Donald Trump and the Twilight of White America

Discussion in 'Politics and the Topics of the day' started by QueEx, May 15, 2016.

  1. QueEx

    QueEx Well-Known Member Super Moderator

    Donald Trump and the Twilight of White America
    Racial resentment and economic anxiety are not separate forces.
    For many Trump supporters, they are inextricably linked.


    The Atlantic
    Derek Thomas
    May 13, 2016

    On June 25, 2015, a week after Donald Trump announced his candidacy for president of the United States, the Census Bureau released a landmark report on the demographics of American children under the age of five. For the first time in U.S. history, it reported that a minority of this group is “white”—neither black, nor Asian, nor Hispanic.

    The notion of America’s ethnic majority has been dubious for a long time. What today many people call “white” is really a catch-all for various European groups once seen as racially distinct. But this report threw the entire concept into chaos. “A majority of American babies are now minorities,” Bloomberg reported, somewhat paradoxically. In a country where most people are minorities, the majority does not exist. Even within the headline, the word majority is collapsing in on itself.

    It is unlikely that a printed copy of this Census report hangs in a gold-plated frame on Trump’s wall. But the specter of America's all-minority future has stalked his campaign. Trump’s core constituency is clear: Republican whites, particularly men, and especially those who didn’t go to college, who feel their American whiteness like a second skin. Many of these first beneficiaries of the franchise now feel disenfranchised. The original middle class feels cut out of the American Dream. The majority is collapsing in on itself.

    This moment in American history was inevitable, and it was never going to be a tranquil transition. In 2004, the influential political scientist Samuel Huntington published Who Are We?, his manifesto on the tumultuous future of the American identity. The growth of black and Hispanic minorities, he predicted, would provoke a backlash among whites:

    The various forces challenging the core American culture and creed could generate a move by native white Americans to revive the discarded and discredited racial and ethnic concepts of American identity and to create an America that would exclude, expel, or suppress people of other racial, ethnic, and cultural groups. Historical and contemporary experience suggest that this is a highly probable reaction from a once dominant ethnic-racial group that feels threatened by the rise of other groups. It could produce a racially intolerant country with high levels of intergroup conflict.​

    Trump’s platform is a remarkable manifestation of this 12-year-old prophecy. But Even Huntington could not have foreseen that this demographic moment would coincide with an economic crisis (which would be improbably overseen by America’s first black president). History has drawn these conflicts into a crucible, and the economic anxieties and racial anxieties of today are nearly inextricable.

    Some of Trump’s policy statements, on issues like the minimum wage and taxes, are like wisps of smoke—coming into existence, curling into strange shapes, and disappearing within moments. But his bedrock promises all relate to the white American middle’s central fears, including Hispanic immigration and global trade.
    • In his first 100 days, he says, he would act to close the country.
    • He would send additional security to the south and seal the Mexican border.
    • He would begin the design and construction of the Mexican Wall.
    • He would initiate plans to round up more than 10 million undocumented immigrants to send them overseas.
    • He would potentially ban Muslim immigrants from entering the county.

    It is not enough to say that Trump is a purely racial phenomenon. Nor is it complete to argue that he is the perfectly predictable result of economic upheaval.

    Rather, in the last half-century, several events have pushed conservative white American middle-class men to conflate their majoritarian, economic, and cultural decline. Economic anxiety and racial resentment are not entirely separate things, but rather like buttresses in an arch, supporting each other in the creation of something larger—Donald Trump.​

    The grievances of middle-class white Americans are not make-believe, nor is their nostalgia misplaced. The 1950s was a remarkable decade for blue-collar male workers. Union membership in the private sector peaked at 35 percent. The male labor-participation rate peaked in 1951. The next year, unemployment fell under 3 percent for the only period on record. Factories that once made shrapnel turned out lawn mowers and washing machines that supplied a happy migration to the suburbs. All this occurred within an economy that was uniquely closed, as the economist Robert Gordon wrote in his book The Rise and Fall of American Growth:

    The high tariff wall allowed American manufacturing to introduce all available innovations into U.S.-based factories without the outsourcing that has become common in the last several decades. The lack of competition from immigrants and imports boosted the wages of workers at the bottom and contributed to the remarkable “great compression” of the income distribution during the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Thus the closing of the American economy through restrictive immigration legislation and high tariffs may indirectly have contributed to the rise of real wages … and the general reduction of inequality from the 1920s to the 1950s.

    For white American middle-class men, especially those without a college degree, it was the best of times. What happened? The road from there to Trump is long and punctuated with many markers. But here are three significant turns: the 1968 election; the 1979 peak in manufacturing employment, and the 2008 election of Barack Obama. Together, these episodes made economic anxiety and promoted racial resentment a dual-headed political weapon, and Donald Trump grabbed it.

    In the late 1960s, after two Democratic presidents, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, fought to extend rights to black Americans, many southern whites abandoned the Democratic party. Richard Nixon and other politicians worked to peel away white voters by appealing to their resentment of African Americans. Rather than an outright call for a repeal to the Civil Rights Act, these Republicans offered an economic agenda that would bolster whites at the expense of blacks. In a shockingly frank 1981 interview looking back at the 1968 election, the Republican strategist Lee Atwater explained how Nixon disguised his appeal to anti-black voters in the language of economic angst.

    “By 1968 you can’t say ‘******’—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.”

    Was the white south’s shift to the Republican column really all about civil rights? In a 2015 study, Yale University researchers drawing from Gallup surveys dating back to 1958 concluded that although southern white Democrats held racist views before the 1960s, the correlation between “conservative racial views” and “Democratic identification” disappeared after Kennedy proposed the Civil Rights Act in 1963. Essentially, almost all of those voters became Republicans. “Defection among racially conservative whites explains all of the decline in relative white Southern Democratic identification between 1958 and 1980” and three-quarters of the decline until 2000, they concluded.

    Trump’s presumptive GOP victory would have been impossible without his strength in states cordoned off by the Southern Strategy. Of the 11 former confederate state in the survey—Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia—Trump won 10. He might have won the 11th, Texas, were it not the home state of his chief rival, Ted Cruz. Trump has never explicitly trumpeted white American supremacy, and yet he seems to effortlessly attract the support of white American supremacists, like David Duke, William Johnson, and the sensational alt-right. Dog-whistling might be the appropriate term. But it’s not a dog whistle if everybody can hear you.

    The 1968 election made race key to the southern white Republican voting bloc. But still, the economy was roaring. Real GDP grew 5 percent in 1968, twice as fast as any year since the Great Depression, and the economy expanded steadily throughout the decade.

    Yet trouble was approaching the form of globalization and technology. The most important American industry for most of the 20th century had been manufacturing. Once employing more than a third of the private workforce, and mostly men without a college education, manufacturing employment peaked in the summer of 1979 at almost 20 million workers. But by the end of the early 1980s recession, the sector had lost almost 3 million jobs. Today, there are about 12 million people working in manufacturing, altogether. In the cities where these jobs were concentrated, the fallout was particularly brutal. Youngstown, Ohio, was once one of the richest metropolitan areas in the country by median wage. But after the 1977 shuttering of its Campbell Works mill, it lost 50,000 jobs and $1.3 billion in manufacturing wages, a downturn so severe that economists had to invent a new term to describe it: “regional depression.”

    Manufacturing provided steady work for unionized workers without a four-year diploma. When it collapsed, so did unions and the fortunes of non-college men. Since 1980, the share of men between 25 and 54 who are neither working nor looking for work has increased with each passing decade. Since 1980, this figure, called the "inactivity rate," has more than doubled. Meanwhile, work has shifted toward service-sector jobs where less-educated women have fared better than men. Women without a college degree are earning more than they were 20 years ago, but since 1990, median real earnings for men without a college degree have fallen 13 percent. This despair even shows up in mortality statistics. In November 2015, in the middle of Trump’s ascent, Princeton economists Angus Deaton and Anne Case discovered that only one age-and-ethnic group is dying at higher rates than they were 15 years ago: middle-aged American whites without a college education.

    There is some evidence that Trump attracts some upper-class support. But men without a diploma remain the very core of his voting bloc, and Trump has explicitly cultivated their votes by promised to bring back the 1979 economy. “They’re stealing our jobs,” he said of China, now the world’s largest manufacturing economy. “They’re beating us in everything; they’re winning, we’re losing.”

    In February 2011, a national survey by the Washington Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University found that white men without a college degree had a uniquely dark outlook on America's future. They were the most likely to say the country's best days are over; the most likely to be pessimistic about the economy's future; and the most likely to say hard work no longer guarantees success.

    Their economic despair has mixed with racial resentment. In 2004, white Republicans and white Democrats were similarly likely to say that "too much" money was spent to improve conditions for black people. Eight years later, Republicans were three times more likely to agree. When Nate Silver measured responses to several race-related questions in the General Population Survey, he concluded that, although the expression of racism by all whites toward blacks has decreased over time, "they’ve failed to decrease under Obama” among Republicans.

    The reemergence of racial antagonism is concentrated among Trump supporters. Six out of ten of them think Obama is a Muslim, and only 21 percent acknowledge that the president was born in the United States.

    Racism doesn’t need economic insecurity to thrive. The 1950s saw both historic income growth and considerable racism under Jim Crow. But economic anxiety can amplify racial threat effects by leading the majority to fear losing scarce resources to the rising minority. According to "group position theory,” or “group threat,” people in an ethnic majority identify with each other and feel threatened when their position in the cultural hierarchy is tenuous. There is evidence from Europe, for example, that the more people think that immigrants are likely to compete for jobs, the more likely they are to support reduced levels of immigration. A paper from May 2016 from researchers at Stanford University, the University of Toronto, and the University of California, Berkeley, applied group position theory to the rise of the Tea Party, arguing that racial resentment was the motor of the movement. They concluded that “the election of the first nonwhite president [and] the rising minority population have been perceived as threatening the relative standing of whites in the U.S.”

    In short, scarcity triggers tribalism. Despite the long decline in racism among most American voters, prejudice is blooming where voters are most pessimistic and afraid. Economic anxiety and racial anxiety are not separate forces, but rather a growing, snarling hydra.

    Certainly, many racists are not poor, and many poor whites are not racist. But for many voters, race and economics are not separate issues. Again and again in the last half century, they have been intertwined in ways that were sometimes hard to see at the time:

    • The success of the Southern Strategy encouraged many conservatives to broadcast racially charged messages in the abstract language of economics and government spending.

    • The decline of manufacturing created a widespread culture of economic anxiety which, as predicted by group threat theory, often breeds minority resentment.

    • For many, the Great Recession and the election of Obama brought these forces of racial anxiety and economic anxiety together. The growth of minority demographics coincided with growing middle-class economic despair, and Republicans responded by questioning the legitimacy of America’s first black president and building coalitions that united racially resentful whites, like the Tea Party and the Trump movement. Meanwhile, surveys show that Republicans’ long-improving racial attitudes suddenly reversed when Obama became president.
    It would be satisfying to say that the policies Trump wants to implement in his first 100 days are a rejection of the American spirit. But his nativism is, sadly, a dutiful reflection of the country he hopes to lead. There have been ongoing efforts to force out Mexicans, dating back to the so-called “repatriation” (or, removal) of Mexican families in the 1930s, to Operation Wetback in 1954.

    But the minority nation is coming, no matter how much Trump’s supporters resent it. In 2016, 27 million Hispanics will be able to vote, and almost half of them were born after 1980; this will be true even if immigration is permanently halted and some undocumented workers are sent home. Meanwhile, opinion toward immigrants is improving nationwide. In 1994, more than 60 percent of both Republicans and Democrats said immigrants were a burden on the country because they took jobs and health care. In fall 2015, just 17 percent of Democrats agreed; in fact, more than three-quarters of people under 35 said immigrants strengthen the country. If this is struggle over the future of America’s ethnicity, Trump’s supporters are fighting a battle in a war they have already lost.

    Several weeks ago, The Atlantic’s David Graham wrote about the way Trump uses the word “we.” The word is inherently inclusive, yet Trump uses it to exclude. “For Trump, blacks and Hispanics aren’t part of ‘we’,” Graham wrote. “‘They” constitute separate groups.”

    We and they. My group and your group. Like quarks and leptons, these ideas-are the sub-atomic building blocks of politics. Huntington knew it, predicting the Trump phenomenon in 2004, when he named his book Who Are We? Huntington believed in a national identity bound up in whiteness. So do millions of voters. But the math of demography is stark. In 2033, the U.S. Census will record that half of 18-year-olds showing up to vote for the first time will be non-white. Young voters will belong to an electoral cohort that claims no majority. In November, tens of millions of voters may choose resentment over acceptance of this inevitability. But if they do, then who are we?


  2. QueEx

    QueEx Well-Known Member Super Moderator

    Don't forget these themes.
  3. muckraker10021

    muckraker10021 Superstar ***** BGOL Investor

    (This post was copied to this thread by Qx)


    Trump immigration plan could keep whites

    in U.S. majority for up to five more years

    What will America look like in 30 years?

    Feb 6th 2018 |by Jeff Stein and Andrew Van Damby Jeff Stein and Andrew Van Dam Email


    President Trump's proposal to cut legal immigration rates would delay the date that white Americans become a minority of the population by as few as one or as many as five additional years, according to an analysis by The Washington Post.

    The plan, released by the White House last month, would scale back a program that allows people residing in the United States to sponsor family members living abroad for green cards, and would eliminate the “diversity visa program” that benefits immigrants in countries with historically low levels of migration to the United States. Together, the changes would disproportionately affect immigrants from Latin America and Africa.

    The Census Bureau projects that minority groups will outnumber non-Hispanic whites in the United States in 2044. The Post's analysis projects that, were Trump's plan to be carried out, the date would be between 2045 and 2049, depending on how parts of it are implemented.

    (The Post's methodology for estimating the annual impact of Trump's proposed cuts is explained in more detail at the bottom of this report. Projecting this far into the future entails certain assumptions that could alter the range, but demographic experts said The Post's approach was reasonable.)

    All told, the proposal could cut off entry for more than 20 million legal immigrants over the next four decades. The change could have profound effects on the size of the U.S. population and its composition, altering projections for economic growth and the age of the nation's workforce, as well as shaping its politics and culture, demographers and immigration experts say.

    “By greatly slashing the number of Hispanic and black African immigrants entering America, this proposal would reshape the future United States. Decades ahead, many fewer of us would be nonwhite or have nonwhite people in our families,” said Michael Clemens, an economist at the Center for Global Development, a think tank that has been critical of the proposal. “Selectively blocking immigrant groups changes who America is. This is the biggest attempt in a century to do that.”

    Trump's plan calls for eliminating all family-based visa programs that are not used for sponsoring either minors or spouses. That means several family-based visa programs — including those that allow sponsorship for siblings, adult parents and adult children — would be canceled. It also calls for the elimination of the diversity visa lottery and the reallocation of its 50,000 visas to reduce the number of immigrants already on a backlog and to go to a new visa based on “merit.”

    The Post analyzed a low-end and high-end estimate for cuts to legal immigration under the Trump plan. The low-end estimate, provided by NumbersUSA, a group that favors limiting immigration, suggests that about 300,000 fewer immigrants will be admitted legally on an annual basis. A high-end estimate from the Cato Institute, which favors immigration, suggests that as many as 500,000 fewer immigrants would be admitted. Cato bases its number, in part, on assumptions that more family visa categories will be cut.

    Last August, Trump endorsed a Senate bill written by Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.) that would cut legal immigration levels by about 500,000 people annually, according to estimates by the bill's authors. The White House has not released estimates of its own plan.

    If Trump's plan is not implemented, the white share of the population is expected to fall from more than 60 percent in 2018 to less than 45 percent in 2060, as the light green lines in the chart below show. The teal lines show The Post's lower estimates of the impact of Trump's proposal, in which whites stay the majority group until 2046. The brown lines show the upper bound of the potential impact of Trump's proposal.

    To its defenders, the White House proposal offers a reasonable compromise. Trump would move the United States to an immigration system based less on bringing families together or encouraging diversity and more on bringing in those with skills that contribute to the economy. (He also proposes protecting about 1.8 million young immigrants known as “dreamers” in exchange for a significant boost to funding for border enforcement and a border wall.)

    “It is time to begin moving toward a merit-based immigration system — one that admits people who are skilled, who want to work, who will contribute to our society, and who will love and respect our country,” Trump said in his State of the Union address last week.

    But by reducing the country's overall population, the plan could eventually reduce the overall growth rate of the U.S. economy. Under Trump's plan, the U.S. economy could be more than $1 trillion smaller than it would have been two decades from now. That's largely because the economy would have fewer workers.

    The plan could also raise the median age of U.S. workers. About 4 of every 5 immigrants is projected to be younger than 40, while only half of the country's overall population is that young, according to Census Bureau data. A demographic crunch is already expected because of millions of upcoming retirements from the baby boomer generation, raising concerns about the long-term solvency of programs such as Social Security and Medicare that rely on worker contributions.


    plans could have long-term ramifications for the United States' political system, given that about 54 percent of all immigrants are naturalized within 10 years and thus able to vote, although naturalization rates vary widely based on immigrants' country of origin, according to the latest data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

    Hispanic immigrants who are registered voters favor Democrats over Republicans, 70 to 18, and registered voters who are Asian immigrants favor Democrats, 50 to 33, according to the most recent data available from the Pew Research Center. (Similar data was not available for African immigrants.) Approximately 78 percent of immigrants from Africa and 65 percent of immigrants from Asia were naturalized within 10 years.


    But while these effects of delaying the United States' diversification would be significant, they would not fundamentally change the country's demographic destiny. Experts say the main driver of diversification in the United States is the native-born Hispanic population, which grew by about 5 million from 2010 to 2016, just as the native-born white population shrank by about 400,000 over the same period, according to Census Bureau data.

    Among young Americans, the share of the non-Hispanic white population is already less than 60 percent — a number that falls close to 50 percent among newborns and toddlers.

    “You can shut the door to everyone in the world and that won’t change,” said Roberto Suro, an immigration and demography expert at the University of Southern California. “The president can’t do anything about that. If your primary concern is that the American population is becoming less white, it’s already too late.”

    But if Trump's plan were put in place, many of the family immigrants who would eventually be exposed to the cuts come from Latin America. In fiscal year 2017, about 28,000 Mexicans received family-based visas, with immigrants from Asia receiving almost 90,000 and immigrants from Central America and the Caribbean receiving more than 60,000, according to State Department data.

    The changes to legal immigration could vary widely depending on unforeseeable events, including increased economic development in Asian and African countries, dislocation caused by climate change, or decisions made by future administrations.

    William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, produced a separate estimate of the impact of Trump's proposed cut to legal immigration. He found that the plan would delay the arrival of a “minority-majority” nation by three years, to 2047, and stressed that his projections were the best possible with the publicly available information.

    Another big factor is what happens to the population of roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants, including the “dreamers,” in the country. The Post's calculations (like the Census Bureau's) assume they will stay. But their future status is unresolved, and if any significant number of them are forced to leave the country, it could push back the minority-majority date as well.

    “The President has laid out a reasonable framework that addresses the key security issues identified by the frontline men and women” of the Department of Homeland Security, said Tyler Houlton, an agency spokesman, in a statement. “It secures the borders and ensures we can remove those we apprehend, including criminal aliens. It also seeks to protect nuclear family migration while ending two problematic visa programs that do not meet the economic or security needs of the country.”

    Trump's proposal is unlikely to be implemented in its current form. It requires congressional approval, and Democratic leadership opposes it.

    Advocates of reducing legal immigration have offered a variety of arguments, with some saying that high levels of low-skilled immigration hurt U.S.-born workers and new legal immigrants by increasing competition and depressing wages. They also say that today's levels of immigration are high by historical standards.

    “These historically high levels of legal immigration only date back a few decades,” said Chris Chmielenski, director of content and activism at NumbersUSA. “The numbers we've seen recently are abnormal, and Trump's proposal would eventually return us closer to historical levels.”

    Immigration advocates say that the percentage of the foreign-born population has been higher at several points in U.S. history, even if the overall number of incoming immigrants has increased. Looking at the share of the population, which accounts for overall population growth, recent levels of legal immigration appear roughly in line with historical averages, with a decrease after World War II an outlier, according to Migration Policy Institute statistics.

    “Recent immigration flows have been a small fraction of historical levels,” said Clemens, of the Center for Global Development.

    Others who favor immigration restrictions have pointed to the necessity of reducing what they call the social disruption of high levels of immigration, which strikes some liberal critics as code for keeping the United States' white population in the majority.

    “We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies,” Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), an immigration restrictionist in Congress, said on Twitter last year.

    One of the biggest unknowns is how long new immigrants will identify as racial minorities.

    Some academics, as Duke professor William Darity Jr. wrote in the American Prospect, argue that many Latino immigrants “identify less as Hispanic and more as non-Hispanic white” the longer they stay in the United States — a phenomenon similar to the absorption of Irish and Italian immigrants into the idea of “whiteness.”

    Other demographers say a real and important shift is underway, with important consequences for U.S. politics. They note that many Hispanics already identify as white and yet still vote like a minority group. “The contention that [Hispanics] will think of themselves as white in the future is unsettled,” said Ruy Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and author of a book about how demographic changes will affect U.S. politics. “It definitely seems like they’re a different breed of cat.”

    But perhaps the most lasting impact of Trump's policies would be not to America but to the millions of immigrants from poor and developing countries whom the United States would be denying entry to, said Angélica Cházaro, a law professor at the University of Washington who specializes in questions of immigration.

    “We’re talking about susceptibility to pain and violence and economic and social instability for millions of black and brown people,” Cházaro said.People have organized their lives around the possibility of legal immigration, and this forecloses that route.”


    In 2014, the Census Bureau projected the U.S. population by race, ethnicity, sex, age and nativity. Those projections, the most recent available, are the basis for the prediction that the country will become “majority minority” in 2044.

    To adjust those forecasts, we assumed cuts of between 300,000 and 500,000 per year, and we assumed the cuts would be applied proportionally to each race and ethnicity based on their forecast representation in the immigrant population. The 300,000 estimate from NumbersUSA comes from projections of the Trump administration's plan to cut several kinds of family-based immigration visas — those for siblings (65,000 visas annually), those for adult children (another 50,000) and those for adult parents of immigrants (another 125,000). NumbersUSA also projects a 55,000 reduction in annual visas awarded from the elimination of the diversity visa lottery.

    The high estimate of Trump's proposal found by the Cato Institute starts with all of the cuts found by NumbersUSA. But Cato also says that other family-based visa programs are likely to be cut under Trump's plan. For instance, Cato says a program for visas for children of noncitizens will be cut, because a Senate proposal similar to the White House framework eliminates it. That accounts for an additional 95,000 fewer visas annually between the groups' projections. Cato also projects the annual impact of cutting visas for adult parents will be far greater than NumbersUSA does, because Cato looked at the number of these visas awarded in 2016, whereas NumbersUSA took a 10-year average of these visas. That accounts for an additional difference of 50,000.

    We projected children whom the lost immigrants would have had based on Census Bureau estimates of their female population of childbearing age, plus Pew Research projections of first-generation immigrant fertility by race and origin. In some cases, when it was the only data available, we used Census Bureau figures for “black only” and “Asian only” as a rough analog for “black, non-Hispanic” and “Asian, non-Hispanic.” Other groups were treated similarly.

    The Census Bureau made no distinction between documented and undocumented immigrants. Our estimates include only the policy's direct effect on legal immigration, but our models of the race, age and sex of immigrants are based on the full immigrant population. We found that more-complicated models produced similar results.

    We arrived at rough estimates of GDP growth by comparing our predictions for the country's entire population under various scenarios with forecasts of per-person economic output by PwC, a global consulting firm. The estimates don't account for how the exclusion of certain groups of immigrants would change the overall age, education and skill level of the labor force.
  4. Dannyblueyes

    Dannyblueyes Aka Illegal Danny BGOL Investor


    If the government wants a white majority all they have to do is reclassify certain Mexicans as white like they did 100 years ago.
  5. muckraker10021

    muckraker10021 Superstar ***** BGOL Investor


    Mourning for Whiteness

    By Toni Morrison |

    This is a serious project. All immigrants to the United States know (and knew) that if they want to become real, authentic Americans they must reduce their fealty to their native country and regard it as secondary, subordinate, in order to emphasize their whiteness.

    Unlike any nation in Europe, the United States holds whiteness as the unifying force. Here, for many people, the definition of “Americanness” is color.

    Under slave laws, the necessity for color rankings was obvious, but in America today, post-civil-rights legislation, white people’s conviction of their natural superiority is being lost. Rapidly lost.

    There are “people of color” everywhere, threatening to erase this long-understood definition of America. And what then? Another black President? A predominantly black Senate? Three black Supreme Court Justices? The threat is frightening.

    In order to limit the possibility of this untenable change, and restore whiteness to its former status as a marker of national identity, a number of white Americans are sacrificing themselves. They have begun to do things they clearly don’t really want to be doing, and, to do so, they are (1) abandoning their sense of human dignity and (2) risking the appearance of cowardice.

    Much as they may hate their behavior, and know full well how craven it is, they are willing to kill small children attending Sunday school and slaughter churchgoers who invite a white boy to pray. Embarrassing as the obvious display of cowardice must be, they are willing to set fire to churches, and to start firing in them while the members are at prayer. And, shameful as such demonstrations of weakness are, they are willing to shoot black children in the street.

    To keep alive the perception of white superiority, these white Americans tuck their heads under cone-shaped hats and American flags and deny themselves the dignity of face-to-face confrontation, training their guns on the unarmed, the innocent, the scared, on subjects who are running away, exposing their unthreatening backs to bullets. Surely, shooting a fleeing man in the back hurts the presumption of white strength? The sad plight of grown white men, crouching beneath their (better) selves, to slaughter the innocent during traffic stops, to push black women’s faces into the dirt, to handcuff black children. Only the frightened would do that. Right?
    These sacrifices, made by supposedly tough white men, who are prepared to abandon their humanity out of fear of black men and women, suggest the true horror of lost status.

    It may be hard to feel pity for the men who are making these bizarre sacrifices in the name of white power and supremacy. Personal debasement is not easy for white people (especially for white men), but to retain the conviction of their superiority to others—especially to black people—they are willing to risk contempt, and to be reviled by the mature, the sophisticated, and the strong. If it weren’t so ignorant and pitiful, one could mourn this collapse of dignity in service to an evil cause.

    The comfort of being “naturally better than,” of not having to struggle or demand civil treatment, is hard to give up. The confidence that you will not be watched in a department store, that you are the preferred customer in high-end restaurants—these social inflections, belonging to whiteness, are greedily relished.
    So scary are the consequences of a collapse of white privilege that many Americans have flocked to a political platform that supports and translates violence against the defenseless as strength. These people are not so much angry as terrified, with the kind of terror that makes knees tremble.

    On Election Day, how eagerly so many white voters—both the poorly educated and the well educated—embraced the shame and fear sowed by Donald Trump.

    The candidate whose company has been sued by the Justice Department for not renting apartments to black people. The candidate who questioned whether Barack Obama was born in the United States, and who seemed to condone the beating of a Black Lives Matter protester at a campaign rally. The candidate who kept black workers off the floors of his casinos. The candidate who is beloved by David Duke and endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan.

    William Faulkner understood this better than almost any other American writer. In “Absalom, Absalom,” incest is less of a taboo for an upper-class Southern family than acknowledging the one drop of black blood that would clearly soil the family line. Rather than lose its “whiteness” (once again), the family chooses murder.

    VAiz4hustlaz likes this.
  6. muckraker10021

    muckraker10021 Superstar ***** BGOL Investor


    Trump won’t stop trying to keep America white

    By Dana Milbank | February 13 2018 |

    The efforts by President Trump to keep America white are getting increasingly dark.

    Make no mistake: What’s happening on Capitol Hill this week, at Trump’s behest, is nothing other than an attempt by Republicans to slow the inexorable march toward that point at midcentury when the United States becomes a majority-minority nation.

    In the long run, they are merely putting a finger in the dike. But in the short term, the Trump-backed immigration proposal, combined with other recent moves by the administration and its allies — support for voter suppression, gerrymandering and various other schemes to disenfranchise minority voters — could extend the white hegemony that brought Trump to power and sustains Republicans.

    For ages, Republicans said that their beef was with illegal immigrants and that legal immigrants should be embraced and welcomed. No longer. In the immigration fight on the Hill, there is broad bipartisan consensus to legalize the “dreamers” — illegal immigrants brought here as children — and to fortify border security. The dispute is really about the Trump proposal to rein in legal immigration by undoing the family-based approach, in which immigrants petition to bring over immediate family, that has always been at the heart of U.S. immigration.

    Though details aren’t yet known, estimates are that the legislation would cut legal immigration, currently 1.1 million per year, by 300,000 to 500,000 annually. A previous version of the “chain migration” proposal by Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.) would have cut legal immigration by half a million a year, by their own account.

    Essentially, Trump and the Republicans are threatening to make nearly 700,000 dreamers subject to deportation unless Democrats agree to close the door to tens of millions of future legal immigrants.

    This won’t stop the loss of a white majority; the youthful Hispanic population already here, with its higher fertility rate, makes that inevitable. “It’s almost impossible to become whiter as a country,” the Brookings Institution demographer William H. Frey tells me. “It’s like a demographic tsunami. There aren’t enough people in Norway to migrate here.”

    But the GOP might delay by a few years the point at which the United States becomes majority-minority, now expected in 2044. Minorities vote at lower rates than whites (52.7 percent in 2016 vs. 65.3 percent for whites), so, if Republicans can sustain that disparity, the white voting majority that the party relies on could last several years beyond 2044.

    Republicans may be acting out of self-interest rather than any racial animus. But if one were to devise a diabolical plan to suppress nonwhite votes, it would look much like what they are doing.

    The administration asked to include a question about citizenship in the 2020 Census, which will determine the apportionment of House seats. This would suppress census participation among the 7 percent of residents who are not citizens — even those here legally — thus causing Latinos to be undercounted.

    The administration argued last month before the Supreme Court in favor of an Ohio practice of purging voters from registration rolls if they fail to vote over two federal election cycles. Because of minority voters’ lower participation rates, they would be purged from the rolls in higher numbers.

    The administration has given tacit support to other voter-suppression efforts in the states, in the form of voter ID laws and restrictions on early voting. Trump nominated, and the Senate Judiciary Committee has approved, a district court nominee, Thomas Farr, who helped draft and defend the most egregious voter-suppression and gerrymandering laws in the country. Farr unsuccessfully argued for North Carolina’s voter ID law, which was struck down by an appellate court because it targeted African Americans “with almost surgical precision.”
    The Republican National Committee, which is under Trump’s authority, also weighed in on a current Supreme Court case in favor of political gerrymandering, often used to dilute minority votes.

    Trump’s voter-fraud commission, based on the fallacy that millions of illegal immigrants voted in 2016, has collapsed, but not before an ugly attempt at stigmatizing Latinos. As The Post’s Spencer S. Hsu and John Wagner reported, documents show that a commission representative asked for Texas voter records and requested a “Hispanic surname flag notation.”

    Trump himself has continued to stir up fears, often based on falsehoods, of a crime wave caused by illegal immigrants, and he has requested billions of dollars to step up deportations. (At the same time, he has proposed a 5 percent cut to federal education funding, much of it for programs benefiting the urban poor, disproportionately minorities.)

    This is, of course, what you would expect from an administration whose chief law enforcement official, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, just hailed “the Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement.” This phrase — an ad lib while reading from a prepared text — would be easier to excuse as an innocent reference to common law if Sessions didn’t carry so much racial baggage, and if his boss hadn’t just referred to “shithole” African countries.

    Republicans can’t keep America white, but they can stop sullying themselves in the attempt.

    Trump's AmeriKKKa is
    Make America White Again

    RepubliKlan Speaker Paul Ryan with the June 2016 "Young Republicans"
    Damn they all look like genetically cloned monoculture pod people - where is the diversity??


    Trump supporting Neo-Nazis and white supremacists marching through the University of Virginia campus with torches.

    Drumpf's Moronic "They-Killing-Themselves-With-Heroin Opioids & Meth" Voters
    Trump pimps his pregnant wife
    Last edited: May 9, 2018
  7. QueEx

    QueEx Well-Known Member Super Moderator

    Melania Trump's parents are now U.S. citizens, thanks to a policy bashed by the president

    Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

    First lady Melania Trump's parents, Viktor and Amalija Knavs, became U.S. citizens on Thursday, taking advantage of a program that President Trump has long railed against.

    Their ceremony was private for "security reasons," attorney Michael Wildes said. Trump has decried "chain migration," where adult U.S. citizens can obtain residency for their relatives, and tweeted on Nov. 1, 2017, "CHAIN MIGRATION must end now! Some people come in, and they bring their whole family with them, who can be truly evil. NOT ACCEPTABLE!" Wildes toldThe New York Times "I suppose" the Knavses obtained citizenship through chain migration, and called it a "dirtier" way of describing family-based immigration, "a bedrock of our immigration process when it comes to family reunification."

    The Knavses are from Slovenia, but now divide their time between New York City, Palm Beach, and Washington, D.C., where they stay with the Trumps in the White House. Wildes said the first lady sponsored her parents for their green cards, and once eligible, they applied for citizenship. To apply for U.S. citizenship, a person muhst have a green card for at least five years, plus meet the character, residency, and civic knowledge requirements. It's unclear when the Knavses obtained permanent residency in the U.S., the Times reports, but Wildes said they met the five year requirement.

    Melania Trump became a citizen in 2006, five years after she came to the U.S. to work as a model. She came to the country on a so-called "Einstein visa," for "individuals of extraordinary ability." Catherine Garcia

  8. QueEx

    QueEx Well-Known Member Super Moderator

    Melania Trump's parents are now U.S. citizens, via policy president hates

    First lady Melania Trump's parents, Viktor and Amalija Knavs, became U.S. citizens on Thursday, taking advantage of a program that President Trump has long railed against. Trump has decried "chain migration," where adult U.S. citizens can obtain residency for their relatives. In November 2017, for example, Trump tweeted: "CHAIN MIGRATION must end now! Some people come in, and they bring their whole family with them, who can be truly evil. NOT ACCEPTABLE!"

    The couple's attorney told The New York Times "I suppose" the Knavses obtained citizenship through chain migration, and called it a "dirtier" way of describing family-based immigration. The Knavses are from Slovenia, and the first lady, who became a citizen in 2006, sponsored them for their green cards.

    Source: The New York Times
  9. QueEx

    QueEx Well-Known Member Super Moderator

Share This Page