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

  I'm sorry, but I just don't follow your logic here.

  Your argument against "most illegal immigrants look mexican, so let's
check the  mexicans" is, basically "assume that somewhere 90% of citizens
are of mexican descent". That somehow invalidates the claim? I don't get it.

  Maybe we are talking about different things here or something.

> >> 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.

  "Pointing out"? Maybe you are, but I just can't follow your logic.

> >   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.

  I was assuming a completely hypothetical ratio of 90% of illegal immigrants
being mexican. Hence it makes sense to devote about 90% of resources to
catching them. I really don't understand how the coincidence of 90% of the
legal population of some place being of mexican descent refutes that idea.

  (Sure, my suggestion of devoting x% of resources for x% of illegals is
cold, hard, inhuman math, and there are other more humanistic sides to the
whole issue. I'm not denying that. I'm just arguing that from a resource
distribution point of view it would make sense.)

> 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.

  Yes, I suppose I am saying that. You confused me with having the 90% of
population being of mexican descent immediately after I gave an example of
90% of illegal immigrants looking like mexicans. I still don't understand
what is it that your argument "proves".

> >> 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.

  Am I understanding correctly that you are arguing against my math rather
than against the basic idea I was expressing (in other words, to distribute
resources according to illegal immigration country of origin distribution,
regardless of whether that's seen as "racism" by some people)?

> >   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.

  Out of curiosity: What *should* a police officer do, in your opinion, if
he asks someone for their ID (or whatever proof of citizenship) and he has
nothing to show?

> >>>   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.

  I suppose I can't deny that sounds reasonable. Basically it means that
illegal immigrants are not actively "hunted down", but if they try to
actually *do* something they won't be able to if they can't prove they
have the right to (as legal citizens or immigrants).

  Of course this assumes that nobody employs them without asking for their
papers and without informing the authorities... I'm assuming that's one of
the biggest problems in the US.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message