Native American PWNS immigration protest

[Rolyo85]

Spoilsport -_-


Anyway, I present TO EVERYONE the following question: If we assume that indeed there is no way to have balance (at least for now), but only one preference or the other - white or non-white - is it then morally wrong to pass the ball to the non-white job seekers for a while, since they have been on the short end of the stick for so long?

Discuss.

 

[Benvolio]

Spoilsport -_-


Anyway, I present TO EVERYONE the following question: If we assume that indeed there is no way to have balance (at least for now), but only one preference or the other - white or non-white - is it then morally wrong to pass the ball to the non-white job seekers for a while, since they have been on the short end of the stick for so long?

Discuss.

The anti discrimination laws have been in place, beginning with the first Civil rights acts in 1964. Governmental and many private affirmative action programs have bee around for decades. All created mostly by white males. Immigrants have flooded to the U S by the millions because of job availability. So your assumption that non whites are on the short end of the stick is a false assumption. Raw numbers can not prove that any residual differences are not the result of differences in geography, education, ability and experience.
The Constitution prohibits the Federal and State government from denying the equal protection of the law. So, any statutory affirmative action scheme is in direct violation of that provision.
If you tell employers that all jobs must be filled by minority members without regard to the persons best qualified, it will have a decided chilling effect on business expansion. Why not send the jobs overseas?

 

[Rolyo85]

So what you're saying is, non-whites are not discriminated against and there's no proof that they are?

 

[xbuzzerx]

The anti discrimination laws have been in place, beginning with the first Civil rights acts in 1964. Governmental and many private affirmative action programs have bee around for decades. All created mostly by white males. Immigrants have flooded to the U S by the millions because of job availability. So your assumption that non whites are on the short end of the stick is a false assumption. Raw numbers can not prove that any residual differences are not the result of differences in geography, education, ability and experience.
The Constitution prohibits the Federal and State government from denying the equal protection of the law. So, any statutory affirmative action scheme is in direct violation of that provision.
If you tell employers that all jobs must be filled by minority members without regard to the persons best qualified, it will have a decided chilling effect on business expansion. Why not send the jobs overseas?

What you are consistenly refusing to acknowledge is that equal protection under the law does and should cover fostering fair workplace hiring of people other than white males in a workforce which still, to this day, has failed to show complete equality, particularly the higher up in a given industry you go.

If you can't show that white men have somehow fallen down into a discriminated caste and get hired less often, paid less or whatever else than other demographics or similar qualification these laws are meant to to help achieve fair inclusion for, you have absolutely no case here.

 

[Benvolio]

So what you're saying is, non-whites are not discriminated against and there's no proof that they are?

Whites and non whites are discriminated against. Affirmative action discriminates against both. Minorities blatantly discriminate. What Mexican restaurant does not prefer Mexican employees? Indians for Indian? Asian for Asian?
Numerous valid employment charactistics do not show up in figures. Blacks and Hispanics tend to be less well educated, less well experienced. Minorities have their own cultures an standards of appearance. Restaurants may be unwilling to hire people with dreadlocks or excess facial hair. Many have language difficulties.
Businesses do not exist to provide jobs. They exist to make money. Employers hire the people they think will serve their business best, and with the least supervision.
Liberals could not care less about the business, it's needs or profits.
So, sure, some unjustified discrimination exists. BUT far less exists than liberals are eager to believe. Because liberals are dismissive of the needs and concerns of business they see discrimination where businessmen see valid differences.
Then there is the serious problem created by the anti discrimination laws themselves. They give minorities the right and incentive to sue or threat to sue,if things do not go their way. This, in and of itself makes them less desirable as employees.
Liberals, being, anti business and dismissive of the needs of the business, and, as always, thinking in absolutes, can only see discrimination.

 

[opinterph]

What Mexican restaurant does not prefer Mexican employees?

Taco Bell.

Liberals could not care less

liberals are

Liberals … can only see

It seems that you’ve invested a great deal of your energy attempting to express the Liberal opinion – though I think your conclusions may be somewhat mistaken. At any rate, it might be interesting (if you can find the time) to try and figure out what people of the minority political persuasion think about these matters and then share those opinions here as well.

 

[Benvolio]

The "minority political persuasion" would appear to be the Republicans at the moment. I think I represent that point of view, and frequently provide links. It invariably provokes an explosion of screeches about the hated "right wing sources". Liberals are 100 % intolerant of adverse opinions, as this forum abundantly proves.

 

[opinterph]

The "minority political persuasion" would appear to be the Republicans at the moment. I think I represent that point of view, and frequently provide links.

Cool. According to your own perception, how do Republicans relate to matters of equal employment opportunity and the various manifestations of affirmative action?

(No links necessary. I’m just interested in your impressions.)

 

[opinterph]

I cannot agree openterp. Affirmative action is inherently unfair. Unfair to the employer prevented from hiring the best available person, and unfair to the people pushed aside on the basis of irrelevant factors, i.e. race, color, national origin etc. Nor is the hiring of recent immigrants over existing citizens, fair. But many believe that AA is fair, ostensibly, as redressing past wrong or something. If that is fair, then the maximum fairness the maximum inclusion of women and minorities, and the maximum exclusion of white males.

One of the challenges I’m experiencing with your posts is understanding whether your references to “affirmative action” are limited to government recruitment policies for its own personnel, policies that are voluntarily adopted by private industry (or other private organizations), or perhaps punitive enforcement against private firms that have demonstrated a clear pattern of discrimination and are required to adopt policies or programs that are intended to correct that error.

 

[Benvolio]

Cool. According to your own perception, how do Republicans relate to matters of equal employment opportunity and the various manifestations of affirmative action?

(No links necessary. I’m just interested in your impressions.)

See my post 240 below. Republicans overwhelmingly believe in free enterprise capitalism. Historically nothing is more important. Business should be free to hire the best qualified people. You, as a liberal, think that means pro white, but you would the surprised at the number of corporate heads who are non white or foreign born.
Affirmative action requires hiring without regard to the best qualifications. Bad for the business, bad for the economy.
Increasingly the Republicans are the party of whites. Democrats the party of minorities. It has been true since 1865, but it increases. The invariable result is that Democrat legislation is anti white and pro minority. Liberals think it is justified by past discrimination and fail to see how it is motivated by partisan
politics.

 

[opinterph]

See my post 240 below.

Just a heads-up to everyone. Citing post numbers is probably not a great idea – because the post numbers change whenever a post is removed from the lineup.

For example, [STRIKE]I’ve identified more than two-dozen posts to remove from this thread[/STRIKE] I have removed 27 posts from this thread. Other posts were removed previously and other changes are possible going forward. It is always best to quote the referenced post, rather than name its current sequence number.

 

[Benvolio]

One of the challenges I’m experiencing with your posts is understanding whether your references to “affirmative action” are limited to government recruitment policies for its own personnel, policies that are voluntarily adopted by private industry (or other private organizations), or perhaps punitive enforcement against private firms that have demonstrated a clear pattern of discrimination and are required to adopt policies or programs that are intended to correct that error.

I am not sure it is a valid distinction. Private programs exist in a legal environment in which failure to hire a cross section of society may be taken as evidence of illegal discrimination without regard to the availability of qualifications.
I personally think governments and private organizations should never discriminate against equally qualified Americans in favor of immigrants.
Governments and private organizations should always be free to hire the most qualified individuals. without regard to race etc.
If private firms with a proven pattern of discrimination are to be required to hire to compensate, it should be limited to the group discriminated against, and not to other groups not the victim of that specific discrimination. Companies hire the people they believe best suits their purposes for reasons the liberals may not agree with. Chinese waiters/waitresses probably are best for a Chinese restaurant. It is simply not a business reason with which the bureaucrats will agree.
I would agree that blacks were at one time frozen out of much of the economy, and the laws could be effective in righting that wrong. But by giving every group affirmative action except white males, (including immigrants) they fail of their essential purpose of helping redress a wrong and have become a weapon for the Democrats to punish the least Democrat group. AA has had the effect of limiting the opportunities for blacks, who it was originally intended to help.

 

[opinterph]

Republicans overwhelmingly believe in free enterprise capitalism.

Okay, I said no link required~ but give me one that renders a valid definition of “free enterprise capitalism” – Preferably one that relates to employment practices. (As an example, the one I’ve linked below seems too general and simplistic for purposes of this discussion.)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/free+enterprise

I personally think governments and private organizations should never discriminate against equally qualified Americans in favor of immigrants.

What do you think about the federal government extending a hiring preference to military veterans?

 

[Benvolio]

Okay, I said no link required~ but give me one that renders a valid definition of “free enterprise capitalism” – Preferably one that relates to employment practices. (As an example, the one I’ve linked below seems too general and simplistic for purposes of this discussion.)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/free+enterprise



What do you think about the federal government extending a hiring preference to military veterans?

Here is a conventional definition from MerriamWebster.com.

Definition of CAPITALISM
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Source Link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

I often prefer the term economic freedom, since the aspect which has made it the most important system devised by mankind is the freedom, not the enterprise or the capital. Given freedom and the rule of law, capitalism will develop. But it is the economic freedom which motivates individuals to work and innovate to better themselves and their families.
I have no problem is a hiring preference to military veterans, both as a reward and as an incentive. Some of them are non citizens, to be sure, but they are more than mere immigrants.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I have no problem is a hiring preference to military veterans, both as a reward and as an incentive. Some of them are non citizens, to be sure, but they are more than mere immigrants.

I don't mean to jump into wherever Opin is going but I believe the point he was making here with this question is that you probably do agree with preferential hiring practices, like for military vets, to achieve certain positive outcomes--- like fewer unemployed veterans.

That's exactly what these policies do for groups that traditionally have been, and frequently still are, underrepresented in the higher/professional/skilled end of the workforce.

 

[opinterph]

If we assume that indeed there is no way to have balance (at least for now), but only one preference or the other - white or non-white - is it then morally wrong to pass the ball to the non-white job seekers for a while, since they have been on the short end of the stick for so long?

Your assumption is flawed.

Reversing discrimination does nothing more than to reflect the transgression. If you truly seek fairness, you will not subscribe to a scheme that merely substitutes the role of the oppressed for that of the oppressor.

 

[Benvolio]

I don't mean to jump into wherever Opin is going but I believe the point he was making here with this question is that you probably do agree with preferential hiring practices, like for military vets, to achieve certain positive outcomes--- like fewer unemployed veterans.

That's exactly what these policies do for groups that traditionally have been, and frequently still are, underrepresented in the higher/professional/skilled end of the workforce.

The preferential hiring for vets would be valid as an incentive in recruiting or as a reward for services rendered to the government. Otherwise, I would be a denial of equal protection. Nothing in the Constitution allows such meddling by the government, and experience shows that such meddling will be uses for partisan purposes as parties give preferences to groups with tend to support them.

 

[xbuzzerx]

The preferential hiring for vets would be valid as an incentive in recruiting or as a reward for services rendered to the government. Otherwise, I would be a denial of equal protection. Nothing in the Constitution allows such meddling by the government, and experience shows that such meddling will be uses for partisan purposes as parties give preferences to groups with tend to support them.

Benvolio you seem to have an odd interpretation of Equal Protections where you would think that the solution to something like the KKK targetting black people would be to create a subset of police to protect white, asian, middle eastern, hispanic, Native American and black people from the KKK.

It's one of these issues:

 

[Rolyo85]

Your assumption is flawed.

Reversing discrimination does nothing more than to reflect the transgression. If you truly seek fairness, you will not subscribe to a scheme that merely substitutes the role of the oppressed for that of the oppressor.

That assumption is Benvolio's, not mine. He is the one for whom special protections for minorities = discrimination of white males. I absolutely do not agree with him, but even assuming he was right, it still seems to me that to him it's ok to keep the discrimination on the minorities, because... of... reasons? Or something. So I was asking a question based on his assumption.

 

[opinterph]

@Benvolio

Part of what you’ve written suggests that your argument includes a rejection of the general theory and legitimacy of non-discrimination laws. I think we should take note that the term “affirmative action” includes directives that originate in both public and private sector entities (relative to employment practices) and I suggest we limit our immediate discussion to actions that are required of private business industry as a matter of compliance to the various federal laws and regulations. And though the federal government has instituted a variety of measures to help ensure the inclusion of minorities within its own work force, I submit that the most relevant issue in the context of our discussion is the effect of compliance on private industry and the citizens who are affected by those outcomes.

Your reference to “a million legal immigrants” arriving each year in the US appears most clearly indicative of persons who are granted “lawful permanent residence” in the US and therefore hold an Immigrant Visa. Persons granted that status are eligible to be employed under the same laws as a US citizen. Ergo, they are part of the US labor force.

I perceive a number of errors in your representations regarding private industry’s compliance with federal non-discrimination laws, but the finer points of understanding are rendered somewhat moot if you fail to recognize that non-discrimination is codified into law. Part of the general expectation incumbent to persons who engage in the employment of others is that they will conform their business practices in a manner that is consistent with those federal guidelines, as applicable. It is reasonable to note that many smaller employers are exempt from federal non-discrimination laws. It is also pertinent to recognize that those laws offer the same protections to all persons – regardless of the relative frequency of their composition in whatever characteristics may be considered under provisions of the law. In other words, Caucasians are protected the same as Native Hawaiians or Native Americans and the cultural characteristics of all ethnicities are protected equally. Fair treatment starts with hiring the most qualified person – irrespective of their association with a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin – but it extends to all aspects of employment, including such matters as compensation and promotion. Regardless of its critique or misunderstanding, non-discrimination is the law.