Reece Jones: Borders Are Racist
Wow this is shit.
And this guy's a professor at the University of Hawaii...
It is logical to support immigration restrictions if you believe that the United States is fundamentally an Anglo-European culture with western civilizational roots. This logic drove the United States’ earliest immigration laws from the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 to the Immigration Act of 1924 that established quotas to protect a racially defined notion of who could enter the United States. Subsequent immigration laws removed the explicitly racist elements, but have continued to limit the number of immigrants, the vast majority of whom are not white.To recap, and clarify: if you believe that the U.S. has Western civilization at its roots, then you are racist. And if you are racist, then you want immigration controls. Therefore, if you want immigration controls, you are racist. Also, though our immigration laws aren't racist anymore, they're racist anyway, because they limit the number of people who can come into the country from elsewhere...and most people elsewhere are nonwhite.
And this guy's a professor at the University of Hawaii...
posted by Winston Smith at
8:28 PM
2 Comments:
Classic assuming the consequent. If you're a 19th Century racist, you wanted to limit immigration, especially from odd oriental countries with weird eating utensils. Modern conservatives want to limit immigration. Therefore they are racists. QED.
Although it's somewhat odd they never insist conservatives are literally from the 19th Century. I mean, it's just as implied as them being racist. Maybe I'm too much of a stickler for consistency.
Actually, I think he's pretty clearly stating that:
1) It is logical to support immigration if you believe he US is fundamentally rooted in white people junk.
2) Historically, this has been the justification for immigration policies.
3) Current immigration policies still work for you if you believe (1) is the reason for their existence.
He simply omits the fact that (1) is not the sole rationale for endorsing the policies referenced by (3).
If your summary of his argument is supposed to be derived from the section you quote (I didn't bother reading the article), then it isn't really right; you're building into his argument more than he provides in that quote in order to make sense of what I presume to be his eventual conclusion that those policies only make sense if some sort of racist assertions are adopted.
Yeah?
I only point this out because you're usually more technically precise than this post indicates. If he elsewhere in the article says the junk that leads to your recap, then he's as idiotic as you state, but I just wanted to point out that your quote doesn't establish your synopsis as accurate.
Because I'm going to be the philosojerk that you need and deserve in times like these.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home