In a democracy, and in theory, a government should not exist seperate from its citizentry- since the government derives its mandate from the people, and is made up of them, it is merely an extension of the population. In theory. But of course, what we are discussing here is the theoretical aspects of the debate, so no, a citizen in a democracy is a part of his government.
There isn’t a problem with this. Indeed, the “slavery reperations” case illustrates the wisdom of limitations perfectly. If one allows the decendants of Black people reparations for the wrongs done to their ancestors, one is indeed opening the doors to all sorts of historical claims.
The purpose of a limitations period is precisely to cut off claims being made years (or in the case you cite, more than a century) after the political, moral and social climate has changed - making situations into legal “wrongs” through changes in society.
This leads to all sorts of absurdity. In the US, should decendents of widows and orphans Union Civil War Veterans get a set-off against these proposed reperations, on the theory that they were deprived of the care and companionship of their husbands and fathers in the service of ending slavery?
The purpose of limitations is to allow the “chips to lie as they fall” after a certain point, precisely to avoid this sort of endless grievance-sifting.
It is absurd in my opinion to suggest that “historical reperations” should be a significant factor, or a factor at all, in selecting a country to immigrate to - this only underlies the wisdom of limitations.
There is nothing “nebulous” about the limitations argument. Every other type of claim against a government (or for that matter against an individual) is subject to limitations. If you wish to make the case that certain claims - Chinese head tax, slavery - should be exempt from limitations periods, IMO you have to demonstrate what makes these cases uniquely different from other sorts of wrongs.
Not it does not. That argument has been bandied out before, but it is still unconvincing.
If black people are deemed worthy of reparations, they should get them. If other claims are deemed worthy of reparations, they should get them too. If they aren’t deemed worthy, they shouldn’t get anything. This argument is like saying one shouldn’t sue anyone, since their case will open the door for other claims against that person. Why should a wronged party care about how harshly the defendent might be punished in the future?
But this is crazy, though. If black people had been able to vote and elect their own law-makers when slavery was being debated–AND the country was NOT founded on the natural laws of men…“all men created equal”–then you would have a point. But black people were disenfranchised; they had no way of dictating the “political, moral, or social climate” when they were being dicked over. Just like the Chinese in Canada had no power to change the unjust laws against them.
Essentially what you are saying is, “Well, the government sets the rules and it had decided you were an animal then. Thus, the government treated you fairly, since it didn’t break any of its laws.” All the government has to do to escape punishment is codefy its wicked behavior into laws.
I don’t have the time or energy to do yet another slave reparations thread. But the above argument really needs to be trashed, as it is not at all relevant.
No, the purpose of limitations is to appreciate the fact that cases become harder to prove with time. Witnesses die. Documents get lost. Involved parties become forgetful. It has nothing to do with avoiding “grievance-sifting”.
Um, why? Would you have moved to Germany following WWII? I know I wouldn’t have. The country was tainted by its crimes, and I wouldn’t want to take on that stain. Sins also have a way of boomer-ranging. I wouldn’t want to move to Rwanda or South Africa either, for the same reason, until those governments addressed their past bad behavior.
I live in the US and will remain here for the rest of my life, hopefully. I live here knowing that I will receive the blessings of life here (clean water, paved roads, entertaining TV shows, Krispy Kreme donuts, etc.) as well as the shitty things (like occassional acts of terrorism). Staying here means I am willing to pay for my citizenship, even if I don’t like everything that has been done its name.
And the moment its sinful behavior comes to light, I will hold up my responsibility by paying for it. I imagine we will be paying the Gitmo detainees for a long time, and even though I’m against the war and their illegal incarceration, I am willing to pay my share. Why? Because I had a choice to leave the country when it all came to light. By staying, I’m saying, “My check is ready. Just send me the bill.”
The moment the US becomes too wicked for my tolerance levels, I will pack up and leave. If people aren’t willing to pay to right the wrongs that have been done in their name, they need to be prepared to do the same.
Murder does not have a statute of limitations, IIRC. And cite for other types of claims against the government having a statute of limitations? Because this does not jibe with anything I’ve ever read.
I believe that’s easy enough. If you can prove that the government had historically deprived these groups of their full citizenship in such a way as to limit their ability to bring a case to court, then a statute of limitations should be waved.
Another problem about a statute of limitations is that it is ultimately arbitrary. If governments can institute a statute of limitations for cases brought against them, what would stop them from setting a statute that not only excludes the descendents of the wrong parties, but also the wrong parties themselves. For instance, there were millions of people who were victimized by state-sanctioned Jim Crow laws. Many of those people are still alive today. What would stop the state of Georgia from instituting a law that limits claims for reparations to 10 years after the fact, knowing good and well that Jim Crow ended before then? Again, is there not a conflict of interest when the defendent both writes the laws and enforces the laws?
So do I.
But not one that covers those that actually suffered the abuse ;). At the very least for those cases I’d argue for lifetime exemption from any limitation.
- Tamerlane
So you don’t agree with the concept of a limitations period on civil claims?
That’s nice. I disagree; I think limitations periods are a good idea.
No, that isn’t what I’m saying at all. That is a pretty good example of a strawman argument, though. 
What I’m saying is that some claims, while perfectly legitimate under today’s moral, ethical, political and/or legal climate, are stale-dated; one should not judge history by today’s standards and try to “correct” it with cash payments made by the standards of today.
You won’t or can’t refute it, but it should be refuted? :dubious:
Nonsense. That is “a” purpose of limitations periods, not “the” purpose. Limitations periods are also intended to allow people to get on with things without intrusion from the dead hand of the past.
One reason why one would want to allow this is that otherwise people will be encouraged to dredge the past for grivances - and everyone has 'em. There are lots of historical injustices out there; the civil courts are, IMO and in the opinion of lawmakers, not the places to solve them.
If this is about some religious concept of sin, I’m outta here. I’d rather deal with law than theology.
Murder is a crime committed by an individual. It has a natural limitations period - the death of the murderer. We are talking about reparations here.
As for “cite?”, I already did - quoted the relevant Canadian statute above. The limitations period is six years.
Seems that “Chinese head tax” would fail this test. While there is plenty of proof of widespread racism and official racism against the Chinese in Canada, there is none that Chinese persons were unable to sue in Canadian courts.
What is really at issue is that back when these head taxes were abolished, there was simply no concept that the Canadian government could be sued for “policy” decisions. It would be a tough case even today, and not because of racism.
You would have a point if such laws were drafted to exclude specific cases. However, the law was established decades before anyone had thought up “reparations” cases. It is those seeking the reparations that are asing for special treatment, not the government in this case.
As a matter of fact, these “reparations” are not being paid as a result of successful court cases. They are being paid as a result of a political deal, bypassing the court system. This is what makes them so unfair - only those with political clout are likely to get them, and those are unlikely to be the really disadvantaged.
If so, would you make it a general rule - “no limitations period to apply to those suing the government for wrongs suffered during their lifetime”?
I’d be happier if it was (though I don’t agree). What is really disturbing is the unfairness of having some claims privileged over others.