Warp wrote:
>   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.

If it was "ask for ID", then yes, it wouldn't be *too* much of a problem. 
Instead, it's "ask for proof of citizenship, and arrest you if you don't 
have it, until someone can come up with it."

>>>   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.

Generally not.  Proof of citizenship here is generally birth certificates, 
passports, or (for some, like who immigrated before computers) someone 
personally vouching for you.

>   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.

Yes, but the ID here doesn't say whether you're a citizen.  I have all kinds 
of papers that identify who I am without saying whether I'm a citizen.

>>  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?

Proof of citizenship. I.e., only certain kinds of ID. In particular, 
passports.  I can't think of anything else offhand that combines proof of 
citizenship and identification in one document.  A birth certificate doesn't 
identify you, and the other forms of identity documents are all mostly 
available to non-citizens.

There's also "Green Cards" (which are pink, for some reason) which is a card 
that combines ID and proof that you're *not* a citizen but that you *are* 
allowed to be here.

But since you can be a citizen without any identifying papers at all, then 
no, there's no ID that every citizen has.

>   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?

Sure. Because you look like someone who commits a lot of fraud. :-)

>>  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.

As you walk past?

> 
>>>   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.

Sure. And if people normally had proof of citizenship easily available, the 
same way they have identification, it would be less of a hassle. But they don't.

>> 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?

Correct. Well, the passports of *foreigners* show you have a right to stay 
in the country if you have the right visa. The US passport shows you have a 
right to come into (and presumedly stay) in the country.  But people don't 
normally carry their passports around with them.

Plus, citizens have the right to stay in the country even if they've never 
had a passport.

>>>> 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.

Yes. It's sexism if they investigate all males, including those they already 
know couldn't have been involved, or who they think have no reason to be 
involved. If they investigate only those who might have committed the crime, 
then they are good. If that means they only investigate males because 
they've already ruled out females, that's fine.

>   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.

Exactly. In counterpoint, there's no justifiable *reason* for stopping 
random brown-skinned people and asking if they're breaking the law.

>> 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.

Do you understand the difference between "looking Mexican" and "having a 
reason to believe that particular person committed a crime"?

>> 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.

Yes, and when they do, they're required not to stop just the people who look 
mexican.

There are sobriety checkpoints here, but the rules are that you either have 
to check everyone going through, or you have to check every Nth driver. You 
can't just pick out people you don't like.

>>>   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?

If the woman was raped 15 minutes ago, no male that's more than 15 minutes 
travel time from the scene is a suspect. You don't go checking every male in 
Arizona to see if he's the rapist.

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

It's also illegal. We have this rule that says the police actually have to 
have a reason to suspect you committed a crime before they're allowed to 
arrest you or search you.  They don't get to say "Someone had their watch 
stolen, so we're going to go through every house in the neighborhood to see 
if we can find it."

Maybe your country doesn't have such a rule, but ours does.

>   It would be interesting to know how people feel about such a suggestion.

It's already decided, repeatedly, that people don't want a DNA database.

> 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?

No. You see, there's no benefit to the individual citizens to cooperate if 
the police don't suspect them.

Plus, DNA profiling doesn't work that way anyway.

>>>   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?

Because this law is written in such a way as to encourage corruption under 
the guise of more efficiently catching illegal immigrants.

>   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.

Prejudice.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message