Arizona Immigration Law

[emtannie]

Having watched the argument/debate/stone-throwing between Dwayne and Ruffems, I am reminded why I sometimes get frustrated with some of the threads.

Dwayne, I don’t always disagree with you, but in this case, I will. OK, Ruff’s post didn’t provide ALL the details; however, he did quote his source, and if we disagree, or have more questions, maybe we should look it up, and build a case as to why we disagree. You shot down his post as being crap without truly arguing the other side based on more than opinion. I expected you to come back with “the statistics you gave were inaccurate because on website _____ the federal/state/municipal statistics show that there is racial profiling,” not “offer my passionate, and contrary point of view.” (yes, this last quote was directed at Herbie, but it shows your focus throughout this thread so far). A point of view does not prove another’s wrong.

I expect that when someone argues against my posts, that they do it with facts that show my post was in the wrong, not just in a “...lets not spew statistics that seem to make your point but we all know don't actually do so.”

Actually, contrary to your statement “of posting irrelevant shit and pretending that it supports your argument,” the site Ruffems quoted has a pretty significant breakdown of the figures, which actually does support his argument.

So, let’s take a look at the statistics provided on the Raymore police department:

Statewide population over the age of 16 (based on 2007 census) :

Whites 83.95%

Blacks 10.72%

Local population over the age of 16:

Whites 90.79%

Blacks 4.25%

Now, we also have to take into account that Raymore is a trade centre for a large area, and a suburb of Kansas City, and that police stops will include those that don’t live within the limits of Raymore.

If we turn the number of stops, searches, and arrests into percentages, we find the following:

Percentage of stops:

White 88.047%

Blacks 9.85%

- does this prove racial profiling? Based on the total population percentages, it appears that the police department is not targeting a specific group

Percentage of Searches:

White 80.94%

Black 14.38%

- does this prove racial profiling? Maybe – we have to consider if the search was based on plain sight evidence, which is also in the document provided by Ruff..

Percentage of Arrests:

White 77.29%

Black 17.13%

- does this prove racial profiling? Maybe – we have to consider if the search was based on plain sight evidence, and if the arrest was based on scene findings or on a previous warrant, which is also in the document provided by Ruff..

I could go into more and more detail, which could take pages and pages….

The point I am trying to make is that too often I see someone’s post get shot down based on opinion more than fact, and when statistics and links are provided, rather than looking at them and studying them, they use the “stats can say anything” line. It is a shortcut, and a copout, rather than doing the research to effectively argue against the other poster.

OK, I am done derailing this thread.

[Richard B the EMT]

it doesn't say anything about pagans or wiccans but if I can find that breakdown I will.

Which Pagans, the motorcycle group or the religious group? As for Wiccans, anybody stops them, they put a hex on the person (reminder: my CB name is "The Witch Doctor").

JOKING! (Not about my CB name, however, PM me for reason behind the name)

[DwayneEMTP]

Having watched the argument/debate/stone-throwing between Dwayne and Ruffems, I am reminded why I sometimes get frustrated with some of the threads.

I'm likely to offend more people when I make this point, but I'll ask you to believe that my intent is to be honest and clear, not offensive. I stated that without knowing the breakdown of racial percentages in the group that the data was gleened from that the data posted was useless. I had faith in the City population that most people would understand that when making a case for or against racial profiling that the percentage of races effected by the police would need to be compared against the total population of each race in the given area to deliver useful information.

I see that you seemed to get it, as you presented that exact argument in this post, but are offended then by my handling of Ruff? Should I then, in the future, assume that he is an ignorant child and treat him as such? Assume that he can not grasp even the most simple of logical pathways? For me, that would be truly insulting to him, and I refuse to do it.

It was not my point of view that the necessary information was missing. It is a verifiable, logical fact. There's a difference. As above, I felt that a specific lecture on why the target population was important to give those values, well, value, was unnecessary. I apologize, and am disappointed that I was mistaken. If I tell you that only three babies died in Trinidad last year (a bullshit number I've obviously made up) to support my argument that there is not a pediatric healthcare issue here, would you then feel that I had made my point? Wouldn't you immediately come back and ask, "Well, how many babies were born in Trinidad last year?" Doesn't that seem like an obvious, necessary question if my stats on peds deaths are going to mean anything at all? Because to me, it's certainly has significantly different relevance if there were only four babies born last year, and again if there were three thousand.

Again, it seems so obvious that I felt it became obvious with a simple mention yet without a lecture.

And I believe that had he truly intended to illuminate instead of simply posting something that appeared to be evidence, that he would have posted those statistics.

My first response to him was tongue in cheek. I truly believed he would reply with something like, "Oh hell, I didn't think of that."

I am confused though, that there seems to be such a strong response to me not educating Ruff on a simple logic tree, yet no response to him throwing a tantrum instead of doing likewise? Why is that I wonder?

I was offended by the tantrum as a way of trying to bully me with emotion instead of logic. If we chose to treat each poster that choses emotion instead of intelligence with kid gloves then logic would soon take a complete leave of absence from the City. In my opinion we should feel, as we used to here, the need to attack each post based on logic, intelligence, and scientific value, when each applies.

I am much more offended that he feels that because I've commented on a few of his posts in the last year, and those comments didn't agree with him, that he is being victimized by me. That is such utter, crybaby bullshit. There is nothing in life that I gain more joy from then seeing people being empowered. I do not, in any way, feel that treating someone like a child helps them, that treating them as if they're ignorant when I don't believe that to be the case, is kindness. I don't give into Dylan when he throws a tantrum, and I refuse to do it with my friends here. It truly is as simple as that. My intent was to point out the obvious error in his post, the rest of this nonsense has come because he chose to cry instead of discuss. I certainly take responsibility for not speaking to him as if he's a delicate flower, but I take no responsibility for his reaction to it.

There is not a regularly contributing member on this board that has not heard much harsher comments from me, and I can't think of a single one, (including you girl!), that hasn't proved with intelligence, honesty, logic and science that they are able to knock my dick in the dirt. And nothing makes me happier than to admit that my very best argument has been proved to be bullshit. I really, really, hate having bullshit opinions if I can help it.

I'm going to take a leap of faith and assume that you didn't mean me when you mention most of the above. The problem that I have with this part of your argument is that, again, it asks me to assume that Ruff is to ignorant to make his own argument. I don't believe that to be the case. Simply because he chose to post a link to part of an argument in no way then obligates me to do the research to support his argument. If he wants to participate then he is obligated to support his argument to the best of his ability.

I truly am disturbed by what appears to be your point of view that, "He posted something, so you should have spent the time and the energy to turn it into something instead of pointing out that it had errors." That bothers me a lot.. It seems to say, "Be nice, and help him be weaker today than yesterday so that you don't hurt his feelings instead of making the effort to make him stronger." I just can't get on board with that.

Thanks for your thoughts, I truly had no intention to write a book here, but I do believe that this discussion goes right to the soul of the City.

Dwayne

[emtannie]

Dwayne, rather than derail this thread further, I will respond to you in PM. I think we are misinterpreting the others' position.

[Linuss]

I live in Arizona and I took a wait and see attitude about the law. For me, it was about how it was to be interpreted and applied. The past month or so has shown me that it is a bad law.

I just had to comment on this fallacy of a post--

The law isn't even in effect yet, so there is no way in hell the past month has shown you the law is a bad one if you truly are taking the "wait and see" stance.

I thought that if the cops had probable cause to arrest someone for violent crime, or robbery, and they checked for valid US residency, and the individual was an illegal, we could ship them across the border, saving ourselves the time expense and trouble of a trial.

What happened? A disgruntled employee turns a company in for hiring undocumented individuals. Law abiding, hard working folks are deported for not having the proper documents, even when one of them was brought to this country by his parents and had lived in the US since he was 7 years old. That is wrong. It is a bad law, improperly written and abused by publicity seeking pols with racist attitudes and self serving agendas.

How the heck are they "law abiding folks" if they broke the law getting in the country in the first place? Do you have a link to prove this story, or is it as anecdotal and false as it seems?

[Just Plain Ruff]

Dwayne, did you read my last post?

You continue to insult me calling me a crybaby yet you have not responded to my last post.

I have yet to insult you in any post I've put on here.

I was, and I have said it before, I was responding to your lack of tact in responding to me.

I have NEVER NEVER NEVER asked anyone to treat me like a delicate flower and I'm offended that you feel like you need to do that to me here. That insults me if you ask but then again, you will probably call me a crybaby again.

I thought better of you than the attacks and insults.

I have reiterated and I will again, the statistics that I read from the highway patrol web site did not include the racial make up of the community, only by delving deeper on the site which actually believe it or not was the Attorney Generals Site but it had been linked via that Highway Patrol site. I also thought that the statistics I posted did give some illumination to the discussion at hand but unfortunately I apparantly did not meet the Dwayne Test so what I posted was automatically wrong.

I have gone back to the highway patrol's website and delved deeper and provided the pdf file that the report was based on and here is what I found.

I am only going by Raymore's information and I refuse to go and get the KC MO info because this exercise is only focusing on Raymore. If you want info on KC MO then you can go get it yourself but here is what I found.

5279 total stops

4600 white people stopped

520 blacks stopped

Population is 90 percent white and 8 percent black.

The percentage of blacks being stopped is just above 9% while Whites stopped is just around 89%

So do I believe that racial profiling occurs in Raymore. No I don't. My contention is that the percentage of blacks stopped corresponds directly to the population as a whole. 8% of all stops were for black people. 8 percent or so of the population in Raymore is black. That doesn't seem like a overly large percentage of blacks being stopped. Am I wrong, are they profiling, maybe , who knows. Do they stop every black person going through raymore, I would think not.

I hope I'm meeting the Dwayne Standard.

I decided to go back an look at KC Mo also.

Kansas city total stops 157000 or so

Blacks stopped 57000 or so

Whites stopped 86000 or so

Percentage in population

Whites 61%

Blacks 27%

the stop rate for blacks is around 34% or so(I don't do math much)

The stop rate for whites is about 60% or so.

Does racial profiling happen in KC MO sure it probably does, but the figures do not bear out that blacks are being stopped in KC MO at a higher rate even with their population being less than the whites.

If racial profiling was such a huge problem in KC MO wouldn't the percentage of stops be higher than around 34 percent?

I hope that these figures which I believe meet your criteria that you laid out to me on your post.

I have also included here the pdf file that I took the above information from.

[Kaisu]

I just had to comment on this fallacy of a post--

How the heck are they "law abiding folks" if they broke the law getting in the country in the first place? Do you have a link to prove this story, or is it as anecdotal and false as it seems?

See the links

mean spirited

a little less biased

and more

Kinda ballsy of you to be a newcomer to this board and accuse someone of posting something anecdotal and false without knowing what you are talking about. The law will give this office even more power.

Edited June 13, 2010 by CrapMagnet

[Linuss]

See the links

mean spirited

a little less biased

and more

Kinda ballsy of you to be a newcomer to this board and accuse someone of posting something anecdotal and false without knowing what you are talking about. The law will give this office even more power.

8 months is new? Since when? Just because I don't post doesn't mean I'm new.

But you were still wrong, either in your original wording, or your thought process.

Your news story is still irrelevant--- they were still illegals, were they not? And as such, broke a law, and as such, were caught and punished. I fail to see how that makes a law, that isn't even in effect yet, a bad law, like you so boldly claimed.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Linuss

[HERBIE1]

I will side with Linuss on one thing here: These folks are NOT, and never have been, law abiding citizens. They broke the law to get here. PERIOD. From that point forward, every day they stay in the country illegally, they continue to break the law- regardless of what they do the rest of their lives. Getting away with something for a long time does not mean you should get a pass. Is there a statute of limitations on this?

The whole issue gets sidetracked when people say- they're just here to make a living, support their family, build a better life, etc. That's fine, but does the end justify the means? Does that mean we can all ignore any laws we don't like- as long as we have good intentions?

And the whole issue of blaming companies for hiring illegals- well of course they should be punished, BUT- they are also not the "cause" of the illegal immigration problem. That's like a rapist blaming his victim because she dressed too provocatively, or a burglar blaming a homeowner because their home was too easy to break into.

This is Mexico's problem to fix. It's their economy that's in the toilet, the corruption in their government makes us look like rookies, other than tourism, they have nothing to offer of their own, and they have a huge drug cartel problem. How does that become a United States problem to solve? If we are supposed to solve another nation's problems, then let's simply annex the country and be done with it.

[Kaisu]

You know, with our economy in the doldrums, the only way GNP is going to grow is with the addition of more people. Each one of those families needs a place to live, clothes to wear, transportation, etc. etc. etc. The economy is not 0 sum, where if someone takes a job it leaves 1 less for someone else. This person is contributing.

The fact of the matter is, if I was living in Mexico watching my kids starve, then damn right, I would do everything in my power to make a better life for them. The fact that I would be here illegally makes me vulnerable to all kinds of exploitation and makes it that much harder to establish myself and my family.

Raiding work places and deporting people that are working makes no sense at all. The ability to stop these people and demand documentation increases the stupidity a thousand fold.

PS.. and accusing me of falsifying or posting an anecdote when that clearly was not the case doesn't exactly make you right. What effort did you make to be here legally, allowing you to point your finger at these immigrants and get on your high horse? Oh right... you were born here. Good for you for being so smart and picking the US to come into the world. As far as it being Mexico's problem... you have a country of wealth, where illusions not withstanding, is not this way because we work harder or are smarter or in any other way superior, surrounded by poverty. Sooner or later, the economic injustices will cause problems. The vast majority of the drug violence that is costing the lives of hundreds of Mexicans a month is because WE WANT TO BUY DRUGS.

Like it or not, we have a responsibility to treat other human beings as we would like to be treated.

edited to add PS

Edited June 13, 2010 by CrapMagnet