Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

Why It Is Logical to Discriminate Against Men and Illogical To Discriminate Against Muslims in Immigration Policy

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Dlaw
Posts: 424
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

Why It Is Logical to Discriminate Against Men and Illogical To Discriminate Against Muslims in Immigration Policy

Post by Dlaw » January 15th, 2018, 3:12 pm

This is a carry-over from other discussions.

ANY logical vetting policy does what a computer does when it plays "20 Questions".

Cut the universe of possibilities roughly in half with each question.

If you were creating a questionnaire to weed out violent people from your immigrant population, clearly the first question you would as is "Are you male or female?".

Males would immediately go into the "Need More Vetting" pile and women typically would not. This is true across ALL human societies with 100% reliability: if you want to get rid of the violent people, get rid of the men first and foremost.

"Are you Muslim" "Are you Mexican, from a city bordering the U.S." "Do you or have you ever worked for a Russian Oligarch" - these questions might also be on the list. I don't know the exact demographics.

But clearly if there was any category you DIDN'T want to select on the basis of, then the default answer would be to accept only women from that otherwise more-dangerous category.

It's very interesting to me that so-called anti-immigration activists (aka "bigots") never bring this up.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3143
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Why It Is Logical to Discriminate Against Men and Illogical To Discriminate Against Muslims in Immigration Policy

Post by LuckyR » January 16th, 2018, 4:30 am

This thread (as well as plans proposed by government simpletons) misses the point. The goal is not to predict who is going to be a problem by using a passive profiling technique to find theoretical differences amoung groups and subgroups. Rather to use an active vetting program to weed out actual undesirables.
"As usual... it depends."

Dlaw
Posts: 424
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

Re: Why It Is Logical to Discriminate Against Men and Illogical To Discriminate Against Muslims in Immigration Policy

Post by Dlaw » January 16th, 2018, 4:58 pm

LuckyR wrote:
January 16th, 2018, 4:30 am
This thread (as well as plans proposed by government simpletons) misses the point. The goal is not to predict who is going to be a problem by using a passive profiling technique to find theoretical differences amoung groups and subgroups. Rather to use an active vetting program to weed out actual undesirables.
Ok, how do you define "undesirable"? Since it's not knowable how "undesirable" an immigrant may or may not prove to be, what characteristics do we use to predict future undesirability?

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3143
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Why It Is Logical to Discriminate Against Men and Illogical To Discriminate Against Muslims in Immigration Policy

Post by LuckyR » January 16th, 2018, 5:16 pm

Dlaw wrote:
January 16th, 2018, 4:58 pm
LuckyR wrote:
January 16th, 2018, 4:30 am
This thread (as well as plans proposed by government simpletons) misses the point. The goal is not to predict who is going to be a problem by using a passive profiling technique to find theoretical differences amoung groups and subgroups. Rather to use an active vetting program to weed out actual undesirables.
Ok, how do you define "undesirable"? Since it's not knowable how "undesirable" an immigrant may or may not prove to be, what characteristics do we use to predict future undesirability?
It doesn't matter how I define it (since I am not part of the governmental group who makes these decisions). Will you agree that there is a type of behavior that the folks who make these decisions is trying to avoid letting into the country? If so, then "undesirable" is whatever those folks decide it is. Everyone knows that the future is not absolutely predictable. That isn't the goal. However, there is vetting system in place for potential immigrants. I am not intimately familiar with it (and you don't sound like you are either), no matter, we both know it exists.

The point is that actively looking into individuals is going to be more accurate than a simple profile on groups, as many (including this thread) have advocated.
"As usual... it depends."

Dlaw
Posts: 424
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

Re: Why It Is Logical to Discriminate Against Men and Illogical To Discriminate Against Muslims in Immigration Policy

Post by Dlaw » January 16th, 2018, 5:27 pm

LuckyR wrote:
January 16th, 2018, 5:16 pm
Dlaw wrote:
January 16th, 2018, 4:58 pm


Ok, how do you define "undesirable"? Since it's not knowable how "undesirable" an immigrant may or may not prove to be, what characteristics do we use to predict future undesirability?
It doesn't matter how I define it (since I am not part of the governmental group who makes these decisions). Will you agree that there is a type of behavior that the folks who make these decisions is trying to avoid letting into the country? If so, then "undesirable" is whatever those folks decide it is. Everyone knows that the future is not absolutely predictable. That isn't the goal. However, there is vetting system in place for potential immigrants. I am not intimately familiar with it (and you don't sound like you are either), no matter, we both know it exists.

The point is that actively looking into individuals is going to be more accurate than a simple profile on groups, as many (including this thread) have advocated.
My good friend was an immigration lawyer until she got fed up. Our vetting process has, as far as anybody can see, one principle component: time. The only thing vetting does reliably is make immigrants wait for years while nothing really happens at DHS.

Turns out not everybody has a digital footprint for our intelligence agencies to go over and not every digital footprint has much in it.

People who are worried about too many immigrants getting in should actually look at our immigration system. It's a shambles. It is created so that it's much, much easier for immigrants to go underground than to use the regular system and I think that's deliberate.

The more people go AWOL from the system, the less the immigration bureaucrats and courts have to deal with and they are already overloaded by 200-300% of capacity. The more potential immigrants go underground, the less companies have to pay them. The more potential immigrants go underground, the LESS chance they have of getting deported and the easier it is to live in the US for decades.

The system has evolved to be an illegal immigrant machine.

Steve3007
Posts: 5634
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Why It Is Logical to Discriminate Against Men and Illogical To Discriminate Against Muslims in Immigration Policy

Post by Steve3007 » January 16th, 2018, 5:55 pm

Using this kind of vetting system basically means using statistical probabilities to reduce the risk of allowing a violent person in. If the statistics are accurate then I guess you're always going to have some success in reducing violence. But that has to be weighed against the difficult to quantify concept of "fairness".

Suppose, for the sake of argument, crime figures revealed that blonde people commit more violent crimes than dark haired people, or tall people more than short people. Would you ban entry on that basis?

Dlaw
Posts: 424
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

Re: Why It Is Logical to Discriminate Against Men and Illogical To Discriminate Against Muslims in Immigration Policy

Post by Dlaw » January 16th, 2018, 7:58 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
January 16th, 2018, 5:55 pm
Using this kind of vetting system basically means using statistical probabilities to reduce the risk of allowing a violent person in. If the statistics are accurate then I guess you're always going to have some success in reducing violence. But that has to be weighed against the difficult to quantify concept of "fairness".

Suppose, for the sake of argument, crime figures revealed that blonde people commit more violent crimes than dark haired people, or tall people more than short people. Would you ban entry on that basis?
Here's what I'm saying: Women should be in a different risk category than men in any merit-based/risk-based immigration system.

I would venture a guess that ANY woman, coming from anywhere, who wanted to come to the U.S. to finish an education program to which she had been (provisionally) accepted already would represent such a high reward/risk probability that much of your work would already be done for you.

It's plainly impossible for immigration vetting to be done on an individual basis. That's what we supposedly try to do now, in a random, unpredictable and often unnecessarily cruel way, very ineffectively. Double-blind risk assessment, using purely demographic data, compiled by AI, would at least give a rational risk/reward score. What one does with that score afterwards is not important. The question is what criteria you want to judge with and what criteria you want, in essence, to judge AROUND - like ethnicity and religion because there are constitutional concepts involved.

The constitutional concept of non-discrimination according to sex is also important, but when you have a criterion which separates virtually all the trouble makers from the people who aren't troublemakers, you have to use it.

Whether or not a person is Muslim is a terrible, ignorant question when you can ask what kind of mosque they attend, ask their interpretation of certain legal concepts, etc. - to separate out potentially disastrous people without lumping all nominally co-religious people in a group. Again, I have no problem with using ANY criterion that really proves out, but there are also difficult policy goals for immigration.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3143
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Why It Is Logical to Discriminate Against Men and Illogical To Discriminate Against Muslims in Immigration Policy

Post by LuckyR » January 17th, 2018, 1:51 am

If anyone on this thread works for the Immigration dept then I would defer to them on how the system works. Barring that, this thread is suffering from too much speculation on process.
"As usual... it depends."

Dlaw
Posts: 424
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

Re: Why It Is Logical to Discriminate Against Men and Illogical To Discriminate Against Muslims in Immigration Policy

Post by Dlaw » January 17th, 2018, 2:16 pm

LuckyR wrote:
January 17th, 2018, 1:51 am
If anyone on this thread works for the Immigration dept then I would defer to them on how the system works. Barring that, this thread is suffering from too much speculation on process.
I've worked for a US immigration law and our system is just a nightmare of bad and self-contradictory policy, radical underfunding and hamstrung bureaucrats, lawyers, cops and judges.

The overall effect is that US immigration is an illegal-immigrant-producing MACHINE. Clearly that's what it's ultimately meant to be: an underclass supply mechanism.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2065
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Why It Is Logical to Discriminate Against Men and Illogical To Discriminate Against Muslims in Immigration Policy

Post by Hereandnow » January 18th, 2018, 5:02 pm

Dlaw:
I've worked for a US immigration law and our system is just a nightmare of bad and self-contradictory policy, radical underfunding and hamstrung bureaucrats, lawyers, cops and judges.

The overall effect is that US immigration is an illegal-immigrant-producing MACHINE. Clearly that's what it's ultimately meant to be: an underclass supply mechanism.
This answers your question: You're judgment is compromised. You've had exposure to a system that is less than efficient, let's say seriously inefficient, and you want greater efficiency. The best way to get this is by greater rigor in the vetting, and in this we can keep out the bad and let in the good more, well, efficiently.

What is wrong with that, you might ask?

On the surface it looks reasonable. But dig a little deeper: What happens when you make a system that holds people's lives in the balance more rigorous, more controlling? It inevitably becomes less humane. You say, wouldn't it be great to make immigration, what, "great again"? Like America, it never was great in this sense at all. In fact, what made it great was NOT being like this: Being so painstakingly and diligently exclusionary. This is the road to intolerance, discrimination, judgment, legalism. I don't have enough nasty words in my vocabulary to say what I think of a world that is driven by this kind of thinking.

No: I like the system's "failings". It should be a bloody hard as hell decision as to who gets in and who is forced our, and who is privileged or not. I like a system that watches and is careful, but does not take a clean ax to the lot of undesirables. Irish were undesirable once, so were Italians and Polish, and Chinese, and anyone who ever came here to live. I like a system that runs its airlines with maximum safety, but immigration? Do not try to "perfect" society with stringent and sanitary programs of vetting: that can lead to a dystopian nightmare.

We are not plagued by immigrant bad behavior in the US. We are plagued by bad behavior. This is about unemployment, lack of education, the cycle of poverty and ignorance, structural failings; not immigration.

Dlaw
Posts: 424
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

Re: Why It Is Logical to Discriminate Against Men and Illogical To Discriminate Against Muslims in Immigration Policy

Post by Dlaw » January 22nd, 2018, 2:09 am

Hereandnow wrote:
January 18th, 2018, 5:02 pm
Dlaw:
I've worked for a US immigration law and our system is just a nightmare of bad and self-contradictory policy, radical underfunding and hamstrung bureaucrats, lawyers, cops and judges.

The overall effect is that US immigration is an illegal-immigrant-producing MACHINE. Clearly that's what it's ultimately meant to be: an underclass supply mechanism.
This answers your question: You're judgment is compromised. You've had exposure to a system that is less than efficient, let's say seriously inefficient, and you want greater efficiency. The best way to get this is by greater rigor in the vetting, and in this we can keep out the bad and let in the good more, well, efficiently.

What is wrong with that, you might ask?

On the surface it looks reasonable. But dig a little deeper: What happens when you make a system that holds people's lives in the balance more rigorous, more controlling? It inevitably becomes less humane. You say, wouldn't it be great to make immigration, what, "great again"? Like America, it never was great in this sense at all. In fact, what made it great was NOT being like this: Being so painstakingly and diligently exclusionary. This is the road to intolerance, discrimination, judgment, legalism. I don't have enough nasty words in my vocabulary to say what I think of a world that is driven by this kind of thinking.
Of course it would be great if we really could live up to our creed and trust that our society will, as it has, make successful people out of any immigrants who come along. That's what I'd LOVE!

However, it's not a situation of vetting or not vetting. The vetting isn't real. I can assure you that. The data don't exist. The evidence is testimony by the immigrants themselves and hearsay. The government of Guatemala, for example, cannot be trusted to tell the truth about Indios. It waged a war of death squads on Indios and nobody in the U.S. government takes anything the Guatemalan government says about these people as having any particular connection to the truth. Either they don't care and don't know about their citizens or they are talking pure politics.

Sierra Leone was so bad at one time that we just stopped processing all immigrants from there. Then we stopped processing immigrants who even came through there since the entire country had become a false document machine.

No: I like the system's "failings". It should be a bloody hard as hell decision as to who gets in and who is forced our, and who is privileged or not.
You only think you like the failings because you don't see them. There are no hard decisions in immigration because nobody gives them that much thought, only long ones.
I like a system that watches and is careful, but does not take a clean ax to the lot of undesirables. Irish were undesirable once, so were Italians and Polish, and Chinese, and anyone who ever came here to live. I like a system that runs its airlines with maximum safety, but immigration? Do not try to "perfect" society with stringent and sanitary programs of vetting: that can lead to a dystopian nightmare.

We are not plagued by immigrant bad behavior in the US. We are plagued by bad behavior. This is about unemployment, lack of education, the cycle of poverty and ignorance, structural failings; not immigration.
Immigrants are lovely people. Illegal immigrants I've met are very fine people and I'd be happy to have them for neighbors, but while the politics of immigration became the province of hate-mongers, the country has let in millions without any real process for them. Now those people are a legal underclass and people like Kris Kobach make their political careers by torturing these people and driving them further underground.

The whole vetting issue, indeed the whole issue of Muslim immigrants is a canard. It's a very small slice of the immigrant population. It exists only to demonize all immigrants for the purpose of getting votes from racists.

To make this point, I suggest an easy, universally fair, easy-to-understand way of vetting people - by sex. It solves all the "problems" that anti-immigrant types raise, but of course they reject it out of hand because they have no desire to solve the problems, they just want to demonize and ignore.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2065
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Why It Is Logical to Discriminate Against Men and Illogical To Discriminate Against Muslims in Immigration Policy

Post by Hereandnow » January 22nd, 2018, 2:16 pm

Dlaw:
Of course it would be great if we really could live up to our creed and trust that our society will, as it has, make successful people out of any immigrants who come along. That's what I'd LOVE!

However, it's not a situation of vetting or not vetting. The vetting isn't real. I can assure you that. The data don't exist. The evidence is testimony by the immigrants themselves and hearsay. The government of Guatemala, for example, cannot be trusted to tell the truth about Indios. It waged a war of death squads on Indios and nobody in the U.S. government takes anything the Guatemalan government says about these people as having any particular connection to the truth. Either they don't care and don't know about their citizens or they are talking pure politics.

Sierra Leone was so bad at one time that we just stopped processing all immigrants from there. Then we stopped processing immigrants who even came through there since the entire country had become a false document machine.
That is a frightening situation. And the action taken entirely justified, as I can see. I don't for a moment think there are no counter examples to my thoughts about immigration. My worry is more of an hysterical slippery slope. In the US there is a very strong conservative lobby backed by huge wealth and courses readily through the media that says we are at such terrible risk with Muslims we need a ban on their immigration entirely. This is not happening, of course, but the political will that represents this sentiment is is growing, has grown to scary proportions. It is fear mongering at its worse; fear of religious competition, fear of the erosion of American culture and compromised racial identity; fear the burden of third world poverty; fear of losing jobs to other nations; and so on. And the lying! The pushing an agenda through blatant and shameless lying!

I understand this, the why of it, and sympathize. But I don't approve. As to immigration practices, the conservatism I mentioned above wants more than anything a system that has razor sharp discriminatory capacity. Shall we admit none other than those of Nordic or Aryan race? Should we remove compassion from our international regard for others? We should be very careful things never get anywhere near this. This is why I get a little edgy, in this present cultural climate, to talk about tighening up on immigration. We are in the middle of a rising movement toward seclusion and exclusion. Scary.
Immigrants are lovely people. Illegal immigrants I've met are very fine people and I'd be happy to have them for neighbors, but while the politics of immigration became the province of hate-mongers, the country has let in millions without any real process for them. Now those people are a legal underclass and people like Kris Kobach make their political careers by torturing these people and driving them further underground.

The whole vetting issue, indeed the whole issue of Muslim immigrants is a canard. It's a very small slice of the immigrant population. It exists only to demonize all immigrants for the purpose of getting votes from racists.

To make this point, I suggest an easy, universally fair, easy-to-understand way of vetting people - by sex. It solves all the "problems" that anti-immigrant types raise, but of course they reject it out of hand because they have no desire to solve the problems, they just want to demonize and ignore.
By sex? Yes, that was your idea. Well. there's a slippery slope there too. But, aside from it never happening, or being taken seriously at all, I am sympathetic. I think it is time for women to rule the world. They are much safer, kinder, sweeter, loving, caring and the list goes on and on. They have little of that Nietschean "spit on my shield will you!" attitude.

As to that liar and racist degenerate Chris Kobach, his days are numbered, as are the days of his ilk. Minorities will rise soon.

Dlaw
Posts: 424
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

Re: Why It Is Logical to Discriminate Against Men and Illogical To Discriminate Against Muslims in Immigration Policy

Post by Dlaw » January 22nd, 2018, 5:19 pm

Hereandnow wrote:
January 22nd, 2018, 2:16 pm
I think it is time for women to rule the world. They are much safer, kinder, sweeter, loving, caring and the list goes on and on. They have little of that Nietschean "spit on my shield will you!" attitude.

As to that liar and racist degenerate Chris Kobach, his days are numbered, as are the days of his ilk. Minorities will rise soon.
Amen.

The problem with immigration is that it's a really ugly, very gritty process of telling perfectly decent people where they can and can't live, as if some of them are saints and some of them are criminals. It's absurd.

"Sorry Manuel, you are banished from World Capitalism. That has to suck. Not gonna be much left for you after we take our slice here in the USA."

And suck it does.

Who knows, maybe Trump has something on the ball. Maybe discerning illegals will decide to leave en masse simply from disgust.

Dlaw
Posts: 424
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

Re: Why It Is Logical to Discriminate Against Men and Illogical To Discriminate Against Muslims in Immigration Policy

Post by Dlaw » January 22nd, 2018, 5:28 pm

As to the question of sex - and I'm trying to make this point very unsuccessfully on another thread - at some time we have to acknowledge the the fact that when it comes to violence and criminality, they are the problem of ONE of the sexes and NOT the other.

That simply HAS to mean something. In philosophy we use a kind of disembodied notion of the individual to which all moral, ethical and physical laws apply equally. In the real world, those with physically female bodies simply follow a different and inarguably superior system of ethics. Ethics simply cannot apply equally to the sexes if it is the fact - and it is - that any serious transgressor of ethics is VASTLY more likely to be male almost to the point that he can be assumed to be male.

I'm not saying I necessarily know what that implies. What follows from that observation is unclear to me. But I know it is something like a lower risk number for women than for men. Women are a better investment if what you're looking for is good citizens. The era of the benefit of extreme risk-taking and zero-sum economics may be over.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2065
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Why It Is Logical to Discriminate Against Men and Illogical To Discriminate Against Muslims in Immigration Policy

Post by Hereandnow » January 22nd, 2018, 9:32 pm

As to the failings of men: interesting to observe the GBLTQ community has become a fixture in our society. In time it will be commonplace and not long after sex will lose it sense of taboo altogether. I think personality role models will yield as well to less pronounced, sexually centrist ones. Men will no longer be men nor women women. There is already a great deal of this going on now, but nearly enough. Good to see. Too bad I won't be here when it all works out: Race, ethnicity, gender all coming together. Reminds me of Virginia Woolf's Orlando (see the movie with Tilda Swinton)

Post Reply