No, Migration Is Not Beautiful

No, Migration Is Not Beautiful

Am I the only one that is annoyed with these damn butterflies? (just fyi this is not to criticize Faviana’s art. i am a big fan of her women’s rights posters)

why is there a need to romanticize immigration?

there is nothing beautiful

about a mother or father having to leave their family behind to find work else where.

about immigrants dying while trying to cross the border into a country that still wont respect them

about people being raped, killed or robbed while crossing the border

about people being raped, killed or abused in detention centers

about children riding cross country box cars to try to be reunited with their families or to find work in other countries to support families back home

there is nothing beautiful

about the imperialist capitalist shit that forced our families to come here in the first place

about the poverty that was created in my country while the USA prospers


(Article continued below)

there is nothing beautiful

about people coming over here only to be discriminated against

about laws that will deny them basic rights like education

about people committing suicide because being undocumented is too much to handle

about not being able to visit our families back home and from far away watch each and everyone of them pass away.

what is natural or beautiful about that?

nothing.

i think it is sad that folks are forced to leave their homes in the first place because they cannot provide for themselves or their families.

migration is political

migration is imperialism

migration is capitalism

it is not beautiful

via Undocumented & Unafraid, No, Migration Is Not Beautiful.



Buy Three Sonorans a coffee!
Become a sustaining member
Choose a level

Texas White Student in Affirmative Action Case: It’s not that you are white, it’s that you are not that smart

Life is tough for white people in America. A few hundred years of presumed superiority have left many of them psychologically unable to deal with failure, trapped in a cycle of victimhood where their own shortcomings can only be understood as evidence of persecution against them. So we have Abigail Fisher, 23 years old, and the plaintiff in Fisher v. University of Texas, which is currently being weighed by the Supreme Court.

Fisher, who is white, is suing the university because—well, because the full-time crusaders against affirmative action asked her to. But her ostensible complaint is that she applied to go to the University of Texas at Austin but didn’t get in, while some students who are not white did get in, under the university’s system of weighing “personal circumstances,” including poverty and race, in some of its admissions. Ergo, under the logic of anti-reverse racism, some undeserving minority student took her spot.

But this week, Pro Publica published a look into the actual circumstances surrounding University of Texas admissions when Fisher applied. And that the reason Fisher didn’t get in was that she wasn’t qualified.

In response to earlier restrictions on affirmative action, Texas was already using a system under which, before it considered anyone’s “personal circumstances,” any student in the top 10 percent of his or her high school class was automatically admitted. Ninety-two percent of the slots at Austin were given out that way in Fisher’s year. Fisher didn’t get one of those spots. That means at least 10 percent of the students in her own high school had performed better than her, head to head.

This is the thing about anti-affirmative-action plaintiffs: They are drawn from the pool of white people who find themselves right around or below the cutoff point for admissions, despite the widely documented bias in favor of white people in the American system of educating, credentialing, and testing students.

They are by definition mediocre.

via The White Student Suing to Overthrow Affirmative Action Was Too Dumb to Get Into Her Chosen College.



Buy Three Sonorans a coffee!
Become a sustaining member
Choose a level

YES: Holder says President can kill American citizens via drones within United States

Yes, the president does have the authority to use military force against American citizens on US soil—but only in “an extraordinary circumstance,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) Tuesday.

Last month, Paul threatened to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan, Obama’s pick to head the CIA, “until he answers the question of whether or not the President can kill American citizens through the drone strike program on U.S. soil.”

via Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans On US Soil | Mother Jones.



Buy Three Sonorans a coffee!
Become a sustaining member
Choose a level

%d bloggers like this: