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

Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> >    How about explaining it clearly rather than giving some odd hints that
> > one must keep guessing?
> >

> No because if I do you will just argue the point. I???m not into debating 
> but if, after thinking about it and you still cannot work out or guess 
> what I meant. I will spell it out.

  Well, if you are not going to explain yourself, I suppose it's impossible
to continue the conversation.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   You are missing the point. If I have understood correctly, the vast
> majority of illegal immigrants in the US tend to look like central Americans,
> for obvious reasons.

I don't know about that. I suppose in the south that's true. I would think 
in a city like New York, you'd have a lot of european illegal immigrants, 
more than mexican illegal immigrants.

>   If a very significant percentage of illegal immigrants tend to be central
> Americans, it makes only sense to scrutinize them more closely.

The goal is to have nobody innocent hassled by the government here. "Better 
ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned" and all that.

>>>   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.
> 
>   What does that have to do with anything? 

Because what you're doing is hassling all people of central american 
descent, regardless of whether they've done anything wrong. That's by 
definition racism. You're treating people differently based on their race, 
not their behavior.

> What matters is where the illegal
> immigrants are coming from, not where the legal ones are.

I think the legal immigrants and the mexican-looking citizens would disagree.

>> 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.
> 
>   That sentence doesn't make any sense.

I'm saying that if you're born here of illegal immigrants, you're going to 
look like an immigrant even tho you're not. Thus, you can not distinguish 
legal citizens from illegal immigrants.

>   Stopping crime sometimes means that innocent people are questioned. That's
> something we have to live with.

Yes, but we have rules about how it's done. And maybe your government is 
much better than ours, but I can pretty much guarantee that when you tell a 
racist policeman to round up all the illegal immigrants with certain racial 
characteristics, it won't be a matter of the legal citizens getting 
"questioned." It'll be a matter of descendents of mexicans going to jail for 
a few days at a time because the cops now have an excuse to hassle them.

>   Stop being naive and look at the harsh reality of the world: Criminals are
> scumbags, and because of them innocent people have to sometimes endure some
> scrutiny. 

Scrutiny wouldn't be bad. I can just predict it's not going to stop at 
scrutiny.

Google for the term "DWB."

-- 
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:
> >> 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.

  My point is that if someone commits a serious crime, it could be quite
practical if it was possible to throw him out of the country to stop him
from wasting taxpayers' money. In other words, the plain idea of deporting
big criminals can have some sensible logic in it. This was an introductory
idea to what I wrote next (in other words, why this idea becomes an
impossibility when we are talking about citizens). I was not saying that
you were talking about criminals.

> >   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.

  That's granting citizenship. There are explicit laws stating how one
gets citizenship, and that's one of them. In theory the law could be
different (ie. it doesn't automatically grant citizenship if neither
parent has).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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?

We understand what you mean. Everybody looks different.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg

In places where they're worried about this law, Mexican *is* the majority race.

>   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.

Yes.

>   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.

The trick is to make sure they're suspects before you hassle them. If 
someone said "you have to have a reason to think they might be illegal 
immigrants" before you would arrest them, then people wouldn't be 
complaining. But that's not how it's working.

-- 
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 1-5-2010 20:50, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
>   I understand "juding" in official terms to mean to convict someone of a
> crime. If people are convicted there solely because of how they look, then
> yes, that would be racism. Is that so?
> 
>   The colloqualism "to judge" which means to have a prejudiced opinion
> about someone is not necessarily the same thing as the profiling work that
> law enforcement needs to do by necessity in order to get better chances of
> catching criminals. It's simply applied statistics.

It was meant colloquial.

>> 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).
> 
>   And then watch illegal immigration raise. Right.

Wrong.

>   It's better to allow illegal immigration than to possibly offend someone.

It it not about offence, it is about human rights and/or the local law.

>   Do you advocate that mentality with all crimes? Or is this only related
> to illegal immigration?
> 
>> 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.
> 
>   If find your argument that "the police should not be looking for the
> illegal immigrant because doing so might offend someone" even more
> disturbing.

They have all the right to do so, just not based on looks alone.

Post a reply to this message