|
|
Post by AmericanPride on Dec 29, 2007 12:41:50 GMT -8
Where did I say that today's immigration law is based upon the Chinese Exclusion Act? I made it very clear that the Act was one example of race-based US immigration law. I then moved on to talk about other acts influenced by racial beliefs -- and you have still refused to talk about them. You need to wipe the dung off your glasses when you remove your head from your posterior.
Jfree and petard communicated "in a meaningful way". It's only you that's having problems. Now you're projecting your communication problems onto me -- I'm noticing a pattern.
So -- my argument will remain there for everyone to see and read as they so choose and it will apparently also remain unengaged by any thoughtful discussion on your part.
|
|
|
|
Post by MARIO on Dec 29, 2007 12:51:17 GMT -8
---President Johnson certainly thought it was racist. He should know -- he helped move the Civil Rights Movement along.----
He was one of the biggest racists at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by AmericanPride on Dec 29, 2007 12:53:40 GMT -8
Mario,
That certainly may be true. But his speech I quoted identified US immigration policy as racist in origin and in practice.
|
|
|
|
Post by MARIO on Dec 29, 2007 12:57:00 GMT -8
Mario, That certainly may be true. But his speech I quoted identified US immigration policy as racist in origin and in practice. Oh I'm not denying the nature of his speech. I just wanted to point out that LBJ was a monumental phony and a genuine bigot, much to the chagrine of contemporary Democrats who personally know it but deny it publicly. |
|
|
|
Post by AmericanPride on Dec 29, 2007 13:01:03 GMT -8
That's great, Mario. Thanks. Back to immigration.
|
|
|
|
Post by bounce on Dec 29, 2007 13:45:48 GMT -8
AP, normally at this point I would figure out that you are a troll, get the joke, chuckle, and say, "Good one, you got me."
I would then admonish you for even joking about racism like that and even JOKING about spreading racism in to an area currently unaffected by it is no joke. It's not funny. Pick another topic next time.
However, (and this is NOT meant as an insult) I don't think you are smart enough to pull this off as a troll. I think you really mean the shit you say (which makes it all the more unconscionable). You hit too close to home with all the delusional shit I've seen at THC. If I had never visited that web site I would be convinced this is just a sick joke.
What this means is that you really are trying to spread racist overtones into an area of our lives currently unaffected by it.
That is racist and it's despicable.
You suck!
|
|
|
|
Post by MARIO on Dec 29, 2007 13:48:24 GMT -8
That's great, Mario. Thanks. Back to immigration. Okay, so you want to act like an ass. Far be it from me to stand in your way with a little history lesson. |
|
|
|
Post by AmericanPride on Dec 29, 2007 14:00:00 GMT -8
I pick my topics based on my interest, not on your sensitivity or repulsions.
|
|
|
|
Post by bounce on Dec 29, 2007 15:08:01 GMT -8
You crack me up AP. Here I was all ready to drop this thread and you come from way out in left field with a response that I just cannot NOT reply to. Spreading racism is your "interest" is it??? Hmmmmm..... I guess that puts you about on par with race baiters like Jesse Jackson and David Duke. If racism ever ended, they would be truly fucked. You seem to be doing everything in YOUR POWER to create as much racial angst as you can. Fortunately, people on this board aren't buying it. You know, if you go to www.thehistorychannel.com you will find people there who sympathize with your attitudes and will understand and support your arguments. They will "get it" I assure you. You won't have to tell them twice. I have found those people to be on a different "plane" of existence. They will understand you. Check it out. You will see that I'm right... AGAIN! |
|
|
|
Post by AmericanPride on Dec 29, 2007 15:36:16 GMT -8
I haven't been talking about racism. I've been talking about immigration -- which at times includes racial beliefs. It's even admitted by the very guys who made the policies in the first place. But you keep interjecting your personal beliefs into the policies designed many years ago. And then you project those beliefs on to others. I've said it before. I've also said before that you, not me, made race the primary subject when the original topic has been immigration. But you simply refuse to let it go -- even though you keep stating that it's "not your problem" and that it's "bullshit". You seem to enjoy talking about "bullshit". But I guess that's all there is to talk about when you put your mouth where your money is.
|
|
|
|
Post by jfree on Dec 30, 2007 14:40:43 GMT -8
Did I call you a racist? Or did I say that America's immigration law originated from ideas of race?
Yes you directly inferred it was fear of hispanics.
Are they not the same thing? Is that not the American spirit? Isn't that why every immigrant group came here in the first place -- to make something of themselves, to better their situation in life? America is the land of opportunities -- that's why people come here and that's why people work hard.
No they are not the same thing. No one is saying no immigration, we just want orderly immigration in an absorbable number. Balance is always important in insuring the future of this country whether you like it or not that includes the culture and traditions of this nation, what happens to a teeder-todder when you dumb a load of rocks on one end? The color of the rocks is irrelevent.
I have not disputed that right. I have only called into question the effectiveness of the present immigration policy. Arguing for reform of policy inherently assumes that we already have the right to make such policy.
Oh yes you have, you repeatedly complain about a quota, which is necessary in any rational, sane and balanced immigration system. Regardless of what happened in the past the here and now is what matters. Drug laws started out as racist too, does that mean we throw out the drug laws?
You're right. It certainly does. But immigration does not pose a significant threat to Americans of any kind, and the present immigration policy only hurts, not helps, Americans. I'll say it again: a policy that excludes a segment of society by default also excludes that element from any kind of institutional accountability. The fears of crime, disease, fraud, balkanization, and social collapse all derive from the same source of exclusion. A policy that enfranchises immigrations encourages assimilation, establishes accountability, generates trust, diffuses tension, and builds credibility for both parties.
Immigration laws do not exclude a segment, have you read them? They balance immigration from nation to nation, giving each a fair shake except south America where we have a larger number allowed in, but you think we are excluding precisely the one we allow more in from. Clearly you arent read up on current quota systems.
What is wrong with a large influx of immigrants?
It isn't balanced and is unfair to the citizens of America or the rest of the world who doesn't have the luck of sharing a border w/us.
Unemployment in the US is at an all-time low. Who exactly is being displaced and why? Globalization and outsourcing have more to do with the changes in employment than immigration, legal or otherwise.
Low unemployement means stiffer competition, and also means those working illegally have a better chance as they work for less money, globalization is not part of the issue herein.
How many illegal immigrants actually receive tax money?
Everyone that goes to the hospitals ER rooms, everyone that gets housing assistance, food stamps, medicaid, etc...
Let's rephrase that. "It's a democratic country whose citizens seem more interested in migrating in order to attain more opportunities than what is available in their own country.
Rephrase it any way you want, you won't change the illegality of their actions, they are most interested in finding and paying a coyote then reading up on elections and protesting the bad spending habits and corruption of their own government, their laziness is not America's problem.
Should Mexicans fix problems in Mexico? Absolutely. Americans should also fix problems in America. But the two countries are neighbors whether it's liked or not. And the opportunities in the United States far exceed those in Mexico. If Mexicans want to come here live and work among us as do all other immigrant groups, what is the objection? Mexicans have been living in parts of this country far longer than Americans have. It's a land that both Mexicans and Americans share in their history. Why should we not let Mexicans in "whenever they come so long as they aren't criminals by our standards?
I have no problems w/those from Mexico that come here to work and live LEGALLY, I've nothing but contempt for those who would subvert our laws and demand respect. I don't care if they are our neighbors, you don't see Canadians behaving this way, why should Mexico get a free pass? Just because they share a border? That is ridiculous and stupid. And I see you still hide from issues regarding allowing far more from truly underpriveledged countries like China and Cuba, these people have no recourse w/in their own countries for justice, where is your empathy for them? Why don't they come first before Democratic Mexico?
|
|
|
|
Post by AmericanPride on Dec 30, 2007 16:10:17 GMT -8
Which "culture and tradition" exactly?
Disputing the effectiveness of a law or policy is not the same as disputing the right to make that law or policy. You say that quotas are "necessary" for "any rational, sane, and balanced" immigration policy. But that is only if you assume that the only "rational, sane, balanced" immigration system is one that facilitates "orderly immigration in an absorbable number", as you describe it. I disagree. Abolishing quotas is "rational" and "sane" for an open immigration policy enforced by local law enforcement and complemented with expanded citizenship programs. As you can see, it's easy to dispute the policy without disputing the right to make it.
Immigration laws exclude all persons that enter the country above and beyond the number established by a quota for the region of their origin. These persons, by default, cannot be held accountable by the institutions of the country, regardless of their purpose. Let's use an example to illustrate the point. Immigrants to the country undergo a medical examination to identify dangerous diseases they may have contracted in their home country. Because illegal immigrants are excluded from the system by the inherent nature of the system itself, they cannot be examined for diseases. Therefore, the risk of a disease entering the country is heightened by the policy, which prevents medical examiners from identifying it. If quotas did not exist, the illegal immigrants would undergo the same medical examination, reducing the risk of a disease entering the country. The same process applies to law enforcement, employment, and social services.
"Balanced" in reference to what?
The fact that an immigrant may be illegal does not revoke the rights of the immigrant as a person. This was established by a Supreme Court ruling. Np person may be denied rights inherent to his existence as a person ("equality before the law"). This includes emergency medical care. According to American -- no, Christian -- values, is it right to deny a person emergency medical care because he or she may be here illegally? How many illegal immigrants receive "housing assistance, food stamps, medicaid"?
By the very nature of immigration, legal or illegal, the term "laziness" is a grossly inaccurate term. But if it's "not America's problem" then why do you vehemently protest their presence here?
That's because Canadians do not have an incentive to come here and work. If Canada had the same problem and poverty and unemployment rates as Mexico, we'd also be talking about the large influx of illegal Canadian immigrants.
Everyone who wants to live and work here ought to have that choice. Not just Mexicans. So why shouldn't they?
I'm not "hiding" from the issues of China and Cuba. I clearly said everyone -- that would include Chinese and Cubans.
|
|
|
|
Post by AmericanPride on Dec 30, 2007 16:11:56 GMT -8
Are you saying the act of using narcotics is the same as moving from one country to another?
|
|
|
|
Post by jfree on Dec 30, 2007 18:16:48 GMT -8
Which "culture and tradition" exactly?
American, ah dur. Our traditions and culture is what makes this a great nation of opportunity.
Disputing the effectiveness of a law or policy is not the same as disputing the right to make that law or policy.
Never said it was, but you infer that citizens of other countries have a right to demand citizenship from America, thereby excluding the rights of Americans to limit immigration or control it.
You say that quotas are "necessary" for "any rational, sane, and balanced" immigration policy. But that is only if you assume that the only "rational, sane, balanced" immigration system is one that facilitates "orderly immigration in an absorbable number", as you describe it. I disagree. Abolishing quotas is "rational" and "sane" for an open immigration policy enforced by local law enforcement and complemented with expanded citizenship programs. As you can see, it's easy to dispute the policy without disputing the right to make it.
Open immigration w/no limits or boundries is insane, our country can only take in so many and maintain it's identity and respect the rights of it's citizenry, and that is not even taking environmental factors into account.
Immigration laws exclude all persons that enter the country above and beyond the number established by a quota for the region of their origin. These persons, by default, cannot be held accountable by the institutions of the country, regardless of their purpose. Let's use an example to illustrate the point. Immigrants to the country undergo a medical examination to identify dangerous diseases they may have contracted in their home country. Because illegal immigrants are excluded from the system by the inherent nature of the system itself, they cannot be examined for diseases. Therefore, the risk of a disease entering the country is heightened by the policy, which prevents medical examiners from identifying it. If quotas did not exist, the illegal immigrants would undergo the same medical examination, reducing the risk of a disease entering the country. The same process applies to law enforcement, employment, and social services.
Ludicrous, we have every right to limit and are sane to do so and humane to our citizens by doing so, making a law doesn't create criminals, breaking them does. This kind of circular logic you perpetuate herein is insane.
"Balanced" in reference to what?
Balanced in reference to allowing in all people from all countries that we can, balanced in protecting our citizenry and maintaining our countries identity.
The fact that an immigrant may be illegal does not revoke the rights of the immigrant as a person. This was established by a Supreme Court ruling. Np person may be denied rights inherent to his existence as a person ("equality before the law"). This includes emergency medical care. According to American -- no, Christian -- values, is it right to deny a person emergency medical care because he or she may be here illegally? How many illegal immigrants receive "housing assistance, food stamps, medicaid"?
I never said we should turn them away at the ER, I answered your question plainly, because you do not like the answer you dismiss it out of hand. And millions of illegals get housing and food stamps in this country, it's called identity theft, look it up.
By the very nature of immigration, legal or illegal, the term "laziness" is a grossly inaccurate term. But if it's "not America's problem" then why do you vehemently protest their presence here?
Let me know when you absorb the context of what I said, you statement above clearly shows you haven't. I said just because they are too lazy to fix their own country doesn't make it our problem.
That's because Canadians do not have an incentive to come here and work. If Canada had the same problem and poverty and unemployment rates as Mexico, we'd also be talking about the large influx of illegal Canadian immigrants.
Exactly the point, Mexico behaves badly, we should call them out on it and demand they help themselves.
Everyone who wants to live and work here ought to have that choice. Not just Mexicans. So why shouldn't they?
Because America cannot support the world population, because we cannot take in every disgruntled alien, think if China was our neighbor, our problems would be 100 fold using your logic. We CANNOT support the world.
BTW, my point on Drug laws was you cannot throw out the baby w/the bathwater just because a law starts out unjustly, you brought up the issue of racist laws, I just gave you an example you apparently don't like.
|
|
|
|
Post by AmericanPride on Dec 30, 2007 20:18:01 GMT -8
American. Duh. Which part of American "tradition and culture"? Muslim Americans have different traditions and cultural practices than Catholic Americans. Irish Americans and Italian Americans have different traditions -- so do Black Southern Baptists and White Southern Baptists. Simply because you have certain practices and identify yourself (and thus your practices) as "American" does not mean other Americans practice those same things. So -- again -- which traditions and parts of American culture exactly?
By disagreeing with my statement that I do not dispute the right of Americans to make immigration policy for the United States, you assert that I in fact disputed that right.
I have not made any such assertion. I have repeatedly said that the most effective immigration policy for the United States would be to enable more immigrants to enter the country.
Which part of America's identity are you talking about? This goes back to the question of which parts of American traditions and culture you are talking about. America's "identity" has changed considerably since the country's inception -- and continues to change everyday. The United States you "know" is probably different in many ways than the United States I "know" -- and certainly different than the United States many other Americans "know". The American identity vis-a-vis foreign states is much different than the identity vis-a-vis American regions. Do you think the Black Southern Baptist has the same American identity that you do? As far as the environment -- corporations and government do far more harm to the environment (and intentionally) than immigrants or any other group of people in the country.
An exclamation of "ludicrous" doesn't dispute the argument. Are institutions able or not able to maintain accountability regarding illegal immigrants? If institutions are able to maintain accountability, then please explain the origin of widespread fear of criminal behavior, exploitation of social services, disease, and cultural balkanization and why institutions appear unable to correct these problems.
My proposal is balanced -- anyone who wants to come here to live and work regardless of origin and number in line.
If law enforcement and social services were able to maintain institutional accountability of illegal immigrants, would these problems exist?
It does make it "our problem" if as a result of their "laziness" they decide to immigrate here, drive down wages, steal identities, exploit social services, and basically wreak havoc of American society. You obviously think that illegal immigration is a problem. Therefore, the causes of illegal immigration are also "our problem".
The citizens are helping themselves by immigrating to the United States in search of work.
I don't think current immigration numbers (legal and illegal) warrant the proclamation that "the world" is immigrating here.
I didn't "like" the analogy because I do not think the act of using a narcotic is the same as immigrating to another country. Next time please be more specific with the analogy and your intent for it.
|
|
