Lawmaker JJ Humphrey seeks punishments for ‘acts of terrorism’ and defines terrorist as ‘any person who is of Hispanic descent’
    • Emma_Gold_Man@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      131·
      6 months ago

      There is some hyperbole - that’s an “and” not an “or”. So the law wouldn’t define anyone of Hispanic descent as a terrorist, just like it doesn’t define non-hispanic convicted gang members as terrorists.

      Still completely fucked up and racist, but the article title is slight hyperbole. And the politician is a total shitbag.

      • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        3·
        6 months ago

        If there are people that would fall into points 2 and 3 but are in non-Hispanic gangs and because of that alone they aren’t labeled as terrorists in the same way, how would this be constitutional? Not that the politicians proposing it care, but it seems like it would be struck down, or they would have to amend it to remove that sort of language. Maybe if they were claiming it was combating Mexican cartels or other criminal foreign nationals with a qualifier about nation of origin, they could try to argue that wasn’t racist.

        Edit: Ah I didn’t read the article, as another commenter pointed out:

        He said: “I apologize for using the word Hispanic, but I was not wrong. Again, these are Hispanic. Reality is they are Hispanic. There’s nothing to be ashamed with.”

        Humphrey said he will go back to the bill and amend the language from “Hispanic” to “undocumented here illegally, or something like that”.

  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    781·
    6 months ago

    I thought it was clickbaity exaggeration.

    He said: “I apologize for using the word Hispanic, but I was not wrong. Again, these are Hispanic. Reality is they are Hispanic. There’s nothing to be ashamed with.”

    Humphrey said he will go back to the bill and amend the language from “Hispanic” to “undocumented here illegally, or something like that”.

    • TWeaK@lemm.eeEnglish
      49·
      6 months ago

      “I’m sorry for saying the thing, but I’m going to say it again, twice.”

      Sorry, not sorry.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        35·
        6 months ago

        I also like how he laid out in real time and full disclosure the “Hispanic” -> “undocumented” pipeline and how it operates.

  • ApeNo1@lemm.eeEnglish
    67·
    6 months ago

    Direct extract from the S 894 US congress bill to address domestic terrorism.

    “ Congress finds the following:

    (1) White supremacists and other far-right-wing extremists are the most significant domestic terrorism threat facing the United States. “

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      27·
      6 months ago

      “I mean, it was originally where we sent the Native Americans when we thought that part of the country wasn’t worth settling, but there was oil and so we had to take it back.”

    • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
      4·
      6 months ago

      Betcha a quick look at 23andMe’s data breach could prove a whole bunch of them don’t have a white-only DNA history.

      What an out that would be!

      • PugJesus@kbin.social
        10·
        6 months ago

        Unfortunately, that would only lead to them saying “I can’t be racist, I’m 1/264th Cherokee!” and then holding up their color card to decide who to let in.

  • Daniel F.@aussie.zoneEnglish
    24·
    6 months ago

    So much for Republicans being “tough on crime,” this law would be more effective (for the purpose of fighting street crime) if they just removed the whole racist bullshit. Of course, that’s not what this law is intended to do. This is some stupid political game where Republicans present a bill that is “intended” to fight street crime. Every sane person and media establishment will see and criticise it for being racist, which it is. Then Republicans and Fox can yell about how those darn woke communists “don’t care about the community” and “aren’t tough on crime.” Also did I mention it’s hella racist? Because it’s hella racist.

  • Godric@lemmy.world
    16·
    6 months ago

    I thought this was BS, because no way, right?

    NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 1268.9 of Title 21, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

    Any person who:

    1. Is of Hispanic descent living within the state of Oklahoma;

    2. Is a member of a criminal street gang as such term is defined in subsection F of Section 856 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes; and

    3. Has been convicted of a gang-related offense enumerated in paragraphs one (1) through sixteen (16) of subsection F of Section 856 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, Req. No. 8450

    shall be deemed to have committed an act of terrorism as such term is defined in Section 1268.1 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes. Any and all property, including real estate and personal property, conveyances, including aircraft, vehicles or vessels, monies, coins and currency, or other instrumentality used or intended to be used, in any manner or part, by said person shall be subject to forfeiture as provided in Section 1738 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes.

    • Cerbero@lemmy.world
      111·
      6 months ago

      Funny how they never go after the white gang member whom are actually terrorists.

  • thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca
    15·
    6 months ago

    It’s bad on its face, but to make it even worse: AFAICT, the definition would apply post-hoc, so anyone who has had such a conviction ever would be liable to have their property seized, even if they weren’t doing anything wrong today. Made a mistake in 1998? Terrorist.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    5·
    6 months ago

    They should read the la…they should learn more about reading first. Once they know how to read, then read the laws they proposed.

  • PatFusty@lemm.ee
    51·
    6 months ago

    The law that it has 3 requirements. Being Hispanic is a strange requirement but they are probably trying to target native Americans.