Is Today's Immigration Debate Racist

Racial profiling can be broadly defined as a practice in law enforcement based on the thought that a person's ethnicity, or national origin functions as an indicator of criminal productivity. Scott Johnson Better Unsafe than (Occasionally) Sorry?, agrees with racial profiling. Johnson believes racial profiling helps to keep Americans safe, and withholds citizens from re-runs of September 11. He also believes that the profiling of members of certain groups as potential perpetrators of crime is reasonable and effective. The idea of Johnson's argument is "better safe then sorry". David A. Harris's Profiles in Injustice: American Life under the Regime of Racial profiling disagrees with racial profiling. Harris disputes that there are other spectacular reasons for opposing this practice. Harris believes racial profiling is clearly conscienceless to treating individuals as criminal suspect because a small number of individuals from the same racial or ethnic group are criminals.

In my opinion I believe that racial profiling is wrong, and is a misunderstanding and misapplication of probability/ statistics. According to Key Sun Officers typically justify the use of racial profiling with an excuse or statement stating, "it is true that certain groups are more likely to commit offenses or infractions than the others." This statement by officers leaves an opening for confusion on probability and statistics concerning criminal behaviors. The root to this opening of confusion comes about in result to unawareness and ignorance.

Unawareness is a root because the person is not familiar with the frequency regarding the particular crime-prone attribute. Ignorance is confused for the reason that the person is not familiar with the multiplication rule of probability for criminal behavior, and fails to recognize that criminal behavior is decided by the exchanges of multiple factors.

Each author had his or her own major arguments of the case study. Scott Johnson's approach to the concern with effective law enforcement contributing to racial profiling is supported ridiculing Harris's statement's stating that, his source David Harris argues that crime rates are equal across the board regarding racial groups in arrest, convictions, and incarcerations. But they are unequal simply because police, prosecutors, and courts systematically pick on minorities because of the color of their skin. Johnson believes this statement can be played out to be false. Mr. David Harris sates in his actual argument stating that, the result of a well-known, well-used law enforcement technique that has spread all over the country is shown in his sources and or situations within his view of racial profiling. Harris brings out the reality in "racial profiling" that is described as life to millions of Americans who happen to be black, brown, or Asian.

My analysis of both authors is pretty