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

On 2-5-2010 8:12, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 May 2010 17:10:09 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>>>   How can you compare asking someone's ID to putting someone in prison?
>>> Aren't you exaggerating a bit here?
> 
>> NO!  That's the point - if you LOOK like an illegal immigrant, you have 
>> to provide on the spot PROOF that you're not, and if you can't, YOU GO TO 
>> JAIL.  That's what the law is all about.
> 
>   Well, there are basically two options:
> 
> 1) Demand that all people always carry a form of identification.
> 2) Stop trying to catch illegal immigrants.
> 
>   Which one do you prefer? I assume you understand the consequences of
> choice #2.

You are consistently missing the point and repeating your own false 
assumptions.
It is *NOT* about stopping trying to catch illegal immigrants. It is 
about the methods allowed to do so.

Post a reply to this message

On 2-5-2010 11:12, Warp wrote:
> 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.

Have you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pars_pro_toto?

Ok, "Skin" and "color" are generally used to point to any phenotype that 
makes it more likely that someone is member of one group of people than 
another. Could range from pigmentation to e.g. shape of nose. E.g. Obama 
is "Black" even though his skin is just as brown as many a Mediterranean 
guy that has an outdoor job. One of the reasons Obama is black is 
because of his nose.
Even you can see the difference between e.g. a typical Dutchman and a 
typical Finnish guy, it is common use to refer to that difference as a 
difference is skin or colour even though I might be more pale than you. 
If such differences are used to treat people different that is generally 
referred to as racism, even though we belong to the same race (if such a 
thing exists).

So having cleared that, will you now stop attacking people that use 
these terms in this way and START LISTENING TO WHAT THEY MEAN.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> The same principle applies here to the immigration law.  If you don't 
>> want your children to suffer the indirect consequences of your 
>> lawbreaking, then don't break the law.
> 
> You miss my point.

And you are missing mine.

> Where would you deport them to?

I would not *deport* the citizen children of illegally immigrated 
parents.  I would deport the parents, and allow them the option of 
taking their children with them.

> You're missing the point. The nutcases want...

Since by your admission we are no longer on the topic of what the law 
actually says, but what some "nutcases" want, I am leaving this part of 
the debate.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> Since by your admission we are no longer on the topic of what the law 
> actually says, but what some "nutcases" want,

Well, yes. I've been saying that for three days.

-- 
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

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

OK. I'm going to go through the falacies one last time and bow out, because 
you seem not to be listening.

<http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_35kDzNt-gTQ/RpmeXjcag9I/AAAAAAAAACE/Bpo04QrGBvc/s320/dead+horse.gif>

It's different in the following ways:

1) If you do not have ID at the store, you simply walk away. If you do not 
have ID for the police, you go to jail until you can find someone to bring 
to the police station your ID.

2) Buying something at the store is a reasonable action that would require 
you to produce ID to complete the purchase.  Walking down the street is not 
an action that one would reasonably have to expect to prove your citizenship 
to perform.  This is closer to saying "before you get a job, you need to 
prove you'll pay taxes." A law we already have.

3) We don't have any form of universal ID in this country that lists whether 
you're allowed to be in the country.

 >   If most illegal immigrants happen to look similar,

I already told you that too is a fallacy.

If you have 100,000 mexicans, 12% of which are illegal immigrants, and 
10,000 africans, 99% of which are illegal immigrants, you have more illegal 
immigrants who look mexican than african, but you'd do much better arresting 
the africans.

 > concentrate resources on investigating males and skipping females.

But you're wasting resources by investigating males for whom you have no 
reason to believe they're rapists.

 >   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,

No, really, it's not.

 >   If it significantly increased my own security, I wouldn't.

We have sayings about that too.

-- 
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