U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-08-2011, 10:49 PM
 
3,493 posts, read 2,388,658 times
Reputation: 2345

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
Robert Menendez is a white man born to Cuban refugees. Only the arbitrary categorization of "Hispanics" as a monolithic ethnic group, a concept with limited meaning, is a basis for considering him to be a member of the same ethnic group as a Mexican or Guatemalan Indian.
Then take it up with him. Because that's the way HE identifies himself.



He identifies himself as a Latino rather than as someone from NJ as he supposed to in his role as SENATOR FROM NJ. Not the senator from Mexico or Latin America.

Here's an article by him. Note how HE (not ME) repeatedly identifies HIMSELF as Latino:

Sen. Robert Menendez: Latinos Step Up

He calls Latinos "our community."

Quote:
The concept of aggregating the populations of Central and South America as a single "ethnic group" is unique to the U.S., though reference to Central and South America is not precise because it excludes Mexico and includes non-Hispanic countries such as Belize, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana, and Brazil.
Again take it up with Menendez. Because that is how HE identifies.



Quote:
This strawman fallacy that you have now repeated several times does not gain legitimacy or accuracy with repetition.

To state the claim again, there are certain affinities between white supremacists and non-supremacists who believe the same ethnic conspiracy theories. This does not mean that their views are identical, but they are fellow travelers in certain capacities, and could travel in the same direction if not to the same destination, for example, through mutual support for more authoritarian immigration policy and mass roundups that may rely on racial profiling in practice if not in theory. A search of Stormfront will reveal many posters there to be enthusiastic supporters of Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Hitler was a vegetarian. Under your logic that makes all vegetarians de facto Hitler supporters.



You didn't answer my points. Why should I support a senator who supports an immigration policy based on his nationality rather than the people he was elected to represent? Most people in NJ are not in favor of his lunatic policies on this issue.

He's an extremist on this issue and it seems to be the only issue he really cares about. Until he shows real passion for the real issues that confront this state: high taxes, pollution, a truly bad governor, enviornmental degregation -- instead of worrying about the economic desires of his fellow ethnic cohort to come here without permission and pick the pockets of NJ taxpayers -- I am not voting for him. You have not demonstrated that doing so is akin to being a white supremacist.

FYI, if you want to talk about strawmen at no point did I write of racial profiling or mass roundups of any sort. Stop misrepresenting my words.

 
Old 09-13-2011, 12:32 PM
 
Location: SELA
532 posts, read 877,743 times
Reputation: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Guitar View Post
I think I made it clear in my last post...
In other words, no.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
Then take it up with him. Because that's the way HE identifies himself.
The point is not Richard Menendez specifically, but rather the fact that he is typical of categorization of Hispanics. The concept of "Hispanics" as an ethnic group is itself artificially contrived by the U.S. Census Bureau. The point is underscored in your reference to an American born to Cubans representing "Mexico or Latin America."

This classification of Hispanics as an ethnic minority has the effect of concealing phenotype-based discrimination against people of African and Amerindian background and appearance that are placed into the same category as white Hispanics, as described by Jack Forbes in Undercounting Native Americans: The 1980 Census and the Manipulation of Racial Identity in the United States:

Quote:
To clearly comprehend the absurdity of the new U.S. usage, let us imagine that the Federal government decided to refer to all English-surnamed or English-speaking persons as "Britannics" including, of course, Black Americans, white Anglo-Americans, American Indians with Anglo surnames, etc. In one fell swoop, a new fictitious "ethnic" group would be invented, every bit as justifiable as "Hispanic" or "Spanish origin."

Now what would be the function of the "Britannic" group? Aside from confusing many Blacks and Indians, it would make it possible for white Britannics to fill affirmative action quotas formerly set aside for racial minorities since such quotas could no longer exist for subgroups within the "Britannic" category. In a similar manner, statistical evidence relating to discrimination, unemployment, poverty, education, etc., would become relatively useless, or difficult to analyze, since data for white-skinned persons would simply be averaged together with data for blacks and browns.

Anyone familiar with the Latin American world knows that brown and black persons, and especially people of Indian language and culture,are usually at the very bottom of society, in the same manner that brown and black persons are at the bottom in the Anglo-American world.
However, a contrary claim can be made that there is a basis for categorization of Hispanics as a meaningful ethnic minority inasmuch as they share linguistic, religious (predominantly Roman Catholic), and other cultural ties that distinguish them from the Anglo (with "Anglo" meaning English-speaking) majority of the United States and grant them some basis for cultural unity.

These characteristics are not retained by the descendants of Hispanic immigrants, though; the children of immigrants are generally bilingual and grandchildren monolingual in English, and other cultural traits similarly dissipate, as evidenced by research such as Testing Huntington: Is Hispanic Immigration A Threat to American Identity?

"Samuel Huntington argues that the sheer number, concentration, linguistic homogeneity, and other characteristic of Hispanic immigrants will erode the dominance of English as a nationally unifying language, weaken the country’s dominant cultural values, and promote ethnic allegiances over a primary identification as an American. Testing these hypotheses with data from the U.S. Census and national and Los Angeles opinion surveys, we show that Hispanics acquire English and lose Spanish rapidly beginning with the second generation, and appear to be no more or less religious or committed to the work ethic than native-born whites. Moreover, a clear majority of Hispanics reject a purely ethnic identification and patriotism grows from one generation to the next. At present, a traditional pattern of political assimilation appears to prevail."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
Hitler was a vegetarian. Under your logic that makes all vegetarians de facto Hitler supporters.
Vegetarians are likely to be supporters of Hitler's vegetarianism. Obviously, however, description of support of Hitler without additional details implies support of one or more of his most significant policies, such as the imperialistic annexation of numerous regions of Europe that caused World War II and the millions of resulting fatalities, the genocidal extermination of two thirds of European Jewry and substantial numbers of Roma, homosexuals, and political and religious minorities, the ethnic cleansing of Eastern Europeans entailed in Generalplan Ost, etc., not a mundane aspect of his personal dietary habits that had no direct bearing on the aforementioned policies.

Immigration opposition, by contrast, is a very significant issue for American white supremacists. While Ashkenazi Jews will probably be identified as the most threatening "anti-white" ethnic group for many years to come because of white supremacists' belief that they are the ultimate source behind all other ethnic threats, the fascists still believe that the Indian/mestizo ethnic character of most immigrants from Mexico and Central America is the most substantial current demographic threat to the continued population dominance of whites of predominantly European descent.

Non-supremacist opponents of immigration seem to not understand this nature of their ethnic background (instead describing them as "Hispanic" and regarding this classification as "racial"), likely because they are not as devoted to genetic determinism. However, many regard "Hispanics" as a non-Anglo and non-white demographic threat to the WASP population, with treasonous or seditious intentions to function as a fifth column in the U.S., as demonstrated empirically by the published research that I posted and anecdotally by the comments on this message board.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
the economic desires of his fellow ethnic cohort to come here without permission and pick the pockets of NJ taxpayers
Readers should note that this is a telling phrase. The language employed does not limit the negative metaphor ("pick the pockets") to illegal immigrants, but is instead directed at an entire "ethnic cohort." This is consistent with what social/political psychological research has indicated about the ingrained stereotypes and biases that cause associations of negative character statuses with certain ethnic groups, i.e. the African-American woman as "welfare queen," the Arab/Muslim as "terrorist," the "Hispanic" (symbolized by Amerindian phenotype) as "invader" and "pocket picker."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
FYI, if you want to talk about strawmen at no point did I write of racial profiling or mass roundups of any sort. Stop misrepresenting my words.
This is itself a strawman fallacy; support of racial profiling or mass roundups was not attributed to any specific individual on this forum.

Moreover, as repeatedly emphasized, the tendency of some immigration opponents to support the same ethnic conspiracy theories that white supremacists support does not mandate support of the ethnic cleansing policies and related aspects of fascist ideology that white supremacists also support.

However, while ethnic cleansing qua ethnic cleansing is not politically feasible under current circumstances, white supremacists and non-supremacists do use their shared belief in this ethnic conspiracy theory to support some of the same actions and policies. Both groups support the deportation of illegally present foreign nationals that have been identified as part of a hostile ethnic group and stringent roundup measures that may target those with a certain phenotype, with the difference being that white supremacists make the additional connection between their presumed ethnic hostility and their genetic admixture, which most non-supremacists are not concerned with nor even particularly aware of.
 
Old 09-13-2011, 01:12 PM
 
3,493 posts, read 2,388,658 times
Reputation: 2345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
In other words, no.



The point is not Richard Menendez specifically, but rather the fact that he is typical of categorization of Hispanics. The concept of "Hispanics" as an ethnic group is itself artificially contrived by the U.S. Census Bureau. The point is underscored in your reference to an American born to Cubans representing "Mexico or Latin America."

This classification of Hispanics as an ethnic minority has the effect of concealing phenotype-based discrimination against people of African and Amerindian background and appearance that are placed into the same category as white Hispanics, as described by Jack Forbes in Undercounting Native Americans: The 1980 Census and the Manipulation of Racial Identity in the United States:



However, a contrary claim can be made that there is a basis for categorization of Hispanics as a meaningful ethnic minority inasmuch as they share linguistic, religious (predominantly Roman Catholic), and other cultural ties that distinguish them from the Anglo (with "Anglo" meaning English-speaking) majority of the United States and grant them some basis for cultural unity.

These characteristics are not retained by the descendants of Hispanic immigrants, though; the children of immigrants are generally bilingual and grandchildren monolingual in English, and other cultural traits similarly dissipate, as evidenced by research such as Testing Huntington: Is Hispanic Immigration A Threat to American Identity?

"Samuel Huntington argues that the sheer number, concentration, linguistic homogeneity, and other characteristic of Hispanic immigrants will erode the dominance of English as a nationally unifying language, weaken the country’s dominant cultural values, and promote ethnic allegiances over a primary identification as an American. Testing these hypotheses with data from the U.S. Census and national and Los Angeles opinion surveys, we show that Hispanics acquire English and lose Spanish rapidly beginning with the second generation, and appear to be no more or less religious or committed to the work ethic than native-born whites. Moreover, a clear majority of Hispanics reject a purely ethnic identification and patriotism grows from one generation to the next. At present, a traditional pattern of political assimilation appears to prevail."



Vegetarians are likely to be supporters of Hitler's vegetarianism. Obviously, however, description of support of Hitler without additional details implies support of one or more of his most significant policies, such as the imperialistic annexation of numerous regions of Europe that caused World War II and the millions of resulting fatalities, the genocidal extermination of two thirds of European Jewry and substantial numbers of Roma, homosexuals, and political and religious minorities, the ethnic cleansing of Eastern Europeans entailed in Generalplan Ost, etc., not a mundane aspect of his personal dietary habits that had no direct bearing on the aforementioned policies.

Immigration opposition, by contrast, is a very significant issue for American white supremacists. While Ashkenazi Jews will probably be identified as the most threatening "anti-white" ethnic group for many years to come because of white supremacists' belief that they are the ultimate source behind all other ethnic threats, the fascists still believe that the Indian/mestizo ethnic character of most immigrants from Mexico and Central America is the most substantial current demographic threat to the continued population dominance of whites of predominantly European descent.

Non-supremacist opponents of immigration seem to not understand this nature of their ethnic background (instead describing them as "Hispanic" and regarding this classification as "racial"), likely because they are not as devoted to genetic determinism. However, many regard "Hispanics" as a non-Anglo and non-white demographic threat to the WASP population, with treasonous or seditious intentions to function as a fifth column in the U.S., as demonstrated empirically by the published research that I posted and anecdotally by the comments on this message board.



Readers should note that this is a telling phrase. The language employed does not limit the negative metaphor ("pick the pockets") to illegal immigrants, but is instead directed at an entire "ethnic cohort." This is consistent with what social/political psychological research has indicated about the ingrained stereotypes and biases that cause associations of negative character statuses with certain ethnic groups, i.e. the African-American woman as "welfare queen," the Arab/Muslim as "terrorist," the "Hispanic" (symbolized by Amerindian phenotype) as "invader" and "pocket picker."



This is itself a strawman fallacy; support of racial profiling or mass roundups was not attributed to any specific individual on this forum.

Moreover, as repeatedly emphasized, the tendency of some immigration opponents to support the same ethnic conspiracy theories that white supremacists support does not mandate support of the ethnic cleansing policies and related aspects of fascist ideology that white supremacists also support.

However, while ethnic cleansing qua ethnic cleansing is not politically feasible under current circumstances, white supremacists and non-supremacists do use their shared belief in this ethnic conspiracy theory to support some of the same actions and policies. Both groups support the deportation of illegally present foreign nationals that have been identified as part of a hostile ethnic group and stringent roundup measures that may target those with a certain phenotype, with the difference being that white supremacists make the additional connection between their presumed ethnic hostility and their genetic admixture, which most non-supremacists are not concerned with nor even particularly aware of.
It's ROBERT Menendez not Richard. Apparently he's calling himself Hispanic and therefore advocating discrimination against himself! Yeah. The rest of your post is just one big strawman and not worthy of reply.

Please tell us your feelings about said foreign nationals. Do you support giving people in this country amnesty? Do you think they should be entitled to get access to the American welfare system if they cannot otherwise support themselves? Do you think Americans be taxed to support said social services for them?
 
Old 09-13-2011, 01:32 PM
 
Location: SELA
532 posts, read 877,743 times
Reputation: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
It's ROBERT Menendez not Richard.
My bad. That was about as central to my main point as Hitler's vegetarianism was to his main policies, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
Apparently he's calling himself Hispanic and therefore advocating discrimination against himself! Yeah. The rest of your post is just one big strawman and not worthy of reply.

Please tell us your feelings about said foreign nationals. Do you support giving people in this country amnesty? Do you think they should be entitled to get access to the American welfare system if they cannot otherwise support themselves? Do you think Americans be taxed to support said social services for them?
Please do not derail the thread from the main topic. Start new threads based on those subjects.
 
Old 09-14-2011, 02:01 AM
Yac
 
5,876 posts, read 6,302,128 times
Let's stick to the topic, ok ? Individual member stances on immigration are not the topic, in case it's not clear. If you're really curious, you can always ask using a direct message.
Yac.
__________________
Forum Rules
City-Data.com homepage
 
Old 09-16-2011, 04:17 AM
 
Location: SELA
532 posts, read 877,743 times
Reputation: 227
A concurring analysis is provided in Leonard Zeskind's Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream:

Quote:
As the anti-immigrant phenomenon flared in Arizona, a cross-country movement stretched from the vigilantes on the border to policy makers in the states of the Midwest and Southeast to think tanks and political action committees in Washington, D.C. In this movement, differences between legal and illegal immigrants faded into a generalized belief that a brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking tidal wave was swamping the white-skinned population of the United States. The attempt to stop undocumented workers at the borders morphed into a campaign to end immigration altogether and to save a supposedly white nation from demographic ruin. As Representative Tom Tancredo, a Republican from Colorado's Sixth District, said, "if we don't control immigration, legal and illegal, we will eventually reach the point where it won't be what kind of a nation we are, balkanized or united; we will have to face the fact that we are no longer a nation at all..."
To repeat and re-emphasize, not all proponents of these ethnic conspiracy theories are white supremacists, but essentially, they share a somewhat closer familial relationship in terms of ideology than opponents of the conspiracy theories do.
 
Old 09-16-2011, 01:22 PM
 
3,493 posts, read 2,388,658 times
Reputation: 2345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
A concurring analysis is provided in Leonard Zeskind's Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream:



To repeat and re-emphasize, not all proponents of these ethnic conspiracy theories are white supremacists, but essentially, they share a somewhat closer familial relationship in terms of ideology than opponents of the conspiracy theories do.
Illegals aren't immigrants.

Your other posts indicate why it is impossible to discuss this issue with many pro-illegals. Rational opposition to criminal law breakers who cost most Americans far more than they bring the table is condescendingly dismissed as mere racism.

Shrug.

No one here is a white nationalist. No one here is certainly more racist than the morons at La Raza or Roberto Menendez and his belief that people from NJ should be forced to provide for poor people from Latin America just because Roberto happens to be Latino himself.
 
Old 09-16-2011, 01:29 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,162,216 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
Illegals aren't immigrants.

Your other posts indicate why it is impossible to discuss this issue with many pro-illegals. Rational opposition to criminal law breakers who cost most Americans far more than they bring the table is condescendingly dismissed as mere racism.

Shrug.

No one here is a white nationalist. No one here is certainly more racist than the morons at La Raza or Roberto Menendez and his belief that people from NJ should be forced to provide for poor people from Latin America just because Roberto happens to be Latino himself.
Reeks of "brown" nationalism though, doesn't it?
 
Old 09-16-2011, 01:35 PM
 
1,574 posts, read 790,646 times
Reputation: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
Illegals aren't immigrants.
Right, only the ones we LIKE are the TRUE immigrants!
 
Old 09-16-2011, 01:37 PM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,006,576 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymetime View Post
Right, only the ones we LIKE are the TRUE immigrants!
You can't let the fact that they immigrated here fool you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top