Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 02 May 2010 01:43:24 -0400, Warp wrote:

> >   If he is an illegal immigrant, why should the country he illegally
> > entered take responsibility? It's his own country's problem.

> Because that's the way the world works, Warp.  In fact, some people who 
> immigrate legally or illegally no longer have a country of origin because 
> their country simply no longer exists....so what do you do with them?

  Maybe that's how it works in practice. It still doesn't mean it's fair
in my opinion.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 May 2010 15:57:59 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   Well, it sounds to me like offending some people.

No, it's not about offending people, it's about the fact that in the US 
the constitution specifically prohibits the police from pulling people 
over "just because".  They have to have a reason, and that reason has to 
be related to a specific criminal activity.  In the US, "probable cause" 
is NOT met by having a certain skin colour, period, end of story.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 02 May 2010 02:46:04 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> >> Good guess and said better than I could but I just don't want anyone to
> >> live in a Nazi state.
> > 
> >   I think this is a genuine instance of Godwin's law.

> I think it's actually a genuine instance of *not* Godwinning a thread by 
> invoking the Nazis - it's a perfect example.

  No. Godwin's law says: "As an online discussion grows longer, the
probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

  It's precisely a comparison which was not made to invoke the law, but
came as a result of the discussion. In fact, I think there's someone else's
corollary that says that a deliberate invocation of Godwin's law isn't.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 May 2010 07:39:47 -0400, 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 yet you don't think that this is racist.  Amazing.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 May 2010 02:35:56 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> In the US, we're supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
>> You're starting with a presumption of guilt, which goes against the
>> ideals under which this law is created.
> 
>   So if you go to a grocery store and use your credit card to buy
>   something
> and they want to check your ID to make sure you are the real owner of
> the card, are they presuming you guilty until you prove you are not? Or
> is this simply a security measure which, on the grand scale, benefits
> you as well as everybody else?
> 
>   If you enter the country and at the airport they check your baggage
>   using
> an X-ray machine, are they presuming you guilty? Or is this just a
> security measure?
> 
>   If a police officer asks for your ID to check that you have the right
>   to
> live in the country, is he presuming you guilty, or is it just a
> security measure?

He's presuming you're guilty, because he has to have probable cause to 
pull you over to ask if you're legally in the country.  Being brown isn't 
sufficient.

>   You make it sound like in that last case the situation is different,
>   for
> some reason.

It is.  You fail to see it or understand it.

>> 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.

Not in the US, not legally.  That's the point.

>   If most illegal immigrants happen to look similar, it only makes sense
> to concentrate resources on people who look like that. It's the same as
> the vast majority of rapists being male, hence it it makes sense to
> concentrate resources on investigating males and skipping females.
> Nobody is crying sexism because of that.

Nobody that you're aware of, perhaps.

>   I really think people are way too hypersensitive with any kind of
> profiling based precisely on skin color. Any other type of profiling is
> ok, but heaven forbid if you start using skin color as a distinctive
> feature. The second you do that, all human rights are flushed down the
> toilet. Sheesh.

You're not allowed to profile in the US based on religious beliefs, 
ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other factors.  Just like you can't use 
those to make hiring decisions.

>> Nothing else.  If you *look* like an illegal, you are presumed guilty
>> until you prove otherwise.  This could be a daily occurrence IF YOU
>> HAPPEN TO HAVE THE WRONG COLOUR SKIN.
> 
>> Hell, it could happen HOURLY.
> 
>> Wouldn't that piss YOU off if YOU were constantly having to prove that
>> you were in your country legally?
> 
>   If it significantly increased my own security, I wouldn't. (Of course
> I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm just saying that there are more
> sides to this than an extremist political correctness.)

Well, then, come on over here and I'll see to it that you're asked hourly 
to provide proof that you're here legally.  Including in the middle of 
the night, just for safety's sake.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   That may be so, but it doesn't invalidate what I said. I said "*if* the
> > distinguishing feature happens to be ethnicity". I didn't claim it *is*.
> > Try to finally get your thick skull out of the "Arizona law" thing and read
> > what I'm writing.

> OK. Why would you even use ethnicity as an example, and reject or ignore 
> other examples?

  Why does it matter what was used as an example? What does it matter if it
was ethnicity, weight or show size? Ethnicity happened to be part of the
original discussion.

  I'm not rejecting nor ignoring other examples. I have *given* other
examples, such as profiling based on gender or vehicle type. Of course
you dismissed those examples as invalid, and are now claiming that I'm
"rejecting or ignoring other examples".

  I think your problem is that you are too obsessed with ethnicity. Whenever
someone talks about ethnicity, it must always be "racism".

> And why would you argue against the *best* example of distinguishing 
> feature, which happens to be probable cause?

  And why would you invent arguments I have neved presented?

> That's why I'm confused.

  It certainly seems so.

> And, in this instance, "racism" isn't necessarily a bad word. It's just 
> using someone's race to target them for presumtions about the likelihood 
> they'll behave in a certain way.

  "Racism" is exclusively used as a negative and derogatory term. There are
no neutral uses in practice.

> >> I'm confused. The only distinguishing feature you have mentioned in this 
> >> whole thread is ethnicity, and my bringing up other distinguishing features 
> >> is called "outrageous", and we're talking about how to catch criminals.
> > 
> >   What the fuck are you talking about?

> Sorry. You said "outlandish", not "outrageous."

  Yes, "outlandish" as in "strange", something which confuses because it
seems so out-of-place. In this case referring to an argument which seems
so detached that it's hard to understand how it's connected to anything.

> >   And where have I use the word "outrageous", and what does it have to
> > do with anything?

> I quote:  (You posted at 4:58 by my clock, to help you find it.)

>  > > And you still didn't answer whether you'd agree that it might be more
>  > > efficient to target people in churches than people who look central
>  > > american. :-)

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

  Sorry, I fail to see any outrage there.

> Why did you say that targeting people in churches is outlandish and 
> incoherent even if most illegals are christian, while it's perfectly 
> reasonable to target ethnicities if most illegals are of a particular ethnicity?

  I didn't say that "targeting people in churches is outlandish and
incoherent". I said that your question was so strange that I had hard
time understanding its connection to anything.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 02 May 2010 03:05:24 -0400, Warp wrote:

> >   So all other types of criminal profiling are ok, but not profiling
> >   based
> > on how someone looks like?
> > 
> >   I really think this is political correctness getting in the way of
> > criminal investigation.

> No, but being brown isn't a crime.  What about that do you not understand?

  I didn't say being brown is a crime, nor did I anywhere even imply that.

  I don't understand your response.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >   So if you go to a grocery store and use your credit card to buy
> >   something
> > and they want to check your ID to make sure you are the real owner of
> > the card, are they presuming you guilty until you prove you are not? Or
> > is this simply a security measure which, on the grand scale, benefits
> > you as well as everybody else?
> > 
> >   If you enter the country and at the airport they check your baggage
> >   using
> > an X-ray machine, are they presuming you guilty? Or is this just a
> > security measure?
> > 
> >   If a police officer asks for your ID to check that you have the right
> >   to
> > live in the country, is he presuming you guilty, or is it just a
> > security measure?

> He's presuming you're guilty, because he has to have probable cause to 
> pull you over to ask if you're legally in the country.  Being brown isn't 
> sufficient.

  Well, that was kind of my point: If the store clerk is not assuming your
guilt, nor is the guard at the airport, what makes a policeman checking
someone's ID different?

> >   You make it sound like in that last case the situation is different,
> >   for
> > some reason.

> It is.  You fail to see it or understand it.

  I suppose you are right: I fail to see the difference.

> >> 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.

> Not in the US, not legally.  That's the point.

  You mean that in the US the police can construct criminal profiles on
everything else *except* skin color? Hair color is ok, as well as eye
color, the color of clothes... but not skin color?

  Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but if that really is so, it seems
like a real hindrance to police work, in the name of political correctness.

> >   If most illegal immigrants happen to look similar, it only makes sense
> > to concentrate resources on people who look like that. It's the same as
> > the vast majority of rapists being male, hence it it makes sense to
> > concentrate resources on investigating males and skipping females.
> > Nobody is crying sexism because of that.

> Nobody that you're aware of, perhaps.

  You mean there are people who are complaining about the police investigating
only males in rape cases?

> >   I really think people are way too hypersensitive with any kind of
> > profiling based precisely on skin color. Any other type of profiling is
> > ok, but heaven forbid if you start using skin color as a distinctive
> > feature. The second you do that, all human rights are flushed down the
> > toilet. Sheesh.

> You're not allowed to profile in the US based on religious beliefs, 
> ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other factors.  Just like you can't use 
> those to make hiring decisions.

  Ok, I think we are using a different meaning of the word "profiling".
It's possible I have understood the term wrongly.

  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?

  If making a criminal profile based on ethnicity is illegal, does that
mean that the police cannot say things like "serial killers are typically
white males"?

> Well, then, come on over here and I'll see to it that you're asked hourly 
> to provide proof that you're here legally.  Including in the middle of 
> the night, just for safety's sake.

  I assume you are exaggerating. I have hard time believing there are
enough policemen to do that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> No, it's not about offending people, it's about the fact that in the US 
> the constitution specifically prohibits the police from pulling people 
> over "just because".

  Well, then it's different here, as I have mentioned with the traffic
police.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 May 2010 07:39:47 -0400, 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 yet you don't think that this is racist.  Amazing.

  I suppose you could technically call it "racism", AS I HAVE SAID MANY TIMES
ALREADY.

  I fear that you are projecting your notions of how "racist people" behave
and what they think on me, for the sole reason that I dared to mention
ethnicity as something which could be used for illegal immigration
statistics. As ironic as that may sound, I call that prejudice.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message