Racism? Sure you can call it that but you'd be wrong, unless you are going to unilaterally redefine the term and demand the world conform to your view.
You may think the policy is wrong, you may think it unfairly discriminates but those two things do not a racist make.
Does the United States now occupy Britain or Pakistan? The term “collective punishment” has its context in the Geneva Conventions on dealing with occupied territories. There are no prohibitions in international law whatever on whom one may or may not prohibit from entry into one's country.
Aziz, are you claiming that the exclusion is illegal, wrong, or just unseemly?
If Pakistani origin constitutes a race,then yes it most certainly is racist.And as I am not familiar with the the magnitude of the threat some people of the race\origin pose to American people,i will not opine definitively.But if the threat real-and I am inclined to trust DHS on this-then this instance of rascism is morally justified.
One may argue that the threat is imaginary.But that would be arguing against baseless racism or,stated differently,against racism for racism's sake.
One may argue that it would alienate allies,but that would be arguing against the efficacy of the racist policy, not it's inherent immorality.
But if you were to concede that the threat emanating from that subset of the British population is real,and that the policy would provide a net gain in American safety,your only argument against the policy would be that racism
is categorically,a faith based claim if their ever was one.
I do not understand why you would prefer to "collectively punish" the entire British population for the crimes of the bad elements of it's subset of Pakistani origin rather limit the net to exclude as many innocent people from that "punishment".
Frankly,there is right now a major problem coming from within the ummah.(Obviously it is the sole responsibility of the extremists who cause it.)It is, Generally, the worlds problem,but you should not expect the world to refrain from trying, insofar as it is possible and whenever it is possible, to exclude as much of itself as it can from that problem.Which means that you should expect the world to try and contain the consequences of the problem to as local a scope as it can.
Can you formulate an argument to the contrary?I remain open minded.
Quite right Rosemary. A national origin does not equate to race. In this case, national origin implies a religious affiliation, but even that affiliation does not equate to race.
Mr. P's affirmation appears to follow CAIR's general strategy of emulating the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world by denouncing a policy as immoral by using politically charged words like "racism" rather than debating the merits, or lack thereof, of the policy.
Regarding the policy, what is important here is singling out political and ideological affiliation. Who is loyal to Britain and who is loyal to Omar Brooks? Who is a part of civilization and who seeks to destroy it?
Who here wouldn't want to use methods that could make the distinction without resorting to national origin?
Federal laws prohibit discrimination based on a person's national origin, race, color, religion, disability, sex, and familial status. Laws prohibiting national origin discrimination make it illegal to discriminate because of a person's birthplace, ancestry, culture or language. This means people cannot be denied equal opportunity because they or their family are from another country, because they have a name or accent associated with a national origin group, because they participate in certain customs associated with a national origin group, or because they are married to or associate with people of a certain national origin.
pakistanis are composed of at least four different races so yes its racist if u want to be technical like that
however, we're dealing with british pakistanis here. many of whom are citizens of britain.
and are treated disparately from other british citizens.
this is not a 'racism' issue as much as an equal treatment one.
i say go with the british option. british pakistanis are not the only jihadists out there. remember abu izedeen? he's black. bakri mohammad and hook guy were both arab brits. richard reid was white. one of the 7/7 guys was somali.
The Civil Rights Act pertains to the people living here not people who might come here. I'm pretty sure the Feds can restrict entry for any fucking reason they want.
First of all Pakistan is not a race. Secondly the main players for training jihadi terrorists is Pakistan.
Surely it might be a good idea to pay more attention to young Muslim men who have spent a great deal of time in Pakistan? Or do we just have to let them and hope they don't blow people up?
I guess it's ethnicicist, but certainly not racist. For it to be racist it'd have to affect all Subcontintentals.
Besides, it's our country. We can do with our borders as we please. If we don't want people with the letter J in their name immigrating or visiting then it sucks to be them.
It bans such discrimination in specific circumstances; voting, public accommodation and venues (with a list given of what counts), employment, and government benefits.
It does not appear to ban such origin discrimination in terms of immigration or customs entry, which is not any of the above. The DOJ's summary is apt enough for what the act applies to, which is, as Rosemary said, not immigration.
(And note, of course, that singling out Pakistani-originated Brits was just an option presented as a possible remedy; not a course of action actually embarked upon. I hesitate to trust the spin of either the Guardian or the Times as to what Chertoff actually "suggested".)
Such discrimination is almost certainly legal (after all, we treat citizens of different nations differently in terms of customs requirements already); we might wish to concentrate on whether it's a good idea.
That, of course, I have no easy answer for, lacking the data on the likely threat of Pakistani-Britons compared to anyone else. It might actually be prudent to require visas for that subgroup.
(And no, it's not "collective punishment" in legal terms.
The term of art has a specific meaning and it's not "anything that inconveniences a whole group".
Requiring a visa is not a "punishment" any more than it's a "reprisal" or any number of other words that don't accurately describe it.)
Any explanation for why they decided to focus their mindless racism on citizens of Pakistan, rather than, say, India? Japan? Hong Kong? Mongolia? Argentina? Malawi? South Korea? Taiwan?
Did they flip a coin?
Throw a dart at a chart of Races of the World?
Is it just some sort of enormous coincidence that Pakistan, whatever its racial composition, is a hotbed of Islamist activism?
Do these people have nothing better to do than pretend "Pakistani" refers to a race, rather than a country, and then stigmatize that "race?"
No, as a matter of fact, we can't call it racism now, as much as some would like to pretend that this is anything other than a sincere (even if counterproductive) attempt to limit the number of Islamoterrorists wandering around our streets.
The QOE said: The Civil Rights Act pertains to the people living here not people who might come here. I'm pretty sure the Feds can restrict entry for any fucking reason they want.
Yeah, pretty much. Maybe Aziz would like to point out the document that guarantees non-citizen / non-residents of the US any goddam thing at all. Good luck with that since it doesn't exist. The simple fact is that native Pakistanis are required to apply for a visa to travel to the US. And since Britain couldn't give a rat's ass, apparently, how many islamofascists are running around their country, it only makes sense that the visa requirement for native Pakistanis be extended to Pakistani ex-pats. I would say, "Why stop there?".
I wonder if we have the same exemption with France. I'm betting we don't since they care even less than Britain who takes up residence in their wine and cheese nation.
I think people are confusing the issues. It IS wrong to single out any INDIVIDUAL because of their national origin, religion, or race. I mean society is certainly victimizing any innocent individual who is hassled for any of those reasons.
But just how wrong is it? There are necessary evils. This is a pretty minor hassle which may or may not be necessary.
Claiming it is a racist policy is the same as claiming it is being done for no reason other than to punish people for being of Pakistani origin. I see no reason to accept that assumption.
Ali, do you really think Brits of Pakistani origin are no more likely to be dangerous than other Brits?
Let's just say you are taking an advanced political science class at Harvard. The final consists of one single question:
"Provide an explanation for viewing Pakistanis as - on average - a greater risk for terrorism than citizens from Laos, other than the painfully obvious fact that it is the result of the hateful racism that defines this country (where Asians earn more than whites, and so do gays for that matter, oh-how interesting). You have two months."
Would you just take an F and submit a blank blue book, or, would you be able to come up with something?
...when the Editors of the Guide were sued by the families of those who had died as a result of taking the entry on the planet Traal literally (it said "Ravenous Bugblatter beasts often make a very good meal for visiting tourists" instead of "Ravenous Bugblatter beasts often make a very good meal of visiting tourists") they claimed that the first version of the sentence was the more aesthetically pleasing, summoned a qualified poet to testify under oath that beauty was truth, truth beauty and hoped thereby to prove that the guilty party was Life itself for failing to be either beautiful or true. The judges concurred, and in a moving speech held that Life itself was in contempt of court, and duly confiscated it from all those there present before going off to enjoy a pleasant evening's ultragolf.
Sorry for being late to the party. Had a baby doctor appt to attend to. I will try to answer the good faith questions as best I can.
Bryan: yes, Pakistani is indeed a race. That race is "Asian of subcontinental origin." You can see direct reference to the subcontinent as part of the definition of Asian on federal Census forms.
Scott: I never suggested that the criteria was "dark skin."
Dave, I am arguing it is morally wrong and unseemly; I dont care whether its technically legal or not. As for collective punishment, I am using the term in a literal sense; I did not quote the Geneva Conventions. I am speaking of punishment, applied collectively.
Phelps: thanks, I appreciate your support with that excellent analogy.
The rest of the comments are variants of "well, it's not illegal, so STFU". I decline the offer to STFU until such time as Dean revokes my FP posting privs.
Look, I provided a link to the NYT, which provides all the necessary context. There are indeed several options on the table and the Dept of Homeland Security favors selective treatment; the British government has a perfectly reasonable alternative which does not require collective punishment of all Pakistani origin British nationals and which would indeed address the security concern (which, I did my due diligence in linking to the NYT article and providing background about).
Let's just say you are taking an advanced political philosophy class at Harvard. The final consists of one single question:
"Provide an explanation for why the government treating average Pakistanis as greater risks for terrorism than citizens from Laos, even if having nothing to do hateful racism, might present some serious moral difficulties. You have two months."
Would you just take an F and submit a blank blue book, or, would you be able to come up with something, perhaps involving the ideas of some dude named Kant (and even, perhaps, going as far as critiquing the ideas of another dude named Bentham)?
The rest of the comments are variants of "well, it's not illegal, so STFU".
Not true.
I think people are confusing the issues. It IS wrong to single out any INDIVIDUAL because of their national origin, religion, or race. I mean society is certainly victimizing any innocent individual who is hassled for any of those reasons.
But just how wrong is it? There are necessary evils. This is a pretty minor hassle which may or may not be necessary.
Claiming it is a racist policy is the same as claiming it is being done for no reason other than to punish people for being of Pakistani origin. I see no reason to accept that assumption.
Ali, do you really think Brits of Pakistani origin are no more likely to be dangerous than other Brits?
Given that Ali has posted twice on the thread, I couldn't tell whether Harkonnenmutt was addressing Aziz as the original author or Ali as the commenter.
What confuses me here is how many people in this thread seem to think that the policy Aziz is upset about is maltreatment of Pakistanis. It is not. It is about maltreatment of Britons who happen to be descended from Pakistanis. Is the difference clear?
The policy can't be racist unless you can prove:
1. It discriminates against all of a certain racial group.
2. It does not include people of other races who are targeted despite their race.
As for #1, if Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis are all Subcontinentals, yet Indians and Bangladeshis aren't targeted, then the policy can't be properly called racist. As for #2, the policy would also include anyone of African, European, or East Asian descent who is of Pakistani nationality. I have no idea how many, if any, of these people there are, but given that there are Swiss of Japanese background and there has been at least one Russian of African background, it's not unreasonable to assume.
The policy could be called ethnicist or (anti-)nationalist, but calling it racist is just a misleading rhetorical cheat.
If you found my argument in bad faith then I fear that you do not have the wherewithal to deal honestly(in the intellectual sense)with the issues of our day.
Do not act in such a way that if everyone acted that way, the world would like totally suck.
Stigmatizing Pakistanis would impose a burden on all of them to prove their innocence, and would heighten suspicion of the average Pakistani, despite the low likelihood that he or she is involved in terrorism.
Such a practice, if universally adopted (i.e., if Pakistan raised restrictions on Americans because of our violent crime rate), would increase the total amount hostility, suspicion and paranoia in the world, and should be limited if not prohibited.
Bentham? Is that the really good looking English soccer player? He's a philosopher? I had no idea. What a talent.
Anyway, my point is that Aziz is suggesting that racism is the only answer, that all other explanations have been exhausted, hence the rhetorical question that started this post. I am just suggesting that that is, to be blunt, lazy, and potentially even dishonest.
It is simply absurd to suggest that "racism" is behind this, much less to imply that THAT IS THE ONLY REASONABLE EXPLANATION.
Snippet, yes you get my point. By the way, Jeremy Bentham is the utilitarian philosopher. I'm not sure that Aziz was suggesting that the motivation, was racism, just that the policy is racist, whether contemplated for non-racist reasons or not. (But I don't have access to Aziz's mind, so I'm not sure.)
Will you concede,Aziz,that IF the most efficacious policy for preventing dangerous extremists from coming to America would be to discriminate against those wishing to visit from places of origin that are overwhelmingly Moslem that it would be rational to adopt said policy?
If not,then is there any amount of carnage the prevention of which would warrant such discrimination?
If not,what are the moral grounds for your position?
Why is does the value of not discriminating trump
the safety concerns of the would be discriminators?
Your point was not about the prudence of this or that given policy,it was that there is some categorical moral prohibition against discrimination.What is your rational basis for being so categorical?
I would not have continued,if you had not the chutzpa to imply that I was arguing in bad faith.
Maybe you did not see my comment,but then you should have been more careful before dismissing
all comments that you did not respond to as being made in bad faith.
I get your point.Do you get mine?
Do you not agree that one who comes with nothing but categorical moral imperatives(which contend with perhaps equally strong counter imperatives)should be really humble when attacking those who regard them with reservation.
And in fact if you wee to take this moral imperative to it's utter extreme, would it not require us to apply the most draconian restrictions on visitation we are applying at any given time to any subset of humanity consisting of elements both innocent and dangerous to all of humanity.Why does the imperative to not discriminate trump the imperative to minimize,to the extent that it is moral\prudent,the
suffering of innocents.
Do you not think that self preservation is a kantian moral imperative? Or is merely a utilitarian value.
Just because you say it's racist doesn't mean that it is. Racism is very specific. Very specific. Racist is a very extreme position. It means ALL members of one race is being targeted. In this case, that simply isn't true. Hokie has it right.
Show us how as Hokie stated the policy does the following:
1. It discriminates against all of a certain racial group.
2. It does not include people of other races who are targeted despite their race.
Crying racism is a cop out. People use it these days to cover many things that while are or seem discrimatory aren't actually racist. Racism is an all or nothing for a specific race, not a nationality. Most nationalities have a variety of races within.
I dont need to convince you Rosemary - in fact I doubt I can. Because no matter how carefully I try to meet Hokie's criteria, you can always trump me with the "utilitarian calculus" argument.
Humor us, though. Show how this policy fits the criteria I listed for racism. I can't speak for others, but if you can do so successfully then you'll have at least convinced me.
I'm very open to the possibility that you're right. I'm also conceding that the policy IS discriminatory, though, as was said before the government is under no obligation to be tree huggingly open where our borders are concerned. Now, if they were doing this to you and people you know that live here I'd be marching in the street with you and yours in support of you. The government is required by the law to treat it's citizenry all equal and without bias.
The borders are simply a different matter. I get why you are upset, I really do. I sympathize but not to the point that I want the people whose job it is to protect us all to turn a blind eye to possible threats because it's the PC thing to do.
Rosemary, I am glad to meet you halfway but that will require you to understand that the following:
turn a blind eye to possible threats because it's the PC thing to do
is not even on the table with me, nor have I ever intimated it should be, nor did I hold out expectation of same in my post. I understand you have more important duties than reading my 5 years of blogging history elsewhere to get a feel for my positions on te issues, but I do think reasonably that my posting history at DW alone should be sufficient to earn me far, far more benefit of the doubt than I have been given here. Raising the point above is, frankly, insulting.
In my post, I did argue that I would find the policy whereby *all* Britons forced to apply for visas an aceptable solution. Given Ali Eteraz's obvious point above:
british pakistanis are not the only jihadists out there. remember abu izedeen? he's black. bakri mohammad and hook guy were both arab brits. richard reid was white. one of the 7/7 guys was somali.
I thought in all naievete that some of the conservatives on this board would rally to that solution rather than the one favored by Chertoff.
That said, I still believe that the best compromise - maximizing security while minimizing imposition to Britons of any stripe who seek to visit the US, is the one favored by the Brits:
the British government has told Washington it would prefer if the Americans simply deported Britons who failed screening once they arrived at an airport in the United States, British officials said. The British also screen at their end, and share intelligence with the Americans.
and to be pretty frank with you, Rosemary, Hokie and the rest of you who think I am an asinine PC leftist idiot moonbat with BDS, none of you have even attempted to explain why that policy would be less effective than a blanket ban on all Britons. Your advocacy for a selective ban - in light of Ali (Eteraz)'s point above - makes no sense to me whatsoever.
I say: either trust the professionals to filter and screen (they have done a pretty good job so far), or butch up, sally. Blanket ban on all britons. And dont whine to ME about unnecessary inconveniences - I am on the record about sucking it up when needed for national seurity.
Rosemary, Hokie and the rest of you who think I am an asinine PC leftist idiot moonbat with BDS, none of you have even attempted to explain why that policy would be less effective than a blanket ban on all Britons.
Aziz,
I've noticed that you've steadfastly refused to address the charge of racism, instead trying to divert the discussion. Your post is about the policy being racist, not about it being incompetent. It may very well be incompetent, but it's not racist. Until you address the central point I see no reason to address any secondary points.
Rosemary, my caveat aside, here is my response anyway.
1. It discriminates against all of a certain racial group.
The policy proposed, as stated, would require Britons of Pakistani origin and only Britons of Pakistani origin to apply for visas for entry to the USA.
Therefore, *all* persons of the racial group in question - Pakistanis - who btw are more distinct from other Asian groups than Poles are from the "baseline" Caucasian - are being discriminated against.
You stated upthread that you disagree that Pakistanis are a race. Hence you will likely say that I have not in fact answered Point 1.
2. It does not include people of other races who are targeted despite their race.
Since the policy as described would apply solely to Britons of Pakistani origin and no other origin, even though terror threats have been documented from non-Pakistani people, then yes the policy does pretty much by definition fail to include people of other races.
If a person on non-Pakistani origin is targeted by some other policy and required to apply for a visa, thats a separate issue. But the policy as written focuses only on Pakistani origin Britons. THAT is the racist part. Whether or not non-Pakistani-origin Britons might be on an individual basis, not as a collective policy required to apply for visas is a totally separate issue.
You will likely disagree with that latter paragraph of mine and argue that I have in fact failed to address Point 2.
naftali, you're embarrassing me. I apologized but have still not replied to your comment. im just in reactionary mode at present with Rosemary and Hokie. Maybe some of my recent comments address your concern? if not then email me about it.
So your argument boils down to "Britons of Pakistani origin" are a race. We disagree, unless by being an "American of mixed German, English, Scottish, Dutch, Danish, and French Canadian origin" my sisters and I are a race unto ourselves as well. You've redefined a word to such an extent that it doesn't really mean anything any more, just so you can throw out emotionally-laden charge of racism, as merely calling it discriminatory, ethnicist, or whatever doesn't have the same heft in American political discussion.
That's cheating. One of the main attractions to Dean's World is that if you say something irresponsible you get called out for it, and the proper response if so is to apologize and fix the problem if necessary. In your post you accuse the policy of being racist. In the comments, you seem to argue that it's the motivation behind the policy that's racist, and then you simply demand that your opponents answer a question you didn't bring up in your post. Intentionally or not, you're begging the question and moving the goalposts. That's why you're not getting the discussion you want.
Hoke, its a standard tactic in debate to accuse someone of "moving goalposts" when in fact you just dont want to follow where the debate leads, because you prefer the ground it started on. Your repeated insistence that alternative policies other than selecctive exclusion are somehow "moving the goalposts" (when in fact they are directly relevant to the issue at hand in demonstrating that there are multiple solutions to the problem, not all of which involve racist profiling) fit this tactic. Of course my comments and additional question - no, not in the original post but a direct and logical outgrowth of the associated discussion that it generated, DUH - is directly relevant; your argument otherwise is "irresponsible" and I am "calling you out on it." Welcome to Dean's World.
As for your argument that Pakistani is not a race; fine. Let us exclude Black Americans of African descent within the past 2 generations from the front seats of our public transit systems. Hey, there are Black Americans of non-African descent further removed than 2 generations, so such a polcy would not be racist, now, would it?
I don't think you're moonbat lefty with BDS. I'm not sure why you think I did. I don't think I've ever called you one and I rarely even comment here. That aside let's see if I can rise to your query:
is not even on the table with me, nor have I ever intimated it should be, nor did I hold out expectation of same in my post. I understand you have more important duties than reading my 5 years of blogging history elsewhere to get a feel for my positions on te issues, but I do think reasonably that my posting history at DW alone should be sufficient to earn me far, far more benefit of the doubt than I have been given here. Raising the point above is, frankly, insulting.
Okay, I didn't say that you said we should close our eyes to threats and be PC. So, if you took that as my thinking that is what you wanted it's my fault for poor phrasing.
For me, the word racist is like a red cape in front of a charging bull. I wasn't prepared to delve deeper into the issue you raised because your title stuck in my throat like cement. Comes from being a white girl growing up in Detroit. The fact that my family immigrated here in the mid-1960's and couldn't possibly have ever owned any slaves didn't seem to matter to people who only saw my white skin. I was branded a racist without trial and I was beaten for it more than once in high school.
Personal experience tends to color people's perception and that is one of the biggest problems that Muslims are now facing in the post-9/11 world. I guess we would both do well to remember that.
This is a "you say tomato, I say tomaato" situation. I agree that the policy is discriminatory towards Britons of Pakistani origin, but discriminatory and racist aren't the same. They are not interchangeable. Britons of Pakistani decent can still be a multitude of different races. Unless all Britons of Pakistani origin are only "Asians of subcontinental origin" and not African, Caucasian or straight up Asian. If they are all the exact same race then you are 100% right, it's racist. If not then it is discrimination and I'm right.
So, beyond that you are right that nobody really addressed your real issue and I hate when that happens to me. Semantics is a perverse pleasure for us online debaters.
Okay, I see your original point. I think that Homeland Security should just temporarily suspend all visa loopholes for everyone because we have no way of knowing who will be the next terrorist. Toughen all entry requirements for everyone. That way we won't give Al Qaeda any recruiting ideas.
I think it's fair to ask the original poster to reply to the topic of the post before expecting concerns begun in the comments to be addressed. However, your comment at 10:53AM does address Rosemary's and my objection, albeit unconvincingly. For that, you're right to demand my response to your question.
Why would a ban solely on Britons of Pakistani origin be more effective than a blanket ban on all Britons? Well obviously the most secure thing to do would be to close our borders entirely. However, that's not economical, and it may be that our resources are such that specially scrutinizing all Britons may be too much for the system to work effectively. I don't know the details of the system, and for security purposes I hope no one else here does, unless they directly work for Homeland Security. In short, we may not be able to afford, in our current arrangement, to close the loophole of all Britons not being able to visit without having already obtained a visa, but if we can close what may at least be the most dangerous part of it, shouldn't we?
For all we know, Homeland Security has information about a planned visit by several Britons of Pakistani origin in the coming months who intend to commit terrorism while over here. It may be that this policy is specifically focused on a specific threat. Is it possible that this policy is just an overreaction or is ham-handed? Sure; we're talking about the bureaucracy. Stupid doesn't mean evil, though.
Let us exclude Black Americans of African descent within the past 2 generations from the front seats of our public transit systems. Hey, there are Black Americans of non-African descent further removed than 2 generations, so such a polcy would not be racist, now, would it?
This isn't the same as the Britons of Pakistani descent policy. You've specified a race in your example; the policy you label racist make mention only of national origin. It may be that the policy is motivated by racism, but it does not itself target based on race.
Personal experience tends to color people's perception and that is one of the biggest problems that Muslims are now facing in the post-9/11 world. I guess we would both do well to remember that.
Fair enough. I will also say that I am guilty of assumptions at times (actually, fairly often) myself, especially since I participate more often in online forums where my viewpoints are a minority than otherwise (and DW is certainly example A of this).
I want you to understand that these are real concerns for me, I am not throwing the term "racism" out there just for incitement purposes (as Hokie and his ilk prefer to believe). Here is some of my previous writing on the subject of flying.
I think that Homeland Security should just temporarily suspend all visa loopholes for everyone because we have no way of knowing who will be the next terrorist. Toughen all entry requirements for everyone. That way we won't give Al Qaeda any recruiting ideas.
This is the logical approach if the security concern is valid. To try and move the discussion forward, at risk of being accused of moving goalposts by Hokie, I would argue that the case of Omar Khayam proves that blanket bans and closing visa "loopholes" (which in teh case of Britons traveling to the US provide a lot more benefit than risk) are ineffective compared to selective filtering on an individual basis on the basis of risk profiles and other data - methods which the Israelis pioneered and excel at. Which is why I still think that the best policy is "deport[ing] Britons who failed screening once they arrived at an airport in the United States." asthe British authorities propose - thats how Khayam was caught, after all, and he's the ostensible reason for the policy in et first place.
In general, I would say that overreliance on restrictive and reactionary security schemes do nothing to make us safer and might even lead to false senses of security. See this old piece by Bruce Schneier for much teh same point - its excellent.
This isn't the same as the Britons of Pakistani descent policy. You've specified a race in your example; the policy you label racist make mention only of national origin. It may be that the policy is motivated by racism, but it does not itself target based on race.
you've made up your mind, and that's fine. Especially since you've already a-priori decided that my use of the term racism stems not from a genuine difference in perspective, but rather to "throw out emotionally-laden charge of racism" for "heft". Who, between the two of us, is arguing in good faith here, exactly?
do you appreciate why I am treating Rosemary with genuine respect in this thread, but not you? "married to the Blog Boss" is not the correct answer.
In short, we may not be able to afford, in our current arrangement, to close the loophole of all Britons not being able to visit without having already obtained a visa
Bullshit. To quote naftali above, there is no price we cant afford if we decide we MUST do something for survival.
If you'd said "Urban Americans of African ancestry" then your example would work, as it could possibly include those of Arab or Afrikaaner background. Unless you're going to say that Pakistanis are all of the same race, and that no one of another race can be Pakistani, then it's not a race. Is "American" or "Briton" a race? No; each of those terms describes a nationality, as does "Pakistani."
I'm trying to engage in civil discussion with you, but from my perpective you're refusing to accept the actual definition of the word "racism." I'd have no problem at all if you replaced "racism" with "discrimination." I fully agree that it's discriminatory, although it remains to be seen whether or not this is a bad idea. When there's a fire the police discriminate against those who aren't emergency workers by denying them access to the area near the fire, and that's a good thing.
As for being able to afford closing the loophole fully, I specified "in our current arrangement." If you have X clerks assigned to handle visas, they have a finite amount of resources. It may be that they can handle an increase of the scope of "Britons of Pakistani origin" but not "all Britons." If you advocate shifting funds or spending more to hire more clerks, then you've changed the arrangement. I don't know how possible it would be to do that; it may be very possible and easy to do. However, you asked for a plausible reason, and I think I've given you one.
To an extent 'race' is in the eye of the beholder. Is 'Polish' ir 'Irish' a race? Some think so, others would say no, they are just part of the Caucasian race. Pakistani is an ethnic identity certainly, perhaps nowhere more then in Britian, and I am sure many consider it to be a 'race.'
I think that it is a waste of time to argue that the policy can't be racist because Pakistani doesn't fit one certain definition of what a 'race' is. Obviously the term is malleable.
That said, I don't think that Pakistani being a race necessarily makes this policy racist. A good portion of the common use of 'racist' is that is is something motivated solely by prejudice or dislike of the race in question. I don't think that is the case here, or at least it is not obviously and certainly the case. I don't think that their is any evidence that we don't want to let Britons of Pakistani descent in without greater checks simply because we don't like Pakistanis, rather it seems clear that we believe their is and increased threat due to specific tactics of the enemy.
Several points have been raised above as to why this policy may be unwise, and I have a great deal of sympathy with them. It has been pointed out that terrorists come from a variety of ethnic backgrounds and that we don't necessarily want to tell them who to recruit. I don't disagree with either of those too points, and it is clear that this policy alone is not sufficient. However, to play devil's advocate, there is an advantage to us in making it more valuable for Pakistani terrorists to try and recruit members from outside their ethnic group. Those recruitment efforts are also more risky and may lead to early detection.
What are Britain's standards for admitting Pakistani immigrants? Are their standards for political asylum significantly more lax than ours, leaving Britain as a loophole in our standards for asylum (since they can apply in Britain, get citizenship under those limited circumstances and then gain entry into the US)?
This issue can be a lot more complex than someone someplace decided that he didn't like British Pakastinis.
Dave Justus has a good point: this may put pressure on one spot and force our enemies to reveal themselves. That's not to say that Britons of Pakistani origin are our enemies, but this policy may force al Qaeda to change some policy of their own, and that may be what springs the trap.
Look, I don't know why they want such a specific policy. I've suggested that perhaps limited resources or knowledge of a specific threat may be at play. Dave Just has suggested that a little juke may cause our enemies to slip up. Aziz has suggested racism. Any of these could be the motivation, and conceivably even all of them are.
A good portion of the common use of 'racist' is that is is something motivated solely by prejudice or dislike of the race in question. I don't think that is the case here, or at least it is not obviously and certainly the case.
Exactly. It isn't a racist policy unless it is being done out of a motivation to hurt the members of a race. Blacks were being forced to the back of the bus for that reason. That is NOT why Brits of Pakistani descent are being hassled more than other Brits. Aziz, (Mckey you're right I did confuse them, apologies to you both) what makes you think it is racist rather than simply practical?
It isn't a racist policy unless it is being done out of a motivation to hurt the members of a race
that's a totally arbitrary parsing of the definition of racism. It also fails the obvious test of being applicable to examples of racism from history. Example: I don't have anything against black people, I don't want to hurt you all, it's nothing personal - but you have to sit at the back of the bus beccause white people simply are smarter, have higher IQ, whereas you black folk are the sons of Cain as described in the Bible. I am sure you are a very nice black person but the reality is, you're black, and I am white, so you have to sit at the back. No offense intended. Have a nice day.
Another example: if you're white, you can't qualify for this scholarship to college. It's not because white people are bad or any desire to hurt white people. Its just that as a collective group, you whites have had more money and power than everyone else. I'm very sorry that you speccifically are poor and cant afford college, but there are other scholarships you can still compete for. You just cant compete for this scholarship because this scholarship is open only to minorities, and thats not you. You're white.
Aziz, your first example sucks because it was based on a lie. And that lie was part and parcel of racism. If you can show that Pakistani-Brits are being singled out more than other Brits, not because they represent more of a threat, but because the people who want the policy think Pakistanis are inherently inferior, than your example works. But I don't think you've shown that.
Your second example is pretty good, but you're not distinguishing between a policy that is purposely preferring members of one race, specifically in order to promote members of that race, and one in which specific members of a race have to go through a pretty minor hassle to prevent terrorism.
Your 3rd example doesn't work because, again, it stems from racism. Let's say 1 out of every 3 Poles who ate in restaurants pulled out machetes and killed people - (I know it is ludicrous but just go with it) would you still say it was racist to not allow Poles in that restaurant? Now, let's say it was 1 in 10,000, would you say it was racist to ask Poles, but not Italians, to go through a metal detector?
My position isn't that I agree with Aziz re: racism.
In fact, I do not. From my perspective pulling the 'racism card' in this case is not very practical from an ideological point of view nor is it very intelligent of Aziz to lay claim to it.
Secondly, the race card ie. racism, the term, has been severely abused by people like Rev. Jackson and Al Sharpton to the extent that it has been beaten to death solely to inflame others to promote a political or social point of view. The OJ Simpson case is interesting as OJ's lawyer, Johnny Cochrane made it a point to tell the jury that Mark Fuhrman, the police detective, was a genocidal racist. And the other lawyer, Lee Bailey introduced the same claim because Furhman used the n word at work. The jury in LA bought this baloney and OJ gets to go free for murdering his spouse. Hence, racism gets a bad name.
IMO, the term needs careful consideration before using as it is charged with prejudiced public usage.
However, unfairly Aziz seems to have cherry-picked out his pet injustice, it isn't unreasonable for US homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff, to call for British Pakistanis to apply for a visa before travelling to the US.
To be sure, there is some unfairness in the proposal but its only a proposal that the Guardian and the NYTs ran with. The problem is that both are left wing newspapers. And the NYTs is the favorite go-to newspaper to get the talking points for those on the left, particularly left wing radio.
My suggestion is that Aziz, come up with a new term to discuss the inequities on this subject without digging himself into a bigger hole than he already has.
I better quit now as the long dark teatime of the blog of recent memory may rear its sorry carcass with a, the baby won't let us sleep.
5.3.2007 7:54pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
My prediction: by the time I come out, the battle over this post will run to at least 13 comments, maybe 20.
You may think the policy is wrong, you may think it unfairly discriminates but those two things do not a racist make.
The problem here is not U.S. immigration policies, it's extremism in Pakistan.
They got you there. It's Pakistani descent, not "dark skin".
Aziz, are you claiming that the exclusion is illegal, wrong, or just unseemly?
One may argue that the threat is imaginary.But that would be arguing against baseless racism or,stated differently,against racism for racism's sake.
One may argue that it would alienate allies,but that would be arguing against the efficacy of the racist policy, not it's inherent immorality.
But if you were to concede that the threat emanating from that subset of the British population is real,and that the policy would provide a net gain in American safety,your only argument against the policy would be that racism
is categorically,a faith based claim if their ever was one.
I do not understand why you would prefer to "collectively punish" the entire British population for the crimes of the bad elements of it's subset of Pakistani origin rather limit the net to exclude as many innocent people from that "punishment".
Frankly,there is right now a major problem coming from within the ummah.(Obviously it is the sole responsibility of the extremists who cause it.)It is, Generally, the worlds problem,but you should not expect the world to refrain from trying, insofar as it is possible and whenever it is possible, to exclude as much of itself as it can from that problem.Which means that you should expect the world to try and contain the consequences of the problem to as local a scope as it can.
Can you formulate an argument to the contrary?I remain open minded.
is categorically[wrong],a faith based claim if their ever was one.
Mr. P's affirmation appears to follow CAIR's general strategy of emulating the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world by denouncing a policy as immoral by using politically charged words like "racism" rather than debating the merits, or lack thereof, of the policy.
Regarding the policy, what is important here is singling out political and ideological affiliation. Who is loyal to Britain and who is loyal to Omar Brooks? Who is a part of civilization and who seeks to destroy it?
Who here wouldn't want to use methods that could make the distinction without resorting to national origin?
From the Web site of the Department of Justice
however, we're dealing with british pakistanis here. many of whom are citizens of britain.
and are treated disparately from other british citizens.
this is not a 'racism' issue as much as an equal treatment one.
i say go with the british option. british pakistanis are not the only jihadists out there. remember abu izedeen? he's black. bakri mohammad and hook guy were both arab brits. richard reid was white. one of the 7/7 guys was somali.
uh, YEAH. and we want that to STOP don't we?
nominate this guy for "duh" comment of the day.
Surely it might be a good idea to pay more attention to young Muslim men who have spent a great deal of time in Pakistan? Or do we just have to let them and hope they don't blow people up?
Sorry, cheap shot.
Besides, it's our country. We can do with our borders as we please. If we don't want people with the letter J in their name immigrating or visiting then it sucks to be them.
It bans such discrimination in specific circumstances; voting, public accommodation and venues (with a list given of what counts), employment, and government benefits.
It does not appear to ban such origin discrimination in terms of immigration or customs entry, which is not any of the above. The DOJ's summary is apt enough for what the act applies to, which is, as Rosemary said, not immigration.
(And note, of course, that singling out Pakistani-originated Brits was just an option presented as a possible remedy; not a course of action actually embarked upon. I hesitate to trust the spin of either the Guardian or the Times as to what Chertoff actually "suggested".)
Such discrimination is almost certainly legal (after all, we treat citizens of different nations differently in terms of customs requirements already); we might wish to concentrate on whether it's a good idea.
That, of course, I have no easy answer for, lacking the data on the likely threat of Pakistani-Britons compared to anyone else. It might actually be prudent to require visas for that subgroup.
(And no, it's not "collective punishment" in legal terms.
The term of art has a specific meaning and it's not "anything that inconveniences a whole group".
Requiring a visa is not a "punishment" any more than it's a "reprisal" or any number of other words that don't accurately describe it.)
Did they flip a coin?
Throw a dart at a chart of Races of the World?
Is it just some sort of enormous coincidence that Pakistan, whatever its racial composition, is a hotbed of Islamist activism?
Do these people have nothing better to do than pretend "Pakistani" refers to a race, rather than a country, and then stigmatize that "race?"
No, as a matter of fact, we can't call it racism now, as much as some would like to pretend that this is anything other than a sincere (even if counterproductive) attempt to limit the number of Islamoterrorists wandering around our streets.
I wonder if we have the same exemption with France. I'm betting we don't since they care even less than Britain who takes up residence in their wine and cheese nation.
But just how wrong is it? There are necessary evils. This is a pretty minor hassle which may or may not be necessary.
Claiming it is a racist policy is the same as claiming it is being done for no reason other than to punish people for being of Pakistani origin. I see no reason to accept that assumption.
Ali, do you really think Brits of Pakistani origin are no more likely to be dangerous than other Brits?
Let's just say you are taking an advanced political science class at Harvard. The final consists of one single question:
"Provide an explanation for viewing Pakistanis as - on average - a greater risk for terrorism than citizens from Laos, other than the painfully obvious fact that it is the result of the hateful racism that defines this country (where Asians earn more than whites, and so do gays for that matter, oh-how interesting). You have two months."
Would you just take an F and submit a blank blue book, or, would you be able to come up with something?
Sorry for being late to the party. Had a baby doctor appt to attend to. I will try to answer the good faith questions as best I can.
Bryan: yes, Pakistani is indeed a race. That race is "Asian of subcontinental origin." You can see direct reference to the subcontinent as part of the definition of Asian on federal Census forms.
Scott: I never suggested that the criteria was "dark skin."
Dave, I am arguing it is morally wrong and unseemly; I dont care whether its technically legal or not. As for collective punishment, I am using the term in a literal sense; I did not quote the Geneva Conventions. I am speaking of punishment, applied collectively.
Phelps: thanks, I appreciate your support with that excellent analogy.
The rest of the comments are variants of "well, it's not illegal, so STFU". I decline the offer to STFU until such time as Dean revokes my FP posting privs.
Look, I provided a link to the NYT, which provides all the necessary context. There are indeed several options on the table and the Dept of Homeland Security favors selective treatment; the British government has a perfectly reasonable alternative which does not require collective punishment of all Pakistani origin British nationals and which would indeed address the security concern (which, I did my due diligence in linking to the NYT article and providing background about).
Let's just say you are taking an advanced political philosophy class at Harvard. The final consists of one single question:
"Provide an explanation for why the government treating average Pakistanis as greater risks for terrorism than citizens from Laos, even if having nothing to do hateful racism, might present some serious moral difficulties. You have two months."
Would you just take an F and submit a blank blue book, or, would you be able to come up with something, perhaps involving the ideas of some dude named Kant (and even, perhaps, going as far as critiquing the ideas of another dude named Bentham)?
Not true.
I think people are confusing the issues. It IS wrong to single out any INDIVIDUAL because of their national origin, religion, or race. I mean society is certainly victimizing any innocent individual who is hassled for any of those reasons.
But just how wrong is it? There are necessary evils. This is a pretty minor hassle which may or may not be necessary.
Claiming it is a racist policy is the same as claiming it is being done for no reason other than to punish people for being of Pakistani origin. I see no reason to accept that assumption.
Ali, do you really think Brits of Pakistani origin are no more likely to be dangerous than other Brits?
Its Aziz, not Ali. Strike two.
Given that Ali has posted twice on the thread, I couldn't tell whether Harkonnenmutt was addressing Aziz as the original author or Ali as the commenter.
Some of us aren't as smart as yourself. Harkie knows who Ali is. Does he know who Aziz is ?
The policy can't be racist unless you can prove:
1. It discriminates against all of a certain racial group.
2. It does not include people of other races who are targeted despite their race.
As for #1, if Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis are all Subcontinentals, yet Indians and Bangladeshis aren't targeted, then the policy can't be properly called racist. As for #2, the policy would also include anyone of African, European, or East Asian descent who is of Pakistani nationality. I have no idea how many, if any, of these people there are, but given that there are Swiss of Japanese background and there has been at least one Russian of African background, it's not unreasonable to assume.
The policy could be called ethnicist or (anti-)nationalist, but calling it racist is just a misleading rhetorical cheat.
Well, we've fought two wars against the British and none against the Pakistanis, so it seems only right that we view the Brits with suspicion.
Aziz,
If you found my argument in bad faith then I fear that you do not have the wherewithal to deal honestly(in the intellectual sense)with the issues of our day.
Yes, I could take a crack at it.
Kant: Categorical Imperative:
Do not act in such a way that if everyone acted that way, the world would like totally suck.
Stigmatizing Pakistanis would impose a burden on all of them to prove their innocence, and would heighten suspicion of the average Pakistani, despite the low likelihood that he or she is involved in terrorism.
Such a practice, if universally adopted (i.e., if Pakistan raised restrictions on Americans because of our violent crime rate), would increase the total amount hostility, suspicion and paranoia in the world, and should be limited if not prohibited.
Bentham? Is that the really good looking English soccer player? He's a philosopher? I had no idea. What a talent.
Anyway, my point is that Aziz is suggesting that racism is the only answer, that all other explanations have been exhausted, hence the rhetorical question that started this post. I am just suggesting that that is, to be blunt, lazy, and potentially even dishonest.
It is simply absurd to suggest that "racism" is behind this, much less to imply that THAT IS THE ONLY REASONABLE EXPLANATION.
If not,then is there any amount of carnage the prevention of which would warrant such discrimination?
If not,what are the moral grounds for your position?
Why is does the value of not discriminating trump
the safety concerns of the would be discriminators?
Your point was not about the prudence of this or that given policy,it was that there is some categorical moral prohibition against discrimination.What is your rational basis for being so categorical?
I would not have continued,if you had not the chutzpa to imply that I was arguing in bad faith.
Maybe you did not see my comment,but then you should have been more careful before dismissing
all comments that you did not respond to as being made in bad faith.
I get your point.Do you get mine?
Do you not agree that one who comes with nothing but categorical moral imperatives(which contend with perhaps equally strong counter imperatives)should be really humble when attacking those who regard them with reservation.
DanielH, the policy IS racist. whether the motivation was racist or not is beyond my ability to divine.
suffering of innocents.
Do you not think that self preservation is a kantian moral imperative? Or is merely a utilitarian value.
I do not remember having appreciated an apology so much.
Just because you say it's racist doesn't mean that it is. Racism is very specific. Very specific. Racist is a very extreme position. It means ALL members of one race is being targeted. In this case, that simply isn't true. Hokie has it right.
Show us how as Hokie stated the policy does the following:
1. It discriminates against all of a certain racial group.
2. It does not include people of other races who are targeted despite their race.
Crying racism is a cop out. People use it these days to cover many things that while are or seem discrimatory aren't actually racist. Racism is an all or nothing for a specific race, not a nationality. Most nationalities have a variety of races within.
The constitution is not a suicide pact, right?
(I prefer, 'live free or die')
Humor us, though. Show how this policy fits the criteria I listed for racism. I can't speak for others, but if you can do so successfully then you'll have at least convinced me.
I'm very open to the possibility that you're right. I'm also conceding that the policy IS discriminatory, though, as was said before the government is under no obligation to be tree huggingly open where our borders are concerned. Now, if they were doing this to you and people you know that live here I'd be marching in the street with you and yours in support of you. The government is required by the law to treat it's citizenry all equal and without bias.
The borders are simply a different matter. I get why you are upset, I really do. I sympathize but not to the point that I want the people whose job it is to protect us all to turn a blind eye to possible threats because it's the PC thing to do.
turn a blind eye to possible threats because it's the PC thing to do
is not even on the table with me, nor have I ever intimated it should be, nor did I hold out expectation of same in my post. I understand you have more important duties than reading my 5 years of blogging history elsewhere to get a feel for my positions on te issues, but I do think reasonably that my posting history at DW alone should be sufficient to earn me far, far more benefit of the doubt than I have been given here. Raising the point above is, frankly, insulting.
In my post, I did argue that I would find the policy whereby *all* Britons forced to apply for visas an aceptable solution. Given Ali Eteraz's obvious point above:
I thought in all naievete that some of the conservatives on this board would rally to that solution rather than the one favored by Chertoff.
That said, I still believe that the best compromise - maximizing security while minimizing imposition to Britons of any stripe who seek to visit the US, is the one favored by the Brits:
and to be pretty frank with you, Rosemary, Hokie and the rest of you who think I am an asinine PC leftist idiot moonbat with BDS, none of you have even attempted to explain why that policy would be less effective than a blanket ban on all Britons. Your advocacy for a selective ban - in light of Ali (Eteraz)'s point above - makes no sense to me whatsoever.
I say: either trust the professionals to filter and screen (they have done a pretty good job so far), or butch up, sally. Blanket ban on all britons. And dont whine to ME about unnecessary inconveniences - I am on the record about sucking it up when needed for national seurity.
Aziz,
I've noticed that you've steadfastly refused to address the charge of racism, instead trying to divert the discussion. Your post is about the policy being racist, not about it being incompetent. It may very well be incompetent, but it's not racist. Until you address the central point I see no reason to address any secondary points.
That's a risible accusation indeed. It is downright Orwellian.
The policy proposed, as stated, would require Britons of Pakistani origin and only Britons of Pakistani origin to apply for visas for entry to the USA.
Therefore, *all* persons of the racial group in question - Pakistanis - who btw are more distinct from other Asian groups than Poles are from the "baseline" Caucasian - are being discriminated against.
You stated upthread that you disagree that Pakistanis are a race. Hence you will likely say that I have not in fact answered Point 1.
Since the policy as described would apply solely to Britons of Pakistani origin and no other origin, even though terror threats have been documented from non-Pakistani people, then yes the policy does pretty much by definition fail to include people of other races.
If a person on non-Pakistani origin is targeted by some other policy and required to apply for a visa, thats a separate issue. But the policy as written focuses only on Pakistani origin Britons. THAT is the racist part. Whether or not non-Pakistani-origin Britons might be on an individual basis, not as a collective policy required to apply for visas is a totally separate issue.
You will likely disagree with that latter paragraph of mine and argue that I have in fact failed to address Point 2.
now, kindly address my comments to you.
So your argument boils down to "Britons of Pakistani origin" are a race. We disagree, unless by being an "American of mixed German, English, Scottish, Dutch, Danish, and French Canadian origin" my sisters and I are a race unto ourselves as well. You've redefined a word to such an extent that it doesn't really mean anything any more, just so you can throw out emotionally-laden charge of racism, as merely calling it discriminatory, ethnicist, or whatever doesn't have the same heft in American political discussion.
That's cheating. One of the main attractions to Dean's World is that if you say something irresponsible you get called out for it, and the proper response if so is to apologize and fix the problem if necessary. In your post you accuse the policy of being racist. In the comments, you seem to argue that it's the motivation behind the policy that's racist, and then you simply demand that your opponents answer a question you didn't bring up in your post. Intentionally or not, you're begging the question and moving the goalposts. That's why you're not getting the discussion you want.
As for your argument that Pakistani is not a race; fine. Let us exclude Black Americans of African descent within the past 2 generations from the front seats of our public transit systems. Hey, there are Black Americans of non-African descent further removed than 2 generations, so such a polcy would not be racist, now, would it?
I would say, "going meta is the last refuge of the pedant."
I don't think you're moonbat lefty with BDS. I'm not sure why you think I did. I don't think I've ever called you one and I rarely even comment here. That aside let's see if I can rise to your query:
Okay, I didn't say that you said we should close our eyes to threats and be PC. So, if you took that as my thinking that is what you wanted it's my fault for poor phrasing.
For me, the word racist is like a red cape in front of a charging bull. I wasn't prepared to delve deeper into the issue you raised because your title stuck in my throat like cement. Comes from being a white girl growing up in Detroit. The fact that my family immigrated here in the mid-1960's and couldn't possibly have ever owned any slaves didn't seem to matter to people who only saw my white skin. I was branded a racist without trial and I was beaten for it more than once in high school.
Personal experience tends to color people's perception and that is one of the biggest problems that Muslims are now facing in the post-9/11 world. I guess we would both do well to remember that.
This is a "you say tomato, I say tomaato" situation. I agree that the policy is discriminatory towards Britons of Pakistani origin, but discriminatory and racist aren't the same. They are not interchangeable. Britons of Pakistani decent can still be a multitude of different races. Unless all Britons of Pakistani origin are only "Asians of subcontinental origin" and not African, Caucasian or straight up Asian. If they are all the exact same race then you are 100% right, it's racist. If not then it is discrimination and I'm right.
So, beyond that you are right that nobody really addressed your real issue and I hate when that happens to me. Semantics is a perverse pleasure for us online debaters.
Okay, I see your original point. I think that Homeland Security should just temporarily suspend all visa loopholes for everyone because we have no way of knowing who will be the next terrorist. Toughen all entry requirements for everyone. That way we won't give Al Qaeda any recruiting ideas.
I think it's fair to ask the original poster to reply to the topic of the post before expecting concerns begun in the comments to be addressed. However, your comment at 10:53AM does address Rosemary's and my objection, albeit unconvincingly. For that, you're right to demand my response to your question.
Why would a ban solely on Britons of Pakistani origin be more effective than a blanket ban on all Britons? Well obviously the most secure thing to do would be to close our borders entirely. However, that's not economical, and it may be that our resources are such that specially scrutinizing all Britons may be too much for the system to work effectively. I don't know the details of the system, and for security purposes I hope no one else here does, unless they directly work for Homeland Security. In short, we may not be able to afford, in our current arrangement, to close the loophole of all Britons not being able to visit without having already obtained a visa, but if we can close what may at least be the most dangerous part of it, shouldn't we?
For all we know, Homeland Security has information about a planned visit by several Britons of Pakistani origin in the coming months who intend to commit terrorism while over here. It may be that this policy is specifically focused on a specific threat. Is it possible that this policy is just an overreaction or is ham-handed? Sure; we're talking about the bureaucracy. Stupid doesn't mean evil, though.
Let us exclude Black Americans of African descent within the past 2 generations from the front seats of our public transit systems. Hey, there are Black Americans of non-African descent further removed than 2 generations, so such a polcy would not be racist, now, would it?
This isn't the same as the Britons of Pakistani descent policy. You've specified a race in your example; the policy you label racist make mention only of national origin. It may be that the policy is motivated by racism, but it does not itself target based on race.
Fair enough. I will also say that I am guilty of assumptions at times (actually, fairly often) myself, especially since I participate more often in online forums where my viewpoints are a minority than otherwise (and DW is certainly example A of this).
I want you to understand that these are real concerns for me, I am not throwing the term "racism" out there just for incitement purposes (as Hokie and his ilk prefer to believe). Here is some of my previous writing on the subject of flying.
I think that Homeland Security should just temporarily suspend all visa loopholes for everyone because we have no way of knowing who will be the next terrorist. Toughen all entry requirements for everyone. That way we won't give Al Qaeda any recruiting ideas.
This is the logical approach if the security concern is valid. To try and move the discussion forward, at risk of being accused of moving goalposts by Hokie, I would argue that the case of Omar Khayam proves that blanket bans and closing visa "loopholes" (which in teh case of Britons traveling to the US provide a lot more benefit than risk) are ineffective compared to selective filtering on an individual basis on the basis of risk profiles and other data - methods which the Israelis pioneered and excel at. Which is why I still think that the best policy is "deport[ing] Britons who failed screening once they arrived at an airport in the United States." asthe British authorities propose - thats how Khayam was caught, after all, and he's the ostensible reason for the policy in et first place.
In general, I would say that overreliance on restrictive and reactionary security schemes do nothing to make us safer and might even lead to false senses of security. See this old piece by Bruce Schneier for much teh same point - its excellent.
you've made up your mind, and that's fine. Especially since you've already a-priori decided that my use of the term racism stems not from a genuine difference in perspective, but rather to "throw out emotionally-laden charge of racism" for "heft". Who, between the two of us, is arguing in good faith here, exactly?
do you appreciate why I am treating Rosemary with genuine respect in this thread, but not you? "married to the Blog Boss" is not the correct answer.
Bullshit. To quote naftali above, there is no price we cant afford if we decide we MUST do something for survival.
If you'd said "Urban Americans of African ancestry" then your example would work, as it could possibly include those of Arab or Afrikaaner background. Unless you're going to say that Pakistanis are all of the same race, and that no one of another race can be Pakistani, then it's not a race. Is "American" or "Briton" a race? No; each of those terms describes a nationality, as does "Pakistani."
I'm trying to engage in civil discussion with you, but from my perpective you're refusing to accept the actual definition of the word "racism." I'd have no problem at all if you replaced "racism" with "discrimination." I fully agree that it's discriminatory, although it remains to be seen whether or not this is a bad idea. When there's a fire the police discriminate against those who aren't emergency workers by denying them access to the area near the fire, and that's a good thing.
As for being able to afford closing the loophole fully, I specified "in our current arrangement." If you have X clerks assigned to handle visas, they have a finite amount of resources. It may be that they can handle an increase of the scope of "Britons of Pakistani origin" but not "all Britons." If you advocate shifting funds or spending more to hire more clerks, then you've changed the arrangement. I don't know how possible it would be to do that; it may be very possible and easy to do. However, you asked for a plausible reason, and I think I've given you one.
I think that it is a waste of time to argue that the policy can't be racist because Pakistani doesn't fit one certain definition of what a 'race' is. Obviously the term is malleable.
That said, I don't think that Pakistani being a race necessarily makes this policy racist. A good portion of the common use of 'racist' is that is is something motivated solely by prejudice or dislike of the race in question. I don't think that is the case here, or at least it is not obviously and certainly the case. I don't think that their is any evidence that we don't want to let Britons of Pakistani descent in without greater checks simply because we don't like Pakistanis, rather it seems clear that we believe their is and increased threat due to specific tactics of the enemy.
Several points have been raised above as to why this policy may be unwise, and I have a great deal of sympathy with them. It has been pointed out that terrorists come from a variety of ethnic backgrounds and that we don't necessarily want to tell them who to recruit. I don't disagree with either of those too points, and it is clear that this policy alone is not sufficient. However, to play devil's advocate, there is an advantage to us in making it more valuable for Pakistani terrorists to try and recruit members from outside their ethnic group. Those recruitment efforts are also more risky and may lead to early detection.
This issue can be a lot more complex than someone someplace decided that he didn't like British Pakastinis.
Look, I don't know why they want such a specific policy. I've suggested that perhaps limited resources or knowledge of a specific threat may be at play. Dave Just has suggested that a little juke may cause our enemies to slip up. Aziz has suggested racism. Any of these could be the motivation, and conceivably even all of them are.
Exactly. It isn't a racist policy unless it is being done out of a motivation to hurt the members of a race. Blacks were being forced to the back of the bus for that reason. That is NOT why Brits of Pakistani descent are being hassled more than other Brits. Aziz, (Mckey you're right I did confuse them, apologies to you both) what makes you think it is racist rather than simply practical?
that's a totally arbitrary parsing of the definition of racism. It also fails the obvious test of being applicable to examples of racism from history. Example: I don't have anything against black people, I don't want to hurt you all, it's nothing personal - but you have to sit at the back of the bus beccause white people simply are smarter, have higher IQ, whereas you black folk are the sons of Cain as described in the Bible. I am sure you are a very nice black person but the reality is, you're black, and I am white, so you have to sit at the back. No offense intended. Have a nice day.
Another example: if you're white, you can't qualify for this scholarship to college. It's not because white people are bad or any desire to hurt white people. Its just that as a collective group, you whites have had more money and power than everyone else. I'm very sorry that you speccifically are poor and cant afford college, but there are other scholarships you can still compete for. You just cant compete for this scholarship because this scholarship is open only to minorities, and thats not you. You're white.
No Poles served in this restaurant.
(hey I have nothing against Poles. No offense. We just dont want to have to sit next to you folks in here, ok?)
Your second example is pretty good, but you're not distinguishing between a policy that is purposely preferring members of one race, specifically in order to promote members of that race, and one in which specific members of a race have to go through a pretty minor hassle to prevent terrorism.
Your 3rd example doesn't work because, again, it stems from racism. Let's say 1 out of every 3 Poles who ate in restaurants pulled out machetes and killed people - (I know it is ludicrous but just go with it) would you still say it was racist to not allow Poles in that restaurant? Now, let's say it was 1 in 10,000, would you say it was racist to ask Poles, but not Italians, to go through a metal detector?
In fact, I do not. From my perspective pulling the 'racism card' in this case is not very practical from an ideological point of view nor is it very intelligent of Aziz to lay claim to it.
Secondly, the race card ie. racism, the term, has been severely abused by people like Rev. Jackson and Al Sharpton to the extent that it has been beaten to death solely to inflame others to promote a political or social point of view. The OJ Simpson case is interesting as OJ's lawyer, Johnny Cochrane made it a point to tell the jury that Mark Fuhrman, the police detective, was a genocidal racist. And the other lawyer, Lee Bailey introduced the same claim because Furhman used the n word at work. The jury in LA bought this baloney and OJ gets to go free for murdering his spouse. Hence, racism gets a bad name.
IMO, the term needs careful consideration before using as it is charged with prejudiced public usage.
However, unfairly Aziz seems to have cherry-picked out his pet injustice, it isn't unreasonable for US homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff, to call for British Pakistanis to apply for a visa before travelling to the US.
To be sure, there is some unfairness in the proposal but its only a proposal that the Guardian and the NYTs ran with. The problem is that both are left wing newspapers. And the NYTs is the favorite go-to newspaper to get the talking points for those on the left, particularly left wing radio.
My suggestion is that Aziz, come up with a new term to discuss the inequities on this subject without digging himself into a bigger hole than he already has.
I better quit now as the long dark teatime of the blog of recent memory may rear its sorry carcass with a, the baby won't let us sleep.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.