White colonials should consider how their whining about immigration looks

Well, maybe this was a little Pitty for IMHO. Moved it here.

We’d have room for any number of Central Americans if folks like Chuck and Nancy went back to wherever in Europe their people came from a hundred years ago. (Barry can stay, he’s a real American. ;)) White Europeans, or folks that look just like White Europeans, telling folks from the southern end of North America that they can’t move north of an arbitrary line in North America? That’s a very ugly look.

I get what people are saying. I’ve listened to the alt-right boys and I understand their concerns. I respect the alt-right boys for being honest in a way mainstream liberals are not. Yes, you have a natural right to settle your white butt in a white country, whether you’re Richard Spencer or Nancy Pelosi. And there is an entire region of the world just full, full of white people like you. And you can hie thither, all of you.

Just to be clear, I’m an Anglo. I’m a pale Yankee who dislikes garlic and hot chilis. I’m so Germanic that I get excited at how Wagner’s description of Siegfried’s broad forehead resembles me. I’m so Nordic that Capital One pays me residuals every time they run a commercial with rampaging Vikings. I may look like I’m from Hamburg, but my people have been Americans since the 17th Century CE. The Founding Fathers were my distant cousins. (Not Ben Franklin, though. I ain’t claiming that anti-Deutscher jackhole.)

But I believe in treating people decently. I know that the line, “Give me your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” was pointed at Europe; but I refuse to append, “But only if you’re white,” to it.

My America is multi-racial. It’s full of mutts. It does look like a Benetton ad.

To my fellow honkies, I gotta say, if you can’t deal with the browning of America, then get out. If you’re clinging to some dream of a white nation, you don’t belong here. Instead of telling refugees they can’t come here, you move, and move your little white butts back to Europe.

Get your passport and git.

OK, that last bit was over the top. But seriously, white descendants of European colonists should consider how their whining about immigration—especially immigrants coming from just a ways south of the border, and a lot closer than Europe—looks.

Merry Christmas.

Colonials? Lol. I wonder what the ancestry of the so-called migrants is by region.

And would those migrants be native to the land they were migrating to? Sounds paradoxical.

How are those people (quoted by Mangosteen) not being honest?

I’ll tell you one thing I’ve been hearing from the alt-right for 3 years: that a lot of Latinos are also against illegal immigration, that those who came here legally or are descendants of legal immigrants tend to be conservative on the issue, that they’re resentful of those who come who come here a certain way. Is that honest? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jct_BSFPJiI

Is that Stefan Molyneux? I don’t suppose he’s so honest. Maybe he just lives in a fantasy world.

And no, you’re right, alt-right types aren’t actually honest, not even with themselves. But at least they’ll admit they’re racists, if only because they’re just dim enough not to see how stupid their racism looks.

Speaking as someone who’s pro-open-borders, I don’t see a problem with countries wanting people to “come in legally”, but I do have a problem with immigration processes which are designed to favor anybody but the people trying to migrate. Migration shouldn’t be a gymkhana.

Admittedly, my link was more germaine to how opportunistic Trumpists roll that the alt-right. You know what? I actually don’t think the alt-right could be looked at as displaying relative honesty anyway. On one hand they desire to live in an ethno-state or something of that nature. What they usually do however, is attempt to speak on behalf of others. They say, “Blacks are only really happy living in black countries or enclaves, Aborigines are only happy living with their own kind,” etc. sometimes preceded by, “We aren’t supremacists.” Speaking up for others who you really don’t care about is exceptionally dishonest.

Just to inject a few facts - US immigration is far from being skewed “white”, assuming you mean European. The vast majority of immigrants currently living in the US are from Mexico and Central America, the primary mechanism for immigration is family. More recent immigration is heavily skewed Asian.

I don’t personally have an opinion on what US immigration policy should be - I’m not American. But it would probably be better if it were fact based, rather than being based on mythology. You can have open doors or closed doors, but neither is very realistic. So then you find yourself having to figure out a (hopefully rational) policy. Good luck with that !

What does that mean?

The great thing about this issue is that it’s one of the few that bring together the Left and the Right.

Liberals welcome a flood of immigrants from poorer countries under the impression that they’ll permanently swell the ranks of the Democratic Party. Conservatives (in particular, those allied with corporate interests) love the idea of a continual source of cheap, exploitable non-union labor.

And the well off on both sides adore having a steady supply of cheap nannies, gardeners and other workers for their personal use.

It’s just those durn American and European underclasses who think their wages and job opportunities are being depressed by illegal immigration but who are actually racists and colonials, all of 'em.

Um, what? Am I being whooshed with a parody here? If you want to counter alt-right racism, I think you need better than this. It seems just as divisive and poorly reasoned as alt-right opposition to immigration.

What arbitrary point in human history should we go back to in order to determine what parts of the globe a person’s skin color and long-term ancestry gives them rights to? Don’t most Hispanics in the Americas have mixed European colonial and indigenous ancestry?

If the alt-right argue that “white” people have more right to be here, I don’t think it’s a smart idea to counter with an argument that “white” people have less right to be here - that’s just buying into the premise that their argument is remotely coherent.

You have a remarkable grasp of other peoples’ motivation and economics. Remarkably wrong, that is.

Speaking as a liberal, I want free immigration because it’s the right thing to do and because it benefits everyone.

Legal immigration with full legal rights doesn’t create a manipulator underclass. It’s only if you label them “illegal” and make it difficult for them to exercise their rights and access legal protections.

To the extent that there are poor Americans that fear wage competition, it’s because they are mistaken as to the cause of their difficulties. It’s not legal and free immigration that harms them.

In terms of raw numbers, that makes sense. What about as a percentage of applicants? Are “white” applicants more or less likely to be approved for visas than nonwhite?

That it shouldn’t be an obstacle course, it shouldn’t be a multi-years-long-visit to The House That Sends You Mad.

I’ve had situations where getting or renewing the necessary work permits involved one (1) visit to appropriate authorities (a consulate for Mexico, a police station for Switzerland); papers showing employment did not require the employers to do anything specific (a contract or a salary slip were enough). I’ve had others in the US where my employer could afford to blackmail 1/3 of its workforce into going illegal with no consequences for the employer (but the risk of losing everything to the employees); my visas and work permits were completely dependent on my employers (some directly, as the work permit was actually given to them; others indirectly). I was improperly documented for three months once, as the US government’s regulations at the time made it impossible for incoming foreigners to have an appropriate SS Card in the two weeks it also mandated, unless they already had it from a previous stay.

Call me weird, but I much prefer the first systems to the third one.

I understood the overall intent. I want specifically to know what is a gymkhana as used there. I’ve never heard of that term except as a name of a social club. I’m looking for a literal explanation of the term you used, not more metaphors.

I haven’t seen that specific ratio published anywhere, but I think you’ll find that the number of new European immigrants to the US is trivially low - there are no European countries in the top ten sources of immigration.

It’s been a couple of generations since emigration to the US was a credible option for an “ordinary European” looking for a better life. The obstacles to immigration are extremely difficult, and it mostly concerns highly qualified professionals or the very wealthy. Currently eastern Europeans migrate westwards (the UK is host to about 4 million European immigrants), Brits emigrate to Australia and Canada, and there is also still an accessible emigration path to Canada for French.

As I mentioned previously, the main route to immigration in the US is family re-unification, which obviously causes a compounding effect to immigration from the same source countries.

Under which categories are permanent immigrants admitted?

I guess my general point is that current US immigration policy is heavily skewed towards Latin American immigration due to favoring family re-unification. This doesn’t prove that there isn’t racist intent behind some opposition to immigration, but the subject is clearly more complex than that.

Ummm not just descendants of invaders (oops colonists), but also very recent ones like 2nd 3rd generation descendants of Irish, Italian, Polish, etc etc etc.

It’s some sort of weird twisted “My grandparents didn’t come to this country to see OTHER people come to this country” logic.

A concrete example - Polish emigration figures for 2014 (latest year available)

Destination :
Europe 25 031 (of which Germany 10 266 and UK 7 392)
Americas 2 596 (of which US 1 877)

Polish statistical office

Automotive obstacle course.