pageok
pageok
pageok
Enforcing Immigration Laws = Nazi Crackdowns on Jews:

Reuters reports:

U.S. Hispanic groups and activists on Thursday called for a moratorium on workplace raids to round up illegal immigrants, saying they were reminiscent of Nazi crackdowns on Jews in the 1930s.

They accused the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement of "racial profiling," or selective enforcement against Hispanics, for arresting 1,300 workers on immigration violations in December 12 raids at meatpacking plants in six states.

"We are demanding an end to these immigration raids, where they are targeting brown faces. That is major, major racial profiling, and that cannot be tolerated," said Rosa Rosales, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, at a news conference.

"This unfortunately reminds me of when Hitler began rounding up the Jews for no reason and locking them up," Democratic Party activist Carla Vela said. "Now they're coming for the Latinos, who will they come for next?" ...

If Ms. Rosales can point to non-Hispanic illegal immigrants who work in large numbers at large employers, but who aren't drawing the attention of immigration authorities, she might have some case of discrimination -- though it would still be mighty far from Nazi crackdowns on law-abiding Jewish citizens. But I doubt she can point even to that.

Thanks to Jason Smith for the pointer.

shecky (mail):
I'm still wondering what harm was done that justifies arresting 1300 people and disrupting the relevant businesses. Would it not be much more productive to simply give all workers using false IDs new unique IDs?
12.22.2006 1:26pm
Justin (mail):
First of all, Ms. Rosales' argument is nonsense. None of what I am about to post is meant to be a defense of Ms. Rosales' argument.

According to According to Jeffrey S. Passel of the Pew Hispanic Center, there are approxmiately 1 million illegal immigrants from Asia, 600,000 (presumably, but certainly not neccesarily caucasian) illegal immigrants from Europe and Canada, and 400,000 illegal immigrants from "Africa &Other."

Whether they are or are not "drawing the attention of immigration authorities" is something of some dispute - clearly Africans and Asians are being deported in regular numbers, although the task forces that deal with them are significantly smaller than Hispanics (and, with 8.4 million Hispanic illegal immigrants, this does not seem unusual). Anecdotally, I do not see immigration cases featuring Canadian and European illegal immigrants at the percentage (6%) you would expect, though much of my experiene in immigration is from the Second and Ninth Circuits only - the overwhelming majority of the cases from the Ninth being Hispanic, and the large majority of the Second being Asian or Hispanic, with a sprinkle of (mostly Eastern) European.

Of course, that's hardly proof of anything - the cases that I'd see would focus mostly on applications for asylum/CAT type stuff, and I would find an argument that, say, deportation to Canada would cause someone to be tortured, might not be the kind of case that legal research would turn up.
12.22.2006 1:35pm
Kevin P. (mail):
A casual search on the web will find stories on how poorly Mexicans treat immigrants to their country. No doubt they are Nazis too?
http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/back702.html
12.22.2006 1:38pm
Justin (mail):
In regards to the 2nd Circuit, I think a more accurate description in retrospect would have been, "with some African cases and only a sprinkling of Eastern European cases."

I should also know that I've read at least two Posner decisions involving Eastern Europe immigrants as well - so overall I think the case for discrimination is pretty difficult to make here.
12.22.2006 1:38pm
Justin (mail):
No offense, but a CIS opinion piece is not really proof of anything.
12.22.2006 1:39pm
James Dillon (mail):
Shecky,

Is it generally the role or responsibility of an executive agency charged with enforcing valid law to ponder whether widespread violation of that law is really "harmful" enough to warrant enforcement? Prosecutorial discretion on a case-by-case basis is one thing, but it seems as though you (and a lot of other people who, for reasons I just can't fathom, find the enforcement of immigration law to be somehow inappropriate) are suggesting that Immigration and Customs Enforcement has the authority, or even the moral responsibility, to abdicate its duty to enforce the law simply because it might disagree with the policy judgments behind Congress's immigration policy. This makes no sense to me; the responsibility for correcting whatever problems may exist in national immigration policy lies with Congress, which has the authority to change the law, not with the executive agency that has the legal obligation to enforce whatever immigration policy that Congress may, in its wisdom or lack thereof, deem suitable.
12.22.2006 1:43pm
jgshapiro (mail):
Nothing like a crazy analogy to really enhance your credibility with policymakers.

BTW, who is "they?" Is Hitler coming for the Latinos?
12.22.2006 1:47pm
Dan7000:
The question is whether the raid was truly race-based. I do not have enough facts to know, but I also don't think anybody here has facts enough to confidently assert that it was not race-based.

It could be race-based in 2 ways: 1) if the ICE engaged in racial profiling; and 2) if the raids were prompted by public xenophobia.

1)
The initial account I read of the raid in the Minnesota plant was that only brown-looking workers were questioned. If that's true, then it's precisely what ms. Rosales charges: racial profiling. What of the workers who were questioned and simply didn't have their "papers" on them? What of the workers who were white and thus weren't questioned, but may still have been illegal?

2)
In addition to racial profiling by the ICE, these raids may be race-based in another regard: if they are prompted by public xenophobia. For instance, a recent article in the St. Paul Pioneer-Press quoted local residents near the Minnesota plant as saying they were happy that the raids may help what they saw as the problem of too many latinos in their town.
12.22.2006 1:51pm
Cornellian (mail):
I think Ms. Rosales needs a legal education, and in particular needs to appreciate Godwin's Law.
12.22.2006 1:55pm
Justin (mail):
My view, which is aligned with the American Prospect, is that the raids are intertwined with the issue of unionization. Whether, as the American Prospect believes, this was an intentional relationship, or simply a (predictable) side-effect, I am unsure.
12.22.2006 1:55pm
Cornellian (mail):
They accused the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement of "racial profiling," or selective enforcement against Hispanics, for arresting 1,300 workers on immigration violations in December 12 raids at meatpacking plants in six states.

Exactly how many non-hispanic illegal immigrants are out there? Canadians don't have to come here to get a job, and Mexicans are the only other group with ready access to a U.S. border.
12.22.2006 1:56pm
jgshapiro (mail):
No offense, but the Pew Hispanic Center provides far less credible evidence on this topic than the Center for Immigration Studies.

For example, in the two pieces cited above, 4 out of 5 of the references provided by the Pew piece are to other articles by the same author! Meanwhile, the CIS piece has literally dozens of footnotes to articles and studies done by third parties.

Judge for yourself.
12.22.2006 1:59pm
Dan7000:
Cornelian, here's your answer:

The Pew Hispanic Center, a non-partisan research organization, estimates that 1.5 million illegal immigrants are from Asia, 600,000 are from Europe and Canada, and 400,000 are from Africa and other nations.


Moreover, a lot of these raids were in places like Minnesota, which are not exactly right across the border from Mexico and thus actually have a higher percentage of immigrants from Africa and Asia than from latin america.
12.22.2006 2:06pm
Dan7000:
"Meanwhile, the CIS piece has literally dozens of footnotes to articles and studies done by third parties. "

... and is also totally off-topic. Who cares how Mexico treats immigrants? Why is that relevant?
12.22.2006 2:09pm
Justin (mail):
"No offense, but the Pew Hispanic Center provides far less credible evidence on this topic than the Center for Immigration Studies.

For example, in the two pieces cited above, 4 out of 5 of the references provided by the Pew piece are to other articles by the same author! Meanwhile, the CIS piece has literally dozens of footnotes to articles and studies done by third parties.

Judge for yourself."

This is an absurd argument for FOUR reasons. First of all, questions of credibility in this regard go to bias, and the CIS has a specific anti-immigration agenda, whereas the Pew Charitable Trust is an independant organization designed to provide nonpartisan information to help solve policy problems. Second of all, the CIS piece is a position piece, and the Pew Charitable Trust piece is an informational piece. Third of all, citing to yourself is not problematic under two situations - if you have done independant research, you can cite to the independant research you've done (ultimately, that's how data is collected, no?); and two, if you cite to yourself, but your citation to yourself is backed up, then there is obviously no harm in not completely rehashing all your previous statements just to avoid the self-cite.

Most importantly, however, the two pieces don't seem to contradict each other in any meaningful way. The CIS article has to do with how scummy the Mexican government is, and the Pew article has to do with the demographics of illegal immigrants in the United States.
12.22.2006 2:12pm
wooga:
I'm confused. If ICE is acting like Hitler, wouldn't they be rounding up white collar Mexicans and forcing them to work in labor camps?

I'm mean really, the statement by Carla Vela is something so ridiculously stupid that even scrappleface couldn't have made it up.
12.22.2006 2:18pm
sbron:
Aside from the ludicrousness of the comparison
between Jewish holocaust victims and Latino illegal
aliens, it is hypocritical of Latino groups to invoke
Jewish suffering. The most recent ADL survey showed
that 35% of "Foreign-born Hispanics" held hardcore
anti-Semitic beliefs, in contrast to only 9% of whites.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/4680_12.htm

Unfortunately, mainline Jewish organizations seem to
favor high levels of legal and illegal immigration, even
with the prevalence of anti-Semitism among
Latino and Muslim immigrants.
12.22.2006 2:21pm
jgshapiro (mail):

I'm still wondering what harm was done that justifies arresting 1300 people and disrupting the relevant businesses. Would it not be much more productive to simply give all workers using false IDs new unique IDs?

The harm is to the immigration system as a whole, as well as to those who do follow the law and wait to come here legally. There is also harm to taxpayers in general who fund benefits to illegals, as well as to other recipients of those benefits for whom the pie must be divided in more slices to accomodate illegals.

Why would anyone follow the law and come here legally - which often involves a long wait and many hoops through which to jump - if they could also come here illegally and avoid any serious penalty (or any penalty that exceeds the conditions under which they were living in whatever country they came from)?

I suppose some people will just follow the law because it is the right thing to do. But many more, realizing they will be much better off economically by breaking the law, will break the law and come here illegally. Eventually, those who would wait in line will come to believe they are suckers for doing so, the balance will tip still further in favor of illegal immigration and we will lose any ability to cap immigration or to allocate legal immigration spaces on a sensible or fair basis.

Some of these illegal immigrants can be stopped at the border and through more vigorous visa enforcement and follow-up. But it is not as likely to be as effective, if not more effective, to enforce these laws at the places of employment themselves? After all, most illegal immigrants stay for the better work opportunities here. So, you may not catch them at the border, but how far can they run from their would-be employer?

Ultimately, shutting down illegal immigration will require penalties on the employers themselves that dwarf whatever benefits employers get from hiring illegals. That will take away the incentive to hire illegals, and that in turn will take away the incentive for illegals to come here or stay here past their visa expiration date.

Who cares about the disruption to the business? Why wouldn't we want to disrupt a business that was breaking the law in order to stop the lawbreaking?
12.22.2006 2:22pm
Cathy (mail) (www):
I think Dan7000's point #2 gives credence to the analogy, which I find inoffensive and potentially insightful (FYI, I'm Jewish, yet this does not tweak my Godwin's Law sensitivities).

Race is simply a proxy by which a majority may define a minority. What happened with Nazism more generally, and what may likely be happening here, is that a majority is defining an "us" and a "them" and trying to root out the "them". The basis by which they choose to do that (race, religion, immigration status, left-handedness, etc.) is immaterial. What ties these two situations together is that mistaken sense of justification by the majority that purging the non-conforming members of a community is somehow necessary and proper to the community's maintenance. As history has shown, everyone gets hurt when that happens: the people being driven away, and the community that's left behind.
12.22.2006 2:30pm
Caliban Darklock (www):
I have a really weird idea about immigration reform.

Why not tighten border security, but decriminalise being in the country?

In other words, we don't want you to come into the country without the proper papers, but once you do... who cares? Create mechanisms for people to get legal papers once they're here. Make it harder to get in, but easier to stay. If you hire an illegal immigrant, it's not your fault. They need a job to do, you need a job done, at least they're not on welfare.

There's this problem once you're in the country illegally: you're a criminal. The law no longer has any power over you. What are they going to do? Send you away? They'll do that anyway. Why shouldn't you lie? Why shouldn't you steal? Why shouldn't you defraud the government? The only thing they can do is deport you.

I think if illegal entry had a short statute of limitations and then you were just an undocumented American, we'd end up with a lot fewer criminal immigrants. There would be less exploitation by employers, who would no longer be able to threaten their workers with a call to INS.
12.22.2006 2:46pm
jgshapiro (mail):

This is an absurd argument for FOUR reasons. First of all, questions of credibility in this regard go to bias, and the CIS has a specific anti-immigration agenda, whereas the Pew Charitable Trust is an independant organization designed to provide nonpartisan information to help solve policy problems. Second of all, the CIS piece is a position piece, and the Pew Charitable Trust piece is an informational piece. Third of all, citing to yourself is not problematic under two situations - if you have done independant research, you can cite to the independant research you've done (ultimately, that's how data is collected, no?); and two, if you cite to yourself, but your citation to yourself is backed up, then there is obviously no harm in not completely rehashing all your previous statements just to avoid the self-cite.



Justin, your argument is silly for at least FOUR reasons.

First, you cannot get around the PHS's bias by quoting its mission statement, although it is pretty amusing that you did so. Almost all issue groups claim to be non-partisan, fact-based organizations, etc. In fact, the very fact that CIS admits it has an agenda (which it describes as pro-immigrant, though in favor of less immigration and more benefits to those that come here legally) is refreshing, as compared to the PHS, which pretends it does not have an agenda.

Second, the fact that CIS has an agenda is not particularly probative of whether its piece is credible. That has to be judged on its own merits. Notably, you failed to do so, simply impugning its credibility because it came from CIS.

Third, the CIS piece is a position piece based on other information pieces. And if you read it closely, it is a more of a summary of information pieces than it is even a position piece.

Fourth, citing to yourself is only done when you have no other citation available that makes the same point. It is the equivalent of quoting yourself. The whole point of listing references is so that a reader can confirm that this is not just one person spouting, but that their figures have independent verification. If you are citing to your own research, you are just providing an executive summary. Where is the verification for the PHS piece?
12.22.2006 2:48pm
jgshapiro (mail):
Actually, the mainstream of both political parties does not seem to mind about illegal immigration.

The businesses that provide substantial GOP support appreciate illegal immigration for cheap access to labor that is unlikely to assert their rights lest they be deported. And the unions that provide substantial Democratic support appreciate illegal immigration because illegals are increasingly making up the membership of those unions. Plus both parties are wary of offending citizens who know, are related to, or employ illegal immigrants.

It's a curious devils pact, because you could just as easily see both parties embrace the opposite conclusion: the GOP because of its law-and-order bent, and the Dems because of their alleged affinity with workers that are being undercut by illegal immigrants who will work for almost any amount of money and in any conditions.

However, politics abhors a vacuum, and sooner or later, one party will decide to clamp down on illegal immigration in a serious way (even if it is a third party). My guess is that party will do very well. In the meantime, you cannot really blame law enforcement organizations for enforcing the laws that are on the books. Claiming selective enforcement is the last gasp of the truly guilty.
12.22.2006 3:07pm
James Dillon (mail):
Caliban,

At least in the federal system, an illegal (or, for that matter, legal) immigrant convicted of a crime will serve his or her full sentence in federal prison before being deported. So it isn't the case that illegal immigrants have no incentive to avoid committing other crimes.
12.22.2006 3:10pm
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
Why not tighten border security, but decriminalise being in the country?

In other words, we don't want you to come into the country without the proper papers, but once you do... who cares?


Can anyone not see the problem with saying "don't break the law but we won't enforce it if you do?"
12.22.2006 3:31pm
Ty:
Caliban wrote:

I have a really weird idea about immigration reform.

Why not tighten border security, but decriminalise being in the country?

In other words, we don't want you to come into the country without the proper papers, but once you do... who cares? Create mechanisms for people to get legal papers once they're here. Make it harder to get in, but easier to stay. If you hire an illegal immigrant, it's not your fault. They need a job to do, you need a job done, at least they're not on welfare.

There's this problem once you're in the country illegally: you're a criminal. The law no longer has any power over you. What are they going to do? Send you away? They'll do that anyway. Why shouldn't you lie? Why shouldn't you steal? Why shouldn't you defraud the government? The only thing they can do is deport you.

I think if illegal entry had a short statute of limitations and then you were just an undocumented American, we'd end up with a lot fewer criminal immigrants. There would be less exploitation by employers, who would no longer be able to threaten their workers with a call to INS.


Your suggestion of a strong border assumes that we want to keep out at least some immigrants, and that we certainly want to keep out some un-permitted immigrants. One way of doing that is stopping them at the border, but that's a tremendously difficult proposition because of the size and the economical importance of the U.S.-Mexico border. One way to augment border protections by hopefully dissuading immigrants from coming at all is to make life difficult for them once they arrive. By reducing the awards, or perceived awards, or successful illegal immigration, we hopefully dissuade illegal immigration. Therefore, one could argue that punishing already-resident illegal immigrants for their illegal entry decreases undesirable illegal immigration.

The other exception I would take with your analysis is a factual one. If an illegal immigrant lies, cheats, or steals in violation of the law, the government does have recourse aside from deportation: incarceration. I know a few immigration and criminal defense attorneys whose practices consist largely of attempting to deport their clients before they can be tried for separate crimes.

I do, however, agree with you that unethical employers of illegal immigrants would be greatly constrained in their ability to abuse those employees absent the threat of deportation. However, I'm not sure that benefit outweighs the secondary effects of an amnesty on future illegal immigration.

-Ty
12.22.2006 3:36pm
Captain Holly (mail):
I think many here are overlooking the major issue in this case, one that it would appear the Bush Administration is willing to exploit: Identity theft. Most of the accused are not being charged with standard immigration violations, but for using forged birth certificates and social security numbers.

This is quite significant, because most Americans (like myself) recognize that our economy produces a surplus of low-wage jobs, while Mexico and Latin America have a surplus of labor. It's only natural and proper that the twain should meet. For the most part, we are fairly tolerant of hard-working immigrants who merely want to live the American Dream.

If those immigrants were being charged only because they had entered their middle initial instead of their full middle name on Line 3 of Schedule B of Subpart C of ICE Form#11462-2004D, then most us would roll our eyes and mutter about how there has to be a better way to do things.

But they're not, and I would daresay that most people who heard the workers had been charged with identity theft immediately wondered if their information had been compromised. Emphasizing that aspect of illegal immigration automatically makes everyone a potential victim, and erases alot of potential goodwill towards the illegals. No one wants to have their credit rating ruined just so an illegal immigrant can have an easier time getting a job at Swift.

Apologists for illegal immigrants should recognize that identity theft is their Achilles Heel. It is true that there are some 15 million illegal immigrants here in the US. But it is also true that there are some 285 million legal American residents who also hold valid Social Security numbers.

And if a large majority of those 285 million legal Americans ever perceive that the 15 illegal ones are a significant threat to their well-being and way of life, then you'll see closed borders and mass deportations faster than you can say "Reconquista".
12.22.2006 3:43pm
Justin (mail):
"Second, the fact that CIS has an agenda is not particularly probative of whether its piece is credible."

Someone failed Evidence.
12.22.2006 4:32pm
David Chesler (mail) (www):
Why not tighten border security, but decriminalise being in the country?

Is it currently criminal to be in the US without proper authorization?

In other words, we don't want you to come into the country without the proper papers

Those are other words with a different meaning (at least for those of us who think "criminal" has a specific meaning.)

(My immigration issue is with non-immigrant visas, H1-B and L-1, but that always gets tied up with immigration reform and illegal immigration...)
12.22.2006 4:39pm
JohnAnnArbor (www):

Who cares how Mexico treats immigrants?

It means Mexico should have no say at all about US immigration policy. They can either clean their own house or shut up.
12.22.2006 4:46pm
MnZ (mail):
What ties these two situations together is that mistaken sense of justification by the majority that purging the non-conforming members of a community is somehow necessary and proper to the community's maintenance. As history has shown, everyone gets hurt when that happens: the people being driven away, and the community that's left behind.


I frankly find this line of argument very disingenuous.

The following types of people are minority groups:
-Gun owners
-Hunters
-KKK members
-Communists
-Anarchists
-Fundamentalist Christians
-Republicans in major cities

While I am not trying to draw any moral equivalence between these groups, I would point out that basically all people would like to drive out at least one member of that list. That includes people who pride themselves on their open-mindedness.
12.22.2006 5:01pm
jgshapiro (mail):
Justin:

The fact that a group whose goals you don't agree with says something, does not mean that statement is not true. An assertion is true or false regardless of the source of the statement.

Someone failed Logic.

I suppose we should just dismiss your argument about the reason for the raids because it is based on an article in The American Prospect. What could be less credible than that?

Your comment is all the more ironic in this thread because of the logical problems behind the article that prompted this post (and these very comments).
12.22.2006 5:14pm
Justin (mail):
Sufficient and probative are two completely different topics. You came in here with a nonsense argument that we should discount numbers from Pew because there were more pretty footnotes from a CIS position that was off-topic and, oh yea, not contradictory. So linking to logical terms that I'm well aware of doesn't make you any less of a troll whose now drawn us way off topic.
12.22.2006 5:22pm
Ant (mail):
Isn't it strange that while Bush, the Democrats, LaRaza and others claim that Americans won't do the jobs performed by illegal immigrants for the wages being offered, they also want to increase the minimum wage by at least $2/hour.

The Rocky Mountain News reports that there is an abundance of legal workers applying for the openings created by the raids.
12.22.2006 5:50pm
jgshapiro (mail):
Well, there is certainly nothing more ironic than being called a troll by Justin.

You are discounting arguments and figures from those with whom you disagree for that very reason, while claiming that your own unfootnoted and self-referencing sources deserve credence.

If you re going to attack others' sources, better make sure yours are up to par.
12.22.2006 5:57pm
FantasiaWHT:
Well that's why they needed fake ID's, Ant. So they could get "normal" American jobs and not black market jobs that pay below minimum wage.

And with those normal wages came normal American things like credit cards and loan applications. Oh and taxes that they really didn't have to pay, since some other American could pay those
12.22.2006 6:04pm
jgshapiro (mail):
And if you can't see the relevance of a CIS comparison of how the Mexicans treat their immigrants, when the parties complaining of harassment in the Reuters article linked to above are solely or primarily agents for Mexican immigrants to the U.S.(e.g., MALDEF), then you are terminally dense.

Even under the most stringent crackdowns proposed, the U.S. would remain among the top five nations in the world for immigration, both in terms of the number accepted legally and the treatment accorded to those who come here legally. And under most plans, we would remain at or near the top in treatment accorded to those who came here illegally.
12.22.2006 6:08pm
Dan7000:
Jgshapiro says:
And if you can't see the relevance of a CIS comparison of how the Mexicans treat their immigrants, when the parties complaining of harassment in the Reuters article linked to above are solely or primarily agents for Mexican immigrants to the U.S.(e.g., MALDEF), then you are terminally dense.


Well, I guess I'm terminally dense, because I don't understand the relevance of this at all:

- INDIVIDUALS and groups representing Mexican immigrants in the US are advocating for themselves (which has NOTHING to do with the GOVERNMENT of mexixco
- Which you say is somehow hypocritical because of what the GOVERNMENT of mexico does.

Maybe you can explain it.

Are you contending that a population of foreign nationals cannot advocate for themselves because the GOVERNMENT of their country of origin treats immigrants badly?

If so, do you believe we should kick out (or murder) all of the cambodian refugees in the US, since Cambodia has a horrendous history of expelling and murdering foreign nationals?

Do you believe that Iranian immigrants to the US should not be able to advocate for rights for gays because their country of origin brutally oppresses homosexuals? If so, do you still contend that's true even if the Iranian came here precisely to escape such oppression?

Do you believe that a US immigrant in France should not be able to advocate for healthcare for US immigrants in France, because the US doesn't provide universal healthcare to it's citizens (or immigrants)?

If not, then why do you care that a group of Mexican immigrants in the US is advocating for rights of Mexican immigrants in the US, regardless of what the Mexican government is doing?


Yes, s
12.22.2006 6:24pm
Crunchy Frog:
Dan7000 - it is not just "individuals" clamoring for loosening of US border enforcement (as if it could be any looser) but the Mexican government itself, as illustrated by the many speeches of ex-Presidente Fox and now Calderon.

In my not-so-humble opinion, the Mexican government and its apologists should STFU, right now. Illegal immigration costs the state of California alone $10 Billion (that's with a B, folks) per year in services rendered. Emergency rooms all over SoCal close each year due to non-repayment. The Los Angeles Unified School District is shy 80 elementary schools (never mind middle and high schools) just to meet current demand. Illegal aliens comprise 40% of California's prison population. There are entire idustries that used to pay a living wage - no longer. in 1980, a skilled drywall man could bring home $18/hr in today's dollars. Now, if he can even get hired without speaking Spanish, he gets $12.
12.22.2006 7:02pm
jgshapiro (mail):
I am suggesting, as I noted above, that such complaints are silly given that our treatment of immigrants, both legal and illegal, is superior to that of nearly every other nation; and that in particular, it is far superior to how their own nation of origin would treat them (these are mostly Mexican immigrants) had they immigrated to Mexico, instead of from Mexico.

A comparison of how nations treat immigrants is obviously relevant to a discussion about whether any one nation is acting unfairly. The comparison is particularly apt here because the immigrants mostly come from the nation to whom the comparison is being made. Had the immigrants come mostly from France and complained about unfair treatment, a comparison to how immigrants to France would be treated would be equally apt.

Of course, if the illegal immigrants referenced in the article believe they are being treated unfairly, perhaps they should immigrate to another country that would treat them better. (Apparently, for those who are not of Mexican origin, Mexico would not be that country.)
12.22.2006 7:05pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
jgshapiro-

Claiming selective enforcement is the last gasp of the truly guilty.

I think this is a little inaccurate as a blanket statement, because it ignores true cases of discriminatory racial profiling. If US citizens of Finnish extraction make up 3% of the population of a state, but are issued 50% of the speeding tickets it tends to indicate certain parties are going out of their way to cite people of a certain extraction.
12.23.2006 2:35am
PokerGuy:
Dreary victim-speak borrowed from other milieus. Protest rhetoric is soooooo predictable, and so mindless - all intended to invoke emotion while glossing over any meaningful issues like, oh, the law for example.
12.23.2006 7:39am
More on the press conference (mail) (www):
I discuss this press conference at the link, including the (easily found) information on what Carla Vela's day job is (she's not just a "democratic party activist"), as well as background info on two other groups that appeared at the press conference.
12.23.2006 3:06pm
Mike Lief (www):

If US citizens of Finnish extraction make up 3% of the population of a state, but are issued 50% of the speeding tickets it tends to indicate certain parties are going out of their way to cite people of a certain extraction.


Or it more probably means that Finno-Americans tend to drive faster than the rest of the populace. The problem with race-based analyses is the presence of other explanations for the statistical overrepresentation of a portion of the population.

The vast majority of gang-related arrests and prosecutions in my neck of the woods are of latino suspects.

Are they being unfairly targeted? Are we ignoring white gangs and black gangs? Probably not, given that gang membership in more than 98 percent latino 'round here.

That's why it's less than useful to simply go with the racial-profiling explanation.
12.23.2006 9:41pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Mike Lief-

With my example I should have specified that the Finns were driving like everybody else - most of them violating the speed limit at least several times daily to one extent or another. What I was trying to assert was that sometimes there is such a thing as discriminatory selective enforcement.
12.24.2006 6:57am
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Pokerguy-

Dreary victim-speak borrowed from other milieus. Protest rhetoric is soooooo predictable, and so mindless - all intended to invoke emotion while glossing over any meaningful issues like, oh, the law for example.

Would you say that if you got audited every year because someone didn't like your religion? How about if they issued speeding tickets to you for being 3 miles above the speed limit (likely within the combined margin of error for the radar gun and speedometer) but only gave people of other ethnicities if they were 10 miles over the limit? What if these things started happening due to your unpopular political views?
12.24.2006 7:05am
Eli Rabett (www):
As for me, I was always in favor of INS raiding the NY discos to boot out the Eurotrash.
12.25.2006 11:35am
Eli Rabett (www):
Oh yeah, of course Queens is full of wetback Irish. It's a very long swim.
12.25.2006 11:37am