 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
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.
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.
> Why is it so only with immigration? If the suspect of a crime is a white
> male, is it racism to question only white males? Wouldn't it be less racist
> to question also black females? You know, for equality.
No, because there's already suspicion of a crime, a reason to believe that
the person accused might have done it. Note that you don't get to question
*all* white males when a crime is committed. You have to have *some* reason,
known as "probable cause", to believe the person you're questioning was
involved.
What *this* law does is it makes immigration a *special* status, saying you
do *not* have to have any reason to believe the person was committing any
sort of crime before you ask him to prove he isn't.
> 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.
>> 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?
>
> You are comparing immigration laws with slavery laws. Same thing?
No, I'm comparing racism to racism.
--
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 01/05/2010 9:38 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldot com> 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.
>
That is not what I wrote.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.
Do you have any hard statistics on that? I have hard time thinking why
and how Europeans would emigrate illegally to the US. (Surely there are
*some* people who have done so, but I have hard time believing that they
outnumber illegals from your southern neighbor.)
Ok, maybe I know the how: Maybe they travel to Canada first, and then
they go to the US and never leave. Plausible.
> > 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.
Does that apply to all crimes, or only illegal immigration? Why?
> "Better
> ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned" and all that.
How can you compare asking someone's ID to putting someone in prison?
Aren't you exaggerating a bit here?
If I go to the grocery store and make a big purchase using my bank card,
they will ask for my ID. I'll show it to them *gladly*. I *want* ID's to
be checked when cards are used to make big purchases because it increases
security and decreases the probability of my card being misused if it gets
stolen.
If I started complaining how the stores asking me for my ID is
discrimination, I would be a complete idiot.
(I know how you will answer to that argument. Something like: "But imagine
if they were more likely to ask your ID based on your skin color. Wouldn't
that be discrimination and racism?" My answer: If it was significantly more
likely that white people commit credit card fraud than others, then it wouldn't
bother me at all. I would still gladly submit to this security check because
it also increases my own security.)
Is this comparison far-fetched? Much less far-fetched than comparing
asking for someone's ID with putting someone in prison.
> >>> 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.
And the police investigating males in rape cases is sexism, by the same
logic. Technically it might be true. However, I would count the *reasons*
for the profiling into defining whether it's an ism or not, not just the
raw act.
> > 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.
I think legal immigrants should stop complaining. I'm pretty sure that
removing the illegals would be beneficial on the large scale to the legal
immigrants.
> >> 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.
So what? Are you saying that nobody should be investigated because they
might be legal immigrants? Or what is it that you are trying to say? I don't
get it.
Let's go again with the rape inverstigation: Should the police stop
investigating people because most of them did not commit the crime? After
all, you can't distinguish one male from another in this respect. Is that
what you are implying?
> > 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.
I don't think the solution to the problem of corrupt police officers is
to make the laws more lenient. Why would it?
> > 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."
Is the assumption that a black person is more likely to steal a car than
a white person based on pure prejudice, or statistics?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-5-2010 22:38, Warp wrote:
> 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.
I am not Stephen ;) but he might have meant something like:
What you are proposing
- is not effective
- is often not possible at all
- will violate rights of legal citizens
- will harm trust in the police and the juridical system
- will increase racial tension
- could become a factor in racial violence
For these and a number of other reasons legislators all over the world
have decided it is not a good idea and made it illegal. Although it
seems a good idea at first sight, if you think a little longer you will
understand why it will destabilize the society more than it solves
illegal immigration.
At least something like that would be my best guess.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Ok, maybe I know the how: Maybe they travel to Canada first, and then
> they go to the US and never leave. Plausible.
Yep. Or they come visit relatives on a valid visa and just let the visa
expire and never go home.
>>> 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.
>
> Does that apply to all crimes, or only illegal immigration? Why?
All crimes. Note that it's not "hassle" if you actually have reason to
suspect someone of a crime. If you find a dead woman, you question the
husband and boss and etc. You don't go walking up and down the streets
stopping everyone and questioning them.
> How can you compare asking someone's ID to putting someone in prison?
Because that's what happens when you don't have ID. Note that it's not just
"ID" but "proof of citizenship." Hell, I'd be surprised if 75% of the
people in Congress here had actual proof of citizenship where they could get
to it within 24 hours.
> Aren't you exaggerating a bit here?
That's the problem. I'm probably not.
> If I started complaining how the stores asking me for my ID is
> discrimination, I would be a complete idiot.
Great. Do you want the stores to ask you for ID when you're *not* buying
something from them? When you're just walking down the road, do you want
every store you pass to ask for your ID? Or to show them you have enough
money to buy what they have in their store?
> Is this comparison far-fetched? Much less far-fetched than comparing
> asking for someone's ID with putting someone in prison.
Lots of people here don't have ID. There's no reason to carry ID if you're
just out walking around. This country has IDs for specific purposes: A
driver's license to drive, a social security number to track social security
tax payments, a passport to pass ports.
>> 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.
>
> And the police investigating males in rape cases is sexism, by the same
> logic.
Only if they investigated *all* males, instead of just the ones who might
have been in the area, etc. "Hi, a woman was raped three blocks from here.
Please come with us until you can prove you didn't do it."
> So what? Are you saying that nobody should be investigated because they
> might be legal immigrants? Or what is it that you are trying to say? I don't
> get it.
I'm saying nobody should be investigated because of their facial features.
They should be investigated if there's some reason to believe they committed
a crime.
We don't let the cops randomly pull over drivers just to make sure they paid
their insurance and license taxes, either. You actually have to do something
wrong first.
> Let's go again with the rape inverstigation: Should the police stop
> investigating people because most of them did not commit the crime? After
> all, you can't distinguish one male from another in this respect.
But you can. Do you think it's reasonable if someone got raped in a
neighborhood for the police to go door to door and demand every male in the
house provide a DNA sample?
If so, then we just disagree. If not, why not?
> I don't think the solution to the problem of corrupt police officers is
> to make the laws more lenient. Why would it?
No, the solution is to have laws that regulate the behavior of those police
and punish them when they're corrupt.
> Is the assumption that a black person is more likely to steal a car than
> a white person based on pure prejudice, or statistics?
It's not even a matter of "stealing cars." You're a black person in a nice
neighborhood, so you must be up to no good, so we're going to stop you, make
you late for where you're going, and possibly arrest you if you give us any
crap or ask us why we're stopping you.
--
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 01/05/2010 9:37 PM, Warp wrote:
> 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?
No, not intentional nitpicking.
What for, cause you don't understand what I mean, when I've explained it.
>
>>>>>> > 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?
>
Yes.
> 2) If yes, do you agree that entering a country without permission is a
> crime?
>
Yes.
> 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?
>
Maybe, maybe not.
> 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?
>
Yes, mostly.
> 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.
>
The proposition that humans should behave as machines without any sense
of judgment, compassion or taking circumstances into consideration.
Heaven help us if we all got our just deserts.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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?
You misunderstand. The complaint with this isn't that. The complaint is that
the law specifically says "you get to make people prove their citizenship
without having any reason at all to suspect they might not be citizens."
It's a useless pursuit to hassle *every* mexican-looking American, since
they outnumber non-mexican-looking Americans everywhere people are passing
this law. This law won't make it easier to catch illegal immigrants. We
already have laws for that. What this law says is "you get to go to the
house of someone and wake them up and ask them to prove their citizenship."
I suspect most people in this country couldn't even do that with the papers
they have in their house. Most people don't have passports and most people
don't have birth certificates any more.
--
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 23:10, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
> (I know how you will answer to that argument. Something like: "But imagine
> if they were more likely to ask your ID based on your skin color. Wouldn't
> that be discrimination and racism?" My answer: If it was significantly more
> likely that white people commit credit card fraud than others, then it wouldn't
> bother me at all. I would still gladly submit to this security check because
> it also increases my own security.)
Great, a game of trying to predict what another person will say.
...
I'd say he is not going to say that. Possibly something along the line
of the shop owner not going to throw you out of the country if you can
not show an ID.
Or that the shop owner will probably ask everybody, irrespective of skin
color and if he doesn't the mistake he makes is towards the ones he
doesn't ask.
but let's see what the real answer will be...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-5-2010 18:36, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 01 May 2010 11:48:15 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:
>
>> You can take your kids with you or you can leave them behind. 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?
>
> 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. But the idea behind
> deporting someone to their country of origin is not valid when their
> country of origin *is* in fact the US.
Isn't there a problem that if somebody does not have papers you won't
know where to send him/her?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/05/2010 10:18 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 1-5-2010 22:38, Warp wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I am not Stephen ;)
True ;-)
> but he might have meant something like:
>
> What you are proposing
> - is not effective
> - is often not possible at all
> - will violate rights of legal citizens
> - will harm trust in the police and the juridical system
> - will increase racial tension
> - could become a factor in racial violence
>
> For these and a number of other reasons legislators all over the world
> have decided it is not a good idea and made it illegal. Although it
> seems a good idea at first sight, if you think a little longer you will
> understand why it will destabilize the society more than it solves
> illegal immigration.
>
> At least something like that would be my best guess.
>
>
Good guess and said better than I could but I just don't want anyone to
live in a Nazi state.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
