Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 319
  1. #141  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Furthermore, it is relevant because the racist 1882 policy was reformed during the civil rights movement, but not completely eradicated with a fresh policy put in place. This resulted in the policy we have now, decades old, rooted in racism, designed to maintain the "racial balance" of America, not to treat every potential immigrant equally.

    Since there is a cap on the number of immigrants every year and you have not said anything about wanting to remove the cap, how do you begin to look at who can come in and who should be put on a waiting list if not based upon the number of applicants from the given country? What criteria do you suggest we use?
    Trust me, I'm a producer.
  2.    #142  
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLiveSoundGuy
    Again with this blanket equality notion of yours. Potential immigrants are NOT equal to each other, and can/should not be treated equal to each other.
    Don't equate equal with fairness. They are not the same. So which do you prefer? Equal or Fair? And don't you dare say both. Both may not be an option available to you.
    I am not sure if you just dont understand, or if you are intentiallally twisting what i say. I have no "blanket" ideas about Immigration. I have said that each potential immigrant should be evaluated individually on the basis of his or her merit.
  3.    #143  
    Quote Originally Posted by mymellowman
    Since there is a cap on the number of immigrants every year and you have not said anything about wanting to remove the cap, how do you begin to look at who can come in and who should be put on a waiting list if not based upon the number of applicants from the given country? What criteria do you suggest we use?
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze
    The point i made about the Canadian Immigration policy was that Canada has One Policy For Everyone. The Canadian policy is a point system whereby the appilcant gets points for speaking the national languages, for educatioin, for working in a field that Canada is in need of, and for pre arranging his or her employment. The applicant is also required to have enough money to support him / her self, last i looked i think it was around 15 thousand dollars.
    something like this
  4. #144  
    Well with doomsday getting closer by the second, this debate of yours goes nowhere. Out of the 142 post in this thread you started by phishing, exactly 0 have sided with you on this issue. In my book that reads: Us 142, You 0

    I'm man enough to admit,
    You Win!

    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
    .



  5. #145  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I have said that each potential immigrant should be evaluated individually on the basis of his or her merit.
    But you still have not answered my points of whether the current system or your system would allow more variety of immigrants into this country up in post #115 . You simply blew it off with:
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Again you are attempting misdirect and make my arguments for me. I wont allow it.
    How do you know that the current system does not allow more diversity than one that you propose which could potentially eliminate a lot applicants from poorer countries with less original opportunity in their homeland. Without this research or consideration of this possibility to call either discriminatory is baseless.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 05/03/2006 at 12:12 PM.
  6. #146  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    However I have said that we should take much more than our fair share of refugees.
    Wait, you made a big deal that we are NOT talking about refugees and asylum cases, which as I pointed out do have many security concerns. So you are for it now?
  7. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #147  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    something like this
    I missed that post earlier. Now that policy would definately eliminate a lot of individuals from coming to America, at least eliminate a lot of the legal immigrants, those who do not follow the policy now sure would not be able to apply under those conditions, so they would just do what they are doing now. How would you handle the illegal aliens under your proposed plan?
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  8.    #148  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    But you still have not answered my points of whether the current system or your system would allow more variety of immigrants into this country up in post # . You simply blew it off with:

    How do you know that the current system does not allow more diversity than one that you propose which could potentially eliminate a lot applicants from poorer countries with less original opportunity in their homeland. Without this research or consideration of this possibility to call either discriminatory is baseless.
    The reason is because I have not said the current system allows for less diversity. In fact, I have said that the current system atempts to maintain the current racial makeup of america (which is diverse). The problem is you often attempt to define BOTH sides of the argument.

    I prefer to make my own points.
  9. #149  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Again, racist was your word, but you are beginning to catch on.
    No, sorry, that was your word. It's on the first page of this thread if anyone is wondering.

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    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.
    Here again, despite your objections, you pull the race card. You're really just playing word games at this point.

    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.
    Because if they didn't, people like you would scream "Racism!"
  10.    #150  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Wait, you made a big deal that we are NOT talking about refugees and asylum cases, which as I pointed out do have many security concerns. So you are for it now?
    I am for a broad, compassionate, responsible, yet secure asylum policy.
  11.    #151  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    No, sorry, that was your word. It's on the first page of this thread if anyone is wondering.

    Here again, despite your objections, you pull the race card. You're really just playing word games at this point.

    Because if they didn't, people like you would scream "Racism!"
    I cant see any worthwile points here to rebut.
  12. #152  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I cant see any worthwile points here to rebut.
    Why start now?
  13. #153  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    The reason is because I have not said the current system allows for less diversity. In fact, I have said that the current system atempts to maintain the current racial makeup of america (which is diverse). The problem is you often attempt to define BOTH sides of the argument.

    I prefer to make my own points.
    If you say the system is based on racism (which inherently means that their is discrimination), and that selected peoples are being denied entry due to their nationality (which inherently means that their is discrimination), and then point out that we need to change the system to a point based system.

    I simply pointed out that your arguments against the current system of not allowing a fair shake for all who want to come in can be used against your point based system you are proposing.

    You then dodge that aspect of the argument every time.
  14. #154  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I am for a broad, compassionate, responsible, yet secure asylum policy.
    Fine, souds great, but The Devil is in the details, which we cannot get you to address.
  15.    #155  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I missed that post earlier. Now that policy would definately eliminate a lot of individuals from coming to America, at least eliminate a lot of the legal immigrants, those who do not follow the policy now sure would not be able to apply under those conditions, so they would just do what they are doing now. How would you handle the illegal aliens under your proposed plan?
    I havent decided on the issue of what to do with the millions that are already here. However any border enforcement, amnesty, guest worker, or even deportation, policy we put in place should at least have the moral high ground of having a basis in equality and fairness.
  16.    #156  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    If you say the system is based on racism (chineese exclusion act) (which inherently means that their is discrimination), and that selected peoples are being denied entry due to their nationality (which inherently means that their is discrimination), and then point out that we need to change the system to a point based system.

    I simply pointed out that your arguments against the current system of not allowing a fair shake for all who want to come in can be used against your point based system you are proposing.

    You then dodge that aspect of the argument every time.
    No, I said our current immigration policy is rooted in racism. And again as always you attempt to disect and re-interperet what i have said to better fit your argument.
  17.    #157  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Fine, souds great, but The Devil is in the details, which we cannot get you to address.
    I have no problem discussing the details. What details do you want?
  18. #158  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    However any border enforcement, amnesty, guest worker, or even deportation, policy we put in place should at least have the moral high ground of having a basis in equality and fairness.
    There lies the challenge. What is equal among all who apply. If you use education then many 3rd world countries are being treated equal or fairly. If you sponsorship, then all first gen immigrants are not be treated equal or fairly. If you financing, then if you are not from a rich country or family you are not being treated equal or fairly. If you use health, then those seeking better medical aid or those that do not medical aid are not being treated equal or fairly. If you use professional skills, then those from labor based economies are not being treated equal or fairly.

    How do you have a equal or fair immigration system based on points with out being discriminatory?

    If adopted a liberal refugee or asylum policy without the same screen as immigrants, then secure becomes a huge issue.
  19. #159  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I have no problem discussing the details. What details do you want?
    That is what I have been trying to do......see Post #115 & 158 would be fine.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 05/03/2006 at 12:51 PM.
  20. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #160  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I havent decided on the issue of what to do with the millions that are already here. However any border enforcement, amnesty, guest worker, or even deportation, policy we put in place should at least have the moral high ground of having a basis in equality and fairness.
    Would it be fair and equal to say; you broke the law, go directly home, do not pass go do not collect $200, once home here is the paperwork to apply in the legal manner? Or would it be more fair and equal to say; As of this date, if you were able to sneak in and you are here you are automatically a citizen, if you want to come in after today, follow these rules, learn to speak, read and write english, save $15,000, learn a skill we need (weed-whacker 101 is in high demand this month) and then call us at this number.

    But, my question of what would you do with the illegal aliens under the new plan, just because there is a new plan does not mean those who can not or decide not to follow the plan will not come across the border. What would you do with new illegal aliens under your porposed plan (remember to be fair)
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions