SCOTUS rules on Travel Ban

[fredtoast]

(06-27-2018, 03:39 PM)PhilHos Wrote: What is your rationale, then, for why Leroy Williams would have a hard time being an interviewer if the people in charge are mostly white?

Because racism against blacks by whites has been proven to exist.

What is your rationale for locking your doors at night if most people are not criminals?

[*PhilHos*]

(06-27-2018, 03:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because racism against blacks by whites has been proven to exist.

So then you DO think most white people are racist.

[*bfine32*]

Not to interrupt, but did anyone hear about the SCOTUS ruling on the travel ban?

[fredtoast]

(06-27-2018, 05:43 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So then you DO think most white people are racist.

WTF?

Link to me saying anything like this or STFU.  This is getting absurd.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2018, 11:48 AM)michaelsean Wrote: We, the collective we, seem to have lost that.  We are so eager to paint someone as evil that we run right to that rather than argue how the policy is good or bad.  In this particular case everyone is trying so hard to paint Trump as a racist or bigot, they ignore the argument against the ban based on its merits.  

I agree, I also don't think it's going be very effective in regards to its stated purpose.  However, if I can borrow a phrase from the Parkland kids, if it saves just one life it's worth it.  Or maybe "if it saves one life" isn't valid justification for curtailing the liberty of others?  It appears the liberty in question provides the justification for many.

(06-27-2018, 12:00 PM)jj22 Wrote: My argument is I don't mind the ban if it makes us safer. Not stopping those who come in to our country from those countries that have attacked us seems counterproductive. That's my only point. ISIS has taken responsibility for random acts against us mostly by AMERICANS who may sympathize with them in some cases, and in most they are just claiming responsibility after the fact, but had nothing to do with the planning or supporting of these attackers from within.

I support a ban against immigration from those countries that have attacked us. You are advocating more bans since you are trying to prevent an attack, which means everyone should be banned. Because you never know.

Part of your problem when you respond to me is you respond to what you want me to have said, rather than what I actually said.  I didn't advocate for this ban, much less "more bans".  Kindly reread my posts and feel free to try again.

[Beaker]

(06-27-2018, 02:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That was not my question.

Do poor white kids in underfunded rural schools not even try because they are told they are disadvantaged?

The poor white kids aren't told they cant get ahead because of some nebulous monster in the ether keeping them from an even shake.

[Beaker]

(06-27-2018, 02:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So how do you suggest we "address" these issues if we are not allowed to talk about them?  How will pretending these facts don't exist fix anything?

Arent we talking about them now? And I believe my suggestions were to treat each other as equals rather than with labels that cause separation, and not blame failures on some nebulous concept.

[Beaker]

(06-27-2018, 03:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because racism against blacks by whites has been proven to exist.

And vice versa....and it exists in every ethnic group.

[Beaker]

(06-27-2018, 12:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 1. There is a systemic presence of racial discrimination that exists in our institutions that must be addressed.
2. Racial segregation is stronger in some places right now than it was pre-Brown v. Board of Education.
3. Black defendants are incarcerated at higher rates and for harsher sentences than white defendants for the exact same crimes. 

1. I don't believe racism to be systemic. I think there are racist individuals, and some of those individuals have made it into higher positions in some cases, but I don't believe it to be systemic in all institutions.

2. I would need specific examples of this to address it.

3. Black defendants are incarcerated at higher rates, but also tend to commit crimes at higher rates. As for harsher sentences for the exact same crime...no two crimes are exactly the same. A one murder is not the same as another. Show me examples where a black defendant got a harsher sentence than his white partner for the EXACT same crime. And you would need multiple examples in order to support your premise that it is systemic.

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2018, 08:20 PM)Beaker Wrote: 1. I don't believe racism to be systemic. I think there are racist individuals, and some of those individuals have made it into higher positions in some cases, but I don't believe it to be systemic in all institutions.

These racist policies and effects have outlasted any individual. They are fully integrated into the institutions.

(06-27-2018, 08:20 PM)Beaker Wrote: 2. I would need specific examples of this to address it.

I'll just let you look through some of this: https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity

But this is a report specifically address segregation and discusses the resegregation in certain places: https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/brown-at-62-school-segregation-by-race-poverty-and-state/Brown-at-62-final-corrected-2.pdf

(06-27-2018, 08:20 PM)Beaker Wrote: 3. Black defendants are incarcerated at higher rates, but also tend to commit crimes at higher rates. As for harsher sentences for the exact same crime...no two crimes are exactly the same. A one murder is not the same as another. Show me examples where a black defendant got a harsher sentence than his white partner for the EXACT same crime. And you would need multiple examples in order to support your premise that it is systemic.

Even partners in a crime would not necessarily be charged with the same crimes, no matter racial differences. The data you are asking for is improbably difficult to obtain and would have a very low n, making it difficult to draw any sort of conclusions from it.

What we do know is that white defendants are offered better deals, more often. They are acquitted at higher rates. Crimes which are seen as being committed more often by black people are treated with stiffer penalties than those seen as committed by white people (see crack v. cocaine). There is a lot of evidence out there backing this all up. Peer reviewed journals providing this information in spades. Were I not feeling lazy I'd go get a book that has some of these sources in it, log into the VPN and pull up some reports for you.

But, I have a feeling that no number of these reports would convince you, so I'm not going to bother. You've made up your mind on this issue and no amount of statistical evidence will likely persuade you.

[Beaker]

(06-27-2018, 08:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But, I have a feeling that no number of these reports would convince you, so I'm not going to bother. You've made up your mind on this issue and no amount of statistical evidence will likely persuade you.

I do have my mind made up. I think exacerbating the victimhood mentality by making up concepts such as institutional racism and white privilege not only does more harm than good for the targeted race, but also creates further separation between races.

But I also have an open mind. I have changed my outlook on many things over my lifetime when presented with good, logical, conclusive evidence. But we do both agree that racism is bad, and that incidents of racism need to be both addressed and squashed. I think we just have different ideas about how that should be done. I am for empowering everyone, not giving them reasons to blame their failures. Everyone has failures. But you need to figure out why you failed, and take steps to overturn it, not find something to blame for it.

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2018, 09:01 PM)Beaker Wrote: I do have my mind made up. I think exacerbating the victimhood mentality by making up concepts such as institutional racism and white privilege not only does more harm than good for the targeted race, but also creates further separation between races.

But I also have an open mind. I have changed my outlook on many things over my lifetime when presented with good, logical, conclusive evidence. But we do both agree that racism is bad, and that incidents of racism need to be both addressed and squashed. I think we just have different ideas about how that should be done. I am for empowering everyone, not giving them reasons to blame their failures. Everyone has failures. But you need to figure out why you failed, and take steps to overturn it, not find something to blame for it.

You say it exacerbates a victim mentality and gives people something to blame. I view it as a reason to fight for change. I view it as a continuation of the civil rights movement because that work was not completed. I know that some people view it the way you talk about it, but there are many, many people fighting for change and not just sitting around trying to cast blame on something. They see the evidence, they live it. They know the racial disparities in our systems and they work to overcome them every day.

[Dill]

(06-27-2018, 10:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: "Muslim" is not a race.

As the ban clearly does not target muslims I'd say there's nothing to discount.

Fair points, although I wonder how relevant they are.  Do you think the nations included in the ban should not be on the list?  Do you think there are legitimate reasons a rational person could cite for their inclusion that has nothing to do with religion?

At present, US law defines 12 bases of illegal discrimination. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/

As I understand our legal system, the fact that these bases are all members of a common legal category enables a structural homology between legal cases based upon them, so that laws/policies/rules of evidence applicable to one may be applicable to another.  E.g., if a state legislature designed and passed a sexist law to keep women in the home, without actually mentioning sex or gender in writing the law, then Korematsu vs the US might offer a precedent for declaring that law unconstitutional--even though sex is not a race--if it could be shown that legislators discussed their intent and assumptions about the proper role of women when fashioning the law behind closed doors, but excluded them from all public discussion to claim the law clearly does not target women, just to avoid a constitutional challenge. (Fred or Bels can probably best say whether I have explained this correctly.)

The structural homology is why Roberts could overule Koramatsu on the "rational scrutiny basis" while accepting a travel ban issued by a president who promised to ban Muslims on that same basis (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf#page=38), and why Sotomayor, in her dissent from Trump vs Hawaii, could claim "stark parallels" between Korematsu and Trump vs Hawaiia and inconsistency in Robert's reasoning. That she and many others make this dissent signals that it is not clear the ban does not target Muslims. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/us/sonia-sotomayor-dissent-travel-ban.html

As far as who should be on the list, it is not clear that there needs to be a list at all. Given the evolution of the ban, it looks like a symbolic attempt to ban Muslims--basing it on religious discrimination--with little actual reference to national security threats. But it has run afoul of Constitution and courts, hence it has become a hodgepodge of differing threats and rationales. Countries like North Korea and Venezuela are added to show "it's not about religion." So far as I can tell, Venezuela poses no threat to the continental US, and Korea's primary threats are cyber attacks and escalating nuclear confrontation--not the sort of threats contained by travel bans. Countries which could rationally be included given Trump's criteria, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Nigeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Pakistan, are not because they have a strong US lobby and strong trade ties. Countries which pose little threat, like Somalia, Yemen and but have no lobby are selected. Some, like Yemen and Somalia, where temporarily dubbed areas of concern under the Obama administration, which imposed limited controls on travel to and from those places. By including them, responsibility for a now much more extreme policy can claim to be shared with the previous administration.

Iran is a special case. It has been a US enemy, though a rapprochement occurred under Obama. That is gone now, since Trump blew up the Iran deal. Iran is still trying to hold to the deal. But if it cannot, then its threat to US interests in the Middle East will likely increase, but not to the US homeland--it is certainly not the threat to the homeland that Russia continues to be. The ban, if anything, simply encourages Iran to act against US security.

So for any one of the countries on the ban list, one could cite a "plausible" reason why travelers therefrom might be a threat to the US, just as one could "plausibly" call Japanese Americans a threat in 1944. But plausibility of that sort cannot/ought not to deflect scrutiny from the actual principle guiding selection, when plausibility alone cannot explain selection. Roberts allowed that to happen. And while he was ruling on Korematsu.
 

[Dill]

(06-27-2018, 09:01 PM)Beaker Wrote: I do have my mind made up. I think exacerbating the victimhood mentality by making up concepts such as institutional racism and white privilege not only does more harm than good for the targeted race, but also creates further separation between races.

I have a question for you. Do think there is a general but consistent correlation between socioeconomic background and educational achievement?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2018, 11:49 PM)Dill Wrote: At present, US law defines 12 bases of illegal discrimination. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/

Noted.

Quote:As I understand our legal system, the fact that these bases are all members of a common legal category enables a structural homology between legal cases based upon them, so that laws/policies/rules of evidence applicable to one may be applicable to another.  E.g., if a state legislature designed and passed a sexist law to keep women in the home, without actually mentioning sex or gender in writing the law, then Korematsu vs the US might offer a precedent for declaring that law unconstitutional--even though sex is not a race--if it could be shown that legislators discussed their intent and assumptions about the proper role of women when fashioning the law behind closed doors, but excluded them from all public discussion to claim the law clearly does not target women, just to avoid a constitutional challenge. (Fred or Bels can probably best say whether I have explained this correctly.)

Sure.  Except in your analogy we're talking about all women.  Since the travel ban affects a minute percentage of the world's muslim population you cannot make a logical argument that the travel ban is a muslim ban.  If the intent of the ban is to exclude muslims, then it's doing a horrible job if it.  Can you think of no plausible reason for a travel ban from the listed countries other than islamic faith?  I'm willing to bet you could.

Quote:The structural homology is why Roberts could overule Koramatsu on the "rational scrutiny basis" while accepting a travel ban issued by a president who promised to ban Muslims on that same basis (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf#page=38), and why Sotomayor, in her dissent from Trump vs Hawaii, could claim "stark parallels" between Korematsu and Trump vs Hawaiia and inconsistency in Robert's reasoning. That she and many others make this dissent signals that it is not clear the ban does not target Muslims. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/us/sonia-sotomayor-dissent-travel-ban.html

Sure, he could.  Except he did not.  The dissenting opinion is just that, the minority opinion.  Sotomoyar can make whatever claim she wants, her opinion is the minority one, which in the SCOTUS, does not carry legal weight.  If the travel ban is later determined to be unconstitutional then we'll revisit this conversation.  As of now it hasn't, thus we needn't.

Quote:As far as who should be on the list, it is not clear that there needs to be a list at all. Given the evolution of the ban, it looks like a symbolic attempt to ban Muslims--basing it on religious discrimination--with little actual reference to national security threats. But it has run afoul of Constitution and courts, hence it has become a hodgepodge of differing threats and rationales. Countries like North Korea and Venezuela are added to show "it's not about religion." So far as I can tell, Venezuela poses no threat to the continental US, and Korea's primary threats are cyber attacks and escalating nuclear confrontation--not the sort of threats contained by travel bans. Countries which could rationally be included given Trump's criteria, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Nigeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Pakistan, are not because they have a strong US lobby and strong trade ties. Countries which pose little threat, like Somalia, Yemen and but have no lobby are selected. Some, like Yemen and Somalia, where temporarily dubbed areas of concern under the Obama administration, which imposed limited controls on travel to and from those places. By including them, responsibility for a now much more extreme policy can claim to be shared with the previous administration.

Or it could be state sponsors of terrorism or countries unable to adequately vet visa applicants.  Does it include all such countries?  No, I don't believe so.  That doesn't change the fact that the countries on the list can logically be described as such.

Quote:Iran is a special case. It has been a US enemy, though a rapprochement occurred under Obama. That is gone now, since Trump blew up the Iran deal. Iran is still trying to hold to the deal. But if it cannot, then its threat to US interests in the Middle East will likely increase, but not to the US homeland--it is certainly not the threat to the homeland that Russia continues to be. The ban, if anything, simply encourages Iran to act against US security.

Russia has had nuclear weapons for over sixty years, has yet to use them.  Are you claiming Iran would exercise such restraint if they were in possession of nuclear weapons?  There's also the fact that Iran routinely threatens to destroy a sovereign nation in the Middle East.  Since you've never actually addressed this despite my repeatedly asking, please explain what Al Kuds day is and how it is "celebrated".

Quote:So for any one of the countries on the ban list, one could cite a "plausible" reason

Quote:why travelers therefrom might be a threat to the US, just as one could "plausibly" call Japanese Americans a threat in 1944. But plausibility of that sort cannot/ought not to deflect scrutiny from the actual principle guiding selection, when plausibility alone cannot explain selection. Roberts allowed that to happen. And while he was ruling on Korematsu. 

False equivalency as the travel ban is not interning anyone nor confiscating their property.  You enjoy the analogy because it is an extreme one that you think lends weight to your argument.  To us rational folks we view it as the extreme attempt to equate a travel ban with the forcible internment and property theft of a specific ethnic group.  It's a fail analogy and few are buying into it outside the liberal bubble.

[Beaker]

(06-27-2018, 09:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You say it exacerbates a victim mentality and gives people something to blame. I view it as a reason to fight for change. 

I view racism as a reason to fight for change, not some contrived concept.

[Beaker]

(06-28-2018, 12:10 AM)Dill Wrote: I have a question for you. Do think there is a general but consistent correlation between socioeconomic background and educational achievement?

I believe there are a myriad of factors that determine educational achievement. I have kids from low socioeconomic backgrounds at both ends of the spectrum. The most influential factor in their achievement is not money, but parental involvement.

[jj22]

(06-27-2018, 07:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I agree, I also don't think it's going be very effective in regards to its stated purpose.  However, if I can borrow a phrase from the Parkland kids, if it saves just one life it's worth it.  Or maybe "if it saves one life" isn't valid justification for curtailing the liberty of others?  It appears the liberty in question provides the justification for many.



Part of your problem when you respond to me is you respond to what you want me to have said, rather than what I actually said.  I didn't advocate for this ban, much less "more bans".  Kindly reread my posts and feel free to try again.

I have no problem. I said what I said and meant it. If there is a problem it's keeping up with Trump Supporters spin and excuses. Because they support things they know are un-American and Anti Democracy, but try to deflect blame, cover, and excuse it instead of just standing up for their beliefs and sticking to it.

[fredtoast]

(06-27-2018, 08:11 PM)Beaker Wrote: And vice versa....and it exists in every ethnic group.

But only whites have the power to oppress people they are  racist against because they control a disproprtionate perceentage of wealth and power.

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 09:17 AM)Beaker Wrote: I view racism as a reason to fight for change, not some contrived concept.

So we agree that racism can be a motivating factor and not just one that causes people to blame others for their failures, excellent. As to the contrived part, well, I think that same way. I don't see it as deliberate but rather something that comes to us naturally and therefore we need to make extra efforts to squash because it is so interwoven into our institutions due to us trying to pretend it wasn't there.