Problematic Stuff

[Forty Two]

I'd like to see how Japanese and Chinese films depict occidental people.

I like movies about accidental people...

Me too, but they can only be played by people who have been in accidents. If it's by someone acting like they've been in an accident, then that's problematic.

[Seabass]

This isn't gestapo-esque at all!

[Seabass]

[Seabass]

It is problematic that this stupid cunt, who doesn't understand anything, is head of state of the most powerful country in the world.

[Scot Dutchy]

Only militarily is the USA the most powerful in the world. What is that power worth? Economics is far more important these days and that is where America is failing. The lack of investment and high imports has reduced much of America's production to only a shadow of its previous self as Trump with his tariffs has found out.
He is not the dictator of the world that he thinks he is. The EU, Russia and China are giving him the big finger which is starting to worry him especially as the tariffs are backfiring big way.
He will not get any support for starting any new war. Iran, North Korea and Turkey are not open for attack. Who would go with him? NATO? Why? The UK is in no economic position to even to think about military action.
Once you remove Trumps toys he is lost. He cant think or negotiate. The manchild is a spoilt brat. Now he is thrashing around in his playpen.

[Forty Two]

This isn't gestapo-esque at all!

I think I can guess what's happening here. If a person enters the US without inspection (i.e. crosses the border illegally, not at an airport, bridge checkpoint, etc.), then that person is inadmissible and even if they marry a US citizen, they are not allowed to adjust status.

In other words, if you enter on a tourist visa, and overstay, then you can marry a US citizen and get a green card and adjust status to permanent residence while here in the US. However, if you enter without a visa, just walking in, then you cannot do that - you'd have to leave and apply from outside the US. Any stay in the US of over 180 days by a person who entered without inspection would trigger the 3 year bar to applications.

Persons who unlawfully enter the U.S. without inspection or parole (entry without a visa issued at a consular post abroad or inspection at an authorized port of entry) are considered to be “inadmissible” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). To be admissible, the law requires a lawful entry into the U.S. after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer. Individuals who are inadmissible are ineligible to receive visas and be admitted to the U.S. Entry without inspection or “EWI” is only one of several grounds that may render an individual inadmissible to the U.S. (other grounds include health, criminal convictions, participation in terrorist activities, etc.). Furthermore, under the INA, an individual who is unlawfully present in the U.S. for more than 180 days but for less than a year and who leaves the U.S. after such time, is ineligible to receive a visa to the U.S. for a period of 3 years. An individual who is unlawfully present for longer than one year and leaves the U.S. after such unlawful stay, is ineligible to receive a visa to the U.S. for a period of 10 years. These are what are known as the 3 & 10 year bars and can only be amended by an act of Congress. They are triggered upon leaving the U.S. Under the INA, a waiver for the bar is available only to individuals who can demonstrate “extreme hardship” to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent by reason of their ineligibility to remain in the U.S.

https://immigrationforum.org/article/en ... -nutshell/

Granted, we don't know for sure, because as usual the news reports are sketchy. Nobody bothers to tell us how these people entered the US, what their currents status is, if any, etc. We don't have the information to know if they are eligible.

Note, the system is weird and needs overhaul - a person can have walked into the US across the rio grande, and marry a US citizen, and apply for permanent residence with the BCIS - that person can get approved by BCIS, but be denied "adjustment of status" to permanent residence. I.e., marrying a US citizen does not mean an illegal entrant can get a green card.

Entering into a valid, bona fide (real, not sham) marriage with a U.S. citizen (of the same or opposite sex) makes you an “immediate relative” under the U.S. immigration laws. An immediate relative is theoretically eligible for a U.S. green card just as soon as you can get through the application process. However, your current illegal status could create problems.

If you are in the United States illegally because you stayed past the expiration date on a valid visa, rather than having entered illegally (without inspection), consider yourself lucky: Your legal entry qualifies you for an exception, under which you should be able to apply for your green card without leaving the United States, using a procedure called “adjustment of status.”

If, however, your most recent entry into the United States was illegal – for example, you crossed the U.S. border in secret, without stopping at an inspection point – you have very little chance of adjusting your status to permanent resident based on your marriage. The exception is if you fall into one of the following categories, created by an old law called Section 245(i):

Your employer or a family member filed an immigrant visa petition or (in the case of an employer) a labor certification on your behalf before January 14, 1998.
Your employer or family member filed an immigrant visa petition or labor certification on your behalf between January 14, 1998 and April 21, 2001 and you can also prove that you were physically present in the U.S. on the date the applicable law was passed, which was December 21, 2000.
Getting married to a lawful permanent U.S. resident (rather than a citizen) will also technically make you eligible for a U.S. green card, but because you face a long wait before a visa becomes available to you, your chances of adjusting status are even less (unless you fit one of the two 245(i): exceptions described above).

There is one last hope for people who cannot adjust status based on their marriage to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident: You can attend the interview for your green card (which is the last step in the application process) at an overseas U.S. consulate in your home country (called “consular processing”).

However, at that point the consulate will penalize you for your illegal U.S. stay, with a time bar on returning to the United States. The penalty is either to spend three years outside the United States if you stayed in the U.S. illegally for six months (180 days) or more; or to spend ten years outside the United States if you stayed in the U.S. illegally for one year or more.

If you haven’t yet been in the United States illegally for six months or more, you might want to leave right away in order to make use of the consular processing possibility.

If you have already spent more than six months in the United States illegally, then talk to an immigration lawyer. You may qualify for a “waiver,” (legal forgiveness) allowing you to reenter the United States right away after your consular processing interview, but this waiver is hard to get. You would need to prove that your being denied the immigrant visa (green card) would cause extreme hardship to one or more of your U.S. citizen family members.

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us- ... -stay.html

So, since someone who "overstays" a visa is clearly legally allowed to stay in the US, marry a US citizen (as long as it isn't a sham marriage - and that's not uncommon), then they can get their green card here in the US. That leads me to believe that the people effected here in this case are either (a) illegal entrants (no inspection/no visa), or (b) engaged in an allegedly sham marriage.

I can only speculate based on how the system works, but the pregnant absence of details in the news article raises my antennae. If they were visa holders, who overstayed but were clearly allowed to adjust here in the US, the outrage would be very justified, because ICE would be breaking the law and there would be no grounds for deportation. However, if they are illegal entrants (no inspection/no visa), then ICE would be justified in picking them up.

[Seabass]

Contrast this with Trump's "Fire those sons of bitches!". This sums up the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

[Seabass]

Here's our totally not racist president being totally not racist again.

Trump’s tweet echoing white nationalist propaganda about South African farmers, explained
There’s no evidence of a genocidal campaign against white farmers.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... s-violence

President Donald Trump tried Thursday night to move the conversation away from his former lawyer implicating him in federal crimes by tweeting out a common talking point of white nationalists and neo-Nazis.

Late Wednesday night, Trump tweeted that he had directed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to investigate “the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large scale killing of farmers”.

Trump is referring to a virulent, racist conspiracy theory that has been a pet cause of hardcore white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and the alt-right for several years. More recently, Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, one of the president’s favorite conservative cable news pundits, has taken up the cause.

The conspiracy theory is based on the very real — and very controversial — issue of post-apartheid land reform in South Africa. But the white nationalists who propagate it have taken what is a genuinely thorny issue and magnified it beyond all objective fact, twisting it into what they see as a nightmare cautionary tale of “white genocide.”

Here’s what’s going on — and why it’s so disturbing that Trump is now basing US foreign policy decisions on a fringe white nationalist conspiracy theory...

Trump’s White-Nationalist Pipeline
The most enduring scandal in and around the White House might not be corruption, but rather the administration’s constant embrace of bigotry from white-supremacist and far-right groups.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... sm/568393/

There is no “large-scale killing” of white farmers in South Africa. The government, led by the African National Congress and President Cyril Ramaphosa, is not currently dispossessing white farmers of entire countrysides’ worth of farmland. Claims that either of these things are happening are false. Claims that both are happening are part of well-worn white-nationalist talking points designed expressly to sound a global alarm of “white genocide,” recall the days of apartheid, and slander black people as savage, bloodthirsty, and unfit to lead.

Good news, then. President Trump made both of those claims on Twitter Wednesday night, apparently after watching an episode of Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News. Carlson had essentially parroted the white-nationalist talking points, repeatedly calling Ramaphosa a “racist” and criticizing former President Barack Obama for praising the South African leader. “I have asked Secretary of State @SecPompeo to closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large scale killing of farmers,” Trump thundered in a tweet after the show. “South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers.”

This is perhaps Trump’s most explicit appropriation of a white-nationalist trope yet. It’s unclear whether he really appreciates what he’s saying, or whether he has any understanding of South African politics beyond what he watched on television. But what is clear is that the Trump administration and its wing of the Republican Party are the chief launderers of white-supremacist and white-nationalist ideas in America today. Even with multiple investigations into Trumpworld currently under way, it’s worth considering whether the real lasting scandal from this administration—one that will truly shape and corrupt democracy for decades to come—might just be the elevation of plain old racism...

[Animavore]

Relevant to this thread.

[Seabass]

This country is up to its eyeballs in intolerant, puritanical, medieval, backwards motherfuckers, but they're not the problem... SJWs are!

[Seabass]

I'm sure gay kids would stop killing themselves if SJWs would just stop SJWing.

[pErvinalia]

A critique of the left, in a funny way, with some truths, and some 42isms..

https://www.facebook.com/theguardianaus ... 937231439/

[Jason]

I'm sure gay kids would stop killing themselves if SJWs would just stop SJWing.

That's some real horseshit there. I hope the bullies are receiving serious and extensive counselling - I'd say rehabilitation, but I don't know how that applies to 9 year-olds. Maybe their 'guidance' providers, eg. parents, ought to be brought up on disciplinary charges for fomenting a sustained campaign homophobic abuse against this kid.

[Forty Two]

This country is up to its eyeballs in intolerant, puritanical, medieval, backwards motherfuckers, but they're not the problem... SJWs are!

A handful of people in a town with a total population of 500 -- in a country of 330,000,000 - is "up to its eyballs?"

Frankly, through most of the public schools, the leftist SJW philosophy is winning the day. Some podunk little Oklahoma farming town is not representative of the United States.

And, once again, intolerant, puritanical, medieval, backwards motherfuckers are, in fact, a problem. However, so are the dipshit, intolerant, in some ways puritanical, postmodern, screetching, SJWs. They are problem, too. It's not an either/or prospect.

[Forty Two]

Relevant to this thread.

There is no "truth" only perspective and the power dynamic of oppressed and oppressor class. Feelings are facts. Black lives matter and you're racist if you say all lives matter. All white people are racist. All CIS men are misogynistic and homophobic. I feel oppressed. James Bond can identify as whatever race he wants. We need fewer Norwegian immigrants in order to help combat "whiteness." Saying "ladies and gentlemen" is hate speech.