@WilyRickWiles US immigration law history is no more racist than other nations.

Article V, Section 13 of the 1847 #Liberian Constitution states: "none but persons of colour shall be eligible to citizenship in this Republic."

Chapter 21 of the Liberian Aliens and Nationality Law specifically states that prospective immigrants must be "a Negro or of Negro descent."

With these facts in mind, isn't Liberia's citizenship criteria unabashedly racist? Shouldn't we lecture Liberians on their racist immigration policy and encourage them to embrace diversity?

If not, then why is it racist to want to preserve the demographic composition of a country the way it is? For example, by excluding #Asians or #Negros?

Hello there. I understand what virtue signalling means. I was saying rway that when Trump was President, he announced he would pardon a suffragette who was convicted of voting illegally as a woman in 1872. Some applauded the president and others accused him of virtue signalling. Which was it in your opinion?
And yes, there is no doubt that immigration started centuries ago and has always had a lot to do with economic and political history. I don't know if the UK immigration policies are racist towards certain races. Generally speaking, everybody who wishes to immigrate to the UK must satisfy a certain set of criteria including passing the “Life in the UK Test”, meeting the English language requirements, being of good character, being financially independent, etc. People like South Africans who have a family link to the UK are eligible to so-called "UK ancestral visa". In order to get this visa, one has to prove that they are a Common wealth citizen, one of their grandparents was born in the UK, they intend to work in the UK, etc. The visa is for five years, and after that one can apply to remain in the UK permanently. What is non-racist is tackling illegal immigration, human trafficking and modern slavery.

Another thing I would mention is that when the UK was part of the EU, people within the EU were free to cross the borders to live and work in the UK while people from non-EU countries, say Asians, had to go through lengthy (and very expensive) legal procedures to get their permits for entry. Now the UK left the EU, those from the EU countries have to go through the same procedures as Asians to be allowed to enter the UK. It seems to me that the UK immigration policies have become less racist (edit: I should've said "less discriminatory"; racism probably doesn't come to it).

Hello ZuzecaSape, I think that demographic composition is important. In the UK, there are some communities more than half of which is dominated by immigrants who don't speak English. I hear English people, especially the elderly, say something like "My street used to be filled with the smell of roast dinners on Sundays (it is an English tradition that they have roast dinners on Sundays), but now, all I can smell is curry". This can't be right. It's diversity gone too far.
Denmark has announced the other day that it will limit the number of ethnic minorities in neighbourhoods to up to 30 percent in an apparent bid to "reduce the risk of religious and cultural parallel societies." I am a non-white, non-Western resident in the UK, but I'm inclined to support this idea.

Virtue signalling has a motive. E.g. career advancement and the continued exploitation of the marginalized while signaling false solidarity.

Hmmm...The Democrat party??

And in the United States, the history of immigration policy is very racist, starting with anti-Asian racism.

Not true today though. histroically, you couldn't get them to want to come here because...racism!....especially if you were Irish. Is that it! 'Cause I think all races are allowed to immigrate legally today? And the Democrats will let in all races- except whites- come even illegally. Correct me if I'm wrong.

@FrankZeleniuk Yes, neoliberal Democrats are often guilty of virtue signaling. Not the left, though.

Re: racist immigration law, they are still on the books (they began with the Chinese Exclusion Act) and the original racist justifications are still used to keep them there. Moreover, the same racism still exists in society. It doesn't just go away when Stephen Miller cleans out his desk.

@WilyRickWiles > neoliberal Democrats are often guilty of virtue signaling. Not the left, though.

See, You can differentiate when you want. Amazing!

Who is excluded today from immigrating to America? Not Illegal border crossers?

A “virtue” is a trait or quality that is deemed to be moral or good. The word has earlier Christian connotations of theological virtues, including humility, kindness, and charity, in opposition to the “seven deadly sins”. And when you exercise these virtues, there is nothing virtue-signalling about it.

My post is about different mindsets and perspectives.

@Naomi Virtue-signaling, on the other hand, is an attempt to appear virtuous; not an attempt to be virtuous. Those can be two very different things.

@rway When Trump was President, he announced he would pardon a suffragette who was convicted of voting illegally as a woman in 1872. Some applauded the president, others accused him of virtue signalling. Which was it in your opinion?

@Naomi Well, that sounds like both.
I have no reason to suspect that he did not sincerely believe that it was the right thing to do.
And, the fact that he did it "publicly" just goes with the territory.
For any public official, job performance is directly measured in degrees of public "approval". Seeking that approval, or "virtue-signaling", is just part of the job. You're acting on behalf of the public, and on their authority. So, if you are a person of integrity you have two complementary objectives: Do the right thing. And, make sure the public (your boss) knows you're doing the right thing.
If you have no integrity, then I guess you only have the one objective: try to make people think you're doing the right thing, while you go about doing whatever you please.

Did you hear those people say "We are wonderful!"?

@Naomi Has anyone ever said, "I am morally superior"? If anyone ever said, "we are wonderful" they would soon be considered not wonderful.

@FrankZeleniuk So, according to the way you perceive those people you mention, they're virtue signalling. They might argue that they are not. Having said that, according to your description, I think they're being hypocritical, but then, they might argue that they are not. I'll find more about Marc Keilberger and Oprah's school. Thanks for mentioning them.

@Naomi Oh, they will definitely argue that they are not virtue signalling or being hypocritical. Who ever says they are.

@FrankZeleniuk Say that your description of WE charity is objectively correct (although I'm under the impression that you have a low opinion of the organisation), I can't see anything wrong with the action per se of helping to eliminate poverty, setting up hospitals in Africa, creating opportunities for children in education. Plus, I would've thought how they spend their charity money is none of anyone's business, if it is private and not tax payers' money (they're however obliged to disclose their financial statements), and since it is a charity organisation, they have to somehow appeal to the public through media and ask for donations. You indicate that Marc Keilberger is rich - of course he is. He is a successful businessman. There is nothing wrong with that, is there? Capitalism is working for him. I always think that if I wish to help others, I must do well with my own life first so that I can afford to help them, and when I do help them, I don't think I'm virtue signalling. Meanwhile, it is thinkable that someone might think that I'm virtue signalling because they think that I'm showing off my righteousness and alluding that they must follow my example when I'm not. But that's their perspective, and they're looking at my action with a certain mindset, and there is nothing I can do about that.
Anyway, my post is about different mindsets and perspectives.

@Naomi "Helping" to eliminate poverty sounds really nice. Making people dependent on you is not helping. Government does that with welfare. Bono, the singer from U2 found out that feeding people starving in Africa didn't "help". It just made people dependent upon him and exacerbated the problem. As I said, Help is giving a hand up not a hand out. Bono at least realized he wasn't helping and was trying to find ways that efficacious. That were a hand up and not a hand out. Charities like the Keilbergers may have started out that way until they realized they could make a good living doing that and never consider that their help is more destructive than constructive.
The Keilbergers give a handout and then appeal to the rich for charity, keeping 90% of the donations and handing out the remaining10%. This is how most charities work. Some actually do good work and actually use a greater percentage for their charitable works. The Clinton foundation is an excellent example of not helping. They more or less oversaw the rebuilding of Haiti after the earthquake that devastated the area. Not much went to rebuilding the infrastructure and helping the people. They gave big contracts to their friends:

The people of Haiti hoped change would be brought by Hillary Clinton while she served as US Secretary of State. But according to New York magazine, the National Review, a number of companies receiving contracts in Haiti, acted more like "entities making large donations to the Clinton Foundation", so called "quid pro quo" deals, rather than bringing real change to Haitians.
You can read all about that. There's no shortage of material.

The mindset of these charities is to enrich themselves. Governments though are really offering them some big competition and total donations to charitable foundations are dwindling year after year.

@FrankZeleniuk
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
Helping poor children in a developing country by providing them with education facilities is the latter.Such a good deed, even when it is genuine, is prone to being seen as virtue signalling. We’re wary of fakes and possible bullshit, so much so that we develop a mindset that all charities are there only to enrich themselves; they're all virtue signalling. You've just provided an example thereof.

@Naomi It is government and how they have formed and shaped them through legislation. Of course then the people who step into the arena, if they weren't morally corrupt to begin with soon become so by working the system. Efficacy is lost as a purpose for if the cause of their necessity were to disappear so would their means of a livelihood, which can be very lucrative these days.

@FrankZeleniuk It is possible that some charities are morally corrupt, and such charities are named and shamed. Such a case seems rare in the UK, though. I'm talking about national ones; don't know much about international ones.

@Naomi Oh....if ever you were on the inside! The way governments have set up charities, I don't know if you have ever read Oliver Twist, but it serves to attract the Faggin's in society. The exploiters of the needy and down and out.

@FrankZeleniuk You've made it clear that you do have a low opinion of ALL charities, and that is your mindset. Meanwhile, I think that there are genuine charities and fake charities, and I would like to think that I am able to distinguish between the two. Mindset, and this is what my post is about. Fun chatting with you. I shall move on.

@Naomi Sorry. I've gone and upset you. Now you are slinging generalities at me. I do not have a low opinion of All charities. One just has to be very discriminatory these days and research where you're money is going. All the glowing ads and promotions about the good being done cannot be the only criteria when making decisions to donate. It isn't enough.
How many charities are there in China to help the poor? There are no poor in China. Right? No need for charities and that is where we are heading. No charities.