Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You mean people like Jose Angel Gutiérrez, tenured professor at the University of Texas in Arlington, founder of the La Raza Unida Political Party, a professor who is teaching "Raza Studies" to thousands of impressionable college students, who professes that "Our devil has pale skin and blue eyes," and whose famous quote: "We have an aging white America. . . . They are dying. . . . They are shi**ing in their pants with fear! I love it!" "We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what
.
Well, yes, as a matter of fact. People like him, and a few others....
I am curious what our friend Gutierrez would say when confronted by a Chicano (whom I bought a truck from about 10 years ago) who had that 'vato' attitude----------and, pale skin with bright blue eyes.
Even though civil rights laws are completely silent on "protected" status for non-citizens, including legal immigrants? Discrimination against immigrants is perfectly permissible, unless otherwise prohibited (based on race, color, national origin, etc.).
If those "'legal' Hispanics" are not citizens what is the justification for extending any right that does not apply to all persons regardless of citizenship/immigration status?
The inclusion of “national origin” – which by your own admission IS “protected” -- would in fact afford “legal” immigrants equal “rights” in accordance with our laws. On the other hand, “illegal aliens” are not lawful residents of this country; ergo, they are not entitled.
I do not profess to be an immigration subject matter expert. However, I do have firsthand knowledge through my marriage to an “Hispanic” immigrant who came to this country on a student visa, and subsequently (after abiding by our laws) gained his citizenship. I can attest to the fact that he has been afforded ALL of the rights and privileges of a U.S. citizen; including being the recipient of a rather generous PhD student fellowship. Not bad for a country that systematically “discriminates” against immigrants; particularly, “Hispanic” immigrants.
Does discrimination exist? Absolutely! However, it is blatantly disingenuous to maintain that widespread “permissible” discrimination is being perpetrated against “legal” immigrants. That is simply not true; and you know it.
If you are going to refute comments and castigate posters, you would be wise to arm yourself with factual ‘ammunition’ as opposed to biased hyperbole. Otherwise, you end up ‘shooting blanks’.....
BTW, re-read your post. You have effectively contradicted yourself.
Employment:
Quote:
The Executive Order 11246 (E.O 11246) prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors and federally-assisted construction contractors and subcontractors that generally have contracts that exceed $10,000 from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It also requires covered contractors to take affirmative action to ensure that equal opportunity is provided in all aspects of their employment.
Equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws prohibit specific types of employment discrimination. These laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, or status as an individual with a disability or protected veteran.
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 USC 1101 as amended – Section 274A) The INA protects U.S. citizens and aliens authorized to accept employment in the U.S. from discrimination in hiring or discharge on the basis of national origin and citizenship status.
The U.S. Department of Labor Home Page, Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao (http://www.dol.gov/ - broken link)
Fair Housing:
Quote:
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability).
The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) ensures that all consumers are given an equal chance to obtain credit. This doesn’t mean all consumers who apply for credit get it: Factors such as income, expenses, debt, and credit history are considerations for creditworthiness.
When You Apply For Credit, A Creditor May Not...
Discourage you from applying because of your sex, marital status, age, race, national origin, or because you receive public assistance income.
Ask you to reveal your sex, race, national origin, or religion. A creditor may ask you to voluntarily disclose this information (except for religion) if you’re applying for a real estate loan. This information helps federal agencies enforce anti-discrimination laws. You may be asked about your residence or immigration status.
When Deciding To Give You Credit, A Creditor May Not...
Consider your sex, marital status, race, national origin, or religion.
The inclusion of “national origin” – which by your own admission IS “protected” -- would in fact afford “legal” immigrants equal “rights” in accordance with our laws. On the other hand, “illegal aliens” are not lawful residents of this country; ergo, they are not entitled.
I do not profess to be an immigration subject matter expert. However, I do have firsthand knowledge through my marriage to an “Hispanic” immigrant who came to this country on a student visa, and subsequently (after abiding by our laws) gained his citizenship. I can attest to the fact that he has been afforded ALL of the rights and privileges of a U.S. citizen; including being the recipient of a rather generous PhD student fellowship. Not bad for a country that systematically “discriminates” against immigrants; particularly, “Hispanic” immigrants.
Does discrimination exist? Absolutely! However, it is blatantly disingenuous to maintain that widespread “permissible” discrimination is being perpetrated against “legal” immigrants. That is simply not true; and you know it.
If you are going to refute comments and castigate posters, you would be wise to arm yourself with factual ‘ammunition’ as opposed to biased hyperbole. Otherwise, you end up ‘shooting blanks’.....
BTW, re-read your post. You have effectively contradicted yourself.
Employment:
The U.S. Department of Labor Home Page, Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao (http://www.dol.gov/ - broken link)
Bravo !! Well presented. I remember being 'bothered" by Ned's reference (above) to our laws "being silent regarding protected status for non-citizens", I didn't follow up like you so eloquently did. I remember noting to myself that "non-citizens" sounds misleading, because there are MANY people here who are non-citizens, yet I would ASSUME have every expectation of a number of 'civil rights'....these are the many "resident aliens" we have...or "legal aliens"....and to my way of thinking, that's an entirely different staus than "illegal alien".
Like you, I'm not a lawyer...but it's obvious there's a LOT of difference between "legal aliens" and "illegals". Your sister may have your 'understood permission' to enter your home when you're gone. The 'general public' does NOT. BIG difference, even though your sister doesn't actually "own" your home, any more than 'the public' does.
Sorry. I was hung up on the CRA and forgot that a prior wave of border-jumpers, stowaways, and absconders were granted protection from employment discrimination in the Immigration Reform and Control Act. Note that protection from employment discrimination is the only one on your list of that prohibits discrimination based on either national origin or citizenship status. Isn't that redundant as you understand "national origin"?
Quote:
"National origin discrimination means treating someone less favorably because he or she comes from a particular place, because of his or her ethnicity or accent, or because it is believed that he or she has a particular ethnic background."
"While Title VII [of the CRA] does not prohibit citizenship discrimination per se, citizenship discrimination does violate Title VII where it has the "purpose or effect" of discriminating on the basis of national origin."
(EEOC Compliance Manual, Sec. 13-VI(A))
The IRCA assigned anti-discrimination provisions to the awkwardly-named U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices. The EEOC maintains jurisdiction over claims of national origin-based discrimination against aliens. Both legal and illegal.
Quote:
"While federal law prohibits employers from employing individuals lacking work authorization, employers who nonetheless employ undocumented workers are prohibited from discriminating against those workers."
(EEOC Compliance Manual, Sec. 13-VI(B))
The glaring counter-example of U.S. citizenship requirements for certain contractors and subs in the defense/security industry suggests that EO 11246 was not intended to make aliens a protected class. The FHA ( Fair Housing Act as Amended (Title 8) ) and the ECOA ( EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT (ECOA) ) refer to discrimination against "persons" and "applicants" (defined as "persons") respectively. In neither case--ditto the CRA--is "persons" confined to U.S. persons and authorized aliens. What part of "person" don't you understand?
It wasn't my intention to say that citizenship-based discrimination is "widespread". After taking your advice to re-read my post, it's clear to me that I didn't. I've never heard of a case, nor have you heard of a case where an alien so discriminated against came within the purview of the CRA. I said civil rights laws do not name non-citizens as a protected class, and that discrimination against them on that basis "is perfectly permissible". With the clarification that employment discrimination is prohibited by the IRCA (not a civil rights law) and that there may be other laws effective at the state or local level, I stand by that.
...I remember being 'bothered" by Ned's reference (above) to our laws "being silent regarding protected status for non-citizens" ... I remember noting to myself that "non-citizens" sounds misleading, because there are MANY people here who are non-citizens, yet I would ASSUME have every expectation of a number of 'civil rights'....these are the many "resident aliens" we have...or "legal aliens"....and to my way of thinking, that's an entirely different staus than "illegal alien".
...It's obvious there's a LOT of difference between "legal aliens" and "illegals"....
Not in terms of civil rights. As noted above all persons are protected by the CRA, the FHA, etc. if they are a member of a protected class. Aliens are not, except as noted. There is nothing "misleading" about non-citizens. It means persons who are not U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals--aliens.
It seems others have bought into the "immigrant's rights" agenda. Immigrant's rights advocates appropriated the civil rights movement at the federal level in 1986 and have been active at the state level for some time. Fobbs was oddly silent on this.
Should a property owner be forbidden from discriminating against an alien when renting property for a one-year term? What if the alien is detained and removed from the country because of a violation related to his or her immigration status? Should property owners not be allowed to exclude parolees, who may be detained and imprisoned because of a violation related to her or his parole? As far as I know, there is no violation related to race, color, or national origin for which a person may be detained and imprisoned or removed from the country. Yet political correctness would force a property owner to risk renting to aliens, perhaps displacing African-Americans (and other U.S. persons) in so doing.
To get back to Fobbs, I agree with him that people ought not appropriate the spirit of the U.S. civil rights movement for unrelated ends. (Unrelated ends includes granting citizenship to known violators of immigration laws.) However, I was unaware of anyone of note that wanted to place African-American children "behind [illegal aliens] in the line to a decent education or decent housing". Rev. Jackson certainly didn't say that, as Fobbs suggests, and, love him or hate him, Jackson is a product of the movement. Just who does Fobbs think wants to "allow illegal alien children or parents the right to take away their job, their housing, their education, their father's life struggle in order to be politically correct"? "The line" itself should not discriminate against persons based on race, color, or national origin. That is currently public policy, and compliance with this policy in regard to aliens is what mainstream civil rights leaders want. If they also support citizenship for illegal aliens, they're off on something beyond civil rights. The capacity of "the line", however is not exactly finite, so adding persons to it need not displace (and should not displace on the basis of race, color, or national origin) anyone.
Ending (or at least limiting) invidious discrimination against persons based on race, color, or national origin is a legitimate civil rights goal or outcome. That some of those persons are aliens is irrelevant. How is Fobbs's piece any different from anyone else calling a strike, boycott, or mass demonstration "blackmail" (a criminal offense) because they disagree with its goals (or, in this case, presumed goals)?
It wasn't my intention to say that citizenship-based discrimination is "widespread". After taking your advice to re-read my post, it's clear to me that I didn't. I've never heard of a case, nor have you heard of a case where an alien so discriminated against came within the purview of the CRA. I said civil rights laws do not name non-citizens as a protected class, and that discrimination against them on that basis "is perfectly permissible". With the clarification that employment discrimination is prohibited by the IRCA (not a civil rights law) and that there may be other laws effective at the state or local level, I stand by that.
Your quote from the post I referenced:
Quote:
Even though civil rights laws are completely silent on "protected" status for non-citizens, including legal immigrants? Discrimination against immigrants is perfectly permissible, unless otherwise prohibited (based on race, color, national origin, etc.).
Perhaps I am totally misinterpreting your post; but, you clearly stated "legal immigrant." Therefore, I inferred, perhaps erroneously, that you were discussing the discrimination of legal immigrants. It is understood that there would be no provisions for illegal aliens, given their “unlawful” status.
Most Mexicans ARE the descendants of those indians.
From the KKK to the genocide of America's indian groups, you guys love to pin the past sins of America on Mexicans. Its ridiculous.
And; most Mexicans take offence to being referred to as 'Indian'--------they use some nonsense word like 'other' to deny it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
