Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >>>   "Pointing out"? Maybe you are, but I just can't follow your logic.
> > 
> >> It's simple math.
> > 
> >   So you are, indeed, nitpicking on my math rather than the overall idea
> > I was expressing with my example.

> What was your overall idea?  I thought it was that if you use racial 
> profiling to target people of races who make up the majority of illegal 
> immigrants, then you'll have a more efficient way of finding illegal 
> immigrants, right?

  I said that if the vast majority of illegal immigrants can be distinguished
by how they look, it makes sense to concentrate more on those people than on
people who are much less likely to be illegal immigrants.

> >>>   (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.)
> > 
> >> A percentage is a ratio between two numbers. You don't have a simple 
> >> "percentage of illegals."  Percentage of *what population* are illegals?
> > 
> >   Stop nitpicking on the numbers, and start discussing the idea I'm
> > expressing.

> I'm trying to. You're arguing that using statistics would make the process 
> more efficient. I'm showing you that mathematically, no, it wouldn't.

  No, you aren't. You are simply taking my simplified example and directly
applying it to a more complex situation and showing how it doesn't work
there. Then rather than readjusting the formula to account for that more
complex situation you simply claim that the whole idea of using statistics
is flawed. It's still a non-sequitur.

  If you argued that the idea doesn't work for practical reasons (eg. because
it causes unrest and riots), then that could be more valid of an argument.
Arguing about the math isn't the way to do it.

> Then 
> you say "Stop arguing the details of the math. Discuss how the math can make 
> things more efficient, instead."  You're not making sense.

  No. I'm saying that stop nitpicking on the specific example I gave
(using the 90% example, etc, because that's what you are doing), and start
discussing the idea this example is trying to convey.

> >   Although if your argument is "your math does not work on this more
> > complicated case, hence your idea is wrong", then I suppose there is
> > nothing to discuss. If you disagree with the idea, then say so rather
> > than nitpick about some percentages.

> I disagree with the idea that using statistics to stop people who have given 
> no indication of wrongdoing makes the process any more efficient. I disagree 
> *because* your math is wrong. When you use the actual math, it turns out 
> that it's less efficient.

  The opposite of concentrating resources on likely suspects is to spread
the resources equally to all people. This means that more resources will
be spent on people who are more unlikely to be illegal immigrants. Exactly
how do you get from this that it's actually more efficient to do it like
this? If more resources are spent on people who are more unlikely to be
illegals, then those resources are away from catching those people who are
more likely.

  What I think is happening here is that we are talking about different
things. I think you are talking about "use resources to check random
people" vs. "use resources to check only those who are very suspicious
because of eg. having been reported by someone", while what I am talking
about is "distribute random checks according to statistics" vs. "distribute
random checks equally".

> And you keep saying "ID" as if that's the same as "Proof of legal 
> residence."  It isn't.

  Maybe it could be a good idea to change that, then? It's not like it's
something unheard of.

> > (Why check them if it's completely inconsequential whether
> > they have it or not?)

> Why indeed? That's exactly why we have laws saying the police don't get to 
> do that.

  As I have commented much earlier in this thread: Because it gives the
wrong message to people thinking about moving illegally to the country,
as well as the human traffickers who are getting big money for getting
them there. It gives the message "once you are inside the borders of the
country, you are pretty much safe because nobody will ask you if you
really have the right to be there".

  (But as I have also commented many times, aggressively imposing the
immigration laws by using strict measures may anger some people, which
might not be politically wise. So it's a lose-lose situation.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message