Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 4910111213141516 LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 319
  1.    #261  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    So, let me get this straight. You're equating a restriction on immigration from certain countries that have exceeded the quota set for ALL countries with the policy of exclusion of a certain ethnic group in 1882?
    Nope. I am saying that the quota used to be based on race, and it was changed during the civil rights movement to be based on nationality.

    It is my claim that it should be based on the individual qualifications of the applicant.
  2. #262  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    By the way hoovs. Do you have any views of your own to share? Or are you simply here to attempt to impune the credibility of others that have differing views from yours?
    "Impune"?

    Blaze, you're doing a bang up job on your own credibility. I'm just addressing the inaccuracies you're posting.
  3.    #263  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I didn't even have to go back a single page to get this quote:
    Oh, I see... it's not racist, just rooted in racism. That's funny! Really funny, Blaze.
    Given that your entire purpose thus far in the thread (and in most threads from what i can see) has been to attack my credibility without respect to the issues at hand, i am surprised that it took you this long.

    You are right, it would have been more clear for me to have said that it is the quota system which forms the basis of our current immigration policy, and is the crux of the contention I have with our current that has remained unchanged since 1943. However, I am sure that there have been adjustments to the US Immigration policy in the past 60 years.
  4.    #264  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    "Impune"?

    Blaze, you're doing a bang up job on your own credibility. I'm just addressing the inaccuracies you're posting.
    Of course you are. I have noticed a pattern in almost all of your postings. You offer no ideas of your own, your seem to be here for no other reason than to undermine the credibility and sometimes character of those who have differing views from your own extreme views.
  5. #265  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Nope. I am saying that the quota used to be based on race, and it was changed during the civil rights movement to be based on nationality.

    It is my claim that it should be based on the individual qualifications of the applicant.
    But the reason it has nothing to do with racism, even being rooted in it, is because the cap is set the same for all countries. But I'm saying nothing new here, am I?
  6. #266  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Given that your entire purpose thus far in the thread (and in most threads from what i can see) has been to attack my credibility without respect to the issues at hand, i am surprised that it took you this long.
    What have I said to attack your credibility? If you think calling you on the inaccuracies you state is attacking your credibility then so be it. But I think most people recognize that its not a personal attack to say someone is wrong.
  7. #267  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Of course you are. I have noticed a pattern in almost all of your postings. You offer no ideas of your own, your seem to be here for no other reason than to undermine the credibility and sometimes character of those who have differing views from your own extreme views.
    Examples? That's a pretty harsh criticism and I would be remiss to let you make such an accusation without asking for examples.
  8.    #268  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Examples? That's a pretty harsh criticism and I would be remiss to let you make such an accusation without asking for examples.
    I have just noticed that most of your posts, in all the threads i have seen you posting are not commenting on ideas, or offering counter ideas, but are "addressing innacuracies" as you put it.
  9. #269  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I have just noticed that most of your posts, in all the threads i have seen you posting are not commenting on ideas, or offering counter ideas, but are "addressing innacuracies" as you put it.
    Then will you please retract the charge that I try to undermine people's character?
  10.    #270  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    But the reason it has nothing to do with racism, even being rooted in it, is because the cap is set the same for all countries. But I'm saying nothing new here, am I?
    For the 1 zillionth time, I have not said that our policys is Racist! I said that it is rooted in racism, because it's quota system is a hold over from an openly racist american law.

    I think my points in this thread have been crystal clear, but lets try something different.

    Let's take a somewhat hypothetical example in order to illustrate the point.

    Lets say that about 100 Swiss nationals apply for a U.S. Immigrant visa each year.

    And lets say that about 1 million Filipino nationals apply for a U.S. Immigrant visa each year.

    Lets say that based on populations alone, the United States decided to make 200 Immigrant Visa's available for Swiss nationals,

    and for the same reason make 100 thousand Visa's available for Filipinos.

    The united states would allow every single qualified Swiss in to the country, and literally withold the visas of hundreds of thousands of even more potentially qualified Filipino nationals, for no reason other than their nationality.

    And I know i am going to regret this but ... with respect to affirmative action... Quota systems such as this would not be considered affirmative action, and in fact have been ruled illegal.

    That is why I said it seems you dont have an understanding of what affirmative action is.

    On the other hand, if the united states were to adopt an immigration policy (much like this policy the president attempted to kill at the University of Michigan which was free of quotas or set asides) which built on the point system to include underrepresented minorities in the united states. I would not be opposed.

    I am for affirmative action. This quota system is NOT affirmative action.
  11.    #271  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Then will you please retract the charge that I try to undermine people's character?
    Retracted. I have heard it here, but perhaps not from you.
  12. #272  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    For the 1 zillionth time, I have not said that our policys is Racist! I said that it is rooted in racism, because it's quota system is a hold over from an openly racist american law.

    I think my points in this thread have been crystal clear, but lets try something different.

    Let's take a somewhat hypothetical example in order to illustrate the point.

    Lets say that about 100 Swiss nationals apply for a U.S. Immigrant visa each year.

    And lets say that about 1 million Filipino nationals apply for a U.S. Immigrant visa each year.

    Lets say that based on populations alone, the United States decided to make 200 Immigrant Visa's available for Swiss nationals,

    and for the same reason make 100 thousand Visa's available for Filipinos.

    The united states would allow every single qualified Swiss in to the country, and literally withold the visas of hundreds of thousands of even more potentially qualified Filipino nationals, for no reason other than their nationality.

    And I know i am going to regret this but ... with respect to affirmative action... Quota systems such as this would not be considered affirmative action, and in fact have been ruled illegal.

    That is why I said it seems you dont have an understanding of what affirmative action is.

    On the other hand, if the united states were to adopt an immigration policy (much like this policy the president attempted to kill at the University of Michigan which was free of quotas or set asides) which built on the point system to include underrepresented minorities in the united states. I would not be opposed.

    I am for affirmative action. This quota system is NOT affirmative action.
    Don't you see that either way, those hundreds of thousands of Filipinos would have to wait for their visas? Especially under a situation that gave special preference to "under-represented minorities"?
  13. #273  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Retracted. I have heard it here, but perhaps not from you.
    Thank you.
  14.    #274  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Don't you see that either way, those hundreds of thousands of Filipinos would have to wait for their visas? Especially under a situation that gave special preference to "under-represented minorities"?
    No because in the point system i suggested, being under represented would be one portion of the overall points, in the other categories, the Philippines is one of the most educated nations, in the world, they have FAR more than their share of "in demand" professionals, they all are proficient in english, they would be able to pass any security cheks, and Philippine Americans are among the top wage earners in the United States, earning even more than Whites.

    The point system is also what makes my idea close to affirmative action, and the current system NOT affirmative action. Quotas are NOT affirmative action.

    Furthermore, it is not in the spirit of the United States to judge applicants based on their nationality, rather then their individual personal merit. You dont have to call it racist if you dont like. (I have not) But it is certainly not what america stands for in my view.

    So even if that DID mean it would result in fewer Filipinos for example (which it wouldnt). It would still, be in the spirit of what our country was foundon ond, and as i said, give us the moral high ground in dealing with the millions of undocumented workers living and working inside the united states. It is hippocritical on our part to ask the mexicans to "go home" and submit to an immigration policy which is moraly bankrupt on its face, and explicitly witholds visas from them, even if they are qualified.

    Kind of what i have been saying since the begnining.
  15. #275  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    No because in the point system i suggested, being under represented would be one portion of the overall points, in the other categories, the Philippines is one of the most educated nations, in the world, they have FAR more than their share of "in demand" professionals, they all are proficient in english, they would be able to pass any security cheks, and Philippine Americans are among the top wage earners in the United States, earning even more than Whites.

    The point system is also what makes my idea close to affirmative action, and the current system NOT affirmative action. Quotas are NOT affirmative action.

    Furthermore, it is not in the spirit of the United States to judge applicants based on their nationality, rather then their individual personal merit. You dont have to call it racist if you dont like. (I have not) But it is certainly not what america stands for in my view.

    So even if that DID mean it would result in fewer Filipinos for example (which it wouldnt). It would still, be in the spirit of what our country was foundon ond, and as i said, give us the moral high ground in dealing with the millions of undocumented workers living and working inside the united states. It is hippocritical on our part to ask the mexicans to "go home" and submit to an immigration policy which is moraly bankrupt on its face, and explicitly witholds visas from them, even if they are qualified.

    Kind of what i have been saying since the begnining.
    I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think our immigration policy can be described as racist, rooted in racism, or anything even close. I think its probably one of the most, if not the most, equitable system while still trying to be somewhat concerned about national security. If only it was inforced. Furthermore, I think its utterly ridiculous to call our immigration policy "morally bankrupt". Whatever you think of it, that kind of description is absurd.

    As far as "asking Mexicans to go home", I'm sure you know that nobody here is advocating that. Please, in the future when trying to paraphrase my views, use the term "illegal alien". Now, as far as asking illegal aliens to go home, I'm not advocating that either. I'm not advocating "asking" them anything. We don't ask any other criminals to kindly turn themselves in, do we?
  16.    #276  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think our immigration policy can be described as racist, rooted in racism, or anything even close....
    Lol, when you find yourself standing on completely indefensible ground, you simply argue against a point i was not even trying to make.

    In fact, look at post #275. 90% of what you just posted had absolutely nothing to do with what was in the post to which you were responding.
  17.    #277  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    As far as "asking Mexicans to go home", I'm sure you know that nobody here is advocating that.
    Of course they have.
  18.    #278  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I think its probably one of the most, if not the most, equitable system while still trying to be somewhat concerned about national security. If only it was inforced.
    Wow, If you think the INS is doing anything close to security then you have not only never dealt with the INS, but you have never taken a look around.

    And the idea that our immigration policy was designed to somehow balance being equitable with national security is just flat out wrong.
  19.    #279  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I think its utterly ridiculous to call our immigration policy "morally bankrupt". Whatever you think of it, that kind of description is absurd.
    Of course its not abusrd, and you've taken that out of context.

    The original point was, we lack the moral high ground in any effort to ask the 12 million undocumented mexicans to immigrate legally, when we have a quota system in place that explicitly singles out and witholds visas from even qualified mexican applicants, but not from french, german, or swiss applicants.
  20. #280  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Lol, when you find yourself standing on completely indefensible ground, you simply argue against a point i was not even trying to make.
    I think the consensus is that nobody, maybe even including you, is sure what your point is.

Posting Permissions