Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
In one such corner, I have found someone (apparently in the United States) who is:
* strongly Marxist
* a Sanders supporter
* a gun nut
* in favor of seceding from the United States so as to form a country where he/she is allowed to shoot "illegals"
You'd typically expect the two halves of this to hate each other, but I guess not.
I do know there's a subreddit for commie gun nuts.
I remember that six or so months ago I was very surprised to find the bloody massacre stuff in the workers uprising origin texts/zeitgeist. Now I take it for granted that everybody else knows already.
I did not know the term illegal alien had such a strong following. I prefer illegal immigrant (or refugee where genuinely applicable), and I'm strongly suspect of the push to get people to just say "im/migrant" or "undocumented". The latter basically being dishonest.
Since we talked (haha, "talked") about this a while back, one of Wikipedia's founders is of the opinion that the site has become significantly biased. Of course, you don't have to take his opinion at face value, as he quit the site 18 or so years ago, but it's an opinion.
Oh, I almost forgot! There's a new book about Hilary Clinton out. I say about, but what I actually mean is that it's a novel about Hilary Rodham and how she's basically super. complex. in an alternate universe where she doesn't marry Bill Clinton. Also, there's some very R-rated action (and dialogue) involving the Clintons.
I mean, I'm not against fiction involving living political figures, but there are real lines that should only be crossed if you're sure they're not there for a reason.
Actually, you know what? Maybe I am against fiction involving living political figures.
Or, at least, that's basically my opinion. (Also seems to be similar to what I understand is the usual Catholic opinion on this these days.)
Anyhow, the latter half of that opinion is usually overlooked in internet arguments.
My commentary on the terminology:
* "Immigrant" oughta only be used to people who are intending to stay, though that distinction isn't necessarily easily identifiable -- especially when other people start scaring them with legal or other threats, thus giving a practical reason.
* "Undocumented" makes a lot of sense, though, because it literally just says that there's no paperwork (or other logistical record) for the person's presence.
* "Alien" is a little weird since in informal parlance it either means lifeforms from outer space or serves as an adjective meaning "strange", while the noun meaning "foreigner" exists as a legal term.
* Speaking of which, "foreigner" could work in some circumstances...though on the other hand it's not exactly accurate either, if the person in question came to the U.S. as a young child basically spent their entire life here.
* "Illegal"...could be argued to be technically not entirely coterminous with "undocumented", if you define "documented" to mean "documented" at all rather than "documented properly legally", as the documentation could be erroneous (with or without intent) and therefore could be lacking in legal substance. But...in actual usage, the two are basically synonymous...
...with a difference in the connotation.
"Illegal" (particularly as a noun), by association with "illegal" = "lawbreaker" = "criminal" = "thieves and murderers etc.", results in an implication that the "illegal" in question is a danger to society, more so than a hypothetical "legal" (as in, a citizen, or a noncitizen with proper legal documentation). Except, this is often not the case, particularly for people who do genuinely just want to do something like escape civil strife/persecution or poverty and live their life/raise their family in peace.
Besides, people who have arrived here illegally are actually incentivized to avoid breaking laws thereafter (compared to the incentives in this regard facing regular citizens), because otherwise they'd likely face unwanted scrutiny that could jeopardize their situation. That's not to say that they are all saints; they certainly aren't (as in there are some "illegals" who go on to commit crimes unrelated to immigration). But it's not like the "legals" are all saints either.
But meanwhile, the "illegals" label, along with its associations, contributes to more negative social attitudes from other people, which in turn affects how those other people treat these people. There's a difference in the social interactions that occur in these two situations:
* a regular and probably harmless person walking down the street to the store
vs.
* a person who might be a thief or murderer walking down the street to the store
The latter person gets everything from awkward stares and odd comments to questioning to being detained etc.. This creates a variety of other problems, from discriminatory practices engendering resentment (both ways) as well as lawsuits (which are basically never not awkward), to possible violence from people who happen to have chips on their shoulders (or certain ideological agendas). (Frankly speaking, it'd be nice if all that happened was awkward stares and odd comments, and nothing worse.)
It'd be ideal if everyone could just divorce the term from its associations, and just deal with people on a fair and honorable basis all the time, but clearly that's not happening anytime soon.
Furthermore, while (so far, in this commentary) I've been careful to differentiate "illegals" from the (so to speak) "legals" category of citizens and noncitizens with proper legal documentation, the practical fact is that people don't exactly check legal status before forming impressions and reacting with them.
(And it's not like legal status is easy to check. For example, I'm a citizen, born in the United States, and I basically don't go anywhere with my birth certificate or Social Security card. They stay at home, in a secure place, because if I happen to drop those somewhere they could be serious liabilities for me, since they're often used to confirm identity for big serious things like opening bank accounts. I do carry my voter registration card, but wingnuts like to claim there's "illegals" voting, so it's not like that would convince them. Then again, if they're wingnuts, I'm not sure anything would, aside from a cold shower and a long period of introspection.)
Rather, the actual check that gets performed is "do you seem like one of the regular folks around here?", where by "seem" I mean walk/talk/look/dress/etc.. (Which in turn is why you get some immigrants who get intensely concerned about looking sufficiently "American", and will do seemingly silly things like purposely buying a grill and having a cookout with burgers and hot dogs, just to look like a stereotypical American.)
And if you don't seem like one of the regular folks, then you get the awkward stares and the odd comments, if not something worse. Because you might be a criminal. And criminals are dangerous, right?
Anyhow, that's the problem with (the term) "illegals". Contrast "undocumenteds", where the association is "you don't have papers". Sure, people can end up using it the same way, i.e. using it to be dicks, but the rut isn't as deep.
...holy crap this was long.
Also, Ms. Clinton's given name is "Hillary". Contrast Ms. Duff's given name, which is "Hilary".
You're not a progressive (and I don't think you've ever claimed to be).
Economic immigrants works for people doing short term work, and I'm sure we could have a field day with coming up with new "[word] immigrants" type-terms.
Somebody not obtaining paperwork and then presenting it to the relevant authorities when they enter the country is illegal. Somebody entering a country legally and then overstaying what they were allotted is also illegal.
Therefore, illegal.
My understanding is that this is the term that was used in America until about whenever "You can't say that because it's dehumanizing." became a thing. Merits of that or no, the term appears to have proponents, but I think that's a losing war.
This is the line of thinking that started popping up and cemented itself whenever DACA became a thing. I personally haven't thought enough about it to decide if this is a validly compassionate move or, well, not.
Illegal immigration is a crime!
I feel for those people, and I understand life isn't easy. It's particularly hard for people born into terrible circumstances, but this is ignoring the supremacy of the nation state, which is technically what most of our forefathers agreed to long ago (and we all go along with).
I have no problems with in-nation humanitarian efforts, and, maybe if I think about it more, maybe I could get behind regime change efforts from propaganda, actual rebel assistance to downright regime change wars.
But moving people from one nation to another is not the solution I'm looking for. You transfer burden from one place to the other, and expect those who shoulder it to just take it basically forever as more and more people arrive.
This is weird, but; I thought "illegals" was a pejorative term? I mean, I specifically said "illegal aliens" because it's really formal and specific. I'll stick with it as long as my opinions on the matter don't change.
Illegal immigration is a crime worthy of detention!
I think immigration should be spoken about sanely and with no animus, and others should speak of it in this way too. However, it seems that there's either miscommunication on both sides:
"I don't want illegal immigrantion."="This person is clearly a dimwitted, hardhearted racist who you should shut out from now on."
or:
"We should be more empathetic towards illegal immigrants."="If I cede this ground, then they'll empathize me into whatever the desired position is, so I'll take being called a racist instead."
(I know empathize is not a verb but it works here).
You guys really need to get that working better. I know it benefits a lot of people to have the ambiguity (mainly for cheap labour) but how about just making sure only citizens get driver's licenses and attempt to certify other country's driver's licenses/documents when people apply for visas?
I mean, if anything, this sort of thing is what drives suspicion.
I'd rather use the accurate term. My words will not kill anybody unless somebody specifically chooses to misunderstand me even if the starting point is that we agree.
I would love to engender sympathy, kindness and empathy in others, but that's never going to happen (also it'd probably have to be kind of creepy in a mind-control way). We're just humans. I mean, we already changed the term from "Illegal Aliens" to "Illegal Immigrants". What stops "undocumented"/"undocs" from becoming the next thing we have to abandon in 10-15 years?
[Pretends to learn but will totally do this again tomorrow].
(I almost let this post through without censoring the D-word, which is clearly the most important thing here).
Also, is this becoming a thing? If so, can we agree that if we're not done 4-6 posts from now, we both have to walk away no matter what great point we come up with at midnight?
Late edit: accidentally a word.
Not that labels actually mean much anyway. No matter what I call myself, I still have the same opinions.
And so is violating copyright laws. =P
More relevantly, I'm not sure whether you wrote this before reading the rest of my post because I kinda addressed this point later, noting that they were synonymous in denotation but not in connotation.
What do you mean by "the supremacy of the nation state"? The idea that people shouldn't move except with a bunch of red tape, because borders and administrative procedures should be treated as sacrosanct? That's not exactly a practical idea when combined with those circumstances. That's basically telling people to stay in the gutter (and possibly get themselves killed) in order to respect a philosophical idea.
Bear in mind that people already generally don't want to move, as it's normally more convenient and fulfilling to live in one place and put down one's roots there.
Ironically, a number of places in the US have (1) jobs that pay wages only immigrants (or whatever other term you prefer) would work for, (2) industries that are part and parcel of the American economy where immigrants make up a good chunk of the labor force and even some of the business owners, and (3) entire towns that were down on their luck economically but have seen revitalizations due to the influx of immigrants, who bring with them economic activity and establish a viable tax base.
When people move, they don't simply "transfer burden". They also transfer economically valuable skillsets and economic opportunities (as laborers and as entrepreneurs). There is definitely a short-term logistical issue when immigrants arrive en masse, and the current legal immigration system in the US has a bunch of inefficiencies and ought to be streamlined so as to better deal with these people. But while there's an ultimate long-term limit to how many people might be able to live (and be fed) in a given area, but here in the US we're not close to that long-term limit yet. (The situation may be different in other places, which is why I'm specifically talking about the US.)
What suspicion? If you mean the suspicion that "that person might be an illegal immigrant", I'm not sure what can be practically done with this, aside from repeatedly asking a person for their papers, or otherwise going "illegal = criminal = thieves and murderers etc.". I mean, what would I do -- refuse to be served by an illegal immigrant waiter? refuse to have my groceries checked out by an illegal immigrant cashier? refuse to give someone directions because they're an illegal immigrant pedestrian?
As for driver's licenses, given how stupidly necessary cars are to participate in the modern US economy, you'd basically be stunting the potential economic benefits that immigrants might provide, as well as reducing their ability to be financially independent, if you restrict licenses to citizens. (I'm not sure whether your line about certifying licenses/documents is about driving qualifications or about merely using the license as ID.)
Like I explained, both "illegal" and "undocumented" are equally accurate in denotation (unless you want to argue technicalities), just different in connotation.
FWIW, I personally have just used the two terms interchangeably, my posting this last night was probably the first time I've ever written any in-depth commentary on them.
I think this is a bit unnecessarily calling to mind weird dystopian fantasies, when the reality is a lot simpler and more frank, essentially "that word is nicer because it's a little less dickish".
That said, if you use "illegal immigrant" I generally don't even bat an eye. Both that and "undocumented immigrant" are in common usage. I just wrote up this giant post for the sake of expounding on my opinion.
...is this change a problem per se? I'd simply let chips fall where they may and see where we actually are in 10-15 years and figure it out then. (I'd bet the law still hasn't caught up with circumstances!)
And lol bureaucratic silliness. Even something as simple as a name entered incorrectly into a computer database can cause that sort of nonsense, and the US certainly has its fair share of such cases.
From what understand, both can to some extent involve "keep your head down and don't attract attention", though I think the similarities end there.
An illegal resident would be the standard "keep your head down" thing, like, don't commit crimes, don't attract the attention of police, don't do stuff that might get you in trouble or make you stand out, don't do stuff that might make people ask you about your background, etc..
Though, in case they do get asked, I think the ones who are more prepared for being questioned basically anytime will have papers documenting their legal status. This behavior is also something that people with actual legal status do, because even though they're here legally they still face similar levels of "are you actually supposed to be here?" questioning along with a strong suspicion of "no, you're illegal" unless they can prove otherwise.
Also, because banks and credit cards typically need some amount of documentation (and more) to make use of them, cash is more common. This trait is shared with poor people who also lack the resources to use banks. As a result you get usage of stuff like check cashing services, payday lending, etc..
Meanwhile, weed is sort of a very different ballgame. For starters, it's a physical substance, not the legal status of an entire person. And while still illegal at the national level, marijuana now legal in a variety of states. Furthermore there's legal distinctions between medical and recreational marijuana.
I'm not really familiar with marijuana law, but from what I know, common legal variables include the amount of marijuana in possession that is considered punishable, intent to sell (or lack thereof), prescribed penalties, and the enforcement of laws.
As of right now, by my understanding, in states where marijuana is at least legalized for medical use (which is the case now in Florida), there are various marijuana dispensaries in operation. Some medical dispensaries arguably seem more like recreational dispensaries, in the way they look or some of the cheesier names the shops have, but whatever. As far as I know, the federal government has not taken action to shut them down, despite the fact that federal law currently contradicts state law. (I don't know how much monitoring/verification the state does with regards to enforcing dispensary licenses, or who they dispense to, or how frequently it's prescribed.)
There've also been some efforts to treat possession of small amounts of non-medical marijuana as lower-grade offenses as far as legal charges are concerned, and/or to simply decriminalize marijuana possession and basically treat marijuana like a typically-legal controlled substance such as alcohol or cigarettes.
Meanwhile, the smell of skunk-flavored rancid potato chips is not too uncommon these days, so I'm pretty sure there's more people openly using marijuana than before. (It kinda seems like it displaced cigarette smoke -- it's certainly less unpleasant than that, but is still conspicuously pungent.)
Also, recently we've had the visa requirement lifted from us. The US government stubbornly refused to do so no matter how much we sucked up to them, supposedly because they have a rule there needs to be less than, like, 3% rejected visa applications per nation. Apparently we got better. Going to Chicago or Greenpoint (in New York) on a tourist visa and overstaying used to be like a cottage industry in a few parts of Poland.
That said, from my understanding, there are a lot of undocumented migrant farmworkers, and the rural areas do also tend to be more heavily Republican. Meanwhile, in some cases, employers prefer that those farmworkers stay undocumented because otherwise they'd have to pay them at least federal minimum wage -- which is more than they pay them now.
I think there's a somewhat different group of people who are lamenting the decline of the US manufacturing economic base, and blaming globalization for US companies "shipping jobs overseas" by setting up factories in other countries in order to take advantage of lower-cost labor. That's more about jobs going abroad than people coming to this country, but nativist resentment unsurprisingly links the two by taking advantage of local conditions of poverty, especially if the processes are portrayed in the same context as, say, images of large numbers of refugees arriving at southern European shores. (Ironically, immigrants to the US are incentivized to stick to larger cities and suburbs, just because there are a lot more economic opportunities there, rather than move out to small towns and rural areas.)
This nativist sentiment is in turn mixed with various other social factors (e.g. resentment of city folks, cultural dominance of religion, gun rights issues, etc.) and is co-opted into a more generalized sentiment that other people are trying to ruin/destroy what these people see as "traditional America", an idealized mental image of a small town with a tight-knit community, a stable economic base, and a variety of values/traditions/cultural practices that look like something out of a stereotyped decades-old TV show, where the only immigrants are that one funny-talking (and perhaps most importantly, harmless) family of Indians/Chinese/whoever that shows up in the supporting cast and adorably awkwardly try to fit into American stereotypes.
I dunno, it bugs me that I've seen that phrase everywhere and never called out. I blame the US's weirdass views on race/ethnicity/nationality/culture.
Then you pretty much don't care about labels. You can call yourself what you want, but you can't make anybody else go along with it. I certainly won't.
The correct procedure is not "red tape". Also, you're leading the argument by saying it's the systems fault for not coping with people who arrived illegally even though arriving and/or staying illegally is a crime!
Plus, not everybody who is there should get to stay just cause. As you've constantly reminded me, those with humanitarian circumstances should definitely get first shot.
I don't have the same sympathy for somebody who as a decent place to return to but goes on and on about (illegally) "establishing roots in the community".
Goodness, GMH, you really want me to go full out with "Without process there is nothing but chaos?" Well, there it is.
You won't empathize me into "well I guess..." because then rules aren't even rules, they aren't even guidelines, they just become "suggestions". I like rules as rules.
It's not an idea or even an ideal when people moving somewhere else has serious consequences. You may have nice things, but you have to consider what sharing those nice things means very seriously. I'm not advocating for a policy where the nice things are never shared, I'm advocating for one where they are shared within limits and within rules.
Plus, it's not like I said "leave them to suffer where they are with nothing". There are a multitude of non-immigration, non-government means to assist people make things better where they are. Heck, sometimes the government may even get involved (the whole regime change thing).
Unless we're going to start saying that there are just governments that can never, ever be fixed, then I don't see "these countries should be abandoned en masse" as a solution.
Because the supply of labor is there (ie illegal immigration). If that dries up, those wages go up (which ironically is what Bernie Sanders used to say in the old timey 2010s). This is not a hallmark of a well functioning economy, nor is it healthy.
See, this is why this whole "immigrants" thing is disengenuous. If a legal immigrant opens up shop, cool. Illegal immigrants aren't heading to the local incorporations office to open up companies, because that's one easy way to get red flagged.
Somebody who is a legal immigrant is more likely to have or obtain the funds required to start up a business. An illegal immigrant probably won't. If they do, then they're even worse than the down-on-their-luck people who immigrate into a country and what they're doing by immigrating illegally is genuinely morally bankrupt.
Last time I checked, the US doesn't have full employment. If the US has full employment, and requires new labourers, then sure, bring in some legal immigrants.
Actually, you're taking every chance you can to obfuscate between legal and illegal immigration, which is probably why you also refuse to cede the difference between "illegal" and "undocumented". They are actually not equally accurate, being undocumented sounds like an error, illegally immigrating always, always sounds like a crime.
a) What's in brackets is clearly a joke
b) Still can't make people better
That word is nicer because it makes you feel better, for now*, and that's not something I'm willing to sacrifice for accuracy.
*Which you essentially admit here:
----
[what Stormtroper said]
Well, yeah, that's the point.
If you can't grow your economy without letting people in on "humanitarian" grounds and then exploiting their illegality, then that economy doesn't deserve to grow.
I don't expect anything from you, because far from me painting a dystopian picture, I understand that (sadly) there are people we are genuinely exploiting day in and day out without ever knowing it.
However, the people who do know they're exploiting others need to be stopped. I mean, everybody and their grandmother should know that in Qatar, an immigrant can barely leave the country without their co-signing employers permission. We also all know that the working conditions for physical labourers are the worst. That's not stopping anybody attending the World Cup there in 202(whenever the World Cup is).
But the governing body of football, FIFA, could have easily prevented Qatar from hosting the World Cup. They just didn't.
What level of impoliteness you you even need to reach to ask somebody's immigration status when they're just asking for directions?
And if the police or immigration enforcement can't easily prove people's legal status on a day to day basis, then suspicion naturally starts to grow.
Yeah, I'm under the same impression.
I mean, I'm a bit fan of deregulation, but probably not the deregulation of taking care of human beings.
See, this seems like it's super-on purpose. This should be easy to fix, even if farm work is seasonal. It's completely unfair to take advantage of people like this.
Haha, "some".
Anyways, I don't understand why there isn't a means to help (legal) immigrant workers into farms for seasonal work that also involves a minimum wage lower than what citizens get.
I know there'd be a lot of "You're treating them like SECOND CLASS CITIZENS" stuff but like, exactly! It's been deemed necessary by the greater labor market, so why not at least make it so people aren't being exploited on a day to day basis?
I also think that's a serious problem. Not just for the jobs that are lost, but for the frequent use of this as a means of escaping even the most basic of regulations. I mean, once a job is shipped out of the country, it seems like it's shelled out to subcontractor after subcontractor in order to ensure zero liability to the company in question.
Like, literally last year fashion brands were using Chinese Uyghur prison camp labour. They still might be.
See, this is another thing I have a problem with; there's a real lack of stimulation (not stimulus, please, anything but stimulus) of all rural areas and it appears to be getting worse all over the world.
I think it's basically because literally everybody whose job doesn't depend on being in a rural area high-tails it out of there as fast as they can (aside from if it's a second home) and so the cities grow and grow in economic and political prominence.
The labels are the byproduct of the ideology/opinion -- not the other way around.
What do you "it's the system's fault"? I wasn't even thinking in terms of "fault"; I was just thinking of "what's a practical way of handling the situation".
Yeah, and the "process" is that there ought to be a practical (i.e. speedy, efficient, and accurate) legal procedure for documenting and background-checking etc. everyone who wants to come into our country, plus keeping proper records of all of this. And going outside of that process gives everyone a headache.
The process, however, should not be put on a pedestal and worshipped. Rather, it should be improved where inadequate.
and those people staying also has serious consequences. This argument goes both ways.
I agree with this, but I think our disagreement lies with me saying that the rules exist as administrative procedures to try to make the process manageable and fair while your emphasis is on making a big deal about the rules being rules.
Regime change may indeed be an option but it, too, comes with its costs and benefits and risks.
There's a chicken-and-egg problem, but your argument here is possible.
How is someone who flees persecution or political crisis in their country with whatever wealth they have "worse" than the "down-on-their-luck" people? Or, to take a step back, why is this moral judgement even relevant in the first place?
If your concern is "they might have gotten their money through organized crime" then that's something that oughta come up in background checks and/or subsequent police-work. We need not run on the assumption that just because they have wealth they're "worse".
You've just proven my point: the difference is in the connotation of the word, i.e. what it "sounds like", not the denotation.
1. As I explained, the words denote the same thing, but merely have a difference in connotation. As such, they are equally accurate -- unless, of course, your intent is to communicate the connotation.
2. I don't see how that quote illustrates "makes you feel better, for now".
1. I'm pretty sure that both of us know that -- for better or worse, probably both at the same time -- the world doesn't run on "deserve". Though it sometimes aligns with it.
2. And I think we both understand that suddenly chopping the illegal immigrants out of the places where they live is not exactly an economically practical idea, to say nothing of human rights standards.
3. As for the exploitation of laborers, that's something labor laws ought to be addressing.
This idea would certainly help bring this section of the economy out of the shadows and could help reduce the sort of exploitation you're talking about, yes.
Also they wouldn't be "second class citizens" on the basis of not being citizens, lol.
Yeah that practice for avoiding liability is obnoxious. (Though this isn't limited to cases of labor outsourcing.)
Yeah there's definitely a problem of brain drain -- well, not just "brain drain", but "people drain", more generally -- of rural areas and small towns.
...
...
Yeah okay I'll quit.
If anything I think some of the more interesting tidbits are the ones where you and I do agree, such as that the institutional legalization of migrant work could be beneficial, even if minimum wage law has to be circumvented. Of course, there are various pitfalls that go with this, but I'm willing to put it on the table, because keeping this workforce as some sort of shadow economy (with high risks of exploitation) isn't sustainable in the long term and the law as well as its enforcement need to catch up with the reality of the situation.
edit: it is awkward to figure out whether i should use second-person or third-person to refer to fourteenwings in this post
Needless to say, this is a complex issue, and I've exhausted my complex issue argument points for this week on immigration policy. Plus, this would involve a lot of pulling out Authoritative Fourteenwings and he's really hard to summon up right.
This was a pleasant surprise.
...you're subscribed to this thread? =P
but yeah lol i know that feel
Anyhows, I finally got to watch the "arrest" video today, that was disgusting, I hope justice gets served soon enough.
Besides that... umm, I feel like I should be saying something. Best of luck?
Yeah uh, good luck America. Hang in there.
That was amusing.
https://www.wkrn.com/news/national-guard-lays-down-shields-in-peaceful-protest-held-at-tennessee-state-capitol/
Also, I'm hearing that NYPD's Police Commissioner also joined protesters to take a knee in solidarity.
More locally:
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/boca-raton/fl-ne-town-center-mall-protest-20200601-6k4vneyyirao7ctfkbexwdlthm-story.html
Even more locally:
A group of protesters walked down and back up the major street I live near. I think the crowd may have been maybe about 50-100 people, though I'm bad at estimates. The protest involved chanting, holding signs, and marching through a street, thereby blocking vehicular traffic temporarily. Local police were on hand to cordon off the section of the street where they were marching. While they passed cars that had been stopped on the other side, some cars honked, at least one seemingly in rhythm with the chant. The protest was peaceful; I saw no signs of disorderly conduct.
One police vehicle, which looked something like a golf cart, seemed to carry a bunch of what looked like plastic-bottled water. No idea whether it was for the officers stationed around this part of town (there were many), possibly since I live near an internationally-famous shopping mall, or for the protesters, or both.
That was maybe about an hour ago, in broad sunlight. It is now cloudy, seeming like it'll rain soon, and the protesters have also returned back, going south on this street again. The crowd has increased in number to about twice the size as the crowd earlier, though as far as crowds go this is still relatively sparse.
Someone left a cardboard package of water bottles on the ground for anyone to pick up, it seems.
The rain has now started falling. It seems people are still marching. Police are standing by in nearby locations, such as parking lots of shopping malls, observing from a distance, as well as directing traffic to divert it from the site of the protest.
Someone picked up the package of water bottles since I don't see it anymore.
There are multiple helicopters flying nearby, including one almost directly above us, making it hard to hear what's going on. They're probably from news crews.
Right now the crowd is about the same size as before, and apparently roughly stopping at every intersection, for whatever reason. The chanting continues. I see some people handing out bottled water and snacks.
Edit: The crowd is currently taking a knee, in the middle of the intersection. There is a small traffic jam; some of the occupants of those cars have stepped out to videotape the protesters themselves.
So far, no signs of disorderly conduct. Well, beyond a crowd stopping in the middle of the road.