Sorry to break people’s bubbles but reparations won’t fix this if they’re going to keep relentlessly keep trying to twist the screw on black people without letting up
Conservative group behind Aff. Action lawsuit is now going after BW targeted VC fund/*founders respond /* co-founder steps down
- Thread starter get these nets
- Start date
Yeah, because federal courts aren't controlled by republican activist judges
This is why voting mattersYeah, because federal courts aren't controlled by republican activist judges
He's going after contracting and employment next.
He Worked for Years to Overturn Affirmative Action and Finally Won. He’s Not Done.
Questions from the author are bolded and Blums responses are in regular text.
All right. It’s hard to imagine that this decision won’t open the door to legal challenges to race-conscious policies in other parts of American life. What else might you have your eye on? Race-based contracts, internships specifically for underrepresented groups, D.E.I. programs?
Well, D.E.I. programs are not challengeable, unless those D.E.I. programs involve a racial preference. It is not illegal for a corporation to hire a D.E.I. officer and staff that office with dozens or hundreds of people and compel employees to listen to speeches. That’s not actionable.
What is actionable is a corporation that says, “We are putting a ‘help wanted’ sign on the office door, and here’s the kind of employee that we’re looking to hire. We’re looking to hire those of this race, but not that race.” So all of these preferences, whether it’s in the employment arena, contracting arena, internships — all of that I think will be energized by this Supreme Court opinion. And we’re blessed to have this Supreme Court opinion.
Are the concerns, though, of workplaces different from those of schools when it comes to why diversity might be important?
So if a bar in the south part of Boston is known as, you know, Flanagan’s Bar, and it’s Irish as Irish can be, and the owner’s Irish, and the bartenders are Irish, and the employees are Irish, and the great percentage of all the customers are Irish, Flanagan’s can’t put out a sign that says, “Bartender needed. Must be Irish,” because my customers are Irish.
Of course.
It works the same way. There is no difference. So if an African American or Hispanic goes in and applies for that job, Flanagan can’t tell that African American or that Hispanic, “Well, you know, my profit’s going to go down because, you know, my customers really want Irish, and they’re going to go over to O’Malley’s bar across the street if I hire a Black bartender.” That’s illegal.
Of course it is.
And so it is also illegal if — and I’m going to pull a name out of the air — if Google says, “We need to hire in this capacity, you know, African Americans,” or “We really have too many whites, so we need more Asians.” All of that is currently illegal, but not challenged as often as I believe it should.
So are you planning to turn your Yente talents to the workplace next?
Well, I think employment is one area that I think will garner greater attention, not just from me, but from other organizations, other legal policy foundations. I also think that some of the things that we associate with higher education — internships, scholarships, certain research grants — those need to be revisited if they have been race-exclusive.
Do you think that this decision has made it easier for your work to continue?
Well, I’ve said it in the past: This opinion is the end of the beginning. This issue of race and ethnicity in our public lives is not going to go away.
He Worked for Years to Overturn Affirmative Action and Finally Won. He’s Not Done.
Questions from the author are bolded and Blums responses are in regular text.
All right. It’s hard to imagine that this decision won’t open the door to legal challenges to race-conscious policies in other parts of American life. What else might you have your eye on? Race-based contracts, internships specifically for underrepresented groups, D.E.I. programs?
Well, D.E.I. programs are not challengeable, unless those D.E.I. programs involve a racial preference. It is not illegal for a corporation to hire a D.E.I. officer and staff that office with dozens or hundreds of people and compel employees to listen to speeches. That’s not actionable.
What is actionable is a corporation that says, “We are putting a ‘help wanted’ sign on the office door, and here’s the kind of employee that we’re looking to hire. We’re looking to hire those of this race, but not that race.” So all of these preferences, whether it’s in the employment arena, contracting arena, internships — all of that I think will be energized by this Supreme Court opinion. And we’re blessed to have this Supreme Court opinion.
Are the concerns, though, of workplaces different from those of schools when it comes to why diversity might be important?
So if a bar in the south part of Boston is known as, you know, Flanagan’s Bar, and it’s Irish as Irish can be, and the owner’s Irish, and the bartenders are Irish, and the employees are Irish, and the great percentage of all the customers are Irish, Flanagan’s can’t put out a sign that says, “Bartender needed. Must be Irish,” because my customers are Irish.
Of course.
It works the same way. There is no difference. So if an African American or Hispanic goes in and applies for that job, Flanagan can’t tell that African American or that Hispanic, “Well, you know, my profit’s going to go down because, you know, my customers really want Irish, and they’re going to go over to O’Malley’s bar across the street if I hire a Black bartender.” That’s illegal.
Of course it is.
And so it is also illegal if — and I’m going to pull a name out of the air — if Google says, “We need to hire in this capacity, you know, African Americans,” or “We really have too many whites, so we need more Asians.” All of that is currently illegal, but not challenged as often as I believe it should.
So are you planning to turn your Yente talents to the workplace next?
Well, I think employment is one area that I think will garner greater attention, not just from me, but from other organizations, other legal policy foundations. I also think that some of the things that we associate with higher education — internships, scholarships, certain research grants — those need to be revisited if they have been race-exclusive.
Do you think that this decision has made it easier for your work to continue?
Well, I’ve said it in the past: This opinion is the end of the beginning. This issue of race and ethnicity in our public lives is not going to go away.
"WE" can only do so much, if other groups (that benefit from our struggle) aren't acknowledging this is wrong and voting accordingly.
Wear My Dawg's Hat
Superstar
No. The hard truth is that we must go back to what worked. It wasn't sitting up under whichever group of white folks that got us free. It was organizing and putting money together for lawyers to defend our rights. I see all those orgs still exist, but they ain't doing shyt but having brunch and all white parties.
Fancy negroes with degrees better get on some time. Like I said, I'm willing to put something on it. Maybe now they'll get back to the work we lifted them up to do.
You make a great point.
Unfortunately, the network of brilliant legal activists that once existed in the community, have left us and weren't replaced
(for a number of reasons - many quite depressing...).
An all-star, "dream team" of civil rights lawyers in the 1950s argued and won Brown v Board of Education. They were not dependent on anybody's political party system for their rigorous advocacy. Again, this was during the 1950s.
Whether the will, resolve and intellect of the past can somehow resurrect itself during the current societal/cultural Real nikka/Bad Bytch Era remains to be seen.
HarlemHottie
Uptown Thoroughbred
What? 7% of the black voting electorate? WTF are the other 93% doing? Not a goddamn thing, that's what!
What work? Who is doing what work exactly? Bc I'm a member of my local NAACP and these are their proposed legislative priorities for this year. 2/3 explicitly use the "poc" language and, including the one about reparations! And they only advocate for a study. I expect that from the CBC, but not from the advocacy org, they supposed to go the hardest and push the politicians.
Also, while they're apparently only just now setting up procedures for local branches to report to the official body, the only "definitely will do" out of the three is advocating for DACA. This the shyt I'm talking about! I paid them money! WTF is we doing???
LEGISLATIVE
1. Call for U.S. Congress to Cause to Urge the United States Supreme Court to Develop and Abide by Ethical Standards DuPage IL Branch, Unit 3012
Concur as amended
WHEREAS, There is clear and convincing evidence that the United States Supreme Court has failed to adhere to any ethical standards, as shown by mounting allegations of misconduct by multiple Justices, involving clear and obvious conflicts of interest, including those related to members of their families; and
WHEREAS, It has become increasingly evident that the Court has refused to self-govern and has not addressed any of these numerous alleged ethical issues.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) hereby demands that the United States Congress immediately take all steps within its power, or otherwise call upon the Court, to develop ethical rules by which Justices must abide, including mandatory recusal from all matters in which a Justice has a conflict of interest.
2. In Support of Federal Oversight in Response to Actions that Restrict and Erode Reparative Policies Derrick Johnson, President & CEO
Concurred as amended
WHEREAS, The NAACP has long stood in favor of financial reparations to African Americans and persons of African descent in the United States who are descendants of slavery and the Jim Crow Era; and 2023 RESOLUTIONS 74
WHEREAS, The NAACP’s original policy position, as embodied in H.R. 40, demands that the United States Government commence hearings and a study commission to examine the issue of reparations; and
WHEREAS, History reflects that federal, state and local governments have facilitated particularized harm to Black communities based in racial animus; and
WHEREAS, History reflects that federal oversight has also served a critical role to ensure that states and localities address historic inequity; and
WHEREAS, Policy and legislation enacted through the Executive Branch and the current administration through its focus on racial justice presents targeted approaches to reduce historic social inequity imposed on Black Americans; and
WHEREAS, Since the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 until today, racist backlash from specific federal, state, and local policymakers has targeted the agency of Black Americans while seeking to erode voting rights, reduce federal investment in Black communities, and end federal oversight of reparative policy solutions.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the NAACP reaffirms past support for a Reparations policy expressed in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2007, 2016, 2019, and 2022.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the NAACP supports prescriptive federal oversight of state and local actions that perennially focus on eroding the progress of Black Americans and other people of color.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the NAACP will establish mechanisms for its units to report on state and local actions that erect barriers, erode social and economic progress, and diminish civic engagement by Black Americans and other people of color.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the NAACP demands that the federal government restrict funding to any state or locality found to engage in activity that hinders, erodes, or reduces gains of Black Americans in reparative economic or social justice, fairness in the application of the law, voting rights, and other measures targeted at reducing historic harm. 2023 RESOLUTIONS 75
3. The DACA Program Should be Continued Florida State Conference, Unit 5635SC
Concurred as amended
WHEREAS, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”) seeks to confront and eliminate societal and institutional prejudices deterring the advancement of people of color; and WHEREAS, “The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program was intended as a stopgap measure to protect some of the nation’s most vulnerable immigrants — young people who were brought to the country as children and have grown up essentially as Americans — until Congress could agree on a comprehensive immigration overhaul or, at the least, pass a bill to offer them a path to citizenship”; and
WHEREAS, To be eligible to receive DACA status, individuals must have come to the United States under the age of sixteen. They must be in school, have graduated from high school, obtained a general education certificate, or received an honorable discharge from the U.S. Armed Forces. Furthermore, a recipient of DACA status must not have been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety; and
WHEREAS, In October 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit partially affirmed a Southern District of Texas decision in Texas et al. v. United States et al. finding DACA unlawful, and that President Barack Obama exceeded his authority when he created DACA in 2012. The court preserved a previously issued partial stay and remanded the case back to the district court to review the Final Rule published by the Department of Homeland Security; and WHEREAS, Beginning on October 31, 2022, under the Final Rule and pending further litigation, the Department of Homeland Security can continue to grant or deny renewal DACA requests but is prohibited from granting initial DACA requests; and
WHEREAS, In 2022, approximately 1,161,000 people (known as Dreamers) were eligible for protection under DACA. Only approximately 589,660 received DACA status; and WHEREAS, The future of DACA as a whole is uncertain pending the resolution of the issues remanded back to the Southern District of Texas and further legal proceedings; and WHEREAS, DACA recipients are involved in their communities and contribute to their states’ economic and societal success, and the U.S. States rely on DACA recipients to fill in various labor 2023 RESOLUTIONS 76 gaps across many industries. Approximately 20,000 DACA recipients are employed as teachers, and approximately 34,000 are healthcare workers; and
WHEREAS, Eliminating DACA could have grave negative effects on the national economy. For example, there would be a loss of $280 billion in the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), $33.1 billion would be lost in Social Security contributions, and $7.7 billion in Medicare contributions would be forfeited; and WHEREAS, In February 2023, the Dream Act of 2023 was introduced in the United States Senate. If passed, the Act would establish a process for Dreamers who qualify to apply for conditional legal status and eventually become citizens.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the NAACP will support the passage of the Dream Act of 2023.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the NAACP will advocate for the reversal of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision affirming Texas et al. v. United States of America et al
1. Call for U.S. Congress to Cause to Urge the United States Supreme Court to Develop and Abide by Ethical Standards DuPage IL Branch, Unit 3012
Concur as amended
WHEREAS, There is clear and convincing evidence that the United States Supreme Court has failed to adhere to any ethical standards, as shown by mounting allegations of misconduct by multiple Justices, involving clear and obvious conflicts of interest, including those related to members of their families; and
WHEREAS, It has become increasingly evident that the Court has refused to self-govern and has not addressed any of these numerous alleged ethical issues.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) hereby demands that the United States Congress immediately take all steps within its power, or otherwise call upon the Court, to develop ethical rules by which Justices must abide, including mandatory recusal from all matters in which a Justice has a conflict of interest.
2. In Support of Federal Oversight in Response to Actions that Restrict and Erode Reparative Policies Derrick Johnson, President & CEO
Concurred as amended
WHEREAS, The NAACP has long stood in favor of financial reparations to African Americans and persons of African descent in the United States who are descendants of slavery and the Jim Crow Era; and 2023 RESOLUTIONS 74
WHEREAS, The NAACP’s original policy position, as embodied in H.R. 40, demands that the United States Government commence hearings and a study commission to examine the issue of reparations; and
WHEREAS, History reflects that federal, state and local governments have facilitated particularized harm to Black communities based in racial animus; and
WHEREAS, History reflects that federal oversight has also served a critical role to ensure that states and localities address historic inequity; and
WHEREAS, Policy and legislation enacted through the Executive Branch and the current administration through its focus on racial justice presents targeted approaches to reduce historic social inequity imposed on Black Americans; and
WHEREAS, Since the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 until today, racist backlash from specific federal, state, and local policymakers has targeted the agency of Black Americans while seeking to erode voting rights, reduce federal investment in Black communities, and end federal oversight of reparative policy solutions.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the NAACP reaffirms past support for a Reparations policy expressed in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2007, 2016, 2019, and 2022.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the NAACP supports prescriptive federal oversight of state and local actions that perennially focus on eroding the progress of Black Americans and other people of color.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the NAACP will establish mechanisms for its units to report on state and local actions that erect barriers, erode social and economic progress, and diminish civic engagement by Black Americans and other people of color.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the NAACP demands that the federal government restrict funding to any state or locality found to engage in activity that hinders, erodes, or reduces gains of Black Americans in reparative economic or social justice, fairness in the application of the law, voting rights, and other measures targeted at reducing historic harm. 2023 RESOLUTIONS 75
3. The DACA Program Should be Continued Florida State Conference, Unit 5635SC
Concurred as amended
WHEREAS, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”) seeks to confront and eliminate societal and institutional prejudices deterring the advancement of people of color; and WHEREAS, “The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program was intended as a stopgap measure to protect some of the nation’s most vulnerable immigrants — young people who were brought to the country as children and have grown up essentially as Americans — until Congress could agree on a comprehensive immigration overhaul or, at the least, pass a bill to offer them a path to citizenship”; and
WHEREAS, To be eligible to receive DACA status, individuals must have come to the United States under the age of sixteen. They must be in school, have graduated from high school, obtained a general education certificate, or received an honorable discharge from the U.S. Armed Forces. Furthermore, a recipient of DACA status must not have been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety; and
WHEREAS, In October 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit partially affirmed a Southern District of Texas decision in Texas et al. v. United States et al. finding DACA unlawful, and that President Barack Obama exceeded his authority when he created DACA in 2012. The court preserved a previously issued partial stay and remanded the case back to the district court to review the Final Rule published by the Department of Homeland Security; and WHEREAS, Beginning on October 31, 2022, under the Final Rule and pending further litigation, the Department of Homeland Security can continue to grant or deny renewal DACA requests but is prohibited from granting initial DACA requests; and
WHEREAS, In 2022, approximately 1,161,000 people (known as Dreamers) were eligible for protection under DACA. Only approximately 589,660 received DACA status; and WHEREAS, The future of DACA as a whole is uncertain pending the resolution of the issues remanded back to the Southern District of Texas and further legal proceedings; and WHEREAS, DACA recipients are involved in their communities and contribute to their states’ economic and societal success, and the U.S. States rely on DACA recipients to fill in various labor 2023 RESOLUTIONS 76 gaps across many industries. Approximately 20,000 DACA recipients are employed as teachers, and approximately 34,000 are healthcare workers; and
WHEREAS, Eliminating DACA could have grave negative effects on the national economy. For example, there would be a loss of $280 billion in the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), $33.1 billion would be lost in Social Security contributions, and $7.7 billion in Medicare contributions would be forfeited; and WHEREAS, In February 2023, the Dream Act of 2023 was introduced in the United States Senate. If passed, the Act would establish a process for Dreamers who qualify to apply for conditional legal status and eventually become citizens.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the NAACP will support the passage of the Dream Act of 2023.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the NAACP will advocate for the reversal of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision affirming Texas et al. v. United States of America et al
I don’t think ppl really understand. They absolutely would put us back in chains if it guaranteed they wouldn’t have to work, and the other racial groups would sit and be silent as long as they got to benefit from our enslavement as well.
HarlemHottie
Uptown Thoroughbred
Speak for yourself, my district is baked-in blue.
I know exactly what's going on and we are being sleepwalked(?) out of self- defense. It started in the 90's. We stopped advocating for ourselves and started depending on the Democrats to do it for us, bc Bill Clinton played the sax and was good with black folks. That's when we lost our power. It's been a downhill from there, yall just now noticing. Now we just out here naked, our institutions calcified into dust.
If you don't believe me, tell me what we gon do when the other democratic voters completely stop giving a shyt about antiblackness, even lip service?
HarlemHottie
Uptown Thoroughbred
Well, that’s terrible and that POC shyt is biting us in the ass.What? 7% of the black voting electorate? WTF are the other 93% doing? Not a goddamn thing, that's what!
2/3 explicitly use the "poc" language and, including the one about reparations! And they only advocate for a study. I expect that from the CBC, but not from the advocacy org, they supposed to go the hardest and push the politicians.
Also, while they're apparently only just now setting up procedures for local branches to report to the official body, the only "definitely will do" out of the three is advocating for DACA. This the shyt I'm talking about! I paid them money! WTF is we doing???
LEGISLATIVE
1. Call for U.S. Congress to Cause to Urge the United States Supreme Court to Develop and Abide by Ethical Standards DuPage IL Branch, Unit 3012
Concur as amended
WHEREAS, There is clear and convincing evidence that the United States Supreme Court has failed to adhere to any ethical standards, as shown by mounting allegations of misconduct by multiple Justices, involving clear and obvious conflicts of interest, including those related to members of their families; and
WHEREAS, It has become increasingly evident that the Court has refused to self-govern and has not addressed any of these numerous alleged ethical issues.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) hereby demands that the United States Congress immediately take all steps within its power, or otherwise call upon the Court, to develop ethical rules by which Justices must abide, including mandatory recusal from all matters in which a Justice has a conflict of interest.
2. In Support of Federal Oversight in Response to Actions that Restrict and Erode Reparative Policies Derrick Johnson, President & CEO
Concurred as amended
WHEREAS, The NAACP has long stood in favor of financial reparations to African Americans and persons of African descent in the United States who are descendants of slavery and the Jim Crow Era; and 2023 RESOLUTIONS 74
WHEREAS, The NAACP’s original policy position, as embodied in H.R. 40, demands that the United States Government commence hearings and a study commission to examine the issue of reparations; and
WHEREAS, History reflects that federal, state and local governments have facilitated particularized harm to Black communities based in racial animus; and
WHEREAS, History reflects that federal oversight has also served a critical role to ensure that states and localities address historic inequity; and
WHEREAS, Policy and legislation enacted through the Executive Branch and the current administration through its focus on racial justice presents targeted approaches to reduce historic social inequity imposed on Black Americans; and
WHEREAS, Since the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 until today, racist backlash from specific federal, state, and local policymakers has targeted the agency of Black Americans while seeking to erode voting rights, reduce federal investment in Black communities, and end federal oversight of reparative policy solutions.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the NAACP reaffirms past support for a Reparations policy expressed in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2007, 2016, 2019, and 2022.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the NAACP supports prescriptive federal oversight of state and local actions that perennially focus on eroding the progress of Black Americans and other people of color.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the NAACP will establish mechanisms for its units to report on state and local actions that erect barriers, erode social and economic progress, and diminish civic engagement by Black Americans and other people of color.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the NAACP demands that the federal government restrict funding to any state or locality found to engage in activity that hinders, erodes, or reduces gains of Black Americans in reparative economic or social justice, fairness in the application of the law, voting rights, and other measures targeted at reducing historic harm. 2023 RESOLUTIONS 75
3. The DACA Program Should be Continued Florida State Conference, Unit 5635SC
Concurred as amended
WHEREAS, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”) seeks to confront and eliminate societal and institutional prejudices deterring the advancement of people of color; and WHEREAS, “The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program was intended as a stopgap measure to protect some of the nation’s most vulnerable immigrants — young people who were brought to the country as children and have grown up essentially as Americans — until Congress could agree on a comprehensive immigration overhaul or, at the least, pass a bill to offer them a path to citizenship”; and
WHEREAS, To be eligible to receive DACA status, individuals must have come to the United States under the age of sixteen. They must be in school, have graduated from high school, obtained a general education certificate, or received an honorable discharge from the U.S. Armed Forces. Furthermore, a recipient of DACA status must not have been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety; and
WHEREAS, In October 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit partially affirmed a Southern District of Texas decision in Texas et al. v. United States et al. finding DACA unlawful, and that President Barack Obama exceeded his authority when he created DACA in 2012. The court preserved a previously issued partial stay and remanded the case back to the district court to review the Final Rule published by the Department of Homeland Security; and WHEREAS, Beginning on October 31, 2022, under the Final Rule and pending further litigation, the Department of Homeland Security can continue to grant or deny renewal DACA requests but is prohibited from granting initial DACA requests; and
WHEREAS, In 2022, approximately 1,161,000 people (known as Dreamers) were eligible for protection under DACA. Only approximately 589,660 received DACA status; and WHEREAS, The future of DACA as a whole is uncertain pending the resolution of the issues remanded back to the Southern District of Texas and further legal proceedings; and WHEREAS, DACA recipients are involved in their communities and contribute to their states’ economic and societal success, and the U.S. States rely on DACA recipients to fill in various labor 2023 RESOLUTIONS 76 gaps across many industries. Approximately 20,000 DACA recipients are employed as teachers, and approximately 34,000 are healthcare workers; and
WHEREAS, Eliminating DACA could have grave negative effects on the national economy. For example, there would be a loss of $280 billion in the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), $33.1 billion would be lost in Social Security contributions, and $7.7 billion in Medicare contributions would be forfeited; and WHEREAS, In February 2023, the Dream Act of 2023 was introduced in the United States Senate. If passed, the Act would establish a process for Dreamers who qualify to apply for conditional legal status and eventually become citizens.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the NAACP will support the passage of the Dream Act of 2023.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the NAACP will advocate for the reversal of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision affirming Texas et al. v. United States of America et al
That being said, yes we are definitely slacking in the “work” department, but the current climate should be lighting a fire under our asses.
The suit dropped yesterday.So where's the WH?
HarlemHottie
Uptown Thoroughbred
TY!
Yall be acting like I'm bugging. fukk democrats, we not advocating for OURSELVES. How can we even expect help? You at least gotta look llike you trying.
