The naming of COVID variants invites another pandemic – of racism

[Neeranam]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

mmmm maybe, racism is a fairly broad term and can include many things. My point is really that its not just about colour but of course can be. if thats agreeing with you then great we're on the same page.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

So back to my original post -  banning foreigners getting in buses is NOT racist, as it includes all colours and ethnicities. 

 

 

[Thomas J]

12 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Are these Asians citizens?  

For the most part yes.  

Like all ethnic groups there is always some who are not in the country legally.  Most common with Asians is to come on a student visa and then just not leave.  There is no enforcement to seek out those who overstay their visa's.  

 

This is a quote from Dr. Thomas Sowell PHD economics Stanford University on immigrants.  Note the stat on immigrants from Japan vs. Laos. 

Again  why shouldn't a country have the right to select those most likely to be additive to the nation or at least reject those most likely to be a burden to the welfare system. 

 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

So back to my original post -  banning foreigners getting in buses is NOT racist, as it includes all colours and ethnicities. 

 

 

If you're banning them based on the fact that they are foreign then yes its racist and discriminatory.

 

It makes no difference what colour they are or ethnic trait.

[Thomas J]

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Do you only read from the echo chamber?

I read the article.  Where does it say that no effort was made to locate the families.  Also as mentioned where does it say that the people who these children were separated from were really their family.  As mentioned DNA tests show that 1 out of 5 "families" that showed up at the border were not really family members. 

Finally, if I am a parent and I don't want to take the chance for myself, my spouse and my children to be apprehended and detained  I don't come to the border illegally.  

If I don't want to go to jail, I don't steal.  If I don't want a speeding ticket I don't speed.  If I don't want to be put in a detention center but want entry to the USA I apply for legal immigration.  Which part of follow the rules do you have difficulty with? 

 

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Again  why shouldn't a country have the right to select those most likely to be additive to the nation or at least reject those most likely to be a burden to the welfare system.

 

Because selection of immigrants should be based on need, not their potential to contribute to the IRS.

[chalawaan]

9 hours ago, clivebaxter said:

 

Chinese flu, probably where it came from

It was Kansas, Toto.

"The first observations of illness and mortality were documented in the United States (in Kansas) in March 1918 and then in April in France, Germany and the United Kingdom. To maintain morale, World War I censors minimized these early reports. Newspapers were free to report the epidemic's effects in neutral Spain, such as the grave illness of King Alfonso XIII, and these stories created a false impression of Spain as especially hard hit. This gave rise to the name "Spanish" flu. Historical and epidemiological data are inadequate to identify with certainty the pandemic's geographic origin, with varying views as to its location." Actually, you're probably right then. China by default. ????

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by chalawaan

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

If I don't want to go to jail, I don't steal.  If I don't want a speeding ticket I don't speed.  If I don't want to be put in a detention center but want entry to the USA I apply for legal immigration.  Which part of follow the rules do you have difficulty with?

Again, is separation of children from their parents not cruel?

[Thomas J]

Just now, ozimoron said:

Because selection of immigrants should be based on need, not their potential to contribute to the IRS.

If that is the criteria than why have any immigration laws at all.  Anyone who wishes to enter any country for any reason should be allowed.  Now in a world of about 7.8 billion people if only 10% had "need" that would put the USA population with new immigrants at over 1 billion people.  You must get your money from the same goose that lays golden eggs as Bernie Sanders.  Too many people in a lifeboat out of misguided compassion sinks the boat for everyone.  The fact that these people have "needs" does not make it the problem of any country. And somehow this idea that the only way to help them is to take them in as residents is ludicrous.  How about making life better in their home country for everyone there versus only the portion that choose to travel on foot.  

[chalawaan]

Did WHO just choose the Greek Alphabet because it turns out these new varaints gonna pluk us in the R's?

[Neeranam]

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

If you're banning them based on the fact that they are foreign then yes its racist and discriminatory.

 

It makes no difference what colour they are or ethnic trait.

It is nationalist, a big difference. With Nationalism, it makes no difference your ethnicity or race. 

 

If it were farang, and blacks barred from buses, that's racism.

 

TAoo many people these days trying to complicate racism.  

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Thomas J said:

If that is the criteria than why have any immigration laws at all.  Anyone who wishes to enter any country for any reason should be allowed. 

I'm not arguing that. Don't attempt to put words in my mouth. I'm simply saying that immigration other than in marriage should be based primarily on humanitarian needs before any other consideration. I'm not suggesting there should not be quotas.

[Thomas J]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Again, is separation of children from their parents not cruel?

A. you are presupposing that 100% of the children were separated
B. you are presupposing that the people they were separated from were their families
C. you are making the fact that these people chose to come to the USA illegally somehow the responsibility of the USA to provide them not just with shelter but with shelter equipped for family living. 

Just how many facilities should the USA have have and where exactly should all of those facilities be located to match the flow of illegals.  How much staff should the USA have to accommodate each and every person who comes across the border. 

Now finally, when that 12 year old girl is not separated from her "family" and it turns out she is really being held by "her family" to gain entrance to the USA and she is then raped while not being "separated" from her family.  Do you then blame the USA for not knowing it really was not her family and not separating her? 

 

[chalawaan]

1 minute ago, Neeranam said:

It is nationalist, a big difference. With Nationalism, it makes no difference your ethnicity or race. 

 

If it were farang, and blacks barred from buses, that's racism.

 

TAoo many people these days trying to complicate racism.  

Complicated? It's all pretty black and white to me.

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Neeranam said:

It is nationalist, a big difference. With Nationalism, it makes no difference your ethnicity or race. 

 

If it were farang, and blacks barred from buses, that's racism.

 

TAoo many people these days trying to complicate racism.  

Racism is not confined just to colour, calling it Nationalism downplays the actual act and is instead your interpretation only, its not the interpretation and definition of racism, racial prejudice and discrimination as defined in the English language.

[Thomas J]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I'm not arguing that. Don't attempt to put words in my mouth. I'm simply saying that immigration other than in marriage should be based primarily on humanitarian needs before any other consideration. I'm not suggesting there should not be quotas.

That is making a "distinction without a difference"   

If the only criteria is 'need" than essentially it is open borders.  So based on your criteria a bare minimum of 689 million people should immediately qualify for immigration because of need.  How can you refute that someone living on $1.90 a day or less has need.  Now the fact that as a government official you swear to uphold the laws of the USA but in your mind the "need" of those people supersedes the law and admission should be made without regards to whether the person has any skills that would make them self sustainable. 

How many people live in poverty in the world? Recent estimates for global poverty are that 9.2% of the world, or 689 million people, live in extreme poverty on $1.90 or less a day, according to the World Bank

[ozimoron]

Just now, Thomas J said:

A. you are presupposing that 100% of the children were separated

 

rubbish. are you denying that any children were separated from their parents without regard to reunification? or that the practise was widespread?

 

Just now, Thomas J said:

B. you are presupposing that the people they were separated from were their families

In many cases they were. do you deny that?

 

Just now, Thomas J said:

C. you are making the fact that these people chose to come to the USA illegally somehow the responsibility of the USA to provide them not just with shelter but with shelter equipped for family living. 

No, I am making the case that they should not be treated inhumanely.

 

Just now, Thomas J said:

Just how many facilities should the USA have have and where exactly should all of those facilities be located to match the flow of illegals.  How much staff should the USA have to accommodate each and every person who comes across the border. 

Irrelevant to the point. Children were deliberately separated permanently from their parents is the point.

 

Just now, Thomas J said:

Now finally, when that 12 year old girl is not separated from her "family" and it turns out she is really being held by "her family" to gain entrance to the USA and she is then raped while not being "separated" from her family.  Do you then blame the USA for not knowing it really was not her family and not separating her?

Again, not the issue. Most children were separated as part of a deterrent policy. Crimes occur in all sectors of all societies and are dealt with accordingly.

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

That is making a "distinction without a difference"   If the only criteria is 'need" than essentially it is open borders.

 

Rubbish. Having a quota is a separate issue from deliberate cruelty and inhumanity.

 

 

Quote

 

  So based on your criteria a bare minimum of 689 million people should immediately qualify for immigration because of need.  How can you refute that someone living on $1.90 a day or less has need.  Now the fact that as a government official you swear to uphold the laws of the USA but in your mind the "need" of those people supersedes the law and admission should be made without regards to whether the person has any skills that would make them self sustainable. 

How many people live in poverty in the world? Recent estimates for global poverty are that 9.2% of the world, or 689 million people, live in extreme poverty on $1.90 or less a day, according to the World Bank

 

Again, I have not advocated for unlimited immigration. You have just provided justification for making immigration based on need, not limiting it to the rich. Not being able to help everybody is not a justification for refusing to help any.

Edited June 1, 2021 by ozimoron

[Thomas J]

Just now, ozimoron said:

In many cases they were. do you deny that?

I think but I do not have any figures that show how many families were separated.  I don't believe you or anyone else knows how many of those who were never reunited were actually truly children whose parents could not be found.  As mentioned, 20% of the "families" showing up were not truly families so having some amount of children who were not reunited with those they entered with should have been expected.  They were not their family to begin with.  Also, I have no way of knowing how many of these children were deliberately abandoned.  

it has been common for families in Mexico and Central America to send their children knowing that abandoned the USA won't deport them. 

 

[Neeranam]

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Racism is not confined just to colour, calling it Nationalism downplays the actual act and is instead your interpretation only, its not the interpretation and definition of racism, racial prejudice and discrimination as defined in the English language.

Are you saying that when we beat up German and English guys at my Scottish school, it was racism, even though they were the same race? `

[ozimoron]

Just now, Thomas J said:

I think but I do not have any figures that show how many families were separated.  I don't believe you or anyone else knows how many of those who were never reunited were actually truly children whose parents could not be found.

If it's even one and that they were unable to be reunited because of a policy which did not consider reunification it is a crime against humanity.

[ikke1959]

1 hour ago, Neeranam said:

Please explain this. Aliens are all non-Thais. This has nothing to do with race. 

 

rac·ism

/ˈrāˌsizəm/

Learn to pronounce

 

noun

 

1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

   "a program to combat racism

[ozimoron]

Just now, ikke1959 said:

rac·ism

/ˈrāˌsizəm/

Learn to pronounce

 

noun

 

1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

   "a program to combat racism

 

Note that national identity is not mentioned.

[chalawaan]

Just now, Neeranam said:

Are you saying that when we beat up German and English guys at my Scottish school, it was racism, even though they were the same race? `

The human race? I didnt know Germany was part of the UK, outside of the Royal Family, anyway.

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Neeranam said:

Are you saying that when we beat up German and English guys at my Scottish school, it was racism, even though they were the same race? `

It depends why you beat them up, if it was because of their race then yes, if it was because of another reason then no. Why did you beat them up?

 

 

[Thomas J]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Rubbish. Having a quota is a separate issue from deliberate cruelty and inhumanity.

As stated housing them in facilities that is markedly better than the conditions they were living in is hardly cruelty.  Second, the USA use to have a quota.  It was Ted Kennedy who introduced and got passed legislation to remove those quotas.  

Immigration law prior to that limited immigration by any means to not more than 3% of the existing population of any ethnic group.  That law was passed so that the country was neither overwhelmed with new arrivals and that their was ethnic diversity and not just one region of the world dominating all the new immigrants.  

Now, what you are saying is let anyone with need come it.  OK lets say it is established that there is a quota of 3 million allowed.  What do you then propose when that number is achieved and the people at the border continue to arrive. 

[Neeranam]

2 minutes ago, ikke1959 said:

rac·ism

/ˈrāˌsizəm/

Learn to pronounce

 

noun

 

1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

   "a program to combat racism

I know what racism is, it was this I was asking you to explain - all non Thais are aliens or farangs

[Neeranam]

Just now, Bkk Brian said:

It depends why you beat them up, if it was because of their race then yes, if it was because of another reason then no. Why did you beat them up?

 

 

I already said, they were the same race but came from different countries. 

One race beating up others of the same race can NOT be racism, isn't that obvious? 

[chalawaan]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

It depends why you beat them up, if it was because of their race then yes, if it was because of another reason then no. Why did you beat them up?

 

 

Don't mention the War!

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Thomas J said:

Now, what you are saying is let anyone with need come it. 

 

I don't know how to make it any clearer that is not what I am saying.

1 minute ago, Thomas J said:

OK lets say it is established that there is a quota of 3 million allowed.  What do you then propose when that number is achieved and the people at the border continue to arrive. 

 

There have not been 3 million asylum seekers in any year.

[ikke1959]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Note that national identity is not mentioned.

ethnic group... we are farangs a word that means in from France.. so not brown Thai but white people