The News Thread

[Dak]

http://www.nature.com/news/the-bandwidth-bottleneck-that-is-throttling-the-internet-1.20392

Totally unrelated.

 

[Einherjar86]

You haven't responded to my explanation. When someone breaks the law and is brought before the court, there are a variety of defense tactics to either avoid a conviction or lessen the punishment. One of them is to deny or suggest a limit in any way in the agency of the accused - that they didn't possess the capacity to do otherwise. This is the frame that I use as a reference for the sort of defense that cf offers. I haven't seen anything that you have said that invalidates this frame or offers a better one, and cf hasn't provided any other justification.

My response is that an insanity defense is qualitatively different than saying that external factors play a significant role in a subject's behavior.

Psychological and/or cognitive arguments still reduce the explanation of a subject's behavior to an internal cause - a faulty circuit in the brain, a psychopathological cause. This bears immediately on definitions of agency since it is internal to it, or at least part and parcel with agency (according to the definitions deployed by the judicial defense). But it is an entirely different argument to say that external factors have an overwhelmingly determining influence on a subject's behavior, as opposed to an appeal to psychological damage or malfunction.

It's not tangential because cf claimed they shouldn't suffer any unpleasant consequences of their actions. The frame I listed previously provides the only tactic I see that he has in terms of justification. You're absolutely right on the characterization of agency, but I think you're protesting because it is true/it works. American liberals with their neo-white man's burden are *at least* as racist as any Grand Wizard. It just takes a different form.

I don't care whether or not they suffer consequences. That's not my concern. I'm okay with admitting that illegal immigrants perhaps should face the consequences. I'm not okay with admitting that suggesting otherwise (even if I don't agree with that suggestion) means one is somehow being racist against immigrants.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

There's no lack of due process or equal protection under the law in racial profiling when there's a known criminal profile as it relates to race and geography. In fact, a crackdown offers a degree of social protection to those of that race in that location that are not breaking the law.

That's nonsense. If I ask every Brown person to show proof of citzenship and don't ask White people to show proof of citzenship, that's categorically profiling.

I'm sure you're confused as to why there is any support for Trump amongst Latinos.

I'm sure they have their reasons. Perhaps they're hardline Republicans, single issue voters, or work in one of the fields Trump purports to bring new jobs to. That said, Trump is currently in 4th place with African Americans; I haven't seen recent polling on Latinos, but I doubt he's doing much better.

You have a real problem with consequences/repercussions, and agency in non-whites don't you?

Is this you're way of saying that you take no issue with the scenario I outlined above? If so, you are morally bankrupt.

I believe punishments should fit crimes. Do I think crossing a border illegally as a result of economic desperation, partly the result of the USA's own doing, should be punishable by being expeled from the USA without having your basic needs ensured? Absolutely not. Do I think children, who were unable to consent to their parents' descions should have their lives put at risk? Absolutely not. That's heartless and inhumane, the type of action we see committed by tyrannical governments. I expect my country to be above that.

You mean "why shouldn't I be OK with revoking the citizenship of people who committed a criminal act to get them 'citizenship"? Why shouldn't I be?

The child of the immigrant didn't commit any criminal act. You're literally saying that a baby comits a crime by being born. That is a terrible justification for anything, let alone stripping someone of their citizenship.

"Now outpace".....and Mexicans have been leaving more than showing up due to the economy and less so the atmosphere. No wonder. And I wonder through what border the Asians are coming in?

They're mostly overstaying visas, not flying into Mexico and sneaking over the border.

"Unbiased." I guess it's goddamn self-evident ammirite? The only legitimate point to be found in your Huffpo Hitlist is the War on Drugs.

I'm not interested in your shit slinging and casual dismissiveness of my positions. Do you have a counterargument or not? Because as far as I can see, you're not sufficently informed on these issues. For example, Southern Federal Appeals court judges stated the following regarding North Carolina's voting laws: "With surgical precision, North Carolina tried to eliminate voting practices disproportionately used by African-Americans."

Similiar quotes can be pulled from other Federal Court judges in rejecting or demanding revision to new Voting laws. But all these Southern judges are probably secretly infiltrators from the Huffington Post, right?

 

[CiG]

Mexicans are brown by definition? Funny, because for decades Latino and Hispanic people were categorised as white.

 

[rms]

Where? lol

 

[CiG]

In statistics of all kinds.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=...ac.1j4.34.heirloom-hp..31.11.1570.zhoIsm-f0PE

 

[Baroque]

Latino is really a mixed race tbh. There are 4 or 5 major races which are Caucasian, Asian, African, Native American, Native Australian. Latino is a mix of Caucasian and Native American. Many surveys still classify them as "white of Hispanic origin".

 

[rms]

Arent all islanders in the Pacific traced back to early Chinese and Japanese?

I honestly dont think ive ever seen this white-hispanic thing, but calling people from Spain is retarded anyways.

 

[Dak]

My response is that an insanity defense is qualitatively different than saying that external factors play a significant role in a subject's behavior.

Psychological and/or cognitive arguments still reduce the explanation of a subject's behavior to an internal cause - a faulty circuit in the brain, a psychopathological cause. This bears immediately on definitions of agency since it is internal to it, or at least part and parcel with agency (according to the definitions deployed by the judicial defense). But it is an entirely different argument to say that external factors have an overwhelmingly determining influence on a subject's behavior, as opposed to an appeal to psychological damage or malfunction.

I don't care whether or not they suffer consequences. That's not my concern. I'm okay with admitting that illegal immigrants perhaps should face the consequences. I'm not okay with admitting that suggesting otherwise (even if I don't agree with that suggestion) means one is somehow being racist against immigrants.

I listed mental health first because it is the primary example. But other extenuating circumstances are often brought in - sometimes even to explain mental health issues (abusive or poor upbringing for instance). Of course one could try to find some other reasons or have other reasons for being against consequences for illegal immigration. But there's a clear trend with cf and other progs in constantly having an issue with consequences for minorities for breaking laws that they don't otherwise take issue with. It's a bias that currently lacks an alternative explanation. A counter example is the war on drugs, where there is clearly a difference in policing and prosecuting - but the laws are bad to begin with. We don't need to level the playing field there, the game needs to be changed/eliminated. This would also have a spillover effect into immigration at least to a small degree but that's a tangent as far as this goes.

That's nonsense. If I ask every Brown person to show proof of citzenship and don't ask White people to show proof of citzenship, that's categorically profiling.

No one said it wasn't profiling. If you have a crime committed and the suspect is described as white, would it make sense to stop black people to check and see if they fit the profile? You'd most certainly have a fit about that. Whether you think it should be a crime or not (and you have yet to argue it shouldn't be), illegal immigration is a misdemeanor and re-entry after deportation is a felony.

Is this you're way of saying that you take no issue with the scenario I outlined above? If so, you are morally bankrupt.

Maybe I see morality in more refined terms than a simple "is a non-white person experiencing something unpleasant but a white person isn't???" checkbox.

I believe punishments should fit crimes. Do I think crossing a border illegally as a result of economic desperation, partly the result of the USA's own doing, should be punishable by being expeled from the USA without having your basic needs ensured? Absolutely not. Do I think children, who were unable to consent to their parents' descions should have their lives put at risk? Absolutely not. That's heartless and inhumane, the type of action we see committed by tyrannical governments. I expect my country to be above that.

The child of the immigrant didn't commit any criminal act. You're literally saying that a baby comits a crime by being born. That is a terrible justification for anything, let alone stripping someone of their citizenship.

So if I rob you blind and then give it to my kid, you're shit out of luck amirite? I know you're all about inheritance taxes. Think of stripping the child of illegal immigrants in terms of an inheritance tax. It would be really easy to fix this issue though without immediately driving you to tears, by simply amending "born in the US" to "legally born in the US" and grandfathering the current anchor babies.

They're mostly overstaying visas, not flying into Mexico and sneaking over the border.

Ah, so they are "here illegally". Not undocumented, and they didn't initially get in illegally (and are probably contributing significantly to the taxbase in Silicon Valley etc). Different problem.

I'm not interested in your shit slinging and casual dismissiveness of my positions. Do you have a counterargument or not? Because as far as I can see, you're not sufficently informed on these issues. For example, Southern Federal Appeals court judges stated the following regarding North Carolina's voting laws: "With surgical precision, North Carolina tried to eliminate voting practices disproportionately used by African-Americans."

Similiar quotes can be pulled from other Federal Court judges in rejecting or demanding revision to new Voting laws. But all these Southern judges are probably secretly infiltrators from the Huffington Post, right?

Voting without presenting ID is a "voting practice"? Driving while drunk is a "driving practice" but we saw fit to pass laws on it, and it disproportionately impacts minorities (Native Americans/Hispanics specifically). Haven't heard anyone cry about that yet, but I'm sure it's coming. That voting is a constitutional right doesn't matter since it hasn't mattered for the 2nd amendment. I know that courts have struck down these laws, but judges aren't perfect. The US legal system heavily uses case precedent, for good or ill. Once a decision has been made on a case (like denying the requirement of any sort of voter accountability), it is difficult to get a different judgement.

 

[Baroque]

Arent all islanders in the Pacific traced back to early Chinese and Japanese?

I honestly dont think ive ever seen this white-hispanic thing, but calling people from Spain is retarded anyways.

The color of Spanish skin ranges from white to dark, but there are spaniards and Latinos that are very much majority Caucasian. Some spaniards were mixed with middle eastern and North African during the Muslim invasions of Spain, which gave us the darker spaniards and also the differences in Spanish food and music.

Flamenco wouldn't exist without that Middle eastern influence on western classical music.

 

[Einherjar86]

I listed mental health first because it is the primary example. But other extenuating circumstances are often brought in - sometimes even to explain mental health issues (abusive or poor upbringing for instance).

I want to break this down.

The appeal in this context (as you describe) isn't to external causes in themselves. In other words, "abuse didn't make me do it - abuse made me mentally unstable, and my mental instability made me do it." The causal chain runs from external factors to psychological imbalance to the hypothetical criminal act. We just witnessed this with the Orlando shooter, albeit in the media - not the courtroom. But the logic runs the same.

It is crucial that psychological disruption stands between social conditions and the criminal act, and this is a historical symptom of our Western, liberal-humanist culture going back to the Enlightenment. That rational action and agency coheres at the level of the metaphysical subject, that the subject is whole and rational and always capable of rational action. If subjects act irrationally then it's because they've been cognitively disrupted somehow, or they're just plain evil (which of course translates in our parlance into psychological imbalance, usually). You don't need to tell me that the metaphysical subject doesn't exist. I know full well that it doesn't, but this doesn't change the fact that our society acts as though it does.

This kind of defense relies on a totalizing approach to the subject, and explains irrational action according to the (mental) breakdown of the subject. External factors may come into play, but they do not hold up in court unless tied in to the subject's mental instability.

Now, this is central to the notion of agency as it is defined and applied by the judicial system. But when I make an argument appealing to social conditions, I'm not trying to say the subject suffers any kind of mental imbalance; I'm not diagnosing the subject as being subjectively incapable of exhibiting agency. I'm saying that the subject possesses the capacity for agency but that certain conditions prohibit this agency from manifesting in a socially acceptable way.

This is why I think the psychological defense is entirely different than a systemic defense. Not coincidentally, the latter never holds up in court, and this is because we as a culture place an over-determining weight upon the sanctity and power of the interior subject.

 

[Dak]

I want to break this down.

The appeal in this context (as you describe) isn't to external causes in themselves. In other words, "abuse didn't make me do it - abuse made me mentally unstable, and my mental instability made me do it." The causal chain runs from external factors to psychological imbalance to the hypothetical criminal act. We just witnessed this with the Orlando shooter, albeit in the media - not the courtroom. But the logic runs the same.

It is crucial that psychological disruption stands between social conditions and the criminal act, and this is a historical symptom of our Western, liberal-humanist culture going back to the Enlightenment. That rational action and agency coheres at the level of the metaphysical subject, that the subject is whole and rational and always capable of rational action. If subjects act irrationally then it's because they've been cognitively disrupted somehow, or they're just plain evil (which of course translates in our parlance into psychological imbalance, usually). You don't need to tell me that the metaphysical subject doesn't exist. I know full well that it doesn't, but this doesn't change the fact that our society acts as though it does.

This kind of defense relies on a totalizing approach to the subject, and explains irrational action according to the (mental) breakdown of the subject. External factors may come into play, but they do not hold up in court unless tied in to the subject's mental instability.

Now, this is central to the notion of agency as it is defined and applied by the judicial system. But when I make an argument appealing to social conditions, I'm not trying to say the subject suffers any kind of mental imbalance; I'm not diagnosing the subject as being subjectively incapable of exhibiting agency. I'm saying that the subject possesses the capacity for agency but that certain conditions prohibit this agency from manifesting in a socially acceptable way.

This is why I think the psychological defense is entirely different than a systemic defense. Not coincidentally, the latter never holds up in court, and this is because we as a culture place an over-determining weight upon the sanctity and power of the interior subject.

I don't have a problem with any of this. I just don't think it applies as the bleeding heart's perspective. cf was objecting to consequences purely on racism grounds (not the above more nuanced position), I have every reason - as outlined, to throw it back on the same grounds.

 

[Einherjar86]

Okay, well I'm not going to keep up with this, since it feels like we've beaten it into the ground. But I do recall you accusing me of this in the past, so hopefully this has some positive effect on our future conversations...

 

[Dak]

You also used to be, or at least come off as, a bit more bleeding heart

Edit: I was for a time as well. /hattip to the old me

 

[crimsonfloyd]

No one said it wasn't profiling. If you have a crime committed and the suspect is described as white, would it make sense to stop black people to check and see if they fit the profile? You'd most certainly have a fit about that. Whether you think it should be a crime or not (and you have yet to argue it shouldn't be), illegal immigration is a misdemeanor and re-entry after deportation is a felony.

There's a MASSIVE difference between targetting someone who fits the profile of a criminal (i.e. If someone was robbed at gunpoint and by a 5'8 200 pound white guy with a goatee, then it makes sense to pull over a 5'8 200 pound white guy with a goatee) vs. systematically targetting an entire community based on their ethnicity. The former is profiling (of which race is only one aspect) while the later is racial profiling. Didn't you learn faulty analogy when you took that logic 101 class, or did you not get to that chapter?

Maybe I see morality in more refined terms than a simple "is a non-white person experiencing something unpleasant but a white person isn't???" checkbox.

No, you're a closet racist who tries to justify his bigotry through half-baked intellectualism and a scattered knowledge of the facts.

So if I rob you blind and then give it to my kid, you're shit out of luck amirite? I know you're all about inheritance taxes. Think of stripping the child of illegal immigrants in terms of an inheritance tax. It would be really easy to fix this issue though without immediately driving you to tears, by simply amending "born in the US" to "legally born in the US" and grandfathering the current anchor babies.

What does it mean to be "legally born in the US?" Babies can't do anything legal or illegal. And even a mother who came across the border illegally committed a crime when she crossed the border, but the act of giving birth is not a crime. What utter nonsense.

I also find it funny that you're basically providing an argument for reperations. White Southerns robbed Blacks blind through generations of slavery, followed by the Jim Crow caste system. By your line of reasoning, blacks should get reparations. (For the record this is an issue I'm undecided on).

That said, your analogy is faulty. People born in America are by rights citizens. They're taking nothing from anyone else. When they grow up and work, they'll pay taxes just like everyone else. Your line of reasoning is total bullshit, grounded in yet another faulty analogy (seriously, read that chapter).

Ah, so they are "here illegally". Not undocumented, and they didn't initially get in illegally (and are probably contributing significantly to the taxbase in Silicon Valley etc). Different problem.

I never once said they weren't here illegally. All but perhaps a far far fringe of people who use the term "undocumented immigrant" would not deny the illegality of the act of coming here without a visa or overstaying one's visa.

The reason we use the term "undocumented immigrant" is threefold:

1. A person can't be illegal. An act can be illegal (i.e. crossing a border without papers) but a person cannot be.

2. "Illegal immigrant" is a vague term with a strongly negative connotation. Many things are illegal- rape, murder, drug dealing, driving over the speed limit, jaywalking. These crimes can also he commited by an immigrant who has papers. Does that make them an "illegal immigrant"? Referring to someone as "undocumented" is far more precise as it identifies what distingushes them from other immigrants.

3. Illegal immigrant is dehumanizing. It demonizes these people and allows for others to develop unjustifed hate and prejudice towards them (see Trump and his followers) as well as a willingness to treat them like animals (see yourself).

Voting without presenting ID is a "voting practice"? Driving while drunk is a "driving practice" but we saw fit to pass laws on it, and it disproportionately impacts minorities (Native Americans/Hispanics specifically). Haven't heard anyone cry about that yet, but I'm sure it's coming. That voting is a constitutional right doesn't matter since it hasn't mattered for the 2nd amendment. I know that courts have struck down these laws, but judges aren't perfect. The US legal system heavily uses case precedent, for good or ill. Once a decision has been made on a case (like denying the requirement of any sort of voter accountability), it is difficult to get a different judgement.

You are embarassing. First, you say that my claim that the listed acts are instances of systematic racism are unfounded, and then you provide an utterly uninformed response. If you are not willing to research the laws and find out what they include, you have absolutely no justification for claiming they are or are not racist.

Let's take the North Carolina law as an example. This law didn't simply require that one have a state issued ID. It also:
-shortened early voting (disproportionately used by minorities and low income communities)
-banned the use of public assistance cards and student IDs
-eliminated same day registration (again, minorities, youth, and low-income people)
-eliminated out-of-precienct voting (popular with long distance communters, people who work multiple shifts, etc. which again tend to be low income).

Moreover, the federal court concluded that the these changes were made after the lower courts had analyzed the demographic data: “Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans."

That's clear and blatent racism. Of course, as rationalizing racist, you'll come up with a justifcation, because it's what you do. At least avoid the faulty analogy this time.

 

[CiG]

Wow, you're kind of a piece of crap man.

 

[Dak]

There's a MASSIVE difference between targetting someone who fits the profile of a criminal (i.e. If someone was robbed at gunpoint and by a 5'8 200 pound white guy with a goatee, then it makes sense to pull over a 5'8 200 pound white guy with a goatee) vs. systematically targetting an entire community based on their ethnicity. The former is profiling (of which race is only one aspect) while the later is racial profiling. Didn't you learn faulty analogy when you took that logic 101 class, or did you not get to that chapter?

Have you seen a lot of police profile pictures? A lot of young black males and young white males come out looking kind of the same. "Whole community". The "whole community" of Latinos doesn't need targeting. You said yourself it's known that nearly a 10th of illegal immigrants are in the LA area. There are "laws" of diminishing returns, and you can have a significant impact by example cases. A crackdown in LA would prompt a lot of self-deportation elsewhere.

No, you're a closet racist who tries to justify his bigotry through half-baked intellectualism and a scattered knowledge of the facts.

Your heart is bleeding all over the place. You've embraced the "disparate impact"/"unequal outcome" definition of sex/race/whatever-ist. I can't help you out of that pit but it's an unpleasant place to be.

I also find it funny that you're basically providing an argument for reperations. White Southerns robbed Blacks blind through generations of slavery, followed by the Jim Crow caste system. By your line of reasoning, blacks should get reparations. (For the record this is an issue I'm undecided on).

#1 "White Southerns" were overwhelmingly (as in, 95%) poor and often could barely afford to feed themselves, much less own slaves. Even the most anti-southern tortured statistic I can find said 66% didn't "live in a household with at least one slave".
#2 I don't know what one calls tons of gimmedats and affirmative action if not reparations.
#3 I don't know how one would trace out who is deserving and who owes and calculate how much at this point.

What does it mean to be "legally born in the US?" Babies can't do anything legal or illegal. And even a mother who came across the border illegally committed a crime when she crossed the border, but the act of giving birth is not a crime. What utter nonsense.
......
That said, your analogy is faulty. People born in America are by rights citizens. They're taking nothing from anyone else. When they grow up and work, they'll pay taxes just like everyone else. Your line of reasoning is total bullshit, grounded in yet another faulty analogy (seriously, read that chapter).

Currently anchor babies aren't "illegal", no. No one suggested they are - not even Trump. No one said giving birth is a crime. If legally born isn't clear enough (no surprise) I'll be completely specific: Born to a citizen, in the US. To claim faulty analogy, you'd need to understand what was written first. My analogy was of someone getting undue benefit from the misdeeds of others, with no chance rectification. There are better analogies, but they'd all be wasted on you.

I never once said they weren't here illegally. All but perhaps a far far fringe of people who use the term "undocumented immigrant" would not deny the illegality of the act of coming here without a visa or overstaying one's visa.

The reason we use the term "undocumented immigrant" is threefold:

1. A person can't be illegal. An act can be illegal (i.e. crossing a border without papers) but a person cannot be.

2. "Illegal immigrant" is a vague term with a strongly negative connotation. Many things are illegal- rape, murder, drug dealing, driving over the speed limit, jaywalking. These crimes can also he commited by an immigrant who has papers. Does that make them an "illegal immigrant"? Referring to someone as "undocumented" is far more precise as it identifies what distingushes them from other immigrants.

3. Illegal immigrant is dehumanizing. It demonizes these people and allows for others to develop unjustifed hate and prejudice towards them (see Trump and his followers) as well as a willingness to treat them like animals (see yourself).

Oh darn, a negative connotation. Wouldn't want a negative connotation around something illegal. I find it laughable you are so supposedly concerned about "treating them like animals". Do you understand the lengths many illegal immigrants go through to get in here? They treat themselves much worse than animals in many cases to bypass legal channels because they figure your bleeding heart will make it worth it in the end. I'd rather ultimately discourage them from these efforts that can often wind up with them dead through suffocation etc crammed in the body of a car or dead of exposure/dehydration in the desert. If someone wants in, go the legal route. Maybe the legal route needs reform, but that's a separate issue.

You are embarassing. First, you say that my claim that the listed acts are instances of systematic racism are unfounded, and then you provide an utterly uninformed response. If you are not willing to research the laws and find out what they include, you have absolutely no justification for claiming they are or are not racist.

Let's take the North Carolina law as an example. This law didn't simply require that one have a state issued ID. It also:
-shortened early voting (disproportionately used by minorities and low income communities)
-banned the use of public assistance cards and student IDs
-eliminated same day registration (again, minorities, youth, and low-income people)
-eliminated out-of-precienct voting (popular with long distance communters, people who work multiple shifts, etc. which again tend to be low income).

Moreover, the federal court concluded that the these changes were made after the lower courts had analyzed the demographic data: “Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans."

That's clear and blatent racism. Of course, as rationalizing racist, you'll come up with a justifcation, because it's what you do. At least avoid the faulty analogy this time.

You said "Voter ID laws are racist" and then proceeded to list a bunch of other things in a given law that don't have to do with actual state ID.
All I've defended is the uh, equality, in requiring a state ID to vote.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Have you seen a lot of police profile pictures? A lot of young black males and young white males come out looking kind of the same. "Whole community". The "whole community" of Latinos doesn't need targeting. You said yourself it's known that nearly a 10th of illegal immigrants are in the LA area. There are "laws" of diminishing returns, and you can have a significant impact by example cases. A crackdown in LA would prompt a lot of self-deportation elsewhere.

You're avoiding the critique with semantics by dwelling on the word "whole" and thus offering a weak rebuttal. However, I'm find with rolling with your example of LA. Somewhere around 80% of LA's Latino population are American citizens. There's no viable way to find the 20% who are undocumented without racially profiling the other 80%. That is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Thus, if Latino Americans were targeted, profiled, searched or had their privacy invaded on the basis of their ethnicty, this would be a clear case of racial profiling and a violation of their 4th and 14th amendment rights.

Perhaps you just don't value the constitution.

#1 "White Southerns" were overwhelmingly (as in, 95%) poor and often could barely afford to feed themselves, much less own slaves. Even the most anti-southern tortured statistic I can find said 66% didn't "live in a household with at least one slave".
#2 I don't know what one calls tons of gimmedats and affirmative action if not reparations.
#3 I don't know how one would trace out who is deserving and who owes and calculate how much at this point.

Fair enough on point 1. However, it would be easy enough to identify the anscestors of those who profited off slavery and even easier to find those who profited from Jim Crow. If that was doable, it would be consistent with the implications of your statement:

So if I rob you blind and then give it to my kid, you're shit out of luck amirite?

Or perhaps you don't apply that principal when white people are the one's doing the stealing?

Currently anchor babies aren't "illegal", no. No one suggested they are - not even Trump. No one said giving birth is a crime. If legally born isn't clear enough (no surprise) I'll be completely specific: Born to a citizen, in the US. To claim faulty analogy, you'd need to understand what was written first. My analogy was of someone getting undue benefit from the misdeeds of others, with no chance rectification. There are better analogies, but they'd all be wasted on you.

No... It was a faulty analogy. You can throw all the ad hominem misdirections you want, but we both know that was a weak defense of your position.

As for no one saying they are illegal, that's mostly true, but Trump has talked about revoking their citizenship and revising the 14th amendment. When the presidential canidate for a major party makes that claim, I and others are justified in taking threat seriously.

Oh darn, a negative connotation. Wouldn't want a negative connotation around something illegal. I find it laughable you are so supposedly concerned about "treating them like animals". Do you understand the lengths many illegal immigrants go through to get in here? They treat themselves much worse than animals in many cases to bypass legal channels because they figure your bleeding heart will make it worth it in the end. I'd rather ultimately discourage them from these efforts that can often wind up with them dead through suffocation etc crammed in the body of a car or dead of exposure/dehydration in the desert. If someone wants in, go the legal route. Maybe the legal route needs reform, but that's a separate issue.

And there it is. When you see immigrants risking their life to come to America, you see animals. Of course, you totally ignore all the conditions that lead to them being compelled to take that terrible and perilous decisions. That reveals how deeply engrained racism is within your psyche.

You said "Voter ID laws are racist" and then proceeded to list a bunch of other things in a given law that don't have to do with actual state ID.
All I've defended is the uh, equality, in requiring a state ID to vote.

Man, you're seriously ignorant on this issue, which means you should have researched before opening your mouth. The bill is called "the Voter ID Law" (the full name is much longer but is essentially makes the same point as the abriviated version of the name) and like many bills, has numerous articles within it. Above, I articulated the content of some of those articles. Anyone whose read even a single article on these laws knows this. You don't know anything about these bills (neither their name nor their content) and yet you were willing to say that they weren't racist? Talk about explicit bias.

 

[Dak]

You're avoiding the critique with semantics by dwelling on the word "whole" and thus offering a weak rebuttal. However, I'm find with rolling with your example of LA. Somewhere around 80% of LA's Latino population are American citizens. There's no viable way to find the 20% who are undocumented without racially profiling the other 80%. That is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Thus, if Latino Americans were targeted, profiled, searched or had their privacy invaded on the basis of their ethnicty, this would be a clear case of racial profiling and a violation of their 4th and 14th amendment rights.

Perhaps you just don't value the constitution.

There are ways to do it without sending out the SWAT teams or whatever. More expensive ways to do it than simply start raiding in Latino neighborhoods, but there are ways to do it. That said, what laws would they be lacking protection from in being forced to prove citizenship? We're all supposed to be protected from unwarranted search and seizure, but police have had no issue making unwarranted seizures, if not searches as well. Of course if there were searches for illegals, they could easily be warranted.

I don't "value" the Consitution per se. It's supposed to be the rules governing government but it's mostly a fiction to make us all feel good about one thing or another.

Fair enough on point 1. However, it would be easy enough to identify the anscestors of those who profited off slavery and even easier to find those who profited from Jim Crow. If that was doable, it would be consistent with the implications of your statement:

Or perhaps you don't apply that principal when white people are the one's doing the stealing?

I'm not getting into an entirely separate reparation debate, especially when it's quite obvious you haven't given it much thought. I had a professor that was very pro-rep and had to give it a lot of thought. Even most pro-reparations people don't even pretend to try to figure out who specifically is guilty or deserving or all that. They stick with generalized monetary transfers from the FedGov.

As for no one saying they are illegal, that's mostly true, but Trump has talked about revoking their citizenship and revising the 14th amendment. When the presidential canidate for a major party makes that claim, I and others are justified in taking threat seriously.

Well for starters, amending the Constitution is highly difficult/unlikely on this issue, so any fear you feel is amusing. It's not something Trump can EO. But you haven't actually explained why such a revision is such a problem.

And there it is. When you see immigrants risking their life to come to America, you see animals. Of course, you totally ignore all the conditions that lead to them being compelled to take that terrible and perilous decisions. That reveals how deeply engrained racism is within your psyche.

Oh yeah, that's totally what I said. Do you see why you can't be taken seriously?

Man, you're seriously ignorant on this issue, which means you should have researched before opening your mouth. The bill is called "the Voter ID Law" (the full name is much longer but is essentially makes the same point as the abriviated version of the name) and like many bills, has numerous articles within it. Above, I articulated the content of some of those articles. Anyone whose read even a single article on these laws knows this. You don't know anything about these bills (neither their name nor their content) and yet you were willing to say that they weren't racist? Talk about explicit bias.

They do appear slanted against the low income, only because of the early voting/same day issue - but there's plenty of low income whites in the South, and for the rest of the country for that matter. Maybe low income whites don't use those "voting practices" though, I don't know so I won't say they aren't actually targeted racially. I didn't research the bills, because I didn't vote for the bills, nor the people who voted for the bills. All that aside - I've argued elsewhere recently specifically against the supposed racism in requiring a state ID, and that's what I was attempting to do here. If I spoke otherwise or led you to believe otherwise then I'll retract those statements as in error. If you do think that requiring a state ID be presented to vote is racist, I'll be happy to see your defense though.

 

[Dak]

Speaking of low income folks and minorities, terrible situation in LA right now:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/louisiana-flooding-dead-1000-rescued-high-waters/story?id=41352806

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/13/us/louisiana-flooding/

We had a terrible flood in eastern NC back in 1999, looks like this may be equal to or worse than that.