3 ms·

What do you think about the laws that were passed in the Jim Crow era? Suppose the United States had Jim Crow -esque laws at the federal law, would you support

What do you think about the laws that were passed in the Jim Crow era? Suppose the United States had Jim Crow -esque laws at the federal law, would you support them because of "the stability that the rule of law gives to a free society"? As you've said say you are not an expert on immigration rules; I can give you a super-quick summary: in 1965, they changed the law to allow non-Europeans to immigrate. But they made it so extremely restrictive that practically no one could immigrate legally. Their objective was to ensure the ethnic composition ("whiteness") of the United States didn't change significantly. Which is why I don't see a family coming here seeking a better life as morally wrong.

sokoloff 11y ago
I think a lot of the marijuana and peyote drug policies were also "fear of non-whites" driven. It's a real thing; I agree. To answer your specific Jim Crow law question, prior to the passage of the 14th and 15th Amendment, yes, I would support those chartered with the enforcement of those laws while seeking to change the law at the legislative level. (These are morally repugnant laws to be clear; the choice is between an orderly society with some bad consequences, or an anarchic society with different bad consequences. I choose order.) After the 14th Amendment, those laws are unconstitutional, and I do not support the enforcement of unconstitutional laws. Those states who had Jim Crow laws or even plantation owners who bought and sold humans; I can't understand it and can't support it, but it clearly was the majority point of view at that time and place. This issue is running up against the fundamental challenge of democratic society: how to have a government that expresses and supports the will of the majority of its citizens without unduly restricting the freedom of those citizens who find themselves in the minority.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  > (These are morally repugnant laws to be clear; the choice is between an orderly society with some bad consequences, or an anarchic society with different bad consequences. I choose order.) Why not a little of column A and a little of column B? >I can't understand it and can't support it Most people economically support slavery, albeit through a few layers of companies supplying companies. In the last 24 hours I ate a piece of chocolate from Nestle which I paid for, thus adding to demand that goes all the way back to child slaves harvesting chocolate.
- winter_blue 11y ago
  I would've willfully and knowingly violated the Fugitive Slave Clause of the U.S. Constitution, if I'd lived in the 1800s US. I would have helped slaves escape from slave states into free states, and would have harbored them in my home (and whatever property I owned) in total defiance and violation of the law. And I would've been willing to go to jail for it.
  - chillacy 11y ago
    I don't anticipate any of you to change each other's minds, but it's interesting to see how you've both built up the world on different principles (sokoloff believing that right and wrong is defined by law and you believing that laws may not reflect morality, and if I might guess, sokoloff seems to be a relativist and you an absolutist)

sokoloff 11y ago

I think a lot of the marijuana and peyote drug policies were also "fear of non-whites" driven. It's a real thing; I agree. To answer your specific Jim Crow law question, prior to the passage of the 14th and 15th Amendment, yes, I would support those chartered with the enforcement of those laws while seeking to change the law at the legislative level. (These are morally repugnant laws to be clear; the choice is between an orderly society with some bad consequences, or an anarchic society with different bad consequences. I choose order.) After the 14th Amendment, those laws are unconstitutional, and I do not support the enforcement of unconstitutional laws. Those states who had Jim Crow laws or even plantation owners who bought and sold humans; I can't understand it and can't support it, but it clearly was the majority point of view at that time and place. This issue is running up against the fundamental challenge of democratic society: how to have a government that expresses and supports the will of the majority of its citizens without unduly restricting the freedom of those citizens who find themselves in the minority.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
> (These are morally repugnant laws to be clear; the choice is between an orderly society with some bad consequences, or an anarchic society with different bad consequences. I choose order.) Why not a little of column A and a little of column B? >I can't understand it and can't support it Most people economically support slavery, albeit through a few layers of companies supplying companies. In the last 24 hours I ate a piece of chocolate from Nestle which I paid for, thus adding to demand that goes all the way back to child slaves harvesting chocolate.
winter_blue 11y ago
I would've willfully and knowingly violated the Fugitive Slave Clause of the U.S. Constitution, if I'd lived in the 1800s US. I would have helped slaves escape from slave states into free states, and would have harbored them in my home (and whatever property I owned) in total defiance and violation of the law. And I would've been willing to go to jail for it.
- chillacy 11y ago
  I don't anticipate any of you to change each other's minds, but it's interesting to see how you've both built up the world on different principles (sokoloff believing that right and wrong is defined by law and you believing that laws may not reflect morality, and if I might guess, sokoloff seems to be a relativist and you an absolutist)