As an Asian, I agree with Amy Wax. Asians don't vote for their interests. Unlike Hispanics and Blacks, they have no racial consciousness. The way they vote is primarily a reflection of their socialization. They worship "education" and force their kids to get As without realizing that "education" is now political indoctrination at most schools in the US. They live in leftist cities and pay exorbitant taxes without realizing their tax dollars are being used to support migrant families that will one day dominate them. They vote Democrats because it's "cool." Back in 1978, a group of young Americans signed up and died for a cult because it was cool, too.
My first realization came when I was interviewed for a job in SF. Before that, I was heavily discriminated against at school by leftist white faculty, Hispanics, and blacks, but never by an Asian. So, a Central Asian Muslim from my college and I competed for the same position at a small company in SF. Overprepared and versed in all possible questions, I was assured I would be selected. As it turned out, my Central Asian classmate, whom I knew didn't understand the basics, got the job. The two white and three Asian interviewers, all of whom SF locals, must have thought that anyone named "Mohammed" ranked higher in their Oppression Olympics than I, someone who grew up in a war-torn Southeast Asian country with neither electricity nor the internet.
I can offer countless anecdotes about Asians sabotaging other Asians at the altar of leftist "equity" project. In general, having fewer Asians is good. We're just importing slaves for Democrats. The Asian immigrants will work their asses off and pay taxes so that the Mexicans can take easy quotas and boss over them. It serves neither Asians' interests nor America's.
question to Amy - who are the core "legacy" population? are black people included? what about Italians who once were considred second class? what about slavic nations who were also at some point in our history consdired as undesirable immigrants? and what about Jews who until recently had very limited quotas of acceptance to elite universities? Irish? Hispanic? oh wait, I think I figured out, you mean the native americans are the long neglected legacy population! yeah that makes sense. got it.
Amy wax is on very solid ground. Those who attack her and her views are racists, plain annd simple. Basically anti American bigots who should not be allowed to enter the country. They wish us nothing but harm and they hate us. There is going to be total war on such idiocic policy. War to the death against the enemies of the republic.
You have a peculiar perspective of racism. Europeans manufactured the social construct of race and its hierarchy to enriched itself through genocide, black chattel slavery, colonization, and structural racism. It's not all about white folks getting all the natural goodies that this world has to offer. Whites only represent 10% of the world's population, and America is a young empire. Empires come and go as clearly illustrated by history. Are you or your kids and grandkids studying mandarin (technological match) or Español? Pookie and ray-ray's seeds? 😂🤣😅
Would you you like to hear the story of how I rescued a former white research scientist (inmate) from Aryan Brotherhood prison rape during my 34 years working in the prison industrial complex? He was a convicted for sexually assaulting his two-year-old-son. One of the most hideous cases I have come across in my entire career. Sex offenders aren't respected by the other inmates.
"I confess I find Asian support for these policies mystifying, as I fail to see how they are in Asians’ interest." <- I see this sentiment stated quite frequently. The statement assumes that the person uttering it fully understands what the particular group or individual believes are its interests. It puts interests above all else and principles become irrelevant. That is, of course, a rather dangerous way of looking at the world.
When you place interests above principle then the methods used to achieve those interests become trivial. It places all the focus on the end goal while ignoring the methods to reach those goals. Which, of course, can lead to all kinds of ethically and morally dangerous policies.
Additionally placing interests over principles leads you to inventing reasons why people believe and behave they way they do. For example:
"We can speculate (and, yes, generalize) about Asians’ desire to please the elite, single-minded focus on self-advancement, conformity and obsequiousness, lack of deep post-Enlightenment conviction, timidity toward centralized authority (however unreasoned), indifference to liberty, lack of thoughtful and audacious individualism, and excessive tolerance for bossy, mindless social engineering, etc."
If, instead of looking at interests, you look at the principles people hold dear you do not have to guess or invent reasons why people think of behave in certain ways because they will *tell you*.
I suspect that the principle that Asians support that so confuses Amy is one of fairness. This is another area where a lot of discussion and understanding needs to take place before you can fully understand what drives people. The reasons is that while pretty much everyone agrees that fairness is a desirable goal, the definition of fair actually means differs greatly. For example, a rather simple question: You have 3 poker buddies ordering a pizza for their weekly poker game. The pizza costs $12 and has 12 slices. Poker player Bob is rich, John is middle class and Tom is poor. Due to this, Bob pays $6, John $4 and Tom $2. When the pizza shows up, how do you divide it?
Does Bob take 6 slices, John 4 and Tom 2? That is fair as it is what each contributed when buying the pizza. Or do you divide it so each play gets 4 slices? That could also be considered fair.
When discussing these issues every one talks about fairness but most of the time liberals define fairness differently than conservatives. Liberals tend toward dividing equally while conservatives tend towards dividing by contribution. We see this definitional confusion all the time. The discussions of welfare, taxes, medical care, etc all hinge on fairness but everyone's definition differs. This causes the conversations around these issues to degrade into moral shouting matches where each side, working from their own definition of fair, accuses the other of being evil/hateful/unpatriotic/whatever because they are talking past each other.
I happen to agree that the Democratic Party is a pernicious influence today. And the reason I believe the Democratic Party is going off course is that they are working from a definition of fairness that isn't workable in the real world. The way to counter that is to actually understand why they believe what they do and argue about that viewpoint. In other words, we need to discuss principles instead of interests.
I personally think she's mistaken in her reasoning, which amounts to making a non-extreme political orientation a criteria for immigration. But: I donated to her legal defense fund. Nothing about this controversy is reason to stop her from teaching.
Israeli zionists have reportedly practiced chemical eugenic policies on Ethiopian female Jew refugees without their knowledge or consent, in an effort to preserve the white Jewish complexion in Israel. Israel also went on a massive campaign to expel/deport African refugees from their country. I keep advocating that Black folks in America need to wake up, and get into the [race]. Stop spending 98% of their dollars in non black owned buisneeses. Exchanging dollars among our own group members several times before it leaves the community is true empowerment. Racism is a competitive relationship between groups for ownership and control of resources for wealth and power. The Europeans got the headstart program with the Portuguese first racing to the new world with free African labor followed by other European countries, which mal-distributed massive generational wealth and power to Whites. Jews helped to finance it (through different European transatlantic slave companies). Jews disaportionately own the record labels in America as well as the movie studios. They have made billions off of blaxploitation films and rappers which have contributed to the cancerous pathogies in the hoods.
One of Amy's close comrades is Jared Taylor, a strong advocate for a white ethno-state. I guess Jews are an exception with him. He's constantly emphasizing the intelligence of the Ashkenazi Jews having the highest IQs on the planet, and Asians thereafter. However, Richard Spencer, another White ethno-state advocate, has strong bias against Jews (" the Jews will not replace us').
Central to Amy's thesis is whether Asian immigrants (and in other contexts she's claimed non-white immigrants) disproportionally vote for Democrats. I pulled the 2020 Cooperative Election Study data (https://cces.gov.harvard.edu) and looked countries that had more than 30 dual-citizen respondents. (This isn't a perfect proxy for "country of origin" and some countries are not listed, but it's the best option for the available data). Here are the results by ratio of Republicans to Democrats:
Cuba: 1.22
Philipines: 1
Columbia: 0.6
Canada: 0.56
Venezuela: 0.5
Ireland: 0.48
UK: 0.46
India: 0.44
Mexico: 0.35
France: 0.35
Nigeria: 0.27
Germany: 0.24
Dominican Republic: 0.23
Jamacia: 0.05
It shows a few things:
-Asian/Non-Asian or White/Non-white are not good predictors of party support. One of the only two immigrant groups that aren't disproportionally Democrats is Asian, while the 5th and 3rd least Republican immigrants are from "white" countries.
-The clearest trend is that Black immigrants are more likely to be Democrats.
-Immigrants in general are predisposed to the Democratic party.
It shouldn't be terribly surprising that West European immigrants support Democrats, just look at the social policies and tax rates. White *people* in the US vote Republican, but white *immigrants* do not appear to do so. This kicks the question back to immigration in general, or at least whether you should allow non-Cuban/Filipinos in, not Asians or non-whites.
This is the clear pitfall of group identitarianism, it mushes together disparate factors (Asian vs Filipino vs Indian, immigrant vs. non-immigrant white) to create a narrative, but falls apart after even the most basic fact checking (you can check my work within ~20 minutes).
Being from the same group that the prof supposedly targeted, I wholeheartedly agree with her comments. If you ever hang around the Indian circles, you'll find yourself in the midst of passive aggressive, blatantly narcisstic people, who ironically are more ethnocentric , fierce defenders of language barriers, while lecturing the world about their cultural heritage and bashing western culture. And these are the same folks who were welcomed with open arms by this great country and provided all the amenities. Indians are the worst in terms of showing compassion to fellow citizens in their own country. All they care about is marrying within their caste, keep their money within their castes while doing nothing philanthrophic or uplifiting to their own citizens. Prof is not too far off in her assessment.!
I just discovered this dialogue and have to admit that I am taken aback by Ms Wax’s quite apparent anti-Asian beliefs, no matter how artfully articulated. I’ll have to listen to the interview to get more detail, but her response to Mr. Lee is woeful, nativist and straight out of 19th century racist jingoism. I wonder how she feels about Latinos, if she is against Asian immigration, for which even Republicans of the more radical sort still seem to support. I hesitate to even consider immigrants for “shithole” countries, as what could they possibly contribute to the American fabric? Really, she’s not a person I’d want to have a drink with just based on this interview and exchange with Mr Lee.
As horrible as the status quo where you have a class of vapid People of Color who we are required to kneel before and kiss their ring while they spout their nonsense, combined with midwit PMC Wokester enforcers spouting empty slogans and calling people rashist as they fantasize about the anti-racist eschaton, the only thing worse could be a coup composed of these Daughters of the American Revolution types and fat boomers in tricorn hats trying to recreate their Anglo-Protestant City-On-the-Hill with all the intolerance and puritanism of a typical Anabaptist sect. My only hope would be to emigrate to Mexico before the white nationalist clown brigade closed the borders and decided to bring back polygamy to restore the white race.
ICMYI, her real gripe is with South Asian WOMEN who are really visible in some progressive movements. Not just any Asian, but brown (didn't Jews used to be 'brown' a generation ago?) women. Hmm, something fishy going on 🤔. Calling Dr. Freud.
Democrats do not love open borders. Almost all of our immigration restriction were leftist bribes to shore up their labor union base. If the Latino vote has moved...towards the center, and I think the insane regressive nature of COVID restrictions, lockdowns and mandates cemented that, watch the left build an insanely expensive wall and try to buy border votes that way. Feeling cynical? You bet.
What nth-gen Asian immigrants vote for probably has zero correlation with their Asian background, but more to do with their education, social economic status, and etc.
I want to immigrate to the US, and I’m Chinese, so I do have a conflict of interest.
If you are disappointed about a particular demographic’s voting pattern, why not try doing outreach harder?
Most 1st-gen immigrants love the country, deeply, and probably vote R more than D.
Why would you blame the current system’s failure to address the poor segment of the existing population on immigrants? It feels like impulsive scape-goating.
I am shocked to learn that Professor Wax seems to know so little of our immigration history. The core or legacy population in the u.s. is Western Europeans. Jews from Eastern Europe like Wax is not part of the core “legacy”. Does Professor Wax really want to go back to her Eastern European root so as to restore the u.s. to its core legacy population?
George Lee expresses concern about "America's basic value" and yet he repudiates America's basic value, the principle of individual rights, the right of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as he declares that "America has the absolute and unconditional right to keep anyone out, with or without stated reason" and states that "immigration is not an entitlement."
Mr. Lee is correct in stating that immigration is not an entitlement, because immigration is a right. But by repudiating the right of immigration, as he does, he is repudiating the fundamental value of America as it was founded.
"Those talking about keeping our sovereignty, enforcing our borders, seem to mean that our government should use initiated force to obstruct or block the movement of people who seek to work here, do business here, and live in peace here.
"The appeal to “sovereignty” as a justification for initiating force against peaceful individuals is illogical, and unjust. It reflects a wholly un-American attitude: the collectivist view that “we” or our government own the country, and get to decide who may come here and who may not. And the “us vs. them” approach represents the lowest form of collectivism: tribalism."
"What is National Sovereignty?" (2018) by Harry Binswanger:
It looks like the "right of immigration" at the Founding was limited to free white persons. . . is that the "fundamental value" you were talking about? Because its hard to see a great deal of light between that "fundamental" and Amy Wax's position.
So, the U.S. Government should not regulate (I.e. "initiate force") at the border? That is, the only entry criteria you are recommending are 1) the person at the border is acting peacefully at that moment, and 2) that person at the border says he or she just "wants to do work or do business" in the U.S. and thus should be granted "the right of movement" (quite a new euphemism for immigration). So essentially, free entry to the United States to anyone who meets those two criteria is what you are advocating? The United States and its citizens have nothing to say about it? The thousands of terrorist and other enemy cells amd drug cartels around the world will be delighted to hear about this attitude and surely hope for your increased influence.
I could ask you the same thing: should the U.S. Government, on behalf of the citizens, not initiate force against ("regulate") you within the U.S. borders? That is, is it your view that the only criteria for respecting your rights should be that 1) you are acting peacefully at the moment, and 2) you say that you just "want to do work or do business" in the U.S. (or anything else that doesn't suggest that you are the threat to the rights of others that you may well be), and therefore that you should be *granted* "the right of movement" (given that rights, in your view, are apparently granted to us by government or by citizens and are not unalienable) or any other rights, absent any proof that you are not a threat to the rights of others?
So, you are claiming a right to freedom of movement (or any other freedom) within the U.S., for you and anyone else who meets those two criteria, is what you are advocating?
How are we to know that you're not a serial rapist or a murderer? Because we don't currently have evidence that you are a serial rapist or murderer? The citizens of the United States have nothing to say about you being *granted* freedom of movement within the U.S. or any other freedom, or even being allowed to remain in the U.S., even though, for all we may know, you are a serial rapist or murderer? Surely you're not going to claim that there are no serial rapists or mass murderers in the U.S.
The thousands of enemies of America within the country would be delighted to hear about this attitude of yours and surely hope for your increased influence.
Haven't you learned anything from the idea that the government (on behalf of the citizens of the United States) has something to say about you being *granted* freedom — of movement or anything else — within the U.S. in the context of a pandemic?
America was founded on the principle of individual rights, the view that all individuals have rights, unalienable rights, as individuals, not because they are Americans or because they are currently within the borders of America, but because they are individuals. It was understood and declared that the only proper purpose of government (the use of government force) is the protection of the rights of the individual and that America was to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Unless America is going to continue to repudiate that principle and become more and more authoritarian, down this road to totalitarianism, as it has been doing for decades, then it must once again embrace the principle of individual rights, and stand for it constituently, not hypocritically, regardless of what you or anyone else might otherwise prefer.
The border, by the way, is not the place to fight terrorism, any more than are the borders between the states, and those who pretend that it is play a role in this countries refusal to deal with nations that support terrorism as it should. But if there is some reason to think that some terrorist(s) are intent on crossing the border, then of course they should be stopped, just as you should be stopped if it is discovered that you are a terrorists currently residing within the U.S.
Frankly, with respect to your rights, you should be treated exactly as you advocate treating the rights of others. Maybe then, once enough so-called Americans grasp the importance of the principle of individual rights, will this country will once again embrace the principle that the individual has an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that those rights are not determined by geographical location, and that no one has a right to violate the rights of any individual.
As an Asian, I agree with Amy Wax. Asians don't vote for their interests. Unlike Hispanics and Blacks, they have no racial consciousness. The way they vote is primarily a reflection of their socialization. They worship "education" and force their kids to get As without realizing that "education" is now political indoctrination at most schools in the US. They live in leftist cities and pay exorbitant taxes without realizing their tax dollars are being used to support migrant families that will one day dominate them. They vote Democrats because it's "cool." Back in 1978, a group of young Americans signed up and died for a cult because it was cool, too.
My first realization came when I was interviewed for a job in SF. Before that, I was heavily discriminated against at school by leftist white faculty, Hispanics, and blacks, but never by an Asian. So, a Central Asian Muslim from my college and I competed for the same position at a small company in SF. Overprepared and versed in all possible questions, I was assured I would be selected. As it turned out, my Central Asian classmate, whom I knew didn't understand the basics, got the job. The two white and three Asian interviewers, all of whom SF locals, must have thought that anyone named "Mohammed" ranked higher in their Oppression Olympics than I, someone who grew up in a war-torn Southeast Asian country with neither electricity nor the internet.
I can offer countless anecdotes about Asians sabotaging other Asians at the altar of leftist "equity" project. In general, having fewer Asians is good. We're just importing slaves for Democrats. The Asian immigrants will work their asses off and pay taxes so that the Mexicans can take easy quotas and boss over them. It serves neither Asians' interests nor America's.
question to Amy - who are the core "legacy" population? are black people included? what about Italians who once were considred second class? what about slavic nations who were also at some point in our history consdired as undesirable immigrants? and what about Jews who until recently had very limited quotas of acceptance to elite universities? Irish? Hispanic? oh wait, I think I figured out, you mean the native americans are the long neglected legacy population! yeah that makes sense. got it.
Amy wax is on very solid ground. Those who attack her and her views are racists, plain annd simple. Basically anti American bigots who should not be allowed to enter the country. They wish us nothing but harm and they hate us. There is going to be total war on such idiocic policy. War to the death against the enemies of the republic.
You have a peculiar perspective of racism. Europeans manufactured the social construct of race and its hierarchy to enriched itself through genocide, black chattel slavery, colonization, and structural racism. It's not all about white folks getting all the natural goodies that this world has to offer. Whites only represent 10% of the world's population, and America is a young empire. Empires come and go as clearly illustrated by history. Are you or your kids and grandkids studying mandarin (technological match) or Español? Pookie and ray-ray's seeds? 😂🤣😅
Traitor!
Would you you like to hear the story of how I rescued a former white research scientist (inmate) from Aryan Brotherhood prison rape during my 34 years working in the prison industrial complex? He was a convicted for sexually assaulting his two-year-old-son. One of the most hideous cases I have come across in my entire career. Sex offenders aren't respected by the other inmates.
"I confess I find Asian support for these policies mystifying, as I fail to see how they are in Asians’ interest." <- I see this sentiment stated quite frequently. The statement assumes that the person uttering it fully understands what the particular group or individual believes are its interests. It puts interests above all else and principles become irrelevant. That is, of course, a rather dangerous way of looking at the world.
When you place interests above principle then the methods used to achieve those interests become trivial. It places all the focus on the end goal while ignoring the methods to reach those goals. Which, of course, can lead to all kinds of ethically and morally dangerous policies.
Additionally placing interests over principles leads you to inventing reasons why people believe and behave they way they do. For example:
"We can speculate (and, yes, generalize) about Asians’ desire to please the elite, single-minded focus on self-advancement, conformity and obsequiousness, lack of deep post-Enlightenment conviction, timidity toward centralized authority (however unreasoned), indifference to liberty, lack of thoughtful and audacious individualism, and excessive tolerance for bossy, mindless social engineering, etc."
If, instead of looking at interests, you look at the principles people hold dear you do not have to guess or invent reasons why people think of behave in certain ways because they will *tell you*.
I suspect that the principle that Asians support that so confuses Amy is one of fairness. This is another area where a lot of discussion and understanding needs to take place before you can fully understand what drives people. The reasons is that while pretty much everyone agrees that fairness is a desirable goal, the definition of fair actually means differs greatly. For example, a rather simple question: You have 3 poker buddies ordering a pizza for their weekly poker game. The pizza costs $12 and has 12 slices. Poker player Bob is rich, John is middle class and Tom is poor. Due to this, Bob pays $6, John $4 and Tom $2. When the pizza shows up, how do you divide it?
Does Bob take 6 slices, John 4 and Tom 2? That is fair as it is what each contributed when buying the pizza. Or do you divide it so each play gets 4 slices? That could also be considered fair.
When discussing these issues every one talks about fairness but most of the time liberals define fairness differently than conservatives. Liberals tend toward dividing equally while conservatives tend towards dividing by contribution. We see this definitional confusion all the time. The discussions of welfare, taxes, medical care, etc all hinge on fairness but everyone's definition differs. This causes the conversations around these issues to degrade into moral shouting matches where each side, working from their own definition of fair, accuses the other of being evil/hateful/unpatriotic/whatever because they are talking past each other.
I happen to agree that the Democratic Party is a pernicious influence today. And the reason I believe the Democratic Party is going off course is that they are working from a definition of fairness that isn't workable in the real world. The way to counter that is to actually understand why they believe what they do and argue about that viewpoint. In other words, we need to discuss principles instead of interests.
I personally think she's mistaken in her reasoning, which amounts to making a non-extreme political orientation a criteria for immigration. But: I donated to her legal defense fund. Nothing about this controversy is reason to stop her from teaching.
Israeli zionists have reportedly practiced chemical eugenic policies on Ethiopian female Jew refugees without their knowledge or consent, in an effort to preserve the white Jewish complexion in Israel. Israel also went on a massive campaign to expel/deport African refugees from their country. I keep advocating that Black folks in America need to wake up, and get into the [race]. Stop spending 98% of their dollars in non black owned buisneeses. Exchanging dollars among our own group members several times before it leaves the community is true empowerment. Racism is a competitive relationship between groups for ownership and control of resources for wealth and power. The Europeans got the headstart program with the Portuguese first racing to the new world with free African labor followed by other European countries, which mal-distributed massive generational wealth and power to Whites. Jews helped to finance it (through different European transatlantic slave companies). Jews disaportionately own the record labels in America as well as the movie studios. They have made billions off of blaxploitation films and rappers which have contributed to the cancerous pathogies in the hoods.
One of Amy's close comrades is Jared Taylor, a strong advocate for a white ethno-state. I guess Jews are an exception with him. He's constantly emphasizing the intelligence of the Ashkenazi Jews having the highest IQs on the planet, and Asians thereafter. However, Richard Spencer, another White ethno-state advocate, has strong bias against Jews (" the Jews will not replace us').
Central to Amy's thesis is whether Asian immigrants (and in other contexts she's claimed non-white immigrants) disproportionally vote for Democrats. I pulled the 2020 Cooperative Election Study data (https://cces.gov.harvard.edu) and looked countries that had more than 30 dual-citizen respondents. (This isn't a perfect proxy for "country of origin" and some countries are not listed, but it's the best option for the available data). Here are the results by ratio of Republicans to Democrats:
Cuba: 1.22
Philipines: 1
Columbia: 0.6
Canada: 0.56
Venezuela: 0.5
Ireland: 0.48
UK: 0.46
India: 0.44
Mexico: 0.35
France: 0.35
Nigeria: 0.27
Germany: 0.24
Dominican Republic: 0.23
Jamacia: 0.05
It shows a few things:
-Asian/Non-Asian or White/Non-white are not good predictors of party support. One of the only two immigrant groups that aren't disproportionally Democrats is Asian, while the 5th and 3rd least Republican immigrants are from "white" countries.
-The clearest trend is that Black immigrants are more likely to be Democrats.
-Immigrants in general are predisposed to the Democratic party.
It shouldn't be terribly surprising that West European immigrants support Democrats, just look at the social policies and tax rates. White *people* in the US vote Republican, but white *immigrants* do not appear to do so. This kicks the question back to immigration in general, or at least whether you should allow non-Cuban/Filipinos in, not Asians or non-whites.
This is the clear pitfall of group identitarianism, it mushes together disparate factors (Asian vs Filipino vs Indian, immigrant vs. non-immigrant white) to create a narrative, but falls apart after even the most basic fact checking (you can check my work within ~20 minutes).
Critical and vital debate here - love to read and learn in this space
I wrote an article I am proud of and would love your wise and considered interpretations good human 😊
https://tumbleweedwords.substack.com/p/is-the-celebration-of-overweight?s=w
Amy is just another white supremacist disguised as intellectual using the cover of free speech to cause social chaos between the non whites.
Being from the same group that the prof supposedly targeted, I wholeheartedly agree with her comments. If you ever hang around the Indian circles, you'll find yourself in the midst of passive aggressive, blatantly narcisstic people, who ironically are more ethnocentric , fierce defenders of language barriers, while lecturing the world about their cultural heritage and bashing western culture. And these are the same folks who were welcomed with open arms by this great country and provided all the amenities. Indians are the worst in terms of showing compassion to fellow citizens in their own country. All they care about is marrying within their caste, keep their money within their castes while doing nothing philanthrophic or uplifiting to their own citizens. Prof is not too far off in her assessment.!
I just discovered this dialogue and have to admit that I am taken aback by Ms Wax’s quite apparent anti-Asian beliefs, no matter how artfully articulated. I’ll have to listen to the interview to get more detail, but her response to Mr. Lee is woeful, nativist and straight out of 19th century racist jingoism. I wonder how she feels about Latinos, if she is against Asian immigration, for which even Republicans of the more radical sort still seem to support. I hesitate to even consider immigrants for “shithole” countries, as what could they possibly contribute to the American fabric? Really, she’s not a person I’d want to have a drink with just based on this interview and exchange with Mr Lee.
As horrible as the status quo where you have a class of vapid People of Color who we are required to kneel before and kiss their ring while they spout their nonsense, combined with midwit PMC Wokester enforcers spouting empty slogans and calling people rashist as they fantasize about the anti-racist eschaton, the only thing worse could be a coup composed of these Daughters of the American Revolution types and fat boomers in tricorn hats trying to recreate their Anglo-Protestant City-On-the-Hill with all the intolerance and puritanism of a typical Anabaptist sect. My only hope would be to emigrate to Mexico before the white nationalist clown brigade closed the borders and decided to bring back polygamy to restore the white race.
ICMYI, her real gripe is with South Asian WOMEN who are really visible in some progressive movements. Not just any Asian, but brown (didn't Jews used to be 'brown' a generation ago?) women. Hmm, something fishy going on 🤔. Calling Dr. Freud.
Democrats do not love open borders. Almost all of our immigration restriction were leftist bribes to shore up their labor union base. If the Latino vote has moved...towards the center, and I think the insane regressive nature of COVID restrictions, lockdowns and mandates cemented that, watch the left build an insanely expensive wall and try to buy border votes that way. Feeling cynical? You bet.
Her argument is too simplistic, to put it simply.
What nth-gen Asian immigrants vote for probably has zero correlation with their Asian background, but more to do with their education, social economic status, and etc.
I want to immigrate to the US, and I’m Chinese, so I do have a conflict of interest.
If you are disappointed about a particular demographic’s voting pattern, why not try doing outreach harder?
Most 1st-gen immigrants love the country, deeply, and probably vote R more than D.
Why would you blame the current system’s failure to address the poor segment of the existing population on immigrants? It feels like impulsive scape-goating.
- M. Chen
I am shocked to learn that Professor Wax seems to know so little of our immigration history. The core or legacy population in the u.s. is Western Europeans. Jews from Eastern Europe like Wax is not part of the core “legacy”. Does Professor Wax really want to go back to her Eastern European root so as to restore the u.s. to its core legacy population?
George Lee expresses concern about "America's basic value" and yet he repudiates America's basic value, the principle of individual rights, the right of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as he declares that "America has the absolute and unconditional right to keep anyone out, with or without stated reason" and states that "immigration is not an entitlement."
Mr. Lee is correct in stating that immigration is not an entitlement, because immigration is a right. But by repudiating the right of immigration, as he does, he is repudiating the fundamental value of America as it was founded.
"Those talking about keeping our sovereignty, enforcing our borders, seem to mean that our government should use initiated force to obstruct or block the movement of people who seek to work here, do business here, and live in peace here.
"The appeal to “sovereignty” as a justification for initiating force against peaceful individuals is illogical, and unjust. It reflects a wholly un-American attitude: the collectivist view that “we” or our government own the country, and get to decide who may come here and who may not. And the “us vs. them” approach represents the lowest form of collectivism: tribalism."
"What is National Sovereignty?" (2018) by Harry Binswanger:
https://www.hbletter.com/what-is-national-sovereignty/
Here is America's first immigration act of 1790:
https://immigrationhistory.org/item/1790-nationality-act/
It looks like the "right of immigration" at the Founding was limited to free white persons. . . is that the "fundamental value" you were talking about? Because its hard to see a great deal of light between that "fundamental" and Amy Wax's position.
So, the U.S. Government should not regulate (I.e. "initiate force") at the border? That is, the only entry criteria you are recommending are 1) the person at the border is acting peacefully at that moment, and 2) that person at the border says he or she just "wants to do work or do business" in the U.S. and thus should be granted "the right of movement" (quite a new euphemism for immigration). So essentially, free entry to the United States to anyone who meets those two criteria is what you are advocating? The United States and its citizens have nothing to say about it? The thousands of terrorist and other enemy cells amd drug cartels around the world will be delighted to hear about this attitude and surely hope for your increased influence.
I could ask you the same thing: should the U.S. Government, on behalf of the citizens, not initiate force against ("regulate") you within the U.S. borders? That is, is it your view that the only criteria for respecting your rights should be that 1) you are acting peacefully at the moment, and 2) you say that you just "want to do work or do business" in the U.S. (or anything else that doesn't suggest that you are the threat to the rights of others that you may well be), and therefore that you should be *granted* "the right of movement" (given that rights, in your view, are apparently granted to us by government or by citizens and are not unalienable) or any other rights, absent any proof that you are not a threat to the rights of others?
So, you are claiming a right to freedom of movement (or any other freedom) within the U.S., for you and anyone else who meets those two criteria, is what you are advocating?
How are we to know that you're not a serial rapist or a murderer? Because we don't currently have evidence that you are a serial rapist or murderer? The citizens of the United States have nothing to say about you being *granted* freedom of movement within the U.S. or any other freedom, or even being allowed to remain in the U.S., even though, for all we may know, you are a serial rapist or murderer? Surely you're not going to claim that there are no serial rapists or mass murderers in the U.S.
The thousands of enemies of America within the country would be delighted to hear about this attitude of yours and surely hope for your increased influence.
Haven't you learned anything from the idea that the government (on behalf of the citizens of the United States) has something to say about you being *granted* freedom — of movement or anything else — within the U.S. in the context of a pandemic?
America was founded on the principle of individual rights, the view that all individuals have rights, unalienable rights, as individuals, not because they are Americans or because they are currently within the borders of America, but because they are individuals. It was understood and declared that the only proper purpose of government (the use of government force) is the protection of the rights of the individual and that America was to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Unless America is going to continue to repudiate that principle and become more and more authoritarian, down this road to totalitarianism, as it has been doing for decades, then it must once again embrace the principle of individual rights, and stand for it constituently, not hypocritically, regardless of what you or anyone else might otherwise prefer.
The border, by the way, is not the place to fight terrorism, any more than are the borders between the states, and those who pretend that it is play a role in this countries refusal to deal with nations that support terrorism as it should. But if there is some reason to think that some terrorist(s) are intent on crossing the border, then of course they should be stopped, just as you should be stopped if it is discovered that you are a terrorists currently residing within the U.S.
Frankly, with respect to your rights, you should be treated exactly as you advocate treating the rights of others. Maybe then, once enough so-called Americans grasp the importance of the principle of individual rights, will this country will once again embrace the principle that the individual has an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that those rights are not determined by geographical location, and that no one has a right to violate the rights of any individual.