• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

HPD won't screen for immigration

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
City pulls out of controversial ICE program

The City of Houston has pulled out of the Federal government's immigration screening program, which is being conducted by ICE.

This is very unfortunate. It is the border states where immigration screenings would be most beneficial. Needless to say, I am going to remember this bit of negligence when I vote in the next election. The Chief of Police needs to go.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
City pulls out of controversial ICE program

The City of Houston has pulled out of the Federal government's immigration screening program, which is being conducted by ICE.

This is very unfortunate. It is the border states where immigration screenings would be most beneficial. Needless to say, I am going to remember this bit of negligence when I vote in the next election. The Chief of Police needs to go.

Article is here.
Click to expand...
I thought Texas was more sane than this. The chief of police better just step down now. This bit should be on every texan's mind when they vote in next elections
 
Houston has been a sanctuary city for a long time. The voters in the city have been opposed to strict enforcement of immigration laws inside city limits for a long time. Most the big cities in the US are sanctuary cities. If somebody is a contributing member of the community and doesn't get in any trouble with the law, there is no reason to deport them. And, as the Arpaio debacle made plain, that enforcement program degenerates very quickly into racial profiling and harrasment of groups of people (citizens and not) based on their ethnicity. Houstonians rightly want no part of that.
 
Last edited:
chevydriver1123 said:
The Police Chief is elected down there? Or is the Mayor up for re-election?
Click to expand...

Police chief is appointed by the Mayor. Mayoral election is next year. I will support whichever candidate says he or she will sack the police chief.
 
teamosil said:
Houston has been a sanctuary city for a long time. The voters in the city have been opposed to strict enforcement of immigration laws inside city limits for a long time. Most the big cities in the US are sanctuary cities. If somebody is a contributing member of the community and doesn't get in any trouble with the law, there is no reason to deport them. And, as the Arpaio debacle made plain, that enforcement program degenerates very quickly into racial profiling and harrasment of groups of people (citizens and not) based on their ethnicity. Houstonians rightly want no part of that.
Click to expand...

I keep seeing those words and yet I have yet to see any proof of it.

Of course it is easy to call racial profiling in cases like this without actual evidence. I mean think about it. At least 95% of illegals in this country are from south of the border. Add to that an area which is known to have a huge problem with illegals from said area and what do you get when you go to round up illegals? Lots of people from the same race getting rounded up.

I seriously think that the term "racial profiling" has become much like what those that oppose Obama's policies are called. Ex: Nazi. The term has become a political meaningless talking point used solely to discredit those that oppose a certain point of view. And by discrediting those people make your view come to happen despite any idiocy involved.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I keep seeing those words and yet I have yet to see any proof of it.

Of course it is easy to call racial profiling in cases like this without actual evidence. I mean think about it. At least 95% of illegals in this country are from south of the border. Add to that an area which is known to have a huge problem with illegals from said area and what do you get when you go to round up illegals? Lots of people from the same race getting rounded up.
Click to expand...

How are you going to know who to "round up" in the first place?
 
Kandahar said:
How are you going to know who to "round up" in the first place?
Click to expand...

Easy. Whoever commits a crime and gets caught is going to get a background check, no matter who he is. If he turns out to be an illegal alien, then you deport him after he completes his sentence instead of turning him loose. What's so hard about that?
 
danarhea said:
This is very unfortunate. It is the border states where immigration screenings would be most beneficial.
Click to expand...

Not really. As components of what ultimately must be an openly authoritarian campaign if it is to achieve results, screenings would constitute wasteful fiscal expenditure, in contrast to a more libertarian approach of rollback of trade liberalization in order to reduce the international wage differentials exacerbated by such trade policy...thereby removing a motivation for immigration.
 
danarhea said:
Easy. Whoever commits a crime and gets caught is going to get a background check, no matter who he is. If he turns out to be an illegal alien, then you deport him after he completes his sentence instead of turning him loose. What's so hard about that?
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what Arpaio did from all accounts.
 
As to racial profiling, we can refer to an empirical source such as Ayers et al.'s Is Immigration a Racial Issue? Anglo Attitudes on Immigration Policies in a Border County to identify general racist attitudes that might provide a basis for such behavior:

Objective. This study assesses the association between Anglo aversion to Latinos, physical proximity to Latinos, and contact with ethnic minorities, with expressed preferences for immigration policies.

Methods. Data were drawn from a telephone survey of San Diego County, California, residents (N=549 Anglos) using random-digit-dial procedures during 2005–2006 that was conducted by closely supervised professional interviewers. Descriptive reports, tau-b correlations, and multivariate logistic regressions were used for analysis.

Results. Aversion to Latinos, as indicated by an adaptation of the Bogardus social distance scale, was related to more restrictionist attitudes about legal and Mexican immigration. Associations increased when respondents were primed to consider Mexican immigration, although aversion to Latinos was not related to attitudes about amnesty for undocumented persons. Contrary to some previous findings, proximity to Latino populations increased opposition to legal immigration and amnesty. Reported minority contact had minimal impact but increased support for amnesty.

Conclusions. Attitudes about immigration may be motivated more by racial resentments than other considerations. Future research should identify racial factors that influence Anglo policy positions beyond the classic Anglo/African division that has dominated this research arena.
Click to expand...

Again, "Latino" is not a race, though. Latinos typically consist of whites, Indians, blacks, or some combination thereof. It's simply that residents of border states are most commonly familiar with the predominantly Indian immigrants due to their exclusion from higher society by Latin American racism and classism and consequent need to emigrate.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Of course it is easy to call racial profiling in cases like this without actual evidence.
Click to expand...

You're arguing that racial profiling doesn't occur, then giving your justification for why racial profiling is ok...

There are a boatload of court cases pending at the moment against Arpaio's department and other ICE collaborations with local departments. We'll see how those cases come out. Against Arpaio it's pretty open and shut. Even ICE cited that as one of their reasons for booting him from the program.

Kal'Stang said:
I mean think about it. At least 95% of illegals in this country are from south of the border.
Click to expand...

It's 75%. Still a very large portion, but not 95%. Lots of illegal aliens are people who overstayed visas or who were layed off from H1 visa jobs. Most those folks are European or Asian.

Kal'Stang said:
Add to that an area which is known to have a huge problem with illegals from said area and what do you get when you go to round up illegals? Lots of people from the same race getting rounded up.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that they are also asking the white people to produce proof of citizenship?

Kal'Stang said:
I seriously think that the term "racial profiling" has become much like what those that oppose Obama's policies are called. Ex: Nazi. The term has become a political meaningless talking point used solely to discredit those that oppose a certain point of view. And by discrediting those people make your view come to happen despite any idiocy involved.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make much sense to me. ICE is run by an Obama apointee for starters... What does it have to do with opposing Obama's policies? The 14th ammendment isn't "Obama's policy"...

It's a clear cut term. If the law is applied differently to different groups of people based on their race, it's racial profiling. Bush, like Obama, launched a big campaign against racial profiling. It's unconstitutional and just plain racist. That isn't a liberal/conservative thing. As a country we don't believe that an individual should be treated differently by law enforcement because of what race they are.
 
teamosil said:
You're arguing that racial profiling doesn't occur, then giving your justification for why racial profiling is ok...
Click to expand...

I'm arguing that the term is used far more than it should be. Much like racism or nazi is being used at the slightest drop of the hat.

teamosil said:
There are a boatload of court cases pending at the moment against Arpaio's department and other ICE collaborations with local departments. We'll see how those cases come out. Against Arpaio it's pretty open and shut. Even ICE cited that as one of their reasons for booting him from the program.
Click to expand...

Of course there are butt loads of cases pending against him. He's doing something which obviously has been construed as racial profiling. And can easily be construed as such for my already given reasons.

teamosil said:
It's 75%. Still a very large portion, but not 95%. Lots of illegal aliens are people who overstayed visas or who were layed off from H1 visa jobs. Most those folks are European or Asian.
Click to expand...

The 95% was just a number thrown out there to indicate that there is a large percentage from south of the border.

teamosil said:
Do you believe that they are also asking the white people to produce proof of citizenship?
Click to expand...

I don't know. They always seem to leave that out.

teamosil said:
That doesn't make much sense to me. ICE is run by an Obama apointee for starters... What does it have to do with opposing Obama's policies? The 14th ammendment isn't "Obama's policy"...
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to do with Obama per se. I was saying that the term racial profiling is over used...like the terms applied to people that oppose Obama.

teamosil said:
It's a clear cut term. If the law is applied differently to different groups of people based on their race, it's racial profiling. Bush, like Obama, launched a big campaign against racial profiling. It's unconstitutional and just plain racist. That isn't a liberal/conservative thing. As a country we don't believe that an individual should be treated differently by law enforcement because of what race they are.
Click to expand...

Yet considering the demographics and what is happening along our southern border this is exactly what happens. Tell me do you know how many white folks are arrested for illegally crossing the border? How many border agents are along the northern border compared to the southern border? An equal amount? If not and there are more border patrol agents along the southern border than the northern border then a case could be made for "racial profiling". Despite the fact that more illegals come through the southern border than the northern one. Because more illegals that come through the border are Hispanic than any other race.

See what I mean about the term being used more than it should be? A person can call racial profiling for even the slightest hint of supposed inequality.
 
Arpaio is still allowed to go after illegals if he discovers their illegal status while processing them in his jail, according the modified ICE agreement. The change is that "street sweeps" are no longer allowed. Nobody has really explained what a street sweep is, but Arpaio is facing a suit by latino men who were caught in such a sweep but turned out be here legally. Considering that the overwhelming majority were caught in jails and not sweeps, I think the ICE made the right choice. Wasting police resources in sweeps for illegals in an inefficient use of police resources.
 
Kal'Stang said:
How many border agents are along the northern border compared to the southern border? An equal amount? If not and there are more border patrol agents along the southern border than the northern border then a case could be made for "racial profiling". Despite the fact that more illegals come through the southern border than the northern one. Because more illegals that come through the border are Hispanic than any other race.

See what I mean about the term being used more than it should be? A person can call racial profiling for even the slightest hint of supposed inequality.
Click to expand...

I do see your argument, but you're missing a couple points. First, targetting a location where the crime you're trying to catch people committing is not considered racial profiling on face. It certainly could be argued that it is racial profiling when it is disproportionate. For example, if 60% of burglaries happen in a black neighborhood and 40% in a white neighborhood, and the police decide to put 95% of their officers in the black neighborhood, that's pretty fishy.

But, that's not what Arpaio is being charged with. What he's being sued for is essentialy stopping every hispanic that his teams come across and trumping up charges so he can check their citizenship status. That's racial profiling pure and simple. And, there is a very good reason that it is illegal- because most Mexicans living in his county are citizens and they're being harrassed constantly, they're getting ticketted for trumped up charges, etc. It isn't right that a citizen should be persecuted for crimes committed by other people just because they happen to be the same ethnicity.
 
Agnapostate said:
"Hispanics" aren't a race. Honestly, the term is almost useless. :doh
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. "Racial" profiling is just what people call it. The laws prohibiting it all specify profiling on the basis or race, ethnicity, nation of origin, religion, disability, or gender.
 
teamosil said:
Houston has been a sanctuary city for a long time. Most the big cities in the US are sanctuary cities.
Click to expand...
This is true unfortunately. Chicago is the same way. The Daley political machine has an immunity/votes quid-pro-quo with the Latino community.

teamosil said:
If somebody is a contributing member of the community and doesn't get in any trouble with the law, there is no reason to deport them.
Click to expand...
A performance-based live and let live philosophy that excuses/ignores an initial illegal act (illegal entry).

Utilizing such a philosophy, one could also extrapolate that no one who purchases a gun illegally should be prosecuted and the weapon confiscated unless and/or until they commit a crime with said weapon.
 
Not really. Increased gun prevalence will necessarily result in the generation of negative externalities in regard to violent crime, while increased prevalence of illegal immigrants won't do the same. The analogy is thus not especially descriptive or fitting. :shrug:
 
Agnapostate said:
Not really. Increased gun prevalence will necessarily result in the generation of negative externalities in regard to violent crime, while increased prevalence of illegal immigrants won't do the same. The analogy is thus not especially descriptive or fitting. :shrug:
Click to expand...
The sentient point is easily grasped and understood.

At least by most of us lesser mortals :rofl
 
Tashah said:
I can't... you have it.
Click to expand...

That one's cutting...Leno needs to keep his eyes peeled for the competition, apparently. Regardless, his point was that the mere presence of illegal immigrants did not necessitate their involvement in violent or unethical crime, nor did a greater prevalence of illegal immigrants necessitate an increase in the prevalence of violent or unethical crime. You then tried to compare this to guns :)rofl), despite there being a substantial empirical literature that indicates connections between gun prevalence and the negative externality of increased violent crime.
 
Agnapostate said:
That one's cutting...Leno needs to keep his eyes peeled for the competition, apparently. Regardless, his point was that the mere presence of illegal immigrants did not necessitate their involvement in violent or unethical crime, nor did a greater prevalence of illegal immigrants necessitate an increase in the prevalence of violent or unethical crime. You then tried to compare this to guns :)rofl), despite there being a substantial empirical literature that indicates connections between gun prevalence and the negative externality of increased violent crime.
Click to expand...
Always enjoy your trademark lawyer-esque rambling :rofl

Pass the ambrosia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom