You have been unable to prove it to ANYONE’S standards.
I don’t think anyone will deny that immigration poilcy in the past was informed largely by racism. And I don’t think anyone will deny that some Americans today would like our immigration policy to exclude certain minorities. But, what you need to prove is that the immigration policy of the US government *today *is racist in nature. I don’t see it.
If the goverment actually got their stuff together and quintupled the amount of legal immigrants from mexico, actually got some kind of military branch watching the border+walls and stuff - you are absolutely right. But 9/11 was 4 years ago; since then security has been priority number one and the goverment still refuses to let enough people in legally to keep the economy humming happily (with obvious consequences). Of course if everyone started breaking the law when the goverment underperformed - well it would be Katrina all over again, but in this specific case I don’t think any individual laws that get passed will have an effect unless they are rather radical.
Why should the Mexicans get a break? Counting illegals, they’ve overflowed any reasonable quota for years to come. If we could really control who came in here, I’d say drastically cut back on the number of Mexicans let in, and drastically increase the opportunities for Brazilians/Russians/Ethiopians/Chinese or whoever. The burden shouldn’t be completely on us, either – doesn’t the Mexican government have an interest in having some semblance of control over its border and who goes in and comes out?
Maybe you aren’t looking hard enough.
Politics, Prejudice and Indifferemce (pdf file)
*“The events which transpired five thousand years ago; five years ago or five minutes ago, have determined what will happen five minutes from now; five years from now or five thousand years from now. All history is a current event.” * - Dr John Henrik Clarke
Letter to President Bush From Senator Ted Kennedy
We write to you to express our concern about the escalating crisis in Haiti and our obligations under U.S. and international law to protect fleeing refugees. Earlier this week, you stated that we would “turn back any [Haitian] refugee that attempts to reach our shore.” This policy is in flagrant violation of our legal obligations under the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. The United States has a historic commitment to protect refugees fleeing persecution. We urge you to honor our nation’s obligations and ensure that such protection is available and effective.
Whoo hoo! You have just changed my mind and made me, for the first time in my life, favor greatly restricting immigration. If that is what it takes so that we will no longer be able to economically dominate the world, then count me in. (Just with the Wall please, I’m not game for mines or machine gun nests.)
BFD
Where does he accuse the administration of being racist? But, and this may be a shocker for you, Ted Kennedy isn’t the last word on the legality of something.
You’re seriously having a difficult time with this whole debatin thing, huh? Of what possible help is this to anything. Oh, the interconnecedness of things. A butterfly flapped it’s wings in 1620 and racism began, never to be stopped…
The claim that you have pathetically been trying to support in two threads now—with equal success, i.e., none—is that U.S. immigration policy is racist. I and others asked you for particulars in the other thread, you ignored the questions. You come over here with the same opinion and STILL have yet to prove your case. You get hung up on Cuba and Haiti, hopefully that has been put to bed.
So, I ask you, what evidence do you have that U.S. immigration policy is racist against Mexicans in particular, or people of color in geneneral. Please list your reasons, so that if each of them is proven to be incorrect, you will withdraw your accusation.
BFD? Great response, it shows you didn’t open the link. If you’re not interested in reading the information you ask me for then why do you ask for me to provide it?
From the beginning I’ve said the racism has guided US immigration policy. Many times it was through law, others such as with the Haitians by purposely erecting insurnountable barriers. What’s that silly saying about walking and quacking like a duck? The USA is an inherently racist country. Why should it be a surprise that immigration policy follows suit?
BMA
If “BMA” is Spanish for “I don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about but I like to yammer on and on anyway. But the good folks here at SDMB have shown me the light, and I now realize that I’ve been acting like a dumb, dishonest asshole, and I’d like to apologize to everyone”, I accept your apology.
Or does “BMA” mean something else?
Oh, and I think you forgot the list of reasons I requested.
I would agree that there are certainly racists who are concerned with immigration policy. And I would agree that there have been reacists in the government who have had a hand in shaping immigration policy. That does not mean that US immigration policy is racist.
You have an uphill climb in your proof, in that a Policy cannot be racist. A policy is a set of laws and procedures. What you need to prove is that the effects of the policy inherently affect certain races more than others. Proving that US policy is harsher to a given nationality that happens to be a certain race does not tell me anything about whether the policy has the effect of racism overall.
I met a guy from Kenya in a Wendy’s in the middle of Iowa who was here legally and had a work permit. He was apparently not affected by our immigration policies. Anecdotal, yes, but seems to counter your assertion that we are trying to keep all dark skinned people out.
At least make it BMSMA to add some humor and an obscure pop culture reference.
You need to chill out amiguito.
Actually, it’s merely your (ill-informed & unfounded) opinion that the United States of America is an inherently racist country. Time after time, you’ve been asked to provide proof of your assertion and all you’ve done is, essentially, repeat your charge.
I’m curious, though, why you haven’t bothered to post a particular amendment to the US Constitution? I’m also curious why you’re not telling us all about the racism prevalent in Mexico. Also, why you haven’t mentioned–since you seem to care more about history than the current–how Spanish became the main language in Mexico.
Give what a rest? You made an unsupported assertion in Great Debates and I asked you to support it. That is not a peculiar standard and your use of that term in an insulting manner is probably a violation of board rules.
As to Simpson killing his wife: it’s been proven. You may not be aware but there were two trials involved in that little fiasco. The first trial’s jury said he was not guilty of murder; however, the second trial’s jury said he was responsible for the deaths charged. In short, my proof is the court verdict.
Now, where’s your proof of your charges?
Does racism in Mexico have anything to do with this thread? Because racism exists in Mexico does that somehow negate racism in the US?
Look up de jure and de facto.
In the United States, who is more likely to recieve the death penalty, a black that kills a white or a white that kills a black?
I think everyone here knows the answer. The law doesn’t dictate that blacks are more deserving of the death penalty than whites but it is undeniable that blacks recieve the death penalty more than whites. This is de facto racism.
We’d like a cite, really.