Which Should be our Goal: Equality Before the Law or Equal Oppertunity?

[Iceman]

I don't apologize for misreading your comment, or admit any wrong. It is late, you are complicating a simple issue. And have yet to explain how our current immigration system is unequal before the law.

Migration of cultures that have a proven record of not valuing the rule of law or equality before the law, or likewise fail to assimilate into a culture that recognizes the rule of law/equality before the law, reasonably hinders the rule of law/equality before the law by diluting the political culture of a country away from the rule of law/equality before the law.

Hmmm, "It is late." A great excuse for yourself, however, not applied to me when making your assessment of stupidity. Funny how that worked out.

Now you are getting off track. Now we are getting into YOUR view on what immigration should be. I could personally care less.

I am talking about US immigration law. Before 1965, you could discriminate based on nationality, after 1965, you can't.

Prior to 1965, there was an unequal application of law based on your nationality, post 1965, there is an equal application of immigration law based on nationality.

I support pre 1965 immigration and unequal application of immigration law based on nationality, I support discrimination based on nationality.

You asked for an example to where I object to equality under the law. Current immigration law is an example. I object to current immigration law due to it's equal application of immigration law based on nationality.

Can't make it any more clear or concise for you. I can give more examples at a later time. I thought this would be a straight forward answer, apparently it took up two pages and two hours. A rather futile exercise if you ask me. Don't know what your point was other than to be an aspie asshole.

 

[Publius1787]

I don't apologize for misreading your comment, or admit any wrong. It is late, you are complicating a simple issue. And have yet to explain how our current immigration system is unequal before the law.

Migration of cultures that have a proven record of not valuing the rule of law or equality before the law, or likewise fail to assimilate into a culture that recognizes the rule of law/equality before the law, reasonably hinders the rule of law/equality before the law by diluting the political culture of a country away from the rule of law/equality before the law.

Hmmm, "It is late." A great excuse for yourself, however, not applied to me when making your assessment of stupidity. Funny how that worked out.

Now you are getting off track. Now we are getting into YOUR view on what immigration should be. I could personally care less.

I am talking about US immigration law. Before 1965, you could discriminate based on nationality, after 1965, you can't.

Prior to 1965, there was an unequal application of law based on your nationality, post 1965, there is an equal application of immigration law based on nationality.

I support pre 1965 immigration and unequal application of immigration law based on nationality, I support discrimination based on nationality.

You asked for an example to where I object to equality under the law. Current immigration law is an example. I object to current immigration law due to it's equal application of immigration law based on nationality.

Can't make it any more clear or concise for you. I can give more examples at a later time. I thought this would be a straight forward answer, apparently it took up two pages and two hours. A rather futile exercise if you ask me. Don't know what your point was other than to be an aspie asshole.

And I was simply displaying how it could be construed as to be the antithesis of equality before the law. Nothing more nothing less. This is how we learn. I was not off track. I made an opposing claim and backed it up with a series of statements so as to establish a proposition. This was a logical progression in our argument. The federal government indeed makes many laws under the guise of equality before the law that have nothing to do with equality. That is a major theme in this thread considering the topic. I do not believe the current immigration law is in any way a strive toward equality before the law but away from it. Look no further than proposed amnesty legislation/Executive Orders to add credence to that. I understand exactly where your coming from and I wish to test whether equality before the law is something we should strive for through our back an forth. I thought that was apparent, but I guess not.

I don't take issue with the word "asshole." In fact, I am proudly the supreme asshole for my uncanny ability to ignore the plight of others. But what is an aspie?

 

[Iceman]

Proposed Amnesty is separate from current in-effect immigration law which guarantees equal treatment regardless of nationality. In fact, if Amnesty is passed, that would be a step towards greater equality under the law, more egalitarianism. Because regardless of legal status or nationality, you would be given citizenship. So not a valid point at all.

 

[Publius1787]

Proposed Amnesty is separate from current in-effect immigration law which guarantees equal treatment regardless of nationality. In fact, if Amnesty is passed, that would be a step towards greater equality under the law, more egalitarianism. Because regardless of legal status or nationality, you would be given citizenship. So not a valid point at all.

Lets see, the current wait in the immigration line to migrate a brother or sister from the Philippines: 23 years. What would be the wait for domestic amnesty? Permanent residency until full citizenship? This is equality? Certainly they don't aim to send them back to their own countries. And what of the Executive orders? Equality? Nah. Oh, and when I write the word "proposed," I am fully aware of what it implies. What you need to understand is that I put it there so I wouldn't get a response like the one above.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No one is born skilled or educated, both are obtained through personal decisions. You can be born into a family with money but that doesn't guarantee success and being born to a poor family doesn't guarantee failure. Social justice implies a some what equal outcome regardless of effort, which is antithetical to real American values of reward equal to the effort expended.

Guaranteed? No. But pretty close.

Freakonomics » Is Higher Income Inequality Associated with Lower Intergenerational Mobility?

 

[Publius1787]

No one is born skilled or educated, both are obtained through personal decisions. You can be born into a family with money but that doesn't guarantee success and being born to a poor family doesn't guarantee failure. Social justice implies a some what equal outcome regardless of effort, which is antithetical to real American values of reward equal to the effort expended.

Guaranteed? No. But pretty close.

Freakonomics » Is Higher Income Inequality Associated with Lower Intergenerational Mobility?

So what do you deduce from this data and how does it fit in to your notions of equality of opportunity or equality before the law?