What is pulling America Apart?

[RDKirk]

What I see pulling American and other western countries apart is the fixation on race and the stupidity surrounding it.

There's 'cultural appropriation'.

Recently an Australian woman opened a sushi restaurant in New York. She received harassment and her restaurant was review bombed with half a star reviews. All this because she was a white woman selling what is a traditionally Japanese food. Fortunately this story has a happy ending as well as a twist.

There's 'anything/anyone I don't like is racist'.

A singer tried to film a music video in a Target without permission and was told they couldn't film there by a Target employee. She called the Target employee racist.

This is a part of bigger problem, which is the coddling of minorities. Like the way the "progressive" left tries to actually protect minorities against words. For example, the word like monkeypox being changed to mpox. No evidence of the word being used in a racist context was shown. Just the potential for racism it seems was enough to get the name changed. There's also college "safe spaces" for people of color only. Not even infants are coddled this much.

If a group of people are constantly told they are oppressed then there are some that will eventually start to believe it, as well as those who will take advantage of it. This is how we get Jussie Smollett, Hasan Minhaj, the singer in the Target story, and all these fake hate crimes. The progressive left has basically turned victimhood into currency.

Of course not all who are a part of these minorities buy into this and thankfully most of the people in these minorities don't buy into this. But there is a significant number of people in these minorities that have bought into the oppression narrative.

This story shocked me. This is how crazy it's gotten.

Skip to 2:02 to hear the story.

Now that's privilege. Having your "allies" come to help you perpetuate your own victim narrative.

For the most part I see it's those on the right calling this stuff out. Those on the moderate left either ignore, defend it or try to downplay it, except when the victimhood narrative is so ridiculous even they have to say something, as in the story above. The only prominent left winger I see calling this stuff out is Bill Maher. Yeah, "wokeness" is a big problem in America.

This is an evil principality at work.

 

[public hermit]

The "higher quality" people do not pursue it

I think there's truth to that. At least, those who might do really well wouldn't want all that comes with it. When I think of quality, I think in terms of integrity/honesty and a true interest in the good of a constituency. I think the temptation toward an inordinate degree of self-interest can be a problem for politicians, in general, and in the extreme, politics draws those with narcissistic tendencies.

I also think quality politicians are those who can compromise, gaining as much as they can without completely undermining the process. Part of what is so toxic to a two-party system is ideologues who cannot work with their fellow citizens. Our current division needs more moderates, a general push toward the middle.

 

[RDKirk]

What I see pulling American and other western countries apart is the fixation on race and the stupidity surrounding it.

There's 'cultural appropriation'.

Recently an Australian woman opened a sushi restaurant in New York. She received harassment and her restaurant was review bombed with half a star reviews. All this because she was a white woman selling what is a traditionally Japanese food. Fortunately this story has a happy ending as well as a twist.

There is such a thing as cultural appropriation. It's when someone from Culture A takes a cultural mote from Culture B, claims it as his own creation, and perhaps even copyrights it as his own creation, thus profiting from something he stole, not created. In my own lexicon, "claiming it as their own" is an essential component of the concept of "appropriation."

This happened blatantly with black American music in the first half of the 20th century. But a counter-example, an example of "cultural appreciation" is songwriter/performer Paul Simon's use of African musical motes in the 1980s. Simon stated outright that he'd gained new inspiration from African music and even brought some of those African musicians to the US to record and tour with them. It re-vitalized Simon's career.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nonsense.

Asylum seekers is a legal process. Nothing illegal about it.

Asylum is a legal process...

But crossing the border illegally is still a crime.

One doesn't cancel out the other. True, they aren't going to deport you if you qualify for asylum....but something like 80-90% don't qualify, and are deportable for crossing illegally.

I don't understand what's so difficult to grasp here. These people aren't fleeing from some advancing army. They're illegally crossing the border so they can skip the line.

Also, don't ask for evidence if you aren't going to examine it. If you had even watched the 1st five minutes of the video I linked, you'd have seen that illegals going to NYC are having their asylum court dates scheduled for 2032. That's basically a decade from now. We're completely justified in placing a complete freeze on all asylum claims at this point.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There is such a thing as cultural appropriation. It's when someone from Culture A takes a cultural mote from Culture B, claims it as his own creation, and perhaps even copyrights it as his own creation, thus profiting from something he stole, not created. In my own lexicon, "claiming it as their own" is an essential component of the concept of "appropriation."

This happened blatantly with black American music in the first half of the 20th century. But a counter-example, an example of "cultural appreciation" is songwriter/performer Paul Simon's use of African musical motes in the 1980s. Simon stated outright that he'd gained new inspiration from African music and even brought some of those African musicians to the US to record and tour with them. It re-vitalized Simon's career.

Your example doesn't follow your definition.

If Paul Simon claimed he was inspired by African music then he isn't "claiming it as his own creation".

Edit-never mind, I misread "counter example" lol.

 

[RDKirk]

Your example doesn't follow your definition.

If Paul Simon claimed he was inspired by African music then he isn't "claiming it as his own creation".

That's my point. Sorry if I was misunderstood. Paul Simon did it right. He admirably practiced "cultural appreciation."

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's my point. Sorry if I was misunderstood. Paul Simon did it right. He admirably practiced "cultural appreciation."

I corrected my post.

 

[stevil]

Asylum is a legal process...

But crossing the border illegally is still a crime.

Crossing the border and claiming asylum isn't illegal, it's part of the official process.
For those that assessed at the border as potentially qualifying, they are allowed legal entry. A court appearance is necessary and is booked. But the problem is that the court date is something like 2 years away because USA isn't applying enough resources to this legal process.

One doesn't cancel out the other. True, they aren't going to deport you if you qualify for asylum....but something like 80-90% don't qualify, and are deportable for crossing illegally.

If they cross as asylum seekers then their entry was legal.
If the courts determine that they don't qualify for asylum then they must leave within a certain period. If they don't leave, then and only then, do they become illegal. Not at the crossing, but at a point in time within their stay in USA. At one point in time they are legal, at another point in time they are illegal. The problem wasn't at the border.

I don't understand

It's a simple concept, all you need to do is listen and take the time to think about it.

what's so difficult to grasp here. These people aren't fleeing from some advancing army. They're illegally crossing the border so they can skip the line.

Nope. The asylum seekers crossed the border legally, as part of a legal process.

Also, don't ask for evidence if you aren't going to examine it. If you had even watched the 1st five minutes of the video I linked, you'd have seen that illegals going to NYC are having their asylum court dates scheduled for 2032. That's basically a decade from now. We're completely justified in placing a complete freeze on all asylum claims at this point.

The problem isn't the asylum seekers, they aren't committing crimes in their act of entering the country
The problem is that USA isn't applying enough resources to the courts and aren't processing these in a timely fashion. Your solution isn't the humane answer, it is an approach of sweeping things under the rug and saying "not my problem", essentially you are leaving people to die. Real asylum seekers are in danger.

 

[stevil]

People, but more so government, seem to forget that it is government that is supposed to be completely open and subject to investigation by the people, NOT the other way around.

Huh, If people have committed crimes or if there is justifiable or probable cause that a person has or is committing a crime, then the Justice parts of government are allowed to investigate the people.

 

[timothyu]

I think the temptation toward an inordinate degree of self-interest can be a problem

That is why God kicked us out of the Garden

 

[timothyu]

If people have committed crimes or if there is justifiable or probable cause that a person has or is committing a crime, then the Justice parts of government are allowed to investigate the people.

Perhaps but they paint with a wider brush these days. How come the people aren't allowed to do the same with authourity?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Crossing the border and claiming asylum isn't illegal

Wrong.

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

www.law.cornell.edu

For those that assessed at the border as potentially qualifying, they are allowed legal entry.

They aren't assessed at the border.

A court appearance is necessary

I disagree that it's necessary.

But the problem is that the court date is something like 2 years away because USA isn't applying enough resources to this legal process.

The USA doesn't have enough resources to process 6 million people, especially when so many don't show up for their hearing, and so few are being deported.

If they cross as asylum seekers then their entry was legal.

Only if it was at a port of entry, see above. That's the law they're breaking. Notice that it doesn't make any exceptions for asylum seekers.

If the courts determine that they don't qualify for asylum then they must leave within a certain period. If they don't leave, then and only then, do they become illegal.

No, they're here illegally until they have a judge determine they have a right to stay. The court date is all that keeps them from being deported.

Not at the crossing, but at a point in time within their stay in USA. At one point in time they are legal, at another point in time they are illegal. The problem wasn't at the border.

The problem is at the border. If you can show me any law stating that an asylum claim legally permits someone to stay in the US, I'd love to see it.

It's a simple concept, all you need to do is listen and take the time to think about it.

It is a simple concept. I've even shown you the law they break.

Nope. The asylum seekers crossed the border legally, as part of a legal process.

Only at a port of entry. Crossing illegally makes means someone broke the law.

The problem isn't the asylum seekers, they aren't committing crimes in their act of entering the country

They are....

1. They are crossing illegally.
2. They are making false claims of asylum.

The problem is that USA isn't applying enough resources to the courts and aren't processing these in a timely fashion.

This might be the most ridiculous response I've ever seen.

How many asylum officers, immigration judges, and courts, and deportation flights would it require to process 3 million people a year????

Think of the hundreds of billions of dollars of resources it would require....not to mention the number of people who would have to be forced through law school and into the role of immigration judges to speed this up.

It's an absurd proposition. Those resources don't exist. Literally all the resources we have are dedicated to this and we can't make immigration judges appear out of thin air lol.

It would be more honest for you to just say "I don't have any solution for this problem" because you don't.

Your solution isn't the humane answer

It actually is. These people are sold into debt bondage by human traffickers because they have no idea what the US is actually like. If they knew that our immigration laws weren't a joke...they wouldn't come.

 

[stevil]

Perhaps but they paint with a wider brush these days. How come the people aren't allowed to do the same with authourity?

I'm not sure about this, painting a wider brush. There seems to be quite a process for some levels of investigations. Like going through a court to get a subpoena or sign off on wire tapping etc. They need to prove justifiable cause to think there might be a crime, they can't just sniff around wherever they please.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by
"How come the people aren't allowed to do the same with authourity?"
People aren't police or courts. They aren't qualified and don;t have the proper tools or training to carry out proper investigations.
With regards to "authority" it seems DOJ won't indict a sitting president, and now a judge has said that a person running for president can incite an insurrection and that won't disqualify them from running for office. So the USA president is held above the law in many regards in USA.

 

[stevil]

Wrong.

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

www.law.cornell.edu

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this link?
The asylum seeker process is to go to an official port of entry and declare that you are seeking asylum. This is entirely a legal thing for them to do.
If they have been fraudulent e.g. lying about their situation, then that can be found out in the court system. But in the time being they are legal.

They aren't assessed at the border.

Utter nonsense.

The USA doesn't have enough resources to process 6 million people, especially when so many don't show up for their hearing,

Where do you get your information from?

11 Years of Government Data Reveal That Immigrants Do Show Up for Court - American Immigration Council

A new report released today by the American Immigration Council examines 11 years of government data on the rate at which immigrants appear for hearings in U.S. immigration court. The report, “Measuring In Absentia Removal in Immigration Court,” concludes that an overwhelming 83% of immigrants...

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

The report, “Measuring In Absentia Removal in Immigration Court,” concludes that an overwhelming 83% of immigrants attend their immigration court hearings, and those who fail to appear in court often did not receive notice or faced hardship in getting to court.

Only if it was at a port of entry, see above. That's the law they're breaking. Notice that it doesn't make any exceptions for asylum seekers.

If a person sneaks into your country, then they aren't an asylum seeker.
LOL

No, they're here illegally until they have a judge determine they have a right to stay. The court date is all that keeps them from being deported.

If they've gone through the process of entry then they are legal. But they might have a pending court date. If they don't turn up for their court case then they become illegal. Or if their asylum is rejected and they don't leave on time, then they become illegal. In the mean time they are legal.

The problem is at the border. If you can show me any law stating that an asylum claim legally permits someone to stay in the US, I'd love to see it.

Really? You can't understand the concept of asylum status, and having a pending court case?
You really think the border control people think they are illegal and just let them through?

What do you think the border control people do all day? Play tiddlywinks, or tweet on twitter?

It is a simple concept. I've even shown you the law they break.

No, you haven't

Only at a port of entry. Crossing illegally makes means someone broke the law.

Asylum seekers don't cross illegally.

2. They are making false claims of asylum.

This might not be assessed until the court case is completed. If the border control people can't determine it then the courts are needed.

It actually is. These people are sold into debt bondage by human traffickers because they have no idea what the US is actually like. If they knew that our immigration laws weren't a joke...they wouldn't come.

I see Fox News opinion shows are getting their messages through.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this link?

The facts. That's the US Federal code that states its illegal to cross the border in non-designated areas.

Real simple.

But in the time being they are legal.

Nope. Everyone in the US is either here legally or illegally. Until an asylum seekers is granted asylum...they're here illegally.

Utter nonsense.

Utter nonsense is your grasp of the law.

Where do you get your information from?

You're asking where I looked up the US legal code?

I looked up the law. That's where I get my information from.

11 Years of Government Data Reveal That Immigrants Do Show Up for Court - American Immigration Council

A new report released today by the American Immigration Council examines 11 years of government data on the rate at which immigrants appear for hearings in U.S. immigration court. The report, “Measuring In Absentia Removal in Immigration Court,” concludes that an overwhelming 83% of immigrants...

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

The report, “Measuring In Absentia Removal in Immigration Court,” concludes that an overwhelming 83% of immigrants attend their immigration court hearings, and those who fail to appear in court often did not receive notice or faced hardship in getting to court.

You'll notice that's "all immigrants" and the data set is far too old. We're only talking about illegal border crossers seeking asylum...not some guy from Taiwan trying to renew his expired business visa.

If they've gone through the process of entry then they are legal.

No...they aren't.

Here's a video refuting every false point you've made.

But they might have a pending court date. If they don't turn up for their court case then they become illegal.

Nope...they're illegal until granted asylum. Again, you don't have to keep demonstrating you don't understand the law.

Really? You can't understand the concept of asylum status, and having a pending court case?

A pending court case prevents deportation....it doesn't change your immigration status to "legally in the US".

You really think the border control people think they are illegal and just let them through?

I know they do...this administration has required it.

See the video above. That's an immigration expert from DHS and a congressman.

No, you haven't

See my previous post.

Asylum seekers don't cross illegally.

Yes they do.

I see Fox News opinion shows are getting their messages through.

If you think I get my opinions from Fox News....then you should start watching Fox news lol. You're wrong about everything. 1700 dead bodies have been found under Biden....no previous year exceeded 300. There's nothing humane about this.

Also, I got that info from a Health and Human Services whistleblower under Biden. He's a disgrace, and anyone supporting him should never be taken seriously regarding the border again.

 

[timothyu]

Like going through a court to get a subpoena or sign off on wire tapping

Wire yes, digital no.

 

[stevil]

We're only talking about illegal border crossers seeking asylum.

I'm not talking about that at all
I'm talking about asylum seekers.
Asylum seekers are people who have crossed the border legally and been allowed legally into the country.
While they wait for their court date, they are legally allowed in the country. LOL.

Taking to a person who thinks an asylum seeker is a person who sneaks into the country illegally is just ridiculous.
Worse than that is the moronic idea that the border control let them in illegally and then don't arrest them immediately for being illegally in the country. My mind can't comprehend this nonsense way of thinking. Use logic please.

 

[stevil]

Here's a video refuting every false point you've made.

In this video that you provided:
The expert says that the asylum seeker comes in at a port of entry and is given the opportunity to file an asylum claim.
He says that they then come in, they aren't given legal status but they are an asylum applicant

The above doesn't mean that this person is illegally in the country.

 

[timothyu]

The expert says that the asylum seeker comes in at a port of entry and is given the opportunity to file an asylum claim.

Quite common in sporting events

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not talking about that at all
I'm talking about asylum seekers.

Well I'm talking about people crossing the border illegally.

Asylum seekers are people who have crossed the border legally and been allowed legally into the country.

Plenty of them crossing illegally.

Taking to a person who thinks an asylum seeker is a person who sneaks into the country illegally is just ridiculous.

I've handed you plenty of evidence for what's happening. You can choose to ignore it, but you're only embarrassing yourself.

Worse than that is the moronic idea that the border control let them in illegally and then don't arrest them immediately for being illegally in the country.

They do arrest them...that's when they ask for asylum.