> I don't care. I shouldn't care. I shouldn't have to know or care in the first place!
Newsom vetoing the bill is on similar grounds - no one should care or talk about cast and certainly it should not be mentioned in any CA bill.
Newsom vetoing the bill is on similar grounds - no one should care or talk about cast and certainly it should not be mentioned in any CA bill.
I mean, you can say that the South Asian presence in the UK is because of the legacy of empire and all that. You can kind of sort of make the same argument for Canada. But that in no way applies to the US. The US has zero obligations of any kind to India. Like all immigrants Indians should be evaluated on their potential to contribute to the US in positive and negative ways.
This bill wasn't proposed by a South Asian impacted by caste. It was done by an Afghan immigrant.
The irony is that she is not doing anything against Sunni-Shia violence/discrimination which is a larger problem in the US [1] and globally.
Where is the protection for short-bearded men and women who don't cover up fully as they are persecuted in Afghanistan?
Won't immigrants to the US from Afghanistan carry these biases over?
The agenda is so clear and moronic and borders on "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
[1] https://time.com/6205521/albuquerque-muslim-murders-shiite-s...
That certainly doesn't sound blanket racist against an ethnicity of 1.5 billion people...
Land of free speech indeed.
Yes, and I want to keep it that way.
I ask again: What is the obligation for America, or Americans, to host intra-South Asian arguments and their arguers? Arguments that do not, in theory, involve any non-South Asians whatsoever? Is the only allowed outcome one in which the number and volume of said arguments hosted by America increase?
As I said:
>Like all immigrants Indians should be evaluated on their potential to contribute to the US in positive and negative ways.
There is no inherent right for South Asians to enter the US other than on the US government and its people's sufferance of same. If Americans decide that the disadvantages from the presence of South Asians (or Kenyans, or Danish, or Guatemalans, or New Zealanders) exceed the advantages, there can and should be consequences regarding immigration, visa, and naturalization laws. What should not happen is to preemptively squelch any efforts toward determining this as "blanket racism", any more than existing laws that apply uniformly toward all of a particular national origin are such.
Its almost as if American citizens of South Asian origins don't exist. How can people of South Asian origin even be Americans? Am I right?
"racism, also called racialism, the belief that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioural features" (Encyclopedia Britannica; emphasis mine)
I assume the original poster means to keep out the discussion of the caste system by keeping out its supporters. Disregarding the feasibility of such a plan [1] it does put this proposal in a different light: keeping out supporters of a system or ideology which divides people based on unalienable characteristics is something which those who claim to be against racism should welcome.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/06/29/attitudes-ab... shows that support for the caste system is less prevalent among higher educated Indians who are more likely to immigrate based on employment opportunities so in that respect it would be feasible. Given this fact a rule to keep out caste supporters could be easily construed as an attempt to keep out less educated people by those seeking to weaponise identity for political purposes.
This person might wanted to point out that the people who argue about the bill (which is certainly not 1.5B people), can't escape from and leave behind their mental prison of casteism, and they import a new form of racism into the US, which is not ideal.
This TMWNN person is literally saying this about this entire matter
>> When children get into a fight, adults intervene by separating the combatants and sending them home regardless of who is "right"
They actually see themselves as the "adult" and this matter as a children's fight even though its been ongoing for several hundred years prior to Columbus ever set sail to find India and accidentally found TMWNN's america.
And as the other commenter noted, this person has also argued in favor of deportation and blanket censorship on discussing caste matters.
I don't think its fair to continue assuming postive intentions at this point. If not racist, they are extremely condescending at the very least.
The tech industry in CA is basically Chinese and Indians. jFYI "You Americans" have no special rights and cannot do anything to disenfranchise. Free speech rights granted by the US constitution doesn't care if you are a citizen or not.
Funny that you should mention the Chinese. Although China is 91% Han, the Han are themselves very divided by language and regional origin/culture. The emergence of Taiwan added another division to the mix; as I understand it, there are significant tensions between the mainland and Taiwanese Chinese communities in the US. (It would be a surprise if there were none.)
That said, there are zero calls for a need in the US for legal protection of the mainland-born Chinese from Taiwanese, or vice versa.[1] They have (and certainly their children have), in the US, by and large moved beyond such divisions. Just as Catholic and Protestant Irish did so in the US and the rest of the Anglosphere outside the UK and Ireland. I bet that if everyone of South Asian ethnicity in the US were born and raised in the US, there would similarly be zero calls for this law that Newsom vetoed.
You mentioned the Indian dominance of the California tech sector. I know you intend that to be a veiled threat, but that to me says that unwary Americans unnecessarily imported caste divisions en masse in a place where such divisions did not previously exist (and there was and is no shortage of other, preexisting divisions). From this non-Indian, non-Chinese perspective, if (again, if) there is a real problem with caste-based discrimination in the US among South Asians, it seems like South Asians aren't doing as well as the Chinese in terms of assimilation.[2] Is this really the place you want to make a stand on?
[1] Maybe I've overlooked rampant blatant instances of discrimination. But I doubt it.
[2] Again, I am not differentiating between the alleged oppressors and alleged victims. As I have said, their dispute should never have occurred on American soil in the first place. It is not our business and not our concern.
We Americans can certainly, should we choose to do so, reduce or even eliminate the entry of South Indians or any other nationality/ethnicity. That is not an American peculiarity, but that of any nation to protect its borders as it sees fit. It goes back as far as the concept of the Westphalian state, and really much further than that.
That some Americans deny or have forgotten that we have this right—no, obligation—does not mean that it does not exist.
If there is a real problem with caste-based discrimination among and between South Asians in the US, I am pretty sure (at least, I hope) that it is not being committed by the American-born among them.
>Free speech rights granted by the US constitution doesn't care if you are a citizen or not.
I am not talking about censorship.
So the following is a snippet from your earlier comment where you are clearly saying that arguers as well as the arguments should not be in the US in the first place.
>> I know. I am going further, and stating that if South Asians are arguing in the US about the existence and extent of caste-based discrimination, and it's gotten to the point that a law was proposed and almost enacted, maybe we Americans should question whether we should have the arguers, as well as the arguments, in the US in the first place.
Since you specifically mention arguments, please tell us how is this not asking for censorship?
Not at all. I am saying that
* if there is a real problem with caste-based discrimination between South Asians (as one not such, I have to go by anecdotes and reports), then
* one possible outcome is to prevent further entry by South Asians and, perhaps
* the revoking of visas of the non-citizen South Asians already in the US
The third step isn't so important; as I noted elsewhere, if caste-based discrimination exists in the US I expect the US-born children of South Asian immigrants to not participate, so if there is a problem it will work itself out as long as it is not constantly refreshed by newcomers. Regardless, revoking visas is not censorship, any more than any other country doing so for any other non-citizens living among them means those noh-citizens are being censored; expelling non-citizens for any reason that the state deems is reasonable is, again, a fundamental right of the Westphalian state.
That's it. Nowhere, despite your and others' fevered imaginations, have I proposed violating the First Amendment or the revoking of US citizenship from those of South Asian ethnicity.