Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 678910111213141516 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 319
  1. #201  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    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.
    First, I ask the original question. Second, I noticed you dodged the question again (which you have to do because you know where it leads). Third, we're not excluding those countries. But, for the sake of argument, what is affirmative action if its not promoting one group over another because of perceived inequities?

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I would also not be opposed to continuing or expanding a version of our ins diversity program.
    And the only way this can be done is either to allow more immigrants in the country than we can sustain or to limit the numbers of one group to allow more of another. Which do you prefer?
  2. #202  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I cannot make out what you are attempting to say here. I believe our security needs to be strengthened.
    You are saying we need a bigger refugee / asylum policy. Canada has one and is a good example of the challenges with it, unless you put such strict security measures on it, it because another immigration program. Again.....Please see post #77 for example of security challenges with refugee / asylum policies.
  3.    #203  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    You are saying we need a bigger refugee / asylum policy. Canada has one and is a good example of the challenges with it, unless you put such strict security measures on it, it because another immigration program. Again.....Please see post #77 for example of security challenges with refugee / asylum policies.
    I dont see anything in post 77 about a relationship between the number of refugees allowed to enter, and the security of a given asylum program.
    Last edited by theBlaze74; 05/03/2006 at 04:43 PM.
  4.    #204  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    First, I ask the original question. ?
    I asked you in post #113. When did you ask?
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Second, I noticed you dodged the question again (which you have to do because you know where it leads).
    I answered your question in post 196.
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Third, we're not excluding those countries.
    You are attempting to misdirect.
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    But, for the sake of argument, what is affirmative action if its not promoting one group over another because of perceived inequities
    It is clear that you dont understand affirmative action, which I would be happy to discuss on another thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze
    I would also not be opposed to continuing or expanding a version of our ins diversity program.
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    And the only way this can be done is either to allow more immigrants in the country than we can sustain or to limit the numbers of one group to allow more of another. Which do you prefer?
    Uh, the ins diversity program is already in place.
  5. #205  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    You are saying we need a bigger refugee / asylum policy. Canada has one and is a good example of the challenges with it, unless you put such strict security measures on it, it because another immigration program. Again.....Please see post #77 for example of security challenges with refugee / asylum policies.
    I dont see anything in post 77 about a relationship between the number of refugees allowed to enter, and the security of a giver asylum program.
    The following from post #77 has no bearing the security challenges of a refugee / asylum policy?

    "Terrorists have capitalized on liberal Canadian immigration and asylum policies to enjoy safe haven, raise funds, arrange logistical support and plan terrorist attacks," the State Department said.
    or this:

    Government spokesmen are hailing the new immigration bill now before the Senate as being tough on terrorists and criminals. Yet the new bill, C-11, does not address the one area where Canada is most vulnerable -- our inadequate and overly generous asylum system. Bill C-11 will make it easier for asylum seekers to enter Canada and much more difficult to remove them after they get in.
    Or this....

    As many as 3,000 people ordered deported from Canada for human rights abuses, terrorism ties, war crimes, gangsterism links or criminal convictions continue to linger in the country, the National Post has learned.

    Rejected from settling permanently in Canada because of their criminal offences, shady pasts or the potential security risks they pose, the 3,000 are among 30,000 expulsions that have not been carried out by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).

    "Most people on removal orders are failed refugee claimants," said Cara Prest, a spokeswoman for the agency.
    And don't say, well we will just make it tougher than Canada, as they have trying to do that since 9/11 without success. How do you make security tougher for refugees / asylums without turning it into another immigration program?
  6.    #206  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze
    With all due respect, what you are likely to have heard about the immigration policy of Canada has much more to do with political propoganda than it does with fact.

    As I pointed out a bit before, the immigration policy of the United States is not only a discriminitory patchwork, but it is also about as secure as swiss cheese.

    Without demanding that you post evidence and assuming you are lying until you do, I would just encourage you to seek out objective evidence that the Canadian Immigration policy is in fact less secure as a whole than the American policy.
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze
    I dont see anything in post 77 about a relationship between the number of refugees allowed to enter, and the security of a given asylum program.
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    The following from post #77 has no bearing the security challenges of a refugee / asylum policy?
    Hobbes, Honestly man. You just fill in whatever you like for my side of the discussion. LOL? What I said was none of those support a relationship between the number of refugees allowed to enter, and security.

    And dude, lol, I just finished telling you that what you heard about Canada's Immigration policy was likely to be little more than a political stump speech, and the top oneyou posted is LITERALLY from George W's White House.
    Last edited by theBlaze74; 05/03/2006 at 05:18 PM.
  7.    #207  
    Quote Originally Posted by Hobbes
    How do you make security tougher for refugees / asylums without turning it into another immigration program?
    Perhaps I am missing your point, because I really cannot see how you are making sense.

    The immigration criteria I suggested were.
    • Knowing the national language(s)
    • Education Level
    • Working in a Field that is in highly needed
    • Pre arranging employment
    • Evidence of means to support ones self


    These are not security questions!, security would be over and above these critera, and almost completely separate, and also, security questions are not even being asked of many US immigrants currently.

    If I am not mistaken, some or all of the 9/11 hijackers would have met some or all of those criteria. But you know what...

    These are not the security questions!

    Security would have to be applied equally whether the applicant was a refugee or an Immigrant. I am not an expert, but I would assume security would include things like, criminal background checks in any country the individual has lived, checks of face and name(s) against known terrorist watch lists, questions about associations or ties to terrorist groups.

    And back to the point that i told you more than once... I cant see how any of this has a direct relationship to the number or quanity we are handling of each. In fact, i have not even suggested that we handle a net total of more or less Immigrants, so the question has no bearing anyway.
    Last edited by theBlaze74; 05/03/2006 at 05:37 PM.
  8. #208  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I asked you in post #113.
    Post #113 said nothing of affirmative action. Any link you're making to that post would be an affirmation of a comparison to affirmative action--which you deny.

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I answered your question in post 196.
    No, you dodged my question in #196 by denying a comparison which you seem to want to affirm by pointing to post #113. You can't have it both ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    You are attempting to misdirect.
    I find it ironic that you would accuse me of trying to misdirect. This whole banter has been about you wanting to throw back at me a contradiction in your position.

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    It is clear that you dont understand affirmative action, which I would be happy to discuss on another thread.
    No, I'm pretty sure I understand. But thanks. You could, however, tell me where you think US immigration limits by country differs from affirmative action. I think that would be considered on topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Uh, the ins diversity program is already in place.
    But you stated you wouldn't be opposed to expanding it. How would you both expand the diversity program and at the same time not discriminate based on country of origin?
  9.    #209  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Post #113 said nothing of affirmative action. Any link you're making to that post would be an affirmation of a comparison to affirmative action--which you deny.

    No, you dodged my question in #196 by denying a comparison which you seem to want to affirm by pointing to post #113. You can't have it both ways.

    I find it ironic that you would accuse me of trying to misdirect. This whole banter has been about you wanting to throw back at me a contradiction in your position.
    You're bickering in circles. Next topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    No, I'm pretty sure I understand. But thanks. You could, however, tell me where you think US immigration limits by country differs from affirmative action. I think that would be considered on topic.
    You might be the only individual in the nation that would equate a policy of witholding visas only for Chineese, Filipino, Indian, and Mexican immigrants to affirmative action. And then immediately after comparing our policy to affirmative action, you are somehow able to jump to the other side of the argument and suddenly be FOR affirmative action? You're a zealot hoovs, but I have to admit that is impressive.

    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    But you stated you wouldn't be opposed to expanding it. How would you both expand the diversity program and at the same time not discriminate based on country of origin?
    The question does not make sense, I think you mean how would I increase the diversity program without increasing the number of immigrants.

    I have not said that i am for or against either increasing or decreasing the number of immigrants, I have no strong opinions one way or the other.
  10. #210  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    You're bickering in circles. Next topic.
    Dodge-a-roonie!

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    You might be the only individual in the nation that would equate a policy of witholding visas only for Chineese, Filipino, Indian, and Mexican immigrants to affirmative action. And then immediately after comparing our policy to affirmative action, you are somehow able to jump to the other side of the argument and suddenly be FOR affirmative action? You're a zealot hoovs, but I have to admit that is impressive.
    First, this makes no sense. Second, I would ask where I've argued for or against affirmative action here? This is not about me, no matter how much you try to redirect. This is about you and your contradictory views which, I can only imagine, are borne out of the fact that you have family that is negatively impacted by our immigration policies. I guess that also means you don't know anyone who was passed over for a school or job because they belonged to a majority race.

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    The question does not make sense, I think you mean how would I increase the diversity program without increasing the number of immigrants.

    I have not said that i am for or against either increasing or decreasing the number of immigrants, I have no strong opinions one way or the other.
    Close. As I said before, there are two options if you increase the diversity program: a) increase immigration to beyond sustainable levels; or b) hold back immigrants from other countries. Which do you want?
  11. #211  
    Blaze, you are an amazing piece of work. You started this thread about the May day immigration rally, which was, for all intents and purposes, a rally organized by illegal immigrants from Mexico and their supporters. Your intent seemed to be one of support for their cause. And yet, based on your criteria, I'd suggest that most of the 10-20 million of them wouldn't rank well in this list. Let's take a closer look at that list...

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    The immigration criteria I suggested were.
    • Knowing the national language(s)
    • Education Level
    Not sure of specific figures, but I believe that a large percentage of the Mexicans risking their lives to cross the border for low paying, back breaking jobs are poorly educated and don't speak English.

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    • Working in a Field that is in highly needed
    I'm sure someone could make a bad joke about this. Get it? "Field". In all seriousness, this brings us back to the notion that they're doing jobs that Americans aren't willing to do. The reality, of course, is that Americans aren't willing to do these jobs for sub-standard wages.

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    • Pre arranging employment
    In the case of day laborers, they aren't guaranteed work. I suspect few of these people who are crossing the border illegally have guaranteed jobs waiting for them.

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    • Evidence of means to support ones self
    Not sure what this one means. If you're talking about that $15,000 in savings I've seen people quoting here, I doubt that any of the 10-20 million Mexican illegal immigrants would have had that prior to crossing the border, and I doubt many of the ones who've been here for several years illegally would qualify even now.
    Now THIS is the future of smartphones.
  12.    #212  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    First, this makes no sense. Second, I would ask where I've argued for or against affirmative action here? This is not about me, no matter how much you try to redirect. This is about you and your contradictory views which, I can only imagine, are borne out of the fact that you have family that is negatively impacted by our immigration policies. I guess that also means you don't know anyone who was passed over for a school or job because they belonged to a majority race.
    1.)You understand it perfectly. 2.)Are you saying your for affirmative action? 3.)No this is about the U.S. Immigration policy, I have laid out my views perfectly, feel free to share any agreements or dissgreements you have, but you don't get to decide what the conversation will be about 4.) Kindly refrain from commenting on my family
  13.    #213  
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott R
    Blaze, you are an amazing piece of work. You started this thread about the May day immigration rally, which was, for all intents and purposes, a rally organized by illegal immigrants from Mexico and their supporters. Your intent seemed to be one of support for their cause. And yet, based on your criteria, I'd suggest that most of the 10-20 million of them wouldn't rank well in this list.
    I assure you, you are not qualified to speak for the demonstrators in my city, or the reasons they showed up this week.

    Furthermore, the immigration policy in place now, explicitly witholds visas from Mexicans.

    Finally, i am not sure why you think it was ever my goal to make sure the greatest number of Mexicans can immigrate to the United States. As I have said a dozen times, I would prefer to make my own arguments, thank you.
  14. #214  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Furthermore, the immigration policy in place now, explicitly witholds visas from Mexicans.
    I would be interested in this.....Do you have any cites for this?
  15. #215  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    1.)You understand it perfectly. 2.)Are you saying your for affirmative action? 3.)No this is about the U.S. Immigration policy, I have laid out my views perfectly, feel free to share any agreements or dissgreements you have, but you don't get to decide what the conversation will be about 4.) Kindly refrain from commenting on my family
    First, don't think I missed the fact that you didn't answer any of my points. Second, as far as your family goes, if you don't want it commented on, don't mention it in the first place.
  16. #216  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott R
    Blaze, you are an amazing piece of work. You started this thread about the May day immigration rally, which was, for all intents and purposes, a rally organized by illegal immigrants from Mexico and their supporters.
    I assure you, you are not qualified to speak for the demonstrators in my city, or the reasons they showed up this week.
    Evidently, the only one here confused about the purpose of this rally is you.

    This is from your link in the original post:

    The Orlando march was part the so-called "A Day Without an Immigrant," a national effort to generate support for legislation that would allow most illegal immigrants to stay in the country and apply for legal residence.
  17.    #217  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Evidently, the only one here confused about the purpose of this rally is you. This is from your link in the original post:
    There were 20 thousand demonstrators. You cannot speak for them all, and you certainly cannot speak for me.
  18.    #218  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    First, don't think I missed the fact that you didn't answer any of my points. Second, as far as your family goes, if you don't want it commented on, don't mention it in the first place.
    This topic is closed between us.
  19.    #219  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I would be interested in this.....Do you have any cites for this?
    From the U.S. State Department Website,

    The column on the left shows how long it takes to get an immigrant visa to enter the United States for everyon except ... Indians, Chineese people, Filipionos, and Mexicans. Their visa's are witheld ... many times for years.

    And I know you knew that already, because i told you.
  20.    #220  
    And if you actually look at the dates. It is only the Filippinos and the Mexicans that are singled out.

Posting Permissions