Is Trump's immigration policy (and support for it) fundamentally racist?

[Xing]

Yeah, I'm going there. Bite me.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Policy wise Trump's immigration policies actually not much different from pre 2012/13 Immigration policies. Look at the Spike under Bush(Trump's spike isnt as much as Bush's was).



source: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/16/u-s-immigrant-deportations-fall-to-lowest-level-since-2007/


https://www.axios.com/immigration-ice-deportation-trump-obama-a72a0a44-540d-46bc-a671-cd65cf72f4b1.html

Under Trump, ICE deportations fell to 226,119 in fiscal 2017, then ticked up to over 250,000 in fiscal 2018 and hit a Trump administration high of 282,242 this fiscal year (as of June)

and I believe Trump supports this bill: https://www.numbersusa.com/news/house-passes-hr-1044-fairness-high-skilled-immigrants-act or else I doubt you would see the overwhelming bipartisan numbers it has

[Xeuma]

All borders are rooted in some form of fear of outsiders.

[Vittorio]

All borders are rooted in some form of fear of outsiders.

[RINO Tom]

All borders are rooted in some form of fear of outsiders.

Interesting theory, gonna have to disagree.

[brucejoel99]

All borders are rooted in some form of fear of outsiders.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I hate how much the right has been able to set the terms of debate by defining the other side as favoring "Open Borders," so that they've got to scramble to say that's not what they want, and then they're flat footed.

But seriously, what would be wrong with open borders? Aside from a knee-jerk "they don't deserve to be here" reaction, which itself needs some explanation, what would be the harm it would cause to the country? We shouldn't allow this stuff from nativist bigots to go unchallenged.

[Mopsus]

I hate how much the right has been able to set the terms of debate by defining the other side as favoring "Open Borders," so that they've got to scramble to say that's not what they want, and then they're flat footed.

But seriously, what would be wrong with open borders? Aside from a knee-jerk "they don't deserve to be here" reaction, which itself needs some explanation, what would be the harm it would cause to the country? We shouldn't allow this stuff from nativist bigots to go unchallenged.

Moss have no borders; wolves have borders, but they're as ambiguous as those of human hunter-gatherers; modern humans have the most clearly defined borders of all. In nature and in civilization, discrimination is always associated with evolution, while assimilation is always associated with stagnation.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I hate how much the right has been able to set the terms of debate by defining the other side as favoring "Open Borders," so that they've got to scramble to say that's not what they want, and then they're flat footed.

But seriously, what would be wrong with open borders? Aside from a knee-jerk "they don't deserve to be here" reaction, which itself needs some explanation, what would be the harm it would cause to the country? We shouldn't allow this stuff from nativist bigots to go unchallenged.

Moss have no borders; wolves have borders, but they're as ambiguous as those of human hunter-gatherers; modern humans have the most clearly defined borders of all. In nature and in civilization, discrimination is always associated with evolution, while assimilation is always associated with stagnation.

You're gonna have to back up your science on that for me, champ.

Actually, on second thought, don't bother. You're not serious about it anyway, and this is a discussion about politics and morality, not about some impersonal science.

[Mopsus]

I hate how much the right has been able to set the terms of debate by defining the other side as favoring "Open Borders," so that they've got to scramble to say that's not what they want, and then they're flat footed.

But seriously, what would be wrong with open borders? Aside from a knee-jerk "they don't deserve to be here" reaction, which itself needs some explanation, what would be the harm it would cause to the country? We shouldn't allow this stuff from nativist bigots to go unchallenged.

Moss have no borders; wolves have borders, but they're as ambiguous as those of human hunter-gatherers; modern humans have the most clearly defined borders of all. In nature and in civilization, discrimination is always associated with evolution, while assimilation is always associated with stagnation.

You're gonna have to back up your science on that for me, champ.

Actually, on second thought, don't bother. You're not serious about it anyway, and this is a discussion about politics and morality, not about some impersonal science.

You think science is impersonal - this is how you've been manipulated into supporting open borders.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I hate how much the right has been able to set the terms of debate by defining the other side as favoring "Open Borders," so that they've got to scramble to say that's not what they want, and then they're flat footed.

But seriously, what would be wrong with open borders? Aside from a knee-jerk "they don't deserve to be here" reaction, which itself needs some explanation, what would be the harm it would cause to the country? We shouldn't allow this stuff from nativist bigots to go unchallenged.

Moss have no borders; wolves have borders, but they're as ambiguous as those of human hunter-gatherers; modern humans have the most clearly defined borders of all. In nature and in civilization, discrimination is always associated with evolution, while assimilation is always associated with stagnation.

You're gonna have to back up your science on that for me, champ.

Actually, on second thought, don't bother. You're not serious about it anyway, and this is a discussion about politics and morality, not about some impersonal science.

You think science is impersonal - this is how you've been manipulated into supporting open borders.

No, that's not what I said at all. You're trying to talk about this as though you're only supporting the policy that "promotes evolution", which is some pseudoscientific nonsense. If you believed that, you'd be supporting segregation (which, hey, maybe, you haven't expanded yet).

But beyond that, your accounting of the science is not true. Variation is key to species' flourishing.

Anyway, you still haven't addressed the point in the slightest.

[Mopsus]

But beyond that, your accounting of the science is not true. Variation is key to species' flourishing.

This much at least is true, and it's why individuals must be allowed their differences. In other words, Machu Picchu would have never been built if the Peruvians had always been forced to live like Spaniards, yet that's exactly what all you globalists want.

[Slander and/or Libel]

But beyond that, your accounting of the science is not true. Variation is key to species' flourishing.

This much at least is true, and it's why individuals must be allowed their differences. In other words, Machu Picchu would have never been built if the Peruvians had always been forced to live like Spaniards, yet that's exactly what all you globalists want.

WTF?

[Person Man]

I hate how much the right has been able to set the terms of debate by defining the other side as favoring "Open Borders," so that they've got to scramble to say that's not what they want, and then they're flat footed.

But seriously, what would be wrong with open borders? Aside from a knee-jerk "they don't deserve to be here" reaction, which itself needs some explanation, what would be the harm it would cause to the country? We shouldn't allow this stuff from nativist bigots to go unchallenged.

Moss have no borders; wolves have borders, but they're as ambiguous as those of human hunter-gatherers; modern humans have the most clearly defined borders of all. In nature and in civilization, discrimination is always associated with evolution, while assimilation is always associated with stagnation.

1924 called. They want their "Applied Physical Anthropology" back.

To answer the question. It doesn't necessarily have to be but the preponderance of the reasons people talk about why they support it are definitely racist. See above.

In a way, I can see the anxiety of society as you knowing it becoming obsolete or becoming obsolete in oneself. Then again, were these people expecting 20th century western society to last forever or that there would never be a better society? Sad!

 From what I understand at this point, all non-racist reasons for banning immigration and cracking down on migration are better explained by other things going on such as corruption and technology.

[DavidB.]

All borders are rooted in some form of fear of outsiders.

Are the doors of your house (and the locks on these doors) rooted in some form of fear of outsiders?

[Slander and/or Libel]

All borders are rooted in some form of fear of outsiders.

Are the doors of your house (and the locks on these doors) rooted in some form of fear of outsiders?

Your house is not the same as your country.

[DavidB.]

All borders are rooted in some form of fear of outsiders.

Are the doors of your house (and the locks on these doors) rooted in some form of fear of outsiders?

Your house is not the same as your country.

My house is the home of my family. My country is the home of my nation. What is the difference?

[Slander and/or Libel]

All borders are rooted in some form of fear of outsiders.

Are the doors of your house (and the locks on these doors) rooted in some form of fear of outsiders?

Your house is not the same as your country.

My house is the home of my family. My country is the home of my nation. What is the difference?

You think a personal single family home is analogous to a 3,000 mile wide nation? I think it's up to you to explain why your own metaphor works.

[Fight for Trump]

All borders are rooted in some form of fear of outsiders.

Are the doors of your house (and the locks on these doors) rooted in some form of fear of outsiders?

I mean, in part, they are. (more accurately, caution, not fear) Of course, that doesn't make it irrational nor wrong.

[DavidB.]

All borders are rooted in some form of fear of outsiders.

Are the doors of your house (and the locks on these doors) rooted in some form of fear of outsiders?

Your house is not the same as your country.

My house is the home of my family. My country is the home of my nation. What is the difference?

You think a personal single family home is analogous to a 3,000 mile wide nation? I think it's up to you to explain why your own metaphor works.

I think it's up to you to explain why it doesn't.

[Slander and/or Libel]

All borders are rooted in some form of fear of outsiders.

Are the doors of your house (and the locks on these doors) rooted in some form of fear of outsiders?

Your house is not the same as your country.

My house is the home of my family. My country is the home of my nation. What is the difference?

You think a personal single family home is analogous to a 3,000 mile wide nation? I think it's up to you to explain why your own metaphor works.

I think it's up to you to explain why it doesn't.

Nah, that's not really how this works. All you've offered is a platitude. It's not even an argument.

[DavidB.]

All borders are rooted in some form of fear of outsiders.

Are the doors of your house (and the locks on these doors) rooted in some form of fear of outsiders?

Your house is not the same as your country.

My house is the home of my family. My country is the home of my nation. What is the difference?

You think a personal single family home is analogous to a 3,000 mile wide nation? I think it's up to you to explain why your own metaphor works.

I think it's up to you to explain why it doesn't.

Nah, that's not really how this works. All you've offered is a platitude. It's not even an argument.

I mean, I don't particularly care what you think about it? But it's clear you're unable to rebuke it, that's for sure.

[Slander and/or Libel]

All borders are rooted in some form of fear of outsiders.

Are the doors of your house (and the locks on these doors) rooted in some form of fear of outsiders?

Your house is not the same as your country.

My house is the home of my family. My country is the home of my nation. What is the difference?

You think a personal single family home is analogous to a 3,000 mile wide nation? I think it's up to you to explain why your own metaphor works.

I think it's up to you to explain why it doesn't.

Nah, that's not really how this works. All you've offered is a platitude. It's not even an argument.

I mean, I don't particularly care what you think about it? But it's clear you're unable to rebuke it, that's for sure.

I think you mean refute, not rebuke. But ok.

And I'm not really interested in putting in a lot of time if all you've got is nativist snark. Your home is not open to tourism, not open to people looking to buy space in your den, etc. There's any number of ways that this analogy is ludicrous nonsense.

[Fight for Trump]

It is reasonable (but not particularly productive) to discuss whether Trump's policies are fundamentally racist or not. It is simply absurd to say, or imply, that borders are inherently wrong.

[Slander and/or Libel]

It is reasonable (but not particularly productive) to discuss whether Trump's policies are fundamentally racist or not. It is simply absurd to say, or imply, that borders are inherently wrong.

Perhaps, though it's worth asking what people think would be so awful about Open Borders (TM). Is it just that people who SHOULDN'T BE HERE might be here? Is that the fundamental argument?