Christina, a new commenter at "Immigration Talk with a Mexican American" (ITWAMA), responded with such an insightful and eloquent response to Ultima's comment about Racial Profiling that I thought I would publicize it in a separate blog. Thank you Christina and I hope you comment on my blog frequently and often! Additionally, I hope Ultima gains insights Christina's comments.
ultima says: "I see racial profiling as something different from racism. The former takes cognizance of those particular border violators or illegal aliens who are most likely to be found within the ranks the ranks of of their ethnic brethren."
Christina responds: I have no idea what that means.
Racial profiling is based on faulty reasoning. It presupposes that qualities attributed to a subset of a larger group are true of the group as a whole.
ultima says: "I see racial profiling as something different from racism. The former takes cognizance of those particular border violators or illegal aliens who are most likely to be found within the ranks the ranks of of their ethnic brethren."
Christina responds: I have no idea what that means.
Racial profiling is based on faulty reasoning. It presupposes that qualities attributed to a subset of a larger group are true of the group as a whole.
An example of such flawed reasoning is this: All professional baseball players are men, therefore all men are professional baseball players. Obviously this statement is absurd. Likewise, with racial profiling. The thinking in Arizona seems to be: All illegal immigrants are Hispanic (which is debatable) therefore all Hispanics are illegal immigrants. That is what racial profiling is. It is based on racist ideology and is therefore racist. You cannot separate the two.
Posts
6 comments:
Christina, Thank you. What you wrote is exactly what I think. I keep thinking that the more we hear illegal immigrants it really means "Mexicans". I once thought that when someone said illegal immigrants it meant: Mexicans, Irish, Canadians, or anyone that is here illegaly.
Racial profiling-- is the inclusion of racial or ethnic characteristics in determining whether a person is considered likely to commit a particular type of crime or an illegal act or to behave in a "predictable" manner. It is often confused with the more comprehensive offender profiling and has been perceived to be directed most often toward non white individuals. The practice became particularly controversial toward the end of the 20th century in the United States, as the potential for abuse by law enforcement came to light.
If all professional baseball players are men, then are you likely to find professional baseball players among women?
Putting aside the fact the racial profiling is illegal, if you were in charge of removing illegal aliens and if there was a significant penalty if you failed to do so, how would you deploy your limited resources to get the most bang for your buck? Given further that the vast majority of illegal aliens apprehended by the border patrol are Mexican or from other Latin American countries, would you look in the Vietnmese population first, the Black population, the Chinese, etc.?
How is this type of profiling different from the type employed by the FBI?
I believe you will be able to see the difference between racism and racial profiling after you study the definitions above.
Racial profiling, if legal, would not imply as you suggest that because a person happens to be Hispanic he or she is necessarily also illegal. Instead it would imply that if the majority of illegal aliens are Hispanic then the most likely place to apprehend them would be among the Hispanics.
Racial profiling does not presuppose that qualities attributed to a subset of a larger group are true of the group as a whole. But it does rationally presuppose as in my baseball player example that if all of those in a given subset are part of a given group, that the place to look for them is in that larger group not in some other unrelated group.
I realize any application of this approach to the illegal aliens problem would be an imposition on the Hispanic community. It boils down to whether they are willing to tolerate that imposition in order to facilitate the enforcement of borders and immigration laws. Of course, if you don't subscribe to the fact that the rule of law is the foundation of all civilized societies, then I can understand why you would want erroneously equate racial profiling with racism.
Christina, next time stick to the dictionary definitions so we can be sure of your objectivity.
An error frequently made by many is attributing the opposition to illegal aliens to be race related. That may well be for some but there are many reasons that can be cited that apply equally to all illegal aliens. But perhaps you have no interest in stabilizing our population, to conserve finite natural resources like water and arable land, to help control pollution which will be all but impossible as our population doubles by the end of this century.
And I would imagine you have no interest in our national sovereignty, our national interest, and the preservation of our national character. Welcome to Mexico Norte!
Christina wrote, " I have no idea what that means."
Let me put it simpler terms for you. When notorious bank robber Wille Sutton was apprehended he was asked. "Why do you rob banks?"
He responded,"Because that is where the money is!"
Applying that simple response to illegal aliens one could ask, "Why do you look for illegal aliens within the larger Hispanic community?" Answer, "Because that is where they are most likely to be found.."
Now the fact that racial profiling is illegal puts a serious cramp in law enforcement to do its job. It is still important to recognize that if you are looking for a gold mine, a lead mine might not be the most effect place to look.
I'm not surprised that you find racial profiling to be racist. The latter term has been used so frequently by those who cannot marshall a more compelling argument that its real meaning has been lost. Therefore I tend to consult my dictionary when I write about racism:
Racism-- (1)an excessive and irrational belief in or advocacy of the superiority of a given group, people, nation, usually one's own on the basis of racial differences having no scientific validity.(2) Social action or government policy based on such assumed differences.
The sheer volume of illegals from south of the border causes some to equate all illegals from that direction as Mexicans, using that name as a proxy for all illegals from Latin America. That usage is not intended to deny or exclude the illegality of those from other countries like Canada.
Illegal aliens is a term used for all those who are present in our country illegally. It does not mean Mexicans exclusively. However, in recognition of relative volume of illegals from each country, it is not unreasonable to focus attention or write or speak of more about the source of the majority of illegal aliens than about all of the others.
However, I do remember posting about the Chinese illegals who apparently always carried enough cash or checks with them so they could make bail and disappear. They knew how to work our weak system of arrest and detention.
I also posted about ethnic enclaves. Some city in California seemed to be almost entirely populated by Pakistanis. Another city was touted as having the largest population of Mexicans outside of Mexico.
GlobalPost.com : Psychology of Bud Selig, Major League Baseball (MLB) Commissioner - Yes or No to Arizona Baseball Boycott ?? - 50% of players in the minor leagues are Hispanic
If 50% of baseball players in the minor leagues are Hispanic, then can Bud Selig betray them ?? - He is going to retire soon - Read on !
The Hispanic players in Baseball make up 30% of major league, but in a Major League Baseball All-Star Game the proportion of Latinos is much higher, 50% of players in the minor leagues are Hispanic - History of Race in Baseball
What would happen if an ignorant and foolish Arizonan Policeman takes a Latino Super Star in Baseball to jail ?? - Would we make some noise ??
GlobalPost.com
Opinion: MLB should pressure Arizona on immigration law
League should support Hispanic players in boycotting next year's All-Star Game if it is held in Arizona.
May 3, 2010
By Mark Starr - GlobalPost Columnist
Mark Starr is GlobalPost sports columnist. He recently retired after 27 years from Newsweek magazine and remains a contributing editor there. During his last dozen years at the magazine, he was a senior editor, the Boston bureau chief and the national sports correspondent and, for the last several, also served as editorial liaison with Newsweek's college publication, "Current." He led Newsweek's coverage at a dozen Olympics – with magazine, broadcast and online responsibilities – and has written an online column, "Starr Gazing," for Newsweek since 2001.
Opinion: MLB should pressure Arizona on immigration law
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/sports/100503/ozzie-guillen-hispanic-baseball?page=0,0
Some excerpts :
Still, that relationship may be less significant than that between baseball and Hispanics. This season some 30 percent of players on Major League Opening Day rosters were born outside the United States, most of those Hispanics, and they tend to be represented at the All-Star Game in even greater percentages. Having lost its historic claim as the national pastime, baseball has, in recent years, focused tremendous attention on the Hispanic audience, which is MLB’s fastest growing and, arguably, most passionate fan base.
Baseball now has a chance to extend that commitment beyond its lip service to history. It can send a message to Hispanic players and fans that its concerns for them extend beyond the baselines and their contributions to MLB coffers. It can send a message to a divided country that justice is not an expedient to be ditched in complex and fearful times. And it can send a message to the world that our beloved games can be harnessed as a powerful force for communal good.
...................
Baseball is not football or even basketball, with their strong commissioners and centralized power. MLB has 32 teams operating as fiefdoms and a weak commissioner in former Milwaukee Brewers owner Bud Selig. Selig has already announced that he will retire in 2012. And absent any significant action, the most notable legacy of his two-decade reign will be the failure of leadership in baseball’s steroids era.
Selig now has a chance to remedy that and he is in a unique position to fathom what’s at stake. He owns a home in Arizona and has been central in the game’s expansion there. He is also descended from European Jews so the implications of a government “show-us-your-papers” mandate must resonate loudly with him. Moreover, he is beginning to hear an echo in the public clamor. Diamondbacks managing partner Ken Kendrick is a major donor to the state GOP, the architects of the new legislation and protests have already sprung up outside the ballpark. (The team has issued a statement saying Kendrick personally opposes the new law).
Raciality.com
Vicente Duque
Post a Comment