Constitution? 14th Amendment?

[Ovinomancer]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Really? I thought...

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

 

[Ovinomancer]

Really? I thought...

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

 

[Kramodlog]

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]

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]

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]

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.