Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 319
  1.    #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    And that's different than implying racism how?
    Not what I said. I said, you choose your words, and I will choose mine.
  2. #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Not what I said. I said, you choose your words, and I will choose mine.
    Oh, but Blaze, you've been choosing your words all along. And all along they've either outright stated you think our immigration policy is racist or implied it by using words like "browner".

    So, maybe you want to take some time and figure out what you really mean.
  3.    #103  
    I think I have already responded to that. My words stand on their own.
  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I think I have already responded to that. My words stand on their own.
    Okay then. If we agree that you believe our immigration policy is racist then why aren't countries from Southeast Asia (except the Philippines) and Africa in the "browner" column? Am I clear now?
  5. #105  
    Blaze, could it be that it takes longer for people from China, India, Mexico and the Philippines to get visas than anyone else is because there are many, many more of them applying for visas? And, could it be that, far from being racist, those in charge of issuing visas are just trying to level the playing field for people from all countries? In fact, there's more racial equity in this kind of a system than in a "first come, first serve" system.
  6. #106  
    (I've been too busy to read most of this thread so maybe some of this has already been addressed)

    one of the biggest obstacles to cracking down on illegal workers has been those who employ them.

    meat packers, operators of restaurants and janitorial services etc. want to have a pool of desperate laborers who can effectively lower the wages paid in these professions -- thereby creating the self fulfilling result that few americans are willing to do those jobs at the resulting low wages.

    Supply and demand works for laborers as well as products. When there's a surplus of people willing to work as janitors, busboys etc. the wages that get paid are inevitably lowered. The corporate exploitation grows profits, hurts those least able to get work, while attracting more and more migrants.

    One of the unspoken messages of the big immigrant rallies is that its too late to do anything but accept the inevitable absorption of these millions of illegal migrants -- i.e you can't send 12 million people back.

    But the effects of the recent show of arrests at IFCO -- (which yielded more apprehensions than almost the entire 5 previous years of this administration) prove that that is not so certain.

    Until now when an employer pretends that he can't know whether his workers who can't speak english are legal or not, its a lie thatís been without cost or consequence.

    But an aggressive crackdown on employers who exploit illegals would dry up demand -- and this would eventually lead to a major voluntary repatriation process.

    Europe has powerfully shown the dangers of importing cheap uneducated, unsophisticated labor from 3rd world countries. This is especially the case when they are in such large numbers that they can recreate their own lanquage and culture within the host society.

    One problem is that they become a permanent underclass -- increasingly resentful, impatient, and angry. LA and Wash.DC have for example, major criminal gangs that have originated in 2nd generation US hispanics migrants.

    European countries have started to insist that migrants know the language and culture of the country they want to migrate to -- this is an obvious and reasonable requirement for economic refugees.
    Last edited by BARYE; 05/03/2006 at 03:43 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  7. #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    There are many problems, but the crux of my biggest issue with our policy is that we do not have one policy with the same rules for everyone.

    Why should we have one policy for a German or Croatian man, and a different policy for a Mexican or a Filipino.
    Why SHOULD we have a blanket policy? We recognize and treat all countries and peoples differently based on many things.
    Some of which are political, economics, world health standing, history, criminal or otherwise, and I could go on.
    Each and every head that comes through has a different history and background than anyone else.
    I for one DO NOT want to see them all covered with the same blanket!

    Guess what? LIFE IS NOT FAIR! - FACT. So quit whinning and get over yourself.
    If I invite you to stay in my home, please treat it and me with the level of respect that I decide, and live by the house rules.

    I'm sorry... you don't like having to wipe your feet when you come in?
    You don't like having to be in by 10 pm just because I say so? TUFF!
    My house, my rules. You are a guest.
    Can't deal with rules? Get the F%^k out!

    Bottom line:
    It's our house. You live by the rules WE put in place (fair or not.)
    If you don't like the rules, by all means let's talk about maybe changing the rules. We can do that. But don't tell me that just because you've gotten away with pissing on the toilet seat for the last 25 years, that I'm now supposed to be ok with it.
    Last edited by TheLiveSoundGuy; 05/03/2006 at 07:31 AM.

    Thread Crapper
    ~ August 16,2005 Poll-Master ~
    August 17, 2005 Century Club Member ~ August 29, 2005

    I have a fondness for intelligence.
    I often black out when doing something really stupid. I supose that's why I'm such a danger to my self
    .



  8. #108  
    Ah Blaze, so instead of responding to any of the points I made, you decide that you sense bitterness in me and accuse me of being a racist. Ha!

    Rest assured, I am not bitter towards my Indian coworkers. If I was in their position, I might do the same. But as a US citizen, I do feel bitter towards US companies that fire expensive US tech workers only to hire H1B's and offshore work while claiming that there's a shortage of skilled US workers. And I'm bitter towards our elected officials who allow them to do this, rather than standing on the side of the working/middle class US citizens. And as I mentioned before, as the next generation of college grads choose non-tech careers, this will prove to be very bad for the long-term health of this country.
    Now THIS is the future of smartphones.
  9.    #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott R
    Ah Blaze, so instead of responding to any of the points I made, you decide that you sense bitterness in me and accuse me of being a racist. Ha!

    Rest assured, I am not bitter towards my Indian coworkers. If I was in their position, I might do the same. But as a US citizen, I do feel bitter towards US companies that fire expensive US tech workers only to hire H1B's and offshore work while claiming that there's a shortage of skilled US workers. And I'm bitter towards our elected officials who allow them to do this, rather than standing on the side of the working/middle class US citizens. And as I mentioned before, as the next generation of college grads choose non-tech careers, this will prove to be very bad for the long-term health of this country.
    I certainly did not say that, and yes you have a point.
  10.    #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLiveSoundGuy
    Why SHOULD we have a blanket policy? We recognize and treat all countries and peoples differently based on many things. Some of which are political, economics, world health standing, history, criminal or otherwise, and I could go on. Each and every head that comes through has a different history and background than anyone else. I for one DO NOT want to see them all covered with the same blanket!
    So you are saying we should judge each individual immigrant based on the criminal/health/economic history of his nationality? And not on his OWN INDIVIDUAL criminal/heath/economic history? Interesting viewpoint, but it doesn't factor in to our current policy.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheLiveSoundGuy
    Guess what? LIFE IS NOT FAIR! - FACT. So quit whinning and get over yourself. ...... You don't like having to be in by 10 pm just because I say so? TUFF! My house, my rules. You are a guest. Can't deal with rules? Get the F%^k out!
    So, now you are calling our policy unfair? Hmm, make up your mind.
  11. #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    So you are saying we should judge each individual immigrant based on the criminal/health/economic history of his nationality? And not on his OWN INDIVIDUAL criminal/heath/economic history? Interesting viewpoint, but it doesn't factor in to our current policy.

    So, now you are calling our policy unfair? Hmm, make up your mind.
    Well that was a good attempt to twist what I said, but you really failed.... miserably!

    Thread Crapper
    ~ August 16,2005 Poll-Master ~
    August 17, 2005 Century Club Member ~ August 29, 2005

    I have a fondness for intelligence.
    I often black out when doing something really stupid. I supose that's why I'm such a danger to my self
    .



  12.    #112  
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLiveSoundGuy
    Well that was a good attempt to twist what I said, but you really failed.... miserably!
    Lol, ok and no attempt to point out the distinction.
  13.    #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Blaze, could it be that it takes longer for people from China, India, Mexico and the Philippines to get visas than anyone else is because there are many, many more of them applying for visas? And, could it be that, far from being racist, those in charge of issuing visas are just trying to level the playing field for people from all countries? In fact, there's more racial equity in this kind of a system than in a "first come, first serve" system.
    Again, racist was your word, but you are beginning to catch on.

    But more accurately, the reason the United States created a waiting list for China, India, Mexico, and Phillippines is because "there are many, many more of them" as you put it, or more specifically, it is the policy of the United States that we "have enough of them", or yet another way to put it would be that we currently have a policy that is intended to preserve the racial makeup of our country rather than a policy that judges each person on his or her own merit. For someone who talks as much as you do about personal responsibility and accountability, i am suprised that you are taking this stance.

    And with respect to "leveling the playing field" for people from other countries, how is it a more fair policy, or a policy better for the United States, to deny more qualified applicants, or accept less qualified applicants based on their nationality.
  14. #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    And with respect to "leveling the playing field" for people from other countries, how is it a more fair policy, or a policy better for the United States, to deny more qualified applicants, or accept less qualified applicants based on their nationality.
    So now you want only the "qualified" ones? In your opinion, what exactly makes one more or less "qualified"? Given many of the statements you've made here, I'm starting to get your mindset. Makes me ask myself, why do we even need borders in the first place. Afterall we are the land of the free. If you get a toe across the line, you're safe. Having said that, hell why do we even need a line? Let's all just wander the planet totally free of resrtictions. I'm starting to like this idea. You may be onto something here!

    Thread Crapper
    ~ August 16,2005 Poll-Master ~
    August 17, 2005 Century Club Member ~ August 29, 2005

    I have a fondness for intelligence.
    I often black out when doing something really stupid. I supose that's why I'm such a danger to my self
    .



  15. #115  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Again, racist was your word, but you are beginning to catch on.

    But more accurately, the reason the United States created a waiting list for China, India, Mexico, and Phillippines is because "there are many, many more of them" as you put it, or more specifically, it is the policy of the United States that we "have enough of them", or yet another way to put it would be that we currently have a policy that is intended to preserve the racial makeup of our country rather than a policy that judges each person on his or her own merit. For someone who talks as much as you do about personal responsibility and accountability, i am suprised that you are taking this stance.

    And with respect to "leveling the playing field" for people from other countries, how is it a more fair policy, or a policy better for the United States, to deny more qualified applicants, or accept less qualified applicants based on their nationality.
    Let's take you argument at face value......you say it is discrimination to divide those who are allowed in.

    First question, do you think there should be a cap on the amount of immigrants (that would mean legal ones) that come in each year? I assume yes.

    With that assumption, do you know how many applicants apply from the "browner" countries than from the whiter countries?

    I mean, for the sake of round numbers. If there were no country by country caps, with a total of 500,000 allowed a year. You say that we allow them in on their own merit (regional health concerns, political environment of original country, terrorist supporting ties of gov, etc... all ignored) and 600,000 apply from the "Browner" countries. And 600,000 apply from the whiter countries.

    You then put in the requirements based on a point system of their achievements and possessions (monetary, knowledge, linguistics, etc...). Where do you think the richer countries are from? EU, Asian, Middle East, Africa? Chances are the EU (which I am including Russia in this cat as well) tops the list. Without specific research I would say that the Middle East is next. Followed then by Africa and Asia as many countries are dirt poor with little opportunities for education or money with a select few other ones that a lot richer.

    If the points are based on the person's ability to
    • speak the language (have to have an education or higher education which is often times only available in the richer countries),
    • have a savings of your example of $15,000 (again virtually impossible in many "browner" countries, giving the whiter countries a better chance),
    • They have a professional skill (again, unless a labor skill more available to applicants from richer countries),
    • Have a sponsor (this would have to a legal citizen and if more "whiter" immigrants have been let in the past or earn their way on your points then this discriminates against the "browner" nations again),

    We might find out that fewer from the "browner" countries are allowed in because more from the whiter countries have higher points, hence the current way with a set amount guaranteed in provides more opportunities than a individually earned point system.

    If you do not have research on these numbers, or the impact of the nationalities that would actually meet these requirements would be for the USA (other country stats very well probably don't apply), then everything is conjecture, second guessing, opinionated, etc...about the numbers that are being entered now, as you may find more "browner" immigrants are allowed in now than with your proposal. Without specific research we will never know.
  16. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #116  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Again, racist was your word, but you are beginning to catch on.

    But more accurately, the reason the United States created a waiting list for China, India, Mexico, and Phillippines is because "there are many, many more of them" as you put it, or more specifically, it is the policy of the United States that we "have enough of them", or yet another way to put it would be that we currently have a policy that is intended to preserve the racial makeup of our country rather than a policy that judges each person on his or her own merit. For someone who talks as much as you do about personal responsibility and accountability, i am suprised that you are taking this stance.

    And with respect to "leveling the playing field" for people from other countries, how is it a more fair policy, or a policy better for the United States, to deny more qualified applicants, or accept less qualified applicants based on their nationality.
    Blaze, I know it is probably difficult for you to keep up with your current position or story, but if you will go back and read the first 5 post on this thread you will see that someone using the name theBlaze74 was the first person to bring up racism. So in fact it is that person who used the word first (theBlaze74) gets the credit for the word.

    I don't find it that hard to comprehend why there are different dates for different countries, how about the ease of the person desiring to come to America (get airfare from Sudan or walk 20 miles), considering the ease of some to arrive in America, the sheer numbers should tell you that it would be unfair to citizens of other countries since we can not open the doors and let everyone in today. We have to be able to provide certain level of support to immigrants (safety and security issues of the individuals as well as our country). If a person from Bulgaria decided to fly into JFK without proper paperwork should they be granted amnesty or should they be returned to country of origin?
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  17. #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    (I've been too busy to read most of this thread so maybe some of this has already been addressed)

    one of the biggest obstacles to cracking down on illegal workers has been those who employ them.

    meat packers, operators of restaurants and janitorial services etc. want to have a pool of desperate laborers who can effectively lower the wages paid in these professions -- thereby creating the self fulfilling result that few americans are willing to do those jobs at the resulting low wages.

    Supply and demand works for laborers as well as products. When there's a surplus of people willing to work as janitors, busboys etc. the wages that get paid are inevitably lowered. The corporate exploitation grows profits, hurts those least able to get work, while attracting more and more migrants.

    One of the unspoken messages of the big immigrant rallies is that its too late to do anything but accept the inevitable absorption of these millions of illegal migrants -- i.e you can't send 12 million people back.

    But the effects of the recent show of arrests at IFCO -- (which yielded more apprehensions than almost the entire 5 previous years of this administration) prove that that is not so certain.

    Until now when an employer pretends that he can't know whether his workers who can't speak english are legal or not, its a lie thatís been without cost or consequence.

    But an aggressive crackdown on employers who exploit illegals would dry up demand -- and this would eventually lead to a major voluntary repatriation process.

    Europe has powerfully shown the dangers of importing cheap uneducated, unsophisticated labor from 3rd world countries. This is especially the case when they are in such large numbers that they can recreate their own lanquage and culture within the host society.

    One problem is that they become a permanent underclass -- increasingly resentful, impatient, and angry. LA and Wash.DC have for example, major criminal gangs that have originated in 2nd generation US hispanics migrants.

    European countries have started to insist that migrants know the language and culture of the country they want to migrate to -- this is an obvious and reasonable requirement for economic refugees.
    Very good post....we are in the same line of thinking on this!

    .....I think it is time to make another appointment with my therapist!
  18. #118  
    Barye and Hobbes:

    You are both right on target. You can't stop this problem from the supply side; it has to be a demand driven solution. During the rallies, NBC interviewed a contruction contractor who openly admitted he hired illegal immigrants, and would hire even more. Those employers who tell you they "just can't tell if they're legal" are lying through their teeth and just want that supply of extraordinarily cheap labor to support their profits. Does it mean that lettuce, tomato, and lawncare service prices will increase - sure it does. But should we be willing to exploit these workers, and deny decent wages to our own unemployed, in the process?

    With all this talk of a "guest worker program" are we going to mandate they get living wages as well, or just whatever the market will bear?
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  19.    #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Blaze, I know it is probably difficult for you to keep up with your current position or story, but if you will go back and read the first 5 post on this thread you will see that someone using the name theBlaze74 was the first person to bring up racism. So in fact it is that person who used the word first (theBlaze74) gets the credit for the word.
    You're misrepresenting me. Rooted in racism was about Chineese Exclusion act. Read it again.
  20. #120  
    Curiously, I find myself agreeing with both Live Sound Guy and Barye!

    Neither party has been aggressive on the two things we need to do: seal the border, and deal appropriately with those who are here.

    I wonder if businesses (landscapers, etc.- at the risk of perpetuating the stereotype) would gain or lose if they advertized "We hire only legal citizens!". They may have to charge a bit more, but would hopefully get more business from patriotic Americans who are tired of the invasion. But, I'm afraid the backlash and being accused of being racists would preclude them advertising such. Instead, they try to compete with legal workers, or give in because "everyone else does it" and hire the illegals while pushing the issue under the rug.

    A shame.
    "Everybody Palm!"

    Palm III/IIIC, Palm Vx, Verizon: Treo 650, Centro, Pre+.
    Leo killed my future Pre 3 & Opal, dagnabitt!
    Should I buy a Handspring Visor instead?
    Got a Pre2! "It eats iPhones for Breakfast"!
Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions