Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> 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