Immigration law

[smc]

Originally Posted by smc

Racism is about more than a "superiority of ability." It is belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities, and that racial differences produce some inherent superiority or inferiority of particular races. Hence, drawing a link between race and crime so generally is a form of racism.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

... unless that link can actually be shown to exist. I don't think the person making the link should be immediately accused of racism. Wouldn't that be another ism?

Tracy, there has never been any direct link shown between race and the propensity to engage in criminal behavior. Even in the most dangerous U.S. cities, where crime runs rampant in black communities, sociologists across the political spectrum, law enforcement, scholars of jurisprudence, and so on, agree that it is the socio-economic conditions that create the conditions of crime. The fact that one particular race is committing the crimes under such circumstances is a function of those socio-economic conditions, which may very well be (and are likely) linked to racial discrimination of some sort at some time. But crime is a response by all races, to some degree, to their socio-economic conditions, be it the need to put food on the table or just the need to lash out in a life of desperation and a sense of nothing for which to live.

Therefore, I stand by my statement that drawing a link between race and crime so generally -- that is, brushing an entire race with the brush, explicitly or implicity, of being criminals -- is racism.

[GRH]

smc, while I agree with your contention that there is no direct link between race and criminal behavior, I don't take that conclusion as far as you. Because I believe there's such a thing as being racist and there's such a thing as being blind.

It would be racist for me to dislike or not trust a Mexican because of his race and nothing else. However, it would be BLIND of me to not notice that the majority of drugs being smuggled across our southwestern border are being done so by Mexican cartels. Does this observation make me racist? I think not. I realize that they're not engaging in the drug trade BECAUSE of their race, but I can draw observations that include race as a component.

Relative to your thoughts on a world without borders, I actually agree with you to some extent. However, we'd have to have a TRULY global economy where there would be no unfair tax advantages or social services to be derived from moving to one place or another. People would move purely for the scenery and weather. But when you have disparate economic incentives (such as free emergency room services, social welfare, higher wages, lower taxes, etc., etc.) it makes no sense to allow unrestricted free flow of people. In order to maintain the disparate economic incentives, you need borders. Now me, I'd just as soon take down all the incentives across every nation and let people move where they want. But we both know that won't be happening anytime soon.

As an example of a lesser known disparate economic advantage is the subsidy of grain like corn coupled with NAFTA. Because our government subsidizes corn (and the Mexican government does not), we are able to sell at prices below the fair market price. This put millions of Mexican farmers out of business and in search of work elsewhere (like across the border).

[smc]

Originally Posted by GRH

smc, while I agree with your contention that there is no direct link between race and criminal behavior, I don't take that conclusion as far as you. Because I believe there's such a thing as being racist and there's such a thing as being blind.

It would be racist for me to dislike or not trust a Mexican because of his race and nothing else. However, it would be BLIND of me to not notice that the majority of drugs being smuggled across our southwestern border are being done so by Mexican cartels. Does this observation make me racist? I think not. I realize that they're not engaging in the drug trade BECAUSE of their race, but I can draw observations that include race as a component.

Relative to your thoughts on a world without borders, I actually agree with you to some extent. However, we'd have to have a TRULY global economy where there would be no unfair tax advantages or social services to be derived from moving to one place or another. People would move purely for the scenery and weather. But when you have disparate economic incentives (such as free emergency room services, social welfare, higher wages, lower taxes, etc., etc.) it makes no sense to allow unrestricted free flow of people. In order to maintain the disparate economic incentives, you need borders. Now me, I'd just as soon take down all the incentives across every nation and let people move where they want. But we both know that won't be happening anytime soon.

I would never call anyone a racist for pointing out the reality that "the majority of drugs being smuggled across our southwestern border are being done so by Mexican cartels." Racism would be saying that Mexicans, by the very nature of being Mexican (or Latino, or Hispanic, or whatever), are the type of people who would smuggle drugs. But explain to me, GRH, what purpose is served when you "draw observations that include race as a component" in this instance. None whatsoever. Think about it: race. None whatsoever. It is no different than when the newspaper reports a crime and mentions that the perpetrator was of a particular race and it has no bearing whatsoever on the story. This almost always happens with black people, because of predisposed racist tendencies that are so buried beneath the surface sometimes that the newspaper editors don't even realize what they're doing.

As for the "world without borders," you are correct that it won't be happening anytime soon. But your argument against it, as I read it, is essentially that it cannot be achieved. That's why nothing ever changes for the good! That's why so few in this country stop and think about, to take one example, how much healthcare could be provided if we simply built one less aircraft carrier. I could go on and on about this, but I'm sure you get the point.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by smc

I would never call anyone a racist for pointing out the reality that "the majority of drugs being smuggled across our southwestern border are being done so by Mexican cartels." Racism would be saying that Mexicans, by the very nature of being Mexican (or Latino, or Hispanic, or whatever), are the type of people who would smuggle drugs. But explain to me, GRH, what purpose is served when you "draw observations that include race as a component" in this instance. None whatsoever. Think about it: race. None whatsoever. It is no different than when the newspaper reports a crime and mentions that the perpetrator was of a particular race and it has no bearing whatsoever on the story. This almost always happens with black people, because of predisposed racist tendencies that are so buried beneath the surface sometimes that the newspaper editors don't even realize what they're doing.

I would actually agree with you in that VERY little (if anything) is achieved by pointing out race, except for matters such as statistics. I DO think the statistics are telling in some ways, if only to point out some FACTS, such as the fact that most of the southwestern border is suffering from drug smuggling from Mexicans. That said, it's VERY EASY to confuse statistics with facts...For instance, any apparent statistic that says that minorities commit a higher percentage of crimes is probably NOT taking into account the fact that more minorities live in poverty conditions. Some people will confuse statistics with fact, and might assume that people commit crimes because they are minorities, as opposed to the much more logical assumption that crime is committed because people are poor.

So I think we are largely in agreement, and I don't place a whole lot of weight with statistics. I just wasn't sure if you were claiming people to be "racist" because they made an observation based on racial lines. As I think we agree, the extent to which one can generalize based on racial observations is VERY, VERY limited, but just because a person makes a racial observation does not make them a de facto racist.

As for the "world without borders," you are correct that it won't be happening anytime soon. But your argument against it, as I read it, is essentially that it cannot be achieved. That's why nothing ever changes for the good! That's why so few in this country stop and think about, to take one example, how much healthcare could be provided if we simply built one less aircraft carrier. I could go on and on about this, but I'm sure you get the point.

Yes, I certainly do get your point, and I admittedly am conceding some degree of defeatist attitude in this respect. Seeing as the practical implication of having a "border-free" world is far out of reach, I guess I'm just not an idealist about achieving it any time soon.

[smc]

Originally Posted by GRH

I DO think the statistics are telling in some ways, if only to point out some FACTS, such as the fact that most of the southwestern border is suffering from drug smuggling from Mexicans.

Wouldn't you agree that, first and foremost, the reason that "the southwestern border is suffering from drug smuggling from Mexicans" is because Mexico is the border country? In some parts of northern Sweden, there is a significant amount crime perpetrated by Finns who come across the border. It's Finns because of the proximity of Finland, not because Finns have a propensity to be criminals. Nor do Mexicans as a "race."

I'm glad for your other clarifications, GRH. This is a very productive and civil discussion thus far, among all participants, despite some tremendous disagreements and even some emotional overlooking of facts.

[Titivilus]

Originally Posted by GRH

. . . Seeing as the practical implication of having a "border-free" world is far out of reach, I guess I'm just not an idealist about achieving it any time soon.

I could easily see it happening towards the end of this century. Y'know, I used to think that I was born a century too early, but anymore I couldn't imagine a more exciting time to be alive. I believe we are on the verge of an evolutionary change the likes of which hasn't been seen since the agricultural revolution, or the advent of writing.

Nanotechnology has the potential to eliminate disease and mitigate injury to an extent never thought possible. Scientists are working to eliminate the aging gene (it's something that actually turns on at some point, and is only a check-and-balance, it's not inherently needed).

We're already seeing a trend towards globalization in the economic sectors. We have the technology TODAY to farm astral bodies for resources (though it's not feasible yet).

I don't see the possibility of a "cyberpunk" reality in our lifetimes as unrealistic, at all!

[ila]

Originally Posted by GRH

I would actually agree with you in that VERY little (if anything) is achieved by pointing out race, except for matters such as statistics. I DO think the statistics are telling in some ways, if only to point out some FACTS, such as the fact that most of the southwestern border is suffering from drug smuggling from Mexicans. That said, it's VERY EASY to confuse statistics with facts...For instance, any apparent statistic that says that minorities commit a higher percentage of crimes is probably NOT taking into account the fact that more minorities live in poverty conditions. Some people will confuse statistics with fact, and might assume that people commit crimes because they are minorities, as opposed to the much more logical assumption that crime is committed because people are poor.

I disagree that people commit crimes because they are poor. I grew up very poor. I didn't nor did any family members commit crimes. Rather crimes are committed because of free will. A person can choose to be law abiding or choose to be a criminal.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

I disagree that people commit crimes because they are poor. I grew up very poor. I didn't nor did any family members commit crimes. Rather crimes are committed because of free will. A person can choose to be law abiding or choose to be a criminal.

There is an almost irrefutable link between poverty and crime. It has been studied and so concluded by governments and academics across the political spectrum and in every part of the world.

That said, ila's point is well taken. Of course, a person "can choose to be law abiding or choose to be a criminal." But simplistic notions of "crime" and "criminal" serve no good purpose except to allow people to make grand pronouncements -- truisms, if you will -- such as that of ila, for whom I have the greatest respect. Let me explain.

There is a significant difference between, say, the man who steals some baby formula from the market for his infant at home because he has no job, no money, and no immediate prospects to reverse the situation, and the man who engages in a criminal enterprise with others to, say, extort the market from which the first man has stolen (such as the Mafia demanding "protection money" from the shopkeeper). I am not excusing the first man, nor saying that his theft is not a crime, but how are we to solve the big problems of society if we offer simplistic observations that reflect only our own experiences and fail to account for the complexities of the broader world.

Like ila, I grew up relatively poor. My family was fortunate in that there were friends and an extended family beyond my mother and father who helped out, but I know plenty of people who did not have these "safety nets." In the United States, most poor people have no safety net. The research suggests that the number of U.S. families that are one paycheck away from homelessness or desititution is staggering. In that context, and acknowledging free will, is it any wonder that a poor person might resort to a crime for survival. Again, I don't excuse it, but I do encourage all to note the difference between crimes and criminals.

[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

There is an almost irrefutable link between poverty and crime. It has been studied and so concluded by governments and academics across the political spectrum and in every part of the world.

That said, ila's point is well taken. Of course, a person "can choose to be law abiding or choose to be a criminal." But simplistic notions of "crime" and "criminal" serve no good purpose except to allow people to make grand pronouncements -- truisms, if you will -- such as that of ila, for whom I have the greatest respect. Let me explain.

There is a significant difference between, say, the man who steals some baby formula from the market for his infant at home because he has no job, no money, and no immediate prospects to reverse the situation, and the man who engages in a criminal enterprise with others to, say, extort the market from which the first man has stolen (such as the Mafia demanding "protection money" from the shopkeeper). I am not excusing the first man, nor saying that his theft is not a crime, but how are we to solve the big problems of society if we offer simplistic observations that reflect only our own experiences and fail to account for the complexities of the broader world.

Like ila, I grew up relatively poor. My family was fortunate in that there were friends and an extended family beyond my mother and father who helped out, but I know plenty of people who did not have these "safety nets." In the United States, most poor people have no safety net. The research suggests that the number of U.S. families that are one paycheck away from homelessness or desititution is staggering. In that context, and acknowledging free will, is it any wonder that a poor person might resort to a crime for survival. Again, I don't excuse it, but I do encourage all to note the difference between crimes and criminals.

I base my statement not just on my own experience, but from what I have seen. When I was young most of my friends were considered poor or at least low income. None of my friends turned to crime. We did, however, turn out to be independant, self reliant, and hardworking.

I have met many poor people in my travels and the majority did not turn to crime to survive. Naturally there are those that have turned to crime. I would say it's sloth that causes a person to turn to crime rather than being poor.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I would never call anyone a racist for pointing out the reality that "the majority of drugs being smuggled across our southwestern border are being done so by Mexican cartels."

Or for pointing out the reality of crimes committed by immigrants in the UK.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Or for pointing out the reality of crimes committed by immigrants in the UK.

That's right, because racism is not based on reality and real facts. It doesn't change anything I wrote.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Tracy, there has never been any direct link shown between race and the propensity to engage in criminal behavior.

I never said there was a link between race and criminal behavior. Actually that thought is ridiculous to me. But immediately accusing someone of racism when other reasons for their remarks are possible is another form of prejudice.

Originally Posted by smc

Even in the most dangerous U.S. cities, where crime runs rampant in black communities, sociologists across the political spectrum, law enforcement, scholars of jurisprudence, and so on, agree that it is the socio-economic conditions that create the conditions of crime.

Exactly. And in Mel Asher's post:

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

The general perception in the United Kingdom with its unchecked European, Indian and African immigration of the past eight years is that crime syndicates, particularly from Eastern Europe, Nigeria and the horn of Africa, have prospered and expanded their spheres of operation, particularly in the child sex-trade.

He never said the reason for this was because of race. Yet you immediately assumed that was his intention. Could it be that socio-economic conditions created problems with the immigrants in the UK as well? He was talking about the politics of the situation there and how, like in Arizona, the police have to bear the brunt of political incompetence and laxity. Apparently because of this prejudice of people who holler RACIST at every chance he needed to clarify that the example he was using was a result of socio-economic conditions.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I never said there was a link between race and criminal behavior. Actually that thought is ridiculous to me. But immediately accusing someone of racism when other reasons for their remarks are possible is another form of prejudice.

Exactly. And in Mel Asher's post:
He never said the reason for this was because of race. Yet you immediately assumed that was his intention. Could it be that socio-economic conditions created problems with the immigrants in the UK as well? He was talking about the politics of the situation there and how, like in Arizona, the police have to bear the brunt of political incompetence and laxity. Apparently because of this prejudice of people who holler RACIST at every chance he needed to clarify that the example he was using was a result of socio-economic conditions.

Tracy, with all due respect, you really should read more carefully. I did not ascribe to you the statement that there was a link between race and crime. I was very, very clear that I was responding to these words that you wrote: "... unless that link can actually be shown to exist."

I am not alone in being a person who does not appreciate words being put in his mouth.

Nor did I accuse Mel Asher of being a racist. Read my post again. I discussed the perception he reported. I did not assume it was his view, and I did not ascribe anything to him personally.

Nevertheless, despite the care I take in what I write, you decide to imply things about me and my motives that are simply not true. Go back and read the posts. You don't have to agree with my statements, but I defy you to prove that I did what you accuse me of. Yes, prove. It is possible to diagram writing in a way that shows the connotative and denotative links among the words and phrases.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Tracy, with all due respect, you really should read more carefully. I did not ascribe to you the statement that there was a link between race and crime.

I don't think I said you did, did I?

Originally Posted by smc

Nor did I accuse Mel Asher of being a racist. Read my post again. I discussed the perception he reported. I did not assume it was his view, and I did not ascribe anything to him personally.

My apologies. When you said "This is a racist view" I thought you meant Mel Asher's interpretation of what was going on in the UK was Mel's racist view.

He wrote:

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

The general perception in the United Kingdom with its unchecked European, Indian and African immigration of the past eight years is that crime syndicates, particularly from Eastern Europe, Nigeria and the horn of Africa, have prospered and expanded their spheres of operation, particularly in the child sex-trade.
Governments, almost without exception, will invariably deny that there is a problem, but it is the police and general public who have to bear the brunt of political incompetence and laxity.

It would be interesting to have figures to show if rises in levels of immigration across Western Europe, and North America have occurred in the past ten years, and if so, what the percentages are. Prison figures might also show a correspondence, if one exists.

So, what specifically is the racist view? UK's perception that crime syndicates from Eastern Europe, Nigeria, and the horn of Africa is actually racism and no such crime syndicates exist? I still don't see how racism is the most likely thing going on here. Or maybe it's just really late and I'm confused.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

So, what specifically is the racist view? UK's perception that crime syndicates from Eastern Europe, Nigeria, and the horn of Africa is actually racism and no such crime syndicates exist? I still don't see how racism is the most likely thing going on here. Or maybe it's just really late and I'm confused.

Mel's post is pretty clear. He is not reporting that people in the UK are simply aware that their are crime syndicates of immigrants from Eastern Europe, Nigeria, and the Horn of Africa. That almost goes without saying. The crux of his post is that in the UK there is a perception that there is a link between being from these places (or, in the context of our discussion in this thread, a link between being of these "races") and being engaged in criminal behavior. Hence my response.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Mel's post is pretty clear. He is not reporting that people in the UK are simply aware that their are crime syndicates of immigrants from Eastern Europe, Nigeria, and the Horn of Africa. That almost goes without saying. The crux of his post is that in the UK there is a perception that there is a link between being from these places (or, in the context of our discussion in this thread, a link between being of these "races") and being engaged in criminal behavior. Hence my response.

Ok, let's analyze....

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

The general perception in the United Kingdom with its unchecked European, Indian and African immigration of the past eight years is that crime syndicates, particularly from Eastern Europe, Nigeria and the horn of Africa, have prospered and expanded their spheres of operation, particularly in the child sex-trade. Governments, almost without exception, will invariably deny that there is a problem, but it is the police and general public who have to bear the brunt of political incompetence and laxity.

It would be interesting to have figures to show if rises in levels of immigration across Western Europe, and North America have occurred in the past ten years, and if so, what the percentages are. Prison figures might also show a correspondence, if one exists.

The part in red is the part you say he is not reporting. The part in blue is what Mel Asher wants to see, and you've already said that you were not attributing racism to Mel's beliefs. So that leaves the part in black, which states that governments deny there's a problem. No racism there. But then also states that police and the general public have to bear the brunt of political incompetence and laxity. Is that what lead to you saying

Originally Posted by smc

This is a racist view, pure and simple, painting with a broad brush immigrants as generally linked to crime syndicates. Racism, racism, racism.

This is what you claim is the crux of his post, which is that in the UK there is a perception that there is a link between being from these places (or, in the context of our discussion in this thread, a link between being of these "races") and being engaged in criminal behavior. The interesting part here is the part that leads you to cry racism is the part being in the context of this forum. How can attitudes in the UK be shown by the context of this thread to be racist? The only part of Mel's post that is in the context of this thread are his personal observations cited in his posting.

"it is the police and general public who have to bear the brunt of political incompetence and laxity"
=
"a perception that there is a link between being from these places (or, in the context of our discussion in this thread, a link between being of these "races") and being engaged in criminal behavior"

Originally Posted by smc

I think this post requires some explanation, Tracy.

Please define "culture" as you mean it here.

Culture: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time.

Originally Posted by smc

Please clarify your point about Jews and Hezbollah. And I would advise strongly that you make a distinction between "Jews" and "Israelis" or, more accurately, "Zionists." Not all Jews are Zionists.

Like I said it was late. Like after 2am and I really just wanted to get on with downloading porn. Yes, I should have said Israelis, as they are the ones who are being littered with rockets. I would like to further specify which street adresses are most prone to bombing but that would further divert me from my daily dose of porn. I wouldn't use the term "Zionists" because not all Zionists live in Israel and are bombed by rockets.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The part in red is the part you say he is not reporting.

Read carefully what I said he was "not reporting" again, and fully, and in the context of the subsequent sentence(s). I simply do not have the mental energy to continue our discussion until you become a more careful reader, so I don't have to keep writing over and over again to explain what I did not write but that you insist on attributing to me. Or perhaps you are a master sophist (you can look that up), in which case our discussion truly has nowhere to go.