Summary
Undocumented Chinese men are alarmed by Trump’s plan to prioritize their deportation, citing baseless national security concerns about “military-age” immigrants.
Many fled political persecution or economic hardship and reject claims of being a threat.
Legal experts warn of racial profiling and expanded ICE raids, urging immigrants to know their rights. Deportation fears grow as China cooperates in repatriation efforts.
Chinese immigrants express anxiety over family separations and harsh consequences if returned, emphasizing they seek safety and stability, not harm.
Critics call Trump’s policies cruel and unjustified.
I also agree that white men have been responsible for more problems in the U.S. than any other group of people. Like all but one president.
If you don’t know who is or is not white, how can you think it is even possible to be racist against white people?
Very easy. If you make or agree with sweeping generalizations about a race, you are racist.
That’s what racism is.
If you agree with something that is true, you’re a racist? What?
Is “black people are far more likely than anyone else to get sickle cell anemia” racist? Because it is a sweeping generalization.
Or, if you want to go back to white people and crime, how about- “69.9% of arrested criminals in 2019 were white?” I have to disagree with that fact or I’m a racist? I have to deny reality if I don’t want to be a racist? That’s really what you think?
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43
“All strawberries are fruits” does not imply “all fruits are strawberries” .
Saying “white people are a threat” is not the same as saying “these people who are a threat are white”.
The former is the statement you agreed with, and now you’re desperately trying to paint it as the latter.
It’s not. You’re rationalizing racism.
I’m doing no such thing. This is what you said:
Not all black people get sickle cell anemia and not all people who get sickle cell anemia are black, so (and I’ll even revise it to make it more general) “black people are at risk for sickle cell anemia” is a sweeping generalization. Therefore, if you agree with it, you’re racist. Based on your own claim.
Traditionally racism that is based on statistics and aggregate numbers still counts. If someone were to say that black people are on average responsible for [insert problem here], even if it were true, that’s generally considered racist.
And, that’s a bit silly. I can call someone doing racist black caricatures racist against black people without knowing if some particular country’s population is generally considered to be black.
Traditionally based on what? What tradition is this? Who made it a tradition?
And if you can’t determine the criteria for whiteness, how can you know if anything you say is racist? It could be true once you determine the criteria.
Also:
Jews don’t have a country. Jew and Israeli are not synonyms. That is bigotry.
The analogy still works if we’re talking about a race rather than a country. You’re nitpicking the details, not attacking the actual point being made. The point is that there is no such thing as a strict definition of race, but that such a thing isn’t necessary to talk about race as a concept. It would be like saying “you can’t say you like sandwiches unless you define what a sandwich is”. We all know on the internet that is an impossible definition, but we can still meaningfully talk about sandwiches.
The natural evolution of the English language as determined by multiple societies. I’m using the most common definition of racism that I know. No definition is kore valid than any other in theory, so if you want to explain what you think racism is I’ll switch to talking about your definition.
I’m not nitpicking on the details, I’m pointing out you yourself said something which, in context, sure sounded bigoted to me.
Perhaps you’re not the best judge of bigotry?
And let’s see evidence of this “natural evolution” that involves statistics. That doesn’t sound like how language works to me.
I needed a way to refer to a racial group that could potentially be a part of a larger race. The word “subrace” would be accurate but sounds incredibly racey and probably has bad connotations that I’m not aware of so I used the example of a small, semi-distinct racial group potentially within a larger race. Many countries have small distinct racial groups, which seemed like the best example. Sue me.
Literally what does this even mean? What are you talking about??
Anyways, now that I’ve clarified my point you can stop nitpicking and respond to my actual argument. Or are you only interested in calling me a bigot?
You seem to have a poor memory:
Then I asked you what makes it traditional and you said:
So let’s see some evidence of this natural evolution based on statistics and aggregate numbers.
Why yes I do have a memory disorder, thanks for reminding me. I must’ve forgotten.
But, I think you’re confused about what I’m saying there. I’m not saying that the evolution of language is “based on statistics and aggregate numbers”, and I don’t see how it could be interpreted that way. I’m saying that language naturally evolves, and that the definition of racism that I see most commonly has evolved into including negative statements about a race based on factual statistics. For example, “80% of [insert race here] commits [insert type of crime here]”. Even if it were true, that would be considered racist. If you don’t agree, ok, I’ll use your definition.
Anyways, I’m not sure why I’m arguing about this. You literally agreed with a comment calling an entire race of people troglodytes who the op was ashamed to share their genetics with. I’m pretty sure it was satire. So. Yeah, idk what else to say here
Facts aren’t racist, they’re facts. “80% of ___ commits ___ crime” is not racist if it’s true.
And, again, please do show me evidence of a definition of racism that includes true statements.