|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Likewise with illegal immigration: The vast majority of illegal immigrants
> > don't look like locals.
> Sure they do. We have a huge population of Americans of Mexican descent
> here, as well as a whole raft of people descended from the Mexicans who were
> here before the USA took over California.
I think that you understood what I meant, but decided to nitpick on my
wording regardless, just for the sake of argument.
Let me rephrase: If 90% of illegal immigrants are Mexicans, then 90% of
illegal immigrants will look like Mexicans. Hence it only makes sense to
devote 90% of the law enforcement resources to check Mexicans.
"Oooh! That's racial profiling! That's racism!"
Why is it so only with immigration? If the suspect of a crime is a white
male, is it racism to question only white males? Wouldn't it be less racist
to question also black females? You know, for equality.
> This is the problem. It's not that we'll catch illegal immigrants. It's that
> the police will hassle Americans who look Mexican and not hassle the
> Americans who look British.
So what do you suggest? That the police will question equally Mexicans
and British people even though approximately 0% of British people are
illegal? And that makes sense how exactly?
> Or to put it another way, jump back 180 years. Pass a law in the northern
> part of the USA saying everyone had to prove they aren't an escaped slave.
> Do you think there's any way that wouldn't be considered a racist law today?
> Do you think there's any chance you wouldn't wind up locking up a whole lot
> more innocent black people than innocent white people?
You are comparing immigration laws with slavery laws. Same thing?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |