[dead]
Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California
11–20 of 192 posts
Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California
#12How populated with Indian people is California if statewide legislation is being written for this?
About 900k according to Wikipedia.
Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California
#13its basically a “leave your problems at home” law and I think this would have sent a really clear message, that Seattle has already done
Is there a way to do this that doesn’t “create racial profiling” as some opponents of the bill said? I just want to cut through the denial, so many groups take advantage of American sensibilities to avoid criticism of their toxic behaviors as if we’re all stupid. For now, we are.
Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California
#14If it’s already covered, what’s the harm in letting the bill go into effect?
Exactly, what's wrong with having codified redundancy?
There's the argument (correct as it turned out) that was used in arguing against the bill of rights. That the specific enumeration of certain classes would be interpreted as raising those above other unenumerated classes. As it happens it's still probably a good thing that the bill of rights exists, and maybe being explicit is better than not, but it's undeniable that enumerated cases in law get much more solid standing than non-enumerated cases.
Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California
#15The 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.
Whether or not it is already accounted for under existing law, this sort of reasoning is about as valid as "the large and vocal constituency against a bill requiring everyone to pledge allegiance to the US is evidence that people aren't loyal to the country" Better evidence would be someone who would have been eligible to bring a case under the new law having been denied justice under the existing laws.
[deleted]
Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California
#16I agree with Newsom, this is covered already.
> The veto dealt a blow to state Sen. Aisha Wahab (D-Hayward), a first-term lawmaker who shepherded one of the more controversial bills of the session through the Legislature.
It's like when a new VP joins the company you work for and suddenly there's a useless project of some kind. A new initiative or re-org that they are spearheading to justify their position/salary.
I think we've all seen it before :)
Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California
#17How populated with Indian people is California if statewide legislation is being written for this?
About 900k according to Wikipedia.
Wow so Cali has a higher Indian population than the population of 5 U.S. states.
Guess it makes sense that they have Indian specific legislation.
As the Cali Indian population grows I imagine more will begin to enter politics and well see more Indian related legislation.
Interesting.
https://www.statsamerica.org/sip/rank_list.aspx?rank_label=p...
Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California
#18How populated with Indian people is California if statewide legislation is being written for this?
[deleted]
Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California
#19How populated with Indian people is California if statewide legislation is being written for this?
Wikipedia says "California is about 1.3% Indian, with many living in Orange County and Santa Clara County. Many live in Yuba City, about 15% Indian, which has a significant Sikh community." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Americans_in_Californi...
More that the population of 5 US states. Interesting.
Re: Newsom vetoes a proposed ban on caste discrimination in California
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, what's wrong with having codified redundancy?
There's the argument (correct as it turned out) that was used in arguing against the bill of rights. That the specific enumeration of certain classes would be interpreted as raising those above other unenumerated classes. As it happens it's still probably a good thing that the bill of rights exists, and maybe being explicit is better than not, but it's undeniable that enumerated cases in law get much more solid stand…
I can see hiring managers avoiding Indian candidates if they think it would add risk of future lawsuits from that candidate’s subordinates in the future.
(“Don’t hire him, he might use caste-ist decision-making when building his team.”)
In practice, only other South Asians would likely run afoul of this law, so they now have baggage that workers of other national origins would not have.