Also, thank immigration for SFFA v. Harvard
Asians had no impact on the recent Supreme Court decision regarding affirmative action.
This is obvious from reading the opinions, which barely mention Asians.
As all justices acknowledge, the opinions are the EXACT SAME OPINIONS from the last Affirmative Action case that had nothing about Asians.
All that changed is conservatives appointed three judges, so the minority opinion became the majority opinion. That's it.
If we had slightly more immigrants in this country in 2016 then Donald Trump would have lost the election, Hillary would have appointed three judges, and affirmative action would be law of the land forever.
States that ban affirmative action:
California, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.
These are mostly Red States (at most purple) that don't have many black people. None are particularly "diverse" or immigrant heavy.
California and Washington first banned affirmative action in the 1990s when the states were politically competitive and less diverse. Since then universities have tried everything they can to get around the system. California K-12 education is loaded with CRT and race based shenanigans. The recent proposition has done nothing to reverse those trends.
Also, the entire state is a giant anti-meritocracy. Who do you think it paying all those taxes (whites and Asians) and whose receiving (blacks and Hispanics).
Alex, this is truly one of the best formulated discussions on this topic I have seen. I will feature this in Risk+Progress "Worthwhile Reads" section: https://www.lianeon.org/p/worthwhile-reads
There is so much I can say about this, but you indeed expose the apparent hypocrisy from those who have an understandable distaste for affirmative action and preference for meritocracy, but then drop those beliefs at the border. Borders are arbitrary, they are social constructs, thus, this makes no sense at all.
We see the same thought process with regard to tariffs. No one supports tariffs along county and state lines, but suddenly want them on international border. If indeed tariffs created jobs and were net beneficial, that logic should extend to all borders within the nation as well. There are exceptions, of course, border adjustments can have merit in limited circumstances.
Pivoting back to immigration, the best solution I have found is, ironically, an immigration "tariff", which I wrote about here: https://www.lianeon.org/p/toward-an-optimal-immigration-system . In that system, the borders are largely open to everyone, so long as they can pay an "entry fee" that scales with age. My thinking is that younger people (under 21) place less burden on the welfare system and will pay more into taxes throughout their lives, so the fee should be zero.
As one gets older, the fee increases because the reverse is true. This is meant to prevent "immigration to welfare" while dramatically expanding immigration and reducing the nightmarish bureaucracy that controls it.