Affirmative Action should be based on Socio-Economic Status and not race or religion

My opponent previously requested for evidence concerning the validity of Booker T. Washington's statement. The proof is the asian race. During the Gilded Age, and perhaps even beyond, the Asian race was severely disadvantaged due to discrimination. In 1862 the asain discriminatory Anti-Coolie Act was passed. Its proper title is "An act to protect free white labor against competition with Chinese coolie labor, and to discourage the immigration of the Chinese into the State of California. " (. http://en.wikisource.org...) Coolie was a discriminatory term towards asians, proving that discrimination and oppression of the asian race was to such an extent that the state even put a derogatory term within its laws. It would be the equivalent of an 'Anti-Nigger Act'. Most asians were forced to work at low income jobs because they were barred from high ambitions due to discrimination. Asians had a similar negative stereotype of black Americans today. Today, as the US census proves, Asians, as a percentage, are superior to whites in both their economic and educated status ( . http://www.census.gov...) Asains today are, in fact, looked up to and are often referred to as a 'model minority'. The asian race, formerly discriminated against and in deep poverty, has now risen above hardships to raise their socioeconomic status to become a 'model minority'. Blacks and Hispanics, however, have far lower socioeconomic statuses than the national average, causing the discrimination there is. However, if they raise above their socio-economic status they too could become 'model minorities'. I have noticed that when people think of disadvantaged racial minorities they think only of Blacks, Hispanics, and occasionally Native Americans. Why? Because the only other major racial group, asians, are not considered disadvantaged. Why? They have fulfilled the prophecy of Booker T. Washington. There is little difference between one form of oppression to the other. Oppression, as defined by Merriam Webster, is 'the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. ' Oppression in the form of race or due to a lack of power is cruel, unjust, and burdensome to those who receive it. Current AA only focuses on racial oppression, but socioeconomic status AA focuses on not only racial discrimination (it being tied to socioeconomic status), but oppression against those without power. A common argument concerning AA is the reason why it exists is because of historical oppression of those concerned. However, as previously proven, racial oppression (which, by the way, also affected white ethnic groups as well) is not the only historical oppression affecting posterity. Oppression from the past, most specifically rooted in the oppression of the Gilded Age, has caused posterities' members of all races to suffer a disadvantaged life; not because they weren't smart enough or able enough, but because as my opponent has stated 'These limited opportunities happen to be based on nothing but sheer bad luck in terms of what kind of life people were born into. ' History of oppression due to an unjust government concerns not only Hispanics and other minority races, but whites too. While it is not possible to give statistics because America has not made a 'census' or anything like it until recently, it is reasonable to say that children are psychologically and genetically proven to be a byproduct of their environment. A major reason why the poor are poor is due to the oppression of their fathers. This is a common, accurate, and solid argument for AA. However, what the status quo AA forgets is minorities and certain religious groups are where they are due to oppression to their fathers. This is proven by the unfair oppression of the Pullman Strike, Homestead Strike, and other events. Historical oppression not only affected blacks, Hispanics, and religious minorities. It has affected all or nearly all that are in poverty. To say it hasn't would be discrimination. The purpose of AA, or at least the purpose I perceive, is to give those that are disadvantaged a greater chance to succeed. The only justifiable reason for AA is because those concerned are incredibly disadvantaged. As already proven, those that are most concerned have problems due to a low socioeconomic status. As my opponent has stated, socioeconomic AA (SAA, I will now call it) will ensure 'that some poor people are given the opportunity for success'. It will strongly limit the way elitists can oppress the poor and minorities. To ensure, as my opponent has recognized, the poor person would no longer be economically disadvantaged' would end economic and racial discrimination to a tremendous or, at a best case scenario, absolute extent. However, there would still be competition in the economy because, while the poor would have a significant advantage, the rich would have significant advantages as well. It would be something no society in history has ever achieved. It would have an incredible impact on society because no one would be disadvantaged because of, as my opponent said, 'limited opportunities happen to be based on nothing but sheer bad luck in terms of what kind of life people were born into. ' If this is not 'social progression' I don't know what is. As my opponent has stated, people are biased despite laws against racial discrimination. AA would be no different. However, also as previously proven, discrimination and socioeconomic status are very closely intertwined. If SAA is put into action it would help end racism to the extent it can be ended. If AA is enacted racists would blame the success of minorities to their 'unfair advantage'. However, SAA also concerns the white man, leaving such arguments out. As my opponent has stated, discrimination can rise above socioeconomic status (now will be called SES). However, hard discrimination has died down enough that it barley exists. Subtle discrimination, however, commonly exists not only among whites, but among blacks. Due to blacks' generally low SES they are, even currently, discriminated against. When people think of a black person, they often picture a gangster. This is why a black man and a white man with equal credentials are often not equal in their employer's eyes or people with black names are less likely to be hired than those with white names. Again, it's all about SES. Furthermore, the proof concerning Jazz Musicians is irrelevant in our day. They lived in a more discriminatory time. Popular black musicians now have no problem performing where they desire or selling records where they desire. Michael Jackson, a black musician, had the best selling album of all time. There was early concern concerning women and the right to vote due to the belief their vote would completely change the political sphere. However, when given the right to vote, they voted along the same lines as men. (See 'American History, a Brief Survey') The way people vote does not concern the color of their skin, but their social environment. While most black people vote democrat, most blacks are poor or rose out of poverty. Wealthy blacks that were born wealthy nearly always vote Republican. Blacks in the military often are Republican. While there are exceptions, there are exceptions in all races. Social conditions create an individual's thought, not the color of his skin. Martin Luther King jr. said 'I have a dream that my children will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character'. Current AA judges only based on the color of their skin. SAA looks at an individual's SES, or life's conditions, concerning their need for help.