Live data from Hacker News

Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

politico.com

181–190 of 192 posts

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indians can’t even tell castes unless they are from essentially the same county/local cluster. This is only really a problem because you have a lot of people from the same part of Andra pradesh coming and working in the tech sector.

You can always ask about someone's background, or look it up. Google suffered a backlash in Japan when they made ancient maps easy to find, as people feared it'd make it easy to connect them to frowned upon ancestry: https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=7514420&page=1

> You can always ask about someone's background, or look it up.

Seems easy enough. There are only 4.6 Million possibilities to choose from.

based on the number of subcastes Govt of India identified for a caste census in 2011. https://www.deccanherald.com/content/489752/socio-economic-c...

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#182
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>jFYI "You Americans" have no special rights and cannot do anything to disenfranchise. 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 t…

> 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 enac…

> 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.

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#183
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Then, as this gets more and more common, companies stop hiring people from South Asia because they don't want to deal with this. 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 th…

Dealing with foreign beliefs and prejudices is part and parcel of having an immigration system. The US, having been built on immigration, has been dealing with these kind of “motherland” conflicts for its entire history. 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. If caste-based discrimination is rampant then…

>Dealing with foreign beliefs and prejudices is part and parcel of having an immigration system.

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-Castro 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.

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#184
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean there are plenty of caste based systems in many religions, perhaps of relevance to the US are Mormonism and Scientology which both have ranking systems that determine options for people in the religion (and who have tried to leave it). It's also worth noting that if you are born in a specific caste, and convert from your religion, you will still be subjected to caste discrimination from the folk in the origina…

I don't think Mormonism/LDS has anything like the Hindu caste system (I neither know nor care about Scientology) I'd be interested to know whether any other major religion has anything quite like the caste system.

It is though. It’s exactly that, a “ranking” passed from father to child that’s relatively influid.

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That appears to cover consumers, but doesn’t cover employees. Is there another law that also refers to ancestry that applies in the employment context?

FEHA covers this. Between the two, consumers and employees are already protected.

I’ve been convinced by your points here (and a few others). I strongly strongly suspect caste discrimination is a real thing that happens and that is hard to detect/address, but agreed that it’s adequately accounted for legislatively, at least in California. And yeah, I’ve been convinced of the potential negative effects of such additional legislation, redundant or not.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts + info!

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#187

The large and vocal constituency activated against the bill is good evidence that in fact it is not already accounted for under existing civil rights law.

Just like all the anti-Sharia laws that were proposed in the US? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/30/anti-sharia-...

This is a good counter argument, thanks for making it :)

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#188
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dealing with foreign beliefs and prejudices is part and parcel of having an immigration system. The US, having been built on immigration, has been dealing with these kind of “motherland” conflicts for its entire history. 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. If caste-based discrimination is rampant then…

>Dealing with foreign beliefs and prejudices is part and parcel of having an immigration system. 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…

Are you suggesting that there were not conflicts between say Catholic Americans of Irish descent and other Americans? I don’t know whether you are magnifying caste based conflicts in the US to an absurd degree, or are not aware of ethnic based conflicts in US history.

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.

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#189
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dealing with foreign beliefs and prejudices is part and parcel of having an immigration system. The US, having been built on immigration, has been dealing with these kind of “motherland” conflicts for its entire history. 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. If caste-based discrimination is rampant then…

>Dealing with foreign beliefs and prejudices is part and parcel of having an immigration system. 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…

Are you suggesting that there were no conflicts between say Catholic Americans of Irish descent and other Americans? I don’t know whether you are magnifying caste based conflicts in the US to an absurd degree, or are not aware of ethnic based conflicts in US history.

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.

Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California

#190
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Dealing with foreign beliefs and prejudices is part and parcel of having an immigration system. 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…

Are you suggesting that there were not conflicts between say Catholic Americans of Irish descent and other Americans? I don’t know whether you are magnifying caste based conflicts in the US to an absurd degree, or are not aware of ethnic based conflicts in US history. 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…

>Are you suggesting that there were not conflicts between say Catholic Americans of Irish descent and other Americans?

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?

Post reply on HN