#undocumented immigrants are a part of the economy

[isawthismeme]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Paul Blumenthal at HuffPost:

Former President Donald Trump’s most significant policy plank in his third presidential campaign is to implement a system of mass deportation to remove up to 20 million noncitizens from the United States, a plan that apparently aims to not only remove people living here illegally but also to chase away ― or accidentally round up ― U.S. citizens as well.

He is promising to deploy the military and deputize local police officers to round up millions of people, detain them in makeshift camps and then ship them off to other countries ― whether or not the destination is the person’s country of origin. This plan is billed as targeting only those who have come to the country or reside in it illegally, with a special emphasis on supposed migrant gang members. It offers a story of those who deserve to be here and those who don’t. Those who are part of the national community and those who exist outside its bounds and, perhaps, its laws. But 79% of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. have been living and participating in American communities for more than 15 years. They have married U.S. citizens, hold jobs that prop up their local and national economies and have children and grandchildren who are citizens. Ripping these people out of the country and away from their families will ripple through every community in the country.

“Communities are like a fabric ― the way that the threads are interwoven,” said Heidi Altman, federal advocacy director for the National Immigration Law Center’s Immigrant Justice Fund, an immigrant rights nonprofit. “If you snip at one, eventually the whole of the fabric comes loose.” This plan to tear communities apart will also ensnare U.S. citizens, green card holders and others here legally, either by accident or with intent. Trump and his advisers are already saying that’s what they’ll do. Tom Homan, Trump’s former acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was asked in a “60 Minutes” interview that aired Sunday whether there is a way that Trump’s mass deportation plan could remove undocumented people without separating them from their families. “Of course there is,” Homan said. “Families can be deported together.” What Homan is saying, without saying it directly, is that mixed-status families, with some family members who are U.S. citizens and others who lack legal status, can choose to self-deport if they wish to remain together.

There are currently 4.7 million mixed-status households in the U.S., according to the Center for Migration Studies. Among those households are 5.5 million U.S.-born children living with one undocumented household member and 1.8 million U.S.-born children living with two undocumented adults. In total, there are 9.7 million Americans who live in households with at least one undocumented resident. Trump and Homan propose an impossible choice: your citizenship and your home or your family. Similar mass deportations and detentions in the country’s history have done the same. The incarceration of Japanese immigrants and Japanese-Americans during and after World War II ensnared citizens and noncitizens alike. So, too, did the imprisonment of Germans, Italians and people born under the Austro-Hungarian Empire during both world wars. Trump’s inspiration for his mass deportation program, President Dwight Eisenhower’s Operation Wetback, similarly resulted in the deportation of significant numbers of U.S. citizens to Mexico.

But none of those programs was of the scale or scope that Trump imagines. There are an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., according to the 2022 American Community Survey. Other surveys and estimates have found similar numbers. But Trump and his allies talk about deporting 20 million to 30 million people. There is no source for such a number. That would invariably mean targeting people with some kind of legal status, whether temporary or permanent. “They seem to be gleefully suggesting that they would include people here with some legal status in these roundups,” said Matthew Lisieki, a senior research and policy analyst at the Center for Migration Studies, a think tank that focuses on global migration. A deportation program that removes 11 million people or even more than 20 million would affect every single community in the country, invariably sweeping up even larger numbers of U.S. citizens and legal residents, taking them away from their families and putting them into jails, incarceration camps and, potentially, off to another country. As Homan’s answer on “60 Minutes” indicates, that’s a feature, not a bug. Trump has already proposed invoking laws that could be used to sweep up unnaturalized U.S. residents who have legal status.

The Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which Trump says he will use, allows the president to effectively suspend due process for anyone of a particular nationality or national origin when the U.S. is at war or is invaded by that nation. Invoking this law may prove challenging since the U.S. is not currently in a declared war, much less one against any of the Latin American countries that represent the point of origin for most undocumented immigrants in the U.S. And though Trump claims that the migration of people into the country amounts to an “invasion,” federal courts since the 1990s have largely rejected efforts by states claiming that the word “invasion” in the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted to include the voluntary migration of people across borders.

Still, it is possible that the courts today would take a different approach and declare that the president’s invocation of an invasion by immigrants is a “political question” that the judicial branch will not interfere with. That could give Trump a free hand to implement a brutal and sweeping deportation program. “There are no explicit limitations on what kinds of regulations the president can promulgate under the law,” said Katherine Yon Ebright, a counsel at the progressive Brennan Center for Justice and author of a paper on the Alien Enemies Act. The law has been invoked three times during conflicts with actual foreign nations: during the War of 1812 and both world wars. In each conflict, the president has not only directed deportations and detentions but also promulgated restrictions on noncitizens who had come from the foreign belligerents.

[...]

When Trump was in office, immigration officials ramped up the use of these inaccurate gang databases to identify and deport undocumented residents. Considering Trump has falsely claimed in his campaign speeches that “migrant gangs” have “conquered” entire cities, such an effort would likely be radically scaled up. This could lead to removal of people with legal status as well as those who don’t. Residents who have legal status under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program ― so-called Dreamers who were brought across the border by their parents as children ― have been incorrectly identified as gang members by local police and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That would be one way to strip them of their legal status.

Trump’s top immigration adviser, Stephen Miller, has promised to “turbocharge” efforts at denaturalizing U.S. citizens. When in office, Trump ramped up denaturalization efforts with one Homeland Security budget document proposing up to 700,000 investigations into naturalized U.S. citizens. Civil denaturalization can be done to people who obtained their legal status illegally or are the child of someone who did so, who deliberately lied about a fact in their application for citizenship, obtained citizenship through military service but was then dishonorably discharged or by becoming a member of a subversive group. This last reason could implicate U.S. citizens incorrectly placed on gang databases or otherwise identified as gang-affiliated by law enforcement. Databases can only be used to identify the legal status of residents who have had interactions with law enforcement or certain government agencies. If Trump intends to ramp up deportations to the level he claims, his efforts would need to target workplaces and neighborhoods. This would, invariably, involve racial profiling by placing checkpoints or performing sweeps in heavily Latino neighborhoods or worksites. Such sweeps would undoubtedly ensnare U.S. citizens and inflict fear in everyone ― citizens and noncitizens alike ― within these communities.

Donald Trump’s diabolically fascistic plan of mass deportations is eerily reminiscent of the interning of Japanese-Americans in World II: a moral and economic calamity that would undo America.

Read the full story at HuffPost.

[dark-rx]

50 Times US Conservatives Were on the Wrong Side of History

As you read this post, keep in mind today's Conservative moments hold all the same views. We are actively seeing them rolling back many of these movements in real time.

Slavery (Before the Civil War) – Southern conservatives staunchly defended slavery as a vital part of the economy and way of life.

The Civil War (1861-1865) – Conservatives in the South fought to preserve slavery, leading to a bloody conflict that devastated the nation.

Reconstruction (1865-1877) – Southern conservatives resisted Reconstruction efforts to grant rights and protections to freed slaves.

Jim Crow Laws (Late 1800s-1960s) – Southern conservatives fought to maintain racial segregation and disenfranchise Black Americans.

The Women's Suffrage Movement (Late 1800s-1920) – Conservative politicians and groups actively opposed women's right to vote.

The New Deal (1930s) – Conservative elites opposed Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, which sought to alleviate poverty and economic inequality during the Great Depression.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Many conservative Southern politicians opposed this landmark legislation to end racial segregation and discrimination.

Voting Rights Act of 1965 – Conservative lawmakers opposed this bill, which aimed to eliminate racial discrimination in voting practices.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) – Conservative politicians and groups in the South opposed the Supreme Court decision that declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional.

Desegregation of Public Schools (1950s-1960s) – Southern conservatives resisted federally mandated school desegregation.

The Equal Rights Amendment (1970s) – Conservative groups, such as the “STOP ERA” campaign, fought against equal rights for women, fearing the ERA would undermine traditional gender roles.

The Fight for LGBTQ+ Rights (Late 20th Century-Present) – Conservative groups have long opposed LGBTQ+ rights, including the fight for marriage equality.

Roe v. Wade (1973) – Conservatives, particularly religious groups, staunchly opposed a woman’s right to choose abortion.

Desegregation Busing (1970s) – Conservative politicians and parents opposed busing programs designed to integrate public schools.

The Vietnam War (1955-1975) – Many conservatives supported the war, which ultimately became widely seen as a failure and a quagmire that led to significant loss of life.

The Fight for Minimum Wage Increases – Conservative politicians have repeatedly opposed efforts to raise the federal minimum wage.

The Fight for Healthcare Reform – Conservative opposition to healthcare reforms such as the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has been widespread, arguing against universal healthcare solutions.

The Fair Housing Act (1968) – Southern conservatives opposed the Fair Housing Act, which aimed to eliminate discrimination in housing practices.

Social Security (1935) – Conservative figures opposed the creation of Social Security, a key part of the American welfare system.

Unions and Labor Rights – Conservative forces have historically opposed labor unions and workers' rights, fighting against collective bargaining and labor protections.

Women's Reproductive Rights – Beyond Roe v. Wade, conservatives have opposed various efforts to expand reproductive rights and healthcare access.

Opposition to the Affordable Care Act (2010) – Conservative groups strongly opposed the ACA, claiming it was too costly and that it represented an overreach of government power.

The Fight for Immigrant Rights – Conservatives have historically supported harsh immigration policies, including the criminalization of undocumented immigrants.

The Fight for Environmental Protection – Conservative groups have often downplayed the importance of environmental protections and climate change action, opposing measures to regulate pollution.

The LGBTQ+ Military Ban – Conservatives in the 1990s supported the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which restricted openly LGBTQ+ individuals from serving in the military.

The War on Drugs – Conservative policies contributed to mass incarceration, disproportionately affecting Black and Latino communities, without addressing the root causes of drug addiction.

The Fight for Marriage Equality – Conservative figures and groups consistently opposed same-sex marriage, including a federal ban that was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court.

Opposition to Public Health Measures – During the COVID-19 pandemic, conservative politicians downplayed public health guidelines, including wearing masks and social distancing, resulting in higher rates of transmission and death.

The GI Bill (1944) – While the bill benefited millions of veterans, conservative opposition in some areas limited access for Black veterans.

The Civil Rights Movement (1950s-1960s) – Conservative politicians and law enforcement were often hostile to civil rights leaders and protests, including opposition to Martin Luther King Jr. and the March on Washington.

Opposition to the Equal Pay Act (1963) – Conservative figures initially opposed equal pay legislation for women, arguing it would interfere with market forces.

The Fight for Workers' Rights – Conservatives frequently oppose stronger labor protections, such as paid sick leave and vacation days.

The Immigration Act of 1965 – Conservative figures fought against the Immigration and Nationality Act, which removed racially discriminatory quotas in U.S. immigration law.

The American with Disabilities Act (1990) – Conservative politicians opposed the ADA, which required accessibility and anti-discrimination protections for disabled individuals.

The Fair Labor Standards Act – Many conservative leaders fought against the legislation that set minimum wage laws and restrictions on child labor.

The Equal Education Opportunity Act – Conservatives have often resisted efforts to provide equal educational opportunities for students of color and students with disabilities.

Opposition to Gun Control – Conservative gun-rights groups and politicians have opposed various gun control measures, even in the face of increasing gun violence.

Opposition to Federal Civil Rights Laws – Conservative Southern Democrats and Republicans historically fought against federal civil rights legislation, including the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

The Family and Medical Leave Act (1993) – Conservative lawmakers were opposed to the idea of paid family leave and medical leave programs.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (1986) – Although this was a compromise bill, conservative opposition to more comprehensive immigration reform has persisted.

The Clean Water Act (1972) – Conservatives resisted environmental protections for water systems, which led to more pollution and harmful practices for public health.

The Clean Air Act – Conservative opposition to the regulation of air pollution and emissions has undermined efforts to protect public health and the environment.

Efforts to Address Climate Change – Conservative skepticism about climate science has led to inaction on reducing carbon emissions and transitioning to renewable energy.

The War on Women’s Health – Conservative policies aimed at restricting women’s access to contraception, abortion, and reproductive health services have been widely criticized.

Civil Rights for Indigenous Peoples – Conservative opposition to Native American land rights and sovereignty has led to continued struggles for indigenous communities.

The Fairness Doctrine – Conservative media figures fought the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in the 1980s, which allowed for more partisan and biased media coverage.

Opposition to Immigration Reform (2000s-Present) – Conservative politicians have opposed comprehensive immigration reform, often focusing on border security rather than addressing root causes or offering a path to citizenship.

Opposition to Scientific Research on Gun Violence – Conservatives have historically blocked research into gun violence and its causes, impeding evidence-based policy solutions.

Opposition to Universal Basic Income – Conservatives have resisted proposals for UBI, fearing that it might incentivize laziness and undermine capitalism.

Opposition to Reparations for Slavery – Many conservatives oppose reparations for African Americans as compensation for slavery and the ongoing impacts of systemic racism, arguing that it’s impractical or unfair.

There is not a single Fascist government in all of history who didn't make economic progress on the backs of mass repressions and/or murder.

This is the moment we are at in history.

The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. - Henry David Thoreau

How will history remember you? Will history remember you?

[mariacallous]

The breadth of falsehoods circulating in the months and days prior to Election Day in the United States was breathtaking in both scale and creativity. It was, as the head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Jen Easterly said, an “unprecedented amount of disinformation.” Voters were treated to videos masquerading as FBI-generated or CBS reports that warned of security threats and voter fraud, while other videos falsely depicted mail-in ballots that favored Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump being destroyed, or an alleged Haitian immigrant voting in two counties. Fabrications about Democratic nominee and Vice President Kamala Harris drew from a seemingly bottomless well, ranging from false allegations that she was involved in a hit-and-run incident to her being allied with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. This was on top of saturation levels of preelection disinformation campaigns involving Haitian immigrants, hurricane relief efforts, and so much more.

Oiled and revved up in advance of the Nov. 5 election, though, the disinformation machine abruptly died that evening. Trump had urged voters to get him a win “too big to rig”—harkening back to his persistent lie that victory was stolen from him in the 2020 election—and voters delivered.

Now that there is a lull, we must ask some critical questions. First, does disinformation—while upsetting, annoying, or even amusing—matter in influencing outcomes? Second, with a second Trump term, what is the future of the disinformation machine? And if disinformation continues unabated and even flows across borders, what can be done about it on a national and transnational level?

Some researchers argue that disinformation has little effect in changing behavior. The argument often hinges on empirical studies demonstrating that such content typically gets relatively low exposure and is viewed and shared by a fringe already motivated to seek out such content.

There is, however, robust evidence to suggest that in the specific instance of the 2024 U.S. elections, disinformation did change behavior, in that an alternative reality took hold in voters’ minds and influenced their choices. Voters who demonstrated being misinformed about key issues, such as immigration, crime, and the economy preferred Trump. Consider the example of immigration and crime: Looking at 2018 felony crime offending rates in Texas, native-born U.S. citizens committed around 1,100 crimes per 100,000 people, compared to 800 by documented immigrants and 400 by undocumented immigrants. Analysis of similar data across all 50 states suggests no statistically significant correlation between the immigrant share of the population and the total crime rate in any state. This and numerous other sources of data consistently show that immigrants, both documented and undocumented, are less likely to commit crimes than native-born U.S. citizens across various crime categories and over extended periods. This contradicts a dominant narrative around a “migrant crime wave,” spread primarily by Trump and his surrogates. Approximately 45 percent of Trump supporters said immigration was one of their three biggest issues; most Americans, meanwhile, believed that illegal immigration was linked to higher crime rates.

With a second Trump term ahead, it is worthwhile to ask what we might expect from a disinformation machine that was so helpful in bringing such an administration to power. This was a machine designed to generate false narratives built to exploit fear and anxiety at scale, using fabrications that may build on a kernel of truth or resonant with some people’s beliefs or actual experiences. It identified malevolent actors to be defeated as part of the calls to action. In order to spread disinformation further and enhance its credibility, operations involved consistent repetition of narratives and their amplification in political rallies through social media and alignment with the financial and political incentives of other influential voices. Where does the Trump reelection disinformation machine go from here now that its primary job is done? Designed to increase confidence in the leader and the regime, disinformation systems have a distinguished tradition of flourishing under autocratic administrations, from Octavian’s Roman Empire to Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

There are five galvanizing issues to watch for in the next turn of the disinformation crank.

First, there will be a need to undermine the credibility of media outlets considered unfriendly to Trump. This objective will, of course, get plenty of support from “friendly” media like Fox News and the New York Post, but, most significantly, from Elon Musk—a close ally of the administration. Musk and his platform, X, are frightfully effective in creating and disseminating narratives.

Assuming the Musk-Trump alliance has a meaningful shelf life, consider the “Musk effect” itself. Analysis from the Center for Countering Digital Hate found that at least 87 of Musk’s posts on X in 2024 were false or misleading, and they had 2 billion views in total. None of those posts were accompanied by a Community Note, a user-generated fact-check. To add to his influence, Musk, who has said he’s a “free speech absolutist” and is selective about the content moderated on X to serve his own purposes, is now charged with minimizing government bureaucracy; he will likely work to ensure that regulations intended to moderate content—as long as they are not unfavorable to him—are held to a minimum. We should not expect to see any major legislative overhauls, such as a rollback of Section 230—originally part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996—that protects digital platforms from being held liable for content they host, as it would severely hamper the free-wheeling content environment at X that Musk has created. This would be a change of position for Trump, as he did push for such a rollback in his first term.

Second, putting Musk aside, a scan of the remaining names put forward for Trump’s cabinet reads like a who’s who in the annals of disinformation. Consider just three: first, Tulsi Gabbard, who is nominated to be director of national Intelligence. She has a track record of being partial to propaganda from the likes of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and has even declared a QAnon conspiracy theory about a U.S.-funded bioweapons lab in Ukraine to be an “undeniable fact.” Second, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., nominated to be the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. He has peddled ideas that are outright false—such as childhood immunizations causing autism—and questionable, like that excessive fluoride in drinking water can lower IQ. Pete Hegseth, nominated for secretary of defense, has already gone a step further by calling for the word “misinformation” itself to be stripped from the public lexicon as soon as possible. Each of these three substantive federal agencies will need their disinformation machines to be humming and ready to go, given the individuals who might be in charge.

This would lead us to their boss’s playbook of false narratives, repetition, amplification, and targeting opponents and critics as “enemies.” The Washington Post found that Trump made 30,573 false or misleading claims, or around 21 fabrications a day, during his first term. As noted earlier, repetition of falsehoods is a core operating principle for Trump, and it has been shown to work: There is a demonstrated correlation between the number of times Trump repeated falsehoods during his presidency and misperceptions among Republicans. Given this record, we ought to count on him escalating his reliance on these strategies—and especially on repetitive disinformation—as a strategy for governance.

Fourth, with several disinformation-centered narratives influential in getting Trump to the White House, their lives will have to be extended as the administration swings into action to follow-up on campaign promises—for example, as deportation procedures against undocumented immigrants are launched.

Finally, it is essential to consider the intentions of foreign governments, which may use the Trump model to manipulate their own citizens. Russia has been the most energetic in its disinformation campaigns during the United States’ 2024 election season, from the falsehood about Harris being involved in a hit-and-run incident, to hurricane-related falsehoods, to bomb threats on Election Day. But there are many others in the fray with elaborate disinformation machines—including networks of bogus social media accounts, websites to spread divisive content, third-party actors, and fringe groups—that are ready to go. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the three governments most active in creating and spreading disinformation in the United States are Russia, China, and Iran. All three steadily increased their disinformation campaigns in the months leading up to Election Day. One can expect the dynamic to follow that to be an arms race: If the U.S. government itself invests in disinformation, foreign governments will attempt to keep pace —and even view it as implicit permission to do so.

With this sobering outlook, it is natural to ask: What should be done? The regulatory and legislative establishment is likely to be compromised, so other actors will have to step up—these include major digital platforms, independent watchdogs, the media, civil society organizations, and regular citizens.

The most critical are the digital platforms as they have the greatest leverage; they must reverse their recent trend toward reducing content moderation teams and cutting resources for fact-checking, labeling, blocking, or demoting messages that run afoul of posted standards. The COVID-19 pandemic created a “infodemic” emergency and a sense of urgency for the platforms to be proactive and ramp up content moderation to stem the tide of misinformation. Even though many of the attempts were found wanting and flawed, most of the major platforms did take specific actions—defining policies, being transparent about their criteria, taking steps to remove or moderate violators, and nudging users to check out trusted sources. There is evidence to suggest that messaging from trusted sources had a positive effect on users’ quality of knowledge and how they behaved based on such information. A second Trump term needs to be viewed as an emergency of parallel proportions.

For their part, watchdog groups, the media, and civil society must amplify their voices when they see false narratives and counter them not just with boring statistics but engaging fact-based narratives to reeducate and inform. Local media, in particular, has a role to play in bringing credible fact-based news to ordinary citizens. Watchdog groups across different countries should collaborate with digital platforms to identify sources of false or malicious content and develop early warning signs of international interference by state and non-state actors and proxy groups. Once again, the lessons from the pandemic might come handy in considering the role of multilateral bodies—just as the World Health Organization (WHO) implemented strategies to combat COVID-19 misinformation, with mixed but generally positive results, similar bodies can be set up to coordinate across multiple actors and across geographies.

Finally, ordinary citizens will need to take the time to become responsible consumers of media—for their own good. And, as their lived realities diverge from false narratives in circulation, they might become more discerning and wary in seeking out information sources. As a recent study found, citizens do become more discerning consumers of digitally transmitted information when there are sustained mitigation and education efforts.

It will, no doubt, be a long road ahead. While we can expect a deluge of disinformation along the way, we cannot let it become the new normal.

[lifegoesonevenifeverybodyisgone]

THE Joe Character Analysis. Part 3: A Brief Socioeconomic Background of Haight Street (Prelude to Portrayals of Masculinity)

How does Bluepoch create its characters? What is possibly the process or the mindset behind J's creation? How does this show in his character and how he is viewed?

I briefly touched upon the Greaser subculture, Mexican heritage, and other aspects of culture in the earlier parts. Although it gives context to the different sides of J, it is only a slice of the bigger pie: the social, cultural, and historical background of the 90s in California.

These aspects like sociocultural influences, history, and societal conflicts are the basis for Bluepoch's characters. In an interview conducted by Automaton earlier this year, Bluepoch reveals how they created their first character (Druvis III) and their thought process:

Now that we know their process, good questions to ask regarding our characters are: "What time and place does the story take place?", "What kind of conflict was occurring during that time?", "What hopes do characters have during that time period?", and "What are the mystical influences that affect the arcanists?".

So if that is the case, what historical context is J part of?

From what we know, 2.0 takes place in San Francisco, California, United States during the 1990s (specifically in Haight Street). This period was characterized by the United States becoming more of a global power after the dissolution of the USSR, great economic prosperity and peace, vast improvements in technology, and a revival of 70s culture (because all fashion and trends have a 20-year interval before being revived).

The world became increasingly connected with the creation of the GPS, the proliferation of the internet, and increased immigration. Cultural icons that came from the 70s are found all over 2.0 whether it be Disco, the Age of Aquarius, iconic sitcoms, Greasers, arcades, and the queer clubbing scene.

This prosperity occurred after the 1980s, were a period of decreased volatility and positive growth began.

This period of prosperity and growth in America is what we economists call the Great Moderation.

US inflation was low and stable while recessions were mild. The former governor of the Federal Bank Reserve (Governor Barnanke) atttributed it to structural change in the economy, improved economic policies, and good ol' luck. The structural changes were most likely the increased openess to trade, advances in the financial system due to computers, and deregulation.

Another influence that can be seen in the 2.0 event is immigration. During the 20th century, immigration laws greatly changed the American demographic. Maybe it could be attributed to the Immigration Act of 1990 which further removed the barriers for entry in America but I have a hunch that the Mexican immigration where J's ancestors came a little earlier, likely coming to America during or after WWII.

During 1942, the US implemented the Mexican Farm Labor Program AKA the Bracero Program. To address the agricultural work shortage brought about by WWII, the US permitted millions of Mexican men to work under short-term labor contracts in America. Most of them ended up working in San Francisco's Bay Area (where Haight Street takes place).

The influx of Mexican workers provided America with cheap labor in order to feed its people but the influx of undocumented migrants in the 50s led to a mass deportation of 1.1 million workers back to Mexico via Operation Wetback. This happened at the same time while the Bracero Program was ongoing causing the Immigration Bureau and Border Patrol to do military round-ups to legal workers even to the point of deporting US citizens with Mexican ancestry.

Finally, around the 90s and where 2.0 event takes place, the Immigration Act of 1990 was passed bringing in a new wave of immigrants. The presence of immigrants have often been mentioned in the event like the sizable Chinese diaspora, Mr. Tang, J's doctor, and the crowd of immigrants that J sponsored.

Despite the increase of wealth in California due to being the home of the Silicon Valley, the hub of innovations, the expanded global trade, and the booming retail industry, a part of the population that contributed to making that wealth were unable to partake in it. The immigrants of San Francisco left their countries in search for a better life, the American Dream that promises that if you work hard enough you can achieve anything. But that is not often the case...

The setting of the 2.0 story is Haight Street, a part of the Haight-Ashbury district, a district adjacent to the Golden Gate Park. The street was particularly famous for the hippie counterculture in the 60s. Thousands of American youth flocked to Haight Street in the event called "Summer of Love".

The youthful idealism eventually turned sour and the hippies left for the rural areas. Pyschedelic drugs were replaced by harder and more dangerous drugs like heroin which caused medical issues to the population. By the late 60s and the early 70s, property values fell and violent crime rose. Haight Street quickly gained the reputation of being a dangerous and violent place.

Around the 70s, plans were made to restore Haight-Ashbury. A new wave of homeowners and residents restored Victorian/Edwardian houses and cleaned up the city. The crime rates eventually dropped. Due to the wave of new homeowners who renovated the old houses, the prices of housing went up which displaced a lot of the low-income folk like the black, senior citizen, and hippies.

There was a great concern regarding gentrification and displacement. Although the newcomers were also diverse (a local doctor estimating that 25% of them were gay), there was a fear that the previous inhabitants would be displaced. In the 80s, commercial establishments and higher priced housing began to emerge. The struggles on who gets to live in the ever evolving city was shown in J's character story.

J's character story deals with the displacement, inequality, and the gentrification of Haight Street that was occuring during the time. The main conflict was the creation of a commercial center that kicked many local businesses out through coercion. J busted the gang behind this and guaranteed the freedom of his homeless and immigrant friends. He ended up being their sponsor and helping the folks find jobs.

Since Haight Street was amongst one of those migrant communities where a lot of lower-class people lived, it is most likely that a good amount of people living there were either immigrants (especially Chinese or Mexican), Arcanists, downtrodden folks, or all of three. Looking back at the characters, Mercuria came from an orphanage while J was also an orphan who survived by working for a Chinese immigrant.

Since the character-making of Bluepoch involves looking at the cultural context and making a character out of it, I can infer that Pioneer represents the Great Moderation, especially since he is an Awakened and he sprung to life due to this economic movement.

Mercuria represents the ideals of the Age of Aquarius and the famous hippie counterculture, who is a freedom-loving disco dancer while also working as a diviner.

J, on the other hand, might have been inspired by the 90s kids who took inspiration in the 70s revival (since he loves arcades, knows a little bit of disco, and watches old sitcoms) but he can also be inspired by a revival of a revival: the 50s. During the 70s, there was also a revival of an era that occurred 20 years prior: the Greasers of the 50s.

He also represents the lower class men at the time who were most likely left out in the city's progress. The fact that he came from a formerly prominent Wayland family (who lost prominence after the war) but now has to work hard to survive is reminiscent of Haight Street itself (a magnificent and dignified neighborhood that lost its glamour and became a place of the lower class).

As stated in Part 1, Greasers were a subculture that formed in the 50s and were often composed of Italian-American and Latin-American (most commonly Mexican) lower-class youth who felt left out from the prosperity of the post-war economic boom. They shared an interest in riding motorcycles (since they often worked in mechanic jobs like J's friend Hollick), the affordable aesthetic of the working man, and the community of marginalized olive-skinned ethnic minorities (like those of the Mediterranean and Mexicans).

In the context of the 90s, J's identification with the Greaser subculture goes beyond the 70s revival or his fondness for old-fashioned stuff. It was a way to express himself regardless of his social class, a shared identity. It was an identification with the men who made the most with what they had, with men like him who felt hope for a better future but also felt frustated to be left out from it.

With aesthetics and historical context, the Greaser subculture elicited stereotypes like being urban, sexual, cool, rebellious, and exhibiting lower-class masculinity. Fittingly enough, I have seen many people think of him that way, both in the game and the fandom, so let's dissect that.

Link to the Ultimate Joe Directory:

https://www.tumblr.com/lifegoesonevenifeverybodyisgone/771822786973958144/the-ultimate-joe-directory?source=share

SOURCES:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/great-moderation.asp

https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/20040220/

https://guides.loc.gov/latinx-civil-rights/bracero-program

https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/5992-california-immigration-history-immigrants/

https://immigrationhistory.org/item/operation-wetback/

https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Naming_of_Haight_Street%2C_Part_4%3A_The_Last_Haight_Standing

https://www.britannica.com/place/Haight-Ashbury

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24040253

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

A slurry of lies in the wake of Helene and the path of Milton are making matters worse. [Benjamin Slyngstad]

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

October 11, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Oct 12, 2024

A report from the Labor Department yesterday showed that inflation has dropped again, falling back to 2.4%, the same rate as it was just before the coronavirus pandemic. Today the Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped 400 points to a record high, while the S&P 500 closed above 5,800 for the first time. 

Washington Post economics columnist Heather Long noted that “[b]y just about every measure, the U.S. economy is in good shape.” Inflation is back down, growth remains strong at 3%, unemployment is low at 4.1% with the U.S. having created almost 7 million more jobs than it had before the pandemic. The stock market is hitting all-time highs. Long adds that “many Americans are getting sizable pay raises, and middle-class wealth has surged to record levels.” The Federal Reserve has begun to cut interest rates, and foreign leaders are talking about the U.S. economy with envy. 

Democratic presidential nominee and sitting vice president Kamala Harris has promised to continue the economic policies of the Biden-Harris administration and focus on cutting costs for families. She has called for a federal law against price gouging on groceries during times of crisis, cutting taxes for families, and enabling Medicare to pay for home health aides. She has proposed $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers and promised to work with the private sector to build 3 million new housing units by the end of her first term. 

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which focuses on the direct effect of policies on the federal debt, estimated that Harris’s plans would add $3.5 trillion to the debt.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has promised to extend his 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations and to impose a 10% to 20% tariff across the board on imported goods and a 60% tariff on goods from China. Tariffs are taxes paid by American consumers, and economists predict such tariffs would cost an average family more than $2,600 a year. Overall, the effect of these policies would be to shift the weight of taxation even further toward middle-class and lower-class Americans and away from the wealthy. 

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that these plans would add $7.5 trillion to the debt.

But there is more: Trump has also made deporting undocumented immigrants central to his promises, and his running mate, J.D. Vance, has claimed the right to determine which government policies he considers legal, threatening to expand deportation to include legal migrants, as well. 

Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times noted on October 8 that in March, the Peterson Institute for International Economics pointed out that the immigrants Trump is targeting are vital to a number of U.S. businesses. Their loss will cause dramatic cutbacks in those sectors. Taken together, the study concluded, Trump’s deportations, tariffs, and vow to take control of the Federal Reserve could make the country’s gross domestic product as much as 9.7% lower than it would be without those policies, employment could fall by as much as 9%, and inflation would climb by as much as 7.4%. 

And yet, in a New York Times/Siena Poll of likely voters released on October 8, 75% of respondents said the economy was fair or poor. Further, although a study by The Guardian showed that Harris’s specific economic policies were more popular than Trump’s in a blind test, 54% of respondents to a Gallup poll released on October 9, thought that Trump would manage the economy better than Harris would. 

Part of Americans’ sour mood about the economy stems from the poor coverage all the good economic news has received. Part of it is that rising prices are more immediately obvious than the wage gains that have outpaced them. But a large part of it is the historic habit of thinking that Republicans manage the economy better than Democrats do. 

That myth began immediately after the Civil War when Democrats demanded the government renege on the generous terms under which it had floated bonds during the war. When the Treasury put those bonds on the market, they were a risky proposition, but with the United States secure after the war, calculations changed, and Democrats charged that investors had gotten too good a deal.

Republicans were horrified at the idea of changing the terms of a debt already incurred. They added to the Fourteenth Amendment the clause saying, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” When that amendment was added to the Constitution in 1868, the Democrats’ fiscal rebellion seemed to be quelled.

But as Republicans increasingly insisted that protecting big business with a high tariff wall was crucial to the American economy, Democrats called for lowering tariffs to give the consumers who paid them a break. In response, Republicans said that those suffering in industrial America were lazy or spendthrifts and warned that Democrats were socialists. When Democrats took control of both chambers of Congress and put Grover Cleveland in the White House in 1892 with a promise to lower tariffs, Republicans insisted that the economy would collapse. But, the Chicago Tribune wrote, “The working classes of the country need such a lesson…. The Republicans will be passive spectators… It will not be their funeral.” 

Their warnings of an impending collapse prompted investors to take their money home. On February 17, 1893, fifteen days before Cleveland would be sworn into office, the Reading Railroad Company went under, after which, as one reporter wrote, “the bottom seemed to be falling out of everything.” By the time Cleveland took office, a financial panic was in full swing. 

Republican lawmakers and newspapers blamed Democrats for the collapse because everyone knew they would destroy the economy. Republicans urged voters to put them back in charge of Congress, and in 1894, in a landslide, they did. “American manufacturers and merchants and business-men generally will draw a long breath of relief,” the Chicago Tribune commented just days after the Republican victory. Republicans had successfully associated their opponents with economic disaster. 

That association continued in the twentieth century. In 1913, for the first time since Cleveland’s second term, the Democrats captured both Congress and the White House. Immediately, President Woodrow Wilson called for lowered tariff rates and, to make up for lost revenue, an income tax. Massachusetts senator Henry Cabot Lodge called the tariff measure “very radical” and warned that it would destroy all the industries in Massachusetts. As for the income tax, big-business Republicans claimed it was socialism and that it discriminated against the wealthy. 

For the rest of the century, Republicans would center taxes, especially income taxes, as proof Democrats were bad for the economy. As soon as World War I ended, Republicans set out to get rid of the high progressive taxes that had paid for the war. Andrew Mellon, who served as treasury secretary under presidents Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover, took office in 1921 and set out to increase productivity by increasing investment in industry. To free up capital, he said, the government must slash its budget and cut taxes. From 1921 to 1929, Mellon returned $3.5 billion to wealthy Americans through refunds, credits, and tax abatements.

The booming economy of the 1920s made it seem that the Republicans had finally figured out how to create a perpetually prosperous economy. When he accepted the 1928 Republican nomination for president, Herbert Hoover said: “We in America are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land. The poorhouse is vanishing from among us…. [G]iven a chance to go forward with the policies of the last eight years, we shall soon, with the help of God, be in sight of the day when poverty will be banished from this nation.”

The Great Depression, sparked by the stock market crash of October 1929, revealed the central weakness of an economic vision based in concentrating wealth. While worker productivity had increased by about 43% in the 1920s, wages did not rise. By 1929, 5% of the population received one third of the nation’s income. When the stock market crash wiped out the purchasing power of this group, the rest of the population did not have enough capital to fuel the economy. 

Mellon predicted that the crisis would “purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.” The Hoover administration preached thrift, morality, and individualism and blamed the depression on a wasteful government that had overstaffed public offices. To restore business confidence, Republicans declared, the nation must slash government spending and lay off public workers. 

But most Americans had had enough of Republican economics, especially as the crash revealed deep corruption in the nation’s financial system. In 1932, voters overcame their deep suspicion of Democratic economic policies to embrace what Democratic presidential candidate Franklin Delano Roosevelt called a “New Deal” for the American people, combating the depression by regulating business, providing a basic social safety net, and investing in infrastructure. Hoover denounced Roosevelt’s plans as dangerous radicalism that would “enslave” taxpayers and destroy the United States. 

Voters elected FDR with about 58% of the vote. Over the next forty years, Americans of both parties embraced the government’s active approach to promoting economic growth and individual prosperity by protecting all Americans. 

But when President Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, he promised that returning to a system like that of the 1920s would make the country boom. He called his system “supply-side” economics, for it invested in the supply side—investors—rather than the consumers who made up the demand side. “The whole thing is premised on faith,” Reagan’s budget director David Stockman told a reporter. “On a belief about how the world works.” 

Under Reagan, deficit spending that tripled the national debt from $995 billion to $2.9 trillion—more federal debt than in the entire previous history of the country—along with lower interest rates and deregulated savings and loan banks, made the economy boom. Americans watching the economic growth such deficit spending produced believed supply-side economics worked. Tax cuts and spending cuts became the Holy Grail of American politics, and the Democrats who opposed them seemed unable to run an economy. 

But that belief was not based in reality. In April the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute found that since 1949 the nation’s annual real growth has been 1.2 percentage points higher under Democratic administrations than under Republican administrations (3.79% versus 2.60%), total job growth averages 2.5% annually under Democrats compared to barely over 1% under Republicans, business investment is more than double the pace under Democrats than under Republicans, average rates of inflation are slightly lower under Democrats, and families in the bottom 20% of the economy experience income growth 188% faster under Democrats than under Republicans. 

A recent analysis by former Goldman Sachs managing director H. John Gilbertson expands on those numbers, showing that Democratic administrations reduce the U.S. budget deficit and that stock market returns are 60% higher under Democrats than under Republicans.

Democratic President Joe Biden returned the country to the proven system that worked before 1981, and the economy has boomed. While Trump has vowed to return to the tax cuts and deregulation of supply-side economics, Vice President Harris has promised to retain and fine-tune Biden’s policies. 

But Harris has to overcome more than a century of American mythmaking. 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[mysharona1987]

Conservatives saying the quiet part out loud: They know they need undocumented immigrants for the economy but still need them for fear mongering suburban white people into voting for them.

[ifionlyhadmorepaper]

if you believe:

- elon musk did a “roman salute” unfollow and block me, or better yet make yourself known so that i may block you.

if you believe:

- mass deportation of undocumented immigrants will solve the nations problems unfollow and block me, or better yet make yourself known so that i may block you.

- undocumented immigrants are criminals, or freeloaders, and deserve to be separated from their families, unfollow and block me, or better yet make yourself known so that i may block you.

if you believe:

- making abortion illegal will save lives, unfollow and block me, or better yet make yourself known so that i may block you.

- the only way for a persons bodily autonomy to be respected is if someone else violates it first, unfollow and block me, or better yet make yourself known so that i may block you.

if you believe:

- giving the police (who have a history of deep-rooted systemic racism) immunity will benefit anyone, unfollow and block me, or better yet make yourself known so that i may block you.

if you believe:

- other felons should not be able to vote, but this felon can be the leader of a country unfollow and block me, or better yet make yourself known so that i may block you.

if you believe:

- that abortion is healthcare

- undocumented immigrants are the backbone of the economy and do not deserve to be torn away from their lives and families

- giving the police immunity will put black men, black women, and other people of color in danger

- elon musk did a nazi salute

- donald trump is a dangerous man with no business being in the general public, much less a position of power

you may stay, make yourself known, share this to your blog, share wherever you can. we can no longer assume the spaces we inhabit with the people in our communities are safe anymore.

and if you voted for that idiotic and dangerous shit-stain of a president:

shame on you. shame on all of you, and if you feel regret, good. i hope it eats you alive while the rest of us walk on eggshells for the foreseeable future. you fooled us, you made us think that you were part of the safe space we had created, and you did not stab us in the back, you attacked from the front when you cast your vote and betrayed your community. do not dare call yourself a friend, or an ally, we see you for who you truly are. a sham, and a sorry excuse for a human.

[plethoraworldatlas]

The American Muslim 2024 Election Task Force, a national coalition of American Muslim 501(c)4 political organizations, today called on President Biden to withdraw from the 2024 presidential race after losing the confidence of key voters due to widespread opposition to his support for the Gaza genocide and widespread concern about his ability to serve as president for another four years.

In a statement, task force members Americans for Justice in Palestine Action, CAIR Action, ICNA Council of Social Justice Action, Muslim American Society Action, Muslim Civic Coalition Activate and the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations Civil Action Network said, in part: "President Biden should now step aside so that the Democratic Party can identify and nominate a new, able, and qualified candidate who better reflects the values and views of most voters, including opposition to U.S. support for the Gaza genocide."

The task force also said that President Biden’s withdrawal is the best and perhaps only way to prevent Donald Trump from returning to the White House

FULL STATEMENT CALLING ON PRESIDENT BIDEN TO WITHDRAW FROM THE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL RACE

"As American Muslim political organizations that care deeply about the future of our country and justice for all people, we must today call on President Biden to withdraw from the 2024 presidential race.

"Even before his deeply concerning and disappointing debate performance, President Biden's financial support for the mass murder of Palestinians in Gaza, his failure to effectively address anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia here at home, and his dishonest response to the diverse and overwhelmingly peaceful anti-genocide protests on college campuses had already alienated and made it difficult for many American Muslims, young people, and other voters to consider supporting him in the fall.

"Now widespread and growing concerns about President Biden's ability to continue serving in office for another four years have made the political status quo untenable. If President Biden remains the Democratic nominee, he could lose Michigan, Georgia, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and other key swing states, thereby returning President Trump to power.

"Just as many American Muslims cannot bring themselves to vote for President Biden, many American Muslims also do not want to see Donald Trump return to office. Former President Trump has made it clear that he plans to round up undocumented immigrants in mass camps, reinstate the Muslim Ban, entrench racial inequities in our economy and criminal justice system, stack the federal civil service with political loyalists, and pursue a foreign policy just as or even more immoral than the Biden foreign policy. 

"During the CNN presidential debate, President Trump even said the Israeli government should be allowed to complete its genocide, ignored the question of whether he would support the recognition of a Palestinian state to achieve peace, and weaponized Palestinian identity as a racist insult. 

“Meanwhile, President Biden touted his transfer of deadly weapons to Israel and falsely claimed that Netanyahu's government wants the genocide to end. Their positions on Gaza were despicable and their performances were deeply disturbing.

"The American people should not have to choose between such fatally flawed candidates. The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and this genocide should be a red line for any administration.

"President Biden should step aside so that the Democratic Party can identify and nominate a new, able, and qualified candidate who better reflects the values and views of most voters, including opposition to U.S. support for the Gaza genocide. In an ideal world, the Republican Party would also force President Trump--a failed president and convicted felon who sparked the Jan. 6th insurrection--to step aside.

"The American Muslim community is not a monolith. We are politically diverse. But our community is united in supporting basic principles of justice that all people should support. Human rights. Racial equality. Religious freedom. Free and fair elections. Economic opportunity. 

“American Muslim voters expect anyone who wants to lead our nation to support all of these basic principles. Opposing racism, occupation, and genocide are not big asks. They are basic asks. Both President Biden and President Trump have failed to clear this very low bar. American Muslims and the broader American people demand better options now.”

The American Muslim 2024 Election Taskforce is a coalition of American Muslim 501(c)4 political organizations formed to amplify the American Muslim community’s views on key policy issues, enhance its civic engagement, boost voter turnout, and, ultimately, issue a joint recommendation or endorsement in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Greg Sargent at TNR:

There are still nearly two months to go before Donald Trump assumes the presidency again, but Republicans or GOP-adjacent industries have already begun to admit out loud that some of his most important policy promises could prove disastrous in their parts of the country. These folks don’t say this too directly, out of fear of offending the MAGA God King. Instead, they suggest gingerly that a slight rethink might be in order. But unpack what they’re saying, and you’ll see that they’re in effect acknowledging that some of Trump’s biggest campaign promises were basically scams.

In Georgia, for instance, some local Republicans are openly worried about Trump’s threat to roll back President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. The IRA is pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into incentives for the manufacture and purchase of green energy technologies, from electric vehicles to batteries to solar power. Trump endlessly derided this as the “green new scam” and pledged to repeal all uncommitted funds. But now The New York Times reports that Trump supporters like state Representative Beth Camp fear that repeal could destroy jobs related to new investments in green manufacturing plants in the state. Camp worries that this could leave factories in Georgia “sitting empty.” You heard that right: This Republican is declaring that Trump’s threatened actions could leave factories sitting empty. 

[...]

Something similar is also already happening with Trump’s threat to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. Reuters reports that agriculture interests, which are heavily concentrated in GOP areas, are urging the incoming Trump administration to refrain from removing untold numbers of migrants working throughout the food supply chain, including in farming, dairy, and meatpacking. 

Notably, GOP Representative John Duarte, who just lost his seat in the elections, explicitly tells Reuters that farming interests in his California district depend on undocumented immigrants—and that Trump should exempt many from removal. Duarte and industry representatives want more avenues created for migrants to work here legally—the precise opposite of what Trump promised. Now over to Texas. NPR reports that various industries there fear that mass deportations could cripple them, particularly in construction, where nearly 300,000 undocumented immigrants toiled as of 2022. Those workers enable the state to keep growing despite a native population that isn’t supplying a large enough workforce. Local analysts and executives want Trump to refrain from removing all these people or create new ways for them to work here legally. Even the Republican mayor of McKinney, Texas, is loudly sounding the alarm.

Meanwhile, back in Georgia, Trump’s threat of mass deportations is awakening new awareness that undocumented immigrants drive industries like construction, landscaping, and agriculture, reports The Wall Street Journal. In Dalton, a town that backed Trump, fear is spreading that removals could “upend its economy and workforce.” At this point, someone will argue that all this confirms Trump’s arguments—that these industries and their representatives merely fear losing cheap migrant labor that enables them to avoid paying Americans higher wages. When JD Vance and Trump pushed their lie about Haitians eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, Vance insisted that he opposed the Haitian influx into Midwestern towns because they’re undercutting U.S. workers. But all these disparate examples of Republicans and GOP areas lamenting coming mass deportations suggest an alternate story, one detailed well by the Times’ Lydia DePillis. In the MAGA worldview, a large reserve of untapped native-born Americans in prime working age are languishing in joblessness throughout Trump country—and will stream into all these industries once migrants are removed en masse, boosting wages.  

But DePillis documents that things like poor health and disability are more important drivers of unemployment among this subset of non-college working-age men. Besides, migrants living and working here don’t just perform labor that Americans will not. They also consume and boost demand, creating more jobs. As Paul Krugman puts it, in all these ways, migrant laborers are “complements” to U.S. workers. Importantly, that’s the argument that these Republicans and industries in GOP areas are really making when they lament mass deportations: Migrant labor isn’t displacing U.S. workers; it’s helping drive our post-Covid recovery and growth. This directly challenges Trump’s zero-sum worldview.

[...] Here’s another possibility: In the end, Trump’s deportation forces may selectively spare certain localities and industries from mass removals. Trump’s incoming “border czar,” Tom Homan, suggests this won’t happen. But a hallmark of MAGA is corruptly selective governance in the interests of MAGA nation and expressly against those who are designated MAGA’s enemies, U.S. citizens included. One can see mass deportations becoming a selective tool, in which blue localities are targeted for high-profile raids—even as Trump triumphantly rants that they are cesspools of “migrant crime” that he is pacifying with military-style force—while GOP-connected industries and Trump-allied Republicans tacitly secure some forbearance.

Donald Trump’s threats to green energy initiatives and resistance to his mass deportation proposals are facing headwinds against him, even from local Republicans who fear losses of jobs in their communities.

Even if Trump does get to implement his mass deportation policy, he’ll likely create several exemption carveouts (mainly for industries likely to favor him) and use selective enforcement (light touch for red states, heavy and punitive for blue states).

[locustheologicus]

Get Ready for a Trade War!

The immigration/Human Rights issue is perhaps my main concern with the Trump administration but this is followed closely with the tariff/trade issue and then the environmental/energy policies. On the second issue I remain a bit ambivalent because I recognize the need to promote our own production and manufacturing and I also see the benefit of asserting our economic power for issues related to human and fentanyl smuggling into our nation. But a trade war is something we also want to avoid as it will have repercussions to our own inflated prices and stretching consumer’s purchasing power is not in our own economic interest.

I shared an earlier analysis on tariffs which I think is very helpful in unpacking the concerns and benefits of using tariffs. One of the things that are mentioned in this post is that a trade war is generally something we do want to avoid and to instead use tariffs intelligently so that it does allow the American consumer to reasonably shift towards certain American products.

This is a complicated issue as former Mexican Ambassador Arturo Sarukhán tells us in the BBC news brief. Now that a trade war seems almost inevitable (did Trump really believe these nations would not retaliate?) Sarukhan tells us that because our supply chain is so integrated with these economies we can expect the impact of higher inflation and extra consuming taxes of about $830 per household. The American consumer should now how many imports we depend upon that keep prices low. A trade war will inevitably disrupt this economic balance. This may be ok if our intention is to move us from a consumer to production economy, but if we are serious about this we would want to transition smoothly with capital investment in updated technological and sustainability infrastructure (like the one promoted by the Green New Deal) rather than an economic shock treatment that results from a global trade war.

Arturo Sarukhán does suggest that perhaps there is a political negotiation behind these actions where Trump wants to renegotiate the USMCA (United States, Mexico, Canada, Agreement). A New York Times article also suggested that negotiations will be taking place today so there may be a political tactic here. But even there we need to be careful because of the impact this will have on our digital and automotive industries. The USMCA has a number of integrative factors that could also disrupt important industries.

The weaponization of tariffs has already been used against Colombia and this is having a deleterious effect on the relationship between these two nations, one of them being my country and the other being my ethnicity.

One result of this is that the Colombian president is asking undocumented Colombians to come back. This may be seen as a positive goal for America but what if this moves Colombia further into an economic partnership with China. Will enhancing Chinese economic influence in Latin America be in the economic interest of the United States?

I don’t think it’s smart that Trump used tariffs as a general economic weapon against our most important trade partners the way he did. If he is clever enough to do this as a show and is ready to negotiate to our benefit then I may see the wisdom of his power play but if (as I fear) he dropped a retaliatory bomb with no real gain but to score personal political points then a trade war will economically ruin us. As CNN reported this morning.

There are growing questions over whether his radical disruption — which often flouts generations of US policy and even challenges the law — will fix any of the problems he was elected to solve. Could it instead cleave deeper national divides, create economic chaos and pain for consumers — who elected him, in part, to lower prices — spike job losses, and leave America isolated after alienating its best friends in the world and destroying the international order?

Having said that, Trump did promise to use retaliatory tariffs so again we cannot act surprised by his rather unreflective policy. Let’s see how we feel by next year. Of course keep in mind that a hallmark of a narcissist like Trump is that they never take any responsibility for negative outcomes (although he will constantly seek praise and adulation by taking credit for positive outcomes even if he had nothing to do with it) so prepare to see who will be blamed for higher prices, further inflation, and perhaps an economic recession.

One Day Later:

Well, one day later and I’m editing my post to bring in this news.

Evidently, Trump flexed his muscle as a show of power only to end up showing flab. The great negotiator pulled back from a trade war, demonstrating now to the world that he really wasn’t serious, and ended up getting no real concessions. The concern now raised is at what cost are these otherwise meaningless threats. One cost of concern is the bad overall feeling left behind between America and its neighbors. China may find that amusing.

As for China, they have imposed their own retaliatory tariffs on some American imports today, China levied a 10% tariff affecting US crude oil, agricultural machinery, and certain cars and pickup trucks. Some types of American coal and natural gas will face a 15% tax. The measures will roll out on February 10. Evidently Trump wants to negotiate with China, we shall see what posture China will have after seeing this debacle.

So far, this presidency is not demonstrating the same international leadership seen (and respected) before.

Michael Beckley of Tufts University offers this historical warning.

President Theodore Roosevelt advised leaders to “speak softly and carry a big stick,” but Washington today often does the reverse: it talks tough but then underprepares, falling back on blunt tools such as sanctions or middle strikes when challenged. This “chicken hawk” approach demoralizes allies, provokes adversaries, and escalates conflicts that might have been contained with stronger engagement or avoided with better judgment.

By pairing diplomatic hostility with military unreadiness, the United States is once again sending the world a mixed signal, a yellow traffic light. Yellow lights, of course, often prompt aggressive drivers to speed up. American ambiguity won’t matter - until it does, when China, Iran, North Korea, or Russia decides it’s time to take what it has long claimed by force.

[funkyfreshray]

Defending Selena Gomez

Message to Miss Gomez:

Hi Miss Gomez. I wanted to respond to the back lash you are getting for sharing your sorrow and hurt for the Mexican culture and immigrants getting caught up in this mess regarding deportation. People who are out there telling her........

"Why doesn't she do something with her money instead of crying about it?" , "she should get deported", and mostly backlash from right wing. What problems do you have with her sharing her hurt on social media and sorrow for her people who came here to make a living for the well-being of their family? This is the government doing this. Not money. Why don't you question the current president and not make it worse on her for feeling compassion for her people. It's like a lot of you don't understand. You are here because of your parents, grandparents, and even ancestors who came from another country to provide a better way of life for you.

Understand that everyone in this country came from immigrants or just trespassers who decided to take this land from Native Americans who are the true citizens of this land and country. If any of you were paying attention to your history class in 7th grade, you would've known that Mexicans had a lot to do with helping the U.S. in gaining freedom, which is what the Constitution explains what our rights are in this country as well as protective of those who are looking for a better way of living. Not all immigrants are criminals, and because they are here and undocumented, it doesn't make them criminal. They are also paying taxes as they work and earn a living working hard to care for their families. Jumping the gun and making white America think that the problems are the Latinos, African Americans, etc., is an assumption made by this administration or even party for their followers to believe and be misled.

The rage caused in this country for Latin or Afro Americans has a lot to do with the fear brought on by white America. I'm sorry if I offend a lot of white Americans, but a lot of you aren't the problem. Most of you are, though. Have we not understood that we are a diverse country coming together to help make a better living for our families who don't have opportunity where they come from who were made to believe they have or had opportunity here? Immigrants play a big part in our economies growth. But you want to believe immigrants are the problem because of what? Are they different from you? They weren't born here? I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news for you, but a lot of your homes that you live in, produce that you feed your families, farming, construction, and so many more dependencies you have to allow you to live well here, were built or planted and cared for by immigrants.

It's not just immigrants, though. It's the culture they bring from other countries that allow them, us, to work as hard as we do and cared for those we don't know. We have compassion for those we don't know but understand. The fear that this administration and its party puts on its people is where a lot of the reactions and actions from a lot of people come from. No one enjoys acting out of fear, but it's sad to know what turns the good against the bad a lot of you think are good, starts to paint us as the problem in this country.

No one speaks about the hate that is shared in this country by groups such as "Proud Boys," "Oath Keepers," "Boogaloo Bois," "Patriot Front," and so on. Not to get political, but these are far right groups that are led by racism and hate towards those that are not like them, yet they claim the right.....REPUBLICANS! Stop allowing division to take its course. Have you not learned from history that this has been the case since this land was taken over in the early 1700s? With all that, we have become as diverse as we are today. We are in the 21st century acting as if we are in the 18th. There is no time and place for hate here. Money seems to be what controls a lot of people here, especially in the Republican party. It's fortunate for many to become millionaires in this country, but a lot of them want to be responsible with having that power and not use it for their own benefit.

What happened to making money to make a living? A lot of us have the talent and knowledge to earn more than the norm, and I would never take anything away from them for getting where they got, but the intentions that come with getting to a level of wealth a lot of them are, seems disappointing when we find out what is driving them. No one is above any law, and no one has more power than the next person. The responsibility you bring with the power you seem to think you have or want to believe you know you have is what defines the person that you are. There is a right way and a wrong way. We are not stupid and know what the difference is. Dont be selfish with your decisions, especially when it comes to people in politics and us citizens of this country. We should know better..

Miss Gomez, i pray for you and your family as well as your country and its citizens trying to make a better living for themselves in this land of opportunity. I do hurt just as you are hurting as my wife is Puerto Ricsn, I am Dominican, and I have many friends from Colombia, South America, Central America, and we are all suffering as well. Never would we think that the U.S. of A. would ever turn out to be heading where it seems to be heading. You have a lot of our support and all of us together csn help make this country better than it's ever been because one thing I can tell you is, that it's never been great to be great again.

[the-luckiest-guy-thanks-to-you]

Governments are massive hydras with tons of heads all over the place. Could and should Biden do more? Absolutely. Does that mean he hasn't done anything? No way. There have been a number of proposals for climate or disabled income that get blocked because it's not a total power system, but generally things are going in a better direction. That said, do not just default to Biden when it comes to wanting to elect people. It's still fair to not want him since not all get the same amount of action or that he isn't pushing for important policy that someone else might do more for overall. If there's another person like Bernie running, they should be prioritized. But if it comes down to the two worst, then yes, Biden would be far better and should get the vote than sitting it out or saying that it doesn't make a difference because it really does.

Under Biden there's also been pushes to build tech foundaries in multimillion dollar operations that might finally bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. Our economy has no floor due to the lack of tangible goods and is largely service based owing to how we push most production labor off to immigrants who have the most limited options, especially those who are undocumented. While the motivations are in part owed to xenophobia against Asian counties, there is such massive benefit to getting manufacturing back.

There's a huge amount going to rebuilding railways and new fleets of cars for Amtrak.

There's finally real progress in investing in the climate.

We should want and do need much more, but as far as policy goes, there's no debating it's better him than Republicans even if he isn't great and often acts hypocritically as a person.

In economics we divide the population into income quintiles -- top 20%, bottom 20%, etc

The Biden Economy has been very, very good to the bottom 20% -- I know because I am in that quintile and under the Biden Presidency I have seen multiple SNAP increases, the best COLA adjustments for Social Security in four decades, Medicare now pays my utilities, and because I'm part of the Affordable Connectivity Program, they can now never turn off my internet even if I can't afford to pay the bill.

The problem with the poorest people being the one who benefits the most? Is that it doesn't resonate as a media story. The media is not catering to that bottom quintile -- we don't have the expendable income their advertisers are seeking.

But if you want to elect a POTUS who is honestly helping the people who need it the most, you should be an enthusiastic Biden supporter. It won't make splashy news headlines, you're not even going to find MSNBC going GUESS WHAT THE POORS ARE DOING BETTER all the time because it's really not a sexy story. But it's a real story. A true story.

I'm just really sick of the pseudo-leftist takes that characterize Biden and the Democrats as 'conservative' or assertions that they don't have policy platforms except 'we're not the Republicans.' Such commentary sounds intelligent but only in the way Libertarian commentary sounds intelligent: you have to not think critically at all to some to such absurd conclusions. Democrats are working within a broken system and doing the best they can. You wanna fix the system? Great, I'm onboard, but smearing the only people trying to help is not going to get you anywhere.

[atlantagaimmigrationlawyer]

Immigration Reform in Atlanta, GA: A Critical Issue for the City’s Future

Atlanta, Georgia, a vibrant and growing metropolitan hub, has long been a destination for immigrants seeking new opportunities in the United States. As one of the largest cities in the southeastern U.S., it boasts a diverse population that includes individuals from various cultural backgrounds. However, as immigration continues to shape the city's demographics, calls for comprehensive immigration reform have gained momentum, particularly in light of economic, social, and political challenges. This article explores the importance of immigration reform in Atlanta, focusing on its impact on the local economy, community, and the broader implications for Georgia.

Economic Impact of Immigration in Atlanta

Immigrants play a vital role in Atlanta’s economy. According to the American Immigration Council, immigrants make up a significant portion of the workforce in Georgia, particularly in sectors such as construction, agriculture, hospitality, and healthcare. In Atlanta itself, immigrants contribute not only as workers but also as entrepreneurs, with many opening small businesses that help drive economic growth and create jobs. In fact, immigrants are more likely to start their own businesses than native-born citizens, contributing to the city’s entrepreneurial spirit.

Despite this, Atlanta’s immigrant community faces numerous challenges due to the lack of comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level. Without a clear and fair path to legal status, many immigrants live in the shadows, unable to fully contribute to society or access basic services like healthcare or education. This creates an environment of economic instability, with individuals fearing deportation or exploitation by unscrupulous employers. Reforming immigration policies would provide these workers with the security they need to continue contributing to the local economy.

Social and Cultural Contributions

Immigrants in Atlanta have enriched the city’s cultural landscape. The diversity of languages, foods, and traditions has transformed neighborhoods and businesses across the metro area, with many immigrants settling in historically underserved parts of the city. Areas like Buford Highway have become known for their vibrant international markets, restaurants, and cultural institutions, making Atlanta a more dynamic and attractive place to live and work.

However, despite these cultural contributions, immigrants in Atlanta often face discrimination and barriers to integration. Without immigration reform, many are denied opportunities for upward mobility, education, and full participation in society. Providing a pathway to citizenship would allow immigrants to fully engage in civic life, strengthening the social fabric of the city and fostering greater understanding and cooperation between different communities.

Political Landscape and Calls for Reform

Immigration reform has become a polarizing issue in Georgia’s political landscape. While the state has traditionally leaned conservative, there has been growing support for reform in urban areas like Atlanta, where the immigrant population is more prominent. Local leaders, community organizations, and immigrant advocates have called for changes that would provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented individuals, offer protections for immigrant workers, and ensure that families can remain together without the constant threat of deportation.

The failure of federal lawmakers to pass significant immigration reform has led many to question the status quo. With Georgia’s large Latino and immigrant populations, including communities from Latin America, Asia, and Africa, local leaders are increasingly pushing for reform at the state level. However, achieving meaningful change requires not only political will but also a broader shift in public opinion to view immigrants as an integral part of the community.

Conclusion

Immigration reform in Atlanta is not just a policy issue; it’s a question of justice, opportunity, and community. As the city continues to grow and diversify, it is essential that local, state, and federal governments take action to address the challenges faced by immigrants. Comprehensive immigration reform would not only benefit the economy but also strengthen the social fabric of Atlanta, allowing it to thrive as a city that welcomes people from all walks of life. With a growing consensus among local leaders and advocacy groups, the hope is that Atlanta’s future will be one where immigrants are recognized for their contributions and given the opportunity to fully realize their potential.

[theborderlessworld]

Donald Trump Has Promised a Closed Border and Mass Deportations. Those Affected Are Taking Action Now

Immigrants, their employers and groups that work with them are already taking action ahead of President-elect Donald Trump’s second term, in which he has promised to deport millions of people.

Some fear how the new administration could impact their families, while others are hopeful the plans — if they materialize — will make things better.

Trump allies are discussing deportation and detention options, with tackling the US-Mexico border seen as a priority from Day 1. And removing undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes is likely to be an early focus, a source familiar with the team’s preliminary plans told CNN.

But advocates fear deportation plans will soon reach deeper into American communities, targeting people who they say have a right to live here.

The League of United Latin American Citizens, the oldest Hispanic civil rights organization in the United States, is securing money and lawyers to fight what it is already calling potential “vicious, malevolent, cruel and ruthless” immigration policies.

“Make no mistake: Mass deportations will harm the millions targeted by Donald Trump, the families and communities they are part of — and every person in our country. They will rip parents from their children, destroy businesses and livelihoods, and devastate the fabric of our nation and our economy,” said Juan Proaño, CEO of LULAC.

A lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union says its planning for legal challenges is already well advanced.

“We have been preparing for a second Trump term for nearly a year, with a focus on the most draconian possible policies, including the threat to use the military for deportation, which is flatly illegal,” said Lee Gelernt, an ACLU attorney who argued many of the most high-profile cases during Trump’s first term.

The National Immigrant Justice Center said its lawyers were ready, too.

“We will continue our work of providing critical legal representation to immigrants and refugees, fighting to keep families together, defending access to asylum, and advocating for the end of arbitrary detention and unjust deportation,” Mary Meg McCarthy, the center’s executive director, said in a statement.

‘What happens now?’

Cesar Espinosa, a leader in Houston’s Hispanic community, said he’s had many calls and messages from worried people since Trump won reelection early Wednesday.

“We can feel the sense of uncertainty from a lot of people. A lot of people are asking, ‘What happens now? What do we do?’” he said.

Some are in so-called mixed status families made up of US citizens and undocumented immigrants. And the fear is that non citizens will be targeted immediately, said Espinosa, who is a legal permanent resident, or “green card” holder.

He says he tries to calm fears by saying that mass deportations, particularly of non-criminals, will take time. Meanwhile, he keeps count of the time when he can apply for US naturalization, still more than two years away.

Espinosa said machismo among Latino men may have contributed to support for Trump.

“Unfortunately, a lot of people in the Latino community have bought into the rhetoric of being anti-immigrant, even the immigrants themselves,” he said.

Jorge Rivas’ support for Trump is obvious. He features a MAGA burger on the menu at Sammy’s Mexican Grill, in Catalina, Arizona, north of Tucson, the restaurant he runs with his wife, Betty.

Rivas, born in El Salvador, was granted asylum at age 17, he says, and sees little connection between his life as an immigrant and those at the top of Trump’s potential deportation list.

“If they let in hundreds or thousands of people who already have criminal records, if deporting them creates a mass deportation, I’m all for it,” he said.

He does not think the action will extend to law-abiding workers.

“That wouldn’t be fair,” he said. “They need to make sure that they don’t throw away, they don’t kick out, they don’t deport people that are family oriented.”

Advocates mobilize

In California, where farmers are reliant on migrant labor, there is a renewed call for immigration reform to allow people into the US for temporary agricultural work. There are also calls for legal status for the current workforce.

“We must focus on easing the chronic employee shortages on California farms and ranches and reducing the barriers to employment,” California Farm Bureau President Shannon Douglass said in a statement to CNN.

In the urban heart of New York City, where thousands of migrants and asylum seekers have stretched local resources, some houses of worship are preparing to shift their missions.

“The faith community has been mobilized for more than two and a half years in kind of an emergency capacity,” said the Rev. Chloe Breyer, executive director of the Interfaith Center of New York, a religiously diverse non-profit agency. “The challenge was not specifically deportation, as it is now, the challenge was the feeding, the housing and the welcome of enormous numbers of people.”

She said there was a biweekly call of about 60 churches, mosques and synagogues involved in welcoming migrants that could be pivoted. “That’s the network that will be mobilized when it comes to fighting any sort of more extreme measures such as deportation.”

A day after the election, New York City officials said fear was premature when they addressed immigration and how they would work with the incoming Trump administration.

The city has sanctuary laws that prevent local authorities from contacting federal immigration officers if they come across a migrant without permission to be in the US. Some in Mayor Eric Adams’ administration have said they want the laws amended to not include those who commit violent crimes, but for now any city-federal cooperation is limited.

“We’re working with all of the agencies that interact with immigrant communities to make sure that they understand what our sanctuary laws are and what they are expected to follow,” said Manuel Castro, the mayor’s commissioner for immigrant affairs. While the laws are in place, he said, anxiety and fear for immigrant communities is rooted in misinformation and even hate crimes.

But Murad Awawdeh, president of the New York Immigration Coalition, warned that sanctuary laws won’t stop federal immigration agencies from doing what they want.

“Sanctuary laws don’t stop federal agencies. They just don’t allow the city and state to participate,” Awawdeh said. “They’ve never been a firewall.”

Federal enforcement

Officials in US Customs and Border Protection and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, two agencies under the Department of Homeland Security, are not commenting on any potential new policies or preparations. Both would be central to any deportation plan, but top leadership will not change until the second Trump administration begins its work on January 20.

At both the northern and southern borders, apprehensions of those who have crossed illegally continue to be low in 2024, with a seven-day average of 1,700 a day, according to a law enforcement source familiar with the government data. The busiest sector was San Diego, with 350 people detained on Tuesday.

At some points in December 2023, migrant apprehensions exceeded 10,000 per day on the US southern border.

The day after the election, Jim Desmond, a member of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, posted a picture of himself and Vice President-elect JD Vance at the border wall, saying he was looking forward to securing it. Earlier this year, Desmond testified before Congress that federal policies had meant “our Border Patrol has been reduced to processing agents, standing by, watching people break our laws.”

Kenia Zamarripa, of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, said many local businesses had ties across the border with companies, operations and workers and that an efficient and secure border should still facilitate trade and travel.

“It’s not just manufacturing, it’s not just tourism or retail, these are high-paying jobs and skilled workers that our businesses need to thrive,” she told CNN.

The tone was more defiant in Los Angeles, where the University of Southern California estimated last year there were more than 800,000 undocumented immigrants in LA county. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass told CNN: “The immigrant community is the heart of our city and in the face of threats and fear, Los Angeles will stand together. No one should live in fear due to their immigration status. We will continue to support local and state policies that protect immigrants and provide vital resources.”

She added: “My message is simple: No matter where you were born, how you came to this country, Los Angeles will stand with you and this will not change.”

The Los Angeles Unified School District — the second largest in the nation behind New York City — said it was bracing for a potential threat of legal action against students and their families that could lead to separation or deportation. It added that it would not enter into agreements with government agencies for the enforcement of federal immigration law unless required by law.

“Immigration enforcement activities around schools create hardships and barriers to health and educational attainment and cultivate a pervasive climate of fear, conflict, and stress that affects all students in our district, regardless of their background or immigration status,” a spokesperson for the district said in a statement sent to CNN.

Across the border from San Diego in Tijuana, Mexico, about 3,400 people are waiting in migrant shelters, according to Jose Luis Perez Canchola, the city’s migration affairs director.

Many are hoping to enter the US legally using the CBP ONE app run by DHS to get an immigration appointment, but there are fears that the app could be impacted, he said.

“In the event of a mass cancellation of appointments and closing CBP ONE, what may happen is that many will decide to illegally cross the border before January 2025,” Perez Canchola said.

There is also concern in Piedras Negras, the Mexican city across the Rio Grande from Eagle Pass, Texas. “There’s fear and trepidation,” said Sister Isabel Turcios, director of the Frontera Digna shelter, where migrants were also using CBP ONE to get an appointment with an immigration officer.

“I try to calm them because the anxiety they’re feeling is very great,” she said.

Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/11/us/closed-border-trump-immigration-deportation/index.html

[thatsactuallywrong]

I understand that your vote was motivated by strong convictions about the future of the country, but I think there are a few points here that deserve a closer look:

Trump as a Savior: You mention voting for Trump to 'save this great nation from the corrupt politicians who have governed us for decades,' yet Trump himself was part of the political establishment for years, including during his presidency. The idea of him as an outsider challenging the system is complicated by the fact that he had significant influence over key political and institutional decisions during his time in office. How does this square with the notion of him being an 'outsider'?

Trump’s Own Role in the Negative Narrative: While you argue that the media has 'framed a negative reality of Trump,' it’s important to acknowledge that Trump’s own words and actions have contributed to his image. He’s often used divisive rhetoric, which has fueled public distrust and division. It’s easy to blame the media, but his inflammatory language has been a significant factor in shaping how he’s viewed.

The 'Tried to Kill Him' Claim: The statement that Trump has been 'tried to be killed multiple times' is, to put it mildly, laughable. The first shooter was a registered Republican, and the second was someone unaffiliated with a party but who voted for Trump in 2016. This oversimplified narrative about political persecution fails to address the complexity of such incidents and risks distorting the actual motivations of the individuals involved.

Spending Billions on a Campaign of Hate and Division: The claim that 'they spent billions of dollars on a campaign based on hate and division' seems to ignore the fact that Trump himself has often employed rhetoric that divides the country. His words have at times been the source of the very division he critiques, whether through personal attacks, dismissive comments about entire groups of people, or fostering an 'us vs. them' mentality. It’s not just the media, but his own actions that have stoked these fires.

Media Bias and Free Speech: The desire for 'truth and nonpartisan news' is something many share, but Trump’s relationship with the media has been anything but neutral. He’s consistently elevated certain news outlets while attacking others, which undermines the idea of fostering objective journalism. His approach to media and information isn’t about creating a more balanced discourse—it’s about controlling the narrative that suits his agenda.

Immigration and National Security: While it’s important to have a secure border and prioritize lawful immigration, the rhetoric around 'hardworking Americans' versus 'illegal immigrants' can overlook the broader contributions immigrants, both documented and undocumented, make to the economy and society. We should balance national security with compassion and fairness in how we treat people.

Gender and Ideology: Gender issues are complex, but framing gender diversity as a 'mental health condition' rather than recognizing it as part of the natural diversity of human experience can be harmful and stigmatizing. Inclusivity and respect for all individuals, including those who don’t conform to traditional gender norms, can coexist with a recognition of biological sex.

Election Integrity and Censorship: The focus on 'election integrity' is important, but the 2020 election was thoroughly examined, and multiple audits confirmed its legitimacy. Similarly, while social media platforms need to balance free speech with the need to curb misinformation, it’s important to note that concerns about censorship often stem from attempts to suppress disinformation, which can endanger public trust and safety.