Are you objective?

quote:

---

How people see immigration depends upon whether they're members of the majority race in their country.

---

I have talked to literally thousands of blacks (I am not black btw), thousands of times, on all sorts of issues and I can assure you that they are many times more anti-immigration than whites. If you ask who is the most anti-immigration in the USA, then the answer isn't even close.Whites (as a whole) are the least nationalistic people in the world - especially in western-Europe. And I only wish blacks were anti-nationalist types in the USA because it would mean the U.S. could perhaps entertain the possibility of joining the E.U. But the numerical percentage of opposition (among U.S. voters) to such would make the issue absurd to even discuss.The 28 member countries of the EU should be proud of being the driving force of the greatest engine for peace, freedom, and prosperity that the world has ever seen. And I thank God that Germany held firm against the British wanting to end the EU constitutional right for citizens of member states to immigrate freely from one member-nation to the next free of paperwork, documents, and b.s. The Brits wanted to end the right of other peoples (especially Poles) to immigrate to Britain, and they were going to hold a vote on it. Germany told Britain that they would rather have the U.K. leave the EU rather than allow such a poisonous concession. Polls, in early 2015, still showed that a majority of British supported a referendum (however illegal it would have been) which only would allow Brits to remain in the EU if the "E.U. citizenship" rights were watered down to little more than a tired-old (warmed over nationalist)recipe for segregation and stagnation. (it must be said that Brits over 65 were the ones who were against the E.U., while younger Brits were in favor of staying)Thank God The Guardian and other fine publications warned the British public that the United Kingdom of Great Britain would suffer an economic depression of gargantuan proportions if they left the E.U. (a 15% GDP shrinkage almost immediately). The facts are that the citizenship rights of Poles have allowed Poland to see it's GDP go up like 500% over the past 10 years since the European Unions "Big Bang" expansion of May 1, 2004. Poland and Ukraine had the same per capita GDP in 2004, now Poles make $10,000 per person while non-E.U. Ukraine only sees a per person wage of $3000 per year. And the added income Poles have made have contributed to the British economy when Poles purchase goods from British production and British labor. Poles are moving fast ahead in innovations based around technology and research that their higher prosperity has been able to drive. A much more educated society that will benefit the entire world. The British public then turned against leaving the E.U. by mid 2015.As nationalism and it's racist borders vanish, so too does a great deal of worldwide poverty. (The Brits were able to wrestle some unfortunate concessions from EU member states. They got the EU constitution amended to allow "welfare reform" which enables Brits to refuse "welfare" to those miserable Eastern Europeans).I only wish blacks in the USA would see the light. Blacks complain endlessly about "China taking our jobs" and "those terrible trade deals" but China bought 26% of our exports in 2012. That is up from 5% (of our exports going to China) in 2000 before the trade deal with China. China has helped life the entire African economy up as they have used their increased national wealth ($1000 average Chinese annual income per person in 2000 up to $8000 today in China) to invest in the African continent. Now the virtuous cycle of higher wages in Africa is seeing growth trickle throughout all of African society.Increased immigration raises the average wage in the world just like increased trade does. Desegregate the world and lift up wages. Lift up wages and life up research budgets in health, science, and technology. Look at the Chinese example.Black African immigrants (to the USA) and American-born blacks H-A-T-E each other. Aside from South African black-immigrants, I can assure you that black African-immigrants consider whites less racist against them than (multi-generational) African-Americans are. I'm not proud of the growing anti-immigrant views among Americans but (multi-generational) blacks are the worst.Sorry for the peeve (not pet!) but this is a big one for the world to understand.

How about we worry about the 700,000 people who die every year from anti-biotic resistant bacteria? It is projected to go up to 10 million deaths per year in 2050(from anti-biotic resistant bacteria alone).Every time the media rants and raves over the gun issue (or terrorism), how about we all with one (rational) voice say "shut the hell up" and then change the subject to flesh-eating bacteria.10,000 homicides per year in the USA? Kindly ignore that one, then get to the real issues. What about the 700,000 per year (worldwide) that die from anti-biotic resistant bacteria? What about the 100,000 that die from medical mistakes in the U.S. alone?"Terrorism"? Only 3,790 people in North America died from terrorist attacks from 1968-2007. No objective, rational person should even care except that the media shoves the issue in our face not to report but to distort.What about real issues like brain-degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's and dementia. It costs us $200 billion per year today in the USA and will go up to $1 trillion per year in costs to the USA by 2050. And over half of that will be paid by (the much maligned)Medicare and Medicaid. Congress has been stuck at about $700 million (per year)in research funding for a long time and only finally are there talks of increasing the budget to around an even $1 billion per year. Why not spend $10 billion per year researching possible cures? It would pay for itself many times over. (nevermind the fact that people with Vitamin D levels over 50 compared to the average American's much-lower levels shows a 56% reduction in development of the disease provided they have consistent levels high enough long before the typical age of onset)I in 3 Americans (and 1 in 2 females) will get these brain degenerative diseases, so why isn't nutrition (like vitamin D levels, Omega-3 fatty acid levels, etc.) a constitutional right? Why aren't we discussing that one?Our media is selling an agenda and is not simply reporting on actual issues relevant to our lives.

quote:

---

How about we deal with that in a thread appropriate for doing so? Have you thought about how your argument undercuts any defensive reason for having a gun? Why worry about defending yourself from some hypothetical crook when the real problem is anti-biotic resistant bacteria?

---

If I live in a city (or a small town), then I worry about cancer, heart disease, and the 30,000 Americans who die in automobile crashes every year.I admit that I do worry about ferocious lightening striking me at times. (it happens but not too often)Can't say that I care who owns a gun and what they will do with it. (I do care that poor kids are disqualified/stigmatized for life from military jobs, prison guard jobs, trucking jobs, and yes gun rights simply because a greedy doctor diagnosed them with "bi-polar" or whatever. I am outraged by that stigmatization and think that all kids should have the constitutional right to have an ERASURE LAW which expunges their "mental records" from existence. Infact, I think every adult should have the right to have a mental-record erasure every January 1 of every year)

quote:

---

Hi, LamarkNewAge.
How do we tell if someone is being objective?

​

Person A peripherally mentions, in a neutral fashion, that race can influence political views.

​

Person B responds with a fairly long post subtitled "One issue I take with your comments," in which he expresses a position on which race takes the anti- stance, and uses that as a springboard to help express his opinions on other semi-related political topics.

​

This is probably a good sign that Person B is not being entirely objective with regards to the discussion at hand.

​

The second piece of evidence is that Person B is relying on personal anecdotes to support his argument.

​

-----

​

Everyone has biases that affect their views on certain topics. Objectivity means we can recognize our own biases and account for them when we report our conclusions.

---

You left something out when you said "Person A peripherally mentions, in a neutral fashion, that race can influence political views."He was specific about which "race". Not simply that "race can influence" views on immigration.That triggered my response.

I didn't look too hard but here are some things I found

quote:

---

Immigration

​

Fifty percent of whites and 44% of blacks say immigration levels should be decreased. That compares with just 32% of Hispanics. A plurality of Hispanics, 41%, say immigration should be kept at its present level.
Nearly three in four Hispanics (74%) say immigration is a good thing for the country today. This view is shared by 60% of whites and 55% of blacks.
While two in three blacks and nearly 8 in 10 whites believe the government should not make it easier for illegal immigrants to become U.S. citizens, 70% of Hispanics take the opposing view.

---

quote:

---

While it is sometimes assumed that minorities, particularly Hispanics, favor increased immigration and legalization for illegal immigrants, a new Zogby survey finds that minority voters’ views are more complex. The poll of Hispanic, Asian-American, and African-American likely voters finds some support for legalization. But overall each of these groups prefers enforcement and for illegal immigrants to return home. Moreover, significant majorities of all three groups think that the current level of immigration is too high. These views are in sharp contrast to the leaders of most ethnic advocacy organizations, who argue for increased immigration and legalization of illegal immigrants. The survey used neutral language, avoiding such terms as amnesty, illegal alien, or undocumented.

​

Among the findings:

​

In contrast to the leadership of many ethnic advocacy groups, most members of minority groups think immigration is too high.
Hispanics: 56 percent said it is too high; 7 percent said too low; 14 percent just right.

​

Asian-Americans: 57 percent said immigration is too high; 5 percent said too low; 18 percent just right.

​

African-Americans: 68 percent said it is too high; 4 percent said too low; 14 percent just right.

​

Most members of minority groups do not feel that illegal immigration is caused by limits on legal immigration as many ethnic advocacy groups argue; instead, members feel it’s due to a lack of enforcement.
Hispanics: Just 20 percent said illegal immigration was caused by not letting in enough legal immigrants; 61 percent said inadequate enforcement.

​

Asian-Americans: 19 percent said not enough legal immigration; 69 percent said inadequate enforcement.
African-Americans: 16 percent said not enough legal immigration; 70 percent said inadequate enforcement.

​

Most members of minority groups feel that there are plenty of Americans available to fill unskilled jobs.
Hispanics: 15 percent said legal immigration should be increased to fill unskilled jobs; 65 percent said there are plenty of Americans available to do unskilled jobs, employers just need to pay more.

​

Asian-Americans: 19 percent said increase immigration; 65 percent said plenty of Americans are available.

​

African-Americans: 6 percent said increase immigration; 81 percent said plenty of Americans are available.

​

When asked to choose between enforcement that would cause illegal immigrants in the country to go home or offering them a pathway to citizenship with conditions, most members of minority groups choose enforcement.
Hispanics: 52 percent support enforcement to encourage illegals to go home; 34 percent support conditional legalization.

​

Asian-Americans: 57 percent support enforcement; 29 percent support conditional legalization.

​

African-Americans: 50 percent support enforcement; 30 percent support conditional legalization.

​

Survey Methodology
Zogby International was commissioned by the Center for Immigration Studies to conduct an online survey. A sampling of Zogby International’s online panel, which is representative of the adult population of the United States, was invited to participate. Zogby maintains the panel and has used it for other surveys. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, gender, and education to more accurately reflect the U.S. population. The survey included roughly 700 Hispanic, 400 African-American, and 400 Asian-American likely voters.

​

The survey was conducted by Zogby from November 13 to 30, 2009. The margin of error for likely voters is +/- 0.5 percent. The margin of error for Hispanic likely voters is 3.7 percent; for African-Americans it is 4.7 percent; and for Asian-Americans voters it is 5.1 percent.
An Examination of Minority Voters’ Views on Immigration

---

At least one of these might be outdated. The Gallup poll does show that fewer blacks think immigration is good for the country than whites. I don't see race having a large amount to do with things, according to the polls. I know from personal conversations that blacks are very anti-immigration. Perhaps they are being missed in polls. I don't know.

People are put into a box on issues they don't want to be bothered with like the gun issue. Gun control isn't just some benign issue that it's supporters make it out to be (and they often do so while calling those they disagree with "rednecks" or something like it).I do think a little perspective is needed on the gun issue. Especially when people are pin-holed as "irrational" or members of the non-objective community.

But it was the OP who made a comment that strongly suggested that whites were the ones who opposed immigration, while non-whites supported it.Honestly, I bet most blacks reading this thread wouldn't disagree with me saying that they oppose immigration. It has to be one of the top issues in the black community. I could give you examples of black people I talked to in the last few days (and specific details). Just go and talk to any black males you see (the males are very friendly and won't shut you up if you talk about serious issues) on the street lol.Heck I just loaned a book to one I work with (and live near). I wasn't even slightly shocked when he sharply disagreed with me when I expressed pro-immigration views. He started telling me that immigration is a part of a "white plot" to make blacks suffer or something like that. Most blacks wouldn't disagree at all with my description (as long as I don't call anti-immigration views "racist").I admit that polls make it sound like over 50% of blacks are pro-immigration but that can't be true (I'd like to see how many agree with Trump on immigration. I bet most would agree). I admit that the polls contradict much of what I say, but they sure don't back up the OP.

Section 8: Values About Immigration and Race | Pew Research Center

quote:

---

Blacks view newcomers to the United States as more of a threat to American values (61%) than do whites (48%), while very few Hispanics (29%) express this view.

---

I attempted to past this chart here but it wont paste
6-4-12 V #92a | Pew Research Center

quote:

---

It was one example pertaining to the wider topic of objectivity. You seem to have some sort of agenda going on in your responses that has caused you to seize on something that you think allows you to bring your particular bugbear to the fore.
Do you actually have anything to say on the subject of objectivity? Or not?

---

I made 1 post on the racial views on immigration OP comment.I didn't expect people to argue with me (perhaps I should have).The OP used three examples in the OP and this racial view on immigration issue was 1 out of 3 (33.33%).People have been arguing with me ever since. Now you say I shouldn't even respond at all to the OP on the issue?And I think the issue of what people choose to cover (or conversely what not to cover) is an issue of objectivity and bias.Thank you very much.

I think I might know how to respond to you on the specific issue. Let me check back later. I have other threads to read for now.(if the OP was only offering the 3 examples as an aside, then I hope I didn't disrupt any of the "real topic" discussion)Carry on folks.

I don't have it presently, but he had a very interesting chapter on Global Warming. Here is the Guy Harrison book 50 Popular Beliefs That People Think are True.50 Popular Beliefs That People Think Are True - Guy P. Harrison - Google BooksThe Global Warming chapter showed polling that about 80% of Democrats accept it and 75% of Republicans doubt it. However he noticed that the respective (self-identified) party members only took the position because it was a partisan political-party issue, NOT because of scientific evidence. He was critical of all sides for turning it into a Red/Blue political issue which ensured a wedge right down the middle of our nation when the issue shouldn't be so polarizing.I agree with him. Like, Harrison, I think the scientific evidence is very clear in support of man-made global warming. But I also can't stand the tone of most global-warming supporters. They seem to be angry if anybody even asks questions and quickly ridicule people. I appreciate all the discussion that right-wing radio brings to the climate issue, and it gives a rare opportunity for science to be a topic brought to tens of millions of radio listeners. If the supporters of mainstream scientific evidence would just be polite and non-political, then much education would be possible.I accept global warming but I respect people asking questions about just how much man contributes to the issue. I also respect those who say that the economics of controlling fossil fuel emissions might be worse than doing nothing. The human cost to increasing energy prices can hurt human progress in many areas-including scientific research. The path to more efficient fuel cells requires energy-sucking computer simulations (especially at the Exaflop level). How quickly one advances technologically depends on how fast economic growth is. A robust world-economy fuels much higher research and development budgets.I was listening to C-SPAN after Obama announced tough new regulations for the power plants everybody currently uses. Callers called in and said that while they accept global warming (so many callers had to put in a disclaimer "I accept global warming" so they wouldn't be called morons or idiots), "we have to work with the technology we have now," "we can't afford solar panels," "these regulations on existing power-plants really will hurt poor people," etc.Those who make fun of those asking tough questions about the global warming issue need to respect the full spectrum of concerns and issues at play. Strawman "responses" and arguments are far too common. I'm not saying anybody at EvC does this, but it does happen a lot.And lets understand that every side ("left" or "right") is full of lemmings who just follow their leader(s). Everybody (in every place) engages in group think. People rarely think for themselves and are quick to use issues as a political football.

quote:

---

He was just using it as an example of a divisive topic where people can lose their objectivity. I don't think it was said as an invitation to discuss it at length.

---

Fine but his example was based on a faulty premise. I'm sure he could have reworded it so that the words matched what his logic was trying to indicate.I'm reminded on a 2003 Smithsonian article I read about how the 1840s and 1850s immigrants (like Irish) considered the c. 1900s immigrants (like Italians) "invaders" because they (Irish) got here first. You don't have to be the majority group to feel "invaded". You don't even have to be here very long.People were arguing with me about blacks being the most anti-immigrant racial group, but my Pew linked study settled that one. I am amazed people picked a fight with me on that one. Blacks have long been known to have strong anti-immigrant feelings.

quote:

---

Percy
How people see immigration depends upon whether they're members of the majority race in their country.
Genomicus
Percy did not specify HOW members of the majority see immigration, only that it's a factor in shaping their convictions on that matter. There is a large body of evidence that the majority race tends to see immigration in a different light than those who are minority races. Percy's statement is wholly correct.

​

That's another thing about being objective: actually examining what is said instead of what you think was said or meant

---

All "races" don't poll exactly the same. There are at least slight variations. 61% of blacks says immigration and immigrants are a threat to traditional American values. 34% do not. Whites are split about 48% on both sides. Around 71% of Hispanics say the immigrants are not a "threat" to traditional American values.Why is the most balanced group presented as some sort of dichotomy between everybody else in the OP (and by you)? I want 100% of whites to feel no "threat" mind you, but whites look like a "balanced" group and thus don't have exceptional views. Pretty much exactly in-line with the overall national feeling.

quote:

---

c. 59% of whites believe that undocumented immigrants should be required to "go back to where they came from," as opposed to 47% of blacks.

---

This question (from 2006 btw) is not specific as to HOW to make them go back. (remember the "self-deportation" stumbling block Romney had to deal with) When it comes to deportation, the response is different. Ted Cruz is going to have trouble explaining how he is against "amnesty" when he seems to be against forced-deportation.Also, it is well known that blacks don't always tell pollsters the truth when asked about immigration. Here is an article that references my (much more recent) Pew Poll (the one you slammed as "You're picking and choosing what data to present the EvC audience.")

quote:

---

POLLS DONT CAPTURE BLACKS INTENSE DEBATE OVER IMMIGRATION
Posted by imd on Aug 23, 2013 in Hispanic

​

By Earl Ofari Hutchinson, New America Media

​

Though many African Americans have told pollsters they support the struggles of undocumented immigrants, others are protesting for stricter enforcement of immigration laws.

​

LOS ANGELES—Two things happened within a day of each other this month that rammed race back into the debate over illegal immigration. A Field Poll in California found that blacks by a bigger percentage than whites, and even American-born Latinos, back liberal immigration reform measures. The very next day, a spirited group of black activists marched in front of the Los Angeles office of popular and outspoken black California House Democrat Maxine Waters, protesting her firm support of citizenship for illegal immigrants.

​

The protesters claimed that the overwhelming majority of blacks oppose illegal immigration. They denounced black leaders such as Waters, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for allegedly selling out black interests by backing immigration reform. The Field Poll findings and the flap between Waters and the black anti-immigration protesters is another painful example of the deep fissure that the illegal immigration debate has opened among blacks.

​

The Field Poll is accurate, but only up to a point. The majority of blacks instinctively pull for the underdog, especially if the underdog is poor and non-white. The majority of illegal immigrants fit that bill, and much more. Many come from countries plagued by civil war and economic destitution. They work jobs that pay scant wages with minimal or non-existent labor protections. Blacks suffered decades of Jim Crow segregation, violence and poverty. Many liken the marches, rallies and political lobbying by immigrant rights groups to the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Then there’s the faint but fond memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Poor Peoples Campaign in 1968. The aim was to unite blacks, Latinos, American Indians, and poor whites in a campaign for economic justice. Against the opposition of some civil rights activists, King actively courted Latino leaders.

​

Blacks also cringe at the thought that they could be perceived as racial bigots. When pollsters ask blacks their opinions on issues that deal with civil rights and racial justice, they reflexively give the response that will cast them in the most favorable racial light on these issues. Yet, like many whites, a significant number of blacks privately express doubts, even animosity, toward illegal immigrants.

​

The month before the results of the Field Poll were announced, a poll by the Pew Research Center found that many blacks were hostile toward illegal immigrants. The sore point with them was jobs. They blamed illegal immigrants for worsening the dire plight of young, poor African-American males. Recent studies by researchers at Harvard, Columbia, and Princeton, and the Urban League’s annual State of Black America report confirm that black males suffer a jobless rate double and triple that of white males in some urban areas. Their unemployment numbers are also substantially higher than those of Latino males. Some economists and employment studies finger illegal immigration as a big cause of the economic slippage of low and marginally skilled young black males. There is some evidence that the poorest and least skilled blacks have lost jobs to illegal immigrants.

​

But that job loss is not unique to blacks. Unskilled workers of all ethnic groups, including white unskilled workers, lose jobs as the number of unskilled laborers increases regardless of whether those in the expanding pool of unskilled workers are illegal immigrants or native-born.

​

Even if illegal immigration has little or no adverse economic impact on the urban poor, many fervently believe that it does. When an issue stirs intense passions and fears, belief can trump reality. That’s plainly evident in the blistering comments that many blacks have made on black talk radio shows in recent weeks slamming illegal immigrants. Some even implore blacks not to join immigrant rights protests. Many of them cite the remark that Mexican President Vicente Fox made last May in a speech in the seacoast town of Puerto Vallarta. Fox praised Mexicans for their dignity and work ethic, and their willingness to work the hardest, and dirtiest jobs in the United States. But he then added that they worked jobs that not even blacks want to do. This impolitic gaffe at best was insensitive, at worst racially demeaning. Many blacks were furious at Fox and took the remark as evidence that Mexicans disdained blacks.

​

While civil rights leaders and black Democrats now firmly support illegal immigrants’ rights, for a long time they were mute on the issue. The Congressional Black Caucus opposed the Sensenbrenner bill in the House last December. But it made little effort to expose the punitive and draconian provisions of the bill, let alone inform and engage blacks on how illegal immigration impacts their interests. This sowed more doubt and confusion about illegal immigration among blacks.

​

Still, the Field Poll and the demonstration at Congresswoman Waters’ office had one thing in common. It put black leaders squarely on the same spot as the rest of the nation on illegal immigration: Deal with it!

​

......

​

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a contributor to New America Media and has a weekly online news and information service, The Hutchinson Report,The Published Reporter – National News & Published Reports. A nationally syndicated columnist, he is president of the National Alliance For Positive Action and author of The Disappearance of Black Leadership.
Polls Don’t Capture Blacks’ Intense Debate Over Immigration – IMDiversity

---

quote:

---

LNA
This question (from 2006 btw) is not specific as to HOW to make them go back.

​

Genomicus
You're moving the goalposts. We're not discussing only issues about HOW undocumented immigrants should go back (of course, any ethical person wouldn't adapt this viewpoint in the first place, but I digress). We're discussing the broad topic of black and African-American attitudes towards immigration, which you called Percy out on despite the fact that OP made no errors in making the statement about majority race.

---

Whites have views in-line with the overall national public-opinion. The OP indicated otherwise.

quote:

---

LNA
When it comes to deportation, the response is different.

​

Genomicus
My point exactly. We're discussing the broad spectrum of racial views on immigration, while you were just picking and choosing select data.

---

Then why was my quote from Pew and just a few years ago while you had to use one from 2006?

quote:

---

LNA
Also, it is well known that blacks don't always tell pollsters the truth when asked about immigration.
Genomicus
I'd like to see rigorous peer-reviewed literature on that which includes sample size, margin errors, and statistical significance of results. You're not presenting exactly robust evidence that can be assessed for its empirical/numerical validity.

​

You also didn't respond to #2, which explains exactly why Percy's focus on majority race is highly relevant.

---

Percy admitted that he was thinking of certain whites as anti-immigrant types when he rush-typed the comment in (something you constantly deny).Pew found that blacks by a 27% spread consider immigrants a threat to traditional American values while whites had virtually no spread one way or another. Only 34% of blacks said they weren't a threat. That seems more in-line with the general idea the OP had when he typed his brief example of peoples views (except he indicated whites were the ones who perhaps held these types of views more than non-whites).