So, is it "racist" if Mexico wants a border wall?

[mjr]

Because apparently one Mexican newspaper's editorial board thinks they should have one...on their southern border.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...mmigrants.html

Mexicans are calling for the border wall to keep out Guatemalans, Salvadorans and Hondurans fleeing violence
They complain 'hordes' of immigrants are flooding the country on the way to the US - who then deport them back to Mexico
Mexican newspaper El Mañana published article: 'Yes to the Border Wall … but in Mexico's South'
'Trump's idea of a border wall is a good one but it should be on the southern border with Central America,' the El Mañana board wrote

[s_stabeler]

possibly, possibly not. A border wall is not inherently racist- it's more that it's generally believed that the reason why Trump et al focus on illegal immigration from mexico is they have a problem with hispanic immigrants specifically- that is, if the illegal immigrants were all white, they wouldn't have a problem. THAT is where the claims of racism come from.

That, and it would cost far more to man a border wall sufficiently to prevent illegal immigrants from either tunneling underneath, or scaling, a border wall than any actual economic damage from the immigration- which makes people believe the motivation is more than just "control illegal immigration!!!"

[jackfaire]

Okay so I tracked down and read the original article that all of the other sites have lost their shit over. Link below.

This is not an article about how the government is planning a wall or that all of Mexico thinks this is a good idea. In fact there is nothing presented in the article but one writer's opinion and it absolutely is racist. In fact we might recognize it as the person who wrote it refers to those immigrants to Mexico from the south rapists, thieves and kidnappers who once deported from America back into Mexico turn to lives of crime instead of trying to gain legitimate employment.

A lot of the other sites that are making a big deal about this one person's opinion want to play it like "see we aren't racist" But really that's not how it reads from the original article. It's the same tactic that MRA advocates like to use they point at some woman who agrees that women suck and need to be ruled over by men as "see we we aren't sexist against women because this one woman agrees and she represents her entire gender"

This person is absolutely racist in their mind it's not Mexicans who cross the border it's only people from other countries that use Mexico as a way station and those people absolutely are no good.

So yeah I would argue it's racist I would also question it's legitimacy as a publication seeing as the article doesn't even have a byline beyond the paper's name.


http://www.elmanana.com/sialmurofron...o-3351816.html

[Greenday]

Yes it's racist. It's stupid as hell.

[BlaqueKatt]

there's no way to even build a wall due to geography.

there is no wall along the Mexico-Guatemala border. Most of that frontier consists of rain forests, mountains, rivers, lakes, or other natural barriers, and few of the sections passable by foot or automobile include any walls or fences:

and the daily mail is the british version of the weekly world news, it's a tabloid, NOT a reputable news source.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I think BlaqueKatt did the best job of showing this is a bullshit story. It's also one that's been recycled forever so my guess is the Daily Mail author got scammed and wrote an article because I can't find any evidence of a secondary source on it which would be odd if there was a legit wall there.

That said, there are immigration issues in Mexico dealing with Central American immigrants.

So to the heart of your question "is it "racist"", I think ultimately the US has racist on the brain this decade which obfuscates the conversation. That's not to discount racism exists, but largely the economics of open and closed borders, border law enforcement, and policy are neutral questions inherently. The interplay of racism is that while they are neutral governance questions, you can't help but pick up racist people on both sides. There will always be racists that want a closed border but that does not mean a closed border is inherently undesirable. That's like saying "neo-nazi's are running away from that attacking Polar Bear, let me run towards it instead."

Not saying closed borders are a good idea at all btw (I'm more globalist in general although I thnk we're back living in a time of economic imperialism which China has really shifted to so some stuff I'd love to do would never work). I'm just saying at its heart is an inherently neutral set of choices regarding population, GDP per capita, and available skills. On the right, they're wrong because immigration has always existed and the one they're focusing on really specific moralist arguments which are bullshit when you consider American businesses and citizens were willing accomplices for decades - that's not a 12 year old 2nd generation American's fault. On the left, they're simply wrong because they cling a little too tightly to the "jobs Americans don't want to do" thing which needs to be immediately added to the statement "and because that lack of supply would drive the price up and we would have to pay more meaning we'd have less stuff, we are ok with a class of people imported to depress the prevailing wage." Basically, it's what affluent people tell themselves because they do not conceive of what life is like for those in a family unit making less than 50K and it helps them. Those jobs Americans won't do used to be done by Americans that didn't go to school because that's what they could get - now they just show up as systemically unemployed and we pretend we didn't create that problem. Historically when the US imported large amounts of labor, there were major works accompanying them. Thing is, the major works in the US have been highly skilled for the last few decades - not things like construction or infrastructure.

[jackfaire]

The interplay of racism is that while they are neutral governance questions, you can't help but pick up racist people on both sides.

Honestly I assume the person isn't racist if they talk about concern for open borders but it's kind of hard to ignore the racism if you attempt to talk about both borders which about equally have illegal immigrants, and the northern one is more open than the southern one there are huge swaths of unwatched land where you can just backpack into America no fuss no muss.

So if the person refuses to discuss all of the borders, doesn't think the others are a problem when they are etc. That's when I see racism because then it's clearly not about closing our borders it's about closing the border that touches non-white people. So agreed it's not inherently racist but one sided conversations are.

I think BlaqueKatt did the best job of showing this is a bullshit story. It's also one that's been recycled forever so my guess is the Daily Mail author got scammed and wrote an article because I can't find any evidence of a secondary source on it which would be odd if there was a legit wall there.

Also I linked the article that the Daily Mail was citing up above. It's from a Mexican blog, has no byline and is just one person's op-ed piece. it includes no interviews, facts, etc.

It's not that the Daily Mail got scammed they just did what they always do swear up and down they got it sourced, they did, and then tell you their interpretation of it without actually making it that easy to find the source so that you couldn't see how much they were stretching.

[s_stabeler]

On the left, they're simply wrong because they cling a little too tightly to the "jobs Americans don't want to do" thing which needs to be immediately added to the statement "and because that lack of supply would drive the price up and we would have to pay more meaning we'd have less stuff, we are ok with a class of people imported to depress the prevailing wage." Basically, it's what affluent people tell themselves because they do not conceive of what life is like for those in a family unit making less than 50K and it helps them. Those jobs Americans won't do used to be done by Americans that didn't go to school because that's what they could get - now they just show up as systemically unemployed and we pretend we didn't create that problem.

Yes and No. First of all, the left don't want there to be no enforcement of immigration policy at all.- they usually aren't OK with illegal immigrants being imported to depress the prevailing wage. it's more a recognition that a) it's expensive to deport illegal immigrants- ICE has the budget for about 250k deportation hearings per year. DHS do another 450k per year, while about 1.2 million come in per year. There are about 11 million illegal immigrants in the US. The simple fact of the matter is, it would cost too much to get rid of all illegal immigrants, so the left want a focus on kicking out those that turn to crime. If an illegal immigrant keeps their head down and breaks the law only as much as they have to, the left figure it's better to give them an amnesty, give them legal status, and concentrate on getting rid of the problem ones.

There's also the fact that sometimes, they have had kids who lived either all, or most of their lives in America- sending those kids back- even if they came over here when young- can be somewhat unfair because the kids are functionally American- they are often shunned in their "native" countries or otherwise can't cope, because said country isn't actually home to them. Again, is it truly fair to them?

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Yes and No. First of all, the left don't want there to be no enforcement of immigration policy at all.- they usually aren't OK with illegal immigrants being imported to depress the prevailing wage. i

Unfortunately, that is a generalization just as much if I said, " I grew up around a bunch of liberal families in the 90's and they were just as likely to have an illegal maid as anyone else that had that kind of money." Flat out, liberals have had multiple turns at the wheel since 1992 - they are complicit in this.

There's recognizing issue A - Immigration Policy and issue B - the legacy of lax to non- immigration enforcement. They're actually not the same issue because the scale of the problem retroactively vs. the scale of policy going forward are vastly different. My cards on the table? I'm fine with amnesty period - the people we imported didn't create that demand - existing American citizens did because the immigrant was less expensive and more reliable than their 15 year olds for mowing the lawn and we stopped letting our kids pick produce over summers. But for me, I expect that point to be defined in an actual year AND I expect real enforcement going forward.

I'm going to table the "is it fair?" because I don't want to sound like a broken record on this, but that answer entirely depends on who you are. If you are the immigrant kid? No. If you are parents of the kid? Yes as you may very well be complicit in the gamble so you should be culpable to that risk of the rejection. If you are the multi-generational American adult, no its not fair- you were complicit in the job market that brought over the illegal immigration and the immigrant child shouldn't have to suffer because you were permissive. If you are multigenerational American child not at risk of deportation? Again, it becomes fair because you are baring the increased competitive burden caused by two law bending groups (your parents an the immigrants parents) and your labor pool is artificially inflated making your prospects lower. So I don't even think "fair" is a good barometer. That's a game of, "whose priorities would you like to ignore?" That's like most politics actually...

The best barometer is what resolves the issue the most efficiently. And that's probably going to be some sort of set date amnesty combined with stepped up enforcement especially of overstayed Visas which is actually where most of illegal immigration comes from. Also, there should be massive penalties for companies or private citizens complicit in illegal immigration and the money recovered from that should go back to dealing with the issues of enforcement budget and assistance for those trapped by it.

So if the person refuses to discuss all of the borders, doesn't think the others are a problem when they are etc. That's when I see racism because then it's clearly not about closing our borders it's about closing the border that touches non-white people. So agreed it's not inherently racist but one sided conversations are.

I agree and I don't. In that I think for some people it flat out is the thing which is why we don't focus on overstayed Visas. At the same time, there is the reality that currently the US population is still 60+% White. I just don't forsee a scenario in which we stop down or slow Mexican immigration regardless of our Canadian policy that doesn't run afoul of the topic. It's too sensitive for people right now. The optics are bad. Even though the numbers have been declining, Mexican illegals have made up just a percentage point less than half of all illegal immigration according to Pew. That means you still have a majority white country dealing with a predominantly hispanic population trying to enter it. I just don't see how focusing on European/Asian/Canadian immigration (the other half) fixes how people feel about the racial issues at play.

[jackfaire]

I just don't see how focusing on European/Asian/Canadian immigration (the other half) fixes how people feel about the racial issues at play.

Because honestly then it changes the conversations. If there are people saying "Your'e racist" to diffuse the other person's argument the other person saying "But I have a hispanic maid" does 0 to make it sound like "I am not racist" and just feeds into the fire.

There are going to be some people that genuinely think that person is racist and others who are using the appearance of racism to completely sabotage the conversation.

I recently watched a video defending Trump, it's nearing October so I thought I would get a head start on checking out the candidates that will be on the ballot in November, and the person made a big deal about how it's not racism (Muslim isn't a race) and that while he personally, the person making the video, doesn't think most Muslims are a problem that the people who are a problem are Muslim thus we should tighten up our immigration reform for anyone identifying as Muslim.

This is bigotry. Has been bigotry. Always will be bigotry. Why? Well because their have been in modern day hell during my lifetime terrorists who act under a banner of Christianity so why not tighten the rules for them? Hell I hear the same tighten the immigration rules from some of the same people who oppose doing the same for guns.

They argue "then only criminals will have guns" well not all terrorists are stupid if being Christian is a fast pass to citizenship. Boom "I am christian"

It is sheer bigotry and discrimination to decide that rules will only apply to one group of people. Even if that's not how you intend it. People are individuals though. There might be that one Christian guy who starts running around bombing Planned Parenthood for Jesus Christ who immigrated to the country.

If you want to tackle illegal immigration and it's enforcement you can't target just one group of people or that's bigotry. The point is that the rules have to be the same for everyone.

If you argue, "Everyone should have to show ID to vote and my campaign will pay out of pocket for everyone to get an ID that doesn't have one" that wouldn't be bigotry"

My state has never tried to pass Voter ID Laws in recent memory and that is extremely telling. In fact my State is one of the few that could make "we want to make sure voters are who they say they are" and it wouldn't be seen as racist or discriminatory at all.

Voter ID laws specifically target minors who have been systematically disenfranchised and per capita have larger amounts of working poor. My state has a plan for that. You have to have a Photo ID to get a job so if you are collecting state benefits like food stamps you can walk into any DSHS office in the state and they will give you a voucher to take to the DMV where you can get an ID at cost so that you can go find work.

My state found a way to make ID laws fair for everyone. We can have strict ID laws all over the state and there is no excuse for not having one (Cost is l$5 that's less money than it takes to buy a sandwich at the grocery store)

And this is kind of my point about the wall thing. The wall specifically targets Latinos. Anyone whose not Latino can just come in through the Northern border. Chances of our ever policing it are not great. Oh sure there are checkpoints on the roads but a lot of people backpacking in woods that cover both countries have looked at their GPS checking their route and realized "woops I am in (other country)" and there was no sheriffs there to catch them. No milita groups ready to kick them out of the country nothing.

So no matter what you're reasoning no matter how much you love immigrants if you're only calls to immigration policy is to build a wall to keep out Latinos and to tighten immigration rules but only for Muslims well those are bigoted policies even if you are not.

[HYHYBT]

A minor point, relatively speaking, but even if this were true and all, Mexico's southern border is TINY compared to their northern one. All other things being equal (which they're not, of course) that makes a wall a more reasonable idea.

[jackfaire]

Awall a more reasonable idea.

I would argue that a wall is never a good idea, yes I know this is when some smartass is going to mention The Great Wall yeah it didn't work,

Most walls are not like the Sourcewall in that they aren't infinite. Build a wall along one border people come in by sea or fly to the other end and use that border.

Build a wall all of they way around your country by airdrop.

Build a Dome well now you're just seriously crazy. A wall psychologically is a great rallying tool but no president who isn't kind of crazy will actually build one because physically it does nothing. Sure it's a physical barrier but you can only build it so tall and so deep into the ground tunnels, which even with no wall are the most popular drug trafficking route will still by pass them.

[HYHYBT]

More reasonable, comparatively speaking, not in an absolute sense.

[jackfaire]

More reasonable, comparatively speaking, not in an absolute sense.

Ah so more in a less likely to make people go "You want what?!?!" kind of way?