2020 Election
Quote: petroglyphhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century
" The Walk Free Foundation reported in 2018 that slavery in advanced democratic nations is much more common than previously known, in particular the United States and Great Britain, which have 403,000 and 136,000 slaves respectively. Andrew Forrest, founder of the organization, said that "The United States is one of the most advanced countries in the world yet has more than 400,000 modern slaves working under forced labor conditions."[80]"
If you've ever noticed those stories where parents lock their kids away for years, our privacy laws are such that your neighbor can keep someone hidden on their property for years. If you haven't been in all your neighbor's houses, you don't really know what's going on within a 1/4 mile of your home, much less the rest of the US and out in the boonies.
Winning strategy for Trump, at this point, with a long time to go Dems are handing Trump re-election.
Quote: BozCrazy Bernie defends Omar over 9-11 comments and calls him a racist, while Trump presses forward Tweeting a video showing how flippant her comments were.
Winning strategy for Trump, at this point, with a long time to go Dems are handing Trump re-election.
I agree with the part where the only way Trump wins is if Democrats hand it to him.
Quote: SanchoPanzaMaybe a day-old straight report by no less than the CBS station in the state capital would satisfy the laughingly predictable doubts:
"Assembly Democrats blasted for failing to move bill that would benefit Gold Star families
by Anne McCloyThursday, April 11th 2019
goldstarbill.PNG
A state lawmaker is fighting to revive a bill that was shot down in an assembly committee, and now Governor Cuomo is also jumping on board to help save it.
The bill would have waived SUNY and CUNY tuition for children in Gold Star families, students whose mom or dad died serving our country.
The bill failed as college funding for the children of undocumented immigrants just passed in the state budget.--CBS
Ok, its stupid.
Of course I am distrustful of Breibart. Its extreme right wing that borders on propaganda.
Trusting Breibart would be like watching a short video clip at the Lincoln Memorial and trusting that that's all you need to make a decision. :-)
What do you think of Trump sending illegals to our cities
Stupid idea. Really stupid. Agree? Or are you now against deportations. lol
Quote: ams288That being said, I’m sure “there’s more to the story” .....
There is more to the story. Politics.
The bill that would have provided only hundreds of thousands of dollars in free college tuition to the children of New York State military personnel who died while performing official military duties was written by a Republican. That is the only reason it was blocked by the dems in the Assembly.
“America was never that great” Cuomo, could have gotten the bill passed if he wanted.
The bill to provide $27 million in college tuition aid to the children of illegal immigrants is New York’s own Dream Act, which was approved in January.
Not when it shows so blatantly Pelosi's and others unmitigated hypocrisy. Can't wait to see what she does when they arrive in Pacific Heights and what Ocasio-Cortez's reaction to Pelosi is. Gee, there goes another big bag of popcorn.Quote: terapinedWhat do you think of Trump sending illegals to our cities
Stupid idea. Really stupid. Agree? Or are you now against deportations. lol
Under what law?Quote: rxwineThe jokes on Trump. He was advised he can't legally send them to sanctuary cities. But it might be good for impeachment if he tries.
Quote: SanchoPanzaUnder what law?
The 1939 Hatch act. Trump’s comments and Twitter posts show the rationale behind the proposal is political. The federal employees he uses to carry out it could be prosecuted.
Quote: rxwineThe 1939 Hatch act. Trump’s comments and Twitter posts show the rationale behind the proposal is political. The federal employees he uses to carry out it could be prosecuted.
This one?
Quote: Wikipedia:Hatch_Act_Of_1939
The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision prohibits employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, vice-president, and certain designated high-level officials,[1] from engaging in some forms of political activity.
To be fair I didn’t read through all the provisions and stuff (I read through some of them). Those things read wonkily.
Quote: rxwineHe was advised he can't legally send them to sanctuary cities.
No need to threaten sending them to sanctuary cities. They’re headed there anyway. That’s where the money is.
Here in NYC, Chinese illegals are so abundant, the city widened the sidewalks in some areas of Flushing to accommodate the increased pedestrian traffic.
If they don’t already outnumber the Black population here, they will shortly.
Many of them owe money to the traffickers, and they send billions back to China to pay them. Western Union and Wells Fargo do a brisk business in these neighborhoods.
Some of the women resort to prostitution to pay the traffickers. That Chinese massage parlor where Kraft was arrested, is tied to one in Flushing.
Migrants in the US send $500 billion annually to their families and traffickers in the home country. That’s $1 trillion every two years bled from our GDP, and slowing our growth.
Trump could stop this in a second with an executive order, but he won’t.
Quote: rxwineThe jokes on Trump. He was advised he can't legally send them to sanctuary cities. But it might be good for impeachment if he tries.
Don't see why not.
And why would it trigger impeachment? Obama dumped refugees wherever he pleased.
Trump is playing it perfect. Mayor of Oakland alerted illegal aliens of ICE raids. Now all of the sudden she does not want illegal aliens sent to her city! Other mayors are the same way. They have the chance to put up, take the illegals in. They do the opposite.
Liberals just showing who and what they are.
Quote: TankoTrump could stop this in a second with an executive order, but he won’t.
Any Executive Order he signs is met with an immediate legal challenge in a court likely to provide at least a temporary injunction preventing the order form being implemented.
What are the legal obstacles to such an order, if any?
Why couldn't Congress pass a bill doing the same thing as the Executive Order could do? Would that hold up better to any challenges?
What foreign relations issues would such an order or law cause?
One second we seem to against governing by EO; then suddenly an EO can fix the problem.
I prefer Congress working...what is the old saying:
"Doing nothing is hard; you never know when you're done"
I don't know who is at fault, but Congress has gone from not getting a lot done (kind of the way it is supposed to be; if they did too much we'd have a zillion more laws) to not getting anything done.
Quote: RSWhy don’t sanctuary cities want illegals anymore?
I think we should distribute those seeking asylum across the country by percentages of illegal immigrants already residing in the area--the areas with the lowest number get them until the numbers are more equal.
Quote: RSWhy don’t sanctuary cities want illegals anymore?
Beats me. If we are going to do catch-and-release then they should be released in sanctuary cities first. Makes sense so they do not have to be picked up again.
Note: I am not telling Democrats or Liberals how they should run their campaign. I just find it hilarious that failed candidates from either party can easily blame others for the failure while ignoring what they did to assist in their failure.
Oh, you mean the law that so many in the Obama administration violated with wild abandon without facing the consequences:Quote: rxwineThe 1939 Hatch act. Trump’s comments and Twitter posts show the rationale behind the proposal is political. The federal employees he uses to carry out it could be prosecuted.
“All civilian employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president and the vice president, are covered by the provisions of the Hatch Act.
These employees may not:
use official authority or influence to interfere with an election
solicit or discourage political activity of anyone with business before their agency
solicit or receive political contributions (may be done in certain limited situations by federal labor or other employee organizations)
be candidates for public office in partisan elections
engage in political activity while:
on duty
in a government office
wearing an official uniform
using a government vehicle
wear partisan political buttons on duty--
Source
Maybe they think that they have filled their ethnic quota.Quote: RSWhy don’t sanctuary cities want illegals anymore?
Quote: SanchoPanzaOh, you mean the law that so many in the Obama administration violated with wild abandon without facing the consequences:
“All civilian employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president and the vice president, are covered by the provisions of the Hatch Act.
These employees may not:
use official authority or influence to interfere with an election
solicit or discourage political activity of anyone with business before their agency
solicit or receive political contributions (may be done in certain limited situations by federal labor or other employee organizations)
be candidates for public office in partisan elections
engage in political activity while:
on duty
in a government office
wearing an official uniform
using a government vehicle
wear partisan political buttons on duty--
Source
I'm going to just start pointing to terapined. You want to investigate someone, go ahead. Obama, Clinton, Carter. They're not the current President, and Trump is, but whatever. Feel free to be stupid.
"Stupid," as you put it is discounting the Attorney General's reviewing the most significant political use of the country's 17 intelligence agencies in history. More "stupid" is sending out scores of demands for basically the same questions from which three massive investigations could not find a scintilla of evidence.Quote: rxwineQuote: SanchoPanzaOh, you mean the law that so many in the Obama administration violated with wild abandon without facing the consequences:
“All civilian employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president and the vice president, are covered by the provisions of the Hatch Act.
These employees may not:
use official authority or influence to interfere with an election
solicit or discourage political activity of anyone with business before their agency
solicit or receive political contributions (may be done in certain limited situations by federal labor or other employee organizations)
be candidates for public office in partisan elections
engage in political activity while:
on duty
in a government office
wearing an official uniform
using a government vehicle
wear partisan political buttons on duty--
Source
I'm going to just start pointing to terapined. You want to investigate someone, go ahead. Obama, Clinton, Carter. They're not the current President, and Trump is, but whatever. Feel free to be stupid.
Quote: RSThis one?
Quote: Wikipedia:Hatch_Act_Of_1939
The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision prohibits employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, vice-president, and certain designated high-level officials,[1] from engaging in some forms of political activity.
To be fair I didn’t read through all the provisions and stuff (I read through some of them). Those things read wonkily.
The Hatch Act (which constrained me for 23 years) is a minefield of ugliness, made even more of a booby-trapped maze by recent changes to other laws (like the Citizens United decision). The only way to not go afoul of it as a fed was to ONLY do things that are COMPLETELY non-partisan.
Not worth getting into any details, really. Because the details are under constant revision and subjective interpretation.
Quote: RonCI think we should distribute those seeking asylum across the country by percentages of illegal immigrants already residing in the area--the areas with the lowest number get them until the numbers are more equal.
That's a really interesting idea.
But if the introduction of immigrants to America is meant to enrich America, it seems like the best method of doing this has traditionally been for people to join communities and sub-groups within cities or states who immigrated previous to the new ones, but from the same point of origin.
The more-established immigrants act as a "halfway house" for new inbounds, offering language and cultural support on everything from food sources to job pipelines to financial support. Not exactly chain migration, though that happens within this process.
So, instead of just going it alone, there are resources that allows them to transition, assimilate, and thrive.
Sure, there are drawbacks, but it's not an instantaneous approach: it's meant to work over generations.
100 years ago, there were large communities of Irish and Polish who had built reception neighborhoods for decades. There was a lot of backlash towards them, too. Jewish communities are in transition. Chinese have been coming in for 200 years, about, and continue to live this way, clustering into "Chinatowns" in nearly every large US city.
So, people immigrating for the RIGHT reasons, looking for success as defined here, have been much better off finding that support network. If we are going to take them in (under US law, however it pertains re: immigration, asylum, deportation, as pertinent to each case) anyway, it would be better to bring them into those communities than to just scatter them for demographic reasons. We WANT them to prosper, make money, pay taxes, and otherwise contribute, not be dependent on our taxes and charities without end, right?
Quote: beachbumbabsSo, people immigrating for the RIGHT reasons, looking for success as defined here, have been much better off finding that support network. If we are going to take them in (under US law, however it pertains re: immigration, asylum, deportation, as pertinent to each case) anyway, it would be better to bring them into those communities than to just scatter them for demographic reasons. We WANT them to prosper, make money, pay taxes, and otherwise contribute, not be dependent on our taxes and charities without end, right?
First, coming in for the "right reason" needs to start with coming in the right way.
Since we can't seem to figure out how to do that through a few different Presidents now, I think we should distribute them equally so everyone reaps the benefits or pays the price. Whichever it is; or some combination of both. I can understand placing them in areas in each state where a population of similar immigrants exist, and might even support that idea, but could that be considered racist in some way?
The ones that come in legally can go wherever they want. We already have to move the illegals we capture and release somewhere....why not let everyone help with the problem of illegal immigration?
Quote: RonCFirst, coming in for the "right reason" needs to start with coming in the right way.
The President and others are complaining mainly about people showing up and applying for asylum. That is the right way.
When 80 too 90 percent of the applicants fail to be granted asylum, it is difficult, if not impossible, to call that "the right way."Quote: rxwineThe President and others are complaining mainly about people showing up and applying for asylum. That is the right way.
Quote: SanchoPanzaWhen 80 too 90 percent of the applicants fail to be granted asylum, it is difficult, if not impossible, to call that "the right way."
As we all know Trumpers would all do it the right way were they in the same position as many of the migrants.
As evenbob likes to add sometimes, (snicker!)
Quote: rxwineAs we all know Trumpers would all do it the right way were they in the same position as many of the migrants.
As evenbob likes to add sometimes, (snicker!)
You are on a roll today. What’s wrong? See a Trump re-election in our future and realize you have almost 6 more years of being angry?
Quote: rxwineThe President and others are complaining mainly about people showing up and applying for asylum. That is the right way.
Fantastic. They come in the "right way" by APPLYING for asylum. All within our current laws. There, you got me! Darn!
Wait. Now they don't bother to show up for their court date. There are other scenarios, of course. Perhaps they are on a student visa and drop out of school. Maybe a tourist visa and, whoops, they forgot to leave.
Many will show up for their court dates. We can get the court dates scheduled faster with more judges.
Quote: rxwineThe President and others are complaining mainly about people showing up and applying for asylum. That is the right way.
Only for Mexicans. OTMs need to be applying for asylum in Mexico, or the first country they come to.
Quote: BozYou are on a roll today. What’s wrong? See a Trump re-election in our future and realize you have almost 6 more years of being angry?
I am the chainsaw massacre in the house of Trump. When I get down with this sorry election, I'll worry about the next one. (that first sentence is metaphorically speaking Secret Service)
Quote: Dalex64What is this law that states that you must apply for asylum in the first country you enter after leaving your own?
If they have a serious concern they should be applying as soon as they get over their border.
The reality is this whole "asylum" thing is a bunch of Barbara Streisand. Just a made up word of the minute to pretend they are not just jumping the border to get all the welfare and other goodies they can. Not fooling those of us who know better. Like all these caravans are just happening now. That Mexico is just letting them thru for no reason.
Just a way to avoid being called an illegal alien.
Quote: rxwineThe President and others are complaining mainly about people showing up and applying for asylum. That is the right way.
But when some are denied asylum because they are not actually looking for asylum, but rather, looking for a better socio-economic condition for themselves and their families, what happens then? These Guatamalans now in Mexico on the border of the USA? You think they just hitch a ride back home? As long as our government is spending a trillion dollars a year more than we collect, I am against allowing people in who will further stress our social safety nets, which cost us money.
A true asylum seeker, one who can show they were being persecuted for being a political rival of a government, or persecuted because of their religion, or something like that... make an exception. But "I can make $8 an hour in the USA but only $4 an hour here in Mexico so I need asylum"..... NO!
Quote: RonCFirst, coming in for the "right reason" needs to start with coming in the right way.
Since we can't seem to figure out how to do that through a few different Presidents now, I think we should distribute them equally so everyone reaps the benefits or pays the price. Whichever it is; or some combination of both. I can understand placing them in areas in each state where a population of similar immigrants exist, and might even support that idea, but could that be considered racist in some way?
The ones that come in legally can go wherever they want. We already have to move the illegals we capture and release somewhere....why not let everyone help with the problem of illegal immigration?
Agree with the right entry 100%. But that does include honoring and processing asylum claims, which under Trump is being subverted and denied, contrary to US law. Not sure if you disagree with that, but it is current law, so if anything, the law should be changed, not flouted or ignored, on the US's part.
I'm against forced anything as far as where they relocate. Once they're admitted, it should be up to them where they live, not demographically assigned either into like-communities or sparse populations. That's the point I was trying to make, that they have the best chance of succeeding with support historically, so it would be counterproductive to OUR interests to deny them access.
If they WANT to go it alone, sure, and we might even incentivize.that choice somehow if it's desirable, but forcing them there leaves a greater chance of failure and subsequent dependence on public resources.
Quote: beachbumbabs
I'm against forced anything as far as where they relocate
Greyhound used to run a bus anywhere in the U.S for $99. Not sure what they run now.
They will likely go where a family member already is if one is here, so shipping them to a sanctuary city may just be added expense for nothing.
Quote: SOOPOOBut when some are denied asylum because they are not actually looking for asylum, but rather, looking for a better socio-economic condition for themselves and their families, what happens then? These Guatamalans now in Mexico on the border of the USA? You think they just hitch a ride back home? As long as our government is spending a trillion dollars a year more than we collect, I am against allowing people in who will further stress our social safety nets, which cost us money.
A true asylum seeker, one who can show they were being persecuted for being a political rival of a government, or persecuted because of their religion, or something like that... make an exception. But "I can make $8 an hour in the USA but only $4 an hour here in Mexico so I need asylum"..... NO!
Is what is killing you, is when an illegal shows up, there is a job available that no one is doing, so the illegal takes it. It's quite a heinous crime.
If you really want to capture illegals be prepared to give up some of your privacy concerns. Police have to stop and search white people. They might be illegals from some European country. This is the land of equal treatment under the law.
Quote: rxwineIs what is killing you, is when an illegal shows up, there is a job available that no one is doing, so the illegal takes it. It's quite a heinous crime.
If you really want to capture illegals be prepared to give up some of your privacy concerns. Police have to stop and search white people. They might be illegals from some European country. This is the land of equal treatment under the law.
Why would they have to stop white people? You profile who looks illegal, not stop at random. Profiling is good police work.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy would they have to stop white people? You profile who looks illegal, not stop at random. Profiling is good police work.
Looking Hispanic is not a reason to ever stop anyone for anything by itself. Unless you're a fascist.
Quote: rxwineLooking Hispanic is not a reason to ever stop anyone for anything by itself. Unless you're a fascist.
Only an idiot would profile based on one thing. But you add in age, add in if they are not speaking English, add in if they are in an area of high illegal alien concentration. Do they look transient? All kinds of things. How are they behaving?
That is how you profile. It is good police work.
I think you need to learn the definition of "fascism." I don't think it means what you think it means.
Quote: rxwineIs what is killing you, is when an illegal shows up, there is a job available that no one is doing, so the illegal takes it. It's quite a heinous crime.
If you really want to capture illegals be prepared to give up some of your privacy concerns. Police have to stop and search white people. They might be illegals from some European country. This is the land of equal treatment under the law.
I have an issue why there is a job available no one is doing. Because we have created a system that allows some to sit on their asses at home and make more than actually working. Or they are working a cash job and collecting benefits, laughing at you and I working for a living and paying taxes. Illegals only add to that issue as the jobs get filled. When we create a "Workfare" system for healthy able bodied individuals instead of a welfare system and there is still jobs, then we need more legal immigration. Until that point there are plenty of legal Americans F'ing all of us because we allowed it.
The reality is being "poor" is mostly a choice for Americans and illegals are only allowing it to continue. Life choices baby, life choices.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy would they have to stop white people? You profile who looks illegal, not stop at random. Profiling is good police work.
Profiling by race is horrible police work. Example: If non-black or -Hispanic murderers in 2013 got a pass, they would have missed more than 1/3 of offenders.
Black or African Americans 4,379 = 51.3%
White Americans (non-Hispanic Americans) 2,861 = 33.5%
Hispanic Americans 1,096 = 12.8%
American Indians or Alaska Natives 98 = 1.14%
Asian Americans 101 = 1.18%
Source: wiki (their sources cited in the article).
But isn't that the bogeyman the fear-mongers are pushing? The brown killer illegally walking our streets. A false and bigoted concept. Sadly, alive and promoted to this day.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
Quote: BozI have an issue why there is a job available no one is doing. Because we have created a system that allows some to sit on their asses at home and make more than actually working. Or they are working a cash job and collecting benefits, laughing at you and I working for a living and paying taxes. Illegals only add to that issue as the jobs get filled. When we create a "Workfare" system for healthy able bodied individuals instead of a welfare system and there is still jobs, then we need more legal immigration. Until that point there are plenty of legal Americans F'ing all of us because we allowed it.
The reality is being "poor" is mostly a choice for Americans and illegals are only allowing it to continue. Life choices baby, life choices.
I see people do things confined to wheelchairs with only their mouth working. Even they can perform some useful activity if it's available to do.
I do have a problem with our current system of defining unemployable. Reality may be not enough has been done to supply alternative labor for the so-called unemployable.
Although I'm not for making people work where the body systems are overwhelmed like a serious flu, but there's also a big area for improvement in a lot of cases.
Can a street alcoholic do anything? We know he can somehow collect money to keep going. He can scrounge food. You can prove that they could do something if you can design something for them to do. Once you have that, you have little excuse to not implement it.
Quote: BozI have an issue why there is a job available no one is doing. Because we have created a system that allows some to sit on their asses at home and make more than actually working. Or they are working a cash job and collecting benefits, laughing at you and I working for a living and paying taxes. Illegals only add to that issue as the jobs get filled. When we create a "Workfare" system for healthy able bodied individuals instead of a welfare system and there is still jobs, then we need more legal immigration. Until that point there are plenty of legal Americans F'ing all of us because we allowed it.
The reality is being "poor" is mostly a choice for Americans and illegals are only allowing it to continue. Life choices baby, life choices.
They already have workfare
Its been in place for 20 years
You literally are arguing about stay at home welfare practices from the 1980's and '90s
EDIT: well I went to show you and looks like the workfare programs were cut back lol
At least in NYC
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2016/11/03/de-blasio-to-nix-workfare-program-by-end-of-the-year/amp/
Quote: beachbumbabsProfiling by race is horrible police work. Example: If non-black or -Hispanic murderers in 2013 got a pass, they would have missed more than 1/3 of offenders.
Black or African Americans 4,379 = 51.3%
White Americans (non-Hispanic Americans) 2,861 = 33.5%
Hispanic Americans 1,096 = 12.8%
American Indians or Alaska Natives 98 = 1.14%
Asian Americans 101 = 1.18%
Source: wiki (their sources cited in the article).
But isn't that the bogeyman the fear-mongers are pushing? The brown killer illegally walking our streets. A false and bigoted concept. Sadly, alive and promoted to this day.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
If blacks are committing half the total murders while only representing 13% of the population then profiling would seem to be more effective.
Quote: MaxPenQuote: beachbumbabsProfiling by race is horrible police work. Example: If non-black or -Hispanic murderers in 2013 got a pass, they would have missed more than 1/3 of offenders.
Black or African Americans 4,379 = 51.3%
White Americans (non-Hispanic Americans) 2,861 = 33.5%
Hispanic Americans 1,096 = 12.8%
American Indians or Alaska Natives 98 = 1.14%
Asian Americans 101 = 1.18%
Source: wiki (their sources cited in the article).
But isn't that the bogeyman the fear-mongers are pushing? The brown killer illegally walking our streets. A false and bigoted concept. Sadly, alive and promoted to this day.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
If blacks are committing half the total murders while only representing 13% of the population then profiling would seem to be more effective.
You're not wrong about the percentage of total population. But profiling isn't the answer. What about that other half you just ignored by profiling for black?
Quote: MaxPenQuote: beachbumbabsProfiling by race is horrible police work. Example: If non-black or -Hispanic murderers in 2013 got a pass, they would have missed more than 1/3 of offenders.
Black or African Americans 4,379 = 51.3%
White Americans (non-Hispanic Americans) 2,861 = 33.5%
Hispanic Americans 1,096 = 12.8%
American Indians or Alaska Natives 98 = 1.14%
Asian Americans 101 = 1.18%
Source: wiki (their sources cited in the article).
But isn't that the bogeyman the fear-mongers are pushing? The brown killer illegally walking our streets. A false and bigoted concept. Sadly, alive and promoted to this day.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
If blacks are committing half the total murders while only representing 13% of the population then profiling would seem to be more effective.
Actually that would still be unconstitutional.
There are plenty of effective means (wiretapping, searching without a warrant, torture etc, ) that are unusable in this country for good reason
Quote: rxwineIs what is killing you, is when an illegal shows up, there is a job available that no one is doing, so the illegal takes it. It's quite a heinous crime.
If you really want to capture illegals be prepared to give up some of your privacy concerns. Police have to stop and search white people. They might be illegals from some European country. This is the land of equal treatment under the law.
Not a heinous crime. But a crime nonetheless. I am prepared to show ID if that is necessary to prevent illegal aliens from remaining in the country illegally. Showed ID at the bank yesterday to cash a check. Showed ID to get into work. Showed ID to get married. Showed ID at supermarket to buy beer (even though I'm 58).
Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: MaxPenQuote: beachbumbabsProfiling by race is horrible police work. Example: If non-black or -Hispanic murderers in 2013 got a pass, they would have missed more than 1/3 of offenders.
Black or African Americans 4,379 = 51.3%
White Americans (non-Hispanic Americans) 2,861 = 33.5%
Hispanic Americans 1,096 = 12.8%
American Indians or Alaska Natives 98 = 1.14%
Asian Americans 101 = 1.18%
Source: wiki (their sources cited in the article).
But isn't that the bogeyman the fear-mongers are pushing? The brown killer illegally walking our streets. A false and bigoted concept. Sadly, alive and promoted to this day.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
If blacks are committing half the total murders while only representing 13% of the population then profiling would seem to be more effective.
You're not wrong about the percentage of total population. But profiling isn't the answer. What about that other half you just ignored by profiling for black?
Because you wouldn't ONLY look at blacks. With any crime, you look at the most likely suspects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1kJpHBn50
