Thread: Is illegal immigration about racism?

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Well, if it isn't Jesse "Photo Op" Jackson.

You have Jesse Jackson but also need to add Al Sharpton. In South Florida some call them the 2 rev crew as both of them are reverends.

The word 'racist' is a relatively newly coined word and was only invented (by a Marxist/liberal) about a hundred years ago. Go ahead and check the etymology. Prior to that time, the word 'nationalist' was used.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

The word 'racist' is a relatively newly coined word and was only invented (by a Marxist/liberal) about a hundred years ago. Go ahead and check the etymology. Prior to that time, the word 'nationalist' was used.

It is still a word that is not clearly defined. If someone calls me a racist, I ask them to define it. They can not. Because if they try, it is clear that many organizations in this country that liberals support would fall under the racist category. And almost every nation in the world would be racist nations, some extremely racist, with officially racist official government policies, and many of them are Third World countries.

I think it's interesting that they assume "illegal immigrant" is A race.

What race is it? Whose the racists?
I saw this somewhere the other day it is a retort to the notion that "no human is illegal"
it is simply this: "illegals are not immigrants"

Many of them think your country of origin is a race. There were trolls on an immigration blog who Canadians a race.

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by Jonathan

The word 'racist' is a relatively newly coined word and was only invented (by a Marxist/liberal) about a hundred years ago. Go ahead and check the etymology. Prior to that time, the word 'nationalist' was used.

It is still a word that is not clearly defined. If someone calls me a racist, I ask them to define it. They can not. Because if they try, it is clear that many organizations in this country that liberals support would fall under the racist category. And almost every nation in the world would be racist nations, some extremely racist, with officially racist official government policies, and many of them are Third World countries.

I think it is normal and natural for people to promote the interests of their own family and their extended family (their clan, tribe or race), but I would not consider this racism unless promoting one's own race is done at the expense of other races by means of slavery or other blatant exploitation.

Immigration does not consider Hispanic a race. When I went there yesterday my relative had to fill out a paper and it had under races: American Indian including Alaskan (? as they are American), Asian, Black, White and unknown. Under White is said including Hispanic.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I think it is normal and natural for people to promote the interests of their own family and their extended family (their clan, tribe or race), but I would not consider this racism unless promoting one's own race is done at the expense of other races by means of slavery or other blatant exploitation.

I agree. But even if not done at the expense of exploitation, slavery. etc. Caucasions are not afforded the same rights in the media's eyes of ethnic interests. It is always seen as racist for Caucasions to have any ethnic interests, while every other race has legitimate ethnic interests which are accepted, nay encouraged.

My history professor said when I asked if he felt that current conditions were mimicking pre-civial war struggles "well certainly you have mistreatment o the illegals by employers and racism on the part of people trying to keep illegals out..."

to which I replied. "was it racist for the founding fathers to stop the African Slave Trade?". "The only difference I see is that illegals are VOLUNTEERING to come into the country. Much like the indentured servants who came after the pilgrims with the false promise of land and riches in exchange for the payment of their travel."

To me i see resemblances in these instances:
1. Cities and States are taking matters into their own hands (ala, Northern freedom of slaves vs. Southern stats refusal to free slaves and the Wakarusa war in Kansas)

2. The Democrats of the 1800's supported slavery, 150+ years later they support illegal immigration. The Republican party was formed to fight slavery and the free labor market and the abuse of the low-level workers, now for the most part they are fighting illegal immigration.

3. Southerners used the excuse that slavery was good from the Africans and the whites. That it gave the Africans stability and that they were happy (known as the Sambo Slave). Now proponents of illegal immigration say that it's best for both sides, when in reality it makes 'free laborers' (that is legal residents/citizens) less likely to get a job and maintains a poverty class of illegal workers who constantly replace each other in the labor pool.

4. Southerners and Democrats said that without the slaves America's economy would falter and we would become easily overcome by the British or some other nation. Today they say that without illegal aliens our economy would collapse... It would seem that this is just a repeat of an old lie.

5. There is belief that a feeling was growing in the south that enslaving africans alone was not correct. These people felt that anyone should be able to be enslaved, including american citizens and mexicans who joined the union after the Mexican-American war. Today many pro-illegal alien supporters believe that eventually illegal aliens will make more money than legal citizens and in some cases they already do. I call this 'wage slavery'.


Differences that I see:
1. Republicans claimed that slaves were us citizens and should be freed. This was based on facts. The 3/5 clause of the Constitution said that 3/5 of a states slaves counted towards its population and therefore helped it get representatives. This made the slaves defacto citizens who would be freed a hundred years later. There is no such clause for the current illegal alien crisis except possibly what is known as the 'anchor baby' act. Republicans and anti-illegal aliens do not want those here to get citizenship no matter whose fault it is that they are here.

This is a highly relevant assertion because african slaves were from a continent thousands of miles away and had little or no way to flood the USA after the Emancipation Proclamation. Today if such a thing were to be done for the Latino illegal aliens (by and large the biggest portion) they are located right to our south, and modern transportation would make it easier for anyone in the world to come to the USA and claim to be a citizen under these guidelines.


2. Many illegal aliens come here on a volunteer basis. Its not something we in the states know too well yet but large and small businesses actually pay coyotes DIRECTLY to smuggle workers in. Once here the worker agrees to stay and work for 'x' amount of years before moving on. Many times the employer houses them (as in the TX chinese family that housed 2 illegal aliens in their home -- the aliens raped and brutally murdered their son).

Slaves from Africa were obviously not volunteers for their torment and were unwillingly brought to the USA.


3. African slaves, though not given formal education, were taught to speak and understand english to be able to follow orders. Illegal aliens are treated differently in that businesses changed the entire way they do business just so that the spanish speaking illegal alien is able to do business and work there. This undermines those who are legal residents/citizens and forces us to cope with whatever language the illegal alien pandering companies of the area are pushing (mostly spanish).