Advocates of limited immigration accused of being racist.

I am an ardent anti-racist and believe economic migration should be capped with qualification and that legitimate asylum should be granted through a fair and efficeint mechanism. I have yet to have anyone who's opinion I value call me racist, either you spend too much time talking to the "religious" anti-facist groupings, (ie. those too young to have considered their opinion's ramifications fully), or you may express your opinions in such a way that people may consider your motives to be other than colour bllind.

airsofter1234 wrote: »

Every time I debate the topic with people they say it is racist to limit immigration.

When you simplify immigration restriction down to it, it's basically saying "no you don't have a right to live here because you weren't born in ________, or aren't _________". When you're making a distinction on the basis of where someone was born, something that can't be controlled, it's understandable that people might hold the opinion that it's racist, even if you qualify it with legitimate concerns to do with the capacity of public services etc.

What has happened to society, that everything is now so politically correct, and the definition of racism has blurred. Saying anything is now racist and frowned upon.

Not really. It's more that things that used to be okay to say, are now, correctly called out for being what they are. Does anyone really want to go back to before so-called 'political correctness' anyway?

VeryOwl wrote: »

When you simplify immigration restriction down to it, it's basically saying "no you don't have a right to live here because you weren't born in ________, or aren't _________". When you're making a distinction on the basis of where someone was born, something that can't be controlled, it's understandable that people might hold the opinion that it's racist, even if you qualify it with legitimate concerns to do with the capacity of public services etc.

But the above isn't even remotely racist. He could be as opposed to Irish-Americans immigrating as anyone else with that position. The problem is the loudest immigration restriction voices tend to be arguing from a racist position but want to put a pretty face on it, so the result is this being thought of anyone proposing anything but the lightest restrictions.

It's the same with people advocating left or right politics being labeled socialists or conservatives/libertarians etc.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm very pro immigration, but those who are anti-immigration are no more racist than those who criticize Israel or the Iraq war.

Such accusations are an absolute cop out designed to avoid real debate and discredit shame people away from the views they hold.

Sometimes, yes. On the other hand, there's a very simple logic which says it can't always be the case:

1. racists and xenophobes exist

2. racists and xenophobes will as a rule be opposed to immigration

3. racists and xenophobes will be present in the public debate on immigration

4. ergo, some of those in the public debate who are opposed to immigration will be racists or xenophobes. One could go further and claim that they're likely to be particularly loud in such a debate, because it touches particularly on their interests.

One can neither claim that everyone who opposes immigration is a racist/xenophobe, nor claim that no-one is. As such, it's possible for anyone involved in the debate to a racist/xenophobe.

And that someone is a racist or xenophobe is not an ad hominem point in an immigration debate. A racist or xenophobe who opposes immigration does not do so on rational grounds but on irrational ones - but, outside Stormfront, it's unlikely that they will put forward their case on purely racist/xenophobic grounds. As such, they're likely to be putting forward a dishonest case, because what is important is not the objective merits of the argument they use, but the fact that their argument serves and masks their real intent. That, in turn, means that they're likely to conceal any parts of the evidence that conflict with their intent, and distort where necessary.

So I'm afraid that I would say it's important to be able to identify genuine racists and xenophobes in an immigration debate, just as it is to identify genuine anti-Semites in a debate on Israel. Otherwise we're all effectively having to pretend that such nasty things just don't happen, and people are never really like that, when it just isn't true.

I'm not saying it's easy to be sure who is or is not genuinely racist, and I'm certainly not saying the accusation isn't thrown around too liberally, but pretending it applies to no-one who is opposed to immigration is just as ludicrous as pretending it applies to everyone who is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think Irish people advocate 'limited immigration' not due to racism or xenophobia, but as a consequence of the failure to reform other areas, such as Social Welfare.

But we could have a zero immigration policy and yet the taxpayer will still be fleeced.

I don't think we can circumvent these reforms (or not for long anyway).