Race mixing

[Ethelred]

and people f*ck each other because they want to f*ck each other

Or maybe they are just horny and the other person is too.

I admit I feel uncomfortable when everyone around is another race. I don't claim to be perfect. I just try to work at it.

If only my sister-in-laws relatives were into computers like she is. Then I would more to talk about with them. I lost interest in football a long time ago.

[Sarxis]

Re: Race mixing

Originally posted by Caligastia
..enforced race mixing ...

What the hell is that?

[TCO]

Cal has been hitting the historical romance section of the bookstore?

Originally posted by Anunikoba


What the hell is that?

Miscegenation on da ole plantation.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by GP
Cal,

What are you talking about?? There's no enforced race-mixing in terms of marriage, etc. People **** who they want ****.

You're getting a bit too wierded out by the whole race thing...

Im not talking in terms of individual relationships, Im talking about the immigration policy of the US govt since 1965, the year the immigration reform act came into force. One of the aims of the bill was to ensure a far greater amount of non-white immigrants into the US. This is race mixing enforced by the US govt.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Ethelred


What forcing? There is no forcing going on UNLESS you are calling anti-descrimination laws forcing. I don't think that way in those terms. People are individuals. I only think of people as groups when they band together.

I am referring the the immigration reform act of 1965.

That question shows you think in VERY racial terms. Its smacks of bigotry.

The fact is that there are different races of humans on this planet, how is recognising this fact "bigotry"?

My ideal is for no to give a damn. In which case there would soon be only one race. Might take a dozen generations or less. Look at Brazil for a perfect example of a society without race due to mixing.

As I said before, to a certain extent we are ingrained to think in racial terms, so no amount of social engineering will eliminate this.

If Brazil is your idea of a model society then I would hate to see what would happen to the US if you were in charge.

I support a lack of bigotry. You seem to be a part of the problem.

Im no bigot. You seem to be resorting to name-calling here, Im sure you can do better than that.

[Aeson]

The 1965 Immigration Reform Act did away with nationality quotas, and promoted family reunification. The effect was a dramatic rise in asian immigration, an opposite effect than what the proponents had envisioned.

It certainly did not enforce race mixing. It just removed 'national origin' barriers already in place.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Ramo


I have no idea of which fantasy world you live in, but there is no "enforced race mixing" going on in the US or Europe. I've got a secret for you: people of different ethnicities generally interbreed because they actually want to, and their business is neither yours nor the state's.

Im talking about immigration policies, not individual relationships.

If culural/"racial" differences cause violence and discrimination, how can rapid "race mixing" possibly be bad?

Because even with current immigration policies, it would take a very long time for the races in the US to be sufficiently mixed as to be indistinguishable, and in the meantime society pays a high price because of violence and discrimination. We both seem to have the same ideal - one race. We just disagree on how to get there.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Aeson
The 1965 Immigration Reform Act did away with nationality quotas, and promoted family reunification. The effect was a dramatic rise in asian immigration, an opposite effect than what the proponents had envisioned.

It certainly did not enforce race mixing. It just removed 'national origin' barriers already in place.

Its undeniable that the act increased non-white immigration to the US exponentially. This forces different races to live with each other doesnt it?

I am not against race mixing per-se, I just think it needs to be done more cautiously.

[Aeson]

You might be thinking of the 1990 Act, which I think is a step in the wrong direction as it reintroduces certain origin quotas (diversity immigrants). It isn't a very large percentage though.

1990 Immigration Act amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which remains the basic law. The new law raised the total number of numerically limited immigrants entering the U.S. annually in FY 1992-94 to 700,000 (excluding refugees whose admission numbers are announced annually and some others not subject to limitation). The visas were distributed as follows: 465,000 for family immigrants; 55,000 for the spouses and children of aliens legalized under IRCA [Immigration and Control Act of 1986]; 140,000 for employment- based immigrants; 40,000 for nationals from "adversely affected" countries. Beginning in FY 1995 the number dropped from 700,000 to 675,000. These visas were distributed as follows: 480,000 for family immigrants; 140,000 for employment-based immigrants; 55,000 for "diversity immigrants." Under the latter category, the allotment of FY 1995 visa numbers for each region was as follows: Africa 20,200; Asia 6,837; Europe 24,549; North America (Bahamas) 8; South, Central, and Caribbean America 2,589; and Oceania 817.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Aeson
You might be thinking of the 1990 Act, which I think is a step in the wrong direction as it reintroduces certain origin quotas (diversity immigrants). It isn't a very large percentage though.

The 1990 act is also a problem, but the 1965 act got things started on the wrong track.

http://www.campus.ccsd.k12.co.us/ss/SONY/Immbeta2/65-pres.htm

It ordered elimination of the national origins quota system in favor of a worldwide quota blind to national origin.

[Aeson]

One of the aims of the bill was to ensure a far greater amount of non-white immigrants into the US. This is race mixing enforced by the US govt.

Its undeniable that the act increased non-white immigration to the US exponentially. This forces different races to live with each other doesnt it?

You switched your use of 'force'.

If they allowed 1 person of a seperate ethnicity to immigrate it would 'force' race mixing in the context of the second quote. I can't see how this has any bearing on the discussion as the only way to not 'force' race mixing would be to deport everyone not of one chosen race.

In the context of your first quote, no, the government is not forcing race mixing composition. The 1965 act decreased compositional standards on basis of race/ethnicity.

In any case, we had a diverse ethnic background before 1965. To live in the US was to accept racial/ethnic diversity that comes with it. To claim that the government is forcing race mixing through immigration is somewhat absurd. To claim that by removing national origin barriers they are promoting certain races over others is equally absurd.

[Aeson]

It wasn't exactly blind to national origin. The number of immigrants from any particular nation were limited still. 20,000 was the number from eastern hemisphere nations, and higher for western.

I don't see how removing quotas based on national origin promoted race mixing? Unless of course the quotas removed were biased towards one 'prefered' race... In which case they most certainly should have been changed.

[Aeson]

For the first time in history, a person from an Asian or African nation received the same consideration as a person from France or Germany.

From your link. Seems much more fair to me.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Caligastia


I am referring the the immigration reform act of 1965.

Which isn't what you claim it was. Prior to that the immigration laws were VERY discriminatory. Removing that discrimination is not forced racial mixing. Heck even if it was for the purpose that you made up it wouldn't be forced racial mixing.

Calling anti-discrimation laws forced mixing of races does not speak well of your tolerance for other races.

The fact is that there are different races of humans on this planet, how is recognising this fact "bigotry"?

I recognize it. You fixate on it. That smacks of bigotry. You are thinking in racial terms not merely recognizing the humans have local variations in some genes to adapt to local conditions.

As I said before, to a certain extent we are ingrained to think in racial terms, so no amount of social engineering will eliminate this.

Mixing the races will change it and humans are not merely the products of genetics. We can learn. Well most of us can learn. You are having a very hard time with this.

If Brazil is your idea of a model society then I would hate to see what would happen to the US if you were in charge.

Still distorting I see. I was only talking about the racial situation. They don't have one. We can do the same and there is no reason to think we must have their incomptent government to do so.

Im no bigot. You seem to be resorting to name-calling here, Im sure you can do better than that.

I can use other terms if you find that offensive. Racist applies quite well to people that think in racial terms in their interactions with others. Bigot is nicer though. Doesn't have the implied violence that racist does even if the other term is actually more accurate. You sound a touch racist even if you don't hate.

How about we invent a word. Racialist: one who can't stop thinking of people in terms of their race instead of treating them as people.

[Guynemer]

Welcome to the Apolyton Zoo.

We have only two rules, here:

1. Keep off the grass.
2. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!