So Obama was lauding the same thing?
We've been through this. Did you think to just wait a while and try again?
Yep, and you only made trivial semantic arguments that never did divorce one Anglo-American heritage from the other.
Why, are you looking to take another stab at it? No one ever said law and law enforcement were the exact same things (which seemed to be the straw man you were arguing), only that they shared the same Anglo-American heritage referred to by both Sessions and Obama.
What interference, greater expense, time, or hassle than any non-minority?
All of those associated - statistically and sometimes legally - with racial oppression.
Correlation (association) is not causation.
For example: Difficulty in obtaining legally valid proof of birth from poorly maintained records, home births not attended by any doctor, circumstances surrounding adoptions of abandoned or orphaned children, jailed or unknown fathers, custodial relatives, illegal conceptions concealed, and so forth.
Older Caucasian mothers, aged 35 and over, are more likely to give birth at home than younger mothers. According to
data compiled by the CDC, there are wide disparities in race and ethnicity for mothers choosing home births.
In 2009, the percentage of home births was three to five times higher for non-Hispanic white women than for any other race. From 2004 to 2009, the percentage of home births increased for Asian Pacific Islanders and Hispanic women, and remained about the same for non-Hispanic black and American Indian or Alaska Native women.
https://blog.everymothercounts.org/home-birth-the-facts-b2b3f82a844
So caucasians should be the most effected by home births.
So non-hispanic whites, being the most adopted, should be most effected by adoption.
Birth certificate to be filed for foundling child.
When an infant is found for whom no known certificate of birth is on file and for whom no other identification is known, the finder shall notify the police authorities having jurisdiction within the area of finding.
The police authorities, within 48 hours, shall have the local health officer determine or cause to be determined the approximate date of birth of the child.
The health officer, within 72 hours of notification shall complete a certificate of live birth on a standard Washington certificate of live birth form designating the place of finding as the place of birth and place of residence, the approximate date of birth, sex, and assign a given name. He shall write across the face of the certificate in the sections provided for parental information the words, "foundling child," sign, and date the certificate and cause the same to be filed with the local registrar of the area in which the finding occurred.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=246-490-069
So only the adult's fault for not notifying the police when they found a child.
Unknown father or custodial relatives are not a reasons for lack of proof of birth. Look it up.
Already illegal. Again, adult's fault.
So aside from adults intentionally thwarting the law, you're only left with hospitals intentionally and disparately handling records. Can you show any evidence of that?
Almost all white people can simply apply to the official repository of the records for their known time and place of birth for a copy of their birth certificate, which will be reliably delivered to a secure mail receptacle in a couple of weeks - and even these will charged a fee that disproportionately burdens the disproportionately poor, which black and red and brown people are.
Again, correlation is not causation.
Comparatively fewer white people ever have to do what comparatively many more older black and brown and red people must do - compile baptism records from defunct churches, witness accounts of one kind or another, official records from unrelated government agencies, etc - build a case, at the cost of money and time.
You didn't know that? The voter ID designers do.
Mostly due to choices their parents make, which are not cost prohibitive. That's cultural, not systemic.
Example the second: The crosscheck procedure that purports to screen for double voting - people who vote in two districts or States - falsely flags comparatively more poor and black and brown and yellow voters, for a variety of reasons none legitimate. That adds more time, trouble, and expense for black and brown voters (and some yellow).
You'd have to show some evidence of that. Do you have any?
This kind of interference with non-white people voting is part of the Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement Jeff Sessions mentioned. The demonstrators and protestors and activists and the like beaten and abused by sheriffs (among others) in the Confederate States over the decades have often been focused on voting rights and election reform as a racial issue. And they still are, as are the white supremacists like Kobach who are trying to suppress the non-white vote.
The only interference of voting in the US was done by southern Democrats. And guilt by association is a fallacy.
No but id issuing places tend not to be open as often in areas which serve minorities which increases the chronological burden. if you think that's coincidence, i got a bridge in brooklyn with you name on it. rich white republican areas arent served by id places only open 4 or 5 days a year. and no that is not am exageration
No coincidence at all. Private tag agencies, those often closer than the local DMV, often avoid high-crime areas or have restricted hours for safety. "Rich white Republican areas" also don't suffer from such crime rates. Some states even have mobile voter ID units that can be requested:
https://sos.alabama.gov/alabama-votes/voter/request-mobile-unit
If college students can can't manage to get appropriate ID, they might be wasting their time and money on college.
could you parse this better i can tell what your trying to say.
Sorry. Typo.
it was a statement of fact.
Unsupported statements are not arguments.
for technical reason? did you ever read the article. even he repeatedly states its disenfranchising capabilities.
He repeated said he doesn't know, and emphasizes "now widely regarded."
not really. the genetic fallacy only happens when the entirety of the argument is revolves around the evidence as coming from the source to dismiss it, as it was an aside after laying out evidence it by definition is not the genetic fallacy. this wasn't part of my argument against voter id, just a commentary that the only people who have ever found the evidence of massive voter fraud are the people who want something has proven negative consequences for what most people see as little to no pay off. pointing out that people who claim to have found evidence for a low reward high risk strategy should probably be taken with a grain of salt is not a logical fallacy now if all my argument was is that the heritage foundation supports this it must be bad you'd have a point but that simply isn't the case. this is just you reaching as usual because you can't deal with the facts being in stark contrast to your view point.
You not only failed to refute the Supreme Court opinion that affirmed Posner's 7th Circuit decision, you're only refute was of the source. Each claim in an argument stands on its own, and must be individually refuted. You don't get to pretend that you have refuted the Supreme Court saying that known instances of fraud “demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election” by dismissing the source. That is what you did. Hence a genetic fallacy, which is about specific claims, not whole arguments including many claims.
The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that
the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
