Racism Takes an "L"

[iluvatar5150]

What you call a "school board" is starting to look more like propaganda machines.

I'm not even going to ask.

Updated: https://nypost.com/2019/06/18/law-g...s-drivers-licenses-could-lead-to-voter-fraud/

Looks like it went through.

Your earlier link talked about them getting voting rights. The new law only gave them drivers licenses.

Did you read the lawsuit link from 2018? Golden State Settles Suit Over Motor-Voter Rules

What about it? The lawsuit was about voters having to fill out duplicate forms.

I'm not sure if the admin lied or not

They did. Here is the supreme court's decision

It is hardly improper for an agency head to come into office with policy preferences and ideas, discuss them with affected parties, sound out other agencies for support, and work with staff attorneys to substantiate the legal basis for a preferred policy. Yet viewing the evidence as a whole, this Court shares the District Court’s conviction that the decision to reinstate a citizenship question cannot adequately be explained in terms of DOJ’s request for improved citizenship data to better enforce the VRA. Several points, taken together, reveal a significant mismatch between the Secretary’s decision and the rationale he provided. The record shows that he began taking steps to reinstate the question a week into his tenure, but gives no hint that he was considering VRA enforcement. His director of policy attempted to elicit requests for citizenship data from the Department of Homeland Security and DOJ’s Office of Immigration Review before turning to the VRA rationale and DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. For its part, DOJ’s actions suggest that it was more interested in helping the Commerce Department than in securing the data. Altogether, the evidence tells a story that does not match the Secretary’s explanation for his decision. Unlike a typical case in which an agency may have both stated and unstated reasons for a decision, here the VRA enforcement rationale—the sole stated reason—seems to have been contrived. The reasoned explanation requirement of administrative law is meant to ensure that agencies offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public. The explanation provided here was more of a distraction. In these unusual circumstances, the District Court was warranted in remanding to the agency. See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U. S. 729, 744. Pp. 23–28.

That's a nice way of saying that they lied.

; but what I do know is that the American people, at least the majority, support and see value in having that question on the census. I also understand it doesn't prevent people lying and simply checking the box anyway.

If there's a valid reason for having the question, go for it. But as it is, it doesn't seem to provide enough pertinent data to justify the downsides (of degraded data) and it certainly wasn't the agency's intent to add the question to make the census somehow better. They added it to disenfranchise Hispanics (who, for this purpose, were serving as a proxy for Democrats) and to bolster gerrymandering efforts.

All 5 of the people he brought back across had already been deported once:

Booker leads deported immigrants back across US border, blames Trump

That's fraud.

1.) It's not fraud if you're honest about who you are and what you're doing. Do you have any evidence that Booker or the women have lied about anything?

2.) He brought them to a port of entry. It's not illegal to go to a port of entry. Period. They then presented themselves to apply for asylum and were ingested by CBP.

His press conference can be viewed here:

Democratic presidential candidate Cory Booker escorts migrants in Juárez to El Paso

His twitter thread:
Cory Booker on Twitter

3.) Your LET author is, at best, exaggerating. He cites (without linking) Courthouse News' David Lee, claiming that Lee said these women had been previously detained for illegally entering the country. But Lee's piece makes no such claim. Lee also doesn't state that all of them had been previously detained.

 

[98cwitr]

 

[Aldebaran]

"B-b-b-b-b-but human trafficking!"

Wanting to stop human trafficking is a worthy goal, and I'll believe that Republicans give a flip when they actually try to do something about it other than using it as a lame excuse for throwing children in concentration camps or discriminating against minorities in the form of citizenship questions.
Ringo

In the meantime, are you still in favor of stopping human trafficking?

 

[Aldebaran]

Don't care who built them. I want them closed. Permanently.

And have the illegals held outside in the heat instead?
Or would you rather they just be released into the country as if they were US citizens?

 

[98cwitr]

Your earlier link talked about them getting voting rights. The new law only gave them drivers licenses.

Which could mean they use them to vote.

What about it? The lawsuit was about voters having to fill out duplicate forms.

"The state agreed to roll out a new program that will automatically register driver’s license applicants to vote unless they opt out."

They did. Here is the supreme court's decision

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf

Did a find for "lie" or "false" and didn't get anything; other than this:

"That is because many of the noncitizens in this group would answer the question falsely, resulting in an estimated 500,000 inaccurate answers. See id., at 148. And those who answer the question falsely would be commingled, perhaps randomly, with those who answer it correctly, thereby casting doubt on the answers of all 22 million, with no way of knowing which answers are correct and which are false. "

^^^bingo!

That's a nice way of saying that they lied.

Lying to a court is an offense. If the court has the opinion that DOJ secretary had an ulterior motive, that's something else entirely. Let's get back to the border issue, shall we?

If there's a valid reason for having the question, go for it. But as it is, it doesn't seem to provide enough pertinent data to justify the downsides (of degraded data) and it certainly wasn't the agency's intent to add the question to make the census somehow better. They added it to disenfranchise Hispanics (who, for this purpose, were serving as a proxy for Democrats) and to bolster gerrymandering efforts.

"disenfranchise Hispanics" ALL Hispanics...or just the ones entering the country illegally? How about the African migrants that are currently making their way to the border?

1.) It's not fraud if you're honest about who you are and what you're doing. Do you have any evidence that Booker or the women have lied about anything?

If we're being honest about what he was doing it was nothing more than a PR stunt at best; fraud at worst.

2.) He brought them to a port of entry. It's not illegal to go to a port of entry. Period. They then presented themselves to apply for asylum and were ingested by CBP.

What's the law on aiding and abetting someone who's already been deported?

His press conference can be viewed here:

Democratic presidential candidate Cory Booker escorts migrants in Juárez to El Paso

His twitter thread:
Cory Booker on Twitter

Just more virtue signaling.

3.) Your LET author is, at best, exaggerating. He cites (without linking) Courthouse News' David Lee, claiming that Lee said these women had been previously detained for illegally entering the country. But Lee's piece makes no such claim. Lee also doesn't state that all of them had been previously detained.

Does it really matter if it was 5 or 1? The important question is why a subset of America supporting illegal immigration? I'm sure a lot of pure but uninformed hearts reach out to these people; mine does...but then I am reminded that some of these folks are literally buying kids to pose as their children. My mind also goes to the radio broadcasts in Central America that are encouraging people to leave their country and come to the US because we'll give them free food, housing, and healthcare. And for what? Votes and thus power.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Is it possible to have this discussion without conflating non-citizens and illegals? This really isn't very difficult.

DHS estimates that there are around 12 million illegals in the country. With each House member representing roughly 700k people each, Charlie Kirk's numbers imply that nearly all of them live in NY, IL, and CA.

I'm sure the people in TX, AZ, and NM would be relieved to learn that all of their fears about being invaded by illegals are unfounded.

Obviously his numbers are absurd, and also baked into both his number and the court decision at the heart of this thread, is the motivation for Republicans to try to not count any non-citizens.

 

[98cwitr]

Is it possible to have this discussion without conflating non-citizens and illegals? This really isn't very difficult.

DHS estimates that there are around 12 million illegals in the country. With each House member representing roughly 700k people each, Charlie Kirk's numbers imply that nearly all of them live in NY, IL, and CA.

I'm sure the people in TX, AZ, and NM would be relieved to learn that all of their fears about being invaded by illegals are unfounded.

Obviously his numbers are absurd, and also baked into both his number and the court decision at the heart of this thread, is the motivation for Republicans to try to not count any non-citizens.

I think a lot of conservatives are pondering why any non-citizen would have the right to vote in the first place. I think the obvious answer is that they pay income taxes, but not all do. So do we then differentiate between those who are paying into the federal couffer or not? Gotta draw the line somewhere. What's fair?

 

[Speedwell]

I think a lot of conservatives are pondering why any non-citizen would have the right to vote in the first place. I think the obvious answer is that they pay income taxes, but not all do. So do we then differentiate between those who are paying into the federal couffer or not? Gotta draw the line somewhere. What's fair?

It doesn't take much pondering to figure out why non-citizens can't vote in state and federal elections. Perhaps conservatives are just slow thinkers.

 

[Aldebaran]

It doesn't take much pondering to figure out why non-citizens can't vote in state and federal elections. Perhaps conservatives are just slow thinkers.

What's to stop them from voting once they're given driver's licenses?

 

[Speedwell]

What's to stop them from voting once they're given driver's licenses?

You think that's all it takes?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Which could mean they use them to vote.

illegally

Did a find for "lie" or "false" and didn't get anything;

They said the secretary's excuse was bogus.

other than this:

"That is because many of the noncitizens in this group would answer the question falsely, resulting in an estimated 500,000 inaccurate answers. See id., at 148. And those who answer the question falsely would be commingled, perhaps randomly, with those who answer it correctly, thereby casting doubt on the answers of all 22 million, with no way of knowing which answers are correct and which are false. "

^^^bingo!

What bingo? Did you even read that section? Breyer is talking about why the question isn't helpful. That section later includes:

As the Bureau’s chief scientist explained, although “[o]ne might think” that asking the question “could help fill the . . . gaps” in the administrative records, the data did not support that assumption. Id., at 157. Instead, he explained, responses to the citizenship question “may not be reliable,” which “calls into question their ability to improve upon” the Bureau’s statistical modeling process.

and ends with:

In sum, in respect to the 295 million persons for whom administrative records exist, asking the question on the short form would, at best, be no improvement over using administrative records alone. And in respect to the remaining 35 million people for whom no administrative records exist, asking the question would be no better, and in some respects would be worse, than using statistical modeling. The Census Bureau therefore told the Secretary that asking the citizenship question, even in addition to using administrative records, “would result in poorer quality citizenship data” than using administrative records alone, and would “still have all the negative cost and quality implications” of asking the citizenship question. I could find no evidence contradicting that prediction.

The prediction that people would answer the question untruthfully is used to highlight how the question itself isn't helpful.

Lying to a court is an offense. If the court has the opinion that DOJ secretary had an ulterior motive, that's something else entirely. Let's get back to the border issue, shall we?

In case you forgot, the thread is about the court case, not the border.

"disenfranchise Hispanics" ALL Hispanics...or just the ones entering the country illegally?

All of them. If you'd read the relevant material, you'd know that.

If we're being honest about what he was doing it was nothing more than a PR stunt at best; fraud at worst.

It was absolutely a PR stunt, but your claims that it was fraud are 100% unfounded.

What's the law on aiding and abetting someone who's already been deported?

There's no aiding and abetting if you're taking them to a port of entry and presenting them to border officials. That's the legal method of entering the country and applying for asylum.

Does it really matter if it was 5 or 1?

It depends. If you're going to use the word "all", then yes, it does matter.

The important question is why a subset of America supporting illegal immigration?

I haven't seen anybody in this thread support illegal immigration. I haven't supported it. Booker, in his march across the bridge, didn't support it. You're the one who keeps bringing it up because you keep conflating illegal immigration with a bunch of other things, including The Trump administration's attempts to disenfrachise Hispanics under the guise of improving voting access and making the census more accurate.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I think a lot of conservatives are pondering why any non-citizen would have the right to vote in the first place. I think the obvious answer is that they pay income taxes, but not all do. So do we then differentiate between those who are paying into the federal couffer or not? Gotta draw the line somewhere. What's fair?

Nobody's giving non-citizens the right to vote in federal elections. I don't see what the problem is with giving legal non-citizens the right to vote in local elections. They live here and are allowed to be here. Why shouldn't they have some say over the policies that affect them?

 

[cow451]

You seem to be failing to consider the undocumented folks in red states. Georgia has plenty according to my friends in construction and other labor-dense businesses.

 

[Sparagmos]

What's to stop them from voting once they're given driver's licenses?

You CANT be serious. Do you also think that 16 year olds will fall through this loophole you think you’ve identified?

 

[Sparagmos]

Because I find no evidence of racism.

“Mr. Hofeller’s exhaustive analysis of Texas state legislative districts concluded that such maps “would be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites,” and would dilute the political power of the state’s Hispanics.

Why would Hofeller mention that his plan would be advantageous to “non-Hispanic whites?”

 

[Pommer]

True! But illegals = non-citizens




What you call a "school board" is starting to look more like propaganda machines.




Updated: https://nypost.com/2019/06/18/law-g...s-drivers-licenses-could-lead-to-voter-fraud/

Looks like it went through.



Did you read the lawsuit link from 2018? Golden State Settles Suit Over Motor-Voter Rules




I'm not sure if the admin lied or not; but what I do know is that the American people, at least the majority, support and see value in having that question on the census. I also understand it doesn't prevent people lying and simply checking the box anyway.




All 5 of the people he brought back across had already been deported once:

Booker leads deported immigrants back across US border, blames Trump

That's fraud.

My, but you have a lot of fear!

 

[98cwitr]

“Mr. Hofeller’s exhaustive analysis of Texas state legislative districts concluded that such maps “would be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites,” and would dilute the political power of the state’s Hispanics.

Why would Hofeller mention that his plan would be advantageous to “non-Hispanic whites?”

Same reason Dems in my state virtue signal that Voter ID is racist; because it affects a certain race statistically more than others and therefore they use that number to attempt to "prove" racism. The truth of the matter is though, there is no bearing on race, ethnicity, or skin color that demonstrates motivation in enforcing a law that is indiscriminate.

They'll use whatever tactic they can to shame away opposition, but it's easy to see right through it.

 

[98cwitr]

Nobody's giving non-citizens the right to vote in federal elections. I don't see what the problem is with giving legal non-citizens the right to vote in local elections. They live here and are allowed to be here. Why shouldn't they have some say over the policies that affect them?

Because they are not citizens of the state or country they're residing in.

 

[Sparagmos]

Same reason Dems in my state virtue signal that Voter ID is racist; because it affects a certain race statistically more than others and therefore they use that number to attempt to "prove" racism. The truth of the matter is though, there is no bearing on race, ethnicity, or skin color that demonstrates motivation in enforcing a law that is indiscriminate.

They'll use whatever tactic they can to shame away opposition, but it's easy to see right through it.

That quote speaks directly to motivation. The architect of the strategy himself said flat out that this change would benefit white people and disadvantage Hispanics. Again, why would he mention whites if race was not a factor?

 

[98cwitr]

That quote speaks directly to motivation. The architect of the strategy himself said flat out that this change would benefit white people and disadvantage Hispanics. Again, why would he mention whites if race was not a factor?

Because it's statistically true, everything is politically racial now, and it's an effective strategy to silence opposition; or at least has a history of doing so.

Now, if he had said "I'm doing it to help whites and disenfranchise or keep Hispanics out." Then sure, that's blatantly racist, but that's not what has happened.