This story is almost too dumb to believe.
The most common type of case federal prosecutors bring is against illegal immigrants who try to reenter the country after having been ousted — and almost all of those charged are Hispanic.
Now federal courts are grappling with whether that imbalance means the law itself is racist.
Most of our illegal immigrants are Hispanic. It’s therefore likely that most of the illegal immigrants who try to reenter the country are also Hispanic. That’s not racism, that’s just the way the numbers work.
Further, most illegal immigrants are Hispanic because most illegal immigration occurs at the southern border, which is the border of a very populous Hispanic country, and nearly all the countries to the south of which are populated mostly by Hispanics.
I have a very hard time trying to understand how these people think, unless I reduce it down to the most simplistic and absurd, e.g., “it doesn’t affect everyone equally, therefore it’s racist.”
What’s currently happening isn’t racism and it’s indeed dumb to label it as such. Yet, given the history of this country, it’s not a stretch to think there could have been some racist elements to the development of the initial immigration law.
That said, it’s likely more accurate to say…disproportionate impact doesn’t “always” = racism.
Does the origin of a law really matter to whether it’s racist now? I’m not sure, but I think probably not.
Also, while you’re right that disproportionate impact doesn’t always indicate racism, although sometimes it might, I was making the more basic point that you can’t infer the one from the other without further evidence.
QUOTE: Does the origin of a law really matter to whether it’s racist now? I’m not sure, but I think probably not.
Yes, it can matter…depending on the content and application of a given law. As well, the article was making a point that it might be good to review laws periodically to see if they are apt for today…I couldn’t agree more.
QUOTE: Also, while you’re right that disproportionate impact doesn’t always indicate racism, although sometimes it might, I was making the more basic point that you can’t infer the one from the other without further evidence.
We are in violent agreement…assumptions can’t be made either way. That’s why it’s more accurate to insert “doesn’t always”. When stated that way, it means one has to understand the circumstances in order to make an appropriate assessment.
I know several non-documented. All hispanic…although 8 years ago a guy from our parish was arrested in AZ for being undocumented…everyone that knew he was undocumented said to drive around AZ when going to CA.
Anyways, he was Russian.
If we talk about crime, do blacks in the US commit more crimes per capita? Lots of statistics say yes, so you’d expect “over representation” in the prison system. I think we see policing itself certainly has a lot of bias in it. Police might let a young clean cut white kid off with a warning whereas someone that looks like a gang banger to them they might arrest. There are lots of judgment calls in policing…at least with the ticky tacky stuff. I think if police see an armed robbery, they don’t care who the perp looks like…except maybe how quickly they escalate violence.
I always wonder how much confirmation bias goes into this. Some stats say that x-population commit more crimes per capita. My confirmation bias would probably say that’s true. I use this really dumb metric, probably garbage… but when I go to Walmart…. The cars are angled in…so it’s really one-way and not two way. They even have arrows at the entrance to the aisles for the direction you are supposed to go in. It always annoys me big time when someone goes the wrong direction. In fact, I do my best (without getting hit), to slow a person like that down by not moving to the side of the aisle (unless concerned for safety). In our metro area, it’s about 10% x-population, but I began noticing that it seemed like it was about 90% x-population that went the wrong way. So, in my head, I correlate (probably stupidly) that x-population doesn’t follow the rules in the parking lot…and probably not out on the street as well.
Then, when I see a car going the wrong way in the aisle, I immediately look to see if the person belongs to x-population. I’m already assuming it. When I see it’s x-population, it confirms my bias. When the person is non x-population, I sort of shrug it off, and then sometimes catch myself and try to re-evaluate my bias.
There is certainly bias, and we should try to stop it, but I don’t know how we can do it in an atmosphere where disproportionality is assumed to prove bias. We need to be more sophisticated than that.
QUOTE: There is certainly bias, and we should try to stop it, but I don’t know how we can do it in an atmosphere where disproportionality is assumed to prove bias.
That’s just it, how can it be stopped if some won’t acknowledge that there is bias. Just as it’s a problem to assume that “all” disproportionality is bias, the same is true when people dismiss that system bias actually occurs.
I don’t understand your point. Maybe people won’t acknowledge there is bias until there is some sort of proof. We’ve already agreed that disproportionate impact is not proof. So if somebody wants to prove there is bias, they need to use some other argument than disproportionate impact.
Wait…weren’t you the one that said this…“There is certainly bias, and we should try to stop it…”? So, that wasn’t an acknowledgment?
I believe there is bias because there’s always bias. I do not believe in bias because there is disproportionate impact.
Of course, there IS bias. As I mentioned previously, that’s why it’s more accurate to say disproportionate impact “doesn’t always” equal racism. When stated that way, it means one has to understand the circumstances in order to make an appropriate assessment. Sometimes there may be bias that results in disproportionate impact and other times not. Assumptions can’t be made either way.
I think that attention there has been so much attention given to disproportionality in recent times because it is an objective metric. By no means infallible, but racism and bigotry are otherwise easy to hide from the public, as so much of this thrives on subjective circumstances. Perhaps very real ones, but very difficult to put on public display.
So, last night I went to Walmart and someone was going the wrong way down a one-way aisle. I wondered to myself if it was someone of x-population, and sure enough it was and confirmed my bias.
Is it bias? Did I say, they are x-population so they must do this? Or, did I observe a bunch of times at Walmart and notice that it was around 90% x-population going the wrong way?
QUOTE: I think that attention there has been so much attention given to disproportionality in recent times because it is an objective metric. By no means infallible, but racism and bigotry are otherwise easy to hide from the public, as so much of this thrives on subjective circumstances.
Disproportionality might be a place to start to investigate “if” there is bigotry or racism. In the case referenced in the article, it seemed rather apparent that it wasn’t racism but in other cases it might not be so unimpeachable.