Warp wrote:
>   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.

And you're ignoring the fact that
A) they can't be, because they live where the majority of people look like 
them, and
B) there are dozens of traits more useful for distinguishing legal from 
illegal residents than looks.

>> 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. 

Not at all. I'm showing you (A) it's more complicated than you think, and 
(B) not related to "looks".   I'm offering you examples of other 
distinguishing features (besides genetics) that will get you a much better 
chance of efficiently catching the criminal, and showing how if you base it 
on something irrelevant to immigration status (like looks or religion) you 
wind up with prejudiced yet ineffective enforcement.

>   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.

That too.

>   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.

I did. You ignore when I discuss the general idea.

>   The opposite of concentrating resources on likely suspects is to spread
> the resources equally to all people.

Now you're back-pedaling more. You were talking about "likely suspects" 
before. Even in this very post, you're using "looks mexican" as "likely 
suspects." I'm using the math to show you how "looks mexican" isn't the same 
as "likely suspects."  Yet you're ignoring that fact.

Concentrate on likely suspects?  No problem!

Concentrate on people who look mexican?  Bad idea!

>   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".

Yet you haven't mentioned any "statistics" other than "looks mexican."

>   I found it so incoherent and outlandish that I didn't know what to say.
> Maybe that's what you were after.

Why did you find it outlandish?  If 90% of illegal immigrants look mexican, 
and 90% of illegal immigrants are christian, why is it better to focus on 
people who look mexican than to focus on people who look christian?

The very fact that you're calling it outlandish is *exactly* the point I'm 
making. *That* is why focusing on people who look mexican is racist and not 
just statistics.

*This*, right here, is the crux of where you are wrong. You're asking me to 
adjust my nit-pick of your math so that you turn out right. OK, if 80% of 
illegals look mexican, and 90% are christian, would you still feel it's 
outrageous to stop people going into churches and ask them for proof of 
citizenship?  If not, then your proposal hasn't anything to do with 
statistics of efficient policing.

If you agree with that, then maybe you'll agree that when we find most 
illegals shop at Wal-mart, buy groceries from food stores specializing in 
mexican food, and have jobs paying minimum wage, then we should find people 
who engage in all three of those behaviors and go around banging on their 
doors, asking for proof of citizenship?

Why is that a bad idea?

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

Welcome to democracy.

> country, you are pretty much safe because nobody will ask you if you
> really have the right to be there".

No. Random people walking down the street won't have the right to ask you if 
you're doing nothing wrong.  Everyone whose behavior is affected by them 
being illegal already has to prove their legality.

-- 
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