Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Men don't drop anchor babies, Illegal Alien mothers do
msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 05/22/10 04:06 PM Edited by msharmony on Sat 05/22/10 04:20 PM
EO11246 Section 202.1 The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. OH MY GOSH << HOW RACIST OF THEM,,,,lol still have yet to see the actual part of a law or regulation which is expressly discriminatory,, and I suspect that I won't in the near future either But, the discrimination comes in when the government sets " minimums " of minorities that have to be employed. You could have 20 people working for you, all of them HIGHLY qualified, go to hire more, and have to hire people less qualified simply because the government says so. quotas are not part of affirmative action,,,what you describe might happen if a company has been PROVEN to actively discriminate in hiring,,,and even then, there only has to be proven an honest EFFORT to provide the opportunities to others,,, on a side note,, there have been Isolated occasions when a JUDGE has mandated a numeric quota , but this is extremely rare and something separate from affirmative acton

JustAGuy2112 Joined Sun 12/16/07 Posts: 18033	Sat 05/22/10 04:20 PM
EO11246 Section 202.1 The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. OH MY GOSH << HOW RACIST OF THEM,,,,lol still have yet to see the actual part of a law or regulation which is expressly discriminatory,, and I suspect that I won't in the near future either But, the discrimination comes in when the government sets " minimums " of minorities that have to be employed. You could have 20 people working for you, all of them HIGHLY qualified, go to hire more, and have to hire people less qualified simply because the government says so. quotas are not part of affirmative action,,,what you describe might happen if a company has been PROVEN to actively discriminate in hiring,,,and even then, there only has to be proven an honest EFFORT to provide the opportunities to others,,, There doesn't have to be any real proof. Just an accusation will do. Mikey....don't go jumping up and down at me and telling me what I could or couldn't handle. You don't know me at all....and it's plainly obvious that you haven't read very many of my posts. If you had, you would know that I don't speak just for the sake of reading my own posts.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 05/22/10 04:22 PM Edited by msharmony on Sat 05/22/10 04:23 PM
EO11246 Section 202.1 The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. OH MY GOSH << HOW RACIST OF THEM,,,,lol still have yet to see the actual part of a law or regulation which is expressly discriminatory,, and I suspect that I won't in the near future either But, the discrimination comes in when the government sets " minimums " of minorities that have to be employed. You could have 20 people working for you, all of them HIGHLY qualified, go to hire more, and have to hire people less qualified simply because the government says so. quotas are not part of affirmative action,,,what you describe might happen if a company has been PROVEN to actively discriminate in hiring,,,and even then, there only has to be proven an honest EFFORT to provide the opportunities to others,,, There doesn't have to be any real proof. Just an accusation will do. Mikey....don't go jumping up and down at me and telling me what I could or couldn't handle. You don't know me at all....and it's plainly obvious that you haven't read very many of my posts. If you had, you would know that I don't speak just for the sake of reading my own posts. thats not true,,an accusation will instigate an INVESTIGATION,,but for ann AA mandate to take place, the actual discrimination must be PROVEN,,,(otherwise there would be no need for there to be EEO 'investigators' , no need for a middle man if all that is necessary is the accusation)

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Sat 05/22/10 06:04 PM
EO11246 Section 202.1 The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. OH MY GOSH << HOW RACIST OF THEM,,,,lol still have yet to see the actual part of a law or regulation which is expressly discriminatory,, and I suspect that I won't in the near future either But, the discrimination comes in when the government sets " minimums " of minorities that have to be employed. You could have 20 people working for you, all of them HIGHLY qualified, go to hire more, and have to hire people less qualified simply because the government says so. quotas are not part of affirmative action,,,what you describe might happen if a company has been PROVEN to actively discriminate in hiring,,,and even then, there only has to be proven an honest EFFORT to provide the opportunities to others,,, on a side note,, there have been Isolated occasions when a JUDGE has mandated a numeric quota , but this is extremely rare and something separate from affirmative acton Check history. When that AA was first implicated, you bet a lot of employers hollered about having to turn down more qualified folks because they had to fill their quota. A few times, I was turned down because they didn't have the proper ratio. They weren't shy about tellin' you either. Even now. With Gov. or Civil Service jobs, it's almost impossible to fire a lazy minority. If that same lazy person wasn't minority, they'd be out the door in a New York minute.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 05/22/10 08:04 PM Edited by msharmony on Sat 05/22/10 08:06 PM
EO11246 Section 202.1 The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. OH MY GOSH << HOW RACIST OF THEM,,,,lol still have yet to see the actual part of a law or regulation which is expressly discriminatory,, and I suspect that I won't in the near future either But, the discrimination comes in when the government sets " minimums " of minorities that have to be employed. You could have 20 people working for you, all of them HIGHLY qualified, go to hire more, and have to hire people less qualified simply because the government says so. quotas are not part of affirmative action,,,what you describe might happen if a company has been PROVEN to actively discriminate in hiring,,,and even then, there only has to be proven an honest EFFORT to provide the opportunities to others,,, on a side note,, there have been Isolated occasions when a JUDGE has mandated a numeric quota , but this is extremely rare and something separate from affirmative acton Check history. When that AA was first implicated, you bet a lot of employers hollered about having to turn down more qualified folks because they had to fill their quota. A few times, I was turned down because they didn't have the proper ratio. They weren't shy about tellin' you either. Even now. With Gov. or Civil Service jobs, it's almost impossible to fire a lazy minority. If that same lazy person wasn't minority, they'd be out the door in a New York minute. check the laws,, history tells us about what happens , not what the LAW mandates... there is noplace in the laws and regulations which fall under the category of Affirmative Action, which requires quotas in hiring,(there are cases where the judicial system mandates in individual cases that quotas be established) if there is, I would gladly learn a little more and read about it and I could also inform my mother who made a living investigating EEO complaints... and who taught me much of what I have learned regarding civil rights, AA , and EEO (although she knows it much more inside and out than I ever could)

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Sat 05/22/10 08:08 PM
Somebody is sure shootin' ta' get reelected! Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship Fri May 21, 7:15 pm ET The author of Arizona's immigration law, state Sen. Russell Pearce, told constituents he wants to pass another measure to invalidate citizenship granted to the children of illegal aliens. Pearce wrote that he plans to "push for an Arizona bill that would refuse to accept or issue a birth certificate that recognizes citizenship to those born to illegal aliens, unless one parent is a citizen," in an email obtained by Phoenix CBS affiliate KPHO. Pearce also forwarded an email from another correspondent expanding on the proposal — which he later told KPHO he didn't agree with. "If we are going to have an effect on the anchor baby racket, we need to target the mother. Call it sexist, but that's the way nature made it. Men don't drop anchor babies, illegal alien mothers do," the email said. Pearce did tell the CBS affiliate, however, that he didn't see anything wrong with using the term "anchor baby" to refer to natural-born U.S. citizens. Last year, 92 Congressmen sponsored a bill that would change the 14th Amendment so that children of illegal aliens born in the United States would not be granted citizenship. The bill is still in committee. Last month, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California told a tea party rally he would support deporting children of illegal aliens, even if they are citizens. "And we're not being mean. We're just saying it takes more than walking across the border to become an American citizen," he said. "It's what's in our souls." His spokesman later sought to clarify the remarks with the Associated Press, saying that Duncan believes that "U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants should stay with their parents unless there is a legal guardian who could take care of them." — Liz Goodwin is a national affairs writer for Yahoo! News Thank the powers that be that this won't be happening.

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Sat 05/22/10 08:09 PM
EO11246 Section 202.1 The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. OH MY GOSH << HOW RACIST OF THEM,,,,lol still have yet to see the actual part of a law or regulation which is expressly discriminatory,, and I suspect that I won't in the near future either But, the discrimination comes in when the government sets " minimums " of minorities that have to be employed. You could have 20 people working for you, all of them HIGHLY qualified, go to hire more, and have to hire people less qualified simply because the government says so. quotas are not part of affirmative action,,,what you describe might happen if a company has been PROVEN to actively discriminate in hiring,,,and even then, there only has to be proven an honest EFFORT to provide the opportunities to others,,, on a side note,, there have been Isolated occasions when a JUDGE has mandated a numeric quota , but this is extremely rare and something separate from affirmative acton Check history. When that AA was first implicated, you bet a lot of employers hollered about having to turn down more qualified folks because they had to fill their quota. A few times, I was turned down because they didn't have the proper ratio. They weren't shy about tellin' you either. Even now. With Gov. or Civil Service jobs, it's almost impossible to fire a lazy minority. If that same lazy person wasn't minority, they'd be out the door in a New York minute. This isn't true. I would ask for proof of it but there isn't any to be had.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 05/22/10 08:19 PM
EO11246 Section 202.1 The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. OH MY GOSH << HOW RACIST OF THEM,,,,lol still have yet to see the actual part of a law or regulation which is expressly discriminatory,, and I suspect that I won't in the near future either But, the discrimination comes in when the government sets " minimums " of minorities that have to be employed. You could have 20 people working for you, all of them HIGHLY qualified, go to hire more, and have to hire people less qualified simply because the government says so. quotas are not part of affirmative action,,,what you describe might happen if a company has been PROVEN to actively discriminate in hiring,,,and even then, there only has to be proven an honest EFFORT to provide the opportunities to others,,, on a side note,, there have been Isolated occasions when a JUDGE has mandated a numeric quota , but this is extremely rare and something separate from affirmative acton Check history. When that AA was first implicated, you bet a lot of employers hollered about having to turn down more qualified folks because they had to fill their quota. A few times, I was turned down because they didn't have the proper ratio. They weren't shy about tellin' you either. Even now. With Gov. or Civil Service jobs, it's almost impossible to fire a lazy minority. If that same lazy person wasn't minority, they'd be out the door in a New York minute. This isn't true. I would ask for proof of it but there isn't any to be had. well, Im sure some will have examples of minorities they thought should have lost their job and didnt and who conclude it was because they were minority that they didnt lose their job. I do have to provide a counter to that type of claim though. Regarding how impossible it is to fire a minority,,,check the state laws... more and more states are right to work and they can fire ANYONE for ANYTHING. As for government jobs,, the same guidelines are used for everyone and the same guidelines are adequate reason to fire anyone of any ethnicity. I lost my postal job even though I worked hard, because some personal issues caused me to be late more than a few times(five or so minutes, nothing extreme). I was given the same discipline action information as anyone else when I started and I was held to the same standard,,,,,being minority AND female.

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Sat 05/22/10 08:19 PM Edited by willing2 on Sat 05/22/10 08:22 PM
EO11246 Section 202.1 The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. OH MY GOSH << HOW RACIST OF THEM,,,,lol still have yet to see the actual part of a law or regulation which is expressly discriminatory,, and I suspect that I won't in the near future either But, the discrimination comes in when the government sets " minimums " of minorities that have to be employed. You could have 20 people working for you, all of them HIGHLY qualified, go to hire more, and have to hire people less qualified simply because the government says so. quotas are not part of affirmative action,,,what you describe might happen if a company has been PROVEN to actively discriminate in hiring,,,and even then, there only has to be proven an honest EFFORT to provide the opportunities to others,,, on a side note,, there have been Isolated occasions when a JUDGE has mandated a numeric quota , but this is extremely rare and something separate from affirmative acton Check history. When that AA was first implicated, you bet a lot of employers hollered about having to turn down more qualified folks because they had to fill their quota. A few times, I was turned down because they didn't have the proper ratio. They weren't shy about tellin' you either. Even now. With Gov. or Civil Service jobs, it's almost impossible to fire a lazy minority. If that same lazy person wasn't minority, they'd be out the door in a New York minute. check the laws,, history tells us about what happens , not what the LAW mandates... there is noplace in the laws and regulations which fall under the category of Affirmative Action, which requires quotas in hiring,(there are cases where the judicial system mandates in individual cases that quotas be established) if there is, I would gladly learn a little more and read about it and I could also inform my mother who made a living investigating EEO complaints... and who taught me much of what I have learned regarding civil rights, AA , and EEO (although she knows it much more inside and out than I ever could) I was in the workforce then. 1969 President Nixon’s “Philadelphia Order” presents “goals and timetables” for reaching equal employment opportunity in construction trades. It is extended in 1970 to non-construction federal contractors. By this time, 7.8% of college students aged 18-24 are black. 1972 Title IX of the Education Amendments Act prohibits discrimination against girls and women in federally funded education, including athletic programs. Goals and timetables is a fancy term for Quotas. Have to have so many by such and such a time. AA has been less and less attractive over the years. 1997 The anti-affirmative action initiative Proposition 209 narrowly passes in California. Enrollment of students of color in the University of California system declines within one year. 1998 Washington State passes I-200, a similar antiaffirmative action initiative. 1999 Governor Jeb Bush of Florida issues Executive Order 99-281, ending affirmative action in state contracting and higher education.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 05/22/10 08:21 PM Edited by msharmony on Sat 05/22/10 08:22 PM
EO11246 Section 202.1 The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. OH MY GOSH << HOW RACIST OF THEM,,,,lol still have yet to see the actual part of a law or regulation which is expressly discriminatory,, and I suspect that I won't in the near future either But, the discrimination comes in when the government sets " minimums " of minorities that have to be employed. You could have 20 people working for you, all of them HIGHLY qualified, go to hire more, and have to hire people less qualified simply because the government says so. quotas are not part of affirmative action,,,what you describe might happen if a company has been PROVEN to actively discriminate in hiring,,,and even then, there only has to be proven an honest EFFORT to provide the opportunities to others,,, on a side note,, there have been Isolated occasions when a JUDGE has mandated a numeric quota , but this is extremely rare and something separate from affirmative acton Check history. When that AA was first implicated, you bet a lot of employers hollered about having to turn down more qualified folks because they had to fill their quota. A few times, I was turned down because they didn't have the proper ratio. They weren't shy about tellin' you either. Even now. With Gov. or Civil Service jobs, it's almost impossible to fire a lazy minority. If that same lazy person wasn't minority, they'd be out the door in a New York minute. check the laws,, history tells us about what happens , not what the LAW mandates... there is noplace in the laws and regulations which fall under the category of Affirmative Action, which requires quotas in hiring,(there are cases where the judicial system mandates in individual cases that quotas be established) if there is, I would gladly learn a little more and read about it and I could also inform my mother who made a living investigating EEO complaints... and who taught me much of what I have learned regarding civil rights, AA , and EEO (although she knows it much more inside and out than I ever could) I was in the workforce then. 1969 President Nixon’s “Philadelphia Order” presents “goals and timetables” for reaching equal employment opportunity in construction trades. It is extended in 1970 to non-construction federal contractors. By this time, 7.8% of college students aged 18-24 are black. 1972 Title IX of the Education Amendments Act prohibits discrimination against girls and women in federally funded education, including athletic programs. Goals and timetables is a fancy term for Quotas. Have to have so many by such and such a time. a goal is not a mandate,,, it is that which one is expected to TRY to do a quota is a MANDATE, that which one MUST do surely, watching our election process, one can understand the difference between saying 'we are going to TRY to have,,,,' and 'we will have'

s1owhand Joined Fri 05/18/07 Posts: 29437	Sat 05/22/10 08:26 PM
I actually think they will change the law so that children of illegal immigrants will not become U.S. citizens bases solely on their birth on U.S. territory.

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Sat 05/22/10 08:26 PM
EO11246 Section 202.1 The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. OH MY GOSH << HOW RACIST OF THEM,,,,lol still have yet to see the actual part of a law or regulation which is expressly discriminatory,, and I suspect that I won't in the near future either But, the discrimination comes in when the government sets " minimums " of minorities that have to be employed. You could have 20 people working for you, all of them HIGHLY qualified, go to hire more, and have to hire people less qualified simply because the government says so. quotas are not part of affirmative action,,,what you describe might happen if a company has been PROVEN to actively discriminate in hiring,,,and even then, there only has to be proven an honest EFFORT to provide the opportunities to others,,, on a side note,, there have been Isolated occasions when a JUDGE has mandated a numeric quota , but this is extremely rare and something separate from affirmative acton Check history. When that AA was first implicated, you bet a lot of employers hollered about having to turn down more qualified folks because they had to fill their quota. A few times, I was turned down because they didn't have the proper ratio. They weren't shy about tellin' you either. Even now. With Gov. or Civil Service jobs, it's almost impossible to fire a lazy minority. If that same lazy person wasn't minority, they'd be out the door in a New York minute. This isn't true. I would ask for proof of it but there isn't any to be had. well, Im sure some will have examples of minorities they thought should have lost their job and didnt and who conclude it was because they were minority that they didnt lose their job. I do have to provide a counter to that type of claim though. Regarding how impossible it is to fire a minority,,,check the state laws... more and more states are right to work and they can fire ANYONE for ANYTHING. As for government jobs,, the same guidelines are used for everyone and the same guidelines are adequate reason to fire anyone of any ethnicity. I lost my postal job even though I worked hard, because some personal issues caused me to be late more than a few times(five or so minutes, nothing extreme). I was given the same discipline action information as anyone else when I started and I was held to the same standard,,,,,being minority AND female. It matters if the job is union also. Union jobs are harder to be fired from regardless to your race or whatever. There is this "belief" that is spread, stating the same exact things that I said were not true. People just continue to spread it but it is not true.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 05/22/10 08:29 PM
I know,,, here is more on quotas vs AA from www.wku.edu Reality: Quotas are specifically prohibited by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and are held to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by the United States Supreme Court. Quotas may be imposed by judicial order, but only as a last resort to redress a pattern of blatant discrimination. Affirmative Action programs do use goals. Goals are used as ideal targets. Ideally, the percentage of women and minorities working in a "job group" (groups of employees with similar salaries, duties, and opportunities) should be similar to the percentage of women and minorities qualified for such positions. When this is not the case, it is assumed that something other than "chance" is occurring in the recruitment and selection process and an employer is required to set good faith goals to correct the process. Sanctions are not issued when an employer does not reach a goal. Sanctions can be issued if the employer does not demonstrate good faith in correcting problems in its recruitment or selection procedures.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 05/22/10 08:30 PM
I actually think they will change the law so that children of illegal immigrants will not become U.S. citizens bases solely on their birth on U.S. territory. gosh, almost forgot this thread was about anchor children,,, I think you are right ,,,,

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Sat 05/22/10 08:32 PM
I actually think they will change the law so that children of illegal immigrants will not become U.S. citizens bases solely on their birth on U.S. territory. gosh, almost forgot this thread was about anchor children,,, I think you are right ,,,, I do not see it happening unless the slide back into racism continues in this country and then maybe. It will be ashame for this country as Arizona is now.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 05/22/10 08:40 PM Edited by msharmony on Sat 05/22/10 08:42 PM
I actually think they will change the law so that children of illegal immigrants will not become U.S. citizens bases solely on their birth on U.S. territory. gosh, almost forgot this thread was about anchor children,,, I think you are right ,,,, I do not see it happening unless the slide back into racism continues in this country and then maybe. It will be ashame for this country as Arizona is now. unfortunately, as much as we disagree on some things, IF I were to judge by these threads I also see a trend back towards more racist , bigoted times. I feel it perfectly likely that mexicans will become the new negro(so to speak), and any and every effort that has been made to reverse the discrimination going on for centuries will be reversed under the guise of it being some threat to the majority.... not much of anything will matter but those who are already in power, and those who have acquired the wealth, and the rest of us will be left to fight amongst and point fingers at each other,,,noone stays on top forever, all great civilizations eventually are divided by their own egos and decline by their own arrogance I just hope the process of the decline is long enough for those who are set up to be screwed, to find other options and places to reside.

s1owhand Joined Fri 05/18/07 Posts: 29437	Sat 05/22/10 08:41 PM Edited by s1owhand on Sat 05/22/10 08:42 PM
I don't think it has anything to do with racism. It is an illogical policy. Why should a traveler in another country who has a child there expect to have that child declared a citizen of the country they are traveling in? Particularly if they are traveling in the country illegally? It is ridiculous regardless of race. I suppose that this policy was put into effect in the distant past as an administrative convenience for the relatively rare occasions when this situation occurred. But I am certain it was never intended to provide a work around for illegal immigrants to have their children here illegally and obtain U.S. citizenship for them!

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Sat 05/22/10 08:41 PM
EO11246 Section 202.1 The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. OH MY GOSH << HOW RACIST OF THEM,,,,lol still have yet to see the actual part of a law or regulation which is expressly discriminatory,, and I suspect that I won't in the near future either But, the discrimination comes in when the government sets " minimums " of minorities that have to be employed. You could have 20 people working for you, all of them HIGHLY qualified, go to hire more, and have to hire people less qualified simply because the government says so. quotas are not part of affirmative action,,,what you describe might happen if a company has been PROVEN to actively discriminate in hiring,,,and even then, there only has to be proven an honest EFFORT to provide the opportunities to others,,, on a side note,, there have been Isolated occasions when a JUDGE has mandated a numeric quota , but this is extremely rare and something separate from affirmative acton Check history. When that AA was first implicated, you bet a lot of employers hollered about having to turn down more qualified folks because they had to fill their quota. A few times, I was turned down because they didn't have the proper ratio. They weren't shy about tellin' you either. Even now. With Gov. or Civil Service jobs, it's almost impossible to fire a lazy minority. If that same lazy person wasn't minority, they'd be out the door in a New York minute. check the laws,, history tells us about what happens , not what the LAW mandates... there is noplace in the laws and regulations which fall under the category of Affirmative Action, which requires quotas in hiring,(there are cases where the judicial system mandates in individual cases that quotas be established) if there is, I would gladly learn a little more and read about it and I could also inform my mother who made a living investigating EEO complaints... and who taught me much of what I have learned regarding civil rights, AA , and EEO (although she knows it much more inside and out than I ever could) I was in the workforce then. 1969 President Nixon’s “Philadelphia Order” presents “goals and timetables” for reaching equal employment opportunity in construction trades. It is extended in 1970 to non-construction federal contractors. By this time, 7.8% of college students aged 18-24 are black. 1972 Title IX of the Education Amendments Act prohibits discrimination against girls and women in federally funded education, including athletic programs. Goals and timetables is a fancy term for Quotas. Have to have so many by such and such a time. a goal is not a mandate,,, it is that which one is expected to TRY to do a quota is a MANDATE, that which one MUST do surely, watching our election process, one can understand the difference between saying 'we are going to TRY to have,,,,' and 'we will have' I sure get tired of lookin' up chit that I lived, just to be slammed by undereducated folks. One more time, I'll show you proof where, if businesses didn't comply within the suggested time, they had fines levied against them. It still happens today. Contractors fined for women, minority hiring failures ... PRO FOOTBALL; Lions Fined Over Minority Hiring Implicit Quotas Abstract Employment or admission “goals” are often preferred to affirmative action as a way of obtaining diversity. By constructing a simple model of employer-auditor interaction, it is shown that when an auditor has imperfect information regarding employers’ proclivities to discriminate and the fraction of qualified minorities in each employers applicant pool, goals are synonymous with quotas. Technically speaking, any equilibrium of the auditing game involves a non-empty set of employers that hire so that they do not trigger an audit by rejecting qualified non-minorities, hiring unqualified minorities, or both. Further, under some assumptions, explicit quotas (those mandated by an auditor) are more efficient than implicit quotas (goals settled upon in equilibrium by employers wishing to avoid an audit). GOO-GOO it.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 05/22/10 08:43 PM
I don't think it has anything to do with racism. It is an illogical policy. Why should a traveler in another country who has a child there expect to have that child declared a citizen of the country they are traveling in? Particularly if they are traveling in the country illegally? It is ridiculous regardless of race. I suppose that this policy was put into effect in the distant past as an administrative convenience for the relatively rare occasions when this situation occurred. But I am certain it was never intended to provide a work around for illegal immigrants to have their children here illegally and obtain U.S. citizenship for them! I dont think that policy is racist either. Im just speaking about the attitudes and tone of people in these threads when they speak on topics of race.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 05/22/10 08:46 PM Edited by msharmony on Sat 05/22/10 08:49 PM
EO11246 Section 202.1 The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. OH MY GOSH << HOW RACIST OF THEM,,,,lol still have yet to see the actual part of a law or regulation which is expressly discriminatory,, and I suspect that I won't in the near future either But, the discrimination comes in when the government sets " minimums " of minorities that have to be employed. You could have 20 people working for you, all of them HIGHLY qualified, go to hire more, and have to hire people less qualified simply because the government says so. quotas are not part of affirmative action,,,what you describe might happen if a company has been PROVEN to actively discriminate in hiring,,,and even then, there only has to be proven an honest EFFORT to provide the opportunities to others,,, on a side note,, there have been Isolated occasions when a JUDGE has mandated a numeric quota , but this is extremely rare and something separate from affirmative acton Check history. When that AA was first implicated, you bet a lot of employers hollered about having to turn down more qualified folks because they had to fill their quota. A few times, I was turned down because they didn't have the proper ratio. They weren't shy about tellin' you either. Even now. With Gov. or Civil Service jobs, it's almost impossible to fire a lazy minority. If that same lazy person wasn't minority, they'd be out the door in a New York minute. check the laws,, history tells us about what happens , not what the LAW mandates... there is noplace in the laws and regulations which fall under the category of Affirmative Action, which requires quotas in hiring,(there are cases where the judicial system mandates in individual cases that quotas be established) if there is, I would gladly learn a little more and read about it and I could also inform my mother who made a living investigating EEO complaints... and who taught me much of what I have learned regarding civil rights, AA , and EEO (although she knows it much more inside and out than I ever could) I was in the workforce then. 1969 President Nixon’s “Philadelphia Order” presents “goals and timetables” for reaching equal employment opportunity in construction trades. It is extended in 1970 to non-construction federal contractors. By this time, 7.8% of college students aged 18-24 are black. 1972 Title IX of the Education Amendments Act prohibits discrimination against girls and women in federally funded education, including athletic programs. Goals and timetables is a fancy term for Quotas. Have to have so many by such and such a time. a goal is not a mandate,,, it is that which one is expected to TRY to do a quota is a MANDATE, that which one MUST do surely, watching our election process, one can understand the difference between saying 'we are going to TRY to have,,,,' and 'we will have' I sure get tired of lookin' up chit that I lived, just to be slammed by undereducated folks. One more time, I'll show you proof where, if businesses didn't comply within the suggested time, they had fines levied against them. It still happens today. Contractors fined for women, minority hiring failures ... PRO FOOTBALL; Lions Fined Over Minority Hiring Implicit Quotas Abstract Employment or admission “goals” are often preferred to affirmative action as a way of obtaining diversity. By constructing a simple model of employer-auditor interaction, it is shown that when an auditor has imperfect information regarding employers’ proclivities to discriminate and the fraction of qualified minorities in each employers applicant pool, goals are synonymous with quotas. Technically speaking, any equilibrium of the auditing game involves a non-empty set of employers that hire so that they do not trigger an audit by rejecting qualified non-minorities, hiring unqualified minorities, or both. Further, under some assumptions, explicit quotas (those mandated by an auditor) are more efficient than implicit quotas (goals settled upon in equilibrium by employers wishing to avoid an audit). GOO-GOO it. uh,, what you just posted was NOT affirmative action,,,, 'Employment or admission “goals” are often preferred to affirmative action as a way of obtaining diversity.' preferred TO ,, not preferred AS A PART OF what you did post was an example of another authority (judge or auditor) imposing some quota to correct an inequality PROVEN to exist. There is no affirmative action law or regulation which imposes a quota.