Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Let's Get Kraken

U.S. Politics: One Wave, Two Waves, Red Waves, Blue Waves

Recommended Posts

Question for our resident "voter fraud is totally a thing and we must protect the sanctity of our elections" crowd:

How does disenfranchising approximately 5,000 Native Americans who live on reservations in North Dakota square with your belief in the sanctity of the vote?

And it's not even about voter ID this time: it's about addresses.

Quote

Jackson’s struggle is currently playing out across North Dakota. A stringent new law that requires all voters to prove their residential street address has placed an immense burden on Native Americans in the state. Many live on rural reservations in houses with no residential address, rendering them incapable of casting a ballot. Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to block a lower court decision upholding this rule, over a pointed dissent by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Now Native American voters are back in court, asking a federal judge to grant them relief. This time, they aren’t just arguing that the law makes voting more onerous. They’ve demonstrated that the law may make it impossible for them to vote at all.

Quote

U.S. District Judge Daniel L. Hovland blockedthat requirement in April, citing its “discriminatory and burdensome impact on Native Americans.” He noted that if the law takes full effect in November, it will prevent about 5,000 Native American voters from casting a ballot. Yet the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Hovland by a 2–1 vote in September, allowing the state to enforce its residential street address rule for most voters. At the end of its opinion, however, the majority signaled that it was open to more limited relief: “If any resident of North Dakota lacks a current residential street address and is denied an opportunity to vote on that basis,” it wrote, “the courthouse doors remain open.”

The plaintiffs in this latest lawsuit take the majority at its word. Using maps, photographs, and GPS, they explain the bind that North Dakota has placed them in. There are no street signs to identify the roads on which their houses are located. In some instances, the state has given them conflicting information about their residential address. Consider these quandaries:

• Leslie and Clark Peltier are enrolled members of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians who live on reservation trust land. Their rural home has no address. During the 2012 election, a county representative assigned them the address 10296 40th Ave. NE, with no town or ZIP code. When they obtained driver’s licenses, the state identified their town as Belcourt, North Dakota, 58316. But the secretary of state’s database lists their town as St. John, North Dakota, 58369. They cannot vote unless they resolve this discrepancy—yet they have no apparent way of doing so.

So, these citizens are following the law of their state, but still won't allowed to vote because the state won't accept any ID that doesn't have a valid residential street address, which many who live on reservations don't have because there simply aren't any listed residential street addresses for them.

Explain to me how this is effective at stopping "voter fraud". I'm waiting with baited breath for one of you to enlighten me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

This is pure mince. I would not give up the day job to pen that tome.

This Kitty has a broken laptop so is unable to respond properly but will do so in the fullness of time. For now, how do you explain how the USA preserved the rights of its citizens following the immigration stop of the 1920s and how Japan manages to be a liberal democracy today?

Before criticizing others' writing skills, you ought to learn to read, kitty cat:

Quote

And just to be clear, I'm not saying open borders is the holy grail. What I'm saying is that you want to be very careful about the why and the how you close them.

I am not objecting to limits on immigration per se, or claiming that such limits are the road to damnation. My own socialist country has progressively reduced immigration to a trickle these past decades. It's the temptation to characterize immigrants or refugees as violent/criminals, the rejection of human rights as values to be upheld, and the subsequent de-humanizing of all people who are "unwelcome" that I see as being terribly dangerous.

Mormont has just posted a link about a speech by Donald Trump that makes my point better than I ever could. Whatever one thinks about immigration, threatening to order the US military to shoot unarmed people is not ok and normal regimes don't have a head of state calling for such actions.

But your eagerness to address a strawman is duly noted. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mormont said:

So yeah, we reach the next sadly predictable stage of the caravan imbroglio:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/01/trump-immigration-953569

 

I knew the rhetoric would get to this point sooner or later. If he follows through with his threat to illegally deny them the opportunity to present themselves for asylum, things could get ugly, fast. 

I (perhaps naively) presume that the ROE for military personnel will prohibit any sort of firing upon the migrants, but I have a feeling the Border Patrol won't be operating under any such restraints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Before criticizing others' writing skills, you ought to learn to read, kitty cat:

I am not objecting to limits on immigration per se, or claiming that such limits are the road to damnation. My own socialist country has progressively reduced immigration to a trickle these past decades. It's the temptation to characterize immigrants or refugees as violent/criminals, the rejection of human rights as values to be upheld, and the subsequent de-humanizing of all people who are "unwelcome" that I see as being terribly dangerous.

Mormont has just posted a link about a speech by Donald Trump that makes my point better than I ever could. Whatever one thinks about immigration, threatening to order the US military to shoot unarmed people is not ok and normal regimes don't have a head of state calling for such actions.

But your eagerness to address a strawman is duly noted. :rolleyes:

It read to me as though the denial of entry was in itself dehumanising, your little reference to the Holy Grail notwithstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

It read to me as though the denial of entry was in itself dehumanising, 

The refusal to even consider it, using shaky arguments, certainly is. There are many cases in which denial of entry itself is legitimate otoh. It's not even that fine a line to draw, not when the president of the US is making threats that fly in the face of international law, not to mention basic human decency. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Synagogue shooter says he is not a Trumper because the president is too soft on immigrants.

Trump responds by trying to strip contitutional rights form immigrants and instructing the military to open fire if a rock is thrown.

“We do not negotiate with terrorists” has been replaced with “hold my beer” as a matter of policy

 

Edited by Morpheus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The refusal to even consider it, using shaky arguments, certainly is. There are many cases in which denial of entry itself is legitimate otoh. It's not even that fine a line to draw, not when the president of the US is making threats that fly in the face of international law, not to mention basic human decency. 

Do you think the US had good reasons in the 1920s then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Do you think the US had good reasons in the 1920s then?

You do know that in the 1920s was the height of mainstream acceptance of the Klan? You want to focus on a period that include widespread acceptance of the Klan and their views.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/second-klan/509468/

Quote

By 1925, it had anywhere from 2 million to 5 million members and the sympathy or support of millions more.

...

Ideologically, the Klan blended xenophobia, religious prejudice, and white supremacy together with a broadly conservative moralism. Amidst a global recession that came in the aftermath of World War I, fear and anxiety were widespread among native-born white Protestants that the country they had known and been accustomed to dominating was coming undone. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

You do know that in the 1920s was the height of mainstream acceptance of the Klan? You want to focus on a period that include widespread acceptance of the Klan and their views.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/second-klan/509468/

 

What point are you making?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, S John said:

I'm a lot closer to being a free speech absolutist than you are.  I definitely lean heavily towards the bolded approach, but without getting into all that, I don't think any private entity is obligated under the 1A to host speech they don't like for any reason.   

I can respect that.

The 1A applies only to the government, not private entities. That's something those morons at Gab and elsewhere don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

Synagogue shooter says he is not a Trumper because the president is too soft on immigrants.

Trump responds by trying to strip contitutional rights form immigrants and instructing the military to open fire if a rock is thrown.

“We do not negotiate with terrorists” has been replaced with “hold my beer” as a matter of policy

 

My dad is rolling in his grave.

I really doubt the military is going to open fire. Their first responsibility is to the Constitution, not the president. Such an act would be illegal and they know it. It's scary how many of his base love the idea, however.

The armed yokels headed for the border are the bigger concern, although they'll probably fold like cheap suits when confronted with the REAL army.

This is a dog and pony show. Let's get through the election first, then deal with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump giving the okay to kill unarmed civilians. Scumbag president, scumbag administration, scumbag party (GOP), scumbag followers / supporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

What point are you making?

I was wondering the same thing when you decided to focus on that decade.

Any reason why the immigration laws done should not be viewed other than a Xenophobic reaction that were more acceptable during the time?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rippounet said:

According to this perspective, human rights are a rather new development (historically speaking) that come from a form of naive generosity in times of peace and abundance. I would say this is the first fallacy. Despite the novelty of the current iteration, human rights are as old as civilization. I don't believe they came from naivety either, but from pragmatic necessity in some cases and fear of role reversal in others. In fact the reason human rights are so developed today is precisely because the human potential for destruction grew exponentially in the last few centuries, culminating with a novel form of systematic genocide and the creation of nuclear weapons. In a nutshell, human rights are safeguards against abuses of power, and their primary goal in the modern era is to protect us all against the worst humanity is capable of, which is, simply put, unlimited killing and destruction.

The general idea of human rights is old, yes, but the 20th century implementation goes far, far beyond what what was ever done before in this respect. And the argument regarding them being safeguards ignores the fact that the modern implementation is not universal. Even if we consider only the nations which the weapons you mention, their ideas of human rights are very different: the US has one concept of human rights, Russia has another (incidentally, distinct from the Soviet Union which came before it) and China is quite different from both. It's not at all obvious that the Western version will prevail over the Chinese one.

8 hours ago, Rippounet said:

And this is where the second fallacy comes in. Within this perspective is the idea that you can somehow discard human rights in some areas (immigration) and keep at least some form of them in others (constitutional framework, geopolitics). It doesn't work this way. To be technical, violence toward an out-group is always correlated to violence within an in-group. Or, to put it differently, the lack of respect for the others' humanity will always result in a lack of respect for your own's humanity. This was, after all, the great lesson that the 20th century had to offer, and yet which tends to be forgotten: that populations moving to illiberal regimes often ended up being victims of these regimes themselves. Yet another way to put it is that extreme forms of nationalisms always end up infringing on the rights of the nationals themselves.

I'm not sure where you get such a thing or how you can prove it. Consider the history of the United States: for the vast majority of it, there was violence (or at least hostility) towards a variety of out-groups, but on the whole the in-group did pretty well for roughly a couple of centuries.

8 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Funnily enough you have added a third fallacy to the mix with this talk of "strong & weak." Of course, human rights are meant to restrict the strong and protect the weak. It takes quite an effort to somehow claim that refugees and immigrants are not weak (violent criminals.., ) and/or that they are used by strong elites (billionaire Jews) for nefarious purposes (??) ... all in order to somehow cast your ideas in the best possible light. That's the result of modern right-wing conspirationism, which hurts the overall point you're trying to make. Get off Breitbart, man. No one is actually a victim of immigration, whatever they tell you.

Read the sentence about the strong and the weak you were responding to again; it has nothing to do with immigrants. The strong that I was speaking of are large, powerful nations such as the US or China which get to more or less ignore the rules.

8 hours ago, Rippounet said:

And talking of failure, how on earth can anyone talk of human rights as an ideology, or even worse a failed one?

Oh, there's little doubt it's an ideology:

Quote

 

1. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

  • the ideas and manner of thinking characteristic of a group, social class, or individual.
  • archaic: visionary speculation, especially of an unrealistic or idealistic nature.

 

As to failed... well yes, it hasn't failed yet (though it's showing quite a few cracks). That question was in the context of the second scenario which, if it comes to pass, implies the failure of this ideology.

8 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Anyway, I hope you realize just how terrible the second future/option you described is.

Sure. Some people will almost certainly come out ahead, but on the whole it will be thoroughly unpleasant. I much prefer the first scenario which is why I'm willing to cut the people who are pushing it a great deal of slack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dozens of Bezos faces protest Amazon facial recognition
Protesters denounce Amazon cooperation with ICE

https://www.seattlepi.com/seattlenews/article/dozens-protest-Amazon-facial-recognition-13352769.php

Quote

 

Several dozen protesters gathered in front of the Amazon Spheres, Wednesday, to denounce Amazon's cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement around their new facial recognition system.

In November 2017, Amazon announced real-time facial recognition, a tool used in their Rekognition technology. Amazon said in a blog post that the Washington County Sheriff's Office in Oregon used the technology, adding, "over the past year to reduce the identification time of reported suspects from 2-3 days down to minutes and had apprehended their first suspect within a week by using their new system."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

First, a coalition of groups led by the Lakota People’s Law Project and the national Native American group Four Directions have been furiously helping people get proper IDs free of charge. According to the Associated Press, they’ve helped more than 2,000 people get them.

The New York Times reported that one band of Chippewa printed so many IDs that the machine overheated and started melting the cards.

“We’re at our best in crisis,” Phyllis Young, an organizer on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation—made famous in 2016 when thousands of young people took up the cause to stop a pipeline from being built near tribal lands—told the AP. Young said the GOP’s overt voter suppression "is only making us more aware of our rights, more energized, and more likely to vote this November." Young’s own address was, until she had it changed this year, “7 miles by highway marker 14 by the Porcupine turnoff.”

Tribes participating in the effort include the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Spirit Lake Nation, and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.

Second, Four Directions is helping tribes create residential addresses where none have existed before. Using satellite imagery, voters can point to the locations of their homes on a map and are assigned unique address identifiers—even on the spot. On Election Day, tribal officials will be stationed at every polling site in every reservation in the state, with tribal letterhead in hand, ready to assign addresses.

“This is democracy at work!” Four Directions tweeted on Oct. 30. “Voter engagement is high. We have DOUBLED Absentee votes at Standing Rock as of 3:47 pm today.”

 

North Dakota’s Racist Voter ID Law Is Already Backfiring
A last-ditch effort to block enforcement of a law aimed at Native Americans has failed in court. But the law has also triggered a backlash—and thousands have new credentials.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/north-dakotas-racist-voter-id-law-is-already-backfiring?ref=home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Why Trump’s Immigration Policy Will Hurt All Americans
Throughout U.S. history, politicians have demonized immigrants at the expense of society as a whole.

https://newrepublic.com/article/151985/trumps-immigration-policy-will-hurt-americans

Quote

 

In the mid-1800s, America learned the hard way that policy driven by anti-immigrant rhetoric has consequences not just for our moral standing, but our economy and national security. Chinese laborers in California were manning the gold rush and building the first transcontinental railroad. In doing so, they provided cheap labor and tax revenue to fill California’s fiscal gap. Mainly young, healthy males, these immigrants made little use of social services and health systems.


Still, when the post–Civil War economy declined in the 1870s, political leaders embraced and spread anti-Chinese sentiment, blaming the “coolies” for depressed wage levels. In California and around the country, states passed long-lasting anti-Chinese laws. So did the federal government: Chinese Exclusion Act deprived Western states and Hawaii of needed labor, tax revenues, and citizens available to fight and work during wartime.
This kind of erratic, transactional approach to immigration policy has been a defining feature of our relationship with Mexican migrants, which has been marked by spasms of expulsion motivated by political or ethnic antipathy, followed by a re-embrace whenever it’s perceived as serving America’s economic interests.

Get the latest from TNR. Sign up for the newsletter.
During the Great Depression, the U.S. government moved to deport Mexican-born workers and American citizens of Mexican descent in order to exclude them from welfare programs under the New Deal. Over one million Mexican nationals were removed in the 1930s. By 1942, there was a shortage of agricultural labor serious enough that President Harry Truman introduced the Mexican Farm Labor Agreement, which offered legal, temporary work to Mexican migrants in exchange for a guaranteed wage and humane treatment. The so-called Bracero Program was a flop, in part because poor enforcement led employers to seek lower cost undocumented labor elsewhere. But it’s another example of the correction and collective “whoops” that often follows immigration policy when it’s based on bigotry instead of facts, at great cost to the American taxpayer. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the position of the old white male Republicans is thus:

 

1. Strip everyone under 50 of Social Security and Medicare. And keep it the same for everyone 51 and older.

2. Remove all brown people whenever possible from the country, whenever the legal means are possible.

3. Work anyone under the age of 50 currently until they are either dead or 90 years old. Leave a system of robots and AI in place to insure this labor continues for decades even after the current old white male madmen are in the grave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×