The Monthly Match

Last month, when the Gotham Gal and I and our friends Brad and Amy combined to match $20k of donations to the ACLU and ended up raising $120k on a weekend that saw the ACLU raise over $25mm, we committed to do a match every month for all of 2017. Part of me wants to keep doing this as long as we have an administration hostile to the rights of minorities in the White House but we will see about that. We are going to keep doing this monthly match for the rest of 2017 and then we will see how we feel about it.

So, today we are launching a second match offer. Brad, Amy, Joanne, and I will match the first $20k of donations to the National Immigration Law Center, which “engages in lawsuits that defend the fundamental and constitutional rights of all Americans, including low-income immigrants and their families, often in coordination with other local and national civil rights organizations.” You can read about their work and their mission here. The NILC has been around for almost 40 years and has done some amazing work over that time and we need them more than ever right now.

Why did we pick the NILC over many other groups that need our support right now? Well first of all, we plan to do this every month with a different organization that is supporting the rights of minorities that are at risk under this administration. So we have a long list and this is just the first of many we will support with our monthly match.

But more importantly, we remain upset and anxious about the efforts of this administration to throttle immigration and the rights of immigrants, both those in the US and those coming to the US. We have had some early victories in the courts but we need to keep up the fight for as long as the administration continues to pursue these efforts and along with the ACLU, the NILC is an important leader in this fight.

Here is how the monthly match works:

  1. Go to our monthly match page and hit the donate button and give whatever you feel like giving (min is $10).
  2. After you complete the donation, TWEET your donation out on the post donation page. That will register it for our match.
  3. If you don’t use Twitter, you can forward your email receipt. The instructions will be on the post donation page. We would vastly prefer you tweet it out if you can.

Last month, we used Twitter for this and had to manually record every tweet including a receipt. That was fun but a pain to administer. This time we are using Crowdrise for the donations and the accounting but keeping Twitter for the virality that was so awesome and brought in so much money. We have customized Crowdrise to make it feel as much like the Twitter campaign we ran as we could. We think this will work better and we will be optimizing this as we continue these monthly matches for the rest of the year.

I hope all of you who agree that we must fight the efforts of this administration to throttle the rights of minorities will join our monthly match campaign this month, and every month this year, and support the NILC. Go here to do that.


Comments (Archived):

  1. awaldstein

    I’ve been making my own list of orgs to donate to.I’ll check this one out but have made a personal pledge to support monthly orgs/activities that fight for the rights of individuals. I’m lucky that I can do this and take it seriously.Thanks for your leadership Fred!

    1. fredwilson

      Thank you Arnold

      1. Twain Twain

        Yes, thanks for your leadership. Values and culture in action.My blog of Ben Horowitz’s talk at Startup Grind has been posted:* https://www.startupgrind.cohttps://uploads.disquscdn.c…Whilst thinking through the type of culture I want at my startup I baked this in as a core principle so people who join know what they’re committing to doing as part of value creation:* 10% of net profits to charities chosen by employees.I’m going to add a policy of “matching donations to defend human rights, especially those of children” to that.

    2. DJL

      Maybe you should consider donating to the families of innocent Americans killed by illegal criminal immigrants? Don’t their rights matter?

      1. creative group

        DJL:Does support need to be exclusive to one cause? Can both causes be supported? An example of one of the many reasons we are #UnequivocallyUnapologeticallyIndependent.

        1. DJL

          I agree with you. Since Arnold was putting together a list, it would be nice to support the rights of all people impacted by illegal immigration. (There is always two sides to every issue.) I wish Fred and rest of the tech world would too.

      2. Twain Twain

        I hear you on this particular point and agree with you. The families of innocent Americans killed by illegal criminal immigrants should be donated to too.I believe that the subtler nuances of both sides aren’t yet being served by the systems that are in place. There’s a LOT OF NOISE and an “us versus them” which, actually, isn’t productive or effective for either side.So we have to invent and make better systems for people.

        1. DJL

          Yes 100%! Wouldn’t that be awesome? I don’t think the Government + News Media is capable of this. Neither of them really care about the issue – just themselves.

      3. Pete Griffiths

        Perhaps we should do a comprehensive accounting of the costs and benefits of immigration legal and illegal and net off the benefit. If the costs are greater than the benefits then we can allocate benefits to those adversely affected. If the benefits are greater than the costs, perhaps we should send money overseas to the countries whose workforces have been adversely affected by, for example, the brain drain of highly qualified scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, technicians, doctors, nurses…:)It’s a tricky thing this globalization.

  2. kidmercury

    administration hostile to the rights of minorities this administration is hostile to the rights of citizens being afforded to illegal immigrants. that is a world of difference from being hostile to the rights of minorities. for bonus points, i say this as a minority (with dark skin even! 🙂 ) and the son of legal immigrants.this is why bannon and trump view the press as the biggest enemy. because they twist enforcement of citizenship into something that’s racist. one may view this enforcement as a flawed policy, but it has nothing to do with racism.

    1. fredwilson

      When i wrote that i was thinking of transgender people, the LGBT community more broadly, women’s rights, etc, etc.

      1. kidmercury

        sure, though i guess i’m unclear on the going definition of minority. women are literally the majority of the population.i see how the bathroom issue could be perceived as hostile to trans folks. i don’t see the hostility to homosexuals though; obviously there is thiel, and whatever benefits via association one assigns trump via milo.calling someone hostile towards a specific demographic is a strong accusation that is routinely thrown around these days, generally with little supporting evidence.

        1. DJL

          Thank you for this clarity! Very welcome. These accusations are leveled without regard to facts (or based on manufactured facts) by the media as a 24/7 assault.

        2. JamesHRH

          I agree Kid.Trumps mangled persuasion English is not helping.Media – in particular editorial boards @ newspapers and exec producers of network TV – see thing through a liberal lens.Its just a fact.CNN is now the worst offender. John Stewart pilloried the Crossfire panel with ‘you are not HELPING’ and now CNN runs Crossfire 12 hours a day.The conflict creates ratings, but it does not fulfil the mandate of a free press.I hope Fred uses a Friday to donate to a independent, investigative news organization.

          1. Pete Griffiths

            “Media – in particular editorial boards @ newspapers and exec producers of network TV – see thing through a liberal lens.Its just a fact.”No. It’s isn’t ‘just a fact.’In fact (!) to call it ‘just a fact’ is precisely the kind of dangerous delegitimizing of the media that all Americans should be nervous about. Throwing around these kinds of accusations is dangerous.It isn’t ‘liberal bias’ to point out when someone is lying or wrong. That is the responsibility of the press and that is a cornerstone of the Republic. To preach ‘alternative facts’ and to counterattack the press when they print accurate stories calling out those in power – that is a serious problem. Be very careful what you wish for.

          2. Donna Brewington White

            Unfortunately, while Trump’s depiction of MSM is exaggerated, it is not baseless. I don’t want to resort to some of the blatantly conservative publications to balance out what I read in mainstream news but I am reading much more critically than ever before. I am dismayed by the unchecked bias. Something as subtle as use of unnecessary adjectives or bringing in additional information not really related to the story to help steer the reader’s thinking.Was it always like this and I just didn’t notice?

          3. Pete Griffiths

            A good deal of it is baseless. To attack the media for pointing out fabrications or lies is a baseless attack.

          4. Donna Brewington White

            We are reading with a different lens, Pete. I accept that.To be clear, I appreciate when the media points out fabrications or lies. I depend on this. I do not appreciate when it attempts to steer public thinking and when op-ed or creative writing is passed off as reporting. It is subtle at times (a few choice adjectives, selective use of quoted material, drawing relationships between unconnected events), not so subtle at other times. And when it is bona fide Op-Ed, there is a particular range of perspectives displayed — a certain club.There is already such pressure to choose sides, and my observation is that most people choose media sources with which they feel most comfortable and would rather nod in agreement than question. The result is even further division and lack of empathy outside of your own particular club. Meanwhile the civil divide continues. A divided people is a more easily conquered people.

          5. Pete Griffiths

            I agree that there is clearly partiality on both sides.But IMHO facts matter. I am deeply concerned about attempts to make facts incidental.

          6. Donna Brewington White

            Completely agree!

          7. JamesHRH

            Missed this.Your statements are true, they just do not reflect reality.With the exception of “It is dangerous to state these truths about the current state of MSM.”Its been over 10 years since Jon Stewart told the Crossfire tools that ‘YOU ARE NOT HELPING.” Watch CNN for a bit – it specializes in 4 person panels, equally divided by party, who yell at each other. In other words, Crossfire is half their programming.CNN does not report, it provides current affairs entertainment.CNN does not inform, it provides a platform for political hacks to earn checkmarks for themselves from their party leadership or candidate.The NYT does not have an unbiased editorial board, they just have an editorial board that is so conceited that they think they are right…and therefore cannot see their bias. Unlike the cynical tools @ Fox, who at least are aware of what they shill.Its similar to the plight of the CDN PM…..he is so convinced that he is personally just and good that he does not obey the conflict of interest rules that he campaigned on as a core part of his platform.Similar to President Nixon’s thinking that ‘if the President does it, it cannot be illegal’, our PM believes that ‘if Justin does it, it can not be wrong.’Seriously offside.Its what happens when people who lack critical thinking skills gain their goals…..they FEEL it is their destiny and lose any shred of humility.So, one more time: the MSM are split ideologically. That IS a fact.

          8. Donna Brewington White

            I would donate to that.

        3. cavepainting

          there is a lot of evidence that Trump feels hostile against Muslims. His VP Mike Pence will be the first one to admit feeling hostile towards LGBT. Why do you think 3M women marched against Trump? Do you really believe they were all misled by the media? They are concerned about Republican positions on women’s rights and Trump has made a Faustian bargain with the social conservatives.

          1. kidmercury

            there is a lot of evidence that Trump feels hostile against Muslims.i haven’t seen it. or rather, i’ve seen a lot of people interpret actions as anti-muslim, but i don’t share that for pence, sure, he is anti a lot of things. i view trump and pence as two distinct people and wouldn’t have voted for pence if he was the lead candidate for pres. i agree there is a bit of a bargain going on here that could turn dangerous, but i feel it was worth the risk.Do you really believe they were all misled by the media? with great condience i can say: yes. anyone who thought/thinks trump is a nazi-like candidate, or that hillary was actually good (not just the lesser of two evils but actually acceptable) was misled by the media. i’ll hazard a guess that that probably accounts for over 90% of the women’s marchers. bannon says the media is the biggest enemy, and that is without question true. the fact that internet people, i.e. the kind of people one would expect to find here, still cling to mainstream media for their news is unfortunate. in any event, the trend towards distrust of the mainstream media is here and growing, as evidenced most clearly by the election results in the US, phillippines, and in the near future, france. ignore it at one’s own peril.

          2. Donna Brewington White

            Appreciate your clarity of thought, Kid.

          3. Donna Brewington White

            Where do you go for news these days? I am really struggling.I sense that like me you don’t want political agenda shoved down your throat from the left or from the right. And MSM for the most part has been relegated to “left” from my observation. I still rely on it to some extent — especially as a source of awareness of events. Also, I appreciate some degree of opposition to the political powers that be, regardless of which administration — and MSM definitely fills that need these days.Is the only alternative to read sources from both “sides” with a grain of salt and with critical lens firmly in place?

          4. Pete Griffiths

            Is the only alternative to read sources from both “sides” with a grain of salt and with critical lens firmly in place?Has it ever been any other way?

          5. Donna Brewington White

            You’re right. But now the stakes seem higher and the hypocrisy more poignant.

          6. Pete Griffiths

            Indeed.Quite a responsibility isn’t it?

          7. kidmercury

            i do prefer to read from both sides, or consume a wide variety of sources, rather than search for something non-partisan/ideological as i don’t think they really

          8. Donna Brewington White

            Thank you. That’s quite a list. No wonder you are so well-informed.And I suppose I don’t completely mind a certain amount of bias as long as it is acknowledged and not passed off as objective reporting.

          9. cavepainting

            Even if we assume you are right and that he is not an islamaphobist, racist,etc., the real issue with his Presidency is the lack of self awareness, and his need to put his own needs at the center of everything.A President needs to seek the truth and be able to make tough decisions with partial information. With his decisions in the first 30 days, he has shown little evidence of good judgement untainted by political and personal prejudices. The botched Yemen raid with little presidential deliberation, an ill conceived travel ban, picking up fights with anyone who criticizes him, are all clear signs of a guy who is unfit for the job. Governing is not campaigning.

      2. DJL

        Interested to hear what specifically you think Trump has done to hurt LGBT people, women or minorities in general? Protecting our border seems to be part of protecting all of these groups – which is his job.

    2. creative group

      kidmercury:Your example of one journalist twisting an issue to receive clicks and reads is definitely acknowledged. But one misappropriated article isn’t the foundation of assigning POTUS/Trump/Bannon the designation of classic title of racist. An article isn’t required from a journalist. Just review what Trump and Bannon actual have said in context from videos in their entirety unedited. Even the less educated can arrive at an accurate conclusion. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and flies like a duck, no guessing is required it is a duck.

      1. bobmonsour

        Sadly, there are those among the less educated that then take action, perhaps on what they’ve heard from Trump/Bannon. Like this horrific action yesterday in Kansas.

        1. Donna Brewington White

          Horrible but is this type of thing new?

          1. bobmonsour

            No, not new, but growing since Trump. There are more than 150,000 students from India who study at U.S. universities (of the million foreign students) and i believe it would be bad if talent chose not to come here to study. This WaPo piece discusses this.https://www.washingtonpost….

          2. Donna Brewington White

            Bob — I can’t say that the problem is not real because I don’t know. And it would be a deep and sad loss for our country to lose out on some of the bright talent from other nations due to their fear of mistreatment or harm — or even worse due to experiencing it directly or indirectly.I experience this from a different vantage point. I have African American nephews studying in Chicago. One just finished a double masters from universities in Chicago and Beijing. His mother said she actually worried for his safety less during his year in China.When he recently interviewed for a job in Chicago, it gave me a moment’s pause. But only a moment.You are aware of the murder rates for African American males in Chicago, right?Anyway, Bob I don’t want to discount the problem you point out in the least. It is troubling. But I would want to get my information on anything with political undertones elsewhere than the WaPo. I had as hard a time getting through that article as I would have reading something from Breitbart.

          3. bobmonsour

            There’s no doubt, Donna, that the murder rate of African Americans in Chicago is horrific. I do understand the challenges faced by parents in those circumstances. I have a good friend who has described his and his two boys challenges.We all make choices in where to get our news and information and after reading your post, I went to a few Indian news outlets to view their coverage. It was quite extensive and certainly seemed to raise concerns among Indian parents about sending their children to the U.S. for study. And, sadly, I do believe it will impact the effectiveness of the magnet that the U.S. has been for academic study by those across the world.

          4. Donna Brewington White

            Says a lot about you, Bob, that you looked at other sources.Really appreciate your perspective.

          5. cavepainting

            Yes. It is. As an Indian living in America for the last 15+ years, I can say that there is more fear and discomfort among immigrants in the community now than at at any other time. To argue that Trump’s rhetoric has had nothing to do with the Montreal and Kansas shootings is not corrrect. The former was a Trump and Le Pen supporter who thought Muslims were dangerous. The latter is still under investigation but initial evidence suggests he was angry with Middle Eastern looking people in his country.

          6. Donna Brewington White

            Thanks for weighing in, cp. Didn’t know your specific ethnic background.I know this must be hard.

      2. kidmercury

        i honestly haven’t seen such videos, and have looked for them. most of what i’ve found has been of questionable context or hearsay. in practice, i see a cabinet and advisory staff that is diverse in every sense of the word. if you have links to damning videos and can share, i would love to check them out.

      3. Donna Brewington White

        Because I wanted to judge for myself whether Trump espouses racism I ended up listening to more of his speeches than I ordinarily would have.I didn’t always like his language and he left himself wide open to misinterpretation but I couldn’t point to actual racism.Can you point me toward something specific? This is a sincere request.

        1. Cam MacRae

          You poor thing! If Trump guilty of nothing else, he’s guilty of mangling our common language to the point it is unrecognisable. Hat’s off to you.

          1. Donna Brewington White

            Some brutal moments, for sure.Same listening to Hillary but for other reasons.(I edited out “brother” but you do feel like a kindred spirit at times.)

          2. Cam MacRae

            Brother was perfectly acceptable to me.Clinton, in the modern tradition of democratic presidential candidates, perfected the art of most eloquently saying nothing at all. She was fucking infuriating to listen to.I wish you guys had been given a meaningful choice last November.

    3. cavepainting

      You are missing the point. It is not what Trump actually does (though that is concerning as well), but more the implicit permission he has given to crazy people whose worst instincts feel empowered.Check out the incident in Canada where 6 Muslims were killed by a white man who is a fan of Trump and Le Pen. And the recent incident in Kansas where an Indian Engineer and two others were injured in a hate crime against people the perpetrator considered “Middle-Eastern”.It is one thing if he just enforced citizenship. But with his incendiary statements, brazen opposition against Muslims, etc., Trump has made legal and non-white immigrants feel very nervous about living in the country. I have spoken to many and the fear is very palpable, especially in Trump supporting states and counties.

      1. kidmercury

        again i will play my “son of legal immigrants with dark skin” card and in light of recent events, i will double down and note that i am of indian origin! 🙂 i don’t blame trump or le pen or anyone for those murders except the murderer himself. what i will say based on my experience of living in cities all across the US is that i honestly don’t think most people are really viciously racist. i think racism caused by a lack of exposure is far, far more common. if a person who hasn’t had much exposure to brown people from thousands of miles away has their first exposure via terrorism — either directly or through media sensationalism — they will be more inclined to be racist against the whole race. if their exposure contradicts media sensationalism and reported terrorist incidents, they will be more inclined to evaluate on a case by case basis. as such, while i blame the murderer first and foremost for his actions, i think fostering terrorism (as has occurred via the fraudulent wars in syria, iraq, and afghanistan) does more to increase this kind of racism than anything else.

    4. cavepainting

      Hi I am a legal immigrant myself and look middle eastern although I am originally from India.Let us please cut the bullshit. Illegal immigration is at one of its lowest points ever and the vast majority of the jobs they do are ones that people residing here legally are not willing to do. I am not saying there are no problems with illegal immigrants but the scale and scope are vastly exaggerated to rile up the public and score political is too easy to sell and buy simple, emotional narratives. But the truth is almost always more complex to find, understand and deal with. That’s what we elect Presidents for.

      1. kidmercury

        Agree the issue is overblown, but that cuts both ways. You’d think by the way mainstream media talks about it immigration was way down and no one was being let in. Net immigration is holding steady.

        1. cavepainting

          Yes, but when one side over-reaches, the response is also in proportion. Which is why facts and seeking the truth are very important particularly for a president. If you start making up things or exaggerating, it is likely to have unintended consequences.

          1. kidmercury

            lol who is making things up? media or trump? maybe both, but any serious examination of the question will reveal the media to be the far greater deceiver.

          2. cavepainting

            That, my friend, is where we differ. What you are making is a false moral equivalence holding a lying President on the same scale as an outraged media. Media is reacting to Trump’s exaggerations and lies with outrage. Some times the outrage may be too intense but that is just a consequence of what Trump did. The shame is squarely on him. Those who see otherwise may not be seeing straight.

          3. kidmercury

            the idea that trump is some constant liar is based on subjective perception. the media admittedly is engaged in corruption, as reported via operation mockingbird.

  3. Dan Epstein

    Thanks for doing this monthly. Great idea. Maybe some other bloggers will follow.

  4. thinkdisruptive

    Hi Fred,I applaud the efforts to support worthy organizations both with money and visibility. I think it would be more effective though to make it less political, and simply about helping individuals and organizations who are in need.Clearly, blocking legal permanent residents (green card holders) from entering the country, no matter where they are originally from when the only “wrong” thing they did was attend a business meeting or take a vacation outside the US is wrong. It is not only legally wrong, it violates every kind of decency as well as American values. 90% of us, regardless of political leanings probably agree with that.As for legal support for immigrants and refugees via NILC, most can agree with that too, even if we disagree about whether they should ultimately be admitted and on what grounds. So again, it’s a worthy cause, regardless of political leaning.Your reason for supporting NILC may be that you believe the current administration is hostile towards and threatens the rights of immigrants, but I don’t have to agree with the polemics to agree that a cause is worthy, or to want to donate to support those who need help. Framing it as an attack on the administration polarizes people unnecessarily, and may even hurt the cause of persuading the administration to change course when their actions are in error.I think it is wrong to dismiss the concerns of people who feel the US borders are inadequately policed and that people who have entered illegally or overstayed their visas should be required to leave. By doing so, you actually give a bigger backstop to Trump by causing the other side to firm up its support of blanket actions which overstep the law. There is room for disagreement about the details of immigration policy, but it’s hard to argue for legal defense, even when you disagree about the best outcome.Regardless, I think what you are doing is a great thing. Thanks.

    1. Donna Brewington White

      I agree with much of what you are saying here.This is a great thing that Fred and co. is doing in terms of garnering support for worthwhile organizations and giving people a constructive way to express opposition.The NILC was not established in response to Trump’s policies. Which means that the need is not a new one — but certainly heightened. If Trump is inadvertently helping to garner support for these agencies, then so be it.I am one of those people that you describe for whom the polarizing effect serves as a deterrent.

      1. thinkdisruptive

        The irony is that the (political) message is actually stronger without the rhetoric. The very fact of choosing an organization like NILC, or last week’s ACLU match, is a political statement about what Fred believes is right. The message of leading by example is a powerful one.Tossing out the overt politics makes it more agreeable (i.e. not divisive) to anyone who shares those values, regardless of whether they belong to the right tribe. Personally, I’m tired of abusive, divisive political language from all sides, and would rather we just got on with dealing with the new reality and fixing things.It seems like we now have a perpetual election cycle that has devolved to Hatfields and McCoys — endless infighting, name-calling, retribution and no cooperation and no civility. Neither side seems to realize that they won’t convince the other of anything or find common ground with all this negativity.

  5. Twain Twain

    Folks,Please be aware of this breaking news on Cloudflare and Google passwords:*

    1. LE

      When things like this happen it’s always chicken little among security professionals who make a living off the worst possible case scenarios. There is a great deal of fud but not much in terms of actual probability of impact to any particular individual. And because it’s an acute problem and link worthy it tends to seem much more important than legacy ongoing things that people do on a daily basis which actually contain a much higher degree of risk (which they take zero steps to prevent). This is not me saying this isn’t important but wanting to have a bit more of a basis based on numbers prior to freaking out. (Same thing happens with medical studies as you know).The way I understand it so far (and anyone can feel free to correct me) sensitive info was leaked and resides in peoples browser caches. It also was cached by search engines. Presumably the search engines can clear that info so the risk with that is any bad actor that took the time to grab that info. The risk with the info in browser caches is with anyone who is a bad actor and what is in their particular cache. So it’s a small probability times a small probability of something bad happening to any particular individual. [1][1] To wit, from the Forbes article. Presumably ‘mum’ is not going to do anything with this data in her browser cache.There was no need to carry out an active attack to obtain the data – my mum may have someone else’s passwords stored in her browser cache just by visiting another CloudFlare fronted site.”

    2. jason wright

      Using 2FA?

  6. Daniel Olshansky

    I’ve personally seen a lot more virality, sharing and interaction on Facebook. Knowing that someone you personality know contributed to a cause will much more likely influence you in my opinion.This is a lot harder to track because posts are not universally public, but I believe it’s worth looking into.

  7. Jim K

    Fred, thanks for showing your leadership with this. You folks have to understand that recurring donations for things like that works much better than a one-timer. Because they can budget with that, they can hire people and plan long term. How come crowdrise doesn’t support recurring donations?

    1. Jim K

      Just donated thanks to your post Fred, and tweeted #NILCMatch $25/mo, I hope you can match it

  8. jason wright

    Obama’s two admins deported a total of two and a half million people from the US.Trump’s admin is going after illegal immigrants. Are you wanting legions of undocumented people living in the dark shadows? The situation needs sorting out.When will the never ending self satisfied liberal bonding session end?

    1. Pete Griffiths

      So we agree that illegal immigration is a problem? Obama deported people and Trump intends to deport people.Can we possibly agree that HOW you go about things matters? Is it so hard to grasp the fact that demonizing millions of people by referring to them as drug dealing rapists and ‘bad hombres’ is offensive to many who aren’t illegal? That the aggressive hectoring tone plays well to part of the population (presumably not the self satisfied liberal bonders) but is deeply alienating to millions of LEGAL immigrants who feel at best unwelcome and at worst harassed?Good policy isn’t just about ends, it is about means. And guess what, bad means often defeat ends.

      1. jason wright

        ‘good means’ would i assume by now have solved the illegal immigration problem, which suggests that means deployed hitherto have not worked and therefore were not ‘good’. the problem is the problem. fix it.i don’t see the wealthy metropolitan liberal elite jumping up and down about the grossly distorted ethnic demographics of the US prison system – no party political gain to be had from cranking up on that issue.illegal immigrants drive down wages and undermine the conditions of employment for ALL workers, which corporate America benefits from, and the establishment media is its sock puppet. Amazon/ Bezos and the Washington Post is a clear example of this alignment.

        1. Pete Griffiths

          No. It would take a great policy to solve the problem. It is extremely tough. But that doesn’t mean that impulsive disruptive means are therefore justified.The wealthy metropolitan liberal elite are concerned about the appalling distortion you indicated. I can’t imagine why you think they’re not.

  9. Dave Pinsen

    Do you believe everyone who wants to has or should have a right to immigrate to the U.S.?

  10. Gringo Gigante

    boo… shame on you.

  11. mikenolan99


  12. Brian Shimmerlik

    This is great – happy to support.

  13. fredwilson

    I like your opening statement. Strong

  14. DJL

    Human rights do not include the right to come into any country of your choosing illegally. (Just ask Mexico.) A nation without borders is not a nation. Equating border security and immigration control to human rights is just plain nonsense, and yet it is at the heart of this misplaced outrage.

  15. JamesHRH

    Immigrant rights are indeed human rights, but non-citizens do not have the rights of citizens. Surely the scales are tipped massively towards non-citizens breaking immigration laws, versus immigrants being oppressed by illegal enforcement?This administration, despite its odious front man, seems intent only to enforce the laws as they exist.As for the travel ban, if the WH staff were not complete incompetents, it is hard to believe that keeping a campaign promise – regardless of its actual efficacy – that is a temporary travel ban for 90 days from 7 countries, is an attack on immigration, immigrants or their human rights.This ‘resistance’ stance still confuses me. If you don’t like Republican politics, which is what the underwater part of the Trump iceberg basically is, get to work electing Democrats.

  16. Salt Shaker

    Here’s the language in the EO. Why do you have a problem with this kind of vetting, particularly since it identifies “high priority” illegals? This is being portrayed as some kind of wild west round up w/ out any basis of law. Of course, the devil is in the details, and a great deal of subjectivity is at play, but the deportation order relates to those who:(a) Have been convicted of any criminal offense;(b) Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;(c) Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;(d) Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency;(e) Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;(f) Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or(g) In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.Of course, there needs to be protection against erroneous or wrongful deportation, but I see nothing wrong w/ the intent of the EO.

  17. BillMcNeely

    I had a problem when legal visa and green card holders were denied entry into the US without prior warning.I also had a problem with the Iraqi interpreters coming here on a Special Immigration Visa. These folks had served our Government faithfully for a number of years with some member having been murdered or kidnapped for their assistance.Interpreters have been already subjected to extreme vetting by the State Department, DoD and the Intelligence agencies. After this process their names are submitted to the Government of Iraq whose agencies do a review. At that time interpreters are very vulnerable to payback for their activities with us by ISIS/AQI and various death squads and militias.These interpreters saved thousands of US intelligence and military members lives.

  18. cavepainting

    Illegal immigration is at the lowest level it has been in a decade. The US has accepted refugees since World War 2 and there is zero evidence that any refugee has indulged in terrorism. These are people who have had a very tough life and are desperate for help.Have you ever been driven from your own country? Have you lost people in a brutal war? Do you at least know anyone like that? If not, may be you should consider learning the facts first.A charlatan identifies false villains and fans emotions for his political benefits, and projects a reality that is outright not true. And it is a real shame that tens of millions of people fell for it thinking the fake messiah will solve their problems.

  19. DJL

    Let’s take this logically (if we can.) The President does an executive order to temporarily suspend (not block) immigration from several countries that are known (and identified by the Obama administration) to be harbors for terrorists.These countries happen to have their prominent religion as Islam. However, there at least 30 other countries (mostly Islam) that are not impacted. How can the above law be a discrimination against Muslims when he vast majority of Muslim countries are not impacted?

  20. JohnLaGrou

    Read the judges’ rulings.

  21. jason wright

    It’s a media lie.

  22. Mahvash Nejad

    Let’s look at it as you noted logically. Countries for this travel ban are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Comparing this policy to Obama’s administration policy is scapegoating as these countries were considered “countries of concern”. The irony is there is not a single “terror” incident on the US soil that could be prevented with this policy from 9/11 to San Bernardino, as none of them were citizens of the countries listed.

  23. Dave Pinsen

    What if all Muslim countries were included? Why wouldn’t the president have the authority to do that? 1st amendment doesn’t apply to the rest of the world.

  24. Pete Griffiths

    I think the representation of the order is somewhat sugar coated.a) if you are truly concerned about terrorism the list of countries is imperfect to say the least. Much the most dangerous country in this regard is Saudi Arabia, but that isn’t included.b) the position that the listed countries ‘happen to have their prominent religion as Islam” rings pretty hollow when Trump himself has made it abundantly plain on many occasions that his intention was to keep muslims out.The problem is that this was as much (or more) a publicity stunt to showcase his determination on a promise. It wasn’t a policy. Policies have to be thought about. Policies may prove to be good or bad but they aren’t impulsive gestures.

  25. DJL

    I am asking you. Does that make sense logically? The judge is clearly a racist. If vetting terrorists = vetting Islam, that assumes that Islam = terrorists. All Islamic countries are not the watch list?

  26. JamesHRH

    that’s called being incompetent. Those are details that were not considered.I 100% agree with you that is what odious, amateurish and wrong.

  27. Pete Griffiths

    Rights are slippery things.It would perhaps be an unpleasant surprise to many US citizens to discover what the overwhelming majority of them do not know, that when entering or leaving the country, by air sea or land, when under the control of border security they do not have many of the rights that we hold dear once inside the country.

  28. JamesHRH

    I don’t think that is slippery at all.Citizens have rights. Citizens in the country have significant protection of those rights. Citizens outside do not.Pretty clear.

  29. Pete Griffiths

    It is indeed simple to make things so clear.

  30. Pete Griffiths

    Details, details… :)don’t bother me with facts.

  31. Pete Griffiths

    “The judge is clearly a racist” ???? Really? Is that honestly the best counterargument you have for the ruling?

  32. DJL

    Think about it. The judge (and people who support his ruling) is assuming that all Muslims are terrorists. Right? The immigration ban is on terrorist countries – not Muslim countries. (34 Muslim counties are not impacted.) Ruling that a temporary ban on terrorists = a ban on all Muslims (which is what he concluded), is clearly incorrect and racist. Where am I going wrong here?

  33. DJL

    I can understand what you are saying if you believe the media narrative that Trump hates everyone. Most people who do not like Trump buy into this. I am not going to judge an executive order based on what I think his “intentions” were – but on the facts and merits.I agree about Executive orders. But you guys (and the press) didn’t have too much problem when Obama did them, right? Obama was a hero overcoming “gridlock”. But Trump is a tyrant with no regard for the law doing the SAME THING. That is the Liberal double-standard.

  34. DJL

    My wife is Lebanese, and her family was driven from their country along with millions of other Christians. So I think I probably know more about this subject than you do. (No offense, of course)”The charlatan identifies false villains” – that is the Democrat Party.

  35. DJL

    Sorry. You were equating human rights with immigrant rights. Do you believe that it is the right of every human to migrate illegally to any country they wish?

  36. Salt Shaker

    Morality and legality aren’t always on the same footing, nor are the rights of citizens vs. non citizens. To conflate the two is wrong imo.

  37. creative group

    DJL:to actually be fair and balanced as an #UnequivocallyUnapologeticallyIndependent we agree with this premise but the rest of your Trumpian shtick is similar to a smoky cheap magicians trick if you claim the true conservative platform.

  38. cavepainting

    First, research done by DHS and intelligence agencies have shown no correlation of citizenship to terroririst activity. Can you name one terrorist attack from a citizen of these countries? Calling theee countries as terrorist countries and their citizens from these countries as terrorists is not a particularly intelligent argument.Second, the people who come to the US from these countries have typically gone through significant vetting to get visas. They are not pouring over the border as you and others seem to suggest. If you think the vetting is not good enough, please be specific as to why and where it has proven to be flawed.Finally, human rights are human rights everywhere. When a human is discriminated against because of nationality and without adequate evidence, it is well within the purview of the US courts to exercise authority.Judicial activism? Maybe, but given a President with no moral underpinnings, bad judgment, and tendency to politicize everything, we need someone else to fill the void. Thank God and our founders for these checks and balances.

  39. cavepainting

    Hi, you surely know more than I do if your wife or her family are refugees. In that case, I only hope you have more empathy and understanding for this class of people who need our support and help. There is zero evidence any of them has ever hurt the US in any way.

  40. Pete Griffiths

    “The phrase “if you believe the media” is dangerously broad. To write off so much of the media, and more particularly to write of many of the most respected media outlets and serious professional journalists, is very very very dangerous.

  41. Pete Griffiths

    “The judge (and people who support his ruling) is assuming that all Muslims are terrorists. Right?”Wrong.I completely fail to follow anything resembling logic here. And btw I have a clear counterexample – I support his ruling and I certainly don’t assume “all Muslims are terrorists.”

  42. cavepainting

    Are you sure you know what you are talking about?This is a temp ban on ALL citizens of certain countries. The ninth circuit made the ruling based on irreparable harm cited by the state of Washington to their proprietary interests and citizens. The court said they were aware of the Muslim ban statements made by Trump and Guiliani, and that while they raised questions, they were not taking those into consideration at this point in time for this specific ruling.May be you should read the ruling first, brush up on the facts, and then come armed with a coherent argument.

  43. Salt Shaker

    Au contraire.”Adequate representation is simply not available, and public funding should be dramatically increased so all of us have adequate representation when confronted with the force of the state.”This is where we disagree. In the hierarchy of legal funding needs, this should not imo be a priority. Sounds callous, I know, but we live in an imperfect world. Way too many bonafide, U.S. citizens in jail due to inadequate representation, and if anyone is in need of increased public funding, it’s them. When an individual and/or their heirs go backdoor there unfortunately are, and should be, consequences from those actions. Not entitled to the same rights or protection in my view. The burden of proof shifts significantly.

  44. DJL

    I agree with that. The New York Times, for example, has demonstrated that it colludes with the Democrat party on stories and actually makes up news to further it’s Liberal agenda. (The entire Trump/Russia connection.) But I am going to guess that most left-leaning people consider the NYT as very serious and professional. It’s hard to get to the real facts in any of this.