On Mon, 03 May 2010 16:14:31 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> the presumption is "they must be guilty because they're Hispanic" not
>> "they match a description for a specific crime that's been reported".
> 
>   Am I being too naive when I make the assumption that it is possible to
> check people's IDs without presumption of guilt nor for racist reasons,
> even if a choice is made based on typical illegal immigration profiles?

Yes.  Because in the US that is specifically not allowed because it is 
racial profiling if the illegal immigration profile is "the person 
appears to be of Hispanic descent or origin".

>   I do understand people getting angry by such actions, but I really
>   think
> it is possible to perform such checks without there being discriminatory
> motives behind. The *intent* is not to discriminate, just a honest
> intent of catching illegal immigrants. (Of course you can argue that
> this is not the most efficient way of doing that, but I'm talking about
> motivations and intent. Why is discrimination and racism always assumed
> as such? Do we always have to assume the worst about everything and
> everybody?)

Because it is racial prejudgment that brings the person to being 
stopped.  Not anything they've done, not any specific crime they've 
committed.  No probable cause for the stop.

>   That was, more or less, my original point in this entire thread, even
> if I didn't know how to express myself this clearly back then.
> 
>> >   You mean there are people who are complaining about the police
>> >   investigating
>> > only males in rape cases?
> 
>> I'm saying that you don't know the details of every investigation that
>> has ever taken place regarding rape cases in the US.  Or you have a
>> really strange hobby.  The fact that you (or I) are not aware of an
>> instance of this doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
> 
>   Of course there always are exceptions. I was talking about normal
> occurrences. I don't think it's at all usual for people to complain
> about such a thing.

I think if someone is wrongly accused (and asking for a DNA sample can be 
seen as an accusation) because they declined to provide a DNA sample, 
then yes, it would be usual to complain.  The 5th amendment of the US 
constitution allows people to decline to answer questions or to not 
incriminate themselves.

In fact, the advice I see most often from people in law enforcement is 
"don't answer questions or provide anything that could be used against 
you in any way unless you have consulted a lawyer".  The police *can* 
ask, but the citizen can refuse and require that the officer obtain a 
warrant - and in order to obtain a warrant, the police have to 
demonstrate that there is probable cause to guess that the suspect 
committed the crime - in other words, the evidence the police have to 
that point has to reasonably suggest that the person they're 
investigating committed the crime; they can't ask for it because they 
think there's a chance - they can't go on a hunch or gut feeling.

>> >   I have heard about criminal profilers on the police force who try
>> >   to
>> > get a picture of what kind of person the criminal might be based on
>> > the available clues, and this can include things like ethnicity (such
>> > as for example "serial killers are typically white middle-aged
>> > males"), but maybe that's just in TV series and movies?
> 
>> You're talking about a specific crime.  The point is that there is no
>> *specific* crime in the case of enforcing the AZ law.  In order to
>> prosecute a crime, the prosecution must be able to state with
>> specificity what crime was committed and when.
> 
>   Well, one *could* argue that illegal immigration *is* a specific,
> existing crime being committed right now... (Not that this justifies
> draconian laws and discrimination, but still...)

No, it's not a specific existing crime - because there's no date/time 
that the "event" took place.  If you can tie the person specifically to a 
specific border crossing, then yes, there is - but "just being" isn't a 
crime.

A person can't be arrested for having blue eyes because people with blue 
eyes are more likely to use drugs.  Someone with blue eyes can be 
arrested, though, if the police can show that that specific individual is 
a drug dealer.

So in order for the police to stop someone for being an illegal 
immigrant, they have to be able to demonstrate that that *specific 
individual* is *likely* to be an illegal immigrant - and that 
determination cannot be based on race, religion, or other demographic 
statistical factors (unless, again, they can point to a specific instance 
of illegal entry and say "we suspect this person entered the country 
illegally at such and such time and date and physical location.".

Jim

Post a reply to this message