Legalized Racial Profiling- do you feel safer?

[Guyzerr]

thanks - i think we welcome cheap labour in many areas so i would hazard a guess that many employers care not about papers

Na.... we're just to damn trusting.

 

[Accountable]

So what? Canada is a country that does not appear to have a problem with illegal aliens. Aliens will go anywhere they can get a job.

Well, a better job anyway. I guess I'm going to have to send an engraved invitation to Ed to join in on this.

Here's my thought process (buckle up ). We have problem with the border because it acts as a dam. Too much pressure and it springs leaks. In this case economic pressure. We need to open the spillway so that we can guide the flood where we want it to go -- so we can control it. Sure, it's gonna be painful and a bit chaotic at first, but the alternative is to wait until the dam bursts and the whole of Mexico comes running in. What I mean is drastically increase the number of unskilled laborers allowed into the country, and crack down hard on employers that persist in hiring illegal (which means criminal) aliens.

Another way is to reduce the pressure from the other side, meaning increase job availability in Mexico. Wal mart would be a good start. They use lots of cheap manpower in every store. If the Mexican gov't is keeping them from opening stores, they can fund a native corporate startup or something. I'm completely ignorant of how it could be done, but if it can be done, Wal mart can do it. The US could help with tax incentives. Open more stores there, get a tax cut here.

Neighboring countries in Europe don't seem to have the same problems with immigration we do. We need to study their system and see what we can use or modify to fit our situation.

 

[retro]

To you guys it's become a national obsession.

because...

We just don't have as much of a problem as you because the Mexican border is closer to you.

 

[Guyzerr]

because...

Other than using Arizona as the latest example I don't know. You live there so you tell me.

 

[Tim]

Well, a better job anyway. I guess I'm going to have to send an engraved invitation to Ed to join in on this.

Here's my thought process (buckle up ). We have problem with the border because it acts as a dam. Too much pressure and it springs leaks. In this case economic pressure. We need to open the spillway so that we can guide the flood where we want it to go -- so we can control it. Sure, it's gonna be painful and a bit chaotic at first, but the alternative is to wait until the dam bursts and the whole of Mexico comes running in. What I mean is drastically increase the number of unskilled laborers allowed into the country, and crack down hard on employers that persist in hiring illegal (which means criminal) aliens.

Another way is to reduce the pressure from the other side, meaning increase job availability in Mexico. Wal mart would be a good start. They use lots of cheap manpower in every store. If the Mexican gov't is keeping them from opening stores, they can fund a native corporate startup or something. I'm completely ignorant of how it could be done, but if it can be done, Wal mart can do it. The US could help with tax incentives. Open more stores there, get a tax cut here.

Neighboring countries in Europe don't seem to have the same problems with immigration we do. We need to study their system and see what we can use or modify to fit our situation.

I couldn't have said it better.

 

[Accountable]

I couldn't have said it better.

 

[Minor Axis]

Well, a better job anyway. I guess I'm going to have to send an engraved invitation to Ed to join in on this.

Here's my thought process (buckle up ). We have problem with the border because it acts as a dam. Too much pressure and it springs leaks. In this case economic pressure. We need to open the spillway so that we can guide the flood where we want it to go -- so we can control it. Sure, it's gonna be painful and a bit chaotic at first, but the alternative is to wait until the dam bursts and the whole of Mexico comes running in. What I mean is drastically increase the number of unskilled laborers allowed into the country, and crack down hard on employers that persist in hiring illegal (which means criminal) aliens.

Another way is to reduce the pressure from the other side, meaning increase job availability in Mexico. Wal mart would be a good start. They use lots of cheap manpower in every store. If the Mexican gov't is keeping them from opening stores, they can fund a native corporate startup or something. I'm completely ignorant of how it could be done, but if it can be done, Wal mart can do it. The US could help with tax incentives. Open more stores there, get a tax cut here.

Neighboring countries in Europe don't seem to have the same problems with immigration we do. We need to study their system and see what we can use or modify to fit our situation.

While I can agree to the concept of relieving economic pressure too bad it's completely at the expense of U.S. workers. Don't you know that U.S. Corporations are all ready doing their patriotic duty to increase employment including skilled jobs in Mexico while taking them away North of the border?? I've got to chuckle at your mention of Walmart, the company who has single handedly done more to devastate U.S. workers than any other exporting U.S. manufacturing jobs. They would be a natural choice to continue the onslaught. :cool

 

[edgray]

sorry I'm late to this one, everyone...

From what I know about the US's immigration situation, Accountable has it spot on. I don't think it would be possible to seal the US border completely - it's simply too big and let's face it, the prize of making it across the border simply too good for Mexicans to ignore. Control, coupled with incentives for businesses to open within the Mexican borders would probably have the desired effect.

The main reason, I would say, that we don't have such a problem like this in Europe is because the countries, whilst being quite different culturally, are more or less on an equal level: aside from the eastern block countries most of Europe enjoys a similar standard of living, so there's little need for mass migration from one place to another. There's always those in the UK who are constantly scare-mongering against immigration, but the problem is tiny in comparison to that of the US, and to be frank, the UK needs the immigrants to do the work that most of Britain are too lazy to do.

Going back to the original point of the thread, the racial profiling is the worst thing that can be done. Its going to have the effect of alienating entire latino communities, legal or otherwise. Controversially something similar was done in London a few years back where the police had a stop and search policy aimed at young black men, and politically it was as disastrous as it was at stopping crime. Stopping and searching someone based on their race is pretty hideous...

 

[Zorak]

The main reason, I would say, that we don't have such a problem like this in Europe is because the countries, whilst being quite different culturally, are more or less on an equal level: aside from the eastern block countries most of Europe enjoys a similar standard of living, so there's little need for mass migration from one place to another. There's always those in the UK who are constantly scare-mongering against immigration, but the problem is tiny in comparison to that of the US, and to be frank, the UK needs the immigrants to do the work that most of Britain are too lazy to do.

To say that Immigration is key to Britain's future and continued success is understating it.

There's a lot of similarity between the two countries, with USA being about 30-50 years behind in terms of Natural Change (the birth rate to death rate essentially) and Population Demographics (specifically the problem of an ageing population.)

 

[Accountable]

While I can agree to the concept of relieving economic pressure too bad it's completely at the expense of U.S. workers. Don't you know that U.S. Corporations are all ready doing their patriotic duty to increase employment including skilled jobs in Mexico while taking them away North of the border?? I've got to chuckle at your mention of Walmart, the company who has single handedly done more to devastate U.S. workers than any other exporting U.S. manufacturing jobs. They would be a natural choice to continue the onslaught. :cool

I ask you to back up and play devil's advocate for a bit. What did the American worker and his representative, the labor union, do to aid in this "devastation"?

What other US corps are over there?

 

[Accountable]

sorry I'm late to this one, everyone...

From what I know about the US's immigration situation, Accountable has it spot on. I don't think it would be possible to seal the US border completely - it's simply too big and let's face it, the prize of making it across the border simply too good for Mexicans to ignore. Control, coupled with incentives for businesses to open within the Mexican borders would probably have the desired effect.

The main reason, I would say, that we don't have such a problem like this in Europe is because the countries, whilst being quite different culturally, are more or less on an equal level: aside from the eastern block countries most of Europe enjoys a similar standard of living, so there's little need for mass migration from one place to another. There's always those in the UK who are constantly scare-mongering against immigration, but the problem is tiny in comparison to that of the US, and to be frank, the UK needs the immigrants to do the work that most of Britain are too lazy to do.

And there's my point. The US and Canada both raised our standards of living in approximately the same rates because we did business together, while we shut Mexico out of the deal. Now we have no problems to the north, big problems to the south. I blame racial, cultural, and language differences, but the problem is still there. We can't kill them (ethically) so we'll have to deal with them. I'm sick of using them as a political weapon and public distraction.

Going back to the original point of the thread, the racial profiling is the worst thing that can be done. Its going to have the effect of alienating entire latino communities, legal or otherwise. Controversially something similar was done in London a few years back where the police had a stop and search policy aimed at young black men, and politically it was as disastrous as it was at stopping crime. Stopping and searching someone based on their race is pretty hideous...

Racial profiling is specifically prohibits racial profiling and the case is tossed if racial profiling is evident. The law is weaker in this area than the federal law, which still permits racial profiling.

 

[Minor Axis]

I ask you to back up and play devil's advocate for a bit. What did the American worker and his representative, the labor union, do to aid in this "devastation"?
What other US corps are over there?

While they watched their parent corporation makes millions/billions, they asked for higher wages and benefits. the nerve. That might sound like a flippant answer, but that is what they did. Did they ask for too much? Very possible. If management and labor had a better relationship, they'd be able to act and react more in unison to realistically deal with the current business climate. Whose fault is that? Probably both of their faults, although I'd put the blame first on management for wanting to grab all of the wealth for themselves. Unions have never formed when employees are happy. If you are thinking about it, don't try to defend Walmart. Sam Walton's kids are very greedy.

I don't have a list of US Corps in Mexico, but NAFTA was a jobs exportation agreement (pushed through by Clinton no less) that allowed tons of manufacturing to head South (if not all ready heading East and West).

And there's my point. The US and Canada both raised our standards of living in approximately the same rates because we did business together, while we shut Mexico out of the deal. Now we have no problems to the north, big problems to the south. I blame racial, cultural, and language differences, but the problem is still there. We can't kill them (ethically) so we'll have to deal with them. I'm sick of using them as a political weapon and public distraction.

I think you are in very dicey territory as a conservative. How responsible are we for the standard of living in Mexico? You can take this scenario and encompass the entire world with bringing up 3rd world countries' standard of living. It's the only way U.S. based manufacturing will be competitive with the world. What SUCKS is that as the 3rd world is pulled up, the western world workers will be dragged down. You can kiss you standard of living good bye. And guess what, management will always be living the good life no matter what. If I was in college right now, I'd be looking at one of those management jobs.

 

[Accountable]

While they watched their parent corporation makes millions/billions, they asked for higher wages and benefits. the nerve. That might sound like a flippant answer, but that is what they did. Did they ask for too much? Very possible. If management and labor had a better relationship, they'd be able to act and react more in unison to realistically deal with the current business climate. Whose fault is that? Probably both of their faults, although I'd put the blame first on management for wanting to grab all of the wealth for themselves. Unions have never formed when employees are happy. If you are thinking about it, don't try to defend Walmart. Sam Walton's kids are very greedy.

Part of our problem (probably a human problem) is that we base our satisfaction with what we have/get at least partially in comparison with other completely unrelated factors.

I should be paid more.
Why?
Because Mr A's making tons more money working for the same company.
But he does different work.
So? I sweat more!
But if the price for your production increases, I can save money by hiring Mr B, who is willing to sweat even more than you for slightly less money.
But then you'd be paying Mr B unfairly.
Why?
Because Mr A would be making even more money compared to Mr B!
​

I think you're right about the relationship, but the owner (that's the Waltons, for those keeping up with the home game version) sets the culture & creates the incentives. We want to maximize profits, so managers, it's your job to get maximum productivity out of your workers for minimum pay. The better you do that, the more we will pay you.

I don't have a list of US Corps in Mexico, but NAFTA was a jobs exportation agreement (pushed through by Clinton no less) that allowed tons of manufacturing to head South (if not all ready heading East and West).

Jobs don't move unless it's profitable to move them. Also, nature hates a vacuum. When an industry leaves, someone somewhere sees it as an opportunity. They can capitalize on that opportunity if they can (1) get the investors and (2) the gov't hasn't set up too many obstacles to make it happen. That's the original meaning of being progressive, before the politicians redefined it.

I think you are in very dicey territory as a conservative. [I've never been "a conservative" ]How responsible are we for the standard of living in Mexico? You can take this scenario and encompass the entire world with bringing up 3rd world countries' standard of living. It's the only way U.S. based manufacturing will be competitive with the world. What SUCKS is that as the 3rd world is pulled up, the western world workers will be dragged down. You can kiss you standard of living good bye. And guess what, management will always be living the good life no matter what. If I was in college right now, I'd be looking at one of those management jobs.

Management is always where the smart money goes.

Mexico is not just any 3rd world nation. Mexico is our neighbor. I have a neighbor. Nice enough guy. He has a white Labrador retriever that jumps over his five-foot fence to come shit in my yard. I get the feeling the neighbor would be perfectly happy if I fed the dog, and took him for walks ... as long as I let him claim ownership and allowed him to climb back over the fence at night. I could shoot the dog, but I don't want a vengeful enemy living right next door. I planted bushes along that fence, hoping that the dog would not like landing on them, but he couldn't have cared less and eventually crushed the bushes to death. He's a good dog and fun to play with; I just don't want him coming over any time the whim catches him. (The analogy would be even better if he was coming over to eat my dog's food, but I don't have one)

I'm considering paying half and helping the neighbor build a higher fence, but there's no telling if he's willing to cough up the money.

 

[Minor Axis]

We want to maximize profits, so managers, it's your job to get maximum productivity out of your workers for minimum pay. The better you do that, the more we will pay you.

I'll get back to the rest of your reply later, but the above is what I would classify is a primary problem with business. This approach divides the company into the have and have-nots. If the company is going to be a huge success make it a success for everyone, not just those with perceived silver spoons in their mouths.

 

[Accountable]

I'll get back to the rest of your reply later, but the above is what I would classify is a primary problem with business. This approach divides the company into the have and have-nots. If the company is going to be a huge success make it a success for everyone, not just those with perceived silver spoons in their mouths.

HUH?? :confused

They don't want silver spoon types, they want hungry types. Silver spoon people are lazy & entitled, hungry people work hard to get more stuff.

eta: not disagreeing with the premise, just the one term.

 

[Minor Axis]

HUH?? :confused

They don't want silver spoon types, they want hungry types. Silver spoon people are lazy & entitled, hungry people work hard to get more stuff.

It's called entitlement, feeling entitled. That is what I'm talking about.

 

[Minor Axis]

Recently I've read two articles which apply to this discussion.

The first one is Newsweek article: Three Cheers for the Bishops that claim Catholic Bishops are upholding the dignity of human life and to respect all life. In essence they are coming down in favor or illegal's rights. Actually I'm not for illegal's rights, other than the right to be escorted to their home country. The clip I found interesting was this one:

The law, which Gov. Jan Brewer signed last week, essentially allows local police to investigate—and then detain or trigger deportation proceedings against—any person about whom they have a “reasonable suspicion” of residing in Arizona without documentation. (Just how law-enforcement officers will do this without violating the protections guaranteed by the Constitution will be the focus of forthcoming lawsuits.)

Maybe the resident Constitutional scholars can describe why this law violates the Constitution, unreasonable search?

The second article is Mecixan Standoff which clarifies the Arizona Law:

Arizona has outraged the nation with a new immigration law that obligates authorities to check the documents of anyone they believe is in the country illegally, based on a “reasonable suspicion” during a “lawful” stop. Some accuse lawmakers and the 70 percent of Arizonans who support the bill of acting like Nazis, or of turning Arizona into an apartheid state. But spend some time in Arizona, and you may come to see why so many Arizonans want this.

The key words in this quote is during a "lawful stop". This may sound like backtracking on my part, if officers were to carry out the letter of the law, it does not sound as bad as I imagined, which was stopping people if only the police "suspected" they were illegals. The real problem remains, what would make an Arizona Trooper suspicious that someone is an illegal? Would this mean that every Hispanic pulled over for speeding will be asked for his citizenship papers or green card? Is this crossing the line of unreasonable search? I know that when you are pulled over for any reasonable cause, you are asked to produce your drivers license. I would not expect to be asked for my passport or social security card. I know of no regulation that would require carrying such documents. If illegals get drivers licenses, which I am under the impression they can, what would be the next step for the officer? And no driver's license, then the person is driving without a license which is illegal. And if detained, an easy database search might show they are illegally in the country?

What I'm trying to say is that as long as police are not pulling people over without real cause (driving recklessly or speeding), maybe this law is not so bad. The problem is when police don't follow the rules and start pulling people over in the hopes of nabbing an illegal without real cause. This is where the problem lies IMO.

 

[Alien Allen]

Arizona has outraged the nation with a new immigration law that obligates authorities to check the documents of anyone they believe is in the country illegally, based on a “reasonable suspicion” during a “lawful” stop. Some accuse lawmakers and the 70 percent of Arizonans who support the bill of acting like Nazis, or of turning Arizona into an apartheid state.

The nation is outraged?

Hardly

The majority support what Arizona has done

 

[Minor Axis]

The majority support what Arizona has done

Which media giant told you? I suppose you approve. I think it would be more efficient if they go after employers as there are less of them. And if you have Mexican criminals, have your police go after the criminals. A pretty simple concept, no?

 

[Accountable]

Recently I've read two articles which apply to this discussion.

The first one is Newsweek article: Three Cheers for the Bishops that claim Catholic Bishops are upholding the dignity of human life and to respect all life. In essence they are coming down in favor or illegal's rights. Actually I'm not for illegal's rights, other than the right to be escorted to their home country. The clip I found interesting was this one:

Maybe the resident Constitutional scholars can describe why this law violates the Constitution, unreasonable search?

The second article is Mecixan Standoff which clarifies the Arizona Law:

The key words in this quote is during a "lawful stop". This may sound like backtracking on my part, if officers were to carry out the letter of the law, it does not sound as bad as I imagined, which was stopping people if only the police "suspected" they were illegals. The real problem remains, what would make an Arizona Trooper suspicious that someone is an illegal? Would this mean that every Hispanic pulled over for speeding will be asked for his citizenship papers or green card? Is this crossing the line of unreasonable search? I know that when you are pulled over for any reasonable cause, you are asked to produce your drivers license. I would not expect to be asked for my passport or social security card. I know of no regulation that would require carrying such documents. If illegals get drivers licenses, which I am under the impression they can, what would be the next step for the officer? And no driver's license, then the person is driving without a license which is illegal. And if detained, an easy database search might show they are illegally in the country?

What I'm trying to say is that as long as police are not pulling people over without real cause (driving recklessly or speeding), maybe this law is not so bad. The problem is when police don't follow the rules and start pulling people over in the hopes of nabbing an illegal without real cause. This is where the problem lies IMO.

A lawful stop is stopping them for some other reason such as speeding, driving without proper lights, reckless driving, etc. I read an analysis somewhere; I'll try to dig it up again. Even then, there must be a justification that meets the "probable cause" definition. Lots of native born people along the coast speak no English at all (some are high school students), so that won't fly.