• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Constitution? 14th Amendment?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel
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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
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

Naked and living in a barrel
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

No flips for you!
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

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
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

First Post
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?

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

No flips for you!
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?
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

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
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

First Post
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

Adventurer
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,
including enrollment in schools and social welfare programs, as well as other services such as
baptism and day care services. They maintain access to those benefits, services and programs
is contingent on presentation of a birth certificate, and thus the inability to obtain a birth certificate
effectively denies access to children born in Texas to persons without legal immigration status.
DSHS is the Texas state agency statutorily empowered to “administer the registration of
vital statistics.” TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 191.002(a). Subject to DSHS rules, the state
registrar is required to “supply to a properly qualified applicant, on request, a certified copy of a
record, or part of a record, of a birth” registered with DSHS. Id. § 191.051(a). A “properly qualified
applicant” is defined as:
The registrant, or immediate family member either by blood, marriage or adoption,
his or her guardian, or his or her legal agent or representative. Local, state and
federal law enforcement or governmental agencies and other persons may be
designated as properly qualified applicants by demonstrating a direct and tangible
interest in the record when the information in the record is necessary to implement
a statutory provision or to protect a personal legal property right.
25 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 181.1(21). The governing regulation (“Section 181") also mandates, to
meet the requirement that an applicant requesting a record be “properly qualified,” the applicant
“must present proof of identity acceptable to the State Registrar.” Id. § 181.28(i)(2).1
Section 181 sets forth an extensive list of acceptable forms of identification divided into
three categories – primary, secondary and supporting. Primary identification documents are a
variety of documents issued by the federal or state governments, including a driver’s license,

Prior to 2013, the forms of acceptable identification were contained not in the Texas Administrative Code,
but in the Vital Statistics Unit's Local Registrar Handbook. (Def. Resp. Decl. of Farinelli ¶ 7).

military id, passport and permanent resident card. The documents must be current and valid. Id.
§ 181.28(i)(10). Section 181 lists the following acceptable forms of secondary identification:
(I) Current student identification;
(ii) Any Primary Identification that is expired;
(iii) Signed Social Security card, or Numident;
(iv) DD Form 214 Certificate of Release;
(v) Medicaid card;
(vi) Medicare card;
(vii) Veterans Affairs card;
(viii) Medical insurance card;
(ix) Foreign Passport accompanied by a Visa issued by the United States
Department of State;
(x) Foreign Passport in accordance with the United States Department of State,
Visa Waiver Program;
(xi) Certified birth certificate from the Department of State (FS-240, DS-1350 or
FS-545);
(xii) Private Company Employment Identification card;
(xiii) Form I-94 - accompanied by the applicant's Visa or Passport;
(xiv) Mexican voter registration card; or
(xv) Foreign Identification with identifiable photo of applicant.
Id. § 181.28(i)(11)(D).

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
pleadings and supporting affidavit testimony. The Court conducted a hearing on October 2, 2015
and the matter is now ripe for review.

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

Thx!
TomB
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top