5 ms·

>People on most sides of me are afraid of being rounded up Rounded up for what? No one I know has that fear.

cmurf 10y ago
DACA: whether ther 1/4 million approved or the 2 million eligble, it is unknown whether they will be targeted for deportation. Undocumented workers: past Republican administrations have engaged in work place raids as an enforcement action on workers themselves, rather than on employers engaging in illegal hiring. Muslims? It's not unreasonable for them to debate in their own mind whether the president is sincere, and if sincere then they have every reason to consider being rounded up. If he was insincere that results in its own trust issue.
- woofyman 10y ago
  DACA and the undocumented: that's a legitimate fear. Muslin Americans and Muslins here legally: that's legitimate but I'm confident our institutions are strong enough to prevent something that blatantly unconstitutional from happening.
  - lisper 10y ago
    Many Germans said that in 1933. I know because I interviewed my grandparents before they died, and they told me so. They fled to Palestine, but many of their friends stayed behind saying, "It can't possibly get that bad." None of their friends survived.
    - ajmurmann 10y ago
      I find it terrifying this gets down voted. We should always keep in mind what the parent said no matter who is running this or any other country. Things like that have happened several times before in history in different scales and we need to remain vigilant to prevent something like it from happening again.
  - jayjay71 10y ago
    > I'm confident our institutions are strong enough to prevent something that blatantly unconstitutional from happening I say this in all seriousness: why?
    - woofyman 10y ago
      The long history of the Republic. Our Institutions have failed us whether it's slavery or the Japanese internment, Jim Crow, women's rights, LGBTQ rights, the hysteria after 911. But in each case we eventually recognized our mistakes and made corrections. Edit: also the treatment of First Nation peoples
      - jayjay71 10y ago
        You readily acknowledge "Our Institutions have failed us" multiple times, but you're arguing they can't fail us again because of "The long history" - I think you're arguing against yourself. And while this is digging further into the past, you left out The Trail of Tears from your list - an iconic example of the president ignoring the law because he can. That man is now on our $20 bill, so it seems he's been rewarded by history. Saying injustices happen and are eventually rectified is one thing (which seems to be your argument), saying injustices can never happen again is something completely different.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - FireBeyond 10y ago
        "Eventually" is a long wait for those suffering under the perils thereof.
      - alxndr 10y ago
        What are the corrections made relating to the treatment of First Nation peoples? The Japanese internment has already been trotted out as a precedent for creating a registry of American Muslims. That doesn't sound like recognizing our mistakes and making corrections to me.
  - cmurf 10y ago
    It is a test of the citizenry whether such assaults on those institutions is tolerated. Korematsu v. United States is an example of how those institutions alone aren't necessarily strong enough when citizens don't really give a hoot. Korematsu is widely regarded as bad law, not case law. But until there's another test, it's speculation. And even contemplating it being tested is scary, but I think less scary than ambiguity.
hedora 10y ago
Being from china, eastern europe, south/central america, the middle east or being black. There's also persecution for being a single mom or lgbtq, but that doesn't fall under "rounded up". I haven't talked to any climate scientists recently, but I suppose living in antarctica for a year gets you on the "maybe losing your job" list. The "america first" chant on Friday didn't help. Neither did the "for americans" rhetoric.
- mc32 10y ago
  Thinking that only the "Trump voters" are safe is a kind of thinking that borders on hysteria and is hard to take seriously. Undocumented immigrants are the only people who should have a reasonable concern of being deported. It's not like other countries don't deport undocumented immigrants either whether leftist or rightist so I don't see how when the US does it it's especially denouceable. [keep in mind, that Obama deported more than W]. I've lived in other countries [China as well as Eastern Europe], and it's not uncommon for regular police to either enforce immigration themselves or cooperate with the immigration office when people overstay their visas or sneak in.
  - hedora 10y ago
    One of those groups (east europe/russia) is being defended by trump. Others have escalating troubles that predate him. There's plenty of blame to cover both parties. People seem more concerned that the system elected him than anything else. How bad (in this discussion, xenophobic) will the next president be? I have noticed a profound, bipartisan disappointment with both parties.
    - mc32 10y ago
      Many people in the press conflate border control with xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment. I didn't vote for the guy but my take is he isn't looking to kerb legal immigration (with the exception of people form "terrorist hotbeds") so much as require all immigrants to get the proper visa as well as get expelled if they overstay a visa --normal operating procedure for most mature governments. I can understand the preoccupation that he might especially kerb people from the ME. However I see this constant conflation seemingly to scare all immigrants into thinking that the new administration is "anti-immigrant" whereas I see it as anti-illegal/undocumented immigration.
cryoshon 10y ago
>Rounded up for what? differentness, dissent, journalism.
- many_bells_down 10y ago
  Is this even grounded in reality?
  - hedora 10y ago
    Obama went after whistleblowers more aggressively than any prior president, so that grounds the 'journalist' part
    - many_bells_down 10y ago
      Does Obama still have that authority?
      - hedora 10y ago
        No, but he set the precedent.
    - hedora 10y ago
      There is also Trump's war on the media (from yesterday's CIA speech): http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/21/media/donald-trump-war-with-the-media/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/21/media/donald-trump-war-with-...

cmurf 10y ago

DACA: whether ther 1/4 million approved or the 2 million eligble, it is unknown whether they will be targeted for deportation. Undocumented workers: past Republican administrations have engaged in work place raids as an enforcement action on workers themselves, rather than on employers engaging in illegal hiring. Muslims? It's not unreasonable for them to debate in their own mind whether the president is sincere, and if sincere then they have every reason to consider being rounded up. If he was insincere that results in its own trust issue.

woofyman 10y ago
DACA and the undocumented: that's a legitimate fear. Muslin Americans and Muslins here legally: that's legitimate but I'm confident our institutions are strong enough to prevent something that blatantly unconstitutional from happening.
- lisper 10y ago
  Many Germans said that in 1933. I know because I interviewed my grandparents before they died, and they told me so. They fled to Palestine, but many of their friends stayed behind saying, "It can't possibly get that bad." None of their friends survived.
  - ajmurmann 10y ago
    I find it terrifying this gets down voted. We should always keep in mind what the parent said no matter who is running this or any other country. Things like that have happened several times before in history in different scales and we need to remain vigilant to prevent something like it from happening again.
- jayjay71 10y ago
  > I'm confident our institutions are strong enough to prevent something that blatantly unconstitutional from happening I say this in all seriousness: why?
  - woofyman 10y ago
    The long history of the Republic. Our Institutions have failed us whether it's slavery or the Japanese internment, Jim Crow, women's rights, LGBTQ rights, the hysteria after 911. But in each case we eventually recognized our mistakes and made corrections. Edit: also the treatment of First Nation peoples
    - jayjay71 10y ago
      You readily acknowledge "Our Institutions have failed us" multiple times, but you're arguing they can't fail us again because of "The long history" - I think you're arguing against yourself. And while this is digging further into the past, you left out The Trail of Tears from your list - an iconic example of the president ignoring the law because he can. That man is now on our $20 bill, so it seems he's been rewarded by history. Saying injustices happen and are eventually rectified is one thing (which seems to be your argument), saying injustices can never happen again is something completely different.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - FireBeyond 10y ago
      "Eventually" is a long wait for those suffering under the perils thereof.
    - alxndr 10y ago
      What are the corrections made relating to the treatment of First Nation peoples? The Japanese internment has already been trotted out as a precedent for creating a registry of American Muslims. That doesn't sound like recognizing our mistakes and making corrections to me.
- cmurf 10y ago
  It is a test of the citizenry whether such assaults on those institutions is tolerated. Korematsu v. United States is an example of how those institutions alone aren't necessarily strong enough when citizens don't really give a hoot. Korematsu is widely regarded as bad law, not case law. But until there's another test, it's speculation. And even contemplating it being tested is scary, but I think less scary than ambiguity.

hedora 10y ago

Being from china, eastern europe, south/central america, the middle east or being black. There's also persecution for being a single mom or lgbtq, but that doesn't fall under "rounded up". I haven't talked to any climate scientists recently, but I suppose living in antarctica for a year gets you on the "maybe losing your job" list. The "america first" chant on Friday didn't help. Neither did the "for americans" rhetoric.

mc32 10y ago
Thinking that only the "Trump voters" are safe is a kind of thinking that borders on hysteria and is hard to take seriously. Undocumented immigrants are the only people who should have a reasonable concern of being deported. It's not like other countries don't deport undocumented immigrants either whether leftist or rightist so I don't see how when the US does it it's especially denouceable. [keep in mind, that Obama deported more than W]. I've lived in other countries [China as well as Eastern Europe], and it's not uncommon for regular police to either enforce immigration themselves or cooperate with the immigration office when people overstay their visas or sneak in.
- hedora 10y ago
  One of those groups (east europe/russia) is being defended by trump. Others have escalating troubles that predate him. There's plenty of blame to cover both parties. People seem more concerned that the system elected him than anything else. How bad (in this discussion, xenophobic) will the next president be? I have noticed a profound, bipartisan disappointment with both parties.
  - mc32 10y ago
    Many people in the press conflate border control with xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment. I didn't vote for the guy but my take is he isn't looking to kerb legal immigration (with the exception of people form "terrorist hotbeds") so much as require all immigrants to get the proper visa as well as get expelled if they overstay a visa --normal operating procedure for most mature governments. I can understand the preoccupation that he might especially kerb people from the ME. However I see this constant conflation seemingly to scare all immigrants into thinking that the new administration is "anti-immigrant" whereas I see it as anti-illegal/undocumented immigration.

cryoshon 10y ago

>Rounded up for what? differentness, dissent, journalism.

many_bells_down 10y ago
Is this even grounded in reality?
- hedora 10y ago
  Obama went after whistleblowers more aggressively than any prior president, so that grounds the 'journalist' part
  - many_bells_down 10y ago
    Does Obama still have that authority?
    - hedora 10y ago
      No, but he set the precedent.
  - hedora 10y ago
    There is also Trump's war on the media (from yesterday's CIA speech): http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/21/media/donald-trump-war-with-the-media/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/21/media/donald-trump-war-with-...