The architect of the most racist law in modern American history has been named to Trump's team
35 replies, posted
[quote]
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach has been asked to join President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team.
The team will advise Trump on policy issues leading up to his swearing-in in January, preparing him to begin his first 100 days in office. It’s an unpaid position for Kobach.
Kobach called the transition from Obama’s presidency to Trump’s “one of the sharpest transitions we’ve seen,” a 180-degree turn for the country.
Why should this terrify you? Because Donald Trump has just named one of the most racist politicians in all of America to his transition team. Kris Kobach was the architect of the most racist law in modern American history. SB 1070 passed in Arizona in 2010. What did it mean? If you have brown skin or an accent, police had a right to stop you, detain you and demand you prove your citizenship. [/quote]
[url]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/10/1595617/-The-architect-of-the-most-racist-law-in-modern-American-history-has-been-named-to-Trump-s-team[/url]
This can't end well. :pudge:
Is there any other source than this one? That page reeks of bias just like HuffPo.
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;51374610]Is there any other source than this one? That page reeks of bias just like HuffPo.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.salon.com/2016/11/13/inside-donald-trumps-shady-transition-team-kris-kobach-created-kansas-anti-immigrant-policies/[/url]
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/14/top-trump-immigration-adviser-predicts-immediate-change.html[/url]
[url]http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/politics/elections/story/2016/nov/13/kansas-secretary-state-added-trump-transition-team/397543/[/url]
But he's not a racist, that's just the crooked media skewing what he says :downs:
[QUOTE=Judas;51374622][url]http://www.salon.com/2016/11/13/inside-donald-trumps-shady-transition-team-kris-kobach-created-kansas-anti-immigrant-policies/[/url]
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/14/top-trump-immigration-adviser-predicts-immediate-change.html[/url]
[url]http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/politics/elections/story/2016/nov/13/kansas-secretary-state-added-trump-transition-team/397543/[/url][/QUOTE]
I'll probably stick to the third one, thanks.
[quote]Although a decision is not likely to be handed down for some time, the Supreme Court Justices appeared generally to be in favor of the law. During Solicitor Verrilli’s argument, Justice Scalia asked questions indicating that a sovereign state should be permitted to defend its own borders. Justice Roberts “[didn’t] see the problem” with local law enforcement checking immigration status. [/quote]
[url]http://www.natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-hears-oral-argument-arizona-sb-1070[/url]
Although controversial, calling it [b][i][u]the most RACIST LAW IN MODERN AMERICAN HISTORY[/u][/i][/b] is blowing it out of proportion.
I'd deem it an ineffective and rather extreme measure, used as a means to deal with a seemingly ubiquitous issue in AZ.
[QUOTE=Yadda;51374656][url]http://www.natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-hears-oral-argument-arizona-sb-1070[/url]
Although controversial, calling it [b][i][u]the most RACIST LAW IN MODERN AMERICAN HISTORY[/u][/i][/b] is blowing it out of proportion.
I'd deem it an ineffective and rather extreme measure, used as a means to deal with a seemingly ubiquitous issue in AZ.[/QUOTE]
name another law in modern american history more racist than papers please
What exactly is the Transition Team? Does this means he joins the new government?
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51374715]What exactly is the Transition Team? Does this means he joins the new government?[/QUOTE]
The transition team is the team that helps a new President transfer themselves easily and cleanly into their new role as President. Obama and his supporters praised Bush's transition team for making everything easy as possible.
[QUOTE=Judas;51374705]name another law in modern american history more racist than papers please[/QUOTE]
Just because an intentionally ambiguous law, worded with the terms 'probable cause' or 'reasonable suspicion', was being enforced by the police department improperly, and in such cases that would violate the fourth amendment, does not fit the description as an inherently racist law. Whether it disproportionately affects those with caste in their complexion is irrelevant, illegal immigration is grounds for arrest and attributing it to institutionalized racism is intellectually dishonest.
I take more umbrage with Rudy Giuliani and his defense of Stop and Frisk used notoriously by the NYPD as it disproportionately resulted in random stops for blacks and hispanics despite the statistics arguing otherwise to crimes committed by ethnicity. In such circumstance it was ruled unconstitutional and there was a case for racial profiling.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51374778]The transition team is the team that helps a new President transfer themselves easily and cleanly into their new role as President. Obama and his supporters praised Bush's transition team for making everything easy as possible.[/QUOTE]
But does that actually mean he will join the administration?
[QUOTE=Judas;51374705]name another law in modern american history more racist than papers please[/QUOTE]
How about one that is actually racist.
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_HB_56"]Like this one.[/URL]
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;51374817]How about one that is actually racist.
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_HB_56"]Like this one.[/URL][/QUOTE]
Kris Kobach also wrote this one.
Why was the SB1070 law passed?
[QUOTE=Chonch;51374834]Kris Kobach also wrote this one.[/QUOTE]
Ha fuck I didn't even see that. :v:
Trumplestiltskin is going balls to the borderwall on [I]eeeelleegel[/I] immigration it'd seem.
Should also be noted that several provisions of SB 1070 were struck down by district courts and the supreme court.
[QUOTE=Luni;51374637]But he's not a racist, that's just the crooked media skewing what he says :downs:[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't be the first thing they skewed all election.
Kobach is such a POS, it's terrifying to think that anyone thinks he is fit for office in any way. Him and Brownback have done terrible things to my home state.
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;51374643]I'll probably stick to the third one, thanks.[/QUOTE]
What are your reasonings for the picking the third one?
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51377325]What are your reasonings for the picking the third one?[/QUOTE]
Well if anyone was wondering about Trump's immigration agenda, I'd say a rather hefty chunk of it is now in plain sight, and there is nothing positive about it.
[QUOTE=Judas;51374705]name another law in modern american history more racist than papers please[/QUOTE]
So, not taking a stance one way or another on the bills or on Trumps decision, but are you willing to admit that most people in and from Mexico are Hispanic and speak with some sort of accent? Is it really racist to make sure a Hispanic man with an accent on the Mexican border has immigrated legally?
I think the bills in question are extreme measures that are easily abused but I dont see how theyre inherently racist.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51377360]So, not taking a stance one way or another on the bills or on Trumps decision, but are you willing to admit that most people in and from Mexico are Hispanic and speak with some sort of accent? Is it really racist to make sure a Hispanic man with an accent on the Mexican border has immigrated legally?
I think the bills in question are extreme measures that are easily abused but I dont see how theyre inherently racist.[/QUOTE]
Ugh, the "Inherently Racist" argument.
Lets just replace the word racist with discriminatory because I predict most of the argument will be using dictionary fallacies regarding the term "racist" (even though in today's language, racist is a blanket term to describe stupidly discriminatory people or things).
It doesn't matter what the bills intent is. You can argue "It's to keep us safe!" or "It's to punish those who may or may not have broken the law!" but none of that matters when it's a law that that removes the rights from law abiding citizens.
[quote]Arizona’s S.B. 1070 compels police to ask for papers from anyone they have a reasonable suspicion of being without status. Under this law any person of color, or anyone with a foreign accent, can be required to prove their status and be jailed—regardless of whether they are a citizen or an immigrant—until they can do so. The Supreme Court indicated that prolonged detention would be impermissible, but people’s rights will likely be violated before that limitation can be enforced.[/quote]
If I was running a country of 70% men, and 30% women, and I implemented a male tax that taxed parents who give birth to males, that law would still be shit even though I have good intentions.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51374834]Kris Kobach also wrote this one.[/QUOTE]
Mods please change the title to "The architect of the [B]two[/B] most racist laws in modern American history has been named to Trump's team." tia
[QUOTE=Judas;51374705]name another law in modern american history more racist than papers please[/QUOTE]
I'd hate to see how you would react to the immigration checkpoints that we have in Texas.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51377422]Ugh, the "Inherently Racist" argument.
Lets just replace the word racist with discriminatory because I predict most of the argument will be using dictionary fallacies regarding the term "racist" (even though in today's language, racist is a blanket term to describe stupidly discriminatory people or things).
It doesn't matter what the bills intent is. You can argue "It's to keep us safe!" or "It's to punish those who may or may not have broken the law!" but none of that matters when it's a law that that removes the rights from law abiding citizens.
If I was running a country of 70% men, and 30% women, and I implemented a male tax that taxed parents who give birth to males, that law would still be shit even though I have good intentions.[/QUOTE]
Again, I dont agree with the bill, I just think its bullshit to call it racist just because it targets non-whites.
Calling it discriminatory is far more accurate. By the way your tax comparison is bullshit. With Arizonas law, it can potentially inconvenience all Hispanics in Arizona but it only legally affects those who are breaking the law.
If every Hispanic, citizen or otherwise, was taxed higher to pay for immigration costs then your comparison would be more apt.
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;51377532]I'd hate to see how you would react to the immigration checkpoints that we have in Texas.[/QUOTE]
Fun anecdote, I spent a spring break at South Padre Island (and never will again), and on the way back they set up an immigration checkpoint.
The person driving the car was a tan-skinned Filipino-British person residing in the US. He had a British accent. He also didn't have his residency card and had no evidence (besides his driver's license from another state) that he was a legal US resident. We also had two Hispanic people in the back seats. They told the driver to bring his residency card next time, based on nothing but his word, and asked twice whether the two legal Hispanic guys in the back were citizens and double-checked their IDs.
like really
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;51374817]How about one that is actually racist.
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_HB_56"]Like this one.[/URL][/QUOTE]
How is that even racist? If you are [B]illegally[/B] in the country, you for one shouldn't be in the country, you shouldn't be going to school, and you shouldn't be working. If you are an employer you by no means should be hiring someone who is illegal for a million ethical reasons.
The only reason that law is unjust, racist, and unfair is because its the US we are talking about. Imagine if I just flew to Japan, over stayed my visa, demanded to attend public school, demanded benefits, and the right to be able to vote in elections.
You can't be tolerant to illegal immigration and be anti open borders. Any tolerance for illegal immigration sets a ridiculous precedent for anyone wanting to enter the country legally.
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;51377738]How is that even racist? If you are [B]illegally[/B] in the country, you for one shouldn't be in the country, you shouldn't be going to school, and you shouldn't be working. If you are an employer you by no means should be hiring someone who is illegal for a million ethical reasons.
The only reason that law is unjust, racist, and unfair is because its the US we are talking about. Imagine if I just flew to Japan, over stayed my visa, demanded to attend public school, demanded benefits, and the right to be able to vote in elections.
You can't be tolerant to illegal immigration and be anti open borders. Any tolerance for illegal immigration sets a ridiculous precedent for anyone wanting to enter the country legally.[/QUOTE]
That's not the racist part, really.
It basically prevented illegal immigrants from reporting crimes. Woman, being brutally abused by her husband, but also an illegal immigrant? If you go to the police and they have "reasonable suspicion" that you're an illegal immigrant, they'll deport your whole family without ever addressing the crime itself. It prevented illegal immigrants from interacting with local, state, and federal governments in any way - if you did, you'd be arrested.
Have a child born on American soil as an American citizen? Want to get a new copy of their birth certificate, as illegal immigrants? Tough shit - you'd be arrested and deported. Without your American child.
Fully-American citizen who speaks no English? Ask for an interpreter when interacting with government in any fashion? Red flag for being an illegal immigrant - you'll be reported to ICE.
Don't have full documentation on you at all times that you're an American citizen or a legal resident? You could be detained until your legal right to be within the US was proven. It's guilty until proven innocent, and many parts of it have justifiably been criticized as being unconstitutional.
There's a point where "strict on immigration" goes too far, and that was it.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51377360]Is it really racist to make sure a Hispanic man with an accent on the Mexican border has immigrated legally?[/QUOTE]
do you not see anything questionable about this mindset
[editline]16th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51377647]Again, I dont agree with the bill, I just think its bullshit to call it racist just because it targets non-whites.
Calling it discriminatory is far more accurate. By the way your tax comparison is bullshit. With Arizonas law, it can potentially inconvenience all Hispanics in Arizona but it only legally affects those who are breaking the law.
If every Hispanic, citizen or otherwise, was taxed higher to pay for immigration costs then your comparison would be more apt.[/QUOTE]
so it's discriminatory based on looks but it's not racist
got it, real solid logic
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.