In one breath the OP says that it is possible to advocate reduced immigration without being a racist, but in the next twenty he wonders how it will work politically what with all those David Dukes out there. It boils down to a rather transparent attempt at guilt by association.
The Communist Party wants government health care. Will health care be the issue that finally takes American Communism from smelly college-town bookshops to the marble halls of power? When the Democrats and Communists get together to hammer out the details, who will get to give the opening address?
I suppose the difference is that government health care isn’t inherently Communist (though, just based on what words mean, it is socialist, however much some people want to perceive that neutral semantic fact as a smear). Believing that one’s right to live, work, travel unmolested, and be protected by the due process of law in the United States is dependent on whether or not one was born on the Mexican side of a line on a map does strike me as believing that Mexicans are inherently a different class of person deserving of fewer rights, which we have a word for.
I understand that there isn’t much difference – some, but not much – relevant to any of the policy considerations relevant to immigration opposition (see post #34). I understand also (and so do you) that the anti-immigration movement makes much less distinction between the two than it pretends to.
Another difference is that the Communists are not trying to piggyback Communism on health-care reform, while the White Nationalists are making a conscious and vigorous effort to piggyback White Nationalism on the anti-immigration movement.
In any case, guilt by association is a terrible argument. Environmental groups have also been associated with anti-immigration - and for good reason. Enlarging the US population will have a devastating impact on the environment & the ‘carbon footprint’.
The Sierra Club is an example, until they were influenced by David Gelbaum’s money to shut up. The same disgusting guilt by association smear tactics that you’re employing were used there:
Yeah, I don’t understand that post either. Illegal and nonresident aliens have never been subject to the same protections as citizens and resident aliens- just a lot of them.
The Google ad I’m getting is for CafePress “racism stickers”. “Support racism with tons of unique stickers, buttons and magnets.” :rolleyes:
I don’t think you’re right. There is a large segment that says that; but if you proposed liberalizing the immigration laws to admit lawfully the same numbers (not necessarily the same persons, as in an amnesty) that now are here unlawfully, most of those same people would have just exactly as big a problem with that. See also post #11.
How exactly would you quantify this sort of thing? Or, for that matter, gather reliable data with which to quantify it? Seems to me it would be even more difficult than gathering reliable data on how many Americans are homosexual.
Exactly. If their problem was really with people breaking the law, then they would see liberalizing the law as a solution, and they wouldn’t be the same people virulently defending the Bush administration’s violation of laws against torture and so forth.
Do you consider Israel’s reasons here to be racist?
What about Tibet not wanting Chinese to overwhelm them? Note the Dalai Lama’s comments emphasising that Han Chinese and Tibetans are racially distinct. Do you consider he’s a racist?
Neither, completely ignore them. Calling attention to them at all is both a distraction and a free airing of their point of view. Which is not to say that their racists position should not be refuted if offered, but it’s rare to see them take an openly racist anti-immigration stance in a way that encourages interaction without increase their exposure.