Conquer Club

Woodruff wrote:How about the idea that we not arrest ANYONE UNLESS we have an actual REASON to arrest them? That seems like a pretty good workaround...and guess what, it's even the way things are supposed to work already!

If Scotty is right about illegals being easy to detect, then the REASON for arresting them is because they probably broke the law...

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I see this, but I don't see the libertarian aspect of the government of a state allowing the racial profiling and detainment of a group of citizens based entirely on arguments that people of their racial background are predisposed towards a certain type of crime.

Agree with it if you want, but don't say that it's libertarian.

Libertarians want the government to allow things. It may not be "right", but some would argue that it's better than having to arrest people of all races in an effort to find people from Mexico.

Wait, you think people from Mexico are criminals now?

john9blue wrote:

Woodruff wrote:How about the idea that we not arrest ANYONE UNLESS we have an actual REASON to arrest them? That seems like a pretty good workaround...and guess what, it's even the way things are supposed to work already!

If Scotty is right about illegals being easy to detect, then the REASON for arresting them is because they probably broke the law...

This gives me the impression that you are in favor of a world such as was depicted in the movie MINORITY REPORT.

I am absolutely not in favor of such a world.

Wow, Jesus Christ. Can you guys be serious and tell me now whether you're being facetious and arguing for the sake of arguing, or whether you genuinely don't see why illegal immigrants from Mexico are almost certainly Hispanic, and why it's therefore stupid to detain anyone that is not Hispanic?

john9blue wrote:Wow, Jesus Christ. Can you guys be serious and tell me now whether you're being facetious and arguing for the sake of arguing, or whether you genuinely don't see why illegal immigrants from Mexico are almost certainly Hispanic, and why it's therefore stupid to detain anyone that is not Hispanic?

1) You argued for detention of people from Mexico. If that was not your intention, you should admit that you were wrong or that you mispoke. Don't flame people for taking you at your word

2) Now you're arguing a clear logical fallacy. Most illegal immigrants from Mexico are Hispanic, does not justify a policy that equates all hispanics with illegal immigrants from Mexico.

3) Try to reverse the last part of that last sentence- Why does it make sense to detain anyone who is hispanic?

I stand by my claim that the kind of racial profiling in either direction is stupid, and goes well against anyone who claims liberty and freedom from governmental control as a guiding political philosophy. If that policy applies only as far as skin colour, it has no worth at all.

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:It's not "racial profiling" to assume that illegal immigrants from Mexico look like Mexicans. If you wanted to fight this "racial profiling" with some kind of white-person quota, then THAT would be against libertarianism.

So libertarians aren't bothered by the government assuming criminality and detaining citizens without proof?

I don't want any kind of racial quota.

I'm not sure how a libertarian can argue that quotas or profiles should exist only for non whites, or that whites should have a quota. Libertarianism shouldn't demand the kind of quota system that you seem to passively accept as natural.

detained is incorrect, as I understand it. you can not be detained on appearance, that is just ridiculous to think that is or would be what is going on!

We want to detain illegal immigrants.

Most illegal immigrants are Hispanic.

NOT most Hispanics are illegal immigrants.

So to find illegal immigrants, we should look primarily for Hispanics.

Doing that is racial profiling.

Doing that is reasonable.

Doing that is good for enforcing the law.

^^^ Which of the above statements are wrong?

john9blue wrote:Wow, Jesus Christ. Can you guys be serious and tell me now whether you're being facetious and arguing for the sake of arguing, or whether you genuinely don't see why illegal immigrants from Mexico are almost certainly Hispanic, and why it's therefore stupid to detain anyone that is not Hispanic?

I am absolutely serious about the fact that racial profiling is a bad thing. Questioning someone because of how they LOOK is a bad thing. Questioning someone because of what they DO is a good thing. Actions, not appearances.

john9blue wrote:We want to detain illegal immigrants.

Most illegal immigrants are Hispanic.

NOT most Hispanics are illegal immigrants.

So to find illegal immigrants, we should look primarily for Hispanics.

Doing that is racial profiling.

Doing that is reasonable.

Doing that is good for enforcing the law.

^^^ Which of the above statements are wrong?

How about instead of looking for Hispanics, we look for people breaking the law in other ways, giving ourselves REASON to look at them for immigration law breakage as well.

do you think, if an officer bumps into a 40yr old man who does not speak one lick of English, that is suspicion enough that the man who was bumped into was perhaps not born in the USA 40 years ago? we will not ask our police to be retarded ok, thats the bottom line. they know what they are doing. they are VERY aware of racial profiling, and the people put the trust into law enforcement to make those decisions, and pay a pretty penny for state of the art training specifically by the book on the issue of the laws passed. There will always be bad apples, but there always have been bad apples. you may very well be a bad apple yourself

you may rest assured that any instances that are proven to be racial profiling will get 20 million dollars of tax payer money each, so that way you can continue the strategy of bankrupting the state and closing down more school and hospitals..

john9blue wrote:We want to detain illegal immigrants.

Most illegal immigrants are Hispanic.

NOT most Hispanics are illegal immigrants.

So to find illegal immigrants, we should look primarily for Hispanics.

Doing that is racial profiling.

Doing that is reasonable.

Doing that is good for enforcing the law.

^^^ Which of the above statements are wrong?

This was a very cute attempt at logic. You don't really state which arguments link to one another, via And/or statements, or via logical conclusions.

So my easiest rebutall would be to point out that your post wouldn't really stand up if we started with the premises:

We want to detain domestic terrorists,

Most domestic terrorists are white.

And then took that on to Arizona levels of arresting all white people who can't present papers declaring that they're not a domestic terrorist.

Phatscotty wrote:do you think, if an officer bumps into a 40yr old man who does not speak one lick of English, that is suspicion enough that the man who was bumped into was perhaps not born in the USA 40 years ago?

I know a number of US citizens who don't speak English. Yet, they are citizens. Are they now to be required to carry "documents of the state" proving that they are citizens to avoid arrest? This does not seem like a good strategy to me.

Phatscotty wrote:you may rest assured that any instances that are proven to be racial profiling will get 20 million dollars of tax payer money each, so that way you can continue the strategy of bankrupting the state and closing down more school and hospitals..

I'm confused as to why you see this as a good strategy.

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:We want to detain illegal immigrants.

Most illegal immigrants are Hispanic.

NOT most Hispanics are illegal immigrants.

So to find illegal immigrants, we should look primarily for Hispanics.

Doing that is racial profiling.

Doing that is reasonable.

Doing that is good for enforcing the law.

^^^ Which of the above statements are wrong?

How about instead of looking for Hispanics, we look for people breaking the law in other ways, giving ourselves REASON to look at them for immigration law breakage as well.

breaking the law one way is good enough for me. we don't want or need to wait for them to break another law....

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:We want to detain illegal immigrants.

Most illegal immigrants are Hispanic.

NOT most Hispanics are illegal immigrants.

So to find illegal immigrants, we should look primarily for Hispanics.

Doing that is racial profiling.

Doing that is reasonable.

Doing that is good for enforcing the law.

^^^ Which of the above statements are wrong?

How about instead of looking for Hispanics, we look for people breaking the law in other ways, giving ourselves REASON to look at them for immigration law breakage as well.

breaking the law one way is good enough for me. we don't want or need to wait for them to break another law....

But this law encourages the harassment of people who have not broken the law.

Symmetry criticizes me in one thread for giving a bad example about the rarity of four-leaf clovers.

Symmetry criticizes me in another thread a bit later, using an example of domestic terrorists as a rarity.

DTs are rarer than FLCs.

Now THAT'S illogical.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:We want to detain illegal immigrants.

Most illegal immigrants are Hispanic.

NOT most Hispanics are illegal immigrants.

So to find illegal immigrants, we should look primarily for Hispanics.

Doing that is racial profiling.

Doing that is reasonable.

Doing that is good for enforcing the law.

^^^ Which of the above statements are wrong?

How about instead of looking for Hispanics, we look for people breaking the law in other ways, giving ourselves REASON to look at them for immigration law breakage as well.

breaking the law one way is good enough for me. we don't want or need to wait for them to break another law....

But this law encourages the harassment of people who have not broken the law.

define harass and and prove there is not probable cause....

But in all seriousness... nobody is advocating arresting or even questioning random Hispanic people. I'm operating under Phat's assumption that there are ways to spot II's that aren't based on race. I'm just saying that it's not BAD to profile for only Hispanic people when looking for II's.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:We want to detain illegal immigrants.

Most illegal immigrants are Hispanic.

NOT most Hispanics are illegal immigrants.

So to find illegal immigrants, we should look primarily for Hispanics.

Doing that is racial profiling.

Doing that is reasonable.

Doing that is good for enforcing the law.

^^^ Which of the above statements are wrong?

How about instead of looking for Hispanics, we look for people breaking the law in other ways, giving ourselves REASON to look at them for immigration law breakage as well.

breaking the law one way is good enough for me. we don't want or need to wait for them to break another law....

But this law encourages the harassment of people who have not broken the law.

define harass and and prove there is not probable cause....

Prove there is not probable cause? You seriously just said that? It's the police responsibility to prove that there IS probable cause.

john9blue wrote:But in all seriousness... nobody is advocating arresting or even questioning random Hispanic people. I'm operating under Phat's assumption that there are ways to spot II's that aren't based on race. I'm just saying that it's not BAD to profile for only Hispanic people when looking for II's.

Phatscotty apparently believes we as citizens must prove that there ISN'T probable cause for us to be harassed by the police. You're buying into that?

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:Wow, Jesus Christ. Can you guys be serious and tell me now whether you're being facetious and arguing for the sake of arguing, or whether you genuinely don't see why illegal immigrants from Mexico are almost certainly Hispanic, and why it's therefore stupid to detain anyone that is not Hispanic?

I am absolutely serious about the fact that racial profiling is a bad thing. Questioning someone because of how they LOOK is a bad thing. Questioning someone because of what they DO is a good thing. Actions, not appearances.

patterns and behavior....

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:Wow, Jesus Christ. Can you guys be serious and tell me now whether you're being facetious and arguing for the sake of arguing, or whether you genuinely don't see why illegal immigrants from Mexico are almost certainly Hispanic, and why it's therefore stupid to detain anyone that is not Hispanic?

I am absolutely serious about the fact that racial profiling is a bad thing. Questioning someone because of how they LOOK is a bad thing. Questioning someone because of what they DO is a good thing. Actions, not appearances.

patterns and behavior....

Phatscotty, you obviously come from a Beaver Cleaver type background and follow blissfully in whatever footsteps your coweyed Middle America mummy and daddy laid out for you. You have never had police harass you because of how you look because you've kept your appearance in line with the status quo. You wave the flag and cheer for wankers like Bush and could give a good f*ck if our Constitution gets assraped as long as it doesn't affect you directly.
You and your slackjawed ilk are what's wrong with this country. Cheers.


Honibaz

b.k. barunt wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:Wow, Jesus Christ. Can you guys be serious and tell me now whether you're being facetious and arguing for the sake of arguing, or whether you genuinely don't see why illegal immigrants from Mexico are almost certainly Hispanic, and why it's therefore stupid to detain anyone that is not Hispanic?

I am absolutely serious about the fact that racial profiling is a bad thing. Questioning someone because of how they LOOK is a bad thing. Questioning someone because of what they DO is a good thing. Actions, not appearances.

patterns and behavior....

Phatscotty, you obviously come from a Beaver Cleaver type background and follow blissfully in whatever footsteps your coweyed Middle America mummy and daddy laid out for you. You have never had police harass you because of how you look because you've kept your appearance in line with the status quo. You wave the flag and cheer for wankers like Bush and could give a good f*ck if our Constitution gets assraped as long as it doesn't affect you directly.
You and your slackjawed ilk are what's wrong with this country. Cheers.


Honibaz

I wonder if you could possibly be wrong about everything you said and still come to the same conclusion? My opinion...I don't care what you think, you never make a case for anything you say other then "you are right and everyone else is wrong"

Patterns and behavior, lets stick with the issue. Whats wrong with observing patters and behavior?

And yes, I have been fucked with by police on many occasions. I have even shared a few of them here in the past. I like how you pretend to know otherwise though.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer-

I will not tolerate racial discrimination or racial profiling in Arizona. We will use this tool wisely, and defend the people of Arizona with Honor.

There....

Phatscotty wrote:
Patterns and behavior, lets stick with the issue. Whats wrong with observing patters and behavior?.

Well, my father is probably a good example.

Despite my mother's best efforts he is, well... a slob. He also has an accent. He is a naturalized citizen who came here fully legally. However, his mannerisms and such are not, in all ways "American". Its hard to put your finger on particular things, but most people who grew up among immigrants probably have an idea.

When he flies through a large airport, he is ALWAYS one of those "randomly" picked out for an extra search.

Being a man, he often does carry his wallet with him, but not always.

So, who could be "targeted". Folks like my father. Folks who are law-abiding almost to a fault. (its not something they brag about, it just is who they are). Folks who also don't happen to "fit" in what many folks think "law-abiding citizens" should look like.

It seems that people are getting way ahead of themselves thinking that this is turning AZ police into the Gestappo demanding papers from people. People have to show id to the police all the time. If you are a legal alien, with a "green card", you HAVE to have it with you at all times. It is a condition of having that status. Now, in order to be questioned by the police, you have to be suspected of a crime. (illegal search and seizure still applies.). So it isn't walking around asking Hispanics for papers. It is asking for id, or proof of legal immigration AFTER there has been suspicion of a crime. Basically, it would be the same if they just put a Border Patrol officer in every police car with the police personnel. The law allows the police to enforce what the Border Patrol is tasked with, and failing.

On a related note, all "sanctuary" cities (ie San Francisco) councils should be arrested for aiding and abetting for passing those ordinances that violate federal law.

jbrettlip wrote:It seems that people are getting way ahead of themselves thinking that this is turning AZ police into the Gestappo demanding papers from people..

QFT

The law that was passed does not mean that such extremes are going to take place. It simply means that illegals will face consequences for their actions in Arizona, hence they will be a lot more likely to cross the border into California or Texas. Pretty smart move on Arizona's part.


Honibaz