close
close

Semainede4jours

Real-time news, timeless knowledge

    • Confusion about New York’s Proposition 1 spreads online
    bigrus

    Confusion about New York’s Proposition 1 spreads online

    Harry Posted on

    play

    Claim: New York’s Proposition 1 would ‘eliminate parental rights’, give benefits and voting rights to ‘illegal aliens’

    A Facebook post on October 26 (direct link, archive link) urges New York residents to vote against a proposal on the ballot in the 2024 election.

    “NY STATE WARNING: Democrats are trying to pass Proposal One on the November 5 ballot, which would eliminate parental rights and give illegal aliens benefits and voting rights,” it reads in part.

    He goes on to list five more things he claims the proposal would do:

    • Stop schools from telling parents their child wants to change gender
    • Require biological males to be allowed to play on female sports teams and in female locker rooms
    • Establish “a constitutional basis for taxpayer-funded benefits for noncitizens and undocumented immigrants.”
    • Allow voting rights to non-citizens
    • Support “the use of racial and ethnic quotas in hiring, educational admissions, and other areas.”

    another one The version of the claim on Instagram It was liked nearly 1,500 times before being deleted. The claim also spread on x, old Twitter.

    More from the Fact-Checking Team: How do we select and investigate claims? | Email newsletter | Facebook page

    Our rating: Partly incorrect

    The post overstates the impact of the proposal on multiple fronts. The proposal is flawed on the issue of voting because it does not contain any reference to people in the country illegally being given the right to vote. The post also attributes policy changes regarding parental rights and benefits for immigrants to the proposal, if such measures already exist. One expert said the proposal was a “rollback” that would help protect the rights referred to if other existing legal protections were removed.

    Elements of the claim are currently addressed by state and federal law

    Suggestion 1Also known as the Equal Rights Amendment, it is a proposed state constitutional amendment. Expand the fight against discrimination Protections for certain groups, including immigrants and those changing their gender identity.

    At work full text of the offerThe proposed changes are in bold:

    No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state, or of any subdivision thereof. No one, because of his race or color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, belief (or), religion, or gender (including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender) expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes and reproductive health and autonomy, not to be subjected to any discrimination their civil rights by any person or by any firm, corporation or institution or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the statein accordance with the law.

    B. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to supersede or preclude the adoption of any law, regulation, program or practice designed to prevent or eliminate discrimination based on a characteristic listed in this section or shall be construed to do so. Interfere with, limit or deny the civil rights of any person based on any other characteristic described in this section.

    This statement serves as a “fallback” to existing laws regarding such features: reproductive rightsfor example – eliminated, he said Andrew Liebis a lawyer specializing in constitutional law and managing partner of the New York-based firm Lieb at Law.

    accuracy check: States won’t finalize vote totals until days or weeks after Election Day

    “When rights are protected in the constitution, it is more difficult to pass a law because of political whims to undermine them,” said the Syracuse University law professor. Katherine Macfarlane.

    Experts and New York City Bar He said the claims in the post were largely unfounded. Here’s a summary of why they said that:

    • Parental rights: The Supreme Court made its decision The Fourteenth Amendment protects the “fundamental right of parents to direct the care, rearing, and education of their children.” Supremacy Clause of the Constitution It says state laws cannot override federal laws.
    • Benefits provided to immigrants living illegally in the country: Because discrimination based on “national origin” is already prohibited under state and local laws, the proposal would not change existing laws regarding taxpayer assistance for undocumented immigrants or noncitizens. New York City Bar wrote:. Such individuals may already be “eligible for certain benefits,” according to New York City Human Resources Administration’s website.
    • Voting rights of immigrants living illegally in the country: The idea that the amendment would give these people the right to vote is unfounded; rights are partly based on citizenshipEthnicity or national origin is not one of the characteristics mentioned in the proposition, nor is citizenship. Non-citizens “cannot vote in federal, state and most local elections.” According to the US General Services Administrationand a The state appeals court ruled In February, a New York City law allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections was declared unconstitutional.
    • gender identity: New York the law prevents minors giving medical approval, with a few exceptions This includes a homeless youth or a minor who is also a parent. However, schools cannot disclose a student’s gender identity to their parents without the student’s permission. According to the New York Civil Liberties Union. So the proposal will have no impact on this rule. Locations covered by the New York State Human Rights Act at the same time necessary to give permission that individuals “use facilities consistent with their gender identity.” Whether Title IX requires schools to allow transgender students to compete on sports teams that align with their gender identity is “subject to interpretation by each administration, and that interpretation changes frequently.” The New York Times reported.
    • Racial and ethnic quotas in college admissions and hiring decisions: A. 2023 Supreme Court decision We repealed affirmative action admissions policies at two colleges (Harvard College and the University of North Carolina) effectively discontinue use Race-based admissions to higher education institutions across the country Private employers’ ability to use affirmative action in hiring is “extremely limited.” The American Bar Association wrote In 2023.

    Ultimately, Macfarlane said, the actual language in the proposal has little to do with how it is described on social media.

    “The idea that we want to write (such protections) into the Constitution is nothing revolutionary or radical, it just enshrines them in a more legally solid way,” he said.

    USA TODAY debunked a series of claims about gender identity legislation, including false claims that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz signed a contract. Bill that redefines “sexual orientation” To include pedophiles, Michigan The bill will lead to misgendering one is a felony and that’s California The bill may abolish custody From parents who refuse gender determination surgery to their children.

    USA TODAY reached out to users who shared the post for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

    Pioneering Stories And PolitiFact also debunked versions of the claim.

    Our fact-checking sources:

    Thank you for supporting our journalism. you can Subscribe to our print edition, ad-free app or e-newspaper here.

    USA TODAY is a verified signer Part of the International Fact-Checking Network, which requires a proven commitment to impartiality, fairness and transparency. Our fact-checking efforts are partly a grant from Meta.

    Harry
    View all posts

    You Might Also Like