Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   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.

> But if 90% of the local population *also* looks mexican, then there's no 
> reason to favor checking mexicans over non-mexicans, is there?

  Wait, what? If 90% of the local population looks mexican, all the more
reason for 90% of checking to be done on mexican-looking people. A completely
random blind-testing would get you that.

  If less than 90% of the checked people would not look like mexican,
wouldn't *that* be discrimination? It would not be impartially random
anymore, but it would be a conscious choice of checking other people
more.

> The problem with this sort of profiling is that you have to look at the 
> ratio of legal to illegal immigrants, not just the ratio of illegal immigrants.

  Exactly what are you proposing here? I don't quite get it.

  If 90% of the population of a place is of mexican origin, wouldn't it only
make sense that 90% of the resources are devoted to checking mexicans?

> If 10% of 10,000 mexicans are illegal immigrants, and 90% of 200 africans 
> are illegal immigrants, it makes much more sense to ask random africans if 
> they're citizens than random mexicans.

  Well, I suppose it does.

  But I thought you were *against* such "profiling"?

> >   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.

> No, because there's already suspicion of a crime, a reason to believe that 
> the person accused might have done it. Note that you don't get to question 
> *all* white males when a crime is committed. You have to have *some* reason, 
> known as "probable cause", to believe the person you're questioning was 
> involved.

  So the police must not question anybody unless they have "probable cause"?

  Wouldn't that be a bit hindering on criminal investigation?

> What *this* law does is it makes immigration a *special* status, saying you 
> do *not* have to have any reason to believe the person was committing any 
> sort of crime before you ask him to prove he isn't.

  If a store clerk asks for your ID in order to corroborate that you are
indeed the owner of the credit card, is he suspecting you of a crime and
thus making an illegal demand? Would you argue that the store clerk must
have a valid reason to suspect you of not being the legal owner of the
credit card before he can demand you to show your ID?

> >   So what do you suggest? 

> I suggest that before you question anyone, you be required to do enough 
> police work to at least have a reason to question them.

  And what would that reason be, 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?

> No, I'm comparing racism to racism.

  Sorry, I still don't see slavery comparable to checking people's ID based
on typical illegal immigrant profiling. You might argue both are, technically
speaking, "racism", but I still see a huge difference in magnitude.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message