Miscellaneous: First DREAMer Deported

The first protected DREAMer has been deported under Trump’s new immigration plan.

Manuel Montes, 23, was granted protection under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which was created under the Obama administration.  Although Montes was a DREAMer and protected from being deported, the Trump administration brought him to the Mexico border to deport him.  This article explains the full story of Manuel Montes, an immigrant who was trying to better his life, who now awaits his return to the U.S..

 

Advertisements

Miscellaneous: University Employee Fired for Trump Support

University of Wisconsin, La Crosse law dispatcher was fired when she defended Trump’s immigration policies while having a conversation with a coworker. The university fired her on the grounds of “threatening or abusive language” and “conduct unbecoming a university employee”.

She was offered her job back 3 days after receiving her termination letter though, after Twitter and other social media platforms started to report on the firing.

Miscellaneous: Dallas Protests

l_137508_011214_updates

In Geo.tv’s article, the authors recount the large protest that took place in Dallas. People of all races, religions, and more took to the streets to support immigrants’ rights.

Below are some tweets from the march:

Check out the Twitter hashtag #MegaMarch2017 to see more tweets from the march.

 

Miscellaneous: SNL take on Trump’s immigration plan

This video is a parody of what SNL believes coming into the U.S. will actually be like with Trump’s immigration plan.  This video depicts what we are arguing about Trump’s plan: THAT IT IS RACIST.  SNL has used its platform in order to protest or at least show dislike for the immigration plan and its policies.

 

Abby Harari

Affirmative: Money Money Money…is on everyone’s mind.

donald-trump-immigration-banPresident Trump has hopes of deporting the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in this country.  He has made statements about deporting Mexican immigrants that are racist and bigoted.

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. … They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,” said Trump in a 2015 speech.

Not only is it racist and ridiculous to deport all of the undocumented immigrants living and working in the United States, it is fiscally impossible.  One of Trump’s consistent arguments throughout his campaign was that he plans to cut taxes without increasing the deficit; however, his immigration plan will do the opposite.

The Center for American Progress (CAP) did a study that found that it would cost the U.S. $200 billion to deport all 11 million of the undocumented immigrants, and then another $200 billion to keep them out.  This is just the cost of deporting the immigrants, and does not include the cost of the wall Trump is planning to build on the southern border.

The wall on the southern border, near Mexico, would also cost an exponentially large amount of money that is not feasible for the U.S..  Trump himself estimated that the wall would cost around $10 billion.  However, the Washington Post fact checked Trump and found that wall would actually cost $25 billion.

Where is this money going to come from?  Who is going to pay for the wall because Mexico has made it clear they won’t? And how are taxes going to be cut, while spending on immigration exponentially increases?

A Pew Research study found that 62 percent of people would oppose a wall on the border of Mexico.  The study also found that 70 percent of people think that the U.S. would end up paying for the wall that Trump claims Mexico will pay for.

Overall, it is fiscally impossible to deport all 11 million of the undocumented immigrants living in the U.S..  Even if you take out the factor that President Trump is being racist, he has no plan as to how any of this would be paid for.

 

Abby Harari

Miscellaneous: Watch What You Say

A recent Washington Post article is in response to the revised travel ban that is being disputed in court. Donald Trump has a tendency to say things, often offensive and discriminatory, but then later deny ever expressing anything of that nature. Although he can try to alter the rhetoric used to describe the ban, the sentiment and purpose stay the same. He essentially is blaming Muslims for an abundance of problems that the nation faces.

Because our nation, especially the government, claims to be secular, the issue that federal judges are investigating are the contradicting nature of the Executive Order and Trump’s actual statements leading up to declaring the Executive Order.

img-4-15-600x300

Refutation: You Aren’t Protecting Us

Supporters of Donald Trump’s executive order have various reasons for why they are advocating for this plan of action, but they all seem to share a common sentiment; “We love refugees, but…” And, that’s where we are left to ponder, do they really love refugees, if it’s conditional? The argument is that “they just want to protect the US against terror attacks, and they think that President Trump’s travel ban is a good first step.” Ever since the executive order has been announced, there has been this facade of doing what is necessary and just.

Although we all can discern that there’s no way to truly predict who may commit terror attacks, there still is this belief that as a nation, we are moving towards a safer country if we stereotype certain groups. This stereotype of who is more likely to commit acts of terror is directly related to the executive order that was released earlier in the 2017. As of March 6, 2017, the executive order has been revised, but still upholds stipulations backed by flawed rationale.

Within the executive order titled, “Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States” under Section 1.h., it explains how recent history showcases that people who have obtained entry through the immigration system have ended up becoming threats to our nation. However, just because there are cases that provide evidence of terror attacks from these people doesn’t mean that keeping all immigrants out will solve this issue. There have been numerous incidents of terror attacks in our country at the hands of people who are considered to be the “ideal” American citizen. The only difference is the term we use to classify these attacks and the perception that follows. Acknowledging two cases where people who have come to the United States through the immigration system does not speak for the many others who are trying to do no harm. In Section 1.8., the executive order notes how Iraq is a special case in this situation. But, if the goal was truly about protecting the nation, there would be the same treatment and stipulations for all countries, not just six countries of the nation’s choosing. There is no level of comfort if we are only being protected from six countries citizens. If the true goal is to “protect”, there are a lot of flaws.