Please Call ICE For This Exact Reason (AKA The ONLY Use For The Online ICE Tip Form)

Please call 1-866-347-2423 aka 1-855-DHS-2-ICE to report an undocumented girl named Anne Frank hiding in the attics of Republican lawmakers AND/OR to report a pregnant foreigner seeking shelter in a local manger (who will also have a bunch of foreign visitors who need to get taxed for those gifts they will be bringing).

Mahmoud Khalil, Try To Deport Me MFs, Freedom of Speech, Rubio Needs To Be Deported To K-Town, And It's Kind Of Feeling Like Nazi Time Here

So I was casually minding my own business, trying to get some rest from the onslaught of what the hell is going on in our nation, lobbing my penis around seeing if it wanted any action (the answer was a NO if you were interested) and then this NYT email in my inbox catches my eye from an article with the headline.

The U.S. Is Trying to Deport Mahmoud Khalil, a Legal Resident. Here’s What to Know.

Mr. Khalil, who helped lead protests at Columbia University against high civilian casualties in Gaza, was arrested by immigration officers and sent to a detention center in Louisiana.

I had saw just a smidgen of a headline about this before and was going to search it out, and the next thing you know (after my lobbing) I get that.

So you take a young man, who in addition to others, led campus protests against the civilian casualties in Gaza, who has a legitimate green card, and is married to a pregnant U.S. citizen and who in a CNN article said--

"As a Palestinian student, I believe that the liberation of the Palestinian people and the Jewish people are intertwined and go hand-by-hand and you cannot achieve one without the other,” he told CNN last spring when he was one of the negotiators representing student demonstrators during talks with Columbia University’s administration.

“Our movement is a movement for social justice and freedom and equality for everyone,” he said.     

AND YOU TAKE AWAY HIS GREEN CARD AND SEND HIM TO A DETENTION CENTER?

While both Trump and Rubio (among others) are trying to paint him as someone who is antisemitic, Khalil has said that there is no place for antisemitism.

While Trump and Rubio are trying to tie him to Hamas and terrorism, there's nothing that ties him to either. 

He's simply doing the same thing that protestors did here during the Vietnam War. And yes, he's getting the same, "Are you a communist sympathizer", but 1000 steps further bcause he's got his green card revoked for no legal reason, he's detained, and now facing deportation.

The U.S. was built on free speech, and yes, there are limits, but Mahmoud Khalil? He didn't spout hate speech and incite violence, unlike Trumpcession did. He's well within his rights to do what he's done and is afforded the same rights from a free speech perspective (according to journalist Minho Kim from the NYT).

Like I said in the title of this post, it's feeling a little like Nazi time where if I don't like you, get ready for the gas chambers, and if you think that statement is a little pedestrian and overwrought, I would say from an Executive Order Type Of Level, it's mostly high-level anyway, and that's the problem.

Where does it end?

Will U.S. citizens, in "extreme" circmstances try and have their citizenship revoked? 

It's already happening with birthright citizenship. But people think of that as so out of reach and so unconstitutional it will never work, especially with so many legal challenges. 

But what about a newly minted citizen from a country where let's say in a year, is looked at from a hostile perspective, as an enemy.

Instead of concentration camps, which we've already done, is it out of the question to think that an administration, or government body, will say "Anyone from country X that received citizenhip in the last 10 years will have their citizenship revoked and deported."?

Does that sound that far fetched in this current climate against immigrants?

Consider that under current policies: 

A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if the person becomes a member of, or affiliated with, the Communist party, other totalitarian party, or terrorist organization within five years of his or her naturalization.^[6] In general, a person who is involved with such organizations cannot establish the naturalization requirements of having an attachment to the Constitution and of being well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.^[7]

The fact that a person becomes involved with such an organization within five years after the date of naturalization is prima facie evidence that he or she concealed or willfully misrepresented material evidence that would have prevented the person’s naturalization.

It doesn't seem that far out of reach, and no matter what, the vortex of DETAIN NOW ASK QUESTIONS LATER, is always in play. And sure, maybe the legal battle is won, but how long does it take while someone rots away?

This is not the America we should be living in.

Your Xenophobic Comment For The Day

From a USA Today article (which has its own issues) on the impacts of the economy and the Asian American population:

darko714: Many asians know all about thrift and hard work. Once we shut off the flow of illegals we should still let a few of them in.

Dumbass.

Florida Initiative Struck Down

Winnie Tang, president of the Florida chapter of the Organization of Chinese Americans - NYTimes

If you've been following the land law in Florida (as well as everything else) but weren't quite sure what happened with it - here's some bad news from the NY Times:

An obscure ballot initiative in Florida intended to end a legacy of bias against Asian-Americans was defeated Tuesday, apparently because voters incorrectly assumed it would prevent illegal immigrants from owning property.

Had it passed, the initiative, known as Amendment No. 1, would have removed from the state’s Constitution language adopted in 1926 allowing the Legislature to prohibit foreigners who were barred from citizenship — Asian-Americans at the time — from owning land.

No such legislation was ever enacted here, and every other state that had such laws has scrapped them on grounds of equal protection. But on Tuesday, Florida’s effort to delete the provision went down, with 52 percent voting “no” and 48 percent voting “yes.” [...]

The language before voters did not explain that the laws first appeared around 1913 during a public panic that Asian immigrants, mostly from Japan, would work on farms for less than Americans and buy up vast tracts of land. It failed to spell out that state provisions were intended to work hand-in-glove with discriminatory federal laws that prevented Asian-Americans from becoming naturalized citizens until 1952.

I guess some things don't change.

State Farm And Other Companies Reconsider LPGA Sponsorship

In a previous post on the LPGA and their English only rule, one of the questions that I posed was this:

...while I get the fact that the LPGA is "saying" this is for marketing/sponsorship purposes more so than anything else, I'm curious to know then - really curious - what sponsors, or sponsor liaisons, have told the LPGA that they won't sponsor an LPGA event, or have anything to do with the LPGA, if the LPGA's players can't make victory speeches, or talk about what they're going to do on their holiday vacation at a party?

If this is supposedly driven by American marketing reasons, it's a fair question to ask (and one that I haven't seen any information on yet).

As you can probably tell from the post headline we have an answer from an article that was written in Advertising Age:

Saying it was "flabbergasted" by the Ladies Professional Golf Association's new policy requiring "effective communication in English on the part of all of our Tour members," State Farm is urging the group to reconsider -- or insurer may reconsider its sponsorship.

"It's something we are dumfounded by," said Kip Biggs, media-relations specialist at the insurer, which is a general sponsor of the league as well as of the State Farm Classic Tournament in Springfield, Ill. "We don't understand this and don't know why they have done it, and we have strongly encouraged them to take another look at this." [...]

The LPGA claims that the language barrier facing a number of its players is causing problems on many fronts, including the players' dealings with the media as well as the league's sponsors and the customers of those sponsors.

Mr. Biggs, however, said State Farm was unaware that the LPGA was contemplating any such policy.

While not quite as direct as State Farm (who deserves a lot of recognition for coming out on this), other companies are getting into the mix as well and letting the LPGA know that they're under the microscope:

State Farm isn't the only sponsor taking note. David Peikin, senior director-corporate communications at Choice Hotels International, said, "We have a great deal of interest in the intentions of the LPGA on this subject. Based on our understanding, this policy is currently under review by the LPGA, and a final decision and any related details will be determined over the next four months. Until that time, we will be closely monitoring LPGA news and announcements."

One other noteable quote:

Ann Wool, senior VP-director at Ketchum Sports network, said it was a mistake for the LPGA not to talk to its sponsors before announcing the policy. "When making a major policy decision it's always wise to notify your sponsors," Ms. Wool said. "I can only speculate that [the LPGA] didn't think this was going to be such a controversial issue, otherwise they probably would have. It was probably a bad move not to notify their sponsors."

So again, while the LPGA claims this was mainly for sponsorship reasons, the bottom line is that not only didn't sponsors have anything to do with this policy, but now that they've found out about it - they don't even agree with it.

I'm hoping that over the next few months more and more sponsors will be doing what State Farm and Choice Hotels International are doing - putting pressure on the LPGA to rescind this completely inane policy.

Joe Vento: You give cheesesteaks a bad name

The bottom line is that you don't put up signs in your restaurant that say "This is America. When Ordering Speak English" unless you're some xenophobic cave dweller.

Really. It just doesn't happen.

The owner of Geno's Steaks, Joe Vento, even admits that he put up the signs "because of concerns over the debate on immigration reform" - and a commision found probable cause against Vento for discrimination because his "policy" does in fact try to intimidate against certain people of ethnic and racial backgrounds.

I've never - ever - come across someone who, when English isn't their first language, just steps up into a place and starts speaking in their first language when ordering or buying something, unless they know someone at the store speaks that same language.

What people really have a problem with is when a person comes into their establishment and orders in English - but they have a thicker accent, or since they may be new to the language may rearrange some words grammatically.

The last time I checked though - that's speaking English.

But people like Joe don't really have a problem with people who are learning the language - that's just their excuse - they just don't like certain non-white people who are learning the language - because you know if a white Russian Victoria's Secret model came into Geno's with a thick accent trying to order a foot long - Joe Vento would be all over that, and would be welcoming all the "non-english speaking" people he could find into his restaurant, regardless of if it took them a little extra time to order.