Fellow Travelers

Friday, March 30, 2018

Fewer Dead Kids

Mass shootings grab our attention and reflect horrifying tragedies. They provoke a reaction. Parents empathize with the parents of those killed. The reaction drives a desire to do anything different, to find a way to keep kids and young adults from dying before their time. People search for any solution, and often are won over by those that sound good.

Everyone wants fewer dead kids.

The understandable desire to want to do something, anything, can easily be redirected into measures that are even more dangerous and would do even more harm than the situation the measures are superficially intended to alleviate. This is true of any new measure or legislation, not just those related to gun violence. Legislation intended to protect sex workers and end human trafficking is putting them at greater risk of rape and murder. The creation of the interstate system ripped up neighborhoods and worsened inner city poverty. Three strikes laws lead to life sentences for minor and often nonviolent offenders.

And then there's the current push for new laws and measures with the goal of fewer dead kids.

The Guardian published an article called "Our manifesto to fix America's gun laws" which says it is written by the Parkland students. A number of ideas are proposed in it, some are okay, like banning bump stocks. Some, like a total ban on semiautomatic firearms, are political nonstarters with their own range of unintended consequences. Others are outright dangerous.

Perhaps chief among those, they say they want to change privacy laws to allow mental healthcare providers to communicate with law enforcement. This entire segment should trigger warning alarms:
“As seen in the tragedy at our school, poor communication between mental healthcare providers and law enforcement may have contributed to a disturbed person with murderous tendencies and intentions entering a school and gunning down 17 people in cold blood. 
We must improve this channel of communication. To do so, privacy laws should be amended. That will allow us to prevent people who are a danger to themselves or to others from purchasing firearms. That could help prevent tragedies such as the Parkland massacre.”
So, destroy patient privacy, or else you don’t want to prevent children from being massacred. Give the police, who do not have a good track record of dealing with the mentally ill, broad access to the health records of the mentally ill. Amend privacy laws to increase law enforcement access to medical records. This should be appalling to anyone familiar with patient privacy. As an example of the unintended consequences of this, law enforcement could check past form 4473s against current medical records showing tox screens or medical marijuana cards and use this to go after gun owners who use medical marijuana.


However, the manifesto ignores this, and buys into the right wing methods popularized by Donald Trump, of stigmatizing the mentally ill as expressly and uniquely violent. This is something that will worsen their targeting for violence and discrimination, especially with patient privacy laws “amended”.

The overwhelming majority of firearms deaths are suicides. Suicide also kills more kids 15-19 than homicides. Homicides as well as firearms deaths have been consistently falling in this age range for years. However, suicides are on the rise. Accoding to CDC data for 2015, homicide by firearms was the cause of death for 190 kids aged 5-14. Suicide was the cause of death for 413 kids in the same age range, including 140 suicides by firearms. Most suicide deaths in that age range were hanging/suffocation. This increased stigma and harsh treatment of the neuro-atypical could very well cause more suicides.

The manifesto also says more school resource officers need to be hired. This is dangerous. Police have killed five times more people this year than have died in mass shootings. The proposals do nothing about that, and instead just increase police interaction with young adults. This has been shown to have measurable negative effects on PoC students. Quoting an article by a Juvenile Court Judge:
After interviewing SROs and girls of color, the researchers found that despite the evidence of disproportionate discipline, there is little training provided to SROs to help them understand how to relate to girls of color. Educators often place SROs in a disciplinary role rather than involving them when the need arises around delinquent conduct. SROs lack the cultural competence, trauma-informed skills, gender-responsive approaches, and knowledge of community-based resources needed to help improve school climate for girls of color. 
Through my work as a judge for a juvenile court in Clayton County, Ga., I have seen that this inappropriate use of law enforcement in schools does not improve safety, but actually compromises students' futures. My county's school system began using SROs in 1995, and our referrals to the court increased 1,200 percent by 2003. By collecting data on school arrests, we discovered that our African-American students—male and female—were 12 times more likely to be arrested than our white students. 
In addition, our school district's graduation rate dropped and juvenile crime rates spiked. Research suggests that arresting students for minor offenses significantly increases the likelihood that they will drop out of school. School is one of the strongest buffers against delinquency, and when kids are pushed out, they do not always spend their time wisely.
Kai Koerber, a 17-year-old Marjory Stoneman Douglas student, returned to school after the shooting to see his slain classmates’ empty desks turned into memorials — and a campus swarming with police officers. To him, extra cops around doesn’t mean more people to protect him; it means more chances to become a victim of police brutality. 
Kai worries that police will racially profile students and treat them as “potential criminals,” particularly students of color. 
“It’s bad enough we have to return with clear backpacks,” he said. “Should we also return with our hands up?”
There are no people of color quoted or whose pictures are shown in the Guardian’s reprinting of the Eagle Eye manifesto.

Increasing the stigma and mistreatment experienced by the mentally ill, especially young adults, putting them under a microscope, militarizing their schools, filling them with armed police, ending patient privacy, ending student privacy, treating the mentally ill like they’re all budding violent mass shooters, increasing PoC interactions with school resource officers who put them on the school-to-prison pipeline, these will increase suicide rates as well as incarceration rates.

These are measures which will disproportionately impact minority children.

These are measures which will disproportionately impact children struggling with mental health problems.

These are dangerous and counterproductive measures.

These are measures which will lead to more dead children, not less.

So, what should we do? What are some workable ideas that can lead to less dead kids?

First, end the drug war and focus on treatment and prevention. The war on drugs is the leading driver of homicides and also of our opiod overdose epidemic and also of our bloated prison population. If this seems too big and too hard, consider that there are 300 to 500 million privately owned guns in the US, nobody knows for sure, and yet people seem to think that regulating or even outright banning these will be easier than ending the drug war. Look at the European countries that are consistently held up as examples of places with drastically lower gun deaths. The “drug war” as we know it in the US, and the prison system as we know it in the US, simply does not exist there. Give this article a read. The numbers are staggering, and the beneficial effects of ending the drug war are also staggering. Liberals are willing to call out the NRA and firearms industry for their political involvement, are they as willing to call out the prison industry and pharmaceutical industry?

Second, demilitarize the police and drastically increase oversight of them. This goes hand in hand with ending the drug war. Police have killed five times as many people in 2018 as have been killed in mass shootings. Police shootings disproportionately impact the black community, as police are far more ready to kill black men than anyone elseA big part of this is the black brute myth where police view even unarmed black men as demons with superhuman strength and speed. So, even banning all civilian owned firearms wouldn't protect unarmed black men, as the police literally think they're magic. Additionally the police, including school resource officers, are predisposed to view black children as criminals and treat them accordingly, feeding into a cycle of violence.

Third, increase mental health funding. This is essential to help fight the suicide epidemic And while we’re at it, increase access to all levels of health care. Infant mortality is far too high in the US, particularly among disadvantaged communities. Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate. Heart disease killed 633,842 people in 2015, including 649 children aged birth to 14 and 997 young adults aged 15-24. By comparison, in the same time frame and across all ages, and across accident, suicide, and homicide, 35,486 people died from some form of gun violence. Cancer killed 1,272 children aged birth to 14 in 2015. If we can find cues for some of these diseases, if we can improve treatments, we can save far more lives than any act of gun legislation.

The extensive financial resources that would have to be put into any of the measures recommended in the Parkland manifesto could, if put into other areas, result in a far greater net benefit.

It would mean fewer dead kids.

The question that anti gun liberals need to ask is, what's their motivation? What is the goal?

Is it to score political points against conservatives? To have a victory against the NRA? To restrict sales and use of an object they don't like?

What matters more? Political victories, or the lives of children, the lives of minorities, and of those with mental illness?

Is the goal fewer dead kids?

Finally, our military actions overseas is something many might consider separate from the issue of gun violence in America, but that I think is intertwined with our problems of toxic masculinity and devalued human life. We should slash military funding and dramatically scale back military operations. End the “War on Terror”.

The life of a child is no less valuable for having been born outside of the United States. US military operations have had an incredibly destructive impact on the lives of children in the Middle East.

In 2013, a Pakistani boy named Zubair who was born in 2000 came to the US to speak to Congress. He talked about how he is scared now when the sky is blue, because that’s when the drones come. He and his younger sister were wounded in a drone strike which killed their grandmother as she worked in her garden.

In 2012 a 14 year old boy was killed in another drone strike which struck a group of miners and woodcutters who had gathered for dinner. The drone lingered in the area, and launched a second strike on emergency services and rescuers. This was a “signature strike” where gatherings of military aged males are considered terrorist meetings, even if they’re just workers having a family meal or a family wedding party. These attacks kill kids too, and lead to the mental health issues of anxiety, depression, and PTSD  from their experiences.

It isn’t just Obama’s drone strikes, which were largely ignored or justified clumsily by liberals. In January 2017, an 8 year old American girl was killed in a raid in Yemen approved by Trump. She was shot in the neck and struggled for two hours before dying. That should be hard to read. This is US foreign policy.

“Young women in Fallujah,” they wrote, “. . . are terrified of having children because of the increasing number of babies born grotesquely deformed, with no heads, two heads, a single eye in their foreheads, scaly bodies or missing limbs. In addition, young children in Fallujah are now experiencing hideous cancers and leukemias.”
We should be as horrified by this as we are by the school shootings which are occurring in the US at a decreasing rate. 

We should be as willing to protest and stand up to the military industry as we are to stand up to the NRA. 

We should March for Their Lives too.

After all, the goal is fewer dead kids.

Thursday, March 29, 2018

Whites are the majority in nearly all large police departments nationwide

Recently I had somebody tell me “most of the thin blue line in many cities are primarily minorities”.

Which sounded wrong. But hey, maybe it’s right. Figured I’d look into it.
I found a website called Governing.com which tracks a lot of government statistics, including those for racial representation in police departments. Their data was pulled from the 2013 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics survey. Then I found a list of the 30 largest cities in the US. I went through the LEMAS data and looked at minority representation on the police forces of these 30 largest cities in the US, particularly relative to the minority population.

What I found did not particularly surprise me.

New York City Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 47.8%
Total Minority Population Share: 67.2%
Percentage-Point Difference: -19.3 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites over-represented, making up 33% of the city population and 52% of the police force. All minorities are under-represented on the police force compared to their population.

Los Angeles Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 64.6%
Total Minority Population Share: 71.5%
Percentage-Point Difference: -6.9 (compared to national average of -24.5)
One of the few where whites are a minority on the police force, but still over-represented. Largest minority on the police force is Hispanics, who make up 43% of the LAPD but 49% of the LA population.

Chicago Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 47.9%
Total Minority Population Share: 68.0%
Percentage-Point Difference: -20.1 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites over-represented, making up 32% of the city population and 52% of the police force. All minorities are under-represented on the police force compared to their population.

Houston Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 54.9%
Total Minority Population Share: 74.2%
Percentage-Point Difference: -19.3 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites over-represented, making up 26% of the city population and 45% of the police force. Hispanics sharply under-represented. However, Houston is a rare city where Asian police share and Black police share perfectly match their population share.

Philadelphia Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 43.2%
Total Minority Population Share: 63.6%
Percentage-Point Difference: -20.5 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites over-represented, making up 36% of the city population and 57% of the police force. All minorities are under-represented on the police force compared to their population.

Phoenix Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 23.4%
Total Minority Population Share: 54.1%
Percentage-Point Difference: -30.6 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites significantly over-represented, making up 46% of the city population and 77% of the police force. All minorities are under-represented on the police force compared to their population.

San Antonio Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 57.7%
Total Minority Population Share: 73.4%
Percentage-Point Difference: -15.8 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites over-represented, making up 26% of the city population and 42% of the police force. All minorities are under-represented on the police force compared to their population. However, despite being under-represented, Hispanics on the police force are a majority (51.5% where they are 63% of the popluation)

San Diego Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 34.3%
Total Minority Population Share: 56.8%
Percentage-Point Difference: -22.4 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites over-represented, making up 43% of the city population and 66% of the police force. Blacks are accurately represented relative to their population, Hispanics and Asians are sharply under-represented.

Dallas Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 46.2%
Total Minority Population Share: 70.6%
Percentage-Point Difference: -24.4 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites over-represented, making up 29% of the city population and 54% of the police force. Blacks are accurately represented relative to their population, Hispanics and Asians are under-represented.

San Jose Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 43.7%
Total Minority Population Share: 72.3%
Percentage-Point Difference: -28.6 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites over-represented, making up 28% of the city population and 56% of the police force. Blacks are slightly over-represented relative to their population, Hispanics are under-represented. Asians are significantly under-represented, constituting 37% of the population and only 3% of the police force.

Austin Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 30.8%
Total Minority Population Share: 50.8%
Percentage-Point Difference: -19.9 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites over-represented, making up 49% of the city population and 70% of the police force. Blacks are slightly over-represented relative to their population (by 1 percentage point), Hispanics and Asians are under-represented.

Jacksonville Sheriff's Office
Total Minority Police Share: 24.0%
Total Minority Population Share: 45.7%
Percentage-Point Difference: -21.7 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites over-represented, making up 54% of the city population and 76% of the police force. All minorities are under-represented on the police force compared to their population.

San Francisco Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 47.6%
Total Minority Population Share: 58.4%
Percentage-Point Difference: -10.8 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites over-represented, making up 42% of the city population and 52% of the police force. Hispanics are evenly represented. Blacks are fairly significantly over-represented, constituting 9% of the police department but 5.5% of the population, this is very rare. Asians are sharply under-represented.

Indianapolis Metro Police
Total Minority Police Share: 15.8%
Total Minority Population Share: 42.5%
Percentage-Point Difference: -26.7 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites significantly over-represented, making up 57% of the city population and 84% of the police force. All minorities are under-represented on the police force compared to their population.

Columbus Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 13.6%
Total Minority Population Share: 41.6%
Percentage-Point Difference: -27.9 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites significantly over-represented, making up 58% of the city population and 86% of the police force. All minorities are under-represented on the police force compared to their population. Predictably CPD has had a history of racial misconduct and violence, as well as internal harassment and discrimination against Black police officers.

Fort Worth Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 30.8%
Total Minority Population Share: 59.2%
Percentage-Point Difference: -28.3 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites significantly over-represented, making up 41% of the city population and 69% of the police force. All minorities are under-represented on the police force compared to their population.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 22.8%
Total Minority Population Share: 55.8%
Percentage-Point Difference: -33.0 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites significantly over-represented, making up 44% of the city population and 77% of the police force. All minorities are under-represented on the police force compared to their population.

Seattle Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 24.7%
Total Minority Population Share: 34.0%
Percentage-Point Difference: -9.3 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites over-represented, making up 66% of the city population and 75% of the police force. Blacks are slightly over-represented relative to their population (by 1 percentage point), Hispanics and Asians are under-represented.

Denver Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 32.9%
Total Minority Population Share: 47.1%
Percentage-Point Difference: -14.1 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites over-represented, making up 53% of the city population and 67% of the police force. Blacks are accurately represented relative to their population, Hispanics and Asians are under-represented.

El Paso Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 81.1%
Total Minority Population Share: 85.1%
Percentage-Point Difference: -4.1 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites are narrowly over-represented, making up 15% of the city population and 19% of the police force. Minorities are narrowly under-represented, with Hispanics making 80% of the population and 77% of the police, and Blacks making 3.1% of the population but 2.9% of the police, however these margins are incredibly narrow. Overall it’s probably the most balanced of any major metropolitan police department in the country. Also one of the few where minorities are a majority of the force.

Detroit Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 66.9%
Total Minority Population Share: 91.6%
Percentage-Point Difference: -24.6 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites over-represented, making up 8.5% of the city population and 33% of the police force. Blacks are under-represented (81% of population) but are a majority (63%) of the police force. Hispanics and Asians are under-represented.

Washington Metropolitan Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 68.4%
Total Minority Population Share: 64.5%
Percentage-Point Difference: 3.8 (compared to national average of -24.5)
The only city  in the 30 largest cities in the US where whites are under-represented relative to their population, 32% of the police force compared to 36% of the population. Blacks are over-represented and a majority of the police force, 59% to 49%. Hispanics and Asians are under-represented. Given the prevalence of federal law enforcement in DC, its possible that whites in DC interested in law enforcement tend to go that route instead.

Boston Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 34.5%
Total Minority Population Share: 53.8%
Percentage-Point Difference: -19.4 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites over-represented, making up 46% of the city population and 66% of the police force. Blacks are slightly over-represented relative to their population (by 1.5 percentage point), Hispanics and Asians are under-represented.

Memphis Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 51.9%
Total Minority Population Share: 73.0%
Percentage-Point Difference: -21.1 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites over-represented, making up 27% of the city population and 48% of the police force. Blacks are under-represented (63% of population) but are a slim majority (51%) of the police force. Hispanics and Asians are under-represented.

Nashville Metro Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 15.1%
Total Minority Population Share: 43.9%
Percentage-Point Difference: -28.9 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites significantly over-represented, making up 56% of the city population and 85% of the police force. All minorities are under-represented on the police force compared to their population.

Portland Police Bureau
Total Minority Police Share: 14.6%
Total Minority Population Share: 28.0%
Percentage-Point Difference: -13.4 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites over-represented, making up 72% of the city population and 85% of the police force. All minorities are under-represented on the police force compared to their population.

Oklahoma City Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 14.5%
Total Minority Population Share: 44.2%
Percentage-Point Difference: -29.7 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites significantly over-represented, making up 56% of the city population and 86% of the police force. All minorities are under-represented on the police force compared to their population.

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 19.1%
Total Minority Population Share: 54.7%
Percentage-Point Difference: -35.6 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites significantly over-represented, making up 45% of the city population and 81% of the police force. All minorities are under-represented on the police force compared to their population.

Baltimore Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 49.3%
Total Minority Population Share: 71.9%
Percentage-Point Difference: -22.6 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites over-represented, making up 28% of the city population and 51% of the police force. Blacks and Asians are under-represented on the police force compared to their population. This is a rare city where Hispanics are over-represented relative to their population, 7% police compared to 4.5% of the population.

Louisville Metro Police Department
Total Minority Police Share: 15.2%
Total Minority Population Share: 32.3%
Percentage-Point Difference: -17.1 (compared to national average of -24.5)
Whites over-represented, making up 68% of the city population and 85% of the police force. All minorities are under-represented on the police force compared to their population.

Cities where all minorities combined are a majority of the police force: Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, Detroit, Washington DC, and Memphis.

Cities where whites are a minority of the population but a majority of the police force: NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Austin, San Francisco, Fort Worth, Charlotte, Boston, Las Vegas, and Baltimore.

Of course, all cops are bastards anyway. Regardless of race, through their actions as police they support capitalism and the racist police state while protecting the wealthy ruling class.

But the additional concern I have is that when you have a police force that doesn't reflect the community it polices, skin color becomes a uniform (thanks Vonnegut) and the white police see themselves as an occupying paramilitary force in an area that is more like a foreign country than their own homeland. And when you look at things from a military perspective you see your fellow citizens as the enemy.

The widespread infiltration of US police forces by white supremacists over the last few decades, and really as long as there have been US police forces, just makes this worse. This also leads "Thin blue line" police supporters to gravitate towards racist positions, and even worse it can push minority officers towards self hating internalized racism that expresses itself in their community interactions because they see their allies as uniformed whites and their day to day enemies as the PoC communities they police.

It is not a sustainable situation and only highlights the need to disarm and disband all police in the US.

Thursday, February 1, 2018

The US needs easy and streamlined citizenship for all

“But they broke the law!”
This plaintive cry is heard across the country, seen on message boards and facebook pages, vomited out over talk radio. It pushes a mindset that any sort of tyrannical government action against undocumented immigrants is justifiable. Any sort of violence, indignity, or moral outrage is acceptable, simply because “they’re here illegally”. It makes them an unperson, and history shows what countries do with people they consider unpersons. Slavery. Confinement. Deportation. Mass murder.

So, these ostensible “illegal immigrants” are here because “they broke the law”. What does that mean? Why does it matter? Let’s look briefly at the history of immigration law in America. Spoiler alert: It’s all racist. All of it. Here’s a timeline.

The very first naturalization law in the US limited citizenship to free white males. Nobody else could become a naturalized citizen. That was the law. 

In 1830, the Indian Removal Act was passed by Congress, legalized the forced displacement of all Native Americans to west of the Mississippi. That was the law. 

After the war with Mexico, when the US forcibly annexed large sections of Mexican land, they gave Mexicans living there the “option” to become citizens if they stay. But they only have rights to the land they owned if they could prove in US courts with US lawyers that they have those rights. That was the law. 

In 1850, Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Law, which among other things allowed a black person to be enslaved simply on the testimony of a single white person that the black was already a slave, with no method for challenging this in court. That was the law. 

Many Northern States and cities refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law, becoming sanctuary cities for escaping slaves. Slave State outrage at this defiance of the law was one of the reasons expressly and explicitly given for their secession and the subsequent American Civil War:
The faithless conduct of our adversaries is not confined to such acts as might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union. They are content if they can only injure us. The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.
After all, turning in "stolen property", escaped slaves, was the law.

Even after the Civil War when it became legal for African-Americans to become naturalized citizens, naturalization was still expressly forbidden for Asian immigrants. That was the law. 

During this time, the immigration and naturalization process for European whites was simple. Get on a boat to America. Get off the boat. You’re a legal immigrant. You could not be a white illegal immigrant. That was the law. That’s how my family came here, in the 1680s, the 1740s, the 1830s. We just got off a boat. For years there were no laws limiting the immigration of white Europeans. 

1882 is when the first immigration law is passed. It was the “Chinese Exclusion Act”, which prohibited Chinese immigration for 10 years. It was renewed, and remained law until 1943. No Chinese. That was the law. 

The Immigration Act of 1917 established an “Asian Barred Zone” which expanded the prohibitions on Asian immigration to effectively encompass all Asians from southern and eastern Asia. Japan was excluded, as were the US territories in Guam and the Philippines. Included was everyone from Turkey to India to Thailand to Vietnam to Indonesia and more. They could not be legal immigrants. That was the law.


The Immigration Act of 1924 targeted eastern and central Europeans, placing strict quotas on immigration, in a reflection of the Eugenics-heavy legislative mindset at the time. These restrictions would over the next twenty years serve to keep European Jews fleeing the Holocaust locked out of the US. For example, the MS St. Louis was blocked from even docking at a US Port, and all of its 900 Jewish refugees were prohibited from entering the US, resulting in 254 of them dying in the Holocaust. That was the law. 

In 1935 the Filipino Repatriation Act offered free transportation to Filipinos who would
return to the Philippines, and it restricted future immigration to the U.S. The Philippines were a US territory, won in the Spanish-American War, but the US didn’t want too many of those foreign Filipinos settling in the US. So a law was passed.

It wasn’t until the 50s and 60s that the old expressly racist immigration laws were repealed, and new more inclusive immigration laws put into place. But we have so much further to go. Let’s talk about the present and the future.

What Baby Boomers’ Retirement Means For the U.S. Economy
All else equal, fewer workers means less economic growth. One way to measure this is a figure known as the “dependency ratio,” or the number of people outside of working age (under 18 or over 64) per 100 adults between age 18 and 64.2 The higher the ratio, the worse the news: If more of the population is young or old that leaves fewer working-age people to support them and contribute to the economy.
Immigrants boost America’s birth rate
POLITICS and sheer hatred aside, there is no shortage of blind spots in the rationale behind America’s mounting restrictions on immigration. Immigrants are a boon to America in many ways. For one, they do plenty of jobs that native-born Americans shun—including what most parents would agree is the ultimate labour of love: having babies. 
For decades America’s birth rate has been stuck below the level at which a given generation replaces itself. This means that without a steady influx of young migrants down the line there will be fewer working-age people supporting a greater number of retirees. But according to analysis published earlier this week by the Pew Research Centre in Washington, DC, things would have been worse if it weren’t for immigrants. They make up 13% of the population but nearly a quarter of births in 2015 were to immigrant women.
The US has a demographic balloon. Record numbers of boomers are retiring, while new births have dropped off sharply. We need people. We need people to support those retiring, we need them as a base of workers and as a tax base. Even if we were to somehow abolish capitalism and the state we’d still need younger people to support the larger numbers of older people.

We need immigrants. We need immigrants who are working above board so they can’t be abused and exploited by their employers. We need immigrants who can have stable jobs and stable homes without living in fear of ICE thugs tearing them out and throwing them into jail in the middle of the night. We don’t have a meaningful social safety net now. We don’t have public health care. We don’t have a basic income. Immigrants really *can’t* “mooch” off the US. They can and they do contribute to society, extensively.

The Obama Administration, for all its faults, put a lot of work into pointing out the advantages of streamliming a path to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the US. These arguments transition to a streamlined process for all immigrants.
As highlighted in the report, a range of economic research has shown that immigrants living and working in the United States without authorization are earning far less than their potential, paying much less in taxes, and contributing significantly less to the U.S. economy than they would if they were given the opportunity to gain legal status and earn U.S. citizenship. According to outside estimates, providing earned citizenship for these workers would increase their wages and, over 10 years, boost U.S. GDP by $1.4 trillion, increase total income for all Americans by $791 billion, generate $184 billion in additional state and federal tax revenue from currently undocumented immigrants, and add about 2 million jobs to the U.S. economy.
So, immigration laws have been historically racist. Trump is actively working to make them more racist. Their current enforcement is absolutely racist. But we need immigrants, badly. What we need to do is streamline the immigration and naturalization process dramatically.

Citizenship should be no more complicated than going to the courthouse, paying for a filing fee and background check, no more than $200, and after the background check goes through, they’re citizens. Just that simple.

If you’re worried about violent gangs like MS 13 or Mexican cartels taking advantage of this, end the drug war and stop destabilizing Central and South American governments. Easy fix.

The benefits of this would be huge:


And, of course:

The rights guaranteed by US citizenship should be natural and inalienable human rights anyway.

These are rights that we have championed all over the globe, whose praises the US has sung, authentically or not, hypocritically or not, since the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

It’s time to stand up to racism and to exploitation, and to embrace the idea of streamlined citizenship. Let’s make the United States as easy for the world to emigrate into as it was for centuries of Europeans.

And it’d finally put to rest the angry screams of “THEY’RE JUST ENFORCING THE LAW” and “ILLEGALS BROKE THE LAW”.