What is so bad about profiling?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 29, 2006
15,922
4,493
136
The other thing to realize is that it isn't something that would happen once, it would happen everyday. Would you want the police stopping you everyday to ensure you were a US citizen? It would get on on your nerves very quickly. To subject a part of the population to that harassment is unjust. The way the law is written now, you have to at least commit another crime/infraction before drawing the attention of the police.

I dont think profiling just comes from skin color. it comes from many factors. Being in a certain place, wearing certain clothes etc.

To me if you walk like a duck and talk like a duck, most likely you are a duck.

If you dont want to be profiled asa drug dealing thug in the ghetto then stop looking like one and hanging out where known drug dealers hang out etc. Basically dont fit the profile if it bothers you that you are profiled.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,187
4,853
126
You cannot tell someone is illegal without checking. Its not like the are wearing a sign around there neck saying "look at me im illegal".

Bolded 2: But at the same time they are illegal more often then other nationalities. Just gotta go with the odds.
Ok, let me see if I understand your arguement. I edited it down to the key points.

1) You cannot tell if someone is illegal by profiling.
2) Thus we should profile.

Did I understand your point correctly?

As for bolded #2, you fall into the trap of forgetting to profile those who look the same. It is too easy to keep looking at hispanics and forgetting to look at the neo-nazi next to him. It is the 0.1% that we are after (the ~0.1% who commit horrible crimes), we really aren't after the 50% (who may be illegal hispanics in a given area). The odds will mislead.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Ok, let me see if I understand your argument. I edited it down to the key points.

1) You cannot tell if someone is illegal by profiling.
2) Thus we should profile.

Did I understand your point correctly?

LOL, A+ post. :D
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,922
4,493
136
Ok, let me see if I understand your arguement. I edited it down to the key points.

1) You cannot tell if someone is illegal by profiling.
2) Thus we should profile.

Did I understand your point correctly?

As for bolded #2, you fall into the trap of forgetting to profile those who look the same. It is too easy to keep looking at hispanics and forgetting to look at the neo-nazi next to him. It is the 0.1% that we are after (the ~0.1% who commit horrible crimes), we really aren't after the 50% (who may be illegal hispanics in a given area). The odds will mislead.

No apparently you didnt understand me correctly ya big dullard :p

You said "Similarly, it is better to check the illegals than all hispanic people."

How do you propose we check for these illegals? As i said its not like they are wearing signs around there neck. So you admit its a problem but how do you find these illegals?

Is it my fault the majority of illegals are hispanic? Is it there fault?
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
The profiling argument is a red herring. It's the one argument progressives know they can make in regards to illegal aliens that has a chance of sticking. If progressives ruled the country to the degree they wish, our borders would be completely open, with manned centers every few miles, with sign-up sheets and hand-outs (in the appropriate language of course) for anyone that wished to enter the country for Medicare, Medicaid, SS, ADC and all other social programs available here in the U.S.

Anyone could come in that wanted to and anyone could leave, regardless of what they were carrying in or carrying out. People from countries that wish to kill us all because we're not Muslims, people seeking free benefits, people looking to commit crimes and leave, whatever, it wouldn't make a difference, in they'd come and out they'd go.

They want it so damned bad that they'll throw the one thing in your face that they know has a chance for them to get their way. That being the evils of profiling!

Our very own government, during this administration of our dear leader, Mr. Obama, decided that profiling was a more effective means of determining who wants to blow up airplanes than the across the board screening they were doing. It was a long time coming and I applaud them for coming to their senses and being grownup enough to both implement it and be public about it. It's good enough for air travel, but it's a crime against humanity to do it in this regard. Riiight.

Don't bother arguing with progressives about profiling. It's an Alinsky tactic that should just be ignored - always. Alinsky also taught these same people that ridicule was a potent weapon. Turn it back against them. Laugh at these tactics or at the very least ignore them.

There is a reason that our current administration and many others before it choose to deal with this situation in the manner that they do. Illegals from Mexico send so much money back to family members at home that it is the second highest source of revenue for Mexico. Our American dollars. The only thing that exceeds it is revenue from oil sales. If illegals from Mexico in this country were dealt with in a clear and consistent manner, deporting them in conjunction with truly securing our borders, the Mexican economy would collapse.

I bring up the OTM list here fairly regularly. Nobody wants to talk about that. OTM stands for 'Other than Mexicans'. It contains only those that are actually caught from nations other than Mexico. Only those that are actually caught, hmm, 12 to 13 million illegals, why, there could be an absolute shitload of these people. The list has people from Yemen, Afghanistan, Sudan, etc. It's a who's who of every nation on the planet that wants to do our people harm and see our way of life and our nation destroyed.

We must secure our borders to minimize this threat. It cannot be ignored. We all know amnesty is in the cards for illegals. But we must deport those that are criminals. But our borders must first be secured.

If progressives had their way, the only illegals that would be deported would be those that voluntarily turned themselves in to the authorities. Correct that, they would only potentially be deported. Progressives hate authorities! They'd get rid of them too. There would be nobody for them to turn themselves in to.

Don't fall for this shit. Don't fall for these tactics.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
I think in any rational discussion of "profiling" we need to make a distinction between the simplistic/unrefined (and generally ineffective) type of profiling where we look at a single characteristic such as skin color vs the more sophisticated type of profiling.

For example stopping someone merely because of their skin color or ethnic appearence is very ineffective. A good chunk of the legal population here has brown skin color etc.

However, IMO, that does not mean it shouldn't be considered as one of many factors. But too often when the term 'profiling' is mentioned people automatically assume it is the simple type.

Fern

I agree with this, but would add one point. You might have ethnicity as one factor of several in a sophisticated profile, but you'll run into trouble if any one factor is a necessary component, particularly with terrorism. Profiles need to be flexible of they'll get beaten.

- wolf
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
I agree with this, but would add one point. You might have ethnicity as one factor of several in a sophisticated profile, but you'll run into trouble if any one factor is a necessary component, particularly with terrorism. Profiles need to be flexible of they'll get beaten.

- wolf

I don't disagree.

If any one component was necessary and became known the profiling process would be easily subverted.

E.g., if airport profiling required Arab ethnicity terrorists organization would recruit from non-Arab Africa or the Phillipines etc. We even have WASP looking types that have been radicalized.

Fern
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Step 1: Look at statistics to build profile.
Step 2: Target people that match profile.
Step 3: Conclude that it worked because either a) more people were caught due to profiling b) less people were caught because of deterrence due to profiling, therefore public safety has been assured.
Step 4: Rinse and repeat.

Bolded step is the critical step.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
The profiling argument is a red herring. It's the one argument progressives know they can make in regards to illegal aliens that has a chance of sticking. If progressives ruled the country to the degree they wish, our borders would be completely open, with manned centers every few miles, with sign-up sheets and hand-outs (in the appropriate language of course) for anyone that wished to enter the country for Medicare, Medicaid, SS, ADC and all other social programs available here in the U.S...
Very impressive! Most "Conservatives" content themselves with constructing Liberal Straw Men; you, sir, have constructed a veritable Progressive Wicker Man!
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
What's that have to do with their race?

As this relates to Arizona, my understanding is they need a valid reason to stop you. If they stop you and you can't speak English or speak very poor English then you should expect to have your status checked, irregardless of what race you are.

English motherfuckers, learn it and speak it.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
meh profiling doesn't really bother me, i was once profiled as a terrorist and I'm a white male simply for having a beard and wearing a beanie. kind of douchey to ask me if i was responsible for 9/11 and i should of got his badge number and reported him for it, but i have no problem with him running my id to see if i'm anything out of the ordinary.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Everyone profiles depending on what they're doing, cops sure as sh*t do. It's just become distasteful to do it for race, even though it's a very key and highly correlation marker of behavior. Simpletons will say "But, look, I found an exception, so you're totally wrong." Which is why nobody uses it for everything with 100% certainty; it's just an important factor, like dress or age.

Due to the inability (probably due to lack of will) to control it being effectively used it is just thrown out the door, so the Middle Eastern looking guy with the shifty eyes and nervous sweat is no more likely to get the randomized bomb sniff as the 18 year old cheerleader texting away on her ipad.

The closest the gov says is they profile countries. And of course those countries are primarily made up of people who are middle eastern in appearance, but OH NO, we're not profiling folks!
 
Last edited:

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
soulcougher73

Yeah, harassment of blacks being "out of place" in a white neighborhood worked out so well.

If you are not a drug user and not local to a neighborhood, how the hell would you know where drug dealers hang out?

As far as looking like a drug dealer, please describe what drug dealers look like. Are they all one race? Required to wear uniforms? Do they walk a certain way?

You could probably make a case for pattern recognition to spot drug dealers, but racial profiling is worthless. "Just being there" is a proven bad idea.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
As this relates to Arizona, my understanding is they need a valid reason to stop you. If they stop you and you can't speak English or speak very poor English then you should expect to have your status checked, irregardless of what race you are.

English motherfuckers, learn it and speak it.

English isn't a requirement in the US, it is not the official language. If you are stopped driving a car, you are required to have a valid driver's license anyway. This law does nothing about that.

On the other hand, if you are walking down a street you are not required to carry any ID. If you get stopped you are required to give your name if asked, but you do not have to provide proof.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
English isn't a requirement in the US, it is not the official language. If you are stopped driving a car, you are required to have a valid driver's license anyway. This law does nothing about that.

On the other hand, if you are walking down a street you are not required to carry any ID. If you get stopped you are required to give your name if asked, but you do not have to provide proof.

No, it isn't the official language, but chances are high that someone that lives here knows enough to converse, and if they are recently here, should have a resident alien card, or some other documents. I'd say that not speaking English, and having no documents is a good indication that someone is here illegally, at least worth a look.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
No, it isn't the official language, but chances are high that someone that lives here knows enough to converse, and if they are recently here, should have a resident alien card, or some other documents. I'd say that not speaking English, and having no documents is a good indication that someone is here illegally, at least worth a look.

But you don't know that someone has documents or not until you look. You are using circular logic.

You are not required to speak english, so that cannot be a reason to profile someone legally or ethically. You are also not required to have documents on your person unless you are operating a vehicle.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
You are also not required to have documents on your person unless you are operating a vehicle.

If you aren't a citizen you do. Arizona's law prohibits profiling, so in the course of whatever legal stop they would make the determination if further investigation into status is required.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
If you aren't a citizen you do. Arizona's law prohibits profiling, so in the course of whatever legal stop they would make the determination if further investigation into status is required.

You need to provide proof of alien status for work or living arrangements, not for walking streets or being a passenger in a car.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
You need to provide proof of alien status for work or living arrangements, not for walking streets or being a passenger in a car.

Wrong.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/us...nnel=f1903a4107083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD

A green card is issued to all permanent residents as proof that they are authorized to live and work in the United States. If you are a permanent resident age 18 or older, you are required to have a valid green card in your possession at all times. Current green cards are valid for 10 years, or 2 years in the case of a conditional resident, and must be renewed before the card expires.

This jives with what my wife was told when she got her's.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
I was reading the AZ Immigration thread and as always profiling comes up as an issue. But what really is the issue with profiling?

I just see it as identifying a pattern and reacting to it. That pattern can change and you need to be able to see it.

My guess is its mostly PC BS because some people get butt hurt about being labeled by the patterns people see. What if instead of being butt hurt about it you attempted to change the pattern for the better to avoid being profiled in such a way?

I remember some comedian saying right after 9/11 abotu profiling terrorists. It was something along the lines of "What if all the 9/11 terrorists/hi-jackers were all 25-30 something white balding male midgets. Would you not stop every midget that boarded a plane that fit that discription?" Would seem silly not to in my book.

Just curious what P&N'ers actually think about profling. Obviously its wrong in the US currently, but do you agree with it?

Lets not turn this into a flamefest. Id like logical reason for or against it in your own opinions.

At first they came for the brown people and i did not stand up....
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
Last edited:

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
English isn't a requirement in the US, it is not the official language. If you are stopped driving a car, you are required to have a valid driver's license anyway. This law does nothing about that.

On the other hand, if you are walking down a street you are not required to carry any ID. If you get stopped you are required to give your name if asked, but you do not have to provide proof.

So you're arguing that you can't "profile" based on language? LMAO!! If your in this country and can't speak English then the chances you are here illegally skyrocket IMO.

I also think that English should be made the official language and that ballots should be printed in English only. Why in the world would anybody want to live somplace where they can't speak the language is beyond my comprehension??
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Fair enough, but since citizens aren't required to carry ID you have no right to ask someone for proof of citizenship. If an illegal says "yes I am a citizen", then you are at a dead end since they wouldn't have to provide proof of that fact.

Which is why AZ passed the law. Now cops can make you prove your here legally.


Hip, hip, horray for AZ, I hope all the states pass similar laws and start forcing the goverment follow it's own laws.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
The "thing that's wrong with profiling" is a small section of the 14th Amendment called the equal protection clause:

no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Singling out people who "match the [racial] profile" for intrusive examination by law enforcement is not "equal protection," since those who don't match the [racial] profile are treated benignly.

I'm sure you've heard of "equal protection." Conservatives were ardent proponents of equal protection when Bush appealed to the Supreme Court to stop the Florida re-count.