White students to no longer be majority at school[W:62]

Grant said:

More than race, many feel that their American culture will be effected, that the American traditions will be overwhelmed by the Latino culture and traditions. Mexico, for example, does not have an inspiring record in the equality under the law, traditions of a free press, or the human rights Americans are accustomed to.

Discouraging English to be taught in schools, for example, will have as much of a positive effect on the Latino people as Ebonics had on Black students.

Click to expand...

The inequalities in the politics and laws of South and Central America are the result of govts that the US has supported and even promoted.

IOW, it's the US that has a disappointing record of promoting equality under the law, a free press, or human rights, in those countries.

Ockham said:

My immigrant grandparents on both sides worked their fingers to the bone - one side in a steel mill in NY the other in Volks slaughter house as butchers in the early 1900's. They were white immigrants from Eastern Europe, while my mothers side of the family was fleeing Hitler in Yugolavia where the Serbs took over, rounded up anyone who stayed, shot them by the dozens and buried them in mass graves. Making like only minorities of color worked in this country is a lie, and you don't know **** about it.

Click to expand...

The topic presented and which I was responding referenced the Civil War, not WWII. Keep up.

My ancestors came from Armenia at the end of the Armenian holocaust. Neither your ancestors or mine (well actually one grandmother was a DAR and I'd have directed my "white" comments at her family with no hesitation) were being discussed.

Brouwer said:

It's damn annoying when someone gets called out on their BS and then plays the victim card. If you're gonna hint that changing demographics is bad when it means a lower percentage of whites, expect to be called a racist.

Click to expand...

Redress said:

To my mind, racism requires a feeling of superiority or inferiority of a race compared to others. While the OP post is racial, I think it does not rise to the level of racism. We need to stop overusing the term racist. Something does not have to be racist to be bad.

Click to expand...

Brouwer said:

Why else, other than some sort of disadvantage, would whites being a minority at a school be bad? The OP implies there's something wrong with the trend without stating why. Hence, until he states why, it's fair to assume it is racism.

Click to expand...

Redress said:

Simple dislike of other. I don't like speculating on the motives of others, in part because motives tend to be complex and multi-layered.

Click to expand...

Am I to presume you'd prefer to call the prevailing attitude in the OP prejudicial or bias then? Wouldn't either points of view lean towards an attitude of White superiority which in itself implies racism?

Summerwind said:

Really, because hiring slaves to do all the work is equal to "the very economy whites made vibrant and strong?" I think you're confused. It's blacks, and orientals, that worked they're fingers, backs, and all part of their bodies to the bone while white men sat on their asses.

Immigrant labor made the economy and the infrastructure that made the economy vibrant and strong. How totally "white" of you to think otherwise.

Click to expand...

Please read my post (#244) which you quoted again. I think you'll find we share the same opinion on the matter.

Grant said:

More than race, many feel that their American culture will be effected, that the American traditions will be overwhelmed by the Latino culture and traditions. Mexico, for example, does not have an inspiring record in the equality under the law, traditions of a free press, or the human rights Americans are accustomed to.

Discouraging English to be taught in schools, for example, will have as much of a positive effect on the Latino people as Ebonics had on Black students.

Click to expand...

From the standpoint of assimilation, I tend to agree with you. But will America learn from its failed practices of the past where it fought so hard not to allow Native Americans the opportunity to assimilate into American culture? Or the Chinese? For nearly 100 years Black? And now Mexicans/Hispanics?

Of the four, I'd say Blacks had an advantage in that while slaves they came to learn the ways of the White man not from a tactical point of view, i.e., Indians, but social and culturally. Thus, assimilation ultimately was easier. Of course, if Whites would have been more willing to get out of the way and let the laws of nature run its course I think relationships between Blacks and Whites would have greatly improved in their own way over time. But fear and this sense of national ownership got in the way.

Those who hold power and influence today are bound to make the same mistakes. You see it festering in the very OP that has caused such an uproar among posters.

Ockham said:

Yes, and the Patriot Act was kept and continues to be kept by Democrats. You and I can go tit for tat on anti-freedom documents by either party all day long. However, one side seems to embrace large government more than the other. Do you disagree?

Click to expand...

Yes. Both parties have and continue to expand government at an equal rate. Both parties are the problem.

Objective Voice said:

Please read my post (#244) which you quoted again. I think you'll find we share the same opinion on the matter.



From the standpoint of assimilation, I tend to agree with you. But will America learn from its failed practices of the past where it fought so hard not to allow Native Americans the opportunity to assimilate into American culture? Or the Chinese? For nearly 100 years Black? And now Mexicans/Hispanics?

Of the four, I'd say Blacks had an advantage in that while slaves they came to learn the ways of the White man not from a tactical point of view, i.e., Indians, but social and culturally. Thus, assimilation ultimately was easier. Of course, if Whites would have been more willing to get out of the way and let the laws of nature run its course I think relationships between Blacks and Whites would have greatly improved in their own way over time. But fear and this sense of national ownership got in the way.

Those who hold power and influence today are bound to make the same mistakes. You see it festering in the very OP that has caused such an uproar among posters.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I misunderstood your point.

As for assimilation, if these folks really believe one should assimilate to the culture of the country they are entering, we should all be Native American in culture by now. They don't believe what they are saying, not really. They only mean that assimilation is best if non-hispanic whites is the culture that has to be assimilated into.

j-mac said:

Just another sign that the "open borders" quasi policy is on a path to overburden our systems...What say you?

Link

Click to expand...

The only constant is change. If you want to live someplace where society never changes...well, maybe you might have some luck in the Amazon rain forest....

summerwind said:

really, because hiring slaves to do all the work is equal to "the very economy whites made vibrant and strong?" i think you're confused. it's blacks, and orientals, that worked they're fingers, backs, and all part of their bodies to the bone while white men sat on their asses.

immigrant labor made the economy and the infrastructure that made the economy vibrant and strong. How totally "white" of you to think otherwise.

Click to expand...

wow...

Summerwind said:

That's from the 2000 census, the one I linked is with data from the 2010 census, I even bolded the pertinent part. Try to keep up.

Click to expand...

The only time your link mentions "unauthorized immigrants" is when talking about the total population of Idaho. IE: 2.2% of the total population in Idaho is made up of illegal aliens. No where does it state that out of 12 million illegal immigrants in the entire US, 2.2 percent of the 12 million live in Idaho. Which is what we are talking about. Again, your posts show an inadequate knowledge of reading comprehension.

sangha said:

Walk the talk

The 2.3% figure for Idaho is not the % of all undocumented immigrants in the US. It's the % representing how much of Idaho's population is comprised of undocumented immigrants

Click to expand...

Which just goes to show that you and her have no clue as to what me and Redress was talking about.

Kal'Stang said:

The only time your link mentions "unauthorized immigrants" is when talking about the total population of Idaho. IE: 2.2% of the total population in Idaho is made up of illegal aliens. No where does it state that out of 12 million illegal immigrants in the entire US, 2.2 percent of the 12 million live in Idaho. Which is what we are talking about. Again, your posts show an inadequate knowledge of reading comprehension.

Click to expand...

No, that is not what we're talking about.

The 2.2% figure comes from the chart I posted and it refers to the % of Idaho's total population that is undocumented immigrants. It is *not* the % of all undocumented immigrants

And the # is 2.3%, not 2.2%
Learn to read.

Kal'Stang said:

The only time your link mentions "unauthorized immigrants" is when talking about the total population of Idaho. IE: 2.2% of the total population in Idaho is made up of illegal aliens. No where does it state that out of 12 million illegal immigrants in the entire US, 2.2 percent of the 12 million live in Idaho. Which is what we are talking about. Again, your posts show an inadequate knowledge of reading comprehension.

Click to expand...

You are the only one "talking about" it that way, that I see. I get that you misunderstood where the 2.2% came from, but that doesn't mean that your misunderstanding somehow took over the rest of our perspectives.

Kal'Stang said:

Which just goes to show that you and her have no clue as to what me and Redress was talking about.

Click to expand...

You weren't talking about the #'s that Redress posted because he said nothing about 2.2% being anything. Here's what he said

Redress said:

It is not an issue. Educate yourself. There are about 11.7 million illegal immigrants in the US. Roughly 6 % are school age. My calculator comes up with 702k illegal immigrants of school age. There are about 40 million students in the US K - 12. I get about 1.755 % of students tops are illegal aliens. It took me 5 minutes to get all that together. There is no excuse for ignorance nor perpetuating the lie in the OP.

Click to expand...

You also clearly took issue with a "graph" but since Redress didn't post any graphs, you obviously were not referring to anything he said

Kal'Stang said:

Learn the difference between illegal immigrants and legal immigrants.

I do admit to the fact that I may have been wrong as to the graph though. Since we were talking about illegal immigration I assumed that he would post a relevant graph talking about illegal immigration. He apparently did not do such but instead posted a graph of legal immigration. I guess that accounts for the 2 some odd percent figure.

My bad for assuming that someone would be honest in their posting I guess.

Click to expand...

And the graph I posted was about illegal immigration. Here it is again:



Read the heading

Finally, Redress said *nothing* about Idaho, so you are obviously lying when you claim you were talking about Idaho #'s with Redress.

sangha said:

No, that is not what we're talking about.

The 2.2% figure comes from the chart I posted and it refers to the % of Idaho's total population that is undocumented immigrants. It is *not* the % of all undocumented immigrants

Click to expand...

Duh. That's what I said. Look above where you bolded. Redress's and I's commentary was about the total of 12 million illegals across the entire US and where most of them are centered, IE, south western states with some exceptions. Which even your graph showed. If you don't know what the heck is being talked about then you really should keep your comments to yourself.

sangha said:

And the # is 2.3%, not 2.2%
Learn to read.

Click to expand...

Learn to realize when people press the wrong button.

sangha said:

You weren't talking about the #'s that Redress posted because he said nothing about 2.2% being anything. You also clearly took issue with a "graph" but since Redress didn't post any graphs, you obviously were not referring to anything he said

Click to expand...

You posted the graph in response to something that I said to Redress in which you said that I was wrong. Man...can't you even keep up with your own arguments? You obviously can't keep up with other peoples arguments. And yes, I questioned the 2.3%. Because me and Redress was talking about the total amount of illegal aliens across the entire US and where most of them was centered. Your graph is about how much of the total population of each state is made up of illegal aliens. That does not in anyway show the percentage of illegals as spread out across the entire US and where they are at. It gives a good indication of where the majority of them are. But it does not show what me and Redress was talking about.

Kal'Stang said:

Duh. That's what I said. Look above where you bolded.

Click to expand...

Yes you said that, but you also that the graph was about legal immigration. You can't keep your story straight

Kal'Stang said:

I assumed that he would post a relevant graph talking about illegal immigration. He apparently did not do such but instead posted a graph of legal immigration. I guess that accounts for the 2 some odd percent figure.

My bad for assuming that someone would be honest in their posting I guess.

Click to expand...

Redress's and I's commentary was about the total of 12 million illegals across the entire US and where most of them are centered, IE, south western states with some exceptions.

Click to expand...

You are lying. Redress did not say anything about where the undocumented immigrants are. Not one word.

And most of them are not in the southwestern states.

Summerwind said:

You are the only one "talking about" it that way, that I see. I get that you misunderstood where the 2.2% came from, but that doesn't mean that your misunderstanding somehow took over the rest of our perspectives.

Click to expand...

Actually that would be Redress and I. You and Sangha weren't even a part of that particular conversation until you both butted in. Neither one of you realizing what Redress and I was talking about.

Summerwind said:

The topic presented and which I was responding referenced the Civil War, not WWII. Keep up.

My ancestors came from Armenia at the end of the Armenian holocaust. Neither your ancestors or mine (well actually one grandmother was a DAR and I'd have directed my "white" comments at her family with no hesitation) were being discussed.

Click to expand...

My apologies then.

Kal'Stang said:

Actually that would be Redress and I. You and Sangha weren't even a part of that particular conversation until you both butted in. Neither one of you realizing what Redress and I was talking about.

Click to expand...

Settle down now, all of you, or I am putting a stop to this.

Kal'Stang said:

Actually that would be Redress and I. You and Sangha weren't even a part of that particular conversation until you both butted in. Neither one of you realizing what Redress and I was talking about.

Click to expand...

I've gone back and re-read all of that, and you're either lying or you're ignorant. You decide.

TeleKat said:

Yes. Both parties have and continue to expand government at an equal rate. Both parties are the problem.

Click to expand...

Equivocation... gotta love it.

Kal'Stang said:

You posted the graph in response to something that I said to Redress in which you said that I was wrong.

Click to expand...

Yes, you said:

Kal'Stang said:

Most illegal immigrants are centered in a few states. Mostly the south western ones with a few exceptions.

Click to expand...

and the graph I posted proves that you are wrong. Most undocumented immigrants live outside of the southwestern states.

Man...can't you even keep up with your own arguments? You obviously can't keep up with other peoples arguments. And yes, I questioned the 2.3%. Because me and Redress was talking about the total amount of illegal aliens across the entire US and where most of them was centered.

Click to expand...

Redress did not say anything about where they are centered. .

I have kept track. That's why I know that you're lying about what Redress said.

Your graph is about how much of the total population of each state is made up of illegal aliens. That does not in anyway show the percentage of illegals as spread out across the entire US and where they are at. It gives a good indication of where the majority of them are. But it does not show what me and Redress was talking about.

Click to expand...

True but I also posted a link that shows that the majority do not live in the southwest states. Here it is again

Appendix A: Additional Figures and Tables | Pew Research Center's Hispanic Trends Project

Look at table A2. Only 2 out of the top 10 states with the largest # of undocumented immigrants is in the southwest. The total of the other 8 states (which are not in the southwest) totals more than 50%. Do you know what that means?

It means most of them live somewhere other than the southwest

Kal'Stang said:

Actually that would be Redress and I. You and Sangha weren't even a part of that particular conversation until you both butted in. Neither one of you realizing what Redress and I was talking about.

Click to expand...

You are lying about what Redress said. He did not say one word about where they live.

Not. One. Word.

sangha said:

Yes you said that, but you also that the graph was about legal immigration. You can't keep your story straight

Click to expand...

You're right, in that post I did. I was confused due to something that Summerwind posted. I'm sure that you will realize that I had initially assumed that it was about illegal immigration in my first response to you about that graph.

sangha said:

You are lying. Redress did not say anything about where the undocumented immigrants are. Not one word.

Click to expand...

No, I did. My argument to Redress was about it in response to what he said. IE: it was an evolving conversation. One which you obviously did not wait to finish or progress being butting in.

sangha said:

And most of them are not in the southwestern states.

Click to expand...

Lets find out shall we? The population of California is roughly 37.2 million. Going by your graph 7.3% of that total is made up of illegal aliens. Which equals out to roughly 2,715,600. In Texas the total population is 26.4 million. According to your graph illegal aliens make up 5.96% of that population. Which equals out to roughly 1,573,440. Add those two up and you get 4,289,040. Now lets add in Nevada, total population of 2.7 million. According to your graph illegal aliens make up 8.85% of the total population. Which totals out to roughly 238,950. Total so far is 4,527,990. Next up, Arizona. Population: 6.5 million roughly. According to your graph, illegals make up 7.69% of the total population of AZ. Which is roughly 499,850. Grand total so far: 5,027,840. Utah: 2.9 million. Your Graph: 4.02%. Total: 116,580. Grand Total: 5,144,420. New Mexico: Roughly 2.1 million. Your Graph: 4.03%. Total: 84,630. Grand Total: 5,229,050. Colorado: 5.3 mil. Your Graph: 4.86. Total: 257,580. Grand Total: 5,402,000.

Alright, I'll amend my previous statement. How about the word "a lot" of illegal immigrants are centered in the south western states? It might not be most, but it sure as hell is a good chunk of them. Particularly when you consider that the southwestern states only make up a quarter of the US.

I do love the assumption of non-whites as a monolithic group, opposing whites. "Oh no, our pure white culture is doomed, the culture of the brown people will take its place". :lol: