 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> 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 understand. The question remains. Does this make sense to you? If not,
why is checking for facial features a better indication of likelihood of
being here illegally than checking for religion?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-5-2010 20:41, Warp wrote:
> 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.
I know. It is a pity but you seem unable to step over anything you have
though of and see a little further.
Why I think you should not go into politics based on this case is that
there are things as laws, constitutions, international laws, human
rights and simple common decency and you are prepared to give them all
up just because you think illegal immigration is a big problem.
I know it is a problem, but not of a magnitude that even remotely could
warrant such drastic action.
That is what also in the other thread of the discussion seems to be the
problem, you want to kill a mosquito using a canon (or whatever the
English expression is). A couple of us have again and again tried to
point to the fact that using canons gives collateral damage. All you do
is reiterate that you want to kill the mosquito and asking why we want
to let it live. Well we don't, we just don't want to use that canon.
> 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.
Always one of the highlights of a discussion: the returning an argument.
Anyway, your premise is false hence nothing follows.
BTW: I know you are familiar with the technical term for wrongly
paraphrasing an opponents point of view and attacking that paraphrase. I
also know you rather frequently accuse others of it, so why do you do it
yourself? IMWTK
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That didn't answer the question I asked. I didn't ask "how/why would it
> violate the rights of legal citizens?"
And I answered. Profiling people based on their race is illegal.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/
> What I *am* opposing is the idea that countries should enforce their
> laws more leniently to avoid offending people.
Nobody is suggesting that. People are objecting to your assertion that
stopping and questioning people who look Mexican is better than stopping and
questioning everyone.
>> 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.
It's not a matter of "offend some people." The people you're at risk of
offending are the majority of the people living where the law would be enforced.
It's like passing a law where you are that only fair-skinned people have to
prove before going out on a sunny day that they have permission from a
doctor. As rational as it is, that's unlikely to be a popular law.
You're *assuming* that profiling will make it easier to catch illegal
immigrants. There's no evidence of this, and there's no evidence of what
kind of profiling will aid in that.
>> Randomly stopping people and asking them to prove their innocence.
>
> Apparently Britain is not one of those countries?
Apparently not.
>> 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.)
Not here. It's illegal. Why? Because people who drive SUVs didn't want to
get randomly stopped just because 0.1% of the people driving SUVs might be
intoxicated.
> 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.
It doesn't, and I explained why a couple of times.
>> 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.
But they don't get to profile during those stops either. They don't get to
set up a stop where they can stop you without probable cause, but stop you
based on something irrelevant to the behavior they're trying to prevent.
>> 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.
Well, it's illegal here, you see. And that's what has people annoyed. See,
because people don't like being arrested when no crime has been committed
because someone who shares some of the same properties they do did something
wrong.
Basically, people here are generally against getting arrested before a cop
knows a crime has been committed at all.
--
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:
> > 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-5-2010 20:47, Warp wrote:
> 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?
No that is what he said. Racial profiling is not allowed for illegal
immigration, because the profiling is not specific enough. Use of this
blunt instrument would also likely destabilize the society. The use of
it is therefore not only discouraged but in most places even forbidden.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Stopping the police from utilizing their resources effectively sounds to
> me a lot like stopping even trying to catch illegal immigrants in practice.
BTW, profiling won't make the stopping of illegal immigrants more efficient.
Actually involving the police only when there's a reason to suspect someone
is an illegal immigrant will make the process more efficient.
What's more efficient? Having 100 police cars driving around looking for
SUVs to stop, to give a breath test to those drivers? Or having 10 police
cars driving around, looking for *anyone* who is drifting lane to lane or
not maintaining a reasonable speed, then stopping just the people doing
something wrong and seeing if it's because they're drunk?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-5-2010 20:20, Darren New wrote:
> 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. ;-)
Ah, a concealed Godwin. Well done.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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 don't think that's the case. There are all kinds of typical profiles
of several types of criminals. For example "a serial killer is typically
a white middle-aged male".
> 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.
Maybe it's just me, but I really don't see a difference between "might
have been" and "maybe has been"... You probably used poor wording for that.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-5-2010 20:43, Warp wrote:
> 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.
As I said elsewhere random race based does not happen so your implicit
premise is false. ATM the police is using many other methods to find
illegal immigrants.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Always one of the highlights of a discussion: the returning an argument.
> Anyway, your premise is false hence nothing follows.
> BTW: I know you are familiar with the technical term for wrongly
> paraphrasing an opponents point of view and attacking that paraphrase. I
> also know you rather frequently accuse others of it, so why do you do it
> yourself? IMWTK
Your meta-argumentation and condescending attitude is quite effetively
irritating, so I suppose the best thing for me to do is to simply ignore it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
