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?

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

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

[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

[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

[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.

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!

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.

[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.

Unbelievable!

[w33t]

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

"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"

[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"

[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"

[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

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.

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: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:a wall

[Ankou]

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

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.

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: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").

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?

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"?

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.

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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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

[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: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.

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".

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.

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.

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: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]

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

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.

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: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

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."

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.

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.

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?

[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: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.

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...

[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...

[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: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: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: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.

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 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: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: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: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...

[arose]

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

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

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: 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.