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

[Really Not All That Bright]

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.

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.

 

[Hyperelastic]

Especially coming from a nation that was founded on unhindered immigration.

What country are you talking about? The US was founded on liberty and freedom. For citizens.

 

[Buck Godot]

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.

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.

 

[Bricker]

We know it now. In case you missed it, from the AP:

That's good enough for me. Obviously the people supposedly involved deserve the presumption of innocence, blah blah blah, but that's more than enough evidence to say the list was illegally obtained.

 

[Strassia]

I could respect a group like this if they did this differently. If they had use publicly available sources to find things such as duplicate SSN numbers or even DOBs (say there are two hundred people working temp jogs in the state with the same name and DOB) and turned the list, including references to sources over to the authorities. I would even respect them for then turning the list over to media if, and only if, it appeared that the authorities were not pursuing the issue.

But as it stands, this seems more an attempt to intimidate than a genuine effort to deal with illegal immigration.

 

[Shot From Guns]

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.

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:

Laws that arbitrarily* restrict immigration, yes. However, there's nothing to say we couldn't just have, say, a lottery, open to any applicants, and whoever wins gets in.

*or on the basis of national origin, in-demand skill, etc.

Even a random lottery would have an as-applied disproportionate effect on certain ethnic groups, because of the disproportionate representation of those certain ethnic groups outside the borders of the country.

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 come ethnic groups more than others.

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.

 

[smeghead]

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.

I officially declare this thread "interesting".

 

[Shot From Guns]

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.

Sigh. Fine, I'll fucking draw it out for you.

Let's imagine there are two non-US populations, Obbits and Weegils. There are 100 Obbits, and 50 of them want to come to the U.S (50%). There are 1,000 Weegils, and 200 of them want to come to the U.S (20%).

At this time, the U.S. is willing to accept 100 new immigrants. So there are 100 openings for these 250 hopefuls, and they will be awarded by lottery. On average, 20% of the new immigrants will be Obbits, because they make up 20% of the applicant pool. 80% will be Weegils.

But that entire line of thought is a red-fucking-herring, because each individual applicant, whether Obbit or Weegil, has exactly the same chance to be allowed to immigrate: 100/250, or 40%. You'll note that 40% of the hopeful Obbits immigrated (20), as did 40% of the hopeful Weegils (80).

The only time a lottery like this would "disfavor" a population is if there was some kind of quota imposed based on, say, population size of the countries people were emigrating from--but that wasn't part of your scenario.

So, I guess my question here is, what the fuck do you mean by "disfavor"?

 

[Bricker]

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

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?

Correct. Since some resources are available to anyone, others only to people who qualify for them based on income, and others available only to legal residents, we kept track of those characteristics. Sometimes we could short-cut things -- for example, if a person was already qualified for TANF, we didn't need to do an income test for the state programs, but it was possible to get state help even if you made just a bit too much for TANF. We distribute free child safety seats for cars under yet a third formula for income eligbility. Etc etc. Same with legal presence -- some state benefit programs were conditional on being provided only to citizens or qualified aliens, under the provisions of 8 USC

 

[Bricker]

Sigh. Fine, I'll fucking draw it out for you.

Let's imagine there are two non-US populations, Obbits and Weegils. There are 100 Obbits, and 50 of them want to come to the U.S (50%). There are 1,000 Weegils, and 200 of them want to come to the U.S (20%).

At this time, the U.S. is willing to accept 100 new immigrants. So there are 100 openings for these 250 hopefuls, and they will be awarded by lottery. On average, 20% of the new immigrants will be Obbits, because they make up 20% of the applicant pool. 80% will be Weegils.

But that entire line of thought is a red-fucking-herring, because each individual applicant, whether Obbit or Weegil, has exactly the same chance to be allowed to immigrate: 100/250, or 40%. You'll note that 40% of the hopeful Obbits immigrated (20), as did 40% of the hopeful Weegils (80).

The only time a lottery like this would "disfavor" a population is if there was some kind of quota imposed based on, say, population size of the countries people were emigrating from--but that wasn't part of your scenario.

So, I guess my question here is, what the fuck do you mean by "disfavor"?

Yes, each individual applicant has the same chance. We may safely say, then, that no individual applicant is disfavored by the lottery.

But we were discussing not individual applicants, but ethnic groups. In your case, the scenario you craft doesn't quite match reality, in that the larger group in real life also has the most hopefuls. In your case, the more numerous Weegils inexplicably desire to stay home, as a rule, with only 20% of them interested in immigrating. In real life, the more numerous populations ALSO contain the largest percentages of hopeful immigrants, making the disparity a bit more clear. had you crafted your analogy to match this reality, the disfavorable treatment would have been clearer.

 

[dmatsch]

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
Unless they're Mexican

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

..."and wish to enter this country through specified legal channels and NOT decide to hop the border, take an under the table job, not pay taxes, and live off the system that coddles you for as long as you can."

 

[Shot From Guns]

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.

 

[Shot From Guns]

and wish to enter this country through specified legal channels and NOT decide to hop the border, take an under the table job, not pay taxes, and live off the system that coddles you for as long as you can.

1.) Please provide an accurate description of the entire process of legal immigration. Please also provide an estimate of how likely it would be to succeed as unskilled labor.

2.) Please provide statistics on the average amount of services that non-documented workers in the U.S. receive versus how much they pay in taxes, including sales tax. Please also provide statistics on the difference between average income, both in wages/salary and benefits, for an undocumented worker versus one who is in the country legally.

 

[Laudenum]

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.

Ah, you French?

Yeah, you guys probably take the cake when it comes to bad ethnic minorities - it's kind of your own fault though.

 

[Bricker]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Shot From Guns]

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?

 

[Really Not All That Bright]

Hence the assignment of lottery tickets based on the number of applications, and not the absolute number of eligible applicants, as I suggested in Post #164.

 

[Mr. Excellent]

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

Correct. Since some resources are available to anyone, others only to people who qualify for them based on income, and others available only to legal residents, we kept track of those characteristics. Sometimes we could short-cut things -- for example, if a person was already qualified for TANF, we didn't need to do an income test for the state programs, but it was possible to get state help even if you made just a bit too much for TANF. We distribute free child safety seats for cars under yet a third formula for income eligbility. Etc etc. Same with legal presence -- some state benefit programs were conditional on being provided only to citizens or qualified aliens, under the provisions of 8 USC

 

[Bricker]

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?

In this thread alone, I actually addressed you here.

Also, here. And again 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.

 

[Euphonious Polemic]

That's good enough for me. Obviously the people supposedly involved deserve the presumption of innocence, blah blah blah, but that's more than enough evidence to say the list was illegally obtained.

I'm now glad that I immediately accepted the version of events in which the list-makers are criminals.

For my next trick, I will gratuitously assume that someone running away from my house carrying my stereo is, in fact, a robber.