Texas to Provide Online 'Bordercams'

Dr_Barnowl writes "The BBC reports that Texas intends to erect a network of online webcams at its border to Mexico. The intention is apparently to use viewers as a kind of distributed processing network, with a free phone number to report border-jumpers." From the article: "'A stronger border is what Americans want and it's what our security demands and that is what Texas is going to deliver,' Mr Perry said. The cameras will cost $5m (£2.7m) to install and will be trained on sections of the 1,000-mile (1,600km) border known to be favoured by illegal immigrants " Hey, it's working for Britain, right?

Comments

Can there be remote sniper rifles, too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quake 3 is open sourced, just use the game as a GUI.

The illegal immigration problem would go away in days!

Re:Can there be remote sniper rifles, too?

[Amouth]

well the private sector can set this up (if shooting border jumpers isn't illegal)
 
  http://www.engadget.com/2004/11/17/internet-huntin g-coming-to-texas/

Re:Can there be remote sniper rifles, too?

[Deathlizard]

No. they would never do that...

They'd make it a Mod for America's Army.

Re:Can there be remote sniper rifles, too?

[jeffy210]

A little OT, but there's a ranch here in Texas that does just that, you connect with your computer and can aim a rifle remotely. They use it for game hunting and it caused quite a large controversy here about a year ago.

Re:Can there be remote sniper rifles, too?

[XMilkProject]

Land mines would be fun also. For those with a slower connection, they could just watch the feed and see the explosions, rather than having to aim.

Re:Can there be remote sniper rifles, too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone please moderate the parent post as "Score: -1 Sick Bastard"

There is a key difference

[drp]

These cameras will be publicly viewable by anyone on the internet, not just The Authorities.

I have absolutely no problem at all with 100% public surveillance, as long as all of the video feeds are available to any person at any time, and not just Big Brother.

Re:There is a key difference

[thelost]

I have a problem with the public being employed to be fingermen, and to do a job which should be the governments responsibility.

maybe this guy should watch a bit more closely http://www.youtube.com/v/5gP8nHSJnKw

Re:There is a key difference

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

I have absolutely no problem at all with 100% public surveillance, as long as all of the video feeds are available to any person at any time, and not just Big Brother.

When the entire populace is asked to police themselves, you end up with people writing anonymous letters to denounce their neighbours to the gestapo.

(and I hereby verify Godwin's law in 10 seconds flat. beat that...)

Re:There is a key difference

[Reverberant]

When the entire populace is asked to police themselves, you end up with people writing anonymous letters to denounce their neighbours to the gestapo.

...and when the authorities police us with no oversight, you face a lack of accountability. There has to be middle ground somewhere.

Re:There is a key difference

[lysergic.acid]

So you think that police state does not exist as long as big brother turns the citizenry into its watchdogs?

Guess again.

The Gestapo didn't have extensive networks of undercover spies to check up on German citizens. In fact, the only undercover spies they empoyed were used for the surveilance of underground socialist groups. The way they kept tabs on the public was through voluntary denunciations submitted to local Gestapo offices by ordinary citizens. That's how they chose who to arrest, how they monitored what was going on in German society, how they kept people in a perpetual state of fear, and how the Nazis were able to maintain control over German society.

This act may not be directed against American citizens, but it's another step towards posturing our culture to be more accepting of fascist policies. Not only is it promoting xenophobia, but it also encourages/trains American citizens to spy on others. Today it's our international neighbors, tomorrow maybe it's our domestic hispanic/arab/non-caucasian population, and then who knows where that paranoia and suspicion will spread to?

If anyone needs to be monitored more carefully by the American public, it's our government officials who have sold out the American people to their corporate masters. This is just one more distraction to keep Americans from addressing the real crisis that our nation is facing.

Re:There is a key difference

[shawn(at)fsu]

Just curious, I know the two are different and I'm not a big fan of analogies, but lets say your at work and your neighbor sees someone breaking in to your house. Would you want them to call the police department?

Re:There is a key difference

[Nadsat]

Pushing law enforcement down to the people. Government is hoping the Minute Men and other sympathetics to help.

It's like Homeland Security is now hip to distributed peer-to-peer processing--a kind of SETI... not to search for outerspace aliens... but for aliens from over the rio grande.

Re:There is a key difference

[Millenniumman]

These are monitoring the border between the U.S. and Mexico, not a city, so there isn't really any concern about Big Brother.

Re:There is a key difference

[Millenniumman]

Why shouldn't the people voluntarily help protect the borders? There are people willing to do so, and it will only help keep the borders secure.

Re:There is a key difference

[Millenniumman]

They aren't monitoring citizens, they are only monitoring people trying to illegally enter the country. It is promoting not xenophobia. A nation has the right and responsibility to secure its borders, and that is all that is happening. A sovereign nation has the right to decree who may or may not enter it. Even if you let every immigrant in, you have to control immigration, unless you have complete confidence in the other nation's security. Otherwise, how do you stop terrorists and criminals from coming across, possibly with weapons? This isn't a step towards fascism. I do agree that the government needs to be monitored more carefully, but we aren't in a crisis. We haven't been sold out to corporations. This is evident in the increasing regulation of them, and their portrayal by politicians as Bad (e.g. The recent trend about punishing oil companies for making profits").

Re:There is a key difference

[Thuktun]

I have absolutely no problem at all with 100% public surveillance, as long as all of the video feeds are available to any person at any time, and not just Big Brother.

I think I may agree with you, but such a thing would be hard to manage with existing technology. Not accomplishing it technically, but ensuring the all-access provisions. Many governments (including the current USAn administration) do not like to let the general public have information when keeping it a secret is an option.

An extremely fictional example of a kind of technology that would force all-access monitoring is described in The Light of Other Days . It's a little hard for the government to stop (or even detect) someone spying on someone else with a nanoscale wormhole.

Re:There is a key difference

[Tackhead]

> > I have absolutely no problem at all with 100% public surveillance, as long as all of the video feeds are available to any person at any time, and not just Big Brother.
>
> When the entire populace is asked to police themselves, you end up with people writing anonymous letters to denounce their neighbours to the gestapo.

In the system described here, there's a log of what target the citizen was looking at when he or she pressed the "fire" button.

Because Big Brother knows who clicked the button (phoned the 1-800 number, which has never been anonymous), and he knows what they were looking at ("Citizen with phone number NNN-NNN-NNNN reported 3 targets on camera XXX at timestamp YYYY"), he will very rapidly figure out which of his sources are providing valid leads, and which of his sources are attempting to monkeywrench the works.

Because Big Brother doesn't like to be sent on wild goose chases, this is a self-correcting problem: reporters who add too much noise to the signal will self-identify themselves as high-value targets.

Re:There is a key difference

[Kadin2048]

So I take it that you find those anonymous tip lines equally offensive? Since after all, they're making the public do what really ought to be the police's job.

Re:There is a key difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Just curious, I know

"curious; I".

but lets say your at work

"let's", "you're".

Re:There is a key difference

[q-the-impaler]

Not only is it promoting xenophobia, but it also encourages/trains American citizens to spy on others.

The 'xenophobia' outcry is merely a distraction. The problem is people are not following the rules, and the rules are not being properly enforced. Xenophobia is just a cop out.

As for spying, it would seem that crossing a national border is hardly a private act. If I were to be admitted into the U.K., I'd have to have my passport handy. That's a public act. Sitting on my couch in the buck and watching TV is a private act. Talking on my telephone is a private act (assuming I violate no laws and do not threaten national security). Walking into a fast food restaurant is another example of a public act.

If you have ever watched COPS, then you, by your definition, are spying on others.

Re:There is a key difference

[thelost]

i can understand why you are not a big fan of analogy, as yours is neither apt or correct. the difference between a kind neighbour and a curtain twitching fingerman is massive. If my neighbour sees someone breaking into my house and reports it to the police this is out of a sense of kindness and civic duty. Arguably people who watch the webcams are exactly the same, but the difference to me is that these people are actively participating in something that goes beyond the scope of their responsibility as private citizens. There is an obvious sense of voyeuristic pleasure/power in the whole idea which I find incredibly offensive.

There is a definite difference in magnitude between someone breaking into my house and the problem of people border hopping, the two shouldn't be compared.

Also on a separate note I didn't allude to before has anyone thought about the repercussions of allowing the US Government to go through with this. If it proves successful after launched (and I am not arguing the possible efficacy of the program) then can you imagine the possible other applications for this kind of policing. "A webcam on every corner, for your safety!"

Re:There is a key difference

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose you have a problem with volunteer firemen, too?

Re:There is a key difference

[Kadin2048]

Amen to that. I can't find any information on it right now, but I believe that the ability to control one's own borders was part of the traditional definition of being a soverign nation. Sometimes I think we've been failing that test here in the U.S. for quite a while. Our borders are more of a shared illusion or hallucination than anything tangible.

Frankly the fact that there's any opposition to building a fence or wall along the border, on any grounds other than cost, seems ridiculous to me. There should have been one there a long time ago, but apparently we got cheap and assumed that a desert would keep people from walking across it, and thus a fence was unnecessary. Obviously we were wrong, and now we should rectify that situation.

Rather than sending it out halfway around the globe, I think enforcing the border is a perfectly reasonable use for our military, and I can't see how it violates posse comitatus, since in my mind it's not a law enforcement function to begin with. It's basic national security. The most basic national security, in fact. If you can't use your Army to stop a flood of foreign nationals from waltzing across the border, I really question its purpose.

Re:There is a key difference

[Pendersempai]

The problem with the Gestapo was not that they ran a tip line for citizens to turn one another in. The 911 emergency hotline is (in part) exactly that, and it's hardly controversial. If you see someone break a window or run someone over or commit murder, you call 911 and help the police catch the criminal, and you're a good citizen for doing so.

The problem with the Gestapo was that it used its tip lines to enforce vague and unjust laws. If we had a law that said that it was illegal to be Jewish, illegal to think seditious thoughts, or illegal to be a "bad citizen," that would make us like the Gestapo. And if we used a tip line to help enforce those laws, then it would make us more like the Gestapo to the extent that it promoted the enforcement of those (unjust or vague) laws.

I think the entire tip line analogy is inapt, because, as you admit, the cameras are turned outward rather than inward; they point to foreign countries and not citizens. I don't understand why you are so quick to dismiss this distinction. It seems to me that your logic argues just as heavily against the CIA monitoring foreign countries. Frankly you come off as more than a little hysterical and not very logical at all.

Re:There is a key difference

[lysergic.acid]

Exaggerating the threat posed by illegal immigrants (hardly an issue of national security) and persuading people to sit in front of their computers to monitor border activity isn't encouraging xenophobia (fear of outsiders)?

And spying is defined as watching the activities of others without their knowing/consent. If the individuals on cops didn't sign release forms, then it would be spying in a sense. It has nothing to do with it being a public act or not. I could follow you around all day in public and spy on you as long as I'm watching you without you knowing.

Re:There is a key difference

[GigG]

I have absolutely no problem at all with 100% public surveillance, as long as all of the video feeds are available to any person at any time, and not just Big Brother.

So if the US Border Patrol were to suggest as an enforcement process the setting up of cameras along the border and surveil them with USBP agents you WOULD have a problem with it?
When did a country protecting its own borders from those that would cross them illegally become a "Big Brother" issue? You do realize that it is against the law for anyone, including US citizens, to leave or enter the country at any place other than an official border crossing point?

Re:There is a key difference

[lysergic.acid]

So the government setting up a camera in your home wouldn't be police-state-like as long as they used it for enforcing just laws? The power the Gestapo had over German society also had nothing to do with anti-semetic laws. The control it gave the Nazi regime came from the paranoia, self-spying, and turning the public into informants. It had nothing to do with the laws passed, but the cultural attitude that was fostered.

Whether the cameras are turned outward or inward, it still fosters a paranoid population of citizen informants--xenophobia isn't much of a consolation. And how is it not hysterical to think that illegal-immigration is such a threat to national security that it warrants having ordinary citizens monitoring border-activity at all times?

Re:There is a key difference

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, that goes for all privacy. I am afraid the battle to defend privacy is hopeless, but what really matters is who has privileged access to private information. I think the public, particularly people who vote, should have the right to inspect directly all records of communications of their elected representatives. There should be a law to retain such records just like ISPs are being requested to do with the Internet access records of their customers.

Re:There is a key difference

[bunions]

(a) the issue of national security isn't that we're afraid migrant workers will sneak in and somehow steal our freedom, it's that we're afraid someone can easily smuggle [explosives|bioweapons|killer monkeys] across an incredibly porous border, and it's a legitimate concern.

(b) xenophobia is a baseless fear of outsiders. I don't think anyone here is -afraid- of illegal immigrants, I think we're -upset- with them and want them to obey the rules. Following your logic, someone who sends their misbehaving child to their room is pedophobic.

Re:There is a key difference

[Moofie]

"they are only monitoring people trying to illegally enter the country"

And they promise, cross their hearts, that it will never go further than that.

Do you really believe them?

Re:There is a key difference

[Anonymous Coward]

"A webcam on every corner, for your safety!"

And as long as its in public and not pointing at my home, I'm fine with that.

You have as much right to privacy on the street as you do talking in front of a police office -- though I've known two people that have gotten busted talking openly in front of a police office mistakenly believing that freedom of speech means that you can say whatever you want and the 'pigs' can't do anything about it.

There is no expectation of privacy on the street. There is in your own house and behind private property with high enough fences -- I have a 9 foot fence around my house, though I may have to knock it down a foot or two to comply with zoning. I am very protective of my privacy, but I give up any such illusion of this when in public.

Re:There is a key difference

[john82]

There is nothing remotely common between this situation and Germany of the 1930s and 40s. Your willingness to paint this as such indicates that you either are exceedingly ill-informed, or you DO know better and prefer spreading FUD. I'm willing to bet that it's the former.

I suggest you try living in Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico or Texas as a tax paying citizen. There are wealth of social, work and financial issues which you cannot comprehend from the comfort of your parents' basement.

Re:There is a key difference

[lysergic.acid]

That's not the issue I have with the act. I never said we should get rid of border patrols. If they instituted a law that ordered border patrol officers to shoot anyone that tried to cross illegally, that'd be trying to secure the borders too. But the method/fashion by which they're trying to achieve that objective, and the extent to which they're willing to go is a little ridiculous. I mean c'mon, having thousands of border patrol officers isn't enough, we need to get citizens to sit in front of their computers and watch for people trying to sneak in?

Personally, I'm against such a closed-border policy as we already have. I think that in itself is wrong and fosters/reflects a really unhealthy cultural attitude within our society. I'm one of those people who truly believes in the Thomas Paine quote "[My] country is the world, and my religion is to do good." But it's not the act of watching the borders with video surveilance that I'm particularly opposed to in this case. It's the fact that this act seems to encourage individuals to sit at their computers watching for people crossing the border illegally and be government informants. I mean, how is anyone going to tell that some illegal immigrant is a "terrorist"? They can't. And what are the chances that this is actually going to catch any terrorists? Probably close to nil. Do you know how many people we have patroling the Canadian border? Do you honestly think that terrorists will try to hop the Mexican border rather than simply forge a fake passport or come in from Canada? And what kind of people do you think are actually going to waste their time with this border-watch nonsense?

The kind of people this will encourage are what I'm worried about. It's sorta like if the government started offering money to people to report illegal immigrants. You could argue that it's to secure our nation, but that's a stretch. Sure it's just enforcing our borders, but the social consequences of encouraging people to rat out a really quite benign segment of our society just because they were born in a different country and wanted to make a better life for themselves here is much more detrimental to our society than any terrorist attack.

I just think that not bombing the shit out of other countries and exploiting developing nations would do much more for our national security than having the public monitor the borders. This act just perpetuates unfounded fears that merely serve as a political distraction while the real threats go unnoticed.

Re:There is a key difference

[lysergic.acid]

Actually, I do live in Southern California, and I don't see illegal immigrants as much of a threat or problem. Would you care to give some specifics--eithers flaws in my argument or one of the issues I'm not comprehending?

Re:There is a key difference

[thelost]

I do kind of agree with you, but I see a slippery slope that the Government would not be able to keep it's feet even upon.

I certainly don't expect privacy in a public place, but I do expect my civic rights to be upheld. I know that there is already very good facial recognition software that can pick people out of crowds in public places etc. What if the Government decides that they don't just run a camera on every street corner, but that they have a facial recognition database. What if they then decide that they don't just use it to catch dangerous terrorists but some guy who hasn't kept up to date on his taxes. Can you imagine the amount of abuse this kind of system is open to?

And further to that, if you like your privacy so much then be sure to make your fences higher, not lower because I promise you that every single webcam will be able to rotate and point into your living room/bedroom/backyard.

Am I paranoid? Yes. Do I have reason to be? Definitely!

Re:There is a key difference

[Millenniumman]

Monitoring the border doesn't bring them very much closer to monitoring cities. It is entirely separate.

Re:There is a key difference

[q-the-impaler]

The Berlin Wall was designed to both keep inside people in and outside people out. The border was doubly impenetrable and crossing it was extremely restrictive. This is not the idea behind the U.S./Mexico border. It is not nearly as restrictive; foreigners may come and go with registration, and do so on a regular basis. The idea is to maintain order and accountability in this country.

If it were commonplace for Mexicans (and other nationalities in question) to be here legally and people still feared them, then that is clearly xenophobia. However, there is a great proportion of foreigners who are here illegally. I would say that xenophobia exists in the U.S. because there are so many illegal aliens.

I argue that securing our border will decrease xenophobia, because that will give greater assurance that they followed the rules and will be accountable for their actions while visiting! Then if they go through the process of applying for citizenship, they will have properly earned their right to live and work in the U.S.

And if millions of people login to view cameras to watch our borders, then great! I'm looking forward to seeing the programs that people write to track the motion in the pictures and auto dial the 800 number.

Re:There is a key difference

[Moofie]

I hope you're right. I think you're wrong.

Re:There is a key difference

[demachina]

"Otherwise, how do you stop terrorists and criminals from coming across, possibly with weapons?"

This program isn't about stopping "terrorists". That is just a convenient excuse to justify it. If a small number of "terrorists" want to get in to this country they will figure out a way.

It isn't going to stop drug smuggling either because they will quickly learn to defeat these lame ass cameras. They already build elaborate tunnels in urban areas along the border.

The only thing this program is going to slow down is Mexicans walking across the border to get jobs in the U.S. The crushing paradox here is the U.S. economy is now completely dependent on these workers and if you actually succeeded in getting rid of them all numerous industries would crater like agriculture, construction, gardening, house keeping(including hotels) and restaraunts. The other crushing paradox is many politicians have been bought and paid by these industries to make sure the government looks the other way on illegal immigration and illegal employment so there is a healthy supply of these workers. Despite your assertion to the contrary, in fact the U.S. government was bought out by coporations and affluent campaign donors long ago. The illegal immigrant problem is a DIRECT result of exactly that. Big agribusiness in particular demanded their congressmen let them get away with employing large numbers of illegal aliens so Congress has for decades blocked every attempt at enforcing the borders and made it easy for employers to get away with employing illegals which is why there are 11-13 million of them working in this country now.

The current demand to control immigration is entirely xenophobic and maybe that is not entirely bad. Many American, Lou Dobb's first among them, are stressed at the massive influx of Hispanics in to their states and communities, and once they have children who are U.S. citizens they are acquiring political power too. But again this situation didn't just happen, business and politicians colluded to make it happen because they wanted the cheap, hard working, labor which isn't most American workers. Interestingly I read in the Christian Science Monitor that Germany has the same issue. They import large numbers of Poles each summer to work in agriculture, in spite of the fact a lot of Germans are unemployed. The Poles are just vastly more productive at doing things like picking crops because they have a much higher tolerance for hard work and a much better work ethic than lazy, spoiled West Germans.

"We haven't been sold out to corporations. This is evident in the increasing regulation of them, and their portrayal by politicians as Bad (e.g. The recent trend about punishing oil companies for making profits")."

This is such an incredibly naive statement it boggles the mind. There is not a "trend" to punish oil companies for excess profits. There are a few politicians, mostly Democrats, paying lip service to the idea because its a campaign season and it plays well with voters. There is zero chance of an excess profits tax on oil companies getting through a Republican congress or by the oil men in the White House. The big energy companies completely own the Republican party. Rather than punishing them the Republicans gave them something like $16 billion in tax breaks and subsidies in the energy bill last year. The last thing energy companies needed at this point are incentives, to do things like drill for oil, when they are all making more money than they ever have. They would be insane to not be pouring their windfalls in to exploration when oil is consistently at $60-70 a barrel.

There is a giant laundry list of legislation corporations bribed the Republicans in to passing in the last 6 years. It wasn't quite as blatant under the Democrats but they are bought and paid for too.

- Medicare D, is a massive windfall to drug, insurance and health care companies. The point man in Congress for this bill, Billy Tauzin had a multimillion dollar consulting job lin

Re:There is a key difference

[Millenniumman]

No one is forcing them to monitor the borders. They are just making it possible without having to drive out to the borders and wait there.

They should report everyone crossing the border illegally. If a terrorist tries, and someone is watching, he will be caught. They don't have to tell them apart, because anyone sneaking across the border is committing a crime. Even if you let everyone cross, they should pass through a screening area, where border patrol agents determine if they are terrorists or criminals, and if they are transporting weapons or drugs.

It is not the same as offering money to report illegal immigrant residents. It is more like offering money to alert police to burglaries.

Do you have any examples of the bombing and exploitation?

Re:There is a key difference

[demachina]

I'd have to agree that it is kind of bizarre that they are tapping ordinary citizens to watch their cameras for them. My guess its most probably a ploy to win public support, to let all the little people frustrated by illegal immigration to feel like they can do their little part to stop it. I really can't see anyone with a life spending hours a day staring at a largely empty stretch of desert doing this. Get a life.

If they were actually serious about doing this they would acquire some relatively simple software to detect motion in the video, and filter out shadows from clouds, brush blowing in the wind or the occasional jack rabbit. I'm pretty sure we must have the technology to reliably detect people walking through a video frame. When the software detects a probable it would put it in a queue for a paid dispatcher to confirm and call in the troops. Of course this would be the sane, intelligent and rational approach. This being Texas we are talking about they predictably didn't opt for sane, intelligent or rational. They are after all the same state that launched George W's political career and boy was that insane, dumb and irrational.

Re:There is a key difference

[daniel422]

You must not have attended public school in Southern California, or had to visit any of our lovely hospitals there recently. Appently you also don't have healthcare in this state, nor do you have car insurance. All of these things have seen skyrocketing costs (or wait times) in the last 10-20 years (since our nice 1986 immigration bill)
This state is being drained by illegals in more ways than one. As someone who attended California public schools and now faces the prospect of sending my own children to them -- the problem is quite obvious. In fact, I WILL NOT be sending my kids to any public schools in Southern California. And I know I'm not the only one.
I have no doubt that many large corporations in this state make more money because of the illegals (and corresponding low wages) they employ. The problem is it costs the rest of the state (taxpayers) tens of billions each year. Billions that don't come from illegals.
Don't tell me they pay taxes. If you make less than 30k a year, you're not paying taxes. More likely you're getting money from the govenment (EIC) and paying some into SS and medicare (not taxes). This is where 99% of our illegals fall -- even the "legally" working ones. It's ONE of the reasons why we limit the amount coming into the country.

As for a border camera system being compared to "gestapo" tactics. You're way off. Total FUD. You'd rather have a wall? As much as I have a problem with illegals, a wall isn't what I'd want either. I'd prefer Mexico to straighten it's ass up and get a real government of the people, not a few corrupt businesses. Fox is the biggest joke in Mexico in the last century, who feels no shame in exporting his countries poorest to the US for whatever they can get.
I think a "virtual fence" like this might be a better solution. Something we can remove easily when (and if) Mexico ever gets it's head out its ass and straightens out its economy. As far as encouraging xenophobia -- whatever. That's a racial cop out. I have no problem with LEGAL immigrants. I married a LEGAL immigrant. My great grandparents were LEGAL immigrants. I have no racial issues at all. I have serious issues with people violating our laws and then expecting preferential treatment. There are many reasons why we limit the amount of immigrants into this counrty -- despite the fact we have the largest number of immigrants entering the US ever year than any other courty in the world.
Can't say I'm too thrilled about the whole plan, but it sounds better than most.

Re:There is a key difference

[ghost_world]

The GP post is right (so by extension you are wrong)...
I could go to the cops right now and say that you are a criminal (say drug dealer or something), and if my claims are remotely credible you might be questioned by police. At worst a search warrant may be issued for your house and/or place of business. Assuming I am wrong (or it's not easy for police to get evidence of your guilt) they will eventually go away (and I may be looked at for filing a false police report).

How is this different from things in Nazi Germany, or the USSR, or Cambodia in the late 70s, etc., etc.?

The difference is in the laws, and the tactics of the police after I "denounce" you. Not in the fact that citizens can inform on each other. If I could tell the police that you read Ayn Rand, and are therefore a communist sympathiser... and this prompted them to drag you out of your house in the middle of the night - never to be seen again - then a cultural attitude of parnoia would reign.

Re:There is a key difference

[Vicissidude]

I mean c'mon, having thousands of border patrol officers isn't enough, we need to get citizens to sit in front of their computers and watch for people trying to sneak in?

No, because we also have thousands of miles of border that needs to be secured 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and in 8 hour shifts.

No, because we do not want to build the simplest of measures to slow people down from coming into our country: the fence.

No, because we have 3 million people coming across the Mexican border per year.

Personally, I'm against such a closed-border policy as we already have. I think that in itself is wrong and fosters/reflects a really unhealthy cultural attitude within our society.

We are a soverign nation. We have the right to protect our borders, just like every other country in the world. We have a right to decide which immigrants come here and which immigrants do not, just like every other country in the world. The "unhealthy" attitude here is yours since it goes against every other country in the world.

And we are a democracy. Our people decide our government policies. Our people decide who enters government and represents us. These illegal immigrants or foreigners are now asserting that they have rights. Some are actually voting. Electoral votes based on the census is already skewing towards California, giving that state more power. The census is based on number of people, not number of citizens. These foreigners are therefore altering the structure of our government. And each one that votes, illegally or not, makes your vote and your voice count less.

It's the fact that this act seems to encourage individuals to sit at their computers watching for people crossing the border illegally and be government informants. I mean, how is anyone going to tell that some illegal immigrant is a "terrorist"? They can't.

These people do not have to determine why someone is crossing the border illegally. These people do not have to determine who is crossing the border illegally. They just need to tell that anyone is crossing the border illegally, since that act itself is illegal!

And what are the chances that this is actually going to catch any terrorists? Probably close to nil.

And what are the chances that these people crossing the border are law-breakers in one form or another? Probably close to 100%.

Do you know how many people we have patroling the Canadian border?

No idea. And I don't care. The problem we are having is not as apparent on the Canadian side. Further, the government of Canada actually helps us patrol the border. That is in stark difference to the Mexican side where the government there actually encourages illegal immigration into the US.

Do you honestly think that terrorists will try to hop the Mexican border rather than simply forge a fake passport or come in from Canada?

I think terrorists will actually get a visa and come straight to the US because of our lax rules written by people like you.

Known terrorists on US watch lists will have to find another way in. And frankly, the easiest way in is through places where the smuggling networks are already set up and the government encourages the activity: Mexico.

And what kind of people do you think are actually going to waste their time with this border-watch nonsense?

The same people who sit on neighborhood watches, watching for crime from their own houses.

Sure it's just enforcing our borders, but the social consequences of encouraging people to rat out a really quite benign segment of our society just because they were born in a different country and wanted to make a better life for themselves here is much more detrimental to our society than any terrorist attack.

I'm sorry, these people are not "benign". These foreigners steal jobs that would otherwise go to Americans. As such, they de

Re:There is a key difference

[lysergic.acid]

Why do you think so many Mexicans come here illegally? Do you think they prefer to come here illegally so they can be ineligible for healthcare, insurance, driver's licenses, financial aid for college, property ownership, all but the least desireable jobs, etc.? Do you think they prefer to be crammed into the poorly-ventilated cargo area of a smuggler's boat, ride in the cramped and suffocating trunk of a smuggler's car, or travel through the desert with inadequate food/water/shelter, and risk their very lives to come to the U.S. rather than simply present their passport and hop on a plane?

What did you do to properly earn your right to live and work in the U.S.?

With our current immigration policies it's just not possible for those that come here illegally to gain citizenship "properly." Why? Because they were born in the wrong country and socio-economic stratum. I guess what's written on the Statue of Liberty doesn't mean shit anymore:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

I think someone who is willing to risk being killed by disease/heat/other bodily harm on their passage to the U.S. and risks being sold as a sex slave or forced into sweatshop labor has earned their right to live here even if they weren't privileged enough to be born in one of the countries where immigration into the U.S. isn't heavily restricted. These are individuals who have had a much harder life than most of the people who want to keep them out, and are much less fortunate than those who were able to gain citizenship. I think they're much more deserving than someone who was simply born here and never had to take those risks, make those sacrifices, or endure those hardships to be here.

You can sit there and smugly say that illegal immigrants ought to just "properly earn their right to live here" because you take the privileges you were born into for granted and don't realize that for some people, risking their lives to come here illegally is the only way for them to seek the opportunities and quality of life that you enjoy. And even after they get here illegally they still face hardships that you wouldn't know anything about, despite many of them being created by your sort of attitude.

Re:There is a key difference

[Lord Ender]

There is nothing xenophobic about enforcing immigration law.

But good job cheapening your own argument with this obvious misuse of a language.

Re:There is a key difference

[Anonymous Coward]

The crushing paradox here is the U.S. economy is now completely dependent on these workers and if you actually succeeded in getting rid of them all numerous industries would crater like agriculture, construction, gardening, house keeping(including hotels) and restaraunts.

I don't believe this for one second. Where's the proof? There are just as many poor and impoverished AMERICANS willing to take the jobs that illegals take from us, but the fact that they do it for far less than a living wage makes it impossible for us to get them.

Again, I hear this over, and over, and over again. The country didn't come to a sudden, devastating economic halt during their little work boycott, so where's the proof?

It isn't there, because it isn't true. Having the prices on our agriculture, housing, food, etc. go up because we're actually paying the workers what they're worth is *not* dependance, so come up with another argument, please.

Also notice that you don't see any other immigrant groups marching along side the mexicans. No asians, no africans, not even other latin american countries, and it's because the mexicans are cheating the system, and destroying everything for the rest of the honest, law-abiding immigrants.

I also take offense at you lumping every west german into the "lazy, spoiled" category, which is just as untrue as saying that all mexicans are hard-working skilled labourers. As a former contractor, I can tell you that they as a whole, are not. They are no more hard working than Americans, and certainly not as skilled, the difference is that they came from a fucking mud hole, and are hungry and desperate. Imagine if those same workers became citizens, and bought houses, cars, got credit cards, and started to amass debt, certainly their wage demands would rise accordingly. (Much the same as Indian outsourcing has since they've become accustomed to posh living conditions.)

Re:There is a key difference

[lysergic.acid]

That's not a good analogy. A better analogy would be if the government set up cameras in residential areas and streamed the feeds over the internet for anyone to watch; and below the stream they put a number to dial to report illegal/suspicious activities by your neighbors and such. This implentation of public surveilence would encourage people to spy on each other and fosters a general atmosphere of paranoia and mutual suspicion. It would cause people to be naturally suspicious of their neighbors. Afterall, why else would there be a need to watch them with video surveilence so closely?

Also, Ayn Rand is the founder of objectivism (which is a morally bankrupt and fundamentally flawed philosophy that has little to do with objectivity) and a staunch advocate of capitalism (which objectivism tries to justify morally/philosophically). Perhaps you should actually read some of writing of a person whose name you're gonna drop. A more appropriate name in that sentence would be Hellen Keller.

In any case, it's not that I'm worried about illegal immigrants getting taken away by the police, it's that we could soon live in a society where people are all too eager to rat each other out and act as informants for the govenrment. We already have law enforcenment for that, we don't need the entire public spying on each other. It creates a very hostile/paranoid/suspicious atmosphere.

And quite frankly, those people hopping the border are generally living pretty hard lives already. This system would just encourage more xenophobic attitudes against people we should be more sympathetic towards. Instead of focusing on treating these people as criminals we should be asking why they need to resort to such desperate/extreme measures to make a better life for themselves here.

Re:There is a key difference

[lysergic.acid]

Exactly. I wouldn't have a problem with the software detection system either really. It's just the public attitude that this is bound to encourage. A lot of people are already looking at the wrong places to blame all of our societal issues. This is just going to allow politicians to scapegoat illegal immigrants even more.

Re:There is a key difference

[lysergic.acid]

Bombing: Afghanistan, Iraq, most of the countries where "terrorists" are coming from.

Exploitation: Look at the effects of the economic policies which the IMF/World Bank have imposed on many developing nations to open up "free markets."

And my argument has nothing to do with whether people are forced to watch the webcams. The Gestapo didn't force anyone to denounce their neighbors. It's simply the attitude that certain systems foster.

Re:There is a key difference

[timeOday]

If some generous people want to reduce my tax burden by taking the load off border patrol, that's fine with me. No, I don't think that will happen, but I think it's a clever way to let individual citizens "get involved" in a hotbutton issue. And I also think it could actually help.

Re:There is a key difference

[demachina]

"Where's the proof?"

I grew up working alongside illegal aliens most from Mexico but Central America too. Their work ethic is consistently head and shoulders better than most Americans, my proof is my own eyes. The proof is employers are going out their way to hire them, yes because they are cheap but also because they will put in a hard days work for not a lot of money. Same is true of most people coming from Asia whether they be legal or illegal.

"I also take offense at you lumping every west german into the "lazy, spoiled" category"

Its just one of those facts of life that when you grow up in a relatively affluent society, where life is pretty easy you just don't develop the same kind of work ethic you do when you have to work all day everyday just to keep a roof over your head and food on the table, and you see next door real and grinding poverty. People in affluent countries come to expect higher and higher wages for less and less work, and lots of leisure time. This worked until globalization happened, the iron and bamboo curtains came down and vast pools of cheap labor came on the market.

Americans who grew up in the depression and lived through World War II have ten times the work ethic of young people today raised on TV and video games. Older Americans appreciate the value of a dollar and they know what really hard times are like, most Americans today don't ... yet. Thats why they are called America's greatest generation because they lived through a ton of adversity and they built an extremely successful country in spite of or maybe because of it. They had real drive to work hard and succeed. Contrast this with the dot com millionaires of a few years ago, who didn't do anything particularly useful and expected to get rich anyway, or the plethora of corprate scandals lately where executive after executive cooks the books, pockets vast sums for nothing, and doesn't see how this is a problem.

"Money for nothing and chicks for free" really is the motto of affluent western countries today. Post World War II generations are taking what was once a very successful country and running it in to the ground because they have no work ethic or maybe ethics period. They just expect to get rich whether they do anything to justify it or not. So now America is the world's biggest debtor nation and living off a giant credit card, and a lot of young people are trust fund babies living off their parent's hard work.

"Having the prices on our agriculture, housing, food, etc. go up because we're actually paying the workers what they're worth is *not* dependance, so come up with another argument, please"

Hate to break it you but we are living under Capitalism, for better or worse, so what people are worth is what they are getting paid, its sucks but thats the law of the invisible hand. America and Western Europe are completely not competitive in a globalized world as is, thanks to high cost of living, high wages, and high health insurance costs. If you insist on giving farm workers $15 dollars an hour and Blue Cross, it will just be way cheaper to import the food from some third world country, Walmart will, people will buy it, because most people will always by the cheapest product, and most of America's farms will crater. To be even remotely competitive in a globalized world farms need workers making minimum wage or less.

Its just an unfortunate fact that globalization is going to destroy workers in affluent countries. Its going to make workers in developing countries better off than they are, but they aren't going to get rich either. I read recently in CSM that Chinese workers in China's booming Southern coastal region are in fact starting to demand higher wages and better working conditions and wage inflation is starting to set in. In the globalized world this probably means India or Bangladesh will start undercutting them and Walmart will start getting its T-shirts from them instead.

The only people that are going to get rich in the new

Re:There is a key difference

[sumdumass]

I see no difference in this and some state letting citizens watch the security camers at a prison. Actualy there is a little difference but not enough to make a difference.

I also think it isn't much different then the civil air patrol watching the borders or identifying every aircraft passing overhead and then phoneing it in. The real reason people are getting thier panties in a unch over this is because they don't wan't mexicans stoped form entering the state. Some don't want it stoped because they enjoy cheap labor and products and other have some desire to repay or create a welfare to these people based on suposed injustices in the past or thier current living conditions. There is realy no threat that these cameras will be used in the public on the public.

One question i have though, does anyone know the resolution of these camera and will they stand upto the weather condition of texas. I've been to some of the border towns. It can go from extreamly hot in the day to realy cold at night. Can we get these cameras too?

Re:There is a key difference

[Anonymous Coward]

In a sense I agree with you, but don't forget who has actual, physical control of the camera network. Those are the people who can freely alter the feeds, switch the feeds, turn the feeds off when they don't want to be watched, etc. It's not really open and transparent except superficially.

Re:There is a key difference

[Anonymous Coward]

We are not monitoring citizens, we are montoring women. We are not promoting sexism, but a soveriegn nation has the responsibility to protect it's property. Even as we choose to give these women certain freedoms, we must make sure that are protected, as they have no ability to protect themselves.

We are not monitoring citizens, we are monitoring the negro. We are not promoting racism, but a soveriegn nation has the responsibility to protect it's borders. These negros are aligning themselves with foriegn powers and non-christian cults, most particularly Islam, and this is dangerous to our security. If the black man is tricked into believing that he should not go to war, who will fight? If the black man is tricked into believing that christianity is not way to salvation, and how can expect a black man to make such a decision, what will happen to his immortal sould and the soul of his children and his wife?

I have your hate mongering on TV and the radio. It is easy to sit back and say that others have less rights than you do, especially when such statement guarantee that you have a cushy life, while others pay for it. If we do not believe that all men are created equally, that we are all the children of god, that we are all have inherent worth and dignitity, that we all are equal under the law, then we have no leg to stand on when an american soldier gets his head cut off. If we start demarcing certain people as deserving of rights and other not, then we certainly must allow others to do the same. When we start putting our cultural norms above others, then we much allow others to do the same. You type of hate only leads to one thing. War. And I know that many people want war. It brings money and prosperity. But those people are sick, in desperate need of medical attention.

And one thing missing in all these arguments. As far as I know illigal immigration is not a felony. It is a civil action. For the most part, civil actions does not degenerate rights. For instance, if you get a parking ticket, you do not expect that the police would then have the right to tap your phone or search your house. Now, the Republicans want to make it a felony, and I am OK with that if we would also make the hiring of illiegal immigrant a felony, even with due diligence, and fund enforcement of such crimes at twice that of border patrol. The reality is that many immigrant come here to work at job they already have, and the employer, and those of us who benifit from illegal immigration are just as guilty. It is like a attractive nuiscense.

Every dog has it's day. For instance, Ken Lay thought he was untouchable, and in the end he probably will get no jail time, but it still shows that everyone special priviladge eventually runs out.

Re:There is a key difference

[lysergic.acid]

Actually, I have attended public schools in Southern California, and I have also been to the hospital before. I also have (state) healthcare and pay car insurance in Southern California. I understand that the healthcare system has severe shortcomings and so do our schools (thoguh the schools I attended were pretty good IMO), but these problems have nothing to do with immigration.

Firstly, immigrants contribute to our economy by providing cheap labor for many industries, and we benefit from this through the cheaper goods produced by them. We also have one of the largest economies in the world, so if our school/healthcare systems are underfunded, it's because we don't employ a progressive tax system capable of supporting our educational/healthcare infrastructure, and/or because tax money is being misspent. Secondly, if you buy anything in California, you're paying state sales tax and putting money directly back into the economy. So saying that illegals don't pay taxes or are stealing from our economy is just a load of BS. An illegal immigrant who comes here to make minimum wage and shares a 2 bedroom apartment with 20 people is more likely to spend all of their disposable income on basic necessities than some millionaire who keeps most of his money in tax-exempt off-shore bank accounts.

A 2006 survey showed that the poorest families in California are paying the greatest share of their income in taxes. Meanwhile, the top 10% of America's families are the ones controlling 2/3 of the national wealth. Do you think this moneyed elite are putting over 90% of their disposable income back into the economy by shopping for food and paying for other basic necessities? The current Social Security tax cap is set at $10,900 a year. So while lower and middle class families are paying 6.2% of their income to Social Security, people like Bill Gates who have more money than many foreign countries are paying less than .1%. And the Bush administration continues to give tax cuts to the rich.

And if you're here illegally, you don't have a social security number, so how would you be able to sign up for welfare? In any case, most people receiving welfare aren't lazy freeloaders as you seem to believe. The reality is, most welfare recepients are single mothers working 2 jobs, or more. Besides, we live in the richest nation in the world. We constitute only 6% of the world's population yet hold over 40% of the world's resources. So why aren't we capable of providing social welfare services to our poor when other nations with less resources have all but eliminated poverty from their societies?

Blaming immigrants for the short comings of our society and all of our social/economic problems is not only reactionary, it's incredibly ignorant. I would advise you to study a little American history and learn what values our nation was founded upon, and what exactly made our nation so great to begin with. Perhaps you need to be reminded of what the inscription on the Statue of Liberty says:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Someone who risks their life and everything they have to cross the border in a sweltering unventilated truck trailer, a cramped and suffocating car trunk, or crosses the border by foot without adequate food, water, or protection from the elements, in order to make a better life for themselves in "the land of opportunity" dseerves to be here just as much as you and I. I think someone who risks being sold as forced laborers or sex workers, risks being robbed or killed by drug cartels and smuggler gangs, and came here to escape a life of poverty, would actually appreciate the opportunities we enjoy much more than someone who was simply born here, who takes their privilege for granted, and would actually seek to deny the less fortuna

Re:There is a key difference

[Millenniumman]

Coming to America is not an intrinsic right. No rights are being taken away, laws are being enforced. And these people are not being monitored unless they are committing a crime.

Re:There is a key difference

[Anonymous Coward]

As a women you are owned by your husband. You have no rights outside of the rights he grants you. If he beats you with a branch thinner than the width of thumb, no rights are being taken away, laws are merely being enforced

As a negro, you have no rights, outside of those granted by your master. If he locks you out and kills those that run away, no rights are being taken away, merely law enforced.

As a non-white citizen, you have rights, but only those that you can afford to defend. If no jury is going to convict the teens that sodomize you, then you do not have the right to not be sodomized.

As a person, you only have the rights you fight for. A right that is not fought for is not being taken away, merely abdicated. If you do not fight against infringements of privacy, then such a right does not exist.

The fact remains that if we arbitrarily disallow basic human rights for certain persons merely because of thier location or looks, then we are saying that those things are not basic rights. We have the rights to defend the border, and a rational person says the best way to do this is though reasonable and cost effective border patrol, that respects the rights of jurisdiction, combined with significant penalties for those US Citizens that conspire to cause, or throught thier acts ecourge, the immigration of undocumented foreign nationals. After all, the foreign nationals are not under our juridiction and we should no more want to punish a foreign national under our rules that we would want an American citizen to be punished under the rules of foriegn country, be it a caning or beheading. We should, however, expect US citizens to follow the rules of country in which they choose to live. If immigration is such an issue, perhaps jail time for the American citizens who promote the traffic of humans would be best.

Re:There is a key difference

[daniel422]

You are so out of touch with reality I don't know if reason will even avail me here. The fact that you keep getting +3 modifiers for this tripe only heightens my frustration.

"Actually, I have attended public schools in Southern California, and I have also been to the hospital before. I also have (state) healthcare and pay car insurance in Southern California. I understand that the healthcare system has severe shortcomings and so do our schools (thoguh the schools I attended were pretty good IMO), but these problems have nothing to do with immigration."

Wow. I'm going to have to chalk another one up to our poor education system. Dude, you've got to wait for hours (I've waited as much as 10 hours, and have known others to wait as much as 15!) to get any emergency room service -- since this is the first place illegals go for health care. Yeah, I could blame that on the fact we don't have universal health care (and thus the hospitals foot the bill -- causing more hospitals to close from budget shortfalls), but again I ask -- who pays for this?
Our schools are the same issue. Thousands flooding the schools with no additional funding to account for them. Now you would think they'd get more money for more students. This is not the case, even though almost half the states budgest goes directly to education funding.

"Firstly, immigrants contribute to our economy by providing cheap labor for many industries, and we benefit from this through the cheaper goods produced by them. We also have one of the largest economies in the world, so if our school/healthcare systems are underfunded, it's because we don't employ a progressive tax system capable of supporting our educational/healthcare infrastructure, and/or because tax money is being misspent. Secondly, if you buy anything in California, you're paying state sales tax and putting money directly back into the economy. So saying that illegals don't pay taxes or are stealing from our economy is just a load of BS. An illegal immigrant who comes here to make minimum wage and shares a 2 bedroom apartment with 20 people is more likely to spend all of their disposable income on basic necessities than some millionaire who keeps most of his money in tax-exempt off-shore bank accounts."

Wow. This is the typical republitard argument. Lets keep our slave race of cheap labor. Every industry the gets a help from "cheap labor" is footing the bill to you and me -- the taxpayer -- for all the other public services they consume (healthcare, education). And yeah, they do pay sales tax (which helps local economies only) -- assuming they are spending their money in reputable establishments that don't also hire illegals ('cause remember -- this is about ILLEGALS, not just immigrants). Remeber our "day without an immigrant" last month? Nicest commute day I've ever had in LA. The most interesting thing was the businesses that were most affected were the businesses that hire illegals! They were businesess almost entirely supported by illegal immigrants, run by illegal immigrants. Talk to a "real" American hispanic, and they've got a different view of illegals than you see on TV.
Saying we our schools/healcare is messed up becasue we don't have a progressive tax system only proves my point. That's a total cop out. We have tons of money in this state -- almost all from the rich and wealthy businesses (like Google) we have here in the US. You'd like the poor to pay more? We can drive all the rich (and businesses) out of this state. See how much tax revenue we get then.
Oh and just sales tax? I'd still claim they're getting more out than that. Not just becasue the type of businesses ILLEGALS support don't pay their correct taxes (when income is claimed -- if it's not a cash-only transaction). And SS#'s? It's called identity theft, and it's QUITE common. Yes, they can still get welfare and other services (even EIC tax credits).
Let's do the math: 20 ILLEGAL immigrants in one house vs. 1 millionaire with an offshore account (your example). The mil

Re:There is a key difference

[ghost_world]

Yes. Yes. I have read several books by Ayn Rand - including We The People - so I know that she was extremely anti-communist. I was trying to come up with a patently ridiculous claim as an example of what might happen in a truly totalitarian regime... I guess I was too subtle for you. Oh well. In any case, I think my analogy was appropriate. Whatever. There will be cameras in most neighborhoods within a few years. So you'll find out if you live in an "atmosphere of paranoia and mutual suspicion". I think not - so long as the police aren't dragging you communist sympathisers away in the night ;)

Re:There is a key difference

[lysergic.acid]

Ok, perhaps I misinterpreted your post. Parts of the message such as sarcasm and tone tend to get lost in text communication, so perhaps my response was a little too hostile. In any case, my point is that totalitarian regimes don't come into power over night. I wasn't implying that this act would immediately make the U.S. a police state, but I believe the cultural attitude it represents/encourages might allow us to drift in that direction. I'm just of the opinion that we should be more critical of those who are in power and actually run the show than the dishevelled have-nots of society.

Re:There is a key difference

[q-the-impaler]

What did you do to properly earn your right to live and work in the U.S.?

It's not what I did; it's what my great-great-great grandparents did. And they did it legally. Since then, laws have changed, circumstances have changed, and this country has changed. It's not my fault I was born in the U.S. and they weren't. Sure, I understand their plight to want to be here and wilingness to do so illegally. However, there is an obvious LEGAL way to do so, even though it may be slower and more difficult.

And don't give me that "Statue of Liberty isn't worth crap any more" B.S. The U.S. isn't keeping people from immigrating, it just has a process that isn't being followed properly.

And even after they get here illegally they still face hardships that you wouldn't know anything about, despite many of them being created by your sort of attitude.

I do mission work 2 months a year every other year, mainly in Africa. My heart has been broken many times by seeing humans and animals both brutally starved and murdered by hostile governments. Seeing that has fortified my view that there has to be order in immigration. Civilization takes generations to build, and if every poor soul that wanted a chance to better himself was allowed immediately in the U.S., there would be no civilization for them to enjoy in the future. There has to be a slow healing before there is a cure. You offer only a bandage to a mortal wound. I see the larger scale of humanity, and you see only the individual.

Re:There is a key difference

[lysergic.acid]

So you think illegal immigrants are an invading military threat? Who do you think these people choose such perilous methods of crossing the border just so they can be treated as second class human-beings? Do you think they wouldn't rather just apply for a VISA and come here legally instead of having to be smuggled in the back of a cramped and unventilated car trailer or even in the trunks of the cars of smugglers, just so that when they get here they risk being sold into forced labor or into the sex trade?

Try to put yourself in their situations. People don't resort to such extreme means unless they really have to. Our immigration policy towards countries like Mexico make it impossible for the poor and dispossed to attain citizenship legally. Xenophobic attitudes that think that illegal immigrants are the ones destroying our country (rather than the moneyed elite who hold the actual power) only make it even more difficult for these people to find a better life for themselves here.

And the idea that just because you lucky enough to have been born here legally, or that your parents/grandparents were privileged enough to be able to immigrate here legally makes you more worthy of a decent quality of life than someone who risks everything they own, including their very lives, to come here, is total BS. I'm sorry.

I'll be honest, I'm a first generation immigrant myself so I may be biased (though so is everyone to a certain extent, unless you believe yourself to be omniscient and possess perfect clarity into every single possible perspective). My parents risked a lot to come to the United States from Taiwan, so that I may have a better education. Now, the U.S. immigration policy isn't nearly as stringent as it is with Mexico, but we still faced out share of problems. My family wasn't poor, we were pretty well off by most standards, but obtaining a green card was still quite costly for our family. In fact, the process took over 2 years, we had to employ the services of immigration lawyers, and as a result we were scammed of nearly half of our family fortune. Now, my parents are both educated, well to do, and skilled professionals without any kind of criminal record, yet gaining just a greencard was still an great ordeal for our family.

Now, imagine an impoverised Mexican family trying to do the same when the U.S.'s immigration policies towards Mexico are many times more. It's simply unrealistic to expect them to be able to go through what my family had to go through to get a greencard here. And IMO, they're even more deserving of coming here to start a new life since they have much harder lives, and especially if they are so desperate as to try to cross the border by foot or through shady smugglers and risk their lives just to have a taste of the freedoms we take for granted.

You are worried about the wrong issues as being threats to the American people. If you're opposed to hostile governments that exercise violent coercion on weaker nations, how about taking a look at our own foreign policy. Amnesty International estimates that the U.S. economic sanctions on Iraq killed about half a million Iraqi children through starvation and a lack of medical supplies. Or what about other atrocities, like pharmacutical giants which won't let African governments combating AIDS epidemics to produce their own generic AIDS medications, which they have the resources to produce and would allow them to treat their entire AIDS-infected population, rather than just the 5-15% that they're able to treat with the current system. What about the 30k+ civilian casualties caused by U.S bombing of Afghanistan in a few short months just to catch a terrorist organization that is composed of at most 3000 indiivduals world-wide?

Brutal governments and societies exist in all shapes and sizes, but often the greatest atrocities are the most subtle ones that are much more insidious than the sensationalized and demonized "invasion of illegal mexican immigrants" that politicians like to use as a scapeg

Re:There is a key difference

[q-the-impaler]

So you think illegal immigrants are an invading military threat?

Where in any of the previous posts did you see me write the words "military threat" or anything like it? I stopped reading after your first sentence. You obviously have an agenda and are not up for intellectual debate. Good luck with it. Now, if you'll excuse me I have some taxes to pay.

Slight Difference

[AKAImBatman]

Hey, it's working for Britain, right?

There's a subtle, but important, difference. Britain's cams look in while Texas's cams look out. If Texas tried to spy on its citizens the same way that Britain does (not that I'm saying that Brits necessarily mind the camera), the Texans would blow them away with 20 gauge shotguns.

Re:Slight Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

12 gauge shotguns with high velocity slugs. They're not pansies in Texas!

Re:Slight Difference

[spxero]

I prefer 3" mags- much better range and penetration.

Re:Slight Difference

[trybywrench]

If Texas tried to spy on its citizens the same way that Britain does (not that I'm saying that Brits necessarily mind the camera), the Texans would blow them away with 20 gauge shotguns.

As a Texas resident I can guarantee you we wouldn't use a 20 gauge. Most likey we'd use a 12 gauge ..or a 30-06.

Re:Slight Difference

[cyberformer]

They said the same thing about the illegal phone tapping: that it was just for international calls. Now we learn that it's actually for all calls.

Texans are already being spied on by their government, as are all Americans.

Re:Slight Difference

[oliverthered]

the Texans would blow them away with 20 gauge shotguns.

Which is why they banned guns in the UK, well that and the other Government things that we would blow away.

Re:Slight Difference

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

There's a subtle, but important, difference. Britain's cams look in while Texas's cams look out.

The moral of the story here ladies and gents, is that its fine to spy on your neighbours, but not upon your family.

If Texas tried to spy on its citizens the same way that Britain does (not that I'm saying that Brits necessarily mind the camera), the Texans would blow them away with 20 gauge shotguns.

Demonstably incorrect. Texas already has cameras in public, and already has legislation allowing for secret camera locations.

Sorry, your going to have to find another state for your hard-man scenarios. Texans rolled over as quickly & quietly as the brits did.

Re:Slight Difference

[drp]

You know, I probably dislike Bush as much as you do, but I have to correct you here. From what has been released in the press (which, of course, could be wrong, but we have no reason to doubt it), domestic-to-domestic calls have not been listened to without a warrant. All that has been done (and I'm not saying that it isn't sketchy) has been an identity-less correlation of mass amounts of calling patterns, with no contents of calls being recorded or listened to.

I suspect we are both on the same side, but you lose credibility when you are factually incorrect, and thus getting it right strengthens your argument.

Re:Slight Difference

[KimmoA]

Sure you wouldn't go directly for your .50 BMG? ;)

Re:Slight Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

identity-less

Except for the phone number, which half the time you can punch into google and get an answer whether you're NSA or a regular citizen.

Re:Slight Difference

[HermanAB]

Yup, I'm sure the Texans will blow them away with shotguns, but the Mexicans will simply climb up and remove them, then sell them somewhere. It could be a lucrative trade. There is big difference in mentality between these two friendly(?) neighbours. Americans like blowing things up. Mexicans? Well, let's just say they like a little business on the side.

Re:Slight Difference

[AKAImBatman]

Demonstably incorrect. Texas already has cameras in public, and already has legislation allowing for secret camera locations.

Are you talking about the cameras on the University of Texas premisis? Because I'm not aware of any cameras on the streets of Austin, Dallas, or Houston.

While the University matter caused quite a bit of stink, a court eventually ordered the University to publicize the locations and information about the cameras.

Re:Slight Difference

[LifesABeach]

Your talking about Texans, not "Wet Backs"; Please consider the following senario:

<A group of people 'immigrating' through desert />

Cheech: Uh?! someone left a really great looking camera out here in the desert!?

Chong: Wow man! We can sell it and like get some food. I'm starving.

Cheech: OK. Hey! Theres ah cable attached to it!?

Chong: Wow! Cable TV; We can sell the cable for food.

Cheech: Cool, I'm starting to get hungry to.

Re:Slight Difference

[StandardDeviant]

.50's aren't just overkill, they're expensive ($1-2/shot). Sure we're a bunch of violent xenophobes here in Texas, but we're also a bunch of fiscally conservative violent xenophobes. ;) If all you're aiming (heh) to do is fuck up a lense/camera, unless they're seriously armored a .22 will do the job (cheap gun, dirt cheap ammo).

Re:Slight Difference

[kfg]

Britain's cams look in while Texas's cams look out.

Then how will they know if Napolean is coming?

KFG

Re:Slight Difference

[StandardDeviant]

Did they ban paintball too? Those'll do just as well at making a camera of less than optimal utility for would-be Peeping Governmental Toms, and you're not actually destroying property so if they did catch you the charges would probably be less.

Re:Slight Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not spying on our neighbors, genius. it's watching our border to the south and west. i really doubt they are installing telephoto lenses so we can watch the donkey shows in Nuevo Laredo. get a grip, and/or get laid.

Re:Slight Difference

[KimmoA]

That is expensive! Thankfully, there's freeware videogames. Be sure to try out GUTS (unless you can get Redneck Rampage to run)! ;)

Re:Slight Difference

[geobeck]

As a Texas resident I can guarantee you we wouldn't use a 20 gauge. Most likey we'd use a 12 gauge ..or a 30-06.

The difference, for those unfamiliar with shotgun gauge measurements:

12 gauge:
- BLAM!!
- *croak*

20 gauge:
- bang!
- Hey!
- bang!
- Stop shooting me, man!
- bang!
- Ow! That one broke the skin!
- bang!
- Okay, okay! We'll take the cameras down, just put the gun away, Mr. Vice President!

(Actually Cheney shot his 'friend' with a 28-gauge, at close range. If it had been a 12-gauge, the guy would have no head.)

Re:Slight Difference

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Because I'm not aware of any cameras on the streets of Austin, Dallas, or Houston.

You're not aware because you're not paying attention.

* Dallas has them
* Austin has them
* The police have allready been caught for selling footage from the (now allegedly not recording, but still present) Deep Ellum cameras.

And the thing is, while UT had to publish the locations, that requirement no longer exists for street CCTV.

They could be installing hundreds of cameras - and wouldn't have to tell you. If you're Texan, then presume you're being watched.

Re:Slight Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure can tell you're not from Texas.

If you're wanting impact to a statement, you use a twelve gauge. If you want to be laughed at, you use a twenty gauge. ;-)

Re:Slight Difference

[DrDitto]

the Texans would blow them away with 20 gauge shotguns.

20-gauge shotguns are for wusses. In Texas, you aren't considered a man until you can handle shooting a 12-gauge slug :-)

Re:Slight Difference

[natedubbya]

There's a subtle, but important, difference. Britain's cams look in while Texas's cams look out.

Really? Please give us your source for this amazing insight you have into the direction the cameras are pointing. How do you know they aren't facing the US side of the fence? I hope your knowledge of the camera direction is not from the stock footage of a fence that the BBC has posted... That would be an amazing assumption to make.

Re:Slight Difference

[greg_barton]

I would have agreed with you a few months ago, but just recently many Dallas suburbs instituted automated red light ticketing cameras. There's been hardly a peep of protest.

Re:Slight Difference

[i.r.id10t]

Nope. Most of the differences between 10, 12, 16, 20, 28, 32 gauge (and 410) is the payload, not the velocity of the pellets. So a 12 gauge puts out 1 ounce of #8 pellets (popular size for skeet, trap, bird hunting) and a 20 gauge puts out about 3/4 or 7/8 of an ounce of #8 pellets, but they will both be at about the same velocity (1200-1300 f/sec). The larger gauge has more "killing" power because it is delivering more pellets to the target. Taken to extremes, a 2 3/4" 12 gauge shell loaded with 00 buck (double-ought) had 9 pellets in the load, a 3" 12 gauge magnum of 00 buck has 12 pellets. A 3" 410 has 3 or 4 pellets in the load. Both move at approximately the same velocity.

Re:Slight Difference

[geobeck]

Thanks for the clarification. Actually, my misconception wasn't so much about velocity as about the bore of the gun and the size of the pellets. To clarify further:

1. Do higher gauge numbers have a smaller bore size?
2. Do higher gauge numbers tend to use smaller pellets?
3. If lower gauge numbers have a larger payload, but similar velocity, do they have a larger charge?

IANAGU (...not a gun owner); I've got enough other expensive hobbies. ;)

Re:Slight Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

20 gauge shotgun? That's for Yankees! We use 12 gauges down here!

Re:Slight Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

"If Texas tried to spy on its citizens the same way that Britain does (not that I'm saying that Brits necessarily mind the camera), the Texans would blow them away with 20 gauge shotguns."

Thats why Texans have marched to Washington DC over illegal call monitoring. Texas, wake up! You have been messed with - and by that Kennebunkport Yankee W.

Re:Slight Difference

[delong]

Except for the phone number, which half the time you can punch into google and get an answer whether you're NSA or a regular citizen

Except the phone number, which is public information.

Re:Slight Difference

[colmore]

And this is why a 12 gauge is the best gun for home defense. It makes a noise when you cock it that people generally recognize, and it doesn't take a particularly well-aimed shot to knock a fucker down. A criminal might not be scared of a granny with a pistol, he'll rush her assuming she won't have the guts to fire or the nerve to fire straight, but anyone with a survival instinct respects a 12 gauge at close range, even if they're also armed.

Re:Slight Difference

[Das Auge]

I'm not sure what would have been worse, accidentally shooting his friend while hunting or hunting birds with a 12 gauge. :)

Re:Slight Difference

[Guiness17]

Hey, unloading both barrels of the double barrel shotgun was always the nastiest thing going in Doom as well!

Re:Slight Difference

[i.r.id10t]

Gauge is determined by how many "pure" lead balls of the bore diameter it would take to weigh one pound. For reference, a 12 gauge is about .73 inches. Lower gauge number == larger bore diameter.

Pellet size is described as a number or letter - 000, 00, 0, and 1-4 buckshot, and then the birdshot sizes T,F,BBB,BB,B,2-9 are birdshot. The letter birdshot is what is typically used for geese, large ducks, and turkey, as are #2s. The lower numbers (2-6) are typically used for smaller ducks, etc. with 5 or 6s beign used for things like pheasant or rabbits, 6s and 7s are longer-range quail/dove loads (larger pellet == more velocity retention == more penetration == "killing power"), and 7, 7 1/2, 8, and 9 being for small game (dove, squirrel, rabbits, etc) and target games like skeet, trap, or sporting clays (golf with a shotgun).

The dram equivalent (powder charge) will typically be higher with the lower gauge numbers, but that is black powder based. Black powder explodes, smokeless powder just burns really fast. So a lot of what will affect velocity is powder type/burn rate/etc. and how much of it there is, and what type of primer is used to ignite it.

And then for giggles, I'll mention chokes and back boring. Choke is a measurement of constriction near the muzzle - it will control to some degree how much hte shot will spread at any given distance, usually referenced in what percentage of pellets will be in a circle of a given diameter at a given distance. Full vs. modified vs. improved (aka improved cylinder or just cylinder) vs. skeet, and variations thereof (turkey hunters will sometimes use extra-full, skeet shooters want a large pattern to help hit the clays moving at 90mph close by... etc). Back boring is when the overall diameter (aside from any choke) is slightly larger than spec near the chamber, tapering back down to spec diameter and then choke diameter. Reduces pressure which supposedly reduces recoil, or at least changes the pressure curve which affects felt recoil.

Re:Slight Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope your comments were made in jest, lest you show just how little you know about shotguns.

To say that the 12 is a nuclear mankiller and the 20 is completely ineffectual is totally retarded.

Get yourself a 20 and head out to the range with some watermelons, phonebooks, milk jugs and other targets and see if you want to rethink your humor.

Re:Slight Difference

[bunions]

I haven't shot a lot of shotguns, but in my memory, a 12 gauge and a 410 both sound pretty much the same.

If I was gonna get a shotgun for home defense, it'd be something light, because I have no desire to injure my neighbors when a stray pellet goes through the drywall. Just my 2 cents.

Re:Slight Difference

[sickmtbnutcase]

No, not really. A 12 gauge is a much deeper (and louder) sound. I own one of each. The .410 sounds like the peashooter it is compared to a 12 gauge.

Great little squirrel gun though!

You want a light shotgun for defense? Try Mossberg 500 with pistol grip and short barrel. Get some light loads. Will put a hurting on someone without going through walls too well.

Re:Slight Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Would have been?

You are using the wrong tense, buddy.

Re:Slight Difference

[crossmr]

by rendering the equipment non-working by covering it in paint, I'm sure they wont' have too much of a problem making a case for damaging it.

but if you want to go ahead and give it a shot let us know how it goes.

Re:Slight Difference

[geobeck]

This is what I love about Slashdot: Reply to a post on privacy/politics, and get an education in shotgun types. :) Couple more questions:

Gauge is determined by how many "pure" lead balls of the bore diameter it would take to weigh one pound.

I take it this measurement was created when guns commonly fired lead balls that would occupy the entire bore diameter. I've heard of 'slug' rounds for shotguns. Is that essentially the same thing?

So, when choosing a shotgun for a particular purpose, I guess you have to decide several things:

1. Bore (gauge)
2. Shot size (are shells color-coded according to the shot size?)
3. Type of barrell--When would you want a wider pattern?

So if Dick had been hunting Quayle--I mean, quail--with a straight-bore 12 gauge loaded with buckshot, not only would his friend have no head, but any birds he happened to hit would be pretty much vaporized. On the other hand, with a back-bored 28 gauge, any birds (and friends) he happened to hit would still have all of their parts attached.

Re:Slight Difference

[WhamsterHeel]

Just get yourself a Remington 870 or a Mossberg 500 (both 12 gauge), folding stock or just pistol grip to make it more compact, and load it with 2 shells of #6 bird shot and then 2 shells 00 buck. The bird shot won't go through too many walls and is enough to knock someone down close range, and scare 'em long range. If they're particularly nasty, pump 'em full of buck.

Re:Slight Difference

[swillden]

Do higher gauge numbers have a smaller bore size?

Yes. Bore sizes are defined by the number of lead spheres of the bore size make up a pound of lead. So if you turn one pound of lead into 12 equal-sized balls, they'll be the size of the 12-gauge bore. Note that the .410 is defined by bore caliber, not bore gauge. Caliber is just radius measured in inches. A .410 has a bore that is 0.41 inches in diameter, which would be (IIRC) roughly 65 gauge.

Do higher gauge numbers tend to use smaller pellets?

Pellet size is independent. You can get any common shot size in any shell. The pellet size is selected based on the desired penetration and damage, the bore size is selected based on the desired number of pellets to throw, which in turn is decided by the desired dispersion pattern and shot density. Large bore shotguns can obviously maintain a useful shot density with greater shot dispersion, because they throw more shot. Shot dispersion is determined by barrel choke, which is a narrowing of the end of the barrel to tighten the shot pattern.

If lower gauge numbers have a larger payload, but similar velocity, do they have a larger charge?

Yes, though charge is also a variable here, even with standard off-the-shelf loads, there are magnums with higher charges and higher velocities, and lighter loads. Handloaded shells can vary wildly, and serious shooters vary charge and load to achieve particular performance characteristics.

Re:Slight Difference

[swillden]

Caliber is just radius measured in inches.

Doh! Diameter, not radius. Managed to drop a word in the first sentence, too. I should preview, I guess.

Re:Slight Difference

[bunions]

I mean when you rack it, not when you shoot it.

Re:Slight Difference

[colmore]

They did this in late 19th century warfare as well, loading cannons with "grape" (thousands of pellets) to knock out a row of advancing infantry at close range.

Would have sucked to be at that station though, you wouldn't get to run until they were just a couple hundred feet away.

Re:Slight Difference

[evil_Tak]

Lubbock has them, too. I don't have a link on hand, but I can go out and take a picture of some later...

Re:Slight Difference

[i.r.id10t]

Pretty much. The smaller gauges are more challenging to shoot (less pellets to get on target) and recoil less, and are often available in guns that weigh less. Barrel length will help with tracking thru a target, and may help with getting a proper sight plane.

Shells are usually color coded by gauge - and the shot size and dram equivalent is typically printed on them. 12 gauge is typically red, 16 gauge purple, 20 gauge yellow, although there is no "spec" to it.

You'd want a tighter patteren when shooting at a distance (think geese/ducks at 45 yards - about the limit for a clean kill on a shotgun) or into a smaller target (think turkey hunting - aim for the head, get 5 or 6 pellets in it). Wider patterns help with skeet (targets move left to right or vice versa at 75-90mph) and closer range shooting, such as quail hunting over dogs (pointers).

Of course, there is no happy medium, but a 12 gauge with a modified choke is about as close as you can get to it.

Re:Slight Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why you load the shells with rock salt. Won't penetrate the walls very far, but it's going to ruin the day of anyone you hit with it...

Re:Slight Difference

[elliotCarte]

I grew up in Indiana and was hunting (and playing with guns in general) starting at a very young age. Probably too young, but it was fun and no one got seriously hurt... not sure how.

Anyway, the difference between getting shot with a 20-gauge and a 12-gauge is increasingly noticeable as the size of the shot goes down. For example, there is a huge difference when comparing bird shot from 20 and 12 gauge shotguns. Move to a larger shot and the difference deminishes. Both are capable of shooting dear slugs as well (assuming the proper barrel). You stand at a reasonable range (which isn't so far for a shotgun) and let me shoot you with a dear slug out of a 20-gauge shotgun. Results may vary slightly (not much), but I guarantee your reaction won't be 'Stop shooting me, man!'

Re:Slight Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Seven thousand, six hundred and sixty nine comments.

Holy fucking shit, you really need to get a life.

Re:Slight Difference

[oliverthered]

If you going to get charged for damaging it then why not compleatly break the thing.

The Newer Colossus

[Anonymous Coward]

I've composed a little poem to be enscribed on your border wall. In honour of Ms Lazarus, its called "The Newer Colossus":

        "Give me your tired, your poor,
        Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
        The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
        Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
        I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
        PS: No Mexicans"

Re:The Newer Colossus

[KarmaMB84]

We would prefer they not enter intending to work and consume taxpayer funded services unless they're actually documented and paying taxes. Most of them just jump the fence and do whatever the hell they want letting the rest of us pick up the tab on already mounting deficits.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[netwiz]

I wonder what the immigration laws are like in your country. I'd bet that if I came over there as an illegal immigrant, I'd be denied work, and deported as soon as the relevant authorities became aware of my presence.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[sesshomaru]

Actually, in the Good Samaritan story, it would have been the Samaritan himself who would have been the illegal person. Samaritans were considered lower than dirt, Jesus was making the point that a good person is a good person, even if he's a member of a downtrodden and discriminated against group. Here's the Wikipedia article.

Oh, and Republicans don't worship Jesus, they just say they do. I think their true gods are Mammon, Dagon, and Mars.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[Anonymous Coward]

Legally enter the country.
Pay income tax to the state and government.
Pay for health insurance.
Get a driver's licence and buy automobile insurance.

That's all I ask - no matter where you're from.

Legal workers do also get basic government protection - guarantee of a minimum wage and social security income when they retire.

Illegal workers are using government services without supporting them. Their children freeload in government-funded schools. They pollute the healthcare system by being unable to pay their medical bills, forcing rates up for the rest of us (there's no hospital that would refuse emergency treatment - but everyone else pays). And the number of uninsured - and unlicenced - motorists in some states is dangerously high, forcing up the rates for those who *do* pay.

We have a system of rules and government. I have nothing against immigrants that obey the rules - we're a nation of immigrants, my own family included. But I have problems with people who enjoy the benefits of society, politics and government - without contributing and supporting it.

No country in the world would knowingly permit a non-citizen to enter undocumented, work tax-free, use government services and ignore federal and state laws. Why is it any different in the US?

Re:The Newer Colossus

[goldspider]

Of course, GP already knows this, but rather chooses to use emotional rhetoric to justify illegal immigration. Either that, or GP doesn't differentiate between "guest" and "trespasser".

Re:The Newer Colossus

[CodeMasterPhilzar]

No, Mexicans welcome. As legal immigrants. You don't like the immigration procedures, change them. Legally. Don't ignore them. Else hey, why not just ignore any other laws or procedures we find inconvenient or problematic?

What I'm concerned about is this... This plan opens up a whole new realm for neighborhood busybodies. To paraphrase Mr. T - I pitty the {fool} ie. the men and women who'll have to answer 624 hysterical calls when one kid is caught on video crossing the border.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[LiLWiP]

We still welcome immigrants. We want them to go through due processes to get in the country! It is the illegal immigrants that are the problem. As a previous poster said, if they want to come to the country LEGALLY, pay taxes, get health insurance, etc... we have no problem with them. I don't want to pay inflated medical expenses cause Julio jumped the border with his 15 kids and wife and went to the emergency room to get a bandaid for his finger that he cut working in someones lawn getting paid cash under the table.

Immigration laws have been put into effect to allow the poor, tired masses to come to the US for a better life. People subverting those laws and hopping the border are just common criminals and deserve no better treatment than the guy who steals from the drugstore/convenience store/insert store here.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[bhirsch]

The issue is not with caring for your fellow man. If Mexicans entering the US were naturalizing in the traditional sense of the word, most people would have little problem with it.

The problem is that aside from those who enter and consume welfare resources, a significant number send nearly every dime they make back to their families to be spent outside of the US. This amounts to bolstering Mexico's economy while weakening the US's. Why do you think Fox is so eager to let his own people leave the country?

Combine this with how attractive a place Mexico is for skilled workers and the picture gets a little bit clearer. Fox wants to offload his downtrodden on the US.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

So, why not get rid of the taxpayer funded services?

That is the answer to the #1 argument against immigrants.

Oh, and it's only illegal because there is a bad law saying that it is.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[Anonymous Coward]

not only that, but in many (most?) countries, you can never become a citizen if you immigrate legally. Some will allow you to come for work, while many others make it so difficult that you'll only be able to visit (for example in India, you can come there for work, but you must have a sponsoring employer and job offer BEFORE you step foot in the country).

Re:The Newer Colossus

[misleb]

Oh, please. Immigrants have always been labeled as lazy drains on society. Mexicans are no different. Reality is that they are just as hard working as anyone else. Quite often they do the work that no other Americans would want to do... for less than minimum wage. The problem is that getting "documented" is not easy.

If you are worried about deficits, talk to George W. about his new, very expensive, Department of Homeland Security. Or the billions of dollars spent per year keeping military in Iraq.

-matthew

Re:The Newer Colossus

[netwiz]

The Swiss require 8-10 years of residency, a significant net worth, and a lengthy education process, to be granted citizenship.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[Anonymous Coward]

"Guests" or "trespasser". You're right, I do have trouble with that distinction. Remind me, which were the Pilgrims?

Clue: If you want to be considered a good guest, don't slaughter your hosts and steal their land.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[dfjghsk]

I whole heartedly agree with you 100%.

Just wanted to add that it isn't the hospitals that choose to treat illegals... the federal government requires that illegal aliens be allowed emergency services and access to public schools at a minimum.

If I entered another country illegally, they wouldn't give me shit, much less emergency services and an education.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[Distinguished Hero]

PS: No Mexicans
How about "PS: No People whose first act in this country is violating its laws and sovereignty" instead.

What about all those people in the world who aren't lucky enough to live in a country along your southern border (like me). Are they doomed to never be allowed into your country legally because Mexicans are illegally flooding into your country, illegally filling whatever "immigrant" quota exists (unofficially, of course)? Or do we have to enter your country illegally as well now? If you believe that every person who wants to should be allowed to enter and live in the US, I suggest you find some place to put 3 billion people at least (the pop of the world - Western Europe - Canada - Australia - New Zealand - Japan - South Korea - Very Rich of China & India - Hong Kong - Singapore - Taiwan >> 3 billion). Or is entering your country at will a privilege only available to Mexicans?

Re:The Newer Colossus

[HermanAB]

You are forgetting something - they are poor - they will always be poor - the poor doesn't pay tax, not even in America. Therefore, in economic terms, there is no difference between an illegal poor migrant and a legal poor immigrant. The middle and upper class have to support them anyway. In any case, the poor represent a small part of the US population and should not be a burden.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're still feeling guilty/personally responsible for that, you've got more important issues to deal with than convincing us that illegal immigration is a good thing.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[HermanAB]

Nah, what you'll get is the smiling face of one kid disassembling the camera, then some snow...

Re:The Newer Colossus

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you have the few "bad apples", if i may be cliche, but we are over looking a series of major problems contributing to illegal immigration. I think that if the ones immigrating illegally had the means to do it legit, they wouldn't. The reason there is an influx is because of the poor economic environment in Mexico. This situation was supposed to be remedied by NAFTA, but is clearly still in an awful condition. I think that a better solution than putting more strain on security, the U.S. should instead institue a Marshall plan for Mexico. Economic growth in Mexico would, in my opinion, relieve the illegal immigration problem.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[Distinguished Hero]

Clue: If you want to be considered a good guest, don't slaughter your hosts and steal their land.
Marxist principles justify it: the "Native Americans" (people who had immigrated to the US a bit earlier than the pilgrims, as all humans originated somewhere in Africa) were the "bourgeoisie": they controlled an immensely disproportionate amount of capital (land) given their tiny population. The Pilgrims on the other hand were the "proletarians," controlling very little capital (including land). Marxist principles dictate that the proletarians rise up and strip the bourgeoisie of their property, and then redistribute it amongst themselves (potentially killing or otherwise punishing the bourgeoisie in the process).

Re:The Newer Colossus

[gowen]

people who had immigrated to the US a bit earlier

A bit? 10,000 years is "a bit"?

Re:The Newer Colossus

[metamatic]

If you're worried about mounting deficits, why not go after a few of the corporations that make billions of dollars in profits, but mysteriously pay no taxes?

For example, News Corporation (Rupert Murdoch, FOX) who pay 0-7% tax. Or Pepsico, who paid 0% tax in 2000, and still pay very little.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[madstork2000]

Just like democrats don't care about poverty stricken people, they just say they do to get more votes.

The real point is you can be a self center jack ass jerk no matter your race, religion, creed, political affiliation, penis / boob size, hair color, nationality, etc...

If people would concentrate on what we have in common, and what we can all do that is good for each other the world would be a much better place.

That being said, cameras on our borders is a fine idea, because we do need to protect what we have.

I wonder if those opposed to border patrols believe anti-spyware should be illegal too? Why not open your computer up to unseen visitors. I am sure they just want to make a better life for themselves by sending out a few emails... While you're at it why not leave your door unlocked, since its ok to sneak into places, might as well let people sneek into your home, raid your fridge, sleep in your bed. Goldie-locks, must be your favorite fairy tale.

We can be charitable, but people have to play by the rules. The rules are there to make sure things do not get out of hand. I am sure most illegal immigrants are hard working, good people, who want something better for themselves and families. But it is their home country that should provide the opportunity for that -or- if they choose to try a new country and come here they should follow the rules, and be properly accounted for otherwise they are taking away from you and I.

Everybody deserves a chance, but it needs to be a level playing field, the illegal immigrants are not only taking away from natural born citizens, but the legal immigrants who followed the proper channels to get here, and are contributing and making our country better.

Basically they are being selfish, and irresponsible, much like the little blonde girl we know so well from childhood.

-MS2k

Re:The Newer Colossus

[BrainInAJar]

When boatloads of chinese migrants showed up on the shores of Vancouver (in Canada...) a good chunk of them were allowed to stay

Couple people got their panties in a knot about it... mostly the ones heavily influenced by US media

Re:The Newer Colossus

[misleb]

Immigration laws have been put into effect to allow the poor, tired masses to come to the US for a better life. People subverting those laws and hopping the border are just common criminals and deserve no better treatment than the guy who steals from the drugstore/convenience store/insert store here.

Bullshit. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get into (and stay in) the country legally if you don't have high skills/education and don't have a job waiting for you? That whole thing about "give us your tired, poor, huddled masses..." is a lie. Those people are trying to get in and people like you don't want them. Not only do you not want them, but you want to treat them like criminals for trying. Two faced liars like you piss me off. The least you could do is be honest about it and say "No immigrants... except for highly educated white people."

-matthew

Re:The Newer Colossus

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not American, and I don't see what the problem is with stopping illegal immigration. It seems better for Mexico to keep it's people in and more fair for other immigrants. It may also solve some criminal activity. Also, with proper checks in place, their is more room for legitimate immigration.

However, I don't understand why illegal immigration is such a big problem for Americans. The numbers really aren't in the ballpark to significantly affect your deficit. On the contrary, considering that they are cheap workers that mostly compete for pretty much unwanted jobs, they probably just add to your total productivity.

If these illegal immigrants are gone, people will just find another scapegoat for their 'problems'.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Democrats are by definition better people?

That's a wiiiidde brush you're using there...

There are good and bad people on all sides you twit!

posted anon to spare eveyone this OT , but if you want to find out who I am, look to your newest foe

Re:The Newer Colossus

[Xonstantine]

If that were the case, you'd think we'd be doing something about legal immigration too since Mexicans are the single largest national component of legal immigrants in addition to being the overwhelming source of the majority of illegal immigrants.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[Distinguished Hero]

Oh, please. Immigrants have always been labeled as lazy drains on society. Mexicans are no different. Reality is that they are just as hard working as anyone else. Quite often they do the work that no other Americans would want to do... for less than minimum wage. The problem is that getting "documented" is not easy.
I wouldn't consider first-generation illegal Mexican migrants to be lazy at all: in fact, they almost certainly have far better work ethic than the average American, who feels quite entitled, on account of the illegal Mexican migrants having very little, but realizing that they can get quite a bit through hard work (whereas the average entitled American prefers to whine to the government).

Quite often they do the work that no other Americans would want to do... for less than minimum wage.
If you hold the minimum wage in such contempt, I suggest you abolish it, especially as a simple supply and demand graph will indicate that putting a lower barrier on the price of the supply of labour will lead to a surplus of labour (unemployment) if that lower barrier is above the equilibrium point (as equilibrium can now no longer be established). That being said, there will always be people outside of your borders willing to work for less than an American fat cat; should your government let them all in?

The problem is that getting "documented" is not easy.
If you broke into someone else's country, I suppose it wouldn't be (if someone broke into my house and started doing chores I definitely wouldn't "document" them). If they had waited in line like legal immigrants (from every country in the world) are doing, it might have been a bit easier, although that moron Bush seems to be doing everything in his power to "document" (grant amnesty) to illegal migrants (and with the full support of the Democratic party - a match made in hell - it looks like he will succeed; we shall see how long your House of Representatives holds up).

Re:The Newer Colossus

[Kadin2048]

I'd be all for that, but some people around here are rather attached to their government services. So as long as I have to pay for other people to not work, I'd rather pay for as few people as possible, and I'd prefer that the people that I do pay for, actually pay into the system.

Personally, about the only thing worse than the current situation is legalizing the number of immigrants we have today, and thus making them eligible for more taxpayer-funded services. That's what I find obnoxious about the Senate immigration bill -- in my opinion, it goes entirely in the wrong direction. Low-income employees generally consume more services than they pay in taxes, and thus are a net drain on the economy. Anything that lets more of them in, is a bad move and will hurt us overall.

About the only good to come out of the current immigration debate is that it's made it abundantly clear who is actually listening to their constituency and who is on the payroll of the big agribusinesses (who benefit from a cheap labor supply). I certainly know who I won't be voting for in the next election.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[MrSquirrel]

Taxpayer funded services? Like schools, roads, Police Dept, Fire Dept, emergency medical, and aid programs? Also, "it's only illegal because there is a bad law"... bad law says who? The U.S. actually has some of the most relaxed immigration policies -- that's right, we take in a lot of LEGAL immigrants. I have several friends who legally came to the country -- because they're legal, they pay taxes and therefore pay for the services they use. If they stayed in Mexico they could work to improve things there -- nothing's going to get better in Mexico if every able-bodied worker up and leaves.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not our fault the indians were squatting on our land when we got here.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[Distinguished Hero]

If your parents are the aristocracy of England should you be entitled to a better life than the average working slob due to your lineage? If your parents are the aristocracy of North America ("Native Americans") should you be entitled to a better life than the average working slob due to your lineage? I (and Marxist-Leninist theory) reject heredity and lineage as a proper claim on capital (land).

P.S. The claim to "Native American" lineage is simply at attempt to claim a patent on "the Americas." We discovered it *first*, therefore we should have an *infinite monopoly* on it; I'm sorry, but patents expire, and theirs expired a long time ago.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[tomcres]

Really? My college dropout former receptionist black African wife who just started working in this country four years after her arrival would beg to differ with that. People talk a lot of crap that don't know any better. They think it's nearly impossible to enter this country legally. Guess what? It's not! It just takes longer. You may have to wait several years. You'll need a sponsor (common sense, really... someone that will take financial responsibility for you if you can't support yourself rather than being a burden to society).

Yes, it takes longer, it costs money, and the paperwork is a pain, but it really isn't that hard, and I mean, if you really, really want to be here legally, you should be motivated enough to file the paperwork.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[misleb]

The issue is not with caring for your fellow man. If Mexicans entering the US were naturalizing in the traditional sense of the word, most people would have little problem with it.

And how, excactly, is a poor Mexican supposed to naturalize "in the traditional sense of the word?" Can you explain this process? Can you describe how a poor Mexican can realistically follow this process without getting deported? They can't, usually. The laws have been setup to discriminate against the very people that the US supposedly welcomes. "Give us your poor, tired, huddled masses," my ass.

The problem is that aside from those who enter and consume welfare resources, a significant number send nearly every dime they make back to their families to be spent outside of the US.

Too f'ing bad. They are free to send their hard earned money wherever they want. You can't discriminate against them for that.

-matthew

Re:The Newer Colossus

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Those are the exact tax funded services I mean.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[misleb]

Really? My college dropout former receptionist black African wife who just started working in this country four years after her arrival would beg to differ with that. People talk a lot of crap that don't know any better. They think it's nearly impossible to enter this country legally. Guess what? It's not! It just takes longer. You may have to wait several years. You'll need a sponsor (common sense, really... someone that will take financial responsibility for you if you can't support yourself rather than being a burden to society).

And if you don't have a sponser? Lets say you are just some average, poor Mexican. Who is going to sponser you?

Yes, it takes longer, it costs money, and the paperwork is a pain, but it really isn't that hard, and I mean, if you really, really want to be here legally, you should be motivated enough to file the paperwork.

You can file all the paperwork you want, but without a work visa, you're not going to get a (legal) job. And without a (legal) job, you're not going to become a citizen.

-matthew

Re:The Newer Colossus

[Anonymous Coward]

What a weird comment.

The poor don't pay income tax. Sales taxes etc. still go in the pot, regardless of who they come from. And for those immigrants with the means to drum up a SSN and some documents to fake legality for an employer, they have taxes siphoned off each paycheck as well.

In effect, illegal immigrants drain local resources like hospitals while what they give back goes further up the chain. So big business and the federal gov't are happy to look the other way, while border-town folk just keep getting angrier.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[Anonymous Coward]

Just out of my ass without any statistics to back this up, I'll suggest that we might just be spending/proposing to spend more money on keeping illegals out than they use up in tax funded services. That would be nice irony, however I don't know whether reality corresponds with this view.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[bhirsch]

They can apply for a green card when they turn 18 and wait until they are approved. This should be roughly six years (at least that is how old the current applications that are being processed are). Honestly, I would be happy to see the naturalization process made easier (as in more available), but with slightly higher standards than merely waiting.

A slogan on a poem written on a statue is not indicative of law or policy. Sorry.

Do you really not see what Mexico is doing? They are keeping their lower class down in order to profit from the US economy. I am sorry, but that is not "too f'ing bad" -- it is a dirty maneuver being used by the privileged in Mexico to keep themselves afloat at the expense of their people and the US economy. Moreover, it will ultimately leave the working class in Mexico much worse off.

If we can get hard-working Mexicans who speak English and will not abuse welfare programs in this country, great. I will enthusiastically support any policy or legislation that can accomplish this.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[mfrank]

You ever hear of the social security tax?

Re:The Newer Colossus

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the poor are taxed. Are you daft?

They're taxed anytime they purchase something; it's called the sales tax.
They're taxed on the gasoline they use, assuming they have a car.
They're taxed a hefty sum by the Social Security Administration if they work.
They're taxed numerous times if they have any sort of telephone service.
If they own a home, they're hit with property tax. If they rent, they're hit with fees to pay the landlord's property tax.
If they're able to put anyhting at all into a bank account, they're taxed on the interest.
If they win the lottery, there's an enourmous, ill-proportioned, tax applied to it.
If a relative dies and leaves them anything, our government sends them an inheritence tax bill.

If you're not very rich (and thus able to purchase laws/politicians/judges/police/etc), you are taxed over and over and over and over and over even after you're dead.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[MadHatter2005]

And how, excactly, is a poor Mexican supposed to naturalize "in the traditional sense of the word?"

Easy. They apply for citizenship and wait in line just like everyone else who is doing it the correct way. If they can't wait then too f'ing bad.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, in cosmic terms 10,000 years is a TINY bit

Re:The Newer Colossus

[dfjghsk]

There is no job that illegal aliens do that Americans aren't willing to do.. we have our poor too.

The industry with the highest number of illegals is farming.. where 27% of the work force is estimated to be illegal. Which means 73% of those doing that work are American citizens.

Americans are willing to do the work. Only 20% of our population has an education higher than a high school education. Those 80% of people work in manufacturing, service, retail, etc. These are the people who often work for minimum wage, and who have the highest unemployment rate (as you gain more education, the unemployment rate goes down). They will take whatever job they can get. (I should know.. my mother was poor too.. she worked on a farm picking oranges in Florida... she was an american citizen.. in fact, our family line dates back to the Mayflower.)

The problem isn't American citizens.. the problem is employers who want to exploit illegal immigrants. They want to pay them shit and exploit these people because they are vulnerable.

Illegal immigration is a problem. It drains state budgets.. Remember, the federal government is allowed to run a deficit.. the states are not. The states have strained budgets as it is and have (drastically in some cases) cut services for citizens. They (the local governments) cannot afford to pay for illegal immigrants.. they have a hard enough time paying for services for their own citizens.

They fill our federal (and sometimes states) jails (not for being here illegally, but for serious criminal offenses).. Lookup the percentage of illegals in federal prison for murder, rape, etc.. The numbers are far higher than you would expect for 11 million people.

The biggest opponents to stopping illegal immigrants are employers and Mexico... Mexico calls those who leave their country "National Heros". The 20 Billion they send back each year exceeds the budget for many Mexican states. Their border patrol holds meetings at the border to educate border crossers on how to get across the border, not get caught, and find a job in America.

They absolutely are a problem.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[twbecker]

Someone mod this parent up, his post is spot on. Securing the border is about controlled growth, making folks respect the law, and equal opportunity for all who want to come here. It has nothing to do with being "Anti-Immigration".

Re:The Newer Colossus

[Kadin2048]

Just out of my ass without any statistics to back this up, I'll suggest that we might just be spending/proposing to spend more money on keeping illegals out than they use up in tax funded services. That would be nice irony, however I don't know whether reality corresponds with this view.

I doubt very much that is the case. The expenses incurred by very low-income citizens and which are picked up by the taxpayers are difficult to quantify, but you have everything from the tangibles (healthcare costs, education, necessity of increased police presence) to more vague ones -- if your schools become overpopulated and student/teacher ratios increase, how do you quantify the cost of the poorer education students receive? Or if businesses can use cheap labor instead of mechanization, the loss of the skilled jobs at manufacturing companies? I could go on and on. There are a lot of indirect costs, as well as substantial direct ones (which I believe would outweigh border security anyway), that you'd have to add up.

Plus, while enforcing the border and limiting government services to legal citizens would discourage immigrants from coming to this country, just opening up government services -- even if that was cheaper in the short term -- would only encourage further immigration, and increase the cost over time. Any plan would be rolling out the welcome mat to every disaffected unskilled worker in the world, and that's definitely not where we want to go.

Our economy is struggling as it is with globalization, and we're barely making the transition to a high-skilled technology and service-based workforce as it is. Bringing ten or fifteen or twenty million unskilled workers into the very bottom echelon of our country isn't going to do any good, and a lot of harm.

The only people who would benefit from an influx of unskilled workers are the businesses that would rather not pay a decent living wage necessary to recruit an American worker, and the politicians eager to get their votes.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[delong]

If you are worried about deficits, talk to George W. about his new, very expensive, Department of Homeland Security

I think you mean the Congressional Democrat's new, very expensive, Department of Homeland Security, because it was Congress (and mostly Democrats) that demanded the Department be formed after Sept 11, over the Bush Administration's objections.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[delong]

The least you could do is be honest about it and say "No immigrants... except for highly educated white people."

You know, that's funny. The US admits over 1 million immigrants every year from all over the planet, and most of them are brown and black.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[AK Marc]

Then what would replace public roads, public schools, fire departments, and police?

Re:The Newer Colossus

[Lumpy]

What about all those people in the world who aren't lucky enough to live in a country along your southern border (like me).

Oh dont worry, this is just for testing. The real use is deploying these all along the Canada/US border to curtail those damned Illegal Canadian Immigrants.... Bringing their poutene and tooks and calling people hosers and knobs...

Savages!

Re:The Newer Colossus

[AK Marc]

The U.S. actually has some of the most relaxed immigration policies

Well, I recently went to China. I met more than one person that had a visa rejected or revoked by the US that was able to get into European countries without a problem. I met no one that was unable to get into the European countries in question. That makes me think that the immigration policies are more restrictive in the US than other places. We won't let people visit.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[delong]

Securing the border is about controlled growth, making folks respect the law, and equal opportunity for all who want to come here

Exactly. Millions of people from all over the planet want to come to the US. The economy cannot absorb them all at once. There has to be a system to determine who gets a visa or green card - economists know that you ration a good either by price, or by queue. We choose not to ration by price - if you want a visa, you wait in line. Although the wait is long and the process is not simple (there are alot of people that want to come here, natch) everyone has shot at getting a visa.

Now the question: why should latinos be given preferential treatment in that process just because they only have to swim the Rio Grande or Rio Bravo instead of the Atlantic or Pacific?

Re:The Newer Colossus

[AK Marc]

I think you mean the Congressional Democrat's new, very expensive, Department of Homeland Security, because it was Congress (and mostly Democrats) that demanded the Department be formed after Sept 11, over the Bush Administration's objections.

Wait, you are blaming the DHS on the Democrats who hold a minority in the House and the Senate and no power in the Executive? I guess those Republicans couldn't stand up to the overwhelming power of the Democratic minority. Maybe that's why Bush appointed so many incompetent people to the DHS - to prove what a bad idea the DHS is when it does things like botch the support to New Orleans. See, all the problems in New Orleans were the fault of the Democrats and their damned DHS. I knew it all along. It's a conspiracy by the Democrats to make the Republicans look bad.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[misleb]

A slogan on a poem written on a statue is not indicative of law or policy. Sorry.

I know. That is the problem. We should just take it down (the poem, if not the statue iteself). It no longer applies. That is my point.

Look, I'm not saying we should necessarily let in everyone and anyone who wants in. I'm just saying we should be honest about it and not pretend that anyone can get in if they just wait or go through the correct channels. There IS a filter. And it DOES discriminate against the poor. To pretend otherwise is just dishonest.

Do you really not see what Mexico is doing? They are keeping their lower class down in order to profit from the US economy.

Yes, I see what they are doing. They are screwing themselves in the long run by forcing those who are willing and able to work to leave.

I am sorry, but that is not "too f'ing bad" -- it is a dirty maneuver being used by the privileged in Mexico to keep themselves afloat at the expense of their people and the US economy. Moreover, it will ultimately leave the working class in Mexico much worse off.

Indeed, it'll proably leave the whole country worse off.

If we can get hard-working Mexicans who speak English and will not abuse welfare programs in this country, great. I will enthusiastically support any policy or legislation that can accomplish this.

But the immigration laws are setup to create welfare abuse. There is often no way for hard working Mexicans to get legal work visas. So they get stuck working for peanuts... if that. I don't think very many Mexicans come here PLANNING to abuse welfare. They come here for opportunity. Do you think living on welfare is FUN? Do you think that is something that people strive for?

-matthew

Re:The Newer Colossus

[AK Marc]

Because Democrats are by definition better people?

I didn't see anything in his post about Democrats. Why would you bring them up? Or do you think that every complaint about the Republicans is immediately a compliment to the Democrats? Bush is a Republican. Bush is dumb. Does that mean that I think Democrats are smart? Honestly, I don't see the connection between an insult against the Republicans and the Democrats. Perhaps you should practice reading what is written, and not taking some unrelated meaning you assign to it because of your mental shortcomings.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[misleb]

Easy. They apply for citizenship and wait in line just like everyone else who is doing it the correct way. If they can't wait then too f'ing bad.

It doesn't work that way. You don't just apply for citizenship and "wait." The fact that you would even suggest that shows you know nothing about immigration law.

-matthew

Re:The Newer Colossus

[AK Marc]

Just like democrats don't care about poverty stricken people, they just say they do to get more votes.

What's the matter? You can't let a justified stab at the Republicans go by without insulting the Democrats? Are such unrelated attacks your idea of "fair and balanced?" He didn't say Democrats are better. I don't think Democrats are any better. But I think Republicans are a bunch of lying hypocrites. So, do you instantly feel the overwhelming urge to insult Democrats because you've seen an insult against the Republicans? Why?

Re:The Newer Colossus

[bunions]

Mexicans are fine. We just ask that they go through the actual legal immigration process, just like the Irish, Italians, Chinese, Poles, and everyone else did.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[bhirsch]

My solution:

1. Enforce laws prohibiting employers from hiring those ineligible to work in this country.
2. Curtail welfare to the point that able-bodied people are not eligible.
3. Enforce the border by any reasonable means -- wall, fence, national guard, etc.
4. Adjust permanent resident visa standards to include:
    a. Minimal English proficiency.
    b. Relinquishing all claims to citizenship or residency in any other country.
    c. A spotless criminal record.
    d. A maximum wait of five years.
5. Begin looking at current illegal aliens for granting citizenship provided they exhibit a-c above.

This will provide almost all of the huddled masses a fair shot at the American dream and appease the neanderthals like me.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[Anonymous Coward]

what about the rest of the world, we may say ->

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

but there is nothing there saying our borders are wide open. I'm an american by immigration, *LEGAL* immigration, and i have to say this whole bullshit being brought up by mostly mexican/hispanic immigrants is bullshit.
This country is a wonderful place (not all we want it to be, true) but we (now) accept all, irrelevant of race, creed, gender, or religion. We simply ask you come here by legal means. We should be finding ways to lock down our borders, and just as important, if not more so, prosecuting businesses that hire illegals (which thereby means the cops should be able to query ppl on their illegal status,(which they currently are not allowed to do in most states, afaik!!!) and arrest them, hand them to INS( or whatever it's called now) and get them fucking deported!) this camera on the border issue is retarded, a real border fence would be ferpect. we should likely start w/ the mexican border, since that's where most of the ppl are coming from, then goto the canadian border.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[misleb]

Couple problems:

1. Enforce laws prohibiting employers from hiring those ineligible to work in this country.

Question is, why should a person be ineligible for work if they can, physically, work? You're just creating welfare/homeless cases for no good reason.

2. Curtail welfare to the point that able-bodied people are not eligible.

This conflicts with the first part where able-bodied people are denied eligability to work.

4. Adjust permanent resident visa standards to include:
        a. Minimal English proficiency.

What is "minimal?"

        b. Relinquishing all claims to citizenship or residency in any other country.

Great, so if things don't work out here, they have no place to go.

        c. A spotless criminal record.

Easy to say, but what if the country someone is coming from doesn't have the same standards for "criminal" that we do?

-matthew

Re:The Newer Colossus

[drsquare]

All that hassle to get in legally, and they wonder why people just jump the fence?

Re:The Newer Colossus

[delong]

Wait, you are blaming the DHS on the Democrats who hold a minority in the House and the Senate and no power in the Executive?

The Democrats still had a majority of one in the Senate in 2001. It was Joe Lieberman that proposed formation of the full cabinet level department. Pelosi and other ranking Democrats pushed the idea. The Bush Administration only wanted a sub-cabinet level position.

Saying "its Bush's Department" when the Democrats pushed it, and both parties voted for it over Bush's objections is both false and asinine.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[bhirsch]

1 is intended to stop employers from hiring current illegal aliens, removing incentive to illegally cross the country's border. This has nothing to do with denying welfare to the able-bodied.

Minimal English proficiency is of course highly subjective and far beyond the scope of this comment post. Although I think being able to get by in day-to-day life without speaking a language other than English sounds about right.

B -- exactly. They are naturalized or not. If things don't work out for me, I am stuck here. If they want to be Americans, they should be for better or worse, and not just play multiple angles until they find what they like.

A spotless criminal record means just that. Anything beyond traffic citations should mean disqualification. Although an appeal to an immigration judge would be reasonable.

Nothing is perfect or will provide optimum happiness for all immigrants and current citizens, but I don't think that the two extremes being proposed by the President and House are realistic or amount to much more than pandering to different groups in hopes of more votes.

Personally, I am happy to see hard-working people become citizens, even en masse. What I don't want to see is Fox dumping his undesirables off on us to help support his elite.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[misleb]

1 is intended to stop employers from hiring current illegal aliens, removing incentive to illegally cross the country's border.

But the fact is that there are people here illegally and they will continue to come. You might decrease the numbers a bit, but you create an even bigger problem of people needing welfare-like support while they try to figure out what the hell they are goign to do now that they are here since they can't work.

This has nothing to do with denying welfare to the able-bodied.

In spirit, it does. On one hand you are saying that some able-bodied (illegal) people are ineligable for work and then you say they are ineligable for welfare services as well. I think I would rather encourage people to work, even if they are illegal, than leave them out in the cold.

Minimal English proficiency is of course highly subjective and far beyond the scope of this comment post. Although I think being able to get by in day-to-day life without speaking a language other than English sounds about right.

This probably would have disqualified many of your (and mine for sure) ancestors. Immigrants tend to form communities where they can work and be productive without needing to speak English. Eventually they will probably learn English, but they need time to adjust, find work, and otherwise establish themselves. Adding a language requirement just makes the whole process more daunting.

-matthew

Re:The Newer Colossus

[bhirsch]

If there is no welfare or work for illegal aliens, why would they come here illegally? I think these would do a lot more than put a bit of a dent in illegal immigration.

My immigrant relatives spoke the English language. Beyond that, they were successful by working hard and obeying the laws of this country. Every immigrant I have met certainly speaks enough to get by in day-to-day life. Even the downtrodden.

To be frank, immigrating here should be a very daunting task. It should not be like getting your driver's license. It should be difficult and uncomfortable. Those entering the country should undergo rigorous medical screenings and background checks. You'll forgive me for my indifference toward immigration being an intimidating prospect.

This kind of reminds me of how at one point in Massachusetts, welfare recipients used to have to go to town/city halls to collect their checks. This was changed because they felt embarrassed, inconvenienced, etc. Even a socialist government would not have the goal of making its citizenry as comfortable as possible, much less one routed in capitalism.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Private owned roads, schools, fire departments, and police.

Google for "Libertarian" and "anarcho-capitalism"

Re:The Newer Colossus

[FurryFeet]

I read your post. Then I read your sig.

You are my new God of Irony. I stand before you in awe.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[Loki_1929]

"What about all those people in the world who aren't lucky enough to live in a country along your southern border (like me). Are they doomed to never be allowed into your country legally because Mexicans are illegally flooding into your country, illegally filling whatever "immigrant" quota exists (unofficially, of course)?"

I must apologize, as an American, for the difficulty someone like you has in trying to come here legally. You seem to understand that our country can't possibly take every single person who wants to come here at the same time, and that a major part of the problem is the unabated flow of illegal immigrants coming across our largely unguarded border. The American people are as fed up with the problem as you are, and it looks like we're finally going to see some results in the form of real progress. Much of that progress is coming from regular citizens forming groups like the Minutemen whose goal is vigilance; not violence. If we can avoid our idiot politicians stuffing amnesty down our throats (here's hoping the House holds strong against the Senate amnesty bill), perhaps we can get to work reforming our broken immigration citizen so we can start taking in more legal immigrants with less hassle.

I'm about as big a border security person as you're going to find, and I'm the first to say we need to make it less hassle for people around the world to come here legally. We need to screen out criminals, terrorists, and other threats, but we also need to ensure that our screening process moves along as quickly and efficiently as possible so we don't lose out on the incredibly valuable contributions of law-abiding people around the globe who simply want to come here to give their children a better life.

If you truly want to come here, live here, and integrate with our society while making contributions, then I hope with all my heart that you have the opportunity to do so.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[dfjghsk]

haha.. which part of my sig do you think contradicts my post? Everything I said is true, and can be found in mainstream press (mostly nytimes or bbc). Or do you think anyone who is for protecting our borders is an extremist nutjob?

Re:The Newer Colossus

[FurryFeet]

Well, it's not exactly "News for Nerds", if you catch my drift. And a lot of the "us vs. them", "look, the brown people want to rape our women and take our grain" rethoric seems a little FUDish, not to mention the unreferenced statistics.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I readily admit you might be right, but such a rant just struck me as funny when followed by your sig. Maybe my sense of humor is weird.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[AK Marc]

Saying "its Bush's Department" when the Democrats pushed it, and both parties voted for it over Bush's objections is both false and asinine.

Did Bush sign it?

Re:The Newer Colossus

[AK Marc]

Private owned roads, schools, fire departments, and police.

Wow, I heard about nuts like you, but I never thought I'd meet one. I guess the Internet is the place to go to find all kinds. I bet you are pro-pollution like the Libertarian party too. How about the Libertarian position being pro-choice, but every local candidate I've ever seen run is anti-choice? When they can't even get some simple things like that in order, how can I trust them with my government? Smaller government is good, effectively no government is bad. But I'm sure the mob and gangs would love to see your Utopia come true. Protection rackets would be legal again and everything.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[dfjghsk]

"look, the brown people want to rape our women and take our grain"

I'm not saying that.. I know most of them just want to come here to work. But a porous border also allows criminals and such to come into our country as well.

I'm not going to find links to back up everything I said.. you can do that yourself if you don't believe me.. but I do remember where some of the information came from so maybe that will help you out:

BBC: "27% of farm workers are illegal"

US Census: "only 20% of our population has an education higher than a high school education"

US Dept of Labor: "work for minimum wage, and who have the highest unemployment rate (as you gain more education, the unemployment rate goes down)."

Various (should be easy to find): "the federal government is allowed to run a deficit.. the states are not."

Various (should be easy to find): "The states have strained budgets as it is and have (drastically in some cases) cut services for citizens."

NYTimes: "They fill our federal (and sometimes states) jails (not for being here illegally, but for serious criminal offenses).. Lookup the percentage of illegals in federal prison for murder, rape, etc.. The numbers are far higher than you would expect for 11 million people."

NYTimes (but you can also find it in many other papers): "Mexico calls those who leave their country "National Heros". The 20 Billion they send back each year exceeds the budget for many Mexican states. Their border patrol holds meetings at the border to educate border crossers on how to get across the border, not get caught, and find a job in America."

Reading a good newspaper each morning can teach you a lot.. try it sometime.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

There would be no gangs, because you could get everything they would offer for low prices at stores like Wal*Mart.

Would you be more inclined or less inclined to break into someone's house if you knew that they could have a large gun inside?

Re:The Newer Colossus

[tomcres]

I wonder how all those Indian and Korean guys that own convenience stores do it? Or how about the Turks with the gas stations? Obviously, there are ways to come here legally without necessarily being someone's dependent.

Of course we don't want the poor ones coming here! They are a burden on society. They are a drain of our public resources--schools, hospitals, transportation infrastructure, and everything else in the public sector. I don't mind anyone coming here as long as someone is going to foot the bill other than the taxpayers. We live in a place that is bursting at the seams with illegals, mostly from El Salvador and Mexico. Everything suffers because of it. Meanwhile, we have a large African-American community here that is struggling to find jobs and survive. Their ancestors have been in this country what--300 years or so? And yet, they are competing for jobs with illegals. The public schools are crap because half of the students are either children of illegals or illegals themselves. And we are not on the border or even in the city. This is a rural portion of New York state.

They litter our streets waiting to be picked up for day work. (That "Dia sin immigrantes" was like heaven for us. You could actually drive around town without having to avoid running into crowds of 100 or more illegals loitering on corners and in parking lots waiting for work!) And they don't even take just illegal off-the-books work either. My wife works at Taco Bell and they have several illegals in their employ, and they are paying taxes on them and everything--they used forged documents to "prove" their "legal" status. So that means that Americans who are legal to be here don't get the legal jobs occupied by these forgers. They also drive using forged drivers licenses and unlicensed vehicles. They don't carry insurance. This is a major problem. I've already been hit and run twice this year by Hispanic drivers (granted, I can't tell if they're illegal just by looking at them, so this is an assumption) that hit my car, looked at me, and sped off. The assumption is that they are illegal or do not have insurance and didn't want to end up in jail or deported. Now, what if they didn't hit my car, but instead ran over my kid? Can't you see how big an issue this is for those of us who have to live in an environment where illegals are in large number?

Re:The Newer Colossus

[fm6]

It's a bit more than jumping the fence. The places where the fence is easy to get past are the most deserted, and thus the most dangerous. The death rate due to dehydration and exposure is huge.

Re:The Newer Colossus

[AK Marc]

There would be no gangs, because you could get everything they would offer for low prices at stores like Wal*Mart.

Not only are you stupid, but you are stupid too. I know the argument regarding gangs and legalizing drugs and prostitution. You alluded to the effect of legalization of those, but you didn't address protection rackets. Can I go to Wal-Mart and hire a hit man for $100 to kill the gang leader that's telling me that I have to pay him $1000 per month or he'll kill my family? If not, then we will have gangs involved in illegal activities. Yes, we know that gangs got lots of money through providing illegal things, but they also did many things that are illegal to make money. Protection rackets, insurance fraud, monopoly violations and such. What are you going to do about those? Pretend they don't exist? Even better, when someone specifically asks about what to do about racketeering, you respond about the benefits of ending prohibition. But I guess non-sequitors are the best way to address questions you can't answer.

Would you be more inclined or less inclined to break into someone's house if you knew that they could have a large gun inside?

More. I'd get my legal silencer, attach it to my dirt-cheap and untraceable gun, break in at night, shoot and kill everyone in their sleep, then rob the place slow and leisurely, and make sure to take their guns to use in my next murder so they can't be traced back to me. Does that work for you?

Re:The Newer Colossus

[iminplaya]

The poor don't pay income tax. Sales taxes etc. still go in the pot, regardless of who they come from.

So...then...the illegals do pay a tax. Also, you should get it straight. It's the employer that fails to give a piece of the illegal's paycheck to the government. The illegal still pays indirectly throught the low wage. And the employer keeps the change. And it's probably the employer that had the truckloads of illegals shipped in. The employers are the real criminals. They are the ones doing the real stealing. And they are the ones reaping the real profits from their thievery. Any harsh legislation should be directed at them. But that could never happen when they "contribute" so much to the party of their choice. So let's just shift the blame to those unable to defend themselves. It's so much easier that way.

Feature request for v1.1

[JonTurner]

Now, if only we could add a web interface to a sentry gun...

It's a Video Game. It's National Security. It's two, TWO, two games in one!

Re:Feature request for v1.1

[Red Flayer]

Like this?

Sure, many states are passing laws banning remote hunting of animals, but I haven't seen humans included in the bans on remote hunting.

Re:Feature request for v1.1

[Anonymous Coward]

Live-Shot has done something similar. <joke>Texas could raise money to cover the cost of illegals already in the country by selling licenses to hunt those attempting to come in illegally now.</joke>.

Jim

Re:Feature request for v1.1

[Ynefel]

Gives new meaning to the term "first person shooter!"

Re:Feature request for v1.1

[dude_net]

Only in the US would a comment like this be labeled "funny"!

Re:Feature request for v1.1

[raluxs]

It can be played both ways, you know? shot the drunk/stoned gringo

Si, soy mexicano , Y que?

Re:Feature request for v1.1

[Ari.Patrick]

Competitive game play?...

also, for further reference...

[drp]

I suggest that anybody interested in this topic read 'The Transparent Society' by David Brin - he covers this issue, plus quite a bit more while making some excellent points.

Re:also, for further reference...

[gowen]

I'm always absolutely baffled by people who use words like "Privacy" to discuss people watching things that are done in public. You have no privacy in public. When you're in public, passers-by, cameras, the police, CIA satellites, nosy neighbours and anyone with a telescope can all see you.

That's why "Public" is the opposite of "Private".

If you want privacy for your actions, do them in private. It's not rocket science.

(The clue is in the words: "Privacy" is to "Private" as ..... is to "Public").

Re:also, for further reference...

[gEvil (beta)]

(The clue is in the words: "Privacy" is to "Private" as ..... is to "Public").

Ummmm, Pube?

Re:also, for further reference...

[Basehart]

"I'm always absolutely baffled by people who use words like "Privacy" to discuss people watching things that are done in public."

I think the parent was wondering whether he will be able to jack off while watching these border crossings without The Man knowing.

Re:also, for further reference...

[arose]

I have a problem with people watching from private what I do anywhere in public. If you want to see what I do in public when I'm not in front of your window come and join me, so I can see you as well.

Re:also, for further reference...

[gowen]

I have a problem with people watching from private what I do anywhere in public.

Tough. You don't get to decide what other people do.

Re:also, for further reference...

[A beautiful mind]

It is not contradictory as much as you seem to think so.

Public privacy is almost as expected as private privacy. I don't think too many people would be happy about constantly being followed around by a camera, no matter how public, recording every action of theirs (hint: the photocamera version of it are called the paparazzis).

Also, situations like placing cameras in the floor, recording the people passing by and selling the female underwear shots to porn sites would be perfectly acceptable by you?

Being in public doesn't mean that you don't have privacy, it only means you've got less of it than when being at home in your "private" sphere.

Can see you != should observe you / should record your every move and use that for certain goals they want to achieve.

Re:also, for further reference...

[Martin Blank]

I don't think too many people would be happy about constantly being followed around by a camera, no matter how public, recording every action of theirs

There are anti-stalking laws that cover this for most people. Celebrities are an exception to this rule due to their choice of making themselves more public, and paparazzi are protected to some degree by freedom of the press.

Re:also, for further reference...

[lysergic.acid]

So you want to live in a world where one only has privacy when one is in their own home? Should we put up surveilance cameras to cover every inch of public space? Should people not be allowed to have some privacy when they go camping in the woods or mountains or go to the beach? Is it okay for others to peak in on you when you're in a public restroom? Is it okay for the feds to listen in on your cellphone conversations as long as you're in a public place?

Being in public doesn't mean you have no right to privacy. Being in public just means you are in a shared space with others, where one can expect to interact with others, where everyone has a right to be. It doesn't have anything to do with surrending your right to privacy. Your private life isn't just private when you're in your own home. Your employer doesn't have the right to spy on your private life just because you're at the mall or at a public park. Same goes for the government.

Unwanted surveilence is a form of harassment, and just because you are in a public place doesn't mean you have to be subjected to it. If you enter onto someone's private property, and they have surveilence equipment, then you agreed to the surveilence by entering onto their property. But one should be able to go out in public and not expect to be under constant surveilance.

It's utterly moronic to think that the concept of privacy only exists within one's own home. Is it ok for the government to mount a camera in front of every person's frontdoor and monitor who you socialize with? Is it ok for them to monitor what books you check out at the public library or what stores/public establishments you visit? If you see someone wearing a backpack in public, do they have to show you the contents of their backpack if you ask just because they're in public?

Here's a clue: just because two different words/phrases share a word or root-word doesn't mean they're talking about the same concept. Like, if someone dies from taking a pain-killer it doesn't mean that the pharmacutical company can't get sued. The opposite of public space is private space, but privacy is an entirely other concept.

Re:also, for further reference...

[gowen]

Also, situations like placing cameras in the floor, recording the people passing by and selling the female underwear shots to porn sites would be perfectly acceptable by you?

Those bits aren't out in public, they're covered by clothing. Hence the phrase "private parts". But if someone walks naked down the street, then you absolutely have the right to take their photo and stick it on the internet.

There's a reasonable expectation that the bits you cover with clothes are of limits, so you get to decide which bits of your person are on public display. Similarly, you don't have the right to remove the burkha of a devout Muslim. Hell, that's the main purpose of clothing.

But if something can be seen without extraordinary effort (such as your upskirt camera), and you do it in public, you shouldn't expect it to be secret.

Re:also, for further reference...

[gowen]

Should we put up surveilance cameras to cover every inch of public space?

Hey! Look! A slippery slope argument! Cool. I haven't seen one of those since High School debating society.

Next.

Re:also, for further reference...

[kalirion]

But if someone walks naked down the street, then you absolutely have the right to take their photo and stick it on the internet.

Better make damn sure they're not underage, or you won't have many rights for much longer.

Re:also, for further reference...

[kalirion]

Hey! Look! A slippery slope argument! Cool. I haven't seen one of those since High School debating society.

GP was not even close to a slippery slope argument. Your argument was that no one in public has right to any privacy. He showed that your argument as is can be used to justify any number of things. How is that a slippery slope?

Re:also, for further reference...

[gowen]

So you want to live in a world where one only has privacy when one is in their own home?

I already live in such a world, and so do you. And so does every human who ever existed, with the possible exception of Adam and Eve.

If you're out in public, people can see you.
Deal with it.

Re:also, for further reference...

[lysergic.acid]

A slippery slope argument can be valid if there is a logical mechanism comparing the two events. If you don't believe that individuals have the right to privacy in public places, then what is wrong with having surveilence in all public spaces? If you believe there shouldn't be surveilence in certain public spaces, then you have just contradicted yourself.

Simply screaming "slippery slope! OMG!" doesn't refute the points I've raised.

Re:also, for further reference...

[Anonymous Coward]

What about drug laws?

Re:also, for further reference...

[Kadin2048]

Not entirely true. Nudity by itself isn't pornographic; whether something qualifies as being porn or not depends on whether it's offensive and appeals to a "purient interest" while using "contemporary community standards" and such. It also depends a lot on the context that it's distributed and reproduced. A campus newspaper that publishes photos of the track team doing a naked run would probably be fine, but a web site that compiled photos of naked, possibly underage college students wouldn't. It's a very complex and gray issue; on one hand you have actual kiddie porn, but at the other end you have National Geographic, or people who take photos of their kids while vacationing on a nude beach/resort. A lot depends on context, in terms of passing the Miller Test.

The U.S. isn't quite as bad as some other countries in this regard: there are places (I think Canada is one of them) where you can sit down at a word processor or notebook and write yourself some "child porn," even if it's never distributed and no children are ever involved. In the U.S., we've pretty clearly come down on the side of written erotica as being protected speech regardless of the ages of the characters, although simulated/animated porn is more vague (see Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition).

Re:also, for further reference...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but maybe some of things people would be doing in private while watching you isn't something you would want to see.

Re:also, for further reference...

[Jedi Alec]

There's a reasonable expectation that the bits you cover with clothes are of limits, so you get to decide which bits of your person are on public display. Similarly, you don't have the right to remove the burkha of a devout Muslim. Hell, that's the main purpose of clothing.

It is? Damn, and here I was thinking they were to prevent from getting cold...

Re:also, for further reference...

[Digital Autumn]

However, there is more to privacy than being seen or not being seen. I can't require people to close their eyes whenever I walk in public, no. Does the fact that I am visible automatically allow people to record me? To log who I talk to? To tape record my conversations? To look inside my back pack or monitor what I buy? Privacy is more than being seen or not seen. Not only is there other information involved, there are levels of scrutiny and data retention.

Re:also, for further reference...

[Kadin2048]

OMG, it's the "OMG it's a slippery slope argument" argument.

There's nothing inherently wrong with a slippery slope, if one event makes another event more likely to occur, or if it's easier to make a change in a certain direction than it is to reverse it. (E.g., the centralization of power in a small number of individuals is generally difficult to undo.) There are valid historical precedents for gradual changes in laws as part of an overall plan of drastic change, and you don't have to be Machivelli to realize that you can pretty often get people to accept things that they wouldn't take all in one go, if you do it slowly.

Rejecting a change because it might make other undesirable changes possible or more likely at some future point is just good sense: you need to make laws with the idea that people are going to try to abuse the system, and every new piece of legislation should be considered skeptically, and no ulterior motive should be overlooked. The stakes are too high for anything less.

Overall, your rejection outright of any argument that seems like a slippery slope is ignorant and shortsighted; eventually, such thinking only plays into the hands of people who realize that you can boil the frog if you only turn the heat up slowly.

Re:also, for further reference...

[Anonymous Coward]

recording the people passing by and selling the female underwear shots to porn sites would be perfectly acceptable by you?

link pls

Re:also, for further reference...

[jez9999]

Those bits aren't out in public, they're covered by clothing. Hence the phrase "private parts". But if someone walks naked down the street, then you absolutely have the right to take their photo and stick it on the internet.

Someone walking naked down the street is not the test. That kind of person would expect to draw attention to themselves anyway, without CCTV. The test is an average person, walking down the street minding their own business; would they expect to get watched without CCTV? If the answer is no, they should NOT be monitored with CCTV either, IMHO. OK, at the entrance to a nightclub you'd expect to get monitored by the bouncers anyway, CCTV is OK. In a residential car park you'd expect to get watched by the odd person out of their window, CCTV is OK. But on a high street, in a park, etc... I think it's unjustifiable.

But if something can be seen without extraordinary effort (such as your upskirt camera), and you do it in public, you shouldn't expect it to be secret.

Then we totally disagree. You sound like a sick voyeur. Get a life.

Re:also, for further reference...

[lysergic.acid]

I think you may be confusing the concept of "privacy" with something else, perhaps "invisibility".

When you are out in public, you can expect to share the public space with others. The concept of privacy means the freedom from unsanctioned intrusions--whether you are in public or not does have any bearing on that freedom.

If you want to camp out somewhere in the woods for the weekend, just because you're in a public space doesn't mean others can barge into your tent and start snapping pictures of you and your girlfriend or your wife. If you want to carry a bunch of porno magazines in your backpack as you walk through downtown, you have the right to do so without everyone knowing that you're carrying them--that is privacy.

Likewise, if I want to take a girl on a date somewhere, I have the right to privacy to not have that date broadcasted on the internet for all to see, even if we are going on a date in public. By taking my date to a restaurant or other public place, I am not sanctioning to have my date recorded on video or broadcasted on the internet. Using a public bathroom or changing room doesn't mean that I relinquish my right to privacy in those public facilities.

The whole argument that privacy doesn't exist in public places is just ignorant conflation of two unrelated ideas.

Re:also, for further reference...

[jez9999]

Yup. No way should you be able to stop a murderer, or someone having consentual sex with your 8 year old daughter, you don't get to control what they do.

Re:also, for further reference...

[aplusjimages]

I see what you're saying, and technically the cameras will be viewable from a public place. You can go to your local library and view it on the Internet there.

Re:also, for further reference...

[MoneyT]

Murder and child molestation is illegal. Watching you through a web cam pointed at a public place is not.

Re:also, for further reference...

[gowen]

that is privacy.

But whether the viewer is a person or a camera makes no difference to that. If you're carrying porn in a closed bag, you're not carrying it publicly. Being in a closed tent is private like wearing thick clothing protects the privacy of your naked form. No-one has the right to take your clothes off, or to bust into your tent. But someone in a tent isn't visible to a camera either.

Your distinctions are purely semantic because you claim "in a tent in a public place", qualifies as "in public". Well I don't. When I say in "public", I mean "in the open" or "where one can be seen." i.e. where a passer-by might legitimately see you.

Re:also, for further reference...

[MoneyT]

Yes it does actualy. If you are in a public space I can legaly record you with my camera, make note of what you buy, who you talk to etc. What I can't do is open your backpack because that is your "private" property.

Re:also, for further reference...

[colmore]

Surveilance technology in public is a big deal. Take the example of those cameras at large sporting events, that scan faces in the crowd, match against license plate photographs, and run through a database of criminal recrods and FBI files. Sure, before the technology the police could have set up a whole bunch of tables and required everyone to stand in line and present their papers, but then we'd feel like we lived in an authoritarian state. Technology allows for a greatly enhanced police presence without altering my day to day interaction with the public space. You don't get used to officers on every corner and having your records checked every time you engage in routine activities, but you do if it is done in a way to be ubiquitous and invisible.

The argument for this kind of surveilance (in general not just the border cams) is that "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I won't be troubled, we need to do this for safety." And that is a valid philosophy, it's just not one shared by the people who founded our country.

Re:also, for further reference...

[lysergic.acid]

Whether your items are concealed in a backpack or you are in a tent doesn't change the fact that you are occupying a public space. You are still in public, and those are still matters of personal privacy. Your argument that visibility is what defines being in public is rather tenuous, but I'll let you have that one.

But do you believe that others have the right to monitor your cellphone conversations as long as you are in public (and openly visible)? Or more generally, if someone sets up a hidden mic in a public park and listens in on other people's conversations, are they not encroaching on one's basic rights to privacy? Would you not object to someone following you around wherever you go in public with a camera and broadcasting everything you do for others to see?

Re:also, for further reference...

[gowen]

Technology allows for a greatly enhanced police presence without altering my day to day interaction with the public space.

So, technology enables the police to more easily locate suspects without inconveniencing non-suspects.

Isn't that a good thing?

Re:also, for further reference...

[nincehelser]

>I have a problem with people watching from private
>what I do anywhere in public.

I imagine this might be a personal preference, but is there any rational reasoning for that attitude?

I guess potential stalking could be a reason, but that goes a bit further than watching.

Re:also, for further reference...

[Digital Autumn]

Whether or not it is currently legal under U.S. law does not end the argument over whether it is acceptable or not. The issue being discussed as I understand it is whether there is such a concept as privacy, and if by going out in public what your right to privacy is. I am going to guess that if most people were asked how they felt about people recording their every move in public, taking notes of what they buy, logging visitors and friends, they would feel that their privacy is being breached, despite that they chose to be visible in public. The fact that our legal definition of privacy may not touch these areas has more to do with the fact that it does not happen to people other than celebrities, or at least not in a way that the public is really aware of.

Re:also, for further reference...

[ngm]

Murder and child molestation is illegal. Watching you through a web cam pointed at a public place is not.

That's not an argument. Murder and child molestation are illegal because we made them so and we can just as well make pointing a web-cam at a public place illegal.

Re:also, for further reference...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you want to live in a world where one only has privacy when one is in their own home?

Well, since the GP did not claim one's own home be the only private space that exists, that's a bit of a straw man, isn't it?

Should we put up surveilance cameras to cover every inch of public space?

Should we or can we? I think the answer to that is legally we probably can, though economically it is not feasible. And we should not.

Is it okay for others to peak in on you when you're in a public restroom?

Generally, no. Similarly, you can't go up and sit in someone's lap just because they are on a public park bench. See also my first point. The notion of private areas (temporarily, as in while someone else is using the area, or permanently off limits to the public, as in a storage closet) in a public facility is not incongruent.

Is it okay for the feds to listen in on your cellphone conversations as long as you're in a public place?

Actually, it may be. Not electronically, though. But if someone is standing near you while you are on your cell phone, you probably should not have much expectation that the person will not overhear what you're saying. IANAL, so I don't know how the rules of evidence apply to situations like this.

Being in public doesn't mean you have no right to privacy.

I agree. It does mean that you are likely to be observed by others, and possibly photographed or recorded.

Your employer doesn't have the right to spy on your private life just because you're at the mall or at a public park.

I'm pretty sure anyone has the right to observe you in a public place. Whether your employer can use those observations against you when you're back at work is another matter.

Unwanted surveilence is a form of harassment, and just because you are in a public place doesn't mean you have to be subjected to it.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. But except in cases where the it rises to the level of stalking, I don't believe the law doesn't agrees with you. How much observation constitutes "surveillance" and therefore harrassment?

If you enter onto someone's private property, and they have surveilence equipment, then you agreed to the surveilence by entering onto their property.

I'm not sure that is entirely accurate. I believe in some situations and jurisdictions, notification is required when recording devices are being used.

Is it ok for the government to mount a camera in front of every person's frontdoor and monitor who you socialize with? Is it ok for them to monitor what books you check out at the public library or what stores/public establishments you visit?

This happens every day to people who are suspected of criminal activity (with no evidence necessary), though most libraries vigorously oppose keeping records of individual borrowing. In general, I think the aformentioned observation is a good thing. I don't think it should be adopted on a wider scale, though.

If you see someone wearing a backpack in public, do they have to show you the contents of their backpack if you ask just because they're in public?

Of course not. But searching someone's person and/or personal effects is an entirely different thing, isn't it? Not sure why you threw that in there.

Re:also, for further reference...

[gowen]

But do you believe that others have the right to monitor your cellphone conversations as long as you are in public

Ignoring the fact that that's a total non-sequitor....

Again, the rule of thumb is "does this technology enable gather any information that an undetected, law-abiding, but extremely nosy member of the public couldn't". So, my phone call could not be electronically tapped, but it could be overheard if I'm simply speaking too loudly.

Re:also, for further reference...

[lysergic.acid]

Right... so you're just making up rules as you go along. Where does that "rule of thumb" come from? How does it fit into the definition of public place or privacy? You can't seem to back up your position with any convincing arguments.

In anycase, why isn't it alright/legal to electronically tap your phone?

Re:also, for further reference...

[kalirion]

A campus newspaper that publishes photos of the track team doing a naked run would probably be fine Probably, but let a high school newspaper try that!

Re:also, for further reference...

[antiMStroll]

Yes, you do. That's why it's called a democratic republic. Not to say there isn't an alarming number of people here who wouldn't welcome an authoritarian state with open, maybe even raised arms.

Re:also, for further reference...

[TheSkyIsPurple]

>I guess potential stalking could be a reason, but that goes a bit further than watching.

Yeah, but it's not far from that...
We get used to having them on the border watching "them", later we get public access to cameras that watch public areas. I mean, c'mon, we paid for them, right?

To the other poster's point though... I don't like the idea of being watched without being able to watch either.
Being able to see the other person gives you some insight into how the information is going to be used.
I mean, if they're watching you, you can see where they are and have a chance at remembering them from some other instance where they've been watching you. You have cues to be suspicious about.

For the more paranoid, they may be reporting back to some headquarters that you are doing X at Y, and they may try to correlate that with what other observers are reporting about you as well, but it's very unlikely unless you're into something.

However, with cameras everywhere, it's not very difficult to do random tracking/profilng of people.

It used to be hard for the government to track all the phone calls I made... ;-)

Re:also, for further reference...

[Oligonicella]

Yes it is an argument. Murder and child molestation ARE illegal, watching a public display within your own home is not. Perhaps, in your derth of logic, what you meant to say was "what is the moral difference?" No, there's a great difference there as well.

Perhaps your problem is in not understanding there's a difference between reality and abstract example?

Re:also, for further reference...

[Oligonicella]

Don't do it in public. Public is for public consumption. Hard to get your mind around that?

Re:also, for further reference...

[Afrosheen]

I guess you never leave the house then, because there are cameras everywhere you go.

1. Grocery store
2. ATM machine
3. Convenience store
4. Mall
5. Sporting events & stadiums
6. Gentlemen's Clubs, i.e. titty bars

  Not only that but an individual is monitoring them 'privately'. Just face it, the second you walk out your door, your privacy is gone.

Re:also, for further reference...

[spun]

While I agree with you, can we stop using the boiled frog analogy? It isn't true, even frogs aren't that dumb. What does that say about us?

Re:also, for further reference...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The test is an average person, walking down the street minding their own business; would they expect to get watched without CCTV?"

I think the answer is yes. Take that average person to a public spot, drop their pants. What do they do? They pull them up and then look around to see who all saw them. Expectation of camera's or not, immediate reaction is "who just saw me without my pants".

Regards

Re:also, for further reference...

[arose]

I guess you never leave the house then, because there are cameras everywhere you go.

You are talking about individual cameras, no one person can monitor my movements around the town using them.

1. Grocery store

2. ATM machine

3. Convenience store

4. Mall

I know there are cameras, I know they can't be used follow me when I leave the area. I have a good idea who is watching them and what their motives are.

5. Sporting events & stadiums

6. Gentlemen's Clubs, i.e. titty bars

I know there are cameras, I know they can't be used follow me when I leave the area. I don't need to go there.

Just face it, the second you walk out your door, your privacy is gone.

Not really--following people around is hard work, I'd prefer it to stay that way.

Re:also, for further reference...

[arose]

Tough. You don't get to decide what other people do.

Will you apply this logic if I punch you in the face?

Re:also, for further reference...

[arose]

I imagine this might be a personal preference, but is there any rational reasoning for that attitude?

Yes, I don't think a one-way-mirror-transparent society is any good.

Re:also, for further reference...

[arose]

I'm not all that concerned with what I'm doing as with were I'm going. It's kind of hard to more from one place to another while avoiding public space.

Re:also, for further reference...

[susano_otter]

(The clue is in the words: "Privacy" is to "Private" as ..... is to "Public").

Ummmm, Pube?

"Publicity"

Re:also, for further reference...

[netwiz]

Yes, and there are great consequences to be placed on the assailant, should the victim decide to proceed with them. The legislators in this country have made it illegal to do so at the behest of the citizens, but the state can't act until you do so first. Nobody can stop you from punching me in the nose, except you and me. Even if I'm successful, it's still assault, and you can and probably will be charged, arrested, tried, convicted, and imprisoned.

Re:also, for further reference...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tough. You don't get to decide what other people do.

Tough.. you're a pallid little limey and don't have a say as to what goes on in the US.

Re:also, for further reference...

[sumdumass]

I'm going to totaly have ot agree with you. This is something that has iritated me for a while now.

At a place i used to work at, I knew about some hidden surveliance cameras installed (i know the guy who installed them out of coincidence. I painted the lenses black after blinding them with a laser pointer. If i'm going to be watched, i wanna know about it.

On the same note, There is a grocery store nearby that has hidden cameras but a remote monitor is set up right as you enter the store to see that your being watched. That doesn't bother me at all. Maybe because i know it is going on. I'm not realy sure why i don't care on one but do on the other.

Re:also, for further reference...

[Mad_Rain]

No way should you be able to stop a murderer, or someone having consentual sex with your 8 year old daughter, you don't get to control what they do.

I'm probably starting a needless off-topic rant here, but sex with an 8-year-old is never consentual. 8-year-olds aren't able to give consent to anything.

Re:also, for further reference...

[penguinrenegade]

So, technology enables the police to more easily locate suspects without inconveniencing non-suspects.

Isn't that a good thing?

Actually, no, it's not. That completely circumvents due process. Locating someone suspected of something (a crime? not a crime?) is far different than arresting someone. A suspect is not guilty of something illegal or unlawful, they are merely a suspect. This and the use of the phrase alleged __________ has gotten us into significant trouble.

For what purpose are suspects being located? What exactly are they suspected of? If the police are looking to arrest someone, they are not supposed to arrest a suspect, but arrest someone who is guilty. There actually IS a difference.

Re:also, for further reference...

[arose]

That's not the same. The same would be if you'd shrug your shoulders and think: "It sure hurts, but you don't get to decide what other people do." Charging someone is a decision about what someone should have done, and by extension what they should de in similar situations.

Re:also, for further reference...

[MoneyT]

I am going to guess that if most people were asked how they felt about people recording their every move in public, taking notes of what they buy, logging visitors and friends, they would feel that their privacy is being breached

Ever been to a gorcery store? You know those little cards they give out. Yeah, tracking your purchases. Plus cameras to track your moves and who you see in the store. People don't complain. They get "discounts" for it. Privacy is overrated anyway.

Re:also, for further reference...

[Digital Autumn]

As I said elsewhere in the post, obviously there are ways in which people are being tracked and logged. Many people are not aware of them, or don't understand them. Or they decide that they are OK with them. But that does not mean they don't feel their privacy is breached, or wouldn't feel it if you asked them specifically, "Would you like the grocery chain tracking your purchases, and recording who you speak to while you are in our store?"

Re:also, for further reference...

[Kadin2048]

Interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about a guy whose research interests are listed as "the physiological ecology of thermal relations of amphibians and reptiles to include determinations of the factors which influence lethal temperatures, critical thermal maxima and minima, thermal selection, and thermoregulatory behavior."

Slight creepy factor there. But still, interesting point, although honestly I hadn't really thought too much about the actual possibility of frog-boiling. Like Schrödinger's cat, I always figured it was more a hypothetical frog.

Good to know, though.

Re:also, for further reference...

[spun]

Schrödinger's frog is both boiled and not boiled at the same time. :)

Cameras on private ranches.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

The BBC article doesn't mention what some other articles do: The cameras are to be on private land.

I now have a new 'worst imaginary job':

Me: Knock, knock

Private Texan Ranch Owner: Yup?

Me: I'm from the government, I'd like to place these cameras on your land, so that people on the internet can....

(I can't ever see that sentence being finished)

Re:Cameras on private ranches.

[dr_dank]

Sad fact is that too many of those people wouldn't object to it as long as it was their favored political party asking to put in the cameras.

Re:Cameras on private ranches.

[LordKazan]

yup - far to many american's first alliegence is to their political hackery and their personal whims and fears than to the country and the constitution.

Re:Cameras on private ranches.

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Just make sure it's very bright and that you identify yourself first thing.

Remember: It's legal to shoot trespassers if you feel your family is in danger. You don't even have to say "Go away"

Texas has done a few things right..

Re:Cameras on private ranches.

[bhirsch]

Oh yeah, I remember that happening.

Re:Cameras on private ranches.

[cjsnell]

Obviously, you've never been on a South Texas ranch. You've never had your ranch house burglarized, vandalized, or your cars stolen by illegal immigrants or drug runners. This kind of stuff happens all the time in South Texas. Most of the ranchers that I know would welcome any federal progress towards stopping illegal immigration, including the installation of security cameras on their land.

Re:Cameras on private ranches.

[Xonstantine]

Sad fact is that too many of those people wouldn't object to it as long as it was their favored political party asking to put in the cameras.

The ironic thing is most people invoking this claim or similar claims are partisan Democrats. Not that I'm saying you are, mind you, but in my experience the partisan Republican is a reaction to extreme partisanism on the side of the left. When every Republican except for John McCain gets grossly slandered as a "right-wing extremist who will turn back the clock" on minority rights, gay rights, education, slavery, the environment, etc, etc, don't be surprised when those people being slandered harden their views to the opposition in response.

Re:Cameras on private ranches.

[dr_dank]

A fair point. Partisan politics is the death of civil discourse in this country. Talking heads and propaganda mills fan the flames, divide the people, and keep them bickering amongst themselves while the scum in charge get away with their crimes. Too many people treat politics like their favorite football team, my guys, win or lose, to root for, rather than vote on the issues.

Re:Cameras on private ranches.

[Xonstantine]

A fair point. Partisan politics is the death of civil discourse in this country. Talking heads and propaganda mills fan the flames, divide the people, and keep them bickering amongst themselves while the scum in charge get away with their crimes. Too many people treat politics like their favorite football team, my guys, win or lose, to root for, rather than vote on the issues.

I agree that partisan politics is the death of civil discourse, and both sides are guilty of that. It's brother, an unwillingness to compromise, is going to be the death of representative government. Democrats are unwilling to compromise on pretty much anything...and why should they, when the Republican "compromise", as in the current Senate immigration bill, is total capitulation?

Talking heads and propoganda mills, however, do serve a purpose, and that's to get information out. And on some things that they rile people up about, people should get upset. Case in point, American citizens are being sold down the river with the US Senate's "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill" to the point where immigrants will have more rights than an American worker with things such as guaranteed median pay and 2 out of 5 years tax debt forgiven and an EITC rebate credit for the 5 or more years they were here illegally. I'm more than tempted to sign up for "amnesty" just so I can partake in the looting of the American treasury, since our own "leaders" don't seem to care (Republican or Democrat).

Re:Cameras on private ranches.

[gsherman]

Perhaps we'd get some footage of what the so-called Minutemen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuteman_Project) are up to. That might be enough to expose the group as a bunch of gun-toting racist yokels.

Re:Cameras on private ranches.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are other side-effects of surveillance cameras, viewable by other people, on your property.

Let's say you make a long weekly drive somewhere, and your vehicle can be seen departing/returning on a camera. Now let's say someone notices this.

It's the perfect opportunity to rob your house. They just dress and act in a manner that no impersonal observer will find particularly suspicious; to the other people watching the feed, it's just someone else who lives there, or a relative, etc. They burglarize your house and make their escape in plain sight, long before your expected return.

You can practically guarantee that gangs and individual criminals will use such cameras in exactly this way. It's too easy an opportunity to pass up.

Unbelievable!

[w33t]

The government is even invading the privacy of whole other countries!
--
Music should be free

Re:Unbelievable!

[Schwartzboy]

The government is even invading the privacy of whole other countries!

Call me an egocentrist, but better theirs than mine. Of course, a glance at just those government-related stories that have made it to /. in the last few weeks makes it clear that we can deficit-spend our way to enough resources to invade everyone's privacy, so I guess the "not it" mentality falls apart at that point. *twitch*

"And then they went after the illegal Mexicans, and I did not speak up, for I was neither illegal nor a Mexican..."

Re:Unbelievable!

[9mm Censor]

What do you think they use satalliets in space for? Science? HA! Its to spy on people.

Re:Unbelievable!

[Zygnal]

"Score:4, Funny", so I guess most people got it.

For the rest of y'all:
It's from the Texas tourism ad campaign: "Texas: It's like a whole other country!"

Clever, w33t!

"What Americans want"

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

A stronger border is what Americans want

Says who? I suspect an honest poll of real-life ordinary Americans would reveal that they want affordable social security, the end of the war in Iraq, sensible energy policies and a range of other things first...

Re:"What Americans want"

[Anonymous Coward]

Not me, you are wrong.

Re:"What Americans want"

[lbrandy]

Says who? I suspect an honest poll of real-life ordinary Americans would reveal that they want affordable social security, the end of the war in Iraq, sensible energy policies and a range of other things first...

Feel free to browse here to see what Americans think the biggest problems are. War in Iraq, gas prices, immigration are all high on every poll...

Re:"What Americans want"

[Overzeetop]

I want free beer.

And my daughter would like a pony, too.

And maybe world peace...but since I'm an intellectual, I know deep down that it would hurt the economy to have a slowdown in the defense sector, so in reality that world peace thing is just in case I grow a couple of boobs, lose 20 years, 60 pounds, and decide to enter the Miss America pagent.

I'm sure stonger borders in somewhere on my list, I just think it may be on another page...somewhere in the 200s I suspect.

Re:"What Americans want"

[gEvil (beta)]

A stronger border is what Americans want

Says who?

Says me! You have no idea how scared I am of those filthy Canadians sneaking across the border to take advantage of our healthcare system and steal all our good beer.

Re:"What Americans want"

[MikeyTheK]

I'd just like a couple of Jessica Simpson nude pinups...please.

Re:"What Americans want"

[mctk]

Agreed. And I think America has made it quite clear that we want illegal immigrants. We can claim to hate them all we want, but until we stop hiring them, I won't believe it.

Re:"What Americans want"

[blugu64]

Hey now! we don't know what your talking aboot!!

Re:"What Americans want"

[wiggles]

Usually when people say "I suspect an honest poll of real-life ordinary Americans..." they really mean "Because I'm right and everyone else in the country has the same political agenda as me..."

Not trying to knock you for your agenda, mine is very similar, but you should be aware that most of the time, the rest of the country does not have the same agenda as you do. Consulting a recent poll (below), I see that you're right about the war, but wrong about the other two.

Stolen from Polling Report and modified to make it past the lameness filter:
CBS News Poll May 16-17, 2006. Sample size is 636 adults nationwide. Margin of error plus or minus 4.

"What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" Open-ended

                    Percent
War in Iraq -- 28
Economy/Jobs -- 15
Immigration -- 12
Gas/Heating oil crisis -- 6
Terrorism (general) -- 5
Health care -- 4
Defense/Military -- 3
President Bush -- 3
Other -- 20
Unsure -- 4

Re:"What Americans want"

[corbettw]

Says who? I suspect an honest poll of real-life ordinary Americans would reveal that they want affordable social security, the end of the war in Iraq, sensible energy policies and a range of other things first...

Nice use of the word "honest" there. It guarantees that anytime you see a poll you don't like, you can just say it wasn't "honest" and dismiss it, rather than accept the fact that 86% of Americans believe immigration is a "very serious problem" or "somewhat serious problem". 86%. The country hasn't been the united on something since 9/11.

Re:"What Americans want"

[ip_freely_2000]

"Steal all our good beer"

Excuse me for a moment.......ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Thanks...that was a good one.

Re:"What Americans want"

[BrewedInTexas]

You've obviously never had a Shiner Bock, a Shiner Hefeweizen, a Shiner Kolsch or one of their other varieties. I would give you a list of all the awards they've won but I'm behind a proxy. Beer competition sites are blocked yet Shiner's site isn't. Go figure.

Re:"What Americans want"

[Anonymous Coward]

Walls and fences don't work. I vote we get rid of all the walls at our prisons. Why maintain something that really doesn't work. Having walls there just insults the inmates integrity. :)

Re:"What Americans want"

[kfg]

OP specified an honest poll.

That poll does not ask Americans what it thinks the biggest problems are. The Opinion Research Corporation preselected the topics that it is interested in and asked Americans what it thinks of them. This is called "bias."

Of the preselected topics Americans responded by saying they were more concerned about:

Terrorism
The Situation in Iraq
Gas Prices
The Economy
and Corruption in Government

then they were about Immigration; which came in second to last, exactly as the OP opined.

The sad part is that Governement Surviellence of US Citizens is the only topic presented which was considered of lower importance than Immigration.

KFG

Re:"What Americans want"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Immigration" is the most important problem facing the country today for 12% of respondents.

Illegal immigration?
Legal immigration?
Latino immigration? Black immigration? Asian immigration? Terrorist immigration?
General unhappiness with my lot in life and in particular with the fact that my job sucks and I hate my boss and my family and I get paid shit and the guy on the radio says it's because someone worse off than me wants to come here without papers and pick fruit immigration?

Re:"What Americans want"

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Texas ain't really the USA, izzit? And Spoetzl, TX is like little Czech-land. So yer point is not very sharp, but is well taken. I think the general thrust is that the majority of Canadian beer is far superior to the majority of American "beer" (as they like to refer to it).

Re:"What Americans want"

[natedubbya]

then they were about Immigration; which came in second to last, exactly as the OP opined.

Really? What are you reading? Immigration was well above energy prices, which the OP opined. And it's far from second to last...

"What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" Open-ended
War in Iraq 28
Economy/Jobs 15
Immigration 12
Gas/Heating oil crisis 6
Terrorism (general) 5
Health care 4
Defense/Military 3
President Bush 3

Re:"What Americans want"

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, now...

the main point here is either of our "good" beer is better than your "bad" beer. No one exports the good stuff. Even the Macro-micro brews like Fat Tire rarely make it out of our (US) borders. And while I can't say anything about our good stuff vs your good stuff, I will make this bold statement: our bad beer is way worse than your bad beer. Not to say yours is any good, but seriously... can anyone compete with Natural Light and Miller High Life?

And while we're giving plugs to the good beers about, Rogue Brewery in Oregon has quite a few good ones as well.

Re:"What Americans want"

[kfg]

Really? What are you reading? Immigration was well above energy prices, which the OP opined. And it's far from second to last...

Yes, I preselected the poll which represented a topic I was interested in, how the concerns of Americans would affect their votes. This is called "bias."

In that poll immigration came in second to last.

You are looking only at those polls which rank immigration higher. This is called "bias."

So I shall select another one from the list, the Gallup Poll, which ranks:

"The availability and affordability of health care"
"The Social Security system"
"The availability and affordability of energy"
"Drug use"
"Crime and violence"
"The possibility of future terrorist attacks in the U.S."
"The economy"
and "Hunger and homelessness"

. . .ahead of illegal* immigration in their concerns

*emphasis mine. The ORC poll did not specify illegal immigration.

None of these polls makes any attempt to determine the root cause of immigration concerns, which could actually be about terrorism, the economy, or various percived social ills such as street crime.

It's a nice, fuzzy topic for politicians to use to exploit a variety of otherwise unrelated fears.

KFG

Re:"What Americans want"

[gEvil (beta)]

Funny how everyone's more than happy to get their two cents in on the beer comment, but nobody's said a thing about the healthcare one...

Re:"What Americans want"

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell does affordable social security mean?

Re:"What Americans want"

[Anonymous Coward]

Love your nick, man.
I guess you know what your talking about.

jet
FW Tx

Re:"What Americans want"

[Maxo-Texas]

I view the immigration issue as one of the largest *fixable* problems that we have today.

We need to seal the border and we need to start putting people who hire illegals in jail. I would say if over 10% of your workforce is illegal would be a reasonable threshhold.

Unfortunately the second issue requires a national database of some kind of us citizens with some kind of biometric data (you know-- a frikkin Driver's License PICTURE would be good enough-- there is no need for dna/fingerprints/retina scan). Such a database immediately raises the hackles of most americans and there we have a problem between two conflicting desires.

The final thing we need to do is rescind the law that says you are an american citizen if you are born on american soil. It should be born here from parents who are legally here and either citizens or officially recognized as working towards citizenship.

Re:"What Americans want"

[spike2131]

A stronger border is what Americans want

I'm an American, and I think borders are archaic. I don't want stronger borders, I want no borders. Given, thats not yet a practical solution. But walls and cameras are a step in the wrong directions. In the mean time, amnesty for all undocumented immigrants would be a good start.

This guy shouldn't presume to speak for all Americans when saying what Americans want....

doing the jobs the government doesnt want to do

[plasmacutter]

Just as illegal immigrants "do the jobs americans don't want to do"(sic), now we have texans doing the jobs the government doesnt want to do.

way to feed people's obsessive compulsive disorder government!

Seriously, i can only see people fanatically obsessed willing to stare at a screen of nothing but desert for hours on end to report the evil job stealing border jumpers... that is while theyre not tapping the walls trying to find the martians out to roast them with laser beams.

Re:doing the jobs the government doesnt want to do

[Anonymous Coward]

"Seriously, i can only see people fanatically obsessed" (sic)

Give them a cash reward for information leading to arrests and you will have fanatically obsessed.

Re:doing the jobs the government doesnt want to do

[Anonymous Coward]

This looks intersting.
Because the next step - after delegating surveillance through the internet to the people - is to delegate the job of professional politicians to the people, using internet voting to let the people decide democratically about every little issue.
Instead of watching a few elected representatives succumb to lobbying and questionable inducements to produce laws that don't reflect the elector's interests, cut out the intermediary. You decide from your desktop how your tax dollars are spent. Security, no cheating and access guarantees can be worked out.
It would beat the hell out of squabbling about vi/emacs, apples/penguins/windows on /.

Re:doing the jobs the government doesnt want to do

[castoridae]

There are currently plenty of "fanatics" at the Minuteman Project who seem willing to donate their time.

Re:doing the jobs the government doesnt want to do

[plasmacutter]

Instead of watching a few elected representatives succumb to lobbying and questionable inducements to produce laws that don't reflect the elector's interests, cut out the intermediary. You decide from your desktop how your tax dollars are spent. Security, no cheating and access guarantees can be worked out

yes, do cut out the intermediary, because we all know the mob will have so much better judgment *cough*americanidol*cough*. there is no better way to guarantee that those who rule the media rule america than to do this.

Security considered high enough for the governance of our state with guaranteed lack of interference/cheating on the internet? you are joking right Oo.

As much as I am for better representation, I consider most people to lack the broad based education necessary to fairly address the majority of issues facing our nation, and I also consider the security concerns of purely internet based voting to be insurmountable for at least the next 25 years.

The one thing I would change about our system is to implement prefrential voting in at least 2 rounds:

the first round you get to vote yes or no for each and every candidate.

If there is more than one candidate with the same number of yeses (within a 10% level of one another), then you have a second round with tha traditional "choose between one or the other" system we use today.

that would provide much more adequate representation.

Re:doing the jobs the government doesnt want to do

[toroid11]

Well, I can see you get my drift. But think about this:

yes, do cut out the intermediary, because we all know the mob will have so much better judgment *cough*americanidol*cough*. there is no better way to guarantee that those who rule the media rule america than to do this.

the mob = the people

it won't be painless, given that the media influence more people than university education, but countries such as Switzerland do quite well with popular referenda

Re:doing the jobs the government doesnt want to do

[plasmacutter]

switzerland is a much smaller nation for one thing.

for another they are not the USA. the premise of the USA was to provide a populist government while precluding a situation in which the actions of the majority result in the oppression of the minority.

imagine if "popular referenda" were available back in the 50's. the civil rights movement might not have worked at all.

Now imagine campaigns against DRM. The media would be sure to turn the majority of the public into mindless chanting zealots bent against their own interests.

No, like it or not we do need people whose primary job is to research and vote on key issues. The trick is removing their bag of tricks which they use to make sure theyre able to sell out to the highest bidder, such as the "wasted vote" concept used to scare people into avoiding better third parties, or the "them or us" voting system we use today which, to quote southpark, gives us the choice between a "douche" and a "turd sandwich".

Given the choice, I would go with meritocracy, but I still believe balance would be restored by my proposed voting system. It would remove the predictability and manipulability present in the current system.

Great!

[hweimer]

Now drug smugglers and other criminals finally have the possibility to find out in advance where the cameras are located and avoid being seen.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or they could just spend some money on russian hackers and have the ruskies DDoS on the cameras so that nobody can see anything.

I can see it now, Everybody feels so safe with the cameras and suddenly half the fence cameras go dark. I agree it's better than nothing, but still trivially easy for smugglers or well paid human trafficers to get through.

Minutemen Online

[crow]

So while the government complained about the Minutemen watching the border, they're now creating what is essentially the same thing, only online.

Re:Minutemen Online

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, come on. Everybody knows by now: if you add the phrase "on the Internet", an issue is COMPLETELY different. It doesn't matter if you are talking business, law, security, politics, porn, patents, whatever. "On the Internet" is a magical phrase that changes everything, kind of like adding "... in my pants" at the end of a sentence.

It's as solid a premise as Godwin's Law.

Re:a wall

[Ankou]

Because they cant get American labor to do it, they'd have to hire migrant workers. The irony.

Remote Snipers

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone own land just past the fence, or is it public? If it's the former, get yer rifles loaded boys!

Note to Self

[42sd]

Before crossing border illegally, tell the authorities to check on the other side of the state.

Sure it's hopefully not intended as something for rapid response, but if they are going to use just regular people its something that can be manipulated, and why even bother.

Re:Note to Self

[Enzo the Baker]

Before crossing border illegally, tell the authorities to check on the other side of the state.

You don't think the authorities would verify the activity on the same webcam before sending in the cavalry?

How Long...

[Anonymous Coward]

before the Eborder-jumpers just start hanging out in view of their very opwn free webcams and start crying and stripping like true webcammers?

Re:How Long...

[jomegat]

Lessee, Bubba's monitoring the border cam, and this one has some hot nekkid action going on. Which one is Bubba gonna watch? Another way to thwart this plan would be for migrant "sympathizers" to be constantly calling in false alarms. Having the public monitor border cams is truly an idiotic plan.

Outsource

[jo42]

Why not outsource the 'Bordercam' watching to India or China?

Re:Outsource

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Mexico...

Re:Outsource

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey thats a great idea. Let me start on a business plan.

Re:Outsource

[z0idberg]

Why not outsource the 'Bordercam' watching to India or China?

or Mexico....

Re:Outsource

[Chabil Ha']

They will. They'll be taking the nightshift (thier daytime) so that Big Brother can get some sleep.

What an amazing coincidence...

[sczimme]

From the BBC article:

Mr Perry, a Republican, is running for re-election in November.

I'm sure that has absolutely nothing to do with the grandstanding^W pandering^W honest effort to do what's best.

Besides, once someone identifies people crossing the border and "notifies the authorities", then what?

Re:What an amazing coincidence...

[CheshireCatCO]

Presumably, they flash the "help us Batman!" signal and they give him the coordinates of the crosser. Then he zooms off in his Bat-copter or Bat-jet (sold separately) to the site to arrest the heinous criminal. Either that, or they send out US troops/border guards in choppers to try to get to the guy before he disappears again. Either way, it seems like it would take a lot of effort and not just a little fuel to nab each person, doesn't it?

What I find really funny is the fact that they don't realize that as soon as the webcams start working (if they ever do), the people crossing the border will just pick NEW spots at which to cross. But I assume that Gov. Perry will be re-elected by then and no one will care.

Re:What an amazing coincidence...

[gstoddart]

Besides, once someone identifies people crossing the border and "notifies the authorities", then what?

Then, they deploy the prairie dog sentries with frikkin' lasers on their heads to track them until an already airborne Black Helicopter can get into the area and get them on infrared/look down radar.

At least, that's how I'd do it.

Re:What an amazing coincidence...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe a bounty?

Re:What an amazing coincidence...

[quarkscat]

The parent poster brings up an important point.

Installation of a border wall, concertina-razor wire, an electrified fence, or even a minefield are all
great ideas to impliment in regard to improving border security. The electronic measures, such as border cameras, IR equipped UAVs, ground vibration sensors ALL require "boots on the ground" to
interdict the cross-border invasion. Not only are there not enough "boots on the ground" thanks to
lack of political resolve and financial resources since the 1986 alien amnesty, this oxymoronic
Department of Homeland Security has adopted the (small "c") conservative policy of "catch and release", adopted from wildlife management tactics. Unfortunately, this policy was devised to
protect ecologically threatened wildlife species. It is not as if illegal alien immigrants crossing the
USA's borders are a "species" in need of conservation. Continued wrong-headed neo-Con(artist)
policies of "open borders" and "amnesty for all" will threaten the USA's economy, ecology, culture, and sovereignty. The USA currently has between 12 and 28 million illegal aliens, depending upon
who is doing the counting. Only 6 billion world citizens left to arrive in the good old USA. Guess who is coming to supper?

Hoo boy...

[Rob T Firefly]

Not only do illegal immigrants have to jump fences, ford rivers, and risk life and limb.. now they have to camwhore as well.

I can see the AIM bots now.. "Hola! Click here to see me and my girlfriends have wild parties, hide from border patrols, and dodge farmers' bullets! Tee-hee! ;-)"

response times?

[gEvil (beta)]

What sorts of response times are we looking at? Suppose I saw someone run across the frame and reported it. How long would it take the officials to get there to deal with it? And what do you want to bet that the description that most callers report is going to be along the lines of "Well, he looked like a dirty Mexican"?

Cash rewards???

[$1uck]

Now, just think for a moment if they offered rewards for reporting illegal immigrants. Nothing too spendy. Something really cheap, affordable, like illegals. We could have teams of illegals watching the border through webcams. Brilliant!

Re:a wall

[mr_rattles]

Yeah! And then remove all of the wood, metal, and fabric from Mexico so they can't build ladders and ropes to climb over it!

Not exactly the same.

[twbecker]

Hey, it's working for Britain, right?

Of course here we aren't watching our own citizens. . .

Re:Not exactly the same.

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that is exactly what the NSA is doing, if I'm not mistaken.

anyone else see a problem?

[mynameisnotnick]

Group of immigrants is about to cross the border - group of immigrants calls into toll free number to report activity at a different crossing point.

Seems like a little cottage industry could form - maybe they could outsource the calls to an Indian call center...

-gary

Re:anyone else see a problem?

[tscheez]

the 800 number operator wont see the cameras too?

Re:anyone else see a problem?

[scotch]

DNS on the operator?

Don't Laugh (was Re:Feature request for v1.1)

[Billosaur]

Now, if only we could add a web interface to a sentry gun...

I give you, the next generation of border security enhancements. Note where this set-up is located.

Re:Don't Laugh (was Re:Feature request for v1.1)

[Psiren]

"We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck and my friend said 'If you just had a gun for that'".

Can somebody explain to me why this makes any sense at all? Hey, see that beautiful thing over there? Wouldn't it better if it was dead with holes in it? Insanity.

Re:Don't Laugh (was Re:Feature request for v1.1)

[Billosaur]

It's not supposed to make any sense. It's a left-over man thing from the hunting stage of human development. Today, our meat basically stands there and lets us kill it, but there are a great many men out there keeping alive the traditions and ways of our ancestors, so should the Apocalypse or any suitably large disaster occur, they can provide us with food. And actually, given the elimination of most predator species, hunting is actually important in restoring some of the natural balance, by thinning out large populations of herbivores which would not otherwise be under any kind of evolutionary pressure.

This is just what Americans want

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. Most Americans feel entitled to all the world's resources at the best prices, and don't like any competition where they are not guaranteed to come out on top. My couch potato friends are constantly shamed by 3rd-worlders who come over here with nothing and no language skills, and turn simple hard work into assets. A Thai I know, just bought a simple rowhouse in Philly with the cash she made busting her butt for about 7 years. This infuriates my lazy friends. This is not the American way. The American way should first pay off the entitled, lazy American slackers. These open borders are way too rewarding to hard workers for most of my friends to stomach.

Spying on each other

[astrashe]

I've been waiting for something like this -- something that gets ordinary people to spy on one another. I know people will say this is the border, and the people crossing aren't "us".

But I don't buy the distinction between "us" and the people crossing, and I don't believe this will stop at the border. Pretty soon we'll have the public looking for traffic violations, doing screen caps and scribbling down license numbers, infrared cams in parks looking for kids having fun at night, etc.

We can put cams outside of bars, and let people look for people coming out, staggering a bit, and getting into their cars. You don't support drunk driving do you? And it's all on a public street.

If we all spy on each other, we can live in a crime free paradise! Look how well that whole stasi thing worked out.

Re:Spying on each other

[isa-kuruption]

It's called being a responsible citizen.

Yes, I know people who have called up the police on others who have attempted to drive while drunk. Why? To save a lief (or two or twenty). I have also witnessed people calling in traffic offenses, and in New Jersey, they even established a seperate 800 number for people to complain to (866-4-SAFE-NJ I belief is the number).

Ever hear of "citizen's arrest" ?? Yes, that's people taking responsibility and not relying on the government to do everything. It's part of being a RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN and caring about what happens in your community / state / country.

What do you think a witness is? Someone spying on someone else doing something! How do you think prosecutors actually convict murderers? There isn't always a police officer around when someone's getting shot. Usually it's a witness who was "spying" and turning someone in. What about when police officers get caught on video tape beating someone they just pulled out of a car? That was "spying", right? With a video camera nonetheless! To catch a crime, in the act, by a responsible citizen!

God you liberals make me sick.

Re:Spying on each other

[Angostura]

Now, your average trendy lefty authority distrusting person, and I've been reading a number of the comments here, about how dreadful this is and we should leave law enforcement to the police.

And yet, and yet. They are meant to be our laws, if I saw someone being mugged, I hope I would have the courage to step in and help. I think ultimately laws only succeed where they have the approval and support of the community. In the UK the concept of 'Neighbourhood Watch' where people look out for criminal or suspicious behaviour in their street has made a big difference to some people's lives and made communities safer. Shrugging shoulders and saying its the polices job is a pretty shoddy denial of responsibility

So what is actually wrong with the proposal of letting any citizen 'twitch the net curtain'? Is it that the border/immigration laws themselves are unpalatable? If so they should be changed. If not, what's wrong with this as a mechanism of enforcement. It works for the back yard, why not for the Texas border?

Does it infringe on rights, lead to unfair treatment or a minority or stoke prejudice? Not that I can see. If people think that they can help an over-stretched PD somewhat by sitting at their computers, is this a problem? Is it worse than running folding@home?

I'm not sure.

Re:Spying on each other

[An Onerous Coward]

I pretty much agree. The cameras are coming. They're going to be very small, very cheap, and very easily broadcasted to anywhere else in the world. The only question that remains is, who will be in charge of them? Will the government have full control over them, or will citizens be able to use them to bring accountability to the government as well as vice versa? In the latter case, we still lose our privacy, but we can still salvage our freedom.

The downside is, privacy is important. It takes a lot of guts to do something that most people disapprove of, and a lot of people will let themselves be pressured into absolute conformity. It's much easier to do what you want when you know you're safe from discovery. The principle works for thing I consider mostly harmless (sex, recreational drug use) as well as for things I despise (child molestation, robbery, police brutality, political and business corruption).

See David Brin's "The Transparent Society." It's very enjoyable, and a little scary. Ultimately, I'm hopeful in the belief that transparency will be liberating.

Re:Spying on each other

[SubRosa]

What do you think a witness is? Someone spying on someone else doing something! How do you think prosecutors actually convict murderers? There isn't always a police officer around when someone's getting shot. Usually it's a witness who was "spying" and turning someone in. What about when police officers get caught on video tape beating someone they just pulled out of a car? That was "spying", right? With a video camera nonetheless! To catch a crime, in the act, by a responsible citizen!

This is so disingenuous it hurts!

There's a world of difference between the incidental presence of a witness at a crime scene and some sloth of a redneck busy-body watching Border Cam, getting a hard-on at the thought of making some poor Mexican's life much more difficult.

Do you know how incredibly petty and ignorant most people are? Those fools on afternoon talk shows are representative of real types of people. When we have surveillance of this kind going on a citizen-against-citizen basis, we're fucked. McCarthyism will look quite tame in comparison. Sure, we may have facade of greater law and order, but the loss of true freedom will be staggering.

Of course, the whole premise of this particular debate -- that of immigration w/o papers being "illegal" -- is pretty disingenuous, as well.

Re:Spying on each other

[Golthur]

The problem with this scenario is that there's no accountability for the guy behind the webcam. He can anonymously phone in "violations" because "he doesn't like them ho-mos" or any other of a zillion, petty reasons.

Not to Godwin the thread, but see Nazi Germany for the effectiveness of having citizens inform on "undesirables". Heck, many Slashdot geeks would be "undesirables" by the majority's standards.

Re:Spying on each other

[Pendersempai]

"But I don't buy the distinction between 'us' and the people crossing."

You don't buy it? Then it seems to me that you either believe that citizens shouldn't have to follow the law or that the law should be changed. And in either case, your blusterings might better be directed at the legislative process rather than the enforcement process.

Re:Spying on each other

[Politburo]

God you liberals make me sick.

in New Jersey, they even established a seperate 800 number for people to complain to (866-4-SAFE-NJ I belief is the number).

Anyone care to guess which party controls New Jersey?

Re:Spying on each other

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the whole premise of this particular debate -- that of immigration w/o papers being "illegal" -- is pretty disingenuous, as well.

Umm, how is calling somebody who enters the country without legal recourse to do so illegal disingenuous. Legally speaking in order to be in the United States you have to either be a citizen of the States or have been granted permission to be there. Same is true in every country in the world. Period. Being there otherwise, without papers, is ILLEGAL. Why is that anything but honest? Oh is it because they don't like being called 'criminals'. Well that may be but in fact they are, just like you are when you decided to drive 120MPH down the Jersey pike.

Re:Spying on each other

[isa-kuruption]

Democrats (assembly, governor and senators). Although, the number has been around for some time, and I can not be sure who was governor when it was enacted (although it was still a democratic assembly).

Re:Spying on each other

[Keebler71]

I've personally called the police about 5 times in the last 2-3 years to report vehicles that I suspected were being driven by drunk drivers. By the way, I live in the county with the highest concentration of both DWIs and liquer stores (per capita) in my state. Most recently, I watched a guy spin out and get stuck on a median, I an another guy helped push his car off the median. After seeing the guy up close and having him almost run over me twice (he was reving the engine in a forward gear while we were trying to push his car backward off the median from the front) it became very apparent that he was completely wasted. Fortunately he blew his front two tires and we were able to push it off the road. I still called the police as I (a) had witnessed an accident and (b) strongly suspected that he was drunk enough that he might try to drive home anyway.

About three months ago I was on a state route behind a guy that three times in a row travelled into the intersection at three successive stop lights - one of the times his rear wheels were fully in the intersection and in all three cases he was approaching a stale red light... it wasn't like this was a surprise. Between lights he managed to weave enough to get his wheels completely over the lane markers both to the left and to the right.

I realize that by calling the police I am at a minimum inconveniencing both the police and the other driver. But every time I read a news article about a family killed by a drunk driver, I can't help but think that surely someone must have seen that driver, possibly leaving a bar or driving erraticly prior to the accident. I don't ever want to be responsible for such a tragedy out of respect for someone else's "privacy". If that makes me an a-hole, sign me up - I'd rather be an a-hole than live with the guilt of inaction.

Re:Spying on each other

[SubRosa]

They are only "criminals" in the same sense that I am a "criminal" for watching DVDs on my PC using DeCSS -- because some asshat in office with a penchant for power decided to make something so silly illegal on paper. Crossing some immaginary line in the desert at night does not magically make someone a criminal in any meaningful sense.

Of course, the US is far from unique in this position, as all nations seem to attempt to enforce immigration policies. I've yet to see a truly compelling reason to support this practice. The free mingling of peoples and cultures is what's advanced our world to where its at today.

Re:Spying on each other

[slashflood]

I think, the point astrashe made is that soon every public space will be watched via cameras by a mass of citizens. Imagine, you are on a public place and you know that maybe hundreds of people are watching you - not only a few professional law enforcement people. My neighbor, my girlfriend, my parents, my friends and anyone else can see me nose-picking. I don't care if some officer sees me nose-picking or whatever, because I think he sees a lot of people doing strange and embarrassing stuff, but I don't want that "ordinary people" can see me.

Sometimes, you want to be alone even if you are on a public place.

Re:Spying on each other

[Anonymous Coward]

God you liberals make me sick.

Wouldn't it be conservatives that were against cameras watching our every move, people spying on other people, everyone reporting every tiny little suspicous thing to "the authorities" ? I thought that privacy, less government and civil interference, more personal responsibility were all "conservative" ideals?

It hurts my head the way the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have gotten twisted around and intertwined.

Re:Spying on each other

[indytx]

I've been waiting for something like this -- something that gets ordinary people to spy on one another. I know people will say this is the border, and the people crossing aren't "us".

I don't see how people breaking the law and violating the sovereignty of the U.S.A. are ordinary people. You obviously haven't lived in Texas or spent any time on the border. Most of the land in Texas (around 98%) is in private hands. In Texas, criminal trespass is illegal. Tex. Pen. Code. Sec. 30.05. Illegal aliens are violating the property rights of private citizens in Texas. End of story.

Honestly, this is the best idea Governor Perry has had in a long time.

Re:Spying on each other

[nleaf]

...if I saw someone being mugged, I hope I would have the courage to step in and help.

I've tried to help mug someone before, and the mugger was only willing to split 90/10. Its honestly not worth the effort.

Re:Spying on each other

[radtea]

Is it that the border/immigration laws themselves are unpalatable? If so they should be changed.

The problem is that border/immigration laws will not make America substantially more secure because any point-of-entry security protocol is bound to be porous, and once inside the barrier there is no practical way of identifying illegal immigrants. Bush's laughable proposal of "tamperproof IDs for immigrants" neglects to account for the fact that immigrants are perfectly capable of faking citizen's IDs. Instituting universal, biometric IDs for citizens is a much, much harder political sell than for immigrants, so it is likely that most illegal immigrants will get fake citzen's IDs of one kind or another.

Furthermore, focusing on the border as if a wall could keep THEM out tends to make the whole security issue one of US vs THEM, which is silly. Timothy McVeigh was an American. The London bombers were Britons. Fighting terrorism is not primarily about securing borders. It is primarily about good police-work within healthy, supportive, open communities. Building walls and demonizing illegal immigrants does not further those ends.

To put my point about border security in geek-friendly terms, when building a secure, robust system there are two ways of dealing with pre-condition checking. The first is to do a one-time check at the entry of a block where a condition is required, and then let everything within that block proceed on the assumption that the condition has been met. The other is to check the condition immediately before it gets used, every single time.

The former is less resource-intensive, but the latter is the only way to be sure. For example, I've seen code that does something like this:

if (0 != pFoo)
{
      someMethod(pFoo);
}
else
{
      throw NullFooException();
}

and someMethod() merrily dereferences pFoo without checking it because the developer "knows" it has already been checked. But of course at some future date some poor maintenance coder will call someMethod() from somewhere else without checking, and things will blow up.

For real robustness (and real security) defense-in-depth is required. But in human societies that means a police state, which is far more dangerous to the life and liberties of citizens than the threats they are intended to counter. Remember--terrorism kills fewer people each year in the United States than falling down, suicide or HIV (in most years it is vastly fewer, but fewer even in 2001).

Re:Spying on each other

[geekoid]

It's one thing to stop a mugging, as I am sure you would.

It's another for people to ahve to guess at whether a crime is being committed. He's got brown skin, clearly he is illiegal is where this will go.

Hell, I can't tell you how many times I have heard that already.

I had a guy come into my cube and state we should have our own boycott.
When I asked what he meant, he said if those illegals get one, so should we. I asked him how he knew I was legal, he said it was 'obvious'
hmmm

Re:Spying on each other

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, a conservative on slashdot CAN have an Excellent karma!

Ah, but can he keep it, once the rock's been lifted and he's blinking in the sudden light?

Re:Spying on each other

[demachina]

"Pretty soon we'll have the public looking for traffic violations"

Dude your predictive powers are amazing, because this has been happening for years. Just listen to a police scanner. There are numerous dispatches a day where people are calling in wreckless and drunk drivers.

The key enabler for this snitch state was the cell phone. People didn't stop and search for a phone booth to call in wreckless drivers but now they can whip out their cell phone and the guy is reported before he is even out of sight. Not sure how high the success rate is for actually catching people reported this way, nor even how often cops even look for someone reported this way, but I assume if they are in the area they will look for the vehicle and stop it if there appears to be a problem. This snitch state is much more effective in smaller communities because in the city the dispatcher will laugh their ass off if you call in anything below armed robbery on the severity scale.

When you add in still and video cameras to your cell phone you have the snitch state's dream tool for ratting on your fellow man. When you report someone you can also send the video/audio evidence of whatever illegal, stupid or unpatriotic act you caught them at.

Good samaritans(a.k.a. nosy, busy body snitches) don't stop at just wreckless drivers. You hear calls all the time for people calling in complaints because ... gasp ... someone left a baby or a dog alone in a locked car for more than two minutes, or a husband and wife are yelling at each other in the privacy of their own hime. So if you have a baby NEVER leave it alone in the car, even if it takes more time to get it in and out of the safety seat than you would have actually spent inside the store, and don't even think about taking your pet with you in the car anymore because their is a busy body snitch who is dieing to rat you out. And don't fight with your spouse unless you are in a sound proof room.

Re:Spying on each other

[Lord Ender]

Nursing homes!

Just think. All the old people who saved nothing for retirement but can't take care of themselves just suck up tax dollars in nursing homes right now. With this program, we could give them something to do (watch cameras) while they earn their stay (saving police dollars). Sounds like a good match.

Re:Spying on each other

[muellerr1]

I agreed with you right up till the end, when I got confused: what does me being a liberal have to do with anything you just said? If anything, I'd think that you, as a conservative, would OPPOSE putting up a bunch of intrusive, expensive, big-government cameras. See, I'm a small-government liberal: I think that cutting taxes is fine as long as our laws are actually enforced (which they're currently not, but that's another post). But spending money on something frivolous like PEACEFUL (and ultimately useless) border patrol is just a waste of money. It's not a law-and-order issue even: it's purely political posturing.

That's why I oppose these cameras (and so should all fiscal conservatives), but I guess your world is a little too black and white for anything but your epithets.

God you conservatives make me sick.

Re:Spying on each other

[TempeTerra]

Yes, I know people who have called up the police on others who have attempted to drive while drunk. Why? To save a lief (or two or twenty).

You're a member of the Society for the Protection of Scandanavian Peoples?

Sorry, slow day.

Re:Spying on each other

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a world of difference between the incidental presence of a witness at a crime scene and some sloth of a redneck busy-body watching Border Cam, getting a hard-on at the thought of making some poor Mexican's life much more difficult.

Redneck? Why you bigoted little bastard.. I'm definitely not a redneck and my solution is a bit more extreme: Army and Marine Corps snipers coming in from Iraq should be given R&R in the southwest. They should then be placed on the border to kill every fifth illegal crossing the border. Companies who employ illegals should be fined 250k per offense. Illegal immigration would stop within a week. Illegal Mexicans bring down worker wages and decrease tax revenue. And let's get real: while you'll find the assorted Columbian or Guatemalan, the majority are the children of Vincente Fox's failed policies.

I'm a Democrat when it comes to social policies concerning legal residents: in other words let's take care of our own. White, black, brown, red, hell, I don't give a damned as long as you're a citizen. I'm an isolationist when it comes to the outside: the only ties we should have should be economic with a token ambassador in various countries. No wars, no foreign aid, etc. I always love the "isolationism leads to things like WWII" bullshit. Sorry guys but Europe can police themselves and with information awareness nowadays I think we'll have a heads up. Of course in your version the bad bad US gubmint will censor our news.

The country is out of control and it is time to take care of our own. We need to start pumping out scientists, doctors and engineers and start paying living wages for the work previously done by illegals. Add in the fact that we're in debt up the ass and can only "buy" H1-B visa techies for a little while longer and we're screwed. If people want to pursue coming in legally, that's great. But there can be no free passes for those who don't want to play by the rules.

Do you know how incredibly petty and ignorant most people are? Those fools on afternoon talk shows are representative of real types of people. When we have surveillance of this kind going on a citizen-against-citizen basis, we're fucked. McCarthyism will look quite tame in comparison. Sure, we may have facade of greater law and order, but the loss of true freedom will be staggering.

That's an awfully slippery slope your argument is on over there.. heheh.

You'd better get your immigration papers for France or Belgium ready to go then.

Of course, the whole premise of this particular debate -- that of immigration w/o papers being "illegal" -- is pretty disingenuous, as well.

It is illegal, no matter how many times you bleat otherwise and click your heels together. The general population is going to assert itself and you're going to see a far different environment in the next five years or so when laws start getting enforced. This is about the only time I'm happily awaiting on the Republicans to really kick the fear machine into high gear and polarize people. You think it's already happening? You haven't seen shit yet.

You strike me as one of these "open borders" dumbasses. It's not going to happen. Deal with it.

Re:Spying on each other

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Stop waiting, it got proposed already. Though shot down by Congress, Ashcroft wanted an American STASI.

Re:Spying on each other

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>God you liberals make me sick.

Dick Armey, R-Tex., opposed the TIPS domestic spying program. He was chief author of the Contract with America, supporter of a flat tax and Social Security privatization.

He is not a liberal, and whether to set up something like Cuba's version of a block watch is not a liberal vs. conservative question.

While we're talking about illegal immigration...

[GillBates0]

...it may be worthwhile to mention that India has already built 1300 miles of it's 2500 mile fenced barrier along it's border with Bangladesh.

It may be noted (for those unfamiliar with the region's history/politics) that India has faced a considerable inflow of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh for more than a decade. Moreover, unlike India-Bangladesh relations are not benign as the US-Mexico relations currently seem to be, with a number of alleged fundamentalist religious organizations from Pakistan using the porous border to carry out terrorist activities on Indian soil.

While the world's attention has been focused on the Israeli security barrier sealing off the West Bank, India has been building a far longer fence to keep out Islamic militants, thwart cross-border smuggling and stop human trafficking.

More than 1,300 miles of the barrier has been erected in the six years since building began. Snaking through jungles, rivers and the villages of five states, Delhi's floodlit, 12ft double fence packed with razor wire will render India a fortress against her neighbour.

This is not intended as flamebait, nor as a political rant. Just thought it might be useful to look at the steps other countries have been taking to combat unapproved/illegal immigration into their borders...probably from more hostile neighbors.

I for one think each piece of technology has it's own place where it works well. Just because we have the technology to stream live video via the intarw3b doesn't mean it can replace a relatively low-cost hard barrier (agreed though that the FTA claims this is a temporary solution).

Calling all X10 webcam owners....

[foniksonik]

You know you're out there, you know you got suckered into buying a cheap $10 or $20 wireless webcam from X10 back in the late 90s.... now we all have a way to redeem ourselves ;-p

If we all dig out our old, useless X10s and donate them to the Fed, we can surely cover the entire border with motion activated, web enabled video surveillance... there has got to be millions of these little buggers out there... all the fed would have to do is wire them up.

Re:Calling all X10 webcam owners....

[ajlitt]

Why would the Federal Reserve need cameras?

Re:Calling all X10 webcam owners....

[phonewebcam]

And phone owners ;-)

Re:Calling all X10 webcam owners....

[foniksonik]

Trust me... any significant decision will always follow the money!

Demand side of equation

[smilemaster_12]

There is no need to spend billions on a fence or other border devices. All that is needed is a crackdown on the demand side of the equation. Shut down a few businesses that hire illegal workers, and the demand for them will dry up overnight. Far fewer illegal immigrants will spend the time to come here if there are no jobs for them.

Re:Demand side of equation

[blugu64]

Somebody has been paying too much attention in Economics...good comment though

Is the wall working?

[�berhund]

Hey, it's working for Britain, right?

I dunno. I think that Hadrian's Wall is actually drawing tourists at this point, rather than keeping people out.

Re:Is the wall working?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah? Just how many illegal Mexicans are crossing into Britain? Answer me that dog boy! Cameras, Hadrian's Wall, eating fish and chips, driving on the wrong side of the road - we need to try 'em all.

Re:Is the wall working?

[Sigg3.net]

Yes, but in Soviet Texas, Hadrian's wall looks at you!

Re:Is the wall working?

[�berhund]

Silly tourist. Hadrian's Wall was built to keep out the Scots and Celts, not the Mexicans!

I've got an idea...

[OldeTimeGeek]

Real Reality TV! Just like Survivor! Only in this one, the last person left gets kicked off the island.

It'll be HUGE!

In Other News...

[Guysmiley777]

The Bush administration has announced that they are planning to protect New Orleans from another hurricane with millions of pasta strainers. A senior official was quotes as saying "We figure as long as we make a good show of having a ton of plastic bowls with holes in them on the levees the water will be discouraged and stay in the Gulf of Mexico."

Great idea...

[NIN1385]

This will save a lot of money by not having to hire government employees to watch these cameras. People will be fighting to watch these cameras and there will never be a shortage of people willing to help out. I do like the attached sentry gun idea a little more though. Once it got done shooting it would be cool if it said something like "Don't mess with Texas".

Feature requests

[ntijerino]

Shouldn't there be a way to tell if anybody else is watching that camera so that you don't have everybody watching just one camera while the rest of the cameras go unwatched? I just skimmed the article, but I didn't see any mention of that feature.

Re:Feature requests

[Andrew Aguecheek]

Wouldn't the problem with that be that you get a friend at home to watch the one by the spot you want to jump at? Or just check it yourself before you jump and find one without anyone watching?

Re:Feature requests

[ntijerino]

Definately a possibility. There is a better way to implement a scheme that encourages full coverage, I just haven't taken the time to think of it.

Re:Feature requests

[Digital Autumn]

Yes, exactly. It would be vital for it to be a system where "watchers" are randomly assigned cmaera views that change occasionally and that there is no location information given.

Re:Feature requests

[Rob Nance]

Allow me to be the voice of reason here. If you think the poor guys trying to escape to a better life have computers and internet access you might want to think again ;)

Re:Feature requests

[Viper Daimao]

I'm guessing the BBC doesnt have all the techincal details, or at least thought details like that weren't integral to the story.

Re:Feature requests

[14CharUsername]

computers? maybe not. But a cell phone to call a friend at an internet cafe? Quite likely.

Re:Feature requests

[MillionthMonkey]

Allow me to be the voice of reason here. If you think the poor guys trying to escape to a better life have computers and internet access you might want to think again ;)

The refugees themselves obviously aren't going to be carrying computers across the river. They're going to be in the unventilated trailer in the back. The guy driving the truck they're in would be the one with the laptop and the cellphone and the air conditioning. Unloading the trailer near unwatched cameras would be a premium service offered by the driver to the people in back. That way if they don't pay extra he can drop them off in front of busy cameras and get repeat business.

I think it would be unwise to offer surveillance statistics to website visitors. Not that this isn't a stupid idea already.

no more gardeners?

[Roadmaster]

I guess you americans already have enough gardeners, farm helpers, construction workers and waiters, eh? truly, the way the US and Mexico act belies the official discourse about both countries being friends and associates. Sadly I believe we're burdened by two of the single most idiotic presidents in history, George W. Bush and Vicente Fox. Luckily for us Mexicans, Fox is leaving office this december. Hopefully whoever the new president is, will have a more sensible (at *all* sensible) foreign policy as well as measures to reduce the need for migration. And hopefully americans will realize that Mexico is a friendly country and pressure the Bush administration into looking at real solutions to the immigration "problem". Building fences and putting up cameras is *not* a solution.

Re:no more gardeners?

[Chicken04GTO]

No, we have PLENTY of gardners, farm helpers and construction workers, etc. They are our own citizens...but they dont want to work. If we institued my patented "get off your ass and work or starve" program, this problem would go away.

Yes, the US and Mexico have friendly relations in general, but if you think the illegal immigrant problem is not straining relations, think again. But I dont blame poor and hopeless mexicans (or other south americans) for wanting to come here...I blame the US goverment for not stopping it, and I blame the Mexican government and others for allowing their own countries to be such shitholes, everyone wants to leave and come here.

Re:no more gardeners?

[netwiz]

Aren't you guys having daily riots and demonstrations in downtown Mexico City? As in, demonstrations that block traffic through the city for hours at a time? I'm asking in all sincerity, as that's the rumors I've heard, and I'd like some validation from someone who's actually there.

Honestly, as a citizen of the US, I have a vested interest in making sure my neighbors share at least some of my values and behaviors, i.e., my culture. At least some of it. I have no problem with the degree of work ethic displayed by most illegals; I do have issues with the lack of willingness to assimilate. At the very least, learn enough of the language to get by. There are plenty of high school age teens who would pick up some of these jobs, and who need serious training in hard work, as they've not had the exposure to hardship, and don't know what it's like to have to work to eat. Additionally, the US internal economy has as one of it's base assumptions the fact that the minimum pay rate for an individual is $5.15/hr. When large numbers of individuals take jobs for less than that rate, and more importantly, don't pay taxes or social security on their wages, it skews the economy to the point that the model in place starts to have problems. I'd much rather prefer that my neighbors have at least the same indoctrinations regarding the general political culture and philosophical background for the structure of the country that I received in school. My biggest issue is that these people seem to want to come here, take advantage of every bit of infrastructure here along with our job market, with no desire whatsoever to become US citizens. They want to remain Mexicans, and I have a problem with that.

Re:no more gardeners?

[goldspider]

Perhaps your country should start figuring out why virtually every citizen wants to leave, and fix your own goddamned problems instead of exporting them here. We're tired of being your welfare state.

And if honest resentment and frustration is trollish, than by God mod me down. Somebody needs to say it.

Re:no more gardeners?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mexico is an extremly unfriendly country to average US people, going way way back, we weren't even supported in WW2.

    Check *their* immigration policies out, check their work status policies out, and what they do to tourists who run afoul of some drunken policeman demanding a bribe. And we also are facing a future serious confrontation with the aztlan reconquista KKK styled nutjobs, and don't tell me they don't exist or that it isn't taught in mexican schools about how huge areas of the US are really mexcico still, because I have sen translations of the texts. I've read several of their leaders "manifestos", they want an actual forced takeover eventually once the installed base numbers are high enough, I have *seen* the placards carried at some of the illegals demonstrations showing drawings of anglos with their heads macheted off, and they have a LOT of support which is minimized and denied by too many head in the sand ostriches.

I'd like to see what would happen if some US legal family snuck across the border into mexico and started demanding free schooling in english and free medical care at the local hospital. My guess is, locked up immediately if not shot outright.

I am all for slow controlled legal immigration, sure, that makes sense, but living in an area that has become saturated with illegals in just the past few years I will note a few things: very little to none wanting to integrate or assimilate, they just want mexico norte. Huge crime problem, I mean large as in now we got mexican gangs here. Huge burden on local public infrastructure that the rank and file local tax payer has to pick up the tabs for. The bullshit about "jobs Americans won't do" is totally false (I am a blue collar worker in a mostly blue collar area, I guarantee you this is a big problem, that lie about the jobs is spread by *completely and utterly clueless white collar workers* and by the illegals themselves). We can and have always done these jobs!

Huge uncontrolled immigration was sort of OK 150 years ago when we still had a lot of open land and free homesteading, etc, today?? Nuts. No more "free land". We already had a full amnesty for illegals back in 86 and all it did was allow 10-20 million more in for the next round of anticipated "full amnesty".

If the hispanic "culture" was all that great, mexico would be so popular that the situation would be reversed, you'd be seeing millions of US residents sneaking across the border to go down there and live and work in economic and social paradise, but it isn't happening, for the obvious reason it just sucks hard, sad to say. I say let the folks there clean up their own messes,re-arrange their own society better, take care of their own ridiculous and utterly racist billionaire "castillian" fatcats and corrupt government that has screwed up their nation and make their own nation better. Between the legal immigrants and the legally born here, we can handle the work, and perhaps wages will remain strong then, too. We have a situation now all over where a normal legal family has two adults, mom and dad, both working, and still can't make ends meet. What is the alternative after that, once you are already in the lowest economic strata, go live a dozen to an apartment like the illegals do-I see this all the time around here. Why should we be forced to do that? Screw that noise, ain't happening, we'll be going to plan B once it gets that bad and it is damned close now.

I tell you, people are minimizing the HUGE potential for actual widespread "social disruption" if this illegal immigration isn't stopped pronto.

Re:no more gardeners?

[Roadmaster]

You're exactly right. All of this wouldn't happen if Mexican economy wasn't such a mess. Mexican government steers the economy, but guess to which organization's recomendations? the IMF. Guess where the IMF is based? and guess what? the recommendations ain't working. So you're right that it's our responsibility to elect a government with different ideas of their own instead of following a (flawed) recipe, maybe that will improve things. Once Mexico has better wealth distribution people will have less reason to leave. Right now it's quite the contrary: the president and his cabinet are so brain-dead that they tout the strength of the immigrant economy, with money immigrants send to their families here in mexico being the country's second largest source of income (after oil). What they don't realize is that it's but a phantom of what real wealth should be.

However, make no mistake: it's not like americans are 100% innocent and we mexicans want to take over the US. Mexicans are willing to work for less than minimum wage in the US, but who's willing to let them? and why aren't authorities prosecuting the people who actually violate US law by paying *less* to immigrant workers?

Being neighbors we should find a way to work things out to the benefit of both countries. Unfortunately it's a complex problem dating back to at least the 1940's and it's not going to be solved easily, not by discussing it here, and certainly not by the geniuses in the president chairs in each country.

Re:no more gardeners?

[goldspider]

I can't disagree with anything you said. The answer, however, isn't to keep our borders wide open while waiting for Mexico to get their act together.

And I also imagine that any Mexican trying to legally immigrate to the U.S. has got to be extremely frustrated with both Fox and Bush. I can't think of a worse slap in the face to them than rewarding illegals by moving them (essentially) to the front of the line.

Re:no more gardeners?

[Roadmaster]

"Aren't you guys having daily riots and demonstrations in downtown Mexico City? As in, demonstrations that block traffic through the city for hours at a time?"

Sure we are. We have at least two every week. And the only ones who notice are us, other people, when we can't get to work or spend 2 hours stranded on a traffic jam. The government doesn't.

I understand the sentiment (often expressed in this thread) regarding mexicans who just want to take from the US without, basically, giving back (other than the work they perform). Realize that mexicans actually have no love for the US; I think a lot of the immigrants see it as a "I got there and i'm taking what I can before I get kicked out" affair. They'd much rather stay home but the reality of mexican economy is such that millions of people would rather risk their lives to go there and get a US $1-a-day job than stay here and starve to death. So, as I mentioned on another post, it would be up to the mexican government to start turning our economy around so that people have less incentive to leave. The current government isn't going to do it. It's a good thing a change is coming.

But as I also said, there's also fault with the americans who are willing to pay less-than-minimum to immigrant workers. Penalize those who do, and suddenly there's no need for a mexican worker when (as you mentioned) a high school kid will work for the same pay and can actually speak english.

The problem goes both ways. So either governments wake up and take measures to solve it (from the root, not by erecting walls) or we'll be facing a huge mess from the people; mexicans already desperate enough to do what they're doing, and americans angry enough to actually do something about it other than saying "damn mexicans" and then turning around and hiring a guatemalteco gardener because it's cheaper than a mexican :P

Re:no more gardeners?

[corbettw]

Building fences and putting up cameras is *not* a solution.

Maybe not, but an invasion is. Don't take this as a threat, take it as a friendly reminder of the history of our two countries. Unless you people get your shit together, expect to see Old Glory flying over Mexico City within the next ten years. It wouldn't be the first time we grabbed land from you people.

I don't think y'all understand just how pissed most Americans are at your country these days. The winds are blowing, and I don't think you'll like the direction they're headin'.

Re:no more gardeners?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mexico is an extremly unfriendly country to average US people

Yeah, that's why Mexico is never visited by american tourists, and there are no business at all between mexican and american companies.

we weren't even supported in WW2

President Manuel Avila Camacho declared war on the Axis powers in 1942. 15000 soldiers were to war, and 300000 workers were legally sent to the US to fill some gaps in its industry.

Check *their* immigration policies out

Passport and tourist visa, so?

check their work status policies out

Want to work in Mexico? Apply for a FM3 visa.

I'd like to see what would happen if some US legal family snuck across the border into mexico and started demanding free schooling in english and free medical care at the local hospital

Medical care may not be free, but it seems to be quite cheap to them. Just take a look at mexican border cities and you'll see they're swarming with doctors. I haven't seen how they take mexican schools, though.

Re:no more gardeners?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you realize that the US is going Hispanic in a big way. Hispanics have the highest voter turnout of all of the ethnic groups. Furthermore, in 10 years time, all those kids who were born here will have voting rights. So, don't count on there being a president or makeup of congress that would support an invasion of Mexico anytime soon.

In other news

[thelonestranger]

Illegal immigrant caught on street corner selling stolen webcams.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[netwiz]

You do realize, that Mexico has a fence, with armed guards, at their southern border. And they shoot trespassers on sight.

Funny how that fact never makes it into the US media.

Wow...

[den1188]

Only in the United States can the government turn an illegal immigration issue into a reality TV show.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it Redneck Xenophobia? These people are commiting a crime coming here. Let me ask you this- why would the US encourage millions of uneducated people, many of whom are illiterate in Spanish, not to mention English, to come here when there are millions of Indian, Chinese, Russian etc. Doctors, Engineers etc dreaming to come to the U.S.? Why would we want to encourage a welfare class to illegally migrate here? And by the way, calling anyone you don't agree with "racist" or "xenophobic" makes you look silly.... If someone is ant-criminal, how does it make them xenophobic?

Good. Illegal immigration is unfair

[Kohath]

Illegal immigration is unfair to folks from other countries like China and India and other regions like South America, Africa, and SE Asia. These other folks can't just jump a fence or hike a few miles. They should have the same opportunities to immigrate to America as folks from Mexico if they want.

The law needs to be changed to make illegal immigration difficult and legal immigration a lot easier. Border enforcement is necessary for that.

What are they called?

[clickclickdrone]

Are they going to call them Mexi-cams?

Stunning fact revealed

[Anonymous Coward]

So it seems that Chuck Norris can't do everything on his own.

GIve up Texas

[misleb]

Wouldn't it be easier to just to hand over Texas to Mexico? I know I wouldn't miss it.

-matthew

Re:Give up Texas

[Kris_B_04]

Hmmm... what I would give if that woulda happened before Bush.. cuz ya have to be a US Citizen to be Pres, I believe..

but if it is done now, there would be no more Bush's or Texan's in the future!! (in government positions) until, of course, Mexico (and Texas) becomes an official state....

blah.

Re:GIve up Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we just hand YOU over? That would make the US a far better place.

Re:GIve up Texas

[totallygeek]

Wouldn't it be easier to just to hand over Texas to Mexico? I know I wouldn't miss it.

To look at the percentage of Hispanics there, some could argue they already have.

Re:GIve up Texas

[catdevnull]

Boy, that kinda talk will get your ass kicked down here in Houston.

Re:GIve up Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Alamo

Never forget.

Re:GIve up Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

GWB probably does remember Kennebunkport more than he does the Alamo.

Texans still remember.

Re:GIve up Texas

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

Nuke the border states. Problem solved.

Re:GIve up Texas

[cabazorro]

Can't give up Texas, Texas alredy gave up on you.

Re:GIve up Texas

[misleb]

Boy, that kinda talk will get your ass kicked down here in Houston.

I know. That is one of the reasons to give up Texas.

-matthew

Re:GIve up Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget Goliad either! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliad_massacre#The_M assacre

Re:GIve up Texas

[catdevnull]

I recommend you keep away from these parts with that liberal talk! Theys hangin' Democrats down here. :-)

Re:GIve up Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

My anus is a flexin', giving birth to another Texan!

Re:GIve up Texas

[catdevnull]

Somebody made an A in Texas history (aka 7th grade in the Lone Star State).

Re:GIve up Texas

[idonthack]

Don't you mean "hand over Mexico to Texas"?

Re:GIve up Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean "Give back Texas"? Or do you not know your own history?

Re:GIve up Texas

[geekoid]

That one way to lower the everage IQ.

Re:GIve up Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy, that kinda talk will get your ass kicked down here in Houston.

You eyeballin' me, boy? Only two things come out of Texas: steers, and corrupt Republican politicians. Now, which one are you, boy?

Re:GIve up Texas

[catdevnull]

When I was in the USMC, I learned not to tell the DIs I was from Texas.

You'd be amazed how close to reality "Full Metal Jacket" is. (Lou Gossett--not so much).

Re:GIve up Texas

[misleb]

If nothing else, it would be pretty interesting. I don't know that I have ever heard of a geographic group fighting to stay IN a union/empire after being kicked out.

-matthew

Re:Give up Texas

[Distinguished Hero]

Hmmm... what I would give if that woulda happened before Bush.. cuz ya have to be a US Citizen to be Pres, I believe.. George W. Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut. Do you want to give Connecticut to Mexico as well?

Re:GIve up Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

If we are going to start giving back 'countries' lets make sure all of both North and South America give back to all the native populations.

We can start by giving Mexico back to the Aztecs. As far as I know, there are about 1million of them who still live much as they did back when Cortez to defeat them in the early 1520's.

But given the fact that Mexico wont give land back to the Aztecs and America wont give back land that was the Indians and so on down the line, you can have California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas over my cold dead body.

Remember the Alamo. It wont ever be forgotten. Mexico lost the war and the only way to get the land back is to fight another war, which Mexico would lose easily, even if abit bloody.

Re:GIve up Texas

[Hatta]

Not just Texas, we should have let the whole south go when we had the chance. Lincoln screwed up big time.

Re:GIve up Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

reading your post also has the same effect. jesus.

Re:GIve up Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

The south agrees with you.

Knee-jerk condescension

[stankulp]

It must get tiring looking down your nose all the time.

EXCELENTE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I'll know where the border patrol is before I leave the hacienda!!

~ Juan

MOD PARENT -1

[chewedtoothpick]

How is self defence xenophobia? If you had some other person "invading" your neither region and depositing their "people" wouldn't you complain too? That's about the least graphic I can make a good analogy of the situation. In reality the problem is that borders are there for a reason. I am sure you wouldn't want our influence spreading outward as you are obviously an Anti-American. Without our borders there as political boundaries, then our influence would spread as far as we want it to, and what would stop us from using our military prowess (read: everything in our power including nukes) to make everyone live by our way or the highway?

It's the same in reverse too, we don't want the corruption of the Mexican Government weeding it's way into ours more than it already has (read: Bush) and making us more like our third-world neighbor.

Re:MOD PARENT -1

[tmossman]

Without our borders there as political boundaries, then our influence would spread as far as we want it to, and what would stop us from using our military prowess (read: everything in our power including nukes) to make everyone live by our way or the highway?

Uh, are you being facetious here? Honestly, I'm not really sure.

Redneck?

[Kohath]

"Redneck" is a slur against a group of people based on their skin color.

Slashdot (and everyone else) ought to be against that kind of thing.

Great!

[cheese-cube]

Now maybe we'll be able to catch those crafty border-jumping Americans!

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[Anonymous Coward]

A nation should have a right to screen the kinds of people entering their society according to whatever values they see fit. As a descendent of Irish immigrants who actually worked their asses of to become successful in America, I have absolutely no problem in shutting out any types of people from entering the country illegally - and I have no problem telling people that I do not think will make a good contribution to our society that they can't come in either.

Headline from the future

[saddino]

Cam Girl Wages Plummit

distributed boarder guarding?

[Potor]

Well, I'll be - distributed boarder guarding. Good thing it's not open source, I guess.

Re:a wall

[CheshireCatCO]

Because then people will just find 21-foot ladders. If you can't patrol the wall properly, it's nearly useless and a terrible waste of money. As long as there's an incentive to cross the border and people can find a way across that's worth the cost, they'll come. Which points to the smart solution, I think.

On the other hand, we could build the wall. And then a future Mexican president can stand by the wall and demand that the US bring down that wall. The circle will be complete, although the irony will probably be unappreciated.

Three words:

[ajlitt]

Kinky for Governor. Why the hell not?

Logic people...logic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is there not a logical(computer) system in place. Eg. a system that uses motion sensors, heatsensors to detect movment on these stretchs of land.

You could have one operator covering hundreds of miles of video/still footage. If the system flags it, he just needs glace at it too see if it isa person, then he just hits a big red button and wham the security forces can go out there. The system would also know where to send the 'welcome' team as each camera has it's postion marked.

See, a simple system, even a high school programmer could write this softare.

What is wrong with the world and people, thinking up crap ideas for problems at hand like relaying videot to the world.

Re:Logic people...logic.

[Digital Autumn]

They do have that sort of technology. I believe they're still working the bugs out. Not to mention taht they just are not appropriated (they being hte Border Patrol) enough money to implement any sort of technological system across the whole border.

Sure it is

[rwade]

In the linked article, it says that the public can view the streets of Britain through the cameras.

Re:While we're talking about illegal immigration..

[goldspider]

The Mexican government actively encourages their citizens to enter to the U.S. illegally, and often assists them in doing so. From my point of view, our relations are hardly "benign".

Canadian beer USAmerican Beer.

[Kombat]

You have no idea how scared I am of those filthy Canadians sneaking across the border to take advantage of our healthcare system and steal all our good beer.

Mmph!! (spits beer all over keyboard) Since when has the US had "good beer?" Are you talking about Budwater? Ever been out drinking with Canadians? The standard jab when you catch someone drinking a Coors Light is, "Ah, you must be the designated driver tonight, eh?"

Canadian beer is so much better than US beer that ... holy crap, I can't believe I'm even bothering trying to type this out. Just try some Canadian beer and compare. You'll never go back. There's no comparison.

My first thought was

[canning]

Geeks with guns.

Obligatory Daily Show quote

[ObjetDart]

Jason Jones: So, is this a 24 hour operation?

Minuteman Volunteer: No, right now we only keep watch during the day.

Jason Jones: That's a really good idea. I mean, if you did it at night you wouldn't be able to see anything.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[Anonymous Coward]

A Link would be helpful, don't you think? Oh, and make sure that link points to a relatively reputable site. And not just a site run by "the Minutemen."

Tagging

[Distinguished Hero]

The tags for this article: xenophobia, stupid (tagging beta)

It seems that the sole use of the tagging system is to allow the "editors" to further "editorialize" the articles.

P.S. If protecting your border is xenophobic and stupid, the US is in a lot of good "xenophobic and stupid" company (i.e. almost every other country in the world).

Re:Tagging

[Anonymous Coward]

wetback would obviously be a better entry.

Re:Tagging

[Lorean]

I agree. I hate how the tagging system is being used to tell us what we should think of the article before we read it. I have stopped logging into to slashdot because it's just too much.

Re:Tagging

[Distinguished Hero]

Hey, look at that: after I bitched about the tags, they added a few more. Now the tags are: "xenophobia, politics, immigration, surveillance, stupid" It seems that bitching about sometimes actually accomplishes something, sometimes. Too bad they left the original, subjective, and useless "xenophobia" and "stupid" tags. I guess my work here isn't done yet. :)

Re:Tagging

[jargoone]

I agree, the tags are annoying and utterly useless. Don't stop logging in, though, just turn the tags off in your preferences.

Re:Tagging

[Anonymous Coward]

The tags you see are those added by userse, not the editors.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[Daniel_Staal]

There is a legal system for getting a visa to the USA. (Or to any other country, for that matter.) If these people needed to, they could get one. It's not really that hard.

There are official border crossings, with visa checks and more, at every border in the world. People are expected to use them. There are reasons for this, besides just xenophobia. Money is one. Legal accountablity is another. So is soverenty, and protection of the legal citizens of the country. (One of the basic purposes of having countries in the first place.)

The USA has a problem on it's border to Mexico, that people are ignoring the legal meathods of crossing. It is in both the USA and Mexico's intrests to solve this problem, in the long run.

Cameras are a good start!

[TimmyQ]

Obviously the border is a big problem and we need to do something about it. I've heard people talking about building walls, more border patrol ECT..., but in this day and age we should be able to lock down the border with technology using less people. Cameras are the way to go, but the implementation sounds very poor. In my opinion these cameras should all be connected to a computer processing system. They should be able to come up with a program that can recognize human like movement. Every time the program raises a red flag, a person in a control room should check out the video feed and either send or not send border patrol as necessary. A system like this could be set up and implemented with fewer resources than a wall, using much less people to have to patrol. If cities can set up camera's that can check people's faces against a database and raise a red flag, how hard would it be for a program to detect basic human movement?

Re:Cameras are a good start!

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is how many to send whenever there is a crossing sighted. I can envision ways of abusing the system to create diversion tactics. It's not even certain there can be a fast enough response time.

I don't think setting up the cameras will reduce or deter illegal border crossing. It will, at best, provide an accurate count of the number of border crossings being made. That in itself, is still useful because it would provide justification and purpose for continued increase in border security spending or to contribute to a decision to give up.

there's a big difference

[Anonymous Coward]

those minutemen were live people placing themselves on the front line and thus required the government to devote more resources to protecting them from harm than will need to be spent on these just-an-object cameras.

Why?

[brian0918]

Does anyone else feel like we're all being forced to jump through hoops? Everyone (in the US) these days is talking about immigration. Why, exactly? Has something sudden and new changed about the number or rate of illegal immigrants between 2005 and 2006?

I'll tell you why: because it's an election year, and the members of Congress need something to polarize the nation to get the public to vote. It's all one big game they're playing to get themselves reelected. It seems rather irresponsible to me. What was the topic for 2004? Gay marriage. And 2002? Well, nobody in the US can remember back that far... I'm sure abortion was used one of the election years, of course.

Re:Why?

[plasmacutter]

in 2002 it was terrorism.

and yes, i believe we should vote out anyone from any party who puts up these red herrings and wastes valuable time and money for their irresponsible bids for re-election.

if they want my vote, they need to clean up the government, reduce corporate and federal intrusiveness, eliminate the numerous pointless laws which are hindering what should be a free marketplace, and hold insurance and oil companies accountable for their reasonless 70% price hikes

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[Kiaser Wilhelm II]

I don't know about the fence part, but otherwise the other things he said are 100% true. Go look it up - I'm not Google. Mexico does NOT tolerate immigrants coming from Guatemala and places further south.

Re:Canadian beer USAmerican Beer.

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand it's easy to miss sarcasm online, but wow. I mean, just ... wow.

I'm an equally opportunity hater.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate everyone equally: Rednecks, niggers, chinks, pakis, white trash, hebes, beans, wetbacks...

Re:I'm an equally opportunity hater.

[Anonymous Coward]

wetbacks? I am offended, we prefer the term beaner!

Re:I'm an equally opportunity hater.

[Anonymous Coward]

and especially bigots.

Good start...

[slashname3]

This is a good start. Just couple this with zoneminder http://www.zoneminder.com/ and have it page the border patrol when activity is detected and you have a realtively inexpensive monitoring solution. That way you don't have to rely on potentially bogus phone calls to alert the border patrol.

Really surprised the news media has not positioned cameras and broadcasts the illegal crossings on the news. Oh, right, most of the media is to the left and welcome the illegal aliens. Guess they are trying to get enough votes to actually win an election next time around.

Flea markets...

[HermanAB]

I wonder how much these cameras will fetch on the flea markets in Mexico City...

Competition

[955301]

They need to start a competition around this to really boost participation. Make it something like folding@home or seti@home. Then geeks can run several images diff'ing processes on the images, get an alert when one of the threads picks up on something.

The spotter can call it in (old school bottleneck, why not a jabber server?) with a user name and get credit for the spot.

Then the authorities can send out a patrol to nab the crossers.... What's that you say? Not enough authorities or probably too far away to intercept? Helicopters or other intercept aircraft to spot until someone on the land can get to them.

They don't seriosly expect people to watch shrubs, sand and tumbleweeds in real time do they?

Fight the Facists

[Anonymous Coward]

So Minuteman project wants to put a 1800-wetback or something with their web big brother thingy.
Let's stop them.
Call to arms, well phones really.
Call them 24-7 from every phone you can lay your hands on.
Calling will be pricey for them, the call is free for you, not for them.
make'em pay in cold hard cash.

Fightyarights

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[Anonymous Coward]

redneck xenophobes: imagine a beowolf cluster of those?

Well I'm relieved..

[drdewm]

Yeah this is for sure going to work and not be a waste of time so since the Mexico bordner problem is solved we can move on to more inmportant things like making sure the gays don't marry.

please mod parent down "troll"

[plasmacutter]

Oh, right, most of the media is to the left and welcome the illegal aliens. Guess they are trying to get enough votes to actually win an election next time around.

this comes right out of the inflammatory and fallacious dialogue of hannity and oreilley, please mod down this pointless, and by the way false, partisan attack.

But the technology...

[Digital Autumn]

All politics and other issues aside, I think this is a step towards an interesting technology solution to the issue. When I first heard that private landowners through the Minutemen were talking about putting up cameras, it occurred to me that the Border Patrol could use a SETI type solution to this. I know from their congressional reports that one of the problems they have is not having enough person power to watch the border. They have attempted automated cameras, etc. Using distributed volunteers is a good solution I think.

However, I would suggest that they go with a more robust system. Put up cameras that can be accessed through an Internet system. When somebody signs up they get assigned a camera view. Importantly, this view should not be associated with a location, so that we're not encouraging vigilante behavior. Instead they get an anonymous camera view (that perhaps changes regularly). When they see something suspicious they should be able to simply click a button adn that alert goes to the Border Patrol, who can then take a quick look at the monitor to decide what to do. Users who "over click" would get removed from the system (or simply encourage a sort of competitive rating system among users for most accurate, and most "catches").

I understand there's a lot of politics about this, but I think the government should be looking into the uses of distributed technology in this fashion to leverage their abilities.

"God" bless the U S of A

[NotZed]

Because everyone in the world is just "totally" dying to get into the greatest country in the world.

HAHAHAHHAHAA. If only you fuckwits knew the truth.

Re:"God" bless the U S of A

[clickclickdrone]

Because everyone in the world is just "totally" dying to get into the greatest country in the world.

There was a breakdown of immigration stats published recently. The top two were US and UK. There were very marginally more people entering the US than the UK and as you might have noticed, there is a slight difference in size so I think you guys can take a few more before you fill up. UK? We're pretty much full these days.

Re:"God" bless the U S of A

[gnuyarlathotep]

How they go to Australia? Oz has plenty of room, right?

Working on my troll material here..

[Sigg3.net]

If (....) -> the Texans would blow them away with 20 gauge shotguns

I think anything could fit into those brackets.

Re:Good. Illegal immigration is unfair

[CheshireCatCO]

So you're saying that we should pay for their tickets over here? I conclude this because the reason it's easier to immigrate from Mexico has everything to do with that pesky ocean. I'll be surprised if you have a solution for getting rid of that obstacle, so that leaves assissting them to cross.

Thats fine and dandy....

[TooncesTheCat]

Thats fine and dandy, Ill just report false sightings all day long because putting cameras on the borders are a serious misallocation of needed money.

Why arent they putting camera's on the borders to Canada? Seeing as how putting troops on the US / Mex border are under the guise of nation security even though the 9/11 terrorists crossed from Canada....Canada's border is bigger and less secure. The US Govt led by Republicans is about as racist as it gets. No I'm not Mexican but have been best friends with mainly Mexican Americans and it pisses me off to see this shit happening right in front of our faces.

Re:Thats fine and dandy....

[Frankie70]

No I'm not Mexican but have been best friends with mainly Mexican Americans and it pisses me off to see this shit happening right in front of our faces.


Why? Why do you think it's bad to prevent illegal immigrants from entering?

Re:Thats fine and dandy....

[Digital Autumn]

How exactly is reporting false sightings all day going to fix the misallocation of money? Isn't that simply wasting more of the government's money?

I believe they're putting the cameras on the Mexican border because we have a huge amount of Mexicans who enter the country illegally...over the Mexican border, not the Canadian border. While you are right that terrorist security is just as much an issue up north, the cameras are not meant to deal with terrorists, just illegal immigrants.

Re:Thats fine and dandy....

[TooncesTheCat]

I was talking about reporting false sightings because this is so bogus.

If I could find video clips on the internet of some of Bush's speeches and I'm going off the top of my head, he basically equated a single Mexican man trying to support his family as a National security risk and a could / would be terrorist.

Re:Thats fine and dandy....

[TooncesTheCat]

"Our skilled immigration security officers are also going against some of the most dangerous people in our society -- smugglers, terrorists, gang members and human traffickers." Thats one gem from Bush in one of his earliest speeches about the illegal immigrant reform issue. Most Mexicans that jump the border arent terrorists or "the most dangerous person" of our society. Most Mexicans that jump the border want to come here to work a 9-5 / sunup to sundown job doing jobs that most Americans dont want to do so they can send money back to their family in Mexico. They are making out the average Mexican / immigrant to be this huge National security risk even though they arent. Sterotyping sucks.

Re:Thats fine and dandy....

[Digital Autumn]

And my point is, if you're upset about the waste of money it doesn't make any sense to then ruin the system and cause an even larger waste of money by calling in false sightings. That's cutting off your nose in spite of your face isn't it? I'm not going to argue for Bush not being a racist, or saying something idiotic in a video, I'm no fool. BUt I don't think the fact that they're putting more effort into the MExican border is due to racism, it's due to the fact that there is a large illegal immigrant problem happening there.

Re:Thats fine and dandy....

[yohan1701]

even though the 9/11 terrorists crossed from Canada
No they didn't. Being Canadian this bit of fud always pisses me off. As simple google search and you'll turn of lots of links to dispute this. Like this this and this

Re:Thats fine and dandy....

[Digital Autumn]

Well, without seeing that quote in context, I don't see evidence of what you're talking about. It's a fact that the Border Patrol's main mission has now been made homeland security, looking out for terrorists, etc. The fact that htey're concerned about these "dangerous people" doesn't mean that all immigrants are dangerous, just that this is part of the job of border patrol. I agree that stereotyping sucks, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear some of it, but I don't see it there. There's certainly an issue with immigration beyond that of terrorists and gang members.

Re:Thats fine and dandy....

[NaCh0]

Why arent they putting camera's on the borders to Canada?

You are the kind of moron who would have tried to solve the New Orleans flooding by putting up an umbrella when THERE IS A FUCKING HOLE IN THE LEVEE!!!

Re:Thats fine and dandy....

[Loki_1929]

"Why arent they putting camera's on the borders to Canada?"

Because Texas doesn't share a border with Canada? Because we don't have 12 million Canadians illegally living in the United States? Need I go on?

"the 9/11 terrorists crossed from Canada"

No, they didn't. They also weren't CIA agents, and there really isn't a large group of space aliens trying to read your mind through your tinfoil hat.

"Canada's border is bigger and less secure."

The border with Canada is larger, but they actually control it a lot better than Mexico controls its northern border. Incidentally, Mexico has militarized their southern border, much like many other countries around the world. Why? Because masses of people streaming across your borders unchecked is a national and economic security threat to your nation.

"The US Govt led by Republicans is about as racist as it gets."

Two Democratic governors are sending National Guard troops to the border. It was a Republican governor in California who held off agreeing to do so the longest. Aside from that, what's "racist" about controlling your borders? Is Spain racist for controlling their's? Is Mexico racist for controlling their southern border? Was it racist when President Clinton ordered the construction of border security fences in the San Diego sector of the border using military designs? Wait, what party was he from again?

"No I'm not Mexican but have been best friends with mainly Mexican Americans and it pisses me off to see this shit happening right in front of our faces."

Are they Mexican citizens, or American citizens? In this country, we do not allow dual citizenship. Aside from that, perhaps you could ask your friends a few questions for me:

• Let's start with asking why an American citizen cannot legally enter Mexico to look for a job.
• Then you can ask them why American immigrants living in Mexico may not own any property in Mexico without restrictions on its location and use? (For instance, an American immigrant in Mexico may not own valuable beech-front property in many areas.)
• Then ask your friends why Mexico allows no social services to be provided to legal American immigrants living in Mexico.
• Ask them why American or other immigrants in Mexico are not allowed to participate in political demonstrations, or protests of any kind.
• Find out for me why "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country".
• Ask them why Americans who illegally cross into Mexico are jailed.
• Ask them why the Mexican constitution specifically says that Mexican citizens "shall have priority over foreigners" for all government employment.
• Ask them why all immigrants in Mexico (even naturalized citizens) are banned from serving as officers in the military, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports.
• Ask them why immigrants (including naturalized citizens) are banned from becoming federal lawmakers or Supreme Court members in Mexico.
• Ask them why it's illegal in Mexico for legal immigrants to become members of the clergy.
• Ask them why Article 11 allows Mexican citizens to arrest and detain any foreigner accused of breaking the law.
• Ask why Article 33 allows the Mexican government to expel any foreigner at any time for any reason without due process.
  

You want to talk about racism and xenophobia, let's start there.

Re:Thats fine and dandy....

[Loki_1929]

"They are making out the average Mexican / immigrant to be this huge National security risk even though they arent. Sterotyping sucks."

One million sex offenses by illegal immigrants since 1997 certainly seems like a risk. In Los Angeles, 95% of all outstanding homocide warrants are for illegal immigrants. Two-thirds of fugitive felony warrants are for illegal aliens. A report from 1995 stated that 60% of the 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal aliens. In 2002, an estimated 60% of the leadership of the Columbia Lil' Cycos gang were illegals. 33% of the US prison population is made up of non-citizens. An estimated 38% of illegal aliens are on welfare.

This site carries story after story of what some illegal alien criminals have done to Americans. And before you say it's not all illegals, remember that each and every one of these crimes would have been prevented if we had a truly effective measure of control over our southern border.

Illegal aliens - just doing the raping, robbing, murdering, child molesting, man slaughter, and child abduction Americans refuse to do...

By anybody?

[Mugrido]

Hola mama! Ya estoy en Texas!

America's funniest border crossings

[null etc.]

Of course, compiling footage of border crossing takedowns will be entertaining.

Automatic Motion Detection

[BSAlert]

We have the technology right now to implement automatic video-based motion detection. What is the point of having a chaotic, transient group of people monitor the border when this can be done much more efficiently in an automated manner? This seems like more of a PR stunt than a sincere attempt to police the borders.

Re:Automatic Motion Detection

[Digital Autumn]

Well, it's much, much cheaper is one reason. The border patrol is using some automatic sensor and cameras. They have not yet scaled up to full border use, whether for technical issues or lack of funds, or just typical bureaucratic slowness I'm not sure. If a system like this (or rather a better system I described in a different comment) worked, it would be a lot cheaper at least.

Crapflooding?

[Potor]

I agree with your thinking on the transparency (although not with the idea of 100% public surveillance), but the whole idea is kind of dumb, innit? Couldn't this invite crapflooding of sightings?

I could see smuggling rings using this to good advantage, really.

Yeah..

[cluke]

Texas is great. A real bastion of individual rights and freedoms. And it's all thanks to guns!

Well, excluding small incidents like this one.

Re:Yeah..

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

How does the ATF fucking up a raid mean that Texas isn't a great state, and that guns are bad?

The federal government is bad. They're at fault there.

I'm not saying you have to have a gun, but I'm going to. And if you want to protect yourself from what our federal government is becoming, you should reconsider not owning one.

Re:Yeah..

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you want to protect yourself from what our federal government is becoming,

Let's hope that works out as well for you as it did for the davidians.

Re:Yeah..

[Anonymous Coward]

Europeans get down on the U.S. because of our gun laws, but in France, policemen carry machine guns.. no.. not their equiv. to our national guard.. regular policemen. Could you imagine? what hypocrites.

Re:Yeah..

[Fallingcow]

You may be thinking of Germany.

In France, there aren't policemen outside of the largest cities. The rest of the country is policed by a military body--the Gendarmes.

No we don't because we can think

[SmallFurryCreature]

You call in a disturbance, what would the border patrol do. Immidiatly launch a fullscale intercept OR check the video feed of the area you just mentioned?

As for creating a diversion well that is already possible. If illegal immigrants were some kind of noble human beings that do operate according to the principal of everybody for themselves. You know, like every other human being on this planet.

In a way this is a good idea. You see a lot of people who claim the "average joe" doesn't support the hardline on immigration. Well if that is true then we should see almost no volunteers for this. If however every tom, dick and harry is going to volunteer their free time to keep watch then it is clear for once and all what americans truly think about this.

Re:No we don't because we can think

[An Onerous Coward]

So, if one half of one percent of Texans decide that they hate illegal immigration enough to sit and watch a camera, that tells us what America "truly thinks about this?"

I thought you made it clear, earlier in your post, that you came down firmly in the pro-thinking camp.

The fact is, the "average Joe"--whatever side of the issue--will not donate one minute of their time to this after the novelty wears off. All you've really created is a forum where extreme anti-immigration fanatics use the cameras, and extreme pro-immigration fanatics deface and disable them. You can't gauge the desires of America using something like that.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[giafly]

Re: You do realize, that Mexico has a fence, with armed guards, at their southern border. And they shoot trespassers on sight. Funny how that fact never makes it into the US media.

There are plenty of stories about that border. Just not on Fox News, apparantly. Don't confuse one with the other.

A lot of Asians enter the US through Latin America

[CyberLord Seven]

The US has a quota of allowable immigrants from each foreign country. The quota of some Asian countries are hit very early each year so many of them will immigrate to a far South Latin America country such as Brazil or Chile which doesn't send so many people to the US and use their unfilled quotas to enter the US.

I know this because I met a couple of Chinese guys who explained to me how they originally came to the US. It takes a few years, but it's still faster than waiting for an opening from Hong Kong or Taiwan.

Needless to say it blew my mind.

Re:Canadian beer USAmerican Beer.

[wiggles]

Hey, the only Canadian beer we get down here is pisswater like Molson and Moosehead. I'd put Goose Island, Redhook, Fat Tire, Sierra Nevada, Sam Adams, Yuengling, and any of hundreds of other small, regional American brews up against the souile you export to us any day.

Is Gov. Perry feeling a bit Kinky these days?

[b1t r0t]

A stronger border is what Americans want and it's what our security demands and that is what Texas is going to deliver,' Mr Perry said.

Hooray for election years!

For those of you either living under a rock or outside Texas, there's an election coming up for governor, and we have two independent candidates competing along with the usual party candidates.

From a Texan's Perspective...

[Anonymous Coward]

...I kind of like the idea. As previously mentioned, as long as all the video feeds are looking out and are not just available to authorities. To the people that say, "What about the land of opportunity,..blah, blah." There is a difference in taking a ship across the ocean and going through customs, immigration, etc., and just a bunch of people walking across the border. If anyone wants to come into my country, I'm perfectly fine with that if they follow the same guidelines and conditions as those who came before them. The Irish, Germans, Italians, etc. people that sailed to this country in the 1800's and later became the nation's workforce, police, etc. They were an asset, not a liability, to this country. Any undocumented people in this country, not just Mexicans, are a problem when they number in the millions. Anyone that is able to provide a service to this country should follow the correct channels and go through immigration. Hell, I'd pay for the pen and paperwork, as long as they get documented, and all I want is a week to check Mexican or other countries' police records (to catch people fleeing their own country's authorities), a picture, fingerprints, and issue them an ID card. Is that too much to ask?

Look how well the collapse of the stasi worked out

[SmallFurryCreature]

The same goes in reverse. East germany is still piss poor with runaway crime and now with the world cup to be held in germany non-whites have been warned not to visit east german cities for fear of ethnic violence.

Yeah, the east german really do well now the stasi is gone.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I'd love to see a "solution"

[misanthrope101]

I would love to have the immigration situation actually "resolved." Americans are in some heavy denial about how dependent the economy is on illegal, cheap immigrant labor. The Texas economy in particular would fall over, die, and burst into flame if all the illegal immigrants vanished. Restaurants? Hotels? Ranches? Farms? If all these demonized immigrants just vanished the people would realize in short order why nothing was ever done about it before, despite all the big talk. Racism sells, but money is what matters.

Wait till people are paying $8 for a head of lettuce, and the light just may go on. If ranchers and restaurants actually paid ALL of their employees a legal wage, complete with all the taxes, insurance, etc, prices have to go up. I'm all for the immigrants--the poor bastards have been exploited for too long. I hope, for their own sake, that the problem is "fixed" long enough for people to realize how much we depend on their existence. If the immigtants just stopped coming, the entire US economy would have to undergo some serious readjustment.

I'm not saying it would crash, but a steady supply of cheap, exploitable, never-talk-back labor has been taken for granted probably for as long as the US has been a nation.

Re:I'd love to see a "solution"

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait till people are paying $8 for a head of lettuce, and the light just may go on.

I read somewhere that the cost of picking the lettuce was about 15% of the total cost of a head of lettuce. If true, you would have to pay someone a lot of money to cause lettuce to be 8$ a head.

Re:I'd love to see a "solution"

[chromozone]

Those "poor bastards" being "exploited" make 4 dollars a day in their own corrupt country (if they even have work) - which is why they break in here to get "exploited". They already tried the "Day Without Immigrants" to prove to us how essential they were and it was hardly a blip. The US economy does not run on landscapers and lettuce pickers who turn around and bankrupt hospitals, over burden schools, cause rampant property tax increases and make up over 30 percent of the jail population. I suggest you enjoy feeling sorry for people you see as lower than you as a way of having a nice nice image of yourself - thats the sneaky side of racism.

Re:I'd love to see a "solution"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you would; however then it wouldn't be 15% of the total anymore. It would be 70%, 80%, or some higher percentage. Add in increased fuel costs to bring that lettuce 1500 miles across the nation to you, and $8 doesn't seem so impossible to me...

Re:I'd love to see a "solution"

[geekoid]

actually, the farming would move south, and be inmported. SO the price would end up being what it is here.

"...exploitable, never-talk-back labor has been taken for granted probably for as long as the US has been a nation."

wasn't there some amendment to stop that?

Re:I'd love to see a "solution"

[Distinguished Hero]

Americans are in some heavy denial about how dependent the economy is on illegal, cheap immigrant labor. The Texas economy in particular would fall over, die, and burst into flame if all the illegal immigrants vanished.
If that is true, the US/Texas economy deserves to "fall over, die, and burst into flames." How can the Western European (especially pre-EU enlargement), Japanese, South Korean, and Taiwanese economies function decently without illegal, external labour, but the mighty US's cannot? The only country that depends on cheap, external labour as much as the US is advertised to be is Saudi Arabia; glad to see you have such high aspirations.

Re:I'd love to see a "solution"

[Anonymous Coward]

You conveniently leave out the cost that the American Taxpayer pays in costs of healthcare, food stamps and other services these people dont pay for.

Which means your one dollar head of lettuce doesnt cost one dollar and that cheap labour isnt so cheap.

If these people were legal and paid 15$ instead of 5$ an hour, the cost of lettuce wouldnt go up that much and the money they would pay in taxes into our system would offset some of the freebies they recieve from that system.

Of course I am for the FairTax, http://www.fairtax.org/, which would tax illegals on everything they bought here regardless if employeers broke the law by hiring them.

Re:I'd love to see a "solution"

[Frenchy_2001]

Wait till people are paying $8 for a head of lettuce, and the light just may go on. If ranchers and restaurants actually paid ALL of their employees a legal wage, complete with all the taxes, insurance, etc, prices have to go up. I'm all for the immigrants--the poor bastards have been exploited for too long. I hope, for their own sake, that the problem is "fixed" long enough for people to realize how much we depend on their existence. If the immigtants just stopped coming, the entire US economy would have to undergo some serious readjustment.

Actually, i would like to see that. The US politics and citizens close their eyes to illegal immigration as long as it benefits them (slave labor), but trash talk it. I would like to see the US respect its word and actually DO something against *COMPANIES* that employ illegal immigrants (not just against the poor exploited immigrants).
Sure, the economy would need adjustement, but it would be *FAIR*.

Let the adjustement begin!

Re:I'd love to see a "solution"

[Lord Ender]

If that happens, we can allow more immigration and lower the minimum wage LEGALLY. That would be better for citizens and immigrants. Leaving things as-is cheapens the law.

Re:I'd love to see a "solution"

[davidstrauss]

Oh no! Someone please save the poor, exploited immigrants who voluntarily came to the U.S. knowing exactly what to expect. Despite their active consent (crossing the border), we should still call them slaves. They have so much in common with people who were forcibly removed from their homes and have no free will.

Re:I'd love to see a "solution"

[Loki_1929]

"a steady supply of cheap, exploitable, never-talk-back labor has been taken for granted probably for as long as the US has been a nation."

Yes, but the last group was freed by Whites in the 1860s. Perhaps this latest group will be freed sometime soon as well.

Repeat after me: Slavery is wrong, no matter how cheap the [insert product here] is with it, or how expensive it'll be without it.

Re:I'd love to see a "solution"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I talked to a Chinese man whose family had spent time working in South Korea, among many other Chinese doing the same things, and they were treated as subhuman by the local Koreans.

I ran into a West African factory worker in Tokyo, who had a similar story; I guess there are a lot of Africans doing the shit jobs in Japan, where /any/ foreigner is marginalized.

I don't know about Taiwan, but the other two countries you mentioned definitely rely on cheap external labor.

Re:I'd love to see a "solution"

[otterpop81]

... actually DO something against *COMPANIES* ...

I love how people think that "companies," "big evil corporations," etc are the ones who need to be punished or taxed or whatever for $PROBLEM. Who are these companies? Shareholders. Who holds these shares? If you have a 401K, _you_ do.
So let's punish them real good.
Alan.

BBC bias?

[natedubbya]

Well this will sound like a troll, and maybe it is, but you just have to love the opening quote from this BBC report:

The plan will allow web users worldwide to watch Texas' border with Mexico and phone the authorities if they spot any apparently illegal crossings.

I like how they slip the word 'apparently' in there, suggesting there are legal crossings that occur as individuals climb the fences, entering a country without permission. Linguistic sleights of hand like this make me chuckle. It's so obvious the writer has a negative view of the subject he is reporting and the editors seem to have skipped filtering this bias out. Remember people, these fences aren't so much rules as they are guidelines...

Re:BBC bias?

[chromozone]

The UK media is so compulsively anti - American it reads like a comic book or WWF speech. Tony Blair himself described anti-Americanism across Europe as "madness" and after Katrina he said the BBC's coverage of Hurricane Katrina as 'full of hatred of America' and 'gloating' at the country's plight. Heck al-Jazeera grew out of the BBC. The UK is a great country but the media there fills the people full of crap even more than the US media does and that's saying something.

Re:BBC bias?

[natedubbya]

And then the BBC's loyal subjects mod you down because you had a negative comment about them...

Pointless waste of, well, everything!

[Hellboy0101]

Let's not forget that not one, NOT ONE terrorist has EVER been caught crossing the US-Mexican border. However, the potential LAX bomber was caught trying to cross over into the US from Canada (turns steely glare directly north).

According to the Washington Post , the US has a laughingly low number of border patrol agents on the northern border.

From TFA: "The United State posts more than five agents per mile across our southern border. By contrast, we post less than one agent every five miles across our northern border. What's more, as the United States has cut off urban crossing points in places such as El Paso and San Diego, it has forced many illegal immigrants to go through the Arizona desert -- a brutal journey, particularly for someone with no knowledge of the terrain. Would-be terrorists coming from Canada are not only less likely to be caught, they are less likely to die along the way.

There also happen to be many more potential jihadists in Canada. Unlike Mexico, with its negligible Arab and Muslim population, Canada in recent decades has welcomed large numbers of immigrants from the Middle East. And while the vast majority are law-abiding, Canadian authorities estimate that roughly 50 terrorist groups operate in the country. In their study, Leiken and Brooke identify three suspected terrorists who have tried to enter the United states from Canada, including Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian native arrested in December 1999 on his way to blow up Los Angeles International Airport."

I love my country, but seriously, this is just so out of hand now. To paraphrase The Talking Heads: "We're on a road to nowhere."

Re:Pointless waste of, well, everything!

[Clith]

Good scare monger there. Had me going for a bit.

The US also has a large Middle-Eastern immagration wave. And since the US has 10x the population of Canada, I think it is Canada that should be eyeing its southern neighbour with a "steely glare".

But it won't, because Canada is not as xenophobic and fearful of "Other People".

Re:Pointless waste of, well, everything!

[NaCh0]

Let's not forget that not one, NOT ONE terrorist has EVER been caught crossing the US-Mexican border.

Never been caught is very different than has never crossed. We want to make sure that the latter doesn't happen.

Re:Pointless waste of, well, everything!

[cdrguru]

Also Canada has a lot stiffer immigration policies. Just try to find yourself a job in Canada without proper government-supplied documentation.

Compare this to the USA where you can buy a fake ID for $100 in any large city.

Girl dormitories next, please!

[toriver]

You know, to report on any under-age drinking. Um.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[eln]

There is a legal system for getting a visa to the USA. (Or to any other country, for that matter.) If these people needed to, they could get one. It's not really that hard.

Have you ever actually tried to get one? Have you ever tried to get one without having any relatives already in the US? How about without having any advanced degrees or without having tens of thousands of dollars in the bank (to get in as an entrepreneur)? You haven't, have you?

My wife is a Canadian. It took us 6 months and over $2,000 to get permanent residency for her, and that's someone from a "non-threatening" country with a spouse who was a natural-born citizen of this country. For people without any relatives here, without advanced degrees, without tons of money, and who come from non-first-world countries, it's not "easy" to get a visa, it's completely impossible.

I understand the concerns people have with these illegal immigrants, but I wish you would stop pretending that they could just get themselves a visa whenever they wanted to. If that were really true, they wouldn't be trying to get here illegally.

No, not working in Britain & it won't work her

[HighOrbit]

Hey, it's working for Britain, right?

No, its not working in Britain either. Besides the fact that the cameras in Britain are for another purpose, lets talk about these cameras and immigration.

Britian is an Island. It is SURROUNDED by a physical barrier (the sea). Yet they still have illegal immigration. Why? Because the authorities are not serious about enforcing immigration laws or rounding up and deporting visitors who overstay their visas.

Any barrier or suveillance can be defeated if the guards don't give a damn. So there is a phone number. Big deal. You can take it for granted that reports will go into the circular file and be ignored. Having cameras or electronic surveillance does nothing unless coupled with a guard force that will then response to an incident. Having a sea barrier or wall does nothing unless you have a force of people willing to respond to breaches. A camera will not stop theft or crime or border-jumping, if it is generally known that nobody will respond. Electronic sensors or a virtual barrier will not stop anybody if they know that its all for show. Even physical barriers will not stop somebody if it is ungarded and they only need a ladder. If these careras are placed in "hot spots", then why isn't there a guard team there already if its a know "hot spot".

Only GUARDED physical barriers backed by the political will to do what is necessary will work. Otherwise it is just window dressing. The political will is lacking however, because immigrants equal cheap labor and political constituancies and everybody (or rather everybody with power) wants cheap labor to drive down wages or more people for their own constituancy so they can grab more power.

So now you can just watch as they steal the camera. I give it a few weeks before the cameras start showing up for sale on e-bay or El Paso pawn shops.

Perhaps...

[Anonymous Coward]

We can get the Mexicans to watch the cameras too

Yea, right...

[Agret]

"The intention is apparently to use viewers as a kind of distributed processing network, with a free phone number to report border-jumpers."
Because it's really interesting to sit there looking at nothing in the hopes that you see someone that may or may not be crossing illegally.

I fail to see why this system is being implemented. Shouldn't it just have motion detection software with people paid to watch the cameras? Wouldn't that be much more effective?

DIY Border Security

[theweatherman32]

Find an illegal immigrant online, then call your local chapter of The Minutemen to take em out.

Re:DIY Border Security

[Loki_1929]

"Find an illegal immigrant online, then call your local chapter of The Minutemen to take em out."

The Minutemen simply watch, then report violations to law enforcement (generally the US Border Patrol). If you're going to call someone, it may as well be the US Border Patrol directly. The Minutemen are there to watch and observe; not to "take em out".

Xenophobe?

[caffeinatedOnline]

I live in Arizona, and the illegal immigrant problem is reaching epic proportions. My wife works for the state health department, and the numbers that she mentions on how much it costs the taxpayers to subsidize these illegal aliens in just Arizona is mind blowing.

Just looking at a report on the Center for Immigrant Studies website http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalcoverage.ht ml/ mentions that it cost the US more the $10 billion in government services for households headed by illegal aliens. Good to know that my tax dollars are hard at work.

Re:Xenophobe?

[geekoid]

"...US more the $10 billion in government services for households headed by illegal aliens"

And how much miney goes into SSN that will never be collected by these illegal aliens?
Oh, and not all illegal aliens are low wage migrant workers.
Any motivated* illegal alien will start there own business, pay taxes(you don't need an SSN to pay taxes), and buy stuff.

My point is: Don';t look at one data point and determin something is bad. Look at as many as you can, then think for yourself.

*Most people that cross a river, desert, risk getting shot are pretty motivated people.

Re:Xenophobe?

[caffeinatedOnline]

Taken from the article I linked to: "U.S. households headed by illegal aliens used $26.3 billion in government services during 2002 but paid only $16 billion in taxes, an annual cost to taxpayers of $10 billion, says a report issued yesterday by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). " That's how much they put into the system(16 billion), and the 10 billion is how much it is costing us. My point is: Don't just look at one data point to determine something, RTFA!

Re:Xenophobe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Taken from the article I linked to: "U.S. households headed by illegal aliens used $26.3 billion in government services during 2002 but paid only $16 billion in taxes, an annual cost to taxpayers of $10 billion, says a report issued yesterday by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). " That's how much they put into the system(16 billion), and the 10 billion is how much it is costing us. My point is: Don't just look at one data point to determine something, RTFA!

Okay, I can't read the article because the link isn't working for me. It just brings me to the CIS website, which showed me that they have a clear and obvious bias. It's a bit hard to take them as a credible source.

However, let's talk about what you quoted:

"U.S. households headed by illegal aliens used $26.3 billion in government services during 2002 but paid only $16 billion in taxes, an annual cost to taxpayers of $10 billion, says a report issued yesterday by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS)."

So they're citing themselves and not really telling us anything. I'm still very, very skeptical.

The quote doesn't indicate what services are being used that cost $26.3 billion. Some of those services might cost the same amount if if "used" by illegal aliens. (For instance, consider a park bench. Even if an illegal alien sits on it, he hasn't cost the government any money, even though he has "used" the service.) Likewise, the quote doesn't indicate what is included in $16 billion in taxes. Is that just income tax? Does it include social security? What about sales tax? Finally, it doesn't include the value of their input into the economy.

Re:Xenophobe?

[NaCh0]

And how much miney goes into SSN that will never be collected by these illegal aliens?

How does the money go into SSN? With a SSN number.

How does an illegal get a SSN? Identity theft.

Just wonderful.

Re:Xenophobe?

[geekoid]

I politly ignored that site because it is a thinly vielled anti-immigrant site that is using worse guess numbers.

Of course those number fall to take into account the cost of deportation, and the cost of building and maintaing a secure border;which will have to be done, otherwise it is a revolving door.

The number are all over the place, politicians give wild ass numbers that they think will get them votes, very little is being done in the way of an actual study. I have heard people say 12 million illigal come into the country every year. Some how I find it hard to believe 5% of the total population comeinto our country every year.

This is why I suggest looking at a lot of data points.

It would not surprise me if the total caot of preventing illegal aliens was more expensive then the cost of having them.

It is a complex issue that needs scientific study. Which won't happen.

Re:Xenophobe?

[caffeinatedOnline]

While I do agree with most of your points, I believe that 'I have heard people say 12 million illigal come into the country every year. ' actually was quoted as how many illegals are in the country total, not every year.

From just a rough guess estimate, I find it hard to believe that it would cost more to keep them out then it cost to deal with the problems of having them here. While the initial cost might be high, once the border is set up as 'secure', the ongoing costs should drop.

Re:Xenophobe?

[swillden]

it cost the US more the $10 billion in government services for households headed by illegal aliens. Good to know that my tax dollars are hard at work.

Your tax dollars... and theirs too.

Illegal immigrants pay taxes, too, and they often pay more in taxes relative to their income than legal immigrants and citizens, because they don't dare file a tax return to get their refund back. Of course, that only applies in the cases where the employer actually submits W-2s or similar to the IRS, but in the other cases, the employer has a hard time finding a way to claim the employment expenses, so the money paid to the illegal workers ends up looking like taxable profit. In fact, employers of illegals often use the fact that they'll have to pay income taxes on their unclaimable wage expenses as part of the justification for paying such low wages.

Illegals also use mech less in the way of social services than legal immigrants and citizens of comparable economic class, because they're afraid of getting caught and deported.

I don't actually know whether the net effect on government revenues is positive, but I suspect it is, especially when you consider the indirect benefits that come from low wage workers' positive effect on the economy as a whole.

Re:Xenophobe?

[geekoid]

no actually that was pretty much what was told to me. Which is obviously incorrect. I was using it to illistrate how there are no real numbers.

"From just a rough guess estimate, I find it hard to believe that it would cost more to keep them out then it cost to deal with the problems of having them here. While the initial cost might be high, once the border is set up as 'secure', the ongoing costs should drop.

I don't know either, I just wouldn't be surprised.

Manning and maintain every foot of that fence would be very expensive. Then deporting someng is very expensive. constinly look for illegals is very expansive.

Hell if 12,000,000 illegals lined up in an orderly fashion, it would still cast more then 3000 dollar perperson to deport. probably closer to 5-6K per person.

What we need to do is find a way to turn it into a revenue stream.
Maybe set up a place and charge 3000 dollar to become a citizen per person.
At least they will be able to look for better work without fear of being turned in.
Better jobs means more tax monies.

Re:Xenophobe?

[davidstrauss]

It's irrelevant how much taxes they pay. It's not a transaction of mutual consent. I can't walk up to your car, wash your windshield without your request, and expect payment, even if it's the best windshield washing job ever.

Re:Xenophobe?

[foniksonik]

Regardless of your intent... remember, 10 billion dollars a year IS NOT BEING COLLECTED FROM ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS each year.

Yes they may pay a portion of that and yes they may be contributing to other areas with their sales tax, gas tax, etc... but they are still a drain on our economy that is not accounted for.

P.S. I love people.. all people... but some people choose to abuse systems put in place to provide emergency services, or choose to put themselves in situations where they must take advantage of such systems, with no regard to the stress they are placing upon said systems..

Re:Xenophobe?

[swillden]

remember, 10 billion dollars a year IS NOT BEING COLLECTED FROM ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS each year.

How do you know that?

Re:Xenophobe?

[swillden]

Yes they may pay a portion of that and yes they may be contributing to other areas with their sales tax, gas tax, etc... but they are still a drain on our economy that is not accounted for.

I should also mention: According to the numbers I can find, immigrants (legal and illegal) are less of a drain on our taxes and our health care system than our own native-born poor. Economically, we'd be better off shipping our inner city populations out of the country and bringing in immigrants to replace them. I'm not suggesting we do anything of the sort, but it's an interesting perspective when people try to argue that immigrants are bad for us economically.

Re:Xenophobe?

[foniksonik]

You probably should argue it... cause it is a legitimate alternative comparatively.... seriously... let's give them our poor folk for their poor folk.. I'm cool with that as long as their poor folk are ready to work and feed themselves, beats us doing it for both. It's like saying that software bugs from a 3rd party app are the same as bugs in the OS... yes it's true they both suck but hey we can at least opt to not install the 3rd party software.

Re:Xenophobe?

[swillden]

yes it's true they both suck but hey we can at least opt to not install the 3rd party software.

(a) It's not at all clear that immigrants suck. Actually, there's considerable evidence to the contrary, at least in terms of economics.

(b) It's certainly not clear that we can opt not to "install" the immigrants. They come, legal or not, and stopping them from coming illegally will be horrendously expensive.

Re:Xenophobe?

[foniksonik]

My wife, who is caucasian french-italian, grew up in Santa Ana, CA which is one of the largest illegal mexican immigrant barrios in the nation. She is also Catholic and so was exposed not only to the families who lived near her (she didn't live in some gated community either) but also the larger community as a whole AND was very active in community service helping homeless, abused women, elderly, etc.

I've learned from her that yes, there are many good people who come to improve their lives or their family's situation... but there are just as many or more who come here to 'game' the system for all it's worth. Far from being ignorant or helpless... these people take advantage of every social program we have, several times over in fact, through clever loop-holes and blatant lies and fraud... and simply don't care because they have nothing to lose and everything they gain is sent out of the country back to Mexico where they plan to retire after a good decade or so of pilfering our tax money. With the 'income' they receive they can buy a 5 bedroom villa, multiple vehicles and put away enough savings to live very well in Mexico.

This isn't isolated cases.... it's rampant and the people are completely upfront about it if you aren't a government worker or police, etc.... they'll just laugh about it and wink a few times.

Sensible president requires sensible voters

[SmallFurryCreature]

Now what makes you think voters in mexico, the usa or for that matter anywhere else, have turned sensible?

As long as people vote for parties because their dad used to or because they are the "right" religion or promise to lower taxes (no goverment can lower taxes, ever. It is a rule of nature, if you hear someone claim they can lower taxes you got a lunatic or a liar on your hands).

People voted for Bush because he was not Kerry. WTF? Bush started two real wars, a war on porn, took domestic spying to unprecedented levels and is bankrupting the county. What the hell could Kerry have done worse?

But Kerry was an intellectual not in touch with the common people. Right, Bush knows about as much about being "common" as the queen of england and since when do you not want somebody who is smarter then you running your country?

Bit like saying, well I don't like that cab driver, he looks to good at driving.

No, the world will keep electing idiots because voters are idiots.

It is that "average intelligence" horror thing. Think of a person of average intelligence. Now realize that half the people on this planet are less intelligent then that. Now realize that they have 50% of the votes. Get the picture?

Democracy is the dictatorship of the masses and the masses are dimwitts who think evolution is hocus pocus.

Druglords avoid cameras already

[Spy der Mann]

That's why they build the narc-tunnels. They can, they got the money to not just do it, but do it while bribing or killing whoever gets in their way.

So, while the politicians build the cameras to protect the people from the "terrible, smuggling" mexicans who come to "steal their jobs", the druglords just come from underground and sell drugs to their children.

HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."

Re:Canadian beer USAmerican Beer.

[clickclickdrone]

It's a futile discussion, both US and Canadian beer are like water. Let's get a few things straight:
1. Beer should be warm
2. Beer should have a taste
3. Beer should ideally have sawdust and maybe some mouse droppings in it.
4. Tea should be hot with milk & sugar.
5. Coffee should be coffee. Not a skinny latte mexicana american lightweight with 2 scoops and a stripe.
6. Feel free to slag off British cuisuine though. You're probably justfied.

Name a good Canadian beer then

[georgeha]

Molson's and Labatts taste like corn and rice water.

Sleeman's is a little better.

I still haven't had a Canadian beer that can compare to Sam Adams, Saranac, Fat Tire or most microbrews.

Re:Name a good Canadian beer then

[psgalbraith]

We have microbreweries too in Canada.

I'll agree with you on one point. I haven't drank a plain Molson or Labatt's in ages.

Huddled masses?

[Easy2RememberNick]

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

  The silence is deafening now!

Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now all we need are web-controlled sniper rifles!!

On another notes:

1) The supporters of illegial immigration keep saying that this country was built on the backs of immigrants. True, but those were LEGAL immigrants.

2) Ship all illigal immigrants back to their home countries. Fill the job void with all able-bodied people on Welfare.

3) Ship all the people back to Africa who call themselves 'African-Americans' (they're AMERICANS unless they actually migrated from Africa themselves) and want reparations for their ancestors being slaves. My ancestors migrated (legally) to the US long after this. My grandfather's grandfather was the first from my family tree to migrate here. WTF should I have to pay anyone a dime? For that matter, WTF should they get a dime for something that happened to their ancestors?

Fsck them.

Yes I do

[DnemoniX]

I would actually love to see an increase in border security, it is a screen door on a submarine right now. And yes there are plenty of other issues that also need to be addressed. But there comes a time and a place when you just have to start taking care of home. Am I crazy about the problem with illegal immigration? No. Do I think that there are plenty of jobs that need to be filled by this demographic? Sure. But if the problem is approached on a reasonable level it can be made at least workable.

The left is clammoring for rights for illegals, the right is calling for a fence. Why? When the middle ground makes more sense. Create a special category work visa, make it almost trivial to get one. Give incentives to the companies that already employ illegals to use the documented workers instead. Tax the income. This is simple and win/win. The work still gets done, and taxes are collected. If it is easy to do, you will drastically reduce the foot traffic over the fence. You can assume anyone jumping the fence really is up to no good and treat it appropriately. You reduce the human trafficing factor. I don't see wht this is so damn hard?

Marketing plan

[Trails]

This seems to incorporate strong elements of social networking. I guess that makes this Xenophobia2.0 ?

Re-election Gimmick

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the most asinine idea I've heard yet. The proposal to put up cameras so concerned citizens can "patrol" the border is nothing more than a gimmick to placate the electorate. The border patrol currently only responds to 10% of the calls they get now without the cameras! The problem is not that we can't find illegals crossing the border. The problem is that there isn't enough manpower to stop them in any meaningful capacity.

There is really only one solution to illegal border crossings. It's quite simple really. All we need are two simple chain link fences, running parallel to one another about 10 yards apart, with a good old fashioned mine field between them. Nothing says keep out quite like a minefield.

We (the taxpayers) would be looking at a cost of about $1 billion to construct such a barrier, a drop in the bucket compared to the estimated annual cost of illegal immigration to the US Taxpayers ($60-90 billion). We could probably build the damn thing with volunteer labor, reducing the cost. I guarantee there are more than enough angry Americans to do the job.

Having a substantial barrier would make the border patrol's job much more manageable. Identifying illegal crossings would become a snap -- just follow the explosions. Since the perpetrators would likely be rendered deceased, there's no need to deport them -- just leave their stinking corpses in place to serve as a warning to the next person thinking about taking their chances.

Re:Re-election Gimmick

[chawly]

Ah, memories. Let's remember the barrier between East and West Germany. I'm sure that the technology is for sale at this moment - and cheap too, I bet. Mine fields, razor-wire, radar triggered shot-guns, border patrol folks who were paid a bonus "per head" - sure worked out well in the end. A lot of the guys involved are unemployed today. And they have years of experience at the work. And they're big, white, and for the most part blond. Could this be the answer to the problem ?

Just a thought. Just trying to help.

Bullshit

[Beefslaya]

American's want a secure border.

They are gonna spend 5 million on cameras, how many cinderblocks or bricks can be purchased for that?

Unreal, our government is a bunch of mental midgets.

Anything to not prevent voters from coming across the border.

I'm gonna be sick.

Good prank call fodder

[AtlantaSteve]

Uh, maybe I'm missing something here. What's to stop the millions of looney-left immigration protesters from flooding this toll-free hotline with prank calls and false reports, reducing the worth of the $5+ million investment to zero?

Re: Invading America

[some guy I know]

If you had some other person "invading" your neither region and depositing their "people" wouldn't you complain too?

Ri-ight, because most of our ancestors never "invaded" America, or deposited our "people" here.
And those who came over were obviously the best and brightest, and not religious nuts, farmers fleeing a potato famine, etc.

Texans and civil rights, huh?

[Valdrax]

Yeah, if Texans cared that much about being spied on, do you think they'd still be one of the states most favorable to Bush still? As long as all the surveillance is done under the name of keeping illegal immigrants and terrorists (i.e. evil foreigners) out of the country, the Texans would compete to see who could be first to be barcoded (as long as you put is somewhere other than the hand or head).

$1 per minute webcam!

[Seth Cohn]

See hot and sultry Mexican women get sweaty!
See strong and virile Latin men strut their stuff!
See sexy uniformed INS men do their thing!

Not a binary relationship

[Mr. Underbridge]

Strictly speaking, you're right. What he probably meant was something along the lines of "scrutiny" or "anonymity" rather than privacy. Ask celebrities whether there are different levels of "public." There's strolling unnoticed along an empty sidewalk, or there could be cops, cameras, or monitored cameras, or cameras hooked up to recognition systems. Or Papparazzi.

So I think there is something to the notion of not only eroded privacy, but also anonymity or whatever you want to call it. There's something disquieting about knowing that you're being watched everywhere you go. And, possibly, recognized, with your whereabouts and movements recorded.

Other Prongs

[bloobamator]

This needs to be part of a multi-pronged approach, in which employers who exploit these super-low-wage workers are also brought to justice, and in which for those lucky illegals who've been here for so long there's no extracting them, making damn sure they pay taxes like the rest of us. And so on.

Cameras along our borders is a nifty idea, but in no way can be by itself a solution to the immigration issues in the U.S. Also, who is going to respond to alarm calls when illegal immigrants are spotted via these cameras? The National Guard? Where else could we get that kind of manpower?

lynchin time!

[Versalis]

Instead of calling the government to snitch on border jumpers I could see a lot of people calling cousin Seth who lives near that camera to go take care of the mexicans texan style.

Re:a wall

[Millenniumman]

Judging by the fact that there are volunteers willing to help secure the border, I would think that some of those same people would be willing to help build a wall.

Yeah...

[Anonymous Coward]

All those filthy potato farmers that jump the border to England from Ireland are being successfully stopped by border camers. Give me a fucking break you idiot tool.

Re:While we're talking about illegal immigration..

[A beautiful mind]

"While the world's attention has been focused on the Israeli security barrier sealing off the West Bank, India has been building a far longer fence to keep out Islamic militants, thwart cross-border smuggling and stop human trafficking."

This sentence is enfuriating.

I don't understand why can't even a 3rd grade journalistic source tell the difference between an apartheid/concentration camp* like system in Israel sealing off the West Bank, and a border.

The two cannot be even compared, because they are totally different things. The West Bank is so chopped up into little pieces, zones and now the "fence", that it can take a day to travel 25 miles because of the endless checkpoints, cordons and fences.

*Israel's policy of separation closely resembles pre 1994 South Africa and also resembles pre world war II Germany, (first) making second class citizens out of jews.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the "Indian, Chinese, Russian etc. Doctors, Engineers etc" can get visas to come here legally and the illiterate even in spanish Mexicans can't. Even though they come here and work their asses off at a lot of jobs most americans won't for wages no ameican will.

Just shoot them on sight

[tomcres]

First, we need to end this stupid Cuba policy where any Cuban that manages to make it to American soil can stay. It only inspires others to attempt the same thing.

Secondly, we need to see this for what it is--an invasion of our sovereign country. If it were anyone else anyplace else in the world, these people would be shot on sight attempting to cross the border illegally. People caught doing this should be shot on sight by Border Patrol or by citizens on whose land these wetbacks are trespassing.

Walmart bucket 'o bullets

[jbeaupre]

Does Walmart still carry "Bucket 'o Bullets?" For those of you not familiar with the concept, you could buy a plastic bucket with something like 1000 rounds of 22 longshot for 10 or 15 bucks. It had the wonderful name of, no kidding, "Bucket 'o bullets."

At those prices, it's amazing there's a single street sign left south of the mason-dixon line!

Re:Walmart bucket 'o bullets

[StandardDeviant]

Heee, talk about nostalgia! My first boy scout campout (troop 103, circa summer of '90) involved us all going out to the local scout camp's rifle range over the weekend to attempt to qual for the riflery merit badge. My dad and I took along one of those very same Bucket o' Bullets.

Re:Here's how to fool the system

[Rashdot]

Have a pretty girl do a striptease right in front of the camera, so you and your friends can sneak across the border behind her back.

Re:When did slave labor cost anything?

[vertinox]

We would prefer they not enter intending to work and consume taxpayer funded services unless they're actually documented and paying taxes.

Most illegal aliens I know don't cost the state anything other than lost taxes since they are paid under the table. However, I would like point out at the housing boom was only possible because of these guys out there getting paid 1/16th what union labor would have cost them.

Most mexicans I have met have been hard working doing jobs that most people would hate to do.

However, this does mean lost jobs for Americans and money leaving the country and going south, but I'm not an economist nor a poltician and have opinion nor solution for this issue.

I'm just pointing out that our economy wouldn't have been so vibrant in the housing industry had we not had illegal aliens.

Fair Trade

[jcmlima]

What USA needs is to make trade fare, so the poor countries don't need to export their unemployment to USA any more.

Re:No, not working in Britain & it won't work

[Martin Blank]

I'm not sure that the political will is lacking. There is a serious confrontation coming between the two houses of Congress, and if that passes then between Congress and the White House. Depending on whom you ask, there is a strong minority to an overwhelming majority of Americans that want a strong border presence which includes physical barriers that can't be easily climbed, thousands more Border Patrol agents, and real enforcement of the immigration laws. The issue of a path to citizenship is all over the place, and I don't thing anyone can really pin down Americans' feelings on the issue.

The House is talking tough -- much moreso than they have in the past on any issue that I can recall. The House Republicans largely are telling the Senate and the president that they're going for an enforcement measure, and little or nothing else. Whether they back down in conference is a question mark, but since even many Democrats are getting the picture that the safety of their seats largely rests on their position on immigration, there is a good chance that either nothing will be passed, or there will be a very stern measure much closer to the House version that will be signed into law or passed over the president's veto (not that I think he has the guts to veto the bill; even if it's just enforcement, he'll probably call it a good starting point in the process and defer amnesty until next year).

Paintball version 1.2

[jbeaupre]

After a few protests, they might like to switch to the paintball version. Heck, fill the balls with florecent dye, charge users and you've got a monitored defence system that can turn a profit and mark folks for later pickup. Dang it, where's that patent application? This could be worth millions!

Re:Paintball version 1.2

[Ari.Patrick]

Additional Features:
High Score Board
Expansion Packs!!!

They could charge a monthly fee...
With enough illegals crossing, I'd pay!
Forget "World Of Warcraft"... I'm Playing "Border Patrol"!

Oh... If they put this put this on the shelves...
Well... simply put, there wouldn't be enough copies!

Re: US/Mexico Wall vs Berlin Wall

[some guy I know]

While I don't necessarily disagree with the point(s) that you're trying to make, I must point out that the Berlin Wall was meant to keep people in, whereas the US/Mexico "wall" is meant to keep people out.

(For the clueless, the irony to which the PP is referring is a statement made in Berlin by Ronald Reagan, a well-known actor, one-time US President, and currently dead man: "Mr. Gorbachev (sp?), tear down that wall!".)

Keith's, Granville Island

[Kombat]

I still haven't had a Canadian beer that can compare to Sam Adams, Saranac, Fat Tire or most microbrews.

Try Alexander Keith's. If you're near Vancouver, BC, slip across the border and give Granville Island a try (excellent microbrewery).

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[pete6677]

Because according to mainstream news media, only racists are opposed to unlimited and unrestricted immigration, with full government benefits for all.

you don't have all the numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

it cost the US more the $10 billion in government services for households headed by illegal aliens

Well, these illegal aliens do pay some taxes (sales, for instance), and make much of what you buy cheaper (by working for lower wages) saving you from paying more taxes. What are those numbers? Do they fully offset this $10 billion you talk about? Do they more than offset it? Is it possible that illegal aliens operate at a profit for America?

Re:you don't have all the numbers

[caffeinatedOnline]

I normally don't reply to AC's, but saying that illegals are contributing by paying sales tax is absurd. According to a Pew Hispanic Center and Inter-American Development Bank report, Mexicans in the United States will send $13 billion this year to relatives in Mexico. I don't think that any sales tax is coming out of that... matter of fact, it's taking it out of the local economy, which is not going to help lower prices on anything.

Re:you don't have all the numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

A number of points.

1. Mexicans? Or illegal aliens? There's a difference, bro. If we're talking "people in the United States of Mexican descent, illegal or otherwise" take your point back to the null zone. If Mexicans == illegal aliens, then you got some racism you need to deal with.
2. Yeah, totally, any money sent away will not contribute to sales tax. No duh. But the fact that people send money away from the U.S. doesn't mean that they don't spend any here. Think about it. They spend money here. They have to. Thus, it's not absurd to say that "illegals are contributing by paying sales tax". THEY ARE!
3. Other people taking money out of the economy makes your dollars worth more, which relatively lowers prices. It really does.
4. Sorry I posted AC. Sorry I did it again.

Re:No, not working in Britain & it won't work

[Digital Autumn]

Well, luckily there is a border guard which responds to people attempting to cross the border. I presume that the idea of calling in on the number is to alert the Border Patrol of a crossing that they can then attempt to stop. Yes, it is necessary to have a border patrol in order to stop illegal immigration. But they also have to have a way of knowing where people are crossing, and when. It is more efficient to have a means of surveillance they can then respond to than to attempt to have so many guards that they can see the entire border with their eyes.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, now. No logic allowed, this is an EMOTIONAL debate.

How long before they get sabotaged?

[psgalbraith]

How hard can it be to cut a wire or shot them out?

Any measure that is more expensive than its counter-measure doesn't work.

Just make Mexico a state!!

[MooseTick]

Why don't we just make Mexico the 51st state and get this over with. Then we could have cheap labor, not have to worry about them sneaking across the border, and lots of new cheap land for us to exploit.

Make trade fair

[jcmlima]

What USA needs is to make trade fair. Otherwise there will be always other countries exporting unemployment and misery to USA.

Innmigrats are also a good business for Mexico

[Anonymous Coward]

The amount of money comming from the US (I'm in Mexico), product of the innmigrants has been increasing in the last years, and is also a good and easy source of income for the country:

http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2006/06/02/fotos/006o1e co-1.jpg

Figures are in Billions of dollars.

Apples and Oranges

[Comboman]

Hey, the only Canadian beer we get down here is pisswater like Molson and Moosehead.

Unfortunately, you can't buy real Canadian beer in the US. If it's a Canadian brand that has "Export" on the label, it's just a Canadian brewery's version of what they think American beer drinkers want. The same goes for American beer brands like Budwiser sold in Canada; quite different from the American Bud.

I'd put Goose Island, Redhook, Fat Tire, Sierra Nevada, Sam Adams, Yuengling, and any of hundreds of other small, regional American brews up against the souile you export to us any day.

Agreed, I thought all American beer was bland swill until I tried some of the regional, specialty and microbrewery beers on a trip to Boston. There's good beer in America, you just have to look for it. Of course, the same is true in Canada (some regional brands to look for are Propeller, Sleeman's and Big Rock, at least IMHO) .

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

['nother poster]

Do you know how many Irish came to America illegaly via Canada during the potato famine? I'm guessing not. You did realize that the Irish were regarded as unskilled illiterate trash unfit for almost any job? That the government tried to keep them out, and failed.

there IS privacy in public

[Onymous Coward]

Really, it's something of a continuum, it's not binary. You can't expect all
your actions in a public place to be entirely public by the nature of the fact
that there isn't technology enough to record you.

Let's say you loiter at the mall. Okay, they video you hanging out at the mall
and you're fine with that. You expect to be that visible — you're in
public. But do you expect to have your heartrate monitored from the IR
camera, your conversations on your cell phone recorded by sensitive directional
microphones, and the objects of your gaze calculated from images of your eyes?
And all of this correllated with other occurrences of you at other malls and
stores that are shared in the master B2B "customers" database?

You have expectations of privacy in public spaces by virtue of the difficulty of
recording you. That difficulty is constantly diminishing.

Imagine cameras and microphones placed every half block through every
neighborhood you ever stroll through, and back them up with (increasingly
powerful) image and sound processing. Try to imagine how that feels different.
Wonderful day in the neighborhood?

No, it's not rocket science. Neither is it foolishly simplistic.

I'm not commenting on the specific issue of border cameras, just the mistaken
notion that there is no such thing as privacy in public space.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[swillden]

You do realize, that Mexico has a fence, with armed guards, at their southern border. And they shoot trespassers on sight. Funny how that fact never makes it into the US media.

There are plenty of stories about that border.

Go read the links Google finds for that search. What you'll discover (after you ignore the deliberate propaganda sites) is:

1. Mexican border guards rob illegal immigrants and accept bribes from them, they don't shoot them. This is consistent, by the way, with normal police procedure throughout Mexico. Corruption is rampant, but the cops aren't cruel -- it's just business to them, by and large.
2. Many immigrants trying to come into Mexico are killed, but not by the guards. Some die from getting run over by trains they're hitching a ride on, more are shot by gangs of drug runners who suspect them of being from competing gangs.
3. Most of the illegal immigrants crossing Mexico's southern border are headed for the United States, and the primary reason the southern border is relatively heavily guarded is becuse of US pressure on Mexico.

Finally, even if the rumors were true, I have to ask "So what?" Even if Mexico's southern border were a Berlin wall-style no-man's land with minefields, automatic machine guns and guard towers every 100 yards with order to shoot to kill, would that justify the US using inhumane tactics in guarding its own border?

I actually don't think the webcams are such a bad idea, they're almost certainly more effective than fences and they should greatly reduce the number of guards required. They may also have a small effect in limiting the abuse of illegals by guards and others (though more likely the abuse will just move to where the cameras don't cover). In the final analysis, though, I think any attempt to keep people out is ultimately doomed to failure, and of questionable morality besides. We're better off finding ways to allow people to come in legally.

Re:a wall

[jmhewitt]

That's not true. They just can't get American labor to do it quickly and under budget.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[Anonymous Coward]

"were"?

I'm trying to imagine...

[catdevnull]

I'm trying to imagine the conversation on the "toll free number"

Voice on Phone: Thank you for calling the Wetback Fink Hotline! For English, press 1. Para Español, press 2--just kidding. Please hold and someone will...(click)

Operator: Wetback Fink Hotline, how can I help you?
Xenophobe: Uh, yeah...I'm callin' to report some Messicans crossing the border
Operator: Which webcam sir?
Xenophobe: Nuevo Loredo (pronounced in Texan: Nu-wayvuh Lor-ay-duh).
Operator: Can you describe the perpetrators?
Xenophobe: Uh, yeah...they're about 5 foot 3 with dark skin and a mustaches wearing a wife beaters and jeans.
Operator: OK, sir. We'll get right on that.
Xenophobe: Great. Glad I could help save some American jobs
Operator: Uh, yeah--like lazy Americans will every wash dishes, dig ditches, or mow grass.
Xenophobe: What? Where the hell are you?
Operator: New Delhi, bunghole.
(click)

Re:Canadian beer USAmerican Beer.

[bmalia]

3. Beer should ideally have sawdust and maybe some mouse droppings in it.

Bartender, bring me a beer and don't skimp on the Mickey(tm).

Re:Canadian beer USAmerican Beer.

[exclusive_lock]

I would strongly suggest we all leave right now and enjoy at least 6 bottles of Maudite (http://www.unibroue.com/products/maudite.cfm) per capita

After that, we will understand each other better...

Brr...

[jargoone]

Two correct uses of the word "irony" in the reply to the same post? Hell has officially frozen over...

Not about terrorism

[SuperKendall]

This is about helping to control the border so that Mexican nationals that want to come to this country to work legally can do so, instead of having to wait for decades to get approvai to come here only to fight for jobs with scores of people who just wandered over 'cause they felt like it. If you can tighten down the border enough then if you find you need a greater influx of workers you simply increase immigration rates.

Controling the borders is not about terrorism (or at least it doesn't have to be). It is about fairness to people in other countries that follow rules.

MOD PARENT UP

[Rodness]

Amen, brother. I wish I had mod points to give you.

Why not use motion detection?

[John Jorsett]

Maybe there are a few areas where's there's so much regular activity that motion detection video processing can't be used, but since most of these cameras are going to be monitoring vast empty places, wouldn't it make sense to automate the detection of activity rather than relying on humans? In fact, I suspect that many people will do exactly that on their home PCs: they'll download images from many cameras, have the PC compare them and look for movement, then alert the human when something is found requiring attention.

I'm confused

[OldManAndTheC]

Does Godwin's Law apply if the post is on-topic??

Re:I'm confused

[LunaticTippy]

Opinions differ, but IMHO it only applies in an offtopic ad hominem context.

Anyone who disagrees probably approves of the Third Reich.

Cheap Shot

[SuperKendall]

And what do you want to bet that the description that most callers report is going to be along the lines of "Well, he looked like a dirty Mexican"?

How hilarious. Except that the point is the cameras would be pointed at the borders and anyone crossing either way should be reported. No need to assume that someone not wanting people to cross illegally has it in for Mexicans, just people who break the law. Why is that a problem again? Are you saying that it should be legal for anyone to cross the border whenever they like? Not sure what you're getting at.

How long till

[aplusjimages]

How long will it take before ads start popping up in front of the cameras? I predict a lot of ads by the KKK and gun companies. ouch

The economy won't self-destruct

[John Jorsett]

he Texas economy in particular would fall over, die, and burst into flame if all the illegal immigrants vanished. Restaurants? Hotels? Ranches? Farms? If all these demonized immigrants just vanished the people would realize in short order why nothing was ever done about it before, despite all the big talk. Racism sells, but money is what matters.

So who's doing all those jobs in Hawaii, which has a very low percentage of illegals? How about North Dakota? Wisconsin? High-illegal states like Texas and California would feel a sudden lack of cheap labor for a time, but would rapidly adapt. Some jobs would start paying more, some would go overseas (using illegals is the equivalent of 'outsourcing' except we bring the cheap labor to the job instead of vice versa), some would vanish because they wouldn't be worth doing at higher wage levels. Lettuce would NOT be selling for $8 a head (it's currently $1 where I live). For an increase of $7 a head, they'd have to be packing each head in a UPS box and shipping it by air to my door.

Re:The economy won't self-destruct

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that part of the wages earned by illegals is sent back to their country of origin; this money would have otherwise been put back into the US economy, had it been earned by a citizen.

Also, I totally agree with you -- let the market find its own balance. I'm certain that the people of benefit the most from illegals are the employers who save a lot of money; although they claim that in the end the consumers/country benefits, I seriously doubt that. They control the amount of savings they pass along, and we can't even analyze the situation because guess what -- nothing is documented.

Re:The economy won't self-destruct

[Anonymous Coward]

wisconsin here, you didn't happen to see the thousands of hispanic people that protested in wisconsin a few weeks back did you? More than ever protested the Iraq war? Didn't think so, stupid conservative...

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[Anonymous Coward]

We've already got one.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[Tibor the Hun]

If these people needed to, they could get one. It's not really that hard.

Actually that's not really true. I've been in the states legally for 14 years, and am still waiting on my citizenship. (Be able to apply for it in a couple of years.)

Only part of the problem lies with the border security. The other part lies with the USCIS.
What, you don't know what USCIS is? Well, maybe you'll know it by its previous name... BCIS. They must have decided that Bureau sounds too KGBish...

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's hard to get into the states legally. Tough shit. My parents went through proper channels, so should everyone else.

Re:a wall

[Elvis Parsley]

not build a big wall, 20 feet high, and thousand miles long?

Sure, that might stop the Mexicans, but it'll just attract Mongolian hordes.

Re:Canadian beer USAmerican Beer.

[Dorsai65]

6. Feel free to slag off British cuisuine though. You're probably justfied.

Britain has cuisine??

Re:While we're talking about illegal immigration..

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike India, we are actually dependent on illegal immigrant labor to do jobs we just don't want to do, at a price we have made it illegal to pay for it. Stop the illegal immigration and prices will rise. Mexicans primarily cross for economic reasons. Mexico's economy is steadily improving. Rather than continually spending our money to keep them out, why not spend the same money helping them grow their economy so they don't have a reason to illegal cross the border?

Re:While we're talking about illegal immigration..

[Xonstantine]

*Israel's policy of separation closely resembles pre 1994 South Africa and also resembles pre world war II Germany, (first) making second class citizens out of jews.

Israel's policy of separation closely resembles pre-1994 South Africa and pre-World War II Germany only because you're an idiot with a befuddled mind.

Israel is pursuing the policy because the Palestinians overwhelmingly (>70% in most polls) support attacks on Israeli civilians, including school children. Israel is pursuing a policy of separation because most Israelis have come to the very obvious conclusion that Israeli society and Palestinian society can't be compatible when the majority of Palestinians want the Israelis dead. There's no hidden ambiguity behind the words "from the (Jordan) river to the sea". Palestinians aren't fighting because they are second class non-citizens of Israel. They don't want to be citizens of Israel. They want Israel wiped off the map and the Jews driven out (and most want the Christians driven out too).

Re:While we're talking about illegal immigration..

[Anonymous Coward]

Kindly point us in the direction of the "Illegal Immigration Assitance Office" in Mexico.

Mexican-U.S. relations aren't benign, I agree with you on that.
Mexico has been too many times to count on the receiving end of the stick to remember.

Ever heard of the time a draught changed the course of the Colorado/Bravo River a bit to the South and the U.S. stated they had "gained" ground because of that?
Do you really believe Mexico could get away with it if the river went up North?
Hint: they couldn't even dream of that.

After all, the so-called "strong" border some people want is all on ground taken by force from Mexico in the past.

Re: Invading America

[chewedtoothpick]

Ri-ight, because most of our ancestors never "invaded" America, or deposited our "people" here.
And those who came over were obviously the best and brightest, and not religious nuts, farmers fleeing a potato famine, etc.

The difference, we took the land through acquisition - buying it from the French, Mexicans, and waging outright war on the Indians, which we have given them vast ammounts of land to call their own, and allowed them to do otherwise illegal activities (Indian Casinos in CA anyone) to try and make ammends so the far left will feel good about themselves. What Mexico is doing is equivocal to declaring war on us and invading us, but if we were to declare war and strike back, or in the case of us wanting to defend ourselves everyone things we are the bad guys.

When will you UN loving hippies pull your heads out of your rectums and realize that we have as much of a right to live and have our ideals as you do; and you trying to force your one-world-government, open borders, homosexuality for everyone and such closedmindedness on us is just as wrong as the KKK's white supremacy movement.

Re:a wall

[John Jorsett]

Because then people will just find 21-foot ladders.

The proposed wall or fence isn't the kind that you'd throw up around a construction site. It's a minimum of two barriers with sensors and cameras separated by @ 50 yards of graded road containing buried sensors, topped with barbed wire, and protected by trenches and razor wire. By the time you've managed to put your ladder against the first barrier, scaled it and gotten down the other side, then schlepped your ladder 50 yards to get over the next barrier, the Border Patrol is on top of you. Maybe a few people will succeed, but the overall flow will be cut to a trickle. Not being 100% effective doesn't mean it won't be a huge improvement.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[swillden]

There is a legal system for getting a visa to the USA. (Or to any other country, for that matter.) If these people needed to, they could get one. It's not really that hard.

Yeah, right.

My wife has a good friend who lives in Italy (originally from Nigeria) and would like to come to the US. She's a great person, intelligent and hardworking, but has always been limited by her environment. She'd like to come here to work and go to school. We'd like to help her. She has enthusastic native-born citizen sponsors, who are willing to guarantee her livelihood and ability to return, and willing to cover several thousand dollars in legal costs to make it all possible.

What we've learned is that unless she already has some crucial skill that's hard to find in the US, or just happens to get lucky and draw a visa out of the random lottery, there's no way to get her here legally for more than a very short tourist stay. Several people we've talked to have recommended just flying her over here on a tourist visa, then having her stay after it expires, since the INS has no good way of ensuring that people leave when their visas say they're supposed to. We're not willing to do that, and even if we were, she's not, so we simply haven't found a way. We've been trying for nearly five years.

That's just one anecdote, of course, but I think it's pretty representative. Getting into the US legally is hard, which is why so many people come illegally.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[Garse Janacek]

You do realize, that Mexico has a fence, with armed guards, at their southern border. And they shoot trespassers on sight.

So what? Are you saying we should pattern our government after Mexico's? Or, because a country shoots illegal immigrants, it is alright to shoot citizens of that country when they flee to another? How does this have anything to do with the actual immigrants themselves?

I certainly hope other nations don't base their standards of ethical treatment for me on what my government is doing right now...

In this debate, we should be asking ourselves what is the right thing to do, not what we can get away with, or justify with "but they did it first!"

It is possible to make a case for securing our border without invoking xenophobia, but xenophobia is in fact invoked a disheartening amount of the time.

Xenophobia?

[Illbay]

To avoid this, I think we should adopt the exact same border security policy as Mexico.

Re:Xenophobia?

[catdevnull]

How ironical.

Walmart Ammo

[Kadin2048]

They still sell boxes of 1000 rds of 22LR from time to time for around $10, but I've never seen one called "Bucket 'o Bullets." The boxes I've seen are just run-of-the-mill Remington low-grade stuff.

Personally I won't use it because it's so underloaded, it produces a lot of misfeeds in semi-automatic guns that depend on the recoil energy to load the next round. I bought a box a few years ago to use in my bolt-action .22, and I expect it'll last me through the next decade, if it doesn't corrode first.

The best deal Wal-Mart used to have going was 100-rd boxes of 9mm for $10 or so, when they were on sale. Occasionally they'd have 50's of .45 ACP for $9 as well.

I generally don't shop at Wal-Mart because I'm not a big fan of their business practices and the extent to which they force outsourcing, but the majority of their ammunition seems to still be American-made, interestingly enough. (At least pistol stuff, I think they have more imported rifle ammo.) I do wonder though if by buying it there, I'm not helping them squeeze the ammunition companies offshore too, someday; I should probably just suck it up and buy it from an independent gun store.

Re:Walmart Ammo

[jbeaupre]

It was around 15 years ago. Back when Walmart was proclaiming USA all the way. We never bought a bucket because we had a 22 bolt action. Just plinking at steel targets at the local range (never could knock down the 1/2" thick targets at 100 yards no matter how many times we hit it). 1000 rounds really would last until the next decade.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yes. There are still quite a few Irish coming to the U.S. illegally, but not nearly in the volumes of the 1840's and 50's. A few thousands to tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[Skippyboy]

This is a true statement. Many people think we Americans/Texans are racist or hypocrites. But in Mexico - there is true racism/hypocrisy. Mexicans who come here illegally and go to public schools for free (You MUST pay to go to school in Mexico), get free medical treatment (You MUST be employed, and be able to PROVE it for you and immediate family), and then get upset when we say that we want them to follow the rules. My wife is from Mexico and she laughs at our system. She honestly can't see why any government would give away services without asking for some proof of legal status and then be surprised that the system gets taken advantage of.... Here are some more interesting laws from Mexico: 1. If you migrate to this county, you must speak the native language. 2. You have to be a professional or an investor. No unskilled workers allowed. 3. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, all government business will be conducted in our language. 4. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here. 5. Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office. 6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. 7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage. 8. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT options will be restricted. You are not allowed waterfront property. That is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country. 9. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies, if you do you will be sent home. 10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail. Harsh, you say? The above laws happen to be the immigration laws of Mexico!

Yahoo Widget

[tsunamiiii]

I can so see the Yahoo Widget for this. The video embeded and how many you have caught so far.

Re:a wall

[Anonymous Coward]

Did the Great Wall of China prevent the Mongolian invasion? Nope, the Mongols resolved that issue by simply going around the wall. Anything science builds, science can destroy. Do you really believe that the wall is not susceptible to sabotage, explosives, etc? Can't they just dig under it? Can't the sensors be fooled? Can't the camera's be blinded? But most important of all, can't the smuggler's simply bribe the border guards into letting them in? All of these can happen and at a much cheaper price than it takes to repair all those gadgets and rebuild the wall. You are a fool to believe that this wall will keep you safe from terrorists and immigration. Especially terrorists, the terrorists that destroyed the WTC came into this country LEGALLY.....dumbass. This is just a huge waste of taxpayer money.

So basically...

[Platypii]

It comes down to:

"The square of dirt I happened to be born on is better than yours, so you clearly don't deserve to be here, fuck off!"

Every single person in this country immigrated here at some point in their family's history (other than native americans maybe), so in my opinion it's pretty ridiculous the amount of xenophobia in this "Great American Melting Pot".

I have a better idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

Build a canal across the Texas-Mexico border. Connect the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico. Now erect a large fence across the northern side of the canal - no more than a few hundred feet away. Pull troops out of Iraq, and have them stand guard along the fence - a few hundred meters between troops (train them to snipe on sight).

I guarntee that after this, we'll no longer have an immigration problem (after all, there'd be no way to tunnel under the canal).

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I've been to the "border" of the state of Chiapas and Guatemala on a trip to the Maya city of Yaxilan. The so called border is the river Usumacinta wich has no fence on either side. Security is very laxed almost non-excistant. Same goes for the border on the state of Quintana Roo and Belize. On that trip the only armed people I saw were the Belize border patrol officers.

Maybe it's working in Britain...

[Maljin Jolt]

But I predict a lots of cheap and quality cameras apear soon on mexican markets.

As a 3rd generation Mexican-American I'm pissed...

[ObiWonKanblomi]

... at these illegal immgrants coming into the country my great grandparents worked hard to get into fairly.

FYI, I see myself as American first and foremost, and my latino heritage does not conflict with my views on this matter. In fact, there's a growing group known as "you don't speak for me" which has gained some notoriety after the founder Col. Al Rodriguez (Ret.) held a press conference over a month ago. Look at http://dontspeakforme.org/ for more information as well as the cspan archives for Rodriguez's conference.

I see a lot non-latino (mostly white) "sympathisers" talking about immigration reform. I also see a lot of you folk on here talking about immigration reform as well, yet it surprises me none of you guys do a thourough enough RCA to determine the problem originates within Mexico's borders. Mexico has had problems with their economy and government(s) since day 0, the day of their independence. They have a true have/have-not mentality over there, plus there is the Indian population which is in constant rebellion due to the lack of representation. Bush seemed very eager to do regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he should have looked closer and considered cleaning house in Mexico first.

Did you know that if you take nation by nation the count of billionaires, Mexico is within that top 10? That money they spend in the US is minimal compared to the money they wire back to mexico, which ends up back in the pockets of those billionaires.

Vicente Fox doesn't worry about government change as the weak US immigration policy bandaids the Mexican mess.

In fairness, NAFTA has more or less failed Mexico, or should I say "give everyone exactly what they wanted"? In addition, I've read a Chinese laborer in China works at 1/4th the cost of a Mexican laborer of the same job in Mexico. So will the people who use that "they do the work no one else wants to do" argument say the chinese are doing the work mexicans don't want to do?

Oh and you western europeans, don't even talk. I know you guys have much stricter legislation and what not against immigrants despite the EU being around. I also know specific groups are alienated, such as the Romani (Gypsy).

I'm really pissed off at you people.

Its Not Rocket Surgery ...

[Dale549]

There is already a system developed (at private expense) to do just that. See http://www.ushomeguard.com/. A series of webcams feed into a filter program which selects only those images which have changed. These screened images are then sent to multiple paid volunteers for further evaluation. Each image asks the reviewer "Do you see a person or vehicle in this picture", with Yes/No/Maybe buttons for the reviewers response. After passing these two hurdles, an image with "Yes" votes from multiple observers would be sent to the authorites - along with the camera location and time. Response time from image change to notification of authorities will be on the order of 30-60 seconds.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[metternich]

As other posters have noted getting a legal Visa is in fact extremely hard, depending on what country your from. Many students are denied Visas, even though they have admission in to American Universities, becuase they can't persuade an immigration officer in a five minute interview that they have no plans to migrate permenently to the US, even if they intend to do so legally!
Legal immigration is a huge pain in the neck, if you're well off and have useful skills. It's next to impossible if you're not.

This works for Britain?

[MrSquishy]

Britain installed cameras on the Mexican border to keep out illegal immigrants? Highly effective, Im sure, they probably haven't had a single person (illegally) enter Britain via the Texas/Mexico border. But I dont see that as a great investment.

Re:This works for Britain?

[chawly]

Just trying to help out, old chap. Just trying to help out.

Re:While we're talking about illegal immigration..

[Distinguished Hero]

Moreover, unlike India-Bangladesh relations are not benign as the US-Mexico relations currently seem to be, with a number of alleged fundamentalist religious organizations from Pakistan using the porous border to carry out terrorist activities on Indian soil.
But 99.9% of both Pakistan and Bangladesh (East Pakistan) are Religion of Peace members. Don't Indians know that Islam means peace. Why do they have to be so racist in their immigration policy?

George Bush=Adolf Hitler

[DiegoLM]

USA=Third Reich Texas=Nuremberg Minuteman=SA Hay que joderse, y luego creen que España esta en Sudamerica.

Re:George Bush=Adolf Hitler

[Anonymous Coward]

Mexican illegals at border=Mongol hordes at China Great Wall Then why are you people trying so hard to come over here? Stay in you own country and deal with your own corrupt politicians and make something of your own country.

Racist Bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly haven't ready every single post here, but none I've seen talk about how racist this is. Some people do seem to see a problem, but the "white" elephant in the room never seems to get mentioned. Are they phasing out the not so covertly government sponsered minute men (who at least used to have direct links on their websites to the ku klux klan and other racist organizations)? I know polls show that most of the slashdot crowd are male, and if we are mostly white too, that's a very priveledged position that we need to be aware of. And don't forget that unless you are indigenous to this land, you are an immigrant, even if your ancestors were they ones directly killing every one here. Who gets to live on this land, maybe colonists shouldn't get to decide...

Re:Racist Bastards

[chawly]

Noticed this bit :

"that's a very priveledged position"

So, if I understand this, we're mostly white, mostly male, mostly can't spell, and are mostly not sufficiently computer literate to turn on the spell checker. 'Tis indeed a position vested with a certainly privilege - rarity (I dare hope).

Perhaps the encouragement of the immigration of well-educated, computer literate Mexican ladies is the answer ? Don't know - just trying to complete a system of checks and balances with a quiet suggestion.

Re:While we're talking about illegal immigration..

[Distinguished Hero]

Oops. My reply should have been attached to the parent of the post it is currently attached to. My bad.

It aint gonna work...

[alexborges]

Mark my words. In the long run, it will not work at all.

What is going to happen is that, as the mexican economy plumets due to, very much in part, Washington's hunger in the 80's, more and more exodus is going to happen. The cams will be broken, tunnels will be constructed, walls will be climbed or even destroyed.

What needs to be done is continue with NAFTA and make it work like Spain or Italy in the E.U. Its politically incorrect because of the cultural xenophobia so very much interred in the american subcouncious, but its the one and only true solution. No matter though.

In 12 years, there will be more mexican blood in the U.S. than "classic" WASP. In that moment, reality will impose itself, and you guys will realize that we are more alike than different.

Our countries will have no option but to unite. You guys will be competing with a european behemoth full of cheap smart labor, that youll have to bring out from somewhere if you want to keep the relative hegemony of the world. That is, Mexico doesnt actually break down first (because this inmigration control "strategy" actually works) and you have to rescue it anyway, favoring an economic integration.

Im in it for the long run... it will be fun to see WASP's screaming and fighting and angrily beating and killing anything brown looking. But, in the end, as Ive said, reality will put them in order.

Help in finishing sentence ....

[Dale549]

Me: Knock, knock Private Texan Ranch Owner: Yup? Me: I'm from the government, I'd like to place these cameras on your land, so that people on the internet can....report trespassers on your ranch to the border patrol. It should cut down on those armed drug runners who make it necessary for you to carry a gun when you go check on your cattle. And by the way, we will pay you to let us install the security cameras. see http://ushomeguard.com/ Most of the Texas ranchers I know are supporters of stronger border control.

SoCal

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather give up southern California, myself.

REFUSE??????

[Anonymous Coward]

The great aztec, maya, inca cultures were happily minding their own business, building great civilizations and living in harmony, as where the native north american tribes. Then the white man came, in their case the spaniards. With deceipt, greed, malice these great cultures were destroyed by the wretched white man. This refuse now has no right, absofuckinglutely no right, to complain that these people are coming back, taking back what is *THEIRS*

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[Anonymous Coward]

And here's a tip... We're not Mexico. Hope that helped with your confusion.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[drakaan]

Finally, even if the rumors were true, I have to ask "So what?" Even if Mexico's southern border were a Berlin wall-style no-man's land with minefields, automatic machine guns and guard towers every 100 yards with order to shoot to kill, would that justify the US using inhumane tactics in guarding its own border?

Nothing would justify us using inhumane tactics in guarding our border. With that said, no fence means people are more likely to try and cross in fairly dangerous desert areas and die trying. A fence raises the barrier to successful entry and makes people less likely to try (and thereby less likely to risk their lives).

The remaining people are either really bad, or really bad off, and in either case, handling a smaller number of people would be easier. Of course, since our current president, his counterpart in Mexico, and the senate don't seem to want to do anything to actually control entry to the US, it's a moot point.

I actually don't think the webcams are such a bad idea, they're almost certainly more effective than fences and they should greatly reduce the number of guards required. They may also have a small effect in limiting the abuse of illegals by guards and others (though more likely the abuse will just move to where the cameras don't cover). In the final analysis, though, I think any attempt to keep people out is ultimately doomed to failure, and of questionable morality besides. We're better off finding ways to allow people to come in legally.

The webcams *are* a bad idea for several reasons. First, because they'll cause more deaths than a fence (parallel: potential drownings at a public pool protected by cameras vs. a fence), and second, because the Texas DPS (state police) will be monitoring the cameras, and they are currently explicitly not allowed to perform any type of immigration enforcement.

In addition, they are actively discouraged from reporting potential immigration-related problems to immigration officials...basically, Perry wants to spend some money so we can watch people walk on in, but not actually do anything about it.

We *are* better off finding ways to let people come in legally, and we do need some effort put into greatly improving the legal immigration process, but we have to deal with the existing problem *first*.

My favorite analogy for what's happening immigration-wise is an amusement park. You and your kids (legal immigrants) buy tickets to DisneyFlagsGardens and get to the front gate at 6AM so you can go on the new supercoaster first. The gates open, and you make a beeline for the ride, only to see a couple hundred people emerging from between some greenery at the edge of the park near the ride and queuing up in line already.

You tell one of the staff at the park, and they tell you that there's nothing they can do about it, and that you should just wait normally, all the while more and more are squeezing in line ahead of you.

It's just not fair. If we want to allow open immigration and diversity, then I guess we need to start programs to fly people from other poorer countries across the atlantic and pacific oceans so that they can have the same opportunity. Proximity should not make it okay for illegal immigrants to enter our country unchecked. There should be a line, and everyone should fall in at the back.

Re:a wall

[Distinguished Hero]

Because they cant get American labor to do it, they'd have to hire migrant workers. The irony.

Not a bad plan. Just make sure that the people who are building the fence are on the south side of it when they seal it up.

On another note, maybe the US could hire Mexican citizens living in Mexico to stand on the border and shoot Mexicans trying to cross over into the US. I'm sure quite a few people would be willing to do it, especially if the price was right. No one is thinking up creative solutions anymore...

Re:a wall

[CheshireCatCO]

The expression was metaphorical. A ladder was not literally being suggested. The point is, build a better wall and if people want to get passed it, they will. People got out of East Berlin, didn't they? We have a much larger border to secure and much less will to go to extremes to defend it.

In Soviet Russia...

[autophile]

Tell on your neighbors!

--Rob

Can the Mexicans access the feeds ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This could be a cool game. If you sposor some 'immies' with a mobile phone and then try and direct them through the border - while others are trying to direct vigilaties or cops to wack them or send them back.

Or how about hacking them feeds to a loop while your immigrants slip through ?

Kinda like bum-fights but real. It would be great if it was like big brother or Survivor and we got to meet the immigrants first - people could vote out the ones they don't like by grassing them up to the cops.

Can we install cameras at the white house so we can check out all the treasonous crimes there?

Re: US/Mexico Wall vs Berlin Wall

[CheshireCatCO]

A fair point, but I think that the irony remains. A border wall is still an insult to other countries (and our own competence, I might add) and rather ominous. Remember the stink raised when Isreal proposed a similar wall to try to stop would-be terrorists from getting in.

Add remote controlled guns for ultimate deterrent.

[r6rider]

I think they should also mount a rifle or something at the same location as the cameras. This rifle could then be controlled remotely from the web site by the cam viewer. This would avoid the need to have to call the violation in.

Make it work like Amazon MTurk

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is a cheap benefit of doing it, like how Amazon Mechanical Turk paid $0.02 for store front identification, then yeah it would fly.

What, no remote-controlled guns?

[Animats]

This could become Live Shot 2.0.

Re:a wall

['nother poster]

No, you have Americans willing to put up token 50'lengths of barbed wire. I doubt you would have more than a handful of volunteers after the first week if they were constructing a real barrier three stage barrier. Especially through the Sonoran desert. That is one hot, unhospitable, stretch of dirt and sand. Lots of beautiful cacti and animals though.

So you would find nothing objectionable in this...

[Anonymous Coward]

        Winston picked his way up the lane through dappled light
and shade, stepping out into pools of gold wherever the boughs
parted. Under the trees to the left of him the ground was misty
with bluebells. The air seemed to kiss one's skin. It was the
second of May. From somewhere deeper in the heart of the wood
came the droning of ring doves.
          He was a bit early. There had been no difficulties about
the journey, and the girl was so evidently experienced that he
was less frightened than he would normally have been.
Presumably she could be trusted to find a safe place. In
general you could not assume that you were much safer in the
country than in London. There were no telescreens, of course,
but there was always the danger of concealed microphones by
which your voice might be picked up and recognized; besides, it
was not easy to make a journey by yourself without attracting
attention. For distances of less than 100 kilometres it was not
necessary to get your passport endorsed, but sometimes there
were patrols hanging about the railway stations, who examined
the papers of any Party member they found there and asked
awkward questions. However, no patrols had appeared, and on the
walk from the station he had made sure by cautious backward
glances that he was not being followed.

After all, Winston and Julia were in a "public" location - so they had no right to expect that they were not monitored. No problem here.

Now tell me why this passage makes my skin crawl.

Texas Inmates...

[Anonymous Coward]

Texas has such a huge prison population why not pay them $20 for every illigal they spot? That would secure the border pretty fast.

Re:While we're talking about illegal immigration..

[Anonymous Coward]

*yawn*. Yeah right, right. The classic nazi defense.

first post!

[mmorosky]

first post!

Calling patterns are useful

[fahrbot-bot]

The meta information can be just as telling as the actual conversation. For example, monitor the information about a reporter's phone to get leakers. Monitor psychotherapist's phone records to get lists of people in therapy, etc...

Think of all the calls you've ever made. Do you really want the government keeping track of their date, time, duration, frequency? You can surmise a lot from just this information.

...And become a burden on the U.S. Taxpayers

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the "Indian, Chinese, Russian etc. Doctors, Engineers etc" can get visas to come here legally and the illiterate even in spanish Mexicans can't. Even though they come here and work their asses off at a lot of jobs most americans won't for wages no ameican will.

The Indian, Chinese, Russian etc. Doctors, Engineers etc. also get jobs and pay for their auto insurance, pay taxes, etc. It makes a big difference if you live in a place where it is fairly common for illegal immigrants without drivers licenses driving unregisted and uninsured vehicles to cause accidents. That makes the insurance rates for the rest of us go up.

Then again, this is Slashdot, where the politically correct view is for the U.S. to provide welfare for the rest of the world.

Perry did ... absolutely anything?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gov. Perry is one of the most inactive an useless governors Texas has ever seen. This move by him is startling because its a move at all.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[No2Gates]

They gotta be REAL damn desparate to want to go into Mexico. Wouldn't that be like a convict trying to break back into prison???

I'm all for it...

[Anonymous Coward]

... as long as the camera has a gun attached to it. And I can pull the trigger remotely.

end run?

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor Mexican migrants, of course, are too stupid to figure out that there aren't any cameras on the borders between Mexico and Arizona or Mexico and New Mexico, or on the border between Texas and New Mexico either, so this should suffice to keep them out of Texas permananently. Good work there, Tex!

"Privacy" is to "Private" as ..... is to "Public"

[David_D_Bugz]

Publicy ???

But

[geekoid]

Liberals would be able to use them!
I wonder how many people break into other peoples home know full well it will be blamed on illegal immigrants?

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[swillden]

A fence raises the barrier to successful entry and makes people less likely to try (and thereby less likely to risk their lives).

I disagree that a fence will make any appreciable difference. As I learned in my training as a security specialist in the military, fences are passive obstacles and only effective at delaying entry, not at stopping it. We were given a graphic demonstration of that fact. We were asked how long a 9-foot fence topped with three strands of razor wire would delay a 10-person assault force with no heavy equipment or wire cutters. The lowest guess was a couple of minutes. In fact, the instructors demonstrated that the correct answer is about 10 seconds, using no more "equipment" than an old piece of carpet and a couple pairs of gloves. Of course, their technique required a high level of physical fitness, but coyotes won't be constrained by not being allowed to damage the fence.

The only real purposes of a fence or a wall, in security terms, are:

1. To provide a clearly visible boundary.
2. To provide a region where anyone coming through will have to show themselves.
3. When paired with another fence, to provide a killing zone.

The real security, if you have any, must come from reactive security, not passive obstacles. Sensors or cameras plus observers and a quick reaction force actually does make it more difficult to get in. Without the reactive element, the barrier will just be bypassed (over or under) or destroyed.

A fence, motion sensors and a guard force of approximately 50 per mile of fence (to provide 3.5 shifts of each of maintenance, monitoring, patrol, response and support) would meet the normal guidelines for a low-security perimeter. That would actually raise the barrier to successful entry, and cut the inflow significantly (perhaps 80%). Cutting the guard force back to 20 per mile would reduce inflow some. At lower staffing levels than that, the barrier isn't going to do much good.

I don't think we can afford what it would cost to really put a dent in the inflow.

The webcams *are* a bad idea for several reasons. First, because they'll cause more deaths than a fence (parallel: potential drownings at a public pool protected by cameras vs. a fence)

I don't see the parallel at all, nor how the cameras will cause deaths.

because the Texas DPS (state police) will be monitoring the cameras, and they are currently explicitly not allowed to perform any type of immigration enforcement.

Well, I certainly agree there's no point to that. Having them monitored by people who can't do anything is not much different than having them unmonitored. I would expect the DPS can notify the INS guards whose job it is to catch illegal immigrants, though. So the utility depends on the staffing levels of those forces.

Bottom line: Unless we're willing to hire tens of thousands of guards to cover the border, we can't stop or even significantly slow illegal immigration. Physical barriers, cameras, sensor nets, etc. all do nothing without adequate response forces.

In addition, they are actively discouraged from reporting potential immigration-related problems to immigration officials

Okay, now that's just stupid.

We *are* better off finding ways to let people come in legally, and we do need some effort put into greatly improving the legal immigration process, but we have to deal with the existing problem *first*.

No, we need to deal with the single problem in both ways simultaneously. Attacking any single facet of the problem individually will fail miserably.

My favorite analogy for what's happening immigration-wise is an amusement park.

In general, argument via analogy is always suspect, but your analogy is particularly bad. In what way are the illegal immigrants "in line" ahead of the legal immigrants, or the citizens? Once illegals get here there are all sorts of additional obstacles they fac

Re:a wall

[John Jorsett]

You are a fool to believe that this wall will keep you safe from terrorists and immigration. Especially terrorists, the terrorists that destroyed the WTC came into this country LEGALLY.....dumbass.

I said nothing about about terrorists, Mr. Coward. Strawman arguments indicate a weak position.

Re:a wall

[John Jorsett]

The expression was metaphorical. A ladder was not literally being suggested. The point is, build a better wall and if people want to get passed it, they will. People got out of East Berlin, didn't they? We have a much larger border to secure and much less will to go to extremes to defend it.

I'm in San Diego sector and we've got a "wall" (actually a single-layer fence made largely of surplus steel landing mat). Despite it being a thin shadow of what any new construction would be, it's been extremely effective in reducing the flow here. That's the big reason illegal entrants have moved East to cross in the burning desert. Sure some people will get past any barrier, but in vastly reduced numbers, which is the point. As I said before, not being 100% effective doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. As for lack of will, the political tide seems to me to be turning. The House members report that illegal immigration is all that anyone in their districts want to talk about these days, and not in the context of wanting to let in increasing numbers of near-illiterate, unskilled poor people.

other factors to consider

[geekoid]

1) employeers pay a tax to government no matter the nationality of the owrker

2) Farm workers are discriminated against when it comes to minimum wage laws.

3) Illegal or legal both people have the same draw on the tax.

4) Assuming a state tax, illegals pay taxes when they buy goods.

5) many illegal start there own business and pay taxes accordingly.

6) The numbers used to estimate the cost for illegals are imcomplete.

If emplyers are paying under the table they are committing a crime, a crime they would commit regardless of who they employee.

The federal tax code must be changed so you can never get more out then you put in. Right now, if you make 11,000 dollars you could get up to 5000 dollars back.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[geekoid]

"Nothing would justify us using inhumane tactics in guarding our border. With that said, no fence means people are more likely to try and cross in fairly dangerous desert areas and die trying. A fence raises the barrier to successful entry and makes people less likely to try (and thereby less likely to risk their lives)."

incorrect.
what it means is more people will fail, the same will try.
Look at what they have to do now, doy uo think a fences is going to be the turning point?

In reality, the fence will be cut through, and stop nothing. However, texas will get more jobs while it's being built.

Re:a wall

[CheshireCatCO]

That proves little, though. They've moved because there's an unfenced area availible and that's easier to cross there, not because they can't cross the fence. In a sense, you've validated my point: building a wall just makes people be a bit smarter about how they cross.

As for the political will, we'll see how long Karl Rove can keep this going. Remember how hot and bothered he had people about those gays wanting to get married? No? It was only two years ago that it was *the* hot political issue.

geek

[milimetric]

"apparently to use viewers as a kind of distributed processing network"

if only there were a word to capture that... something like tae... tea... team!

Of course Britain has cuisine!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Britain has cuisine??

What? Didn't you hear him mention the sawdust and mouse droppings in the beer? :-)

(Captcha: implied)

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh*

Typical first world citizen thinking. You do realize that places south of mexico are even in a worse shape than mexico?

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[Samedi]

You do realize that it's probably done with American money and assistance right? Ever heard of the War on Drugs?

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[Ponce17]

I know you wanted to get your hit on Fox News, but if you remove Fox from your query, you'll find that most of the main stream media does not report it.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q= +%22mexico's+southern+border%22&btnG=Search&meta=

The ones that do, Center for Immegration Studies, The Economist, Washington Times (not Post), and WorldNetDaily, none of which would be considered the main stream media.

Xenophobia?

[Loki_1929]

If you want to talk about Xenophobia, let's look at some of these ridiculous laws:

• No immigrant may legally enter the country to search for work
  
• Foreigners legally living in the country may not own any property without restrictions on its location and use. (For instance, an immigrant may not own valuable beech-front property in many areas.)
  
• No social services may legally be provided to legal or illegal immigrants living in in the country.
  
• No immigrants, legal or otherwise are not allowed to participate in political demonstrations, or protests of any kind.
  
• Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.
  
• Immigrants who illegally cross into the country are simply jailed.
  
• According to the law, citizens "shall have priority over foreigners" for all government employment.
  
• All immigrants (even naturalized citizens) are banned from serving as officers in the military, flagged ships and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports.
  
• Immigrants (including naturalized citizens) are banned from becoming federal lawmakers or Supreme Court members.
  
• Immigrants are also banned from becoming members of the clergy.
  
• Citizens are allowed to arrest and detain any foreigner accused of breaking the law.
  
• The Executive branch of the government is allowed, by law, to expel any foreigner at any time for any reason without due process.

That sounds pretty xenophobic to me, how about you?

By the way, the country I was talking about is Mexico, and most of those law are actually a part of the Mexican constitution.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? That still proves that the rhetoric of the hispanic advocacy lobbies (that denigrate White Americans as racist and exclusionary) is hypocritical.

  Plus, quite frankly, the standard of living in Mexico is not THAT low. Their GDP is pretty decent in comparison to other developing countries. It's different with other countries in the area like Cuba (Cubans in US are more refugees than immigrants, so it's OK), or Haiti, or Guyana, all of which are very poor countries.

  Mexico is not that poor of a country, and that is why most Mexicans who, erm, "emigrate" are usually running from the Law, or their wives, or whatever, while the hard-working Mexicans stay in Mexico and work there.

Re:a wall

[John Jorsett]

That proves little, though. They've moved because there's an unfenced area availible and that's easier to cross there, not because they can't cross the fence. In a sense, you've validated my point: building a wall just makes people be a bit smarter about how they cross.

Which is why it makes sense to fence off the entire border. The more effort you have to expend to get over, under, or around it, the fewer the number of people who will try.

As for the political will, we'll see how long Karl Rove can keep this going. Remember how hot and bothered he had people about those gays wanting to get married? No? It was only two years ago that it was *the* hot political issue.

It isn't the White House flogging this issue. They want what amounts to open borders, and, given the sentiments of the public, would have been delighted to stealth this thing in under the radar. They were well-along to making that happen when 9/11 woke up the public and threw a monkey wrench into the plan. It's the grassroots who are chewing the ankles of the members of Congress and blocking it. I'm pretty sure that the House isn't going to let the White House's version of the immigration 'reform' bill ever pass.

Oh yeah..

[Digz]

..that really gave me culture shock the last time I was in Paris.. Walking to the subway from the Eiffel Tower, I rounded a corner and came face to face with two police officers sporting M16s..

Of course, I also have an excellent picture of a Parisian police officer TPing his buddy's car when I came around the corner walking to the subway from Notre Dame, so it's not all culture shock.. ;)

Re:Good. Illegal immigration is unfair

[davidstrauss]

Very well said. How we handle illegal immigration has nothing to do with how liberal our legal immigration policies are.

Re: US/Mexico Wall vs Berlin Wall

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the stink with the Israeli wall was that it was built in contested areas.

The Great Wall of America should be built along the established borders of the nation.

Can't find American workers?

[kadathseeker]

Maybe if there wasn't so much cheap labor those jobs would actually pay decently and Americans would want them. Maybe if minimum wage was enforced there wouldn't be any reason to hire illegal immigrants over citizens.

Maybe if illegal immigrants paid their taxes we wouldn't mind so much about them recieveing free medical care, free education in their own language, free legal aid in their own language; free police, fire, and emergency services, and recieving many other social services for free at our expense. Oh, and if they wouldn't protest not having rights they don't actually have because they aren't citizens and would go and get their citizen application papers instead of skipping work, rallying, hanging our flag upside down underneath ours, talking about 'la reconquista' in our own universities they got into because of 'racial diversity' quotas (because different colored skin makes you different... right?) and affirmative action tuitions, maybe we wouldn't mind so much about them breaking our laws to enter our country.

Because most of us realize that life in Mexico really sucks and while we would prefer if you could fix your own country, we are mostly pretty hospitable people who would love to help you improve your lives. We just get a little ticked when people take advantage of that by acting like we owe them something (actually quite a bit of somethings) and not giving back to the pot they take from at all.

If coming into our country was the only law you've ever broken and you just want to work hard at an honest job to improve the lives of your family and pay your taxes as best you can, learn English to speak out of the home (do whatever you like in your but don't expect us to jump to learn your language to help you), maybe occasionally do some community sevice or somehow give back, and apply for your green card or citizenship as soon as you can, then by golly you're more American than many people I know, and I'd be proud to have you in this country.

Otherwise, not so much.

Looks like a perfect application for zoneminder.

[VIPERsssss]

Anyone care to donate a beowulf cluster for processing the video feeds?

A look in the mirror

[Tepoztecal]

Didn't you people see the Larry King Live show that had Edward James Olmos, Jim Gilchrist and Sonia Nazario and they all agreed to what the problem was (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/15/lk l.01.html)??? The reason there is an illegal immigration problem from Mexico is that there is a push/pull effect.

The PUSH: The two class system of Mexico (descendants of European families being at the top with the native population being at the bottom) pretty much seals the fate of people born in Mexico. The general lack of concern of those in power in the Mexican government have created this slave class that has to fend for itself for what most of us in the US take for granted. No jobs or a possibility of a middle class type future pushes many natives or "Indio's" as they are referred to by the general Mexican-American population, to look for work in the US. (Side note: There is a difference in the illegals coming from Mexico and those who are of Mexican-American descent, but most rednecks and those in political positions don't seem to care to understand.) Not only is the Mexican government crooked in that politics are paid for by the rich, but also the law enforcement is crooked in the same manner. There is no "justice" in Mexico unless you have the money to pay for it. Lastly, Mexico is just as much a racist country as the US. Turn on any Mexican channel to see the color of the people on those channels. This is well known by mostly everyone who is of Mexican-American heritage.

The PULL: The slave owners, I mean middle-class households in the US is unwilling to keep up their own households or raise their own children so they hire illegals who will not give them "sass" or ask for much money. Greedy plantation owners, I mean farmland owners want cheap/expendable labor to pick their fruit/vegetables/wine grapes to keep their costs low and profits high. The general consuming public who buys these items at every grocery chain in the US also want these low prices. The general US citizen may complain about the illegals but they sure do want their cheap produce and wine. The indentured servant lords, I mean construction companies in the US want to be able to turn in the lowest bid possible to win government contracts and private contracts and they do this by hiring illegals who will not receive any benefits at all. There are cases where workers aren't even paid for their work.

The problem is caused by the US and Mexico hand in hand which includes all of us that live in the US. Everyone wants to complain about illegal immigration but what spending habits are you stopping in order to change things?

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[EtherealStrife]

Link? I haven't seen em actually fire at anybody, but as a californian I've had the ak-wielding bereted guys point their guns at me before (the customs guy claimed he returned my passport, which he did not...and I made the mistake of raising my voice. Big no no). I assume they're the shoot-on-sight guys gp was referring to? If so I wouldn't be surprised in the least. I was visiting various mesoamerican archaeological sites and ended up forking hundreds of dollars over to dozens of corrupt police officers. In guatemala and belize I was never pulled over, not even once.

To hell with Iran, lets invade Mexico. They started it. We can set em up like puerto rico: tax the hell out of em and all they get out of it is conditional u.s. citizenship. It's less fun to illegally cross the border and use up u.s. resources when you're paying for those services, and the crossing is legal. We can just maintain the current taxation/fee setup the Mexican government is running, but redirect the $$$ from los gatos gordos to where it belongs: the U.S.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[Anonymous Coward]

*whoosh*

Re:a wall

[CheshireCatCO]

Which is why it makes sense to fence off the entire border. The more effort you have to expend to get over, under, or around it, the fewer the number of people who will try.

Sure. But how much time, money, and committment is it worth to the American people? If you're only stopping, say, 50% of all attempted crossings and it costs $50 billion initially and $5 billion a year to maintain, is that worth it? (The figures are made up, but the way. They're just there to illustrate a point.) What about if/when people start dying due to the blocks in place? Is the public still going to be on board with that?

And I disagree that the national interest in this is grassroots. There are a few groups out there and several (in some cases rather racist) congresscritters pushing this. But a small grassroots movement does get national attention unless someone gives it that attention and when you get right down to it, we're ALWAYS being told that these cause-of-the-minutes are "grassroots". (So is a lot of the anti-gay stuff that goes on, after all.) I wouldn't put it past any politician, let alone Rove, to be stoke this one for his or her own ends. I'll believe that this is an issue that Americans really care about when I see them persist with their interest in it and when they're willing to pay up to deal with it. Until then, I'm going with the time-tested default position of "passing fad".

You're confused

[Groovus]

You seem to be confusing witnessing with spying/surveillance.

Witness is when you happen to be somewhere that something happens unexpectedly (to you) and you see/hear/experience it. You may or may not be engaging in responsible citizen type behavior by reporting what you witnessed whether voluntarily or by request. The OP is not in any way talking about this - why are you?

Spying/surveilling is when you're actively, purposefully on the look out for what you believe to be bad things and report them whenever they happen. That's what the subject is here, not witnessing. I don't consider this kind of activity by non-authorized/non-professional people as being a RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN. It's quite the opposite in fact. It's one ingredient in the recipe for a miserable, repressive society.

RANT
You know what a true RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN is? It's someone who understands and is behind the principles on which the U.S. was founded and doesn't sit by spouting xeonophobic, fascist nonsense attempting to justify corrupt, morally bankrupt politicians and businessmen taking the wizz all over the Constitution for personal gain, crumpling it up, shoving it up our collective asses on a nearly daily basis and then calling it ice cream. It's pretty much the opposite of that in fact - it's someone who takes a stand against such things when they're attempted or even hinted at indirectly as is happening here with this fucking bill.
END RANT

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you just didn't get what the OP was talking about. Otherwise you're engaging in defense of uneeded xenophobia, totalitarianism and fascism, to which I'd say - god, cowardly douche bag morons make me sick.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[netwiz]

No, I'm not saying that. That you're willing to equate the two speaks volumes about your mindset and aggressive/confrontational nature. But, it's possible you're just worked up for the moment, so I'll continue assuming you're actually interested in my opinion.

I think that there are laws in the US, written by duly elected representatives of the citizenry. Those laws define a path by which a non-citizen can become a citizen. The US path is actually significantly easier than any other first-world nation's path. However, because of the apparent complete lack of enforcement (and the fact that the volume of illegals has outstripped our ability to deal with them), it's now a Really Big Mess, and requires measures of greater desperation.

With the scope of the issue being what it is, it makes it difficult to enact the most straightforward solution: deportation. Some of the illegals have been here for years and have children and extended families now. I'm still in favor of that process, but it's a little weak from a cost/benefits ratio. Just an assumption, but even if it takes as much as $4000 to process and deport each illegal, we'd recoup the cost involved in a year's time. It might not be as bad a plan as thought.

I sense a new sport of sorts...

[k31bang]

Texas Bordercam Streaking.

Re: America fo "Americans"

[some guy I know]

which we have given them vast ammounts [sic] of land to call their own

You mean "left them small amounts (relative to what was taken) of land that was deemed pretty worthless and forcibly relocated most of them there" (e.g., the "Trail of Tears", etc.).

allowed them to do otherwise illegal activities

You mean "are leaving them alone for now, although states are now looking for ways to tax gambling (or prohibit it so that it doesn't cut into their own gambling (state lottery) revenues)".
(BTW, it's "try to", not "try and".)

What Mexico is doing is equivocal to declaring war on us and invading us

As far as I can tell, it isn't Mexico (i.e., the government of Mexico) that is "invading us; it it individual citizens of Mexico.

When will you UN loving hippies [...] force your one-world-government

I do not "love" the U.N., nor do I support any U.N. "one-world government" (although I have nothing against representatives of governments getting together and trying to solve their differences peacefully).
I don't know where I gave you the impression that I loved the U.N.
I don't recall mentioning the U.N. at all.

And there's nothing wrong with being a hippie.

pull your heads out of your rectums

I doubt very much that my head would fit in my rectum, although I have never tried, have no intention of trying, and am not the least bit interested in trying, to insert it into that particular opening in my body.
However, it is my body, so if I were so inclined to attempt such a maneuver, it would not be either your or any government's place to tell me that I couldn't try.

homosexuality for everyone

I don't know of any reasonable person who advocates homosexuality for everyone.
Such a thing would lead to the extinction of our species.
If you are talking about homosexual marriages, well, the government shouldn't be involved whatsoever in restricting marriages of any kind between (or among) any number of consenting adult entities of any sex or species.
Any such interference violates the separation of church and state.

such closedmindedness

HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Based on the rest of your post, introductions of pot to kettle are appropriate here.

too easy to break the system

[adriand]

personally, I am against closing the borders. our country was, is, and probably will always find its unique strength in the diversity of its people. not to mention, the "original" americans (other than the native americans) were illegal immigrants, etc, etc. (we've all heard that logic, and its all very true). anyway, all an organization has to do to break the system is hire a small group of people to call in a series of false alarms. send the authorities to the middle of nowhere, many times, and then they'll stop accepting calls. if the authorities "fact-check" the callers watch the footage (if they're smart enough), then just hire more people to call and give vague times (like, "oh somewhere between 4 and 5 pm, not sure, but there were a LOT of people"). then, they'll have to watch TONS of footage just to see nothing. rinse, repeat.

Re:Good. Illegal immigration is unfair

[Kohath]

So you're saying that we should pay for their tickets over here?

No. They'll pay their own way knowing that when they get here, they can stay.

Someone from Mexico can just cross the border. If he gets caught, he can try again the next day. Someone from China has to go through the legal channels because China lacks a border with the US.

There's a limit to how many immigrants a society can support. There are only so many jobs. Enforcing the border and opening up legal opportunities will allow non-Mexicans a fair chance to immigrate if they want. That will be good for the US.

Re:a wall

[oakgrove]

Erm...since when did Americans not want to do construction work?

The popular refrain of "illegal immigrants doing work Americans don't want to do" is as much old and tired as it is disingenuous. Please turn the TV off and stop repeating the mantras your big business, labor at slave wages loving, corporate masters are giving you.

Re:Good. Illegal immigration is unfair

[CheshireCatCO]

First of all, someone from China does *not* have to go through legal channels to immigrate to the US. It may be harder for them to sneak in than Mexicans, but if you can't imagine someone doing so (or that many of the same motivations for doing so apply), then you sorely lack imagination.

Second, you still haven't explain how you're going to undo this unfairness of Mexico being next door. That was your beef, but I see no solution to this injustice.

Re:a wall

[Anonymous Coward]

A simple surveilance system would detect anyone approaching the fance fromthe south, and a jeep or hellicopter could be send out.

Duh.

There's degrees

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>You have no privacy in public.

And yet, if you're like most people, you'd feel a little creeped out if a police officer followed you around whenever you were in public, taking notes and occasionally photographing you. There's a level of observation we don't expect to be exceeded, even when walking down the street.

If it is 1% then we will know that

[SmallFurryCreature]

7I hope it is 1% but I doubt it. But this will allow us to see exactly what percentage of the world is willing to turn away people themselves rather then let some anonymous police force do it (that they vote for, pay taxes for etc etc).

Offcourse they might hide the usage stats of this surveillance system BUT that would be very telling in itself.

If nobody tunes in then it will be clear just how much support their is but if as I fear plenty of people will be willing to turn in their jewish neighbours to the gestapo, oops what am I saying, I mean turn these illegal immigrants over to the border police, then we will know exactly how the average american thinks about.

Oh offcourse this nothing like the holocaust (yet). I can't help feel that some indians are very confused about all of this.

Re:While we're talking about illegal immigration..

[The Cydonian]

Indeed, ironic as it might seem to you Americans and Europeans used to watching Indians emigrating to your countries, in sheer numbers, India apparently has one of the largest illegal migrant populations in the world (although that figure is significantly disputed). It is a definite political problem out there in the East and North East; mainstream political support has waxed from being horrific(Morichjhapi) to something else.

The crux of the matter, however, is that the problem is much much more complex than that; you see, Bangladesh exists between, and below, Indian territory on both sides. India is connected to its North East by a stretch of land that's merely twenty kilometres at its thinnest, sandwiched between Nepal and Bangladesh. The result being, trans-shipments between, say, Agartala and Calcutta[*] take shitloads of time; while, in the years before Partition, it was possible to travel between the two towns with an overnight bus journey, it now takes at least seventy two hours to loop around Bangladesh, as it were, and reach Calcutta. Having an open border with Bangladesh, therefore, would actually be rather nice to Indian citizens in at least a couple of ways.

So yeah. Two different continents, two different situations. Let's not compare them. :-)

--
[*] - It shalt always be Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras when this Indian speaks in English. I pronounce the city-names differently in different Indian languages.

Useless

[obnoxiousbastard]

unless they have enough border patrol and INS people to bounce the illegals.

Until then, the only use for the border-cams will be by the illegals families: "Hey look! It's Jose!"

Re:Good. Illegal immigration is unfair

[Kohath]

you still haven't explain how you're going to undo this unfairness of Mexico being next door

Yes I have. Pay attention. Here it is for the 3rd time:

- Enforce the border to make it harder to immigrate illegally from Mexico.
- Increase legal immigration to make it easier for immigrants from elsewhere.

The result should be a higher proportion of immigrants from places other than Mexico. I guess I don't know how much clearer it can get.

Re:Good. Illegal immigration is unfair

[CheshireCatCO]

You are clear. You clearly sound racist when you say that.

You want to hinder Mexicans from legally entering the country as a way of making it "fair" that Asia is across the Pacific? You're comparing apples and oranges, here with legal and illegal immigration and you apparently seek to punish would-be legal immigrants from Mexico for the fact that their country shares a border with ours.

Pay attention, here: illegal immigration is illegal. It has nothing to do with legal immigration. Punishing one entire group because they're from a neighboring country all in the name of "being more fair" is nothing short of inane at best. Worse, it sounds (and may well be) poorly disguised racism. It smacks very much of wanting to allow in the "right" people and keep out the "wrong" ones.

Street value

[Anonymous Coward]

Does ayone have the specifications on these cameras so I can get some preliminary estimates of their street value.

Comming soon; the worlds cheapest web cams!! Start your own porn site cheap!!

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[drakaan]

A fence is not something I support as a sole method of border enforcement. Obviously (and you're not the only ex-soldier in this conversation) securing a perimeter takes manpower and active enforcement, but without a fence, you need significantly more in the way of human resources because there is nothing to slow down your aggressors.

If OPFOR is on foot and has to get through concertina, etc. to get at you, there's a lot better chance that a quick reactionary force will be able to hold them off until you can control that particular sector.

I don't think we can afford what it would cost to really put a dent in the inflow.

The weneedafence.com guys think a decent barrier would cost between 4 and 8 billion, and congress has already (twice) approved a pretty good budget for border agents. Combine that with electronic surveillance, and you could handle things pretty well, I'd imagine.

In general, argument via analogy is always suspect, but your analogy is particularly bad. In what way are the illegal immigrants "in line" ahead of the legal immigrants, or the citizens? Once illegals get here there are all sorts of additional obstacles they face that legal immigrants do not. Plus, your analogy assumes that anyone who is willing to pay the ticket price can get into the country, but our immigration policies are much more restrictive and much more random than that.

I agree that analogies are typically bad, but they can be useful, if sufficiently-well explained (which mine apparently was not).

There are some minor obstacles that illegal immigrants face, but they are apparently small enough that upwards of 12 million people have been able to illegally enter and remain in the US and may not even be asked to leave.

They are "in line" ahead of legal immigrants (but not citizens), because the legal immigrants they are ahead of are not yet in the country, and won't be allowed into the country until they have satisfied certain criteria. That's the aspect of legal immigration that's most in need of fixing. The "ticket price" is the price of getting documentation, employment, sponsorship, legal paperwork, and citizenship testing accomplished. Legal immigrants are willing to do it, and illegal immigrants are predominantly not.

My silly comment at the end was exactly that...in fact, it was ridiculous, and was meant to be. Please don't think it was intended in anything other than a sarcastic manner.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[drakaan]

incorrect.
what it means is more people will fail, the same will try.

Why? If it's more difficult to do a thing, the same number of people will try to do a thing? Have you seen anywhere in life where that statement is true?

In reality, the fence will be cut through, and stop nothing. However, texas will get more jobs while it's being built.

In reality, yes, the fence will be cut through, and assuming there's actual border enforcement going on, the activity will get noticed, those trying to breach the barrier will be caught, and the fence will be repaired.

Our governor has only recently (the past 2 months) stopped saying that the National guard shouldn't be patrolling the border! I had always assumed that the name of that organization meant something (maybe they guard the nation, I dunno, call me crazy). This isn't about jobs or money or cheap labor, or anything else, it's about control of our borders and what not controlling them means.

If we as a nation decide that our current immigration law is bad, and that we should just open the borders up and let everyone in, fine. Even in that case, we should have some idea of who is coming to America, and how many people are here. In past times, we didn't have the same government support programs that we have now...you came, you worked, you tried to achieve the American dream (whatever it means to you), and it was all up to you to make it happen.

Currently, if you're a citizen, you have welfare, social security, medicare, tuition assitance, public school, free lunch programs, etc, etc. All of which are good programs, but all of which severely limit the number of immigrants, legal or illegal, we can afford to accept without upsetting the apple-cart.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[swillden]

The weneedafence.com guys think a decent barrier would cost between 4 and 8 billion, and congress has already (twice) approved a pretty good budget for border agents.

The problem is, the approved budget for border agents isn't "pretty good", it's woefully inadequate. To secure a 2000-mile border from incursion by small groups, the book says you need a barrier, electronic surveillance and 100,000 troops. Even being very generous and assuming that you can do a reasonable job with only 50,000 troops (including support, administration, etc.), that is an ongoing *annual* investment of roughly as much as it is projected to cost to build the fence in the first place. For that level of expense, there has to be a real economic benefit -- not just the principle of the thing, particularly since this principle is morally dubious.

Further, don't forget that of those estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country, even a perfectly-secured border would only have kept out about 2.4 million. 80% of illegal immigrants in this country entered it legally, then overstayed their visas. Seriously, if you want to reduce the presence of illegals, you should spend the money on systems to keep track of people here on tourist visas. I'm not sure how you can do that without impacting the privacy of citizens, though. Maybe the "War on Illegal Immigration" can finish the job begun by the "War on Drugs" and continued with the "War on Terror"?

So, let's tot up the cost for say, 10 years. We'll be optimistic and assume that it only costs $6B to build the fence, and $4B per year to staff it. That's a 10-year cost of $46B. Assume that without doing anything, our illegal population continues to grow by two million per year (it's lower than that). Of those, approximately 400,000 sneak across the border, so, 4 million over a ten-year period. Further suppose that the $46B stops *all* of them. That's a cost per non-immigrant of $11,500, even with rather kind assumptions.

I just don't think that's a good deal, even ignoring all of the political and moral questions.

They are "in line" ahead of legal immigrants (but not citizens), because the legal immigrants they are ahead of are not yet in the country, and won't be allowed into the country until they have satisfied certain criteria. That's the aspect of legal immigration that's most in need of fixing

That still doesn't make much sense, since there really is no "line". The illegal immigrants don't take jobs or opportunities from the legal immigrants. At worst they give them a bad name. At best the illegals create jobs for the legal immigrants... management that speaks the language and knows the culture.

The "ticket price" is the price of getting documentation, employment, sponsorship, legal paperwork, and citizenship testing accomplished.

You do realize the biggest part of the "ticket price" is actually luck, right?

My silly comment at the end was exactly that...in fact, it was ridiculous, and was meant to be.

That's a relief! ;-)

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[drakaan]

So, let's tot up the cost for say, 10 years. We'll be optimistic and assume that it only costs $6B to build the fence, and $4B per year to staff it. That's a 10-year cost of $46B. Assume that without doing anything, our illegal population continues to grow by two million per year (it's lower than that). Of those, approximately 400,000 sneak across the border, so, 4 million over a ten-year period. Further suppose that the $46B stops *all* of them. That's a cost per non-immigrant of $11,500, even with rather kind assumptions.

Let me start off by saying that I'll assume certain specific figures you quote are accurate, but I would appreciate a reference.

50,000 troops to man the (southern) US border... three shifts means about 17,000 on line at any given time (rotating 12-hour shifts), which puts an average of not quite eight per mile. That sounds about right, and I would be willing to pay for my share of it.

80% of the 12 million illegals in the country are just overstaying their visas? That is a bit harder for me to swallow, but I'd agree, immediate attention needs to be given to that issue, if it's correct.

The specific things I'd like to see happen are:

• mandatory citizenship checks when seeking employment (we have voluntary SSN lookups now)
• actual enforcement of penalties for employing illegal immigrants (4 prosecutions in all of 2004 seems lacking)
• A hefty tax on all funds wired to foreign countries from persons not legally residing in the US (no Visa, green card, etc)
• a president that cares more about US citizens than foriegners

If the cost per non-immigrant is 11,500 each, that's nicely offset by the 7,000-odd dollars per child per year spent on public education, in-state tuition rates (that illegal immigrants can get, but people from other US states can't?), medical payments, auto insurance premiums, etc.

You might not think it's a good deal, but you may not live someplace where the impact is felt as heavily yet. I know that for Texans, it'd be a bargain.

That still doesn't make much sense, since there really is no "line". The illegal immigrants don't take jobs or opportunities from the legal immigrants...

Not jobs, the ability to migrate to America. The jobs that are being taken away are jobs traditionally worked by undereducated or high-school and college age US citizens. I think that's a problem. With unemployment at near-record lows, the biggest segment of the population without jobs is this particular group. It seems unfair on both fronts.

You do realize the biggest part of the "ticket price" is actually luck, right?

How so? If you mean luck as in what happens when preparedness meets opportunity, then yes, I realize that.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

[swillden]

50,000 troops to man the (southern) US border... three shifts means about 17,000 on line at any given time (rotating 12-hour shifts), which puts an average of not quite eight per mile.

4.5 shifts -- you have to account for leave time and weekends -- so ~11,000 on line, which is about 5.5 per mile. Accounting for support troops, administration, maintenance, etc., that leaves about 4 per mile actually on the border. That's a skeleton crew for the job, actually, but would be adequate to reduce the influx somewhat.

That sounds about right, and I would be willing to pay for my share of it.

I'm not. It's a bad deal. If you want to reduce government expenditures on illegal immigrants, it's much more effective to require proof of citizenship before providing services than it is to try to keep them out. That can and should be done every place except emergency rooms, which would cut the cost of services to illegals dramatically.

80% of the 12 million illegals in the country are just overstaying their visas? That is a bit harder for me to swallow, but I'd agree, immediate attention needs to be given to that issue, if it's correct.

Googling a bit to find support for that number, I find that I misremembered. The number is between 50% and 60%, not 80%. Still, it's quite high. And I don't see any way to reduce it except by asking everyone to show proof of citizenship on a regular basis. "Your papers, please...". It's bad enough that we can't fly around our own country anonymously.

How so? If you mean luck as in what happens when preparedness meets opportunity, then yes, I realize that.

No, I mean luck as in winning the lottery. Immigrating legally is hard unless you have unique skills. Otherwise, the US allots a certain number of visas per year and they're given away through a lottery process, so your best chance is to win the lottery.

I'm quite familiar with how this works because I've been trying to help a Nigerian friend living in Italy to immigrate to the US for several years now. Even with my sponsorship, and my willingness to guarantee her living expenses and ability to return, she has not managed to come yet. Since she's a Nigerian national, she has to enter the lottery in Nigeria, even though she's living and working in Italy. She has returned to Nigeria (at great expense) three times now to submit her application, and failed each time. And Nigeria is one of the countries with a relatively large allotment of visas.