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”.
Bro, there’s not an ounce of hyperbole here. Crazy…
The proposed law
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:
holy sweet tapdancing Christ