The applicable laws protect “language minorities” or discuss “race, color, or national origin.” The race vs ethnicity argument isn’t legally relevant since the scope is broader than that.
If it’s that they’re white and born in the USA, it doesn’t matter. If they’re Latino because of ancestry, it’s well established in US law that that’s covered by “national origin.” They’re still a protected group.
“Protected” from discrimination, etc. I understand what you mean. Maybe that’s not a great word to use in this case, but it’s not lawful to use that grouping method for these purposes — good or bad. It can (and has) been used to worsen such a demographic’s situation instead of help.
Latino isn’t a race. It’s anyone from Latin America. It’s an ethnicity.
The applicable laws protect “language minorities” or discuss “race, color, or national origin.” The race vs ethnicity argument isn’t legally relevant since the scope is broader than that.
Aren’t Latinos mostly white (christian) US-Americans?
Perhaps, but what are you getting at?
If it’s that they’re white and born in the USA, it doesn’t matter. If they’re Latino because of ancestry, it’s well established in US law that that’s covered by “national origin.” They’re still a protected group.
How are they being protected by preventing a representative be selected by them?
“Protected” from discrimination, etc. I understand what you mean. Maybe that’s not a great word to use in this case, but it’s not lawful to use that grouping method for these purposes — good or bad. It can (and has) been used to worsen such a demographic’s situation instead of help.
That may be so but it’s a race category of the US census so for legal purposes it’s a race
I’m not sure the current court has the integrity to understand that