- cross-posted to:
- globalnews@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- globalnews@lemmy.zip
You must log in or register to comment.
Bro, there’s not an ounce of hyperbole here. Crazy…
Jesus, that’s every bit as bad as it sounds.
But what happens if their family has no ancestors from Spain?
Then they’re indigenous and you know what Americans do with them.
There is some hyperbole - that’s an “and” not an “or”. So the law wouldn’t define anyone of Hispanic descent as a terrorist, just like it doesn’t define non-hispanic convicted gang members as terrorists.
Still completely fucked up and racist, but the article title is slight hyperbole. And the politician is a total shitbag.
If there are people that would fall into points 2 and 3 but are in non-Hispanic gangs and because of that alone they aren’t labeled as terrorists in the same way, how would this be constitutional? Not that the politicians proposing it care, but it seems like it would be struck down, or they would have to amend it to remove that sort of language. Maybe if they were claiming it was combating Mexican cartels or other criminal foreign nationals with a qualifier about nation of origin, they could try to argue that wasn’t racist.
Edit: Ah I didn’t read the article, as another commenter pointed out:
He said: “I apologize for using the word Hispanic, but I was not wrong. Again, these are Hispanic. Reality is they are Hispanic. There’s nothing to be ashamed with.”
Humphrey said he will go back to the bill and amend the language from “Hispanic” to “undocumented here illegally, or something like that”.
holy sweet tapdancing Christ
I thought it was clickbaity exaggeration.
He said: “I apologize for using the word Hispanic, but I was not wrong. Again, these are Hispanic. Reality is they are Hispanic. There’s nothing to be ashamed with.”
Humphrey said he will go back to the bill and amend the language from “Hispanic” to “undocumented here illegally, or something like that”.
“I’m sorry for saying the thing, but I’m going to say it again, twice.”
Sorry, not sorry.
I also like how he laid out in real time and full disclosure the “Hispanic” -> “undocumented” pipeline and how it operates.
Direct extract from the S 894 US congress bill to address domestic terrorism.
“ Congress finds the following:
(1) White supremacists and other far-right-wing extremists are the most significant domestic terrorism threat facing the United States. “
“This is a whites only state”
“I mean, it was originally where we sent the Native Americans when we thought that part of the country wasn’t worth settling, but there was oil and so we had to take it back.”
Betcha a quick look at 23andMe’s data breach could prove a whole bunch of them don’t have a white-only DNA history.
What an out that would be!
Unfortunately, that would only lead to them saying “I can’t be racist, I’m 1/264th Cherokee!” and then holding up their color card to decide who to let in.
Illegal immigrants are less than half as likely to commit a crime as American citizens. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2014704117
So they’re going full Nazi, huh?
Is that even news at this point?
I thought this was BS, because no way, right?
NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 1268.9 of Title 21, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
Any person who:
-
Is of Hispanic descent living within the state of Oklahoma;
-
Is a member of a criminal street gang as such term is defined in subsection F of Section 856 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes; and
-
Has been convicted of a gang-related offense enumerated in paragraphs one (1) through sixteen (16) of subsection F of Section 856 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, Req. No. 8450
shall be deemed to have committed an act of terrorism as such term is defined in Section 1268.1 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes. Any and all property, including real estate and personal property, conveyances, including aircraft, vehicles or vessels, monies, coins and currency, or other instrumentality used or intended to be used, in any manner or part, by said person shall be subject to forfeiture as provided in Section 1738 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes.
Funny how they never go after the white gang member whom are actually terrorists.
If they did then they would put a target on their own backs. Can’t have that now can we.
-
It’s bad on its face, but to make it even worse: AFAICT, the definition would apply post-hoc, so anyone who has had such a conviction ever would be liable to have their property seized, even if they weren’t doing anything wrong today. Made a mistake in 1998? Terrorist.
This used to be satire…
@iliotropio @throws_lemy Laughing instead of crying…
They should read the la…they should learn more about reading first. Once they know how to read, then read the laws they proposed.
The law that it has 3 requirements. Being Hispanic is a strange requirement but they are probably trying to target native Americans.
JJ is a crazy man!!
It’s a terrible bill, but it only defines Hispanics as terrorists if they’re also a gang member who’s been convicted of a gang offense. Shitty to single them out this way, but no it doesn’t label any Hispanic person as a terrorist.
There is zero need for him to bring race into this at all. Or even immigration status. The fact that he equates Hispanics as terrorists and feels it’s appropriate to change it to “illegals” is profoundly telling of his views.
Terrorism is already narrowly defined within legal and law enforcement contexts.
This guy is a racist prick who should probably be treated as a terrorist, rather than the people he’s absolutely racially profiling
Yes, like I said the bill is terrible. But the headline is wrong. The bill does not define someone as a terrorist just for being Hispanic.
SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 1268.9 of Title 21, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows: Any person who:
- Is of Hispanic descent living within the state of Oklahoma;
- Is a member of a criminal street gang as such term is defined in subsection F of Section 856 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes; and
- Has been convicted of a gang-related offense enumerated in paragraphs one (1) through sixteen (16) of subsection F of Section 856 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statute
I read the law. under this proposed law, any one who is a member of a gang, and has been convicted of gang crimes is not a terrorist, but any such person who also happens to be Hispanic Is a terrorist.
When called out for it… he didn’t apologize, but then proceeded to suggest “illegals” as an alternative term, as if Hispanics are illegals. This asshole is so fucking racist, he doesn’t understand what the issue is.
What the actual fuck is wrong with this country? Him and the dumbshits that elected him need to face some actual adversity in life. Pathetic excuses for humans or americans.
But it does if two people, one white and one Hispanic, meet the other two criteria. Then one is not a terrorist and one is simply because they are Hispanic.
You’re not wrong. The headline’s misrepresentation is needlessly distracting. The bill is still racist; why specify ancestry at all?
Whites who join such gangs are a-ok though
They get snazzy uniforms and patrol vehicles too.
It’s the other way around.
It only defines Hispanics as terrorists.
Anyone else involved in gang activity will not be labeled a terrorist under this law, only Hispanics.
Well, that makes sense. They wouldn’t want any KKK or Proud Boys to get locked up for doing terrorism that they support.
The title doesn’t say “all” or “any” Hispanic person, because it conveys the main point which is that the law labels only Hispanic people, and not other people, as terrorists. The additional gang affiliation is not nearly as important as the racist basis of only applying the label to Hispanic people.
That’s really not any better. It’s still punishing people for their ethnicity.
Any person who:
- Is of Hispanic descent living within the state of Oklahoma;
- Is a member of a criminal street gang as such term is defined in subsection F of Section 856 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes; and
- Has been convicted of a gang-related offense enumerated in paragraphs one (1) through sixteen (16) of subsection F of Section 856 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes,
shall be deemed to have committed an act of terrorism
You’re probably right. Although, I question whether or not there should be an “and” after every line, to clearly define the Boolean logic. In one way of reading it, you would need to be either Hispanic living in Oklahoma, OR a member of a criminal offense and convicted of gang-related offenses, to be labelled as a terrorist.
This also entirely ignores the fact that terrorism has a clear definition that does not apply here. Terrorism is using violence or the threat of violence against a civilian population to enact political change - gang crime does not generally fit into this, except in very limited circumstances.
I swear I’ve seen laws written with a big capitalized “AND” when enumerating conditions like this.
They would twist this and force forfeitures based on ethnicity alone. “It’s the law.”
Fucking disgusting.
Nope. If it did it would have included both lines together. It literally lables anyone Hispanic as being a terrorist right from the get go.
There’s an “and” in the second statement. It requires all three to be true.
Still a horrible racist law. If they want gangs to be labeled terrorists, just drop the Hispanic requirement and go after all of them.
You’re correct, however, by including “Hispanic” as a qualifier, excludes convicted gangbangers who are not Hispanic.
While it is true to say that the law doesn’t include all Hispanics… it’s also true to say it doesn’t apply to white gang members or any other. Which means that while Hispanic gang member are terrorists, non-Hispanic are not terrorists, just …gang members…
It’s fucking racist.
Shouldn’t the “and” be in the first statement as well to link them all together?
Any person who is of Hispanic *and
member of a gang *and
Convicted of yada yada yada.
The way it is written doesn’t link the first two together. It’s its own statement of law.
That’s what the semicolons are for. It’s like saying “red, white, and blue”. You don’t need to say “red and white and blue”.
Except in this country where the courts can’t read and just makes up whatever it wants. Easier to do the less explicit things are.
No, the bill clearly has a three part definition of a terrorist. One part is race related, but the other two that must be satisfied are about gang activity.
