Are your premises here that:
1) except for isolated and impoverished pockets, Asians and Latinos are no longer discriminated against in our society because of their race or ethnicity - shown by a) society's current repudiation of the overt and explicit race-based exclusion and oppression of the past (No Chinese need apply), and b)the economic, residential and social integration of these groups within the society. (asians and latino living in racially integrated suburbs.)
Answer: No, I simply pointed out that the discrimination faced by Latinos (esp. Mexicans) and Asians 100 years ago is of a very different magnitude than the discrimination they face today, and this is especially relevant because a large majority of Asians and Latino families in the U.S. have arrived since 1965, and thus are not descended from those who suffered from the discrimination of 100 years ago, so the arguments in favor of preferences for these groups based on what happened 100 years ago are less strong than they may at first appear. By contrast, a large majority African American families were here 100 years ago and beyond. This suggests that both for diversity (because the groups have very different tenures and experiences in the US) and remedial purposes that it's foolish to lump all "minorities" into one group, as all of the Grutter opinions do (any comments on Justice Thomas's absolute insistence that all "minorities" must be treated exactly alike for diversity purposes?).
2) the only justification for affirmative action is remedying past or present discrimination - and that the value of racial and ethnic inclusion or "diversity" is not a legitmate goal unless it is a remedy for such past or present discrimination.
Answer: Diversity may be a legitimate goal, especially for university admissions, but I can't figure out why a child of Argentine immigrants of Italian or German descent (who in no sense, I think, is a "racial minority"), is presumptively more diverse than a child of Greek or Arab immigrants, or an Amish or Seventh Day Adventist believer, etc. For that matter, I don't see any recent to believe that the hypothetical Argentine American has presumptively faced more discrimination than the other examples. I do think that by far the strongest constitutional case for AA is not the diversity rationale, but the remedial rationale, and primarily as applied to specified groups that have suffered grevious discrimination and isolation.
I appreciate Yvette's inclusive definition of diversity, but if everyone is eligible for AA, then AA has no purpose. If only some groups are eligible for AA, there must be a coherent rationale for why those groups, as a class, are eligible, but others aren't.
