I’m not sure what was dehumanizing about my post…writing an article about a group that claims to be progressive but isn’t progressive - is that classified as dehumanizing nowadays?

And I’d be happy to tell you my position on immigration: I’ve watched firsthand families being torn apart by a broken system. Hard-working, decent people spend months on end languishing in detention centers on technical immigration violations while the private corporations who run these detention centers get rich off American taxpayers. The North America Free Trade Agreement put more than 1 million corn farmers out of work in Mexico. And then the FOUR companies that produce US meat told them to come here to do the life-threatening, low-wage work that no American would do. I’m sickened by the way anti-immigrant groups vilify Latino immigrants, but never provide real solutions to a system that is manipulated and abused by huge corporations. I have no official political stance on immigration; I simply want to see people treated fairly and with human dignity.

I find it strange that you would say you heard “there is only one women’s shelter in all of Mexico City”. That sounds really outlandish and irrelevant to what we are discussing. Are you just throwing in disparaging remarks about Mexico for the heck of it?

Also, if you are concerned about the environment you should read our posts on the matter. We’ve made ecological concerns a regular topic at Imagine 2050.

Thanks for your reply and your attempt at clarification. If the goal of the blog is to promote tolerance, then why isn’t that what your goal statement says? I copied and pasted your goal statement—I did not misrepresent you. However, rather than accurately represent the goal statements of the organizations you oppose (I assume you are opposed to immigration control, based upon your goal statement, and on this semi-clarification “It’s not a “goal” of ours to change the demographics of the US. It’s a fact that demographics will change drastically”), you misrepresent them by associating them with racists. You did not address what they are actually advocating.

I, too, have a problem with racial supremacists. I also have a problem with hate mongering. I recommend the book, Faces of The Enemy, by Sam Keen. It’s about propaganda and the psychology of enmity. You will see how people with various agendas have used hate mongering throughout history, and how people, including yourself, currently do. You try to paint your opposition as monsters, dehumanizing them, in order to stifle honest analysis of the issue at hand.

You have an agenda, and it isn’t honesty or peace making. Peace does not happen when you slander people. It happens when you have a fair and honest conversation—accurately represent their viewpoint, acknowledge the good points they have to make, and explain why you disagree with the things you disagree with.

I know about the pseudo-science and the abusive campaigns and policies and various racist blogs and web sites that claim to be for eugenics, and I agree that many of their views are unscientific and malevolent. However, that doesn’t mean that everyone who is for eugenics has the same agenda or approach. By coloring them all with the same brush, you make it more difficult for honest, truly scientific, and ethically sound discussions on the subject to happen. Hitler was a vegetarian—does that mean all vegetarians are Nazis? Of course not! I recommend the book, What We May Be, by John Glad (the author is Jewish, if that helps you). It represents a pro-eugenics perspective that is not racist, and it points out some of the misunderstandings about the field of eugenics and of eugenics movements in general.

The issue of eugenics is an important one. The reason why is because whether we like it or not, every reproductive choice has consequences that society and future generations of humans, as well as other species, will be affected by. The fact that we have medicines and technologies that we didn’t have for most of human evolution is itself a form genetic manipulation, because people with hereditary health problems can have children. I am not claiming to know how to solve the problem, but it is never the less a topic worthy of discussion. How can the discussion occur if you automatically paint anyone who discusses it with one big, ugly brush? That is not tolerance. And it doesn’t solve the problem.

My sense, correct me if I’m wrong, is that you are a nice person who doesn’t want to see people be hurt by racism. I’d like to be supportive of you, if that is your concern. But it’s how you go about it that bothers me. I’m curious, what are your thoughts about immigration policy? Do you think that no nation should have the right to limit the size of its population? Do you care about the ecological consequences of adding more people to the most over-consumptive nation on the planet? Do you think that all cultures are equally good or bad? The last I heard—and I hoped this information is out-dated or inaccurate—there is only one women’s shelter in all of Mexico City. Do you think it is good for the United States to go into other countries and change their cultures? How much culture/language variety is healthy in any given community? Why or why not?

Please don’t assume you know what my views are on these matters. I want to know if you have ever thought about these things, and if you have any opinions about them, what your opinions are and why. I’m not making assumptions about you based upon whom you may have had conversations with or who might agree with some of your views. That would not be fair, honest, accurate, or facilitate a constructive dialogue about the issue at hand—the issue is how many people should be allowed to immigrate into the United States, and at what rate. What is your opinion on this issue? I promise I won’t try to slander or misrepresent you if I disagree. And I’d be happy to try to have a constructive dialogue with you on the subject.

Sincerely,

Kevin Browning

I’m confused why you think our blog states a goal for the racial makeup of the US(??) It’s not a “goal” of ours to change the demographics of the US. It’s a fact that demographics will change drastically. The goal of the blog is to promote tolerance.

I suggest you do more research into eugenics. This highly controversial “science” has been espousing racist theories for over 100 years, spawning several groups with names like the “Race Betterment Foundation” in the early 1900s. After eugenics was promoted and used to justify horrific atrocities in World War II Nazi Germany, it was shunned by legitimate scientists. There is a difference between true genetic science and eugenics. I’d recommend learning more about those differences before you continue to publicly promote it.

I don’t really care whether you think I’m evil or not. This isn’t about “evil” or partisan politics. It’s about a network of organizations (John Tanton’s groups) who pretend to be moderate voices on immigration, but are actually closely aligned with white nationalist extremists.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify that one more time!

Jill

“Our Goal
By 2050, one out of five Americans will be foreign born. Latino communities will triple in size and the percentage of Asian communities will increase significantly. There will be no clear racial or ethnic majority. Only 47% of Americans will be classified as white.
The American population will drastically shift. New faces, new foods, new languages, and different skin colors will influence our everyday experiences. What appears ‘foreign’ will challenge how Americans see the world and how Americans identify themselves.
As the demographics of the United States shift over the next 40 years, candid conversations around race, immigration, and identity will become increasingly necessary to American democracy.”

Don’t you see the irony? You try to smear honest and caring people by calling them racists and eugenicists. The very people you try to smear, such as immigration reduction advocates, have never stated any goal for the racial makeup of the U.S.. Indeed, they have stated that they don’t support policies based on race.

Yet you do! It is right there in your GOAL statement. You also try to smear people who support eugenics. Do you even know what “eugenics” means? It has nothing to do with race. It has to do with bettering the human gene pool. Can you actually point out anything wrong with bettering the human gene pool? Consider that every time a person chooses a mate, they have made a decision about which genes shall be passed on. And what did they base their decision on? Think about it, honestly.

Your tactics are so dishonest, deceitful, and poorly reasoned, I wonder what motivates you. Please tell me, what motivates you? I don’t claim to know. And I don’t think it’s fair for you to claim to know what motivates others when they advocate such things as sustainable immigration policies or improvement of the human gene pool. What is so evil about that? If someone is motivated by hate, I could see your point, but I don’t think most people are. I think that you portraying people as hate mongers, just because they disagree with you, now that is evil.

But I doubt that you are evil, either. You are just caught up in partisan politics, and that prevents you from having an honest conversation. So, why I am I wasting my time trying to talk with you? That is probably a more relevant question.

Their cowardice has no limits. They consider latino migrants “savages” and murder is in their talk and on their minds.

They should be disbanded because they are a gang of low class criminals. And what is even more disgusting is the politicians (including the governor of California), celebrities that such as Lou Dobbs who makes millions from hate talk. They are just as guilty of the murder of the Flores family’s child as Shawna Forde and her henchmen.

If you think that the anti-immigrant movement is taking its cues from the state (i.e. ICE) you are completely misreading the political terrain out there. I hope that the immigrant rights movement doesn’t make the same mistake as previous “rights” movements in believing that the anti-immigrant movement is simply some off-shoot of the state. You will be sadly mistaken as I believe the immigrant rights movement found out during the last battle over “comprehensive” immigration reform.

Unlike immigrant rights supporters your counterparts (Tanton and co-horts) are a bonafide social movement. It could be well argued that it is ICE that is taking its cue from the anti-immigrant movement.

Note that ICE enforcment stepped up after the appearance of the Minutemen not before. One could argue that indeed Minutemen operations created the political space for ICE to expand their draconians activity.

The idea that this is somekind of dual struggle i.e. immigrant right supporters against govt. policy (ICE) needs to be put on the back burner. It is not an accurate portrayal of what is occuring.

It is more accurate to think of this as a three-sided struggle with three players, the govt., immigrant supporters, and an anti-immigrant social movement. All three have to be taken seriously if there is to be real gains for human rights.

It is not just important to hush up the “hate speech” as you call it. It is also important to contain the anti-immigrant movement itself. Immigrant supporters are not the only group out there trying to create and influence policy and its time that we stop acting like it.

Kudos to Imagine2050 for continuing to point this out to all of us.

Lucia

July 4, 2009 10am-10pm
Camp Vigilance
Boulevard, CA

for directions
http://www.campvigilance.com/

See:

http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/does-us-dtv-means-full-employment-for-china/

Talk of “invasions”. The liberal use of the disgusting word “anchor baby” to describe innocent children.

Gheen’s very astute! The PT Barnum of our time. Sit back, beg for money and let his armchair activists use all the derogatory terms and racial smears.

ALIPAC is supposed to be about “legal immigration”, yet they focus almost exclusively on Mexicans and make them out to be a non human species.

Even now, many of the members are attempting to justify this crime by suggesting it is quid pro quo for “Americkuns” that are massacred daily (their opinion, not the mainstreams) by illegals.

There is no justification for this whatsoever.

So continue to believe what you want. Real Americans and those of us working for an overhaul of our nations immigration laws, not open borders as your hero suggests, will keep putting the word out, despite your best efforts to counter our comments with your spam.