0
   

Trump's Immigration Policy and White Extinction Anxiety

 
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Jun, 2018 05:47 pm
Regarding today's Supreme Court ruling on Trump's Muslim travel ban...
Quote:
So what can be said in this moment? Perhaps this — that Mr. Trump’s travel ban is of a piece with the man himself. We may not be able to look into the president’s soul, but we can look at his words and actions over the last half century:

Mr. Trump and his father settled a lawsuit brought against them by the Justice Department for refusing to rent apartments to black people in the 1970s.

He bought a full-page ad in this newspaper and others calling for the death penalty for five young black and Latino men who were convicted of raping a white woman in Central Park in 1989, and refused to admit error even after the men were proved innocent and set free years later.

He demanded the nation’s first black president provide documentary proof he was born in the United States.

He gleefully repeated on the campaign trail, and at rallies after becoming president, a fake story about an American military general slaughtering Muslims with bullets dipped in pigs’ blood.

He defended a march in Charlottesville, Va., led by neo-Nazis and white supremacists in support of a statue of the Confederate general Robert E. Lee, saying that the march also included “very fine people.”

White racial fear has always been at the core of Mr. Trump’s worldview. What’s so dangerous about Tuesday’s ruling is that the Supreme Court has now implicitly blessed his use of this strategy as a political organizing tool and as a governing philosophy....

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/opinion/trump-travel-ban-supreme-court.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Jun, 2018 06:53 am
I found this to be an informative article about some of the people living through the racial/cultural/ethnic shifts that generate the anxiety that contributes to Trump's support and his immigration policies.

As America Changes, Some Anxious Whites Feel Left Behind
Demographic shifts rippling across the nation are fueling fears that their culture and standing are under threat.

By Michele Norris

Even after the coal mines closed and the factory jobs disappeared and the businesses began taking down their signs on Broad Street, even after the population started its steady decline and the hospital was on the brink of bankruptcy, the residents of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, flocked downtown for the annual Funfest.

For years Sally Yale participated in the fall parade in a souped-up teacup salvaged from a spinning ride at the shuttered amusement park. Tricked out with smoking dry ice, it was the perfect advertisement for her gourmet coffee shop.

Yale is 53, but her angular face lights up like a child’s when she talks about Funfest. The applause from the crowd. The Hazletonians who returned for the celebration. “And the food,” Yale says, lifting her brows and rolling her eyes to mimic pure bliss. The cannoli and pierogi, the sausages and funnel cakes—treats that represented the waves of European immigrants that had settled in Hazleton’s rolling hills.

Then it all changed. Funfest, in Sally Yale’s eyes, became too scary. Too uncomfortable. To be honest … too brown. “You just know if you go to a public event, you know you are going to be outnumbered,” Yale says. “You know you’re going to be the minority, and do you want to go?”

For Yale, the answer was no.

Outnumbered is a word that came up often when I talked with white residents of this eastern Pennsylvania town. Outnumbered in the waiting room at the doctor’s office. Outnumbered at the bank. Outnumbered at the Kmart, where the cashier merrily chitchats in Spanish with Hazleton’s newer residents.

Hazleton was another former coal mining town slipping into decline until a wave of Latinos arrived. It would not be an overstatement to say a tidal wave. In 2000 Hazleton’s 23,399 residents were 95 percent non-Hispanic white and less than 5 percent Latino. By 2016 Latinos became the majority, composing 52 percent of the population, while the white share plunged to 44 percent.

“We joke about it and say we are in the minority now,” says Bob Sacco, a bartender at A&L Lounge, a tavern on a street now mainly filled with Latino-owned storefronts. “They took over the city. We joke about it all the time, but it’s more than a joke.”

That dizzying shift is an extreme manifestation of the nation’s changing demographics. The U.S. Census Bureau has projected that non-Hispanic whites will make up less than 50 percent of the population by 2044, a change that almost certainly will recast American race relations and the role and status of white Americans, who have long been a comfortable majority.

Hazleton’s experience offers a glimpse into the future as white Americans confront the end of their majority status, which often has meant that their story, their traditions, their tastes, and their cultural aesthetic were seen as being quintessentially American. This is a conversation already exploding across the country as some white Americans, in online forums and protests over the removal of Confederate monuments, react anxiously and angrily to a sense that their way of life is under threat. Those are the stories that grab headlines and trigger social media showdowns. But the shift in status—or what some are calling “the altitude adjustment”—is also playing out in much more subtle ways in classrooms, break rooms, factory floors, and shopping malls, where the future has arrived ahead of schedule. Since 2000, the minority population has grown to outnumber the population of whites who aren’t Hispanic in such counties as Suffolk in Massachusetts, Montgomery in Maryland, Mecklenburg in North Carolina, as well as counties in California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, and Texas.

For decades, examining race in America meant focusing on the advancement and struggles of people of color. Under this framework, being white was simply the default. Every other race or ethnic group was “other-ized,” and matters of race were the problem and province of people of color. In a period bookended by the presidential elections of Barack Obama and Donald Trump, the question of what it means to be white in America has increasingly taken center stage.

On several fronts, there is growing evidence that race is no longer a spectator sport for white Americans: The growth of whiteness studies courses on college campuses. Battles over immigration and affirmative action. A rising death rate for middle-aged white Americans with no more than a high-school diploma from drugs, alcohol, and suicide in what economists are calling “deaths of despair.” The increasingly racially polarized electorate. The popularity of a television show called Dear White People that satirizes “post-racial” America. The debate over the history and symbols of the Confederacy. The aggression and appeal of white nationalism, with its newest menacing chant: “You will not replace us.”

The protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, last August likely will be remembered as a moment when hate groups, wearing polo shirts and khakis, stepped out of the shadows. Most Americans soundly denounce the message and the methods of the neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, and white nationalists who gathered at the “Unite the Right” rally to decry the removal of a monument honoring a Confederate general. But matters of race are complicated, and academics and researchers who closely chart the fractious history of race relations in this country note that the Charlottesville demonstrations—though widely pilloried—also punctuate an issue that animates everything from politics to job prospects and even the world of professional sports: the fear of displacement in an era of rapid change.

Just over 10 years ago, Hazleton was thrust into the national spotlight when the mayor, now U.S. congressman Lou Barletta, urged the city council to pass a first-of-its-kind ordinance called the Illegal Immigration Relief Act. It set steep penalties for those who hire or rent to undocumented immigrants. It was accompanied by an ordinance that sought to make English the official language of Hazleton. The laws were introduced amid rising cultural tension in the community, which was seeing an influx of Latinos, many moving from New York and New Jersey. Barletta said the IIRA ordinance—which included the assertion that “illegal immigration leads to higher crime rates”—was aimed at preserving a way of life in “Small Town, USA.” It never went into effect. Federal courts ruled the ordinance was preempted by U.S. immigration law. But the episode still reverberates, says Jamie Longazel, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City who grew up in Hazleton and has done extensive research on the demographic changes in his hometown. Longazel said the widely publicized debate over the law amplified tensions and fed what social scientists call the “Latino threat narrative.”

“We know in sociology when community identity is challenged or questioned in some way, the community asserts and defends that identity,” Longazel says. “With Hazleton’s changing demographics and persistent economic decline, the community began to see itself as white. The city reasserted its identity as white.” Longazel thinks that same psychology might be emerging on a national level.

His research found repeated themes. White Hazletonians consistently recalled a city that was “close-knit, quiet, obedient, honest, harmless, and hardworking” and described newcomers as “loud, disobedient, manipulative, lawless, and lazy.” The anecdotes were often similar. Did that many people really witness a Latino family at the grocery store using food stamps to buy seafood and steak, or did the stories spiral forward on their own weight, embraced and repeated as personal observation? And why did so few people in his research reference the new residents who were paying taxes, going to church twice a week, buying sedans on Airport Road, and opening businesses that percolate all up and down North Wyoming Street?

In the end, trying to underscore Hazleton’s status as an all-American white enclave was akin to shaking a fist at a rain cloud. Latinos are now the driving force in Hazleton’s economy, and the city has taken on an increasingly Latin flavor. Hazleton now looks, sounds, smells, and feels transformed.

Over and over you hear longtime residents say they feel like strangers on their home turf. Yale, the coffee shop owner, has watched most of her classmates from Bishop Hafey High School leave Hazleton, mainly for better job prospects. She opted to stay and opened her gourmet coffee shop, called the Abbey, with its gleaming red espresso machine and its home-style meals. Though her café is just up a hill from downtown, she rarely ventures toward the main business district.

Yale pulled out of Funfest years ago. “Too scary,” she says. “If you do go down there, you don’t know who is carrying a gun.”

The irony is evident to Yale. Her grandfather came to Hazleton from Italy in the early 1900s and became an insurance agent and Americanized his name from Yuele to Yale. She knows the same stereotypes were hurled at Italian and Irish immigrants when they first arrived in Hazleton.

Yale is quick with a laugh and punctuates her hellos and goodbyes with bear hugs. Everything about her says cozy. She wears thick-soled tennis shoes and oversize sweatshirts. But sit with her for a spell, and it’s clear that she also has a lot of steel. It’s served her well as a single woman running a business. Once the restaurant clears out, she believes in speaking her mind.

“We have one of us in that White House,” Yale says of Trump. “We are going to make America great again.”

When asked who she means by “we,” Yale pauses. Her gaze hardens a bit. The music goes out of her voice. “The ‘we’ are the Caucasians that built this country,” she says. “Our generation. We’re going to … We’re going to make our grandfathers proud. We have to.”...

Continue reading here
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-rising-anxiety-white-america/
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  3  
Reply Wed 27 Jun, 2018 11:49 pm
@firefly,
Well, all the border policies in the world won't stop huge demographic shifts, but I can see the anxiety if you think being white is important.

Nothing will stop racial mixing if you think being black, brown or yellow is important, either.

I think a lot of groups get worried about their culture or ethnic distinctiveness changing, not just white people..we whities aren't the only group who have been anti inter racial/ethnic group mixing.

Once you have a bunch of races/cultures in one country though, things are going to change.

We are emerging from a period where white people seem to have had more opportunities to make other groups extinct, or diminished and weakened. That period is ending.






0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jun, 2018 03:12 am
@firefly,
I wonder how long it will take before Trump comes up with bright ideas to 'combat' this 'problem'.

Let's see. What could he come up with?

Well, perhaps he is going to decree that in the interest of efficiency, he is just going to assume that everybody who isn't a white anglo american has a fair chance of being an illegal immigrant or a radical muslim, and so should be extradited posthaste.
Maybe he'll just state that any woman of a non-caucasian background should be neutered upon arriving in the country, or just plain outright forbidden to enter if she is already pregnant.
Or mayhap this is why he is so interested in his space force: perhaps he intends to make nice new living quarters for non-caucasian people on the moon.

Who knows what he comes up with? It's anybody's guess, really.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jun, 2018 12:51 pm
Following along.

I do believe that this is a real thing.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Thu 28 Jun, 2018 03:11 pm
Another interesting, and somewhat more scholarly, perspective that also suggests how to understand and deal with this issue politically.
Quote:

While Trump told reporters in January, “I am the least racist person you have ever interviewed,” he and his loyalists believe that they will thrive on repeated charges from the left that he and those who vote for him are racist. Those charges — perhaps paradoxically — serve to intensify the resentment of conservatives and Republicans toward liberals.

Trump’s rhetoric — migrants “infest” and “invade our country” — is intended not only to intensify the anti-immigrant views of his supporters, but also to encourage liberals and Democrats to accuse him and his supporters of bigotry. Trump’s tactics are based on the conviction of many of his voters that opposition to immigration is not a form of racism. They deeply resent being called racist for anti-immigrant views they consider patriotic and, indeed, principled.

Most Democrats and liberals...do believe that opposition to immigration is racist...based on responses to a question in a December 2017 survey conducted by Eric Kaufmann, a professor of political science at the University of London. Kaufmann is the author of the forthcoming book, “Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities” and a related 2017 paper, “ ‘Racial Self-Interest is Not Racism."

The question Kaufmann posed in a YouGov survey of 2,600 Americans went as follows:

A white American who identifies with her group and its history supports a proposal to reduce immigration. Her motivation is to maintain her group’s share of America’s population. Is this person: 1) just acting in her racial self-interest, which is not racist; 2) being racist; 3) don’t know.

Among white voters who backed Hillary Clinton, 73.2 percent said it was racist to support immigration reduction in order to maintain the white share of America’s population. This rose to 91.3 percent among white Clinton supporters with postgraduate degrees.

Among whites casting ballots for Trump, 11.2 percent said support for immigration reduction was racist, a number that fell to 5.5 percent among white Trump voters without college degrees.

The gap between the most well-educated Clinton supporters and the least well-educated Trump supporters is stark — 91.3 percent to 5.5 percent. In other words, the very definition of racism is deeply contested.

Ashley Jardina, a political scientist at Duke, argues in her 2017 paper “The White Backlash to ‘Crying Racism’: How Whites Respond to Calling Racial Preferences Racist” that

Allegations of racism no longer work to reduce support for the target of the accusation. Instead, such accusations are now tantamount to ‘crying wolf’ and have the opposite of their intended effect — whites are subsequently more likely to express racially conservative policy preferences or to condone the target of the accusation.

According to Jardina, the

vast majority of white Americans who feel threatened by the country’s rising levels of racial and ethnic diversity are not members of the K.K.K. or neo-Nazis. They are much greater in number, and far more mainstream, than the white supremacists who protested in Virginia.

In response to a request to elaborate on her argument, Jardina emailed back:

I think it’s absolutely reasonable that many whites don’t think they hold racially prejudiced beliefs, even though by some social science measures, we think they do. Thus, when they’re accused of being “racist,” some whites either see the accusation as disingenuous, or they see it as a personal, unfounded attack, and they become defensive.

As a result, Jardina writes in her original paper, Trump “does potentially benefit from accusing his opponents of playing the race card.” The danger “of this new era, in which the new political strategy is to accuse elites of falsely making charges of racism,” Jardina argues,


is that it may be increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to effectively condemn politicians when they do in fact attempt to race bait, or when they express views that are racist or support policies that detrimental to racial and ethnic minorities.


Jeremy Peters captured this dynamic in his article in The Times last week, “As Critics Assail Trump, His Supporters Dig In Deeper.” Kaufmann, of the University of London, expanded upon Jardina’s work in his controversial paper, “ ‘Racial Self-Interest’ Is Not Racism,” writing that his survey data shows

that a majority of American and British people of all races believe that when the white majority seeks lower immigration to help maintain their population share, this is racially self-interested rather than racist behavior. This distinction is important because racism is a taboo, whereas ethnic self-interest, like individual self-interest, is viewed as normal.

These white conservatives

whose immigration stance is influenced by a desire to slow decline in their group’s share of the population rather than due to an irrational fear of outgroups, feel accused of racism. This breeds resentment.

Kaufmann contends that the racism charge has been a crucial factor in driving a rise in right-wing populism, in the United States and abroad:

Antiracist overreach on the immigration question arguably underlies the populist western backlash against elites. Cultural conservatives care deeply about the effects of immigration and resent being told their thoughts and voting behavior are racist. They hold elites responsible for enforcing antiracist norms — in the workplace, government and mainstream media — beyond the bounds of what they consider appropriate.

Kaufmann expanded on his views is an email:

I think liberal norm policing on immigration is a major contributing factor to right wing populism. Not directly, but indirectly. That is, by removing questions of immigration levels and cultural impact from the political conversation, it blocks the adjustment of political supply to political demand. A bit like prohibition of alcohol, the unmet demand opens a market opportunity for entrepreneurs.

Kaufmann cautioned, however, that this

is not to say mainstream parties should always supply market demand (i.e., segregation in the Deep South), but not doing so opens space for populism (i.e., George Wallace). So ultimately the question turns on whether the immigration taboo is morally justified.

Kaufmann and Jardina’s work raises a crucial question: has traditional polling failed to capture the actual views of the public on immigration? A number of experiments suggest that many people feel social pressure to conform to “social desirability” expectations and to mask their opposition to immigration.

Alexander Janus, a sociologist at the University of Edinburgh, told me that his own and other studies “suggest that polls substantially underestimate the true extent of opposition to immigration due to social desirability bias.” Janus specifically pointed to Gallup surveys that appear to illustrate a steady liberal trend in views toward immigration.

According to Gallup, the share of voters who say immigration levels should be reduced fell from 65 percent in 1995 to 35 percent in 2017. The share
saying immigration should be increased rose from 7 to 24 percent, and the share who think immigration levels should remain unchanged rose from 27 to 38 percent over the same period. Of course, this could just reflect increased public support for immigration.

But scholars have attempted to test the reliability of poll results like these. In a 2010 paper, “The Influence of Social Desirability Pressures on Expressed Immigration Attitudes,” Janus described a survey experiment designed to elicit anti-immigrant views without forcing participants to explicitly state their opinions. (The design of the experiment is complex, and readers should open the link to examine the details.)

Seven hundred non-Hispanic white respondents were read a list of statements and asked “how many of them do you oppose. I don’t want to know which ones, just how many.”

One half of the sample was given three items to choose from: “The federal government increasing assistance to the poor;” “Professional athletes making millions of dollars per year;” and “Large corporations polluting the environment.”

The other half was presented with the same three items and one addition: “Cutting off immigration to the United States.”

The experiment provided “an unobtrusive estimate of the percentage of respondents” who support “cutting off immigration to the United States,” Janus wrote.

He found that support for restricting immigration rose from 42 percent, when participants were asked to openly state their views, to 61 percent when the answer was veiled by asking how many of the statements they objected to.

The biggest differences were among college graduates: (from 29 to 71 percent), among liberals (from 26 to 71 percent) and among Democrats (from 33 to 63 percent).

A more recent study, “From Extreme to Mainstream: How Social Norms Unravel,” by Leonardo Bursztyn, Georgy Egorov and Stefano Fiorin, economists at the University of Chicago, Northwestern University and the University of California, San Diego, found a similar masking of anti-immigrant views in deep red states.

They sampled 458 voters before and after the 2016 election in eight states: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Mississippi, West Virginia and Wyoming. Before the election, the authors found that 54 percent of those surveyed were willing to contribute to an explicitly anti-immigration organization if they were assured anonymity.

When told that they might be contacted later for further research — in other words, that their anonymity would be threatened — the percentage willing to make donations dropped to 34 percent.

After Trump was elected president — legitimizing anti-immigrant views in the eyes of many — the willingness to contribute to the anti-immigration group with no guarantee of anonymity rose from 34 to 48 percent.

Elections “can update positively people’s perceptions about the share of people who support an opinion previously believed to be stigmatized,” the authors write. “This may in turn change people’s perceptions about the negative judgment they will face for expressing their opinion.”

Lisa Legault, Jennifer N. Gutsell and Michael Inzlicht, professors of psychology at Clarkson University, Brandeis University and the University of Toronto, elaborate on the complexities of racism in their 2011 study “Ironic Effects of Anti-prejudice Messages: How Motivational Interventions Can Reduce (but Also Increase) Prejudice.” Long before Trump’s rise, they found that: “motivating people to reduce prejudice by emphasizing external control” resulted in worsening rather than lessening “explicit and implicit prejudice.”

Legault told an interviewer from the Association for Psychological Science:

Controlling prejudice reduction practices are tempting because they are quick and easy to implement. They tell people how they should think and behave and stress the negative consequences of failing to think and behave in desirable ways.

The problem is that such an approach to prejudice reduction can backfire, according to Legault:

People need to feel that they are freely choosing to be non-prejudiced, rather than having it forced upon them.

The authors conducted an experiment in which one group read what the authors called a “controlling brochure” on race that instructed participants on how “to combat prejudice and to comply with social norms of non-prejudice.”

Another group read what the authors called an “autonomy brochure” that assumed participants’ “inner motivation for prejudice reduction was encouraged by emphasizing choice” and explained “why prejudice reduction is important and worthwhile.”

The authors found that “participants in the autonomy-brochure condition displayed significantly less prejudice” after they read the brochure than those “who read the controlling brochure.”

Their conclusion? “This investigation exposed the adverse effects of pressuring people to be non-prejudiced.” Legault and her colleagues found that “strategies urging people to comply with anti-prejudice standards are worse than doing nothing at all” because they prompt “a reflexive, reactive effect that increased prejudice.”

This “rebellion” against being told what to think, they write,

represents a direct counter-response (i.e., defiance) to threatened autonomy. Interventions that eliminate people’s freedom to choose egalitarian goals or to value diversity on their own terms may incite hostility toward the perceived source of the pressure (i.e., the stigmatized group), or a desire to rebel against prejudice reduction itself.

I asked Emily Ekins, director of polling at the libertarian Cato Institute, about the political consequences of Trump’s now renounced policy of separating children of illegal immigrants from their parents at the border. Ekins emailed back:

The child-parent separation issue most likely will not diminish Trump's core base of support — but it will likely damage support among a group of pivotal moderate voters crucial to his 2016 victory. The strongest empirical studies of the 2016 election are fairly conclusive that immigration concerns most likely drove his base. They likely see this policy as an unpleasant but necessary deterrent to reduce the rate of border crossings.

Kaufmann, of the University of London, argued in his 2017 paper that Democrats and liberals should consider a more nuanced strategy on the issue of immigration:

Pro-immigration forces should avoid using charges of racism to sideline discussions of ethno-demographic interests. Instead, they should accept the importance of cultural concerns but argue positively for immigration on humanitarian, national-interest or liberal grounds. They should cite assimilation data to reassure anxious majorities.

Faced with Trump as an adversary, Democrats and liberals must calculate carefully. One of the most important questions facing the American left is how complicit — albeit unwillingly and unconsciously — it has been in his rise. Insofar as the left engages in a war of incivility, it cedes the field of battle to a president who relishes uncivil combat. Plenty of open racists have joined Trump’s ranks, millions of them, but his supporters also include millions of men and women who believe they are not racist and who react in anger when they are reflexively accused of racism. No one knows what Trump’s ultimate intentions are — dangerous possibilities abound. For this reason and many others, liberals and Democrats should avoid stepping into Trump’s trap.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/opinion/trump-immigration-democrats-response.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionfront
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2018 01:38 pm
Diversity is good. The problem with immigration is inflation. If people could move into an economy without adding to inflation, migration would be a triumph of freedom and liberty. Unfortunately, we are not there yet by a long shot. The US economy and dollar are inflated by everything from wasteful government spending to spending on recreational drugs, etc. When you have a very disciplined economy where people invest and spend conservatively, always adding to real productivity and value instead of merely generating transactions for the sake of redistribution, then you get the kind of robust economy that benefits from migration.

Sadly, many people living in Mexico and Latin American already live very conservative agricultural lifestyles, yet many see the glitter and glamour that is put out by the US easy money (redistribution) economy and they want in on the easy money. So trafficking, both in drugs and humans is oriented toward tapping into that redistribution spending. Why grow food and build homes when you can go work for many times as much in the US? It would be the same if people living in the US would start going to work in China for huge salaries and remitting the money to the US, where it would cause inflation. That is actually happening and it is also a problem. To have a sustainable economy, there needs to be fiscal discipline and efficiency, not people running around trying to tap into markets where easy money is circulating because of a lack/failure of spending discipline.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2018 01:54 pm
Utter babblespeak.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jul, 2018 03:40 pm
Trump can’t make America white again

by Eugene Robinson
July 5 2018

Racism is a feature of the Trump administration, not a bug. Like demagogues before him, President Trump and his aides consistently single out one group for scapegoating and persecution: nonwhite Hispanic immigrants.

Trump doesn’t much seem to like nonwhite newcomers from anywhere, in truth — remember how he once expressed a fond wish for more immigrants from Norway? — but he displays an especially vicious antipathy toward men, women and even children from Latin America. We have not seen such overt racism from a president since Woodrow Wilson imposed Jim Crow segregation in Washington and approvingly showed “The Birth of a Nation,” director D.W. Griffith’s epic celebration of the Ku Klux Klan, at the White House.

Trump encourages supporters to see the nation as beset by high levels of violent crime — and to blame the “animals” of the street gang MS-13. He is lying; crime rates nationwide are far lower than two or three decades ago, and some big cities are safer than they have been in a half-century. But Trump has to paint a dystopian panorama to justify the need to Make America Great Again.

MS-13 is, indeed, unspeakably violent. But it is small; law enforcement officials estimate the gang’s total U.S. membership at roughly 10,000, concentrated in a few metropolitan areas that have large populations of Central American immigrants — Los Angeles, New York and Washington. Trump never acknowledges that the gang was founded in the United States by immigrants from El Salvador and exported to Central America, where it took hold. He also neglects to mention that its members here, mostly teenagers, generally direct their violence at one another, not at outsiders.

Trump deliberately exaggerates the threat from MS-13 in order to justify his brutality toward Central American asylum seekers at the border. People should never be treated that way, but “animals” are a different story.

It is unbelievable that the U.S. government would separate more than 2,300 children from their parents for no good reason other than to demonstrate cruelty. It is shocking that our government would expect toddlers and infants to represent themselves at formal immigration hearings. It is incredible that our government, forced to grudgingly end the policy, would charge desperate parents hundreds or thousands of dollars to be reunited with their children. It is appalling that our government would refuse even to give a full and updated accounting of how many children still have not been returned. Yet all of this has been done — in our name.

Trump uses words such as “invading” and “infest” and “breeding” to describe Central American migrants who arrive at the border lawfully seeking asylum. I’ll believe this is neutral immigration policy when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents begin hunting down and locking up Norwegians who have overstayed their visas.

Said Norwegians, if anyone bothered to look for them, might well be taking jobs away from American workers or taking advantage of social-welfare programs or boosting crime rates. There is no evidence that asylum seekers are doing any of these things.

Trump’s policies flow from a worldview that he has never tried to hide. To describe Trump and aides such as Attorney General Jeff Sessions and senior policy adviser Stephen Miller as “anti-immigration” tells only part of the story. They adopt the stance of racial and cultural warriors, “defending” the United States against brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking hordes “invading” from the south.

Trump has proposed not just building a wall along the border with Mexico to halt the flow of undocumented migrants but also changing the system of legal immigration so that it no longer promotes family unification. He calls his aim a “merit-based” system, but Miller has specified that the administration wants to produce “more assimilation.”

Yet there is no evidence that immigrants from Latin America fail to assimilate in any way except one: They do not come to look like Trump’s mental image of “American,” which is basically the same as his mental image of “Norwegian.”

This is a story as old as the nation. German, Irish, Polish, Italian and other immigrant groups were once seen as irredeemably foreign and incapable of assimilating. The ethnic and racial mix of the country has changed before and is changing now.

Hispanics are by far the biggest minority group in the country, making up nearly 18 percent of the population; by 2060, the Census Bureau estimates, that share will rise to nearly 29 percent . Trump is punishing Central American mothers and babies because, try as he might, he can’t Make America White Again.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/try-as-he-might-trump-cant-make-america-white-again/2018/07/05/0634e02e-8088-11e8-b0ef-fffcabeff946_story.html?utm_term=.16449bda9346
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jul, 2018 04:11 pm
@firefly,
An excellent read. Thanks for bringing it in to read.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2018 09:19 pm
Racial resentment is the biggest predictor of immigration attitudes, study finds

by Christopher Ingraham-- July 10, 2018

White Americans’ negative attitudes toward immigrants are driven overwhelmingly by racial prejudices, not “economic anxiety,” according to a working paper by political scientist Steven V. Miller of Clemson University.

Immigration hard-liners, including President Trump, often frame their arguments with ostensibly race-neutral appeals to public safety or economic interest. As Trump said in July 2015, Mexicans are “taking our jobs. They’re taking our manufacturing jobs. They’re taking our money. They’re killing us.” This has led many commentators to conclude that the attitudes driving Trump and his supporters on questions of immigration are primarily economic, rather than racial in nature.

Political scientists have subsequently tested this theory, at least as it applies to Trump support overall, and found it lacking — over and over and over again. But Miller’s paper is extremely useful because it removes the question from the specific context of 2016 and places it in a more general policy realm.

To do this, he draws on nationally representative survey data from the American National Election Studies and the Voter Study Group, two well-established surveys of voter attitudes and behavior. To measure views on immigration, the surveys ask respondents whether levels of immigration should be increased, decreased or left the same.

The surveys measure racial attitudes using a well-established battery of questions on “racial resentment.” Political scientists generally define this as something like “a moral feeling that blacks violate such traditional American values as individualism and self-reliance.” It’s measured via agreement with statements like, “It’s really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites” and “Irish, Italians, Jewish and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without any special favors.”

The surveys also include a number of ways to measure what’s come to be known as “economic anxiety”: evaluations about the country’s economic health, as well as respondents' employment status and job market conditions in their communities, counties and states of residence.

Miller also controlled for a number of common economic and demographic variables, such as income, education, age, political party and gender. Respondents' race wasn’t included as a control because the study looked at the views of only white respondents.

Miller essentially ran a number of statistical tests to determine how white Americans' economic and racial attitudes correlated with their immigration beliefs: Does being unemployed make white voters more or less likely to support decreasing immigration? What about belief in the strength of the economy? As respondents' racial resentments increase, what does that do to their views on immigration?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2018/07/racial_resentment.png
All told, the analyses were “unequivocal that racial resentment is reliably the largest and most precise predictor of attitudes toward immigration,” Miller found. As the chart above shows, “racial resentment has the largest magnitude effect” on the odds that a white respondent will express a preference for less legal immigration. The effect of racial resentment has “nearly six times” the impact as a belief that the economy has gotten worse on respondents' propensity to favor less immigration.

The racial resentment questions ask only about attitudes toward black Americans. They don’t mention Hispanic immigrants at all. And yet, Miller found, white Americans' attitudes toward blacks were a powerful predictor of how they felt about immigration. “The familiar racial resentment toward African-Americans is part of a bigger syndrome in which ethnicity/race filters perspectives toward policy, more broadly,” he writes.

Miller cautions that the paper is still in its early stages and has not been peer-reviewed. But his findings do comport with much of the prior research on racial resentment and Trump support, and it makes sense that those attitudes would spill over into more general policy areas as well.

In the end, this should come as no surprise — the empirical case for restricting immigration is a poor one. Studies have consistently shown no link between immigrants and crime, for instance, and the net effect of immigration, legal or otherwise, on the economy tends to be positive, particularly in the long run.

Moreover, a country with a falling fertility rate needs immigration to offset population decline, fill job vacancies and contribute to government coffers.

In the end, Miller writes, “an ounce of racial resentment is worth a pound of economic anxiety.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/07/10/racial-resentment-is-biggest-predictor-immigration-attitudes-study-finds/?utm_term=.13c4f1197b23
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2018 10:42 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/88/64/10/8864102d95b5bac39c5de571a1b5f5af.jpg

This picture is very accurate and true. There is one person's ass missing. Where is Vladimir Putin's ass? We all know how much Trump love kissing Putin's ass.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Dec, 2018 04:20 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
He defended a march in Charlottesville, Va., led by neo-Nazis and white supremacists in support of a statue of the Confederate general Robert E. Lee, saying that the march also included “very fine people.”



very fine people indeed

Quote:

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (AP) -- Man who drove car into counterprotesters at white nationalist rally in Virginia convicted of first-degree murder.
0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 11:59:22