No, none compatible with the plans anyway. We were going to an event, and had pre-purchased parking at a parking garage near the event. That's where the car was going to be all day. The garage does not have EV chargers available for our use.
Why would they view certain asians as a "model minority?" Are they deciding based on cranial measurements? Or is it because Japan, China, etc., are orderly and developed--in which case it's not about "race" at all, is it?
Because it's allowed them to dismiss the issues of institutional racism that exist in our country by claiming that because some races are more successful than others, there's no reason for American society to change. That those other races are less successful due to their inherent inferior nature.
The truth is that there is nothing inherently superior or more "orderly and developed" about the people of Japan and China than the black Americans, Hispanics, and other Asians in this country. Culture and class vary significantly within populations and nations, even small island nations like Japan. US Immigration policies have selected for unrepresentative samples from certain populations though. The costs and accessibility of getting to the US from somewhere like Mexico are nothing at all like they are for people in countries on the far side of the Earth. Other distortions arise due to circumstance and need, for example refugees and manual laborers more frequently come from some regions, and very rarely from others.
There's no point in trying to dig too deeply for gems of logic and consistency when it comes to racist ideology though. You can only be left disappointed.
You’re coming up with all this theory and labeling to avoid the simpler conclusion that the right’s views are just based on looking at the country immigrants are coming from. That’s the proof of the pudding. (Selective immigration obviously has nothing to do with that.) The right likes Japan and, increasingly, China because they are orderly and developed countries and doesn't like Bangladesh because it isn't. It’s not because they’ve concocted some rubric of cranial measurements under which one group is “model minorities” and the others aren’t.
My point was that our current government is itself filled with people who are "here for the money, but don't buy into the underlying concepts" and it's been disastrous for the the civic structure of the country. I don't blame naturalized citizens specifically for electing our current administration, although many of them did. I suspect that some of those who didn't came here to get away from the kinds of corruption and abuse of authority we're seeing.
According to Blue Rose Research’s 2024 post mortem, Trump narrowly won naturalized citizens. In a way that illustrates the problem.
The countries most immigrants come from have both liberals and conservatives. Immigration can’t change the long-term political balance. What it does instead is change what kind of left or right wing candidate is viable. The Bush/Romney GOP would have been wiped out in a landslide under 2024’s demographics. But Trump was able to win Nevada and rack up the margin in diverse states like Texas and Florida with stupid policies like “no taxes on tips.” Theatrics, handouts, and patronage is how politics works in most countries immigrants come from. Trump can play that game, the old Anglo GOP couldn’t.
Over time, American politics will more begin to resemble the politics of the places the immigrants are coming from, with guys like Mamdani instead of Carter and Trump instead of Reagan.
When somebody like Mamdani (obviously not him since he's not a native) wins a presidential primary maybe I'll concede your point. All recent Democratic nominees have resembled the "normal," centrist candidates of yore; only the Republican party has adopted the intolerant, "theatrical" third-world style of politics so far (in the figure of Trump), and again, natives have always voted for him at higher rates than naturalized citizens.
Democrats are better at the top. But the grassroots is visibly trending towards ethnic machine politics, which is very third world. A lot of grassroots-level Democratic messaging would be illegal under Singapore’s system for maintaining unity in its multiethnic society: https://amp.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3329017/sing...
This is meaningless without a denominator. How much has international tourism increased in those years? What percentage of international tourists visited the US before and after 2001?
Eh, when I was a kid violence was physical by definition. That distinction seems to be getting lost such that the phrase "physical violence" is no longer redundant. But the new usage is figurative.
reply