I see the difference between exclusion (zero immigration) and quotas (a positive real number) as infinite... a black and white kind of a thing.
The establishment of quotas let people in legally unlike the exclusion acts which... well... excluded people from entering legally.
The immigration laws changed with time.
The first laws were exclusion acts (1882, 1917, 1924 and 1934). You can call those evil and I will not disagree. Since I specifically mentioned quotas and the exclusion acts allowed for no quota, then I wasn't referring to the exclusion acts.
Starting with the Magnuson Act (1943), quotas were set. Following that, additional acts set other quotas and then changed the quotas from race-base, to nationality-based, to preference-based. Since I specifically referred to quotas, I was referring to the set of laws which included quotas.
The progress from the early race-based exclusion acts to current day preference-based quotas was begun by reversing exclusion and setting quotas. IMO, quotas were good not evil.
Your ultimatum regarding retraction of my statement that, "immigration quotas were not created to impose an evil agenda," or be considered a racist/eugenicist is ignorant and insulting.
Go ahead and grant yourself the high ground morally or factually, I won't argue with you anymore - I'll just quietly consider you a pompous ass.
Far from a differing appreciation, you apparently don't even know the definitions. An "exclusion" is a "quota" of zero.
Laws that set quotas (like in the Immigration Act of 1952) allowed immigration, and reversed the previous exclusion acts.
I said nothing about the 1952 act. The three earlier laws I referenced clearly refuted your erroneous statement from post #16:
I see the difference between exclusion (zero immigration) and quotas (a positive real number) as infinite
You poor dear, you must not have done well in elementary mathematics. The difference between any real number and zero is that number, certainly not infinity.
... a black and white kind of a thing.
I am beginning to fear that your foolish absolute understanding of numerals might also reflect a much darker absolute view of races.
The establishment of quotas let people in legally
Your statement is completely false. Prior to quotas all immigration was legal. To the contrary, the establishment of quotas was the beginning of prohibiting people from coming in legally.
unlike the exclusion acts which... well... excluded people from entering legally.
The exclusionary acts were just quotas of zero. You make a false distinction without a difference.
The immigration laws changed with time.
They certainly may have, and in opposition to your quote in post #16, they were racist in origin.
The first laws were exclusion acts (1882, 1917, 1924 and 1934). You can call those evil and I will not disagree.
Then I would hope you would now admit that you were wrong in stating in post #16:
Since I specifically mentioned quotas and the exclusion acts allowed for no quota, then I wasn't referring to the exclusion acts.
You pitiful thing, your problem with elementary subtraction must make it impossible for you to understand that an exclusion is just a specific quota of zero. Don't feel bad, I suspect you can't help it.
Starting with the Magnuson Act (1943), quotas were set. Following that, additional acts set other quotas and then changed the quotas from race-base, to nationality-based, to preference-based. Since I specifically referred to quotas, I was referring to the set of laws which included quotas.
This must be very embarrassing for you trying to excuse your blatant error with more errors. I'll just pretend I don't see your repeated self-contradictions.
The progress from the early race-based exclusion acts to current day preference-based quotas was begun by reversing exclusion and setting quotas. IMO, quotas were good not evil.
I can't imagine living in your world without the ability to grasp simple numerical concepts. It must be more debilitating than illiteracy.
Your ultimatum regarding retraction of my statement that, "immigration quotas were not created to impose an evil agenda," or be considered a racist/eugenicist is ignorant and insulting.
It's all right dear, I will no longer hold you to any standard of reason.
Go ahead and grant yourself the high ground morally or factually, I won't argue with you anymore - I'll just quietly consider you a pompous ass.
I know that living with your condition must be very frustrating. I forgive you for taking out some of your self-loathing in the form of insults against me. I just hope that you feel better now.