Summary

Undocumented Chinese men are alarmed by Trump’s plan to prioritize their deportation, citing baseless national security concerns about “military-age” immigrants.

Many fled political persecution or economic hardship and reject claims of being a threat.

Legal experts warn of racial profiling and expanded ICE raids, urging immigrants to know their rights. Deportation fears grow as China cooperates in repatriation efforts.

Chinese immigrants express anxiety over family separations and harsh consequences if returned, emphasizing they seek safety and stability, not harm.

Critics call Trump’s policies cruel and unjustified.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Cool. This is like how I’m also antisemitic for being a Jew who doesn’t support Israel.

    Of course, a lot of people (maybe you) don’t consider Jews to be white. Elon sure doesn’t. So maybe I’m not racist against myself?

    • Revan343@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Whether or not Jews are white depends entirely on which is convenient for the people in power at the time.

      That’s really how whiteness works for everyone since the meaning expanded beyond just Anglo-Saxon Protestants

    • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      False analogy, no one said anyone was racist against white people for saying they don’t support the US.

      If you’re agreeing with someone who literally maligned a race, you are racist too. Period.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Yes, again, I know you think accepting facts is racist, but I’m not going to lie to myself about factual statements.

        Unless you can tell me which group of people is a bigger threat. Feel free to use crime data.

    • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I mean I’m sure you agree that being against the state of Israel or being antizionist doesn’t make you antisemitic.

      I don’t particularly know or care if the jewish people are “white” or not. Not really my place to say anyways I suppose.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        I also agree that white men have been responsible for more problems in the U.S. than any other group of people. Like all but one president.

        If you don’t know who is or is not white, how can you think it is even possible to be racist against white people?

        • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          how can you think it is even possible to be racist against white people?

          Very easy. If you make or agree with sweeping generalizations about a race, you are racist.

          That’s what racism is.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 hours ago

            If you agree with something that is true, you’re a racist? What?

            Is “black people are far more likely than anyone else to get sickle cell anemia” racist? Because it is a sweeping generalization.

            Or, if you want to go back to white people and crime, how about- “69.9% of arrested criminals in 2019 were white?” I have to disagree with that fact or I’m a racist? I have to deny reality if I don’t want to be a racist? That’s really what you think?

            https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43

            • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 hours ago

              “All strawberries are fruits” does not imply “all fruits are strawberries” .

              Saying “white people are a threat” is not the same as saying “these people who are a threat are white”.

              The former is the statement you agreed with, and now you’re desperately trying to paint it as the latter.

              It’s not. You’re rationalizing racism.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 hours ago

                I’m doing no such thing. This is what you said:

                If you make or agree with sweeping generalizations about a race, you are racist.

                Not all black people get sickle cell anemia and not all people who get sickle cell anemia are black, so (and I’ll even revise it to make it more general) “black people are at risk for sickle cell anemia” is a sweeping generalization. Therefore, if you agree with it, you’re racist. Based on your own claim.

        • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Traditionally racism that is based on statistics and aggregate numbers still counts. If someone were to say that black people are on average responsible for [insert problem here], even if it were true, that’s generally considered racist.

          And, that’s a bit silly. I can call someone doing racist black caricatures racist against black people without knowing if some particular country’s population is generally considered to be black.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 hours ago

            Traditionally based on what? What tradition is this? Who made it a tradition?

            And if you can’t determine the criteria for whiteness, how can you know if anything you say is racist? It could be true once you determine the criteria.

            Also:

            without knowing if some particular country’s population is generally considered to be black.

            Jews don’t have a country. Jew and Israeli are not synonyms. That is bigotry.

            • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 hours ago

              The analogy still works if we’re talking about a race rather than a country. You’re nitpicking the details, not attacking the actual point being made. The point is that there is no such thing as a strict definition of race, but that such a thing isn’t necessary to talk about race as a concept. It would be like saying “you can’t say you like sandwiches unless you define what a sandwich is”. We all know on the internet that is an impossible definition, but we can still meaningfully talk about sandwiches.

              Traditionally based on what? What tradition is this? Who made it a tradition?

              The natural evolution of the English language as determined by multiple societies. I’m using the most common definition of racism that I know. No definition is kore valid than any other in theory, so if you want to explain what you think racism is I’ll switch to talking about your definition.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 hours ago

                I’m not nitpicking on the details, I’m pointing out you yourself said something which, in context, sure sounded bigoted to me.

                Perhaps you’re not the best judge of bigotry?

                And let’s see evidence of this “natural evolution” that involves statistics. That doesn’t sound like how language works to me.

                • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 hours ago

                  I’m not nitpicking on the details, I’m pointing out you yourself said something which, in context, sure sounded bigoted to me.

                  I needed a way to refer to a racial group that could potentially be a part of a larger race. The word “subrace” would be accurate but sounds incredibly racey and probably has bad connotations that I’m not aware of so I used the example of a small, semi-distinct racial group potentially within a larger race. Many countries have small distinct racial groups, which seemed like the best example. Sue me.

                  And let’s see evidence of this “natural evolution” that involves statistics. That doesn’t sound like how language works to me.

                  Literally what does this even mean? What are you talking about??

                  Anyways, now that I’ve clarified my point you can stop nitpicking and respond to my actual argument. Or are you only interested in calling me a bigot?

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    5 hours ago

                    You seem to have a poor memory:

                    Traditionally racism that is based on statistics and aggregate numbers still counts.

                    Then I asked you what makes it traditional and you said:

                    The natural evolution of the English language as determined by multiple societies. I’m using the most common definition of racism that I know.

                    So let’s see some evidence of this natural evolution based on statistics and aggregate numbers.