I had a whole bunch more at first but it started wrapping and spoiled the effect.
So you’re saying that nested quoting could reach a point of diminishing returns?
Seeing as this is the Pit, this is just too good to pass up. A multiquote so that someone can post a single smiley in response. You’re going to see these a lot, and apparently I can’t do anything to stop it.
And, yes, if you think one group of people is less deserving of jobs than another, you are racist–people who live in the U.S. somehow deserve to be better treated than those who are from elsewhere. That’s just US vs. THEM bullshit.
Hahaha, you seriously think I’m lying? What, like I was born in Mexico and moved here five years ago by hopping a fence in Texas?
Emphasis added. You *still *haven’t figured out I’m not a man?
Newsflash: Not wanting to think of yourself as RACIST doesn’t mean you’re not RACIST. You *are *truly unable to digest that fact, because you want to still be able to look yourself in the eye in the mirror.
Requiring all brown people to carry papers with them everywhere like A FUCKING PARODY OF NAZI FUCKING GERMANY is not the correct way to deal with the problem of immigration in America, and it ***is ***obscenely racist.
So, you’re not actually going to DEFINE YOUR FUCKING TERMS?
I’m trying to engage you honestly here, and you keep fucking sidestepping me. I can only assume that you know you’re wrong, or you’ve realized that you don’t remember the point you were trying to make, or you’re just being deliberately obtuse to push my fucking buttons.
So just TELL ME what you FUCKING MEAN by “disfavored.” Because so far, I’ve pointed out repeatedly how a lottery system WOULD NOT disfavor ANY group trying to enter the U.S.–i.e., I have DISPROVED your assertion that ALL forms of immigration inherently “disfavor” some ethnic group. And unless you are making up your own meaning of that word, that’s absolutely not the case.
So, please do me the COMMON FUCKING COURTESY of responding to a simple request for you to DEFINE YOUR FUCKING WORDS. Or just concede that you were talking out your ass.
I thought people could handle them. “Oh,” I said, “people on this board are smart enough to delete the irrelevant bits.”
I was wrong.
Well, there has to be some “us” versus “them.” The problem is when “us” is defined as “white America” and “them” is defined as “all those brown people.” The problem is also when there’s no good route for a non-American “them” to become an American “us.” We can acknowledge that immigration is broken in the U.S. without saying that we have to completely open our doors to anybody and everybody who wants to move here, and without saying that we have to devote all of our resources outside of the country.
You can’t, because you’re a feckless, gormless, nutless, whiny, passive-aggressive little bitch. Even when nested quotes were disabled we had plenty of people replying to a pages-long post just to add a smiley. Get the fuck over your wanna-be martyred self and shut the fuck up.
In the post immediately adjacent to yours, Buck Godot says:
Don’t you find yourself wondering, just a bit, why he got it and you can’t? Wouldn’t this be a time to adopt, perhaps, a slightly more humble tone, knowing that if, indeed, it turned out I was wrong, you’d still have plenty of room for vitriol afterwards?
Here’s a very simply explanation:
Mostly, other ethnic groups are the ones who wish to immigrate to the United States – groups other than the classic “White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant” that is the classic American.
Since all immigration laws keep them out, all immigration laws disfavor those groups. It’s true that of the groups that wish to get in, one group may not be more burdened than another. But all, save the groups already here and unaffected by immigration laws, are so burdened.
Even simpler, in words of one syllable, sacrificing nuance for something you may be able to grasp:
Brown folks want in. White folks in now. Brown folks hurt more by law.
I understand your efforts to reach out and break down your massive cognitive capacity in terms lesser minds can grasp. But let me remark in hope of promoting clarity. I swear on the soul of Saul Alinsky that I intend not the slightest snark when I say:
I have no idea what you are talking about.
The ethnic distribution of those who want to immigrate to the U.S. is (ideally) incidental to our immigration policies: i.e., they would be the same regardless of whether 99% of our prospective immigrants were coming from Mexico or England. Because the laws are the same regardless of who is applying, THEY DO NOT DISFAVOR ANY ETHNIC GROUP.
Your clarification, by the way, shows that you’ve been saying exactly the same thing all along as I thought: fucking nonsense. It didn’t make sense to me, because it doesn’t make sense to anyone who fucking speaks English.
Now, it could be accurate to say something like this:
There is no “fair” standard for limited immigration that could result, in a timely fashion, in a balance of ethnic groups in the United States.
But to say that it’s impossible to have immigration controls that do not disfavor some ethnic group… That’s *fucking retarded *and a misuse of the word.
See? I’m not the only person who thinks you’re talking out your fucking ass.
Since I have been invoked as a person who didn’t get it before and now “get’s it”, I’ll try to bridge the gap. I think the problem is that people are over-thinking Bricker’s point which is really actually quite obvious and doesn’t actually have a whole lot of ramifications as far as the debate goes.
So here is my restating the logic in as clear terms as I can.
- Certain people in the world are legal US residents, and have associated privileges.
- The majority of the people who are legal US residents are white.
- The majority of the people in the world who are not US residents are not white
- Any immigration laws we are likely to have would say that US residents or are children of such residents are going to remain legal US residents, but that those who are not legal US residents will be limited in their ability to become legal residents.
Therefor such laws as in 4 are preferential towards giving privileges those who are already legal residents (who happen to be mostly white) and are in some sense discriminatory against those who are not already legal residents. The only alternative would be to fully open our borders and allow all who desire it to become a legal resident, or else have a world wide lottery for residents in which even US citizens had to apply and after which a good number would be deported.
However this doesn’t really address whether we are being as fair as we can in terms of choosing which people to add to the list of legal residents.
Not quite what I said. His analysis may be cogent, brilliant, and dispositive. I have no idea.
I know you’re not speaking for Bricker, but this only makes any sense if we assume that people who are already residents are in some sense subject to immigration laws, when obviously they aren’t.
Channeling Bricker, I think this is exactly the point. People who are already residents are not subject to immigration laws while those who are not legal residents are subject to such laws. Thus the any impediment to becoming a legal resident is in some sense discriminatory against those who are not current legal residents, as they do not get the privileges reserved for those who are legal.
Its really a sort of, the sky is blue and rain is wet, kind of statement.
It doesn’t address anything, is the problem. It’s meaningless, because **Bricker’s **creating his own personal definition for the word “disfavor.” Look, just to show you how fucking retarded this is, I’m going to dredge back up the posts that started the whole thing:
That was **Bricker’s **“argument”–that because some ethnic groups have more people who want to immigrate and/or there are more of them currently outside the U.S. than inside it (or something), any kind of restrictions on immigration would “disfavor” those groups.
Now, from a historical sense, you could say that people who are currently trying to immigrate to the U.S. face greater barriers than historical immigrants. So, a family moving from Mexico today *is disfavored *compared to a family that sailed over on the Mayflower four hundred years ago.
But that’s not the same thing as saying that you *can’t *create any immigration policy that doesn’t disfavor certain ethnic groups.
Correct. Which is why I said, why back when, “…I think this is fair territory to observe, ‘no shit.’ Yes, our immigration laws, almost by definition, put members of some ethnic groups at a disadvantage. That’s essentially a necessary consequence of immigration laws.” Sky is blue, water is wet. Point obvious to all but brilliant intelligentsia propelled from firearms.
So, despite your refusal to *actually address me *(as per usual, big fucking shock), you *do *seem to be claiming that this is a *historical *comparison?
So, what would you say to an immigration policy that was unrestricted for underrepresented ethnic groups and heavily restricted for overrepresented groups? Would you term that a policy that “did not disfavor” any groups?
In this thread alone, I actually addressed you here.
Once more here. And still again here. And (admittedly self-referentially) here.
To save time, perhaps you could provide the reading audience with a list of shit you won’t lie about.
And yet, it was only in the penultimate post that you responded in *any *way to my *repeated *and *very simple *request to concretely define what you meant by “disfavor.” And yet again, you still have failed to address any of my follow-up objections to your fucking retarded personal definition of the word.
Orgasms.
So, your argument is that immigration restrictions are discriminatory against people who are already here? Really?
Well, okay, but so fucking what? That’s like saying that serving meals in prison is discriminatory to hungry unincarcerated people.
Actually, I’m pretty sure his argument is that any restrictions on immigration now are discriminatory against minorities who aren’t here yet, because all the whites who are here now are the descendents of the people who got here back when immigration *wasn’t restricted (at least for their ethnic groups).
*Because we know how much they loved the Irish, and the Italians, and the Catholics in general, and…