Georgia Legislative Black Caucus to Hold Press Conference -Today!
Alternate headline: “Sticks Seeking Pudding.”
The Georgia Legislative Black Caucus sent out a notification of their press conference that will happen today, and included the following: “…We will not allow xenophobia, racism and bigotry to permeate our political processes, not now, not ever. The Georgia Legislative Black Caucus stands with every protester and every advocate for the swift reversal of Trump’s Muslim ban. We will be working tirelessly and using every tool available to us to ensure that no person is the subject of undue scrutiny based upon his or her race or religion.”
Two questions: 1) If it’s a “Muslim ban,” why does it apply to only seven countries? And 2) What race is “Muslim?”
Full text below.
Georgia Legislative Black Caucus to Hold Press Conference
ATLANTA – The Georgia Legislative Black Caucus will hold a press conference on Wednesday, February 1, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. in room 203 of the Coverdell Legislative Office Building in Atlanta.
State Representative Erica Thomas (D-Austell), Communications Chair for the GLBC, released the following statement today in response to President Donald Trump’s immigration executive order:
“Darkness fell over this nation on January 28 as President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning millions of people from entering this country because of their Muslim faith. This Muslim ban shuts Iraqi translators out of a country they helped to protect, segregates us from some of America’s best citizens and legal residents and leaves many American families torn apart. Trump’s signing of this executive order is un-American and unconstitutional, as noted by U.S. Judge Ann M. Donnelly who blocked part of this immigration order within hours.
“Protests have sprung up around the country to show the Trump Administration that America won’t be silent as they attempt to slam the door in the faces of faultless immigrants and refugees when they need us most. We will not allow xenophobia, racism and bigotry to permeate our political processes, not now, not ever. The Georgia Legislative Black Caucus stands with every protester and every advocate for the swift reversal of Trump’s Muslim ban. We will be working tirelessly and using every tool available to us to ensure that no person is the subject of undue scrutiny based upon his or her race or religion.”
For more information, please contact Doree Henry at 470-418-2036 or [email protected]
About Author
Mike Hassinger
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can answer the questions, or GFY. Pick one.
This comment has been deleted.
Boy, that escalated quickly.
That would be a ‘yes’!
What does GFY mean?
I think your original assessment of what it meant was correct.
That’s what I thought, not sure why my comment was deleted but his wasn’t.
Mike, What the heck is your problem. Is there not an expectation that the front page guys exhibit some modicum of decorum? I would expect this comment from a commenter but not from a contributor. Get it together!
Decorum? Decorum lost. It’s a new day. There’s a shining mud pit on a hill.
the “alternate headline” is uncouth and reveals latent, if not overt, racist tendencies. the vitriolic response is something i’d expect to find amid the more conspiracy theory-laden comments in rags across the internet. i thought this site was better than that.
from the original Welcome” post: “What is asked of contributors is to bring their best thoughts, ideas, knowledge, and perspective to shape the political and policy discussions of our state.” If “GFY” is the best thoughts this site has to offer, that’s an epic fail.
This is America, dammit. He can do both.
So it sounds like your premise is that the Trump admin isn’t very good at this because they didn’t ban enough countries?
Whatever it is (IMO, it’s (1) intended to be the beginnings of a muslim ban and (2) a test of our national character and our system of checks and balances) it clearly doesn’t seem to have a point. What is the reasoning behind denying entry to people who have already been vetted? Why were those countries chosen? Once you start asking questions, they just keep coming. More of them than answers.
This comment has been deleted.
No snark from me on this one, hell, I probably know a goodly number of them. But they did inadvertently (or not…) put a wee bit of a target on themselves.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/900-state-department-officials-sign-dissent-memo-source-204236825.html
Sorry, wrong location. Should have under “Reads…”
This comment has been deleted.
This comment has been deleted.
Ahhhhh….the GLBC…lining up free lunches and free trips for over 4 decades now.
Anyway, I would suggest we ask Rudy Giuliani since apparently he was the author of it, but we already know his answer is so nonsensical it’s like something out of 1984 (the book).
Just stay upwind when he whistles, you know…
Que for Mike.
Lets go with the Ban is legal,has no religious test and does not exceed Executive Power for a second. How do you feel about having the order written with out any instructions or a written clarification of who is covered and who is not? Example, my high school janitor (who is now the head of facilities for the whole school district) is a Green Card holder of 34 years from Iran who helped people evacuate in 1979. He got here on a fully vetted military special access visa and was sponsored by my church, who had a member who was a Iran hostage. If he was visiting his son and grandchildren stationed in Germany, he would not have been allowed back to his home or job until the clarification issued 51 hours later. In some countries, US green cards and visas were destroyed or taken. People entering this country were forced to sign over their right of entry if the law suits are correct. Due process was ignored. If reporting is correct on who knew what and when, house staffers worked on it and were force to sign nondisclosure agreements, and even now the State department is not talking to sitting senators.
What is your opinion on how it was executed?
Thanks for a straight, relevant question. Here’s my answer. Execution-wise, it sucked. Trump’s administration should have written in every relevant agency and issued rules to go along with it. Effectiveness-wise, it’s probably also going to suck. I don’t see a potential ISIS recruit changing his mind or his travel plans because of some executive order. I think keeping anyone who translated or worked with our armed forces out of this country is an abominable shame -they deserve immediate entry and a couple of years without income tax.
There’s a legitimate debate to be had over the legality, constitutionality and effectiveness of the order. (Fer instance, did you know that the order to round up Americans of Japanese heritage was upheld by the US Supreme Court? It wasn’t officially terminated until 1976.) But as long as everybody’s shrieking “xenophobia, racism and bigotry,” at the top of their lungs all the time, we won’t have it.
And I would say that they debate should definitely be about the xenophobia and bigotry. Trump asked for a Muslim ban, Giuliani gave him one he thought might be legal, it doesn’t anything like what they say it’s supposed to do, they didn’t consult any relevant parties before they signed it…. there is too much evidence that it IS xenophobic and bigoted. Can it and start over.
edit to add: Ignoring the pretty obvious xenophobia/bigotry is like saying “OK let’s get past the burning cross on the lawn and debate the merits of the type of wood used.”
People are saying there’s xenophobia, racism and bigotry at foot because a very specific group of individuals is explicitly being treated unequally under the law because of their religion. And think about the underlying currents with people’s beliefs on a Muslim ban (if you don’t want to call it that then maybe President Trump shouldn’t have called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering”), do you think my friends from Albania or Chechneya inspire the same concerns as my friends from Iraq or Pakistan… well.
If you don’t like that people are concerned about that, I think you’re moving the goalposts. You can’t just say it’s not legitimate because you don’t want to deal with what’s motivating people. I personally think it is more benign/typical human fear than anything but there’s explicit, religious fears being whipped up.
If anyone advocates for a total and complete shutdown of Baptists you would rightly be in arms over that.
That you for a reasonable reply…
Wow my auto correct sucks today…
i think there’s a lot of irony that the legitimacy of singling out these countries is based on Pres. Obama’s actions (even though those regarded the visa waiver program exceptions). not just that they have relied on Pres. Obama, but with such an early and clunky roll-out, it seems like they were just not ready to come up with anything original at that level of detail.
i reviewed some legal analysis on the EO, and it’s likely the Courts could vary on whether they consider these media statements as indicative of the intent of the EO. i tend to think most will, because sometime’s that’s the only you get at latent ill will, pudding.
“We will not allow xenophobia, racism and bigotry to permeate our political processes,…” says the group that only has blacks legislators as members.
Damn, Bart. That was great!
I don’t get it. Are you saying that the CBC is racist? Or xenophobic?
So a country club has a $50,000 entrance fee, but they contribute to charities that help the poor, but by your logic they would be anti-poor because they don’t have poor members.
Example: KKK is racist. It’s true they (probably) don’t have black members, but that is not what makes them racist. They are racist because they believe Blacks are inferior.
this is a common problem which creates false equivalencies. solidarity amongst a historically-oppressed community is different than solidarity against a historically oppressed community.
Sophomoric, Bart. Just like the TV Bart!
I wonder what the response was from the Georgia Legislative Womans Caucus was? Aren’t they up in arms with this because those minorities in those countries that are subject to honor killings don’t get priority?
Good to know any Republican politician can issue a press release for the most meaningless things in the world and get them published on this site without any critical commentary but the same does not apply to the other side of the aisle on a subject many people think is actually important. I remember why I don’t come here much anymore. I do miss Peach Pundit. Have fun here guys!
I think it’s because the front-page posters believe that criticism runs the risk of giving offense to the mighty, or at least the mightier. Can’t risk the spigot getting turned off.
I often wonder what would be the crime rate if Africans in America didn’t exist in cities like NO, St Louis, Chicago, Memphis, Birmingham, etc. Atlanta is an exception because Reed is actually a decent Mayor: even though crime is up in the Metro Area, but look at Boston for a comparison….shoot, just look at Selma after the cameras stop rolling 🙂
I often wonder what the crime rate would be if we had been providing equal opportunity for all for the past 200 years.
Wow. Just wow at the foul stench emanating from this comment.
Let’s hope this meeting went well.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/african-american-meeting-donald-trump-frederick-douglass/