Instigator / Pro
4
1674
rating
53
debates
67.92%
won
Topic

THBT The US Has Discriminatory Political Policies Regarding Minorities

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

FourTrouble
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
7
1534
rating
3
debates
66.67%
won
Description
~ 465 / 5,000

Full description: whether explicitly or implicitly, the US [United States] currently has political policies that unfairly treat minorities (blacks, Hispanics, Indians, and other under-represented groups).

Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

I was curious whether the crux of my Systemic Racism was flawed or not. Anyone other than Coal is free to accept.

Round 1
Pro
The extension of racist laws from the past and allowances by US government are the cause of its continuation in present day. As the research lists, our foundation had racist laws, to begin with. "As critical race legal theorists demonstrate (Bell 2005), recent conservative political policies and legal rulings continue to legally or informally uphold segregated realities for whites and racial minorities." [POL1] I will explore said specific policies in the following sections.
 
i) Housing Policy
Laws like redlining -- that is, refusing a loan to people because they are a financial risk -- continue in the present. Blacks still have a problem obtaining loans to buy housing. The grandchildren of those who suffered under the racist policy result in a compounded disparity. Whites were able to buy houses and grow rich, while blacks lost those opportunities. [POL.H1] The discrimination within the mortgages and lack of wealth kept the communities separated by race. Home ownerships’ importance links back to racial inequality. Back in 1998, mortgages have been denied to minorities, widening the existing disparity. [POL.H2] 
 
An expert delivers more detail on how federal, state, and local policy separated blacks from whites. Starting with a personal story from Ferguson, the discrimination from real estate agents is reinforced by policies. These include, but are not limited to racially explicit zoning decisions, housing projects, restrictive covenants, subsidies excluding blacks, and annexation designed to remove blacks. [POL.H3] Even though these effects are no longer explicit, they endure due to a lack of government action. And so the racial zoning continues, the penalty of those living in black neighborhoods increases, and in the author’s words, “we may be replicating segregation on the European model”. 
 
Some opponents suggest that the disparate impacts do not relate to the racism, and thereby weaken the claims of further sections in this paper. However, as the Supreme Court decided, the Fair Housing Acts do not need to show explicit discrimination. The racial justice is designed to reduce the racial wealth gap. Even the Justice Department agrees with this idea. The impact matters because “no official policy required blacks and Latinos to get worse loans, but rather subtle racial biases driving the result” [POL.H4]. Beyond the explicit racism, we must take into account the subtler, implicit racism, deeply embedded in the US system. Even now, “poor whites end up living in richer neighborhoods than middle class Blacks and Latinos”. The results of housing discrimination shine through, and the impacts must be addressed to resolve the unfair practices contributing to economic disparities.
 
ii) Immigration Policy
Next, expert Elizabeth Aranda analyzes our racist immigration policies, which further the racial profiling previously stated. Our government effectively criminalizes merely based on the color of your skin. Even in her abstract alone, "policies and programs that exclude, segregate, detain, and physically remove immigrants from the country reproduce racial inequalities in other areas of social life through spillover effects that result in dire consequences for these immigrants and their kin." [POL.I1] 
 
As the author continues, the detriments to the immigrants treat undocumented similar to sex offenders and murders. Along with this abhorrent act, the enforcement creates fear and vulnerability in the immigrant community. This in turn negatively affects the socioeconomic results of the immigrants. And we directly highlight how we perpetuate the inequality. Through her analysis, Aranda realizes that the laws spread the "meanings recursively across social levels", proving the foundation of systemic racism. While opponents would commonly say there exists an inherent inequality between minority races and whites, our practices perpetuate this inequality. And so our government is directly responsible for these outcomes listed above.
 
To add on another source, Sabo et al. prove the immigration-related mistreatment of Latino US citizens and residents. [POL.I2] Through their research, they find the local policy uses military-style tactics and weapons to oppress the minorities. These victims were mistreated and prove the “normalization of immigration-related mistreatment among the population”. Connecting back to the police’s use of racial profiling, it seems to me that we will use any justification to support our bias against minorities.
 
iii) Voting Policy
Even though the US Civil Rights Movement has made a lot of progress, blacks still lack political power, and endure discrimination in the electoral process. As American Progress describes, in 2011 and 2012, lawmakers in multiple states curbed registration drives. [POL.V1] Furthermore, US Supreme Court in Shelby County v Holder allowed strict voter ID requirement, suppressing thousands of black voters. Multiple other states also enacted this, closing polling places and limiting access to early voting. Furthermore, Native Americans, Latinos, and African Americans were noted as far more likely to experience discrimination while participating in politics. 

Crime is not the main focus of this argument, but it is necessary to mention. POL.V1 also realizes that the war on drugs targeted people of color for arrest. Even though incarceration problems may be a bit different from explicit policies, the connection to disallowing felonies to vote means that any problems within the arrest system expand and discriminate against innocents. As a result, 9.5 million Americans lacked full voting rights due to felony convictions. If this wasn’t enough, Husted v A. Philip also allowed Ohio to purge more than 846,000 black voters, a severely disproportional amount. Even Florida also enacted a poll tax to target the black residents, despite the 24th amendment otherwise. And as a final nail in the coffin, despite the 14th amendment guaranteeing jurisdiction for those naturalized in the US, Trump declared an “executive order revoking the citizenship of any American with an undocumented parent”. As the racist policies extend all the way up to the very top, it seems impossible to deny US’s discriminatory policies. If this wasn’t enough, ACLU also supports this idea with noting about voter ID laws, registration restrictions, purges, and felony disenfranchisement. [POL.V2] The disproportionate amount of minority affected makes it clear that our policies are racist and biased.

If a layman's source wasn't convincing, an expert source excerpt states, "state-level variation in policies and laws has substantial consequences for the health of minority groups." [OV1]. Indeed, as another journal adds, the oppressions resemble past Jim Crow Laws [OV2]. The key-takeaway to the peer-reviewed journal is a note on Obama’s election followed by restrictive voting laws. The stricter ID requirements lowered vote turnout, and further explained in Alabama, “white political control was nearly everywhere threatened by majority-black populations”. The redistricting plan in 2008 reduced the black population to only 29%, forcing the minority candidate to lose his seat. All in all, the author convincingly uses Body Out of Place to prove that individuals drive forth systemic racism policies. We must not allow this slippery slope to continue and have politicians abuse their power on citizens.

Conclusion

In a Journal of Occupational Science, the expert echoes my previous research, listing all the instances that further prove my argument: "Voting laws, educational systems, housing policies, judicial and penal systems, healthcare systems, labor markets, deep social prejudices, and countless other everyday instances of racism systematically oppress people of color." [OCC1] Given the evidence above, it's clear that many US Political Policies discriminate against minorities.

Understandably, Con and many others feel the way they do. Some are simply not knowledgeable enough and only know about one side of the debate. But learning history and the truth paves a path towards greater understanding. As yet another study highlights, educating history lets us learn about how and why systemic racism exists today. The researchers stated, " Participants listened to ... the federal government’s role in creating Black ghettos, and how racialized space still perpetuates structural inequality today (cf. Bonam, et al 2015)", [SUM2] and as a result, they were able to further the battle against Systemic racism today, changing people's point of view for the better.
 
It is near impossible that so many experts and news articles would waste time about an already-resolved problem. It would be even more unlikely for major corporations and powerful people to invest in the name of equality. With so many credible people speaking up about systemic racism in the US, it’s undeniable that it is a significant problem. 
 
My voters, friends, the time to act against systemic racism is here and now. Already, six corporations have donated millions to billions of dollars to fight the inherent bias within people. [SUM3] Police and judges have not self-reflected or educated themselves enough, and the evidence I have provided is as resounding as any scientific theory. To deny the existence of systemic racism is to deny the very effort to fight for equality, and potentially return to a world where white males dominated and minorities are snuffed out like a candle. It is true that the Supreme Court has established a baseline with Brown V Board of Education. But it takes more than 12 to change the world and to demonstrate the lack of systemic racism.
 
 
Con
This debate is about whether current US policy unfairly discriminates against minorities. This isn't a debate about past injustice or "systemic racism." The topic is current US policy towards minorities.

Today, the US protects minorities from unfair discrimination in almost every arena in which discrimination is possible, including education, employment, housing, lending, voting, public accommodations, law enforcement & police misconduct, and federally-assisted programs. See e.g. Code of Federal Regulations (prohibiting unfair discrimination & affirming the need to safeguard minority rights in every corner of life).

These are some of the laws protecting minorities: 

  • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance, including state and local law enforcement agencies. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1.
  • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, gender, and national origin. See 42 USC §§ 2000 - 2000e-17.
  • The Immigration Reform & Control Act prohibits employment discrimination based on citizenship or national origin. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324.
  • The Voting Rights Act prohibits various forms of voting discrimination, including the singling out, intimidation, and harassment of voters based on race, color, or speaking a minority language. See 52 U.S.C. §§ 10101 - 10702.
  • The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, and disability. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-19.
And here are some of the executive orders affirming the protection of minority rights: 

  • Executive Order 12898, issued on February 11, 1994, requires that each federal agency conduct its program, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment in a manner that does not exclude or otherwise subject persons to discrimination based on race, color, or national origin.
  • Executive Order 13166, issued on August 11, 2000, requires each federal agency to take steps to ensure that eligible persons with limited English proficiency are provided meaningful access to all federally-assisted and federally-conducted programs and activities.
  • Executive Order 13985, issued on January 20, 2021, establishes a whole-of-government initiative to address racial equity, support underserved communities, & redress systemic racism.
  • Executive Order 14019, issued on March 7, 2021, establishes a whole-of-government initiative to promote equal access to voting for minorities.
This selection barely scratches the surface. The Constitution further protects minorities by empowering an independent judiciary -- the Supreme Court -- to enforce constitutional rights & federal anti-discrimination laws against any violators, including government officials elected by an impassioned majority.

The Constitution's Privileges & Immunities Clause also protects the right of minorities to live anywhere in the country, which in practice allows minorities to become a local majority (e.g. Latinos who move to Miami, or blacks who move to Atlanta). In effect, current US policy empowers national minorities to live as if they were a majority group. 

In short, there's no enforceable or current US policy that unfairly discriminates against minorities, which is why Pro doesn't specify even a single current US policy doing so. Indeed, Pro's "case" fails in almost all respects:

1. Housing

Pro says "redlining" discriminates against minorities. But (a) redlining isn’t a current US policy (it's illegal under numerous laws & regulations), and (b) more whites live in formerly-redlined neighborhoods than blacks. See Brookings 2019.

Pro says "no official policy required blacks and Latinos to get worse loans, but rather subtle racial biases." But (a) Pro offers no evidence that current US policy causes "subtle racial biases," (b) Pro offers no evidence that "subtle racial biases" cause minorities to get worse loans, and (c) Pro ignores the fact that current US policies (e.g. Equal Credit Opportunity Act) actively prohibit lending discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. See 15 U.S.C. § 1991.

2. Immigration

Neither of Pro's sources say what Pro thinks they say. According to Aranda (Pro's first source), the "current immigration enforcement regime embodies a colorblind racial project," but enforcement "disproportionately affects Latinos." In other words, current US immigration policy doesn't unfairly discriminate against minorities, but enforcement might lead to non-equal outcomes. Pro hasn't shown that non-equal outcomes are always & necessarily the result of an unfairly discriminatory policy, nor has Pro shown that non-equal outcomes in this case are due to unfair discrimination.

Sabo (Pro's second source) documents only the experience of Mexican-origin citizens & residents living in the Arizona border region. It doesn't present data from any other groups, and therefore doesn't tell us anything about unfair discrimination targeted specifically at minorities. It simply tells us what this specific group of people experience at the Arizona border.

The truth is this: immigrants in this country are doing exceptionally well, and in many contexts, better than natives. 45% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children, and immigrant CEOs run several major American corporations, including Microsoft, Google, Uber, Tesla, Pfizer, MasterCard, IBM, and Oracle. Immigrants come to the US precisely because the US offers them more economic opportunity than anywhere else -- and in particular, equal opportunity as natives. Again, I refer Pro (and readers) to the numerous laws, orders, & regulations prohibiting discrimination of immigrants in every relevant aspect of life. 

3. Voting

I refer Pro to Executive Order 14019, issued March 7, 2021, which requires the whole-of-government to promote access to voting, with a focus on minority communities. Pro ignores this policy, instead focusing on policies from the past, including Trump orders that have been expressly revoked under Biden's administration. 

The rest of Pro's argument simply fails to prove what he thinks:

  • Shelby County v Holder didn't allow strict voter ID requirements. Rather, it allowed states to change election rules without "preclearing" these changes with the federal government. 
    • Pro doesn't show that strict voter ID requirements treat minorities unfairly in all cases, and Pro ignores the fact that federal courts have repeatedly struck down voter ID requirements that discriminate against minorities. See e.g. North Carolina NAACP v. McCrory (holding that a strict voter ID law violated the Constitution & Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it unfairly discriminated against blacks).
  • Pro falsely claims that Florida enacted a poll tax targeted towards black residents. The truth: 
    • Florida required that felons (i.e. not just blacks, but anyone convicted of a felony) complete all the terms of their criminal sentences, including the payment of any fines or restitution. See Jones v. Florida. The more notable point here, which Pro ignores entirely, is that Florida allows ex-felons to vote. 
Again, Pro offers no evidence at all that a current US policy causes minorities to experience discrimination when participating in politics. 

4. Systemic Racism

Pro refers to systemic racism at the end of his argument. I don't know what Pro means by this term, so I'll address the concept more generally. According to John McWhorter, a linguistics professor at Colombia University, the term arose in the 1960s to describe race-based inequities that exist in the absence of overt expressions of racism.

Consider an example: court stenographers who fail to accurately transcribe African American English ("AAE"). These court stenographers aren't racists (many of them are black), nor are they implementing a racist policy directive from above. Pro calls this "systemic racism." But these court stenographers aren't bad actors, they're simply struggling to understand the complicated grammar of AAE, in the same way they might struggle to understand the heavy accent & incorrect grammar of a white immigrant from Russia.

This example clarifies two important features of "systemic racism":

  1. Systemic racism refers to race-based inequities that have nothing to do with "prejudice" or "unfair discrimination," but rather are the result of socially-mediated behavioral disparities. See Loury 2020.
  2. Systemic racism lacks any causal connection to specific political policies.
The US protects minorities as much as it can. It ensures equal rights & equal opportunity. But there's a limit to what you can accomplish through policy. And in particular, you can't use policy to engineer equity when people want different things, when they differ in numerous genetic, cultural, communal, religious, political, & historical ways. 

It would be abusive for a parent to force siblings to learn to read, or play violin, or achieve academically, at the same age & same level. Even identical twins don't have the same talents. And so too, the US shouldn't overstep its role to become an abusive parent. The role of policy is inherently limited to protecting equal rights & equal opportunity, nothing more, nothing less. On this front, the US has been incredibly successful.
Round 2
Pro
Equality Arguments: Irrelevant, merely existence of fair laws doesn't prove unfair doesn't exist. Remember that The Declaration of Independence declared all men equal, yet ironically slavery existed. Not to mention the constitution was drafted to protect people's rights, yet we still needed the Civil War to turn things around.

 i) Housing Policy

Con seems to misinterpret the crux of my argument; it is not that policies cause racism (how much sense does that make?), it is that the policies allow for racism to continue exist in the current implementation and action. Similar to, for example, if a gun control law had zero impact on gun violence. 

Dropped: These include, but are not limited to racially explicit zoning decisions, housing projects, restrictive covenants, subsidies excluding blacks, and annexation designed to remove blacks.

Dropped:  “poor whites end up living in richer neighborhoods than middle class Blacks and Latinos”. 

Even Con's own source [Brooking 2016] states: "Today, neighborhoods that fall within once-redlined areas are more likely to have a higher concentration of Black residents, as well as lower incomes, lower home values, and other negative economic characteristics relative to the rest of their cities." If anything, Con's source furthers my arguments, because Brookings argue that Redlining effects have still continued, and current policies fail to completely resolve the disparity issues. The big segregation in Dallas drawn from its history of intense racism proves that Red Lining is merely one small piece of the puzzle; the housing policies in general are powerful and unstoppable even with actions taken against them. Therefore, the policies remain implicitly discriminatory as they fail to defeat the existing issues.

The point is not that Blacks majorly live in redline area, but rather that the policies still impact them greatly.

The core of this idea is not shot down.

ii) Immigration

Con argues that I haven't shown that the policies are discriminatory because only the *enforcement* has been discriminatory. But what is a policy, besides the way it is enforced? For example, if a policy allowed police to shoot at people because they deemed them severe harm, and this was used to discriminate and kill a disproportionate amount of black men, would this not be discriminatory? Even though the intents were not meant to be racist, the ending result can prove the unfair nature of the policy. As the full paper reveals, the origins were through fortification of the border, the IIRIRA act that expanded basis for deportation -- eliminating judicial discretions, and the "attrition through enforcement" idea which arrested immigrants unfairly. The immigration enforcement policies are still a type of political policy, unless Con can refute the expert's labeling of so. Furthermore, the expert speaks of racial profiling used for immigration detention and removal (page 91), arguing that the practices produce "chronic fear and mistrust of law enforcement personnel". The direct criminalization of immigrants, and therefore racist policy, fulfill the premise of being a discriminatory political policy. Con has done nothing to justify separating enforcement from the idea that it represents the policy itself. 

Imagine I had a policy that said "police can do anything they want when enforcing immigration policies". Sure, this is not "discriminatory". But this would inherently allow discriminatory acts without consequences, ignoring the equality laws that Con had vouched for. Therefore, the enactment of Immigration Acts disprove what Con desired in an ideal world.

Con argues that Sabo's source fails because it doesn't tell us about other minority groups, but ignores the clear and cut example of Mexican-origin American immigrants (a minority group) clearly being oppressed by the militarization of the border (a political policy). Con has failed to cut the connection between this evidence and my argument.

iii) Voting

Con puts an arbitrary burden that I must prove the policies are discriminatory under *all* cases. Yet if even a small amount proportion of the minority was affected, I would still argue that this policy would hold as discriminatory. Imagine I arbitrarily picked a very select group and time to be unable to vote -- 23 year old black men born in Arizona, during summer. This policy would be obviously biased, yet it is not unfair in all cases. Regardless, Con has failed to shoot down even basic statistics. Even ACLU proves that currently the ID's are widely lacked by minorities. [POL.V3]  Minorities are questioned more often than white voters, as well as having reduced voter turn-out. The progress that Con claims to have made are near to none in actual showing. He has failed yet again.

Con dropped the Alabama argument.

Remember:

 The key-takeaway to the peer-reviewed journal is a note on Obama’s election followed by restrictive voting laws. The stricter ID requirements lowered vote turnout, and further explained in Alabama, “white political control was nearly everywhere threatened by majority-black populations”. The redistricting plan in 2008 reduced the black population to only 29%, forcing the minority candidate to lose his seat. All in all, the author convincingly uses Body Out of Place to prove that individuals drive forth systemic racism policies. We must not allow this slippery slope to continue and have politicians abuse their power on citizens.
4. Systemic Racism Meaning

I see where this is going again. Con looks like he's arguing that there is only individual racism (especially with societal action at heart) rather than any kind of "Systemic racism". However, I'm going to counter this by pointing out the combination formed by Feagin, the author of modern critical racism theory. In his book, he writes, "systemic racism is perpetuated by a broad social reproduction process that generates not only recurring patterns of discrimination with institutions and by individuals but also an alienating racist relationship". 

Within these specific institutions, Feagin identifies economy, politics, education, religion, and family. See anything familiar? That's right, the second sector innately has to do with systemic racism. The policies and the way of enforcement go through as a way of proof regarding Systemic Racism. My examples clearly display racism even on a level accepted by the supreme court (merely disparate outcomes have to be shown in fair housing). Therefore, we have more than merely individual behavioral differences, and all my arguments still apply well.
______________________________________________________________
Now I know Crime isn't 100% connected to "political policy", but I noticed racial profiling being mentioned used in immigration, so I think it's useful to stack on the crime-related argument to fully win this debate.

As CRI1 introduces, "the federal sentencing guidelines … dispense more severe punishments for ... African Americans, than for ... White Americans." After this, the author notes how the amendments do not protect minorities. There is an impossible way to enforce Equal Protection, displaying that the judicial branch didn't help reduce systemic racism. "Even in the United States v. Clary,153 … the district court [failed to focus on] actual results by attempting to prove that its purpose was subconsciously discriminatory.."  
 
Silton further follows through with the nail in the coffin, noting how the Supreme Court's interpretations precisely destroyed the Constitutional amendments themselves, by lowering the standard to "mere articulable suspicion."
 
Though opponents suggest that blacks may commit more crimes, more in-depth research proves that Hispanics are the ones at risk in this argument. Within the point of black-and-white prison rates, the true overrepresentation is due to Hispanics inherently having a disadvantage. The key takeaway to a lengthy study display that due to their inability to understand the law, lack of resources, and poorness, they are overrepresented in prison [CRI2]. In the expert's words, officials believe they are less likely to rehabilitate -- despite lack of backing for this, lacking resources against sanctions, and especially limited English language skills. And so they conclude, "the white–Hispanic gaps in arrest and incarceration are large." Remember that my argument is primarily that we are partially at fault with assuming minorities to be criminals or evil, merely due to the societal disparities. 
 
In summary, the standards for arrest are lower for blacks and other minorities, thus, the systemic racism is contributed through our laws’ loose restrictions. 

Con
In R1, I pointed to hundreds of current US laws, regulations, & executive orders prohibiting discrimination in all arenas in which discrimination is possible. Current laws, regulations, & executive orders are the primary source of evidence for determining what US policy is, and taken together, this evidence shows that current US policies strongly oppose unfair treatment of minorities.

Pro says current laws aren't relevant because past laws were racist & contradictory. But this debate isn't about the past, it's about the present. And Pro hasn't shown that current US laws are racist or contradictory. Nor has Pro identified any current policies that unfairly discriminate against minorities.

According to Pro, US policies aren't doing enough to combat racism. They allow racism to persist. But what more could they do? Pro doesn't tell us. There's no alternative. Current US policies already do as much as they can, providing minorities with equal rights & equal opportunity while actively prohibiting discrimination in every arena that it can.

As I explained in R1, policy can only do so much to fight racism. If US policy attempted to engineer equal outcomes for all people, as Pro seems to desire, it would quickly become oppressive & abusive, like a parent who forces equal outcomes among siblings. It would also fail in its goal, because you can't just magically erase cultural, communal, religious, & historical differences.

1. Housing

Current US policy prohibits every discriminatory practice that Pro refers to. As I mentioned in R1, the Fair Housing Act protects minorities from discrimination when renting or buying a home, getting mortgage, seeking housing assistance, or engaging in other housing-related activities. And Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations takes this a step further, protecting minorities in virtually every situation you can imagine related to housing & urban development.

Pro selectively ignores the fact that more whites live in formerly-redlined neighborhoods than blacks. How can there be housing discrimination related to redlining if whites are moving into formerly-redlined neighborhoods at significantly higher rates than blacks? Pro doesn't say. 

Pro says "poor whites live in richer neighborhoods than middle class Blacks and Latinos" -- if that's true (and I'm skeptical of the claim but willing to entertain it), it's likely by personal choice, not discrimination. After all, minorities could sue in federal court if there were actual discrimination at play. And many people purposefully choose to live in poorer neighborhoods because they offer a more lively community life compared with richer neighborhoods. I'd imagine that's especially the case for blacks.

I find this specific topic (why richer people move to poorer neighborhoods?) quite fascinating, as it reflects my own reality: I'm Hispanic, and I've chosen to live in a poorer neighborhood full of character & soul, even though I have more than enough financial resources to move into a "richer" neighborhood. You see this a lot in Miami (where I'm from): rich people eschewing the stale materialism of Brickell (an extremely rich place) to live in Little Haiti or Little Havana (poor places with strong cultural communities).

2. Immigration

A few points:

  • I never said that enforcement was "discriminatory."
    • I said that it might lead to non-equal outcomes in some cases. There's difference. 
  • Pro asks, "if a policy allowed police to shoot at people because they deemed them severe harm, and this was used to discriminate and kill a disproportionate amount of black men, would this not be discriminatory?"
    • Pro's logic would render all policies (no matter how neutral or impartial) racist because of the potential that racist individuals would enforce them in racist ways. Therefore, we must hold racist individuals accountable for racist enforcement, not the policy itself. 
    • To ensure that government officials don't abuse the discretion given to them by neutral policies, the US has an independent judiciary that protects minorities against the government itself. This is built into the system, and it's a bedrock of current US policy. 
  • Pro says that "enforcement policies are still a type of policy." 
    • Yes, that's true. But Pro doesn't actually identify any enforcement policies that are discriminatory. Per Biden's recent executive orders, it's clear that enforcement policies are quite different from the picture that Pro paints. And either way, the problem hasn't ever been enforcement policies, but rather bad actors who violate the policy.
  • Pro refers to a so-called "expert."
    • Being an "expert" doesn't make you right. And to the extent we're talking about "immigration policy," this "expert" isn't one. She doesn't have any understanding of immigration law at all (she completely mischaracterizes what the law is), her article is poorly-written & argued, filled with vague & obscure language, weak data that ignores a number of important variables, and numerous claims that lack any evidentiary basis at all. And most egregiously, she assumes that disparate outcomes evidence bias, despite no actual evidence of actual bias -- if you don't assume that disparate outcomes evidence bias, her entire argument reduces to nothing.
  • Pro offers evidence of militarization at the border, but no evidence that this unfairly discriminates against any specific minority group. 
3. Voting

Pro insists that voter ID laws are a problem, but that's not what the empirical literature shows. Most studies show that voter ID laws have no impact on turnout. See Cantoni 2020. And according to some studies, voter ID laws increased turnout among minorities. See Hopkins 2017; Milyo 2007. As I mentioned in R1, in cases where voter ID laws predicted a decrease in turnout among minorities, or where voter ID laws actually led to a decrease in turnout among minorities, federal courts quickly struck them down.

Pro wants me to address the issue of Alabama. Okay. For starters, the article Pro cites isn't relevant because Alabama changed its voting policies in 2015 & 2016 after a federal probe found that their procedures disproportionately hurt black residents. See Vox 2017. In this sense, Pro is right about the past, but wrong about the present.

Second, a federal appeals court upheld Alabama's voter ID law in 2020 after reviewing extensive evidence about its impact on minorities. See Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Alabama. As the court explained, the voter ID law didn't disproportionately burden blacks for three reasons: (a) 98% of black voters already had the requisite ID to vote, as compared to 99% of white voters (i.e. a small difference), (b) Alabama created mobile ID-issuing teams that traveled directly to eligible voters, providing them with free IDs, and (c) Alabama allowed voters to submit provisional ballots that could be validated within a certain amount of time after an election when a voter provided the proper ID within that timeframe. The result of these policies was clear: no unfair discrimination of minorities. 

4. Systemic Racism

I didn’t say “systemic racism” doesn’t exist. To the contrary, I described a specific example. My argument is that current US policy neither causes “systemic racism” nor perpetuates it, but rather combats “systemic racism” as much as it possibly can without becoming unfairly oppressive.

That said, this debate isn't about "systemic racism," it's about current US policy. So it's not enough for Pro to show that "systemic racism" exists. Pro has to show that current US policies are causing the problem, and Pro freely admits in R2 that they're not.
Round 3
Pro
Con asks, what more could current policies do? I say they could test police and lawmakers regularly and educate them about unconscious racism, thus further ensuring that even enforcement is not racist. They could also enforce stricter regulations about specific loans, or in case of voting, prevent gerrymandering and other divisive measures that prevent voters from executing their rights. These are just a few examples of improvements on current policies.

i) Housing

Con seems to miss the entire point offered by the Supreme Court, which is that I *only* need to show outcomes as a standard, because the persons are bypassing the Fair housing act by secretly providing different loan rates (based on personal prejudice). As it is extremely difficult to micro-manage the individuals that grant minority these specific loans, the only way for law to prove that the loan policies are still discriminatory, is precisely through the disparate impact argument I keep hammering here. Con has failed to refute the different outcomes offered by my different sources, and therefore this argument still stands strong.

Even if voters don't buy this, I can easily stack on more sources to prove my argument. Native Americans also face disproportionate amount of housing problems, at a higher rate than average US Population. [POL.H7] This is similar to my argument that blacks inherently have problems in housing due to the previous segregation and the existing practices. The specific statement is that public policies use the guise of creating new spaces in order to "[strip] Black communities of the wealth and financial stability found in property ownership and affordable rental housing". Con attempts a reduction technique to kill my argument, presenting the straw man [essentially] of "they live in Redlining [discrimination], which leads to the disparate outcomes". It is not that our policies *are* redlining, but rather *reproducing* the effects of redlining, especially with displacement of blacks, with little evidence of "long term benefits from these revitalization efforts".

The site further explains that gentrification has caused blacks to live in particularly poor areas, resonating with my core idea that whites tend to live in richer neighborhoods overall. Just to list a few more examples, there are exclusion from homeownership programs, abdication of responsibility for civil rights protections, and intentional government policy (especially Chinatowns). As key take-aways to each of these sections, blacks are much less likely to own their own homes, lenders continue to target people of color with limited oversight, and city planners zoned areas for industrial and commercial use. The last point is the one that especially produces the environmental hazards that specially target minorities. The racial zoning tool is basically nearly identical to redlining's intentions. The production of racial inequality overall is still un-refuted by Con, and the less access combined with hazardous waste puts the nail in the coffin.

ii) Immigration

Con argues that a policy cannot be considered racist in itself, even if it was vague enough to allow for the racial profiling and lower standards enough (presented by my evidence) so that racist police could squeak out an extra few minorities arrested. I argue that a poorly worded law is nearly just as bad as a law that would explicitly allow such racism to persist. Once again, let us consider the gun control law, but provided a large exception that gave the seller significant ability to decide between white and blacks. With the individual racism in place, the seller would be the one truly implementing and proving whether or not the gun law was actually racist or not. It's impossible to tell from the surface of the law's wording whether it was inherently discriminatory, like Con is trying to push for. If laws have legal loopholes, then they are exploitable and would still be discriminatory since they allow for unfair treatment of people.

Now I will admit that POL.I1 may not be the best source, but Con completely ignored POL.I2 regarding the Mexican-origin based minority being oppressed. If you need more evidence, look no further to the full article, which very clearly states that the micro-level interactions perpetuate structural racism. The paper regards "permanent residents of Mexican descent", and they are the targeted groups, with felt effects especially strong due to the "anti-immigrant political landscape, one that was highly focused on restricting access to public services". The result of a hostile environment casts all Latinos to be equivalent to Mexicans, and therefore "undocumented". The racial profiling interaction is unaddressed by Con, and the assumption of "Mexican appearance" even by citizen inspection means that the militarization policies directly related to Discrimination (and perhaps even caused it).

iii) Voting

I will admit that my research is flawed and a lot of it is not current. But it's important to note the back-and-forth flow and tide of the situation. Every time there is the sector of policies that try to discriminate, and the court fighting back. It's a valiant effort, but many problems still continue in the present day. I will now present more current evidence, and apologize if I was wasting time before -- I valued the history to highlight that this is a pervasive problem throughout the past of US, and recurs with many policies that have yet to be taken down by other legislative forces.

Current evidence highlights that the voter identification ballots still suppress American Indians, despite the problems of blacks being resolved. A paper realizes that even the Voting Rights Act of 1965 wasn't enough to address current present day barriers. [POL.V4] Therefore, Con has only mitigated the problem, but even he hasn't realized total equality in terms of all minorities.

If this wasn't enough, Con has failed to acknowledge my note that he puts an impossible and unreasonable burden. He expects that the law be unfair in all cases, yet has not told us why this framework is important. By contrast, heaping another source about Shelby v Holder makes it clear that the local government is still allowed to slack off and endure racism. [POL.V5] This source, released in May 2020, explains that state governments hold full control of the voting process, and that "majority party affiliations continue to promote the segregation and separation between thepowerful and the powerless through Voter ID laws" (Page 7).

On the local level, the politicians clearly decline the national level of equality thought to be enforced. As the paper furthers, Native Americans are still currently target of forced migration, lacking permanent address and therefore unable to vote. The author also argues, the precedence set by previous cases, especially Dred Scott v Sandford, Yick Wo V Hopkins, and others, established a subtle idea of racism and bigotry. [Page 15] If this wasn't enough, the author also states "In 2019, gerrymandering is still an issue impacting the governor’s race in Mississippi,keeping African Americans votes from mattering based on the drawing of their county." (Page 43). This is only compounded by the ideas that Abrams discovered voter suppression disguised as voter fraud in 20 states (Page 45). 

Criminal Racial Profiling

Con completely and utterly dropped this argument. Extend. 

Recall the crux of this argument:  the Supreme Court's interpretations precisely destroyed the Constitutional amendments themselves, by lowering the standard to "mere articulable suspicion."

Recall: The key takeaway to a lengthy study display that due to their inability to understand the law, lack of resources, and poorness, they are overrepresented in prison [CRI2]. In the expert's words, officials believe they are less likely to rehabilitate -- despite lack of backing for this, lacking resources against sanctions, and especially limited English language skills. And so they conclude, "the white–Hispanic gaps in arrest and incarceration are large".


Con
Again, this debate is about current US policy. It's not about past policy, or disparate outcomes, or "systemic racism."

Pro admits that hundreds of current US laws, regulations, & executive orders prohibit discrimination of minorities in almost every arena in which discrimination is possible, including education, employment, housing, lending, voting, public accommodations, law enforcement & police misconduct, and federally-assisted programs. 

Pro emphasizes disparate outcomes. But Pro fails to show that these outcomes are related to current policy rather than behavioral disparities. As I explained in R1 & R2, disparate outcomes are caused by behavioral disparities related to genetic, cultural, communal, religious, political, & historical differences. Pro ignores this argument entirely. 

Pro still hasn't identified a current US policy that unfairly discriminates, or causes unfair discrimination, or even perpetuates it, and therefore Pro still hasn't come anywhere close to meeting his burden. 

1. Housing

As Pro notes, current US policy protects minorities from disparate outcomes under the Fair Housing Act. Pro seems to think this supports his case, but actually it supports mine. 

Pro says he could "easily stack on more sources," but the problem is that none of Pro's sources show that disparate outcomes are related to current US policy. There's no evidence whatsoever that current US policy (rather than behavioral disparities) reproduces redlining or race-based zoning decisions. Current US policy prohibits discrimination in any housing-related transactions & urban development decisions. 

2. Immigration

Pro says "badly worded laws are racist," but fails to identify any current "badly worded laws." Pro also fails to realize that "badly worded laws" aren't legal under current US policy, and in fact federal courts quickly invalidate such laws for being too "vague" (Pro's word). See e.g. Skilling v. United States (explaining that a law must be held "void for vagueness" if it provides too much discretion such that it would lead to arbitrary prosecutions).

As for Pro's sources, they don't identify a single current US policy that unfairly discriminates against minorities, and they assume (incorrectly) that disparate outcomes are the result of bias (even though they might be the result of behavioral disparities or something else entirely). And again, Sabo isn't relevant because it doesn't even compare outcomes for one group to another, it just documents the experience of a specific group at the border. 

3. Voting

Pro admits his "research is flawed & outdated," and that the problem has been resolved when it comes to "blacks." He turns to Native Americans, but still fails to identify any concrete evidence that current US policy discriminates. 

Pro cites an "undergraduate thesis" for a bunch of baseless claims. Again, neither Pro's sources nor Pro identify any actual current US policies that discriminate. 

4. Criminal Profiling

Pro still hasn't shown that disparate outcomes are due to current US policy rather than behavioral disparities. Again, he still hasn't specified any current US policy that discriminates. 
Round 4
Pro
Con has decided to drop every one of my arguments and blindly claim that somehow I have failed to show discrimination.

However, he has failed to tackle the idea that even the supreme court has established only a need for disparate impacts, and I have additionally supplied the logic and reasoning behind how discrimination is perpetuated by current local government actions. Our policies have failed to address these issues and despite claiming to counter discrimination, our actions have not gone punished, and the practices have continued. 

Remember that my source claimed that the zoning decisions and housing projects, which con has failed to contest. He has dropped the idea that the blacks are stuck in the poor locations, and similar to red-lining, the segregation created by different policy decisions draw invisible lines that unfairly treat minorities.

Remember that in terms of immigration, Con has tried to counter the credibility of the person himself, but doesn't point out exactly where we lack evidentiary basis. He fails to counter the powerful idea that police are abusing immigration polices to produce an unnecessary amount of stress and toxic on Mexican-origin persons (in contrast to normal persons who can live their lives in peace, as is the default status quo -- the police have no reason to oppress innocents elsewhere). He additionally fails to the chronic fear of mistrust relates primarily to Racial Profiling, which replicates the ideas generated from the Criminal related sector. Police use their bias to unconsciously choose minorities to be guilty far more often, and our immigration enforcement has perpetuated this discrimination.

And finally, in terms of voting, he seems to miss that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 failed to address current barriers. He had previously claimed that Shelby merely allowed change of rules without "preclearing" the changes, but it's precisely because of our lacks of rules and regulations that our current problems occur. Imagine I had allowed any criminal activity to occur. This would clearly be immoral. Similarly, the state governments still allow major parties to promote segregation and separation. Therefore, Shelby is implicitly discriminatory by turning a blind eye to blacks and Native Americans. Con is especially ignorant towards the gerrymandering idea that makes minority's voting power far reduced. If this isn't discrimination, what could possibly be?

Vote for pro.
Con
This debate was simple. 

I pointed to hundreds of current laws, regulations, & executive orders demonstrating that current US policy opposes discrimination of minorities in every aspect of life in which discrimination is possible.

In contrast, Pro failed to tie any of his arguments to current US policy. He refers to past policies, disparate outcomes, and "systemic racism," but fails to identify any current US policies related to "disparate outcomes." Pro ignores my argument that disparate outcomes are related to socially-mediated behavioral disparities, and Pro fails to identify even a single current US policy that unfairly discriminates.

Thus, Pro has lost this debate. Please vote Con. 

Below, I address a few of Pro's final points:
 
1. Housing

As Pro himself repeatedly emphasizes, current US policy (via application of the Fair Housing Act through federal courts, including the Supreme Court) protects minorities from discrimination in housing-related matters, even in cases where only disparate impacts are proven (i.e. even in cases that lack any evidence of prejudice or invidious discrimination). If there's still housing discrimination after that, how can it be related to current US policy? Pro doesn't say.

The point here is that current US policy acts to remedy rogue acts of discrimination, not perpetuate them. Yes, past policies -- in particular, redlining & racial zoning decisions -- were a problem. But (a) past policies aren't relevant to this debate, and (b) as noted above, current US policy opposes & strongly works to counteract these policies through the Fair Housing Act & Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Pro fails to show otherwise. 

Pro ignores the fact that more whites live in formerly-redlined neighborhoods than blacks (a fact that demonstrates there's no longer any housing discrimination of minorities). Pro also ignores a number of alternative explanations for why blacks might choose to live in poorer neighborhoods, including desire for a lively community rather than stale materialism.

2. Immigration

Pro offers no evidence that (a) current US immigration policy unfairly discriminates against minorities, (b) immigration officers treat people of Mexican-origin differently from anyone else, or (c) immigration officers who abuse their position are representative of current US policy.

If an immigration officer acts against current US policy, that doesn't make him representative of the policy -- it makes him or her a rogue actor. In fact, this is why we have an independent judiciary -- to enforce current US policy against government officials who violate it.

Pro says some stuff about "racial profiling," but again, he doesn't connect any of this to a current US policy, nor does he show that any related race-based inequities aren't related to socially-mediated behavioral disparities. 

3. Voting

Pro offers no evidence that minorities face more of a burden than anyone else when it comes to voting, nor does he show that minorities who want to vote can't. 

Instead, Pro argues (for the first time in this debate) that the problem is a "lack of rules and regulations." But (a) showing a "lack of rules and regulations" isn't enough for Pro to win this debate, as his burden is to show that a current US policy discriminates; (b) Pro doesn't prove there's a lack of rules or regulations (in fact he doesn't even tell us what specific rule or regulation is missing; if he had, I could probably find that precise regulation in the Code of Federal Regulations for him, disproving his notion that something is missing); and (c) Pro offers no evidence at all that the Voting Rights Act is insufficient to prevent discrimination of minorities.

Pro says that the government still allows major parties to promote segregation & separation. Well, yes, the Constitution protects freedom of speech, and therefore political parties may advocate whatever they want. However, that doesn't mean political parties may do whatever they want once they're elected to local positions. Current US policy allows federal courts to enforce the Constitution & federal anti-discrimination laws against local government officials, ensuring that they can't discriminate unfairly against minorities. 

Pro says Shelby was implicitly discriminatory, but it literally didn't do anything but remove the "preclearance" requirement. In effect, what this means is that you have to bring a case to federal court instead of working it out in front of an administrative judge. However, minorities are as free as anyone else to bring their cases to federal court. Therefore, no discrimination.

Pro says I'm ignorant about gerrymandering. But gerrymandering isn't about minorities, it's about political parties drawing districts in ways that solidify their power. Neither the Republican party nor Democratic party are "minorities." So I'm not sure what Pro's talking about here. Either way, Pro still fails to connect any of his points to current US policy.