> It doesn't matter what the history is - we both know that is not what it means in practice today. That isn't true. The sort of affirmative action I am talkin

> It doesn't matter what the history is - we both know that is not what it means in practice today. That isn't true. The sort of affirmative action I am talking about is still used in the world today. People who are against any sort of action to counter systemic racism have chosen to pretend that all affirmative action is the "racial quota" type that you are talking about and that has been illegal for quite some time. Continuing to pretend that is what affirmative action proponents are talking about is how opponents are attempting to get rid of fair and reasonable affirmative action by treating it all as the illegal kind. The 'Jew tax' example is completely disingenuous. This is not applying any rule or law to a specific race, ethnicity, or religion; it is simply taking into account the effect that discrimination and racism has had on people when evaluating candidates for limited positions. It is not the same at all. Your black immigrant example also is quite the reach. For one thing, that immigrant is facing racism and discrimination the moment they step into the country. You say you are worried about unfairness being entrenched, but this has already happened and is what we are trying to fix. Racial discrimination against minorities is CURRENTLY entrenched in our institutions, and affirmative action is the attempt to overcome some of it. I find it very interesting that you are so concerned about any advantages that might become entrenched for minorities, but are completely fine allowing the entrenched advantages for the majority to persist. You are more worried about hypothetical future advantages rather than actual present advantages. The whole point of affirmative action is action is to acknowledge that if two candidates are equal or close to equal in qualifications, the one that has had more disadvantages is probably the better candidate and should be chosen. How is that controversial?