I don't know why we can't walk and chew gum at the same time anymore. There are good reasons why certain police jurisdictions don't enforce immigration law - For one, they're neither Federal, nor tasked with immigration enforcement. But more importantly, the immigration debate needs a very large dose of reality checking from both sides.

1. People who are vehemently opposed to 'sanctuary cities' need to understand that those cities often tend to have a large undocumented population, often making up a sizable percentage of lower-income, crime infested neighborhoods. No amount of strict (civilized) laws will make people voluntarily return to a gang infested city in i.e. Honduras. It is also economically/politically unrealistic to deport even a fraction of the people here currently under the radar. Trump or no Trump, the U.S. will continue to have millions of people living here illegally. You can't have good policing if you don't have community trust. Community trust, in part, comes from citizens feeling like the police is on their side. If people fear deportation, they will be less likely to ask the police for help, report crimes, or cooperate with police investigations.

- Unrealistic hardline/no mercy policies typically lead to leftist backlash.

2. People who are all gung ho about sanctuary cities need to ask themselves what the point of having an immigration system is, if it cannot be enforced. Particularly, there is no reason why deportable offenses (CIMTs) shouldn't trigger a referral to ICE, if it turns out that the perpetrator is not in the country legally. It would also help soften up immigration hardliners to come up with solutions, rather than slogans such as "we're all immigrants." Those are irrelevant statements, not solutions, and they serve no other purpose than to make people think liberals all want open borders (which is how Trump wins).

- Unrealistic utopian policies typically lead to right-wing backlash.

Congrats!!

It's half a decade ago, but I still remember the day my I-130 was approved. It's an amazing feeling. You'll get through the rest as well, and then before you know you it, all this 'immigration stuff' will be a thing of the past.

Your passport number is new.

Your name, fingerprints, date of birth, place of birth etc. remain the same, and your new passport number is still tied to your old passport number. In other words; They will know.

37 minutes ago, bcking said:

Also not great policy to base immigration decisions based on "feelings" from an immigration officer, and yet we do that all the time.

 

The issue for marriage should be simple. You should be able to do it whenever you want, on whatever visa you are on. Marriage isn't, on it's own, an immigration issue.

 

However when you get married, you should have to apply for immigration just like every other married person. The process should be the same. It shouldn't matter whether you are in the country already or not. You should have to abide by whatever visa you currently have (30 day, 90 day, whatever) and if the application process takes longer you return home and wait it out.

 

That seems like the simple, straight forward solution that covers everyone equally.

I disagree slightly.

B-1/2 visas are short term visas for people intending to visit the U.S. for vacation or short business trips.

F-1 visas, H-1b visas would require the foreign spouse to quit their current job or significantly delay their college degree if they have to return. Adjustment of status should be an option, especially given that it's entirely plausible to meet, date and marry someone while you're here studying or working for half a decade.

1 hour ago, bcking said:

You don't need a K-1 if you are a fiance.

 

Just show up on a B-2, say you don't intend to marry and neglect to mention you are engaged and then marry "spontaneously". 

 

Seems like a much quicker system.

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Because a lot of the people coming on k-1s do not qualify for a b2

Yep^

There wouldn't be a need for a K-1 category if B-2s were allowed to enter with intent to stay. If you married a foreigner, but wanted to hold your wedding in your home town, that would be very difficult to do without the K-1, virtually impossible if the foreign fiance(e) is from a high-fraud country. You'd have to convince a consular officer and CBP that you intend to enter, get married, and then leave for the I-130/CR-1 route.

I realize everyone's situation is different, but I really cannot think of a good reason why tourists should be eligible to adjust status. If you adjust status from i.e. F-1 or H-1b, that makes complete sense, since you would have entered the country to spend a significant amount of time and even set up temporary domicile in the U.S - most of your belongings and most of your life is already here. That isn't the case if you're here to go to Disneyland or visit your aunt. Filing an I-130/CR-1 while on a B-2 isn't  even that big of a deal. You can stay legally until your 180 days are up, return for your interview and come back on a CR-1. If you overstayed, you're still eligible for an I-601 waiver. This would make it a whole lot easier for family members waiting for an I-130 to visit during that time too, because the presumption of immigrant intent would be easier to overcome.

Really good one from the Center for Immigration Studies: https://cis.org/Report/Hello-I-Love-You-Wont-You-Tell-Me-Your-Name-Inside-Green-Card-Marriage-Phenomenon

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  What is your suggestion then?

 

  You can't stop people from getting married. You are not going to change adjustment of status, and contrary to the OP's suggestion, I really don't see a legal way of forcing a spouse of a USC to leave the country that would hold up in court. 

 

  

10 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   

 

  I think everyone who marries a foreign spouse should live in the foreign country for 2 years to prove they are not just being used for a visa. If it works out after two years, then they can come back.  Shouldn't spouses be required to get in line with everyone else? Why does it matter where you met them? Why should foreign spouses jump ahead of other immigrant categories who have been in line for years?

 

  

Everyone has to get in line. Family members generally go the I-130 route, and I-130s are the same for all family members. Once the I-130 petition is approved however, is when the difference comes in. While anyone can file a petition, there are only a certain amount of immigrant visas available to apply for each year. This supply of available visas is far lower than the demand for those visas. So you wait. There is no quota for spouses and minor children.

Why? Because spouses and minor children are often dependent on you and you share a household. In essence, your wife or 10 year old kid takes priority over someone else's 47 year old brother.

Imagine 100,000 visas were allocated to spouses and minor children annually. You try to bring your wife and 10 year old to the U.S., but 1,000,000 other applications were filed that same year. You'd be looking at a 10 year wait to bring your wife and child to come live with you - Time that the 10 year old could have spent with both parents, in a U.S. school, learning English fluently and creating a network of friends instead of waiting in immigration limbo.

22 hours ago, WeGuyGal said:

What visa is she applying for, K3 or CR1?

 

B2 visits get tricky with a petition pending, because there is virtually no incentive for the spouse to return home. If she arrives for a 5-mo visit at POE, CBP could see it as effort to circumvent the overseas wait and a risk to AOS. 

Depends. If she already has a valid B2 it's far from impossible - She'll only have to deal with CBP and not the consulate. This is purely anecdotal, but I came over multiple times on ESTA with an I-130 pending and once with an approved I-130 waiting for interview. Half the time, CBP never asked if I knew anyone here and I just simply and generically said I'm visiting for a month. The times when they did ask more specifically, I showed them a return ticket and explained I still had a job and a life to wrap up back home. The final time I entered on ESTA I had already resigned my job and shipped half my stuff, but I had a printout of my interview date confirmation from the embassy.

These were all 2 - 6 week ESTA visits. 5 months on B2 might be trickier.

On 3/12/2018 at 4:43 AM, ako_c_bayee said:

Wow thank u for the explanation and giving time for this. Appreciate it!

You were denied under section 214(b) of the immigration act.

In essence, you're allowed to visit the U.S. on a B-2 visa for up to 180 days at a time if the following is true:
1. You plan to leave within those 180 days.
2. You won't work illegally.

3. You won't study.

4. You won't commit any crimes.

It doesn't matter whether you plan to visit Disneyland or your aunt, if the above 4 are true, you are considered a tourist and you will get a B-2 visa. The problem is that 214(b) requires the consular officer to assume that you're intent is to immigrate to the U.S. It leaves it up to you to show that you're not. They are not allowed to authorize a visa unless they're satisfied that you won't overstay, work, study or commit any crimes. That means that the moment you walk into the consulate, the officer interviewing you assumes that you'll get a job in the U.S. and never leave.

In your case, overcoming that assumption is harder because you have an American boyfriend. There is nothing illegal in that, but if they have reason to believe you'll get married and file for adjustment of status (which is 100% legal), then they can't admit you because you're not planning to leave within 180 days. Simple as that. Now, if for instance, your career in Singapore is one that would make it completely insane for you to want to leave everything behind and settle in the U.S., then they're going to be less likely to suspect you won't leave.

Think of the life you have in the Philippines/Singapore - Is there anything there that would it completely crazy for any normal person to want to come and stay in the U.S. instead?

On 1/2/2018 at 1:24 AM, Helsinki said:

He is applying for a residence permit for an employed person. He has income and his own business so we really hope that since he is not coming here to take advantage of our free social security system they would allow him to enter.

 

He thought you have to be away for that amount that you were in, like that would be enough. My bf said there are no official rules but somehow I knew this wouldn't be that easy. The officer was very suspicious last time when I said I'm gonna be there for so long and I get it. But I just told him the truth and hoped for the best.

If it was me I would probably wait with the B-2 until your bf actually submits an application for a Finnish residence permit. Reason is simple - showing that he is planning to move there is good evidence that you're not trying to stay here. If you have a copy of his submitted application, it's an extra piece of evidence for you. They might not ask for it, but it's a good thing to have.

There are no rules for how long you have to stay out of the country. In theory, you can stay for 90 days, leave for a week and come back for another 90 days. As long as you plan to leave within those 90 days and don't work/study, you're considered a tourist, and as long as you're a tourist, you're allowed to stay for up to 90 days at a time. It differs from European rules in that Schengen countries generally only let you stay for up to 180 days in a given year, up to 90 days at a time. The U.S. lets you stay for however long as long as you're a tourist.

That's why it's easy for a lot of retired Europeans to travel in and out frequently if they own a vacation home in i.e. Florida and receive pensions from Europe - There is little concern they plan to marry an American and stay, and there is little concern they're going to run out of money and/or work illegally. For young, unmarried travelers, both of those are concerns.

This is grounded in section 214(b) of the immigration act, which, also requires a CBP officer or Consular officer to 1. assume that you want to immigrate, and 2. turn you away if they're not convinced you're a tourist. In other words, you're considered guilty until they are satisfied otherwise. One of the things that's hard for you to satisfy them of is that you're intending to leave within 90 days - As opposed to marrying your boyfriend and adjusting status.

You have a good track record, and I'd be surprised if they turn you away for another ESTA entry. The B-2 route in my opinion is riskier, at least until you have some sort of evidence that he is applying to move to Finland.

7 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Change his Twitter password. Classic. Good one. I think the National anthem thing would be yesterday's news, had he not got into something he should have left alone. 

Yep. Trump is very good at stirring up and creating backlash around yesterday's news.

It's a little like when people start shouting "racism!" out of nowhere. You're like "really? where? what?" and then a bunch of crazy KKK folks come out of their swamps feeling empowered. There was probably less racism before you mindlessly went on a "racism everywhere" rampage.

Steph Curry says he doesn't want to meet Trump. Probably would have lasted 15 minutes in the news cycle, but then Trump goes ahead and disinvites the Warriors, rampaging about kneeling players in Alabama and on Twitter. Before the Trump tirade, Colin Kaepernick was an unemployed, obsolete news article. After the Trump tirade, there are kneeling football players everywhere.

There is no better way to do your own cause a disservice, than to stir S#!t up where it doesn't exist. The left is extremely skilled at this. So is Trump.

5 hours ago, Merrytooth said:

 

Why is it US's business to police other countries?

 

You don't see the EU making too much noise on NK, other than the usual condemnation statements, trade sanctions.

I admit that's a tricky one. I do think in some instances, having the largest, most capable, most advanced and most overwhelming military force in the world by far does come with some moral responsibility in extreme cases. For instance if we're talking large scale ethnic/ideological cleansing and terror regimes on the level of NK. 

8 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

I think it's time to drop a bunker buster or two on Mr Kim and shut him and the rest of his cronies up for good. China won't retaliate nor get involved, the China of today is not the same as the one that got involved in the Korean war. 

Not sure the problem is China. The biggest problem is that Kim has his entire artillery scoped in on Seoul and ballistic missiles capable of hitting Tokyo. The North Korean regime would be wiped off the map within a couple of days, but if you're a Kim Jong-un knowing your days are numbered, you don't need days to cause havoc.

On 9/19/2017 at 6:28 AM, Merrytooth said:

lol.. unless USA is prepared to receive refugees from NK..

 

China /  East Asia do not want swarm of NK refugees in their backyard either..

 

So it is better for USA to step back and MYOB

Judging from history, Americans only really care when the refugees are Muslims from the Middle East. 1.5 million Vietnamese, a couple million Soviets, Africans and Jews never made headlines.

13 hours ago, Merrytooth said:

Precisely there are 'enemies' (Japan, South Korean, US soldiers) at NK's doorstep that NK develops nuclear weapons (I don't agree with nuclear weapons here).

NK sees those joint military exercises as provocations.

So you think other countries should not have means to defend themselves from any future military attacks? 

 

AND CHINA does not want US troops right at their doorstep as well.

 

Very simple:

- US attacks NK, China will help NK.

- If NK attacks US, China most likely will stand on US side.

 

IMHO,

US should take a step back, let China takes the lead in NK issue, instead of barking a mad dog like that fatty Kim.

There are already many disasters in US. Focus on rebuild our home here first before going around stirring the hornet nest in other parts of the world, trying to install 'so-called democracy' in other countries.

If it was pretty much any other country, I would agree. NK is a case of its own though.

What's forgotten all too often is that the Kim dynasty isn't just another power hungry, dictatorial Muammar Ghadafi, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Khomeini or Bashar al-Assad. Those guys like to torture people here and there, meddle in some mustard gas, kill some political opponents for fun, invoke a little Sharia now and then to keep the Islamist crazies in check, you know, normal dictator stuff. But otherwise, life in Tehran, Havana, Baghdad, Tripoli and Damascus is pretty much day-to-day routine. Essentially, if you're an average Joe in Tehran, your life isn't dependent on Ayatollah Khamenei's daily mood swings. If you're Joe Schmoe in Havana, you really don't want the US Airforce dropping bombs on you, even if you dislike the Castro dynasty. You can send a few people here and there into torture dungeons and the world won't do S#!T. As long as you don't make it too obvious, you'll just get a standard letterhead from the United Nations "condemning it." Perhaps a sanction or two. Nothing that would threaten your dictatorial gold plated toilet seats and copious amounts of French cognac.

Aside from ISIS, North Korea is the closest thing we have today to Nazi Germany and communist Cambodia, two of the most horrendously murderous regimes in human history. North Korea is one big concentration camp. Basically, a 25 million person hostage situation. Allowing NK to exist is basically like turning the other cheek to Hitler's massacre of Jews or Pol Pot's annihilation of 35% of Cambodia's population. I'm not saying an artillery barrage against Seoul and a makeshift nuke hitting Guam is a good alternative, but if a situation ever arises where a surgical strike against NK is possible.. So be it.

On 8/24/2017 at 5:50 AM, Eric-Pris said:

This whole thing is ridiculous.  It's now seems to racist to even think about the color white.  LOL

 

White should be changed to "colorless" or "color-free" to be less offensive.

 

 

I prefer 'Punk' personally.

Or PONC. Person of no Color.

Strange really, since my Korean-American ex-wife was whiter than me. She was of color, but I am not, even after turning bright red in the Hawaiian sun yesterday.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

I wish I could plus this up about 100 more times.  You should do this for a living.  You can state my viewpoint much better than I can.  I tend to react badly to the idiocy of some.

1 hour ago, IAMX said:

Gotta tailor the responses to the audience. 

Yep. You just have to know your audience. "Know your enemy" as Sun Tzu put it.

I used to be a die-hard liberal until the left abandoned liberal values. I used to say some of the things leftist goons say nowadays, but it was always an ironic "put the shoe on the other foot" kind of thing. I was playing devil's advocate, I never actually meant it.

1 hour ago, IAMX said:

I want to point out as well that without the "useful idiots", Trump has no strategy.

 

A good political opportunist is like a tiger hunting prey that knows the perfect time to leap.

That's what puzzles me so much about Trump. The guy obviously has some IQ, otherwise he wouldn't be one of the most successful real estate moguls in the world. He was smart enough to see what almost an entire united liberal establishment was not - That regressive "SJW" ideology and rampant political correctness was pissing off enough people to win an election on.

If he had gone into the presidency with a much more reconciliatory tone, made compromises where they could be made and had Ivanka change the password to his Twitter account - His approval ratings would be in the 60s now. If his most ardent supporters are willing to follow him anywhere, imagine the media awkwardness if he had an entire rally in Phoenix chanting "F*** the KKK!" live on CNN.

If he keeps up what he's currently doing, he's gambling his entire legacy that the far left pisses people off more than he does. Those probably aren't terrible odds, but it's definitely a huge gamble.

3 minutes ago, IAMX said:

You make a very good point. Condemning racism is a universal thing that the vast majority of all sides can help keep these supremacists in the fringes for, where they belong. OTOH, your observation is one that's exactly like mine..

 

For example.. on this very forum a decade ago I lambasted the Republicans/conservatives about their efforts in futility to ban gays from marrying. 

 

I pointed out, historically, we saw with women and blacks, if you take a group, pull them aside and treat them differently (generally, with disdain/inhumanity), they will then take that and use it as a personal identifying mechanism, which will down the road turn into "pride". If conservatives had any sense of historical perspective they'd never have involved government in banning gays to begin with. They set themselves up for what we have today regarding homosexuality in their faces.

 

Now, to this point.. we're now seeing whites marginalized, demonized, and so on, where the left, the crusaders of history, seemingly forgot history (what a surprise), and want to go down the same road. Their efforts of going after white people to the extent they are (far beyond reason, and to an extremely racist degree) are going to make white people more identify with being white, and use that as a form of pride. The demonization of whites also simultaneously gives these fringe elements a rallying cry. I thought the left were trying to beat back this viewed "resurrection" of white supremacy.. and their idea of doing this is by inciting more whites to join the cause?  What idiots.

 

You have all these worthless liberal arts post-secondary studies and they can't even see this coming and try to cull the idiots from backfiring on the cause people of yesteryear fought for? Whatever remains of the rational left needs to put some serious effort into stopping this marginalization, as it will undo many years of efforts for equality. The left clearly have no concept of what equality is.

Great point.

Whenever you deny someone equality based on factors they themselves cannot choose, you are empowering them in the long run. "Gay pride" exists as a direct result of oppression of gay people. It is legitimized by perceptions of current oppression of gay people. "Black pride" as a direct result of historic oppression of black Americans. Groups like BLM etc. are legitimized by perceptions of current oppression of black people. White nationalism and "white pride" is flourishing and is to many legitimized by perceptions of oppression of white people.

The far left race baiting machine are a bunch of useful idiots to the far right, just as how far right nutjobs are useful idiots to the far left.

This article nailed it: "How anti-white rhetoric is fueling white nationalism."

On 8/16/2017 at 2:39 PM, Il Mango Dulce said:

History won't judge them kindly if they stand by the president

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/republicans-must-tell-trump-to-go-now-w498063

 

Forget impeachment. Forget Robert Mueller's investigation. Forget Russia. Well, don't forget them, but put them to the side for a moment. Investigations and impeachments and Senate trials take time, and we don't have time any more. The president has to go now, and it's up to his fellow Republicans to get him to leave.

 

I also think he's a terrible president, perhaps first and foremost for his lack of decency and failure to unequivocally and unapologetically denounce nazis on day one.

But it doesn't work that way. We live in a completely echo chambered world, where what you read and what people who support him read are completely different versions of reality.

Have a person read Slate for a month, and another read Breitbart for a month. One is going to believe everyone around him is an undercover klansman, while the other is going to believe all of his neighbors are slowly succumbing to sharia law. One is going to believe merely being a white male makes them a klansman lest they repent. The other is going to believe that white people are on the way to becoming slaves, lest something is done. They're not going to agree on anything, even objective, factual truths.

The main problem here is that Trump won the election in a clear electoral college victory - Meaning a larger geographic swathe of the country wanted him than Hillary Clinton in the White House. Even by popular vote he won nearly half. If he is impeached, then that's one thing, but the folks who voted for him are still going to number in the tens of millions, and they aren't going to change their minds about politics. Die hard Trump supporters have about as much faith in the RNC as die hard Bernie bros have in the DNC. The only way to really avoid future Trumps, or a left-wing lunatic version of Trump is to control the fringes of our own sides.

It's the GOP's job to call out hypocrisy and crazies on the far right. I don't trust a Republican who doesn't call out or acknowledge lunacy on the far right.

It's the Dems' job to call out hypocrisy and crazies on the far left. I don't trust a Democrat who doesn't call out or acknowledge lunacy on the far left.

Right now the fringes on both sides are being used as the useful idiots they are.

3 hours ago, IAMX said:

These attacks are honestly not that uncommon throughout the Muslim world. I can only wonder how many more attacks like this have to happen in the western world for the left to start applying the same no-nonsense scrutiny (and aggressively trying to root out extremism) toward Islam that they rightfully did toward Christianity. 

 

There is no compromise with extremism. And it's been proven that we can't rely on "moderate" Muslims, they're little to no help.

I think that last part is wrong. There are plenty of secular, moderate Muslims who just want to live normal, daily lives, pray a bit here and there and get rid of the scourge that is Islamic orthodoxy. Unfortunately they're often silenced. British former Islamist extremist Maajid Nawaz is one of the people who changed my mind about this. His book Radical was excellent. Unfortunately, many of the left's ideal 'moderate Muslims' are religious ultraconservatives who don't like violence, but have no problem trying to insert religious orthodoxy into mainstream society either.

What a lot of folks on the left like to do is to take the Pat Buchanan religious types and pass them off as 'moderate' because they don't promote violence but still fit the picture of different enough to be diverse. That's how you end up with liberals applauding sharia apologist, hijab-wielding women like Linda Sarsour as symbols of feminism.

Unfortunately, you rarely ever see true moderate/secularists in mainstream media here in the U.S.

Especially after the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled Maajid Nawaz an islamophobic "Anti-Muslim Extremist."

11 hours ago, Eric-Pris said:

very convenient.

It's not about convenience. It's the truth.

If you're European-American or Asian-American, you can often trace your ancestry back to specific villages in Sicily, Ireland, the Philippines etc. If you're Hispanic, it gets a little trickier, but you can be pretty certain that you're a mix of European and indigenous American. If you're African-American, you can trace your ancestry back to the Atlantic Slave Trade. If you're European-American, it's easy to say "I'm Polish and French." If you're Asian-American, it's easy to say "I'm Chinese." If you're black, you have absolutely no clue whether your ancestors came from Senegal, Nigeria, Cameroon or Gabon. The only thing you know for sure about your ancestors is that they were captured and sold to British slave traders to work on cotton fields in the American south. As opposed to the millions that were sold to Portuguese slave traders and brought to Brazil, Spanish slave traders and brought to Cuba, Puerto Rico etc, or Arab slave traders and sold to harems in Istanbul.

3 hours ago, IAMX said:

The lefts line of thinking is only skin deep. Pretty funny since they act like the arbiters of racism and bigotry and often cite MLK. Pretty messed up to make a guy like that a pawn for political gain.

 

Can tell you with the utmost confidence if blacks (and even many whites) listened to MLK, as in, adopted much of the wisdom he espoused about judging peers by quality of character, none of the stupid stuff related to Michael Brown, Trayvon, etc. would have happened. A lot of problems would be solved, but it benefits the left to keep blacks where they are and in a rather subservient mode to leftist political objectives. A lot of unambiguous racism there.

The far left no longer cares about MLK's actual vision. They only care about the MLK brand.

The vision is simple: Judge a person by the content of his/her xir (lol sorry I had to) character. Period.

The brand is malleable to your ideological needs.

If they cared about MLK's vision, they wouldn't be sizing people up by skin color, gender and sexual orientation, and there would be no regressive identitarian hierarchy of victimhood.

5 hours ago, Eric-Pris said:

Of course, they won't reject your application, they don't want a lawsuit.  But they are called black colleges for a reason, and I'd say that's exclusionary.  I don't see any schools referred to as white colleges.  And that's my point.  Why are black colleges allowed to exist?   We can safely assume that if any school were to call itself a white college, Jesse and Al would be marching up and down screaming racism.

This is the point though - I don't think it would be out of bounds to call a school in Boston a "historically Irish school", or a school in Brooklyn a "historically Jewish school" if it was primarily attended by Irish or Jewish Americans historically. I actually graduated from a Lutheran college that was traditionally and historically Scandinavian. African-American is not just primarily a skin color, but a distinct culture with a shared history, cuisine and linguistic traits. Much like Italian-Americans, Russian-Americans, Japanese-Americans or what have you. I don't like hyphenated Americanism - We're all American first regardless of skin color (not me, because no N-400 yet), but you can't talk about American history without at least some mention of ancestry. Most white Americans can trace their ancestry back to countries, regions, even specific villages in Poland/Sweden/Italy/Croatia/Scotland etc.

If most black Americans had arrived through Ellis Island from Nigeria, Congo, Cameroon, Sierra Leone etc., and could trace their ancestry, it would be a different story. There would be no pan-African culture, cuisine or language. There would be Nigerian-Americans, Congolese-Americans etc. That didn't happen. West Africans were gathered by Arab and Atlantic slave traders and sold as slaves to work on plantations in Brazil, harems in the Middle East, cotton fields in the American south etc. Their culture, language and histories were erased.

Historically black colleges came about because of racial segregation, and that is why they are still primarily black.

Why "black pride" makes sense and "white pride" doesn't:

There is no pan-European identity, culture or history. But if you've ever celebrated St. Patrick's Day, gotten drunk at Oktoberfest or eaten copious amounts of food at an Italian festival, don't tell me you haven't taken pride in European heritage. Most white Americans can trace their ancestry back to specific regions and even villages in Europe. When you celebrate Polish culture, you're celebrating a culture, not a skin color.

Unless you're a recent immigrant from Africa, most black Americans cannot trace their ancestry to any specific region or culture other than West Africa, a region roughly the size of the US. The one specifically traceable and unifying history most black Americans have is distinctly and uniquely African-American, which is obviously directly tied to being black in America. Not Ghanaian, not Nigerian, not Congolese.

5 hours ago, ready4ONE said:

On the one hand, I agree that the Civil War monuments aren't inherently a problem for most. They memorialize a horriffic but important moment in our shared history. The issue is that some people are of the belief that they honor individuals most decidedly fighting for the morally wrong side, but whom some people believe are fallen heros who deserved victory, and thus are seen as some sort of shrine to people possessed of similar beliefs to the Nazi's, Fascists and White Supremacist types leading the torchlight parade this weekend.

 

There is a valid argument the memorials are of historical significance. I get that.

Yep.

Honestly, it's just sad altogether. It makes absolutely no sense to try to erase one of the most decisive eras in American history. You can't know American history or government if you don't know or understand the civil war. On the other hand, it's extremely difficult not to when you get neo-nazi trash using them as some sort of martyr shrines.

That being said, I cannot take CAIR seriously when I haven't seen any push from CAIR to erase all history related to 1,000 years of the Arab slave trade.

The fact that Sweden has screwed itself over on PC and immigration isn't really some sort of unknown phenomenon in Scandinavia. When I talk to liberals in the U.S. about Sweden's problems, I often get accused of "watching too much Fox News." The reason Donald Trump can get away with "last night in Sweden" is because Sweden has tremendous problems directly resulting from its open immigration policy, and no one covers it for fear of 'playing into right-wing propaganda.' If people on the left were more honest about these things, Trump and Europe's rapidly growing populist movements wouldn't get away with half their bs.

'No-go zones' and the spread of Islamism in Swedish suburbs aren't a Fox News conspiracy. They're a well known and openly discussed problem in Scandinavia. It's ok to discuss this. It doesn't make you a Trump supporter or racist or other terrible things.

"There are actual morality guardians going around spitting on girls and mocking them"

From Norwegian state broadcasting (Norway's BBC. Not Breitbart) - Turn on CC and don't mind the terrible translation:

On 2/7/2017 at 4:26 AM, OriZ said:

LOL. Jay likes Trump. Some people can't comprehend people with an open mind and an independent thought.

Haha. I actually don't. I just wish he was covered more accurately, just like I wish Obama was covered more accurately.

1 minute ago, bcking said:

your football analogy is still horrible.

I'll take that and concede