 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
So, we're now only a week from knowing which bunch of idiots are going to
govern us this time round ... or not, if we end up with a hung parliament as
seems possible.
Here in my constituency we have 9 candidates to choose from and for the
record they are:
Mad Cap'n Tom Independent
Derek Chase Green
Dennis Delderfield Independent
Mark Field Conservative
Jack Nunn Pirate Party UK
Frank Roseman English Democrats
David Rowntree Labour
Naomi Smith Liberal Democrat
Paul Weston UK Independence Party
The top three will of course be Mark Field, Naomi Smith and David Rowntree
but apart from Mark Field who has sent me four electoral communications the
rest of them seem to be doing very little to get my vote.
David Rowntree (the drummer from Blur) is on record as saying "I'm not a
betting man, but if I was I wouldn't put any money on me". His lack of
confidence is amazing. Or maybe he's being realistic, Westminster has
consistently returned a Conservative MP.
Naomi Smith sent me a single communication which told me in great detail
what a nice person she is but absolutely b*gg*r all about what she intends
to do if elected. So, she wants my vote but I'll just have to trust her to
do the right thing. Sorry, dear, maybe next time ;-)
I'm split between Mad Cap'n Tom (I signed his registration for candidacy)
and Jack Nunn (anti-DRM, pro file-sharing). They're both extremely unlikely
to poll more than a handful of votes but I could do with a laugh (in the
case of Tom) and I am passionate in my support of free data exchange and the
Digital Economy Bill is so flawed that it needs to repealed instantly.
Anybody got any better suggestions?
John
--
Cogito sum,|| wbu### [at] tznvy pbz (rot'ed) || GPG Key Fingerprint:
ergo sum, || These opinions are mine alone, || 0D9BCF4CF1B71CA2F5F7
cogito || others can find their own || BFBBCBC34EDEAEFCE453
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Anybody got any better suggestions?
Emigrate.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 12:28:54 +0100, Doctor John <rea### [at] mysig> did
spake thusly:
> So, we're now only a week from knowing which bunch of idiots are going to
> govern us this time round ... or not, if we end up with a hung
> parliament as
> seems possible.
> Here in my constituency we have 9 candidates to choose from and for the
> record they are:
> Mad Cap'n Tom Independent
and we need go no further in our considerations of who to vote for.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Anybody got any better suggestions?
>
> Emigrate.
ROFL
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
> Naomi Smith sent me a single communication which told me in great detail
> what a nice person she is but absolutely b*gg*r all about what she intends
> to do if elected. So, she wants my vote but I'll just have to trust her to
> do the right thing. Sorry, dear, maybe next time ;-)
It worked for Obama...
> I'm split between Mad Cap'n Tom (I signed his registration for candidacy)
> and Jack Nunn (anti-DRM, pro file-sharing). They're both extremely unlikely
> to poll more than a handful of votes but I could do with a laugh (in the
> case of Tom) and I am passionate in my support of free data exchange and the
> Digital Economy Bill is so flawed that it needs to repealed instantly.
>
> Anybody got any better suggestions?
What? Nobody's standing for the Monster Raving Loony Party?
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/30/2010 11:23 AM, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> scott wrote:
>>> Anybody got any better suggestions?
>>
>> Emigrate.
>
> ROFL
>
Just don't do so to Arizona. They would hear your English accent and
immediately have you arrested, then probably deported to Mexico (I don't
credit these idiots imagining that anyone in the country illegally
*might* come from some place other than Mexico...). lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> They would hear your English accent and
> immediately have you arrested, then probably deported to Mexico
That's about right, considering they're talking about deporting actual US
citizens born of illegal immigrants. I have to wonder where they think
they'd deport them to.
--
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 Sat, 01 May 2010 03:42:34 +0200, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
wrote:
> (I don't credit these idiots imagining that anyone in the country
> illegally *might* come from some place other than Mexico...). lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yW_sIKBfIk
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Just don't do so to Arizona. They would hear your English accent and
> immediately have you arrested, then probably deported to Mexico (I don't
> credit these idiots imagining that anyone in the country illegally
> *might* come from some place other than Mexico...). lol
I have heard some stories how, especially nowadays, people at customs in
the US can sometimes be really prickly with people who are trying to get
into the country, even tourists.
A married couple, friends of mine, were trying to visit the US (they had
done so many times before). He had dual US/Finnish citizenship because of
his parents, and they were going to visit his family. His wife had only
Finnish citizenship.
I didn't know that Finns were such a huge illegal immigration problem in
the US (</sarcasm>) because the person at customs happened to be a real
a**hole. There was some minor problem with her papers (I don't remember
if it was the visa or the passport or something), and they spent literally
*hours* in customs at the airport trying to solve the problem. The husband
would have had no problem entering (being a citizen and all), but his wife
couldn't.
After many hours the shift of this customs person ended and a new person
came in his stead. He checked the papers a few seconds and cleared them to
enter the country.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/04/2010 10:03 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
> What? Nobody's standing for the Monster Raving Loony Party?
When they get to Westminster (John’s constituency) they’re all Raving
Loonies.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/04/2010 12:28 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> Anybody got any better suggestions?
Guy Fawkes ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Anybody got any better suggestions?
>
> Emigrate.
Most people seem to go with "denigrate"...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 4/30/2010 11:23 AM, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> scott wrote:
>>>> Anybody got any better suggestions?
>>>
>>> Emigrate.
>>
>> ROFL
>>
> Just don't do so to Arizona. They would hear your English accent and
> immediately have you arrested, then probably deported to Mexico (I don't
> credit these idiots imagining that anyone in the country illegally
> *might* come from some place other than Mexico...). lol
I'm not quite ready to chalk up the Arizona laws to pure racism.
The notion that any nation must permit any person to immigrate is simply
nuts, and does not appear to be the operating principle of any nation on
earth. Mexico's immigration laws, in particular, make even the new
Arizona law seem quite relaxed in comparison. In light of this, I'd say
that the Mexican government "doth protest too much" on the issue of the
new Arizona law.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> They would hear your English accent and immediately have you arrested,
>> then probably deported to Mexico
>
> That's about right, considering they're talking about deporting actual
> US citizens born of illegal immigrants. I have to wonder where they
> think they'd deport them to.
If a man is the sole source of support for his family, and he commits a
crime punishable by prison, the fact that he has a family to support may
be taken into account in his sentencing, but the court may lawfully
sentence to prison anyway. That his family is consequently deprived of
their support is regarded as the fault of that man, and not that of the
court or the law.
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.
Believe it or not, there is no basic right to remain in the country. If
you are here in violation of our laws, you must go. The fact that your
children are lawfully here does not alter this. You have no lawful
recourse but to leave.
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?
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 May 2010 11:29:55 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:
> The notion that any nation must permit any person to immigrate is simply
> nuts, and does not appear to be the operating principle of any nation on
> earth.
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.
The law goes further, though, by making it possible for people to sue law
enforcement for *not* enforcing the law - so if someone thinks their
neighbor is an illegal and calls the police, and the police do nothing
about it, then the neighbor can sue the state for failing to take action
(so I understand).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/05/2010 5:39 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 01 May 2010 11:29:55 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:
>
>> The notion that any nation must permit any person to immigrate is simply
>> nuts, and does not appear to be the operating principle of any nation on
>> earth.
>
> 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.
>
> The law goes further, though, by making it possible for people to sue law
> enforcement for *not* enforcing the law - so if someone thinks their
> neighbor is an illegal and calls the police, and the police do nothing
> about it, then the neighbor can sue the state for failing to take action
> (so I understand).
>
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
No offence folks
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
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.
One could argue that only having males as suspects is discrimination,
that suspects should be equally male and female. But that someone would be
a complete idiot. It's 99.999% probable that the rapist was a male, rather
than a woman who raped a woman and was nevertheless mistaken for a man
(that has probably never happened in the history of mankind). Hence it
makes sense for the police to only suspect males and leave females off
the hook. If the police was stupid enough to start detaining females for
suspicion of raping a woman, they would be wasting valuable resources
which would be better used in searching for the actual rapist. After all,
law enforcement has only very limited resources to solve crimes.
Likewise with illegal immigration: The vast majority of illegal immigrants
don't look like locals. 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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/05/2010 6:13 PM, 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?
>
...
> Likewise with illegal immigration: The vast majority of illegal immigrants
> don't look like locals. 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.
>
Obviously Finland does not have a large immigrant population, about 1%
excluding Finnish Swedes as far as I can make out.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 01/05/2010 6:13 PM, 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?
> >
> ...
> > Likewise with illegal immigration: The vast majority of illegal immigrants
> > don't look like locals. 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.
> >
> Obviously Finland does not have a large immigrant population, about 1%
> excluding Finnish Swedes as far as I can make out.
3%. But I don't understand what that has to do with anything. It still
doesn't change the fact that immigrants typically tend to look distinctively
different from natives. Especially illegal ones (because it's rare for
someone who could pass for a Finn to want to immigrate illegally here).
I'm pretty sure that a significant percentage of illegal immigrants in
the US can be distinguished by their looks. If you saw a Finnish person
there I don't think it would be highest in the list of suspects of illegal
immigration.
You can call it racism if you want. That will not change the facts.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
> 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.
>
> One could argue that only having males as suspects is discrimination,
> that suspects should be equally male and female. But that someone would be
> a complete idiot. It's 99.999% probable that the rapist was a male, rather
> than a woman who raped a woman and was nevertheless mistaken for a man
> (that has probably never happened in the history of mankind). Hence it
> makes sense for the police to only suspect males and leave females off
> the hook. If the police was stupid enough to start detaining females for
> suspicion of raping a woman, they would be wasting valuable resources
> which would be better used in searching for the actual rapist. After all,
> law enforcement has only very limited resources to solve crimes.
>
> Likewise with illegal immigration: The vast majority of illegal immigrants
> don't look like locals. 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.
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).
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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. Where would you deport them to?
> Believe it or not, there is no basic right to remain in the country.
I think you'll find that there is such a right for *citizens.*
> you are here in violation of our laws, you must go.
And what law did the children break?
> The fact that your children are lawfully here does not alter this.
You've missed the point. They want to make it such that your children are
*not* lawfully here.
> You have no lawful recourse but to leave.
Sure.
> You can take your kids with you or you can leave them behind.
You're missing the point. The nutcases want to send the children out also.
It's not up to the parents whether to take the children. They're talking
about deporting the children who *are* legal US citizens who never broke the
law.
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?
>
> Regards,
> John
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
> But the idea behind
> deporting someone to their country of origin is not valid when their
> country of origin *is* in fact the US.
Bingo.
--
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:
> Likewise with illegal immigration: The vast majority of illegal immigrants
> don't look like locals.
Sure they do. We have a huge population of Americans of Mexican descent
here, as well as a whole raft of people descended from the Mexicans who were
here before the USA took over California.
There are large areas of the city where Americans who look like they might
be Mexican outnumber Americans who look like they might be British.
This is the problem. It's not that we'll catch illegal immigrants. It's that
the police will hassle Americans who look Mexican and not hassle the
Americans who look British.
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?
--
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:
> 3%. But I don't understand what that has to do with anything. It still
> doesn't change the fact that immigrants typically tend to look distinctively
> different from natives.
In *your* country, maybe. In the USA, *everyone* looks like an immigrant.
> 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.
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.
> You can call it racism if you want. That will not change the facts.
People aren't worried about harassing the illegal immigrants unnecessarily.
They're worried about harassing the legal citizens and residents unnecessarily.
--
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:
> 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. Such a criminal does not
deserve the protection of society (regardless of what his citizenship
status is).
Of course there are practical problems to this as well, which would make
the practice impossible: If someone is a citizen, it usually means he does
not have citizenship of any other country, so where are you going to deport
him to? You can't just dump him to another country (even if his parents are
from that country) if he isn't a citizen of that country. He would
effectively become a refugee, which might not be accepted by that country
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).
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.
So countries are stuck with their own citizens, no matter what kind of
criminal monsters they might be. The can't dump them somewhere else.
A cynic could say "the government granted him citizenship, the government
is stuck with him, so it just has to suck it up".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > 3%. But I don't understand what that has to do with anything. It still
> > doesn't change the fact that immigrants typically tend to look distinctively
> > different from natives.
> In *your* country, maybe. In the USA, *everyone* looks like an immigrant.
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.
If a very significant percentage of illegal immigrants tend to be central
Americans, it makes only sense to scrutinize them more closely.
> > 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? What matters is where the illegal
immigrants are coming from, not where the legal ones are. If 90% of illegal
immigrants are Mexicans, then the immigration officers should concentrate
their resources on Mexicans. It wouldn't make sense for them to distribute
their scarce resources on everybody if 90% of illegals are Mexicans.
> 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.
> > You can call it racism if you want. That will not change the facts.
> People aren't worried about harassing the illegal immigrants unnecessarily.
> They're worried about harassing the legal citizens and residents unnecessarily.
Stopping crime sometimes means that innocent people are questioned. That's
something we have to live with.
Or are you saying that criminals should not be tracked down because doing
so might bother some innocent people?
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. It sucks, but if we want to catch the criminals we sometimes just
have to suck it up. As long as there's crime, innocent people will have to
suffer.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
> 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.
It's better to allow illegal immigration than to possibly offend someone.
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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Likewise with illegal immigration: The vast majority of illegal immigrants
> > don't look like locals.
> Sure they do. We have a huge population of Americans of Mexican descent
> here, as well as a whole raft of people descended from the Mexicans who were
> here before the USA took over California.
I think that you understood what I meant, but decided to nitpick on my
wording regardless, just for the sake of argument.
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.
"Oooh! That's racial profiling! That's racism!"
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.
> This is the problem. It's not that we'll catch illegal immigrants. It's that
> the police will hassle Americans who look Mexican and not hassle the
> Americans who look British.
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?
> 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?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/05/2010 6:51 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Obviously Finland does not have a large immigrant population, about 1%
>> excluding Finnish Swedes as far as I can make out.
>
> 3%. But I don't understand what that has to do with anything.
Well, let me enlighten you.
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.
In Britain we have had a lot of immigration from the West Indies and the
sub- continent for the last 60 years. Some of the black Britons here are
third generation British. (Actually we have had people of African
descent here for over 300 years. Most of the early ones have blended
into the population by now.) When the police used their Stop and Search
powers to target the black and Asian population, race riots occurred in
1980 and 81 and the SUS law was dropped.
It is wrong.
>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.
> 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.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
>
I thought you wouldn’t
> 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?
>
You are still young and don’t have the experience of different cultures
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?
>
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.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] 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.
>
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
