Summations Only

Since the right wingers here wish to deny the presence of substantial racism within modern conservatism - and since it is off-topic on the thread where the issue was raised - it seems worth creating a new thread for the issue.I’ll begin with Laura Ingraham and her “demographic changes”. Ingraham is not explicit about the demographic changes she means - itself a red flag. Why not be clear about what you are objecting to ? But it isn’t hard to work out.Ingraham’s presentation appeared on Fox News, undoubtedly a conservative source.These demographic changes “which none of us ever voted for, and most of us don’t like” are strongly related to immigration. She claims that “In some parts of the country it does seem like the America we know and love doesn’t exist anymore,”But what does she mean and what alternative was there to “foisting” these changes on the American people? Demographic changes are not generally under any string controls, being the outcome of many individual decisions.Given the focus on illegal immigration and Trump’s wall - illustrated by video of people scaling walls or slipping under fences - it seems quite clear to me that she thinks that there are far too many Latinos in the country. And that is racism. And if she doesn’t mean that then why doesn’t she say what “massive demographic changes” she did mean ?And I would like to see what she would have had the government do about it. The whole idea of controlling the numbers of any ethnic group seems to be racist in itself. Even racial quotas on immigration would be bad enough, and probably inadequate. Washington Times

Thread copied here from the Conservative Racism thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

In fairness I will look at Laura Ingraham’s defence. However, I cannot give her the benefit of the doubt on this. There is no doubt that she was intentionally vague and if she wasn’t willing to explicitly say what she meant then, there is no reason to think that she would admit to the truth.She claims that she was talking about “a shared sense of keeping America safe and her citizens safe and prosperous”. However that is certainly not a demographic change, nor does it offer any illumination on the demographic changes she meant. The fact that she followed up with more scaremongering about illegal immigrants reinforces the idea that it was all about race after all. Washington Times

Unless you are descended from one of the indigenous American peoples, this argument doesn't hold much weight. We are a nation of immigrants, including Ingraham. She might as well argue against Father Time because she didn't get to vote on the 1950's going away.Edit, just for good measure: Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Trump has, no doubt whatsoever, caused increasingly higher numbers of Democrats to see their own - previously held - views as racist, while they won't admit how much they held (or secretly hold) the views.

quote:

---

EDITOR'S NOTE - MAY 1, 2019

​

Editor’s Note: Immigration Has Upended Our Opinions

​

Conservative writer David Frum has stirred a hornet’s nest on the issue of immigration, and since that’s a topic that sharply divides Americans, I think it is worthwhile to dive in and provide local perspective.

​

Frum’s article in the April issue of The Atlantic - “How Much Immigration is Too Much?” - is not about The Wall. That’s because he rightly points out a barrier along the Mexican border will not change the essence of America’s immigration system. Almost all new immigrants arrive legally, or they come legally as tourists or students and then remain illegally, or they come to border crossings as asylum seekers. A wall stops none of that and it certainly has little direct effect on Hawaii’s immigrant situation.

​

....

​

Trump has skewed the traditional Democratic and Republican positions on immigration. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were both big advocates of immigration. Back in 2015, when Trump was largely considered a joke candidate, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders expressed what had once been a common Democratic concern with immigration: “What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. . I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country.”

​

Editor's Note: Immigration Has Upended Our Opinions - Hawaii Business Magazine

---

I am sorry to see that Frum seems to be anti-immigration. I always thought he was pro-immigration. I just discovered his (new) position as I read this article (I have yet to read his own, but will try, if the computer loads).But, to the issue of "right" and "left".Democrats seem to be moving away from their anti-immigration past, but I wonder just how much of the pro-immigration momentum will continue when a few things chance. The first question is whether Democrats will feel so strongly about immigrant's suffering when Trump is no longer around to remind them of it (due to his mouth and style, which encourages media coverage of previously obscure border patrol/detention issues). The second issue has to do with the concern for migrant rights when the unemployment is higher than the current situation of a business cycle peak.I hope that the always-increasing percentage of minorities in the total Democratic membership might somehow lock in a pro-immigration Democratic party ("Democrat" registered minorities tend to be made up of the more pro-immigration members of the communities) , but that might not make the issue so simple if the overall country (both whites and minorities) feels strongly hurt by immigrants.Trump has made things simple (on immigration)G. W. Bush made things simple (on war).The big question is what Democrats do after the "simple" ones leave.Will they do a 180?

So now opposing open borders is racist?

Since nobody is proposing open borders, opposing open borders is pointless.

There's a difference between racism and immigration barriers.There are plenty of open borders types in rich liberal enclaves who favor restrictive zoning to keep people of color out of their neighborhoods (except to clean their pools and diaper their babies!)The New Republic

The "sanctuary city" people sound quite borderless.

That sort of racism is illegal and should be quashed, if it is as your source claims. But that's not evidence that anyone wants open borders; quite the opposite. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Opposing legal immigration because they have the wrong skin color is the problem. Ingraham is complaining about a changing demographic, not illegal immigration.

That's not it at all. They are prioritizing limited resources and and the safety of the local community.If people are afraid of being arrested for illegal immigration then they won't come forward as witnesses to other crimes. Also, it would require major resources from very limited local law enforcement when there is already a well funded federal agency that is already tasked with arresting illegal immigrants.

What makes you think that? Sanctuary cities are legal and (many think) moral. Maybe illegal immigrants are encouraged by their existence. I have not seen any evidence people in sanctuary cities want open borders.

quote:

---

So now opposing open borders is racist?

---

Who said anything about “open borders” ? What she is opposing is changes in the racial mix, reducing the proportion of Whites. And I am pretty sure that she would do so even if immigration was not a factor at all.

All of that is quite true. Nevertheless, they do seem a bit lax in their attitudes towards the lines on the map, no?