 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 May 2010 11:29:55 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:
> The notion that any nation must permit any person to immigrate is simply
> nuts, and does not appear to be the operating principle of any nation on
> earth.
No, but the notion that you can pick someone up because they *look* like
an illegal immigrant (which BTW violates the 4th amendment right to
protection against unreasonable search/seizure) *is* patently racist.
The law goes further, though, by making it possible for people to sue law
enforcement for *not* enforcing the law - so if someone thinks their
neighbor is an illegal and calls the police, and the police do nothing
about it, then the neighbor can sue the state for failing to take action
(so I understand).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/05/2010 5:39 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 01 May 2010 11:29:55 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:
>
>> The notion that any nation must permit any person to immigrate is simply
>> nuts, and does not appear to be the operating principle of any nation on
>> earth.
>
> No, but the notion that you can pick someone up because they *look* like
> an illegal immigrant (which BTW violates the 4th amendment right to
> protection against unreasonable search/seizure) *is* patently racist.
>
> The law goes further, though, by making it possible for people to sue law
> enforcement for *not* enforcing the law - so if someone thinks their
> neighbor is an illegal and calls the police, and the police do nothing
> about it, then the neighbor can sue the state for failing to take action
> (so I understand).
>
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
No offence folks
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> No, but the notion that you can pick someone up because they *look* like
> an illegal immigrant (which BTW violates the 4th amendment right to
> protection against unreasonable search/seizure) *is* patently racist.
Why does it have to be racism?
Imagine that a woman is raped, and the police is immediately called,
and they suspect that the rapist is still in the vicinity. The police
ought to start questioning suspects they find. Male suspects.
One could argue that only having males as suspects is discrimination,
that suspects should be equally male and female. But that someone would be
a complete idiot. It's 99.999% probable that the rapist was a male, rather
than a woman who raped a woman and was nevertheless mistaken for a man
(that has probably never happened in the history of mankind). Hence it
makes sense for the police to only suspect males and leave females off
the hook. If the police was stupid enough to start detaining females for
suspicion of raping a woman, they would be wasting valuable resources
which would be better used in searching for the actual rapist. After all,
law enforcement has only very limited resources to solve crimes.
Likewise with illegal immigration: The vast majority of illegal immigrants
don't look like locals. Hence it only makes sense to prioritize the scarce
resources law enforcement has and concentrate on people who don't look like
locals. This is not racism. This is practicality. Questioning people equally
is only going to waste resources, which wastes taxpayers' money, and causes
less crimes to be stopped.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/05/2010 6:13 PM, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> No, but the notion that you can pick someone up because they *look* like
>> an illegal immigrant (which BTW violates the 4th amendment right to
>> protection against unreasonable search/seizure) *is* patently racist.
>
> Why does it have to be racism?
>
...
> Likewise with illegal immigration: The vast majority of illegal immigrants
> don't look like locals. Hence it only makes sense to prioritize the scarce
> resources law enforcement has and concentrate on people who don't look like
> locals. This is not racism. This is practicality. Questioning people equally
> is only going to waste resources, which wastes taxpayers' money, and causes
> less crimes to be stopped.
>
Obviously Finland does not have a large immigrant population, about 1%
excluding Finnish Swedes as far as I can make out.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 01/05/2010 6:13 PM, Warp wrote:
> > Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> No, but the notion that you can pick someone up because they *look* like
> >> an illegal immigrant (which BTW violates the 4th amendment right to
> >> protection against unreasonable search/seizure) *is* patently racist.
> >
> > Why does it have to be racism?
> >
> ...
> > Likewise with illegal immigration: The vast majority of illegal immigrants
> > don't look like locals. Hence it only makes sense to prioritize the scarce
> > resources law enforcement has and concentrate on people who don't look like
> > locals. This is not racism. This is practicality. Questioning people equally
> > is only going to waste resources, which wastes taxpayers' money, and causes
> > less crimes to be stopped.
> >
> Obviously Finland does not have a large immigrant population, about 1%
> excluding Finnish Swedes as far as I can make out.
3%. But I don't understand what that has to do with anything. It still
doesn't change the fact that immigrants typically tend to look distinctively
different from natives. Especially illegal ones (because it's rare for
someone who could pass for a Finn to want to immigrate illegally here).
I'm pretty sure that a significant percentage of illegal immigrants in
the US can be distinguished by their looks. If you saw a Finnish person
there I don't think it would be highest in the list of suspects of illegal
immigration.
You can call it racism if you want. That will not change the facts.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-5-2010 19:13, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> No, but the notion that you can pick someone up because they *look* like
>> an illegal immigrant (which BTW violates the 4th amendment right to
>> protection against unreasonable search/seizure) *is* patently racist.
>
> Why does it have to be racism?
Racism is here used as a general term of judging people by what cultural
group they appear to belong to based on how they look.
> Imagine that a woman is raped, and the police is immediately called,
> and they suspect that the rapist is still in the vicinity. The police
> ought to start questioning suspects they find. Male suspects.
>
> One could argue that only having males as suspects is discrimination,
> that suspects should be equally male and female. But that someone would be
> a complete idiot. It's 99.999% probable that the rapist was a male, rather
> than a woman who raped a woman and was nevertheless mistaken for a man
> (that has probably never happened in the history of mankind). Hence it
> makes sense for the police to only suspect males and leave females off
> the hook. If the police was stupid enough to start detaining females for
> suspicion of raping a woman, they would be wasting valuable resources
> which would be better used in searching for the actual rapist. After all,
> law enforcement has only very limited resources to solve crimes.
>
> Likewise with illegal immigration: The vast majority of illegal immigrants
> don't look like locals. Hence it only makes sense to prioritize the scarce
> resources law enforcement has and concentrate on people who don't look like
> locals. This is not racism. This is practicality. Questioning people equally
> is only going to waste resources, which wastes taxpayers' money, and causes
> less crimes to be stopped.
There is another way that even takes less time and is not illegal
because of various international laws: don't question people unless you
have a serious reason to believe that they are illegal (or you are
questioning them anyway because of a non-related suspicion or check).
Frankly I find your reasoning that "I know there is an illegal immigrant
in this country, so I have to check everybody that looks like he might
be it" quite disturbing. But that is not unusual.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> The same principle applies here to the immigration law. If you don't
> want your children to suffer the indirect consequences of your
> lawbreaking, then don't break the law.
You miss my point. Where would you deport them to?
> Believe it or not, there is no basic right to remain in the country.
I think you'll find that there is such a right for *citizens.*
> you are here in violation of our laws, you must go.
And what law did the children break?
> The fact that your children are lawfully here does not alter this.
You've missed the point. They want to make it such that your children are
*not* lawfully here.
> You have no lawful recourse but to leave.
Sure.
> You can take your kids with you or you can leave them behind.
You're missing the point. The nutcases want to send the children out also.
It's not up to the parents whether to take the children. They're talking
about deporting the children who *are* legal US citizens who never broke the
law.
Sure, it
> is not their fault that you broke the law, but if that didn't stop you
> from breaking the law, why should it stop us from enforcing it?
>
> Regards,
> John
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I don't think that this is what Darren was saying, but rather that the
> Arizona law opens the potential for someone who *is* a legal citizen but
> isn't carrying their papers on them to be deported.
No. I'm saying that some people want to pass a law to deport someone who
*is* a legal citizen and who *is* carrying their passport to be deported
because they were born of illegal immigrants.
> But the idea behind
> deporting someone to their country of origin is not valid when their
> country of origin *is* in fact the US.
Bingo.
--
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:
> Likewise with illegal immigration: The vast majority of illegal immigrants
> don't look like locals.
Sure they do. We have a huge population of Americans of Mexican descent
here, as well as a whole raft of people descended from the Mexicans who were
here before the USA took over California.
There are large areas of the city where Americans who look like they might
be Mexican outnumber Americans who look like they might be British.
This is the problem. It's not that we'll catch illegal immigrants. It's that
the police will hassle Americans who look Mexican and not hassle the
Americans who look British.
Or to put it another way, jump back 180 years. Pass a law in the northern
part of the USA saying everyone had to prove they aren't an escaped slave.
Do you think there's any way that wouldn't be considered a racist law today?
Do you think there's any chance you wouldn't wind up locking up a whole lot
more innocent black people than innocent white people?
--
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:
> 3%. But I don't understand what that has to do with anything. It still
> doesn't change the fact that immigrants typically tend to look distinctively
> different from natives.
In *your* country, maybe. In the USA, *everyone* looks like an immigrant.
> I'm pretty sure that a significant percentage of illegal immigrants in
> the US can be distinguished by their looks.
No. A lot of *legal* immigrants might be distinguished by their looks.
Even so, given it's possible that someone is a legal citizen and also a
child of illegal immigrants, you can't distinguish someone by their looks.
> You can call it racism if you want. That will not change the facts.
People aren't worried about harassing the illegal immigrants unnecessarily.
They're worried about harassing the legal citizens and residents unnecessarily.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
