Reparations

[JayJayH 546]

let me play you analogy back to make sure I understand it:

Elected officials espousing creationist views are holding back American society and the same way the architects of social science that is not data driven are working their way onto the Universities of America in a way that is creating false narratives about race in America...do I have that right?

Creationists arrive at that conclusion by cherry picking science, disregarding other science and guessing in order to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion.

In the realms of social science, you can rarely carry out experiments, so you rely on quasi-experiments, history and all too often a bit of subjective opinion. The notion that we live in a racist patriarchal sh*thole ruled by white supremacy.. You can only come to that conclusion by cherry picking social experiments, disregarding other experiments, guessing, misunderstanding certain concepts and applying history in a way that suits your pre-determined conclusion.

He didn't lose because he was called a racist on the left, he lost because he never had a chance in the first place. Anyone with eyes can see the GOP won't put a POC in the WH, at least not in our lifetime. Trump's rise makes that clear as day. Because if we're going off the political climate today, Carson should have never fallen off. He didn't make a quarter of the mistakes Trump did, but the rebuke was swift and brutal.

Go look at any number of Trump supporters on FB or Twitter. Racism is hot and heavy.

Here's what I saw in early polling and primaries:

Carson - 30%

Trump - 30%

Cruz - 20%

Rubio - 15%

Here's what I saw in most early primaries:

Trump - 30%

Rubio - 22%

Cruz - 21%

Carson - 10%

So in early polling, you had Trump at 30%, you had Republicans supporting Rubio, Cruz or Carson at 65%.

In early primaries, you had Trump winning 30%. you had Republicans voting for Rubio, Cruz or Carson at 53%.

So in reality, you had two Hispanic Americans and a black American winning the majority of Republican votes in Iowa, South Carolina and most of the south. Where did Carson poll best? The Deep South - Among white Republican voters in Louisiana and South Carolina.

So why didn't Cruz, Rubio or Carson win? Because you don't need to win a majority of support in a Republican primary to win the nomination. You need to win a plurality in a crowded field of candidates. If you're going to make the argument that Herman Cain and Ben Carson didn't win the GOP nomination because they're black, you'll have to at the same time argue why it was that Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, etc. etc. etc. didn't win despite being white.

No, the truth is - Out of a crowd of 17 mostly white candidates, Carson, Rubio and Cruz were the most popular next to Trump.

So if you're going to make the "GOP racism" argument, you'll also have to explain why two Hispanic candidates and a black candidate won the combined majority of GOP primary votes in Iowa, South Carolina, Nevada, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Maine, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Idaho, Wyoming.. Etc., etc., etc.

Donald Trump did not beat Cruz/Rubio/Carson until Carson and Rubio dropped out.

Either way you break it down, the majority of GOP primary voters preferred a Hispanic or black candidate this year.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Creationists arrive at that conclusion by cherry picking science, disregarding other science and guessing in order to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion.

In the realms of social science, you can rarely carry out experiments, so you rely on quasi-experiments, history and all too often a bit of subjective opinion. The notion that we live in a racist patriarchal sh*thole ruled by white supremacy.. You can only come to that conclusion by cherry picking social experiments, disregarding other experiments, guessing, misunderstanding certain concepts and applying history in a way that suits your pre-determined conclusion.

Here's what I saw in early polling and primaries:

Carson - 30%

Trump - 30%

Cruz - 20%

Rubio - 15%

Here's what I saw in most early primaries:

Trump - 30%

Rubio - 22%

Cruz - 21%

Carson - 10%

So in early polling, you had Trump at 30%, you had Republicans supporting Rubio, Cruz or Carson at 65%.

In early primaries, you had Trump winning 30%. you had Republicans voting for Rubio, Cruz or Carson at 53%.

So in reality, you had two Hispanic Americans and a black American winning the majority of Republican votes in Iowa, South Carolina and most of the south. Where did Carson poll best? The Deep South - Among white Republican voters in Louisiana and South Carolina.

So why didn't Cruz, Rubio or Carson win? Because you don't need to win a majority of support in a Republican primary to win the nomination. You need to win a plurality in a crowded field of candidates. If you're going to make the argument that Herman Cain and Ben Carson didn't win the GOP nomination because they're black, you'll have to at the same time argue why it was that Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, etc. etc. etc. didn't win despite being white.

No, the truth is - Out of a crowd of 17 mostly white candidates, Carson, Rubio and Cruz were the most popular next to Trump.

So if you're going to make the "GOP racism" argument, you'll also have to explain why two Hispanic candidates and a black candidate won the combined majority of GOP primary votes in Iowa, South Carolina, Nevada, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Maine, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Idaho, Wyoming.. Etc., etc., etc.

Donald Trump did not beat Cruz/Rubio/Carson until Carson and Rubio dropped out.

Either way you break it down, the majority of GOP primary voters preferred a Hispanic or black candidate this year.

Actually, I don't have to make the argument. Trump makes it for me.

A minority isn't the GOP frontrunner. And let's be clear, you know just like everyone else that if Obama had Trump's pedigree, he would have never been able to run. NEVER. Every single thing Trump is and stands for, would decimate any candidate of any other color than a white man. A guy with 5 kids? 3 wives? A wife who was nude and might have been working here on a visa? No minority would ever run with that background. Why you ask? Because we've known since birth that we have to be WAAAAY better than a white person to even think about competing against one. That's why Obama has TWO degrees, married to the same woman for 20 years, raised great kids, and didn't have a single scandal to his name. But folks are quick to erase his accomplishments just for the sake of putting Trump above him. Got folks here talking about how classy Mrs. Trump is compared to FLOTUS. Give me a break.

So it's really simple. Trump got the nomination because he came out spouting racist, hateful rhetoric. Fact. The Mexico remark and building the wall. Had Trump come out sounding like any other candidate, he wouldn't have made it. He would have lost to any other candidate. But Carson or Cain weren't going to make it either. Like I said, take a good look at ANY Trump supporter's Twitter/FB feed.

And Janelle brings up a good point. The folks here married to PI women and other countries should take notice. Trump supporters don't want them here either. She said one dude she was talking to says he sees folks married to non-European spouses in the same boat as the illegal aliens.

P.S. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/black-women-become-most-educated-group-in-us-a7063361.html

Black women are the most educated in the US. And are paid the least. Let me guess, black privilege?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politics/2016-election-poll-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/

Washington (CNN)Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton register net negative ratings in double digits, indicating the front-runners for each party's presidential nominations are viewed negatively at historic levels, according to a new CBS/New York Times poll.

That makes Trump and Clinton viewed more unfavourably than any front-runner for either party since 1984, when CBS began polling voters on the question.

So much for their WP.

Trump's rise is a culmination of WP.

Edited August 14, 2016 by We Keep Receipts

[JayJayH 546]

Actually, I don't have to make the argument. Trump makes it for me.

A minority isn't the GOP frontrunner. And let's be clear, you know just like everyone else that if Obama had Trump's pedigree, he would have never been able to run. NEVER. Every single thing Trump is and stands for, would decimate any candidate of any other color than a white man. A guy with 5 kids? 3 wives? A wife who was nude and might have been working here on a visa? No minority would ever run with that background. Why you ask? Because we've known since birth that we have to be WAAAAY better than a white person to even think about competing against one. That's why Obama has TWO degrees, married to the same woman for 20 years, raised great kids, and didn't have a single scandal to his name. But folks are quick to erase his accomplishments just for the sake of putting Trump above him. Got folks here talking about how classy Mrs. Trump is compared to FLOTUS. Give me a break.

So it's really simple. Trump got the nomination because he came out spouting racist, hateful rhetoric. Fact. The Mexico remark and building the wall. Had Trump come out sounding like any other candidate, he wouldn't have made it. He would have lost to any other candidate. But Carson or Cain weren't going to make it either. Like I said, take a good look at ANY Trump supporter's Twitter/FB feed.

And Janelle brings up a good point. The folks here married to PI women and other countries should take notice. Trump supporters don't want them here either. She said one dude she was talking to says he sees folks married to non-European spouses in the same boat as the illegal aliens.

P.S. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/black-women-become-most-educated-group-in-us-a7063361.html

Black women are the most educated in the US. And are paid the least. Let me guess, black privilege?

Trump's rise is a culmination of WP.

I never said a minority. I said a plurality. Which again is different from a majority.

Cruz, Rubio and Carson cumulatively had a majority of GOP primary support through the GOP primary season. Trump had a 30% +/- plurality.

We can discuss to great lengths on an immigration forum like VJ whether the notion of a border wall is "racist" - Or a response to the fact that we have 12,000,000 +/- people living here who didn't go to an immigration forum like VJ first. Other proposals like visa entry/exit systems and mandatory e-verify would not differentiate between European, Asian, African or Mexican nationals. A wall on the southern border would because.. Geography. Visa exit systems and e-verify have been discussed ostensibly as well, but only the proposed wall has been deemed "racist." (A third of the border was fenced up by Clinton in the 90s already)

I've seen plenty of hate and irrationality spewed from the Twitter accounts of many people, including Trump, Cruz, Hillary, Bernie and Obama supporters. What you consider to be prejudice or hate depends entirely on what side you're on. I have plenty of friends on the Bernie side, I have plenty of friends on the Hillary side, and I have plenty of friends on the Trump side (surprisingly few of whom are white).

"That's why Obama has TWO degrees, married to the same woman for 20 years, raised great kids, and didn't have a single scandal to his name. But folks are quick to erase his accomplishments just for the sake of putting Trump above him."

Frankly, this could be said about any presidential candidate ever.

"That's why Bush has TWO degrees, married to the same woman for 20 years, raised great kids, and didn't have a single scandal to his name. But folks are quick to erase his accomplishments just for the sake of putting Obama above him." - I was never a fan of Bush, and I d*mn near cried tears of joy when Obama won in 2008. But how often do you hear of people applauding George W's unprecedented battle against AIDS? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-george-w-bushs-greatest-legacy--his-battle-against-aids/2012/07/26/gJQAumGKCX_story.html?utm_term=.351c29349546

"The folks here married to PI women and other countries should take notice. Trump supporters don't want them here either. She said one dude she was talking to says he sees folks married to non-European spouses in the same boat as the illegal aliens." - Look, I've heard die-hard Bernie supporters call for the killing of white men, and we could go back and forth on what he's heard, she's heard etc. You just kind of have to ignore them ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Donald Trump is something completely new as far as presidential candidates go. A populist of his caliber has never been a major contender before. But if you actually listen to the content of what Donald Trump says at rallies from Pennsylvania to Nevada, most of it is railing against money in politics, free trade and inaction on illegal immigration. None of which are topics I would contribute to "white supremacy." The "Obama is stupid", "Hillary is a traitor", "Kerry is incompetent" etc, etc, etc has been quite normal rhetoric from the European populist right for decades. It's now come to America. I think Trump has gotten away with a lot that he shouldn't have in part because of a political left crying wolf and abusing the word racism for many, many years. Remember when George W. Bush was a fascist, John McCain was racist and Mitt Romney was going to "put black people back in chains"?

What I will agree with is that there has been a rise in white nationalism in recent years. I attribute this partly to growing demographic shifts, but also partly to anti-white rhetoric and identity politics. It's not a good thing. We absolutely do not need white nationalism, but when you create politics based on labels and intersectional tribalism, you're going to end up with tribalism across the board - Including among whites in Appalachia and the Deep South.

2006: "Don't label me. I'm a human being."

2016: "Here is a list of all my labels."

When the left spoke like Morgan Freeman is when I proudly called myself a liberal. 50 years ago you would have been called a radical for saying you were "colorblind." 30 years ago you would have been called a progressive. Today, you're called a racist.

P.S. I'm not trying to ignore your comment on black women and education. The statistic is new to me (thanks for sharing), so I don't feel like I can make any comment on it at this point.

Edited August 14, 2016 by JayJayH

[OriZ 3,157]

What I will agree with is that there has been a rise in white nationalism in recent years. I attribute this partly to growing demographic shifts, but also partly to anti-white rhetoric and identity politics. It's not a good thing. We absolutely do not need white nationalism, but when you create politics based on labels and intersectional tribalism, you're going to end up with tribalism across the board - Including among whites in Appalachia and the Deep South.

As far as being accepted as a certified liberal, forget about it, you're not going to be accepted into their club. 30 years ago you would have been a honorary member, but now that they have gone off the deep end you're not a liberal anymore. You stayed stuck in the 80's when liberals were still sane.

As for this black women thing:

“By both race and gender there is a higher percentage of black women (9.7 percent) enrolled in college than any other group including Asian women (8.7 percent), white women (7.1 percent) and white men (6.1 percent), according to the 2011 U.S. Census Bureau,” Salon says in its write-up.

The Root, on the other hand, focuses on the fact that, in 2010, “black women earned 68 percent of all associate degrees awarded to black students, as well as 66 percent of bachelor’s degrees, 71 percent of master’s degrees and 65 percent of all doctorates awarded to black students.”

The claim that black women are now the nation’s most educated group is used by The Root and other publications to complain that black women haven’t achieved a superior economic status that reflects this apparently superior education.

“Unfortunately, while black women may be the most highly educated, a recent study found that black women make up just 8 percent of private sector jobs and less than 2 percent of leadership roles,” The Root says. This complaint even made it across the pond, being repeated in The Independent, a British newspaper.

But while black women have made enormous educational strides in the last few decades, Salon, The Root, and the rest are all pushing a completely bogus narrative. Black women aren’t the country’s most educated group, and it isn’t particularly close.

Defining what makes a group the “most educated” isn’t a precise science, since there are many traits that could be used to measure a group’s education level. One could look at high school and college graduation rates (Asian women are currently tops in both), or how many Ph.Ds or other terminal degrees a group earns.

None of these measures are used by the news outlets declaring black women the country’s most educated group. Instead, the assertion is based on two observations: that a high number of black women are currently enrolled in college, and that black women dramatically outperform black men academically.

Both of these statements are perfectly true, or at least don’t contradict census data. But neither of them make black women the country’s most educated group.

The percentage of a group that is currently enrolled in college doesn’t reflect which group is the most educated. A person who completed a Ph.D a decade ago isn’t currently enrolled in college, but is certainly more educated than a person who is enrolled as a freshman right now. Blacks also have a substantially lower median age than whites and Asians, which means a larger proportion of them are young people likely to be enrolled in college.

A high rate of college enrollment could even represent individuals taking longer to complete their degrees. Black and white college graduates go on to college at about the same rate, but whites are more than twice as likely to graduate, and are more likely to graduate on time when they do. If black women are taking longer on average to attain their degrees, it will also increase their enrollment rate.

Similarly, the fact that black women earn more than twice as many college degrees as black men doesn’t make them the country’s most educated group. Instead, it just reflects that black women are handily outpacing black men academically. They are more likely to graduate high school, more likely to attend college, and more likely to graduate if they do. The same trend of women beating men is seen for all races at all education levels, but the gap is simply much larger for blacks than it is for whites, Hispanics, or any other group.

Unfortunately, a large number of journalists appear to be terrible at comprehending statistics.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/07/media-says-black-women-countrys-most-educated-group-even-though-its-not-true/#ixzz4HGuvQXbj

So basically, more meaningless baloney. Maybe they just aren't good at their jobs? Simple mathematics, if there is demand for you, you'll earn more. And as I've routinely stressed before, college education is far, far from being the end all, be all.

Speaking of college ed and black women, I know a really, really smart black young woman. Very level headed. We've known each other and been friends since our mid teens, now both in our mid 30's. Almost 20 years. Talked to her for a while on FB last night. She's appalled by both sides right now, as she put it she can't vote for stupid. She does not consider Trump to be racist, just doesn't agree with him or Clinton on many things and I can't blame her. She might end up voting for Johnson, and listen to this, we actually spent a bit of time talking about education and stuff. She pretty much thinks like me on that - we both believe it's very smart to not rely too heavily on "high ed"...Some people have natural talent or natural smarts or intelligence no amount of money or high ed can buy and she is definitely one of them. She only did two years of business administration but she's going to go far in life because she's smart. She's so discriminated against that she's a pharmacy technician, been working for the same company for 15 years now. She left for a year and came back the pharmacy asked for her because they figured she was doing the bookkeeing so well that if she can be trusted with hundreds of thousands of dollars she can be trusted with drugs(racist company I tell ya). Not saying it's the same for everyone, but to try and claim that black women are "the most educated" and thus are "being discriminated against" because they "don't earn very much" is complete and utter nonsense without knowing individual circumstances or what their job actually is and how well they do it.

Edited August 14, 2016 by OriZ

[JayJayH 546]

So basically, more meaningless baloney. Maybe they just aren't good at their jobs? Simple mathematics, if there is demand for you, you'll earn more. And as I've routinely stressed before, college education is far, far from being the end all, be all.

Kind of like the false equivalence when feminists complain that their bachelor's degree in feminist dance therapy only pays 52 cents on the dollar that a physics major makes.. Blaming the gap primarily of course on systemic sexism.

[Boiler 45,670]

Kind of like the false equivalence when feminists complain that their bachelor's degree in feminist dance therapy only pays 52 cents on the dollar that a physics major makes.. Blaming the gap primarily of course on systemic sexism.

Pays that much.

[OriZ 3,157]

Kind of like the false equivalence when feminists complain that their bachelor's degree in feminist dance therapy only pays 52 cents on the dollar that a physics major makes.. Blaming the gap primarily of course on systemic sexism.

No kidding. But even if we assume for one second they are enrolled in physics or something else that actually counts. How does the fact 20 year old black women are enrolled in that have anything to do with a 50 year old black woman's salary today?

Edited August 14, 2016 by OriZ

[OriZ 3,157]

Speaking of reparations.

Protesters burned several stores, including the BP gas station at Sherman and Burleigh, Jet Beauty at 35th and Fond du Lac, BMO Harris Bank at 36th and Fond du Lac, O’Reilly Auto Parts at Fond du Lac and Burleigh and MJM Liquor at Fond du Lac and North — and threw rocks at police on the city’s north side, leaving one officer injured and three protesters arrested.

Yeah I'd like to see some of those paid to cover the damage done. How about we start with that.

[Rob L 3,811]

Actually, I don't have to make the argument. Trump makes it for me.

A minority isn't the GOP frontrunner. And let's be clear, you know just like everyone else that if Obama had Trump's pedigree, he would have never been able to run. NEVER. Every single thing Trump is and stands for, would decimate any candidate of any other color than a white man. A guy with 5 kids? 3 wives? A wife who was nude and might have been working here on a visa? No minority would ever run with that background. Why you ask? Because we've known since birth that we have to be WAAAAY better than a white person to even think about competing against one. That's why Obama has TWO degrees, married to the same woman for 20 years, raised great kids, and didn't have a single scandal to his name. But folks are quick to erase his accomplishments just for the sake of putting Trump above him. Got folks here talking about how classy Mrs. Trump is compared to FLOTUS. Give me a break.

So it's really simple. Trump got the nomination because he came out spouting racist, hateful rhetoric. Fact. The Mexico remark and building the wall. Had Trump come out sounding like any other candidate, he wouldn't have made it. He would have lost to any other candidate. But Carson or Cain weren't going to make it either. Like I said, take a good look at ANY Trump supporter's Twitter/FB feed.

And Janelle brings up a good point. The folks here married to PI women and other countries should take notice. Trump supporters don't want them here either. She said one dude she was talking to says he sees folks married to non-European spouses in the same boat as the illegal aliens.

P.S. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/black-women-become-most-educated-group-in-us-a7063361.html

Black women are the most educated in the US. And are paid the least. Let me guess, black privilege?

Trump's rise is a culmination of WP.

Latino women make less than Black women, Black women less than white and as a whole all women as a college graduate makes 7 % less in her first year when controlling for all other factors like performance, role , productivity, industry. The gap between women and men grows through their careers, controlling for all other factors

[Rob L 3,811]

Creationists arrive at that conclusion by cherry picking science, disregarding other science and guessing in order to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion.

In the realms of social science, you can rarely carry out experiments, so you rely on quasi-experiments, history and all too often a bit of subjective opinion. The notion that we live in a racist patriarchal sh*thole ruled by white supremacy.. You can only come to that conclusion by cherry picking social experiments, disregarding other experiments, guessing, misunderstanding certain concepts and applying history in a way that suits your pre-determined conclusion.

So by that measure, (which I disagree with because I think we can get a lot of good data for Economics, Criminology and Sociology that can inform public policy) some one who thinks we live in " racist patriarchal sh*thole ruled by white supremacy" would have equal dibs on the truth than say a white man who thinks most white men have their resources , power and mobility simply because we live in a meritocracy.

Both groups would be subject to the same error in data and analysis. Would you agree?

Edited August 15, 2016 by Rob L

[JayJayH 546]

Latino women make less than Black women, Black women less than white and as a whole all women as a college graduate makes 7 % less in her first year when controlling for all other factors like performance, role , productivity, industry. The gap between women and men grows through their careers, controlling for all other factors

What gets me about statistics when it comes to Latinos is that there is rarely ever anything to control for the roughly 18% of Latinos currently in the U.S. who are here illegally - Or their U.S. citizen dependents. That again has zero to do with race and everything to do with legal status and the corresponding effect on household income.

I haven't seen those statistics, but are they controlled for factors like hazard pay (men typically take on more hazardous work) and other life choices i.e. maternal leave? (I really do think we need more paternal leave in the U.S.) I've also seen statistics suggesting women are less likely to negotiate pay - Again, I think the big picture is great for research, I think you need to look a lot more in the details to make sensible policy.

So by that measure, (which I disagree with because I think we can get a lot of good data for Economics, Criminology and Sociology that can inform public policy) some one who thinks we live in " racist patriarchal sh*thole ruled by white supremacy" would have equal dibs on the truth than say a white man who thinks most white men have their resources , power and mobility simply because we live in a meritocracy.

Both groups would be subject to the same error in data and analysis. Would you agree?

I would agree to the extent that there is a fine line between saying "we have some problems" and drawing up doomsday scenarios.

However, you'd be hard pressed to call the U.S. a nation of "white supremacy." I have yet to hear anyone explain to me how Asian Americans outperform whites in virtually every single measure pertaining to standard of living despite growing up and living in a nation hellbent on oppressing minorities. Asian Americans on average make more money, are better educated, live longer, are less likely to be incarcerated, are less likely to commit crimes, are less likely to be victims of crime and are less likely to drop out of high school and college. The list goes on. According to some logic, there must be some Asian American conspiracy to oppress white people right?

Edited August 15, 2016 by JayJayH

[JayJayH 546]

According to some logic, there must be some Asian American conspiracy to oppress white people right?

Just to be clear, I don't actually believe this. But I am a little confused as to why I can't go on reparations.me and ask Indian Americans to give me free stuff based solely on our respective skin colors and corresponding average household incomes.

Edited August 15, 2016 by TBoneTX
to change scatological term

[Rob L 3,811]

Just to be clear, I don't actually believe this. But I am a little confused as to why I can't go on reparations.me and ask Indian Americans to give me free stuff based solely on our respective skin colors and corresponding average household incomes.

a. you are confused and not a little...we should not be asking Native peoples for anything when we already stole 99% of their ####

b. you are trying to make this sound like some sort of redistribution of wealth. When reparations were given to Japanese interment camp survivors , it was an acknowledgement of wrongs.

c. I personally dont think that reparations will ever work based on skin color. The reparations should be an apology to the descendants of slaves. I know of no scheme to sort that out.

it is not about economic justice, it is about acknowledgement of past sins by our government

Edited August 15, 2016 by TBoneTX
to change scatological term in quote

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just to be clear, I don't actually believe this. But I am a little confused as to why I can't go on reparations.me and ask Indian Americans to give me free stuff based solely on our respective skin colors and corresponding average household incomes.

admitting you're confused seems a good start, but in the meantime, why don't you go ahead an put in your request

Edited August 15, 2016 by TBoneTX
to change scatological term in quote

[Rob L 3,811]

What gets me about statistics when it comes to Latinos is that there is rarely ever anything to control for the roughly 18% of Latinos currently in the U.S. who are here illegally - Or their U.S. citizen dependents. That again has zero to do with race and everything to do with legal status and the corresponding effect on household income.

I haven't seen those statistics, but are they controlled for factors like hazard pay (men typically take on more hazardous work) and other life choices i.e. maternal leave? (I really do think we need more paternal leave in the U.S.) I've also seen statistics suggesting women are less likely to negotiate pay - Again, I think the big picture is great for research, I think you need to look a lot more in the details to make sensible policy.

I would agree to the extent that there is a fine line between saying "we have some problems" and drawing up doomsday scenarios.

However, you'd be hard pressed to call the U.S. a nation of "white supremacy." I have yet to hear anyone explain to me how Asian Americans outperform whites in virtually every single measure pertaining to standard of living despite growing up and living in a nation hellbent on oppressing minorities. Asian Americans on average make more money, are better educated, live longer, are less likely to be incarcerated, are less likely to commit crimes, are less likely to be victims of crime and are less likely to drop out of high school and college. The list goes on. According to some logic, there must be some Asian American conspiracy to oppress white people right?

The reasons for Asian American success are as diverse that the number of countries and ethnic groups they come from. Because the immigration growth of Asians in American since 1980 has been incredible with 74 % of all Asians in American born on foreign soil, you have to factor in self selection ( the ability for the folks with the best resources and training to choose to come to the worlds best market place) as a significant factor in any study of their success ( and kids success)

In other words ( to exaggerate the effect a bit) If you land on these shores with 500k in assets and a college education your chance of success is higher (duh). Additionally if you are coming from a relatively stable political and economic country your chances of success increase exponentially. Not all folks coming from asia fit into these group, but a larger proportion do.

Certainly this group a people have distinct attitudes toward work effort and the value of multi-generational family living, but they are also less likely to identify (14% according to Pew) as Americans and choose to identify with their country of origin. Perhaps this will change over time with the generations.

Data on self selection

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1814529?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Pew Study

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/asianamericans-graphics/