u.s. constitution


This officer was fired after he didn’t shoot a black man in distress. Now he’s suing.

  • Stephen Mader, a former police officer in Weirton, West Virginia, is suing the city and local police department for firing him after he didn’t shoot a black man trying to commit suicide by cop.
  • In May 2016, Mader encountered Ronald Williams, a distressed African-American man whose girlfriend had called police to their Weirton home after Williams reportedly threatened to harm himself.
  • Williams was holding an unloaded gun and pleaded with Mader to “just shoot me,” according to the former officer’s lawsuit.
  • Mader, a veteran of the War in Afghanistan, said he relied on his training in the military, and attempted to de-escalate the situation and prevent any loss of life. But when two of Mader’s fellow officers joined him on the scene, one of them fatally shot Williams in the head.
  • The use of lethal force rattled the community, in light of the facts that Williams had apparently been experiencing a mental health crisis and that Mader, a white officer, had attempted to save the black man’s life. Mader was fired following the incident.
  • Mader’s lawsuit, filed in a U.S. District Court in West Virginia, alleges that the city violated his rights against unjust termination, his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution and other rights under the Constitution of the State of West Virginia. Read more (5/10/17)

follow @the-movemnt

‘Maintaining My Virginity Has Given Me Incredible Powers’: 5 Questions With Steven Spielberg

The architect of dozens of iconic movies, Steven Spielberg essentially invented the blockbuster and has changed Hollywood forever. We asked the renowned director five questions about his storied career, and his answers will blow you away.

1. Where do you get the ideas for your movies?

I get my ideas from things I see in my everyday life. One time I was walking on the beach, and I saw a huge shark eating someone with its enormous jaws. I saw that, and I thought, “What if that shark was a man, and instead of eating people, he searched for lost artifacts and battled the Nazis with a whip?” The next day I started work on Indiana Jones. You never know where inspiration can be hiding.

2. What do you think has most contributed to your success as a filmmaker?

Maintaining my virginity for my entire life has given me incredible divine powers from heaven. I have kept my body pure from desires of the flesh, and as a result, God has sent his blessings down upon me. Because I have remained a virgin, God has granted me the ability to hold my breath for six minutes at a time. This has enabled me to shoot several scenes in Raiders Of The Lost Ark underwater, which really made that film great. If I hadn’t been a virgin, God wouldn’t have allowed me to hold my breath for six minutes, and Raiders Of The Lost Ark would have been a mediocre film completely lacking any scenes that take place underwater.

3. What is a common misconception people have about your work?

People often think that E.T. went on to live a long and happy life after he left Earth at the end of the movie, but that simply is not the case. The moment that E.T. boards his spaceship, his fellow aliens immediately kill him for failing in his mission to steal one of Elliott’s sweatshirts. E.T. is the saddest movie I ever made.

4. What was it like working with Harrison Ford on the Indiana Jones series?

Like many actors in the early 1980s, when Harrison Ford heard that an actor had just been elected president, he assumed it was him. It made shooting the movie difficult, as Harrison was constantly trying to call foreign dignitaries and order missile strikes between takes. We had to cobble most of his dialogue from him shouting, “Now Harrison’s the president,” as he refused to read his lines, claiming that the U.S. Constitution forbade the president from engaging in archaeology. Harrison is the best actor I’ve ever worked with by far.

5. What’s your favorite part about being a filmmaker?

They let me keep the plastic E.T. puppet, and if you rub sunscreen on the plastic E.T. puppet, the plastic E.T. puppet will reward you by telling an interesting fact about insects. I love to learn about insects, so I always make sure I have plenty of sunscreen to rub all over E.T. I can’t imagine doing any other job.

White men have been getting a bad rap lately. They are constantly told that they are the world’s oppressors and the world would be a lot better off without these problematic, potential rapists around. Other races and genders roll their eyes at them and say things such as “dear white people” in a tone that implies they’re going to explain their wrongdoings to them one last time. 

I never really thought of white males as anything extraordinary until everyone said it’s a terrible thing to be one. After looking it up, turns out they’re pretty great - maybe not “supreme,” but definitely a combination of race and gender we owe a lot to.

White men create and maintain the world’s most prosperous and desirable countries. Majority-white counties do an absolutely brilliant job at creating and maintaining the cleanest, safest, high-income, low-corruption, politically stable, and technologically innovative societies on the planet. They make up the top 10 most prosperous in the world and top 18 happiest, healthiest and most advanced. The only countries who are more prosperous than us are countries with even greater percentages of whites.

It’s no wonder a huge percentage of the planets population would jump at the first opportunity to come and live in one of these “white supremacies.” There are certainly a few major non-white first world exceptions out there who get ranked around the 20th mark for most prosperous (Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong) but these countries are primarily the way they are through adopting Western technologies and systems of government and laws. Immigration to these countries is also almost non-existent, while all the white majority countries are major migration destinations for non-white people around the world seeking a better life.

“White Supremacy”? It’s more like white competency than anything else. And competency is a virtue that should cherished and praised. Not derided.

White males make up only a tiny fraction of the population of the planet, but have been, and continue to be, at the forefront of the vast majority of the world’s scientific, medical, and technological advancements for 500+ years. Japan, Korea, and China could very well still be lingering in a 13th century standard of living if not for increased contact with the West starting in the 1800’s, and western medicine has added decades to the average life expectancy of all races of people across the globe. Can’t live without your phone, computer, car, antibiotics, medicine, electricity, internet, eyeglasses, refrigeration, GPS, satellites and yes, even the toilet? White people say, you’re welcome. 

Now, I know what the racists are thinking. Sure, some white man innovations have been created for destruction, but for every V-2 rocket there is a Saturn V, for every attack helicopter there is a rescue helicopter, and for every nuclear bomb there is an asteroid in space which could be obliterated before it has a chance to destroy Earth. The innovations of white men have brought far more health and happiness to people around the world than their negatives, so cultural Marxists and all the “white privilege” brow-beaters are more than welcome to move to a Madagascar mud hut if they really can’t stand anything white or western. You aren’t going to be missed.

Cultural Marxists, feminists, and other poorly informed left-wing activists love to keep espousing that white males have historically been the most “violent” or the most “oppressive” race of men on the planet. However, this is entirely untrue. It is in fact Asians who have been responsible for the lion’s share of the highest death toll conflicts in human history, and the Japanese, Mongols, and Chinese are well represented in the four most deadly. Even today, where are the only places in the world who are still run by bloodthirsty dictators, where their people are so oppressed they can’t smile without being executed, where rape, slavery, killing gays and marrying children are legal? It sure as fuck isn’t coming from white people and that’s precisely why everyone ignores it. 

The big news media continues to push garbage claims that whites are uniquely racist above all others. On an even more ridiculous note, they may even claim that non-whites can’t be racist at all, because the world is a “white supremacy”. White majority countries all across the world are the most tolerant and the most accepting of living amongst people with different cultures and backgrounds, while countries in the Middle East and Southeast Asia are deemed the least accepting. 

A recent study found that Jordan and India are the two most racist countries in the world followed by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Vietnam, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, Bulgaria, Algeria, Morocco, Mali, Zambia, Thailand, Malaysia, The Philippines, Bangladesh, Hong Kong. But sure, keep telling us how racist and intolerant the United States is. Furthermore, only white majority countries take in huge numbers of immigrants and refugees, while the wealthy Northeast Asian countries (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan) scoff at such humanitarianism. Are you going to go to their airports and chant to let them in?

Also, let’s talk about slavery. Not only have left wingers and the mainstream media purposefully chosen to avoid any kind of discussion of the Arab slave trade, the slave trades of North Africa, Egypt, China, Pakistan, for example or even the slavery that’s still going on today. India has 18 million slaves, China 3 million, Pakistan 2 million, Bangladesh, North Korea, Nigeria, Uzbekistan, Mauritania, Congo, Iran, Turkey, Egypt - all hold millions of slaves today but whites are told to feel guilty and ashamed because about 2% of white Americans owned slaves 200 years ago? White males have made more contributions to ending slavery across the world than any other group of people but they still get blamed as if they were the ones responsible for slavery. Every race has been on either side of slavery and yes, that includes white people once being slaves too. Africa started it, white guys ended it.

Britain abolished slavery throughout the British Empire with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, the French colonies abolished it in 1848, and the U.S. abolished slavery in 1865 with the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Brazil was the last European colony to do so in 1888. Compare that to the far East, where chattel slavery was a legal part of Chinese culture until 1910 and slavery continued in much of the Islamic world well into the 20th century. It was gradually outlawed and suppressed in Muslim lands largely due to pressure exerted from western nations like Britain and France, you know, white guys.

Despite all the humiliation, browbeating, and derision that white males are experiencing in the west today, they have a reputation of brushing themselves off and continuing to get on with being the world’s inventors and peacemakers. Despite knowing that popular culture, hiring practices, and so many different media outlets and national institutions are against their wellbeing, they’re not the ones raising hell, starting riots or shooting five black police officers. They don’t waste their time with White Men’s Marches, they smile, go to work and continue to lead by example. 

Yes, while white men may have been behind a lot of the bad in the world, so has every other race. The difference is, they’re also behind pretty much everything that is great and vital to us today. That’s what happens when you create the modern world. 

pianoplayersara  asked:

Do you have any non religious arguments against abortion?


Current biology research shows us that, once fertilization takes place in humans, the resulting zygote is an individual organism and a member of the human species. This organism is self-directed, which means it develops from within using its own unique DNA (as opposed to, for instance, how a car is put together one piece at a time).

In fact, for the first week (prior to implantation), the human embryo is not directly connected to the mother, but continues to grow and develop from a single-celled organism to a blastocyst with hundreds of cells that at this point begin to differentiate (different cells are going to develop into different body systems).

The development is gradual and continuous, which means there is no definite point after fertilization where we can say that the human embryo/fetus has become something different that it wasn’t before. All of our descriptions of stages of development and the terms we use are arbitrary and only for our own benefit in understanding what happens.

Birth itself is simply a change in location for the fetus. We change our terminology, but the fetus/newborn doesn’t change in any significant way.

If this is the case, we can easily say that the fetus is a member of the human species.

However, this means nothing if we don’t know how to treat members of the human species. Science cannot answer that question - it can only tell us what the fetus is and what it does. At this point, we have to turn to philosophy and ethics.

Most people can agree that all human adults and human children have human rights and deserve equal treatment.

Most people also agree that while animals should not be abused or neglected, they don’t deserve equal treatment with humans. If they did, the punishment for a hit-and-run would be the same whether the victim was a squirrel or a human toddler.

But why?

We have to have a consistent explanation for equal treatment that tells us, without ambiguity, who does and doesn’t have rights.

Our explanation must include human adults and human infants, but exclude animals.

If we base our explanation on ability, such as self-awareness, sentience, verbal ability, etc. we run the risk of either excluding some human adults or infants or including squirrels.

However, if we base our explanation on the common humanity shared by human adults and human infants, we satisfy all three requirements with an explanation that should make sense to us.

This explanation, that all humans deserve equal treatment regardless of race, gender, age, sexual orientation, or ability, means that a human fetus (or even a zygote) deserves equal treatment because it is human.

This means that if it is wrong to intentionally kill a 2-year-old, it is wrong to intentionally kill a fetus, regardless of the fetus’s stage of development. Therefore, if we agree that it should be illegal to kill 2-year-olds, it should also be illegal to kill fetuses.

A law based on this fact would simply be the existing murder statute applied to all human beings equally, as the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution already requires.

This would mean that it would be illegal for abortionists to kill preborn children. The mother of the preborn child would be considered a second victim of a medical professional who chose to violate the law and medical ethics.

tl;dr: Fetuses are biologically human. All human beings have equal rights. Fetuses have the same rights as everybody else.

The ACLU Is Writing the First Amendment in Arabic on Billboards as a Rebuke to Trump
Emergence Creative crafts striking outdoor work.

A bold new out-of-home campaign for the American Civil Liberties Union in New York’s Times Square and Washington, D.C., aims to remind viewers that the U.S. Constitution protects every individual’s right to freedom of speech and religion—no matter what Donald Trump says.

The First Amendment to that document reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The principle applies to all people in this country, be they American citizens or immigrants. It also flies in the face of the controversial “Muslim ban” that President Trump ordered in January in an effort to halt immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries for 120 days and end the entry of Syrian refugees into the U.S. indefinitely.

This month, the ACLU partnered with New York agency Emergence Creative to launch a campaign confirming that “We the People” means everyone. It consists of a series of billboards running in and around the Times Square area until June 25 along with bus-stop ads in D.C. 

They are running in English, Spanish and Arabic to reinforce the campaign’s themes of universal rights, and they’re supplemented by 15-second videos airing twice an hour on the massive screens at the corner of 43rd Street and Broadway in Manhattan.

anonymous asked:

Do you really think that the public shaming of the Charlotte Nazi sympathizers is right? How is this different from McCarthyism in the 1950s?

Yes, I do think it is appropriate. In fact “shame” evolved just for this purpose as a means to enforce societal norms. It is still used extensively in East Asian cultures for this purpose. It differs from McCarthyism in that it is not the Government doing it. The U.S. Constitution allows people to have vile beliefs so long as they don’t harm others or advocate the harm of others. In this case, it is employers, web hosting companies and, in one case, a heartbroken father who condemn these people. The Nazis killed not merely 6 million Jews but another 8 million Russians, Poles, Communists, Gays, Catholic Clergy and the disabled. Moreover, the war they started killed as many as 60 million civilians. 

We can, and indeed must, stand up and challenge these people.

bigmoneyrustla  asked:

Do you support Sharia law?

^ Translation: “I’m an Islamophobic bigot but I want to pretend to be a reasonable person with valid concerns about Muslims living in my country.”  

Whenever you express a belief that immigrants and refugees should be allowed in to your country regardless of their religious beliefs and someone asks if you, then, support “Sharia law,” you can safely assume that they are an Islamophobic bigot.

Bigmoneyrustla here is pretending that we can’t see the racist posts on her shitstain of a tumblr and will think she’s just a normal 24-year-old New Orleans housewife who is understandably concerned that any group of two more Muslims will = the implementation of Sharia law.

Even though bigmoneyrustla probably couldn’t define, describe, or explain what Sharia law is in any manner that is remotely accurate (we’d bet big money on that!).

Even though Muslims have lived in bigmoneyrustla’s country (America) for over 400 years and there’s still no Sharia law there.  

Even though Dearborn, Michigan’s population is about 40% Muslim and while they have built North America’s largest mosque there, there is no Sharia law in Dearborn (see also: Birmingham, UK; Toronto, Canada; and 17 Muslim-majority countries).

Even though as a self-proclaimed “witch and psychic” bigmoneyrustla should probably be a lot more concerned about biblical law in her country - both the biblical laws that are already on the books and the ones that Christian extremists are attempting to fully implement there.

“Do you support Sharia law?” is an style of argument used by Islamophobes where they attempt to portray the worst possible aspects of the most extremist, fanatical versions of Islam as an accurate depiction of the beliefs of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims.  We’re not sure which logical fallacy this counts as - a strawman argument, slippery slope reasoning, asking a loaded question, a composition error, black-and-white reasoning, or begging the question. Probably a little bit of all of those.  Hey, bigmoneyrustla, way to cram six different logical fallacies into a single-sentence question!  

If someone accepts that Christians should be allowed to live in their country, do they get asked if they support the KKK or the Lord’s Resistance Army?  Do they get asked if they support biblical law, such as executing people who swear at their parents, work on the Sabbath, have premarital sex (women only, of course!), or worship any other god (as a “witch,” bigmoneyrustla, you might want to think on that last one for a spell!)?

Of course they don’t.  That kind of logical absurdity is apparently reserved for people who believe Muslims should be allowed to live out their lives in safety and enjoy the same rights as anyone else.  Like, for example, their First Amendment rights.

The next time an asshole like bigmoneyrustla asks if you support Sharia law, maybe ask them if they support biblical law and/or if they support the U.S. Constitution (or whatever legally guarantees freedom of religious belief/practice in your country).


Confederate States Constitution

In regard to most articles of the Constitution, the document is a word-for-word duplicate of the United States Constitution. However, there are crucial differences between the two documents, in tone and legal content, primarily regarding slavery.

There are several major differences between the U.S. and Confederate constitutions in the area concerning slavery.

  • Whereas the original U.S. Constitution did not use the word “slavery” or the term “Negro Slaves”, but used instead “Person[s] held to Service or Labor" which included whites in indentured servitude, the Confederate Constitution addresses the legality of slavery directly and by name.
  • Though Article I Section 9 (1) of both constitutions are quite similar in banning the importation of slaves from foreign nations the Confederate Constitution permits the C.S. to import slaves from the United States and specifies the "African race” as the subject. The importation of slaves into the United States, including the South, had already been illegal since 1808.

Article I Section 9(1)The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country, other than the slave holding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

While the U.S. Constitution reads

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

  • The Confederate Constitution then adds a clause that the C.S. Congress has the power to prohibit the importation of slaves from any state that is a non-Confederate state.

Article I Section 9(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.

While the U.S. Constitution has a clause that states “No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed”

the Confederate Constitution adds a phrase to explicitly protect slavery. According to historian William C. Davis “the fact that the Confederate constitution explicitly protected slave ownership, “should hardly have surprised anyone.”

anonymous asked:

About the not liking President Bush- I guess can you explain both maybe?

I’ll stick to the kiddo:

1. He stole the presidency in 2000. People may forget that Republicans in Florida purged more than 50,000 African American voters before Election Day, and then went to the Supreme Court where the GOP-appointed majority stopped a recount that would have awarded the presidency to Vice President Al Gore if all votes were counted. National news organizations verified that outcome long after Bush had been sworn in.

2. He covered up his past. He was the scion of a powerful political family who got away with being a deserter during the Vietnam War. He was reportedly AWOL for over a year from his assigned unit, the Texas Air National Guard, which other military outfits called the “Champagne Division.”

3. As Texas governor from 1995-2000, he signed the most execution orders of any governor in U.S. history- 152 people, including the mentally ill and women who were domestic abuse victims. He spared one man’s life, a serial killer.

4. He embraced global isolationism. He withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, over Russia’s protest, taking the U.S. in a direction not seen since World War I.

5. He ignored warnings about Osama bin Laden. He ignored the Aug. 6, 2001 White House intelligence briefing titled, “Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S.” Meanwhile, his chief anti-terrorism advisor, Richard Clarke, and first Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, testified in Congress that he was intent on invading Iraq within days of becoming president.

6. Bush turned to Iraq not Afghanistan. The Bush administration soon started beating war drums for an attack on Iraq, where there was no proven Al Qaeda link, instead of Afghanistan, where the 9/11 bombers had trained and Osama bin Laden was based. His 2002 State of the Union speech declared that Iraq was part of an “Axis of Evil.”

7. He flat-out lied about Iraq’s weapons. In a major speech in October 2002, he said that Saddam Hussein had the capacity to send unmanned aircraft to the U.S. with bombs that could range from chemical weapons to nuclear devices. “We cannot wait for the final proof- the smoking gun- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud,” he said.

8. Bush launched the second Iraq War. In April 2003, the U.S. military invaded Iraq for the second time in two decades, leading to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and more than a million refugees as a years of sectarian violence took hold on Iraq. Nearly 6,700 U.S. soldiers have died in the Iraq and Afghan wars. 

9. Bush ignored international ban on torture. Suspected terrorists were captured and tortured by the U.S. military in Baghdad’s Abu Gharib prison, in the highest profile example of how the Bush White House ignored international agreements, such as the Geneva Convention, that banned torture, and created a secret system of detention that was unmasked when photos made their way to the American media outlets.

10. Bush violated U.S. Constitution. The Bush White House ignored basic civil liberties, most notably by launching a massive domestic spying program where millions of Americans’ online activities were monitored with the help of big telecom companies. The government had no search warrant or court authority for its electronic dragnet.

11. Assault on reproductive rights. From the earliest days of his first term, the Bush White House led an assault on reproductive rights. He cut funds for UN family planning programs, barred military bases from offering abortions, put right-wing evangelicals in regulatory positions where they rejected new birth control drugs, and issued regulations making fetuses- but not women- eligible for federal healthcare.

12. Said evolution was a theory. One of his most inflammatory comments was saying that public schools should teach that evolution is a theory with as much validity as the religious belief in intelligent design, or God’s active hand in creating life.

13. Millions more lacked access to healthcare. Following these poverty trends, the number of Americans without health insurance was 38.4 million when Clinton left office. When Bush left, that figure had grown by nearly 8 million to 46.3 million, the Census found. Those with employer-provided benefits fell every year he was in office. 


Hamilton: my client needs a strong defense, you’re the solution.

Burr: who’s your client?

Hamilton: the new U.S. Constitution,,?

Burr: for fucks sake

2 Democratic Senators Say Neil Gorsuch Refused To Meet With Them
Tammy Duckworth (Ill.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.) will both vote against Trump's Supreme Court nominee.

Jennifer Bendery at HuffPost Politics:

WASHINGTON ― Two U.S. senators, Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), say President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, has refused to meet with them in the weeks leading up to his confirmation vote.

Both senators noted this detail in statements this week announcing they plan to vote against him.

“Unfortunately, Judge Gorsuch has not made the effort to meet with me in person to answer the serious questions I have about his record and he in fact cancelled a meeting we had previously scheduled,” Duckworth said. “I refuse to vote to end debate on a nominee who refuses to provide any answers to my questions.”

“Unfortunately, after requesting a meeting with the Judge for several weeks, he has refused to honor this request,” Cortez Masto said. “The U.S. Constitution has entrusted the Senate with the role of advising the President on the highest court of the land and in refusing to meet with me, he has disrespected our nation’s founding principles and pillars core to our democratic institutions.”

In Duckworth’s case, the two had a meeting scheduled on a Wednesday, but Gorsuch canceled and did not provide any dates or times that worked for him to reschedule. Duckworth’s office “made multiple efforts and offered multiple times/dates for both the first meeting and for rescheduling after the cancellation,” according to her office, but Gorsuch didn’t follow up.

“If Judge Gorsuch had wanted to meet with the Senator, he shouldn’t have cancelled their meeting without offering any additional times that worked for him,” Duckworth spokesman Ben Garmisa said via email.

Cortez Masto spokesman Rey Benitez said Gorsuch’s team told her office it had to justify why the Supreme Court nominee should meet with the senator.

“They said, ‘Give us a good reason why the judge should sit down with the senator,’” Benitez said. “That’s ridiculous that they’re asking us to do that. She’s a U.S. senator and she’s trying to do her job.”

Another Democratic senator, Kamala Harris (Calif.), did not meet with Gorsuch either. She never got an offer to meet with him, per her office.

[Official Announcement on Don Malik's denial of entry to U.S.]

Hi, this is DAZE ALIVE.

I have news that may make you feel uncomfortable and/or bothered by it’s details.

As some of you may know, Don Malik was invited to showcase his music for an international audience at SXSW in Austin, Texas. Unfortunately, Don Malik was denied entry to the U.S. after hours of unfair treatment and was forced to give up his stage taking place at the Karma Lounge on March 17.

Last Sunday, March 12th, Don Malik and eight other staff members and fellow artists from artist management agency StoneShip boarded a flight at Incheon International Airport (ICN) and headed for their first point of entry into the U.S. First stop, San Francisco International Airport (SFO) but during a routine screening by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Don Malik was detained and denied entry into the U.S. and was sent back to South Korea.

Don Malik and the rest of the crew had in their possession approved ESTA Visas, Contracts and Visa Waiver Forms, both provided by SXSW, stating that their showcase is not an engagement in commercial activities within the U.S. Nonetheless, they were detained for 24 hours after they were refused entry, and had to go through racist speech and ridicule of local SFO CBP staff, such as pulling both ears on both sides (imitating monkeys) or calling them “chinks.” In addition, all the members of the party were confiscated from the possibility of helping local officials, and one of their fellow artists was handcuffed for no reason and was never recited the ‘Miranda Rights’ which the U.S. Constitution states that the rights apply to all persons within the United States. Due to this refusal, the ESTA approval they received is permanently erased.

According to foreign magazines such as Pitchfork and Spin, at least seven teams have been denied entry for the same reason, some of whom have already entered the U.S. and attended SXSW in previous years with the same visa and paperwork.
We express deep regrets about the racial discrimination and unfair treatment experienced by the artists who have been denied entry and wish you a better chance to meet local fans who were anxiously waiting for Don Malik’s showcase.

- DAZE ALIVE CHIEF JERRY.K, March 15, 2017