Less Immigration is Racist?

[Lexicus]

The rest of the posts ?

I am sorry, but the rest of that post doesn't really explain things for me. Taking 1 and 3 together there (and honestly I am not entirely sure what 2 means), it appears you are basically arguing that a system of morality which regards prejudice and discrimination as immoral is "worthless" to the extent that prejudice and discrimination are "natural" human behaviors. Would that be correct or do I have this wrong?

 

[Akka]

I am sorry, but the rest of that post doesn't really explain things for me. Taking 1 and 3 together there (and honestly I am not entirely sure what 2 means), it appears you are basically arguing that a system of morality which regards prejudice and discrimination as immoral is "worthless" to the extent that prejudice and discrimination are "natural" human behaviors. Would that be correct or do I have this wrong?

That's a gross oversimplification which completely ignores the central point of "degree", so I'm a bit wary at to what you're intending to do here.

 

[Lexicus]

That's a gross oversimplification which completely ignores the central point of "degree", so I'm a bit wary at to what you're intending to do here.

So tell me about the central point of "degree." I only intend to try to understand what you're saying.
If your ultimate point is that totalitarian systems of thought control to engineer perfect humans don't work, then I'm with you there.

 

[Akka]

So tell me about the central point of "degree." I only intend to try to understand what you're saying.

I'm pretty, again, that I already written it in the previous posts. If you really aim to understand, that should be the first step.

If your ultimate point is that totalitarian systems of thought control to engineer perfect humans don't work, then I'm with you there.

Ideological totalitarian systems, specifically, and they appear when people start to think that humans are not like they want them to be like and hence it's needed to "reform" them. This whole mindset is twisted and is a pretty dangerous slippery slope.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm pretty, again, that I already written it in the previous posts. If you really aim to understand, that should be the first step.

I read all the posts, and I don't feel that I understand. Can you apply your argument to a real-world example of some kind?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Nothing about opposition to immigration is inherently racist.

The principle policy consideration is whether the person entering makes the nation better off, or worse. To assume this is contingent on race, or inherently about race, is itself racist.

 

[El_Machinae]

I will always emphasize that immigration is different from refugee policy. One is a geostrategic decision, the other is a humanitarian obligation

 

[Gorbles]

To assume this is contingent on race, or inherently about race, is itself racist.

You're going to have to show the working on this one. What about this assumption (assuming it is purely an assumption and not grounded in anything more demonstrable) is discriminating against people on account of their race?

Also, policy consideration of what constitutes "better" or "worse" often stratifies on race (as well as class, and other factors). It cannot be presented in a manner which divorces it from those factors. For an easy example, contrast opposition to migration from Mexico compared to, say, migration from the United Kingdom. Assumptions are made, in popular discourse (none of us are legal experts talking in any such professional capacity, we're posters exchanging opinions on an Internet forum), about the demographics of each country and therefore the "typical" immigrant from each place.

Naturally, this also turns up in actual policy as well. And the media, and so forth.

 

[El_Machinae]

"Better" or "worse" will more depend on country of origin than race, no?

 

[Samson]

"Better" or "worse" will more depend on country of origin than race, no?

I do not see why. Exactly what "race" means is a question, but if you take the modern view that it is a descriptor of labels that the powerful attach to classes of people to justify discrimination then better and worse fit very well.

 

[Lexicus]

You're going to have to show the working on this one. What about this assumption (assuming it is purely an assumption and not grounded in anything more demonstrable) is discriminating against people on account of their race?

Also, policy consideration of what constitutes "better" or "worse" often stratifies on race (as well as class, and other factors). It cannot be presented in a manner which divorces it from those factors. For an easy example, contrast opposition to migration from Mexico compared to, say, migration from the United Kingdom. Assumptions are made, in popular discourse (none of us are legal experts talking in any such professional capacity, we're posters exchanging opinions on an Internet forum), about the demographics of each country and therefore the "typical" immigrant from each place.

Naturally, this also turns up in actual policy as well. And the media, and so forth.

The word inherently is doing all the work in his post. Sure, opposition to immigration isn't inherently racist. Most of the opposition to immigration that actually exists in the United States, Europe, Australia/NZ is actually racist though.

 

[AmazonQueen]

"Better" or "worse" will more depend on country of origin than race, no?

If you're saying people from a particular country are better candidates than those of another country its going to be about race/ethnicity/culture or religion.

 

[Gorbles]

"Better" or "worse" will more depend on country of origin than race, no?

The two are often conflated, but definitions of racism can include discrimination by country of origin, so in my opinion racism covers both (and more besides).

Mine just then came from the "Oxford Reference" via Google. I'm on mobile so it's hard to relate to others right now.

 

[Farm Boy]

Or class. But we don't like talking about that one anymore. The rich will save us.

 

[Lexicus]

Or class. But we don't like talking about that one anymore. The rich will save us.

Who's "we"?

 

[El_Machinae]

The two are often conflated, but definitions of racism can include discrimination by country of origin, so in my opinion racism covers both (and more besides).

That's a bit broader than I'm used to. If people think that having different policies based on countries is racist, that ruins discussion. I'd have to tease out the more classical understanding of 'racist' and then just from there. Obviously, one can have a racist opinion of a country, but it's also impossible to not discriminate based on country

 

[Samson]

it's also impossible to not discriminate based on country

I do not think this is true, as long as you mean country of origin. Criminalisation of immigration is a newish thing historically (I mentioned before that the first in the UK was 1906 in response to jewish immigration from some pogrom).

 

[AmazonQueen]

That's a bit broader than I'm used to. If people think that having different policies based on countries is racist, that ruins discussion. I'd have to tease out the more classical understanding of 'racist' and then just from there. Obviously, one can have a racist opinion of a country, but it's also impossible to not discriminate based on country

I'm having trouble thinking of a reason why you'd wish to encourage immigrants from one country over another that isn't about some from of prejudice.
Wealth, education, even language you're better off considering the individual rather than the country.

 

[Senethro]

We're going to see a Voyage of the Damned from some coming climate change related famine and they're going to be turned away again.

 

[Gorbles]

Or class. But we don't like talking about that one anymore. The rich will save us.

I explicitly mentioned class in my previous post, so I'm going to have to echo Lexicus' question.

That's a bit broader than I'm used to. If people think that having different policies based on countries is racist, that ruins discussion. I'd have to tease out the more classical understanding of 'racist' and then just from there. Obviously, one can have a racist opinion of a country, but it's also impossible to not discriminate based on country

My point wasn't that it is automatically racist. And the specific policy is immigration, which has more discrimination baked in than perhaps some other policies might. I'd be wary of extrapolating to policies in general.