This stands as one of the few issues that directly relate to me. Although I was lucky to be born and made honorary citizen within America’s borders, I was exposed of the consequences. The consequences of limiting a person’s right to free-movement. A year-round stay in the neighborhoods of a particular, ethnic, variety makes one digest the seasonal frequency of its population.
I find it rather disturbing when people argue for border control by citing immigrant crime. It seems rhetoric has conquered the dialogue now. Undocumented immigrants are not simply the ones with a motive to reside or gain citizenship, transnational criminals are part of it too, it’s not as though they appreciate borders. Yet, these transnationals are lumped with other undocumented immigrants - until proven otherwise, I think the immigration debate is riddled with semantic ambiguity and perhaps even misinformation - and for what gain? From their perspective, undocumented immigrants don’t decide to undergo weeks of survival-related hardships just to commit a crime and land behind bars. From statistic’s, It’s mostly true that undocumented immigrant labor cannot actually replace a “spot” for the preexisting jobs, they recreate new jobs by selling their labor at a cheaper price thus, leaving more money to reinvest in a higher-skilled job. Even the Law of Supply and Demand can account for that. The legitimately concerned citizens can now relax. Ultimately, the result of not strengthening border control is innocuous to the general welfare. Critics of it, can only rely on propaganda to try and establish a higher proclivity to violence simply being Hispanic. Bypassing a law that restricts the right to free-movement is considered an infringement of it. If this is true, bypassing this law is exactly what I’d expect any person in dire need to support their families. By all means; keep them coming.
The only possible link to exemplify any supposed flaws in an Open Border policy is the failed attempt to equate residual illegal immigrants to transnational criminals. If your “beef” is against Hispanics then simply say it. You’ll only reveal two things: your ignorance on the subject and your bigoted ideals. The population of illegal immigrants is consisted of Asians, Africans, Arabs, Islanders, and yes, Europeans.
Let’s review. These residual aliens are taken to be more than simply migrating humans, America has termed them ‘they’. This is a “they” speech, I’d pay to hear them say. They have net positive worth, economically. They cause no grave consequences, socially. They are not homogenous, culturally.
With these given preponderances, I’d like to witness those who would still support what is clearly a bigoted and ignorant viewpoint.
If certain cultural behaviors work in tandem with cultural perceptions and perceptiveness, it logically follows that any prevalent false rhetoric can diminish a culture’s frame of vision which may render violent and oppressive behavioral traits undetectable. This leads the aforementioned traits to be unaccounted for.
I think such is the case with rape culture.
Rape culture has a host of cultural support. Starting and ending with rhetoric. From “partly true/partly false” to “demonstrably false”. Rape has now been rhetorically downgraded to a shared guilt with two kinds of perspectives on it, one of not choosing more “conservative” outfits that would ward off the primitive proclivities of the male gender and another of committing a moral offense despite the fact, funnily enough, that he acted primitively, he was in an “animal-state”. Clearly, there can only be a general desensitization of rape throughout society to follow from this. Objectification is a latent symptom of that desensitized state. Some would argue that it works the other way around, but think about this more clearly. Objectification, when predominant with the cultural paradigm, can produce desensitization, although it won’t necessarily disappear, it simply subsumes itself and manifests mid-shift of said paradigm.
Some rape cases are due to this particular latent symptom. Rape culture is formed by its own reenforcing mechanism; its parental social behavioral trait. These instances of rape partly due to “slut-shaming”, over-used sexist tropes, and objectification. These “enforcers” of damaging and polarizing collective perspectives are overlooked all too often. We may not like to hear it, but it’s true; partaking in that reinforcement makes most people culpable of most cases of rape.
Please indulge me with a rebuttal, dear reader.
what did i just watch
Lmao These are the coolest kids ever!
(Source: twat-boulevard)
![blacksheepgoths:
[image: Alice Bag looking really amazing in dramatic eye make-up, a leather jacket, fishnet gloves and large earrings. Her bangs fall over one eye.]
Punk rocker Alice Bag of The Bags also has connections to goth. She was a member of death rock group Castration Squad. Band mate Pat Bag from was later to become known as Patricia Morrison.
Q: Do you feel that “Chicana Punk” or punk with feminist attributes is a completely different punk scene?
Alice: No way, I refuse to be a faction. I want in on the big action. Punk without pussy power, punk without ethnic diversity just supports the status quo, it doesn’t subvert or challenge it, therefore it can’t even be called punk.
-Interview with Alice Bag 1/23/12](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m25to5COjF1rt4m97o1_500.jpg)
[image: Alice Bag looking really amazing in dramatic eye make-up, a leather jacket, fishnet gloves and large earrings. Her bangs fall over one eye.]
Punk rocker Alice Bag of The Bags also has connections to goth. She was a member of death rock group Castration Squad. Band mate Pat Bag from was later to become known as Patricia Morrison.
Q: Do you feel that “Chicana Punk” or punk with feminist attributes is a completely different punk scene?
Alice: No way, I refuse to be a faction. I want in on the big action. Punk without pussy power, punk without ethnic diversity just supports the status quo, it doesn’t subvert or challenge it, therefore it can’t even be called punk.
-Interview with Alice Bag 1/23/12
(via upondryland)
Arizona Official Considering Banning Ethnic Studies In Universities Too
Two years ago, Arizona outlawed the teaching of some ethnic studies courses in K-12 schools, and now it may expand the prohibition to universities too.
Just weeks after the state passed its infamous immigration law, it also passed a law aimed at scuttling Tucson’s Mexican-American studies program, which critics claimed taught kids to resent white people. The argument, at the time, was that teaching subjects like critical race theory to kids in high school amounted to indoctrination because they were not old enough to question the teaching critically, like university students.
But now, Arizona’s chief education official sees university-level Mexican-American sudies programs as a danger too:
Arizona’s superintendent of schools, John Huppenthal, says Tucson’s suspended Mexican American studies curricula teaches students to resent Anglos, and that the university program that educated the public school teachers is to blame.
“I think that’s where this toxic thing starts from, the universities,” Arizona Superintendent of Schools John Huppenthal said in an interview with Fox News Latino. “To me, the pervasive problem was the lack of balance going on in these classes,” Huppenthal said.
Not surprisingly, a long list of Latino groups and education activists have protested the move, as they did when the state shut down Tucson’s program, decrying the imposition on free speech. “What we’re trying to do is expose children to a much broader perspective, so that we’re not indoctrinating,” said Augustine Romero, the former director of Tucson’s Mexican American Studies Department.
The ethnic studies law, which bans schools from offering courses designed for a specific ethnicity, had far-ranging consequences, including banning books like Shakespeare’s The Tempest and other seemingly anodyne works of literature.
And while many call the state prohibitions unprecedented, Devon Peña, the former director of the National Association for Chicana and Chicano Studies said, “There is a precedent, and it’s called McCarthyism.” “It’s just a witch hunt of a different color. Now, instead of going after the reds, they’re going after the browns.”
This is what happens when a disappearing majority gets paranoid.
(Source: ratsandcandy666, via odettenoire)
I. Can’t.
Rothbard was worse than a fascist.
Not sure what that statement means to imply but Rothbard advocated open borders and the freedom for laborers to specialize their labor, by an economic means. This has anti-fascism written all over it. Perhaps, MG thought that Fascism is more preferable than Market Anarchism because it employs moral norms - it simply restricts it to members of one’s nationality or race.
It’s important to note, Rothbard was more so an economist and thus spoke from that viewpoint not a moral philosopher’s and Cesar Chavez may had a stark influence towards policymakers in his career as activist, but he didn’t actually have a hand in making the content of those policies. Noting economic fallacies doesn’t implicitly emphasize economic supremacy over ethics.
This is why activism fails; despite garnering favor from the masses - it’s the policymakers that mold well-intentioned goals of activists to suit their favor by writing laws that, ironically, help preserve the status-quo. To think that activism alone enacts systems of progress is to think that our representatives saint-like. Rothbard’s charge against Chavez could be left to that simple understanding however he also understood that even within activism, there exists free-reign to capitalize. Chavez’s profit-motive was simply something immaterial; the possession of power. And so, Rothbard crafts a far more conspiratorial rendition of Chavez’s career as an activist to which, I pay no mind, since it is the results that really matter in the political world. Good intentions ought to be discarded, if they create more evil.
