Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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?

  Wait, what? If 90% of the local population looks mexican, all the more
reason for 90% of checking to be done on mexican-looking people. A completely
random blind-testing would get you that.

  If less than 90% of the checked people would not look like mexican,
wouldn't *that* be discrimination? It would not be impartially random
anymore, but it would be a conscious choice of checking other people
more.

> 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.

  Exactly what are you proposing here? I don't quite get it.

  If 90% of the population of a place is of mexican origin, wouldn't it only
make sense that 90% of the resources are devoted to checking mexicans?

> 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.

  Well, I suppose it does.

  But I thought you were *against* such "profiling"?

> >   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.

  So the police must not question anybody unless they have "probable cause"?

  Wouldn't that be a bit hindering on criminal investigation?

> 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.

  If a store clerk asks for your ID in order to corroborate that you are
indeed the owner of the credit card, is he suspecting you of a crime and
thus making an illegal demand? Would you argue that the store clerk must
have a valid reason to suspect you of not being the legal owner of the
credit card before he can demand you to show your ID?

> >   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.

  And what would that reason be, exactly?

> >> 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.

  Sorry, I still don't see slavery comparable to checking people's ID based
on typical illegal immigrant profiling. You might argue both are, technically
speaking, "racism", but I still see a huge difference in magnitude.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sat, 01 May 2010 13:13:57 -0400, 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?

> Because it relies on racial profiling, and not on what has been done.

  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.

> >   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.

> Different circumstances.

  Right. Profiling based on gender is ok. Profiling based on skin color
is not.

> >   Likewise with illegal immigration: The vast majority of illegal
> >   immigrants
> > don't look like locals. 

> Except that in Arizona, the vast majority of immigrants (legal and not) 
> are of hispanic descent.

  You are the fourth. Do we get a fifth?

>  Let's see how many Canadian immigrants get 
> stopped there because "they don't look like they belong".

  Is it typical for illegal Canadian immigrants to move to Arizona?

> > 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.

> No, this law *is* a waste of taxpayer money, in fact, several police 
> departments in Arizona have said that this takes resources away from 
> *real* crime.

  Well, I suppose if illegal immigration is not seen as such a bad crime,
you could argue that it can be overlooked.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   If he is an illegal immigrant, why should the country he illegally
> > entered take responsibility? It's his own country's problem.

> I think it's more a matter of "what are you going to do?"  If the country 
> won't take him back, it's not like you can leave him in a cardboard box on 
> the front step.

  You send him to his own country's airport and let them decide what to do
with him. Give him the phone number of Amnesty International.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 2-5-2010 8:24, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>> 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.
> 
>   The police should stop looking for illegal immigrants, and that will not
> cause illegal immigration to raise? Can you give some kind of explanation
> how that works?

Your logic fails. What you propose is not being done ATM and for good 
reasons. Stopping doing something that is not done will not give rise to 
a raise.

>  Maybe you should awaken to the real world. 

It might have escaped you, but IMHO you are the one who is not in 
contact with the real world. Or at least fails to see all the 
consequences of what he is proposing. No problem as long as you don't go 
into politics.

>>>   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.
> 
>   It still sounds to me like "the police should stop checking primarily
> Mexican-looking people because it's racism and it offends them".

if it does, read again.

>>>   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.
> 
>   Basically, this is pragmatism vs. political correctness.

It is obvious (in the traditional sense as used in mathematics)

Post a reply to this message

On 2-5-2010 8:35, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>> 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.

Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pars_pro_toto
You were the one who asked us to stop nitpicking words and finally try 
to understand what you meant in stead. And yes, that made me ROFL.

Post a reply to this message

On 02/05/2010 7:46 AM, 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.
>


state which is what the right minded Americans are trying to avoid.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 2-5-2010 8:35, Warp wrote:
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

> >> 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.

> Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pars_pro_toto
> You were the one who asked us to stop nitpicking words and finally try 
> to understand what you meant in stead. And yes, that made me ROFL.

  Then by all means explain what he really meant with "Based. On. Skin.
Colour." if not "picking possible suspects of illegal immigration based
on skin color is racism". Because that's what I understood.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 02/05/2010 7:46 AM, 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.
> >

> OK, I???m of that generation. Let???s say fascist or right wing totalitarian 
> state which is what the right minded Americans are trying to avoid.

  It still feels like an exaggeration. Enforcing immigration laws is not
the same thing as being a totalitarian state.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 02/05/2010 10:13 AM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> On 02/05/2010 7:46 AM, 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.
>>>
>
>> OK, I???m of that generation. Let???s say fascist or right wing totalitarian
>> state which is what the right minded Americans are trying to avoid.
>
>    It still feels like an exaggeration. Enforcing immigration laws is not
> the same thing as being a totalitarian state.
>

It is not the enforcing but the method of enforcement. That is what 
whole argument is about.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 2-5-2010 9:07, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   If he is an illegal immigrant, why should the country he illegally
>>> entered take responsibility? It's his own country's problem.
> 
>> I think it's more a matter of "what are you going to do?"  If the country 
>> won't take him back, it's not like you can leave him in a cardboard box on 
>> the front step.
> 
>   You send him to his own country's airport and let them decide what to do
> with him. Give him the phone number of Amnesty International.
> 
Just never, ever go into politics, please.

Post a reply to this message