I don't really want to get deeply into Trump's travel ban but I would say that it was clearly aimed at Muslim majority countries (if you pick 7 seven random counties on Earth, your odds of them all being Muslim are astronomically low). Whereas the wall is a strengthening of an existing border.Puja wrote:I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing the distinction that you clearly are. Just because it's nationalistic doesn't mean it can't also be racist - it's designed to stop non-Americans, because "those people are criminals, drug dealers, and rapists." It's like when people said, "The immigration ban wasn't a muslim ban because it didn't include all Muslim countries and might catch some non-Muslims too." Things don't exist outside of context or intent - it's clear and obvious what the intent of it is.Son of Mathonwy wrote:I want to stick to the truth. The wall discriminates on the basis of nationality (ie non-US), not on race.Puja wrote: I'm still confused as to why this fine line is necessary. I will absolutely agree with your general point that calling all Trump voters racist is a (politically) bad thing and leads only to entrenchment of positions.
However, the wall wasn't about Mexico, it was about all the people south of the border, all of whom are Hispanic. I suppose you could say it was nationalistic against all of Mexico, Colombia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc if you really wanted, but I really don't see the value in pretending that race has nothing to do with it. I don't know you're saving anyone's feelings in a useful way by refusing to call a spade a spade.
Puja
If you say it is racist because its purpose is to keep out non-americans (predominantly from the countries you mention, predominantly hispanic people), then so are all controls on that border. Are you arguing that all border controls between the USA and Mexico are racist?
I'm certainly not saying that race has nothing to do with this - no doubt it was a big factor in the Wall's genesis and in its appeal. But so was class discrimination, fear of the poor, economic insecurity, and fear of violence (obviously exaggerated by the media . . . and Breaking Bad).
Oddly, I'd say that the border controls between the USA and Mexico make the wall *more* racist, because the border is not the point at which most illegal immigration into the US comes from, nor is the point on the border where the wall is where most of the immigration on the border happens (citation: https://www.npr.org/2019/01/10/68366269 ... ta-tell-us). So chucking a ridiculous amount of budget at something largely futile suggests that it's a symbol rather than an immigration tool.
I don't know; it feels like splitting hairs to me. One can be worried about immigration and not be racist, certainly. A wall in and of itself, might not be racist. However, I personally don't see how Trump's wall is not racist. YMMV
Puja
I really don't understand your point about the border controls making the wall *more* rascist. The fact that it's impractical, inefficient etc doesn't change how racist it is.
Can I try to repeat or rephrase my point? If border controls were taken away, those locations would simply be roads between Mexico and the USA. If this was the situation then illegal immigrants could easily move from Mexico to the US. These would predominantly be Hispanic. Therefore the effect of existing border controls is to prevent illegal immigration by people who are mostly Hispanic. Does that mean the existing border controls are racist?