15
Trump admin ends protected status for Somalis amid Minneapolis crackdown
(www.politico.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2026
15 points (100.0% liked)
politics
27732 readers
995 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That's not at all what affirmative action is or means.
In fact, it's literally the opposite, the goal is to make sure someone is not passed over from being hired or promoted because they're a person of color when they are indeed the most qualified candidate.
If you squint real hard and spin it around you might be able to argue that if we're talking about filling quotas for a university or something like that. Thinking affirmative action is something that takes opportunities away from what people is just plain wrong.
Why would you need to force a business to hire the most competent person for a job?
Man it's like, people are bigoted or something to the point where they had to make laws specifically saying that you have to hire the most competent person, and people still whine about it.
We both know there's racist people out there, towards blacks and whites and Asians or anyone else. Or people who hate gays. Or people who hate straight people. So if you really believe in meritocracy, where people naturally rise from their own effort and the better people get the jobs, you should be in favor of laws that keep things fair. Then the better people will get hired.
But capitalism is about making a profit above all else, isn't it?
If you purposely ignore 20-50% of the potential hiring pool regardless of qualifications simply because you're a bigot, someone else is going to hire them (potentially for less) and simply outcompete you.
Are you actually this naive or are you engaging in bad faith? Are you unaware that racism exists and is rampant? Are you aware that capitalism as practiced is not remotely a meritocracy and there's no actual free market?
That's not how it works in real life and I think you know that.
Capitalism is its own complex beast and one I'm not going to opine on here but I fucking wish we lived in a meritocracy where you could just hire people that are good and magically crush it in the market. We very much don't.
Cream rises to the top all by itself, doesn't it? You don't need to legislate that. Neither do you need to legislate gravity.
The reason there is no meritocracy in our economy is precisely because we have laws against it, not in spite of it.
Or are you saying that hiring the most competent people isn't an automatic guarantee that you'll crush it? In which case, why would you be in favor of a law that requires employers to hire the most competent candidates?
But you do need to legislate against discrimination and pollution and etc (insert long list of heinous shit that's happened in American history that led to legislation).
No. It's because of crony capitalism and human nature and more but it definitely isn't because we have laws against it. That doesn't even make sense.
I'm saying you can have more talented people and still lose in the marketplace for a zillion reasons. I'm in favor of laws that protect people from being discriminated against, which generally leads to more qualified people getting hired regardless of their skin color.
Anyways, on the off hand change you're engaging in good faith and not just a troll - I highly suggest you read up some on the history of minority groups in the USA; particularly how former slaves were treated and how the reconstruction era after the civil war really fucked them over. Plus just the general exploitation of cheap migrant labor.
That's all I'll say about all this.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that even though cream always does rise to the top, passing a law requiring to do so would make it go faster? Or simply that it would make you feel more reassured that it eventually will? If it's the latter, should we perhaps also pass a law requiring the sun to rise every day, or that objects must always fall down instead of up? Where do we draw the line?
Anyways, on the off hand change you're engaging in good faith and not just a troll - I highly suggest you read up some on the history of minority groups in the USA; particularly how former slaves were treated and how the reconstruction era after the civil war really fucked them over. Plus just the general exploitation of cheap migrant labor.
That's all I'll say about all this.
So you're saying that making it so people hire based on how qualified they are rather than, say, race, is actually good for business. Because there are flawed and bigoted people out there, and even though a capitalist business is about making a profit, there's people out there who would rather screw up the system over petty differences than have business be better and innovate more.
Sure, there probably are people like that, but they deserve to fail and go out of business, don't you think?
Another person answered you but yeah the (very) short answer is the history of institutionalized racism in the USA. There's been plenty of books and articles written on the topic so if you're interested in learning more about the history of racial injustice and how affirmative action works to address that you definitely can find tons of info.
At the end of the day, affirmative action is a means to try to right historical wrongs and implement laws against discrimination.
I think if you took the time to read more about why it came into being and what the situation was for formerly enslaved people after the civil war* you'll see why affirmative action is still an important practice that continues to this day.
*It was bad, really bad. Sharecropping, for example, was really just slavery with extra steps.
Okay, so you admit that it IS about collective punishment, then?
No because that's not punishing anyone.
What you're saying is a classic strawman fallacy.