Why is a Border Wall RACIST?

Anyone who researches my posts (and you've participated on the threads) like this one, knows I mention NumbersUSA. I probably mentioned them in post #60 (or shortly thereafter on this thread.)

NumbersUSA, Center for Immigration Studies, FAIR, and maybe a dozen other anti-immigrant sites are the brainchild of John Tanton. Tanton supplied the talking points for David Duke (a Ku Klux Klan leader) when he did the Border Watch deal back in the late 1970s. The anti - immigrant nonprofits were started by Tanton and they are what they are.

It's unrealistic to think we could reduce the number of people to levels of fifty years ago. There are more people in the U.S. That means there are more businesses and so forth. EVERYBODY should stand down, return to the laws we had when employers hired who they wanted and let the market determine any need for foreign labor.

Of course, that means that we'd have to do away with anti-discriminatory laws. In that case, a lot of employers would not hire foreigners (with or without human registration.)

 

Yes, they are immigrants. Furthermore, this is America. An individual is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, so even by your standards an individual could not be an "illegal" until proven to be. Finally, we know you're harping on that "illegal" cow dung because you are implying it is a crime. It isn't; you know it; you're trying to mislead people. See post # 60 of this thread.

 

First I want to clarify that when I said that tribal differences are arbitrary, I didn't mean arbitrary in the sense of a coin flip or a roll of the dice. I meant that they're not based on objectively definable differences in genetics or ancestry. It's a matter of how people think of themselves and others. If you have one group of related families living in one neighborhood and a different group with different ancestry living in the next, do they consider themselves to be different or the same? You cannot tell by just looking at their ancestry whether the street that marks the border between the two neighborhoods is the front line of a war zone or a boundary that only demographers would even know about. It depends on a wide range of social, political, and historical factors. And a lot of those factors can indeed be the product of pure chance.

As for the ethnic map determining the political map, here's a map showing the largest ethnic group by county:

So where does it overlap with any election maps? You will also note the broad swath of people who identify only as "Americans," having no idea where their ancestors came from. That's actually pretty common - I've done actual research into my genealogy and there are several branches of my family that I can only guess are English based on the names. There are a few spots where I can't even really venture a guess. The branches that I do know include Native Irish, Norman Irish, Scots Irish, English, French, and German. A genetic test my brother had done also indicates that we have some American Indian ancestry. This is also very common. I really have a hard time seeing how you can argue that breeds are really important when you're dealing with a nation of mutts. The bottom line is that which distinctions and which don't is purely a matter of perception.

Of course you can trace the cultural heritage of different groups forward to the present day. That's what culture does. But those particular cultural strains are just a few of many and hardly dictate modern politics. After all, the colony that the Puritans founded became the first state to legalize same sex marriage. And cultures blend together and constantly evolve. For example, we've been talking about the English as an ethnic group, but the truth is that the English are themselves a composite of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, and Normans. What matters isn't where someone's ancestors lived a few hundred years ago, but how they think of themselves now, Does a person think of themselves as an American, as a white, as Irish, as something else? And that can change, sometimes very rapidly.

 

Well sometimes tribes are based on genetics or ancestry, but they don't have to be. But they matter. Cultures matter. The Puritans still matter. They just switched what they're puritanical about. But the drive to be busybodies didn't go away, it just morphed.

 

First, that wall is a stupid idea and would be the biggest waste of money this country has even seen. I think it's racist because Trump of all people knows that! The reason he talks about it is to appeal to the Mexican hating, immigrant despising conservatives. Not all conservatives are those things, but by talking about the wall as if it could actually happen or work, he's locking in the vote of the racist conservatives that do exist. Trump is a business man, he would never and WILL NEVER build that stupid wall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Unless we as a nation are ok with the military watching the wall and literally shooting everyone who attempts to cross, we will not keep immigrants out. I don't know about the people on this forum, but I would be ashamed of my military if that's what they were used for. Gunning down unarmed families who are desperate to get away from their current lives is not noble and it's certainly not patriotic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

A wall isn't racist. It's actually merciful and compassionate because it would be cheaper and easier to simply fence it, landmine it, and erect sniper towers. Personally I'm done with being accused by people for whom we bend over backwards to accomodate. A wall is a necessity because the bastards refuse to recognize our borders. And they cannot act like thick cattle and expect to be treated like people.

 

I can't say I blame the anti-immigrant lobby for hiding on the Internet. For years we held public meetings and always asked the attendees to take the mic if they wanted to say something. We addressed this kind of talk and nobody ever stepped up to address the crowd when they knew they would be held accountable.

Let me say that the major thing wrong with what Injeun is saying is that immigration is a two way street. Without employers willing to hire the foreigner, they would not be here. If the public were to boycott businesses that employed the foreigner, they would not be here. If you repealed a lot of anti-discriminatory laws and allowed employers to hire the employee of their choice, many would not hire foreigners (whether you categorize them as "legal" or not.) If you did not extend the privileges of citizenship to non-citizen foreigners, it would impact their decision to come here.

Advocating the use of snipers to interfere with the free market and deny people their unalienable Rights (both the foreigner and those who willingly do business with them) not to mention aiming a firearm at women and children trying to get to a better life is about as despicable a statement that has ever appeared on this board.

As a gun owner and someone who worries about multiculturalism, I find it very disturbing that a fellow American would advocate such a proposition on the day we honor the men and women who have fallen in the line of duty defending the cause of Liberty.

 

Would it be "racist" if it were white illegals who voted dem?

 

I support Trump and the wall but have to admit that there is a racial element to it. Well, not racial exactly, but cultural. Our history and our heritage is west European. I won't hear any arguments to the contrary. The founding fathers were not Malaysians or Iroquois.

Unlimited immigration across the southern border will in time, if not already, threaten our legal and cultural heritage. It's a mere matter of numbers. Why can't an unlimited number of Latinos work to amend the constitution to modify or eliminate the Bill of Rights? Why is it not reasonable to fear this when our Bill of Rights is duplicated nowhere else? Jury trial, free speech, search and seizure, voting age and ID laws, all are subject to repeal. It its muslims who come in unlimited numbers, it's insanity not to fear what it would mean to women's (and gay) rights.

Build the wall, beef up security, accelerate deportations, lest we end up like Calais.

 

How is a wall, Capitalist? Socialism has a perceived need for walls, not Capitalism. Why only social plans instead of capital plans, from the capitalists of the right?

 

If you are talking about the "gang of Eight" bill, that was nothing more than a total surrender of sovereignty of the United States of America. It gave amnesty on day one of its signature into law of 30 million or so illegal aliens, opened up the borders to far more LEGAL immigration and made an airy promise of more border security, measured only by the number of new border patrol agents, and not by the reduction in the number of illegal aliens who illegally enter the country.

After the last 50 years of huge immigration, legal and illegal, I want to do what our wise forebears did in the mid 20's, close down all immigration for 40 years or so to be able to absorb and Americanize those who have come legally in the past. I also want to kick out the illegal aliens who are here now as proof that the United States of America is finally regaining its sovereignty and is no longer going to be the dumping ground of the world's poor, uneducated, and criminal.

Trump's appeal is America and Americans First. The globalist elites, and the America hating progressives don't like that message, but ordinary Americans do.

 

Sure, shutting yourself off from the rest of the world has done wonders for the North Koreans ...

Real world politics says that if you shut down trade and contact with Mexico, Mexico will simply turn to China as a
preferred partner. Instead of buying billions of dollars in American products, they will buy knock-off Chinese products.
So we save the 300 million a year we spend on illegals to lose a couple billion a year in trade (well, actually 400 billion a year in trade).

 

You don't shut down trade. You shut down the invasion of the country. You make Mexico pay for dumping their poor, uneducated citizens on us to the detriment of our own people.

 

Why didn't you mention "Progressives" who were behind reducing immigration numbers ???

I'm not referring to those Marxist, Maoist, Stalinist and internationalist socialist who are hiding behind the progressive label today, they aren't real progressives but radical leftist hiding behind the progressive label.

Progressives prided themselves on their applications of emerging social sciences and scientific management techniques, believing that through science, societies ills could be cured.

The Progressives used science and crunched the numbers and discovered that when immigration levels are kept low that wages in America increases, the middle class grows and unemployment among Americans drops.

The most comprehensive study ever conducted on immigration was done for Congress, the "Dillingham Commission ."
If you haven't read the report, you don't know jack (*)(*)(*)(*) about immigration or what's the purpose for immigration laws.

http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/immigration/dillingham.html

If you have read the entire 41 volumes of the Dillingham Commission you would know which immigrants made good Americans and who didn't. You would be able to tell us all at what number was America's population was suppose to be capped at ? I was alive when America reached that number and remember the government adds on television and on the radio telling Americans stop having so many children !!!

 

I have already posted federal statue of the U.S. Code that says it is a crime.

By any chance, are you an illegal alien ?

 

I understand what you're saying perfectly well. And I agree that simply wanting to enforce the law is not racist. The problem is that the real world isn't that simple. Before you can talk about enforcing a law, you first have to talk about why that law is the way it is, and whether it is wise, just, and moral. If you skip that step then "I just want to enforce the law" becomes exactly equivalent to, "I was just following orders." Why is the level of legal immigration so low? Why aren't most of the people who want to immigrate to the US allowed to do so legally? If you are only concerned about legality vs. illegality, then by far the simplest, easiest, cheapest, and fastest way to stop illegal immigration is to give out enough visas to meet the demand. Then no one will cross the border illegally because there's no reason to do so.

But I'm betting that you'll categorically reject that proposal. For the most part supporters of the wall aren't really concerned about whether immigrants are coming legally or illegally, they are simply concerned about keeping the immigrants out completely. Why? The economic arguments typically put forward are total bunk. If you are desperately trying to keep Latinos out of the country and can't or won't give any sort of reasonable explanation for it, it seems to me that we have little choice but to conclude that it is most likely simple racism.

As for identity politics, that is a game that's played almost exclusively by the right. They tell you that race relations is a zero sum game, that if the lot of one group improves it must be at the expense of others. They say that the blacks or illegal immigrants or feminists or whoever the bogeyman of the day is is coming to get you and take away everything you have. They tell you that even if you're in a bad economic situation, at least you're better than blacks. And it's been doing so for a very long time. It's the exact same propaganda that the Southern aristocracy used to convince poor whites to fight and die on the battlefields of the Civil War. It was BS then and it's BS now. We are a fantastically wealthy society, and we can easily provide for the material needs of everyone. There's no material reason for people to be living in poverty. Giving minorities the same opportunity to make a good life for themselves in no way takes away from your opportunity.

NAFTA has benefited the US economy and created growth and jobs. It's a net positive for the US in terms of pure economics. Some people have been displaced and we badly need to help them transition to the new economy more than we have been. It's a transition that will need to happen sooner or later regardless of trade policy. Protectionist schemes have never worked in the long run - it's always only a matter of time before the real world catches up with you.

NAFTA is also a huge boon in terms of international relations. Today Mexico is a close US ally and a reliable partner in all sorts of ways. Before NAFTA US - Mexico relations were often difficult, sometimes downright hostile. You really want our southern neighbor to have a chip on its shoulder and start doing things purely to spite the US?

It's also worth mentioning that FAIR is on the SPLC's hate group watch list. SPLC has an extensive report on Tanton's activities here. It's not pretty.

LOL You may well be right about busybodies.

I agree that culture matters. I'm just arguing that culture is fluid. If we are alienated from a certain group and treat them as enemies, it is because we (we and they) chose to do so in the present. It is not because we are destined to do so because of the past.

Yes, the wall would be a massive boondoggle. But Trump has built boondoggles before. Remember that four of his companies went bankrupt. The wall will certainly never be finished, but I'm willing to bet that if Trump were to become President he would start building some of it. His base would go into open revolt if he didn't.

I have a suspicion that the military would simply refuse to follow orders to fire on unarmed civilians.

A wall is only as good as the people defending it. To actually stop people crossing the border, you'd need those landmines and razorwire and sniper towers in addition to the wall. The Soviets had all that and more in Berlin and they still could never completely stop people defecting to the West.

That is an old, old argument. It was crap then and it's crap now. I'm willing to bet that some of your ancestors were the target of the exact same argument.

People say that Republican voters have ignored the 2012 "autopsy" report on the Romney campaign since it said that the GOP must broaden its appeal to Latinos or face electoral oblivion. I would suggest that you are demonstrating that is not true and Republican voters have very much taken that report to heart. It's just that they've decided the thing to do about is try to kick as many brown people out of the country as possible.

 

You posted a lot of irrelevant statutes that mean nothing. Allow me an analogy:

Using your reasoning, I could prove that most misdemeanors are, in fact, felonies. How? Commit them a few times and they do become felonies. For example, a DUI in Georgia is a misdemeanor. It's pretty lenient until you reach number four. Then it's a felony. So, if I said a DUI was a felony, most educated people would brush it off as ignorance. Likewise, entering the United States without papers is not a crime. It's civil law, sir. Additionally one could evade the cops and be charged with that crime (as in immigration or a DUI), but the evasion charges are separate and apart from any other charges.

You're grasping at straws.

 

You haven't read the complete report by the Dillingham Commission and neither has 99.999 percent of the people in this debate. It is their findings and, after many years of research, my findings are just as relevant in a court of law. I've been called as an expert witness.

Your post makes no sense. Why would I quote Progressives or anyone else??? I stand behind my own research. And, when you cite the Tanton nonprofits, I'm there to make sure you know who is so you can't claim plausible deniability.

 

APACHERAT is absolutely wrong and TheResister is absolutely correct. Whether we believe the law should be changed or not, as the law now stands, entering the USA without permission is a civil offense, not a crime. Naturally, in some cases additional charges can be brought that may be criminal in nature. However, of and by itself, entering the USA without permission is not a criminal offense. If someone believes the law should be changed, I can understand that position. However, so far is hasn't been.

 

I have to disagree on this point. If you lived through the attack on the Branch Davidians wherein seventeen children were murdered by members of the LEO community and DELTA forces, you might not think that way. If you were active when Randy Weaver was attacked and members of his family murdered by feds who were "following orders" you might not have the same opinion.

One thing I know for sure: With the level of government control the anti-immigrant lobby wants via their POLICE STATE, resistance against tyranny in the future would be near impossible.

 

In that case, Apacherat is WRONG. What you're saying is what I've been arguing for hundreds of posts on this board... and Apacherat is disagreeing with that.

 

Follow these instructions very closely.

#1.) Sit the glass of kool-aide down.

#2.) remove the ear plugs from your ears.

#3.) Listen.

Do you hear that SUCKING SOUND ???

The SPLC is a radical left wing hate group.

The SPLC spreads hate.

 

Actually I have read the entire report. The National Archives at Laguna Niguel, Ca. has them. They might have been moved to the National Archives in Riverside, Ca.

Most large university research libraries have them on the shelves.

Some of the larger public libraries that has a large federal books depository on site have them along with most large law libraries.

 

Well then, the illegals have their work cut out for themselves. And they will have to stop their own excesses, because we can only do so much ourselves. Let them bear the minutiae of their own onus. Or have you no counsel at all for the needy?