Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 319
  1. #181  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    shivvverrrrr, yeah good point

    pretty sure i have heard this somewhere before
    blaze, if you or someone else has already said it, I didn't read it -- I've only had time to skim, hit, and run the last few days ...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  2.    #182  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I am not working both sides of the argument. You have said that the current system discriminates against many nationalities. I said that your system in practice could do the same thing as the merits you have proposed are more available to richer countries would generally not include the countries that you have a concern about in the current system.

    I am not playing both sides, I am saying that your system may have the same or worse net result that you are unhappy with the current system.
    The part of my argument that you are trying to make for me is .... the reason why I am unhappy with the current system. I think I have laid it out well.

    It's not that I am not unhappy with the current system because it does not allow in enough poor people.

    I am unhappy with the current system because it admits or denies potential immigrants based on Nationality, not on individual merit. I thnk i have made that clear.
  3.    #183  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    blaze, if you or someone else has already said it, I didn't read it -- I've only had time to skim, hit, and run the last few days ...
    Not a problem at all, it's cool, it was the point i have been making since my post #2.
  4.    #184  
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLiveSoundGuy
    So then how do we screen those millions of illegals already here, and what do we do with them in the intrim years while we attempt to screen them? Give them a free pass?
    I guess we let them cut the grass.
  5. #185  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I am unhappy with the current system because it admits or denies potential immigrants based on Nationality, not on individual merit. I thnk i have made that clear.
    I GET THAT.....and that is my point that you do not seem to get....your proposed system can, in practice, deny those applying from poor countries...hence only a different way to deny by nationality.
  6.    #186  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I GET THAT.....and that is my point that you do not seem to get....your proposed system can, in practice, deny those applying from poor countries...hence only a different way to deny by nationality.
    Yes, but at least a way that is based on the individual merit of each applicant.

    I also said I feel that the United States should take much more than its fair share of refugees.
  7. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #187  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Yes, but at least a way that is based on the individual merit of each applicant.

    I also said I feel that the United States should take much more than its fair share of refugees.
    Would the refugees have to meet the same criteria as immigrants? ANd, i have to agree with Hobbes, your plan will exclude a lot of individuals from certain countries (Mexico) and give a huge advantage to other countries (Finland). It looks like a racist policy cloaked in individualism.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  8. #188  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I also said I feel that the United States should take much more than its fair share of refugees.
    I know a way we could make room for 12 million refugees.....
  9.    #189  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Would the refugees have to meet the same criteria as immigrants?
    Of course refugees would not have to meet the same criteria, that's why they are called refugees.
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    ANd, i have to agree with Hobbes, your plan will exclude a lot of individuals from certain countries (Mexico) and give a huge advantage to other countries (Finland). It looks like a racist policy cloaked in individualism.
    Um, I dont think individualism was the word you were looking for there Cardio, but ...

    Now you're saying my idea to judge each individual applicant on the basis of his individual merits instead of his nationality is racist. Um, ok cardio, thanks for your brilliant insight.
  10.    #190  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I know a way we could make room for 12 million refugees.....
    Let's hear it.
  11. #191  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Let's hear it.
    that was mostly a joke.....but the Immigrant Act I linked to in my first or second post on this thread would be one that could help answer that.
  12. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #192  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Of course refugees would not have to meet the same criteria, that's why they are called refugees.Um, I dont think individualism was the word you were looking for there Cardio, but ...

    Now you're saying my idea to judge each individual applicant on the basis of his individual merits instead of his nationality is racist. Um, ok cardio, thanks for your brilliant insight.
    Just asking about the refugees, because it is usually difficult to grasp what it is you are trying to communicate to the rest of us.

    You really think that judging individuals on their ability to speak english, have a desirable skill, and have around $15k readily available is not putting the majority of the mexican population at a disadvantage. Allrighty then, guess we have a long way to go.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  13.    #193  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Just asking about the refugees, because it is usually difficult to grasp what it is you are trying to communicate to the rest of us.

    You really think that judging individuals on their ability to speak english, have a desirable skill, and have around $15k readily available is not putting the majority of the mexican population at a disadvantage. Allrighty then, guess we have a long way to go.
    Hmm, I think I have been clear. And you did not only say that my idea puts one nation or another at more or less of "an advantage". You called it racist.
  14. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #194  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Hmm, I think I have been clear. And you did not only say that my idea puts one nation or another at more or less of "an advantage". You called it racist.
    Which is exactly what you say the current policy does (your 2nd post) and with your brown list or whatever you called it (in a later post). It puts one nation or nations at a disadvantage because of the date. Sorry buddy, can't have it both ways. The simple fact is that certain countries (read 3rd world countries) would be at a distinct disadvantage with your policy because they do not have the ability to educate their children to the level that a EU country can, they do not have the ability to save $15,000 to provide the income you stated they would need, and their skill level is not a critical skill needed in the US.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  15. #195  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I think we already touched on that topic hoovs, for a civil libertarian, who talks so much about personal accountability, and personal responsibility, and against affirmative action it certainly is suprising to see your new stance.
    It seems to me that this situation is similar to affirmative action. I'm assuming that you're pro affirmative action but you haven't said. If you are then why aren't you for affirmative action in the case of immigration?
  16.    #196  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    It seems to me that this situation is similar to affirmative action. I'm assuming that you're pro affirmative action but you haven't said. If you are then why aren't you for affirmative action in the case of immigration?
    As I said, I think that is exactly the question I posed to you in a previous post, your positions seem contradictory.

    However to answer your question, (even though you never responded to mine), I would hardly call our current system of excluding India, Mexico, China, and Philippines affirmative action.

    And I have already said that as the richest country in the history of the world, we should take more than our fair share of refugees.

    I would also not be opposed to continuing or expanding a version of our ins diversity program.
  17. #197  
    Our current system is excluding India, Mexico, China, and Philippines...or simply not having a high enough cap for you?

    Again....what security measures would you have for refugees. If you have strict security measures it comes down again to immigration, but in larger numbers.
  18.    #198  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Which is exactly what you say the current policy does (your 2nd post) and with your brown list or whatever you called it (in a later post). It puts one nation or nations at a disadvantage because of the date. Sorry buddy, can't have it both ways. The simple fact is that certain countries (read 3rd world countries) would be at a distinct disadvantage with your policy because they do not have the ability to educate their children to the level that a EU country can, they do not have the ability to save $15,000 to provide the income you stated they would need, and their skill level is not a critical skill needed in the US.
    Now you are making the argument that requiring U.S. Immigrants to show that they have the means to support themselves inside the U.S. constitutes a racist policy. LOL
  19.    #199  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Our current system is excluding India, Mexico, China, and Philippines...or simply not having a high enough cap for you?
    You know very well, (ever since I explained it to you) that our current system is designed to single out and limit the number of only Indians, Mexicans, Chineese, and Filipinos allowed to enter the United Staes. This is another attempt on your part to misdirect.
  20.    #200  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Again....what security measures would you have for refugees. If you have strict security measures it comes down again to immigration, but in larger numbers.
    I cannot make out what you are attempting to say here. I believe our security needs to be strengthened.
Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions