Race Fraud

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by ahhell

Not all that new really, passing has been a thing for a long time. The only thing sorta of new is that some folks of the majority group are trying to pass for being members of the minority group.

The new part is more the formal validating of self-identification for objective traits. You used to have to be able to fool people. Now you just assert it, obvious facts be damned.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Founder effects readily create noticeable but irrelevant differences in facial features. So what? Go back 1000 years in Europe and people could generally tell just by looking at you if you were local or had traveled there from as little as a few hundred miles away. In many cases you can still do that today.

Also, why compare an African and Englishman when two Africans are often just as distantly Two African populations are frequently more distantly related to each other than an Englishman is to a Malaysian.

Because when it comes to appearance, subsaharan Africans have a general physical type that you could never mistake for English Isles traits. By the way, how much of the genetic distance within Africa can be accounted for by populations of West Eurasian descent, in North Africa and partially in the Horn region?

Again I'm saying if a race fraudster can't look for legal/cultural loopholes to exploit, a genetic test showing they are pretty close to Y different race isn't going to sway anyone.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

When you provide an incentive to fraud, and you simultaneously provide an incentive to not uncover fraud (because none of these institutions actually want to police any of these policies they implement, and it makes them look bad when cases are discovered), then the default expectation should be that it occurs far more frequently than you hear of.

In other words, no, there isn't any evidence and you don't expect that there would be.

[d4m10n]

Interesting new case:

https://twitter.com/Westernspinster/...64239985803264

Quote:

According to the tribal council, Proudfit is not a “descendent” of the Pechanga Band either — a direct refutation of the claim she has long made as she has risen to notable positions in education, politics and, more recently, film and television.

No reply yet from @NativeProf but I can't imagine her fading into the background (even temporarily) like Andrea Smith did.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Interesting new case:

https://twitter.com/Westernspinster/...64239985803264



No reply yet from @NativeProf but I can't imagine her fading into the background (even temporarily) like Andrea Smith did.

You mean no response bar all the quotes from her in the article the tweet links to?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

In other words, no, there isn't any evidence and you don't expect that there would be.

On the contrary, there is mounting evidence, just as I expected.

For example:

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Interesting new case:

https://twitter.com/Westernspinster/...64239985803264



No reply yet from @NativeProf but I can't imagine her fading into the background (even temporarily) like Andrea Smith did.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

In other words, no, there isn't any evidence and you don't expect that there would be.

What evidence would work, I'm sure we can find quite a few anecdotes and news stories. Even if it is a relatively common place thing, I doubt there's anyone keeping statistics, its not exactly a crime to say you're black when you aren't.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Darat

You mean no response bar all the quotes from her in the article the tweet links to?

I mean no reply to the article itself, some of which I'd expect her to contest.

ETA: Then again, both sides are laid out in the article pretty thoroughly. The only thing lacking is some specificity as to which ancestor(s) Proudfit claims descent from and why the tribe rejects that claim.

ETA2: There is a decent argument to be made that the tribe is pursuing (retroactive) disenrollment in a counterfactual way—for the sake of consolidating power and profit—and thus Proudfit is not an example of the general phenomenon discussed in this thread).

[Darat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I mean no reply to the article itself, some of which I'd expect her to contest.

ETA: Then again, both sides are laid out in the article pretty thoroughly. The only thing lacking is some specificity as to which ancestor(s) Proudfit claims descent from and why the tribe rejects that claim.

ETA2: There is a decent argument to be made that the tribe is pursuing (retroactive) disenrollment in a counterfactual way (for the sake of consolidating power and profit) and thus Proudfit is not an example of the general phenomenon discussed in this threa).

This proves you didn't read the article you led us to before deciding it was an example of "race fraud".

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Darat

This proves you didn't read the article you led us to before deciding it was an example of "race fraud".

The article doesn't come down on either side.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Darat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

The article doesn't come down on either side.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Which has nothing to do with my point.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Venom

Because when it comes to appearance, subsaharan Africans have a general physical type that you could never mistake for English Isles traits.

Presumably you mean skin color, but the inhabitants of the English Isles 7K - 10K years ago had similar skin color. While there have been migrations, this wasn't a full on replacement so these dark skinned western hunter gathers ARE direct ancestors of modern Europeans, including those living in England or Ireland.

Originally Posted by Venom

By the way, how much of the genetic distance within Africa can be accounted for by populations of West Eurasian descent, in North Africa and partially in the Horn region?

There are 7 mtDNA haplogroups, all 7 are represented within Africa but all non-African populations are contained within haplogroup L3. Furthermore within L3 there are 7 more haplogroups, 5 of which are exclusive to Africa. Only groups M and N can be found outside of African populations. These can both be found within African populations as well, and some or perhaps even all of this resulted from back migration.

Regardless, Africans who are part of L3 (Common in Bantu peoples for example) share a more recent maternal ancestor with Englishmen than they do with Africans who are not part of L3. You get similar, though not necessarily identical results if you look at paternal ancestors instead.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I mean no reply to the article itself, some of which I'd expect her to contest.

ETA: Then again, both sides are laid out in the article pretty thoroughly. The only thing lacking is some specificity as to which ancestor(s) Proudfit claims descent from and why the tribe rejects that claim.

ETA2: There is a decent argument to be made that the tribe is pursuing (retroactive) disenrollment in a counterfactual way—for the sake of consolidating power and profit—and thus Proudfit is not an example of the general phenomenon discussed in this thread).

Why would she reply to the article when she's replies extensively IN the article?

FWIW there are 2 issues. She isn't part of the tribe itself and has never claimed to be. She does claim she was eligible for membership when her mother and grandmother were still alive.

The tribe makes another claim, that she does not descend from it at all, but they have no evidence to back this claim. Conversely her genealogy does seem to support her claim assuming that her information about her maternal grandmother is accurate.

Since membership hinges on her matrilineal ancestors it would seem to be easy enough to determine one way or another. Of course the results of such a test could never demonstrate fraud, as she could simply be mistaken about her ancestry.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Why would she reply to the article when she's replies extensively IN the article?

Because someone quoted in that article must be lying (or at least factually mistaken) and also because she was specifically tagged in the tweet that I linked.

Originally Posted by lomiller

The tribe makes another claim, that she does not descend from it at all, but they have no evidence to back this claim.

Hard to prove a negative.

Originally Posted by lomiller

Conversely her genealogy does seem to support her claim assuming that her information about her maternal grandmother is accurate.

Either her maternal grandmother can be traced to the same ancestors from whom the current tribal members claim descent, or not. We don't have enough detail to say (AFAIK) but some people probably already do.

What I find so bizarre is that she doesn't come out and just name names. If someone challenged my kids on their ancestry I could show exactly which Cherokee and Delaware ancestors they lay claim to, where they are listed on the Dawes Rolls, and trace all of the intermediate steps from then until now using my wife's ancestry dot com tree.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Presumably you mean skin color, but the inhabitants of the English Isles 7K - 10K years ago had similar skin color. While there have been migrations, this wasn't a full on replacement so these dark skinned western hunter gathers ARE direct ancestors of modern Europeans, including those living in England or Ireland.

I'm not fixated on skin color at all. I'm talking primarily craniofacial patterns that don't vary so clinally.

I don't know what genetics and historical skin tone have to do with the black guy in the example, presumably SSA, pretending to be Irish. It wouldn't work even if they both had white skin. So it may be irrelevant in many ways, but when it comes to fraud attempt, it's relevant.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Because someone quoted in that article must be lying (or at least factually mistaken) and also because she was specifically tagged in the tweet that I linked.

…snip...

Stop being disingenuous and simply admit you saw the twitter feed, read the title and jumped to the conclusion you wanted it to support, you’d never even read the article until I pointed out to you that she was quoted in the article.

[Rolfe]

Sydney Uni cracks down on staff, students ‘self-identifying’ as Indigenous

Quote:

The proposed changes follow lobbying from Aboriginal land councils, who believe staff and students who do not meet the Commonwealth criteria are taking part in Indigenous programs.

Last November, the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council complained to the Independent Commission Against Corruption about the number of students at the university identifying as Indigenous using statutory declarations. Council CEO Nathan Moran said the provision was “embarrassing”.

“It’s open fraud. We say to academic students: can they pass a paper without citing a verified source?,” he said.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

In other words, no, there isn't any evidence and you don't expect that there would be.

Some more evidence for you, arthwollipot:

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Sydney Uni cracks down on staff, students ‘self-identifying’ as Indigenous

Which, I confess, is exactly what I expected.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Some more evidence for you, arthwollipot:

Thanks - this is the kind of thing I was looking for. But...

Quote:

A University of Sydney spokesperson denied it reviewed the policy due to fraudulently claimed scholarships or positions reserved for Indigenous applicants, but was instead to ensure processes were “in line with current community expectations”.

“[The review] was initiated in response to multiple expressions of community concern, particularly in relation to the use of statutory declarations, rather than any specific concerns about fraud,” they said.

“We are seeking feedback and further input from members of our own and the broader community, representative organisations and other universities on this culturally significant matter.”

But the proposed policy has been criticised by students and academics, concerned the institution already struggles to attract Indigenous students.

...

Professor Jakelin Troy, a Ngarigu woman and director of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research at the university, said she understood why the change had been made, but was “sad” about the outcome.

“It’s a response to a push from some parts of Aboriginal Australia, but not all of us,” she said, adding it was untrue to say Indigenous students were being excluded from scholarship opportunities because they were being taken by people with lesser connections to community.

“We have scholarships going begging every year; nobody has been excluded from a scholarship because we don’t have enough.”

...

Macquarie University Aboriginal academic Professor Bronwyn Carlson, author of the book The Politics of Identity: Who Counts as Aboriginal Today?, said scrapping statutory declarations was “a move that will create issues”.

“It burdens our organisations with the responsibility to work with individuals who may have complex histories and are unable to provide written evidence of their family histories,” she said.

“Not all Aboriginal peoples have such documents at the ready: members of the Stolen Generations and others who were displaced for various reasons, foster kids.”

Looks to me like the uni is just making it harder for people to identify as Aboriginal, not that there is a rush of white people fraudulently claiming Aboriginal status.

Furthermore, the existence of the Stolen Generations - where by national policy Aboriginal children had their heritage, culture and evidence of their ancestry erased - makes the situation more complicated than it might at first seem.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Darat

Stop being disingenuous and simply admit you saw the twitter feed, read the title and jumped to the conclusion you wanted it to support, you’d never even read the article until I pointed out to you that she was quoted in the article.

You have no evidence that I leaped to any conclusion, b/c I'm still unsure whom to believe and haven't taken sides. You have jumped to conclusions, however, by conflating responding to the article (on Twitter) with responding to the tribe (in print).

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

You have no evidence that I leaped to any conclusion, b/c I'm still unsure whom to believe and haven't taken sides. You have jumped to conclusions, however, by conflating responding to the article (on Twitter) with responding to the tribe (in print).

So when you announced this as an "interesting new case" of race fraud, you hadn't (and still haven't) taken sides as to whether or not it was what you described it as?

Or did you leap to a conclusion, breathlessly rush here to present your assumption, but then a day later simply forget what you had claimed?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by wareyin

So when you announced this as an "interesting new case" of race fraud, you hadn't (and still haven't) taken sides as to whether or not it was what you described it as?

It certainly is an interesting case (in my view) of alleged race fraud, but I'd be quite surprised to learn Proudfit has no Native American ancestry whatsoever. It's certainly possible she is mistaken about which tribe(s) she is descended from, though, and I think it's weird that she hasn't named a specific ancestor already known and acknowledged to be a tribal member.

Visited the First Americans Musuem just yesterday, and one of the instructional exhibits made it clear that tracing ancestry to a specific known member is considered important to enrollment and identity. Has Proudfit done this? Perhaps so, but the details aren't given in that article.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Ireland seems to have made a decision to encourage as many people as possible to come back, following on from the diaspora which I think was even worse than the clearances in Scotland (though of course as an independent country they have control over citizenship, which Scotland does not). It's noticeable that Ireland's population has recovered significantly over the past century and a bit while Scotland's, depleted by the clearances, has remained static.

Lots and lots of people living in Britain have been able to get Irish (EU) passports post Brexit that way. They also offer an Irish passport to anyone living in Northern Ireland, pretty much no questions asked. I've sometimes wondered whether, if I moved to Northern Ireland, I could get an Irish passport that way.

So in a way, having Irish citizenship and an Irish passport and actually being Irish aren't quite the same thing. The Irish government would like you to come and be Irish, and offers incentives, but not everyone takes it the whole way.

The wife in the family that lived next door to me in England was American. But she was born in Germany - the family emigrated to America when she was about five. She said she'd more or less lost her German, and she had become an American citizen. She was also obviously coloured, part African heritage I think, but I don't know where that came in. She met her English husband while he was doing a stint working in a children's summer camp in America. She said she only agreed to come to England if it was temporary and they'd go back to America in due course.

Well, 35 years later I'm still sending them Christmas cards to an address in Sussex. But she took her two daughters to the American embassy when they were quite small to get them American citizenship, just in case it might come in handy. So they got that on the basis of their mother simply having lived there as a child and young woman.

One of my classmates at school had American citizenship because she'd been born there accidentally - a premature birth on holiday I think. She's completely Scottish. She said at one point (this was in the 1960s) that if she'd been a boy her parents would have taken steps to have the citizenship revoked because otherwise she'd have been in danger of being called up to fight in Vietnam. But as she was a girl they just let it stand.

So it's all quite complicated. I don't think Ireland is going to give me an Irish passport on the basis of an Ancestry test that varies between 7% and 1% Irish depending on how their algorithms are running that month. All my grandparents and great grandparents were born in Scotland. Dammit.

I hope all those USAians pay their taxes.

[Delvo]

There's no tax to pay if you don't live or work here. There's also no even hypothetical chance of getting drafted, no matter how dire the hypothetical war & draft get, if you're not registered for the draft. Registering for the draft is a forgettable bureaucratic process taking just a few minutes that most do at age 18 without thinking about it much and then forget about, but it does need to be done in order to make you draftable. Not registering might be a minor crime if they were to find out, and it makes you ineligible for some certain Federal benefit programs, but it's generally insignificant; you can choose not to register and just carry on with your life with essentially no difference. You might have heard of "draft dogdging", but that's not refusal to register; it's refusal to go if you are registered and your number was drawn.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

You have no evidence that I leaped to any conclusion, b/c I'm still unsure whom to believe and haven't taken sides. You have jumped to conclusions, however, by conflating responding to the article (on Twitter) with responding to the tribe (in print).

Apart from your posts. The one with ETAs added as you started to read the article for the first time is a prime example.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Delvo

There's no tax to pay if you don't live or work here.
...snip...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...eign-secretary

...“The United States comes after me, would you believe it ... for capital gains tax on the sale of your first residence which is not taxable in Britain, but they’re trying to hit me with some bill, can you believe it?...

...Unlike most nations, the US taxes non-resident citizens on their worldwide income....

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

So it's all quite complicated. I don't think Ireland is going to give me an Irish passport on the basis of an Ancestry test that varies between 7% and 1% Irish depending on how their algorithms are running that month. All my grandparents and great grandparents were born in Scotland. Dammit.

I looked into Irish citizenship reasonably seriously when Brexit was voted for. I have Irish ancestors on both sides of the family, but too far back to qualify myself. My mother could have claimed Irish citizenship, through her grandfather, but she would have had to have done it back in the 1970s or so, IIRC, and there would have been no reason to do it then; if she had done so, I could then have claimed it myself.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Ireland seems to have made a decision to encourage as many people as possible to come back, following on from the diaspora which I think was even worse than the clearances in Scotland (though of course as an independent country they have control over citizenship, which Scotland does not). It's noticeable that Ireland's population has recovered significantly over the past century and a bit while Scotland's, depleted by the clearances, has remained static.

Lots and lots of people living in Britain have been able to get Irish (EU) passports post Brexit that way. They also offer an Irish passport to anyone living in Northern Ireland, pretty much no questions asked. I've sometimes wondered whether, if I moved to Northern Ireland, I could get an Irish passport that way.

So in a way, having Irish citizenship and an Irish passport and actually being Irish aren't quite the same thing. The Irish government would like you to come and be Irish, and offers incentives, but not everyone takes it the whole way.

The wife in the family that lived next door to me in England was American. But she was born in Germany - the family emigrated to America when she was about five. She said she'd more or less lost her German, and she had become an American citizen. She was also obviously coloured, part African heritage I think, but I don't know where that came in. She met her English husband while he was doing a stint working in a children's summer camp in America. She said she only agreed to come to England if it was temporary and they'd go back to America in due course.

Well, 35 years later I'm still sending them Christmas cards to an address in Sussex. But she took her two daughters to the American embassy when they were quite small to get them American citizenship, just in case it might come in handy. So they got that on the basis of their mother simply having lived there as a child and young woman.

One of my classmates at school had American citizenship because she'd been born there accidentally - a premature birth on holiday I think. She's completely Scottish. She said at one point (this was in the 1960s) that if she'd been a boy her parents would have taken steps to have the citizenship revoked because otherwise she'd have been in danger of being called up to fight in Vietnam. But as she was a girl they just let it stand.

So it's all quite complicated. I don't think Ireland is going to give me an Irish passport on the basis of an Ancestry test that varies between 7% and 1% Irish depending on how their algorithms are running that month. All my grandparents and great grandparents were born in Scotland. Dammit.

Its only complicated in that its bit of a pain to get all the records, as long as you have one grandparent who was born there. I've got my citizenship almost 100 years after my grandparents left. I had to get records from three or for US states though. That sucks, did you know each US state has a secretary of state? They mostly seem to regulate businesses and provide the apostille of records and documents for international use.

Anyrate, it took about 6 months prior to covid to get me and my older son registered. I sent in my younger son's papers just before Brexit and it still hasn't come back. On the population recovery, they still haven't gotten back to pre-famine levels. It's really quite astounding when you think about it. 174 years later, still a smaller country than it was in the 1840s.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

In other words, no, there isn't any evidence and you don't expect that there would be.

Of course there's evidence. We have known cases. What we don't have is any way to accurately measure the scale of the problem. Taking that as evidence that there ISN'T a problem, or that the problem cannot possibly be large, is wholly unjustified.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Delvo

There's no tax to pay if you don't live or work here.

This is not true.
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/inte...g-requirements

"If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien living or traveling outside the United States, you generally are required to file income tax returns, estate tax returns, and gift tax returns and pay estimated tax in the same way as those residing in the United States."

There are deductions and exemptions which apply to foreign earned income so that a lot of US citizens living abroad don't end up having to pay taxes, but that's not because there's no taxes, it's because they're below the limits.

Quote:

There's also no even hypothetical chance of getting drafted, no matter how dire the hypothetical war & draft get, if you're not registered for the draft.

There is no law saying that you can only be drafted if you have registered. Not registering makes the bureaucratic process of drafting someone harder, and whether or not the government would bother is an open question, but it's no guarantee against it happening.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

This is not true.
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/inte...g-requirements

"If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien living or traveling outside the United States, you generally are required to file income tax returns, estate tax returns, and gift tax returns and pay estimated tax in the same way as those residing in the United States."

There are deductions and exemptions which apply to foreign earned income so that a lot of US citizens living abroad don't end up having to pay taxes, but that's not because there's no taxes, it's because they're below the limits.



There is no law saying that you can only be drafted if you have registered. Not registering makes the bureaucratic process of drafting someone harder, and whether or not the government would bother is an open question, but it's no guarantee against it happening.

There's something like two countries in the world that tax income made while their citizens live and work elsewhere and the US is one of them.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Darat

Apart from your posts. The one with ETAs added as you started to read the article for the first time is a prime example.

Stop lying, please.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Of course there's evidence. We have known cases. What we don't have is any way to accurately measure the scale of the problem. Taking that as evidence that there ISN'T a problem, or that the problem cannot possibly be large, is wholly unjustified.

It was the scale of the problem I was asking for evidence of.

While it is true that we can work on small problems while we work on bigger ones, and that low-hanging fruit should definitely be picked, I think that this is a small problem. It can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, unlike trans discrimination (e.g.) which is systemic and needs to be addressed system-wide.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Stop lying, please.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Come on, we can all see your first post about it calling it a case of race fraud, then your succession of walking back posts to "alleged" and "you haven't made up your mind", etc.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Stop lying, please.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

The sequence of your posts and your ETAs are there for everyone to see.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

It was the scale of the problem I was asking for evidence of.

Why would you think good evidence for the scale exists? None of the institutions in a position to determine that actually want to figure it out. It might make them look bad.

ETA: to clarify, even if institutions like universities uncover race fraud (which I don't think they try to police), they have zero incentive to share data about that, and every incentive to keep it hushed up. There is nobody who collects comprehensive data about this, and no way to even collect reliable sampling data.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Darat

The sequence of your posts and your ETAs are there for everyone to see.

At the risk of following your derail off track, ETA2 was due to outside reading.

Originally Posted by wareyin

Come on, we can all see your first post about it calling it a case of race fraud

Please quote the part where I said Proudfit was not merely accused of race fraud, but actually guilty thereof.

No one can read minds and people who try to do so look silly at best; far better to stick to the text. I remain agnostic on whether Proudfit is descended from acknowledged Pechanga ancestors or not, and haven't seen any evidence which might tip the scales either way.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Why would you think good evidence for the scale exists? None of the institutions in a position to determine that actually want to figure it out. It might make them look bad.

ETA: to clarify, even if institutions like universities uncover race fraud (which I don't think they try to police), they have zero incentive to share data about that, and every incentive to keep it hushed up. There is nobody who collects comprehensive data about this, and no way to even collect reliable sampling data.

I just think that if it were widespread, there would be more evidence of it.

Like I said, it definitely exists on a scale that can be addressed on a case by case basis.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Please quote the part where I said Proudfit was not merely accused of race fraud, but actually guilty thereof.

No one can read minds and people who try to do so look silly at best; far better to stick to the text. I remain agnostic on whether Proudfit is descended from acknowledged Pechanga ancestors or not, and haven't seen any evidence which might tip the scales either way.

Speaking of sticking to the text, you may note that you have added in text which I did not say, and then asked me to quote your new addition. Care to try again, but without your obvious bad faith attempts to move the goalposts?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I just think that if it were widespread, there would be more evidence of it.

What counts as widespread, and why do you think there would be more evidence of it?

Quote:

Like I said, it definitely exists on a scale that can be addressed on a case by case basis.

Why would you think that? What enforcement mechanisms exist to detect and punish race fraud?