As to identification, not all documents have photographs, and in a country as ethnically varied as the United States race is a useful indicator of appearance.
Oh, please. So you have a National Identity Card and then if need be you check that your name and card-ID in any other document matches your Card's name and card-ID, and that the Card's photo matches your face. It's easy, really. So no need to go filling up your race in any document at all. Unless you need that racial information for ulterior motives (and suspiciously evil motives, I may add).
JoshH wrote:
Regarding discrimination, I can only assume that you aren't familiar with the purposes to which this information is put. Information about race and ethnicity is absolutely necessary to monitor compliance with programs like Affirmative Action and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, and, as I said, to insure that minorities have representation in Congress
Yeah, and I guess it would be impossible to mine such data to deny bank loans to those coming from "racially different" neighborhoods, etc. I've seen documentaries about that nice practice in the USA, and I'm sure that this "racial data" can be used in many more "creative" ways.
Also, what is this thing of "insuring" minorities representation in Congress. A democracy either works or else it is not a democracy. People are free to choose any party which suits them, or there is no democracy. I find highly suspicious those "racial quotas" in Congress; in other settings which are not democratic by nature I can understand (like work, alumni admittance, etc.), but in Congress??!! Is not that a tacit admission that there is no liberty to choose your representatives? I find it so.
JoshH wrote:
It also provides useful information about the flow of people within and to various parts of the country, and helps identify racial profiling by the police, redlining, and so forth.
"Police profiling" is evil, and "racial police profiling" doubly so. We in Spain had a Police-State for 40 years and we already know police should do little before a crime has happened (except just walk around and nothing else). The police exists mainly to "enforce" the law, not to "shape" the people's behavior through fear and bulling. Otherwise, the Stassi had many "profiling techniques" to "shape" the population...
Oh, please. So you have a National Identity Card and then if need be you check that your name and card-ID in any other document matches your Card's name and card-ID, and that the Card's photo matches your face. It's easy, really. So no need to go filling up your race in any document at all. Unless you need that racial information for ulterior motives (and suspiciously evil motives, I may add).
The US has no national identity card. Such a card would be considered an unacceptable violation of civil liberties. Nor do we have any central repository of identification information for the same reason. And this creates unique problems and challenges which require unique solutions.
As for any evil motives, I think you'd have to provide some evidence. I've lived here all my life and I have yet to notice any. Sixty years ago down south, perhaps, when the law deprived people of their civil rights on the basis of race, but I'm not aware of any provision in American law that currently discriminates against people on the base of race or ethnicity.
Quote:
Yeah, and I guess it would be impossible to mine such data to deny bank loans to those coming from "racially different" neighborhoods, etc. I've seen documentaries about that nice practice in the USA, and I'm sure that this "racial data" can be used in many more "creative" ways.
When you walk into the bank office, or the real estate office, they can see what race you are. So yes, redlining and housing discrimination do occur -- but not because of any government requirement to collect information which is readily ascertainable with a glance. On the contrary, that information is used by the government to discourage such illegal practices, by for example noting that at a given bank black people with a certain credit risk receive are approved for mortgages less often than white people with the same risk. Or that 10% of the qualified job applicants at Company X are black, but only 3% are offered jobs. The government programs to do this have been extremely successful, although, of course, perfection can never be achieved.
Quote:
Also, what is this thing of "insuring" minorities representation in Congress. A democracy either works or else it is not a democracy. People are free to choose any party which suits them, or there is no democracy. I find highly suspicious those "racial quotas" in Congress; in other settings which are not democratic by nature I can understand (like work, alumni admittance, etc.), but in Congress??!! Is not that a tacit admission that there is no liberty to choose your representatives? I find it so.
There aren't any racial quotas, and there's no mandate that people elect someone of a certain race, or anyone at all. What these laws do is insure that districts aren't apportioned by racist state legislatures down South in such a way that minorities can't be elected to Congress.
Suppose for example that there are five contiguous neighborhoods in a racist Southern state. One neighborhood is all black, the other four all white. If you assign each neighborhood a congressional district, there's a good chance that they'll send one black person to Congress, and four white people, because the people of each neighborhood will vote for someone who represents them and their interests. But if the districts are laid out intentionally to run across neighborhood boundaries, there will be five districts each of which has 20% black voters and 80% white voters. Then the representatives in Congress will probably be five white guys, and regardless of race, will represent the interests of the white majority rather than the black minority. This isn't Democratic, and it's contrary to the purpose of the House of Representatives, which is supposed to represent as closely as practical the people of the country.
The southern states had a long and tawdry history of finding underhanded ways to deprive black people of the vote, through intimidation, poll taxes, literacy tests, and the like. Remedies such as this one have been extremely successful in restoring to black southerners the civil rights that were taken from them after the failure of Reconstruction in the 19th century.
I'm not aware of any provision in American law that currently discriminates against people on the base of race or ethnicity.
Oh, please. The entire structure of affirmative action does precisely that. I can understand your arguing that its pro-minority discrimination is in a good cause. But you cannot pretend that it does not exist. SCOTUS just recently overturned a Sotomayor ruling on this (about firefighters).
I'm not aware of any provision in American law that currently discriminates against people on the base of race or ethnicity.
Oh, please. The entire structure of affirmative action does precisely that. I can understand your arguing that its pro-minority discrimination is in a good cause. But you cannot pretend that it does not exist. SCOTUS just recently overturned a Sotomayor ruling on this (about firefighters).
From an earlier post of mine in this thread: "It certainly has no role in furthering discrimination, and hasn't for many years, except perhaps to the extent that, as some claim, programs like Affirmative Action are a form of reverse discrimination." [emphasis added]
I considered mentioning reverse discrimination again when I wrote the passage to which you refer, but decided against it, since I'd mentioned it only a few hours previously.
Posted: Thu 23 Jul 2009 04:48 Post subject: Double standard
JoshH wrote:
pepinno wrote:
Oh, please. So you have a National Identity Card and then if need be you check that your name and card-ID in any other document matches your Card's name and card-ID, and that the Card's photo matches your face. It's easy, really. :wink: So no need to go filling up your race in any document at all. Unless you need that racial information for ulterior motives (and suspiciously evil motives, I may add).
The US has no national identity card. Such a card would be considered an unacceptable violation of civil liberties. Nor do we have any central repository of identification information for the same reason. And this creates unique problems and challenges which require unique solutions.
As for any evil motives, I think you'd have to provide some evidence. I've lived here all my life and I have yet to notice any. Sixty years ago down south, perhaps, when the law deprived people of their civil rights on the basis of race, but I'm not aware of any provision in American law that currently discriminates against people on the base of race or ethnicity.
Quote:
Yeah, and I guess it would be impossible to mine such data to deny bank loans to those coming from "racially different" neighborhoods, etc. I've seen documentaries about that nice practice in the USA, and I'm sure that this "racial data" can be used in many more "creative" ways.
When you walk into the bank office, or the real estate office, they can see what race you are. So yes, redlining and housing discrimination do occur -- but not because of any government requirement to collect information which is readily ascertainable with a glance. On the contrary, that information is used by the government to discourage such illegal practices, by for example noting that at a given bank black people with a certain credit risk receive are approved for mortgages less often than white people with the same risk. Or that 10% of the qualified job applicants at Company X are black, but only 3% are offered jobs. The government programs to do this have been extremely successful, although, of course, perfection can never be achieved.
Quote:
Also, what is this thing of "insuring" minorities representation in Congress. A democracy either works or else it is not a democracy. People are free to choose any party which suits them, or there is no democracy. I find highly suspicious those "racial quotas" in Congress; in other settings which are not democratic by nature I can understand (like work, alumni admittance, etc.), but in Congress??!! Is not that a tacit admission that there is no liberty to choose your representatives? I find it so.
There aren't any racial quotas, and there's no mandate that people elect someone of a certain race, or anyone at all. What these laws do is insure that districts aren't apportioned by racist state legislatures down South in such a way that minorities can't be elected to Congress.
Suppose for example that there are five contiguous neighborhoods in a racist Southern state. One neighborhood is all black, the other four all white. If you assign each neighborhood a congressional district, there's a good chance that they'll send one black person to Congress, and four white people, because the people of each neighborhood will vote for someone who represents them and their interests. But if the districts are laid out intentionally to run across neighborhood boundaries, there will be five districts each of which has 20% black voters and 80% white voters. Then the representatives in Congress will probably be five white guys, and regardless of race, will represent the interests of the white majority rather than the black minority. This isn't Democratic, and it's contrary to the purpose of the House of Representatives, which is supposed to represent as closely as practical the people of the country.
The southern states had a long and tawdry history of finding underhanded ways to deprive black people of the vote, through intimidation, poll taxes, literacy tests, and the like. Remedies such as this one have been extremely successful in restoring to black southerners the civil rights that were taken from them after the failure of Reconstruction in the 19th century.
A "religion" question was almost added to the 1960 census until Jewish groups went ballistic, claiming that it was an invasion of privacy and could lead to future discrimination. Why is it an invasion of privacy to ask people to identify themselves by religion as opposed to "race"?
Oh, please. So you have a National Identity Card and then if need be you check that your name and card-ID in any other document matches your Card's name and card-ID, and that the Card's photo matches your face. It's easy, really. So no need to go filling up your race in any document at all. Unless you need that racial information for ulterior motives (and suspiciously evil motives, I may add).
The US has no national identity card. Such a card would be considered an unacceptable violation of civil liberties.
In the USA they have a very interesting concept of what "violates your civil liberties"... Like being subject to unwarranted searches of your computer and persona in airports and having to fill paperwork stating your race is fine and dandy, but having a National ID Card would be intolerable.
Why would a National ID Card be worst than a driving license regarding the civil rights? Is the driver license a violation of civil rights?
A National ID Card is like a "citizen license" which is automatically granted to all citizens upon been born, no questions asked. Why would it violate "civil liberties"?
But I guess having a National ID Card would stop the "need" to keep the racial profiling in the USA's official paperwork "to help identify people", so it would end the remaining on-paper segregation they still have over there. Some people in the USA seems like they would like keep the racial profiling going on...
JoshH wrote:
pepinno wrote:
Also, what is this thing of "insuring" minorities representation in Congress. A democracy either works or else it is not a democracy. People are free to choose any party which suits them, or there is no democracy. I find highly suspicious those "racial quotas" in Congress; in other settings which are not democratic by nature I can understand (like work, alumni admittance, etc.), but in Congress??!! Is not that a tacit admission that there is no liberty to choose your representatives? I find it so.
There aren't any racial quotas, and there's no mandate that people elect someone of a certain race, or anyone at all. What these laws do is insure that districts aren't apportioned by racist state legislatures down South in such a way that minorities can't be elected to Congress.
Suppose for example that there are five contiguous neighborhoods in a racist Southern state. One neighborhood is all black, the other four all white. If you assign each neighborhood a congressional district, there's a good chance that they'll send one black person to Congress, and four white people, because the people of each neighborhood will vote for someone who represents them and their interests. But if the districts are laid out intentionally to run across neighborhood boundaries, there will be five districts each of which has 20% black voters and 80% white voters. Then the representatives in Congress will probably be five white guys, and regardless of race, will represent the interests of the white majority rather than the black minority. This isn't Democratic, and it's contrary to the purpose of the House of Representatives, which is supposed to represent as closely as practical the people of the country.
I can understand the problem you explain, but that is easily solved having a proportionally-based electoral system, instead of the current one of "winner takes it all" electoral system. It would be much more fair, and eliminate the need for the Government to "racially identify" the populace.
I believe the national ID card plays into the federal vs. states rights thing. We have the social security card which should have a picture on it. That would help with identity theft.
Peppin,
I am highly interested in foreign documentaries on the US. Can you name a few? I do realize that they may be in Spanish which I cannot speak and maybe even in PAL format but please list some. Thanks.
Posted: Thu 23 Jul 2009 22:29 Post subject: Re: Double standard
Powell wrote:
A "religion" question was almost added to the 1960 census until Jewish groups went ballistic, claiming that it was an invasion of privacy and could lead to future discrimination. Why is it an invasion of privacy to ask people to identify themselves by religion as opposed to "race"?
Religious identification requirements have a sordid history. In one case at least, Jews have been victimized as a result of official US government identification -- in WW II, soldiers' dog tags had their religion on them, and for a Jewish soldier captured by the Nazis that meant death. American POW's used to give their Jewish comrades the dog tags of dead comrades in an attempt to avoid that.
In the USA they have a very interesting concept of what "violates your civil liberties"... Like being subject to unwarranted searches of your computer and persona in airports and having to fill paperwork stating your race is fine and dandy, but having a National ID Card would be intolerable.
Why would a National ID Card be worst than a driving license regarding the civil rights? Is the driver license a violation of civil rights?
A National ID Card is like a "citizen license" which is automatically granted to all citizens upon been born, no questions asked. Why would it violate "civil liberties"?
But I guess having a National ID Card would stop the "need" to keep the racial profiling in the USA's official paperwork "to help identify people", so it would end the remaining on-paper segregation they still have over there. Some people in the USA seems like they would like keep the racial profiling going on...
I find the idea of a national identification card or internal passport offensive, and so, I believe (but lacking data can't state with certainty), do most Americans. So too for any kind of national registry of citizens. These are too frequently tools of a police state. They provide the government with information that it can use to reduce the rights of citizens and make privacy and anonymity impossible.
While I don't agree with some of the measures taken under the Patriot act, and consider them an unwarranted and unconstitutional violation of civil liberties, the other examples to which you refer differ substantially from a national identification card or registry in that they're intended for legitimate purposes and are voluntary. For example, there is no law that says someone need have a driver's license, or if they have one, carry it or use it, except when driving.
Inevitably, even something as straightforward as a driver's license or Social Security card can be abused. They do tend to become de facto forms of identification, even though for example the law specifically prohibits the use of a Social Security number for purposes of identification. But on the whole, American dedication to civil liberties is such that Americans are willing to make significant compromises to maintain a modicum of privacy. For example, because there is in the United States no central government registry of births and deaths, it's fairly easy for illegal aliens or even terrorists to obtain identity documents under false pretenses.
The entry of what is essentially a physical description on a passport form or visa doesn't seem to me as a violation of civil liberties. We necessarily surrender a certain amount of anonymity when we cross international borders, whether into the United States or another country. On a personal level, I've never been wild about the necessity to show a passport or the fact that some bureaucrat can determine whether I enter or can work in a country, but it has to be admitted that some such controls are necessary.
"Racial profiling" is an emotionally loaded term which to the best of my knowledge is inapplicable in this case. The US government goes out of its way to avoid racial profiling, even going to the extent of subjecting grandmothers to the same airport security procedures as young Arab men. Local police do sometimes engage in racial profiling, but it is illegal and has in any case nothing to do with documents that specify race.
Quote:
I can understand the problem you explain, but that is easily solved having a proportionally-based electoral system, instead of the current one of "winner takes it all" electoral system. It would be much more fair, and eliminate the need for the Government to "racially identify" the populace.
In elections to the House of Representatives, each district elects a single representative. Those elections are necessarily winner takes all because there is only one representative for each district. If representatives were elected at large, say, by state, I suppose one could have a preferential ballot system of some sort, but you would lose the advantage of local representation -- representatives who are familiar with the problems of their local district, and accessible to the people who live in that area.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
So no need to go filling up your race in any document at all. Unless you need that racial information for ulterior motives (and suspiciously evil motives, I may add).