Immigration and Ethnic Conspiracy Theories (Mexican, suspect, crime, racism)

[Rockmadinejad]

Originally Posted by Eleanora1

That's not how most people use the word immigrant. Most people use it as a shorthand to refer to legal immigrants not illegal aliens. The only people who use immigrants to refer to illegal aliens are usually illegal alien advocates seeking to get us to agree to conflate the two groups.

That's great about most people, assuming you're right. As I said, "immigrant" is still correct, even if it's less descriptive than "illegal immigrant" (which, it's worth noting, still includes the "immigrant" descriptor). The point is that when you say "they aren't immigrants" you are clearly and unequivocally wrong - they immigrated here.

[Vicman]

Have you tried getting an editorial on this published in a major newspaper?

Originally Posted by Agnapostate

Illustrative of the affinities between white supremacists and non-supremacist ethnic conspiracy theorists is the function of some non-supremacists as intermediaries between white supremacism and mainstream political activity.

For example, border militia organizer Glenn Spencer was a presenter alongside "racialist" Samuel Francis at the 2002 annual conference of American Renaissance, a white supremacist organization called a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

AR on-line store - 2002 AR Conference — Samuel Francis and Glenn Spencer (http://store.amren.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=2206 - broken link)



Since the late Francis was explicit regarding his belief about his ideological defense of the "white race," i.e. white nationalism, he would be unsuitable for participation in mainstream political events, but Spencer (who was present at the same white supremacist conference, but is not an explicit supremacist) is an acceptable intermediary.

Reconquista Conspiracy Theorist To Present Before The Arizona Senate Committee



A similar example is the trail that leads from Arizona governor Jan Brewer to state senator Russell Pearce, sponsor of Senate Bill 1070, which introduced more authoritarian measures for detaining persons suspected to be illegal immigrants, to J.T. Ready, a fascist active in the neo-Nazi movement.







A direct link between Brewer and Ready would likely be a political death blow to the governor, but Pearce functions as an intermediary in the same way.

[Vicman]

The article talks about that. Again, the employers have mechanisms to plausibly deny it.

Let's look at the article:
Here Illegally, Working Hard and Paying Taxes - New York Times

But the employers benefit from one large loophole: they are not expected to distinguish between a fake ID and the real thing. To work, illegal immigrants do not need to come up with masterpieces of ID fraud, only something that looks plausible. "To bring a criminal prosecution we need to show an employer knowingly hired an illegal immigrant," said Dean Boyd, a spokesman at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the branch of the Department of Homeland Security that enforces immigration rules. " 'Knowingly' is the key word."Yet the standard of plausibility is not particularly tight. "Some of these documents are so visibly wrong that you don't need to be an expert on what a Social Security card looks like," said Michael Mahdesian, chairman of the board of Servicon Systems, a private contractor that cleans aerospace and defense facilities as well as office buildings in California, Arizona and New Mexico.

As of 2006 companies don't have a likelihood of being caught, or of having significant action:

Companies have little to fear. The penalty for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants includes up to six months in jail — or up to five years in particularly egregious cases — and fines that range from $275 to $11,000 for each worker. Yet fines are typically negotiated down, and employers are almost always let off the hook. Only 46 people were convicted in 2004 for hiring illegal immigrants; the annual number has been roughly the same for the last decade.

In a rare raid, about 50 illegal workers — including a handful of ABM janitors — were arrested at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport in 2002, according to Tim Counts, a spokesman for the Minnesota office of immigration and customs enforcement. With one exception — the Wok & Roll Chinese restaurant in the airport terminal — no charges were brought against the companies that hired them, Mr. Counts said.

And when companies which have a motive to screen more harshly come in, they find interesting stuff.

Mr. Mahdesian said Servicon was more careful than other contractors — forced by the nature of its clients in the military industry to make more rigorous checks to keep illegal immigrants out. But he said that each time Servicon took over a cleaning contract in a new office building, it found that 25 percent to 30 percent of the workers it inherited from the previous contractor were working illegally, and had to let them go.

If companies wanted to screen for illegals, they would be doing so.

Originally Posted by chicagonut

No, employers are being convicted when it is proven that they "knowingly" hired illegal aliens. There have been many cases of that. But illegal aliens can produce some pretty authentic looking "fake" documents which includes a SS that doesn't belong to them an employer can be fooled especially if they aren't using e-verify. Of course some employers do "knowlingly" hire illegal aliens also. That is one of the reasons to make e-verify mandatory in every workplace then the employers will have no excuse to say they didn't know.

[Agnapostate]

Originally Posted by All American NYC

Thats not true.

What is not true?

Originally Posted by All American NYC

What is your view on the border.

This is not the topic of this thread. The topic of the thread is immigration and ethnic conspiracy theories.

Originally Posted by All American NYC

You have target a group if one group is doing majority of the illegal activity don't you?

Drawing associations between this illegal activity described and a specific ethnic group is the basis for the development of the ethnic conspiracy theory.

Originally Posted by chicagonut

We all know that most anti-illegal Americans are not racists but unless the pro-illegals point out the few who are or may be they have nothing left to support their anti-laws and own ethnocentric agenda.

The word "racist" has a disputed meaning, and is not one I have used in this thread. Rather, I have claimed that there are affinities between white supremacists and some opponents of immigration, since both groups adhere to an ethnic conspiracy theory that involves Mexican/Mexican-American annexation of the U.S. Southwest from Anglo whites.

I also claimed that there was an important difference between the two groups' conception of this idea, with white supremacists attaching a significance to Mexicans' Indian admixture that non-supremacist opponents of immigration do not and are usually not aware of.

Originally Posted by chicagonut

In fact the ethnocentric kind are promoting their "brown" illegals from south of our border to violate our immigration laws so they can become the majority in this country so I think the "supremist" label is being put on the wrong crowd.

This is a reiteration of the ethnic conspiracy theory, but has already been disproved, since the leadership of major Hispanic advocacy organizations are generally white, and the ethnic stratification in Hispanic countries favors whites.

Originally Posted by chicagonut

Also, would any country's citizens welcome a demographic change to their country via illegal immigration? How is it supremist to want to retain one's national identity and demographic makeup?

A desire to maintain the demographic dominance of whites and the belief that it is integral to "national identity" is exactly what is espoused on Stormfront and in white supremacist ideology. Are you claiming that this desire and belief are not indicative of white supremacism?

Originally Posted by Eleanora1

What exactly is the topic of this thread?

The topic of the thread is immigration and ethnic conspiracy theories.

Originally Posted by Eleanora1

Illegal aliens are immigrants? They aren't. They're temporary squatters. Under that "logic" I could move into your backyard and state I live there. Hell I could call you selfish and greedy that you won't continue to pay the property taxes so I can continue to live there.

This is an example of thread derailment and an apparent attempt at a red herring fallacy, and is also etymologically inaccurate, since the literal meaning of the term immigrant is rejected in favor of a preferred rhetorical meaning.

Originally Posted by Eleanora1

That people who oppose illegal aliens do so because they are racist?

This is a strawman fallacy. It has been repeatedly clarified that some opponents of immigration who conceive of an influx of recent immigrants as an ethnic threat to the demography of the United States or the Southwestern region of the United States share affinities with white supremacists in this regard, though there are still differences in their beliefs in that white supremacists typically have developed views about the genetic inferiority of Mexican and Central American immigrants that the non-supremacist conspiracy theorists do not share.

Originally Posted by Eleanora1

Well some are racists. So are the members of La Raza. Shall I pull up the nonsense many of their leaders have written?

This is a red herring fallacy, and apparently a tu quoque fallacy also, since the views of the National Council of La Raza are ascribed to ideological opponents on this forum.

It is also not logically coherent, since Hispanics are a multi-racial population, the National Council of La Raza therefore a multi-racial organization, and its internal structure probably hierarchically dominated by whites, as argued by the aforementioned published article.

Originally Posted by Eleanora1

Threads like this one are exactly why it is impossible to have a conversation on this topic with some people. They can't defend importing low skilled non-English speakers here economically.

This is another red herring fallacy.

Originally Posted by Eleanora1

So they resort to ad hominem attacks

An ad hominem attack is an irrelevant attack on a personal characteristic of an arguer rather than an argument itself. An example would be claiming that non-Americans' arguments regarding immigration to the U.S. can be rejected because they are made by non-citizens. Can you cite a specific example of this logical fallacy being used in this thread?

Originally Posted by Eleanora1

and guilt by association tactics. It's the only "defense" they have.

Originally Posted by UrbanQuest

Wow, trying to lump common sense people who oppose illegal immigration with Storm-Front members. Nice try. Here's another quote from Stormfront.

"I need some tips, hints, recipes etc on making sausages. Does anyone actually do this? Making your own using natural casings and your own mince is one of the best things you can do for yourself. And you know exactly whats going in, the fat content, etcetera."

I like sausage on my pizza sometimes. I must be a white supremacist. Wait, I'm not white.

These respective comments explicitly and implicitly claim that the guilt by association fallacy has been used, and is therefore a logical weakness in the argument has been made. The guilt by association fallacy is a logical fallacy wherein a negative or disliked party is shown to hold a certain view, belief, or position, which is then used to invalidate that view when held by others.

Aside from the Hitler and vegetarianism example already mentioned, other examples would be the claim that Hitler was a Christian and a totalitarian, and therefore all Christians support totalitarianism, or the claim that Stalin was an atheist and a totalitarian, and therefore all atheists support totalitarianism.

However, the claim made here that the guilt by association fallacy has been used stems from a failure to understand the difference between beliefs that are tangentially related to the core of a person's worldview and beliefs that are fundamentally related to the core of a person's worldview.

In the case of the "culinary" views mentioned above (vegetarianism and sausages), there is a tangential relationship in that the same individuals who hold fascist views also hold views in favor of fascism. This would be distinct from a belief in ethnic cleansing or imperialistic annexation of territory that is considered part of the nation-state's homeland, which are fundamentally related to fascism, as opposed to being tangentially related.

In the case of Stormfront and white supremacists more generally, their belief that the U.S. Southwest is being demographically conquered by a foreign ethnic group that is hostile to Anglo whites is fundamentally related to their "racialist" worldviews, whereas their enjoyment of natural sausages is tangentially related only by virtue of having the same proponents endorse the idea, and is unrelated in a meaningful sense.

[Agnapostate]

The Southern Poverty Law Center provides a description of the affinities between fascist and non-fascist anti-immigration organizations, emphasizing the common adherence to the ethnic conspiracy theories described in this thread, i.e. the belief that immigration influxes constitute an "invasion" of non-white Mexicans or Hispanics that threatens the Anglo white population of the U.S. Southwest.

Anti-Immigration Groups | Southern Poverty Law Center

"Many of them also believe there is a secret plot by the Mexican government and American Hispanics to wrest the Southwest away from the United States in order to create 'Aztlan,' a Hispanic nation. Only four of the 10 groups described below are designated as "hate groups" by the Southern Poverty Law Center (see The Year in Hate)."

Since six of these ten groups are not described as hate groups, they are able to function as mainstream and respectable political pressure groups, serving as intermediaries between white supremacist groups and orthodox politics by pursuing mutually supported policies.

The most significant intermediary is probably political commentator and former candidate Pat Buchanan, who has achieved mainstream success (winning several state primaries in his presidential nomination bids), yet maintains connections with white supremacists, and was endorsed by David Duke in his 1992 run for the presidency.

As conservative political commentator Jonah Goldberg writes of Buchanan in Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, "In The Death of the West, Buchanan argues that the white race is becoming an 'endangered species' about to be swallowed up by Third World hordes."

The aforementioned Zeskind writes this of the book and its connection to the white supremacist organization American Renaissance: "At American Renaissance's conference of 250 near Dulles Airport, President Bush's war against terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq was of less concern than the fight brewing on the border with Mexico. Here Pat Buchanan's book The Death of the West was well received...The West, he wrote, was dying from low birthrates among white 'European' peoples and higher levels of fertility by people of color, most particularly brown-skinned immigrants. In his talk that day, Sam Francis [a known white supremacist] told the crowd that he had read a draft of the book when it was still called The Death of Whitey."

[Agnapostate]

Originally Posted by Vicman

Have you tried getting an editorial on this published in a major newspaper?

No; I don't have any relevant credentials or academic/organizational position, which they would probably demand. The topic is also so extensive as to be outside the scope of a newspaper op-ed, though I could probably try condensing it.

[tinman01]

Southern Poverty Law Center? No not at all biased or known for profiting from black pain. Officers of splc knock down 6 figure salaries and focus only on the right ignoring left wing hate groups.
Its a money making scam.

[Rockmadinejad]

Originally Posted by tinman01

Southern Poverty Law Center? No not at all biased or known for profiting from black pain. Officers of splc knock down 6 figure salaries and focus only on the right ignoring left wing hate groups.
Its a money making scam.

lol moneymaking scam? It's a nonprofit for Christ's sake.

[tinman01]

Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad

lol moneymaking scam? It's a nonprofit for Christ's sake.

6 figure salaries????????? The founder won what 56g for a victims mom racked in 9 million in donations and gave her how much????? NONE
But he makes 6 figures. Yeah obviously its all about the cause right.........
Hard to show a profit when the officers are making 6 figures. NON-profit means just that. They dont show a profit that doesnt mean they dont rack it in.
They are a biased flim flam scam. No better than any other scam group out there and no more reliable than any other hate group. They prey upon the weak and make a killing doing it.

[Rockmadinejad]

Originally Posted by tinman01

6 figure salaries????????? The founder won what 56g for a victims mom racked in 9 million in donations and gave her how much????? NONE
But he makes 6 figures. Yeah obviously its all about the cause right.........
Hard to show a profit when the officers are making 6 figures. NON-profit means just that. They dont show a profit that doesnt mean they dont rack it in.
They are a biased flim flam scam. No better than any other scam group out there and no more reliable than any other hate group. They prey upon the weak and make a killing doing it.

Most executives at nonprofits make huge sums of money. The average CEO pay at nonprofits is something enormous, like $300k+. That's because these people are highly competent and need to be dissuaded from sticking with for profit private sector work.