GUNFIRE AT WAFFLE HOUSE AFTER WHITES, HISPANICS ARGUE OVER CITIZENSHIP

[dmallind]

and, lest we overstate the obvious


It is a bit of a reach to equate proving one's legal residence status as opposed to proving oneself innocent of murder.

As far as profiling goes, sorry if it offends you, but allowing young Arab males to board an airliner unmolested while strip searching granny offends me.

Get real.

Oh lord where to start.

Please explain what I did to change the meaning of the sentences as logical arguments except alternate between two completely factual propositions? You do realize that means they cannot possibly be anything else but logically consistent right? Only way to avoid that is to prove that most murderers DON't have guns or knives - which would be kind of tricky since the two account for about 80% or more of all murders.

It doesn't matter if murder is worse than illegal alien status (although it's kind of refreshing that someone seems to realize that) - the propositions are equal in that we are asking the innocent (who share some characteristic with most guilty people) to prove their innocence rather than proving the guilt of the guilty individuals. If I had used the example of people who have cars proving they hadn't broken speeding laws (since most speeders are in cars as opposed to semis or motorcycles) would it make you feel better? If so go ahead - all three are completely logically consistent - the nature of the crime is immaterial - the important point is equal protection and assumption of innocence.

I am far from offended by having to prove citizenship, or even by what you disingenuously call profiling. Dunno how many times I have to say I'm all for stringent requirements. But you tell me how it passes Constitutional muster to require greater documentation or burden of proof from citizens based on their skin color or accent. It's a pipe dream to think something like that would fly. I have less problem than most with any kind of ID requirements - but itr's got to, to pass Constitutional muster, apply to everyone.

Good luck on passing an amendment that says equal protection and presumption of innocence doesn't apply to anyone who isn't a WASP. That's what you'd need.

 

[zeke1312]

I've got to jump in here and add my comments to this thread. First, I am a racist by the standards of today. I'm not in the "touchy feely" camp. The politically correct terminology as far as I'm concerned is puke. "Can't we all get along". No, so get that straight right now. The folks who are using the legal path to become a US citizen are those who should be allowed to do so. Many others have to leave now. Build a 20 ft wall. Concertina wire at the top. Forget all the other crap such as National Guard, etc unless many thousands can be deployed. Just wait until a leftist becomes the Mexican president, as there is a popular such person running now for the office. Now lets hear a comeback. I love wacking the hornets nest!

 

[NCP24]

Just wait until a leftist becomes the Mexican president, as there is a popular such person running now for the office.

Could you please elaborate?

 

[CAnnoneer]

I'm sorry Cannoneer but you are still ignoring, missing, or missplaying the logical context.

So the percentage of illegals that are Mexican says NOTHING about the percentage of Mexicans that are illegal.

I can't make it any clearer - if A then B says nothing about if B then A. It's absolutely first day of Logic 101. It applies to immigration too.

Mmmkay. I'll pass by the juvenile condescension and get to the point. The logical problem is not what you are trying to solve but the following:

"If I want to capture illegals, what is my strategy of checking IDs that maximizes my chance of success, as defined by percentage hits among trials?"

If 12 to 25 out of 40 to 60 million hispanics are illegal, that means a third or more of the trials will be hits on average if we profile and restrict ourselves to hispanics. What are the same percentages for WASPs or Asians? Ten, twenty times less? Clearly checking hispanics maximizes your success.

The tacit assumption in the previous analysis was that subgroups are roughly equally represented. Then a 85% Mexicans among all illegals is more than enough information to arrive at the above conclusion, because without knowing the exact numbers, it is obvious that the profiling makes even more sense as hispanics are still less numerous than whites. Simple.

 

[crazed_ss]

I am far from offended by having to prove citizenship..

EXACTLY! .. One person understands it. Everyone here is basically saying "If legal Hispanics arent doing anything wrong, then they dont have anything to worry about"

A "papers please" society isnt what America is about. We shouldnt abandon our ideals because we're faced with a problem. When we do that we get crap like the Patriot act.

Like I said before.. It's funny how people here are all for questioning people on the basis of skin color and ethnicity, but scream bloody murder if the ATF happens to even arrest someone on a valid gun charge.. then we hear "JBT this and JBT that"

 

[haole_boySS]

Crazed SS "I'm still wondering how you guys determine who should be questioned and who shouldnt.

You say the cops should put effort into questioning obvious illegal people. Who is obvious. You can go to any construction site or produce field around here and see Mexican people toiling away. Are the cops supposed to just walk over and arrest everyone because they're speaking Spanish and look like illegal Mexicans?"

How about pulling up to these construction sites and produce fields in trucks, cars, vans, buses, etc.....All with an overly clear marking... INS
Chase down the ones that run and question them. That I think would be a good start.

Another good idea posted by someone else (sorry) was to stop with the freebies for illegals. It makes me sick to my stomach that a born and raised AMERICAN can die from a treatable disease because they run out of medical insurance.
Crazed SS, could you visit any of the thousands of American families around this country that were directly effected by my senario and justify and or convince them that ILLEGALS should be provided free health care?
Did you immediately lash out at southern white people because whitey has oppressed you all your life?
You say you don't see the racism in CA? Go get one of your white friends and have them walk through Compton or Watts. I wouldn't send one of my enemies into South East DC close to where I live. I guarantee that your friend and my enemy will be victims of your non-existent racism.

I'm white and I'm not sorry to be....I am how ever really tired of getting blamed for every other races economic and social problems.

I'm sure this will get edited, but hopefully some read it before it does.

 

[crazed_ss]

How about pulling up to these construction sites and produce fields in trucks, cars, vans, buses, etc.....All with an overly clear marking... INS
Chase down the ones that run and question them. That I think would be a good start.

Great idea. There's just one problem. The housing and agriculture industry are integral to the economy though so that really isnt a solution.

Another good idea posted by someone else (sorry) was to stop with the freebies for illegals. It makes me sick to my stomach that a born and raised AMERICAN can die from a treatable disease because they run out of medical insurance.
Crazed SS, could you visit any of the thousands of American families around this country that were directly effected by my senario and justify and or convince them that ILLEGALS should be provided free health care?

*** does people not having enough health insurance coverage have to do with anything?
You know there is a good number of American citizens out there without health insurance too. I'd wager everyone's high insurance costs are mostly due to the 10's of millions of Americans without insurance, not illegals. It almost sounds like you're making illegals out to be scapegoats for America's healthcare problem. If all 12 million or so illegals dissapeared tommorow, there would still be a problem with affordable health care in this country. Granted, they arent helping the situation.. but they're not the cause of the problem.

You say you don't see the racism in CA?

No, I didnt say that. Please read before you post.
I said that I experience more racism in the South than I do in California. That doesnt mean racism doesnt exist here, because it does.

http://www.10news.com/news/9175983/detail.html
http://www.10news.com/news/3481735/detail.html
http://www.10news.com/news/5359098/detail.html
http://www.10news.com/news/5346392/detail.html

Go get one of your white friends and have them walk through Compton or Watts. I wouldn't send one of my enemies into South East DC close to where I live. I guarantee that your friend and my enemy will be victims of your non-existent racism.

My best friend (white) works for Nextel and routinely has to do work in South Central Los Angeles on cell cites. He's been doing this for years. He's perfectly fine.
Also, where did I say racism didnt exist?

 

[Kaylee]

ENOUGH with the snarkiness.

Talk facts, fine.
Talk arguments, great.

Personal baiting back and forth... not fine.

 

[zeke1312]

NCP24:

Lopez Obrador, a leftist, leads all other presidential candidates by 10 points. He is a friend of Castro and Venezuela's Chavez. What kind of new problems will surface if he becomes the President of Mexico? An example: If the US restricts immigration will he limit oil imports to the US? Instead of questionable efforts by Mexico to control border flow, what efforts, if any, will be made to secure the border? How will his election influence free trade programs (not that I'm in favor of)?

 

[glummer]

Bad Analogy

dmallind said:

A - Most illegals have a strong accent and/or a swarthy skin tone. We need to catch illegals, therefore we should check all people who have accents or swarthy skins and have them prove they are not illegals

B - Most murderers have a gun and/or a knife. We need to catch murderers, therefore we should check all people who have guns or knives and have them prove they are not murderers (no the NICS check does NOT do this - just proves you have not been convicted of murder - the equal analogy for the illegal would be that he simply has to prove he has not been convicted of illegal entry in that case)

This isn't apples & oranges - more like watermelon & grapes. To be comparable, you would have to postulate a country where:

- Murderers numbered in the tens of MILLIONS - several orders of magnitude higher than reality;
- Weapons ownership was much lower among non-murderers (so much so that a gun or knife would flag double-digit percentages of murders in some parts of the country);
- Weapons were often quite hard to conceal, so that a very high percentage of weapons bearers/murderers could be spotted just by looking around on public streets;
- Strong proof of NOT being a murderer was quite easily demonstrated with any number of readily obtainable documents.
- A very high percentage of murderers could be conclusively identified just by their behavior when interviewed.

In such a country, the police would certainly be checking anyone with a gun or knife. And it would be seen as quite reasonable.

 

[BryanP]

I said that I experience more racism in the South than I do in California. That doesnt mean racism doesnt exist here, because it does.

Interesting, as I know people with the exact opposite experience. A close friend of mine is a lady of Japanese ancestry. She claims to have experienced significantly less racism living in Alabama compared to when she resided in Oregon and California.

 

[dmallind]

Sorry Cannoneer - sincerely not my intent to be condescending. Just trying multiple ways to explain a point. Trust me I fully acknowledge I am rarely the clearest or pithiest of writers so the fault is more than likely mine. I do try, but I often fail, to explain such things appropriately. We are getting closer, but forgive me if I try one more time to close the gap, principally by replying to glummer and others who consider this apples to oranges.

Flat out - it doesn't matter in a logical argument if it's apples to oranges or battleships to mp3s. The examples are not important at all. Consider this statement:

All A's are B's. No B's are C's. Therefore it's impossible for an A to be a C.

Perfectly OK right?

Now let's put some words in there .

"All bachelors are unmarried men. No unmarried men have wives. Therefore it;'s impossible for a bachelor to have a wife".

Same structure, and again perfectly true propositions leading to a perfectly true conclusion.

now how about:

"All circles are round geometrical shapes. No round geometrical shapes contain right angles, therefore it's impossible for a circle to have a right angle"

Again, identical structure and true propositions with a true conclusion. The structure is the unifying concept, not the propositions. All that matters about the propositions is that they are true. The fact that circles and bachelors and right angles and wives have nothing whatsoever to do with each other is completely immaterial. Apples to oranges matters not one whit. The argument is no less or more valid if I added a duplicate of the second example with "sphere" instead of circle and thus made the latter two propositions much more closely related - doesn't matter at all!

Now my original argument was inductive and normative instead, but I kept the structure identical and the propositions true didn't I?

In the pragmatic sense glummer's points seem to me to be actually a bit self-defeating. Surely murder is worse than illegal immigration and surely it should, and in fact does, usually generate greater investigative effort - so why does that mean we should throw away the presumption of innocence for the lesser crime with the least effort made to investigate it and not the greater?

Cannonner's points above address a completely different aspect of the problem than my logical argument, but are valid inasmuch as they are true.

Yes it certainly WOULD lead to greater efficiency if we asked for proof only from the swarthy and the accented. No argument possible there. However are we, gun owners all, willing to make the argument that efficiency should be the overriding principle in enforcement - overriding individual rights and Constitutional protections? Think of where that leads for us all. Want to be searched for possession either with no CCW permit or in jurisdictions/areas that legally ban guns based on the fact that it's more efficient to do so only to people who have had NICS checks run on them but without any kind of reason or probable cause for the search?

This is not Cannoneerland or Dmallindistan. We cannot simply override laws and rights selectively becasue we have a particular antipathy against illegal immigrants as opposed to say, shoplifters. Sometimes the Constitution makes it hard for us to do efficient things. There's probably a reason for that.

 

[Dodgeit]

"Should immigranst not be able to drive for four years?"

I should have been a little clearer or used better terminology. I should have said proof of legal residence. i.e. Work Visa, Resident Alien Card, Student Visa, Passport, etc. etc.

In SC you have to prove That you are a Citizen of the USA or a Resident Alien/Visa holder and a legal resident of the state. And if you are not a US citizen you have to go to certain DMVs to get your DL or have it renewed and in the case of renewal you must again prove you are in the US and reside in the State.
In NC all you need is an electric/water or phone bill with a name and address and you will be issued a DL with that name and address, irregardless of who's name that really is on the bill, theirs or somebody elses.

 

[dmallind]

Ah gotcha dodgeit - yes that does sound pretty lax to say the least. While I realize the difficulty of verifying all possible documents, you'd at least think the NC DL folks would

a) have a bit higher standard of proof and
b)search their own damn database first

 

[Glock Glockler]

Crazed SS

Great idea. There's just one problem. The housing and agriculture industry are integral to the economy though so that really isnt a solution

The economy went right along just fine on the May 1st boycott, if we were to deport illegals the price of the labor they do might rise but others would then find it more attractive to work them. The problem takes care of itself. Also keep in mind that the Mexican illegals who work for so little also economically contribute very little. It does not take a lot of govt services consumed by an illegal who makes little money to be a net negative on our economy.

Then, since our tax burden will be lower the problem will even more take care of itself. Americans who are taxed less can afford to work for less.

*** does people not having enough health insurance coverage have to do with anything?

There have been dozens of hospitals in Texas alone that have closed due to financial insufficiency, and the chief reason cited for this by the hospitals was the treating of illegals and non-payment, Art Eatman has posted a lot of data on this if you'd like to look into it further. I'd have less of a beef with illegals if hospitals and schools weren't required to service them on my dime.

That brings up a good point, maybe Americans would be able to work for less if they didnt have to pay for the healthcare of illegals.

 

[tellner]

Tell me about it. My moral deficiencies are making churches burn down when I walk past. The insurance agent says all they'll be able to do is bury me in asbestos underwear.

 

[glummer]

dmallind said:

"All bachelors are unmarried men. No unmarried men have wives. Therefore it;'s impossible for a bachelor to have a wife".

Same structure, and again perfectly true propositions leading to a perfectly true conclusion

A syllogism is only as solid as the premises, and the logical connections. "All bachelors", "No unmaried men"; such terms CAN lead to completely solid conclusions.

BUT, as soon as it is "Some A", or "Many B", or "C is more likely", the strength of the conclusion relies greatly on the relative numbers and percentages. That's why I called it watermelon & grapes. The comparative percentages of positives & negatives, both false & true, differ enormously in your comparison of gun owners, and people who appear to be illegals. So the supposedly parallel lines of argument do not lead to conclusions of equal strength.

Also, I believe your are wrong about the Constitutional requirements. As far as I know, while some specific instances of profiling may have been ruled out of bounds, profiling in general can pass muster easily, if it is in fact tailored to a specific allowable result.

 

[dmallind]

I disagree with your view - the difference is only one of inference vs definition and the premises remain true - most murderers do indeed have guns or knives. In fact that's probably a greater percentage than that of illegals who have notably swarthy skin or different accents than legals.

I refer you to stats I posted on the Hispanic population. While it's true a greater percentage of the Hispanic population is illegal than the percentage of gun/knife owners who are murderers, that does not negate either the truth of the premises or the structure of the argument.

But anyway - enough of this esoterica that is offtopic and doubtless boring to most. Happy to continu back channel if you like though. Let's talk about profiling instead on the forum, since this is more germane disagreement.

What you are talking about is NOT profiling. Profiling is saying that if blacks in this neighborhood are responsible for most of the drug trade in the area, we will stop more blacks in this area than their proportion of the population, for whatever reason we can, and conduct drug searches on them.

It does NOT say that whites are immune from drug searches or that we will not stop white drivers too. That would not be profiling - it would be a completely unconstitutional departure from equal rights and protection under the law.

What many people have suggested is the equivalent of the latter not the former. If EVERYONE is subject to having to prove citizenship when they open bank accounts, send money transfers and get a DL or SS card etc then no Constituitional beef can exist, even if there is stronger enforcement and review in El Paso's Hispanic neighborhoods than there is in Duluth's Norwegian neighborhoods.

Profiling just means more patrols and scrutiny of certain subgroups, not laws that apply to them and no-one else.

THAT's the point I've kept trying to make - if you insist on cast iron proof of citizenship in situation A - say you prove this after every traffic stop - then the REQUIREMENT has to apply to everyone. If more traffic stops happen to include Hispanic folks in El Paso than WASPs in Duluth then so be it and you have to make sure that such searches or methods pass muster - but the requirement MUST be the same - just like the law that underpins drug searches of young black men also applies to 80 yr old white women. The fact that initial stops are much higher for young black men than white grandmas is immaterial - the law applies to both equally.

Again if what you suggest is really profiling rather than different requirements, you have a slightly easier (but still tricky) lergal hurdle, but most people are not suggesting that - they are suggesting that swarthy skinned and accented folk should have a different legal requirement than those who are not.

Whatever we apply to "them" MUST apply to "us". How hard the cops or other authorities look for them vs. us is a separate issue.

 

[Phetro]

How about this equation?

Profiling always gives a more accurate picture of things, and 60 million people in this country always fit the profile. 20 million of them will always be illegal aliens. Asking all 60 million people who fit the profile will definitely nab the 20 million illegal aliens.

So let's get started!

(Psst...the Constitution doesn't guarantee their rights--they're illegal alien invaders).

 

[glummer]

dmallind said:

While it's true a greater percentage of the Hispanic population is illegal than the percentage of gun/knife owners who are murderers, that does not negate either the truth of the premises or the structure of the argument

But it does drastically affect the strength of the argument's ultimate conclusion; i.e. whether checking members of the group is a reasonable approach to identifying lawbreakers.

they are suggesting that swarthy skinned and accented folk should have a different legal requirement than those who are not.

Perhaps I have missed something, but I don't recall anyone saying there should be a different legal requirement; just that there should be a concentration of effort & resources where the problem is most extreme. You put your speed trap at the bottom of a long hill, in a high accident zone.
If we are, in fact, talking about legal mandates, of course you are right.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Hehehe. The ship is sinking, the captain is drunk, and some of you guys are still arguing about the proper arrangement of the deck furniture...

 

[dmallind]

Well glummer look at all the posts that say we should check on all the brown skinned guys whenever they get a license, open a bank account and so on. Do you see them being OK with THEM being asked for the same? Maybe I'm missing it - all you guys asking for stringent citizenship status checks - do you think they should apply to everyone?

And Phetro the Constitution very much DOES protect the rights of people with brown skin and funny accents who are legal. That's whose protection would not be equal if you single out the swarthy or accented for requirements not imposed on the WASPs.

 

[Capital Punishment]

Lesson learned.. Dont go to the Waffle House and the South is still filled with a bunch of racist jerkoffs.

Yea, because theres more racism in the South than there is in the north, right?

Think again.

It is very popular for people in the north to bash The South. They want to feel morally superior to somebody. They also don't look too closely at what's wrong with their own part of the country.

Point being, I think racism is the same all over the country. It may just come in different forms depending where you are.

My relatives who were born in raised in a southern town tell the story of a man who lived in their town. He was one of the only 4 black people in the town and his name (what he was called by all the towns people) was ****** Jim. He responded to this name, he was friends with the townspeople, and got along very well with everyone. This was not meant or received as an insult, and it was widely accepted.

I knew an elderly woman who referred to black people as *******. I knew that she had no grudges against them by her attitude and conversations I had with her. It's just a word! It's a word that used to be "no big deal" and she meant no harm by it.


From my own personal experiences, ive been all over the South, and into a lot of the north. The South IMO is home to some of the most kind and accepting people ive ever met. If i ever raise a family of my own (Lord willing) the South is where i want to raise them. And this is coming from a part asain. I cant say the same thing about a lot of the north, thats for DAMN sure.

 

[real_name]

Racism is a human problem, it exists wherever humans interract with other humans who 'aren't from around here'.
Trust me, I've been all over this mudball and white southern USA good ol' boys do not have a monopoly on racism, nor are they the worst. I fail to recall a single genocide instigated by anyone in the name of the Stars and Bars.

 

[NCP24]

I prefer reasonable suspicion and totality of circumstances any day of the week compared to racial profiling. There is no reason on earth we need to profile or use Real ID. What we need to do is secure our borders and enforce the full spectrum of our existing laws. I recognize we may need to modify a few laws to facilitate enforcement efficiently, other than that we just need to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. Besides, who says the objective has to be achieved overnight.

He is a friend of Castro and Venezuela's Chavez

Thanks Zeke1312, looks like I have a reading assignment.