And what is wrong with this solution, compared to the alternative of American companies and the American people being forced to deal with foreign prejudices and beliefs imported into their country?
When children get into a fight, adults intervene by separating the combatants and sending them home regardless of who is "right". As a non-Indian American, I don't know who is "right" regarding the existence and extent of caste-based discrimination. 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.
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
If caste-based discrimination is rampant then certainly it should be a bigger part of the screening process for immigrants. You can even refuse entry for immigrants from South Asia entirely - though I suspect this is a massively losing proposition for the US as a whole.
What you cannot do (as you seem to be implying) is wholesale cast out American citizens based on their ethnicity or place of birth. Or at least I would hope not!
I am a Canadian citizen, born in India. I have the exact same rights as any other Canadian - any Canadian telling me “your problems are not Canada’s” would be incorrect, and I would consider them a racist as well. I don’t practice any caste based discrimination. I wouldn’t even know the caste I might have belonged; the caste of anyone I know; or how to determine caste! I would still vote against this bill.
It is inevitable. That does not mean that we can, or should, tolerate all such examples indefinitely.
>Sometimes these American soil conflicts spill back out onto the motherland countries in a big way, as Cuba, Ireland, and Israel/Palestine can all attest.
I am well aware. But all those conflicts occur "back home". Boston Irish support for the Nationalists in Ireland may not have been a wonderful thing to other Americans, but at least Americans did not have to deal with the conflicts on their own soil. Miami anti-Cubans did not fight Miami Cuban Communists on American soil.
On the other hand, the reports of widespread celebrations in heavily Arab-immigrant sections of European cities during the current Hamas attack on Israel, and the well known huge rise in attacks on native Jews by said immigrants (and, more worryingly, their descendants) in France in recent years, ought to be very concerning to Europeans.
>If caste-based discrimination is rampant then certainly it should be a bigger part of the screening process for immigrants. You can even refuse entry for immigrants from South Asia entirely - though I suspect this is a massively losing proposition for the US as a whole.
Maybe. Probably. At least the sheer diffuseness of the issue of caste-based discrimination—we can't quantify its existence, and as a non-Indian I cannot personally speak to its existence, one way or another—makes that calculation likely. If the problem were so widespread and visible that non-Indians were routinely witnesses to it, that might be a different story.
>What you cannot do (as you seem to be implying) is wholesale cast out American citizens based on their ethnicity or place of birth. Or at least I would hope not!
Nowhere have I suggested such. I have only said that if there is a widespread caste-based problem, one solution is to reduce or block further entry by those of South Asian origin to the US, and possibly revoke the visas of non-US citizen South Asians. The frenzied claims by others that I have proposed to revoke First Amendment protections on South Asians in the US, or that I advocate the expulsion of all South Asians (regardless of US citizenship), are only in their minds.
>I am a Canadian citizen, born in India. I have the exact same rights as any other Canadian - any Canadian telling me “your problems are not Canada’s” would be incorrect, and I would consider them a racist as well.
I disagree. As a naturalized Canadian citizen part of the duties and responsibilities that accompany receiving a new citizenship is to abandon the detrimental parts that came with the old. That includes prejudices and behavior that would cause societal turmoil in the new country. The onus is on the new citizen, and not the new citizen's new country.
>I don’t practice any caste based discrimination. I wouldn’t even know the caste I might have belonged; the caste of anyone I know; or how to determine caste!
Again, speaking as a non-Indian, how is this possible? Were you naturalized as a small child, and your parents never once spoke of the caste they belonged to? I thought every Indian in India was aware (whether they like it or not) of their caste.
Please read about the Fenian raids for example - these things did have impacts in North America and to a very violent/impactful degree.
> That includes prejudices and behavior that would cause societal turmoil in the new country. The onus is on the new citizen, and not the new citizen's new country.
No, the onus is on my country to uphold the charter of rights for every citizen. If I was the victim of caste based discrimination I would absolutely expect my government to protect me, not deport me or reduce my rights in any way, simply because the issue originated abroad.
The same thing would apply if I belonged an Indian religion and was discriminated for it. Whether the prejudice was developed in India, or Europe, or Canada, is irrelevant- I expect my government to act to protect me.
Anyone saying this is not Canada’s problem would be wrong. It is in fact Canada’s problem because I am Canadian and it is happening on Canadian soil.
> Again, speaking as a non-Indian, how is this possible? Were you naturalized as a small child, and your parents never once spoke of the caste they belonged to
I was naturalized as a child and caste is never spoken of with my family. The city I live in has lots of south Asian immigrants of all stripes and I have never discussed caste wit anyone. I asked my mom today, who spent most of her life in India, she would also not be able to determine someone’s caste.
Keep in mind she is non-Hindu, and grew up in a big city more insulated from caste based identities & issues. Nevertheless, any kind of blanket prejudice would apply to her (and me) as well.
I didn't say that. I even noted
>Boston Irish support for the Nationalists in Ireland may not have been a wonderful thing to other Americans, but at least Americans did not have to deal with the conflicts on their own soil.
And yes, I am well aware of the Fenian raids, as well as the (myth of) the "no dogs or Irish" signs, and other aspects of Irish American history. I can tell you what "26 + 6" means.
My point is that the Irish Americans that supported NORAID, and predecessor organizations in earlier decades, at least did so regarding activities that occurred outside the US. Same with the Fenian raids; Irish Catholic Americans did not launch quasi-military expeditions against British/Irish Protestant entities located on US soil. And, more importantly, as the decades passed the American assimilation engine won out, just as I expect any intra-South Indian conflicts that go beyond name-calling to go away as long as giant waves of newcomers don't keep arriving and refreshing the impetus.
>No, the onus is on my country to uphold the charter of rights for every citizen. If I was the victim of caste based discrimination I would absolutely expect my government to protect me, not deport me or reduce my rights in any way, simply because the issue originated abroad.
I agree that the Canadian or US government's responsibility is to defend your rights as well as those of others.
That is not the same thing as, if intra- or inter-ethnic conflicts become a serious societal concern—a concern great enough to require the enshrinement of yet another protected class (to use the US legal term; I am sure Canada has some equivalent) into US law—being willing to indefinitely support the entry of the group or groups that are involved in such conflicts, whether they are the victims or oppressors. It is always possible for the people (speaking collectively) to decide that the net benefits to their society do not justify the continued fueling of such conflicts through the indefinite entry of the kindling, so to speak. As I said, it is their right to do so.
Further, as a non-US citizen your rights are legally limited in the US. Unless you have a green card you do not have the right to indefinite residency in the US, and even if you do, said right comes with some requirements (such as being present in the US for a certain number of years for each given period, and otherwise obeying the law). Beyond which, the US can at any time change the law and remove indefinite residency, and tell any non-citizen (whether permanent resident or not) to leave immediately. Canada can do the same for its landed immigrants. Ultimately, any country can change the rules as it sees fit for non-citizens within its borders (or those seeking entry) at any time. Again, it is the country's people's right to decide to do so.
>Keep in mind she is non-Hindu, and grew up in a big city more insulated from caste based identities & issues. Nevertheless, any kind of blanket prejudice would apply to her (and me) as well.
Interesting. From what little I know of caste I gather that it is a Hindu-specific thing? That Christians are excluded from it?
You don’t even seem to think caste conflicts are a pronounced or big deal, so I’m not sure what we were even arguing about.
And yeah, caste is supposed to not matter for Christians, muslims or sikhs - but in practice that matters where you are.
Please read about the Fenian raids for example - these things did have impacts in North America and to a very violent/impactful degree.
> That includes prejudices and behavior that would cause societal turmoil in the new country. The onus is on the new citizen, and not the new citizen's new country.
No, the onus is on my country to uphold the charter of rights for every citizen. If I was the victim of caste based discrimination I would absolutely expect my government to protect me, not deport me or reduce my rights in any way, simply because the issue originated abroad.
The same thing would apply if I belonged an Indian religion and was discriminated for it. Whether the prejudice was developed in India, or Europe, or Canada, is irrelevant- I expect my government to act to protect me.
Anyone saying this is not Canada’s problem would be wrong. It is in fact Canada’s problem because I am Canadian and it is happening on Canadian soil.
> Again, speaking as a non-Indian, how is this possible? Were you naturalized as a small child, and your parents never once spoke of the caste they belonged to
I was naturalized as a child and caste is never spoken of with my family. The city I live in has lots of south Asian immigrants of all stripes and I have never discussed caste with anyone. I asked my mom today, who spent most of her life in India, she would also not be able to determine someone’s caste.
Keep in mind she is non-Hindu, and grew up in a big city more insulated from caste based identities & issues. Nevertheless, any kind of blanket prejudice would apply to her (and me) as well.
Americans are not "adults" of the world and others are not "children". Stop with this patronizing and condescending bullshit. The world doesn't revolve around your ass.
> I don't care. I shouldn't care. I shouldn't have to know or care in the first place!
Same. Hard Same.
Next time when one of your european self appointed "adult" attacks another european self appointed "adult", don't cry like a b---h when the rest of the world continues to live their life like it doesn't matter.
"My attempt to understand their argument: imagine you are a white man, living your life, conducting interviews, working to the best of your abilities, then someone sues you, alleging that you only didn't hire him because of his race. Now, you'll spend months if not years trying to prove..."
etc. etc.
Your argument can be leveled against any civil rights action. And in light of extremely strong evidence of actual discrimination here in reality, it should be dismissed.
You know it's tricky because on the one hand you have some high caste folks saying "there's no discrimination" and on the other hand you have some lower caste folks saying "there's discrimination." So it's hard to interpret, I suppose. FWIW only about a half of American Indians even perceive themselves to be a part of a caste, but that's plenty enough to produce extreme discriminatory effects.
So with those priors, I simply cannot put much weight in “people accused of being discriminatory are worried they will be accused of being discriminatory.”
That argument can be leveled against any civil rights action.
If I propose adding "don't be sneaky little hobbitses" to the MIT license and people don't want to add it, is it evidence that we have sneaky Hobbits infiltrating the software developer community?
Or something more serious, people who are against the PATRIOT Act are evidence that we need the laws and they are not patriots, anyway? Is it the level of discourse we want?
You take what's in the bill at face value and believe it has only positive effects, and don't even consider why others might be against it.
NYT mentions that the bill "would make South Asians (...) more vulnerable to unfair accusations of discrimination."
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/02/us/south-asians-are-divid...
My attempt to understand their argument: imagine you are from India, living your life, conducting interviews, working to the best of your abilities, then someone sues you, alleging that you only didn't hire him, because of his cast. Now, you'll spend months if not years trying to prove that you didn't, while people around you will believe the accusations and start treating you like a casteist bigot. Then, as this gets more and more common, companies stop hiring people from South Asia because they don't want to deal with this.
Now, is this true or is it their only argument against it? I don't know, but you can see how people could be against it for other reasons than "oh I want to discriminate so hard and this bill won't let me".