Trying to shut down debate by smearing opponents is exactly what they do though. For instance, when environment groups observed that increasing the population size would be deleterious to the environment, you get Morris Dees smearing them with the phrase “greening of hate”.
http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/SPLC_Jounalists_Guide.pdf?docID=3541.
I love that you keep citing racist groups in attempt to prove that those groups aren’t racist.
They may be a lunatic fringe, but they are still out there. Let’s call them what they are - Nazis.
I don’t think it’s Godwinization, if it’s true. White Power, White Nationalists, National White People Party, whatever. Nazis.
It a perfectly justified fear then. Remember Oklahoma City? And please don’t be so intellectually dishonest as to try to dissociate Timothy McVeigh from the movement.
You have (inadvertently, I am sure) hit on an important point there: The anti-immigration movement draws on several sources.
Some – such as Michael Lind, who based on his public writings is no racist of any kind – want immigration controlled for economic and class-based reasons, i.e., they perceive (rightly or wrongly) that unlimited immigration reduces wages for working-class Americans of all races while providing the white overclass with dirt-cheap labor.
And some are environmentalists who regard humans as such, regardless of race, as a burden on the natural environment and its carrying capacity, and are concerned to miminize or at least stabilize the sheer numbers of humans, at least in their own country.
And then there are those who, for racial/cultural reasons, object to immigrants from Latin America or Africa or Asia or the MENA, where they would not object at all to equally desperate immigrants from Northwestern Europe. (BTW, Chen019, this is your chance, here and now, to publicly dissociate yourself from such and expressly repudiate their indefensible world-view.)
But it is also true that the latter group is not above co-opting the arguments of the other two for its own ends.
All this was discussed in this thread from 2005.
Right, but the difficulty is that those pushing environmental or economic arguments invariably risk being smeared. This effectively ‘poisons the well’ and shuts down debate.
In terms of racial cultural reasons that is what a lot of places do. The Dalai Lama notes the distinctiveness of the Han Chinese from the Tibetans, but also Japan, South Korea and Israel all seem to be examples of places that place emphasis on race or cultural background.
Also, there are those who are ‘pro-immigration’ specifically because they want to change the racial or cultural make up of a country. Earl Raab is an example of this, as he sees multi-culturalism as reducing the risk of a majority white group discriminating against others.
Personally, I favour a skill based selection policy.
But there is a simple and effective solution. As I noted, the racists are not above co-opting the arguments of economic and environmentalist immigration opponents; but the other two, for the most part, are above associating with the racists and will publicly repudiate them when given the opportunity – without changing their own stance on immigration. That’s what Walter Cronkite and Linda Chavez did, as soon as they realized what “U.S. English” really was, as recounted here. And now you are offered the chance to do the same, Chen019! Isn’t that nice? 
Sorry, what is? “Poison the well” somehow? 
That would be an economic argument. Well and good. But does it mean you repudiate the racial arguments? Eh? nudge-nudge
And what’s that all about? Are you suggesting there is some equivalence between the Dalai Lama wanting to preserve Tibet’s character as a distinct nation by preventing it from being swamped by Han colonists from the occupying power, and American racists trying to preserve America’s character as a white man’s country? There isn’t. But if that’s what you’re trying to say, you should say so.
As for Israel, South Korea and Japan’s immigration policies, which you seem to be implying are racist, how do such examples justify American practicing a racist immigration policy?
And perhaps he’s right. If so, you and I should both be on his side there, yes? But, again, where’s the relevance? If a non-racist American immigration policy, under current geopolitical conditions, means most immigrants will be non-white, that just happens to be the result of a fair and just policy, whether Earl Raab likes it or not.
Who is the “they” in that sentence? If you are trying to lump all critics of the anti-immigration movement together, how is that any less egregious than trying to paint all immigration opponents as racists? If you mean the Southern Poverty Law Center in particular, can you cite any “smear” from it that is not true? I submit that only a false accusation could fairly qualify as as an unfair attempt to “shut down debate.”
As our ancestors founded the country to be a home for themselves and their posterity, not for everyone from everywhere around the world, and as it can’t possibly be a good thing for whites to be reduced to a minority in our own homeland, it is sheer insanity to insist that an immigration policy which introduces large populations of alien races and cultures into our midst could possibly be a fair and just policy. Radically changing the racial and ethnic demographics of our society without the consent of the majority is not a fair and just, non-racist policy. It is anti-white racism.
No.
We all came from somewhere else. We did come from “everywhere around the world”. Our grandparents or great grandparents etc came from Europe or Asia or Africa, sometimes by choice (most of us) some by force (slavery), but The Nation did not collapse. Some came to escape famine, some to escape poverty, some to escape wars. Some of them were very large influxes. Not one group caused the end.
I have a hard time keeping a straight face whenever anyone wants to bring up our culture (a hodgepodge of things from somewhere else) or race as somehow being things to take seriously.
The discussion takes for granted the idea that Hispanics are non-white.
I don’t think this is accurate. While Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and Dominicans often have substantial amounts of African ancestry, none of these groups are majority black. Most of their ancestry is European.
Mexican Americans and the various Central American immigrants have minimal amounts of African ancestry. They are by decent, European and North Asian (by way of the Bering Straight).
Most Hispanics check “white” on the Census, and they intermarry with whites at much higher rates than, say black Americans do. In fact, the Hispanic intermarriage rate is comparable to that of any other immigrant group.
Their are millions of Texans and Californians who have partial Mexican ancestry. This is no way makes them non-white.
People who hate Mexicans and also like trees are called racist, just like people who hate Mexicans and don’t like trees? Cry me a damn river.
N.B.: “Our” ancestors includes those of African-Americans and Indians, who are American citizens legally and constitutionally and culturally not one bit less than you or I, and whose ancestors did nothing of the kind.
It is not “our own homeland,” if (as I assume you mean) “our” means whites to the exclusion of others. Nothing in the Constitution says “We the White People.”
Why not?
I suppose you could marshal arguments that it is an unwise policy for this or that reason, but nothing in the preceding clauses of your sentence has any implications for “fairness” or “justice.”
The “consent of the majority” is expressed politically through Congress, which has sole jurisdiction over immigration law. If you don’t like the result, that just makes you part of the political minority, which by definition has to like it or lump it.
Of course, that which is done with the “consent of the majority” can sometimes be unfair and unjust (as distinct from politically illegitimate). The Immigration Act of 1924 was, obviously, because it was so obviously racist. But the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, establishing more or less the present regime, was not, and I defy you to marshal any non-racist arguments to the contrary.
I believe Latinos are thought of as “non-white,” not because they have African ancestry, but because they have Indian ancestry. At least, a majority of Mexicans and Central Americans do. And having come from Siberia does not make the Indians “white.” The indigenous non-Russians of Siberia are not considered “white” either.
I question the definition. Many Hispanics consider themselves white, and many aren’t aware that they aren’t considered white until some white American of Northern European ancestry tells them that they aren’t.
But seriously, is the average Mexican American non-white just because Chen019 and LonesomePolecat say she isn’t?
The larger point is that the definition of who is and isn’t white can change with time. Italians are white today, they weren’t a hundred years ago.
Since Hispanic-White intermarriage rates are so high, there is simply no way that Whites are becoming a minority. The children of white - hispanic marriages and white - asian marriages, are white.
There is only one significant ethnic/racial divide in the US, and it doesn’t involve Hispanics.
I’m afraid that is not true. The present immigration debate in the U.S. is largely – not entirely, but largely – based on a perceived racial/ethnic difference between “whites” and “Hispanics” or “Latinos.” That is significant just because it is significant, politically and socially. (BTW, if we have to have a name for a group that includes Latin Americans or their descendants but not Spaniards from Spain, and obviously we do, I think “Latinos” is better.)
And, regarding the topic of this thread, it is also certain that American White Nationalists, rightly or wrongly, perceive Latinos as nonwhite and oppose their immigration for that reason. They also seem to perceive Iranians, Arabs, etc., as nonwhite. Jews, too, even the ones with red hair and freckles.
I’m not sure whether it’s about being “white” or not. Certainly* indios* from Mexico are non-white because they’re [del]Native American[/del] Amerind. And some Yanks will object to a white Boricua* creole* less than an *indio *from Northern Mexico.
But in many cases, the objection is to persons not speaking English. The ethnic difference really is Anglo/Latino, or educated in English vs. not so.
I’m of German descent. My father’s ancestors, whether Pennsylvania Dutch from colonial days or later immigrants, took an enormous amount of crap from the Anglo-Scots, & eventually abandoned the German language. But you know what? The German strain improved the Yankean culture. For one thing, the English barely knew how to cook aught. 
Leaving the Anglo-Scots Calvinists as the dominant culture & unchanged would have left this country very bland, dark, & sad. No one would so much as whistle on Sundays, & non-WASP’s would probably be murdered en masse, both within & without the borders.
And the same goes for the Italians, the Jews, the Chinese, the Mexicans. I welcome the infusion of new cultural influences as it allows us to pick & choose the best of both. And the USA would really be better off a little more Latino in character.
Why is there no equivalence? If it is legitimate for any of these countries, including Tibet, to maintain a particular ethnic/religious makeup then it seems strange the US can’t.
My position on immigration is that it should be skill based. As argued here.
Actually, I think Raab is simply the flipside of the coin. He’s basically hostile to the majority group. He’s no different to a white person in Kenya trying to import people from other countries to reduce the black majority.