Originally Posted by
jphripjah
I don't disagree that 25+% of the US is non-white. Do you disagree with the notion that illegal immigrants to the US (and, by extension, illegal immigrants bearing false documents) are disproportionately non-white?
I think you're moving the goalposts. You said:
"The vast majority of foreigners who try to illegally enter the US on false documents are not white skinned."
I don't see how you can relate (perception of) race to arrival methodology as far as it applies to whether they bear false documents or not. But if you want to claim that as an extension then, again, feel free to provide evidence via citation.
According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, over 90% of illegal immigrants to the US hail from Mexico, Latin America, or Asia. The populations of those countries are almost entirely non-Caucasian, and the illegal immigrants attempting to enter from those countries are almost entirely non-Caucasian. My point is not to bash non-Caucasian folks or to suggest that they are all criminals or illegals. I am simply trying to explain why a CBP officer might ask a few more citizenship and identity questions of foreign born non-Caucasians than he does of white people with American accents.
You've never been to Texas or New Mexico, have you? Spanish is L1 in many of the communities closer to the border. They speak English "with an accent". Yet they many of them have been in the US far longer than "whitey" has, let alone this "American accent" you keep mentioning. The idea that "accent warrants further questions" or "they don't "look American"" (let alone in Texas?!) is simply farcical.
Bringing this back to topic, I don't see that you've provided any actual argument as to why it is ever a good thing for a CBP officer to profile their questions. Other factors, objective factors, and most importantly from the legal point of view, articulable facts are what they should be using. "He was brown and spoke funny" isn't going to cut it in a courtroom.