Promotion of White Supremacy in Mainstream Media

[TLK Valentine]

You skipped answering a question....

As did you.

Does your state require any evidence that you are the person who registered to vote.....when you vote?

Yes -- my signature.

Go ahead and answer that and I'll gladly point out where Democrats are actively trying to repeal civil rights in California (in contradiction to equal protection under the law) openly advocate for race based treatment and hiring (in contradiction to equal protection under the law) and an example of legislation or executive order that violates equal protection under the law.

I can also show you where the SCOTUS has ruled a disparity does not in of itself provide evidence for racial discrimination.

But can you show relevance?

Like I said, there's a process for amending the Constitution or repealing an Amendment.

Which would make it somewhat less than absolute.

They can stand up in front of Congress, the people, and the world and make an argument about why they think racial discrimination is a good idea. Then they get to put it to a vote, and if it gets enough votes....then it has to be ratified by all 50 states.

Anything short of that makes them at least in violation of the rights of the people....and at most enemies of the state.

Unless there was a system in place which interpreted the Constitution and determined that the laws they are proposing do not violate it. You mentioned such a system before.

And when the Democrats do cross the line (and both sides are prone to do), the law in question is declared null and void -- the Constitution remains untrampled; no melodrama necessary.

But hey....don't take my word for it. Answer the question and I'll provide evidence.

It would be a refreshing change of pace. Ball's in your court; but do remember that the 14th Amendment can't be "trampled" and successfully upheld at the same time.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Which you've not provided any actual data on, beyond hypotheticals.

I've admitted it's hard to find data on these specifics.

I'm not sure why you think it's an indication I'm wrong.

That's not true. At all.

Again....I'm not trying to perfectly measure a number of people that cannot be perfectly measured.

I said the estimate (and that's exactly what it is) of 11 million people never really changes in the past 10 years...and you give examples of the estimate fluctuating by a million people one way or the other.

Let's start with the obvious.....it's an estimate. Illegal immigrants don't want to be identified and removed so there's really only one way to know how many are here.

You would have to count them in the census.

Remember when we tried to do that? People freaked out even though it wasn't information that could legally be used to deport them?

Well that's the only way to have any real evidence of how many people are here illegally. Every other method requires guesswork based upon estimated values.

Do you understand that? If you gave me examples that showed it at 14 million one year and 8 million another...this would be a valid criticism. There's a Princeton study (I think it's Princeton, maybe Yale) that uses a slightly different methodology and concludes that the number is closer to 22-24 million.

When I say that the estimate is about 11 million people consistently year after year.....and you show that the number is around 11 million year after year give or take a few hundred thousand....

We're literally saying the same thing....unless you think that is the actual number and not a guess based on estimated values.

If you think it's the actual number.....say so....and I'll explain why you're wrong.

DHS paper from 2017:

DHS estimates that 12.0 million illegal aliens were living in the United States in January 2015, compared to 11.5 million in January 2014 and 11.6 million in January 2010. On average, the population grew by 70,000 per year from 2010 to 2015, compared to 470,000 per year during the high-growth years leading up to the Great Recession (2000-2007). Of the total illegal alien population in 2015, nearly 80 percent had resided within the United States for more than 10 years and six percent entered during the previous five years (2010 to 2014). About 55 percent of illegal aliens in 2015 were from Mexico.​

Pew Research estimates that in 2017, the number of unathorised immigrants in the US was at its lowest level in a decade (a population of about 10.5 million). That number is down from about 12.2 million in 2009.

The Centre for Migration Studies comes to a similar conclusion. Their estimate is that from 2008 to 2015, the net population of unathorised immigrants fell by about 540,000 (to just over 11 million). The same centre also estimates that net immigration (legal AND illegal) averaged 203,000 per year between 2017 and 2019. To quote them:

"The slowdown in growth is entirely due to a decline in non-citizens in the country; the number of naturalized citizens continues to grow. This is probably an indication that some illegal immigrants left or fewer arrived, primarily from Mexico. It may also indicate that more long-term visitors are headed home instead of overstaying their visas."​

Heyyyy....great. Information about illegal immigration patterns that apply almost entirely to the past and not the present. In 2014 the head of DHS described a pattern shift in illegal immigration which he concluded would be a problem.

The Obama Administration’s Government-Wide Response to Influx of Central American Migrants at the Southwest Border

It's literally the Obama administration describing a broad shift change in illegal immigration from what was mostly Mexican illegal immigrants who were not likely to seek a permanent status....to a rapid increase in families coming from nations south of Mexico to stay permanently.

This pattern continues in 2015....and increases even more in 2016. We can look at the agency heads saying the same.

Does this description of the problem change under Trump? Not really. It actually increases in both the number of people it describes and how they adapt to policy changes implemented to keep them out....but it still describes a shift away from Mexican illegals seeking temporary work to Central Americans seeking permanent status.

Now, I'm talking about the agency heads....not the political rhetoric from either sides' politicians.

The US Census Bureau reports the foreign born non-citizen population in the US (legal and illegal) has declined from a peak of about 22.8 in 2017 million to less than 20 million as of early 2020.

That's an odd number.

Why don't they just have information on the illegal immigrants? Why would we lump them together with the legal ones?

So, the population of illegal immigrants into the US has gone through a period of growth, peaked and now is declining.

If we're talking about illegal immigrants seeking to stay....this statement is 100% false.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Let's go with the latter.

I'll start: Noncitizens Don’t Illegally Vote in Detectable Numbers

Well you're going to need a method of detection....

Like a picture ID when showing up to vote.

This is like when the left claimed there was no evidence that the riots or protests over the summer of 2020 spread covid. They didn't ask anyone if they attended protests....so they made no effort to detect any evidence.

If there's no verification you are the registered voter that you claim to be when you vote......how are we going to detect fraud?

 

[Ken-1122]

How does a non-citizen register to vote?

By getting a drivers license in the State they are illegally living.

 

[Ken-1122]

Tucker Carlson embraces white-supremacist 'replacement' conspiracy theory, claiming Democrats are 'importing' immigrants to 'dilute' American voters


White supremacists have learned that they can't simply call their beliefs white supremacy if they want those ideas to propagate, they have to package in a form that makes it more palatable to the white majority they wish to follow their ideology. There is a reason white supremacists watch the likes of Tucker Carlson, they study how he packages their ideology in a way that doesn't trumpet its racist underbelly. As some have described, Tucker Carlson is the he most prominent vessel for white supremacist talking points, and the weird thing is he portrays himself as a man speaking for the people when he's always been a man of privilege seeking to exploit the white blue collar folks.

Are you under the impression white supremacists are the only ones who have a problem with illegal immigration? C'mon! You know better than that!

 

[Ana the Ist]

As did you.

Which one?

Yes -- my signature.

Turns out signature comparison is a messed up and deeply flawed process.

'Ripe for error': Ballot signature verification is flawed - and a big factor in the election

Not only is it easy to validate a fake signature....valid signatures can often be declared fake and legitimate votes then thrown out.

I'm talking about evidence. Something that supports a fact of reality. Your idea of evidence deprives voters of their rights.

But can you show relevance?

To what? The OP? Voting rights?

Which would make it somewhat less than absolute.

Right

Unless there was a system in place which interpreted the Constitution and determined that the laws they are proposing do not violate it. You mentioned such a system before.

Right....the SCOTUS gets the final say.

And when the Democrats do cross the line (and both sides are prone to do), the law in question is declared null and void -- the Constitution remains untrampled; no melodrama necessary.

That depends. The considerable power of those elected can be leveraged in certain ways that denies people who attempt to seek redress in court.

But that's not the issue....

It would be a refreshing change of pace. Ball's in your court; but do remember that the 14th Amendment can't be "trampled" and successfully upheld at the same time.

By the same law or policy? No....of course not. By the same person or party? Sure....it just makes them a hypocrite. I could as a lawyer or legislator argue for someone's rights....and then argue against that exact same position the next day....I'd just be hypocrite.

Regardless of this....let's look at the idea of equal protection under the law.

Equal protection forces a state to govern impartially—not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective. Thus, the equal protection clause is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

Equal Protection

Does that make sense? There is legal discrimination that the government can make against individuals based upon compelling interest. An obvious example of this would be the denial of someone who has a severe mental condition like suicidal depression from enlisting into the military. The discrimination is specific and the benefit blatantly obvious...putting a gun in such a person's hands risks harm to all involved. The characteristic is one that matters in regards to safety.

Make sense?

So with that in mind...

Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government | The White House

Any challenge to this nonsense would require some rather specific explanations....like what "marginalized" or "underserved" means. If we're talking about groups that benefitted least from government programs or not at all....

This legislation itself seeks to marginalize and underserve those groups not included....mainly Jewish people and any ethnicity considered "white".

I can point out where specifically it says so....if you're having trouble reading.

That doesn't even get into why it's a government interest to promote racial equity.....particularly at the cost of individual liberty or at the expense of merit.