Stephen wrote:
> It is not the enforcing but the method of enforcement. That is what 
> whole argument is about.

Hey, I know. We could get all the legal americans of central american decent 
to wear something sewn to their clothing to show they're legal, so the 
police would know not to bother them. ;-)

-- 
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

Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> What you are proposing
>> - is not effective
> 
>   What do you suggest which would be more effective?
> 
>> - will violate rights of legal citizens
> 
>   Wait, exactly what am I proposing here that would "violate rights of
> legal citizens"?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

>   Don't confuse what *I* am proposing with whatever laws they are proposing
> in those states in the US. I don't know what exactly they are proposing there,
> nor am I explicitly advocating those laws.

They're proposing to disregard the probable cause requirements for arresting 
someone.

>   Well, I suppose it could. It's basically a lose-lose situation. You can't
> win. Either you get many criminals go free which would otherwise be caught
> of more efficient measures were taken, or you anger people.

Nobody is against catching the criminals. We already have laws for catching 
illegal immigrants that aren't being enforced.

>> - will increase racial tension
> 
>   I really think people are way too sensitive about what they perceive as
> "racism". Well, I suppose there's no helping that.
> 
>> For these and a number of other reasons legislators all over the world 
>> have decided it is not a good idea and made it illegal.
> 
>   Make what illegal, exactly?

Randomly stopping people and asking them to prove their innocence.

>   As I said, it's a lose-lose situation.

Only if you take it to extremes.

Consider driving. Do you want police randomly pulling you over because you 
have long hair, or you're driving a red car? After all, a majority of 
traffic tickets go to people in red cars.

No. You want the cop to wait until he sees you do something wrong before he 
stops you, yes?  You don't want him stopping you just because you drive a 
particular color car, or you're wearing a particular kind of clothing, right?

Note that your ancestry hasn't anything to do with whether you're in the 
country legally. It's exactly as relevant to whether you're an illegal 
immigrant as what color car you drive is to whether you're breaking the 
speed limit.

-- 
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

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

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 2-5-2010 9:07, Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Warp wrote:
> >>>   If he is an illegal immigrant, why should the country he illegally
> >>> entered take responsibility? It's his own country's problem.
> > 
> >> I think it's more a matter of "what are you going to do?"  If the country 
> >> won't take him back, it's not like you can leave him in a cardboard box on 
> >> the front step.
> > 
> >   You send him to his own country's airport and let them decide what to do
> > with him. Give him the phone number of Amnesty International.
> > 
> Just never, ever go into politics, please.

  I'm sorry, but I don't understand.

  A person enters country X illegally, without permission. Hence country X
deports him back to his own country Y. Country Y forbids its own citizen
from entering its borders (which in my books is a clear violation of
international basic human rights). This is somehow the responsibility of
country X, and now *they* have to take him back and feed him?

  Exactly how does this make any sense? Why does country X have to pay for
this illegal emigrant, just because it chose that country X? Why does country
X become responsible for him so that they have to spend their tax money on
feeding him? If this illegal emigrant had chosen another country Z instead,
it would now by the responsibility of Z to feed him? How exactly does that
make any sense? What has X or Z made to deserve this burden? Shouldn't the
emigrant's own home country Y be responsible for the burden? It's *their*
citizen.

  What happens if instead of one emigrant it's one million emigrants, all
of who illegally enter country X? Is country X still responsible for their
well-being if their country of origin forbids them from coming back? Why
is country X suddenly responsible for one million non-citizens who entered
their borders illegally?

  Do you know what sounds more like? An invasion. Why should country X have
to accept that?

  I'm sorry, but if your politics consist of ideas like "the country who
the illegal immigrant succeeded in entering becomes responsible for feeding
him", then I honestly wouldn't want that kind of politics. Please never,
ever go into politics, thank you very much.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   So all other types of criminal profiling are ok, but not profiling based
> on how someone looks like?

No. It's not legal to profile anyone before a crime has been committed.

>   I really think this is political correctness getting in the way of
> criminal investigation.

Nobody minds being asked to show proof of citizenship if a crime has been 
committed, or even if a crime *might* have been committed. This law isn't 
that. This law is stopping people just in case maybe a crime has been committed.

>   Right. Profiling based on gender is ok. Profiling based on skin color
> is not.

No. This is rounding up samples from all the men in case someone got raped 
that the police don't know about.

>   Well, I suppose if illegal immigration is not seen as such a bad crime,
> you could argue that it can be overlooked.

No, it's that the law requires the police to look for criminals without any 
indication of where to start, or any indication that there was even a crime 
committed.

You don't go around questioning all the men in an area, trying to determine 
if they're hiding the fact they raped someone, *before* someone reports 
being raped.

-- 
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

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> It is *NOT* about stopping trying to catch illegal immigrants. It is 
> about the methods allowed to do so.

  Stopping the police from utilizing their resources effectively sounds to
me a lot like stopping even trying to catch illegal immigrants in practice.
Sure, a few of them will still be caught, just a lot less. It's effectively
the same thing as giving up.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 2-5-2010 11:12, Warp wrote:
> > andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> On 2-5-2010 8:35, Warp wrote:
> >>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > 
> >>>> Based. On. Skin. Colour.
> >>>   Why are people so damn obsessed with skin color? Criminal profiling does
> >>> not have anything to do with racism. Skin color is just one feature which
> >>> can be used for profiling.
> > 
> >> Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pars_pro_toto
> >> You were the one who asked us to stop nitpicking words and finally try 
> >> to understand what you meant in stead. And yes, that made me ROFL.
> > 
> >   Then by all means explain what he really meant with "Based. On. Skin.
> > Colour." if not "picking possible suspects of illegal immigration based
> > on skin color is racism". Because that's what I understood.

> Have you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pars_pro_toto?

> Ok, "Skin" and "color" are generally used to point to any phenotype that 
> makes it more likely that someone is member of one group of people than 
> another. Could range from pigmentation to e.g. shape of nose. E.g. Obama 
> is "Black" even though his skin is just as brown as many a Mediterranean 
> guy that has an outdoor job. One of the reasons Obama is black is 
> because of his nose.
> Even you can see the difference between e.g. a typical Dutchman and a 
> typical Finnish guy, it is common use to refer to that difference as a 
> difference is skin or colour even though I might be more pale than you. 
> If such differences are used to treat people different that is generally 
> referred to as racism, even though we belong to the same race (if such a 
> thing exists).

> So having cleared that, will you now stop attacking people that use 
> these terms in this way and START LISTENING TO WHAT THEY MEAN.

  Maybe I'm being dense here, but I still don't get it.

  He said, effectively, that trying to stop illegal immigration by doing
racial profiling is wrong. Did I understand this incorrectly? If yes, then
exactly what did he say?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Maybe I'm being dense here, but I still don't get it.

Most illegal immigrants are also Christian. So what we *really* should do is 
be stopping lots of people, asking if they're Christian, and if they are, 
ask them to prove they're allowed to be in the country, and lock them up 
until until they can.

Does this make sense to you? If not, why not? If so, should we be targeting 
people coming out of churches, or people who look Mexican?

-- 
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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> What you are proposing
> >> - is not effective
> > 
> >   What do you suggest which would be more effective?
> > 
> >> - will violate rights of legal citizens
> > 
> >   Wait, exactly what am I proposing here that would "violate rights of
> > legal citizens"?

> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

  That didn't answer the question I asked. I didn't ask "how/why would it
violate the rights of legal citizens?"

  He talked about what *I* am proposing. I'm not proposing anything.
Seemingly what he (and you) meant is what the new Arizona state law is
proposing.

  I haven't read the letter of that law proposal (I would have to read it
carefully before forming an opinion; it wouldn't be the first time that
hypersensitive people exaggerate new law proposals), but if what has been
written here is the truth, then I'm not advocating that kind of law.

  What I *am* opposing is the idea that countries should enforce their
laws more leniently to avoid offending people. (Sure, sometimes enforcing
them more strictly regardless of how hypersensitive people might get
offended may cause unrest and riots, but then it's basically a lose-lose
situation. Everybody loses, nobody wins. Tough luck. Humans are bastards,
and sucks being human.)

> >   Well, I suppose it could. It's basically a lose-lose situation. You can't
> > win. Either you get many criminals go free which would otherwise be caught
> > of more efficient measures were taken, or you anger people.

> Nobody is against catching the criminals.

  Of course they aren't against that. But at the same time they oppose
stricter measures which could rise the conviction rates of the criminals,
if doing so would offend some people. In other words, they want to eat the
cake and keep it too.

> >> For these and a number of other reasons legislators all over the world 
> >> have decided it is not a good idea and made it illegal.
> > 
> >   Make what illegal, exactly?

> Randomly stopping people and asking them to prove their innocence.

  Apparently Britain is not one of those countries? Or have they already
lifted their random security checks at metro stations and other places?

> Consider driving. Do you want police randomly pulling you over because you 
> have long hair, or you're driving a red car? After all, a majority of 
> traffic tickets go to people in red cars.

  I wouldn't be surprised if the police was more likely to stop SUV's than
eg. trucks for random sobriety tests, purely because of statistical reasons.
(No, I don't know if they do, but I wouldn't be surprised if the did.)

  If truck drivers are statistically significantly less likely to drive
while drunk, that kind of selectiveness makes sense. Don't tell me it
doesn't.

> No. You want the cop to wait until he sees you do something wrong before he 
> stops you, yes?

  Cops don't need probable cause to stop cars for a sobriety test, and
personally I really don't mind.

>  You don't want him stopping you just because you drive a 
> particular color car, or you're wearing a particular kind of clothing, right?

  If SUV drivers were statistically more likely to drive while drunk,
I really wouldn't mind if the police concentrated their efforts more on
SUVs than on trucks.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   Maybe I'm being dense here, but I still don't get it.

> Most illegal immigrants are also Christian. So what we *really* should do is 
> be stopping lots of people, asking if they're Christian, and if they are, 
> ask them to prove they're allowed to be in the country, and lock them up 
> until until they can.

> Does this make sense to you? If not, why not? If so, should we be targeting 
> people coming out of churches, or people who look Mexican?

  Please take into account the *context* in which I wrote that sentence
you quoted. I did *not* write "perhaps I'm being dense here, but I just
can't understand what's wrong with randomly checking people based on skin
color". I wrote that as a response to the accusation that I'm deliberately
misinterpreting something someone wrote.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message