[dragonwriter]

> If whites were 1) running the country and 2) racist then the immigration policies of this country would have kept the USA as a white majority country.

Why? Why would the whites holding the majority of the power oppose having greater non-white subject populations as long as they were still subject? (One might argue that this would be short-sighted, on the assumption that minority dominance isn't indefinitely sustainable, but at a minimum this requires assuming that the white rulers were not merely racist, but also uniformly long-term strategic thinkers.)

[mplscoder]

If whites are running everything, what policy exists for them to maintain power?

Trying to keep America white by immigration? No Media favoring white people? No (they called the hispanic George Zimmerman white to further their 'white people are all rascist' narrative') Passing laws that favor the majority white religion (Christianity)? No

[dragonwriter]

> If whites are running everything, what policy exists for them to maintain power?

That's a whole different argument than the one you made upthread; if that's what you wanted to argue, why didn't you argue that first, instead of what you did (which you apparently aren't interested in defending.)

Note that the comment you are responding to doesn't argue that whites are running everything, it argues that your previously-stated basis for rejecting that is unsound.

> Trying to keep America white by immigration?

By restricting immigration, and not allowing the overall quotas to align with where the people otherwise qualified and interested in coming are located? Certainly.

By adopting a variety of non-immigrant foreign labor schemes, certainly also.

> Media favoring white people? No (they called the hispanic George Zimmerman white to further their 'white people are all rascist' narrative')

Zimmerman is of white race and Hispanic ethnicity.

> Passing laws that favor the majority white religion (Christianity)?

Whites in the US are less likely to be Christian than Blacks.

(And given your comments on Zimmerman, which seems to indicate that you reject the normal definition of race and see Hispanics as inherently non-white, well, Hispanics are also far more likely to be Christian than Whites in general -- and this is even more true, obviously, Hispanics vs. non-Hispanic Whites.)

Overall, Whites aren't any more Christian than the population at large, so laws favoring Christianity as such don't really relatively favor Whites.

[Nadya]

>Whites in the US are less likely to be Christian than Blacks.

There are more white Christians than white Athiests and white "Other" religions. Regardless if only 60% of Whites are Christian and 95% of [other race] are Christian it would still be a white majority, just not "per capita". 100% of 100,000 is still a minority compared to 55% of 100,000,000.

>By restricting immigration, and not allowing the overall quotas to align with where the people otherwise qualified and interested in coming are located? Certainly.

This has nothing to do with race and more to do with a government, "it's people", and the effects of immigration on both of those. Your argument presumes that someone can be anti-immigration but "pro-white immigration". As someone against immigration and pro-restrictive immigration, that's a bit of an absurd and out-of-touch claim to be making. I'm equally against a "qualified Irishman" from immigrating as I am a "qualified Indian".

Also what do you mean by "overall quotas"?

Open-borders also actively harms "lesser-off" countries: all their talent leaves for greener pastures. Leaving these countries with a lack of leaders and professional talent (ie. doctors). How do you value the interest of an individual over the well-being of an entire country? What if we simply took every single doctor out of India and let the people fend for themselves when it comes to health care? Should millions die so a few 10,000 could move to a "better country"? Immigration has harmful side-effects than I don't think you're fully considering.

>Why would the whites holding the majority of the power oppose having greater non-white subject populations as long as they were still subject? (One might argue that this would be short-sighted, on the assumption that minority dominance isn't indefinitely sustainable, but at a minimum this requires assuming that the white rulers were not merely racist, but also uniformly long-term strategic thinkers.)

You provided your counterpoint and then precluded racist and "strategic thinkers". It doesn't take a strategist to know that ruling over a minority that outnumbers you isn't feasible and revolt is likely when you are outnumbered. (see: history)

The counterpoint is that whites are not uniformly racist because they haven't created systems to guarantee a smaller non-white population than white population. If white people were uniformly racist, as you mentioned, they would have had systems in place to insure they remained the majority population in order to remain in control.

>Zimmerman is of white race and Hispanic ethnicity.

He's of Hispanic race and Hispanic ethnicity. Police reports, for ages, have only had []White and []Black fields for criminal reports. If you aren't black, you're white. That includes whiter-skinned blacks and is often left up to the person filing the report. So you can come from African with two black parents, be black yourself, but still be filed as White in the criminal report at the whim of the officer filing the report.

[mplscoder]

>>Zimmerman is of white race and Hispanic ethnicity.

What? Race and ethnicity are synonyms.

Maybe you can score some internet points but what's the use of a discussion if words have no meaning and you can make up distinctions where there are none.

[dragonwriter]

> What? Race and ethnicity are synonyms.

Race and ethnicity are, perhaps, similar kinds of cultural constructs, but they are orthogonal categories.

See, e.g., https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/reic/definitions.asp

[Nadya]

> The categories do not denote scientific definitions of anthropological origins

[dragonwriter]

Yes, neither "race" nor "ethnicity" do denote scientific definitions of anthropological origins.

They are both cultural in-group, out-group constructs, they just happen to be different constructs rather than synonyms.

[Nadya]

It's simple. White people are really bad at running things! The fact they do so poorly at maintaining the status quo in their best interest is evidence of this!

The sooner you realize their line of thinking is very similar to a conspiracy theorist's, in that any contrary evidence is used as evidence to further support their thinking, the better off you are.

It's not too dissimilar from a conspiracy theorist saying "the government isn't incompetent... they just want you to believe they are! It's a guise!"