Since you believe that I'm just trying to paint people that I don't agree with as racist. How about we go over the reasons I have to suspect that?Sir. I'm Hispanic and latino your attempts to paint people that don't agree with you as racist is just sad.
first. It has pretty racist sub contexts. There isn't a reason to be afraid of increasing voters (especially just at the local level) unless one party realizes that it's not politically viable for them.
Secondly, not only do I live with a person of color, but also talk to a long childhood friend, who is Latino, points out that the process is UNFAIRLY difficult. Taking far more time than it reasonably should. When the United States already has a history of treating people of color unreasonably, I kinda have to immediately suspect as a white person, that somethings wrong, since that's just been the history, and it's ignorant to not take that into consideration.
I also grew up in a racist household, born from the same cloth of rhetoric that your are saying. So I'm going to be naturally weary of it.
Thirdly, a lot of the people here have stated outright racist, homophobic rhetoric. Almost every person I've had an argument with has a through line. Almost everyone I had argued with any extended period of time had a mask off moment. You can look at my signature as proof of that. Commonly spouting the same or adjacent oppresive rhetoric. The fact that it's pretty clear from which sphere it comes from, also makes me heavily weary. If you also notice. I don't say "you are racist" unless I'm 100% certain and there is no longer plausible deniability. I haven't called you racist. I called your rehetroic xenophobic, but not yourself as such. It's the reason I said "sounds" not. "you are"
Is it the majority? if no. Then it's not exactly logical. Because then your favoring a minority view, which is again, similar adjacent to the others (others referring to people within this thread) rhetoric. which values their voice, over everyone else's is, it's a inherently unfair way to do things, and doesn't go well for a democracy.can tell you that a substantial and rising population of Latino-american folks would agree with me on this point.
As insane as it sounds, you can end up supporting your own oppression. Is it logical? No. But people also aren't always logical either. to prove that it's a thing that can happen, why the fuck are there gay people in the republican party, when the republican party blatantly is against them? You can critically look at what I've said in the past.
STOP. Think for a second what you are saying here. And how it changes your statements retroactively.Weakening a privilege they earned by inflating it with folks that are not of our nation
I was being kind, and hoping you were implying American in some other sense. But here your clearly applying it as nationality. You want to know how xenophobia is made easier to digest? By treating people as lesser. Your treating "being an American" as more valuable than "not of our nation"Why would I want someone who's not even an American to have a say
I believe both of those types should have some say in their life. We don't always get to choose what jobs we do. But I also do believe in citizenship. Giving people a bit of local say, doesn't hurt, and it can benefit them and even others in the process. I see that as a win.
I'm going to use a similarly adjacent argument, and I'll let you decide on what is the issue I take with it, and why. This isn't two random arguments. It has a throughline and point in them.Because those that became citizens worked hard to naturalize and go through the process.
"You kids have it too easy, we used to work around the clock back in our days."
I take issue with it since that's a nationalism (borderline ultra nationalism) mindset.People's families don't always get to choice where they live. Some of their familes come from two different countries, seperating that isn't exactly a fair choice. But also saying that the people who work here, also shouldn't get any influence surroundings their work also sounds wrong. Choosing between making your work life better, and if you can still easily see family, is not even a choice you should have to make. Both should be possible. Not or.Honestly I'd prefer that we ask people to revoke their other citizenships too if they become citizens, but I digress.
Edit:
Since I used some words. I might as well give a definition of those said words. Bolded are the parts that are particularly pertaining.
Nationalism:"identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations"
Ultra nationalism:"extreme nationalism that promotes the interests of one state or people above all others"
Last edited by Deleted member 586536,