Immigration law

[smc]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I don't find this to be racist at all. Racism implies a superiority of ability due to racial factors. He said nothing of the sort. He simply noted that there is a correlation between the demographics of a certain region and a higher incidence of crime.

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 TheAngryPostman

Lest we forget, this whole thing was enacted because the drug cartels were killing Americans on American soil so that they could move unimpeded through the area. ...

You can cry racism, but the fact of the matter is that Mexicans specifically are the ones perpetrating these heinous crimes and will continue to do so unless someone puts a boot in their ass.

You are correct that it is Mexicans that are perpetrating the crimes to which you refer. Let me use an analogy to make my point, though, and forgive me for its imperfection. I think the point will still come across. If the government decided that Wall Street bankers such as Lloyd Bankfein had committed heinous crimes by destroying the economy and that as a group the perpetrators of such crimes need to be rounded up so that they cannot do so anymore, would you support New York City giving police the right to stop anyone who looks Jewish and is wearing a very expensive suit? Of course not. The problem with the law in Arizona is two-fold. The first is that an immigration law is not the way to deal with this criminal behavior by drug cartels. The second is that if your explanation is the logic behind the law, then it is based on the concept of collective guilt of all "Mexicans."

I do not believe that anyone seriously believes this law is a way to stop the drug cartels. I do believe that the proponents of the law do believe that all Mexicans (including Mexican-Americans) are guilty of something: not being white, and becoming a larger part of the population than whites. People are terrified that "their America" is disappearing, and the Arizona law is just one of their reactionary responses.

[The Conquistador]

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.

No. It is simply stating that there is a higher propensity for crime from certain immigrant groups and more often than not, these groups fail to assimilate into the local culture. Is it any wonder that there are less occurences of violence from legal immigrants than illegals and why legal immigrants are pissed at illegals for ruining things for them? Legal immigrants(Like me) adapt to the local customs and cultures and abide by the laws of the land and cultural norms. Those who don't, tend to bring their problems with them and just perpetuate the cycle. Is it racist? No. It is just a fact of the disparity between legal and illegal immigrants.

You are correct that it is Mexicans that are perpetrating the crimes to which you refer. Let me use an analogy to make my point, though, and forgive me for its imperfection. I think the point will still come across. If the government decided that Wall Street bankers such as Lloyd Bankfein had committed heinous crimes by destroying the economy and that as a group the perpetrators of such crimes need to be rounded up so that they cannot do so anymore, would you support New York City giving police the right to stop anyone who looks Jewish and is wearing a very expensive suit? Of course not. The problem with the law in Arizona is two-fold. The first is that an immigration law is not the way to deal with this criminal behavior by drug cartels. The second is that if your explanation is the logic behind the law, then it is based on the concept of collective guilt of all "Mexicans."

This law is the exact thing that will help Arizonans. It simply reasserts and reinforces the current laws on illegal immigration in the book. The local PD are now acting as a suppliment to the Border Patrol and Customs. The more people you have patrolling an area and the tougher the enforcement, the less the likelyhood of occurence. The bill does NOT give the police the right to stop anyone that "looks" like they might by an illegal alien.

I don't know if you've read the bill, but it clearly states that a person has to have legal contact with a police officer first. If you get pulled over for rolling a stop sign, stopped for loitering or get arrested, they are going to check your ID and verify whether or not you are here legally. What you are repeating is the bullshit spouted by idiots. Also, if you have a *valid* driver's license you are assumed to be here legally. So let me see here, if you get a traffic stop, the cops are now going to call in your driver's license to see if you have warrants, are wanted or are in the country illegally?

There is no "collective guilt" in my reasoning. The cartels come over here and kill US citizens. These people are in fear for their life and trying to paint this as xenophobia is ludicrous. People are tired of the crap and are standing against the crimes perpetrated by these bastards and guess what? It is working!http://www.azcentral.com/community/p...w-schools.html

You think that our immigration policy is bad, you should see Mexicos stance on illegal immigration. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/lillpop022707.htm And from what I have heard from El Salvadorian and Guatemalan immigrants, their immigration officials are not as nice as ours and more often than not either beat or shoot illegal immigrants coming in through Mexico.

I do not believe that anyone seriously believes this law is a way to stop the drug cartels. I do believe that the proponents of the law do believe that all Mexicans (including Mexican-Americans) are guilty of something: not being white, and becoming a larger part of the population than whites. People are terrified that "their America" is disappearing, and the Arizona law is just one of their reactionary responses.

Ahhhhh, the old "white guilt" defense. No cigar this time buddy. Jan Brewer sent letters to Lord Zero stating her concerns and requesting support for the Border agents. Here it is: http://www.azcentral.com/news/electi...bama07-ON.html

I think this law has to do with concern and safety for the public rather than bigotry.

[smc]

Postman, I'm glad we can have a reasoned discourse about this, where we have profound disagreements -- even on the definition of terms -- without resorting to personal attacks. It's quite a step up from the crap that goes for discussion on some other parts of this site, and which I, as a moderator, often have to deal with in a different sort of way.

So, that being said, I will treat your "white guilt" comment as a reference to others.

I stand by my definition of racism. I stand by my analysis of the law, which I have read. To believe that there will be none of the kinds of police actions that you say the law does not allow is, in my view, tremendously naive about the history of how the forces of authority deal with minorities when we are on the cusp of historic changes in how society is ordered.

I also stand by my use of the word "reactionary" in this context. Too often this word is misused to mean "right-wing." I don't mean it that way. Reaction is a tendency to revert to a former state. In this case, those who will one day (sooner rather than later) become the minority rather than maintain their majority status are reacting. There is no doubt in my mind.

I have yet to find a credible, unbiased analysis of this law that suggests it is the way to fight the cartels.

I have pretty much said everything I have to say on this issue, but I will continue to point out racism when I see it, so I may post again. And by that, I am not assigning racism to you, Postman. Just to be clear ...

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by smc

Postman, I'm glad we can have a reasoned discourse about this, where we have profound disagreements -- even on the definition of terms -- without resorting to personal attacks. It's quite a step up from the crap that goes for discussion on some other parts of this site, and which I, as a moderator, often have to deal with in a different sort of way.

So, that being said, I will treat your "white guilt" comment as a reference to others.

I stand by my definition of racism. I stand by my analysis of the law, which I have read. To believe that there will be none of the kinds of police actions that you say the law does not allow is, in my view, tremendously naive about the history of how the forces of authority deal with minorities when we are on the cusp of historic changes in how society is ordered.

I also stand by my use of the word "reactionary" in this context. Too often this word is misused to mean "right-wing." I don't mean it that way. Reaction is a tendency to revert to a former state. In this case, those who will one day (sooner rather than later) become the minority rather than maintain their majority status are reacting. There is no doubt in my mind.

I have yet to find a credible, unbiased analysis of this law that suggests it is the way to fight the cartels.

I have pretty much said everything I have to say on this issue, but I will continue to point out racism when I see it, so I may post again. And by that, I am not assigning racism to you, Postman. Just to be clear ...

Well the most effective way to fight the cartels would to be to take the fight to them. Unfortunately, that will never happen as the Mexican Gov. is in collusion with the cartels as well as other South American governments and most of our government officials are candyasses anyways. Neither of them have any interests in fighting the cartels as they have major influence in the region and it is too good of a gravy train to let go of.

This law is not about fighting the cartels or racial majority/minority fears. It is about the public safety of the citizens of Arizona. The fact of the matter is that people are being killed by illegal immigrants and nothing is being done about it. The actions AZ has taken are designed with its citizens in mind and yet so many Americans are quick to condemn them. The victims are blamed and the criminals are heralded. That is not justice. It may not be the best course of action but it is necessary.

[Mel Asher]

Gentlemen

You are going from the General to the Particular in your assertions, although I cannot claim to be entirely General in my enquiry about possible links between immigration and criminal activity in countries other than the UK.

It is common in the UK for the PC brigade ( usually in National or Local Government ) to dismiss concerns over law and order involving one or more non-Caucasian social groups with an immediate accusation of Racism - a convenient and neat way of not having to address the concerns of a lot of joe-citizens. To see Racism in every criticism involving a mixed-race population is to be an obsessive witch-finder. Not that I am implying that this is illustrated in this thread, but PC and ' racism ' are fertile areas for the control of others by the
' Thought Police '.

Reading this thread I must admit that I am getting a little more understanding of some of the social concerns of North America, and I welcome this.

Meanwhile I shall settle down to reading Mein Kampf later when I log off this forum. ( Only joking, honestly - my gallows humour coming through to the fore ! )
and keep the thread rolling.

[randolph]

We seem to be dealing with several issues here and getting them confused.
1-The vicious drug cartels are the result of the demand for illegal drugs in this country. This is a rerun of the mobs in the 1920s fighting over the illegal alcohol trade. Take the profit out of drugs and the cartels would disappear.
2- We have a long history of racism as the blacks know full well. We also hated the Irish, Jews, Polish, German and all the other later immigrants that came to this country. At the time, they were blamed for all or our troubles and were considered lawless and stupid. We also took over the Indians land and kept Mexicans as second class citizens.
3- I strongly suspect that if you look at the non drug related crime in Arizona or any other state, that Hispanics, legal or illegal, do not contribute a greater amount of crime than any other part of society. They are being made scapegoats because they are easily targeted by aspiring politicians who prefer to avoid the real issues confronting our society.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

We seem to be dealing with several issues here and getting them confused.
1-The vicious drug cartels are the result of the demand for illegal drugs in this country. This is a rerun of the mobs in the 1920s fighting over the illegal alcohol trade. Take the profit out of drugs and the cartels would disappear.

If you legalize drugs do you think the cartels are just going to go away? Are they going to go register for a business license? Are they going to let Pfizer set up facilities to start providing cocaine to store fronts? Or is it more likely that they are going illegally take over a now legal industry? The last time I checked, drug cartels don't really go for whole free market capitalism model of multiple suppliers selling a product and competing on price, quality and other factors. They operate more on the "Hey that guy is dealing coke in our territory, let's go kill him and his family" model. The whole "legalize the problem to make the problem go away" is defective thinking that is driving this immigration debate in the first place.

2- We have a long history of racism as the blacks know full well. We also hated the Irish, Jews, Polish, German and all the other later immigrants that came to this country. At the time, they were blamed for all or our troubles and were considered lawless and stupid. We also took over the Indians land and kept Mexicans as second class citizens.

Humans in general have had a long history of racial and ethnic predjudice. Some non-American examples include: Mexicans hate blacks, El Salvadorians and Puerto Ricans, the Brits hate the Irish, the Serbs hate the Albanians, the Africans hate Afrikaaners, the Vietnamese hate Filipinos, the Samoans hate the Tongans, the Hutu Africans hate the Tutsie Africans, the Arabs hate the Jews, the ancient Greeks hated the Persians, the Germans hated the Jews, the Berbers hated the Ethiopians and the list goes on and on of all the races and ethnicities who hated each other. To deny this and only focus on one demographic that suits an arguement is intellectually dishonest.

3- I strongly suspect that if you look at the non drug related crime in Arizona or any other state, that Hispanics, legal or illegal, do not contribute a greater amount of crime than any other part of society. They are being made scapegoats because they are easily targeted by aspiring politicians who prefer to avoid the real issues confronting our society.

Politicians always pander to "minorities" to curry their favor and gain their vote. This is nothing new. The problem is the murder of American civilians on American soil. To say that this is just a cover of their "inherent racism" also ignores the main fact that there are people actually getting killed over there at the hand of these cartel members.

[TracyCoxx]

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.

... 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?

[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.

[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

I do not believe that anyone seriously believes this law is a way to stop the drug cartels. I do believe that the proponents of the law do believe that all Mexicans (including Mexican-Americans) are guilty of something: not being white, and becoming a larger part of the population than whites. People are terrified that "their America" is disappearing, and the Arizona law is just one of their reactionary responses.

See that would be that ism again. Immediately accusing someone of racism without considering any other motives. Like.... hmmm is entering the US (or most any country) without going through the proper channels legal? Well what-do-ya know... it's not! Imagine that. That could be a reason right there.

What do people shout at me when I say I always speed? GO THE SPEED LIMIT! IT'S THE LAW!!!

As for being terrified that "their America" is disappearing, perhaps we should add this to our law books:
*Foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country's internal politics;
*Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken US laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy."

Those laws are good enough for Mexico, shouldn't it be good enough for the Mexicans that come here?

And no, I'm not seriously advocating laws like this. Just enforce the laws we do have.