Is a desire to reduce immigration racist? Hillary voters think so.

[Santander]

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/antiracism-norms-and-immigration/

Interesting study.

[Cactus Jack]

Considering that the primary argument against immigration - and I'm not just talking illegal immigration, though that's a big part of it - is "ew scary foreign people," I'd say the Shillaries are right on this one.

[Adam Griffin]

The birth rate is 1.84 in the US; to sustain population (and our social safety net), it needs to be at 2.1. The only reason we're even still growing  - unlike Japan and many European countries that will inevitably collapse under their own old weight - is because we have a sufficient number of immigrants who are coming here and who are having children of their own at higher birth rates for the first generation.

Despite there being evidence that immigration does not hurt native-born citizens economically, despite the fact that immigrants and non-citizens commit crime at lower rates and despite the fact that we're not going to be able to sustain our economy without status quo immigration rates, there are people who still want to restrict it. Why do they want America to fail? The only logical conclusion is that they want racial and ethnic purity (even if it destroys us), so yeah: the desire to reduce immigration rates either comes from a position of total ignorance, or it's coming from a position of racism, bigotry and/or xenophobia.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I realize that there's a character limit in thread titles, but you could have made clear that the question asked was whether it was racist to want changes in immigration for ethnocultural reasons, not just for wanting changes in immigration without ascribing motivation to the desire.

What that article could have made clear was that for the US survey, Hillary voters were more likely than Trump voters to think a person wanting a change in immigration policy because it would benefit their ethnocultural group was racist if the hypothetical person was identified as White, Black, or Japanese American, but the reverse was the case if identified as Hispanic or Asian American. Not exactly a survey that speaks well of either group of voters.

[JA]

This was the question: 'A [member of the ethnic majority] who identifies with her group and its history supports a proposal to reduce immigration. Her motivation is to maintain her group’s share of the population for cultural reasons. Is this person a) racist, b) racially self-interested, which is not racist, c) don’t know.’

It's important to place the question in its proper context so people understand what the responses indicate.

[Santander]

This was the question: 'A [member of the ethnic majority] who identifies with her group and its history supports a proposal to reduce immigration. Her motivation is to maintain her group’s share of the population for cultural reasons. Is this person a) racist, b) racially self-interested, which is not racist, c) don’t know.’

Whites are a minority in the world. What other consequence could the current immigration policy have?

[TheSaint250]

I don't like the idea of reducing legal immigration (unless there's a time in the future where there is a massive influx that a weakened nation can't handle). The only time I would says it's racist is if you want to decrease immigration because of where they're from or race or something like that. Someone posted earlier that many feel that immigrants take American jobs even though there's not much data. Even if that's true, many believe it, and wanting to reduce immigration for the sake of giving Americans priority over jobs is not racist.

I've always been a fan of immigration and don't favor restricting legal immigration at this time. Right now I don't think there should be set quotas that either lower or increase immigration levels

[JA]

This was the question: 'A [member of the ethnic majority] who identifies with her group and its history supports a proposal to reduce immigration. Her motivation is to maintain her group’s share of the population for cultural reasons. Is this person a) racist, b) racially self-interested, which is not racist, c) don’t know.’

Whites are a minority in the world. What other consequence could the current immigration policy have?

You do realize that outside of America and maybe Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, literally nobody thinks of it that way, right? A few Britons have adopted that mindset, but even they're a minority. Nobody sees themselves as part of some global "White race." A German, Italian, Bosniak, Ukrainian, etc sees themselves as solely their ethnicity, and a person from Serbia, Finland, or France are no more part of their in-group than a Moroccan, Nicaraguan, or Indonesian. I can tell you from personal experience discussing this issue with my Bosniak friend and Romanian ex-girlfriend that they do not see themselves as "White;" and they certainly don't view themselves as closer to a White American than a Turk, Assyrian, Kurd, or Egyptian.

[pbrower2a]

The birth rate is 1.84 in the US; to sustain population (and our social safety net), it needs to be at 2.1. The only reason we're even still growing  - unlike Japan and many European countries that will inevitably collapse under their own old weight - is because we have a sufficient number of immigrants who are coming here and who are having children of their own at higher birth rates for the first generation.

Despite there being evidence that immigration does not hurt native-born citizens economically, despite the fact that immigrants and non-citizens commit crime at lower rates and despite the fact that we're not going to be able to sustain our economy without status quo immigration rates, there are people who still want to restrict it. Why do they want America to fail? The only logical conclusion is that they want racial and ethnic purity (even if it destroys us), so yeah: the desire to reduce immigration rates either comes from a position of total ignorance, or it's coming from a position of racism, bigotry and/or xenophobia.

They are afraid of cultural change. They are afraid of an America that loses its grip on its Anglo-Saxon identity... although they have no problems with the largely-Catholic Americans of Irish, Polish, and Italian origin. They are afraid of people whom they fear may be saying nasty things about them behind their back. (The defense against that is to not do stuff that causes people to have ugly stereotypes about Americans of certain low levels of culture and education).

But British colonists in early Americans threw away any chance of preserving racial purity by importing the people who looked least like themselves so that they could have some cheap labor. (Note that that did not affect 'cultural' purity because the slave-masters destroyed any African cultural heritage). Cultural purity?  Try imagining America without the Jewish contributions to music, theater, cinema, and comedy. Don;t forget that the cuisine of early New England was insipid in the extreme.

...Population growth is the ultimate Ponzi scheme. It implies at the least lower pay and higher rents. Economic elites (like Donald Trump) may profiteer from it, but that is not the cause of happiness for most Americans.

[Santander]

This was the question: 'A [member of the ethnic majority] who identifies with her group and its history supports a proposal to reduce immigration. Her motivation is to maintain her group’s share of the population for cultural reasons. Is this person a) racist, b) racially self-interested, which is not racist, c) don’t know.’

Whites are a minority in the world. What other consequence could the current immigration policy have?

You do realize that outside of America and maybe Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, literally nobody thinks of it that way, right? A few Britons have adopted that mindset, but even they're a minority. Nobody sees themselves as part of some global "White race."

No, most people believe race is real. They just think ethnicity comes first.

[Sumner 1868]

I find anti-immigrant sentiment is often Malthusian which is even worse.

[Beet]

I have a desire to reduce immigration... to Europe. Europe is ancestrally European ethnicity and I think that's something worth preserving. Europeans deserve their own countries with their own ethnicity as the majority and culture, just like every other region of the Old World.

The Americas and Australia, are of course, different, since the natives of these lands have no hope of reconstituting a majority. They are melting pots. And America was founded on ideas, not ethnicity. The ironic thing is, Trump's election has dampened immigration to the US while the backlash in Europe will increase immigration to there... the worst possible outcome. Bigotry wins in America, whereas Europe still loses its identity. The worst possible things always happen in this world.

[JA]

This was the question: 'A [member of the ethnic majority] who identifies with her group and its history supports a proposal to reduce immigration. Her motivation is to maintain her group’s share of the population for cultural reasons. Is this person a) racist, b) racially self-interested, which is not racist, c) don’t know.’

Whites are a minority in the world. What other consequence could the current immigration policy have?

You do realize that outside of America and maybe Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, literally nobody thinks of it that way, right? A few Britons have adopted that mindset, but even they're a minority. Nobody sees themselves as part of some global "White race."

No, most people believe race is real. They just think ethnicity comes first.

Based on what evidence? I've actually had numerous discussions of this issue with people from other countries. In fact, I sent a screenshot of your post to my Bosniak friend and she had a good laugh about it. Face it, your conception of race is purely American-centric; nobody else believes it. Race is a social construct that varies by social context; it's different in every country, it varies by time period, and virtually nobody outside of the Anglosphere attempts to universalize it. As my Bosniak friend said, they don't see any racial distinction between Bosniaks and Turks, Persians, or even Indians. To them, they're all "White," as far as that term is relevant to them at all. All that matters to most people around the world is their ethnic group.

[Santander]

Based on what evidence? I've actually had numerous discussions of this issue with people from other countries. In fact, I sent a screenshot of your post to my Bosniak friend and she had a good laugh about it. Face it, your conception of race is purely American-centric; nobody else believes it. Race is a social construct that varies by social context; it's different in every country, it varies by time period, and virtually nobody outside of the Anglosphere attempts to universalize it. As my Bosniak friend said, they don't see any racial distinction between Bosniaks and Turks, Persians, or even Indians. To them, they're all "White," as far as that term is relevant to them at all. All that matters to most people around the world is their ethnic group.

Race and peoples' perceptions of race are different things. Of course people perceive race differently based on the culture they live in, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A Colored person in South Africa would be just Black in America. If a German and a Frenchman went to Ghana, the locals would consider both of them to be white. If a Bengali and a Tamil went to France, they would be considered Indians, or more broadly, Asians.

[JA]

Based on what evidence? I've actually had numerous discussions of this issue with people from other countries. In fact, I sent a screenshot of your post to my Bosniak friend and she had a good laugh about it. Face it, your conception of race is purely American-centric; nobody else believes it. Race is a social construct that varies by social context; it's different in every country, it varies by time period, and virtually nobody outside of the Anglosphere attempts to universalize it. As my Bosniak friend said, they don't see any racial distinction between Bosniaks and Turks, Persians, or even Indians. To them, they're all "White," as far as that term is relevant to them at all. All that matters to most people around the world is their ethnic group.

Race and peoples' perceptions of race are different things. Of course people perceive race differently based on the culture they live in, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A Colored person in South Africa would be just Black in America. If a German and a Frenchman went to Ghana, the locals would consider both of them to be white. If a Bengali and a Tamil went to France, they would be considered Indians, or more broadly, Asians.

But even the physical features upon which most of racial perceptions are built is very fluid. Is a Turk "White?" Why might a Greek be White but a Turk not? Or White Hispanics, are they White or not? Sure, if a native of Africa saw me with my fair skin they'd describe me as "White," but they might also consider an Arab or Mestizo as White. But regardless of all that, I don't understand why I should particularly care about the percentage of world population that has a few genetic sequences that result in lighter physical features. Not saying I want those features to disappear, because I don't, but I also don't see the purpose of shaping policy on the basis of preserving those features either.

[Dr. Arch]

Based on what evidence? I've actually had numerous discussions of this issue with people from other countries. In fact, I sent a screenshot of your post to my Bosniak friend and she had a good laugh about it. Face it, your conception of race is purely American-centric; nobody else believes it. Race is a social construct that varies by social context; it's different in every country, it varies by time period, and virtually nobody outside of the Anglosphere attempts to universalize it. As my Bosniak friend said, they don't see any racial distinction between Bosniaks and Turks, Persians, or even Indians. To them, they're all "White," as far as that term is relevant to them at all. All that matters to most people around the world is their ethnic group.

Race and peoples' perceptions of race are different things. Of course people perceive race differently based on the culture they live in, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A Colored person in South Africa would be just Black in America. If a German and a Frenchman went to Ghana, the locals would consider both of them to be white. If a Bengali and a Tamil went to France, they would be considered Indians, or more broadly, Asians.

But even the physical features upon which most of racial perceptions are built is very fluid. Is a Turk "White?" Why might a Greek be White but a Turk not? Or White Hispanics, are they White or not? Sure, if a native of Africa saw me with my fair skin they'd describe me as "White," but they might also consider an Arab or Mestizo as White. But regardless of all that, I don't understand why I should particularly care about the percentage of world population that has a few genetic sequences that result in lighter physical features. Not saying I want those features to disappear, because I don't, but I also don't see the purpose of shaping policy on the basis of preserving those features either.

That's correct. Even by census standards, in Puerto Rico, all you have to be is phenotypically White, while in the US, there's the "one drop rule," which basically makes it so that you're not technically White unless you have White ancestry down to 1/64. These variations are just two examples and vary wildly depending on the country from which you approach the concept of "race".

"Race" is just a term that we use to pack certain conglomerates of features that we believe that co-occur under one label, most of which are physical, but it may extend to ethnic and cultural practices. In other words, what is White to one person raised under one cultural context, may not be to another, depending on how restrictive that perspective is.

[Santander]

But regardless of all that, I don't understand why I should particularly care about the percentage of world population that has a few genetic sequences that result in lighter physical features. Not saying I want those features to disappear, because I don't, but I also don't see the purpose of shaping policy on the basis of preserving those features either.

Race is not merely about skin color, but that is not even a subject worth discussing here. I never said that our policies should be designed to preserve white skin color. I merely pointed out the fact that the vast majority of the world is not white, and that a less white country is an inevitable consequence of increased immigration. The motivations or "racism" of immigration opponents is irrelevant.

[Helsinkian]

You do realize that outside of America and maybe Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, literally nobody thinks of it that way, right? A few Britons have adopted that mindset, but even they're a minority. Nobody sees themselves as part of some global "White race." A German, Italian, Bosniak, Ukrainian, etc sees themselves as solely their ethnicity, and a person from Serbia, Finland, or France are no more part of their in-group than a Moroccan, Nicaraguan, or Indonesian. I can tell you from personal experience discussing this issue with my Bosniak friend and Romanian ex-girlfriend that they do not see themselves as "White;" and they certainly don't view themselves as closer to a White American than a Turk, Assyrian, Kurd, or Egyptian.

And yet many SJWs see all the non-whites of the world as part of some joint collective. The use of the term "people of color" to refer to Africans, Arabs, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Mexicans and Inuit as if they were all one and the same and shared common interests underlines that way of thinking.

[Person Man]

But regardless of all that, I don't understand why I should particularly care about the percentage of world population that has a few genetic sequences that result in lighter physical features. Not saying I want those features to disappear, because I don't, but I also don't see the purpose of shaping policy on the basis of preserving those features either.

Race is not merely about skin color, but that is not even a subject worth discussing here. I never said that our policies should be designed to preserve white skin color. I merely pointed out the fact that the vast majority of the world is not white, and that a less white country is an inevitable consequence of increased immigration. The motivations or "racism" of immigration opponents is irrelevant.

What is the issue with there being a smaller portion of the population of the United States being "white"? What is "white"?

[Santander]

But regardless of all that, I don't understand why I should particularly care about the percentage of world population that has a few genetic sequences that result in lighter physical features. Not saying I want those features to disappear, because I don't, but I also don't see the purpose of shaping policy on the basis of preserving those features either.

Race is not merely about skin color, but that is not even a subject worth discussing here. I never said that our policies should be designed to preserve white skin color. I merely pointed out the fact that the vast majority of the world is not white, and that a less white country is an inevitable consequence of increased immigration. The motivations or "racism" of immigration opponents is irrelevant.

What is the issue with there being a smaller portion of the population of the United States being "white"? What is "white"?

I never said it was an issue to me, I just pointed it out as a consequence of our existing immigration policy.

[Helsinkian]

The birth rate is 1.84 in the US; to sustain population (and our social safety net), it needs to be at 2.1. The only reason we're even still growing  - unlike Japan and many European countries that will inevitably collapse under their own old weight - is because we have a sufficient number of immigrants who are coming here and who are having children of their own at higher birth rates for the first generation.

When did left-wingers stop caring about over-population? They still sometimes talk about that, see this Guardian article titled Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children (notice that the article is accompanied by an image of white babies; imagine the outcry if they had been non-white).

If Japan were to go from a population of 125 million to a population of 90 million, it would not be the apocalypse. Sure, there would be a period of adjustment, but their society would still be preferable to that of most countries on this planet.

I'm seeing a pattern: left-wingers telling Americans/Europeans to make fewer babies in order to "conserve the planet", and then telling them to accept third world mass migration to mitigate the effects of having fewer children.

[Person Man]

The birth rate is 1.84 in the US; to sustain population (and our social safety net), it needs to be at 2.1. The only reason we're even still growing  - unlike Japan and many European countries that will inevitably collapse under their own old weight - is because we have a sufficient number of immigrants who are coming here and who are having children of their own at higher birth rates for the first generation.

When did left-wingers stop caring about over-population? They still sometimes talk about that, see this Guardian article titled Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children (notice that the article is accompanied by an image of white babies; imagine the outcry if they had been non-white).

If Japan were to go from a population of 125 million to a population of 90 million, it would not be the apocalypse. Sure, there would be a period of adjustment, but their society would still be preferable to that of most countries on this planet.

I think what would be preferable at this point is a stable population or a population that is growing, but no faster than technology's ability to provide for it. Europe in 1300 was "over populated" with 100 000 000 people. Europe now has 600 000 000 people.

[Santander]

I have seen left-wingers on Atlas unironically hold up the one-child policy as the greatest environmental policy of all-time.

[Devout Centrist]

The birth rate is 1.84 in the US; to sustain population (and our social safety net), it needs to be at 2.1. The only reason we're even still growing  - unlike Japan and many European countries that will inevitably collapse under their own old weight - is because we have a sufficient number of immigrants who are coming here and who are having children of their own at higher birth rates for the first generation.

When did left-wingers stop caring about over-population? They still sometimes talk about that, see this Guardian article titled Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children (notice that the article is accompanied by an image of white babies; imagine the outcry if they had been non-white).

If Japan were to go from a population of 125 million to a population of 90 million, it would not be the apocalypse. Sure, there would be a period of adjustment, but their society would still be preferable to that of most countries on this planet.

I'm seeing a pattern: left-wingers telling Americans/Europeans to make fewer babies in order to "conserve the planet", and then telling them to accept third world mass migration to mitigate the effects of having fewer children.

Such sustained population decline, combined with an aging population, over such a short period of time is a recipe for social disaster.

I have a feeling you have no idea what you're talking about. Everyone should be having less children, period. We should be reducing fertility rates in the third world dramatically.

[SoLongAtlas]

The problem is overpopulation, not immigration of one race or nationality or another. I am fine with legal immigration from wherever, so long as they pass criteria for legal entry. A lot of left-wing types bash those that don't support immigration (legal or not) as racist, not seeing the problem with security and the main sticking point - overpopulation and lack of resources/jobs.

So to the OP's point, a desire to reduce immigration isn't racist but it depends on the variables. This will be a main point of contention going into the mid-21st century.

@Devout, agree but it's not happening as quickly as we need it to be to avoid major problems going forward, esp in poor countries https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

Also https://www.ined.fr/en/everything_about_population/population-games/tomorrow-population/ if you want to sim it out.