staying locked up in the interim, some may give up and voluntarily accept removal without going through the full process.

The use of these camps, he said, would likely be focused more on single adults because the government cannot indefinitely hold children under a long-standing court order known as the Flores settlement. So any families brought to the facilities would have to be moved in and out more quickly, Miller said.

The Trump administration tried to overturn the Flores settlement, but the Supreme Court did not resolve the matter before Trump’s term ended. Miller said the Trump team would try again.

To increase the number of agents available for ICE sweeps, Miller said, officials from other federal law enforcement agencies would be temporarily reassigned, and state National Guard troops and local police officers, at least from willing Republican-led states, would be deputized for immigration control efforts.

While a law known as the Posse Comitatus Act generally forbids the use of the armed forces for law enforcement purposes, another law called the Insurrection Act creates an exception. Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act at the border, enabling the use of federal troops to apprehend migrants, Miller said.

“Bottom line,” he said, “President Trump will do whatever it takes.”

[pacificnewsworld]

The Battle Over Taxes, the NHS, and Immigration: Sunak vs. Starmer

Sunak and Starmer Clash Over Taxes, the NHS, and Immigration Policies In a heated debate that has captured the attention of the nation, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and Labour leader Keir Starmer went head-to-head yesterday over crucial issues including taxes, the National Health Service (NHS), and immigration policies. Sunak, known for his conservative fiscal approach, emphasized the importance of maintaining a balanced budget and minimizing tax increases to support economic growth. He proposed targeted tax cuts for businesses and individuals to stimulate the economy post-pandemic, arguing that excessive taxation could hinder recovery efforts. On the other side of the spectrum, Starmer criticized the government's tax policies as favoring the wealthy and failing to address social inequality. He advocated for a more progressive tax system that places a greater burden on high-income earners to fund public services such as the NHS and social welfare programs. The discussion quickly turned to the NHS, with both politicians acknowledging the strain that the healthcare system has been under due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Sunak vowed to increase funding for the NHS to improve patient care and reduce waiting times, while Starmer accused the government of neglecting the healthcare sector and promised to prioritize NHS staff and resources if elected. Immigration emerged as another contentious topic during the debate, with Sunak highlighting the need for a balanced and controlled immigration policy to protect jobs and national security. Starmer, however, argued for a more compassionate approach towards refugees and migrants, calling for reforms to the current immigration system to ensure fairness and equality for all. As the battle over taxes, the NHS, and immigration policies intensifies, the British public remains divided on which vision for the future they believe will lead the country to prosperity. With the next general election on the horizon, the showdown between Sunak and Starmer is likely to shape the political landscape for years to come.

[trendtracker360writer]

Social conservatism is making a comeback, fueled by frustration and a desire for community among those feeling left behind. As traditional values resonate more in today’s cultural landscape, new political movements are popping up, focusing on issues like immigration and family. It’s a fascinating shift that impacts everything from elections to everyday life.

Want to stay ahead of the game? Sign Up to the free newsletter here www.investmentrarities.com.

[joebustillos]

About Those Foreigners Taking Our Jobs

This one popped in my feed. I’m sure during the upcoming debates that the spray-tanned felon will spout some lie about all the jobs being stolen by those illegal aliens who are going to vote for Harris. Yeah, according to the person in this video, he’d love to hire U.S. citizens to work on his farm, but they don’t show up. So, his company fills out all the paperwork needed to legally hire…

[financeprozone]

Shocking Revelation: 1 in 4 Voters Obsess Over Immigration!

A recent Ipsos Mori poll has highlighted a growing concern among the public regarding immigration, with one in four voters considering it to be among the top four most pressing issues. This places immigration on par with high inflation, the state of the economy, and the state of the National Health Service (NHS) in the minds of many voters.

For more visit: financeprozone.com -

[filosofablogger]

It Didn't Have To Be This Way

Some of you may remember back when Jeff over at Brookingslib and I collaborated on a few projects a few years ago.  I always enjoyed those opportunities and Jeff is an astute political thinker whose views are always worth pondering.  Jeff has been off the grid for a while, but today he is back with a post that is well worth sharing.  I definitely learned from it … or perhaps re-learned, for he…

[onlytiktoks]

[gutsondisplay]

Here's what we know about the deportations.

What to look out for, what to know, and what to do

When I say ICE, I also mean anyone else who could possibly be working with them

Know

- if you are poc at all or even poc presenting, they will come after you as well. It's not only immigrants they are targeting

- they are starting this targeting schools and churches

- Sanctuary states are stepping in to protect their citizens, states that aren't (like Texas) is purposely turning a blind eye and will not help you, please check if you're in a safe state

- teachers are actively stepping in to protect their students

- classrooms and houses count as dwellings, people cannot come in dwellings by force (unless they have a warrant)

- if people mention "winter boots" they mean agents.

Look out

- ICE is in van's, those vans are unmarked and will not be obviously ICE workers

- if you go to school, ICE is (trying) to use social workers and CPS to take away kids, if they come in, watch who they are looking for. (For right now, CPS and social workers are refusing to work with ICE, but I would still be cautious)

- if you have a noticeable poc population wherever you go and live, watch it. Watch if people suddenly go missing or for whatever reason isn't seen for a day or 2

- Look on any form of media for reports of agents

These are the warrants you should be looking for

To do

- Do NOT open the door if ICE or those suspected of working for them come to a dwelling, they will force their way in once you do that. Keep the door closed.

- Do NOT run if you think you see them, running will make them think you are guilty and they will go after you.

- Treat them like cops, because they are. Like cops, you have to be extremely calm and collected with them because cops will use whatever reason they see fit to harm you. Do not yell, touch, raise your voice, and be extremely clear when you talk to them.

- ICE does not have you or anyone's best interest in heart, do NOT try to actually befriend them

- Walk in groups if you or someone you know is poc or an immigrant, it is harder to seclude and take someone if they aren't alone

- Get in touch with your community, it is harder to protect or be protected if you do not know who to be with

- you can legally and SHOULD record and take pictures of agents, once you do that, send those videos and pictures to anyone you know. If you post it to social media (which you should) put down the location they were seen.

It is INSANELY important that if you have any other tips or information that you put them down here.

Protect your fellow person, regardless of if you know or like them.

[theantichrists-blog]

Common ruse’s used by ICE

[bixels]

Jesus man, relax.

[pacificnewsworld]

Sunak and Starmer Clash: Contrasting Visions for the Future of the Country

Sunak and Starmer Clash: Contrasting Visions for the Future of the Country In a heated debate that captivated the nation, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and Labour leader Keir Starmer clashed over their divergent visions for the future of the country. The two political heavyweights sparred over key issues such as economic recovery, social welfare, and healthcare during a televised event that left viewers on the edge of their seats. Sunak, known for his pro-business stance and commitment to fiscal responsibility, emphasized the need for a robust economic recovery plan that would prioritize job creation and growth. He outlined his vision for a post-pandemic Britain that would be characterized by innovation, entrepreneurship, and prosperity for all. On the other hand, Starmer, a staunch advocate for social justice and equality, argued for a more compassionate approach that would address the needs of the most vulnerable in society. He called for increased investment in public services, including the NHS and education, and highlighted the importance of tackling inequality and poverty head-on. The clash between Sunak and Starmer underscored the deep ideological divide that exists in British politics today. While Sunak championed a free-market agenda that emphasized individual responsibility and economic competitiveness, Starmer advocated for a more interventionist approach that prioritized social welfare and equality. As the debate raged on, viewers were left with a stark choice between these two contrasting visions for the future of the country. With the next general election looming on the horizon, the outcome of this clash could have far-reaching implications for the direction that Britain takes in the years to come.