I was curious as to how she could look at someone and tell if they spoke English or not?
**Markxxx **It is answered in the second article linked in this thread:
*The jail contractor, Utah-based Layton Construction, this week provided evidence to Matson that all of its employees and those of its subcontractors are either U.S. citizens or have legal work visas.
“We assure our employees can work in the U.S. and we work with our subcontractors to assure their employees are properly credentialed and verified,” Layton spokesman Alan Rindlisbacher said. “It’s standard routine and has been for six decades.”*
Imagine a sitaution in which a significant number of workers in an industry are breaking a certain law.
Imagine that, of the workers breaking the law, virtually all of them are members of an identifiable subgroup (a Venn diagram would be helpful here). Not all members of that subgroup are lawbreakers, but all breakers of this law are members of that subgroup.
Is it reasonable, absent other considerations, to pay extra attention to members of that identifiable subgroup when looking at violations of this law?
It seems strictly reasonable to me.
However:
We’re not absent other considerations. Investigating someone is a burden, and when the investigator is not a member of the subgroup, the investigator might go overboard in the investigation. It’s therefore worth investing the extra time into investigating everyone without regard to membership in the subgroup, in many cases, to avoid putting an undue burden of investigation on members of the subgroup.
I hope that made sense.
If she’d simply said, “Hey, are we sure we’re getting proper employment documents on all the temp workers on that jail construction?” I think it would’ve been fine.
As to the earlier question about Polish workers, actually there are plenty of Polish, Italian and Irish workers in the US illegally, though they are obviously dwarfed by the number of illegal aliens from Latin America.
It makes sense what you’re trying to say but say you’re a member of that group. Is it fair and just to be under the spotlight because of the accent you were raised with or the color of your skin?
How might being subject of increased scrutiny limit your opportunities because people don’t the extra hassle?
I submit that a just society does not harass people for things they can’t help.
A couple of flaws I see in Markxxx’s example. One if the cop pulled the black guy over for reasons completely unrelated to his skin color than it isn’t racism at all. It’s not racism if his car was the most egregious of the runners, or the safest one to go after, or any other reason that could realistically apply to one of the white drivers.
HOWEVER, and this is important, if the cop picked the black because he was black than that is racism, and that ticket is unacceptable.
This is because the black guy was held to a different stand soley because he was black. Had he been white and most likely one of the other drivers would have gotten the ticket.
Well he still ran it you might say, and he still might have gotten the ticket.
However what if every cop did that? Well you’d have a situation where you’re much more likely to get busted if you’re black. Black people are being held to different standard under the law. In effect the penalties for black and white people are different.
How many people speed? Well now if you’re black the posted speed limit is the speed limit but if you’re white the de facto speed limit is +10 miles.
The last time we had a society where black and white people had overtly different legal classifications was Jim Crow.
Further the cop in that hypothetical is an evil jackass and ideally would either be fired, or failing common administrative sense receive a crippling beating preventing him from imposing his bigotry on society at large. He should not have a badge.
When we think of “illegal immigrant”, we tend to think of Hispanic people who crossed the deserts on foot to get here. Forgetting, or not realizing, that there are many illegals who flew here with visas that they let expire.
So while this woman and people like her are complaining about the illegal Messicans ruining everything for everyone, they may do well to pause and consider that the charming British guy who works down the hall, or the sweet old Italian lady who lives next door, or the hockey-loving Canadian guy who snaked their toilet last year, may also be here illegally. And will probably continue to do so because everyone’s so busy chasing after the Spanish-speaking brown people.
How is it not racist? Because we have millions of illegal aliens and common sense tells you if someone can’t speak any English in a country that takes years to go through the immigration process then there is a near 100% probability that many of the work crew are here illegally.
So Puerto Ricans aren’t American? Because if they are English isn’t a universal requirement to be American. Do you have something against Puerto Ricans?
How about American children of undocumented parents? Do they deserve to be suspect?
I think a racist is a person who believes that persons of at least one race are inherently and irredeemably inferior (in some generalized way–not based on any particular measure) to persons of at least one other race based on their race alone. To me, asking whether the workers were illegal immigrants or not does not tend to show that the asker is a racist.
There are a large number of illegal immigrants in the US who are hispanic. Many of them are in Nevada. And it’s illegal to hire them. And the county assessor could legitimately want to avoid embarrassment for the county.
Just asking whether a group of people are illegal immigrants or not does not mean that the asker thinks that the potential illegal immigrants are inherently and irredeemably inferior just because of their race.
That’s a bogus definition. “Racism” doesn’t have to be defined in such pedantically narrow terms. It can denote simple hostility or a belief that a race is somehow innately corrupt or evil without being “inferior” as such.
A belief that people with brown skin are inherently likely to be criminals is racist. If you need to cling to a definition requiring a belief in “inferiority,” then a belief in moral inferiority qualifies perfectly well. Let’s also not ignore her “dirty, filthy Mexicans” remarks. This bitch is a racist. The workers were not illegal. She never had a reason to believe they were, and she should have minded her own business.
Racism is drawing conclusions or making assumptions about individuals based on their membership in a group. If you talk to a Hispanic person and he says something specific that makes you conclude he’s probably here illegally, not racist. If you look at him and all you see is Hispanic and make the same conclusion, racist.
The email quoted in the OP said the sheriff believed she meant that they looked Hispanic and are probably illegals. An illegal alien, I would assume, falls under the category of a criminal.
Yes, I understand that. But it’s not like the email said “are you sure they aren’t criminals?”. The email said “are you sure they aren’t illegal aliens?”. You are correct that illegal aliens are criminals, but the two things are different. The email didn’t imply that brown people are more likely to be criminals in the abstract.
By virtue of the Hispanic appearance she concluded they were most likely to be illegal aliens, a type of criminal. How is it better to say a particular ethnic group is is more likely to be only one type of criminal than a criminal in general?