Ah, I misunderstood you.
Yes, and my response was that we check their eligibility upon hiring, not based on their ethnicity. That was why I supplied a cite, showing that we check their eligibility upon hiring, not based on their ethnicity.
Do you understand the claim now? We check their eligibility upon hiring, not based on their ethnicity.
Regards,
Shodan
OK. (What point were you making? That you agree with ITD?)
That we check eligibility upon hiring.
d & r
That the belief that a substantial number of Spanish-speaking Hispanic construction workers in Nevada are in the country illegally is a realistic one. If it is racist at all, it is what I mentioned earlier - “rational racism”.
Regards,
Shodan
Wait, what?
I’m very happy to provide a cite for what I said.
Here:
This quote is from the article linked to earlier in this thread.
This is a perfect example. Instead of finding that 2 out of every 10 members of this group was an illegal alien, they found that 0 out of the entire sample was illegal. This is because there was a selection bias - a systematic process that made this sample non-representative of the population at large. Specifically, this sample resulted in part from a hiring process (as well as a number of other factors, like how far the job candidates would have to travel to get to the site, age of the candidates desired for the job, etc, etc).
Happy to be of service to you.
Thanks.
Regards,
Shodan
There’s (almost) nothing in the world that is truly random, and if you know enough detail you could dispute any claim that X% of such and such group is Y, by pointing out that some subsections are 100% Y and some are 0% Y. For the most part, that’s a specious point.
A high percentage of people who smoke get cancer and other illnesses, but some people don’t. The real truth is that there is likely already some factor that determines whether or not smoking will harm a given person, but until that’s known, it makes sense to use the aggregate percentages. Someone who said - analogous to what you’re saying here - that it’s a mistake to use the percentages because a given person either will or won’t be harmed, is being very foolish indeed.
In this case, all the person was saying is that it should be checked. From the perspective of someone lacking any information about Layton’s hiring practices, that’s reasonable, based on the group characteristics that she observed. If it turns out that Layton already has checked and everything is AOK, that’s great. But that doesn’t make the initial assumption wrong or bigoted, any more than the initial assumption of someone who says smoking might kill you only to find out that someone has analyzed it at length and determined that you’re genetically (or otherwise) resistant to it.
Of course we do… but not based on just ethnicity/racial background. The cause, in that case, is initiated by the individual’s application for a job and the policy is applied to all individuals regardless of race. Perfectly legit and warranted.
To be clear, I was not countering the idea that we never ask for papers, but to do so simply based on an ethnic background because statistically people of that background are more likely to be illegal is morally repugnant.
And for full disclosure, I’m a she. 
No, the person demanded that the Sheriff go down to the construction site and interrogate the workers. If she had “said it should be checked”, this wouldn’t be a story.
So being Hispanic has the same causal relationship to being illegal as smoking does to cancer? Enough to warrant having someone looking into your citizen status only because you’re Hispanic? Of course that’s not ok.
I doubt if that’s true, because that’s all it says in the articles about the incident, and it’s a story yet.
This supposed demand “that the Sheriff go down to the construction site and interrogate the workers” appears to be some local color you invented to make the story better conform with your position, much like your earlier claim that she demanded that the local police “round up” the workers.
My bolding.
What’s the point of your bolding? We already know she sent an email to the sheriff. But it says here that she asked him to investigate it. It does not say she asked him to “go down to the construction site and interrogate the workers” or that she asked him to “round them up”.
Those are just your own inventions, that you made up to fit in with your position.
Poor form.
You’ve failed to recall that the specific point in question was whether you can apply the population prevalence rate to a non-randomly selected subgroup. In this case, given a population estimate of 20%, it was asserted that one could assume 2 in 10 of the specific group in question would be illegal aliens. This is not a reasonable assumption and never will be.
As to what you are now asserting, it’s clear that the woman in question did not make any decisions based on any sort of knowledge of population prevalence. Assuming that you are justified in investigating any member of a given racial group because of your beliefs about that racial group is racial profiling, and is not acceptable.
In America, we don’t mete out civil rights on the basis of population level probabilities, except when right-wingers get their way. Why do you hate Americans?
Essentially, you and the woman in this article want to justify intrusive governmental action to investigate any Hispanic person in order to identify illegal aliens, accepting that if you investigate everyone, you’ll be wrong 80% of the time!
If I decided I wanted to identify all cases of HIV, I could go around demanding blood tests. Of course, in America, I would be wrong 99.4% of the time, but I would identify those 6 cases out of every thousand people. Isn’t it really important to find those people?
What, exactly, do you think local law enforcement agencies do? Hint: not audits. The fact that it was the Sheriff she e-mailed, and not the county agency responsible for contractor compliance.
No, you’ve failed to understand what I was saying. One more time, but pay closer attention this time.
From the perspective of someone who is not privy to certain information something can be treated as random, even if it’s not random from the perspective of someone who has knowledge of additional facts. The smoker example was an ilustration of this phenomenon, that’s all.
Take that up with TFD. But this time, understand what he said.
Probably for the same reason that you beat your wife.
Trying to move the goalposts, aren’t you?
I’ve never taken the position that these workers should have been investigated (& pointed this out earlier in the thread). What I’ve defended is the idea that the woman’s call for an investigation was not racism.
This is nothing more than you speculating about what she intended for the sheriff to do (and foolish speculation at that - you may have watched too many Western movies). That’s not the same as her asking him to do it, which is what you claimed.
So posting words she used again from HookerChemical’s cite:
What an evil hateful racist piece of garbage. You’re on honestly saying this throat punch deserving bigoted hate monger had no racist motivations against the workers? If she did have racist motivations against the workers how does it follow that her actions were not racist?
I have Latina ancestors, among others. Where they the nation’s greatest enemies?
If a cop pulls over a black guy because “he’s in the wrong neighborhood”, claims the pull over wasn’t racism, but is in the KKK, wouldn’t that be a little :dubious:?