# Constitution? 14th Amendment?



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 17, 2015)

Not in Texas.

http://klfy.com/ap/judge-no-birth-certificates-to-immigrant-kids-born-in-texas/


> A federal judge has chosen for now not to force Texas health officials to change their stance in denying birth certificates to immigrant families with U.S- born children, saying that the families raised “grave concerns” but more evidence is needed, according to a ruling issued Friday.


----------



## CaptainGemini (Oct 17, 2015)

Okay, who wants to place bets on how many Texan officials will end up jailed before all of the court cases related to this are over?


----------



## Umbran (Oct 17, 2015)

If they had ruled for the plaintiffs, the state would have appealed to a higher court.

They rule for the state, the plaintiffs will appeal to a higher court.  

Either way, it's going up the chain.  The judge then merely has to decide which precedent he wants to set for the moment, before it gets escalated.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 17, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Not in Texas.
> 
> http://klfy.com/ap/judge-no-birth-certificates-to-immigrant-kids-born-in-texas/




Not even an issue.  This was a ruling on an emergency injunction.  To get that, you have to show that you have nearly overwhelming evidence that you would win in court -- if it went that far.  The judge recognized the seriousness of the case and the impact on the families - showing that he's taking this very seriously - but didn't have enough in the motion for him to grant the emergency injunction.  This is pretty routine, and has almost no bearing on what the outcome of the case  will be.  It just means that the petitioners don't have an absolutely slam-dunk case before even discovery begins.  It's rare that such a slam-dunk obtains in cases.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 17, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> Not even an issue.  This was a ruling on an emergency injunction.  To get that, you have to show that you have nearly overwhelming evidence that you would win in court -- if it went that far.  The judge recognized the seriousness of the case and the impact on the families - showing that he's taking this very seriously - but didn't have enough in the motion for him to grant the emergency injunction.  This is pretty routine, and has almost no bearing on what the outcome of the case  will be.  It just means that the petitioners don't have an absolutely slam-dunk case before even discovery begins.  It's rare that such a slam-dunk obtains in cases.



You missed the point.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 17, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> You missed the point.



Perhaps you weren't clear enough.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 17, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> Perhaps you weren't clear enough.



You are correct. I wasn't clear enough. You still missed the point, though.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 17, 2015)

Folks,

This looks a lot like petty sniping.

Please stop it.  If you aren't going to actually discuss like people who want to exchange ideas, just let it go.  Thanks.


----------



## Tonguez (Oct 18, 2015)

what is a 14th ammendment?

is this about judges in texas being racist tw@ts when it comes to those ebil mexicanos?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 18, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> what is a 14th ammendment?



US Constittution.



> is this about judges in texas being racist tw@ts when it comes to those ebil mexicanos?



No.


----------



## tomBitonti (Oct 18, 2015)

From Slate:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...s_to_children_of_undocumented_immigrants.html

“Earlier this year in Dallas, worries intensified when the county stopped accepting the Mexican ID and school board trustee Miguel Solis voiced concerns about enrollment snags for U.S.-born citizen children,” according to the Dallas Morning News. Pittman, however, denied the appeal writing that a full hearing is needed to resolve the matter because there is a “compelling governmental interest in regulating with care the process of accessing birth certificates.”

What I don't understand is how the governments interest makes any difference.  However compelling, such interest would seem to be insufficient to deny a basic right.

TomB


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 18, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> From Slate:
> 
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...s_to_children_of_undocumented_immigrants.html
> 
> ...



Again, this was a preliminary hearing, so just the presence of an argument that the government has a compelling interest means that the judge has to deny the request for emergency relief and let it go to trial. In these kind of hearings, evidence is not weighed and arguments are taken at face value.  The trial may very well determine that the interest doesn't pass scrutiny. 

But, as for the argument of compelling interest, your rights have been curtailed in a number of areas based on compelling interest.  For instance, libel laws exist as a restriction on free speech because the government has a completing interest to limit that kind of speech.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 18, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> No.




The original issue is that children of immigrant parents, but born in the US, were being denied birth certificates.

*Someone* in there is probably being a racist twit.


----------



## tomBitonti (Oct 19, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> Again, this was a preliminary hearing, so just the presence of an argument that the government has a compelling interest means that the judge has to deny the request for emergency relief and let it go to trial. In these kind of hearings, evidence is not weighed and arguments are taken at face value.  The trial may very well determine that the interest doesn't pass scrutiny.
> 
> But, as for the argument of compelling interest, your rights have been curtailed in a number of areas based on compelling interest.  For instance, libel laws exist as a restriction on free speech because the government has a completing interest to limit that kind of speech.




Isn't it up to the government to show cause?  Here very basic rights of the infant (access to essential services, including possible life critical medical care, and freedom to move about without restriction) are being imposed by the governments strictures on obtaining a birth certificate.  I would expect the government would need to show a very clear and specific harm to avoid an immediate order.

This seemed to be along the lines of police subjecting folks in a building which was a known crime hot spot to searches, compared with a quarantine of the same building because a tenant was shown to have a highly communicable and deadly disease.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 19, 2015)

Umbran said:


> The original issue is that children of immigrant parents, but born in the US, were being denied birth certificates.
> 
> *Someone* in there is probably being a racist twit.




Have you actually read anything of the case or are you assuming racism because it's Texas, there are immigrants from Mexico involved, and you don't like the ruling as presented to you in headlines?  Do you even know what they case is about (hint:  it's not exactly what the headlines or articles linked so far say)?

Because the ruling on the preliminary injunction -- a difficult thing to get generally -- is well written and exhaustive, and there's not much of a handle for racism to grab in the arguments made by the defense.


----------



## Tonguez (Oct 19, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> Have you actually read anything of the case or are you assuming racism because it's Texas, there are immigrants from Mexico involved, and you don't like the ruling as presented to you in headlines?  Do you even know what they case is about (hint:  it's not exactly what the headlines or articles linked so far say)?
> 
> Because the ruling on the preliminary injunction -- a difficult thing to get generally -- is well written and exhaustive, and there's not much of a handle for racism to grab in the arguments made by the defense.




would you like to explain it for those of us with no interest in doing further background research and who aren't Americans?

From what I see Texas use to allow US born children of Mexicans to have birth cerficates and access to citizenship rights, but this is now being denied due to an abritary decision by a bureaucrat to say that Mexicans no longer qualify.

am I wrong?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 19, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Isn't it up to the government to show cause?



Yes, and no.  In a hearing for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs have the burden of meeting the four prongs of the test used.  The judge ruled they met the first -- that irreparable injury was being caused -- by determining that the plaintiffs fundamental rights were being impinged, an automatic irreparable injury.  This also invoked strict scrutiny on the second prong -- that the government must have a compelling interest and that the means used are the least restrictive possible.  When the judge reviewed this, he determined that the state does have a compelling interest in restricting access to children's birth certificates, and that the rule being used was well researched and not unfairly targeted.  The plaintiffs failed to make the case that the government's rules clearly violated the compelling interest case even when considered under strict scrutiny -- and that's a high, high bar and the judge was very thorough.

It might be worthwhile here to discuss a few facts of the case, because the articles I've seen written about it don't clearly show the issue.  The issue isn't that children born in the US can't get birth certificates -- they have them, each and every one.  It's that the parents cannot later get a copy of the birth certificate because they cannot provide sufficient identification to show that they are qualified to receive a copy of the child's birth certificate.  This is a distinction without much effect, though, because not being able to get a copy of the child's birth certificate is essentially like the child not having one at all.  However, the main point of contention is that, in 2008, Texas changed the required identification lists to exclude passports without visas (or visa exemptions) and consular identification cards.  This, effectively, locks out a group of illegal immigrants because they do not have other kinds of identification that would be accepted.  Texas justifies this change by pointing to the lack of tracking for consular identification (although this may have recently changed, it's unclear to what extent), ie, who's gotten one, where they got it, who they were, what documentation they had to provide, etc..  In short, anyone could get multiple consular IDs from multiple consulates and there was no way to find out if they had done so.  The passports were an issue because unless they were presented in the office, they could not be verified as valid without a visa.  Both of these changes were heavily researched, are followed in other states, and the FBI doesn't consider consular ID or non-visa passport copies to be valid ID either.  So that looks like solid, non-targeted reasoning to disallow those identifications for the _purposes of a preliminary judgement_ where the plaintiff carries the burden.




> Here very basic rights of the infant (access to essential services, including possible life critical medical care, and freedom to move about without restriction) are being imposed by the governments strictures on obtaining a birth certificate.  I would expect the government would need to show a very clear and specific harm to avoid an immediate order.



The ruling did determine that such harms were occurring, but it also determined that the plaintiffs failed to show that the restrictions placed by the government were unreasonable, had no compelling interest, and were not the least restrictive.

In court, however, the plaintiffs don't carry the full burden and the government will have to do a lot of work to show that this is not the least restrictive method.  Given the case presented for the preliminary hearing, though, it's pretty clear that Texas has a compelling interest to restrict identification documentation to only those qualified to receive it.  Whether or not this method is the least restrictive, though, remains to be seen.



> This seemed to be along the lines of police subjecting folks in a building which was a known crime hot spot to searches, compared with a quarantine of the same building because a tenant was shown to have a highly communicable and deadly disease.




I don't follow this.  Are you trying to show the difference between interests?  Because you're mixing tests if you are.  Subjecting people to searches in a high crime area is an example of the government having a compelling interest to do violate a fundamental right as much as a quarantine of a deadly disease is. However, the searches are not the least restrictive means available to reduce crime (more cops on the beat is) while quarantining a deadly disease may very well be the least restrictive method of meeting the interest.  The latter, though, is ripe for a lawsuit if it occurs.  If you recall the recent ebola cases in the US and the legal threats and counterthreats around quarantines and the infected and possibly infected?  Hot button issue, no idea how a specific instance would fair in court.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 19, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> would you like to explain it for those of us with no interest in doing further background research and who aren't Americans?
> 
> From what I say Texas use to allow US born children of Mexicans to have birth cerficates and access to citizenship rights, but this is now being denied due to an abritary decision by a bureaucrat to say that Mexicans no longer qualify.
> 
> am I wrong?




Yes, mostly and kind of.  See what I wrote to Tony above.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 19, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> The issue isn't that children born in the US can't get birth certificates -- they have them, each and every one.  It's that the parents cannot later get a copy of the birth certificate because they cannot provide sufficient identification to show that they are qualified to receive a copy of the child's birth certificate.  This is a distinction without much effect, though, because not being able to get a copy of the child's birth certificate is essentially like the child not having one at all.  However, the main point of contention is that, in 2008, Texas changed the required identification lists to exclude passports without visas (or visa exemptions) and consular identification cards.



And for you, this policy isn't motivated by racism or to pader to racists because no policy maker explicitly said it was motivated by racism or because you see no racism in this policy?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 19, 2015)

goldomark said:


> And for you, this policy isn't motivated by racism or to pader to racists because no policy maker explicitly said it was motivated by racism or because you see no racism in this policy?




You need to explain why you think it is racist if you're charging that it's racist.  You can't just go 'that's racist' and have everyone else do the work to prove you wrong.  It's your assertion: back it.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 19, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> You can't just go 'that's racist'



I haven't said that. Others have. You seem to disgree. I'm curious by nature, so I ask questions and I'll ask this one again. For you this policy isn't motivated by racism or paders to racists because no policy maker explicitly said so or because you see no racism in this policy?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 19, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I haven't said that. Others have. You seem to disgree. I'm curious by nature, so I ask questions and I'll ask this one again. For you this policy isn't motivated by racism or paders to racists because no policy maker explicitly said so or because you see no racism in this policy?




If you don't have the argument, and they haven't made one to respond to, I'm not sure what the point is.  I'm not going to guess what someone thinks is racist about this, so until you get an actual point to respond to, you're just going to have to remain curious as to how I'd respond to an unmade argument.

In other words, I'm not still beating my wife, go ask someone else.


----------



## tomBitonti (Oct 19, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> It might be worthwhile here to discuss a few facts of the case, because the articles I've seen written about it don't clearly show the issue.
> 
> ... text omitted ...
> 
> ...




Hi,

Thanks for the detailed reply!  Do you have a link to more detailed information?  The newspaper articles provide very scant information.

Maybe a difference of viewpoint.  I'm imagining a dialog something like:

Parent's lawyer: The restrictions are unreasonable.  The process denies the ability to obtain a birth certificate, and the government has provided no reasonable alternative process.

Judge (to the government's lawyer): Is there an alternative process?

Absent an affirmative answer, along with some details, I'd be rather in favor of the parents.

The last paragraph was to put some context to show cases where rights are curtailed, in one case, unreasonably (the first case matches New York's "stop and frisk" policy, which was challenged and ruled against), and a second case which seems at least possibly reasonable.  (I'm OK with it, even though the quarantine might increase potential harm to uninfected persons who are confined with infected persons.  I actually thought this was pretty well settled as an acceptable policy, but that's just my vague sense of it, not in reference to anything specific.)

I'm finding that I don't like the term "compelling government interest", since I don't view the government as having an interest other that what is a restatement of safeguarding a right of the people (or of specific persons).  I'd rather be told what right of the people is being protected.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 19, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm not going to guess what someone thinks is racist about this



That wasn't my question. I'm curious to know why _you_ do not think this change in policy is motivated by racism and/or designed to appeal to racists. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is your position on the matter, no?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 19, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the detailed reply!  Do you have a link to more detailed information?  The newspaper articles provide very scant information.
> 
> ...



I found the actual ruling on the preliminary hearing and read it.  You can read it here.

As for compelling interest, the government often has compelling interest to restrict rights.  That's not enough -- it's necessary buy not sufficient -- but there are many cases where governance runs up against rights.  I referenced libel laws as a restriction on free speech earlier.  That's a clear case where government interest, eq the protection of citizens against libel, rises to a high enough bar to restrict the fundamental right of free speech.  Marriage is another.  You have the right to be married, but the government has a compelling interest in controlling those marriages to prevent polygamy and to ensure that benefits are provided accurately so they can control marriage via the issuance of marriage licenses.  The thing to worry about is if the courts begin to fail to apply strict scrutiny in the consideration of these cases and just starts to buy into government's desires to control.  That hasn't happened, and it's not happening in this case (the judge waxes verbosely on his deliberations applying strict scrutiny to this case, frez).



goldomark said:


> That wasn't my question. I'm curious to know why _you_ do not think this change in policy is motivated by racism and/or designed to appeal to racists. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is your position on the matter, no?




Heh, that's funny.  You think I should defend something against something that's not being argued, ie that this isn't racist even though there's nothing to say that it is (yet).  Get off your horse and make an argument that it is racist if you'd like to see me argue against that.  Until then, no, I have no arguments for why this law isn't blue, orbiting Saturn, racist, or in love with unicorns.  Until you fetch some arguments for why it, indeed, does love unicorns, at least.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 19, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> Have you actually read anything of the case or are you assuming racism because it's Texas, there are immigrants from Mexico involved, and you don't like the ruling as presented to you in headlines?  Do you even know what they case is about (hint:  it's not exactly what the headlines or articles linked so far say)?




As I noted to someone else recently - please don't cast disagreement as ignorance.  

I know what the case is about.  Let us recognize that the stated legal reasons may well be justifications or rationalizations of what is basically a racist intent.  Note also that what I said was that *someone* in there is likely being a racist twit - I didn't specify who.  The fact that it is in Texas, which has a recent history of issues, is suggestive, but not material.  The fact that what's going on disproportionately impacts non-Caucasians is material to considering it racist.

Very simply - this case shouldn't have been necessary.  The kids were born on US soil.  To my understanding, nobody in the case questions that statement of fact.  That makes the kids citizens, _no matter what the status of the parents may be_.  Therefore, details of the parent's documentation, or lack thereof, should not be an issue in whether the kid is recognized as a citizen, and thus eligible to receive services like any other citizen.  Any government policy that gets in the way of that recognition is likely a violation of the equal protection clause.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 19, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> You think I should defend something



No. I'm asking why you do not believe it the policy to racially motivated, not to defend anything. That isn't the same thing. So, again, why do you believe this change in policy is not motivated by racism and designed to appeal to racists?



> there's nothing to say that it is.



What standard would you use to say that there is racist, racially motivated and/or desgined to appeal to racists? Aside from officials explicitly saying so, since any official with a head on their shoulders won't do that in the current PC culture.


----------



## tomBitonti (Oct 19, 2015)

Wait, I thought the primary motivation here was protectionism, amplified by fairly hateful and inflammatory rhetoric against foreigners.  I can see there being ethnic and racial undertones as factors which are being used to inflame the issue, but simple protectionism seems to be the larger motivation.

I'm thinking we need to backup and present more information about Texas and legal changes which relate to immigrations and find some common understanding before we can hope to discuss the motivations thereof with any great success.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 19, 2015)

Umbran said:


> As I noted to someone else recently - please don't cast disagreement as ignorance.



I didn't, I asked because the east you're taking about the facts seemed to indicate that you might not know and I wanted to eliminate that as an issue.




> I know what the case is about.  Let us recognize that the stated legal reasons may well be justifications or rationalizations of what is basically a racist intent.



Trivial.  That something is possible is not an indication that something obtains in a specific case.  This is a non argument.



> Note also that what I said was that *someone* in there is likely being a racist twit - I didn't specify who.



So?  What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? No one claimed you did.



> The fact that it is in Texas, which has a recent history of issues, is suggestive, but not material.



Then why mention it, if not to be prejudicial?



> The fact that what's going on disproportionately impacts non-Caucasians is material to considering it racist.



Finally, a point!  That is true, but it's not sufficient for racism.  Well, its not true because most Hispanics are Caucasians, but I get the drift.

What I get here is a bunch of not reasons and one actual reason for you to label this as racism.



> Very simply - this case shouldn't have been necessary.  The kids were born on US soil.  To my understanding, nobody in the case questions that statement of fact.  That makes the kids citizens, _no matter what the status of the parents may be_.  Therefore, details of the parent's documentation, or lack thereof, should not be an issue in whether the kid is recognized as a citizen, and thus eligible to receive services like any other citizen.  Any government policy that gets in the way of that recognition is likely a violation of the equal protection clause.




I'm sorry, but the above makes it seem as if you don't know the particulars of the case.  Perhaps you misspoke, or in haste and enthusiasm brought in issues not covered, but this case has nothing to do with children being born in the US being denied citizenship.  That hasn't happened in any of the cases brought before the court on this issue.  This case is about the ability to get a copy of the birth certificate after the fact (allof the children in this case have birth certificates) and the state of Texas refusing to accept certain forms of identification to verify the parents have the legal right to obtain a copy.  Those rules are in accordance with FBI standards and are not arbitrary or targeted towards anyone.  Yes, it means that illegals will have more difficulty, but that applies to all illegals, not just Hispanic ones.  So the state is following accepted guidelines for their law and is in concert with federal law enforcement on those standards.  Hardly a racist thing.

The judge has grave concerns about the impact on rights of the plaintiffs, and rightly so.  However, given the extensive evidence backing the state on where their rules come from and that the state has a compelling interest to protect vital identification documents, he ruled that the plaintiffs had not met the high burden of proof necessary for injunctive relief.  That is also not racist.

Essentially, your argument boils down to: it's Texas, and we all know how they are.  That's offensive and stereotypical.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 19, 2015)

goldomark said:


> No. I'm asking why you do not believe it the policy to racially motivated, not to defend anything. That isn't the same thing. So, again, why do you believe this change in policy is not motivated by racism and designed to appeal to racists?



Yes, exactly, you're asking me to come up with reasons why it may be racist and then defend against those.  Asking me why I think it's not racist without an argument for it being racist is like asking me why I think a blue sky isn't racist.  Things default to not being racist unless there's a reason for them to be labeled racist.  So, again, unless you provide that reason, I have nothing to say because I'm not in the business of explaining why blue skies aren't racist.



> What standard would you use to say that there is racist, racially motivated and/or desgined to appeal to racists? Aside from officials explicitly saying so, since any official with a head on their shoulders won't do that in the current PC culture.



It's good form to answer your own rhetorical questions before you insist others answer them. Especially when the ask is for a blanket definition of what's racist.  You go first.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 19, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> you're asking me to come up with reasons why it may be racist and then defend against those.



I'm asking why you think the law isn't motivated by racism or panders to racists. 



> Especially when the ask is for a blanket definition of what's racist.



You sure like strawmen today. You've disagreed without explainations with two posters who said there was racism on some level with the issue at hand. I asked what you would accept as _evidence_ of racism, not what is racism. I asked since you've implied you'll argue against anything I'll say. 







> make an argument that it is racist if you'd like to see me argue against that.



 I want to know what you'll accept as evidence of racism, instead of wasting my time trying to find a standard you'll accept. Of course, if you tell me you're just a contrarian, as your quote suggest, there won't be any point to continue.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 19, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I'm asking why you think the law isn't motivated by racism or panders to racists.



And I've said that unless you tell me why you think or someone else thinks it is, I have no response.  I similarly have no response to whether or not a blue sky is racist.  Unless someone claims something is racist, i generally do not bother explaining why it isn't.

Are you claiming the law is racist?



> You sure like strawmen today.



You often use this word.  I don't think it means what you think it means.  



> You've disagreed without explainations with two posters who said there was racism on some level with the issue at hand.



Yup.  They offered specific arguments which I then discussed.  You aren't offering anything, and instead are asking me to provide you a blanket dispensation for the law.  Offer a reason why you think it's racist and i'll reply, until t



> I asked what you would accept as _evidence_ of racism, not what is racism.



Distinction without a difference.  You're still asking for a blanket statement.  The general reason for that is to fine the weakest points to attack.  Not interested.



> I asked since you've implied you'll argue against anything I'll say.



Nope, sorry if you got that.  I'll argue against anything you say that I'll disagree with that I feel is sufficiently worth my time to argue against.  I'm under no obligations, here.



> I want to know what you'll accept as evidence of racism, instead of wasting my time trying to find a standard you'll accept.



And I said you could provide one and I'll disagree when applicable.  I fail to see why you think you can assign me the homework, here.



> Of course, if you tell me you're just a contrarian, as your quote suggest, there won't be any point to continue.



Hi, pot!


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 19, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> They offered specific arguments which I then discussed.



You didn't specify why racism wasn't involved. In once case you just declared it wasn't. No arguments. Why did you declare it wasn't?



> You're still asking for a blanket statement.



Nope, I'm asking what it takes for you to say that someone, a law or a group is racist. Nothing specific, just a few general cues you use. To give an example, is wearing black socks a sign of racism for you? No? Which indicator would you use?



> Nope, sorry if you got that.



And you said it again while answering my post. 







> Unless someone claims something is racist, i generally do not bother explaining why it isn't.



You're saying you'll explain to people who sees racism that what they are seeing isn't racism. Does racism even exist according to you?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 19, 2015)

goldomark said:


> You didn't specify why racism wasn't involved. In once case you just declared it wasn't. No arguments. Why did you declare it wasn't?



I specified why they're argument wasn't sufficient.



> Nope, I'm asking what it takes for you to say that someone, a law or a group is racist. Nothing specific, just a few general cues you use. To give an example, is wearing black socks a sign of racism for you? No? Which indicator would you use?



Okay.  No, I don't think that black socks is a sign of racism.  Happy?



> And you said it again while answering my post.



I most definitely didn't say I would argue against anything you said.  I said I might argue against things you say that I disagree with.  Come on, English isn't that hard of a language.



> You're saying you'll explain to people who sees racism that what they are seeing isn't racism. Does racism even exist according to you?



Nope.  I'll explain to people who see racism why I might disagree, if I do disagree.  You haven't actually tried anything out, so I'm not sure how you get that's what I'll do.  And I was fairly clear in an earlier response to you and in other threads responding to you that there are plenty of things I think racist, so you're just trying to be obtuse by asking.

What I'm not going to do is hand you a blanket statement so you can start zeroing in on any perceived weak points until you can catch out a corner case I didn't consider when unwisely providing a hasty blanket statement.  As I've said repeatedly, I will answer any specific cases you wish to present, but I'm not going to provide you with a treatise on what I consider to be racist.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 20, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> What I'm not going to do is hand you a blanket statement so you can start zeroing in on any perceived weak points until you can catch out a corner case I didn't consider when unwisely providing a hasty blanket statement.  As I've said repeatedly, I will answer any specific cases you wish to present, but I'm not going to provide you with a treatise on what I consider to be racist.




And, to be honest, Ovinomancer's personal definition of racism is irrelevant, insofar as it will not be present in the courtroom.

We can, however, discuss whether the issue at hand meets some third-person definition.  How about what the United Nations thinks?

"the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

In what part does this *not* apply to the case at hand?  We have an exclusion/restriction - the child is not given a birth certificate.  We have the effect of impairing the recognition and exercise of rights (in this case, impairing recognition of citizenship rights and impairing access to health care for the child).  Do we agree on that?

If we do agree, then the only real question is if it is based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin. 

In this case, we have a 'proof is in the pudding' issue - the rules are denying the document only to those who are not born of US citizens.  How can you argue that it is not based on national or ethnic origin when only those of non-US origin/descent are impacted?


----------



## CaptainGemini (Oct 20, 2015)

Umbran said:


> And, to be honest, Ovinomancer's personal definition of racism is irrelevant, insofar as it will not be present in the courtroom.
> 
> We can, however, discuss whether the issue at hand meets some third-person definition.  How about what the United Nations thinks?
> 
> ...




Because at least 95% of the world's population doesn't live within the U.S. This affects everyone from another nation, whether it be Mexico, Canada, South Africa, Israel, Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, India, Russia, etc. It also affects Americans; if you lack the proper ID, you can't get a birth certificate in Texas even if you've lived in the U.S. your entire life.

That's not discriminatory. It's not nice, but it's not discriminatory.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 20, 2015)

Umbran said:


> And, to be honest, Ovinomancer's personal definition of racism is irrelevant, insofar as it will not be present in the courtroom.
> 
> We can, however, discuss whether the issue at hand meets some third-person definition.  How about what the United Nations thinks?
> 
> ...



Dude.  For real.  That's not what's happening here.  At.  All.  I've explained it, provided a link to the decision, and stated bluntly that if you're relying on the articles you're getting a skewed perspective and should dig deeper.

That said, there is some exclusion occurring.




> If we do agree, then the only real question is if it is based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin.
> 
> In this case, we have a 'proof is in the pudding' issue - the rules are denying the document only to those who are not born of US citizens.  How can you argue that it is not based on national or ethnic origin when only those of non-US origin/descent are impacted?



Because that's not what's happening?  If you bear on the actual events of the case, the exclusion is not based on national or ethnic origins.  You can make a case that it's currently more impactful on people of hispanic origin, but that's because the large population of illegals in the country are hispanic in origin and this law makes it more challenging for illegals (NOT the children born here, but the illegal parents).  You cannot claim prima facie that something affecting illegals is racist because most illegals are hispanic.  It may be racist, but that's not sufficient to get there because any law that impacts illegals will have the trait of disproportionately impacting hispanics.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 20, 2015)

CaptainGemini said:


> This affects everyone from another nation, whether it be Mexico, Canada, South Africa, Israel, Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, India, Russia, etc. It also affects Americans; if you lack the proper ID, you can't get a birth certificate in Texas even if you've lived in the U.S. your entire life.




It is only the _matriculas consulares_ of Mexican parents that are being rejected as ID, and this is a new thing.  IDs of people from other nations are not being rejected.


----------



## CaptainGemini (Oct 20, 2015)

Umbran said:


> It is only the _matriculas consulares_ of Mexican parents that are being rejected as ID, and this is a new thing.  IDs of people from other nations are not being rejected.




How do you know?

Not being snarky, if I come across that way. I might be lacking information. You seem very certain of your stance, so maybe you have something I haven't read that shows those other consular IDs are being accepted.


----------



## tomBitonti (Oct 20, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> I found the actual ruling on the preliminary hearing and read it.  You can read it here.




Additional text omitted.

Ha, well, reading the judges order is quite helpful!

(And as asides; an ipad is _completely_ useless for composing a reply such as this, as well, DRM
can be rather inhibitory for quoting legal documents which are otherwise free to copy.)

I'm still reading through the order, but these two sections are very helpful:



> At issue in this case is the claim by Plaintiffs that persons without legal immigration status
> in the United States are effectively denied the ability to obtain a birth certificate for children born
> in Texas, who are thus citizens of the United States. Plaintiffs contend the effective bar creates
> numerous issues in obtaining the rights and benefits which inure to citizens of the United States,
> ...




And:



> Plaintiffs now seek a preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to “determine at least two
> forms of identification [that are] reasonably and actually accessible to undocumented immigrant
> parents of Texas-born children” that satisfy the identification requirement for a properly qualified
> applicant to obtain the birth certificate of a child born in Texas. The parties have filed responsive
> ...




Sorry for the long quotes, but I think they are very useful.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## tomBitonti (Oct 20, 2015)

To note, I think it's important to distinguish the judge's order and its motivation from the Texas statute and the motivation behind _it_.

Also, there was an indication in the order that the statute may be valid but that Texas officials may individually be improperly enforcing it, and that other officials, for example, school officials, might also be individually failing to follow various statutes correctly.  That seems to be evidence of individual discriminatory actions.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## CaptainGemini (Oct 20, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> To note, I think it's important to distinguish the judge's order and its motivation from the Texas statute and the motivation behind _it_.
> 
> Also, there was an indication in the order that the statute may be valid but that Texas officials may individually be improperly enforcing it, and that other officials, for example, school officials, might also be individually failing to follow various statutes correctly.  That seems to be evidence of individual discriminatory actions.
> 
> ...




That would be a clear case of discrimination. And if the law was written with such actions as the intended outcome (it's very likely it was), then I could see a good argument for it being discriminatory and being necessary to repeal.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 20, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> It may be racist, but that's not sufficient to get there because any law that impacts illegals will have the trait of disproportionately impacting hispanics.



What would be sufficient for you?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 20, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> To note, I think it's important to distinguish the judge's order and its motivation from the Texas statute and the motivation behind _it_.
> 
> Also, there was an indication in the order that the statute may be valid but that Texas officials may individually be improperly enforcing it, and that other officials, for example, school officials, might also be individually failing to follow various statutes correctly.  That seems to be evidence of individual discriminatory actions.
> 
> ...




Or they could just not understand the law themselves.  Or be lazy.  Or they may be racist.  There's not enough to tell, and defaulting to racism is a bad baseline.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 20, 2015)

goldomark said:


> What would be sufficient for you?




I'll let the text you quoted stand.

I'm not being evasive here except, perhaps, in my refusal to play your game.  That wasn't part of your game, so take it at face value.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 20, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> I'll let the text you quoted stand.



In the text you say that the law does indeed negatively impacts people of different nationalities/ethnicities. Treating negatively people of a different nationality/ethnicity is racism by definition. But you say it isn't sufficient for you to call it racist. The question is then what would it take for it to be sufficient for you?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 20, 2015)

goldomark said:


> In the text you say that the law does indeed negatively impacts people of different nationalities/ethnicities.



Yes, but your formulation of this is trivial.  All laws can negatively impact people of different nationalities/ethnicities.  However, I take it you to mean that, in this case, there is a disproportionate impact on a specific nationality or ethnicity.  If you do mean this latter statement (and that's the statement I was making above) then, yes, I agree this is true.  There is a disproportionate impact on certain nationalities and/or ethnicities.  To be absolutely specific, there is a disproportionate impact on Hispanics.




> Treating negatively people of a different nationality/ethnicity is racism by definition.



Again, you're incredibly imprecise here, as that's not the definition under discussion nor is it part of any rational definition of racism.  To clarify, you need to add 'because of'.  Treating people of a different nationality or ethnicity negatively _because of_ their nationality or ethnicity is racism.  Your over-broad construct would have all immigration laws be racist.  

But, again, if we provide the benefit of the doubt and allow that you meant the 'because of' definition, then, yes, that's a perfectly valid definition racism and I will agree to it for the purposes of this discussion.  Treating others negatively because of their nationality or ethnicity is racist.




> But you say it isn't sufficient for you to call it racist.



Yes, considering the above, it is not sufficient for it to be racist. The law does not target ethnicity or nationality -- it applies to all persons equally.  It does, however, have a disproportionate impact on Hispanics, so that needs additional scrutiny to see if there's a stealthy mechanism in the law that is aimed at that ethnicity, thereby making it have a racist basis.  However, upon scrutiny, the reason the law has a disproportionate impact on Hispanics is that Hispanics make up the majority of illegal immigrants, and the law is challenging for some illegal immigrants.  The reason for the challenge to illegals is specifically tied to the fact that they are illegal, not that they are Hispanic -- ie, the law would impact ANY illegal in the same way, not just specifically Hispanics.  However, since Hispanics make up the majority of illegals in the US, it stands to reason that any law that makes it more difficult to be illegal in the US will have a disproportionate impact on Hispanics.  

Still, even with all of that, a canny person could use that knowledge to hide a racist motive and have put this law into effect on that motive.  That's tricky to find, so the next step is to consider if this law is the least restrictive way to enact the protections needed.  If a better way can be found to both provide security to identity documents AND reduce the impact on Hispanics, then that's a much better choice.  If such a solution exists (or many such solutions) and the law remains as it is, then I would strongly consider that the motivations are racist.

What this comes down to is that I strongly reject the idea that laws that impact illegals in the US are racist on their face.  Those laws _may _be racist, but having a disproportionate impact on Hispanic illegals because they're illegal isn't sufficient evidence of a racist motive. 



> The question is then what would it take for it to be sufficient for you?



The selection of this option over other options with less disproportionate impacts.  As it stands, it may yet by racist, but there's not enough information to show that it is.  In the meantime, it meets the clear definition of a government compelling interest and has not yet failed the least restrictive option tests.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 20, 2015)

CaptainGemini said:


> Not being snarky, if I come across that way. I might be lacking information. You seem very certain of your stance, so maybe you have something I haven't read that shows those other consular IDs are being accepted.




My search shows the memo saying that matricular consulares were no longer being accepted can be read here:  http://www.expressnews.com/file/106/3/1063-Letter from Dee Porter.pdf 

A bit of searching shows me that only Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil offer cards by that name.  Guatemala, Peru, Ecuador, Pakistan, Nigeria, and other nations offer consular IDs, but by different names, and so are not covered by that memo.  Other nations that don't offer consular IDs, but use some other ID system, are not affected.

The effect is that kids of Mexican parents are impacted more than others.  And, at least by the UN definition, the *effect* of discrimination based on national origin is sufficient for it to be racism.

The issue at hand is the rights of a _natural born citizen of the US_ are infringed.  The documentation of the parents should not be a barrier to a citizen getting services.  Period.  Whether or not it is racist, the Equal Protection clause applies - those kids qualify for access to services, and the state is getting in the way.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 20, 2015)

Huh.  Missed this.


Umbran said:


> It is only the _matriculas consulares_ of Mexican parents that are being rejected as ID, and this is a new thing.  IDs of people from other nations are not being rejected.



Not quite.  Yes, matriculas consulares (MC) are off the list, but they're off the list after investigation showed that there were no controls on the IDs, no central database or even sharing between consulates as to who was issued an ID, no clearly stated requirements for receiving the IDs, and no tracking of issued IDs at all.  The research they did was to ask the Mexican government how they handled the MCs.  And asking the FBI, who said that they don't accept MCs as valid identification for the same reasons.  So they took those off the list as they were determined by Texas research, with collaboration by the Mexican government, and by Federal law enforcement as not being sufficiently secure.

But even further on the list are passports without a visa that are not issued from visa exempt countries.  Again, this was well researched and falls in line with Federal ID policies.  The Texas list looks a lot like the list the Federal government uses on the W4 forms.

And even further than that, they announced this decision in 2008, and took five years to being fully enforcing it.  That's plenty of time to adjust.

Now, more recent information seems to indicate that maybe the MCs are better, but that's not fully in evidence and it's not yet clear if the newer MCs will meet the necessary standards.  If they do and they're still left off, then, yes, you have a strong case.  But as of now?  Nope, can't see how disallowing a fundamentally flawed ID method is targeted at Mexicans.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 20, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> To note, I think it's important to distinguish the judge's order and its motivation from the Texas statute and the motivation behind _it_.




Sure. Overall, the judge's order isn't the root issue.  Dismissing the question of racism because *this judges order* may not be racist is kind of dodging the main problem, that Texas is getting in the way of natural born citizens from getting services they are entitled to.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 20, 2015)

Umbran said:


> My search shows the memo saying that matricular consulares were no longer being accepted can be read here:  http://www.expressnews.com/file/106/3/1063-Letter from Dee Porter.pdf
> 
> A bit of searching shows me that only Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil offer cards by that name.  Guatemala, Peru, Ecuador, Pakistan, Nigeria, and other nations offer consular IDs, but by different names, and so are not covered by that memo.  Other nations that don't offer consular IDs, but use some other ID system, are not affected.
> 
> The effect is that kids of Mexican parents are impacted more than others.  And, at least by the UN definition, the *effect* of discrimination based on national origin is sufficient for it to be racism.



No, that's not how that definition works.  If the impact is because they are from those countries, then, yes, it's racism. However, there are multiple other pathways for identification for people of those countries to pursue that are perfectly valid under this law.  It's only illegals from those countries that are really the ones impacted by this law, and then only from Mexico, as it was determined that the Mexican MCs specifically were very insecure formats of identification.  People from those countries here legally can just show their valid passport with visa (which they must have to be here legally) or their green card and they have no issues.  It's only those here without valid identification and no route to obtain it that are impacted.



> The issue at hand is the rights of a _natural born citizen of the US_ are infringed.  The documentation of the parents should not be a barrier to a citizen getting services.  Period.  Whether or not it is racist, the Equal Protection clause applies - those kids qualify for access to services, and the state is getting in the way.



The legal system disagrees, at least at this stage.  The full trial may well determine that this method is not the least restrictive means, but the government's obligation to protect vital identification documents is clear and well understood.  You, as a natural born citizen, cannot get a copy of your birth certificate without presenting clear evidence that you are you who are, and I'm pretty sure you like it that way.  At least, I don't expect that you'd be happy that anyone could get your birth certificate just by claiming to be you, but I could be wrong.  

So the government has a clear interest and duty to restrict access to birth certificates.  Yes, you are absolutely correct that, in this case, said restrictions are very onerous on a small section of people in this country -- namely the natural citizen children of illegal parents.  And the legal system is taking this very, very seriously since the case has been brought.  However, they also did the right thing in denying the preliminary injunction based on the fact that the actual causes of infringement on rights (which they correctly identified exist) are not targeted at persons based on protected traits, but are based on solid and even national standards.  Those standards need the full attention of a full trial, not the preliminary process, to determine if they are the least restrictive means available.

Interestingly, if I read correctly about the newer MC procedures, it would seem that some of the plaintiffs in this case would be unable to get such an identification under the new rules, and would still be out of luck.  That's really neither here not there for this discussion, but it is interesting as it illuminates that fact that the previous incarnation of the MCs were very, very insecure.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 20, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> So they took those off the list as they were determined by Texas research, with collaboration by the Mexican government, and by Federal law enforcement as not being sufficiently secure.




And?  It isn't like the baby is responsible for that.  

As you yourself have noted- the judge in question did not reject that there was a problem.  He merely didn't say there was sufficient evidence for emergency relief.



> And even further than that, they announced this decision in 2008, and took five years to being fully enforcing it.  That's plenty of time to adjust.




Plenty of time for whom?  That memo sure wasn't addressed to the immigrant community.  You say, "took five years to fully enforcing it".  Enforcement is irregular and spotty even today.  It is unclear what these folks are actually supposed to do instead.  And, also clearly, though they've had five years, the state did not develop any alternate way for their citizens to get identified as such so they can get services they ought to have.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 20, 2015)

So basically there is a list of possible documents of identification that could be used for getting the copy of the birth certificates, and they do not have any on the list.

Maybe the reasoning behind that list is racially motivated in hopes of ensuring that no Hispanic illegal immigrants can get them, but it evne includes "Mexican Voter Registration Card" and "Foreign Identification with Identifiable Photo of Applicant". That doesn't seem to extraordinary to me. And I think it's quite understandable that legal documentation is required to get those birth certificates - imagine someone without them could get them and use it file for various government services available to birth certificate owners.


----------



## tomBitonti (Oct 20, 2015)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> So basically there is a list of possible documents of identification that could be used for getting the copy of the birth certificates, and they do not have any on the list.
> 
> Maybe the reasoning behind that list is racially motivated in hopes of ensuring that no Hispanic illegal immigrants can get them, but it evne includes "Mexican Voter Registration Card" and "Foreign Identification with Identifiable Photo of Applicant". That doesn't seem to extraordinary to me. And I think it's quite understandable that legal documentation is required to get those birth certificates - imagine someone without them could get them and use it file for various government services available to birth certificate owners.




I can't speak to the motivation, but, if the list were designed to specifically deny children of Mexican parents access to their documentation, that would be for me clear evidence of discrimination.  The actual request was for a determination of acceptable identification:



> Plaintiffs now seek a preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to “determine at least two
> forms of identification [that are] reasonably and actually accessible to undocumented immigrant
> parents of Texas-born children” that satisfy the identification requirement for a properly qualified
> applicant to obtain the birth certificate of a child born in Texas.




The judge's order gets a bit muddy after about half-way through, and I couldn't tell if this request was addressed specifically.  The order reads very well at first, then get very bogged down in details of whether conditions for a preliminary injunction are satisfied.  The order reads as if conditions were not satisfied, then loses interest in the details of the request.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 20, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> As it stands, it may yet by racist, but there's not enough information to show that it is.



According to you there is. 







> There is a disproportionate impact on certain nationalities and/or ethnicities.



 And that disproportionate impact is of course negative to the members of those nationalities/ethnicities. 

If the law negatively and disporptionally impacts people of different nationalities/ethnicities, it is racist. That is the sort of standard this PC age as left us with, since no one will outright say something is ment to be racist.


----------



## CaptainGemini (Oct 20, 2015)

goldomark said:


> If the law negatively and disporptionally impacts people of different nationalities/ethnicities, it is racist. That is the sort of standard this PC age as left us with, since no one will outright say something is ment to be racist.




That is most laws on the books in America these days.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 20, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> I can't speak to the motivation, but, if the list were designed to specifically deny children of Mexican parents access to their documentation, that would be for me clear evidence of discrimination.  The actual request was for a determination of acceptable identification:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Mostly because once the judge finds that the plaintiffs do not meet their burden on the second test, even when considered under strict scrutiny of the government, there's little reason to continue.  To grant injunctive relief that plaintiff must prevail on  all four tests -- failing one fails the motion.  That's why it gets muddy -- he doesn't need to consider past that and doing so could prove damaging to either side and allow for more appeals, thereby extending the matter.  Judges at that level tend to be cautious of providing grist for the appeal mill if they can do so.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 20, 2015)

goldomark said:


> According to you there is.  And that disproportionate impact is of course negative to the members of those nationalities/ethnicities.
> 
> If the law negatively and disporptionally impacts people of different nationalities/ethnicities, it is racist. That is the sort of standard this PC age as left us with, since no one will outright say something is ment to be racist.




Serious question:  do you read all of the words I write and consider them, or is it enough to skim, quote, and post?  I have to ask because you're mischaracterizing what I said to make it say the opposite, and then ignoring all of the words I wrote that explains why.  Also, you're continuing to use your own definition of racism that isn't the one agreed to and trying to hold up my argument made under a different standard to yours and asking why I don't agree with myself.  What you claim is racism is not without additional qualifiers.


----------



## Deset Gled (Oct 20, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> It's only illegals from those countries that are really the ones impacted by this law




Headline: No birth certificates to immigrant kids born in Texas


----------



## Umbran (Oct 20, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> It's only those here without valid identification and no route to obtain it that are impacted.




I am drifting into argument by repetition, but apparently this fails to get through.

There is a young *CITIZEN OF THE US* that is impacted.  Born here.  Legally a citizen.  Unable, for example, to go to school because a birth certificate will be required for them to register.  It is their *right*, just like any other kid born here.

Keep trying to justify that, please, by all means.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> And I think it's quite understandable that legal documentation is required to get those birth certificates - imagine someone without them could get them and use it file for various government services available to birth certificate owners.




Yes, to first approximation it is "understandable".  But then jumping up on a table and screaming when a mouse comes into the room is also "understandable", insofar as we understand that some people are freaked out by mice.  Understandable does to equate to reasonable, or even functional.

 What is understandable about leaving an infant citizen of the US in a bureaucratic limbo for years?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 20, 2015)

Deset Gled said:


> Headline: No birth certificates to immigrant kids born in Texas



Is this a quote to show how badly the press is misrepresenting this situation or are you still stuck on the misrepresentation the press has given you?  I've explained the actual situation multiple times AND linked to the decision which lays out the issues in the opening paragraphs, so...



Umbran said:


> I am drifting into argument by repetition, but apparently this fails to get through.
> 
> There is a young *CITIZEN OF THE US* that is impacted.  Born here.  Legally a citizen.  Unable, for example, to go to school because a birth certificate will be required for them to register.  It is their *right*, just like any other kid born here.
> 
> Keep trying to justify that, please, by all means.



Yes, no one is questioning that.  It's a problem.  It's not racism, though, it's just a really serious problem.  I've been very consistent that the rights of both the parents and children are being infringed and that that is very serious.  However, according to how this country works, sometimes there are reasons that the government can do that. 

And, to be perfectly clear, the children can go to school, but if they don't present a birth certificate within the first month, the situation is reported to immigration for investigation.  

This issue isn't caused by the government wanting to keep citizens out of school or even to punish illegals (there's myriad ways for an illegal to get sufficient ID, it's just that in the cases in the suit those parents do not have access to those documents).  The state also has a serious need to protect birth certificates.  You're obviously on the side of giving the certificates no matter what, but I wonder if you're on the side of allowing someone with your name to walk into a Mexican consulate, get a MC ID, and submit to get your birth certificate (if you were born in Texas, this is a hypothetical).  Because that's what this law is meant to stop, and it disallowed MCs because people could do that according to the Mexican government in '08.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 20, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> you're continuing to use your own definition of racism that isn't the one agreed to



I didn't asked for your approval and I didn't asked for a definition of racism. I asked for ways to judge if a law is racist. You refused, so I had to come up with another test. A law must have a negative impact on people of different nationality/ethnicity. Something this law does. 

As I said many times, todays laws and officials won't be too explicite about racism, so we need to look for something else. 

You're more than welcomed to provide us with an alternative way of determining if a law is racist when it doesn't explicitly say so or target different ethnicities/nationalities.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 20, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> However, according to how this country works, sometimes there are reasons that the government can do that.



It isn't because the government can do something that it isn't doing it out of racism or trying to appeal to racists.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 21, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I didn't asked for your approval and I didn't asked for a definition of racism. I asked for ways to judge if a law is racist. You refused, so I had to come up with another test.



Nah, we need to stop right here.  If you legitimately mean that, I don't see any way to have a conversation.  I'm at an absolute loss on how you could possibly determine if a law is racist without a clear definition of racism.  I agreed to a definition of racism in good faith and then used it to make my case.  Apparently, you'd rather not have something like a concrete definition of racism as a foundation and would rather just let it mean what you want it to mean when you say it.  That's fine for the Tweedle twins, but I'm not interested.


----------



## Deset Gled (Oct 21, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> Umbran said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Really?  I thought...



			
				Ovinomancer said:
			
		

> It's only illegals from those countries that are really the ones impacted by this law


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 21, 2015)

Deset Gled said:


> Really?  I thought...




Sigh.  Yes, only the illegal parents are _directly _affected by this law.  Cunning of you to catch that out.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 21, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm at an absolute loss on how you could possibly determine if a law is racist without a clear definition of racism.



And you need mine to be able to determine racism? You can't on your own determine what is racist and what is not? No wonder you couldn't tell me how you indentify racism.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 21, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> Sigh.  Yes, only the illegal parents are _directly _affected by this law.  Cunning of you to catch that out.




And by the UN definition, that is sufficient.  The impact of the law is felt disproportionately by one ethnic group.  That "in theory" it would impact everyone is not material.  Who actually is impacted matters.

Even if it really was over security standards, the point remains the same.  If we have that sort of issue, the government has to find a way around it that doesn't lay the burden of the problem on one ethnic group.  Just rejecting the Mexican IDs is the easy way.  You may feel it is a logical way, but the impact is unbalanced, and therefore problematic.  A different solution is called for.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 21, 2015)

Umbran said:


> And by the UN definition, that is sufficient.  The impact of the law is felt disproportionately by one ethnic group.  That "in theory" it would impact everyone is not material.  Who actually is impacted matters.



No, it isn't.  Here's the bit you quoted earlier:


> "the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."




Nothing in there about disproportionate impact being automatically racism.  Racism is discrimination based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin by the definition you posted.  Disproportionate impact is a flag that means you need to go look and see why that's happening, but it's not prima facie racist.  In other words, disproportionate impact is an indicator racism may be present (heck, it's a _strong _indicator), but it's not sufficient by itself to declare something is racist.  You have to get to why there's disproportionate impact.  In this case, that's because the law is challenging for illegal aliens without valid identification (provided they don't want to out themselves to immigration, which is imminently reasonable), but the disproportionate impact on Mexicans is that they make up the majority of the illegal aliens without valid identification.  It may turn out that the decision on what constitutes valid ID is racially motivated, in which case I'll be glad to join you in disgust, but, so far, that hasn't been determined in the first look under strict scrutiny (which is a HARD standard), so the disproportionate impact looks like it's based on reasonable actions -- _so far_.  Next step here is trial, where strict scrutiny will come into play again and this time the State has much more of the burden to show they meet that hard standard to continue.

This is how the process works.  It's a process that cannot be immediately accommodating to any one group when issues like this arise -- a clear government need conflicting with a basic right -- but it's already heavily skewed towards the rights holders and against the government.  Yet, under that heavy bias, the government has so far prevailed.  I think it very premature to call racism in that context.



> Even if it really was over security standards, the point remains the same.  If we have that sort of issue, the government has to find a way around it that doesn't lay the burden of the problem on one ethnic group.  Just rejecting the Mexican IDs is the easy way.  You may feel it is a logical way, but the impact is unbalanced, and therefore problematic.  A different solution is called for.



No, the government has to find the least restrictive means that meet it's needs.  That's not the same as a duty to avoid burdening one ethnic group.  It often works out that way, especially since the government has a duty to avoid laws based on ethnicity, but it's not the same.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 21, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> what is a 14th ammendment?



It's like a 13th Amendment, but with a four instead of a three.



> is this about judges in texas being racist tw@ts when it comes to those ebil mexicanos?



No. I mean, yeah it's possible the judge is also a racist, but I'm more interested in discussing the motivations of the Texas officials for making these changes and targeting Mexicans. The legality doesn't interest me. The judge did what he did. It's procedural. I'm betting in the end the state of Texas will end up losing the case. The Texas officials just happened to have found a way to legally take take away a natural born citizen's 14th Amendment rights. Their reasons remind me of the reasons republicans across the country give for voter ID laws. They're claiming to address a problem that isn't there. 

Is it for racist reasons that they're doing this? Yeah, most likely.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 21, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> It's like a 13th Amendment, but with a four instead of a three.
> 
> No. I mean, yeah it's possible the judge is also a racist, but I'm more interested in discussing the motivations of the Texas officials for making these changes and targeting Mexicans. The legality doesn't interest me. The judge did what he did. It's procedural. I'm betting in the end the state of Texas will end up losing the case. The Texas officials just happened to have found a way to legally take take away a natural born citizen's 14th Amendment rights. Their reasons remind me of the reasons republicans across the country give for voter ID laws. They're claiming to address a problem that isn't there.
> 
> Is it for racist reasons that they're doing this? Yeah, most likely.




No problem with this, at all.  I'm not ready to issue a blanket condemnation of it as racist, but I am certainly aware there's a decent probability it is.  My issues are arguments that it's obviously racist based on definitions that don't agree, or that it shouldn't need to go to trial.

As an aside, there are other paths for the citizen children to receive all of their due rights in this case.  It just happens that such routes expose their illegal parents to immigration officers.  I'm not saying this makes it all better (it clearly doesn't), I'm just pointing out that such things exist.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 21, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> No problem with this, at all.  I'm not ready to issue a blanket condemnation of it as racist, but I am certainly aware there's a decent probability it is.  My issues are arguments that it's obviously racist based on definitions that don't agree, or that it shouldn't need to go to trial.



Who or what doesn't agree with the definitions?



> As an aside, there are other paths for the citizen children to receive all of their due rights in this case.  It just happens that such routes expose their illegal parents to immigration officers.  I'm not saying this makes it all better (it clearly doesn't), I'm just pointing out that such things exist.



Sure, it's like saying you can get medical care, but we're going to have to cut off your sack when you get it.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 21, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Who or what doesn't agree with the definitions?



Scroll back through the last few posts?



> Sure, it's like saying you can get medical care, but we're going to have to cut off your sack when you get it.



Pretty much.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 21, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> Scroll back through the last few posts?



Ain't no one got time for that.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 21, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> Scroll back through the last few posts?




You should probably take it as a given that a person asking such a question either has already chosen not to, or the previous posts in question are not nearly so clear as you may think.

Either way, just telling folks to go back and read is 1) not constructive and 2) A bit of a passive-aggressive passing the buck of clarification, which can be a bit insulting, really.

Which comes out to - if you're not going to actually answer the question, don't answer the question. Pointed non-answers do not improve anything.,


----------

