Race and 2016

[GVChamp]

I don't see your point. Our ancestors kept out Asian immigrants because they didn't like Asians. That doesn't change the fact that immigration restrictions have been part of US history since before any of us have been alive.

Immigration policy has never been and never will be just about controlling illegal immigration. A major part is determining what LEGAL immigration should be.

[astralis]

GVChamp,

I don't see your point. Our ancestors kept out Asian immigrants because they didn't like Asians. That doesn't change the fact that immigration restrictions have been part of US history since before any of us have been alive.

i'm addressing this point here:

This has never been understood as a way to keep America in a cultural stasis: The US hasn't been in a cultural stasis since the 1840s. As Americans, we have the right to determine what kind of change we want and who we want to allow in the nation. Again, this has always been understood to be a right of the Nation under the Nation-State configuration. It's only in the last 10 years that this has suddenly become "racist," and it's only in the last 10 years that supporting illegal immigrants became a principled stance.

my point is that racism has been a part of the history of US immigration law. in fact, US immigration law was largely created in the first place as a response to -Asian- immigration in the 1870s-1880s. keeping cultural stasis is indeed one of the advertised features, with people having called this racist since its inception.

[GVChamp]

Yeah, some laws were actually racist, some laws are said to be racist and aren't. Immigration restrictions are still part of the American political tradition, and ALL political traditions.

Americans actually thinking the US could be in cultural stasis in the 1880s? After a Civil War, mass black enfranchisement, and the middle of the Second Industrial Revolution?

[Triple C]

Racial and cultural anxiety was the driver for the age of immigration regulation in the US, and they were written to insulate the status quo against cultural change.

In fact, the immigration "quota system" crafted in 1924 with the Johnson-Reed Act, which President Johnson's legislature would later repeal in 1965, was designed to keep the US demography in racial stasis as per the 1910 US Census, the last to be conducted before the law. By assigning immigration quotas to specific regions, the system pre-mixes the flow legal immigrants to the same racial composition of the US ten years ago.

Historians of immigration note that it was exactly rapid cultural and ethnic change that led to successive waves of immigration-restrictions/bans/nativism. Using Atsy's example--in the 1870s and 1880s, there was a massive immigration wave of "coolies" from China as a labor force to build railroads (appeared to have started during the ACW), as well as tending the proto-industrial farms in CA. There were substantial fears of "yellow peril" criminality, such as opium use and gangsterism.

Prior to the Exclusion Act there were other restrictions, such as laws prohibiting Asian women to be on US soil to prevent a naturally-increasing population of Asians. There was absolutely a concern about race and culture.

Going a bit back, in the US federal-level immigration restrictions were scant, if they could be said to exist at all. Free men and of good moral character was the benchmark for naturalization.

There were local levels of immigration control that was crafted in terms of shipping regulations and vagrancy laws at port of entry. Passenger Ships must dedicate a share its displacements for passenger compartments that was smaller than a maximum percentage, which reduced capacity and drove up the price of tickets, while vagrants were sent home on the next outbound ship. However, the effect was an economic selection.

Back to the 20th C. Wilson's presidency collided with the anti-German craze exacerbated by WWI. Germans were fleeing central Europe throughout second part of the 1800s. Many fled after Prussia annexed their old principalities, some to escape low-income farming, others wanted nothing of fighting the German Empire's wars. The same could be said of Central and Eastern European immigrants, such as Poles, Russians, Yugoslavs, Jews.

In the early 1900s, immigrants accounted for 1/3 of the urban population by some counts, with the Germans being one of the largest groups. During WWI, Local towns passed the first "English only" laws in public places, and began banning the teaching of German for children. Bach was banned by music halls. Don't remember how much of that survived post-war normalization. German ethnic association leaders were tried under the Sedition Act. In the aftermath of the war, Johnson-Reed passed, in order to roll back those changes to demography and to culture caused by immigration.

Note that list of laws reviewed here were nearly all of the big names in immigration law history. This long tradition is that of a concern to maintain--not to put to fine a word on it--"white" supremacy, though "whiteness" was variously defined as Anglo-Americans that latter incorporated Irish, Scots, Germans, Poles etc, mostly as a result of welfare policies that treated them as indistinguishable.

Today, German Americans are the biggest white ethnic group in the US.

Historically? In Europe, immigration was regulated by the countries that had an incentive in preventing the loss of peasant workforce and base of conscription, hence internal passports systems and the such like. I am less clear on comparing conferring citizenship status between the nations, but that was going to be enforced with great difficulty, without the modern regime of ID systems. But the fact that France and a large number of other countries were on a jus sanguinis system, there seems to have been a racial or cultural motivation.

The issue becomes, what exactly is the metric with which you judge immigrants? Productivity? Obedience to laws? Some amorphous and presumably American values that US citizens don't seem to entirely agree on? Political affiliation to a certain party? And how many of those concerns fit the aspirational principles that all men are created equal, and that there should be a free market of ideas as well as goods?

[Doktor]

It's futile to compare Europe or any country/region but Canada, Australia and NZ to US.

[InExile]

Well said

So you are justifying a man who implied a number of Mexicans were rapists, said he wanted to ban members of a religion from visiting the US, made vulgar comments about women caught on tap, mocked a disabled reporter and did and said many other outrageous things.

And you expect the rest of to care that some mean old lefties are calling you a racist.

[tbm3fan]

And you expect the rest of to care that some mean old lefties are calling you a racist.

Go figure, huh...

[Parihaka]

Meanwhile, back on topic, the Democrat media has been running 'racists take to the streets' since the election.

A Louisiana college student has acknowledged she fabricated a report that she was assaulted and robbed of her wallet and Muslim headscarf by two men, one of whom she described as wearing a white “Trump” hat, police said Thursday.

‘Hang a n****r from a tree’: Police take action against sign promoting lynching over ‘equal rights’

UPDATE: The Pittsburg Police Department released a statement on Sunday afternoon that said, “The homeowner is an African American male who has continued to display offensive signs. The legal effort is ongoing.”

[ATTACH]42641[/ATTACH]
Flying a Nazi flag at his home in San Francisco’s Dolores Heights on Wednesday was Frederick Roeber’s attempt to make a social comment on President-elect Donald Trump.
But the 48-year-old quickly realized the display was misguided when neighbors spotted the ominous swastika and immediately confronted him in the street outside the house.
Roeber, who is retired and lives in the storybook-esque home on the corner of Sanchez and 21st streets, said he didn’t like Trump’s comments about Muslims and Mexican immigrants during the election. San Francisco homeowner’s Nazi flag protest of Trump backfires

Flying a Nazi flag at his home in San Francisco’s Dolores Heights on Wednesday was Frederick Roeber’s attempt to make a social comment on President-elect Donald Trump.
But the 48-year-old quickly realized the display was misguided when neighbors spotted the ominous swastika and immediately confronted him in the street outside the house.
Roeber, who is retired and lives in the storybook-esque home on the corner of Sanchez and 21st streets, said he didn’t like Trump’s comments about Muslims and Mexican immigrants during the election.
Frederick Roeber, 48, briefly flew a Nazi flag above his San Francisco home in what he described as a protest against president-elect Donald Trump. But neighbors soon spotted the swastika and confronted him.
“I am hoping people get that this is a political statement, and that I’m not a Nazi supporter,” Roeber said outside his home’s wrought iron gates and manicured garden. “I’m a little afraid that neighbors will get the wrong idea.”
But that’s exactly what happened

It turns out that some anti-Latino graffiti at Elon University is all a big hoax, perpetrated by a student of the very ethnicity the message targeted.

“Bye Bye Latinos Hasta La Vista” the whiteboard message read, and as you’d expect it led to immediate fierce denunciations from staff and students alike upon its discovery on Thursday.

**Social Media Report of Gas Station Incident**
We are aware of the circulating post involving a woman who was allegedly harassed/menaced at a gas station. We can tell you that this incident, if it occurred in Smyrna Delaware, has not been reported to our agency. We understand that this person has stated via social media that she has filed charges against the perpetrators. We again want to stress that we, the Smyrna Police Department have no record of this incident. We ask that all questions/comments/concerns be addressed to the social media user who made this post, and/or the police agency she reported this incident to

In the latest case of a faked hate crime, a 20-year-old man has admitted he made it up when he told Malden cops he was harassed by two men proclaiming it’s “Trump country now.”

The man, whose name police have not released, had filed a complaint saying when he got off an MBTA bus near Broadway Square in Malden at 10 p.m. Tuesday, at least two white men approached him.

The men used a racial slur, made a reference to lynching and warned him this is Donald “Trump country now,” according to the report he gave police. He was able to get away from the men and hid before calling police, officials said.

Investigators prioritized resources for the suspected “hate crime” incident and re-interviewed the alleged victim.

“As a result, it has been determined that the story was completely fabricated,” Malden police Chief Kevin Molis said in a statement. “The alleged victim admitted that he had made up the entire story,” saying he wanted to “raise awareness about things that are going on around the country.”

Eleesha Long said she was assaulted and called a racial slur, but BG police said she made the story up.

Long wrote a police complaint on November 9th that reads in part, "while walking down Crim St to ask for yard signs, three boys began to throw rocks at me."

Long continued to write the white males shouted profanity at her while wearing Trump shirts. She described how all three young men looked and what they were wearing.

Reports show she posted what happened to her on Facebook page, but never called 911.

BG detectives said her post got a lot of attention, including her father who told law enforcement he couldn't locate the 24-year-old after the alleged incident.

A BGSU officer took Long to the police station where she gave a statement.

However, throughout the investigation she changed her story multiple times.

Lt. Dan Mancuso with the BG Police Division said, "several times the complainant changed her story about what happened, where it happened, and when it happened."


Lt. Mancuso said they obtained a search warrant for her Facebook and Verizon history. Turned out, she wasn't where she said she was Lt. Mancuso added.

"Based on that information, it proved that she was not in the location that of when she said it occurred," Lt. Mancuso told 13abc.

Her text messages allegedly reveal her real motivation may have been frustration with friends and family who were Trump supporters.

[Mihais]

So you are justifying a man who implied a number of Mexicans were rapists, said he wanted to ban members of a religion from visiting the US, made vulgar comments about women caught on tap, mocked a disabled reporter and did and said many other outrageous things.

And you expect the rest of to care that some mean old lefties are calling you a racist.

Strictly speaking he agreed with me and I've said none of those "vile" words :) And I don't give a sh!t about being called racist.I'm even proud of that.It means I win and I don't care about lamentations :)

You still think it matters if he called Mexicans rapists or wanted to ban muslims(incidentally it would be good idea,but has since then discarded by Trump).Is election speech.It got him elected.It is proof that he understands the masses better than the "experts".Case closed.
Now is important to see his actions and their benefits.

[Mihais]

Yeah, only the leftists shout; the right is an epitome of decency
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...trump-movement
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/15/502042...rump-and-ailes

That is your best case? Nice then.Is good to know that the worst cases of mischief are 2 chaps complaining about being harassed.
Your side started and mastered this sort of crap.The number and severity of harassment is orders of magnitude above anything those guys said(which may be true threats or invented ones).Meanwhile a POTUS elect has received death threats,he was also assaulted during the elections,political gatherings and supporters were under violent attacks.Your side is the one that has lowered any logical debate to a mewling a -isms and now has tried to lower an election to the level of an African election.
Your chaps started this crap.Is about time they are spoken to in a language they understand.

[InExile]

Your chaps started this crap.Is about time they are spoken to in a language they understand.

So basically you are using the kindergarten argument to justify or dismiss any bad behavior by your side 'Teacher, he started it!'

[Mihais]

No.Is just a chronological order.I am not excusing vile acts by "my" side,for the simple reason I am not voting.I am putting the thing in perspective.Nobody is perfect.But it is relevant to the society and to the debate to put things in balance.
And yes,it is the a big difference between somebody trolling somebody during the election and organized violence.
Frankly speaking,I don't think I should understand how one can still support the Dems after this.They lost all legitimacy.
If this happens anywhere else and by anyone else,you'd see all the talking heads getting hysterical and strong condemnation by the State Dept for the scoundrels who attack democratic free election.And rightly so.

People who are insulted generally double down.Thus insults are not effective means of communicating ideas.Most Dems were not insulted,but they still double down on their failed(at elections at least) ideas.They miss a perfect opportunity for introspection.

[Wooglin]

So you are justifying a man who implied a number of Mexicans were rapists, said he wanted to ban members of a religion from visiting the US, made vulgar comments about women caught on tap, mocked a disabled reporter and did and said many other outrageous things.

And you expect the rest of to care that some mean old lefties are calling you a racist.

Really? You got all that from "well said"? I dont recall trying to justify it, could you quote me exactly? I do recall agreeing that people just don't give a fuck because asshats like you will use whatever mental gymnastics you need to try to justify what you already believe, and label them racist anyway, like you just did. Thanks for providing an example.

[drhuy]

drhuy,



do try and learn a little bit about the electoral college, and the demographics of the states that won the election for Trump.

for the 2020 election, if dem support among minorities -remains the same- as 2016 and the republicans keep the exact same level of support among working class whites-- the latter of which i have my doubts about-- then just by demographic growth alone, the dems would have flipped the results.



who says it is "against whites"? do you say working class white people are united as a bloc against minorities?

correspondingly, college-educated white voters as well as white women have shifted Dem over the last 20 years; they used to be Republican dominated demographics but is now a toss-up.

the 2016 election is not just about the WH, is it?

of course its always "the party of minorities against whites", you can only fool yourself. when you guys are too busy vilifying whites, you seem to forget that hatred, racism, bigot exist in ALL races. minorities care about other minorities as much as whites do.

Oh and spare me the "white voters shifted dem". People dont call you the self-loathing lefties for no reason.

the thing about identity politics is that it will turn around and bite you in your backside. "Vote for him, he's a minority just like you. Vote for him, he's young and fresh just like you are. Well, it worked. But guess what, the next time when you field just another old white angry candidate, those people just stay home. (the fact the black people have been doing even worse under 8 years of the first black president didnt help either).

[drhuy]

So you are justifying a man who implied a number of Mexicans were rapists, said he wanted to ban members of a religion from visiting the US, made vulgar comments about women caught on tap, mocked a disabled reporter and did and said many other outrageous things.

And you expect the rest of to care that some mean old lefties are calling you a racist.

What difference, at this point, does it make? - Hillary Clinton (1947 - 2016).

fewer and fewer people are gonna care what people like you think of them.