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

[Inmate Trump]

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

Interesting study.

We don't think it's racist to want to reduce immigration.

We do think it's racist when you accuse an entire race of being rapists and murderers.

Good thing no major candidate did that

Why do Trump supporters pretend so hard that things he did during the campaign didn't actually happen?

He said it.  You know he said it.

[TheSaint250]

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

Interesting study.

We don't think it's racist to want to reduce immigration.

We do think it's racist when you accuse an entire race of being rapists and murderers.

Good thing no major candidate did that

Why do Trump supporters pretend so hard that things he did during the campaign didn't actually happen?

He said it.  You know he said it.

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/aug/08/tim-kaine/tim-kaine-falsely-says-trump-said-all-mexicans-are/

[All Along The Watchtower]

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.

While I understand where you're coming from here and I agree that it's quite wrong to lump in all "people of color" together, the "common interest" that they all share is overcoming the ideology of white supremacy, which is absolutely a real thing that has pervasive adverse effects on a global scale.

[Famous Mortimer]

If America was 100% Latino tomorrow, not a da*n thing would change about the foundations of our nation or how we do things. These Latinos would still pledge the same fealty to our Constitution, split into different political parties, both liberal and conservative, but they would still be fundamentally similar to their white majority forebears. How do I know this? It's been done over and over again in American history. Latinos, as we speak, are doing this very thing. Our streets would be just as safe tomorrow if this transition happened, our GDP would be just as strong, and our nation just as great. (Also we just went through a black President who was, in most ways, indistinguishable from the 42 men who preceded him.) 

Do you actually believe this? You think if the United States and Mexico swapped populations, the social problems in each country wouldn't swap? The US would remain just as economically strong and Mexico would still remain a third world nation? Do you believe the physical land in the United States is magic that makes the people who live here relatively peaceful and prosperous? The people themselves have nothing to do with the society they live in? The society exist independently of them and stays the same forever? We could make the US 100% Somali and everything would still be the same, we wouldn't resemble Somalia politically and economically?

Like, you really believe that?

While the "tomorrow" was a little tongue in cheek, the fact is that the process of immigration and integration (especially over several generations) creates a difference between a Mexican in Mexico and a Mexican-American. If you read the rest of my posts you would know I said nothing about the physical land. The rest of your posts is pablum which indicates you did not read my posts about immigration and how it works/should work.

Don't get worked up over the fact I said "tomorrow." I was making a point, which I fleshed out. My point was: a 16 year old American Latino is not his grandfather from Mexico, and you know that. Don't pretend they bring their Old World problems and that nothing changes when they immigrate.

That may be true historically, but you shouldn't assume that it will always be the case. Also, the Irish, Italians, etc. had more in common with America's WASP founding stock than, say, people from the Islamic world - and that's not just due to skin color.

The thing is, we continually forget that people are not tied to their land. People change, especially as they take root in new countries that welcome them and assimilate them. That's why our immigration populations usually are indistinguishable after two or three generations. Your average Muslim born in America 16 year old isn't his grandfather in Saudi Arabia.

These immigration populations come here because the promise of America extends economic and social and cultural opportunity they never would have have in their homeland. In 50 years, Latinos will be indistinguishable from everyone else and will actually be considered fairly white by some. And we'll freak out about some Somali mass immigration, who in 100 years after that will be just as American. 

Why would foreigners assimilate to be like native born Whites if native born Whites are a minority? People don't assimilate to be like minorities.