US Citizens Detained for Speaking Spanish

[_EAllusion]

Over the last generation, the people who are most likely to be terrorists in the United States are white supremacists like yourself. Are you in favor of routine searches of people who look and act like you as a common sense profiling approach?

Didn't I already point out that the IRS targeted people for being in the Tea Party. Kevin had no problem with this at the time.

What happened is that groups applying for tax exempt status with words like "tea party" in their name received an extra layer of scrutiny, but this also happened to groups with words like "progressive" in their name and was not, in fact, conservative targeting so much as targeting political groups with certain key words looking for non-profit status. This would have an unfair discriminatory effect, but not in the way you imagine or with the intent you imagine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/p ... crats.html

Your misunderstanding aside, this is not what I asked at all unless you think the way to do racial profiling of "Arab Muslim men" is provide an extra layer of scrutiny when they apply for 501c's and you are Ok with the profiling you mistakenly thought happened. Neither of those things are true, though. I asked about profiling people like yourself for terrorism given that you, unlike Arab Muslim men, belong to the demographic most likely to commit terrorist acts.

[_subgenius]

What happened is that groups applying for tax exempt status with words like "tea party" in their name received an extra layer of scrutiny, but this also happened to groups with words like "progressive" in their name and was not, in fact, conservative targeting so much as targeting political groups with certain key words looking for non-profit status. This would have an unfair discriminatory effect, but not in the way you imagine or with the intent you imagine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/p ... crats.html

To be fair, and at least not-dumb, on this matter you are misinterpreting facts. The audit that concluded with conservative groups actually being targeted occurred in 2013 and then only when a similar audit was expanded to pre-Obama did we learn that the IRS targeted these progressive groups. So, it is either naïve or dishonest of you to try and characterize the IRS as "targeting" in a bi-partisan manner when clearly the "targeting" is bias. Just because at one time they targeted progressive groups (note that any party affiliation is undetermined by audits) does not conclude with non-discriminatory practice.
In either case, the poster's point remains valid because KG did not have a problem with such superficial targeting issues, which is surprising because superficial was certainly KG's forté'.

[_canpakes]

What happened is that groups applying for tax exempt status with words like "tea party" in their name received an extra layer of scrutiny, but this also happened to groups with words like "progressive" in their name and was not, in fact, conservative targeting so much as targeting political groups with certain key words looking for non-profit status. This would have an unfair discriminatory effect, but not in the way you imagine or with the intent you imagine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/p ... crats.html

To be fair, and at least not-dumb, on this matter you are misinterpreting facts. The audit that concluded with conservative groups actually being targeted occurred in 2013 and then only when a similar audit was expanded to pre-Obama did we learn that the IRS targeted these progressive groups. So, it is either naïve or dishonest of you to try and characterize the IRS as "targeting" in a bi-partisan manner when clearly the "targeting" is bias. Just because at one time they targeted progressive groups (note that any party affiliation is undetermined by audits) does not conclude with non-discriminatory practice.
In either case, the poster's point remains valid because KG did not have a problem with such superficial targeting issues, which is surprising because superficial was certainly KG's forté'.

If a significant quantity of new groups start filing for tax exempt status and the majority of them have ‘conservative’-sounding names, should the IRS start randomly selecting equal numbers of ‘non-conservative’-sounding but well-established groups of long history to audit in equal quantity to avoid accusations of ‘profiling’?

Are you expressing a preference to select by name as opposed to type and time of activity?

[_EAllusion]

The IG investigation found the IRS targeting groups with the word "Occupy" in it. Occupy Wall Street, a left wing movement, didn't exist until 2011. Rumor has it Obama was president then. There was a surge in audits of groups with tea party buzzwords when there was a surge in tea party applications.

Good try on the not-dumb part, though.

Ajax clearly is not ok with what he incorrectly thinks happened, so it would not be a good example of him being fine with the entirely unrelated matter of racial profiling to catch the white supremacist terrorists plaguing our nation.

[_subgenius]

How many Americans and legal immigrants speak Spanish? Singling out what language a person speaks is ethnic profiling. I'm sure you are fine with that as long as the police state doesn't target you.

As has already been noted, the occurrence of people speaking Spanish "around here" (a.k.a. Havre MT) is the circumstance and the relative fact inasmuch as it created suspicion with this Agent - and being within 100 miles of a border he was within the law of making an official inquiry.

Let us take a hypothetical situation and see if it is similar enough to this situation:
Two men are only speaking Arabic at the US/Mexico border, would you consider this common or uncommon? As a Border Control Agent would, or should, you be inclined to notice or dismiss?

Nevertheless, let us stick with facts on this matter...consider that the closest border crossing to Havre is Whitlash MT which, in 2017, had about 1200 people/passengers crossing (either direction)...to date for 2018, 148 people/passengers (perhaps the 2018 tourism rush to see the world's largest farm tractor or the LORAN-C transmitter has not begun yet).
https://www.bts.gov/content/border-crossingentry-data

So, with about 2.5% of the population in Havre being Hispanic/Latin; and understanding that it is more racist to assume that all of this 2.5% is fluent is speaking Spanish (and adult); and understanding the occurrence of border traffic in the area; and the other blatant circumstances - you would claim that it is "common" to hear Spanish being spoken when/where the Agent witnessed Spanish being spoken and therefore not unusual ?

[_Hawkeye]

In either case, the poster's point remains valid because Kevin Graham did not have a problem with such superficial targeting issues, which is surprising because superficial was certainly Kevin Graham's forté'.

The point is stupid because Kevin Graham didn't have a problem with targeting Leftist groups either. My brother-in law works for the IRS, and he is a huge Trump supporter, but agrees that it is just common sense that this would happen. They do what they can to catch people committing fraud.

[_Hawkeye]

As has already been noted, the occurrence of people speaking Spanish "around here" (a.k.a. Havre MT) is the circumstance and the relative fact inasmuch as it created suspicion with this Agent - and being within 100 miles of a border he was within the law of making an official inquiry.

As has been noted, you're a moron who keeps citing the irrelevant in an attempt to justify another obviously racist Right Wing meme. It doesn't matter if he was within his geographical jurisdiction. The fact is he doesn't have the right to detain anyone for that long when no crime has been committed. It also doesn't matter how many people spoke Spanish "around here."

But since it is such an important point for you, here is a more accurate reality of the Hispanic situation there. Between 2000 and 2010 the overall population of Havre had dropped from 9,621 to 9,310 while the Hispanic population there practically doubled from 1.48% to 2.5%. And this was eight years ago. The actual number is probably closer to 5-6% today.

[_subgenius]

The IG investigation found the IRS targeting groups with the word "Occupy" in it. Occupy Wall Street, a left wing movement, didn't exist until 2011.

Your own citation echoes my very sentiment, but your cherry-picked notion here is rather naïve once again...the public appearances of "Occupy" can easily be traced back to at least 2009 - as being manifest in an obvious "organization", and while "Occupy Wall St" certainly became mainstream in 2011, it was not a spontaneous combustion. So, it is reasonable to consider that an "Occupy" existed prior to Obama...however - it is "less dumb" to realize that the investigation into "Occupy" hardly concludes with "bi-partisan targeting" (for example 72 "tea party" referrals and only 5 "Occupy"...nice try but read your citation, or at least stop relying on a goofy NYT article and read the actual reports yourself.
https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditrep ... 0053fr.pdf
https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditrep ... 0054fr.pdf

nevertheless, its post mortem now, and what does it really matter, amiright?

[_subgenius]

The fact is he doesn't have the right to detain anyone for that long when no crime has been committed.

Sure he does, the law says he does...its called probable cause...does not mean a crime has been committed, just suspicion...same law used at every DUI checkpoint you have ever failed to pass through.

It also doesn't matter how many people spoke Spanish "around here."

Sure does matter, unusual behavior is a foundation of "probable cause"...and if it "did not matter" you would not have wasted so much hair-fire on trying to prove that speaking Spanish "around here" was not uncommon (even though statistically it would be).

But since it is such an important point for you, here is a more accurate reality of the Hispanic situation there. Between 2000 and 2010 the overall population of Havre had dropped from 9,621 to 9,310 while the Hispanic population there practically doubled from 1.48% to 2.5%. And this was eight years ago.

Ok, now use your racism to explain that because they are "Hispanic population" they must surely speak Spanish (at your next Klan meeting be sure to note how Spanish being spoken in Hispanic-American homes is declining.
for example:
"As the share of Hispanics who speak Spanish falls, the share that speaks only English at home is expected to rise. According to Census Bureau projections, the share of Hispanics who speak only English at home will rise from 26% in 2013 to 34% in 2020. "
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/05/12/e ... g-latinos/
https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/20/us/spani ... index.html

The actual number is probably closer to 5-6% today.

Put away your crystal ball before you lose it
Even if we want to believe your absurd prediction, 5-6% would still be considered an uncommon percentage. If a doctor told you that you had a 5-6% percent of survival would you think "hey, survival is pretty common".
get you and education.

[_EAllusion]

If a significant quantity of new groups start filing for tax exempt status and the majority of them have ‘conservative’-sounding names, should the IRS start randomly selecting equal numbers of ‘non-conservative’-sounding but well-established groups of long history to audit in equal quantity to avoid accusations of ‘profiling’?

Are you expressing a preference to select by name as opposed to type and time of activity?

If I apply for a non profit with an organization titled "Tea Parties for Precious Snowflakes," and you apply for one titled "Americans for a better Way," and I recieve more scrutiny than you, there is an unfair discriminatory effect there on the basis of political views. It's just that this didn't happen with the Obama political leadership directing discrimination against conservatives. That's the conspiracy theory version Ajax clings to and keeps bringing up, even when it isn't remotely relevant, despite repeated debunking.

The real story is the IRS beuracracy was trying to find an efficient way of flagging suspicious non-profits and they picked an improper means which rightly led to a shake up.