Thread: OBAMA IGNORES SLAIN WHITE POLICE OFFICER WHILE HONORING GRAY AND BROWN

Originally Posted by MW

Judy wrote:



What makes you more knowledgeable on black crime than him? Just asking ........

Because I'm more knowledgeable on the adverse consequences of immigration than him.

Originally Posted by Judy

Because I'm more knowledgeable on the adverse consequences of immigration than him.

Hmm, is that the best you got. lol

For Mr. Riley and others who don't know when this massive immigration started, it was in the 60's, the same period Riley blames high crime rates on the Warren Court which pushed for civil and equal rights for black Americans. Civil rights and equality are of course NOT responsible for the increases in crime during that period or the 70's and future decades that followed through to the 1990's which had the highest crime rates. It was IN FACT, the consequences of the 1965 Immigration Act pushed by Democrats the same year Congress approved the 1965 Voting Rights Act, only 1 year after the US Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964.

From Center of Immigration Studies:

http://cis.org/1965ImmigrationAct-MassImmigration

Three Decades of Mass Immigration: The Legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act

By CIS September 1995

Introduction

"This bill we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not restructure the shape of our daily lives."

So said President Lyndon Johnson at the signing of the Hart-Celler Immigration Bill thirty years ago next month, on Oct. 3, 1965. The legislation, which phased out the national origins quota system first instituted in 1921, created the foundation of today's immigration law. And, contrary to the president's assertions, it inaugurated a new era of mass immigration which has affected the lives of millions.

Despite modifications, the framework established by the 1965 act remains intact today. And, while the reform proposals now being discussed in Congress, the administration, and the Commission on Immigration Reform would reduce the total number of legal immigrants, they would maintain the fundamentals of the 1965 act — family reunification and employment preferences. So it behooves us on this 30th anniversary to look at the act and the expectations its sponsors had for it.

Under the old system, admission largely depended upon an immigrant's country of birth. Seventy percent of all immigrant slots were allotted to natives of just three countries — United Kingdom, Ireland and Germany — and went mostly unused, while there were long waiting lists for the small number of visas available to those born in Italy, Greece, Poland, Portugal, and elsewhere in eastern and southern Europe.

The new system eliminated the various nationality criteria, supposedly putting people of all nations on an equal footing for immigration to the United States. The new legislation (P.L. 89 236; 79 Stat. 911; technically, amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952) substituted a system based primarily on family reunification and needed skills.

In the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, President Johnson criticized the old policy at the signing ceremony:

"This system violates the basic principle of American democracy -- the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country." (Johnson, Lyndon B., Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1966, pp. 1037-1040.)

Despite the noble words, the architects of the 1965 law did not see it as a means of significantly changing the immigration flow — it was considered more a symbolic act, an extension of civil rights sentiments beyond our borders. Proponents repeatedly denied that the law would lead to a huge and sustained increase in the number of newcomers and become a vehicle for globalizing immigration. Many senators and representatives believed that the new, equal quotas would not be fully used by European, Asian, and Middle Eastern nations. In addition, they did not foresee the expansion of non-quota admissions (those not covered by numerical limits) under the act's strengthened provisions for family reunification.

The unexpected result has been one of the greatest waves of immigration in the nation's history — more than 18 million legal immigrants since the law's passage, over triple the number admitted during the previous 30 years, as well as uncountable millions of illegal immigrants. And the new immigrants are more likely to stay (rather than return home after a time) than those who came around the turn of the century. Moreover, this new, enlarged immigration flow came from countries in Asia and Latin America which heretofore had sent few of their sons and daughters to the United States.

And finally, although the average level of education of immigrants has increased somewhat over the past 30 years, the negative gap between their education and that of native-born Americans has increased significantly, creating a mismatch between newcomers and the needs of a modern, high-tech economy.

This paper offers a brief overview of the issues relating to the anniversary, including quotes from many of the participants, as well as an outline of the law's consequences.

Cont. in link

All black Americans need to ask why in the same 2 year period that Congress was finally passing the Republican's US Civil Rights Act did a Democratic-controlled Congress and a Democratic President decide we needed millions of immigrants to compete with American Workers for jobs, especially black Americans who had just been guaranteed job equality in the work force?

One of the primary underlying evils behind massive immigration into the United States since 1965 was and sadly remains in large part to hold back black Americans so racist employers wouldn't be forced to hire black workers without other race alternatives or a means to hire black workers but at depressed wages with poor working conditions which immigration accommodates in both cases.

Originally Posted by MW

Hmm, is that the best you got. lol

What more do you need? Are you seriously going to post on this thread in a manner that makes it appear that you don't know or understand the relationship between immigration and unemployment amongst black Americans and crime as a consequence of unemployment and poverty? REALLY??!!

Why would you do that?

Originally Posted by Judy

What more do you need? Are you seriously going to post on this thread in a manner that makes it appear that you don't know or understand the relationship between immigration and unemployment amongst black Americans and crime as a consequence of unemployment and poverty? REALLY??!!

Why would you do that?

Okay, back to the your original comment that started this dance:

You wrote:

We have serious issues with police targeting black people,

To that I responded, "many of these problems are self created." So, can we assume that you totally disagree with that statement? A simple yes or no response will suffice.

Originally Posted by MW

Okay, back to the your original comment that started this dance:

You wrote:

To that I responded, "many of these problems are self created." So, can we assume that you totally disagree with that statement? A simple yes or no response will suffice.

You didn't actually respond at all, your initial reply was to post an article by Jason L. Riley who believes black crime is due to black culture. My statement involved police targeting black Americans, which is prevalent and illegal in the United States. But since you wanted to talk about black crime as if it's somehow different than white crime or crimes committed by people who aren't black, I decided to address black crime, most of which like most crime, is driven by poverty, not the color of someone's skin, and most poverty is driven in the United States by excess immigration. Since Mr. Riley doesn't know that and even wrote a book "LET THEM IN: THE CASE FOR OPEN BORDERS" that he published in 2008 pushing for more immigration, it's quite clear the man is a idiot who doesn't know anything about "black crime" or immigration.

To answer your question, no problem associated with police officers targeting black Americans, is "self-created" by black Americans, it's all "self-created" by the police officers targeting black Americans. To claim that a victim of police race targeting caused the problem is like telling a rape victim, "your dress was too short."

Originally Posted by Judy

You didn't actually respond at all, your initial reply was to post an article by Jason L. Riley who believes black crime is due to black culture. My statement involved police targeting black Americans, which is prevalent and illegal in the United States. But since you wanted to talk about black crime as if it's somehow different than white crime or crimes committed by people who aren't black, I decided to address black crime, most of which like most crime, is driven by poverty, not the color of someone's skin, and most poverty is driven in the United States by excess immigration. Since Mr. Riley doesn't know that and even wrote a book "LET THEM IN: THE CASE FOR OPEN BORDERS" that he published in 2008 pushing for more immigration, it's quite clear the man is a idiot who doesn't know anything about "black crime" or immigration.

To answer your question, no problem associated with police officers targeting black Americans, is "self-created" by black Americans, it's all "self-created" by the police officers targeting black Americans. To claim that a victim of police race targeting caused the problem is like telling a rape victim, "your dress was too short."

Another dodge ......... whatever.

Originally Posted by MW

Another dodge ......... whatever.

Do you really want me to hit this head on?