On 01/05/2010 7:58 PM, Warp wrote:
>    So what do you suggest? That the police will question equally Mexicans
> and British people even though approximately 0% of British people are
> illegal? And that makes sense how exactly?
>

Stop and think. These people have to live in the same place in harmony.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> If you allow the police to stop and question people just because they 
> look different then you are stacking up a lot of trouble, both for the 
> police and the authorities. The minorities start to look on both as 
> enemies, even respectable citizens do that.

  On the other hand, if authorities are not allowed to question people
based on typical illegal immigration profiles, we end up with a system
where illegal immigration becomes worthwile for the illegals: If you
manage to get inside the borders of the country, you are pretty much on
clear waters. Once inside, it's unlikely you will ever be kicked out.

  This becomes a profitable business for human trafficking: There are
people who specialize in getting people inside the country. For profit,
of course. The illegal immigrants pay these people money, and these people
try to get them inside the country. If the country in question is lenient
on upholding its immigration laws, this becomes very worthwile and profitable.

  As the word spreads, this only increases illegal immigration, and these
human traffickers are getting millions in profit. In illegal money.

  For the illegal immigrants it all becomes a game of chance: If you get
lucky (or you have enough money), you might get inside the country, after
which you are pretty much safe. If you are unlucky or for other reasons
cannot get there (eg. because of age, illness, poverty or social status),
then you are stuck.

  In other words, this country, with its lenient upholding of immigration
laws, is *rewarding* illegal immigration. If you succeed, you get to stay,
but if you are too old, sick or poor to get inside, or just unlucky, tough
luck.

  And at the same time those human traffickers are getting rich.

> >It still
> > doesn't change the fact that immigrants typically tend to look distinctively
> > different from natives.

> We are talking about America here where everyone looks different from 
> the natives.

  People really love to nitpick on my choice of words there, don't they?

  How about trying to understand what I *mean* for a chance? It's not that
hard.

> >    You can call it racism if you want. That will not change the facts.

> I wouldn???t call it racism since it is you but I would call it ill 
> informed and stupid.

  Exactly what is ill informed and stupid?

  All I'm saying is that for practical reasons countries cannot open their
borders. Immigration laws are a necessity. And illegal immigration is a big
business. This illegal human trafficking business is not helped by the
people who want to reward them for success.

  I would say that people who shout "racial profiling! racism!" when the
police concentrate their resources on the most probably susptects are ill
informed and stupid, who are doing more harm than good.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 01/05/2010 7:58 PM, Warp wrote:
> >    So what do you suggest? That the police will question equally Mexicans
> > and British people even though approximately 0% of British people are
> > illegal? And that makes sense how exactly?
> >

> Stop and think. These people have to live in the same place in harmony.

  I don't understand what you mean.

  Are you suggesting a third option: The police doesn't question anybody?

  Exactly what is being suggested here?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 01/05/2010 8:52 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Stop and think. These people have to live in the same place in harmony.
>    I don't understand what you mean.
>



>    Are you suggesting a third option: The police doesn't question anybody?
>

No.

>    Exactly what is being suggested here?
>

What do you think I meant?
What could I possibly mean considering what I have written?

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 01/05/2010 8:52 PM, Warp wrote:
> >> Stop and think. These people have to live in the same place in harmony.
> >    I don't understand what you mean.
> >

> I thought you wouldn???t

  Why does it always become personal? And never from my part?

> >    Are you suggesting a third option: The police doesn't question anybody?
> >

> No.

> >    Exactly what is being suggested here?
> >

> What do you think I meant?
> What could I possibly mean considering what I have written?

  How about explaining it clearly rather than giving some odd hints that
one must keep guessing?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 01/05/2010 8:51 PM, Warp wrote:
>> >  We are talking about America here where everyone looks different from
>> >  the natives.
>    People really love to nitpick on my choice of words there, don't they?
>

Yes.

>    How about trying to understand what I*mean*  for a chance? It's not that
> hard.
>

But we do understand what you mean ;-)

>>> >  >      You can call it racism if you want. That will not change the facts.
>> >  I wouldn't call it racism since it is you but I would call it ill
>> >  informed and stupid.
>    Exactly what is ill informed and stupid?
>


and societies. So your viewpoint is limited by comparison.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 01/05/2010 9:06 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> On 01/05/2010 8:52 PM, Warp wrote:
>>>> Stop and think. These people have to live in the same place in harmony.
>>>     I don't understand what you mean.
>>>
>
>> I thought you wouldn???t
>
>    Why does it always become personal? And never from my part?
>

Fair point

>>>     Are you suggesting a third option: The police doesn't question anybody?
>>>
>
>> No.
>
>>>     Exactly what is being suggested here?
>>>
>
>> What do you think I meant?
>> What could I possibly mean considering what I have written?
>
>    How about explaining it clearly rather than giving some odd hints that
> one must keep guessing?
>


but if, after thinking about it and you still cannot work out or guess 
what I meant. I will spell it out.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 01/05/2010 9:06 PM, Warp wrote:
>> I thought you wouldn???t
>    Why does it always become personal? And never from my part?
>

I did not mean to be personal, I'm sorry you took it that way. I just 
thought that from your writing you would not see what I meant.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
>   If someone commits a crime which is so serious to deserve tens of years
> of prison, it might, in fact, be more practical if he was thrown out of
> the country because that would become cheaper.

I'm not following what your point is. The people they're talking about 
throwing out haven't committed any crimes.

> so where are you going to deport him to? 

That's exactly my point.  Even assuming someone *did* commit a crime, which 
they didn't in this case, but assuming they did, there's nowhere to deport 
him to.

> because the reasons of him being a refugee are not acceptable (namely, he
> was kicked out of his own country because of a serious crime he committed).

Except in this case, the person wasn't a criminal.

> If country A started dumping its own criminal citizens to country B, which
> has its own immigration laws and policies, it would probably cause a political
> conflict.

I think we call that Australia. ;-)

>   A cynic could say "the government granted him citizenship, the government
> is stuck with him, so it just has to suck it up".

In this case, the government didn't "grant" him citizenship. He was born 
here, making him a citizen automatically from birth.

-- 
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

Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 01/05/2010 8:51 PM, Warp wrote:
> >> >  We are talking about America here where everyone looks different from
> >> >  the natives.
> >    People really love to nitpick on my choice of words there, don't they?
> >

> Yes.

> >    How about trying to understand what I*mean*  for a chance? It's not that
> > hard.
> >

> But we do understand what you mean ;-)

  So it *is* intentional nitpicking? What for?

> >>> >  >      You can call it racism if you want. That will not change the facts.
> >> >  I wouldn't call it racism since it is you but I would call it ill
> >> >  informed and stupid.
> >    Exactly what is ill informed and stupid?
> >

> You are still young and don???t have the experience of different cultures 
> and societies. So your viewpoint is limited by comparison.

  I'm scratching my head here. Does experience of different cultures and
societies somehow lead to the opinion that law enforcement should be made
more lenient when dealing with illegal immigration?

  Let me ask you a few questions:

1) Do you agree that it's unfeasible for a country to open its borders
   completely so that anybody can immigrate without any limits, and thus
   immigration laws are a necessity?

2) If yes, do you agree that entering a country without permission is a
   crime?

3) If yes, do you agree that criminals should be arrested and the proper
   punishment applied, such as returning the illegal immigrant to his
   country of origin?

4) Do you agree that police forces have quite limited resources (most of
   which comes from taxpayers' money), and that those resources should be
   used as efficiently as possible, rather than wasted on useless pursuits?

  If you answered yes to all those questions, then what exactly is it that
you are disagreeing with? That's all I am arguing here.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message