Being white doesn't pay; being nonwhite does

...liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias recently proclaimed: "My guess is that in the future the vast majority of people descended from immigrants from Asia or Latin America will be seen as white."

Yet, why in the world would they want to be white when they win money and prizes from the government for being legally nonwhite? You get more of what you pay for. And the U.S. pays people to consider themselves non-white.

Thus, since the 1960s, all the movement has been away from being seen as white. For example, Indian immigrants used to be officially white. But South Asian businessmen successfully lobbied the Reagan Administration in 1982 to have Indians reclassified from Caucasian to Asian category so that they could get on the gravy train for low interest SBA minority development loans and minority preferences on government contracting.

When you stop and think about it, it’s bizarre that Indians, the highest income recent immigrant group, receives legal preference over native-born U.S. citizens from the U.S. government. But it’s considered in bad taste to suggest that Indians should give up their racial privileges.

Sotomayor willing to endorse discrimination

"The Senate is being asked to approve a person who was willing to endorse blatant discrimination motivated by race, albeit in the guise of remedying past discrimination even when no such discrimination is proved or even alleged.

Sotomayor will, when she is undoubtedly confirmed, replace David Souter, one of the justices who were willing to let the affirmative action mindset further erode American democracy. But the fact that her nomination will not undermine the narrow majority for reason is no cause for complacency. A doctrinaire liberal like Barack Obama can be counted on to put forward similar nominees in the next three to eight years. Anyone who cares about the future of the rule of law in this nation should not go to sleep tonight without saying a prayer for the continued good health of Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy."

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/tobin/71792

Justice Thomas seeking test of race-based laws

"In recent years, Clarence Thomas has become a herald of coming developments from the Supreme Court, accurately forecasting what would happen years before a case comes to the Court where the justices fulfill those predictions."

(snip)

"This VRA case comes at a time when Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s statements and rulings on race have become a major issue in her Supreme Court confirmations, and where her opposition to Second Amendment rights may yet become an obstacle that derails her confirmation, if gun-rights supporters mobilize. This is ironic, since the same lawyer who argued Printz v. U.S. in 1997, Dr. Stephen Halbrook, is the same lawyer representing the NRA in NRA v. Chicago, the case being offered to the Supreme Court for next year, where Justice Thomas and possibly then-Justice Sotomayor will decide it.

Now Justice Thomas invites another case challenging the constitutionality of VRA Section Five. Such a case may come soon, giving the Supreme Court an opportunity to hold that harsh laws targeting systemic racism are a thing of the past. Such a holding would turn the page on racial politics, moving us one step closer to the day where the government stops drawing distinctions between Americans based on the color of our skin."

http://townhall.com/columnists/KenKlukowski/2009/06/29/supreme_court_signals_major_change_in_voting_rights?page=2