Comment by jmpman | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmpman | Hacker News Reader

I’ve always used the number of Spanish speaking radio stations on the dial as a litmus test for how much illegal immigration exists in my city. First generation and second generation don’t typically listen to to the Spanish speaking stations, so the demand is being driven by the initial immigrants, the majority of whom are illegal (in my city).

No matter how much I hear about illegal immigration being cracked down upon, the Spanish speaking radio stations aren’t being converted to another format, so there’s still enough advertiser demand to pay for the station. That can only happen if the advertisers are finding a large enough customer base to justify their costs.

If these radio stations then sponsor concerts, it’s likely that the attendees will have a high illegal immigrant percentage.

Should the government be able to mass survey the Spanish speaking population attending these concerts, looking for immigrants who have not turned up to their deportation hearings?

I applaud the government for being that efficient with my tax dollars (I expect this method is much cheaper than others), but should they be doing it? Probably not.

Now what about facial recognition for known terrorists at large sporting events in order to prevent an attack? Maybe?? At music festivals? I can see the argument there too.

You’re dismissing the possibility that the first-generation immigrants who listen to these radio stations were admitted legally.

I used the word “majority”, which doesn’t precluded that “some” are here legally.

If I had to quantify my suspicion of Spanish radio listeners in my city, I’d say that 90% are likely illegal immigrants.

If I was in Florida, I’d say that 10% are likely illegal immigrants.

Don’t interpret my observation of illegal immigration existing as condemnation of a group of people who migrated across vast distances and dangerous deserts in order to work hard manual labor jobs in order to better their families. If I were in their shoes, I’d do the same. But, that doesn’t make it any less illegal.

Your figure is not even an observation; it is a guess. There are paid statisticians doing this job whose data you can cite that would make your argument more compelling.

Where would I find such statistics? I don’t doubt they exist.

My figure is a direct observation having worked landscaping and construction jobs in my town along side people who are illegal and open about it. Then, interacting with the second and third generation friends in school, they weren’t listening to the Spanish radio stations.

So you are just pulling numbers out of thin air. You don’t know the total population of Latinos or the population of people who crossed a border without going though a port of entry or over stayed their visas.

I’m using direct observation and interaction with people in my city. Bayesian inference based upon a sizable sample size across many years? If you have a source of immigration status of Spanish radio listeners by US metropolitan area, it would be an interesting number. Someone has those numbers using more quantifiable methods than my sampling technique.

DHS maintains official statistics of various metrics, which can be found on their website. Here's an example set: https://www.dhs.gov/publication/entryexit-overstay-report

CBP also maintains statistics: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

In the private sector, Pew Research (a well regarded, nonpartisan institution) generates statistics using loads of studies. See, e.g., https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/us-unauthor...

These are all readily found using some basic Google searches.

Ok, someone could take the pew research numbers on illegal immigration by metropolitan region, and then correlate that to Spanish radio listenership in those metros based on the Nielsen tlr data. As much fun as that is, and as much as I appreciate the HN readers demand such validation, I’ll let someone else run those numbers.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/03/11/us-metro-ar...

https://tlr.nielsen.com

Known terrorists shouldn’t be free in the first place, least of all in an Western country. And if they are free I suppose that are actively on the run (hence the “known” part) so I don’t think they’re in the mood for a concert or a Ligue 1 match. As such whenever the powers that be use the terrorists line for stuff like this I call them bullshitters, because that’s what they are.

Terrorists attend these events to, you know, commit acts of terrorism, not enjoy the music.

Yeah, you’re talking about unknown/not-yet terrorists, but I expect that people that have actually committed terrorist acts in the past to be either behind bars or reformed (spending 20-25 years behind bars may make you change your mind about killing inocent people the next time). By definition, people that have not yet committed any terrorist acts are not, well, terrorists, thinking otherwise risks making us dive into thought-crime territory.

When such people is in 100m range from event - nothing can be done

Police forces _has_ to act before such happens

This is like metal detectors in airports - useless

Coz if someone want to do harm - they can do this on parking, in line or in any areas near where people are crowded

And even more There is no evidence that facial recognition lower terrorists attack possibility

Members of terrorist cells do. However they’re not terrorists until the actual act of terrorism.

> Known terrorists shouldn’t be free in the first place, least of all in an Western country

If I were a Western country, I would simply arrest all the known terrorists.

Source?

You’re asking for my source of Spanish speaking radio listener immigration status statistics?

On the assertion that Spanish radio listeners are primarily illegal immigrants, especially if it is to be used to justify mass surveillance.

I would also note that Nielsen rating are based on an incredibly small number of Nielsen listeners. Their system might be good enough for advertising, but not for dragnet surveillance.

Look, I get that if you are worried about illegal immigration, then using FR at Latin concerts has a rough logic. My point is that targeting ethnic groups for mass surveillance is not good for anyone.

(Note: I see where you said the government should probably not do that, but the rest of your post seemed to support the practice.)

This might be the stupidest thing I’ve read on the internet this week, congratulations. Have you also considered listening to the local hip hop stations, you might ‘uncover’ the number people illegally smoking weed and stealing all the white women.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com