This basically sums up the viewpoint of virtue-signaling libs and their Republican enablers:

You're asking me what an American is Beth? I reckon it's anyone from anywhere in the world who takes an American's spot in college and likes football. It don't get no more American than that. pic.twitter.com/BTJRSUL6NQ

— 9mmSMG (@9mmsmg) September 13, 2026

No evidently you're only a Texan if your ancestors fought the Comanche.

This really a response to your contradiction.

The point isn't that preferring your own kid means you should support legacy admissions. It's that you've already conceded the underlying principle tbat relationships and inherited affiliations can legitimately create preferences and obligations.

So where does that stop? Your child, ok. Cousins? Second cousins? The children of close friends? Members of your church or community? The children of fellow Aggies? Fellow Texans? Fellow Americans?

Those are obviously relationships of different strength, but human society consists largely of concentric circles of affiliation like this. Once you admit that it is legitimate to prefer your own child because he is yours you can't declare ancestry or inherited social group membership intrinsically irrelevant. You have to explain why an institution *shouldnt* recognize a particular form of continuity or affiliation, because on the face it intrinsically *should* value its own members over outsiders. Just like you should prefer your children to others.

The legacy admission issue is a microcosm of this whole discussion. Families, communities, universities, and nations are permitted to and *do* have special obligations to their own members and their descendants and to prefer them to others.

Someone send this tweet to the Texas GOP pic.twitter.com/H2QJqEzL0B

— Kangmin Lee | 이강민 (@kangminlee) September 13, 2026

Any RINO using Kirk has no understanding of his positions.

White people

I think these students are mostly American-born citizens because they are likely undergrads. Also, their celebration of Texas' massive comeback over No. 1 Ohio State indicates they have assimilated into the American culture. However, we must top the Muslim invasion and the H1-B abuse.

EclipseAg said:

---

This basically sums up the viewpoint of virtue-signaling libs and their Republican enablers:

You're asking me what an American is Beth? I reckon it's anyone from anywhere in the world who takes an American's spot in college and likes football. It don't get no more American than that. pic.twitter.com/BTJRSUL6NQ

— 9mmSMG (@9mmsmg) September 13, 2026

---

I disagree - with the Republican enabler part.

There was a time when olive skinned Italians were not accepted,

then the Mexicans (still, really)

Now the Indians, not to mention the treatment of the Japanese, albeit during WW2.

The problem with immigrants in general (i.e., without consideration for the process of legally becoming an American and assimilating) is not with the groups of new wave immigrants, it's with those who despise America and are actively working to destroy our history, culture, and institutions.

We know who these people are. They wave communist flags, anarchist flags, flags of their native country and they tell us they hate America.

AxelFoley85 said:

---

Isn't going to a football game assimilating?

---

That's all it takes?

That's an overly simplistic way of looking at a complex cultural issue.

Given their numbers, they don't HAVE to assimilate outside of meaningless activities like football games. Americans who aren't Indian -- whites, blacks, Hispanics, etc. -- are beyond foolish to cheer on their replacement.

Zobel said:

---

This really a response to your contradiction.

The point isn't that preferring your own kid means you should support legacy admissions. It's that you've already conceded the underlying principle tbat relationships and inherited affiliations can legitimately create preferences and obligations.

So where does that stop? Your child, ok. Cousins? Second cousins? The children of close friends? Members of your church or community? The children of fellow Aggies? Fellow Texans? Fellow Americans?

Those are obviously relationships of different strength, but human society consists largely of concentric circles of affiliation like this. Once you admit that it is legitimate to prefer your own child because he is yours you can't declare ancestry or inherited social group membership intrinsically irrelevant. You have to explain why an institution *shouldnt* recognize a particular form of continuity or affiliation, because on the face it intrinsically *should* value its own members over outsiders. Just like you should prefer your children to others.

The legacy admission issue is a microcosm of this whole discussion. Families, communities, universities, and nations are permitted to and *do* have special obligations to their own members and their descendants and to prefer them to others.

---

I 100% support legacy primary, everyone else secondary.

My kids will be 4th generation. The idea that this means nothing is preposterous. Both are GT kids but will have trouble because they play sports and therefore won't be able to scam the system for an impossible GPA in a local form of Jugaad. I absolutely hate it and it pisses me off more than just about anything.

Zobel said:

---

This really a response to your contradiction.

The point isn't that preferring your own kid means you should support legacy admissions. It's that you've already conceded the underlying principle tbat relationships and inherited affiliations can legitimately create preferences and obligations.

So where does that stop? Your child, ok. Cousins? Second cousins? The children of close friends? Members of your church or community? The children of fellow Aggies? Fellow Texans? Fellow Americans?

Those are obviously relationships of different strength, but human society consists largely of concentric circles of affiliation like this. Once you admit that it is legitimate to prefer your own child because he is yours you can't declare ancestry or inherited social group membership intrinsically irrelevant. You have to explain why an institution *shouldnt* recognize a particular form of continuity or affiliation, because on the face it intrinsically *should* value its own members over outsiders. Just like you should prefer your children to others.

The legacy admission issue is a microcosm of this whole discussion. Families, communities, universities, and nations are permitted to and *do* have special obligations to their own members and their descendants and to prefer them to others.

---

You're confusing where and why I choose to spend my own *private* resources (my money, my time, my energy etc) and where *public* resources are spent (such as deciding who is more qualified for the relatively few spots in public universities).

Of course I am going to feed and educate my own kid ahead of anyone else's. Allocating public resources is entirely separate though, and should not be based on any arbitrary factors such as who the kid's ancestors happen to be.

Spergin said:

---

Zobel said:

---

This really a response to your contradiction.

The point isn't that preferring your own kid means you should support legacy admissions. It's that you've already conceded the underlying principle tbat relationships and inherited affiliations can legitimately create preferences and obligations.

So where does that stop? Your child, ok. Cousins? Second cousins? The children of close friends? Members of your church or community? The children of fellow Aggies? Fellow Texans? Fellow Americans?

Those are obviously relationships of different strength, but human society consists largely of concentric circles of affiliation like this. Once you admit that it is legitimate to prefer your own child because he is yours you can't declare ancestry or inherited social group membership intrinsically irrelevant. You have to explain why an institution *shouldnt* recognize a particular form of continuity or affiliation, because on the face it intrinsically *should* value its own members over outsiders. Just like you should prefer your children to others.

The legacy admission issue is a microcosm of this whole discussion. Families, communities, universities, and nations are permitted to and *do* have special obligations to their own members and their descendants and to prefer them to others.

---

I 100% support legacy primary, everyone else secondary.

My kids will be 4th generation. The idea that this means nothing is preposterous. Both are GT kids but will have trouble because they play sports and therefore won't be able to scam the system for an impossible GPA in a local form of Jugaad. I absolutely hate it and it pisses me off more than just about anything.

---

It sounds like you and your children may have a difficult choice to make over what is most important.

A public/private distinction doesn't actually answer the argument. It just changes which relationships an institution is entitled to or required to recognize.

Public institutions aren't somehow ontologically relationship neutral. They constantly distinguish between insiders and outsiders: citizens and noncitizens, residents and nonresidents, veterans and nonveterans, members of one political community vs another. A public university charging Texans less than Californians is literally allocating a public resource according to affiliation rather than simply asking which applicant is "more qualified."

The question isn't whether inherited or communal relationships can legitimately matter. We all know they can. Now you have to ask which relationships are relevant to a particular institution and strong enough to justify a preference.

You could argue that being someone's child creates a strong obligation while being an Aggie's child creates one too weak to drive admissions decisions, but it's not some law of physics or immediately obvious to me why. "public resource, therefore ancestry or inherited affiliation is arbitrary" isn't a proof.

Not for nothing public institutions themselves only exist within / through those same concentric circles of membership, continuity, reciprocity, obligation, etc.

There's no sharp line between family and polity.

The other thing is, those public resources *do* belong to you - proportionally. Just as much as your own money does. Public goods belong to the public, and as a member of it they are yours. Your opinion as to how they should be utilized matters as much in *kind* as your own money, but differs only in *degree*. So yeah, you should absolutely rationally prefer the public benefit for your children vs a tsip's and certainly over a foreigner's.

You know what their parents aren't doing? Spending **** tons of money starting them on travel ball at age 3.

Racism is cool when it's against YT

While I don't disagree with French's sentiment, it was probably dumb to post.

Here's Paxton's excellent response.

I condemn racism in all its forms, including James Talarico saying white men are America's top terror threat and that he prays to overcome his own 'whiteness,' whatever that means. Only one person in this race has a history of dividing Texans by race, and it’s James Talarico. I… https://t.co/24Tlp3Rd5U

— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) September 13, 2026

That first tweet you posted… dude is made his kid who has a 4.5 in an obvious 5.0 scale didn't get in to tu? Well no **** Sherlock, he got one B for every A. That's a lot of Bs and not gonna have you in the top ten percent.

Trust me no Indian kid in the suburbs willingly wants to go to Texas A&M. Your kids will get into A&M if they are gifted as you think they are.

aa4136 said:

---

Trust me no Indian kid in the suburbs willingly wants to go to Texas A&M. You're kids will get into A&M if they are gifted as you think they are.

---

A&M may not be their first choice, but a high percentage will absolutely attend if they get rejected (or capped) by UT.

You know where they don't want to go? IIT.

By “diverse” you mean no white people

There is no diversity in the picture, everyone is the same race, South Asian

You just want Texas to look like this, you want the white Texans replaced

— Auron MacIntyre (@AuronMacintyre) September 13, 2026

I condemn racism in all its forms, including James Talarico saying white men are America's top terror threat and that he prays to overcome his own 'whiteness,' whatever that means. Only one person in this race has a history of dividing Texans by race, and it’s James Talarico. I… https://t.co/24Tlp3Rd5U

— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) September 13, 2026

Zobel said:

---

A public/private distinction doesn't actually answer the argument. It just changes which relationships an institution is entitled to or required to recognize.

Public institutions aren't somehow ontologically relationship neutral. They constantly distinguish between insiders and outsiders: citizens and noncitizens, residents and nonresidents, veterans and nonveterans, members of one political community vs another. A public university charging Texans less than Californians is literally allocating a public resource according to affiliation rather than simply asking which applicant is "more qualified."

The question isn't whether inherited or communal relationships can legitimately matter. We all know they can. Now you have to ask which relationships are relevant to a particular institution and strong enough to justify a preference.

You could argue that being someone's child creates a strong obligation while being an Aggie's child creates one too weak to drive admissions decisions, but it's not some law of physics or immediately obvious to me why. "public resource, therefore ancestry or inherited affiliation is arbitrary" isn't a proof.

Not for nothing public institutions themselves only exist within / through those same concentric circles of membership, continuity, reciprocity, obligation, etc.

There's no sharp line between family and polity.

The other thing is, those public resources *do* belong to you - proportionally. Just as much as your own money does. Public goods belong to the public, and as a member of it they are yours. Your opinion as to how they should be utilized matters as much in *kind* as your own money, but differs only in *degree*. So yeah, you should absolutely rationally prefer the public benefit for your children vs a tsip's and certainly over a foreigner's.

---

Public resources belong to *everyone* and their distribution should be fair to *everyone*. I cannot morally argue that my own child get preferential treatment ahead of another child simply because they are *my* child, and not anything more objectively making them better qualified such as GPA and SAT scores.

They literally do not belong to everyone. Public resources belong to a particular public. A&M doesn't belong to Mexico, or India, or California.

And legitimate relationships do not stop at parent and child. Families, communities, universities, states, and nations all create real obligations and preferences. Texas can favor Texans; America can favor Americans.

By the same principle, A&M can legitimately value continuity with Aggie families, and tu can value continuity with sip families. That does not mean every legacy preference is automatically justified or unlimited. It means ancestry and inherited affiliation are not intrinsically irrelevant.

This post is not about university admissions.

annie88 said:

---

By “diverse” you mean no white people

There is no diversity in the picture, everyone is the same race, South Asian

You just want Texas to look like this, you want the white Texans replaced

— Auron MacIntyre (@AuronMacintyre) September 13, 2026

---

Imagine someone called Pooja telling Texans they have to leave if they're not ok with infinity Indians overrunning Texas.

I only watched the second half and after several instances of the camera showing the crowd, I wondered if they were watching soccer or cricket rather than American football.

I got no beef with the Indian kids born in America to immigrant parents. Not their fault, and given time I'm sure they will be 100% assimilated as long as we stem the tide.

The fault is with folks like Cornyn who were more concerned with their portfolio than the folks who elected them to office. It's time to change course.

Zobel said:

---

They literally do not belong to everyone. Public resources belong to a particular public. A&M doesn't belong to Mexico, or India, or California.

And legitimate relationships do not stop at parent and child. Families, communities, universities, states, and nations all create real obligations and preferences. Texas can favor Texans; America can favor Americans.

By the same principle, A&M can legitimately value continuity with Aggie families, and tu can value continuity with sip families. That does not mean every legacy preference is automatically justified or unlimited. It means ancestry and inherited affiliation are not intrinsically irrelevant.

This post is not about university admissions.

---

Sure, but by your own argument, A&M can also value diversity, socioeconomic factors and being "the first in their family to attend college". And all of these, including legacy status, would be arbitrary (in my opinion) in determining which student is most qualified. After all, if the purpose of college is for upward mobility, why wouldn't you select the students most in need of upward mobility? (No, I am not making this argument, I am simply playing devil's advocate.)

All of these factors are equally illegitimate.

aa4136 said:

---

Lol. Maybe time to wake up and realize white people are getting sold out by their fellow white dudes at the top. Easier to blame some Texas undergrad for H1B issues rather than realize who is actually picking their pocket...but it's gotta be the Indian student at UT attending a football game that's the problem...right? Never would be their fellow white dude politician / CEO!

---

Uh, you do realize that many of the CEOs are now women, and yes the white men sellouts are to blame big time. No
One is blaming the kids, the adults are the sellouts and fraudsters. Sorry to say I agree with you, surprised?

T-shirt T-sips

annie88 said:

---

By “diverse” you mean no white people

There is no diversity in the picture, everyone is the same race, South Asian

You just want Texas to look like this, you want the white Texans replaced

— Auron MacIntyre (@AuronMacintyre) September 13, 2026

---

I am so glad people are finally noticing what I saw in 2015. Diversity literally always means no white people.

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

I got no beef with the Indian kids born in America to immigrant parents. Not their fault, and given time I'm sure they will be 100% assimilated as long as we stem the tide.

The fault is with folks like Cornyn who were more concerned with their portfolio than the folks who elected them to office. It's time to change course.

---

They don't assimilate at all and the stats prove it. They are more leftist than their parents.

aa4136 said:

---

Trust me no Indian kid in the suburbs willingly wants to go to Texas A&M. Your kids will get into A&M if they are gifted as you think they are.

---

100% FOS, I work in IT, many Indian friends and they proudly take their kids on A&M visits.

spergin is in a mood today

panhandlefarmer said:

---

You know what their parents aren't doing? Spending **** tons of money starting them on travel ball at age 3.

---

That's actually not true, tons of Asian and indian parents dish out big bucks for competitive swim I've seen. The monthly cost of the team which is year round and meet fees, at minimum one a month. Freaking $500-$700 tech suits (shocking how much a difference those make) that don't last a full season, practice suits, snorkels, floats, fins, goggles, doctor visits for ear infections, then all the new bags, swimmers coats, meet swag, hotels for meets because they have to be there at 6:45am for Saturday and Sunday. It never ends! I guarantee its just as much as travel ball all in all.

Many of these families make all their kids do it, so its multi kids incurring those cost. I admit it did surprise me when we started.

edit: Speaking on the work ethic. They also make there kids attend all the practices. They have 6 - 2 hour practices a week and required to attend 4. Its 1.5 hours for age group and they only have to do 3 a week. The thing with swim, if they're going 5 or 6 times a week and your only doing 4, they're simply getting better than you. They push their kids very hard to do well.

You're assuming the purpose of A&M admissions is defined by "most qualified" and then further defined "qualified" as GPA/SAT and then said everything else is arbitrary. This is just your opinion not any kind of principle.

A&M exists to benefit Texans, not to educate the people with the highest GPAs. Those aren't the same thing!

You already accepted the underlying principle when you agreed that favoring your own child is good and normal, which is that relationships can create legitimate preferences and obligations.

The issue you seem to miss is that public institutions work the exact same way. A&M exists to serve Texans, and it is perfectly normal for A&M to favor Texans over otherwise identical outsiders (or even "better" outsiders!!) because Texans have a special relationship to the institution. Likewise A&M to Aggies for the same reason.

So affiliation is not irrelevant, it is fundamentally core to the issue - the definition of public itself requires affiliation!

The question is which affiliations matter, and how much. You could argue Aggie legacy deserves no weight, but just declaring anything other than "qualified" (read:GPA) arbitrary isn't an actual argument.

And again. This post is not about university admissions.