It was my understanding that Adams said the lack of funding for asylum seekers would destroy the city, not that “they” would. However if people heard that “they” Wouk’s destroy the city then I guess his comments were inflammatory? Any thoughts?
There is a difference between saying that immigrants are bad for New York City and saying that the White House abandoning New York City during an influx immigration is bad for New York City. The former is xenophobic, the latter is reality. I see no evidence in the linked article that the mayor said anything about immigrants being bad for New York.
1. Mayor Adams did NOT say that migrants will destroy the City. He said the migrant “issue” will destroy the City, meaning the overloading & Federal failure to fund will destroy the City. 2. The progressive pro immigrant stance in this post is illogical because they are draining the City’s funds, making the Mayor even more desperate to save money by cheapening our healthcare.
Glad you're willing to parse the mayors statements and give him credit. Nonetheless, he's an idiot. I don't give him credit for the subtlety you do. Furthermore, the mayor is already cheapening our health care as much as he can, enabled by our union leadership. I will join with my brothers and sisters and fight him every step of the way.
I’m not parsing his statements or giving him credit for anything. The migrant crisis in NYC was caused by the Biden administration opening the borders, sending too many to NYC & not enough funding. Our befuddled Mayor can’t really call out his own party for this, so he tries wording that he thinks might be more benign. Hating or liking “migrants “ is irrelevant. The high cost of the hordes of new immigrants in our city is motivating the Mayor even more to cut healthcare costs for current workers & retirees.
I’m in the fight against Adams & our own treacherous union leaders to kick us off Medicare & downgrade us to Disadvantage plans.
Our befuddled mayor is a former Republican, and I don't think he cares about Democrats, only himself, in the style of Michael Bloomberg. And while I'm glad you have the ability to look into his motivations, cuts to health care aren't made unilaterally. The current bunch is due to the incompetence of our leadership, and we are not taking that lightly.
I agree, the rhetoric and it's implications are seriously dangerous, but as someone on the front lines, IN the classroom, while I have incredible sympathy for these families and abhor the treatment they are getting, I know we're NOT going to get the funding we need to cope with these students, and if Unity were to publicly bash the comments, the mayor would back off, continue to cut funds, AND send these students to our classroom. Our Union has already sold us out enough, our workload is ALREADY overwhelming, and has been for years thanks to Union inaction and their vague contract wording that ALWAYS benefits management. It's time for our union to be a Union of JUST THE TEACHERS. Students and their families have enough support from organizations and the city, we don't need to be their voice. Maybe there was a time when our working conditions merited the Union speaking out for them as well, but that time has LONG passed us by, and we need to rethink who we are as a UNION, and who we REALLY represent.
I truly believe (and his track records supports this) he'd do more. I'm not saying Unity is right to not criticize at all, but what I do think is any comments they could potentially make would be even less effort into helping us in the classrooms, and we're drowning as is. I'm not defending the mayor here at all, just saying it should be the place of our union to chime in here, especially if doing so could result in political backlash against Union Brass (which really just means we have to deal with it).
I believe he'd do more too. But he can't do it unilaterally. We'd have to allow it. As for political backlash, our union endorsed Adams, he treats us like something he just wiped off his shoe, and our leaders say, "Thank you sir, may I have another?"
It was my understanding that Adams said the lack of funding for asylum seekers would destroy the city, not that “they” would. However if people heard that “they” Wouk’s destroy the city then I guess his comments were inflammatory? Any thoughts?
He said the crisis would destroy the city. That was inaccurate. However, the reaction among those inclined to hate is entirely predictable.
There is a difference between saying that immigrants are bad for New York City and saying that the White House abandoning New York City during an influx immigration is bad for New York City. The former is xenophobic, the latter is reality. I see no evidence in the linked article that the mayor said anything about immigrants being bad for New York.
1. Mayor Adams did NOT say that migrants will destroy the City. He said the migrant “issue” will destroy the City, meaning the overloading & Federal failure to fund will destroy the City. 2. The progressive pro immigrant stance in this post is illogical because they are draining the City’s funds, making the Mayor even more desperate to save money by cheapening our healthcare.
Glad you're willing to parse the mayors statements and give him credit. Nonetheless, he's an idiot. I don't give him credit for the subtlety you do. Furthermore, the mayor is already cheapening our health care as much as he can, enabled by our union leadership. I will join with my brothers and sisters and fight him every step of the way.
I’m not parsing his statements or giving him credit for anything. The migrant crisis in NYC was caused by the Biden administration opening the borders, sending too many to NYC & not enough funding. Our befuddled Mayor can’t really call out his own party for this, so he tries wording that he thinks might be more benign. Hating or liking “migrants “ is irrelevant. The high cost of the hordes of new immigrants in our city is motivating the Mayor even more to cut healthcare costs for current workers & retirees.
I’m in the fight against Adams & our own treacherous union leaders to kick us off Medicare & downgrade us to Disadvantage plans.
Our befuddled mayor is a former Republican, and I don't think he cares about Democrats, only himself, in the style of Michael Bloomberg. And while I'm glad you have the ability to look into his motivations, cuts to health care aren't made unilaterally. The current bunch is due to the incompetence of our leadership, and we are not taking that lightly.
I consider our leadership traitorous , not merely incompetent.
There we agree completely. Let's vote the bastards out and argue about this other stuff later.
Yes! Agreed!
I agree, the rhetoric and it's implications are seriously dangerous, but as someone on the front lines, IN the classroom, while I have incredible sympathy for these families and abhor the treatment they are getting, I know we're NOT going to get the funding we need to cope with these students, and if Unity were to publicly bash the comments, the mayor would back off, continue to cut funds, AND send these students to our classroom. Our Union has already sold us out enough, our workload is ALREADY overwhelming, and has been for years thanks to Union inaction and their vague contract wording that ALWAYS benefits management. It's time for our union to be a Union of JUST THE TEACHERS. Students and their families have enough support from organizations and the city, we don't need to be their voice. Maybe there was a time when our working conditions merited the Union speaking out for them as well, but that time has LONG passed us by, and we need to rethink who we are as a UNION, and who we REALLY represent.
The mayor is already doing all those things.
I truly believe (and his track records supports this) he'd do more. I'm not saying Unity is right to not criticize at all, but what I do think is any comments they could potentially make would be even less effort into helping us in the classrooms, and we're drowning as is. I'm not defending the mayor here at all, just saying it should be the place of our union to chime in here, especially if doing so could result in political backlash against Union Brass (which really just means we have to deal with it).
I believe he'd do more too. But he can't do it unilaterally. We'd have to allow it. As for political backlash, our union endorsed Adams, he treats us like something he just wiped off his shoe, and our leaders say, "Thank you sir, may I have another?"
agreed