Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> The goal is to have nobody innocent hassled by the government here.
> > 
> >   Does that apply to all crimes, or only illegal immigration? Why?

> All crimes. Note that it's not "hassle" if you actually have reason to 
> suspect someone of a crime. If you find a dead woman, you question the 
> husband and boss and etc.  You don't go walking up and down the streets 
> stopping everyone and questioning them.

  I suppose it depends on your definition of "hassle". If illegal immigration
is a big problem at some place, I think it should be understandable if the
police regularly asks people for their ID.

> >   How can you compare asking someone's ID to putting someone in prison?

> Because that's what happens when you don't have ID. Note that it's not just 
> "ID" but "proof of citizenship."

  I thought ID is exactly that.

  Carrying some form of ID at all times is not mandatory here, but there
are many countries where it is (at least technically, by the letter of the
law). Spain is one example, AFAIK.

>  Hell, I'd be surprised if 75% of the 
> people in Congress here had actual proof of citizenship where they could get 
> to it within 24 hours.

  If ID is not proof of citizenship, then what is?

> >   If I started complaining how the stores asking me for my ID is
> > discrimination, I would be a complete idiot.

> Great. Do you want the stores to ask you for ID when you're *not* buying 
> something from them?  When you're just walking down the road, do you want 
> every store you pass to ask for your ID?

  Is it necessary for a store to ask my ID if I'm not buying anything, if
the goal is to avoid stolen credit card abuse?

>  Or to show them you have enough 
> money to buy what they have in their store?

  I thought they pretty much do that on the checkout counter. It's not like
they let you leave with the goods if you don't have the money.

> >   Is this comparison far-fetched? Much less far-fetched than comparing
> > asking for someone's ID with putting someone in prison.

> Lots of people here don't have ID. There's no reason to carry ID if you're 
> just out walking around.

  Well, sometimes one has to adapt to the conditions.

  Of course if illegal immigration is not seen as such a big problem, then
perhaps the police should stop even trying?

> This country has IDs for specific purposes: A 
> driver's license to drive, a social security number to track social security 
> tax payments, a passport to pass ports.

  But not to prove that you have the right to stay in the country?

> >> Because what you're doing is hassling all people of central american 
> >> descent, regardless of whether they've done anything wrong. That's by 
> >> definition racism. You're treating people differently based on their race, 
> >> not their behavior.
> > 
> >   And the police investigating males in rape cases is sexism, by the same
> > logic. 

> Only if they investigated *all* males, instead of just the ones who might 
> have been in the area, etc.   "Hi, a woman was raped three blocks from here. 
> Please come with us until you can prove you didn't do it."

  It's only sexism if they check *all* males, not just *some* males (but no
females)? Sorry, the argument doesn't hold.

  If they check only males but not females, it's *technically speaking*
sexism because they are "discriminating" against males. Of course there's
a completely justifiable *reason* for that.

> >   So what? Are you saying that nobody should be investigated because they
> > might be legal immigrants? Or what is it that you are trying to say? I don't
> > get it.

> I'm saying nobody should be investigated because of their facial features. 
> They should be investigated if there's some reason to believe they committed 
> a crime.

  Well, I suppose that if you don't feel illegal immigration to be such a
problem, then you could let political correctness get in the way of efficient
law enforcement.

> We don't let the cops randomly pull over drivers just to make sure they paid 
> their insurance and license taxes, either. You actually have to do something 
> wrong first.

  You don't? Here the police regularly stops drivers. Well, not to check
their licenses, but to check their alcohol level. No suspicion is needed.

  Maybe it's different there.

> >   Let's go again with the rape inverstigation: Should the police stop
> > investigating people because most of them did not commit the crime? After
> > all, you can't distinguish one male from another in this respect. 

> But you can. Do you think it's reasonable if someone got raped in a 
> neighborhood for the police to go door to door and demand every male in the 
> house provide a DNA sample?

  Wait, I say that you can't distinguish one male from another, and you
respond that you can, but then you don't explain *how*. Exactly how do you
make the distinction?

  Demanding DNA tests of thousands of people is not exactly the most efficient
use of resources because it's time-consuming and expensive.

  It would be interesting to know how people feel about such a suggestion.
Would they be ready for something that may feel as an "invasion of privacy"
to some people in order to catch rapists, or are they willing to compromise
conviction rates with their own sense of privacy? What is an "acceptable"
conviction rate for rape?

> >   I don't think the solution to the problem of corrupt police officers is
> > to make the laws more lenient. Why would it?

> No, the solution is to have laws that regulate the behavior of those police 
> and punish them when they're corrupt.

  Ok. And what does this have to do with using the law enforcement resources
more efficiently to catch illegal immigrants?

> >   Is the assumption that a black person is more likely to steal a car than
> > a white person based on pure prejudice, or statistics?

> It's not even a matter of "stealing cars."  You're a black person in a nice 
> neighborhood, so you must be up to no good, so we're going to stop you, make 
> you late for where you're going, and possibly arrest you if you give us any 
> crap or ask us why we're stopping you.

  I'm not saying that's a right thing to do, but I would still be interested
in knowing whether that behavior is based more on prejudice or on statistics.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message