Warp wrote:
> 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.

Right. At which point you're not favoring the checking of mexicans. There's 
no reason at all to use profiling to decide who to check, right?

Hence, the whole "most illegal immigrants look mexican, so let's check the 
mexicans" is a flawed argument.

>> 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.

I'm not proposing anything. I'm simply pointing out that the argument that 
says "Most illegal immigrants look mexican, so let's focus our checking on 
mexican-lookign people" is flawed.

>   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?

Yes. But that's not what you suggested. You suggested checking in the ratios 
of illegal immigrants of different backgrounds, not legal immigrants or 
total residents of different backgounds.

If someone said "The town is 70% brown and 30% white, so that's the ratio 
we'll check in" then nobody would complain. But you're saying the "the 
illegals are 70% brown and 30% white, so let's check in that ratio", which 
is a different statement.

>> 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"?

I'm simply showing the flaw in your logic.  You're suggested profiling 
*fails* to improve the efficiency, unless you use more information to tune it.

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

Yes.  Well, sort of. It's complex. They're not allowed to arrest you without 
probable cause.  I.e., they can ask, but you're not required to answer or go 
with them or let them into your house unless they have probable cause and/or 
it's an emergency (e.g., they hear someone screaming for help inside).

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

Not especially. "Probable cause" is a fairly low bar. It's about the same 
difficulty as having a policeman stop you while you're driving.

>   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? 

No. For one thing, if you don't have ID, he's not allowed to detain you. He 
may chose not to complete the transaction, but he's not arresting you. 
There's a difference there.

Nobody would complain if they said "before you can get a job, you have to 
show proof of legal residence."  (Which they already do, actually, but 
apparently don't actually enforce consistently.)

> 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?

No. For one thing, it's not my credit card. It's the bank's credit card. The 
bank requires the clerk to look at my ID before the bank authorizes the 
holder to use it.

>>>   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?

I don't know. The employer not paying taxes on you, for example. Or you 
riding across the border in the back of a truck that doesn't stop at the 
immigration gates. Having no USA address last year when trying to get 
something that requires you to list where you lived in the previous years. 
Or you try to get a job, the boss asks for proof that you're allowed to be 
in the country, and you can't provide that proof, and the employer tells the 
police.

>> No, I'm comparing racism to racism.
> 
>   Sorry, I still don't see slavery

I wasn't talking about slavery. I was talking about freemen.  That's where 
you're missing it. You're thinking this law is targeting illegal immigrants. 
It isn't. It's already easy to catch illegal immigrants. You just have to 
enforce the laws we already have.

-- 
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