Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Your 'facts' come from wikipedia? You sure did a lot of digging.

And you needed wikipedia to cite the undisputed fact that the majority of illegal immigrants are hispanic?

And that certainly doesn't justify asking more hispanics (even legal ones) for their papersplz.

Just like 'most terrorists are muslims' doesn't justify strip cavity searching every muslim.

Originally Posted by SpazX If there are 11 million illegal immigrants and 80% of those are hispanic that means there are 8.8 million hispanic illegal immigrants. There are ~47 million hispanic people in the US according to the census. If that includes the illegal immigrants then 18% of those are illegal immigrants. If it doesn't then 8.8 million out of 55.8 million would be just under 16%. So that basically means if you picked randomly amongst those who identify as hispanic then you'd get an illegal immigrant about 16-18% of the time (i.e. you'd be wrong more than 8 times out of 10). If there are 11 million illegal immigrants and 9% are Asian then that means there are ~990,000 illegal asian immigrants (I'll just say 1 million for simplicity). There are around 13.5 million Asian people in the US according to the census. If that includes the illegal immigrants then around 7.4% of those are illegal immigrants. If it doesn't then 1 million out of 14.5 million would be just under 7%. So that basically means if you picked randomly amongst those who identify as Asian you'd get an illegal immigrant about 7-7.4% of the time (i.e. you'd be wrong more than 9 times out of 10). Now the fact that they identify as one race or another doesn't necessarily mean they look like one or the other, making it a bit misleading, but whatever. The point is that it's not really a very accurate method, and that there is about 1 illegal Asian immigrant for every 2 illegal Hispanic immigrants according to their numbers vs. population. Now you could argue of course that an illegal immigrant in Arizona is more likely to be Hispanic than Asian, but the point is that being hispanic doesn't make it likely that you're an illegal immigrant. That's backwards probability.

Your problem is that you are factoring in the rest of the population. You are actually proving how ineffective it would be to not use racial profiling. If I take randomly 1,000 illegal immigrants, and separate them into ethnicities, I am going to find 810 are of hispanics, 90 asians, 60 europeans, and 40 people from the rest of the world. So if you were out hunting for illegals, what group would you target? Its not being racist if statistically the vast majority of illegal immigrants are hispanic.

To put it more simple, if your car was hit and the person ran, and there was orange paint on it, you got the make and model, would the cops waste their time looking for red, blue, white, green, or purple cars of that model? No they would hit the orange ones. Does that mean they hate orange cars? No, but it is logically the car that hit you.

Originally Posted by IRHari Your 'facts' come from wikipedia? You sure did a lot of digging. And you needed wikipedia to cite the undisputed fact that the majority of illegal immigrants are hispanic? And that certainly doesn't justify asking more hispanics (even legal ones) for their papersplz. Just like 'most terrorists are muslims' doesn't justify strip cavity searching every muslim.

Ouch the wikipedia bash.

You people act like racial profiling is like when they are going to flag down every hispanic.
Learn something about it before you criticize me for once, please.

It would make more sense IMHO to go hardcore after any business that employs these workers.

Originally Posted by Knoell Your problem is that you are factoring in the rest of the population. You are actually proving how ineffective it would be to not use racial profiling. If I take randomly 1,000 illegal immigrants, and separate them into ethnicities, I am going to find 810 are of hispanics, 90 asians, 60 europeans, and 40 people from the rest of the world. So if you were out hunting for illegals, what group would you target? Its not being racist if statistically the vast majority of illegal immigrants are hispanic. To put it more simple, if your car was hit and the person ran, and there was orange paint on it, you got the make and model, would the cops waste their time looking for red, blue, white, green, or purple cars of that model? No they would hit the orange ones. Does that mean they hate orange cars? No, but it is logically the car that hit you.

You're using the probabilities wrong, which is what I was trying to explain. And your orange car example is nonsensical, you're acting as if you already know someone's doing something illegal. You don't know that in this case, you're looking for somebody who has done something illegal.

Here, let me try to explain another way, answer these two questions:

I have a person behind a door, they're an illegal immigrant, what ethnicity would you guess they are?

I have a person behind a door, they're hispanic, would you guess that they are here legally or illegally?

Ok. Explain to me how you will racially profile without flagging down every hispanic. I.e., explain to me how to distinguish a legal hispanic from an illegal immigrant hispanic.

http://ktar.com/index.php?nid=6&sid=1289944

A veteran sheriff's deputy was shot and wounded Friday after encountering a group of suspected illegal immigrants who apparently had been hauling bales of marijuana along a major smuggling corridor in the Arizona desert- a violent episode that comes amid a heated national debate over immigration.

Non-illegal drug dealers are usually so nice to the police.

Originally Posted by IRHari Ok. Explain to me how you will racially profile without flagging down every hispanic. I.e., explain to me how to distinguish a legal hispanic from an illegal immigrant hispanic.

Well this goes to Spazx as well, but from my understanding of racial profiling is the process in which you have already got the polices or securities attention by doing something else. The police officer pulls you over, or takes you into custody then says, hmmm this person is hispanic, 2 in 10 hispanics are illegal which is the greatest ratio, maybe I should ask for his papers...

You guys for some reason have it stuck in your head that police in arizona are just hunting down hispanics for sport, tackling them, and yelling to see their papers. If there is any truth to this I would like to see some type of proof.

"Let's transfer this to the other forms of terrorism. Just because someone is Middle Eastern doesn't make them a terrorist, but it does increase the chances that they are. Now if I get on a plane have an individual of Middle Eastern descent mumbling prayers sweating bullets, smelling like flower water and if they are male they have shaved off all facial hair, this individual is the duck. Why? Well to properly profile, you can't just profile their race but also the actions that make them a threat. The cumulative numbers of identifiers are sufficient to raise great concern,

For profiling to be done correctly it cannot be based solely on race but on actions and appearances. This is why many officers have gotten into trouble in the past, not because they have been wrong, but they have not known how to explain how they knew the individual or individuals they were questioning, stopping or even chasing was a threat outside of race. The non-race characteristics were present they just didn't know how to explain it. "

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...bad.html?cat=9

Originally Posted by Knoell You guys for some reason have it stuck in your head that police in arizona are just hunting down hispanics for sport, tackling them, and yelling to see their papers. If there is any truth to this I would like to see some type of proof.

Another excellent strawman, but no one, including me, believes this. We think that as a result of this bill, racial profiling, although banned, will still take place. Some hispanic who is here legally will be asked for his documentation because he's suspected to be here illegally. That's wrong. The definition of reasonable suspicion is so ing ambiguous.

I'm not knocking the AZ cops, they have been given an amazing amount of discretion because of this law. But there are gonna be a few Arpaio-bad-eggs out there that will take advantage of that.

I agree with that excerpt from that article. It should be action based, not race based.

What does a Muslim look like anyway? The underwear bomber certainly didn't look 'Middle Eastern'.

Originally Posted by Knoell If I take randomly 1,000 illegal immigrants, and separate them into ethnicities, I am going to find 810 are of hispanics, 90 asians, 60 europeans, and 40 people from the rest of the world. So if you were out hunting for illegals, what group would you target? Its not being racist if statistically the vast majority of illegal immigrants are hispanic.

That's all around the US. If you take 1,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona, you will probably find 998 of them Hispanic. But if you take 1,000 random Hispanic people you will probably find less than 100 of them are here illegally, and that's why this law is messed up.

Its also going to screw up the economy for everyone because Mexico and California and the MLB and other things have decided to boycott us.

Originally Posted by IRHari Another excellent strawman, but no one, including me, believes this. We think that as a result of this bill, racial profiling, although banned, will still take place.

Racial profiling will take place as a result of this bill?

Did it not take place before this bill?

Originally Posted by darkslime Its also going to screw up the economy for everyone because Mexico and California and the MLB and other things have decided to boycott us.

Yeah, because California and Mexico's economies are something worth depending on.

Originally Posted by UncleBob Racial profiling will take place as a result of this bill? Did it not take place before this bill? Yeah, because California and Mexico's economies are something worth depending on.

They are. California, at least until the crisis, is actually one of the states that paid more in federal taxes than they receive back. Unlike some southern states that receive more aid than the entire state pays in taxes.

Originally Posted by Knoell hmmm this person is hispanic, 2 in 10 hispanics are illegal which is the greatest ratio, maybe I should ask for his papers...

lol

Yes, so you'll be wrong 80% of the time, but 1 in 10 Asian people are illegal immigrants, so you should ask the Asian people too, what's the difference if you're wrong 90% of the time versus 80%? And then again, maybe 1 in 10,000 European-looking white guys (rather than hispanic white guys, which you probably wouldn't know the difference anyway) are illegal too, so you'll be wrong like 99.99% of the time or something, but whatever, it.

So why not ask everybody again?

And your quote, similarly, uses the probability wrong.

"Just because someone is Middle Eastern doesn't make them a terrorist, but it does increase the chances that they are."

No it doesn't. It's very very unlikely that any particular Middle Easterner is going to be a terrorist, and being Middle Eastern doesn't increase the chances that they're a terrorist - a terrorist is more likely to be Middle Eastern than some other race/ethnicity. I'm trying to explain that distinction to you, do you understand what I'm saying?

Originally Posted by SpazX "Just because someone is Middle Eastern doesn't make them a terrorist, but it does increase the chances that they are." No it doesn't. It's very very unlikely that any particular Middle Easterner is going to be a terrorist, and being Middle Eastern doesn't increase the chances that they're a terrorist - a terrorist is more likely to be Middle Eastern than some other race/ethnicity. I'm trying to explain that distinction to you, do you understand what I'm saying?

I don't see any distinction to that in this case. It is true that most illegal immigrants are Hispanic, so being Hispanic does increase the chances that you are an illegal immigrant compared to other races, especially in Arizona where you are very close to the Mexican border.

Originally Posted by UncleBob Racial profiling will take place as a result of this bill? Did it not take place before this bill? Yeah, because California and Mexico's economies are something worth depending on.

Good point UncleBob, racial profiling exists in and of itself, and does not need a bill to tell it to exist.

Originally Posted by SpazX lol Yes, so you'll be wrong 80% of the time, but 1 in 10 Asian people are illegal immigrants, so you should ask the Asian people too, what's the difference if you're wrong 90% of the time versus 80%? And then again, maybe 1 in 10,000 European-looking white guys (rather than hispanic white guys, which you probably wouldn't know the difference anyway) are illegal too, so you'll be wrong like 99.99% of the time or something, but whatever, it. So why not ask everybody again? And your quote, similarly, uses the probability wrong. "Just because someone is Middle Eastern doesn't make them a terrorist, but it does increase the chances that they are." No it doesn't. It's very very unlikely that any particular Middle Easterner is going to be a terrorist, and being Middle Eastern doesn't increase the chances that they're a terrorist - a terrorist is more likely to be Middle Eastern than some other race/ethnicity. I'm trying to explain that distinction to you, do you understand what I'm saying?

Way to take one or two lines out of my post to hammer down that it doesnt make sense, seeing as how the whole thing is put together to make one whole point.

Originally Posted by IRHari Another excellent strawman, but no one, including me, believes this. We think that as a result of this bill, racial profiling, although banned, will still take place. Some hispanic who is here legally will be asked for his documentation because he's suspected to be here illegally. That's wrong. The definition of reasonable suspicion is so ing ambiguous. I'm not knocking the AZ cops, they have been given an amazing amount of discretion because of this law. But there are gonna be a few Arpaio-bad-eggs out there that will take advantage of that. I agree with that excerpt from that article. It should be action based, not race based. What does a Muslim look like anyway? The underwear bomber certainly didn't look 'Middle Eastern'.

Arent there going to be a few "arpaio bad-eggs" regardless of this law?

Noone seems to be talking about what racial profiling actually is, only that it will target all hispanics, which is untrue. I put a definition out there, but it was ignored, I would like to know what you think racial profiling is, when it comes to police?

Douchebag, read everything I wrote. I said I agree with the excerpt from the article which defines racial profiling as not only race based but action based. I agree with that.

I don't know if thats what police use when they 'racially profile.'

Originally Posted by Knoell But seriously, do you really think cops are going to walk down the street asking people? Doubt it, they will probably enact it when they stop people who cannot produce ID, or when they raid companies suspected of employing illegals. So logic would dictate that you would catch more illegal immigrants by asking more hispanics for their papers rather than say asians. As long as you ask some asians, what is wrong with asking more hispanics?

Actually, that is exactly what people think cops will start doing. Lawful contact would include a beat cop walking within an arm's reach of anybody.

http://carlosmiller.com/2010/02/18/a...op-demands-it/

In Texas, the guy got to walk away. In Arizona, the guy would be arrested.

As far as logic dictating a course of action, have you done any cost/benefit analysis regarding the cost of locating, detaining and deporting an average illegal alien versus the cost of the services an average illegal alien consumes?