"Concerned Citizens of the United States" Looking Out for Our Interests!

[Yeticus Rex]

Utah and Arizona sharing a common border......hmmmm......it's spreading. Grand Canyon used to be a natural buffer.

 

[jsgoddess]

Then act like one! might be a stretch, speaking of...

Have I had an aneurysm or does this make no sense?

 

[Mr. Excellent]

I hope every person who had any part in compiling and diseminating this list gets raped by a bear.

Twice.

What have you got against bears? What did they ever do to you?

 

[Tom Scud]

Have I had an aneurysm or does this make no sense?

Kibbled Swarthmore. Dinosaur mosquito flan bring holm fistula elasmosaurus!

:dubious:

 

[Shot From Guns]

Brown folks want in. White folks in now. Brown folks hurt more by law.

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.

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.

See? I'm not the only person who thinks you're talking out your fucking ass.

 

[Shot From Guns]

Messicans. Git yer pronounciations rite.

I can't decide if I wouldn't rather lean towards "my father's many Mehican workers" territory.

Yeah ARIZONA. Yeah UTAH.

What is up with all the fucking racists coming out of the woodwork on this board recently?

In simpler terms, the people outside that want to get in are not distributed evenly across all known ethnic groups. Any restrictions at all on getting in thus disfavors ome ethnic groups more than others.

That's fucking retarded. By this "logic," LGBT people are "disfavored" when it comes to getting jobs, because there are more straight people.

 

[jsgoddess]

Kibbled Swarthmore. Dinosaur mosquito flan bring holm fistula elasmosaurus!

:dubious:

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

 

[ivan astikov]

We actually have a lot of Eastern European immigrants, and they do work hard, and are not bad drunks.

Don't recall saying they all were. Do you want some of our whinging, white, "The Paki's have took all our jobs!", disaffected youths, then?

 

[elucidator]

And the guys stumbles back into the bar, a bloody mess, cut to ribbons and slashed to pieces and says "OK, so where's the Eskimo woman I'm supposed to shoot?"

- from the Archives of Lost Punchlines, Volume Six

 

[Buck Godot]

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.

1) Certain people in the world are legal US residents, and have associated privileges.
2) The majority of the people who are legal US residents are white.
3) The majority of the people in the world who are not US residents are not white
4) 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.

 

[Lust4Life]

You can either restrict immigration to your country by various rules and expectations, which is not immoral, its your country and its you who have made it wealthy.

OR, you can allow unrestricted immigration and pretty soon it won't be a wealthy country or the land of opportunity...............

It will be another third world country.

I've said this before, but I'm always sceptical of the people ardently defending immigration at will to the U.S. when they portray themselves as liberal, defenders of human rights.

How many of these people are actually either illegal immigrants themselves, would be I.M.s, related or friends with I.M.s ?




Or for that matter are unscrupulous employers who exploit them as semi slave labour.

I've no doubt that for every person who has a nice house there are plenty more who think that for some reason they too have some sort of moral right to live in that persons house regardless of the fact that they have played no part in its construction and regardless of the opinions of the house owners.


I suspect that the house owners would disagree.

 

[Mr. Excellent]

I am going to make sure we stop documenting residency status, so we would not be compelled to release information someday that could be used in this way; what you don't have, you can't be subpoenaed into providing.

For what it's worth - I think this is *precisely* the correct response to this mess. It protects against both subpoenas and ne'er-do-wells, and it adhers to the common-sense principle that you should never retain more personal information about a client than you absolutely require. Good on you for taking this step, Bricker.

Out of curiosity, why did you record residency status originally? Was it to get an idea of what public social services these women would be eligible for?

ETA: Read first, then post. Read first, then post. I'll learn someday, I promise.

 

[Bosstone]

That's o.k.-nobody here really wants to hear about your congenitals.

I could stand to hear more.

 

[Khaki Campbell]

We'll swap you some of our drunken East European immigrants for some of your hard-working, low-pay expecting wetbacks.

Dude, I'll trade any day your drunken East European immigrants against our ""French"" car-burning, 400-word vocabulary, white-teenage-girl-raping, arab and black suburb youths.

 

[elucidator]

See? I'm not the only person who thinks you're talking out your fucking ass.

Not quite what I said. His analysis may be cogent, brilliant, and dispositive. I have no idea.

 

[Kolga]

Kibbled Swarthmore. Dinosaur mosquito flan bring holm fistula elasmosaurus!

:dubious:

Purple monkey dishwasher. Shaka, when the walls fell.

 

[Bricker]

I can't decide if I wouldn't rather lean towards "my father's many Mehican workers" territory.



What is up with all the fucking racists coming out of the woodwork on this board recently?



That's fucking retarded. By this "logic," LGBT people are "disfavored" when it comes to getting jobs, because there are more straight people.

No, you.

Please come back when you understand ... um, anything.

If disproportionately more LGBT people wanted jobs than straight people, and jobs were awarded by lottery, then the lottery system would in fact disfavor LGBT people.

If you need help with any of the big words, consult your local librarian. Then, have sex with a donkey.

 

[Bricker]

You really think there are more non-HIPAA groups tracking due dates than ones that fall under HIPAA? I mean, I'm sure it's a WAG coming from either of us, but.

I suppose if I had to guess, I'd say there are more HIPAA covered entities keeping track of due dates than entities that aren't HIPAA covered.

But against that, I'd have to weigh the fact that HIPAA provides punishments for disclosure and non-covered entities don't, so the odds of the information coming from a non-covered entity seem to improve slightly; all other trhings being equal, i assume the presence of civil and criminal penalties has at least some deterrent effect.

But this is angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin business. We don't know nuthin', and thus can only confidently say, "We don't know nuthin'."

 

[Shot From Guns]

Purple monkey dishwasher. Shaka, when the walls fell.

Whereupon it is disseminated that all quotients are fungible, it behooves the general population to gently stroke the overarching multitudes of battered fish.

 

[Shot From Guns]

I've said this before, but I'm always sceptical of the people ardently defending immigration at will to the U.S. when they portray themselves as liberal, defenders of human rights. How many of these people are actually either illegal immigrants themselves, would be I.M.s, related or friends with I.M.s ?

I'm always skeptical of people who make retarded statements about the complex subject of immigration. How many of these people are actually racists themselves, would-be racists, or related to or friends with racists?

Note: I fixed your grammar in my parody, too.