Hispanic immigrants seem like they would be a great ally to the GOP “values.” Hispanics tend to be conservative Christians (high rates of Catholicism); ascribe to strict gender roles in terms of masculinity and femininity and the roles each should play; tend to value hard work; share similar views on homosexuality within their culture. Interestingly, Asian immigration is the fastest growing group of immigrants in the U.S., yet Asian immigration receives little to no discussion that I hear and Asian immigration does not seem to be an issue for the GOP. However, Asian demographics are more likely to be atheist and certainly not adhering to western religions and GOP values.
You can have a listen here to an NPR discussion on how we’re lead to think Hispanic immigration seems to be focused on more despite not being the fastest growing group of immigrants in the U.S. : America's Immigration Rhetoric Out Of Touch With The Numbers : NPR
Thoughts?
I’ve always disliked the republican concept of “natural conservatives” because it is dishonest, and inevitably self destructive. Hispanics are not really that conservative] and republicans aren’t really that conservative because they’re so eager to accept them.
The fact that Asian immigration is bigger than Hispanic immigration is news to me, but I’m sure the GOP will pathetically try to accommodate them - with hilarious results.
Thank Bog for Trump!
Why is racism in the title?
Did everyone see that Switzerland has practically blocked all refugees?
Are they all racists? Or are they just making practical decisions about their country’s progress?
Why is racism in the title? Did everyone see that Switzerland has practically blocked all refugees? Are they all racists? Or are they just making practical decisions about their country's progress?I didn't fully develop my thoughts. I suppose because Hispanics are the main focus of the GOP (at least prior to the recent Muslim focus) even when there is other groups of immigrants that have surpassed the Hispanics in terms of current growth. If it's strictly about following consistent immigration laws, we should be hearing of Asians too.
Why is racism in the title? Did everyone see that Switzerland has practically blocked all refugees? Are they all racists? Or are they just making practical decisions about their country's progress?I didn't fully develop my thoughts. I suppose because Hispanics are the main focus of the GOP (at least prior to the recent Muslim focus) even when there is other groups of immigrants that have surpassed the Hispanics in terms of current growth. If it's strictly about following consistent immigration laws, we should be hearing of Asians too. A couple of things. "Surpassing in growth" doesn't correlate in "total number" in the USA. Just because they are the fastest growing segment doesn't mean they are the most numerous. Hispanics make up about 17% Asians make up about 5% of the US Pop. Also only 12% of Illegal Immigrants in the US are Asian. So it seems that most Asians come here legally. And god bless 'em. That's why we have laws and systems in place. It's great when people make the system work for themselves. :-)
Why is racism in the title? Did everyone see that Switzerland has practically blocked all refugees? Are they all racists? Or are they just making practical decisions about their country's progress?Saudi Arabia won't take in any refugees, either, even Muslims like themselves. Are they racists? If not. How would you characterize their refusal? Lois
Why is racism in the title? Did everyone see that Switzerland has practically blocked all refugees? Are they all racists? Or are they just making practical decisions about their country's progress?Saudi Arabia won't take in any refugees, either, even Muslims like themselves. Are they racists? If not. How would you characterize their refusal? Lois Each country has their own dynamics. That's a good question Lois. But they are exercising their sovereign right in any case. These Syrian refugees are a special case anyways. They are window shopping for the best refuge that suits them. I'm sure they don't want to go to Saudi Arabia. No these refugees cross several nation's borders until they get to where they want to go. Kind of re-writes the whole concept of refugees doesn't it?
Why is racism in the title? Did everyone see that Switzerland has practically blocked all refugees? Are they all racists? Or are they just making practical decisions about their country's progress?Saudi Arabia won't take in any refugees, either, even Muslims like themselves. Are they racists? If not. How would you characterize their refusal? Lois Each country has their own dynamics. That's a good question Lois. But they are exercising their sovereign right in any case. These Syrian refugees are a special case anyways. They are window shopping for the best refuge that suits them. I'm sure they don't want to go to Saudi Arabia. No these refugees cross several nation's borders until they get to where they want to go. Kind of re-writes the whole concept of refugees doesn't it? Not really. Going to Saudi Arabia with its Wahhabis' would be like taking refuge from the fire, by hopping in to the frying pan. (But the Saudis should be contributing LOTS of money to support the countries that are taking in refugees.) In regards to racism, I would say that tribalism and racism, have a lot of the same underlying dynamics. Nationalism, as well, although it is a step up the food chain, IMO, in terms of sophistication.
Not really. Going to Saudi Arabia with its Wahhabis' would be like taking refuge from the fire, by hopping in to the frying pan. (But the Saudis should be contributing LOTS of money to support the countries that are taking in refugees.) In regards to racism, I would say that tribalism and racism, have a lot of the same underlying dynamics. Nationalism, as well, although it is a step up the food chain, IMO, in terms of sophistication.That's why I said the refugees don't want to go there Tim. And no, Nationalism has nothing in common with racism. The US is a perfect example of this. Obtuse! How obtuse!
Not really. Going to Saudi Arabia with its Wahhabis' would be like taking refuge from the fire, by hopping in to the frying pan. (But the Saudis should be contributing LOTS of money to support the countries that are taking in refugees.) In regards to racism, I would say that tribalism and racism, have a lot of the same underlying dynamics. Nationalism, as well, although it is a step up the food chain, IMO, in terms of sophistication.That's why I said the refugees don't want to go there Tim. And no, Nationalism has nothing in common with racism. The US is a perfect example of this. Obtuse! How obtuse! You basically said that the refugees are choosing from a buffet of countries that will take them. As if they would not have preferred to stay in their own country, if not for the inconvenience of constant death and destruction. And hey, "obtuse" all you want. It is a side issue, not particularly worthy of debate, but I think that there ARE some common underlying elements in Nationalism and racism.
You basically said that the refugees are choosing from a buffet of countries that will take them. As if they would not have preferred to stay in their own country, if not for the inconvenience of constant death and destruction.That's what they are doing. And plenty of countries are blocking them. I'm just reporting the facts.
And hey, "obtuse" all you want. It is a side issue, not particularly worthy of debate, but I think that there ARE some common underlying elements in Nationalism and racism.What would those common elements be? Couldn't you have scribbled a couple of quick bullet points...kind of speed up this process a little. The common elements? What?
Why is racism in the title? Did everyone see that Switzerland has practically blocked all refugees? Are they all racists? Or are they just making practical decisions about their country's progress?Saudi Arabia won't take in any refugees, either, even Muslims like themselves. Are they racists? If not. How would you characterize their refusal? Lois Each country has their own dynamics. That's a good question Lois. But they are exercising their sovereign right in any case. These Syrian refugees are a special case anyways. They are window shopping for the best refuge that suits them. I'm sure they don't want to go to Saudi Arabia. No these refugees cross several nation's borders until they get to where they want to go. Kind of re-writes the whole concept of refugees doesn't it? Maybe, but people try to improve their lot even when they're refugees. They're homeless, separated from their families and social structure, without jobs, with no money. They understandably don't want to go from the frying pan into the fire if they can help it. You wouldn't either. Suppose it were you? Wouldn't you try your best for a better refuge if you could--better opportunities for your kids? They obviously aren't looking for luxury, they're hoping for a chance. Of course, I think they'd improve their chances if they'd give up Islam, but I suspect they can't do that for many reasons, at least not now when the chips are down. Would you want to be stuck in a miserable refugee camp where there is no future when there is a chance that if you go further you might have a better llfe? It's human nature to want to improve their lot, especially when they're starting with zero. The answers are not nearly as obvious as you might be thinking. Lois
Why is racism in the title? Did everyone see that Switzerland has practically blocked all refugees? Are they all racists? Or are they just making practical decisions about their country's progress?Saudi Arabia won't take in any refugees, either, even Muslims like themselves. Are they racists? If not. How would you characterize their refusal? Lois Each country has their own dynamics. That's a good question Lois. But they are exercising their sovereign right in any case. These Syrian refugees are a special case anyways. They are window shopping for the best refuge that suits them. I'm sure they don't want to go to Saudi Arabia. No these refugees cross several nation's borders until they get to where they want to go. Kind of re-writes the whole concept of refugees doesn't it? Not really. Going to Saudi Arabia with its Wahhabis' would be like taking refuge from the fire, by hopping in to the frying pan. But as far as I can see, it isn't the refugees refusing to go to Saudi Arabia--it's Saudi Arabia refusing to take any in. Few may want to go there, but the most desperate ones would probably go there if they could. I doubt that the reason Saudi Arabia is refusing to take refugees Is because they think the refugees would hopping into the frying pan. I doubt the Saudis have that much compassion or understanding. The Saudi royal family just don't want to deal with refugees--it's as simple as that. (But the Saudis should be contributing LOTS of money to support the countries that are taking in refugees.) Yes, they should but probably won't. Saudis are not known for their compassion or sense of responsibility. In regards to racism, I would say that tribalism and racism, have a lot of the same underlying dynamics. Nationalism, as well, although it is a step up the food chain, IMO, in terms of sophistication. Islamic peoples, regardless of their tribalsim or nationalism, are extremely backward people. Maybe they need to be forced out of their own dark ages, where they are inextricably and deliberately stuck--to their detriment.
Islamic peoples, regardless of their tribalsim or nationalism, are extremely backward people. Maybe they need to be forced out of their own dark ages, where they are inextricably and deliberately stuck--to their detriment.Lois, that is so incredibly racist. Explain how Indonesia fits with that statement] Here's their population: Muslim 87.2%, Christian 7%, Roman Catholic 2.9%, Hindu 1.7%, other 0.9% (includes Buddhist and Confucian), unspecified 0.4% (2010 est.)
You basically said that the refugees are choosing from a buffet of countries that will take them. As if they would not have preferred to stay in their own country, if not for the inconvenience of constant death and destruction.That's what they are doing. And plenty of countries are blocking them. I'm just reporting the facts. OK, Here's what you actually said: "...They are window shopping for the best refuge that suits them. I’m sure they don’t want to go to Saudi Arabia. No these refugees cross several nation’s borders until they get to where they want to go. Kind of re-writes the whole concept of refugees doesn’t it?" "...Re-writes the whole concept of refugees doesn't it?" No. It does not re-write the whole concept of refugees. They are seeking refuge from war, imminent death, massive destruction, possible starvation, and prospects of horrible persecution. That is pretty traditional, if you ask me, as far as the concept of "refugees" goes.
... It is a side issue, not particularly worthy of debate, but I think that there ARE some common underlying elements in Nationalism and racism.What would those common elements be? Couldn't you have scribbled a couple of quick bullet points...kind of speed up this process a little. The common elements? What? I'm starting to think that you are desperately seeking some minor point, in which you think you might have an argumentative edge. Is that it? Do you just want to argue? Out of respect to you, I will assume not. Okay. 1st off, I have to point out that I did NOT say that Nationalism and Racism are the same thing (lest you accuse me of doing so). Here's your couple of bullet points re: common underlying elements: * In both cases, there is an identification of the "other group/s". * In both cases, there is a sense of my group is "better than" the other group/s. Also, I should point out, that I did not say that Nationalism should be viewed as pejoratively as Racism, in case you may have inferred that.
Islamic peoples, regardless of their tribalsim or nationalism, are extremely backward people. Maybe they need to be forced out of their own dark ages, where they are inextricably and deliberately stuck--to their detriment.Force them out of their own dark ages? How would you propose doing that?
Out of respect to you, I will assume not. Okay. 1st off, I have to point out that I did NOT say that Nationalism and Racism are the same thing (lest you accuse me of doing so). Here's your couple of bullet points re: common underlying elements: * In both cases, there is an identification of the "other group/s". * In both cases, there is a sense of my group is "better than" the other group/s. Also, I should point out, that I did not say that Nationalism should be viewed as pejoratively as Racism, in case you may have inferred that.That's fine. I think it should be easy to detect that I am a nationalist. That's no surprise. I am not however a racist. It is possible to have a Japanese, a Black, and a WASP American and they can all be Nationalists. Your examples above are stretching it. They have a word for racism..it's racism. They have a word for Nationalism..it's Nationalism. If I'll concede anything it's that those terms may have been slightly interchangeable 100 years ago when nation's racial populations were more homogenized. We aren't living 100 years ago now. That don't get it today. "Our Group" can be composed(and IS)of several different races. And as is evident, populations can be nationalist and still take part in the Globalization of various schemes.
Islamic peoples, regardless of their tribalsim or nationalism, are extremely backward people. Maybe they need to be forced out of their own dark ages, where they are inextricably and deliberately stuck--to their detriment.Force them out of their own dark ages? How would you propose doing that? I will be absolutely shocked if Lois comes up with any coherent answer to that. She has no clue how she came to be so lucky to live in a peaceful and progressive society.
Islamic peoples, regardless of their tribalsim or nationalism, are extremely backward people. Maybe they need to be forced out of their own dark ages, where they are inextricably and deliberately stuck--to their detriment.Lois, that is so incredibly racist. Explain how Indonesia fits with that statement] Here's their population: Muslim 87.2%, Christian 7%, Roman Catholic 2.9%, Hindu 1.7%, other 0.9% (includes Buddhist and Confucian), unspecified 0.4% (2010 est.) I was not saying there are no exceptions. For every rule there is an exception--but the vast majority of Muslims, especially those living in countries with extreme Muslim governments, are indeed backward. It is inevitable. The people have been cut off from advancing cultures and new ideas.. The less extreme the government, the more likely the people will advance, as we've seen. They will have more contact with the rest of the world. Most Turks are also not backward and the reason as i see it, is that they have had secular governments and free exposure to other religions and cultures. They have been allowed to grow and become less primitive and less wedded to the worst aspects of their religion. And, yes, there are extremists in secular states. As I said, here are always exceptions to every rule, but extremists are in the minority in open societies. There is nothing racist in what I said. The backwardness of Islam is not the fault of the people--they have been kept from contact with advancing cultures and they've been forced to toe the line of their own religion through fear, indoctrination and intimidation--a recipe for backwardness and primitive thinking. Are you really saying that you think Islam today is not a backward culture? No, I didn't say Muslims are naturally backward--that would be a racist position. They are backward because they have been cut off from modernizing cultures and modern thinking through no fault of their own. But moving to a more modern culture will not change them overnight. Their psyches have been seriously damaged and they need time to heal and learn new ways of thinking. Lois