What you said
"So if someone refutes being called a racist then that is evidence they are a racist. Wonderful, dems win no matter what."
This was itself avoiding the racist words used by conservatives in their rhetoric. No one refuted the racism that is obvious and inherent in demeaning migrants. Calling all migrants "illegals" is racist and inaccurate. There are alternative words to use in regards to migrants that don't smuggle in prejudice.
Why do you assume they are not just referring to illegal migrants? Everyone I know has no problem with legal immigration, we should even make it more efficient. But any migrant here illegally should be called an illegal migrant.
One observation about how concervatives have evolved over the last decade, I see fewer moderates, which suggests to me they have either decided (consciously or subconsciously) to either reject MAGA (like we see with Bill Crystol, Chris Christie, Charlie Sykes, Liz Cheney, etc.) or jump feet first into the MAGAverse and adopt all the negative rhetoric, the political sabotage as we see with the sabotaged Border Bill, and all the lies and disinformation that Trump and MADAmedia spews. I'm seeing once more moderate conservatives inching closer to MAGA as we get deeper into the election season. To my mind these folks are trying to test and built their case for voting for Trump. I suspect it is more an effort to convince themselves that others. Like we see with Trump., the best way to sound confident in a lie is to convince the self it is true.
Ok
They might be superficial and show problems when used in policies that are implemented to offset broad inequality and racism. We all know that business and government policies are never precision, and there will always be outliers and harm when applied to the whole of a compant or society. The question is: is it better to harm a few white folks for the sake of broadening opportunies for minorities, or should society just let nature run its course, which tends to harm the disadvantaged?
There is another option. How about helping people that need it without discriminating against anyone.
Notice in your example you show concern for one person becasue there is a broad policy that aims to help all minorities. I see conservatives often say that if minorities are disadvantaged due to historic prejudice and societal hardship that they should pull up their bootstraps and work harder. But when a rich person complains that a tax hike will cost them more money no says they should work harder.
I never said these things.
One aim of a government in a liberal society is to help balance the advantaged to the disadvantaged. Letting nature run its course only maintains suffering, hardship, and strife. Given the rhetoric by republicans who tend to run political campaigns on complaining, not progress, we can see why they want to maintain the status quo of minorities struggling to compete.
Again that is not me.
Here's your chance to share what you think should be done. How do you help offset the disadvantages of the poor?
I don't know. A lot has been tried and trillions spent for 60+ years now but we have much of the same problems. I do know helping one person by discriminating against another is not just.
You said:
"is it better to harm a few white folks for the sake of broadening opportunies for minorities, or should society just let nature run its course, which tends to harm the disadvantaged?"
What is your answer to this question?
What do you want to see happen with the border?
1. Build more of the wall
2. Increase deportations of people here illegally
3. More inquiry into why they need asylum. Not all that come here are being persecuted and apply outside the country.
4. This is a good start:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2
Do you support the bill that Biden agreed to sign? If not, whay not?
No, The border deal has issues:
1. It would allow up to 1.8M border crossings before any restrictions are implemented. It says that we would need 5000 crossings daily for a week or 8500 in one day to implement restrictions. So by my math 4999*7*52 = 1.8M crossings before anything would be done. This is codifying illegal immigration at historic levels. That is not border security.
2. It would increase the alternatives to detention something in opposition to more security.
3. Why is there $60.5B to Ukraine, $10B to Gaza and $14.1B to Israel in a border deal? So if you agree with the border provisions you are forced to agree with the aid packages so when you vote no because of that you are called out as not serious on the border. That is untrue.
Were you on board with the republican border security bill last May that the democrats would not vote for? Why or why not?
