Bro, there’s not an ounce of hyperbole here. Crazy…
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:
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”.
holy sweet tapdancing Christ
I thought it was clickbaity exaggeration.
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”.
"I'm sorry for saying the thing, but I'm going to say it again, twice."
Sorry, not sorry.
I also like how he laid out in real time and full disclosure the "Hispanic" -> "undocumented" pipeline and how it operates.
Direct extract from the S 894 US congress bill to address domestic terrorism.
“ Congress finds the following:
(1) White supremacists and other far-right-wing extremists are the most significant domestic terrorism threat facing the United States. “
"This is a whites only state"
"I mean, it was originally where we sent the Native Americans when we thought that part of the country wasn't worth settling, but there was oil and so we had to take it back."
Betcha a quick look at 23andMe's data breach could prove a whole bunch of them don't have a white-only DNA history.
What an out that would be!
Unfortunately, that would only lead to them saying "I can't be racist, I'm 1/264th Cherokee!" and then holding up their color card to decide who to let in.
Illegal immigrants are less than half as likely to commit a crime as American citizens. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2014704117
So much for Republicans being "tough on crime," this law would be more effective (for the purpose of fighting street crime) if they just removed the whole racist bullshit. Of course, that's not what this law is intended to do. This is some stupid political game where Republicans present a bill that is "intended" to fight street crime. Every sane person and media establishment will see and criticise it for being racist, which it is. Then Republicans and Fox can yell about how those darn woke communists "don't care about the community" and "aren't tough on crime." Also did I mention it's hella racist? Because it's hella racist.
I thought this was BS, because no way, right?
NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 1268.9 of Title 21, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
Any person who:
Is of Hispanic descent living within the state of Oklahoma;
Is a member of a criminal street gang as such term is defined in subsection F of Section 856 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes; and
Has been convicted of a gang-related offense enumerated in paragraphs one (1) through sixteen (16) of subsection F of Section 856 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, Req. No. 8450
shall be deemed to have committed an act of terrorism as such term is defined in Section 1268.1 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes. Any and all property, including real estate and personal property, conveyances, including aircraft, vehicles or vessels, monies, coins and currency, or other instrumentality used or intended to be used, in any manner or part, by said person shall be subject to forfeiture as provided in Section 1738 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes.
Funny how they never go after the white gang member whom are actually terrorists.
If they did then they would put a target on their own backs. Can't have that now can we.
It's bad on its face, but to make it even worse: AFAICT, the definition would apply post-hoc, so anyone who has had such a conviction ever would be liable to have their property seized, even if they weren't doing anything wrong today. Made a mistake in 1998? Terrorist.
This used to be satire....
They should read the la....they should learn more about reading first. Once they know how to read, then read the laws they proposed.
The law that it has 3 requirements. Being Hispanic is a strange requirement but they are probably trying to target native Americans.
JJ is a crazy man!!
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
