DACA: HOW THIS IS MORE ISOLATED THAN SPREAD OUT

Image result for DACA

“What will be the outcome?”


For those of you unfamiliar with what has been going on in the recent news surrounding Donald Trump’s decision to end DACA, it concerns immigration. Former President Barack Obama signed this into action to protect minors for a temporary basis looking to seek work permits/right to stay in America. Image result for daca obamaDonald Trump now wants the bill killed via Congress. A move that has sparked once again, protest across the country. And if you don’t know what DACA stands for, it stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival. Now, with the decision to kill the act, we could potentially see nearly 1 million people deported in America. But is this an America issue, or more of a states issue. Because if you live in certain states, this is a bigger concern than if you live in other places. And nowhere is it bigger than in the state of California.

California has nearly 223,000 people under DACA, which constitutes for 27% – 28% of the DACA recipients. So the protest are massive in California against the DACA end. But not all people are against the move to end DACA. Donald J. Trump still has his strong support that feel that it is not the job of America to care for illegal immigrant’s children. These are also the same people who feel that their jobs are already threatened by illegal immigrants coming into America. Image result for daca trumpNow their children will be allowed to stay and retain work permits in an already tough to find work economy. So my question is, “What will be the decision from Congress?” Will they side with Trump or will they uphold Obama’s previous decision? And once again be another policy that Trump has tried to pass and was unsuccessful. There has been so much going on lately, that I have not had too too much to process this policy in its entirety. But the outrage from the predominantly Hispanic community has been great.

Now before I said California was a major state for DACA. But there are a few other key states that are in the line of fire. Texas is the second highest of DACA recipients, with Illinois, New York, and Florida rounding out the top five states. What sticks out to me besides Florida, which has a lot of Hispanics, as well as New York, and Illinois , is Texas. Texas has been in the news for other reasons outside of DACA; the big story, Hurricane Harvey. Image result for daca cityNow the question remains, “What will Texas do now that this natural disaster has happened?” Families are struggling to regain their footing because of this storm, so what will come of them maybe having to compete for aid from the federal government knowing they are the state with the second highest DACA recipients? This could be another situation that starts to get dicey once the water has receded. Once people have to rebuild their lives in a disaster zone.

But in the end, another major concern is not only the issue of DACA, not just the high numbers centralized to a few states, but the average age of DACA recipients. The average age is about nine years old. A nine year old, that has spent much of their years in America. So now, you’re dealing with children that have no connection to Mexico, a country where the majority are coming from, besides their ethnic and cultural makeup. Young people who could potentially be thrust into a land of high crime and poverty. In a land they know absolutely nothing about because they are now more American than Mexican citizens.


https://www.facebook.com/groups/1777548702458281/

https://faheemjackson.squarespace.com/ (PERSONAL WEBSITE)

https://www.facebook.com/fjacks063 (FAN PAGE)

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_0?fst=as%3Aoff&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Afaheem+jackson&keywords=faheem+jackson&ie=UTF8&qid=1492966094&rnid=2941120011   

@theefaheemjackson Instagram

@2320howe Twitter

THE PATRIOT AGENDA: WHY PEOPLE REALLY ARE UPSET WITH KAEPERNICK

Image result for kaepernick

“Disrespecting the flag; there has to be more to the hate.”


It has been nearly six months since the end of the 2016 NFL season and quarterback Colin Kaepernick is still without a job. For those who are unaware of Colin Kaepernick, he is an NFL quarterback who last played for the San Francisco 49ers. Colin received adulation from many as he aided in rallying his team to the NFL Super Bowl back in 2013. Although they lost against the Baltimore Ravens 34 – 31, Kaepernick saw himself becoming a prospect among top NFL quarterbacks. But last season in 2016, Kaepernick refused to stand for the national anthem sighting he was protesting police brutality against minorities. He stated he could not stand and pledge to a flag, which represented freedom while innocent Black men were being killed by cops.

It immediately sent people into a rage. He was receiving everything from hate mail from fans to sportscasters attacking him. But my question is, “Are people really this patriotic?” Because as I walk the streets on a daily basis, I see plenty of opportunities to be patriotic, but people don’t. You walk through the mall and see military recruitment offices. With how patriotic people are being, you would think that recruitment offices are packed. They are not, as a matter of fact, they are having a hard time recruiting in military. Why in a nation where a president just said we need a stronger military is there limited military enrollment. Because no one want to risk their child going into battle over something they may not agree with.

So why not just be honest about how we really feel. Memorial Day was yesterday and we all had flags flying. Gave discounts on food at restaurants, and some people even shook the hands of troops. But on a daily we don’t live that way. So once again, where does the real sentiment over Colin Kaepernick come from in America? I’m sure there is a demographic of people who take issue with Kaepernick, but what is the real reason? To me, I have two positions on why people take issue with Colin. The first is a racial aspect and the other financial.

The reason I say racial is because outspoken Black males have been an issue with a lot of people throughout history. Jim Brown was criticized in the past and now Kaepernick. And it not only is in sports, it extends itself to all sorts of American life. I wonder would the same outcry of emotion come when it’s a popular White player. I have a theory and my theory is such. I feel people want to say, “You shouldn’t even be in your position.” “Be lucky you’re there because if not for sports you probably wouldn’t be doing nothing with your lives.” “I’m sick of Black people talking, shut up do what I say, and leave it at that.” Patriotism is real, but it’s not this real in America. How about another reason to be angry?

That other reason could be financial in America. We are living in society where so many people are stressed from not having their money right. Now this millionaire athlete they feel is complaining, so they are fighting back. I come from the Midwest, and plenty of people are barely surviving. So they are bringing their own financial woes into the equation. To them, they don’t know one moment to the next if they will survive or not, so they need a reason to be upset. A lot of people angry don’t watch football, or don’t even watch the team that Colin plays for in the NFL. So it’s just another aspect of America that gives people the reason to be angry.

In the end, people may have a legitimate reason for not liking what he did, but the level of disdain is not real. It’s not real because we are not this patriotic on this level in our daily society. If it were reflective in our daily lives I wouldn’t mind. But we are also very selective in our fights. We are for what people believe as long as it is for something we like in life. Good is good if it’s good for me. But at this point, I don’t see Colin on a team anytime soon. For now he is in limbo and only time will tell.


https://www.facebook.com/groups/1777548702458281/

https://faheemjackson.squarespace.com/

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_0?fst=as%3Aoff&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Afaheem+jackson&keywords=faheem+jackson&ie=UTF8&qid=1492966094&rnid=2941120011 

@fjackson12345 Instagram

@2320howe Twitter

RIGHT 2 CARRY

Image result for 2nd amendment

“How relevant are they really?”

As we enter a race for a new president of the United States, one of the topics of interest pertains to the place in which guns have purpose in our lives. And I am not referring to law enforcement officers, but civilians. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution clearly states we have the right to bare arms. What does that mean? Does that mean I have the right to bare any arms? Is it limited to certain guns? Or did that mean something different for the time period in which people were living during the time the document was written.

The lines starts to blur between what is an acceptable gun to have and the right to access such guns. Pistols are clearly alright by most, but a high powered gun like the AR-15, tends to rub people the wrong way. Me myself, it’s hard to say because you do have questions. Why does one need something such as an M16, AK47, or the AR-15. What are the provisions one should have placed on them when you want to own a fully automatic rifle. Even the language is subject for debate because gun owners and enthusiast alike disagree with the populace over what is an assault rifle or not.

Well let’s first observe the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The document was written at the end of the year 1791, and since then debates have gone back and forth for the past 225 plus years. When we talk about the 2nd Amendment there are two areas of interest: gun control and gun rights. When taking away the gun (control) you start to infringe on people’s sense of security (rights). But what is a right? Rights are established in a society to give people the freedom and alienable ability to live how they choose so long as it does not negatively effect the lives of others (social morality).

Now when you are lax on the gun, people feel their rights are not being infringed upon. Well what has people up in arms about the topic. In the recent years, there has been a stretch of shootings using high powered rifles like the AR-15. Victims of those lost reach out asking for stricter gun control. While the gun owners feel the laws are fine the way they have always been. But today it’s a fight; between the owners not wanting to give them up and the government trying to restrict usage of certain guns. The government simply says we are trying to lower the risk of higher victim count. Gun owners say the government are using mass shootings as a platform to put policy in place to harm them for others irresponsible behavior.

Being responsible is very important to take notice of. Why? Because the majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens. They realize the severity of owning a gun and work to keep themselves from getting into a legality situation. Their argument is that the majority of gun violence comes by way of illegal handguns. Illegal is key because if you’re willing to own a gun unregistered and brandish it in public, you’re not concerned with policy by the government. Another argument is that gun owners feel the government is using a crime statistic, which comes from urban gang violence, to push their agenda. While not addressing that issue (inner city crime), which to them (gun owners) seem like a much bigger problem.

But the government says otherwise in their claims. They feel by restricting the amount of rounds one is able to possess; even in the case of a mass shooting casualties are lessened. We also have politicians who want to go as far banning all guns that don’t fall under the equation of handgun or shotgun/rifle designated for hunting deer and other small to midsize game. The government would further say that when the 2nd Amendment was written, it was suppose to be intended for muskets, not M16 assault rifles. Now gun owners would disagree stating that the individuals then were merely using the technological weaponry of their day. But the rebuttal from the government would be the forefathers could not have foreseen assault rifles. These men were also slave owners, which gives the government an in to imply that the forefathers were not right about everything as well even if you think the forefathers would have agreed.

In the end, the fight will continue between the two sides: those for guns and those for gun control. America already has more guns per capita than any nation globally, quite odd considering we are not in war time. It will continue, so long as the people feel infringed upon and the government feels cause to interfere in ones’ life if they see ones’ life or lifestyle to be morally unfit and a threat to this nation.