In Farmers Branch and Everywhere Else in America, Nativism Always Loses and Always Will

Categories: Schutze

SHZ_GetOffMyLawn_TitleImageV2.jpg
The thing about ethnic identity is that it is always, has always been and will always be a dead end in the end. Then again, it's also in the nature of things that you can't change a dead-ender.

Last night I was watching a TV news story about a city council debate in Farmers Branch over that city's the anti-Mexican law. I concluded that everybody has a different version of what's embarrassing. Tom Bohmier, a resident, begged the Farmers Branch city council not to throw in the towel in a long legal war over the city's anti-Mexican law:

"It would be embarrassing for us to fold our tent up, have two other cities prevail, and then we'd be the laughing stock because we paid two million dollars when we didn't have to," Bohmier told the council.

pictish_man.jpg
UNC School of Education
"Pictish Man," an early champion of ethnic purity.
Farmers Branch already has already spent six million bucks on lawyers in a seven-year fight to preserve a law requiring Mexicans to get a license in order to rent an apartment. On July 23, the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law -- its third defeat in federal court -- as unconstitutional. I haven't read the opinion, but I have a hunch there's a phrase or a line in there saying the Farmers Branch anti-Mexican law, in addition to violating the basic charter of the nation, "... is also kind of embarrassing." Could be wrong about that, though.

Bohmier is not wrong in saying anti-Mexican laws in other American cities have survived court tests. The most recent victory for the get-out-the-Mexicans campaign came just a month before the Framers Branch defeat in New Orleans: the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis ruled in favor of an anti-Mexican law in Fremont, Nebraska.

The question of local laws stepping out front of the federal government on immigration control has not been fully litigated all the way to the Supreme Court. The general tide, however, seems to be going strongly against the idea that a town can tell Washington what to do, so much so that if one were of the betting persuasion one might not throw good money after bad in a place like Farmers Branch. Last night the Farmers Branch city council deadlocked and did not vote to quit the fight or not.

Yeah, a couple towns may have prevailed in the lower courts. But do you really think this concept of upside-down government is a winner in the long-run? Forget bigotry as an issue. Just draw me a flowchart.

One thing that's stuck in the craw of people like Bohmier is that crying uncle at this point won't be cheap. When Farmers Branch admits it's a loser, it will have to pony up another two to three million dollars to pay attorneys on the other side. At that point I predict there will be some very big sailboats on Lake Texoma with names like "Thank you, Farmers Branch," and "Nativist Yokels Galore."

But I don't believe legal fees or even the thought of an embarrassing defeat in court is the biggest thing stuck in the craw of the diehards. James Traub has a great piece on the op-ed page of The New York Times today tracing nativist anti-immigrant sentiment back to the formative years of the republic, making the point that ethnic-identity movements always fail in the end, even dragging their political parties into the grave with them.

Because ... think about it. What? Do you really think you can make America look like your mistaken all-white dreams of yesteryear? Do you even care if that's real? Are you here with us on the Planet Earth?

I read Caesar's Gallic Wars as an adolescent. I remember being shocked when Caesar described the people in what I think of as France as a bunch of red-headed Irish-looking folk. Now, admittedly, they could have been caking their hair with red mud at the time. Those French! But our teacher explained that nobody looks like anybody used to look anywhere in the world today because everybody has gone everywhere and engaged in war, dismemberment and baby-making with everybody else. Those people!

It also has always been the case that some people just can't stand the inevitable process of erosion of their basic ethnic identity. There's another good story in the Times today about a man in Atlanta named D.A.. King, an anti-immigration activist working to defeat comprehensive immigration reform in the congress. King quit his job and burned through savings to devote himself full-time to a campaign for Mexican expulsion after a Mexican family settled in a house on his street and parked cars on their lawn.

Maybe they were a terrible family. An awful family. Hey, maybe they would have driven me crazy, too. But Mr. King has allowed his wrath over one family to convince him of two things: 1) 11 million hard-working people can be and should be expelled from the nation, and 2) he can make his world white again.

Let's not say he's crazy. Crazy means anomalous, and we know from our own history as a nation that nativism is not anomalous. It's as American as apple pie. It's just a loser. In the long run nativism and ethno-centrism always lose. That's the first thing. Always. The nativists always wind up having to pay for sailboats for the other guy's lawyers.

And here's the second thing. They don't care. Somewhere in the backs of their minds the people fighting to keep America white know that they will lose, and they do not care. They live to lose. They die to lose. There is no talking to them, no appeal to reason. Their identities are so tightly woven into ethnicity that they would rather go down smoking than give up.

So let's have a show of hands. Who wants to go down with them? OK, now who wants a sailboat?

My Voice Nation Help
74 comments
billolsen89
billolsen89

It's an anti-democrat-party law, and hooray for Farmers Branch for passing it.  We don't need any more of those bozos imported by Nasty Pelosi or Hairyreed just to keep spliberals in office for life, telling us how to live and living off our backs.

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

Nativism.

Elle MAcPherson topless on a tropical beach whispering in an unknown tongue to me.

Journalists today butcher the language.

your unpaid ombudsman . . . always vigilant . . . 

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

It's irrational to argue the Farmers Branch ordinance was not put into effect solely to target Hispanics. It was.

I also wonder why anybody would argue in favor of Farmers Branch's approach, would that argument be based on a "the law needs to be enforced" platform? if that is the case, do you turn yourself in for speeding? after all, speeding is against the law...

From the very first one, Immigration Laws have been tools to restrict certain races/ethnic groups from coming to the US. When the country was young there were no immigration laws, the laws reared their ugly heads when WASPs in Congress saw too many Asians, too many Irish, and then too many Jews were hitting our shores.

Get rid of these laws, save for not allowing immigration based on health or criminal history. If anybody wishes to come to the US and get to work, let them. It will be good for all: for us who will benefit from their productivity, for them as they can exercise their freedom to be productive, and for the country that will prosper from their work product.

and we won't waste all the time and $ trying to keep people out, or catch them when they get here, or in FB case pursue irrational laws to exclude them.

Obummer
Obummer

Yo evenz eyez canz seez datz callingz Farmers Branch’z anti-illegal immigrants ordinance anti-Mexicanz be uh lying outrage. Shame.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

I don't really have an opinion on the immigration debate, it's an artificial divisor cooked up by the politicrats to keep the subjects properly divided and easy to maintain.  I do have one question and one observation for you Jim.

Question: The actual Circuit Court ruling in the FB case had nothing to do with racism or xenophobia, but with jurisdiction, did it not?  The judges basically said that FB could not usurp Federal authority in enforcing immigration laws.  You seem to wholeheartedly agree with this assertion, that municipalities cannot pass laws that are rightly in the Federal jurisdiction.  Excellent.  I eagerly await your next story, where you really sock the sanctuary cities in their jaws.

Observation: you mention somewhere in your screed that an upside down government flows opposite the proper flowchart.  Forgive me if I'm confused here, but we still live in the United States, right?  The country with that Constitution thing?  Yeah that document that starts out with a set of personal liberties the government isn't allowed to mess around with, that's where we live.  Jim, in the US, the government is supposed to answer to the people, not the other way around.  Your "flowchart" should have the People at the top of it.  All of the levels of the government should fall into rank from there.  Washington seems to have forgotten that, have you as well?

primi_timpano
primi_timpano topcommenter

Farmers Branch has done their job. There is no reason for them to throw in more good money to save the money wasted. There is now a split in the circuits so the issue likely will be heard by SCOTUS. Let some other place fight that fight. Spend money for therapy and consulting for the city council in the hope their bigotry can be restrained when they perform their jobs.

ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin topcommenter

My buddies parents (mexican) came here legally.  They lived in Chicago their whole life, working and raising 3 kids.  All 3 kids are grown now, the parents retired and after buying a house for my buddy are moving back to their hometown in Mexico.  All that retirement money will go much farther for them down there.  They feel America provided exactly what they needed, a place to work for a good wage, and a good place to raise and educate their children

tam_tagon
tam_tagon

Farmers Branch simply points out how the standing laws are backward, what should be illegal is the wall of restrictions and requirements and quotas making it so difficult to enter America legally and engage the path to citizenship. 

Illegal aliens embracing the risk to get into America because even a shadow life like that is better than where they were born reflect the core of America, and those citizens who would purposefully deny this founding legacy of America are without honor.


russell.allison1
russell.allison1

The solution is obvious-we need to encourage illegal immigration (again) from the Nordic nations.  While its a fact that they'll probably bring cheap, "some assembly required" domestic goods with them, but on the upside the inter-breeding will result in taller, blonder, smarter kids than in a lot of native relationships. 

Roger
Roger

Ain't it the truth. Ask any Native American.

rzimmerman1
rzimmerman1

Anti-Mexican law? I thought that Farmers Branch was trying to prevent illegal immigrants from renting homes and apartments in their city. They apparently don't appreciate being invaded by foreigners who have entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas. I don't think that's an anti-Mexican law (as you put it). Illegal immigrants come to this country from every corner of the globe. To stereotype them all as being Mexican is very unfair. Although many come from Mexico there are also very high numbers coming from Central America and Asia and elsewhere. Try thinking before you post garbage like this.

rubbercow
rubbercow

Jim

I have been voting democrat for almost three decades and don't consider myself to be a white supremecist. It is really irritating to read articles like this one where a person who should be more responsible (you) rail against anyone who would like to see enforcement of this nation's immigration laws as nothing more than slobbering, stupid and regressive.

Why don't you do a little bit of research? You might find that the US grants citizenship and legal residency to far more Latin Americans than any other ethnic group by far. You might also find that Latin Americans make up over 80% of illegal immigrants present in the US.

Are we to have any laws governing who is able to enter our nation? If so, what would you propose? Do you want diversity? Ok, me too. In order to accomplish diversity we will need to dramatically curb the admission of those from Latin America and open up to Africans and Asians. I would happily get on board with something like that.

You may gain more web traffic by writing a complete piece of garbage like this one, but you do not address the issue. Yes, I get it. In order to be a progressive you must loathe anything "white" and you are duty bound to call anyone (regardless of their history, race, educational level and actions) who disagrees with you a "racist", "bigot" or "xenophobe".

I know this may be a shock, but there are many Labor Democrats (like me) who see this mad rush for "reform" as nothing more than one more blow to US workers and a sellout of national sovereignty by politicians eager to win the loyalties of an imported voting bloc.

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@RTGolden1

Fifth Circuit Opinion: “This country has a large Latino population and millions of Latinos live here without legal permission. However, the great majority live quietly, raise families, obey the law daily, and do work for our country. For all that they contribute to our welfare, they live in constant dread of being apprehended as [undocumented immigrants] and being evicted, perhaps having their families disrupted.”

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/10/10-10751-CV0.wpd.pdf


On the flowchart deal, Golden, let me ask you a question: can your city council exempt you from  federal income taxes? I know we all have feet, but is the neckbone connected to the headbone?

russp
russp

@ScottsMerkin 

Of the 50 million immigrants in this country, 80% managed to follow the rules and be here legally. I have no sympathy for the other 10 million who chose the illegal way to come here and feel they entitled to no amnesty or services from the American tax payer. The fact that the number of those following the law drops to only 50% when speaking of the Hispanic immigrants does not speak well for the character of these folks.  

russp
russp

@tam_tagon 

As I said in a previous post, 80% of the immigrants to this country manage to do it legally; the restrictions cannot be that bad. 

russell.allison1
russell.allison1

@tam_tagon So you would flip the big middle finger to the countless millions who entered the country correctly?  You would leave the maintenance of the delicate balance of national diversity vs limited resources to the individuals who illegally immigrate to this country,some of whom have less than a 6th grade education and whose short sighted interests begin and end with them and a family in (in most cases) Latin America? 

Montemalone
Montemalone topcommenter

@russell.allison1 Never gonna happen. They'll bring their socialized health care, free college education, and anti-war views with them. You think Marekins are gonna go for that?

Threeboys
Threeboys

@Roger 

I was born in Detroit 48 years ago.

That makes me a native American.

Daniel
Daniel

@rzimmerman1 Good point, rzimmerman, but in the case of FB, one need not make assumptions to determine exactly who it is they mean. Tim O'Hare, who (as a councilman and then as mayor) spearheaded FB's anti-illegal-immigrant efforts, was surprisingly explicit in his bigotry against Mexicans. The man is not what you'd call "polished."

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@rubbercow 

you asked for a bit of research...don't know where you got your #'s but they don't appear to be accurate.

in 2012, 1,031,613 people gained legal permanent resident status.

From where did they originate?

Africa 107,321

Europe 81,671

North America (inc latin america) 327,771

South America 79,401

Asia 429,599

saw a great read in today's WSJ that I'd like for anyone who sees this push for our dealing with the illegal immigrant issue as "a sellout" or a "blow to US workers". hope the firewall lets you read it.... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324635904578644611220551192.html

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@rubbercow

You, sir, do not speak for the Americanlabor movement, with the labor movement or even about the labor movement:

"The UAW should be in the forefront of the fight for immigration reform," said (UAW president Bob) King, calling it a civil rights issue. He reminded delegates of the union's historic role in the civil rights movement, when the legendary UAW President Walter Reuther teamed up with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"There are 11 million people who are being abused and exploited," and it "hurts everyone's middle class standard of living," King declared.

http://peoplesworld.org/immigration-reform-a-top-goal-for-auto-workers/

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@JimSX I wasn't questioning the rank of the various levels of government, just wondering if you were aware of what the top of the pyramid was supposed to be.  Apparently, you're not.

 You didn't answer my other question.  When can I expect a story chastising sanctuary cities for usurping federal jurisdiction?  YOU feel the need to reduce this to race, I don't.  I don't care what the motivations of a bunch of mouth-breathing peckerwoods in Farmers Branch may or may not be.  I care about Ms. Justice being blind and still being able to tell when her scales are out of balance.  If Farmers Branch can't make a law that usurps Federal jurisdiction by enforcing selected aspect of the immigration laws, San Francisco can't pass a law undermining Federal jurisdiction by contradicting certain aspects of the immigration laws.  One of these situations may have more moral and ethical value than the other (it does) but that doesn't relieve the obligation of the courts to be consistent.

rubbercow
rubbercow

Here is what the court actually held, Jim:"Because the sole purpose and effect of this ordinance is to target the presence of illegal aliens within the City of Farmers Branch and to cause their removal, it contravenes the federal government’s exclusive authority over the regulation of immigration and the conditions of residence in this country, and it constitutes an obstacle to federal authority over immigration and the conduct of foreign affairs."While the court recognizes that Latinos (the court used that word, Jim, you can use "Mexicans" if you'd like) would be impacted the most it also acknowledges the reality of the majority Latino composition of the total number of illegal immigrants. Not quite sure it make me a racist to point out the very obvious.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@russell.allison1 @tam_tagon 'maintenance of the delicate balance....'? What a crock.  If it were so serious to maintain the delicate balance of national diversity, there would already be severe punishments in place for those who beckon illegal immigration with the promise of a plethora of low-paying menial jobs.  The illegals aren't here because they have no other choice, they're here because WE have no other choice.  WE bring them here, WE benefit from their labor (through cheap construction and cheap pleasing landscape), WE benefit from the diversity of culture they bring with them, WE benefit from their children (when we do right by them) and in return for these benefits we give them shit jobs and shit pay and shit neighborhoods (which they tend to improve, not destroy), no access to the benefits their payroll taxes help fund (like our lowered income taxes, subsidized by payroll taxes throughout the Bush presidency) and threat of deportation.

I argue in favor of enforcing the law, because the law exists in a delicate balance.  That does not mean I think the law should remain as it is.  It should be changed to something that can be enforced without morally bankrupting our nation (if it's not too late).  Diversity can take care of itself, and as Jim points out rather obtusely, has done so throughout human history.  Our limited resources are threatened more by our incessant need for things, not by the people that come here and make those things.

tam_tagon
tam_tagon

@russell.allison1 @tam_tagon

Flip the finger? No I wouldn't.  I would, though, make it more difficult for bigots to flip the finger at unstoppable human migration.

I would complete the education of those people.  

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@russell.allison1 @tam_tagon 

What "delicate balance?" This is a great country because it has always been a first-come, first-served, sharp elbows competitive country where the people who want to do the work get the work. In your comment below you use the following terms as either synonymous or at least closely related: "taller, blonder, smarter." But when tall blond people were coming here in droves in the 19th century, the nativists like you painted them as  subhuman Teutonic louts. I guess it's all a matter of fashion and whose ox is getting gored, but in this country one thing never changes: comers stay, whiners fade.

rzimmerman1
rzimmerman1

@Daniel @rzimmerman1 

I don't live in Farmers Branch or know anything about Tim O'Hare. I simply read Jim's lousy biased writing and wanted to point out his choice of words.

Threeboys
Threeboys

Just for clarification, Latin would include Northern Mediterranean countries such as Italy and Spain, right?

rubbercow
rubbercow

Yes, as your numbers confirm we admit more LPRs from Mexico and Latin America than any other ethnic group.

rubbercow
rubbercow

Yes, I knew that you would counter with "you are not a 'real' democrat or some other nonsense. Color me shocked. Do you remember when the UFW held border protests to keep illegal workers out? I think they were a union. Unions, churches and politicians would love to have more human capital for their rolls because those people will equal either money or power.

Now, do you care to address any of the question I brought up in my post? If I wanted to argue with a party cheerleader with nothing to offer but name calling I can just mosey over to the Huffington post.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@JimSX @RTGolden1 LA, DC, Denver, Oakland, San Francisco, Tulsa (oddly enough), Jersey City, New York City.... there are 31 self-proclaimed sanctuary cities.  It is a big enough issue that the Congress addressed it in a House bill for DHS spending in 2007.  It passed the House with bi-partisan support.  IF it passed the Senate (I can't remember if it did) it would have withheld emergency relief funding from sanctuary cities.

Again, I'm not passing judgement on the sanctuary cities.  I agree with their cause, not their course of action on it.  In the eyes of Justice, their policies should be seen in the same light as Farmers Branch.

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@rubbercow 

That's not "what the court actually held." It's part of what the court actually held, as was my excerpt. But I'm glad to see you know how to Google.

rubbercow
rubbercow

Ok, I agree with those. See, no racism necessary.

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@rubbercow 

Yes. Path to citizenship,  tough borders, visas for talent not ethnicity, visiting labor program, but MOST IMPORTANT -- tough enforcement of workplace safety laws and other labor laws already on the books to disincentivize rogue workplaces.

rubbercow
rubbercow

I don't see where you've answered it.

Perhaps you could make a clear answer here?

Do you think that the US should have any immigration laws? If "yes", what laws do you think would be correct?

I am all ears.

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@rubbercow 

Jesus Christ I've answered it about three times. Use your finger. 

rubbercow
rubbercow

Also, are you unable to answer my very simple and straightforward question?

rubbercow
rubbercow

Where did defend Farmers Branch and "white people", Jim?

I am not backing down from anything except what you, in your bigotry, assumed I was supporting.

Don't worry, Jim. I am perfectly capable taking as good as I give; I just don't think that is what you were doing. You are being a bully.

The worst of it that you paint me as a racist - because you think I am. You don't know me. You have no idea how I spend my time, who I hang with, how I volunteer my time or anything else about me. Just like I don't know anything about your life outside of this publication.

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@rubbercow 

You didn't start out defending comprehensive immigration reform at the national level. You started out defending Farmers Branch and white people. Now you've backed down, sure, but it's not where you were aiming when you threw the first punch.  You really have no idea why I'm being such a dick?  Because you were a dick, Dick. Come around here, you need to be prepared to take as good as you give. 

rubbercow
rubbercow

I have no idea why you are being such a complete dick but yes, I do. I would like to see it made easier for immigrants with skills that we need as a nation to be made part of our nation sooner and with less difficulty (I do not care where they come from).

I would like to see mandatory e-verify for every job, every time. I would also like to see the asylum component of our immigration policies revered so that we might allow more people in under asylum.

I would like to see immigration policies based on what is best for the nation - not just the rich, policies, churches and people who will gain from violating our laws.

In other words, a productive, orderly and fair immigration system.

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe we should have any immigration laws at all? If so, what would you like to see?

Your continued personal attack on me is turning me from someone who is fond of you into someone who is completely ambivalent to you. If that is your goal, you are doing superbly. If your goal is to actually discuss immigration as an issue - I am happy to oblige.

Threeboys
Threeboys

@JimSX @rubbercow 

Jim, you apparently don't want any immigration laws at all.  Come one come all.

Fact is, we have immigration laws that pertain to all comers.  You may not like the laws, obviously, but that doesn't take away the fact that they exist.  And for the record, I think that we do make it too difficult for immigrants to obtain legal citizenship.  The process needs to be streamlined.

FB is simply trying to administer the laws, ones which Washington won't.

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@rubbercow 

Instead of being frustrated, Rubber, why don't you state your views? Let's make it easy for you and allow you to do them one at a time. First, comprehensive national immigration reform. For it?

rubbercow
rubbercow

Jim. Where have I espoused support of cities' rights over federal control?

This is why this issue is so frustrating. You assume that I am what I am not because it helps you keep things situated as "racists" vs. "non-racists". Too bad.

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@russell.allison1 @tam_tagon 

Couldn't agree more. So I take it you are in favor of federal hegemony on this issue and national comprehensive immigration reform, as opposed to the Farmers Branch anti-Mexican law that rubbercow (below) espouses.

russell.allison1
russell.allison1

@tam_tagon @russell.allison1 The question isn't immigration vs no-immigration; the question and subsequent difficult answer is how to balance immigration so that our national (and local) resources can support the needs of citizens, new and established.  Also, of some interest is a balancing of our immigration policy to address those areas where we are weak.  We currently address talent voids in some industries by attracting immigrants with specific abilites.  At some point we fill that void and what was once a need becomes a glut.  By conntinuing to allow widget makers into the country when we already have too many widget makers we do the immigrant widget maker no favor.  What the hell is a widget anyway?  I digress...

There are many aspects to the immigration conundrum and the simplistic answer of simply opening the border fails on many fronts.

russell.allison1
russell.allison1

@JimSX Don't misunderstand-not a person who is opposed to a vibrant immigrant population, if on no other front than from a biological one.  Biologically and genetically diverse populations tend to be more vibrant.  A diversity of talent also makes us stronger.  A diversity of thought does likewise.  And, those "Tuetonic louts" (your phrase, not mine) brought navigational techniques to Europe that allowed for longer treks across open ocean.  Our European ancestors got here because of those Tuetonic louts.  Big thumbs up to the louts, from me anyway.  There were other benefits, but I rambled enough already

In other times immigration and citizenship was granted to just about anyone who wasn't coughing up a lung at the immigration clerks desk, regardless of their skills, abilities or background.  Would you propose that our current  collective national resources would support such a policy? 

Daniel
Daniel

@rzimmerman1 @Daniel He was quoted nationally. FB and Hazelton PA made news a few years back with this discriminatory nonsense. And that's what it is. Sure, it can be couched, but Tim O'Hare, for one, didn't even fuckin' bother.

Threeboys
Threeboys

So are you arguing that Mexicans are not Latin Americans?

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@rubbercow o O (dammit, i hope that culture in my fridge is limited by its geography)

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@rubbercow 

that would make them ethnically Mexican.

reinforces the point that ethnicity isn't restricted by geography.

rubbercow
rubbercow

Yes, a Mexican culturally.

You don't think Mexico has any inhabitants who may practice the cultures of their native place? What about first generation immigrants to Mexico from a culturally different place. Why is that difficult to understand?

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@rubbercow 

"cultural Mexican"????

very creative. inexplicable in its difference to ethnic, but creative nonetheless.

"ethnic" doesn't have geographic restrictions, it may have a basis there but it is a racial or lifestyle (cultural) description.

rubbercow
rubbercow

Not confused at all.

Mexicans are Mexican citizens.

Mexicans are also commonly understood to be Latin American, A Mexican can be a Mexican citizen, an ethnic Mexican and a cultural Mexican. Mexico is commonly considered one of the countries that make up Latin America.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@rubbercow 

yes, DHS tabulates by nationality/geographics, not ethnicity.

Ethnicity isn't really much of a "slippery slope". you just appear to be confused on ethnicity vs nationality.

rubbercow
rubbercow

That is why I say that ethnicity is a slippery slope.

DHS designates many countries with completely dissimilar ethnic groups and races in many cases; India, China, Vietnam, Korea, etc. are all considered "Asian".

"Latin American" is commonly understood to refer to all countries below our southern border. While certainly not homogeneous by any stretch of the imagination, Latin Americans are more similar to each other if even only because they speak Spanish or Portuguese.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@rubbercow 

so you should write nationality, not ethnicity, in their origin.

there's a difference....

rubbercow
rubbercow

I am looking at the same numbers you are. Yes, Asia in the aggregate is the largest ethnic group (although ethnicity is a slippery slop generally). If you read the next paragraph, you will see that Mexico alone accounted for 14.2% of legal permanent residents admitted whereas China (the next largest sending country) accounted for 7.9%.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@rubbercow 

you have fuzzy math, Mexico and Latin America are not the majority ethnic group. Asians would be the majority racial and ethnic group.

Roger
Roger

@JimSX Can't answer the question, can you Jim. The only thing you have is your pitiful attempt at intimidation, and that doesn't work on anyone.

If the feds put away JWP, we and all of the other black people in South Dallas you assisted him in keeping down to further your own career will still have you as our memento of his demagogy and its real victims.

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@Roger @rubbercow 

You have a very sexual take on things, Roger, and, if I may say it, not a pretty one. Were we abused, or do we abuse?  Aha. Wasn't thinking. It's both, isn't it?

Roger
Roger

@rubbercowJim's just playing a sophistic game here, switching back and forth between using Mexican as a nationality and Mexican as an ethnicity as it suits him simply in order to try to intimidate his opponent by painting the opponent as a racist. When it comes to anything more, he's intellectually bankrupt. The worst insult, though, is that he assumes the readers of the DO are all simpletons he can manipulate so transparently.

But you really can't blame him. After John Wiley Price rode Jim and his promiscuous white guilt like a pony all those years while JWP was making the African-Americans of South Dallas into his personal serfs, something he could never have accomplished without Jim's eager goober assistance, what does Jim really have left to work with? I hear Jim's wife makes him plug what's left of his dribbling, everted rectum with a T-shirt at night to keep from soiling the sheets. It's like a classic abuse cycle: the victim of cheap racialist abuse loses the ability to be anything other than the same sort of cheap abuser in turn.

So Jim, what IS wrong with limiting the number of Mexican nationals pouring over the border into Farmer's Branch? Or any other unlawfully present nationality?

Threeboys
Threeboys

@JimSX @rubbercow 

Please quote where he says "too many Latin Americans"

He is merely pointing out that the vast majority of current immigrants are Latin Americans. 

rubbercow
rubbercow

You are the one dodging the issue, Jim.

I did not say there are "too many" Latin Americans. I am pointing out that our immigration system actually favors Latin Americans (including Mexicans - there, feel better? ), so your argument that this entire issue is driven by race and nothing more fails immediately.

If you think I care for one second that you don't believe me (or that anyone else does or doesn't) you are sadly mistaken.

I must have hit a nerve or something since your immediate response to being asked about your views was for you to be a raging cock.

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@rubbercow 

You said there are too many "Latin Americans." Guys like you always love those Latino-Hispano euphemisms so you don't have to say, "Mexican," which, by the way, is the word for people from Mexico. Why don't you lay out for us here your ethnic preferences. You want us to believe your huge concern is that we're not getting enough Africans, a laughably transparent attempt to dodge responsibility for your position here. No one believes you anyway, so why not grow a pair and just own up to what you really believe.

rubbercow
rubbercow

Sad to see that you are allowing yourself to become so childish, Jim. I used to have a lot of respect for you.

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@rubbercow 

You said we have too many Mexicans. I think we don't have enough Mexicans. Your other point?

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...