On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:52:59 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:14:58 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
n the Statue of Liberty,

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to
breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these,
the homeless, tempest tossed, to me”

Too bad that the current rules seem to say just the opposit.

Look at the history. We are letting more in legally than at any time
in our history. When those words were written the bar to get in was much
higher.


But why is there a bar????

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:18:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Mar 31, 11:51*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:55:53 -0400, Kurt Ullman
w
* *Why the line? *It the line were just a matter of getting the
records straight, that would be one thing, but it is not a line, it is
a quota. *So how can you justify a quota that allows 50,000 from
country A and 1,000 from country B. *
* * *Because if you let everyone in you get all the hooha that we are
seeing now. It needs to be an orderly way of doing things. It is also,
by definition, a political thing as to the quotas.



Or maybe because country A has a population of 25 million and country
B has a population of 2 million. If you have no limits and no
controlled process, then do you want someone chartering 747s and
loading them up in Haiti or India with illiterare, unskilled people
and bringing them here by the millions? The simple fact is there
are hundreds of millions that would hop planes to come here if the
door were wide open.


The old I got mine and I don't want to share? I wonder what
the Native Americans would have to say about that? What would your
ancestors have said if they were told .. Sorry not now, we don't want
to share? Where would you be today?

On Mar 31, 7:40*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:18:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Mar 31, 11:51*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:55:53 -0400, Kurt Ullman
w
* *Why the line? *It the line were just a matter of getting the
records straight, that would be one thing, but it is not a line, it is
a quota. *So how can you justify a quota that allows 50,000 from
country A and 1,000 from country B. *
* * *Because if you let everyone in you get all the hooha that we are
seeing now. It needs to be an orderly way of doing things. It is also,
by definition, a political thing as to the quotas.

Or maybe because country A has a population of *25 million and country
B has a population of 2 million. *If you have no limits and no
controlled process, *then do you want someone chartering 747s and
loading them up in Haiti or India with illiterare, unskilled people
and bringing them here by the millions? * *The simple fact is there
are hundreds of millions that would hop planes to come here if the
door were wide open.

* * * * The old I got mine and I don't want to share? *I wonder what
the Native Americans would have to say about that? *What would your
ancestors have said if they were told .. Sorry not now, we don't want
to share? *Where would you be today?- Hide quoted text -



Again, you can't compare the situation from 100 to 200 years ago to
today. Back then the US needed people because the country was a wide
open territory undergoing huge expansion. Unskilled labor was
needed to build railroads, bridges, sow shirts in factories. Anyone
could dig a ditch. There was no govt welfare available or free
healthcare for the indigent. Today the US is very different and
clearly we do not need more uneducated, unskilled people. Having
limits on how many people the US will accept is totally reasonable.

To make your comparison, how about I want to build a house or expand
my kitchen? At the turn of the century I could generally do that
without any govt involvement. Today, I have strict zoning, building
codes, safety standards, I must comply with and can't use child labor
to build it. I could also freely carry a pistol in public. Can't do
that either.

All those things have changed too because the country has evolved.
I'm still waiting for an answer as to whether you are in favor of
allowing some lib organization that thinks like you to charter 747's
and start ferrying people from any third world country on earth here
in unlimited numbers? Do you remember what happened when Fidel
shoved all the folks he wanted to get rid of out the door in the 70's?

In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:52:59 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:14:58 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
n the Statue of Liberty,

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to
breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these,
the homeless, tempest tossed, to me”

Too bad that the current rules seem to say just the opposit.

Look at the history. We are letting more in legally than at any time
in our history. When those words were written the bar to get in was much
higher.


But why is there a bar????

Why shouldn't there be?

--
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.
-Unknown

In article ,
wrote:


The old I got mine and I don't want to share? I wonder what
the Native Americans would have to say about that? What would your
ancestors have said if they were told .. Sorry not now, we don't want
to share? Where would you be today?

Actually that is what happened. There has almost always been quotas
and lines. It took my great-great grandfather almost five years to get
the okay to come over. I would be the same place because my GGF obeyed
the law at the time.
If I really did not want to share, I would be suggesting that the
quotas be lowered to nothin', which I am not.

--
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.
-Unknown

On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:05:24 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:52:59 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:14:58 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
n the Statue of Liberty,

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to
breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these,
the homeless, tempest tossed, to me”

Too bad that the current rules seem to say just the opposit.

Look at the history. We are letting more in legally than at any time
in our history. When those words were written the bar to get in was much
higher.


But why is there a bar????

Why shouldn't there be?

I would guess because there is no "good" reason for having
one. Sort of like establishing a minimum income to walk in a park.

On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:09:17 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


The old I got mine and I don't want to share? I wonder what
the Native Americans would have to say about that? What would your
ancestors have said if they were told .. Sorry not now, we don't want
to share? Where would you be today?

Actually that is what happened. There has almost always been quotas
and lines. It took my great-great grandfather almost five years to get
the okay to come over. I would be the same place because my GGF obeyed
the law at the time.
If I really did not want to share, I would be suggesting that the
quotas be lowered to nothin', which I am not.

So quotas end up keeping those who obey the law out.

In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:09:17 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


The old I got mine and I don't want to share? I wonder what
the Native Americans would have to say about that? What would your
ancestors have said if they were told .. Sorry not now, we don't want
to share? Where would you be today?

Actually that is what happened. There has almost always been quotas
and lines. It took my great-great grandfather almost five years to get
the okay to come over. I would be the same place because my GGF obeyed
the law at the time.
If I really did not want to share, I would be suggesting that the
quotas be lowered to nothin', which I am not.

So quotas end up keeping those who obey the law out.

No, those who obey the law get in. Of course your pointis pretty much
why those found illegally should be shipped back home immediately.

--
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.
-Unknown

"metspitzer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:57:50 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:05:24 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:52:59 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:14:58 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
n the Statue of Liberty,

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to
breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these,
the homeless, tempest tossed, to me"

Too bad that the current rules seem to say just the opposit.

Look at the history. We are letting more in legally than at any
time
in our history. When those words were written the bar to get in was
much
higher.


But why is there a bar????

Why shouldn't there be?

I would guess because there is no "good" reason for having
one. Sort of like establishing a minimum income to walk in a park.

Really? No good reason?

How about people with infectious diseases?
How about hard core criminals?
How about terrorists?

Not quite the same as a walk in the park.

Ellis Island was a harsh place. People were put back on boats and returned
to the sea. Getting into America was not a given. A very dark book could
have been written on Ellis Island, and probably has. But then, it would
only interest people who could read, are interested in history, or want to
know the truth.

But I guess someone would then write an abridged Pollyanna version.

Sheesh.

Steve

On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:57:50 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:05:24 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:52:59 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:14:58 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
n the Statue of Liberty,

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to
breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these,
the homeless, tempest tossed, to me”

Too bad that the current rules seem to say just the opposit.

Look at the history. We are letting more in legally than at any time
in our history. When those words were written the bar to get in was much
higher.


But why is there a bar????

Why shouldn't there be?

I would guess because there is no "good" reason for having
one. Sort of like establishing a minimum income to walk in a park.

Really? No good reason?

How about people with infectious diseases?
How about hard core criminals?
How about terrorists?

Not quite the same as a walk in the park.

SteveB wrote:
"metspitzer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:57:50 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:05:24 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:52:59 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:14:58 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
n the Statue of Liberty,

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to
breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these,
the homeless, tempest tossed, to me"

Too bad that the current rules seem to say just the opposit.
Look at the history. We are letting more in legally than at any
time
in our history. When those words were written the bar to get in was
much
higher.

But why is there a bar????
Why shouldn't there be?
I would guess because there is no "good" reason for having
one. Sort of like establishing a minimum income to walk in a park.
Really? No good reason?

How about people with infectious diseases?
How about hard core criminals?
How about terrorists?

Not quite the same as a walk in the park.

Ellis Island was a harsh place. People were put back on boats and returned
to the sea. Getting into America was not a given. A very dark book could
have been written on Ellis Island, and probably has. But then, it would
only interest people who could read, are interested in history, or want to
know the truth.

But I guess someone would then write an abridged Pollyanna version.

Sheesh.

Steve

You do mean politically correct version?

TDD

wrote:

Actually that is what happened. There has almost always been quotas
and lines. It took my great-great grandfather almost five years to get
the okay to come over. I would be the same place because my GGF obeyed
the law at the time.
If I really did not want to share, I would be suggesting that the
quotas be lowered to nothin', which I am not.

So quotas end up keeping those who obey the law out.



That is correct. I had a Norwegian roommate many years ago who came to
this country to learn how to fly and gain enough experience to get a
flying job back in his own country. He spoke English. He attended the
North American Institute of Aviation, received his private and
commercial licenses, along with instrument and multiengine ratings, and
then became a CFI. That's how I met him: he was hired to teach flying
at the company where I was a charter pilot.

He went on to earn an airline transport license and a Learjet type
rating, then went home to Norway. As it turned out, he couldn't find a
flying job in Norway (or even Scandinavia). He couldn't come back to
the US either. He works today as an electrician in Norway.

The irony is that if he'd been a Mexican, he'd probably be living down
the street. No quotas for them!



Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerd at carolina.rr.com

Kurt Ullman wrote:

So quotas end up keeping those who obey the law out.

No, those who obey the law get in. Of course your pointis pretty much
why those found illegally should be shipped back home immediately.



Here in North Carolina, there is a move afoot to not only allow the
children of illegal aliens to attend our colleges, but to give them
INSTATE tuition!

I agree with the concept that more education is a good thing for society
in general. Where I break with this is the thought that somebody
legally born in South Carolina 10 miles on the other side of the NC_SC
border would be required to pay out of state tuition while these
illegals would get the instate rate. That just isn't right.

The argument has been made that they ought to be allowed to attend
because they've graduated from our public schools. How did that happen?
Who let them register?

We have become a nation of enablers.



Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerd at carolina.rr.com

In article ,
Mortimer Schnerd wrote:


The irony is that if he'd been a Mexican, he'd probably be living down
the street. No quotas for them!

Of course he wouldn't have been an airline pilot, either. Most
likely not an electrician, at least a real one.

--
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.
-Unknown

On Apr 2, 7:32*am, Mortimer Schnerd
wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
* * So quotas end up keeping those who obey the law out. *

* No, those who obey the law get in. Of course your pointis pretty much
why those found illegally should be shipped back home immediately.

Here in North Carolina, there is a move afoot to not only allow the
children of illegal aliens to attend our colleges, but to give them
INSTATE tuition!

Same thing was just proposed here. Ultra lib Governor Corzine
appointed a panel to look into what do do FOR immigrants. The panel
recommended giving illegal aliens both cards which would serve as
driving licenses and in-state college tuition. Just a couple days
ago, the governor said that drivers cards were out because he sees
that as a federal issue (?) I guess he has a few brain cells and
remembers what happened to the NY governor when he proposed the same
thing. But he is in favor of giving them instate college tuition.

And this clown is up for re-election in Nov, with the latest polls
showing even candidates that those polled had never heard of would
easily beat him. The polls also show just 20% of those polled are in
favor of in-state tuition breaks for illegal aliens. What total
arrogance.

We are drowning here with the highest tax burden in the country. My
taxes are $10K on a 3200 sq ft house. Sales tax was raised just 2
years ago to 7%. And the state income tax will soon top out at
10.20, just one tick below CA which I think is 10.25. . Courtesy of
our lib state supreme court, who invented law instead of applying it,
each municipality is now required to provide a state determined amount
of affordable housing. That's right, for every 4 houses that are
built, one unit of affordable housing, ie trailer park, apartments,
etc must be built. My God, even in CA they aren't this stupid!

I'm definitely going to the tea party protest in NYC on April 15.






I agree with the concept that more education is a good thing for society
in general. *Where I break with this is the thought that somebody
legally born in South Carolina 10 miles on the other side of the NC_SC
border would be required to pay out of state tuition while these
illegals would get the instate rate. *That just isn't right.

The argument has been made that they ought to be allowed to attend
because they've graduated from our public schools. *How did that happen?
* Who let them register?

We have become a nation of enablers.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerd at carolina.rr.com

On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 07:41:16 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Mortimer Schnerd wrote:


The irony is that if he'd been a Mexican, he'd probably be living down
the street. No quotas for them!

Of course he wouldn't have been an airline pilot, either. Most
likely not an electrician, at least a real one.

Don't look now, but your prejudge is showing.

On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:07:06 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:09:17 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


The old I got mine and I don't want to share? I wonder what
the Native Americans would have to say about that? What would your
ancestors have said if they were told .. Sorry not now, we don't want
to share? Where would you be today?

Actually that is what happened. There has almost always been quotas
and lines. It took my great-great grandfather almost five years to get
the okay to come over. I would be the same place because my GGF obeyed
the law at the time.
If I really did not want to share, I would be suggesting that the
quotas be lowered to nothin', which I am not.

So quotas end up keeping those who obey the law out.

No, those who obey the law get in. Of course your pointis pretty much
why those found illegally should be shipped back home immediately.

Quota:
1 : a proportional part or share; especially : the share or
proportion assigned to each in a division or to each member of a body
2 : the number or amount constituting a proportional share
3 : a fixed number or percentage of minority group members or women
needed to meet the requirements of affirmative action

Now try again.

In article ,
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 07:41:16 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Mortimer Schnerd wrote:


The irony is that if he'd been a Mexican, he'd probably be living down
the street. No quotas for them!

Of course he wouldn't have been an airline pilot, either. Most
likely not an electrician, at least a real one.

Don't look now, but your prejudge is showing.

No, both of those require licensing which he couldn't have gotten as
an illegal.

--
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.
-Unknown

In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:07:06 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:09:17 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


The old I got mine and I don't want to share? I wonder what
the Native Americans would have to say about that? What would your
ancestors have said if they were told .. Sorry not now, we don't want
to share? Where would you be today?

Actually that is what happened. There has almost always been quotas
and lines. It took my great-great grandfather almost five years to get
the okay to come over. I would be the same place because my GGF obeyed
the law at the time.
If I really did not want to share, I would be suggesting that the
quotas be lowered to nothin', which I am not.

So quotas end up keeping those who obey the law out.

No, those who obey the law get in. Of course your pointis pretty much
why those found illegally should be shipped back home immediately.

Quota:
1 : a proportional part or share; especially : the share or
proportion assigned to each in a division or to each member of a body
2 : the number or amount constituting a proportional share
3 : a fixed number or percentage of minority group members or women
needed to meet the requirements of affirmative action

Now try again.
I havew no idea the point you are trying to make.

--
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.
-Unknown

On Apr 2, 9:56*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 07:41:16 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Mortimer Schnerd wrote:

The irony is that if he'd been a Mexican, he'd probably be living down
the street. *No quotas for them!

* *Of course he wouldn't have been an airline pilot, either. Most
likely not an electrician, at least a real one.

* *Don't look now, but your prejudge is showing.

* No, both of those require licensing which he couldn't have gotten as
an illegal.

--

Are you sure about that? It wouldn't surprise me to find out that at
least in some states, you can get licensed as an electrician without
proving citizenship. I can see the radical illegal alien advocates
arguing that the licensing shouldn't depend on citizenship and that it
should be illegal to even ask. If some states are now handing out
drivers licenses, why should electrician licenses be out of the
question.

Also, does anyone know if the FAA checks for citizenship for pilot
licensing?



Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.
-Unknown

On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:56:25 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 07:41:16 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Mortimer Schnerd wrote:


The irony is that if he'd been a Mexican, he'd probably be living down
the street. No quotas for them!

Of course he wouldn't have been an airline pilot, either. Most
likely not an electrician, at least a real one.

Don't look now, but your prejudge is showing.

No, both of those require licensing which he couldn't have gotten as
an illegal.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...967644ac935ba#

America needs people that will be assets, not liabilities.

wrote:

Also, does anyone know if the FAA checks for citizenship for pilot
licensing?


No. You can go to
http://www1.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...e?OpenFrameSet
and select Current CFR By Part. Part 61 has to do with the
eligibility of pilots.

Section 61.3 requires among other things that the pilot have in his
possession a photo ID issued by a state, territory or possession of the
US, the District of Columbia or by the Federal government.

The next section I quote shows the general requirement that a student
pilot must speak English. There is nothing there that says he has to be
a citizen.


Sec. 61.83

Eligibility requirements for student pilots.

To be eligible for a student pilot certificate, an applicant must:
(a) Be at least 16 years of age for other than the operation of a glider
or balloon.
(b) Be at least 14 years of age for the operation of a glider or balloon.
(c) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language.
If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to
medical reasons, then the Administrator may place such operating
limitations on that applicant's pilot certificate as are necessary for
the safe operation of the aircraft.


Sec. 61.103 (Private Pilots)
Sec. 61.123 (Commercial Pilots)
Sec. 61.153 (Airline Transport Pilots)

These other sections echo the requirement to be able to speak English.
Once again there is no requirement to be a citizen.

Everything you wanted to know AND MORE!!!!


Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerd at carolina.rr.com

On Apr 2, 1:28*pm, Mortimer Schnerd
wrote:
wrote:
Also, does anyone know if the FAA checks for citizenship for pilot
licensing?

No. *You can go tohttp://www1.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/...
and select Current CFR By Part. *Part 61 has to do with the
eligibility of pilots.

Section 61.3 requires among other things that the pilot have in his
possession a photo ID issued by a state, territory or possession of the
US, the District of Columbia or by the Federal government.

The next section I quote shows the general requirement that a student
pilot must speak English. *There is nothing there that says he has to be
a citizen.

Sec. 61.83

Eligibility requirements for student pilots.

To be eligible for a student pilot certificate, an applicant must:
(a) Be at least 16 years of age for other than the operation of a glider
or balloon.
(b) Be at least 14 years of age for the operation of a glider or balloon.
(c) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language.
If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to
medical reasons, then the Administrator may place such operating
limitations on that applicant's pilot certificate as are necessary for
the safe operation of the aircraft.

Sec. 61.103 *(Private Pilots)
Sec. 61.123 *(Commercial Pilots)
Sec. 61.153 *(Airline Transport Pilots)

These other sections echo the requirement to be able to speak English.
Once again there is no requirement to be a citizen.

Everything you wanted to know AND MORE!!!!

Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerd at carolina.rr.com


In Illinois there is no citizenship requirement to vote, only that
your address can be proven correct. Cicero and Berwyn have pretty
high non-citizen voting turn outs on election day.

RickH wrote:

In Illinois there is no citizenship requirement to vote, only that
your address can be proven correct. Cicero and Berwyn have pretty
high non-citizen voting turn outs on election day.



That is an absolute disgrace. What other country in the world will
allow you or I to vote in one of their elections?



Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerd at carolina.rr.com

On 04/02/09 12:43 pm wrote:


. . . It wouldn't surprise me to find out that at
least in some states, you can get licensed as an electrician without
proving citizenship. I can see the radical illegal alien advocates
arguing that the licensing shouldn't depend on citizenship and that it
should be illegal to even ask. If some states are now handing out
drivers licenses, why should electrician licenses be out of the
question.

Also, does anyone know if the FAA checks for citizenship for pilot
licensing?

You don't even have to be a citizen to serve in the US military. Why,
then -- from a strictly logical viewpoint -- would anyone need to be a
citizen merely to fly a plane?

Strangely, however, only citizens can serve as civilian employees of the
Defense Dept.

Perce

On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:58:22 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

.........

So quotas end up keeping those who obey the law out.

No, those who obey the law get in. Of course your pointis pretty much
why those found illegally should be shipped back home immediately.

Quota:
1 : a proportional part or share; especially : the share or
proportion assigned to each in a division or to each member of a body
2 : the number or amount constituting a proportional share
3 : a fixed number or percentage of minority group members or women
needed to meet the requirements of affirmative action

Now try again.
I havew no idea the point you are trying to make.

It appears from your response that you don't understand a
quota vs some sort of requirement based on some factor like race,
religion, criminal history etc.

On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:56:25 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 07:41:16 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Mortimer Schnerd wrote:


The irony is that if he'd been a Mexican, he'd probably be living down
the street. No quotas for them!

Of course he wouldn't have been an airline pilot, either. Most
likely not an electrician, at least a real one.

Don't look now, but your prejudge is showing.

No, both of those require licensing which he couldn't have gotten as
an illegal.

Sorry, my bad, I did not look at it that way.

In article ,
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:58:22 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

........

So quotas end up keeping those who obey the law out.

No, those who obey the law get in. Of course your pointis pretty much
why those found illegally should be shipped back home immediately.

Quota:
1 : a proportional part or share; especially : the share or
proportion assigned to each in a division or to each member of a body
2 : the number or amount constituting a proportional share
3 : a fixed number or percentage of minority group members or women
needed to meet the requirements of affirmative action

Now try again.
I havew no idea the point you are trying to make.

It appears from your response that you don't understand a
quota vs some sort of requirement based on some factor like race,
religion, criminal history etc.
I understand quotas, I was arguing for them, if you will remember.

--
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.
-Unknown

In article ,
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:56:25 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 07:41:16 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Mortimer Schnerd wrote:


The irony is that if he'd been a Mexican, he'd probably be living down
the street. No quotas for them!

Of course he wouldn't have been an airline pilot, either. Most
likely not an electrician, at least a real one.

Don't look now, but your prejudge is showing.

No, both of those require licensing which he couldn't have gotten as
an illegal.

Sorry, my bad, I did not look at it that way.

Although as it turns out I was wrong in the underlying assumption.

--
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.
-Unknown