#that’s just on par with being an undocumented Mexican immigrant:

[francis-mulcahys-angels]

Going to Cicero to visit my mom’s sister who she hasn’t seen in 20 years I love family reunions<3

[bclarkson21ahsgov]

Election 2020 Presidential Candidates Assessment

Howie Hawkins/Angela Nicole Walker, Green 

This candidate had a good section of bullet points on their views on some social and racial injustice issues. They seem to be with the norm on most of the topics left leaning slightly. Hawkins is pro open border and legal for undocumented immigrants. Most of it was equality for all and anti discrimination for all. I agree with all of the racial related topics except for the legal status for undocumented immigrants and open borders like within the European union. I believe that people should be heavely documented before coming in because the United States already has a very high unemployment rate, along with thousands of undocumented immigrants who have jobs which they lawfully should not have. The party’s views, and the candidate views match up perfectly; Both are pro immigrant, pro equality for all, including natives, blacks, Mexican, etc. 

Donald J. Trump/Michael R. Pence, Republican 

Trump’s site looked good obviously, but did not give anything that Trump wanted to do or is going to do, it only had accomplishments that he had. I know that he is running for his second term so most people know his stance on most topics, but for all new voters just young people in general it can seem arrogant to just have your accomplishments on your campaign site. There was not a section of the site that really covered my topic which follows the pattern of Trump not supporting the different ethnic groups and races. With what has been going on recently within the nation as the president there should be a huge section of what you have done with racial injustice issues if you want to have a chance winning the election. They did have a section on immigration which deals with ethnicity and race, but the section was mostly anti immigration views. Which some I agreed with, but some were just a little extreme.

Gloria La Riva/Sunil Freeman, Peace and Freedom 

This sight was very straightforward and easy to see their basic views and what they wanted in the future for the country. She is a section titled, “ End racism, police brutality and mass incarceration-Pay reparations to the African American community”. This states their view of the racial problems within the country and also what they want to fix or mend the broken relationship between the different races. Though I do not agree with paying reparations to black people with slave ancestors because it is almost impossible to track and truly give compensation with money. Also as a country that is in 21 plus trillion dollars of debt, we are not in the position to create this money to just give away. The candidate site and the party site were very similar, in both having the same stance on racial injustice, and also both being very well organized and straightforward. 

Roque De La Fuente "Rocky" Guerra/Kanye Omari West, American Independent 

This person did not have anything on racial issues of any sort. Their site looked good but was slim and didn't actually have much within it. I sent an email to the candidate asking for his stance on the issues at hand. 

Dear, Roque De La Fuente "Rocky" Guerra  

The issue I am concerned about is Racial injustice in America.  I am concerned about this issue because of what has happened in our country's recent past. I am currently a senior at Acalanes High School and I am researching this issue for my senior Government class.  Please clarify your stance on this issue.  Thank you so much for your time and good luck.

Sincerely,

Brayden Clarkson

brayden.clarkson21@auhsdschools.org

Jo Jorgensen/Jeremy "Spike" Cohen, Libertarian 

Jo had a terrific site, which had bundles of info on her stances and views. Though the site was well made, there was not a direct spot about racial injustice, but after reading it seemed that the candidate believed that poverty, crime, and incarceration problems were racial problems which is insulting. I don't like calling people racist, but to think that black, Mexicans, or anyone that is not white and those issues go hand and hand is a close minded viewing of the topic. 

Dear Jo Jorgensen,

The issue I am concerned about is Racial injustice.  I am concerned about this issue because your website does not have a specific section on the racial problems within the country as of late. I am currently a senior at Acalanes High School and I am researching this issue for my senior Government class.  Please clarify your stance on this issue.  Thank you so much for your time and good luck.

Sincerely,

Brayden Clarkson

brayden.clarkson21@auhsdschools.org

Joseph R. Biden/Kamala D. Harris, Democratic 

Biden’s site is well put together, and gives a clear stance and view on a lot of different topics. There is a section titled,  “THE BIDEN PLAN TO BUILD BACK BETTER BY ADVANCING RACIAL EQUITY ACROSS THE AMERICAN ECONOMY”. This section explains his plan to reform the racial injustice problems of today. I agree with the base that the black community along with native Americans, and any other races, ethnicities, or nationalities are have been discriminated against for hundreds of years and it needs to stop. But I do not agree with giving these people extra because I believe in equality not equity. Under the law all are created equal no matter your race or nationality. As long as you are a citizen you are equal under the law. His plan to stop racial problems is to just give, “Black and brown” people more which creates an unequal system. Which could just be turned the other way when white people start to say that it is unfair that black and brown people get all this extra stuff. Also if the country just gives black and brown people compensation, the white racist and anti semist are not going to change or alter their views, it might actually create a larger divide. The party and candidate site are on par with each other almost matching views perfectly. 

[rowandriftwood]

The Racist History of U.S. Immigration Policy & Citizenship Rights

This started as a Facebook rant, and then ballooned into a more comprehensive dissertation on the racist history of U.S. immigration policy and citizenship generally (or as comprehensive as a dissertation can be that was written in 6 hours in a sleep-deprived state).

I’m sure I missed some important points. Feel free to reblog with relevant information and corrections. Some of this was new information to me, and I may not have understood it perfectly, or explained it well. Please copy, paste, and share any or all of this information wherever you think it might do some good. Links are provided not only as sources, but also as starting points for additional reading about any of the topics summarized below.

Part I: Immigrants Are Not A Threat

The number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. has been slowly declining since it peaked in 2007. (i.e., there is no current immigration "crisis" in the U.S.)

Between 2009 and 2016, the number of undocumented immigrants from Mexico living in the U.S. declined by around 12.5%. (i.e. unauthorized immigration is not an issue of Mexicans "sneaking" across the U.S.'s southern border.)

The U.S. civilian workforce includes 8 million unauthorized immigrants (~5% of people working or unemployed and looking for work), down slightly from a peak of 8.3 million in 2008, but essentially more or less level since 2007. (i.e., no, undocumented immigrants are not coming here to leech off U.S. government benefits, which would be impossible for them to claim in any case.)

Only 6 U.S. states have seen an increase in the number of undocumented immigrants since 2009. 7 others have showed a decrease, and the rest have showed no change.

Since 2003, there has been a steady decline in the number of undocumented immigrants who have been in the U.S. 5 years or less, and a steady increase in the number who have been here 10 years or more. (i.e., an increasing share of the undocumented population are adults who have been contributing to the U.S. economy for at least a decade, living and working and raising their families here.)

Illegally crossing the border into the U.S. is a misdemeanor for first-time (adult) offenders, on par with such crimes as driving more than 25 mph over the speed limit or shoplifting, and carries a penalty of a fine or up to 6 months of jail time.

In 2014 42% of the undocumented population of the U.S., and 66% of new undocumented arrivals, were visa overstayers. (i.e., they entered the U.S. legally, but overstayed the terms of their visa, and would not have been prevented from entering the U.S. by a border wall.)

A growing number of people who do cross the U.S./Mexico border without a visa are refugees from Central America, fleeing violence, persecution, and poverty. By and large, they do not seek to evade border checkpoints, but openly present themselves and request political asylum. (i.e., they would not have been prevented from entering the U.S. by a border wall.)

The proposed border wall is a ludicrous and unconscionable waste of tax dollars, even if you believe stricter immigration standards are warranted.

Apart from the initial misdemeanor offense of being in the country illegally, undocumented immigrants are less likely (and in many cases, far less likely) than native-born U.S. citizens to engage in criminal activity, especially violent crime. (i.e., trying to blame a general crackdown on illegal immigration on gang violence is disingenuous.) 

[additional source on immigration and crime statistics] 

In summation: There is no immigration crisis in the U.S., and no real reason to be cracking down now, other than to score points with the party base, or as a distraction.

Part II: Legal Immigration Is Not A Reasonable Option For Most People

The process of legal immigration to the U.S. is opaque, complicated, expensive, time-consuming, restrictive. An applicant can do everything "right" and still end up waiting years or decades for a visa. 

Fewer than 1 million immigrants per year are granted permanent residency (green cards), out of 6 million applicants. That number includes asylum seekers. (Permanent residency is not the same thing as citizenship, which can take an additional 5 years.) 

No more than 7% of the green cards issued annually in the U.S. may be granted to citizens of any one country. This seriously limits immigration opportunities for people from more populous countries, such as Mexico, India, and China. 

Around 66% of legal immigrants are admitted to the U.S. on the basis of family ties (limited to children, parents, spouses, and fianc(e)és of citizens or legal permanent residents). Another 13% are granted employment visas. 17% are accepted for humanitarian reasons, such as refugees.

Legal immigration for the child or spouse of a legal permanent resident (green card holder) can take 5-10 years. This is a serious strain and hardship of family relationships.

Unless you are a highly skilled (and highly educated) immigrant in an in-demand field, obtaining an employment visa can take 6 years or longer.

In summation: unless you have money, a lot of free time, an outstanding skill set, a keen ability to cut through red tape and navigate bureaucracy, and/or a strong family support system already established in the U.S., you can forget about immigrating legally.

Part III: The History of Immigration and Citizenship Rights in the U.S. is Racist AF, in Case You Hadn’t Heard

The U.S. has a long history of restricting and withholding citizenship rights from people of "undesirable" ethnicities and nationalities (usually non-white). (i.e., there is no good historical precedent for equating legality with morality.)

The 3/5ths Compromise of 1787, written into Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, declared each enslaved African person to be counted as 3/5ths of a person, for the purpose of establishing proportional representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. Slaves were not, of course, represented by the new government, and were considered property rather than citizens under the law.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 granted U.S. citizenship to all free white residents "of good moral character" who had lived in America for at least two years, regardless of where they had been born. Subsequent laws passed in 1795 and 1798 increased the term of residency requirement.

The passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868 granted birthright citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., regardless of race or ethnicity (with the exception of Native Americans), cancelling out the 3/5ths Compromise.

In 1870, African immigrants were granted the right to become naturalized citizens. Non-white male citizens were granted voting rights by the 15th Amendment, but were often prevented from exercising them effectively by Jim Crow laws. Asian immigrants were still barred from becoming citizens.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 banned virtually all immigration from China until its repeal in 1943. It was the first immigration law passed by Congress.

The Dawes Act of 1887 granted citizenship to Native Americans who agreed to disassociate from their tribes. Native men who agreed to this were granted the right to vote. 

Throughout the 19th century, government policies routinely forced Native American tribes off the land they had occupied for centuries, in order to make more room for white European settlers. Today, Reservation lands make up only 2% of U.S. geography. Many Native traditions were outlawed, including traditional religious practices, in an attempt to destroy and erase Native cultures. Children were taken from their families through programs of forced assimilation, and sent to boarding schools, where they were not permitted to speak their own languages or even use their own names. Many children died due to poor conditions and harsh treatment at these school, and many more never saw their families again. It is estimated that the pre-contact population of the territory now occupied by the U.S. was between 4 and 18 million. On the 2010 census, just over 5 million U.S. citizens reported themselves to be Native American, or Native American plus another race.

The California Alien Land Law of 1913 prohibited all non-U.S. citizens from owning land in California. The law was primarily intended to target Japanese immigrants, but also resulted in many other Asian immigrants losing their land, since foreign-born Asians were still not permitted naturalized U.S. citizenship.

The Emergency Quota Act of 1921 set the first numerical limits on immigration. It restricted immigration to no more than 3% of the number of people reporting the same ethnic origin in the 1890 U.S. census, to the great advantage of immigrants from Northern European countries, and disadvantage of all others. 

The United States vs. Bhagat Singh Thind Supreme Court ruling (1923) officially declared South Asian immigrants to be non-white, and retroactively stripped them of their citizenship, by arguing that they had obtained it illegally.

The Immigration Act of 1924 further increased restrictions on immigration from Catholic countries, Eastern Europeans, Arabs, Jews, and many other non-white ethnicities. It virtually banned all Asian immigration, while leaving Northern European immigration virtually unlimited. 

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 finally granted birthright citizenship, and the right to vote, to all Native Americans.

During the Mexican Repatriation (1929-1936), between 400,000 and 2,000,000 people of Mexican heritage were forcibly deported to Mexico. It is estimated that around 60% of them had birthright U.S. citizenship. The justification used at the time was that the region of the U.S. that they lived in had been ceded to the U.S. by Mexico in 1848. The U.S. wanted the land, but decided that the people living on it were still Mexicans, and should therefore be sent "home". (But actually it was all about stirring up racial resentment and scapegoating Mexicans for the Great Depression.)

The Magnuson Act (aka Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act) of 1943 granted Chinese immigrants citizenship and voting rights.

During WWII, the U.S. turned away thousands of Jewish refugees, many of whom later died in Nazi concentration camps.

Also During WWII, the U.S. stripped Japanese Americans of their citizenship rights and forced them into internment camps.

Operation "Wetb*ck" in 1954 resulted in many more legal U.S. citizens being deported to Mexico, besides resulting in a number of other civil rights violations.  (I know tumblr loves Woody Guthrie, so here’s a song he wrote about this particular policy and the people who lost their lives to it, as performed by Woody’s son Arlo.)

"Equal opportunity" immigration was not implemented until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Since 1970, there has been a sharp decline in immigration from European countries, giving rise to racist rhetoric concerning white Americans possibly becoming a racial minority at some point in the future, in spite of the fact that nearly 2/3 of the current U.S. population is white. 

In conclusion: America's history on immigration policy and its treatment of those it considers outsiders has always been shady as heck, and pretending otherwise (”HOW is this happening in AMERICA????”) is blatant historical erasure.

I do not bring up any of these things because I hate America, or think that anyone else should, but I think we should be honest about our history, and the suffering that history has caused, and continues to cause. We can learn from the past, and do better going forward, but only if we understand and acknowledge what our history is and how it impacts the present. "Make America Great Again" denies the negative aspects of our past, and is disrespectful and dismissive towards the people who remind us that America has never been "great" for them.

Here endeth the history lesson.