Slashdot Mirror


US Virtual Border Fence Doesn't Work

lelitsch writes "The Washington Post reports that the initial pilot of the Virtual Border Fence planned by the DHS and subcontracted to Boeing has been a miserable failure. A lot of the points in the report have the hallmark of death-march software development projects. Some choice quotes include 'did not work as planned or meet the needs of the U.S. Border Patrol,' 'DHS officials do not yet know the type of terrain where the fencing is to be constructed,' and 'the design will not be used as the basis for future... development.' The article notes that Boeing was forced to deliver 'something' early as President Bush pushed for immigration reform in Congress in 2006. That reform effort died last year in the Senate."

337 comments

  1. It's only a virtual failure by Ranger · · Score: 5, Funny

    But how will we stop all those virtual Mexicans now?

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
    1. Re:It's only a virtual failure by kellyb9 · · Score: 1, Funny

      I've always wanted a virtual gardener.

    2. Re:It's only a virtual failure by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      Obviously, no matter what, the virtual Mexicans are simply too determined to be stopped by a mere firewall.

    3. Re:It's only a virtual failure by maz2331 · · Score: 1

      Virtual A-10's?

    4. Re:It's only a virtual failure by FreeTemplates · · Score: 1

      nothing to say.. just use another and make it happen

  2. So now, the feds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are going to push IDs on all of us. IDs with RFIDs. Well, I am fine with that, as long as they include the star of david and the tatoo. Lets call it for what it is.

  3. They should have known by RockMFR · · Score: 5, Funny

    Outsourcing the software development to Mexico was a terrible idea.

    1. Re:They should have known by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, wetbacks FTL!

  4. I have a simpler solution by Phoenix666 · · Score: 5, Funny

    If we just annexed Mexico we'd only have to build half as much fence to keep the Guatamalans and Hondurans out. Plus, they have margaritas.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    1. Re:I have a simpler solution by u8i9o0 · · Score: 1

      If we just annexed Mexico we'd only have to build half as much fence to keep the Guatamalans and Hondurans out. Plus, they have margaritas.
      I thought that the USA did annex Mexico. Well, most of it.
      --
      This is not my sig
    2. Re:I have a simpler solution by BForrester · · Score: 1

      Remember the Alamo? Obviously not.

    3. Re:I have a simpler solution by photomonkey · · Score: 1

      And some really nice beaches.

      And a great culture.

      Hell, I'll trade California back to them for Sonora and Sinaloa any damn day of the week.

      --
      Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
  5. It's hopeless anyway by z80kid · · Score: 5, Funny
    No mere border fence is any match for

    The Six Million Peso Man

  6. Stop them.. why would we stop them? by Channard · · Score: 5, Funny

    Someone needs to do all those shitty jobs that your average Second Life citizen thinks they're too good for.

    1. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They wouldn't be such bad jobs if we didn't permit illegal immigration to mess with the labor supply to drive down wages. For whatever reason, a lot of people have it in their minds that hard physical work "just must be" worthless because it doesn't take much training. But if it came down to it, I'm betting they'd much rather do their desk jobs than pick strawberries even for the very same pay.

    2. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Picking strawberries wouldn't be such a bad job if non-illegals did it... citizens wouldn't be afraid to speak up about unfair conditions, the lack of health benefits, unsafe conditions, and the lack of a union. The wouldn't be afraid of being deported if they asked for things like water and breaks.

    3. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

      I think you're wrong. I'd love to be outside all day every day in the summer time. If I had the opportunity to make as much/or more as a landscaper as I can as a programmer/sys admin, I'd probably choose to work outside. I'd be in better shape, less stressed out, and in all likelihood happier. This is probably one of the reasons that communism doesn't work.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    4. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by AJWM · · Score: 1

      If strawberry pickers were paid at the same rates as the average desk worker, we'd have robotic strawberry pickers by now.

      --
      -- Alastair
    5. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by Necrobruiser · · Score: 1

      And eating strawberries wouldn't be quite so easy if citizens picked them.... How much would the price of strawberries increase if the people picking them managed to get minimum wage, health benefits, safer conditions and unions? A great example of this is Hawaiian Kona coffee. It retails for >$20 per pound, but is no better than the South American coffees that you can buy for about 1/3 the cost. Why? Because it's grown and picked in America by people who get minimum wage, health benefits, unions, etc.

      --
      "I planned within my means and got a fixed rate mortgage, so where's MY bailout?" -cafepress
    6. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by nicklott · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Name me one society in history that has valued physically demanding jobs over sedentary work... Through most of history societies have used slavery or other forms of compulsion to make other people do the hard physical work they didn't want to.

      I don't think recent illegal immigration is messing with wage levels here, this is the other edge of the double edged sword of free-market capitalism: If strawberry-picker wages rise then the price of strawberries will rise too. But then wal-mart won't sell as many strawberries, so they'll go and buy them from producers in other, cheaper, countries, eg mexico. This will drive the growers out of business, losing the Fed a whole bunch of taxes and earning them a barracking in congress. To keep the US growers in business then the government either looks the other way while the growers use illegal immigrants to get their cheap labour (the only way to keep it cheap enough is for the employees not to have any benefits, hence illegal immmigrants) or pays them a subsidy to keep the prices down. Obviously they're going to plump for the cheaper option where possible.

      You can replace strawberry picking above with pretty much any industry in the country, be it animal, vegetable or mineral.

      For example Fruit/veg picking is largely manual labour that can't cut its costs by mechanising, it relies on on low labour costs so the government looks the other way. Cotton growing is now largely mechanised and wouldn't benefit much from cheaper labour so instead they get huge subsidies to keep the price competitive.

      This is also of course why the US is increasingly on the wrong side of the WTO. Free markets are great while you can sell your stuff cheaper than everyone else, but when they undercut you, it doesn't look so rosy; He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

    7. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by VoiceOfDoom · · Score: 1
      Name me one society in history that has valued physically demanding jobs over sedentary work..


      Sparta!

      --
      "Life is pain Highness. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something"

      Westly, The Princess Bride

    8. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      "Picking strawberries wouldn't be such a bad job if non-illegals did it... citizens wouldn't be afraid to speak up about unfair conditions, the lack of health benefits, unsafe conditions, and the lack of a union. The wouldn't be afraid of being deported if they asked for things like water and breaks."

      That and we have PLENTY of able bodied people on welfare, that could be put to work....if you want welfare help, get out and work some jobs like this too.

      If we didn't have illegals driving down wages in manual labor markets, our welfare folks might could get off welfare and make living wages.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "I don't think recent illegal immigration is messing with wage levels here..."

      No, it isn't recent illegal immigration...it is something that has been happening and growing at a scary rate ever since the Reagan admin. tried offering amnesty to the illegals here then.

      Since they, there has been a flood of illegals coming in...and over the years, they've depressed manual labor wages by a HUGE amount. I hear complaints about this in the housing industry in a big way. People wanting to hire US citizen crews can't compete when other contractors are using illegals...who are willing to sleep in tents and camp out, rather than own a home and raise a family like the citizen wants to do. I've seen this first hand in NOLA since Katrina.

      Those 12-20 million illegals didn't get here overnight...it has been a LONG standing problem, that is now coming to a head, but, I'm afraid it might be too late.

      I couldn't believe it the other day, I heard that a major Houston rodeo was being 'blackmailed' by the Hispanic community down there...that if they didn't print everything and make announcements in Spanish, they were going to be boycotted. Since when is it something to boycott when a US event is conducted in English, the native tongue here? Geez. If the illegals were coming here legally...trying to become citizens, they'd not be protesting for all of us to speak Spanish, since the road to citizenship in the US does require them to learn English.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Oh my gosh. Have you ever actually had a job doing manual labor? I have. (Including washing cars and hand-planting gladiola bulbs, among others). I don't know which is worse, the agonizing boredom that makes an hour seem like a day, the physical discomfort, or the poor treatment from supervisors. The fact that I make 10x more now (and I am not exaggerating, I just figured it out) for sitting on my butt, doing email, going to meetings, and occasionally checking slashdot is surely proof that something is wrong with the universe.

    11. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Obviously you have never had Kona Coffee, only the 10% Kona, 90% Columbian blends.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    12. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by nicklott · · Score: 1

      Heh, that was actually my first thought as a counter example, but in fact it's the exception that proves the rule; The only physical labour the Spartans valued was military in its pratical application (amongst other things they also valued public speaking), the sole domestic use of which was to keep the Helots in check in order that they could do their manual labour for them.

    13. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "free-market capitalism"
      Since when? We don't have free-market capitalism. We have oligopoly capitalism by large multi-national corporations and banks.

    14. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by nicklott · · Score: 2, Informative
      I meant "recent" in a historical perspective... ie 50 years or so

      I couldn't believe it the other day, I heard that a major Houston rodeo was being 'blackmailed' by the Hispanic community down there...that if they didn't print everything and make announcements in Spanish, they were going to be boycotted

      That really doesn't sound likely, if they had trouble understanding the rodeo why were they there in the first place? Boycotting something you don't go to anyway doesn't make sense.

      So I looked it up:

      http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5573321.html

      I don't know where you heard that (right wing media playing on people's prejudices no doubt) but you might want to consider the propriety of that source in future. They threatened a boycott because the rodeo was hiring non-Tejanos to perform at a Tejano cultural event, no mention of anyone printing or speaking spanish.

    15. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by nicklott · · Score: 1

      No, we have free-market capitalism when we want to sell stuff to other countries; we have mercantilist oligopoly capitalism when they want to sell things to us.

    16. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by fredklein · · Score: 2, Informative

      How much would the price of strawberries increase if the people picking them managed to get minimum wage, health benefits, safer conditions and unions?

      Not much at all, all things considered. Labor costs are around 5% of the cost of an item. SO, you could increase labor wages by a factor of 10, and only raise the cost of the final product by 50%.

      Example:
      Price per apple = $1.00
      Labor cost per apple= $.05
      Non-labor cost per apple= $.95
      New Labor cost x 10= $.50
      New apple cost= $.95 +.50 = $1.45

      That's not bad considering the wage of the apple pickers just jumped from $2.00 per hour to $20.00 per hour!! (which is WAY above the 'minimum wage' you mentioned) I'm certain that, at $20/hour, you could get citizens to do the picking, instead of having to rely on illegals "because no one else will do it (for crap wages)".

    17. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by Necrobruiser · · Score: 1

      Actually, I have had Kona coffee. I worked in and managed a coffee store franchise for several years. Obviously, you have bought into the Kona marketing strategy.

      --
      "I planned within my means and got a fixed rate mortgage, so where's MY bailout?" -cafepress
    18. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by Necrobruiser · · Score: 1

      Labor costs are around 5% of the cost of an item.

      Can you provide any references to support this fact? 5% seems very low to me. I found an article that states that labor costs are about 50% of the cost for hand harvested crops. (I can't verify the validity of the article, and it is about 8 years old, so take it with a grain of salt.) http://www.cis.org/articles/2000/back1200.html. If the article is true, then the cost of the apple in your example would become $5.50. That sounds high to me, so I expect that the true cost is somewhere between those two figures.
      --
      "I planned within my means and got a fixed rate mortgage, so where's MY bailout?" -cafepress
    19. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      My son lives in the Kona district, my Boss inherited a coffee plantation in El Salvador, to get the good stuff you have to know local people.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    20. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 1

      At times, I think life would be easier if I had one of those manual labor jobs I had back in college. Not enough to actually leave my position, but depending on the day (right before a major code delivery), I might just be a bit closer to doing it. Having done plumbing, cement finishing, and bagged/blocked ice production/delivery, I think I can appreciate the simplicity of manual labor, the physical rewards, and the feeling of accomplishing something that has a bit more "permanence" than a software application. If I could make what I do now, doing the manual labor, it might be worth giving up some of the stress.

    21. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by Slithe · · Score: 1

      For example Fruit/veg picking is largely manual labour that can't cut its costs by mechanising, it relies on on low labour costs so the government looks the other way. Well, there is the Robot Picker. It seems promising.

      Cotton growing is now largely mechanised and wouldn't benefit much from cheaper labour so instead they get huge subsidies to keep the price competitive. What is so expensive about cotton? Is it the amount for land used? Is it because of transportation costs? Maybe, the cotton growers need to enact some serious business reforms.
      --
      ---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
    22. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by fredklein · · Score: 3, Informative

      Can you provide any references to support this fact? 5% seems very low to me.

      To be honest, it's just a number I remember from a previous thread on this topic.
      But a little Google-Fu got me this:

      http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003265139_imprices19.html
      At a local QFC, Red Delicious apples go for about 99 cents a pound. Of that, only about 7 cents represents the cost of labor, said Tom Schotzko, a recently retired extension economist at Washington State University. The rest represents the grower's other expenses, warehousing and shipping fees, and the retailer's markup.
      And that's for one of the most labor-intensive crops in the state


      5%, 7%, close enough. The point stands: wages could go up substantially (even enough to attract citizens instead of illegals) and the price of friut would not 'triple' or 'quadruple' as some scaremongers claim.

    23. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but in fact it's the exception that proves the rule

      That's not what the phrase "it's the exception that proves the rule" means. The phrase means that an exception to some unstated rule is proof that the unstated rule exists. For example, if you go to a supermarket and see a sign that says "Guide dogs allowed", this is an exception to the rule "No dogs allowed". Seeing a sign allowing guide dogs proves that a rule exists that normally dogs aren't allowed, but guide dogs are okay.

    24. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by nicklott · · Score: 1

      yeah, but I couldn't think of the correct phrase and that sounds good ;)

    25. Re:Stop them.. why would we stop them? by nicklott · · Score: 1

      What is so expensive about cotton? Is it the amount for land used? Is it because of transportation costs? Nothing is particularly expensive about cotton, but to compete in the world market they have to sell it cheaper that it's produced in, say, Benin. Obviously they can't do it that in the US (baseline costs are just too high), so they get subsidies that mean they sell it cheaper than the production cost.

      Maybe, the cotton growers need to enact some serious business reforms. Well that's what everyone else says, but the cotton farmers and their elected representatives disagree.
  7. No, we just think you're stupid by PontifexPrimus · · Score: 5, Informative
    ...and here's why.
    Relevant quote:

    As of January 1, 2000, children born in Germany to foreign parents acquire German citizenship at birth if at least one parent has lived legally in Germany for a minimum of eight years. Children who acquire German citizenship under this provision will be allowed to hold dual citizenship until they reach adulthood; they will be required to choose between their German and foreign citizenship by the age of 23 at the latest. Children born to foreign parents before the enactment of the new law who are under the age of ten will also be able to claim German citizenship by virtue of birth in Germany, if the above named conditions (time of legal residence) apply.
    If you're so woefully underinformed, just keep from commenting, ok?
    --
    -- Language is a virus from outer space.
    1. Re:No, we just think you're stupid by megaditto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Lived legally for 8 years" is the key part here.

      What Germans are doing is penalizing children born to illegal immigrants.

      These kids become criminals from birth, but you Enlightened Europeans probably see no problem with that either (since the kids should have chosen better parents, right?)

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    2. Re:No, we just think you're stupid by Spleen · · Score: 1

      I agree, it's not right that the children are considered criminals at birth. However, it is also not right that they become citizens because of their parents criminal act.

      My parents always told me that they want life to be better for me then it was for them. Lets say my parents were Mexican Citizens. If they knew that my chances would be a lot better living in the USA then in Mexico, it would be an incentive for them to immigrate (legally or illegally) under our current system.

      It's just not an issue in which there is a "right" and a "wrong". Unfortunately there are a lot of "wrongs" and nobody has found the "right" yet.

    3. Re:No, we just think you're stupid by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      I don't understand your argument there - an illegal immigrant brings in her 1 year old daughter to the US. The child grows up there, but remains illegal. Ok, so she isn't a criminal from birth, just a criminal from age 1. That doesn't strike me as a huge improvement.

      Or consider some poor guy in his twenties - he flees from his homeland because he'd starve otherwise. His only viable choice is to enter a developed country illegally. Now he's considered to be a criminal just because he wants to work for food. How is that moral? On the other hand, people living somewhere also have a right not to be overrun by immigrants, so what can you do? You need to draw the line somewhere, you can't just hand out citizenship to everyone who wants it - if you'd do it your own country would soon collapse.

      I my mind it makes a lot more sense to try and help that country they are trying to escape from, rather than handing out citizenship to a few of it's inhabitants, or it's inhabitants' children. Now if you had an immigration policy without any moral ambiguouity, then I think it would make sense to ask that this be applied to Germany, too. However that is plainly not the case, and probably it's not even possible to define such a policy.

      As for the minor differences in the actual policy, I suspect this has historic causes. For Americans it's very important to think that being born within a country constitutes a right to be there - because they know that they've immigrated a few generations back, at best. Europeans are more likely think of their country as something which belongs to their people.

    4. Re:No, we just think you're stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vermin. We nuked the wrong country in WWII.

    5. Re:No, we just think you're stupid by rca66 · · Score: 1

      These kids become criminals from birth,

      Of course not. It should be clear, that infants are not able to commit any crime after German law and therefore can not be criminals. Germany has simply another definition of citizenhood than the US. While the US citizenship ist based on the principle of jus soli, which means by the place you are born, the German one is based on jus sanguinis, meaning it is mainly determined by your heritage. Citizenship is ruled differently over Europe. France for instance has a law more similar to that of the US: children born on French soil have the right to get French citizenship. The difference to the US-law is, that it is not granted automatically, one has to request it.

    6. Re:No, we just think you're stupid by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      an illegal immigrant brings in her 1 year old daughter to the US. The child grows up there, but remains illegal. Ok, so she isn't a criminal from birth, just a criminal from age 1. That doesn't strike me as a huge improvement.

      I want to preface this statement by saying that we continually poop on Mexico and so the situation is inherently unbalanced, but the idea is to motivate people to fix the problems in their own countries instead of just coming here. But again, to be fair, in the case of Mexico (and some other countries, really) we have created their situation and so it's not fair to tell them to go and fix it. Just need that disclaimer there to complete my statement :P

      consider some poor guy in his twenties - he flees from his homeland because he'd starve otherwise. His only viable choice is to enter a developed country illegally.

      In some countries which are now desert largely due to human activities (deforestation, irrigation) people really can starve because there is no food and no means to support food. But in many other countries, people are starving because they won't work the land. In most countries there is land out in the boonies that no one wants where you can live as a farmer. Boring life, but it's a living.

      People fleeing themselves, I have little compassion for (I need to apply the attitude to myself on occasion as well.) People fleeing someone else, okay, I feel sorry for them and am inclined to give them aid.

      I can't feel bad about Mexicans etc. running up here to the US to get health care and education because let's face it, between NAFTA and the War On Some Drugs and supporting or preventing this or that coup we have crapped up Central America beyond belief. By the same token, anyone who comes over here from the mid-east (for peaceful reasons, anyway) is well-justified in my book. But immigration creates real social problems and it's unfortunate when that happens to people who don't deserve it. (Life, of course, is not fair.)

      I my mind it makes a lot more sense to try and help that country they are trying to escape from, rather than handing out citizenship to a few of it's inhabitants, or it's inhabitants' children.

      I agree wholeheartedly. But that's not the way to make money, so you're not going to convince any capitalistic society to get on board.

      About the only country I think you might potentially get really interested in helping the world would be China - but they'd want to do it their way. And I don't think the results would be pretty. It's really never all that good when a whole country is on the same page, to be honest. (This is where I invoke Godwin's law, right?)

      Really though it would probably be enough for the various industrialized nations of the world to stop defecating on everyone else.

      For Americans it's very important to think that being born within a country constitutes a right to be there - because they know that they've immigrated a few generations back, at best. Europeans are more likely think of their country as something which belongs to their people.

      Yeah well, they're both wrong. The "native" Americans (who migrated to the northwestern part of the area now known as the Estados Unidos Norteamericanos about 12,000 years ago) had it right; the land does not belong to us, we belong to the land. Not all of them felt that nobly about it of course but frankly, the idea of drawing lines on a map and suggesting that they have significance is folly. The only regions that make sense are ones with natural boundaries -- Or as they are sometimes called today, "bioregions."

      Humans are destroying the land's ability to support humanity. I don't want to get in a full-on debate over the "noble savage" but around here people built temporary homes and burned them, starting fires that truly did manage the forests of the area. Suggesting that people with a strong oral tradition who lived here for 10

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:No, we just think you're stupid by steelfood · · Score: 1

      About the only country I think you might potentially get really interested in helping the world would be China - but they'd want to do it their way.

      China looks out for China and only China. If helping the world is a part of keeping China stable, then so be it. But you'd have to have a hand in it as well. Otherwise, China would only do enough to ensure it remains stable, potentially screwing you over in doing so.

      For example, China will appease North Korea to keep it stable, regardless of what the US wants. It will also try to stop North Korea from having nukes to keep the region stable. China will not stop sending in aide just because the US decides to sanction it, because that will destabilize North Korea, and hence the entire region. That's why China doesn't care about Iran having nukes; China doesn't see any threat to its stability if Iran acquires and uses their nukes.

      China is not a country interested in being humanitarian.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    8. Re:No, we just think you're stupid by Slithe · · Score: 1

      As an American, I applaud you, sir. Bravo!

      --
      ---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
  8. Stupid. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When the hell has building a giant wall ever helped anything? Jesus...At least they could have outsourced the work to China...Their wall didn't work, but at least it got finished.

    But, I suppose anything is better than coming up with a sensible immigration policy. Gotta keep those high-paying fruit picking, chicken boning, and christmas tree cutting jobs local.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:Stupid. by Detritus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One reason all those crap jobs have such lousy wages is that employers know they can always hire illegals, who are in no position to complain about wages or working conditions. I'd rather pay more and see an American citizen get the job.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:Stupid. by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you're right. the one in China was 100% ineffective and did not do anything.

      Damn Chinese they kept building it for decades upon decades all in a feeble attempt. Everyone knows that the Great Wall of china was a complete failure.

      sarcasm aside it CAN work and BE effective if it was not half-assed. Therein lies the problem. The idiots in Washington get all puffy and hem and haw all over the issue while in reality they secretly don't care and want to allow the illegal immigrants in the country. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that every single one of those congress critters has an illegal wither cleaning their house, pool or keeping up the yard. They dont want to stop the flow of very cheap labor coming into the US.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd rather pay more and see an American citizen get the job.

      No, you wouldn't.
      Ideology is easy when it doesn't hurt you (or, in this case, your pocket).

    4. Re:Stupid. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, the reason is that you put someone through 12 years of school, and he doesn't want to work in a chicken processing plant anymore.

      Like it or not, we don't have the workforce to fill out those sorts of jobs anymore, and frankly it doesn't make any economic sense to force a decently educated worker into a job that could be filled for much less cost by someone who has no education at all. If nothing else, there is a huge opportunity cost for our economy when you force a worker that is capable of working some kind of high automation line job, into the kind of crap work that was common 100 years ago...It makes far more sense to send the work to another country in that case.

      It always annoys me when people like you think that, if only we paid the fruit pickers more and threw out all the migrant workers, then our economy would somehow boom. The only thing that would boom is the cost of the fruit, and that makes everyone who buys it poorer, it makes fruit from other countries more competitive in the marketplace, and that drives domestic fruit producers out of business. What a great plan.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    5. Re:Stupid. by cobaltnova · · Score: 1

      Please mod parent up. Although an AC, parent raises a valid point. Moreover s/he is neither troll nor flamebait nor overrated.

    6. Re:Stupid. by value_added · · Score: 2, Funny

      When the hell has building a giant wall ever helped anything?

      Indeed.

      A better idea would have been to arm Lou Dobbs with automatic weapons.

    7. Re:Stupid. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It actually didn't work all that well. Certainly didn't keep invaders from invading. It would have been far more effective (and cheaper) to just have a better military.

      How much money are you willing to sink into putting a goddamn WALL around the country? I frankly don't think it will ever work, and sure if we put as much money into it as we put into Iraq, I bet we could stop the immigration across the land, but I don't think that would be sufficient in the long run. If people want in, they'll get in.

      It never ceases to make me laugh how hard people fight to keep immigrants from doing jobs that they would never do, not in a million years. If you're worried about their treatment, then make it legal, give them the right to sue over poor conditions and workplace injuries. Tax their salaries to help pay for the demographic hellhole that will be this country for the next 30 or so years...Worried about your job? In 10 years, as the boomers retire en masse the workforce is literally going to shrink. That means we will need those people; we will need their labor, and we will need the tax revenue to pay for services for the huge chunk of society that's going to be retired.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    8. Re:Stupid. by grassy_knoll · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It always annoys me when people like you think that, if only we paid the fruit pickers more and threw out all the migrant workers, then our economy would somehow boom. The only thing that would boom is the cost of the fruit, and that makes everyone who buys it poorer, it makes fruit from other countries more competitive in the marketplace, and that drives domestic fruit producers out of business. What a great plan.


      Ahh... so the best option for everyone is to ensure illegal aliens arrive en mass. If they complain about low wages, hazardous working conditions or exploitive management ( see: Company Store ) then we deport them.

      Right. Nice way to maintain a permanent underclass.

      After all, it's not like if we required proof of citizenship and forced the agricultural industry to pay decent wages those workers would spend any money here in the US, right?

      Or if we permitted those workers to come to the US on visas and bring their families with them the practice of sending remittances to their home country might dry up or significantly decrease thus keeping more money in the US?
    9. Re:Stupid. by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Actually, the reason is that you put someone through 12 years of school, and he doesn't want to work in a chicken processing plant anymore.

      Nonsense. People don't want to do those jobs at the wages offered, and the work conditions present.

      it doesn't make any economic sense to force a decently educated worker into a job that could be filled for much less cost by someone who has no education at all.

      More pure nonsense. Are you trying to tell me the education system is that much different than it was 30 years ago? I'll be willing to bet those plants were filled with US citizens then. What's changed now other than a large influx of cheap labor from Mexico?

      There's plenty of jobs that people with high school education do already that don't require much in the way of education. Auto plant workers make good wages. Do they need a higher level of education than other plant workers, or is it just the fact that they were unionized many years ago and the conditions and wages improved?

      No, I'm not saying unions solve all problems. But treating the workplace as static, and unchanging with the available labor pool is just plain incorrect.

      --
      AccountKiller
    10. Re:Stupid. by bendodge · · Score: 1

      How do you force someone into a job??

      --
      The government can't save you.
    11. Re:Stupid. by Grandiloquence · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ahh... so the best option for everyone is to ensure illegal aliens arrive en mass. If they complain about low wages, hazardous working conditions or exploitive management ( see: Company Store [wikipedia.org] ) then we deport them. Right. Nice way to maintain a permanent underclass. After all, it's not like if we required proof of citizenship and forced the agricultural industry to pay decent wages those workers would spend any money here in the US, right? Or if we permitted those workers to come to the US on visas and bring their families with them the practice of sending remittances to their home country might dry up or significantly decrease thus keeping more money in the US?

      A permanent underclass? Hardly. It's not like we're rounding these people up and bringing them to the US against their will. They come here voluntarily, and often at great risk to themselves. Why would they do that if they were being exploited? To put it simply, they come here in droves because life as a fruit picker or whatnot is better than what they were doing before. We are increasing their quality of life, not decreasing it.

      Immigration is a win-win situation. We benefit from low-priced labor, freeing our better educated workforce to hold better paying, more productive jobs, and the immigrants get jobs better than the ones they left behind, allowing them a better chance to escape from the poverty of their homeland.
    12. Re:Stupid. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      The amount of money they send home is trivial compared to the amount of money we send to China to buy crap that could never be made here because if it was, it would cost ten times as much. The reason it costs so much is because that sort of labor is hugely scarce over here, and thus extremely expensive. But try and bring in more labor and you're "destroying american jobs". So we build giant walls, and, in the meantime, all our manufacturing relocates to places with cheap labor.

      The reason illegal immigrants are treated so poorly is because people like you have made it a crime to allow people to come here and work. If we stopped paying so much money trying to beat supply and demand, and started spending money making sure the workers were well treated, then they wouldn't be an "exploited workforce" they'd just be a cheap and efficient workforce.

      First generation immigrants often do tend to be an underclass. They often come in with little education, and few skills. Second generation immigrants have the benefits of our system, and the opportunity to go to school, perhaps college. There is no such thing as a third generation immigrant. Most people in this country are third and fourth generation immigrants. That's why people want to come here. People like you don't want to have to compete with people who are willing to work for less, willing to sacrifice to make things better for their children. Me? I don't care. I don't feel like anyone owes me a living, just because I was born here.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    13. Re:Stupid. by sheldon · · Score: 1

      It never ceases to make me laugh how hard people fight to keep immigrants from doing jobs that they would never do, not in a million years. If you're worried about their treatment, then make it legal, give them the right to sue over poor conditions and workplace injuries.


      But if I did that, who would I ever get to mow my lawn?

      I sure don't want to have to do it!

    14. Re:Stupid. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      "the one in China was 100% ineffective and did not do anything."

      Well, it did help a little to keep the damn Mongorians out for a while, but they kept knocking down the Shitty Wall.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    15. Re:Stupid. by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1

      The reason illegal immigrants are treated so poorly is because people like you have made it a crime to allow people to come here and work.


      People like me? Wow. I'd no idea I've such power.

      To be clear, I'm in favor of legal immigration. I'm also in favor of making that easier to reduce wait times and backlogs.

      I don't want to see anyone exploited because they're afraid to go to the authorities if their working conditions are unsafe, their wages are substandard, et. al. .

      And I'd suggest that manufacturing in the US can be profitable, if the management of US companies were not complete idiots. Contrast and compare Ford and Honda, for instance.

    16. Re:Stupid. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You think so? Historically the worst jobs have always gone to immigrants and poorly educated people, just back then they were more likely to already be in this country.

      Anyway, you're wrong. We were hemmoraging manufacturing long before 30 years ago. First it all fled the North, to the South, where the workers were cheap, and there were no unions. Then it fled to other countries...Little countries called "Japan" and "Taiwan" were gearing up to kick ass in the 70's.

      And it's nonsense to say that its a waste to put a well educated person to work doing menial labor? The only reason PhDs aren't driving garbage trucks is because the garbage industry has bad wages? Come on! The conditions in a chicken packing plant are never going to be good...It's chicken packing. Same with fruit picking! It's terrible work, the kind of stuff no one would do if they had another choice.

      Highly skilled workers are capable of doing jobs that unskilled workers are not capable of doing. While it is true that a PhD could drive a garbage truck, that person (probably) has skills that would allow him to do work that could only be done by the comparatively tiny portion of the world that has equal skills, and it makes sense for him to do that work, rather than drive a garbage truck, a level of work that can be done by many many more people.

      But even driving the garbage truck is reasonably skilled work. Our society revolves around people who have what we consider "low skills," but these skills are much greater than the skills of people who don't have the advantages of our system. You don't need a high school education to pick fruit.

      If they finally get good fruit picking robots in production, we can put the high school grads in charge of the robots, and pay them a salary that is commensurate with the work. Until that point, it makes absolutely NO SENSE to force someone to go to school for 12 years, and then tell them they have to pick fruit, because someone has to do it, and we can't let the dirty immigrants do it! And to tell the fruit growers that the only people they can hire are these surly people who are pissed off they can't get a better job, and who have to make eight bucks an hour even though there are people who would be glad to do it for less.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    17. Re:Stupid. by FesterDaFelcher · · Score: 1

      It actually didn't work all that well. Certainly didn't keep invaders from invading.
      You've said this twice, with zero backup at all. Care to give some insight into this (false) theory? The wall(s) were WILDLY successful in stopping the constant threat of invasion from the North. During the 15-1600s, the Manchus tried for close to A HUNDRED YEARS to get past the walls, only succeeding after a traitorous border official OPENED THE GATES for them to let them through. Where do you get your info that the Wall was not incredibly successful and is one of the main reasons China is the country that it is today?
      --
      My user number is prime. Is yours?
    18. Re:Stupid. by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Shitty beef...shitty chicken...

    19. Re:Stupid. by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      When the hell has building a giant wall ever helped anything?

      Why, it sure kept all the evil capitalist clerical fascists out of East Berlin ! Don't dismiss the effectivness of a giant wall, especially when it's manned by armed goons with an order to shoot and secured with anti-personnel mines.

    20. Re:Stupid. by Detritus · · Score: 1

      Fsck you, you don't know me and I resent you projecting your own prejudices on to a complete stranger.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    21. Re:Stupid. by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      How do you force someone into a job??


      Make sure their only other option is starvation.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    22. Re:Stupid. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's hard to blame the auto companies...They've got a lot of problems that aren't of their making. Their pension system is like our social security system...It's got a lot of people drawing on it, and less and less people paying into it. Automation has dramatically cut the workforce car manufacturers need, but they're still paying pensions on people who worked for them, pre-automation.

      To offset this, they hire more people than they need, so those people can pay into the pension fund, and keep the whole thing going, but it also perpetuates the problem, and causes tons of inefficiency. There are also union obligations...Remember a few years back when the auto companies were selling SUVs at cost? The problem was a supply glut, and the reason for the glut is that the company had contracted with the unions to make X number of SUVs, and it was cheaper for them to make the SUVs that no one wanted than it was to try and get out of the contract...That stuff is everywhere, so again, inefficiency.

      I'm also in favor of legal immigration, and generally lowering the bar for entry, especially for seasonal work. There is nothing wrong with having a bunch of people who want to work in your country. I'd much rather be pro-active on the supply side; monitor the people who employ the workers, make sure conditions are acceptable, and that the workers aren't being mistreated. And give 'em the ability to sue for workplace injury, same as any other employee...There is no reason that should be restricted to only americans.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    23. Re:Stupid. by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      When the hell has building a giant wall ever helped anything?

      Will someone please tell the fucking Israelis that?

      Oh, that's right - we can't tell them anything, because they're too busy stealing Palestinian land and water to listen.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    24. Re:Stupid. by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1
      Sounds like you've got legal and illegal immigration confused.

      You and I seem to agree on this:

      Immigration is a win-win situation. We benefit from low-priced labor, freeing our better educated workforce to hold better paying, more productive jobs, and the immigrants get jobs better than the ones they left behind, allowing them a better chance to escape from the poverty of their homeland.


      However, illegal immigrants don't benefit as much from our society as legal immigrants. If they're subject to illegal working conditions ( violation of OSHA rules, for instance ) they have a disincentive to report that since they're here illegally. If they're using a false identity to work, they can't collect SSI ( for instance ) for the payroll taxes they pay via withholding... the list goes on.

      It's not the "immigrant", but the "illegal" part that's the problem. This may mean something like a guest worker program, relaxed immigration rules, what have you.
    25. Re:Stupid. by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      Make sure their only other option is starvation. That leaves way too much time for contemplation. Try guns and torture, it's faster.

    26. Re:Stupid. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      It's just common sense. If you choose between two identical products, where the only difference is cost, why would you not buy the cheaper one? Have you ever tried to buy only US made goods? It's practically impossible. I spent 3 days last x-mas trying to find a basketball that wasn't made in goddamn China.

      The secret to bringing manufacturing back to the US is lowering the labor cost, and that means bringing in immigrant labor. If you want to be able to buy "Made in the USA" that's what you're going to have to support.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    27. Re:Stupid. by Stiletto · · Score: 1

      To be clear, I'm in favor of legal immigration. I'm also in favor of making that easier to reduce wait times and backlogs.


      If you are in favor of "legal immigration" as you put it, this implies that you support the laws that define what is legal and what is illegal. Currently this law does not allow anyone who wants to, to come here and work.

      Therefore, assuming you are an American and a voter, then the statement "people like you have made it a crime to allow people to come here and work" is true.

      In a representative government, anyone in favor of a law is indirectly responsible for the problems that law causes.

    28. Re:Stupid. by Detritus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Have you looked at high school graduation rates lately? There are millions of Americans that never received a decent education, and have limited skills. Plus, there are many Americans that are willing to do seasonal or part-time work, such as in agriculture, because they want to earn some extra money. Many of my cousins did this when they were young adults and didn't have an education and a career.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    29. Re:Stupid. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Did it stop the Manchu? No. Therefore, not effective. Because it stopped them for a while it was a great success? That doesn't make any sense to me.

      Walls work for a little while. But they don't solve the problem, and time has a way of breaking them down.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    30. Re:Stupid. by photomonkey · · Score: 1

      Actually, the reason is that you put someone through 12 years of school, and he might not have to work in a chicken processing plant anymore.

      There, fixed that for ya.

      --
      Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
    31. Re:Stupid. by jerryasher · · Score: 1

      What job do you do?

      I bet it doesn't require a 12 year education to do 80% of your job. And I bet there are plenty of people from around the world qualified, and eager to come here and do your job.

      And I'm not sure anyone says that stopping the hiring of illegal immigrants would cause our economy to boom. I think what they are saying is it would help stem job losses and unemployment to American citizens.

    32. Re:Stupid. by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      No, you wouldn't.
      Ideology is easy when it doesn't hurt you (or, in this case, your pocket).

      I did not go to college, I worked and studied my way into a Senior Developer position, so how's that easy? Ideology is what drives many people to risk their lives for their country, much less their lifestyle or careers. Do not suppose your cynical views make you suited to speak for others.
      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    33. Re:Stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh... so the best option for everyone is to ensure illegal aliens arrive en mass.

      No the answer is to allow more legal immigrants, which is resisted by every conservative I know and the reasons always come down to bigotry.

    34. Re:Stupid. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ahh... so the best option for everyone is to ensure illegal aliens arrive en mass. If they complain about low wages, hazardous working conditions or exploitive management ( see: Company Store ) then we deport them. Right. Nice way to maintain a permanent underclass.

      Illegal Mexican immigrant laborers are the new slaves of the USA.

      The current system is actually a better deal than slavery was for the landowners. Okay, so they have to pay the workers, but they can pay them minimum wage and then demand kickbacks, because they're illegal. And even if they aren't illegal, if they don't have full citizenship yet you can accuse them of things and have them deported. In fact, sometimes they have INS show up on payday, and you only have to pay the few that don't get deported. Meanwhile, the USA is engaged in a systematic campaign of crapping on Mexico with drug laws, NAFTA, and direct military support (espionage, intelligence, equipment) for those whom we have found convenient throughout the years. We do this to most of Central America, but Mexico gets hit the hardest due to simple proximity.

      And all this without having to pay for chains, men with whips, or food and housing! Really, throwing a few dirty dollars to the field workers is nothing.

      Did I mention that the majority of farm subsidy money goes to major factory farming operations, too? This modern form of slavery is subsidized by the US taxpayer. We abuse Mexicans and pay higher taxes so that we can get a ninety-eight cent head of lettuce in the produce section.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    35. Re:Stupid. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm the senior administrator/programmer/dba on a financial system that deals with about 2,000,000 dollars a week. I've got 7 years of college and 3 degrees, so 19 years of education. Some of what I do could be done by someone with only a high school degree, and a fricking ton of training, but the bulk of it is hilariously abstruse, and really needs someone with a bit more skill.

      There are probably a number of people qualified to come and do my job. Frankly, that doesn't bother me, because I have a lot of skills, and there are plenty of other places I can work. I have my job because I work hard, and do a good job. I invest in training, I keep my skills current. If it comes down to it that I can't get a job anywhere anymore, I'll view that as more of a personal failing than a problem with other people having "stolen" my work.

      During the post-bomb years, when I was just finished with my second round of college, I had trouble getting work. No one was hiring. So I started my own thing, and made good money undercutting the people who wouldn't give me a job. And they complained! I was "stealing their work!" They wouldn't pay me, but they'd complain about me, they'd badmouth me to my customers, tried to shut me out of contracts! They tried to rat me out to the BSA, but that flopped because I was only deploying OSS, mostly because I couldn't afford to use anything else.

      So no, I've got no patience with that crap. If someone can do what I do, and will do it for less, then they deserve it.

      And the jobs won't stop going away because you stop illegal immigrants. They'll send the jobs overseas, like they've been doing for decades. It's a better idea to bring in MORE immigrants, restart manufacturing here using the cheaper labor, and then employ the people who lost their manufacturing jobs in the expanding service sector. The idea that you can restrict the workforce and more people will have jobs doesn't make any sense...The more people who are working, the more people who will have to work to provide those people with services. A factory that employs 500 people will give jobs to 2,500 people, and money to countless more.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    36. Re:Stupid. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's hard to blame the auto companies...They've got a lot of problems that aren't of their making. Their pension system is like our social security system...It's got a lot of people drawing on it, and less and less people paying into it.

      Where is the problem not of their making? I'm not seeing it here.

      US automakers made shitty cars and blew their good name so the Japanese made a bunch of brilliant cars and now the US automakers are fucked. If they don't suck union dick the unions will strike and make them look like assholes and they'll sell even less cars. But this is really their fault because they blew it in the seventies with total shitpiles everywhere. The Japanese made light little unibody cars while we were still fucking with stub frames. Basically, this is precisely the same thing, the US automakers were not at all forward-looking.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    37. Re:Stupid. by FesterDaFelcher · · Score: 1

      Right, and firewalls are not effective because someone could go in and maliciously open up ports. Make sure to go ahead and bring down any firewalls you have at your company, since they are obviously not effective. If Wu Sangui had not been a traitor to the Ming, the Manchus would have NEVER gotten past the Beijing wall. Anyway, that is just one example of failure, and it was brought on by an insider's betrayal, which is not the wall's fault. You still haven't come up with an example of when the wall failed. Care to give a single example?

      --
      My user number is prime. Is yours?
    38. Re:Stupid. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      I think the biggest problem is the switch from old style production methods to the newer stuff, and the number of people involved multiplied the institutional inertia to the point where it was lucky if they could get anything done.

      I don't blame them for the pension thing; that shit should be nationalized, and it's unfair to saddle a business with the welfare of decades worth of former workers. That crap killed the steel industry, and it's pretty bad for a lot of other worker-heavy industries as well...Slows the adoption of automation, and other crap that would keep us competitive.

      And unions? Shit. What else is there to say? Those bastards will drag a whole industry down trying to squeeze out a little more for themselves. Sometimes they do a good thing, and then the rest of the time they're only out for more slops in their trough.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    39. Re:Stupid. by jerryasher · · Score: 1

      I'm the senior administrator/programmer/dba on a financial system that deals with about 2,000,000 dollars a week. I've got 7 years of college and 3 degrees, so 19 years of education. Some of what I do could be done by someone with only a high school degree, and a fricking ton of training, but the bulk of it is hilariously abstruse, and really needs someone with a bit more skill.

      At the senior level, perhaps. Most likely all the people need is a tech school education in rdbms and your domain experience in your particular industry. Senior level people always have an advantage in senior level positions because of the domain experience.

      At the entry and mid levels, most likely there's lots of potential immigrants that could do the work with just a tech school degree. And people do outsource that stuff, and that's why those jobs and yours are fleeing. But for the jobs we're talking about, whether it's picking fruit, cutting up chicken, landscaping, construction, most of those jobs can't flee, and ensuring that employers are not hiring illegals will not cause those jobs to go unfilled.

      Let me ask you a different question. Are you part of a large company with multiple locations around the country? Does your company use or lobby for H1-B visa jobs? And finally, does your company have an HR department at every (relatively large) site who can take applications, inspect them, knows the jobs and the managers, and can call up a hiring manager if an applicant that walks in the door looks good?

      I think that anyone that wants to use H1-B visas or similar should have to have local hiring managers and hr people that know the local jobs and can bypass the "central resume system" and those folks should have to be able to handle walk-ins, phone calls, and letters addressed to the local office for jobs in the local office. It used to be very easy to drive to a new town and then tour all the interesting companies handing out resumes and getting on the spot interviews or interviews scheduled for later that week. Now that is a very risky, worthless strategy. Resumes go to some office 2000 miles away, are scanned, and there is no ability to opportunistically examine applicants for local work. This does nothing to help the company find qualified local applicants and does everything to help them find the need to employ h1-b visas to help keep salaries down.

    40. Re:Stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true Americans won't do those jobs. They don't have to. They are on the dole now. Sitting at home with the Xbox.

    41. Re:Stupid. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And unions? Shit. What else is there to say? Those bastards will drag a whole industry down trying to squeeze out a little more for themselves. Sometimes they do a good thing, and then the rest of the time they're only out for more slops in their trough.

      The time for unions is basically over. the fight should be for better work conditions for all, not for a few. Can't milk money and power out of that as easily, though. There's no money in doing the right thing. Now that we have labor laws, that's all unions are about - we get ours, and fuck you.

      Then again, the industry is basically flawed. I mean, think about it, if they just sold us all electric cars auto service would get cut down to like 1% of what it is now. Basically you'd have body shops, electricians, and suspension shops. Tire and wheel. Performance shops pretty much go away too. So they have every incentive to prevent progress. And don't get me started on the oil companies. Big oil is basically greed incarnate - if true evil can be said to exist, it is Big Oil.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    42. Re:Stupid. by Grandiloquence · · Score: 1

      From an economic standpoint, there's really no difference between legal and illegal immigration. An illegal immigrant may receive less benefit from immigrating because of legal restrictions, but clearly the choice is still beneficial as people are still willing to immigrate illegally.

    43. Re:Stupid. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      We're not primarily a tech company, so H1-B's aren't an issue. Otherwise to answer your questions: Yes, No, Yes.

      Still, we're doing a lot of outsourcing. They're outsourcing an entire graphic design department from 2 properties in about a month...About 50 people in total. I actually think it's stupid; one thing that the current trend toward outsourcing never takes into account is the fact that on-site workers can be pressured into overtime, and can be held accountable for a variable amount of output...e.g They can be exploited. Outsourcing companies contract at specific volumes, and if your demand exceeds that volume, you have to renegotiate, or pay a premium.

      I got hired as specifically a local applicant...I just happened to be living in town. I was actually trying to move up into the Research Triangle in N.C (North Carolina) and was meeting a lot of resistance because I didn't already live in the area...They were trying to hire local people first, and the fact that I'd grown up there and lived there until I went away to school, held no weight.

      I think you're right; a lot of jobs can be filled by tech school people. A lot of those jobs require someone onsite, however, so they're difficult to outsource. And really, we should be able to produce people who are better than the average tech school grad...That's not really high skill stuff.

      I think once the "gold rush" of IT subsides the market will normalize, and differentiate more. Too many places just hire random people, and hell, schools cater to that by putting out graduates who come without much specialization. Over time I think the degree programs will diverge (we're already seeing this with IT degrees being offered alongside CS degrees) and some of the uncertainty will leave the industry.

      As far as the H1-B thing, I'd like to see the entire program abolished, and instead of offering them guest worker status, offer them citizenship. If we brain-drain the elite from other countries, we'll pretty much secure our status at the top. Force them to grow their own local tech industry, however, and we'll have much more work to do to stay competitive.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    44. Re:Stupid. by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      "It always annoys me when people like you think that, if only we paid the fruit pickers more and threw out all the migrant workers, then our economy would somehow boom. The only thing that would boom is the cost of the fruit, and that makes everyone who buys it poorer, it makes fruit from other countries more competitive in the marketplace, and that drives domestic fruit producers out of business. . ."

      The cost of fruit would most definitely go up, but if there were suddenly 12 million jobs in the economy that had to pay competitive wages in order to attract employees, we could address the problem of "poverty" more successfully than any government handout program can. The government could extract itself from the welfare business because nobody would have any excuse but laziness or disability for needing a handout.

      All else being equal, you make a good point about imports(not just food), but bringing in illegal aliens is not the way to address competitiveness of domestic industries. We need to re-establish a FAIR and logical system of tariffs and trade barriers so countries that use slave labor and pollute the environment don't have free and open access to our markets. We, as a nation have put a $ value on environmental, health and safety and minimum wage regulations, etc. and it's only reasonable that this value be reflected in the cost of domestic goods AND imported goods.

      You also forget that illegal aliens use the same public infrastructure and public services that citizens do, so although you're saving $0.89/lb on your strawberries, you're paying more in taxes to maintain the roads, schools, prisons and government services for an increased population paying zero or artificially low taxes. The market prices of goods and services need to reflect their real costs. Allowing producers to sidestep the rules we've put in place results in distortions in the market and misallocation of resources. I don't care if my grocery bill quadruples. Just don't tax me in order to enable producers to make profits by shifting their costs onto society. /rant

    45. Re:Stupid. by sexybomber · · Score: 1

      But, I suppose anything is better than coming up with a sensible immigration policy. Gotta keep those high-paying fruit picking, chicken boning , and christmas tree cutting jobs local.

      I misread that and now I can't get the visual out of my head.
    46. Re:Stupid. by rmdir+-r+* · · Score: 1

      you're right. the one in China was 100% ineffective and did not do anything.
      ...

      sarcasm aside it CAN work and BE effective if it was not half-assed

      Except it DIDN'T work. The Manchurians still got in and conquered China.

      Not to you know, throw a monkey wrench into your argument.

    47. Re:Stupid. by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1

      From an economic perspective for an individual there seems to be a benefit to legal immigration. A legal immigrant / guest worker / what have you would seem to get greater benefits from their legal status.

      So, would that mean then that politically / legally it would make more sense to eliminate citizenship/residency requirements?

    48. Re:Stupid. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Yea, sure. The people who employ those workers depend on the low cost of labor to stay in business...erase that, they go out of business, and those 12 million jobs dry up. Local fruit producers go out of business, but the stuff from overseas now costs too much because of your damn tariffs...Sounds like a nightmare. The exorbitant cost of labor in this country is the reason there are so few blue collar jobs left.

      And tariffs...Yech...All that will do is ensure that we pay more for everything we buy. It may make sense for critical industries, but certainly not across the board, and certainly not for foodstuffs. You want to have problems with the poor, by all means increase the price of all food. Look at countries like France; do you want their economy? It's been in the crapper for 50 years. Sure the workers get high wages, excellent benefits, long vacations...Only problem is, there aren't enough jobs! And you think our problems with welfare are bad? Theirs are crippling.

      Countries that engage in bad labor practices will reap what they sow; those things come back to haunt you for centuries. China, as an example, has a demographic bump coming down the line that is so economically terrifying that they're opening their markets, and polluting their country in a desperate attempt to build enough prosperity that they will be able to survive it when those workers become too old to work, and their legally-mandated one-child-per-family (who is probably male, and likely unmarried) is going to have to support them because the state can't afford to. The problem is, the pollution and poor working conditions are causing a health care crisis already, and worst of all, the falling dollar means their products cost more and more, which eats away at their trade advantage.

      Welfare is nothing compared to Social Security, and we're about to be in a situation where we're going to have way more people taking from social security than paying into it, while having a diminishing workforce. That problem China has coming in a few decades, we have coming in one. Bringing in a bunch of cheap labor to help restart our stagnant local manufacturing sector will boost our economy across the board, and the money that they would pay in (which we could collect if we allowed them to work LEGALLY) could offset some of those costs for the rest of us.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    49. Re:Stupid. by codepunk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First off it is illegal to pay anyone less than minimum wage. If there are employers doing this they need to be jailed and or fined.

      Second when I was 12 years old I worked in the fields, pulling weeds of all things. Yes the work sucked badly
      and the pay was crap but I had a job and earned a wage. A few years later I ended up working in a meat packing plant I was 16 at the time. Yes it was a nasty job but yet again here is a legal white male citizen doing a job that all the idiots say nobody would do. A few years after that yet again making barely over minimum wage running a saw in a lumber mill, hot nasty physical work.

      Now granted I make a great deal more today but the work ethic I gained as a young man doing these so
      called unwanted jobs contributed 100% to my financial success at a older age.

      Your remarks are complete BS, there is plenty of legal citizens that would like, deserve and perhaps even
      like these jobs. Hell my wife makes just barely over minimum wage making pizza's, the funny thing is that
      the money does not matter to her, she loves her job.

      --


      Got Code?
    50. Re:Stupid. by ChocoBean · · Score: 1

      Every time we Chinese build a wall those dang Mogorians come and climb all over it! >:E Literally! And then they took over our government! WTF?

    51. Re:Stupid. by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      So, because something might have a failure point, it should never be done?
      Most defensive systems are layered because it is understood that each layer may fail; but, taken as a whole the system should be close to bullet-proof. This is part of the problem with the fence plan, it is being promoted as a panacea to the problem of illegal immigration, it won't be. But what it is, is another layer to prevent illegal immigration.
      Right now, the border has nothing to prevent crossing along large stretches; and unsurprisingly, it is being crossed regularly. A physical fence will serve to slow down or redirect crossings. A virtual fence would provide some warning to border guards about an attempt. And assuming that the federal government actually cared enough to fund the program, the border guards would be able to stop the crossing. Would it be perfect? Not likely, but really, show me a complex system which is. This then needs to be followed up further in, the catch and release of illegal immigrants needs to be stopped. The people who employ illegal immigrants need to punished (mind you, I said people, fining companies is a good start, but people need to end up in jail over it; starting with C-Level execs).

      After that, we need to start looking at how to get immigrants here legally to do the low end jobs. As you have put forth several times, it is beneficial for us here in the US to have immigrant labor. But it needs to be controlled for a number of reasons. First and foremost, is the treatment of the people in those jobs. Illegal immigrants are often treated little better than slaves, and possibly worse. At the very least a slave owner had some incentive to keep a slave alive and in reasonable health, a new slave was expensive; a new illegal immigrant is just a trip to the corner away and the old one will probably do you the favor of going somewhere else to die. The second reason is that we do not want a large, disaffected underclass. These tend to cause problems such as crime. Lastly, for tax purposes. These people should be paying taxes and receiving the benefits of those taxes. I want people who come here to have access to our education system and, if they pay into it, our social security system.

      In the end, this is probably along the lines of a guest worker program. That's fine, but considering that the last time illegal immigration was a hot button issue (in the 80's) we tried the amnesty first, and we'll get around to the enforcement later; it failed. I want to try it the other way 'round this time. Prove to me that we will actually control our borders, and then we'll talk about how to deal with the labor needs. Fool me once...

      And the last piece of the puzzle, is going to be how to allow our farmers and manufacturers to deal with international competition. If we actually enforce some standards on the working conditions of these types of jobs, it is going to raise prices. With competition from other countries, without these standards, our local producers will not be able to compete. Now, the way I see it, we're going to need to do a two way approach. First, we may well have to establish a second level of minimum wage for those jobs such as picking berries. It's probably not going to be something we would view as a livable wage, with livable defined by the current standard of living in the US middle class; but it will be more than the pittance and often with-held wages illegal immigrants receive now. It would also give the immigrant workers some legal standing and backing to get those wages. We will also need to accept that those jobs will not carry the benefits most Americans take for granted (medical, dental, paid leave, etc.). Safety and health codes though, should be kept up and inspected.

      These changes alone probably won't be enough; after all, having some working standards is probably more expensive than a sweatshop in China using forced labor. The second part of this approach is going to be a certain level of isolationism. We are going to have

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    52. Re:Stupid. by jerryasher · · Score: 1

      I think it's a good sign your company has local HR that can opportunistically take a resume or forward a phone call. I would *like* to think that having this ability becomes a competitive advantage and makes it easier for companies to find good candidates and hire them, something they would presumably want to do.

    53. Re:Stupid. by maxume · · Score: 1

      There doesn't seem to be a 'certified fair labor' movement developing. There are people who work pretty hard to buy union made, but they don't seem to carry that attitude into the grocery store. If there was, at least you wouldn't be able to laugh at their hypocrisy.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    54. Re:Stupid. by steelfood · · Score: 1

      It actually didn't work all that well. Certainly didn't keep invaders from invading. It would have been far more effective (and cheaper) to just have a better military.

      Actually, it did, and you should up on it before you make such an assertion. Wikipedia is a good place to start.

      The last (and arguably the only) invaders to get past the current great wall that was built by the Ming were the Manchurians, who then overthrew the Ming dynasty and became the Ching/Qing dynasty. However, this wasn't because the wall itself was ineffective, but because one of the Ming officials' father whom had successfully repelled the Manchurians was executed in the most gruesome manner for his services to the Emperor (bits and pieces of his flesh were slowly cut away until he was dead). This in turn caused him to betray his Emperor and quite literally open the gates for the Manchurians to enter.

      The other successful invasions by outsiders did not involve walls, as previously built walls had already decayed to ruins due to neglect, or there never had been a wall where the invasion began, or someone let the invaders in.

      Regardless, having a wall without someone patrolling it and upkeeping it would be moot. Both a wall and a human force is necessary. A wall alone would be ineffective in that it wouldn't actually prevent people from crossing. People alone would be ineffective in that there's simply not enough people to stop everyone from entering. And a wall of people, well that'd be best, but good luck finding enough people to do that. Not even the illegals would be willing to stand out there in the desert arm-linked for 8 hours at a time...

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    55. Re:Stupid. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Do you buy only US made/grown goods? Do you only support companies that adhere to fair labor practices? Unless you're living in a commune, growing your own food and making your own clothes, that's extremely unlikely.

      The government sponsored a program a while back to push the "Made in the USA" brands. They had billboards, licensing, radio and tv spots...It flopped. Made in the US gear is too expensive, and the vast majority of consumers vote with their wallets. Autoworkers leave their plants and head straight to Wal-Mart to buy whatever slave produced mass market crap happens to be on the shelves.

      Implying someone else is unpatriotic or lazy because you don't agree with them is a pretty sorry indicator of your personal ideology.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    56. Re:Stupid. by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      Implying someone else is unpatriotic or lazy because you don't agree with them is a pretty sorry indicator of your personal ideology.

      When someone implies that, I will agree. I did no such thing. Might want to reread it. To say that ideology does not overcome self-interest is simply wrong. To tell someone that they WILL behave a certain way, as the GP did, was arrogance (with a measure of ignorance). I called him on it.

      Most of your post is not arguing the point but, a perceived slight, that someone might have brought nationalism into a logical debate about American behavior.
      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    57. Re:Stupid. by Slithe · · Score: 1

      Okay, put you will likely pay more, eventually.

      Anyway, the labor cost of picking fruit is a small fraction of the total cost. The labor cost of strawberries, a notoriously labor-intensive crop, is only six percent. If wages were to double, that would mean labor costs would only be ~11%. So, for every dollar spent on strawberries, six or eleven pennies would go to laborers. That is not very much.

      Plus, being low-skilled workers, there are a lot of other "hidden costs":

      Health Care

      Schools

      Road Construction

      House Prices

      Let's not even get into the possible political consequences.

      There are some sound non-ideological reasons for beeing leery of uncontrolled immigration.

      --
      ---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
    58. Re:Stupid. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It actually didn't work all that well. Certainly didn't keep invaders from invading.

      It worked as well as the Maginot line. No one ever crossed it. Period. That's what it was made for, and it worked. That the plan was flawed doesn't mean the implementation wasn't perfect.

    59. Re:Stupid. by Slithe · · Score: 1

      How much money are you willing to sink into putting a goddamn WALL around the country? I frankly don't think it will ever work, Well, the Israeli wall has been very effective at keeping out suicide bombers, who are a lot more determined than coyotes ever will be. Mexico seems to think that it can keep out people by building a fence along their Guatemala border.

      sure if we put as much money into it as we put into Iraq, I bet we could stop the immigration across the land, but I don't think that would be sufficient in the long run. If people want in, they'll get in. It would probably not cost nearly that much. Maybe, it might cost ~$7.4 Billion to build.

      Tax their salaries to help pay for the demographic hellhole that will be this country for the next 30 or so years. Which demographic hellhole are you referring to?

      That means we will need those people; we will need their labor, and we will need the tax revenue to pay for services for the huge chunk of society that's going to be retired. Right, low-skilled workers who take more in benefits than they pay in taxes are going to pay for Social Security and Medicare.
      --
      ---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
    60. Re:Stupid. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Sure, sure, people are dying to do these crap jobs, and it's only the evil illegal immigrant, or his legal migrant worker cousins that are stealing this dream of backbreaking labor from the indigent unemployed.

      You sound like you have had an interesting life, but I'm sure you recognize that you're the exception rather than the rule. I've worked my share of hard jobs, from cutting tobacco to building houses, and it definitely influenced my desire to do something that involved air conditioning and no bloody blisters, but I know it's not everyone who wants to do those jobs...Especially these days; you never get suburban kids who run out to do the hard labor...If the GAP isn't hiring, they just mooch off their indulgent parents.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    61. Re:Stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      definitely overrated. no logic, just pure "i'm right cause i say so"

    62. Re:Stupid. by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      But this is really their fault because they blew it in the seventies with total shitpiles everywhere.

      Yes and no.

      US automakers were doing OK in the 90s, mostly propped up by every idiot having to buy a bigger and bigger SUV than the next guy. Then gas prices went up (surprise!)

      I agree US automakers are dumbasses, and it only took a couple brain cells to figure out gas prices would go up at SOME point. I just think they're dumbasses for different reasons.

      --
      AccountKiller
    63. Re:Stupid. by Brother+Seamus · · Score: 1

      It actually didn't work all that well.
      That's only because the stupid Chinese emperor turned around and researched Gunpowder, thus making his civilization's own wonder obsolete.
    64. Re:Stupid. by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 2, Funny

      Some years ago, there was a scandal here (Canada) when the federal government had a bunch of "Buy Canadian!" stickers printed up for some kind of a promotional thing, and the back of the sheets said "printed in USA". Apparently the lowest-bidding printer was US-based.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  9. You joke, but... by geoffrobinson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It amazes me that the Mexican president encourages illegal immigration into this country and calls those of us who want immigration laws to be followed racist or anti-Latino. All the while, they have stringent immigration laws for those coming to Mexico and are trying to build a fence with Guatemala.

    The chutzpah is unbelievable.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    1. Re:You joke, but... by arivanov · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It does not amaze me in the slightest.

      Mexicans sending money home - surplus money.

      Other Latin Americans illegally entering the country and sending money home - lose money.

      This is also not just Mexico, but all over the world. In some places it is actually legal. Poland is exporting workforce to the UK and importing from Belorussia and Ukraine. Romania is exporting workforce to Italy and Spain and is importing from Moldova. And so on. And all of them try to restrict influx while very happily consuming money sent home by gastarbeihters.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    2. Re:You joke, but... by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In a recent conversation with a tour guide/historian while standing in the ancient Roman coluseum in Verona, Italy, this exact topic came up. The structure was built with slave labor at the height of the Roman empire's economic/military juice (it's quite a thing to see, really - but a shame that the outer ring of the thing got clobbered in an earthquake... though that provided lots of nice Extreme Makeover supplies for the local architects working on the town's other buildings). During the summer, they have a regular rotation of opera performances (sans amplification - very quaint, very cool) on stages/sets that have to be loaded in and out and rapidly changed. The work is done in the sweltering heat during the day. It's hugely labor intensive, and almost entirely done by eastern Europeans who are the equivalent of the migrant workers that pick lettuce in California. The guide (herself a native Veronese) said, "Oh, Italians would never do that job - it would kill them!" She also made jokes about how it would scuff their shoes. Mind you, she's a local, so she's allowed.

      But she also talked about the utter lack of affordable housing for the workers, the huge crime problem that comes with (and between) them, the large camps of them that live under bridges, etc. But the Romanians (largely) she referred to come and do it, rack up the cash, and them take it or send it home. The main point was that this is as old as time (well, as old as relatively modern civilization, anyway). Sure, the Romans did it at the point of a spear, and the (ironically named) Romanians are doing it out of an interest in clawing their way back from the ravages of life under a typically nasty Socialist regime... but the notion of having "other people" do certain kinds of work is, literally, a classic.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:You joke, but... by grassy_knoll · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You beat me too it.

      From the all knowing wikipedia

      Remittances, or contributions sent by Mexicans living abroad, mostly in the United States, to their families at home in Mexico, are a substantial and growing part of the Mexican economy; they comprised $18 billion in 2005.[52] In 2004, they became the second largest source of foreign income after crude oil exports, roughly equivalent to foreign direct investment (FDI) and larger than tourism expenditures; and represented 2.5 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product.[53] The growth of remittances has been remarkable: they have more than doubled since 1997. Recorded remittance transactions exceeded 41 million in 2003, of which 86 percent were made by electronic transfer.[40]


      [ tinfoil ]
      Why, it's almost as if illegal immigration from Mexico is overlooked by the US Government as a method of foreign aid to Mexico. US corporations get cheap disposable labor ( if the workers complain they get deported ), Mexico gets an infusion of cash to prop up their government.
      [ /tinfoil ]

    4. Re:You joke, but... by es330td · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The chutzpah is unbelievable.
      I'd be more inclined to say "admirable." Given that it is estimated that more than 10% of Mexico's GDP comes from money sent back home from the US he's doing everything he can to improve his economy. Just think about his situation: he gets to govern a country with an income that goes up when people leave the country. People who are out of the country don't consume servives or materials and don't commit crimes. He should be doing everything he can to keep people coming across Mexico's southern border.
    5. Re:You joke, but... by cHiphead · · Score: 1

      Theres nothing tinfoil about your speculation, its right on the mark.

      Personally, I'm all for illegal immigration, Mexican food just isn't the same with a legal immigrant cooking it.

      Cheers.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    6. Re:You joke, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      True, except Mexico is losing it's best workers to America. The people who cross the border aren't the fat lazy people that anti-immigration people would have you believe, they are the inspired, the people who are willing to leave home to a dangerous place to find better wages. What's left behind isn't healthy for Mexico. To me this is the worst part of this whole situation as it means improving conditions in Mexico will be very hard.

    7. Re:You joke, but... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why, it's almost as if illegal immigration from Mexico is overlooked by the US Government as a method of foreign aid to Mexico. US corporations get cheap disposable labor ( if the workers complain they get deported ), Mexico gets an infusion of cash to prop up their government.

      It's part of the circle. We are the largest consumer of Mexican drugs (we're one of the world's largest producers of cannabis but still consume the lion's share of the product from mexico... we're also the world's largest consumer of cocaine as per the CIA WFB) which both puts money and crime into their country. We support military regimes in Mexico; you could buy a car in Brazil and drive towards Canada and the hardest part to get through would probably be Mexico. There's 16 year olds toting M-16s and wearing green (probably both US Military castoffs) serving all over that country. Mexico is a pit and we made it that way intentionally. Partly because we could put Maquiladoras there and get cheap products out of Mexico even before NAFTA, and partly because we need Mexicans to come up here and pick fruits and vegetables.

      I'm from Santa Cruz, which is surrounded by seas, mountains... and farmland. I'm living in Kelseyville which was Oaks before whitey got here, then we cut them down and built with them or burned them and planted walnuts specifically to deny the natives their food source (the Walnuts were never significantly economically beneficial to the region) and which later became the pear capital of the US and possibly the world. Now it's turning into almost all grapes. The pears and the grapes alike were and are picked by Mexicans more or less exclusively, although some white guys occasionally work in the packing sheds. And, I live in the boonies with vineyards in both directions down our road so I see Mexicans at work almost every time I leave my house. Some of them are legals and live in my neighborhood, of course. But any agricultural anything in California depends heavily on migrant labor, much of which is illegal (I had a Mexican Martin Espinoza using my social to get jobs, but he never paid taxes of course - I had some fun with that one) and that's just how it is.

      The simple fact is that Mexico is our bitch. Sorry Mexico and Mexicans, it's true. I doubt things are going to get substantially better there unless they get substantially saner here, and I don't see that happening.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:You joke, but... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      How does money improve his economy? Shouldn't he be focusing on growing the wealth of mexicans?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    9. Re:You joke, but... by RockClimbingFool · · Score: 0

      No they are not. They are the people who cannot qualify to get a visa. And which types of people are unable to qualify for visas? Usually criminals.

    10. Re:You joke, but... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Personally, I'm all for illegal immigration, Mexican food just isn't the same with a legal immigrant cooking it."

      Trouble is...it isn't only Mexican food they're cooking. Illegals are displacing US workers of all ethnicities in restaurants...so, they're now doing ALL styles of food..French, Italian, etc...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:You joke, but... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Given that it is estimated that more than 10% of Mexico's GDP comes from money sent back home from the US..."

      There's an idea. Let's make it MORE difficult, and expensive to send money out of the US to Mexico!!

      How about no more Western Union out of the US...or if to MX...tax it by half??

      I usually am 100% against using taxes to drive behavior, but, in this case....it might not be a bad idea. We'd be catching up on the tax dollars that the illegals aren't paying in the first place, eh?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    12. Re:You joke, but... by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Yep. You are straight on the mark. And the relationship between USA and Latin America (not just Mexico) has been going on for more than 150 years now.

      It is enough to read O'Henry's "Cabbages and Kings" and see how little has changed since.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  10. Why bother? by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Funny

    They are slowly annexing us by moving here.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Why bother? by Stiletto · · Score: 1


      You're modded "funny" but sadly, a lot of people believe that nonsense.

      It's like saying India is "annexing" us, because they send a lot of IT workers here. Total rubbish, but it appeals to the closet racists and nationalists that are all around us.

    2. Re:Why bother? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      And, you must admit, among the hispanics as well.

      One of the absolute stupidest move they could pull was to fly mexican flags and talk about taking the land back for mexico. That got a lot of people's attention about how many of them were here.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  11. As the previous architect of... by Assmasher · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...a wide area surveillance group, I would like to suggest a few reasons why this occurred, especially given what we know of Boeing's attempt to provide a solution.

    Wide Area Surveillance is, like any real world 'enterprise' solution, complex. That is not to say it is not achievable, it is just not something you decide to do on a whim ;). There's a vast amount of 'learning through pain' which (of course) teaches you how to avoid stumbling blocks in the future. WAS is a fusion of architectural planning, mechanical engineering, network engineering, environmental engineering, and software engineering. It is also one of the more difficult management projects due to the fact that very few companies (almost none) have the in-house departments/divisions to handle all aspects of it; ergo, most companies do the more natural 'I am the lead contractor, you all can sub-contract to me for utilities, HVAC, network topology, integration software, camera systems, electromagnetic fences', et cetera.

    This means that during the bidding process for these jobs, as with any $$$LARGE$$$ government contract, much of the sub-contracting can be political and very rarely results in a proffered solution that is 'best in breed' in all (or even most) areas.

    This is all very normal. The real difficulty is in identifying which aspects of a WAS solution will kill your project. For example, the article claims that using off the shelf commercial software for dispatchers was a serious issue. I can tell you from experience, there's no way that this derailed the project. There are several companies (the one I used to work at is one for example) that specialize in integrating their 'command & control' (for lack of a more encompassing term) suites with 3rd party streaming video, network systems, hardware devices, et cetera. The relative cost of these systems varies from very low (with a fair amount of services work being entailed) to moderate (where you get far more C&C stuff than you plan to use but it's there if you need it in the future - but they fully integrate the things you do need off the bat.)

    Usually the biggest problems are from poor planning at the start or 'mid course correction' by people who didn't make careful consideration of their options up front regarding the physical infrastructure required. A good example of this is 'pole placement.' One of the easiest, conceptually, methods of watching swathe of territory where there isn't supposed to be much activity is to use a high quality camera mounted (usually mounted on a Pan/Tilt/Zoom gimbal) on a tall pole. How tall? THAT is the question my friends. From a cost point of view you want to put them up as high as is feasible given the terrain and what the local survey should be. This means less poles, less cameras, and less overall costs to cover a wider area; HOWEVER, the higher you put that camera the more difficult the installation of the pole because I assure you that putting a camera 60 feet off the ground results in shaking, deflection, twisting, and all kinds of other frame stabilization nightmares. Usually what happens is that the project denotes the max camera heights, assigns what types of poles/towers will support the cameras, how they will be built in order to overcome problems like these and then 6 months later they change the camera heights (usually because they want to cut out a few poles and the neighboring cameras must take up the slack), bingo you're well thought out and budgeted pole no longer serves your needs.

    It is at this point that the reader will think 'ok, then we need to redesign the poles right? No big deal...' Sadly this does not usually happen. The change request costs associated outweight the money saved on the pole changes but that doesn't mean they won't still use the wrong poles and save a hundred thousand on camera costs, they'll just try to hack some solution like putting a frame stabilizer black box on the back of the camera, because that should work, right? ;)

    --
    Loading...
    1. Re:As the previous architect of... by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Usually the biggest problems are from poor planning at the start or 'mid course correction' by people who didn't make careful consideration of their options up front regarding the physical infrastructure required. A good example of this is 'pole placement.'...

      A good example indeed, and the "then 6 months later they change the camera heights" is the sort of stupid non-planning that kills projects in all areas of engineering. You simply cannot change parts of a system on a whim and expect that the system as a whole still works. Whoever let this happen on part of Boeing made a big mistake.

      Another point is that this looks like a project that was pushed with an unrealistic timeline from the beginning, probably for political reasons. We had a similar case in Germany a few years ago, with the "Toll Collect" system for automated charging of highway tolls for heavy trucks.
      The system was supposed to be up and running within a year from signing the contracts, but it actually took more than two years to make it work. Like in the case of "Virtual Fence", politicians wanted to demonstrate drive and competency by getting something up fast. Of course, such attempts rarely succeed. ;-)
      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
  12. Oh Vey by BlueBoxSW.com · · Score: 0, Redundant

    How do large companies get away with selling then delivering crap? I always have to make my stuff work before I get paid.

    1. Re:Oh Vey by Detritus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because that's what the government ordered. You may know that it's a piece of crap that will never work properly, but any decisions on modifications, redesign or cancellation are made by the customer. The customer gets what he wants, even if he is an idiot.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:Oh Vey by owlnation · · Score: 1

      How do large companies get away with selling then delivering crap? I always have to make my stuff work before I get paid.
      Pareto Optimality. It's what corporations live for. They have stats that prove around 80% of their customers are happy. Never mind that no-one in the company cares about the other 20%, nor is making any effort to increase quality into that margin. No-one in a corporation is trying to be perfect, they are all trying to be good enough to meet the 80% service level target. If you are a perfectionist in a corporation you'll be a very unhappy person.

      Hence, anything from a corporation is only 80% worthwhile. This virtual wall probably does stop 80% of Mexicans. It is thus probably sold as a success to Boeing Shareholders. The fact that is obviously pointless, ineffective, and a ridiculous waste of money is irrelevant.
    3. Re:Oh Vey by spun · · Score: 1

      While all very good points, how does they relate to Pareto efficiency? I thought a Pareto improvement was when you could reallocate things so at least one person was better off without anyone else being worse off. And Pareto optimality is when you can't make any more Pareto improvements. Maybe you're saying companies continue to make their customers better off only until that would mean they make themselves worse off?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    4. Re:Oh Vey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you're saying companies continue to make their customers better off only until that would mean they make themselves worse off?

      Yes, given the choice of poisoning millions of kids with lead paint and the CEO getting one less yacht, clearly Mr. Pareto says the kids have to go.

    5. Re:Oh Vey by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Actually just because something doesn't stop all mexicans doesn't mean it's a waste.

      If you do immigration right, you get _some_ choice over who stays (yes some will still sneak in).

      Depending on your criterion that might actually be good for your country.

      Naturally if your criterion is just lots of $$$ (e.g. Australia has a policy like that) then you get a bunch of people who got rich some how, which might not be that great long term - after all the USA has lots of rich people already. But hey if that's what a country wants, it's up to them.

      Could be brains, looks, or could even be "niceness" if you can figure out a way to put a number to it :).

      In the past I think the US took a lot of scientists from Germany and other places, and while some were dubious people, many did contribute to making US a leader in science and technology.

      In contrast residentship/citizenship by birth is quite random :).

      --
    6. Re:Oh Vey by spun · · Score: 1

      Well, that's not the problem. Because Mr. Pareto clearly does not say that. Poisoning the kids makes them worse off, so that's not a Pareto improvement. The problem is, it's also not a Pareto improvement to take Mr. CEOs yacht and use the proceeds to feed the kids. According to Pareto, if the kids are starving, it's not a good thing that anyone else should have to go without a yacht, or some coke and hookers, or whatever, in order for the kids to live. The Pareto efficiency concept is of no use in addressing the inherent imbalances and downright unfairness of our current resource allocation scheme.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    7. Re:Oh Vey by tshak · · Score: 1

      The customer gets what he wants, even if he is an idiot.

      Not if it damanges my good name.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  13. The Fence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The fence is nothing more than our govt saying hey look we are doing something. I would
    much rather see all this money spent on something that "will" work like enforcement. If
    you heavily fine, jail, imprison anyone employing and or providing services such as housing
    etc to a illegal the problem will correct itself. In my opinion these employers, landlords
    etc are harboring fugitives and should be punished just as any other criminal guilty of
    the same thing.

    Pump all this money into employment enforcement including bounties on information leading to arrest
    of employers and or fugitives.

  14. This is why I always laugh at NASA promises by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The U.S. government is such a laughable morass of bureaucracy, exploitative contractors, incompetence, and outright ignorance that any huge project with big promises has to be viewed with suspicion (if not outright laughter). Anyone remember the FBI database overhaul debacle?

    NASA, the FBI, etc. all seem to follow the same pattern. They get the idea in their head for something big (usually as the result of politicians putting it there or the need to make it look like they're doing something about some big problem). Then they contract the technical stuff out to some contractor who feeds them a line of bullshit (instead of hiring their own people to do it, the way NASA did it in the 60's). Then they hold a big press conference, in which they make grandiose promises about how great this new thing will be (the best ones are accompanied by CGI animation of said great thing). Then they give some contractor a shitload of money. Then the contractor ends up in delays and overruns, forcing government agency to give them even MORE money. Then the contractor either doesn't deliver anything usable at all, delivers a shoddy piece of shit that doesn't even come close to the original promise, or simply delays it until the administration changes or the project gets canceled. Rinse. Wash. Repeat.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:This is why I always laugh at NASA promises by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Everything you said is true not only of the govt but private enterprise as well. A great percentage of large-scale IT projects, in particular, fail.

    2. Re:This is why I always laugh at NASA promises by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      Yep, there is a reason for all these Dilbert cartoons.

    3. Re:This is why I always laugh at NASA promises by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Sure... the larger the corporation, the more it resembles a government.

      The people who make the decisions are several hierarchy levels removed from those who actually get things done. This results in a disconnect from reality, with all the negative aspects of appearance being more important than competence, turf wars, plus maybe some corruption thrown in.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    4. Re:This is why I always laugh at NASA promises by RockClimbingFool · · Score: 1

      Then they contract the technical stuff out to some contractor who feeds them a line of bullshit (instead of hiring their own people to do it, the way NASA did it in the 60's).

      Contractors built all the hardware for NASA in the 60's. NASA provided general specs for the hardware, but the contractors designed and built it. What NASA did is train the astronauts and operate the vehicles and systems. Not to mention dump way, way more money into the program back then.

    5. Re:This is why I always laugh at NASA promises by TheSync · · Score: 1

      NASA, the FBI, etc. all seem to follow the same pattern. They get the idea in their head for something big (usually as the result of politicians putting it there or the need to make it look like they're doing something about some big problem). Then they contract the technical stuff out to some contractor who feeds them a line of bullshit

      I'd argue that most large public-sector software development failures reflect more upon the public-sector organization than the contractors.

      For example, the FBI Virtual Case File system was mostly done in by weak blueprints (because no one in the FBI was willing to make a decision because that could be a problem for internal politics), then the requirements kept changing (again, because the interlocking politics makes it difficult for anyone to actually specify something).

      Now it is true that many contractors love to eat up the money for over-runs due to bad and changing requirements...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Case_File

      In truth, most private-sector large software projects also fail because of badly defined system requirements, but there is more hope in the private sector for a single "neck wringer" to make actual decisions.

      Why software projects fail:
      http://spectrum.ieee.org/sep05/1685
      http://www.stylusinc.com/Common/Concerns/SoftwareProjectsFailure.php

    6. Re:This is why I always laugh at NASA promises by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      Everything parent post describes happened on this virtual fence failure, from what I read on it today. The contractor was Boeing.

            There's a bit of focus here on hardware because the submitter focused on that, but that only had to do with inability to estimate a cost to complete the project, which estimates are worthless anyway and the people involved are all liars except for the damn liars. So forget hardware. That's a government spin lie.

            The failure was software, pure and simple. They also blame bandwidth and latency from using satellite transmission, which they plan now to replace with microwave at who knows how much cost, when data processors at source could probably pre-process and limit need for bandwisth, sheesh, we're talking about movement sensors for crying out loud. But failure was fundamenrtal inability to process in near real time volume of sensor data, and the volume was limited by bamdwidth to boot.

            They paid Boeing $30 million for this failure, while also giving them $64 million more to write a command and control system to handle the data, and gave them a government battle management system software as a base package. Whether that works or not as is who knows.

            The sensor data needed to be processed to aim cameras toward the sensors triggered, then message a nearby unit to intercept if visually confirmed.

              Google or Sun could do this with interns in a summer camp, or any number of accomplished open source teams could do it even better, especially for $94 million minus hardware and installation.

            It's just inability of these vendors everytime to be able to write software. Our tax dollars funnelled through the public teat, with programmers actually doing the work on hind teat.

        rd

  15. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by slapout · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I could be that he was responding to demand from the people.

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  16. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by kellyb9 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And this makes the Bush administration different from others how?

  17. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Umm, no. Bush's cabinet is nothing more than Reagan era cronies in a last ditch effort to model the world to their image before they take their long dirt nap. This is nothing more than pumping money into US companies to keep them artificially large, and hire more people. It's a make-work program, and the Republicans have been doing that for just as long as the democrats have been. The repubs are just better at hiding it.

  18. In Soviet Russia ... by rbg · · Score: 1

    the fence jumps you

  19. Walmart by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just build the Great Walmart of America. One side is the employee entrance, the other side for customer.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Walmart by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      All deliveries come via the Western gate, as it's closer to China.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    2. Re:Walmart by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      And all managers enter from the eastern gate, as it's close to The Bahamas. :-)

    3. Re:Walmart by inexia · · Score: 1

      ...and the donkey show is somewhere in between...

  20. what do you expect for virtual by FudRucker · · Score: 0, Redundant

    a virtual fence would only keep out virtual illegal border crossers...

    -welcome to the real world-

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  21. Lean from China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let them come over, employ them to build a great wall, then push them back the other side.

  22. DHS vs basic math by unchiujar · · Score: 4, Informative

    some relevant quotes
    "Boeing has already been paid $20.6 million for the pilot project, and in December, the DHS gave the firm another $65 million to replace the software with military-style, battle management software. "
    "Boeing has said that the initial effort, while flawed, still has helped Homeland Security apprehend 2,000 illegal immigrants since September"
    A quick division $85 600 000 / 2 000 gives $42 800 per illegal immigrant. And this is the cost to the taxpayer without personnel salaries and other expenses, just what was payed to Boeing. I strongly doubt that each illegal immigrant, if not apprehended, will cost the US tax payers $42 800.

    --
    Shakespeare poems - infinite monkeys with infinite time.Computer tech support - a few trained ones working from 9 to 5.
    1. Re:DHS vs basic math by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Quite the reverse. Cheap labor drives down the cost of domestically produced goods, which increases their appeal to consumers (both foreign and domestic), and the cheap labor, while they may send a portion of their income home to their country of origin, spends a goodly chunk of that income here, on goods and services.

      Immigrant labor has, historically, always been a boon to the economy. The only real issue here, is how poorly they're treated, and that has nothing to do with building walls.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    2. Re:DHS vs basic math by jo42 · · Score: 1

      It would be cheaper to give each illegal $42,799 to stay in Mexico, nyet?

    3. Re:DHS vs basic math by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      A quick division $85 600 000 / 2 000 gives $42 800 per illegal immigrant. And this is the cost to the taxpayer without personnel salaries and other expenses, just what was payed to Boeing. I strongly doubt that each illegal immigrant, if not apprehended, will cost the US tax payers $42 800.
      *sigh*

      Chevrolet invested (just making up a number here) $120 million developing the Chevrolet Volt. So far, not a single unit has been sold! Dividing 120 million by zero tells us that the whole project has been a huge waste. Clearly the Chevy Volt is an utter failure, and should be scrapped ASAP.
    4. Re:DHS vs basic math by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      speaking of quotes. My father heard the following gem that summed it up nicely. "I'll believe in a virtual fence as soon as they replace the physical fence around the white house with one."

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    5. Re:DHS vs basic math by jayco · · Score: 1

      Most if not all illegal immigrants do not pay for health insurance, but still get sick/injured and have other needs that require medical attention. They go to the hospitals for this treatment, and even if they have to wait in an emergency room for 10 hours they will get treated and dismissed. The hospitals cost for this treatment is not free, and not tax deductible. It is a cost that gets divied up and passed along to everyone that can pay for their healthcare through insurance. There are millions of illegal immigrants in this country that the average jo-shmo tax payer supports every year. I am not saying that we need to remove all of these people, because of the harm it will do to the economy, but something needs to be done about stopping the process because the cost are rising for us citizens. I don't know about you all, but my budget is already tight and spending more on taxes to pay for more illegals makes me choose between food and electricity sometimes.

    6. Re:DHS vs basic math by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      That's a bit like building a power plant, distribution lines, home wiring, and a light socket, screwing in a lightbulb, and declaring it a massively expensive failure when the lightbulb burns out. Many project failures will appear massively expensive when there's also a failure to take advantage of economies of scale. For example, the B-2 is always quoted as being a two-billion-dollar aircraft, when that price takes into account R&D costs. Crashing a B-2 and building a new one doesn't really cost an extra two billion dollars, and Northrop quoted the USAF a price of a half billion each in the 1990s to build more.

    7. Re:DHS vs basic math by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I strongly doubt that each illegal immigrant, if not apprehended, will cost the US tax payers $42 800.
      I don't, it's probably pretty much in the ballpark, add in education for their children, Dr's and Hospitals getting stiffed for goods and services, fraudulent welfare benefits. $42K is probably a deal even when you subtract out SSI and income taxes on duplicate SSN's.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    8. Re:DHS vs basic math by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      There are millions of illegal immigrants in this country that the average jo-shmo tax payer supports every year.

      And many illegals make up SSNs and pay taxes under false names, yet fail to file returns for the money "due" them at the end because they are illegal. So the taxpayers make money on them. If you are going to bring up one case, you have to look at both sides and weigh it. Otherwise, you look like a racist nut. Do they cost us more than they benefit us? That's not a question that can be answered by looking at hospital bills.

  23. Re:And the Europeans think we are evil.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    England, France, and the Netherlands have the same problem. Fear not, though. With every day that passes, they're being bred out of their own countries, their position of moral superiority slips a little bit further, and they begin to awake to the reality that tolerance of Islam means to tolerate their own demise. We Americans shouldn't gloat, but should instead take note and ensure that we don't follow the same path of allowing our politicians to force us to tolerate the demise of our culture, our history, and our way of life - indeed everything that allowed America to rise to prominence in the first place. I'm truly sad that the London, Paris, and Berlin that I fell in love with as a kid will be reduced to smoldering Muslim ghettos by the time my own kid is old enough to make the trip. This is what happens when you allow unfettered immigration without any attempts whatsoever to assimilate the immigrant population. This is what happens when you allow people to immigrate from countries that have polar opposite views from your own regarding personal freedom, self-determination, respect for women's rights, and respect for human rights in general. The "tolerant" position is that no single way of life is any better than another, and that we shouldn't try to force our way of life on another culture. But the facts of history betray this naive fantasy.

    I'll end with an anecdote about my "Palestinian" (if there really is such a nationality) roommate from college, Khalid. One day he made the comment that all alcohol should be outlawed. Ah, I'm constantly surprised how naive and ignorant about history and human nature Muslims are. Had he paid attention in his mandatory American History class, he would have known that the so-called "Progressives" had already tried to foist the massive failure that was Prohibition on us at the beginning of the last century. Nevermind the fact that Muslims can't even stamp out liquor sales and consumption in their own lands. But to come here and presume to tell us that WE should adapt to accommodate THEM with an idea that was already tried and failed? Ideas have consequences, folks. This is just one small example. I didn't even mention the rights of non-believers living in Muslim lands, or female circumcision, or forced marriages, or honor killings. Wake up, people. The barbarians are at the gates, and we're not only being told that we have to leave the gates wide open, but we must silently tolerate our own demise or risk being called *ghasp* racist!

    Captcha is "outburst." How appropriate.

  24. Boondoggle! by yuna49 · · Score: 1

    The word might have been invented to describe this project!

  25. Development Issues by Gallenod · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work for DHS and a friend of mine runs a small program that's been managing sensors on the border for 25 years.

    Boeing was hired as the project's integrator and instead of subcontracting or working with the existing systems tried to do everything themselves. Why? To keep as much money for themselves, of course. They ignored, at first, all the existing systems and tried to replace them with proprietary technology that would anchor them into govermnent contracts in perpetuity.

    They failed. Now they have to rely on refined data from a government-developed system to produce any results at all. This is a pattern I've seen in 26 years of working for the government: we hire an outside vendor who comes in and has to rely on our knowledge to make anything work. In a lot of cases they get us to do much of their work for them. The vendor's employees get huge bonuses and we get downsized. Granted there are times where if you don't bring in someone from the outside nothing will change, but the number of times internal staff saves the vendor's ass has been, in my experience, much higher than the other way around.

    Sometimes it's better to spend your money on what your own staff can do instead of just assuming that an outside vendor will automatically develop something better. For some reason, too many executives undervalue the abilities of their own people and hire big names like Boeing for many times what it would have cost to develop better systems in house. The Secure Border Initiative is apparently one of them.

    --

    TLR

    A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company
    1. Re:Development Issues by sheldon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't seem to understand. If you're a manager working for DHS, what future do you have?

      If you do it yourself, you'll just be a manager of a larger group with more work, but no more pay.

      If you hire Boeing, at least you know you'll be able to quite DHS in a few years and get a nice cooshy job as VP of Product Oversight for $1.5/mil a year for life, because of your aid in getting them the $4 billion contract.

    2. Re:Development Issues by megaditto · · Score: 1

      Plus don't forget that Border Patrol/DHS cannot make political contributions while outside companies can.

      It'd be interesting to see which Congressman pushed on this project, and how much he/she got back from Boeing

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    3. Re:Development Issues by bryce4president · · Score: 1

      "Now they have to rely on refined data from a government-developed system to produce any results at all. This is a pattern I've seen in 26 years of working for the government: we hire an outside vendor who comes in and has to rely on our knowledge to make anything work."

      Why not open it up a bit and let some competition in to create a better system. Just because their proprietary stuff didn't work "perfectly" the first time around (because all solutions do of course, especially when the government is doing it) doesn't mean they should scrap the whole thing. If the governments sensors are so great then why not just have the government expand on what they have and leave the private sector out of it? Because this existing sensor technology probably isn't so great to begin with.

      And the notion that the government has to always save their arses....duh. Who would save the government's arses if a private sector company hired the government to fix their piddly works? That company, of course, because they are the ones that know how their system works. So how can the government complain about having to aid Boeing on the project when the government is the one with the knowledge of the current system? It would be like M$oft hiring a bunch of Linux developers to work on their OS and then complaining when these Linux guys get into the code and start asking questions like..."Why the hell would you do it this way?"

    4. Re:Development Issues by Gallenod · · Score: 1

      The old sensor program uses wired sensors, not wireless. SBI wanted wireless on the theory that wireless is more modern, therefore better.

      That said, The old system can tell you when something is walking nearby and whether it's on two legs or four. It works just fine.

      There are some political reasons CBP went with Boeing. For one thing, the old system was designed by INS. Under the current regime in DHS, if it was an INS program, it is a reminder of the Bad Old Days. In general, I do not praise old INS systems, but actively seek to bury them. In this case, however, the old INS system's sensor data is the only reason Boeing's system can produce anything at all.

      The government hires contractors, in theory, to provide skills in areas like emerging technologies where the government civil service system isn't responsive enough to provide skilled workers at the time you need them. Also, contractors don't come with the baggage of managing civil service employees. They don't file union grievances or require annual appraisals. If you don't like one, you tell the company to send you another one. They're much easier to manage than Feds.

      The problem is that after a while you don't have anyone left in house with current skills unless you hire the contractor's employees into government, which happens more often than you might think. My new boss, for example, used to be a contractor.

      We need contractors. Too many people in house have obsolete or atrophied skill sets. The civil service system can't provide all the employees we need with the skills we need when we need them. But there's a difference between adding contract-based employees to a staff and turning control of a project or program to a contractor. That's where we are with too many government programs today -- we outsourced both the job and the responsibility for it. The concept breaks down when an organization starts depending too heavily on contracted help to do its thinking. Like any mercenaries, vendors will ultimately look after their own interests first and the public's interest second. If they are looking after the public's interest, it's generally to also serve their own.

      --

      TLR

      A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company
    5. Re:Development Issues by ChilyWily · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it's better to spend your money on what your own staff can do instead of just assuming that an outside vendor will automatically develop something better. For some reason, too many executives undervalue the abilities of their own people and hire big names like Boeing for many times what it would have cost to develop better systems in house.

      I was quite taken by the above quote - I work for a big corporation and the story is the same here. (grossly simplified, here goes...) Much of our work is being outsourced to so called 'lower cost centers' in India/China/Poland etc. and we end up playing the role of Integrator. Except that the responsibility for when things go wrong, (or don't line up as they were agreed to), comes down to us. We have to make it work, or we lose our jobs. If we complain too loudly, we lose our jobs. Meanwhile, the so-called low cost centers wise up that they really don't have any motivation to do a better quality job... so they do the absolute minimum they can to get away from it... knowing that the absolute authority for the work remains at the highest levels of management, who are happy when the M$ Project sheet says "India/ChinaSoft delivered software on time" (never mind that it did not work). They get their bonus and life goes on.

      This has been going on for sometime - there used to be a time when any issue would have a clear line into the responsible people/team. I recall having worked with HP like that many moons ago. Now, it's next to impossible and that pride and responsibility associated with having a job well done is mostly lost.

      Yet, I suspect that there are still good companies out there, who are trying to do the right thing, but they are constantly under siege from those who lie about true cost, deliverable dates, quality and such. The sad part is that there is no accountability at the top - so that when things don't work out, repeat offenders are taken to task... at a minimum, don't give them $210 million 'severance' packages!

    6. Re:Development Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't seem to understand the purpose of government entities.

      Take a look at NASA. The average person seems to think all the work is done by NASA employees, but it isn't. Most of the NASA work is done by subcontractors because that was what NASA is supposed to do. NASA stands for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Emphasis mine. They have lots a smart people to provide technical over site of the very technical work being done by the subcontractors. Unfortunately, ARES is doomed, because NASA now seems to think they can do all the work and integration with much less subcontractor support. But that is not their mission and most definitely not their skill set. The NASA centers have been fighting over money and power for decades and its all of a sudden going to stop right now.

      But lets get back to SBInet. That program was filled with numerous problems, but don't sit back there from DHS and think you share zero responsibility for the state of that project. One of the largest difficulties Boeing has faced with that program is trying to satisfy the demands of DHS while delivering a product to the Border Patrol. DHS owns the contract and money associated with it. Border Patrol is the ultimate receiver and user of the system. If you think DHS and Border Patrol see eye to eye on any part of SBInet and what its purpose was, well then you deserve your job as a DHS manager.

      Boeing may have been reinventing the wheel with some aspects of the system, but sometimes that just has to happen. Boeing just can't take other companies technology and IP and run with it. You might have a few legal issues with that. Also, the technology Boeing was deploying was not proprietary. It was commercial, off the shelf hardware from a variety of suppliers.

      Boeing's real problem with SBInet, IMO, was their "partnering" agreement with Unisys. Boeing was unable to exact any control over Unisys, because how DHS had set up the contract, and pretty much had to hope they were bringing what they were supposed to. Guess what? They didn't. The software was not completed and could not handle the data going through it. At that point, it didn't matter how well the sensor suite worked, if the data path doesn't work, you will never know.

      More government employees doesn't solve a damn thing. To think government employees automatically can do that job better than a subcontractor is bullshit. Most of these large scale programs bog down because of power wrangling at top, poorly defined requirements, poorly defined expectations, poor coordination from the government side and unrealistic schedules. Most of these being problems with DHS itself.

      Every large scale program DHS has been in charge of has failed. Does Deepwater ring a bell?.

  26. Re:And the Europeans think we are evil.... by bytesex · · Score: 1

    I heard that nowadays in the US, Mexicans being labeled a different 'race' by some news outlets. It seems especially important with respect to elections and stuff. Care to elaborate ?

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  27. I'M SHOCKED!! by Electric+Eye · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You mean something forced through in a short period of time using Homeland Security money failed?? I've never heard of such a thing. This never happens. The HS Dept is flawless in all of its executions and, as far as I know, has never wasted so much as a few dollars on something bogus. Just look at all the nice trailers they bought for those poor people in New Orleans! What about the millions of dollars of anti-terrorism "kits" and emergency response stuff sent to Wyoming? I just refuse to accept this article as truth!

  28. Good, Fast, Cheap... Pick Two by AskFirefly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you don't choose wisely, it comes back to bite you....

    --
    I'm not a human, but I play one on T.V.
  29. It was never meant to work by Badbone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It was set up to fail from the very beginning. Its no secret that every power in the American government wants more illegals. The republicans want more cheap labor. The democrats want more poor voters. This fence was never more than distraction. Just a way for government to pretend they are doing something, while actually doing nothing.

    --
    It can be go tiem now plees?
    1. Re:It was never meant to work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illegals can't vote and there's zero evidence they are voting. However, I agree with you that the majority of both parties want illegals here and don't want to make them legal, in spite of the rhetoric.

    2. Re:It was never meant to work by Anonymous+Meoward · · Score: 1

      This is by far the most sensible comment on this thread (though it had some close competitors, to be fair).

      It's no secret that every major decision maker knows that we need the cheap labor, unless we're all suddenly willing one day to pay $300 for that head of lettuce. (IIRC only Mike Huckabee was brutally frank about it, and that was not a message his target audience wanted.) What's more, these same people, and various media types like Mr. Dobbs, know full well that illegals = ratings.

      Remember the big backlash against illegals in 1994 (the one that got Prop 187 passed in California)? The end result of that tidal wave of outrage was.. nothing. We're seeing something simliar today: Joe Sixpack is venting, blaming Latino "job-theives" because of circumstances beyond his (or anyone else's) control. And there are vested interests in this country that don't want him to pay attention to the real root causes. It's a lot easier to Latino-bait than to urge Mr. Sixpack to get off his dead ass and get re-trained.

      Look, the whole issue won't go away, even if such a fence somehow worked. The only way IMO to get rid of illegals would be to wipe out all minimum wage laws in this country. Joe Sixpack can then keep his job.. though his benefits would evaporate overnight and his take-home pay would sink and condemn his family to third-world wage levels for generations. (But hey, jobs for Americans, right?)

      We're willing in the end to put with the situation for cheap labor. The free market has spoken. And when it speaks, it doesn't care if you appreciate what it says or not.

      --
      --- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
    3. Re:It was never meant to work by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      The trouble is, the people intelligent to realise this are so few they're ineffectual.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    4. Re:It was never meant to work by myth24601 · · Score: 1

      It was set up to fail from the very beginning. Its no secret that every power in the American government wants more illegals. The republicans want more cheap labor. The democrats want more poor voters. This fence was never more than distraction. Just a way for government to pretend they are doing something, while actually doing nothing.


      In a closely divided electorate, one demographic can make the difference between being in power or being turned out so both sides would rather foot drag then actually do anything. If you do something about the problem you might tick off the Hispanic demographic. If you come out in favor of amnesty and other benefits for illegals then you run the risk of ticking off an even larger number of people who normally won't have any unity because they are more interested in other issues.

      So the safe bet for all the pols is to punt and just talk in generalities about illegal immigration but not really doing anything too substantive since that might either piss off a significant political segment or unite several other segments against them.
      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
  30. Just Business by BarC0d3z · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Forcing someone to deliver a proof-of-concept or sample product for an arbitrary date is just common business practice. In this case, if Boeing wanted to continue the contract with the US Government they needed to prove they were up to the challenge. The arbitrary date was set by Bush because of his agenda. Just last week our company had to build a demo sandbox for a potential customer to play around in. We had a restrictive timeline in which to build it because the customer sponsor had a deadline to receive funding. We had to deliver something mostly untested and with deprecated hardware. The only difference is we had done it before so was able to deliver quickly. In my mind it's just finger-pointing if a vendor agrees to a certain date and then can't deliver. Just like our company should be willing to accept the consequences if our potential customer comes back with complaints that the system we gave them is too slow or buggy and "doesn't work."

  31. Simple solution by zoomshorts · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let American 'sportsmen' hunt the illegals, a starlight scope and a bounty
    on illegals. The problem would disappear overnight.

    Illegal Male 100 bucks
    Illegal pregnant Female 300 bucks
    Illegal child 400 bucks (smaller target)

    I'd wager border incursions would fall off within two weeks of the practise
    starting. Plus the 'sportsmen' would become better shots. A win-win situation.
    Yeah, I do have too much time on my hands. My Grandparents stood in line to
    get in legally. Why cannot others do the same? They are CRIMINALS, that is why.

  32. this is probably the most disappointing thing ever by DragonTHC · · Score: 1, Troll

    First thing that came to mind when I read the headline was, they ran a simulation. Every time they ran it, the mexicans broke through the virtual fence like some an angry horde of mongols a la south park. This really is disappointing to me. I'm going to seriously consider whether I want to board an aircraft made by the company who couldn't engineer a fence within hours. It's a fence. I can engineer a fence that will stop mexicans. My mom could engineer a fence that will stop mexicans. The issue isn't really a fence though. Since we saw that Anderson Cooper special where he went into a tunnel built by drug mules, we know a fence won't stop them entirely.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  33. Re:Improper use of link text by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    And only one site legitimately used for http://www.fascism.com/

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  34. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And the Bush administration once again puts politics above effective governance and management.

    And a slashdot user once again trots out their favorite villain without actually using their damn head.

    So, you're saying that Boeing told DHS that this would not work in its first prototype/deployment? They were under orders to deploy something they knew would not work? Or is it possible that the procurement people said, "We need something that can do X, can you provide that on this timetable?" And the vendor said they could, and that it would work. Is your position that the president looked over their proposal, saw the technical flaws and systems integrations problems with the laptops and software, and said, "no one will notice, do it anyway," or that perhaps it's not the executive branch's leadership job to know when a vendor is lying about the compatibility of the components they're stitching together? Why aren't you complaining about Boeing, for lying about their ability to actually do this, and agreeing to take the contract?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  35. The problem isn't immigration, it's corruption by SlappyBastard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The reason Mexicans come to the US in droves is because their country is broken. Most of the police and half the military are on the take. Even the honest folks have decided to steer clear of the disaster.

    Nothing America erects on that border is going to change the fact that Mexicans can make a decent and safe living in Mexico.

    --
    I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
    1. Re:The problem isn't immigration, it's corruption by NeoZer0 · · Score: 1

      Oh great another country we have to spend our Tax dollars to fix. We already send enough relief aid to Mexico. Cut them off!

    2. Re:The problem isn't immigration, it's corruption by SlappyBastard · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying we have to spend out tax dollars fixing Mexico. The history of previous American efforts to intervene in Mexico haven't exactly been positive.

      I'm just identifying the problem. No one much discusses the issue of why Mexicans are leaving their country in the first place.

      --
      I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
    3. Re:The problem isn't immigration, it's corruption by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      If investing in the infrastructure of another country will also benefit your country, it isn't exactly a waste of money.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
  36. Re:Lean from China by tcoder70 · · Score: 1

    No need to push!!!
    Just project manage them over...

    "Ok people, last item on the checklist...paint the south side!"

  37. Note to Congress - Build a REAL WALL!!!! by NeoZer0 · · Score: 1

    Why don't they just build a real wall? I know its old school but damn, at least we could see REAL progress.

  38. No fence is needed by sm62704 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Only the middle class and poor want to keep illegal aliens out. The rich want the cheap labor. So they make mouth noises like they're upset over illegal immigration while hiring illegal immigrants themselves, because they're cheap.

    Catch an illegal and send him back, and that's all. If they really wanted to make the illegal aliens stay away, all they'd have to do would be to make illegal entry in this country a felony with a mandatory five year prison sentense for a first offense, fifteen years for a second offense and thirty for a third offense.

    Don't hold your breath. The people who run things want to import cheap labor and they're not about to let anyone stop their gravy train.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    1. Re:No fence is needed by sheldon · · Score: 1

      Catch an illegal and send him back, and that's all. If they really wanted to make the illegal aliens stay away, all they'd have to do would be to make illegal entry in this country a felony with a mandatory five year prison sentense for a first offense, fifteen years for a second offense and thirty for a third offense.


      Let me see if I understand this. I'm in some country starving to death, and your answer to keep me out is to threaten to throw me in a prison where I get 3 squares a day and a bed to sleep on, much less clean water, showers and such.

      I'm so there! Thank you! Thank you! And maybe we can use the immigrants to hire the millions of prisons we're going to need to house them all.

      How about we place the penalty on the person doing the hiring?
    2. Re:No fence is needed by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      They're not starving; we're not getting a lot of immigrants from Rwanda, after all. It's just that they can make a hell of a lot more money here than Mexico.

      And as to placing the penalty on those who do the hiring, that has its own problems. First, that's the way it's done now. They just sentenced someone from China who ran a local restaraunt for hiring illegals here in Springfield. That tactc isn't keeping illegals out, now is it?

      Second, you can't put a corporation in prison, and corporate leaders are almost never jailed. Enron was the exception that proves the rule, and those people were jailed because they stole from the rich and powerful; Sony hacked millions of computers with their rootkit, but did Sony's CEO or board go to prison?

      Free the political prisoners who are there on drug charges (I say drug use is a political statement;) and you'll have lots of room for the illegal immigrants.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    3. Re:No fence is needed by sheldon · · Score: 1

      we're not getting a lot of immigrants from Rwanda,


      It's kind of hard to walk here from Rwanda. I know, I tried. It's very wet, and after a while I couldn't breath.

      And as to placing the penalty on those who do the hiring, that has its own problems. First, that's the way it's done now. They just sentenced someone from China who ran a local restaraunt for hiring illegals here in Springfield. That tactc isn't keeping illegals out, now is it?


      Weird, this hasn't been federal law since the 1950s.

      However Arizona passed such a law a little while ago, and it's been quite effective.

      The question is whether or not you are serious about the problem. If you just want to arrest illegals or deport them, you are not serious. They're not the problem. They wouldn't be here if they couldn't find jobs.
    4. Re:No fence is needed by thisissilly · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It currently costs ~$30,000 a year to keep a person in prison. Do you really think an illegal alien who is not breaking any other laws is costing taxpayers that much?

      Also, if you really want to stop illegal immigration, don't make illegal entry a felony -- make employing illegal immigrants a felony, and start throwing the people who employ them in jail. If the demand dries up, the supply will follow.

    5. Re:No fence is needed by Gallenod · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We already have more people in prison, both in terms of percentage of population and quantity, than any other country on the planet, including such glorious examples of freedom and democracy as China and Russia. Now you want to add another 11 million people to the prison system?

      It would only work if we let GM, Ford, and Chrysler use prison labor to build cars for free. Or if we let mining companies use prison labor down in the mines. Or some similar plan that lets US companies take advantage of the low cost labor they'd lose if we arrest and imprison all the illegal immigrants.

      The sad thing is that some of the imprisoned would be better off under this system than they were in their home countries. At least they'll get fed three times a day and have a warm place to sleep.

      --

      TLR

      A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company
    6. Re:No fence is needed by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      It would only work if we let GM, Ford, and Chrysler use prison labor to build cars for free.

      Great. Then you'd get the labor for free, but would have an equal number of highly trained (paid) professionals to do quality control, to prevent anything from sloppiness to outright sabotage.

      Or if we let mining companies use prison labor down in the mines.

      Yeah, right. Give high-powered tools and explosived to prisoners. Sound like a surefire way to profit to me.

    7. Re:No fence is needed by Gallenod · · Score: 1

      Oops, I forgot to add the "sarcasm tag" to my prison suggestion. :)

      At least my suggestion is more humane than the earlier poster who suggesting shooting them. :/

      --

      TLR

      A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company
    8. Re:No fence is needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know how expensive it is to lock someone up for 5 years?

    9. Re:No fence is needed by sm62704 · · Score: 1
      They wouldn't be here if they couldn't find jobs

      That's true, and making it federal law (it's state law here in Illinois as well, the guy from China got 2 years in Joliet IIRC) instead of state law would help.

      But then you've made immigration enforcement the duty of employers. How is an employer supposed to know whether or not someone is a citizen or illegal alien? I think this journal from last year is appropriate here:

      "You gonna die!" he yelled.

      "Everybody dies" I replied calmly. "Now get the hell out of my house!"

      "I not leaving until I get my document!" he repeated. I asked "what document?" Tami said "Documents. I think he's talking about his passport and shit." She turned to her husband. "Look motherfucker, the only documents I have are your goddamned fake social security number papers and god damn it cocksucker I'm using them to send your sorry ass back to Peru!"
      But you are entirely correct, the powers that be are not serious about the problem.
      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    10. Re:No fence is needed by photomonkey · · Score: 1

      . The people who run things want to import cheap labor and they're not about to let anyone stop their gravy train.

      And the people who elect and line the pockets of those people who run things want to continue to buy crap they don't need at low, low prices. That is accomplished by 1) outsourcing manufacturing to the cheapest locale possible 2) paying the people that cook/process food or that clean the floors and toilets at the local Wal Mart as little as possible.

      I live in a border state that gets saddled with billions of dollars in non-Federal subsidized expenses (and hence spend MORE on illegal immigration than other Americans in, say, Colorado) every year. As a journalist, I have spent years working along the US-Mexico border. I would bet the farm that the amount of economic harm done by illegal immigration is far outweighed by the economic good it has done our country and the global economy by allowing an increasingly slender middle class to continue to spend well beyond their means (keeping the country going), and yet maintain one step on the creditors. That's not even taking into account the amount of families and companies that are fed by government money spent trying to keep illegals out.

      Like it or not, turning off the flow of illegals (even if it were possible) would be another nail in the coffin of the already ugly looking American economy.

      And you know what? They really do jobs Americans won't do. The vast majority of US citizens would, if faced with making $6/hour for 12-14 hours a day to bone chickens and still not be able to feed the fam and drive the Hummer, would either go on welfare (get more money that way and avoid shitty work) or would resort to crime (selling drugs/sex/stolen property).

      --
      Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
    11. Re:No fence is needed by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      Mmmm ... Gravy is tasty.

    12. Re:No fence is needed by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      It currently costs ~$30,000 a year to keep a person in prison. Do you really think an illegal alien who is not breaking any other laws is costing taxpayers that much?

      Yes. I've heard (so take it with a grain of salt; there's no way to corroborate it) that most undocumented aliens are paid "under the table", so that's tax revenue that would be actually paid if he were being paid legitimately. Then there's the cost of the illegals driving without licenses or insurance and unable to even read the road signs; that's what prompted the investigation that resulted in Illinois' last Governor being put in prison; when he was Secretary of State you could get an Illinois drivers' license without even being able to read English, and the story that broke the scandal was children being burned alive in a fiery crash caused by an illegal alien who had gotten a CDL by bribery and couldn't even read the road signs, since they're printed in English. And the food stamps. And most likely a dozen things I can't think of off the top of my head.

      They're not very damned likely to not be breaking any other laws. If they're here illegally they can't have much respect for the law anyway, even if they have a clue what the laws actually are!

      Also, if you really want to stop illegal immigration, don't make illegal entry a felony -- make employing illegal immigrants a felony, and start throwing the people who employ them in jail

      I say we do both; throw the aliens AND their employers in jail.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    13. Re:No fence is needed by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      We already have more people in prison, both in terms of percentage of population and quantity, than any other country on the planet, including such glorious examples of freedom and democracy as China and Russia. Now you want to add another 11 million people to the prison system?

      Let out all the nonviolent drug offenders and you'll have plenty of room.

      The sad thing is that some of the imprisoned would be better off under this system than they were in their home countries. At least they'll get fed three times a day and have a warm place to sleep.

      The entire country of Mexico is a warm place to sleep.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    14. Re:No fence is needed by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      I think that your plan to imprison illegal aliens (~$27,000/year) might be more disruptive to our economy than simply paying them $5/day to work here.

      It would be cheaper to grant them citizenship, and then if they are criminals, we'll treat them as such. If they are not criminals, then they should be treated like ordinary citizens. If they refuse citizenship, then they should be deported. It needs to come down to money, which is the only thing politicians understand. We could make money by taxing these people if they were citizens and their wages were not under the table.

      The problem is that most people turn this into a matter of nationalism, or honor, or racism, and there is no compromising with these kinds of people.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    15. Re:No fence is needed by budgenator · · Score: 1

      So how is the employer supposed to know if the guy is an illegal or a citizen? Do you think the government tells him that the same SSN is being used to pay taxes for full time employment in Atlanta, New Orleans, Houston and LA at the same time?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    16. Re:No fence is needed by maxume · · Score: 1

      It would be interesting to see what a prison that built cars cheaper than union workers looked like. It isn't obvious to me (even with unions pushing up for-pay labor costs) that the prison labor would actually be cheaper to use to build something like a car(especially if you factor in the price of feeding and housing the prisoners).

      I guess if there isn't any skill involved in working on an assembly line or in a mine, or if the prisoners have those skills, it might work.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    17. Re:No fence is needed by steelfood · · Score: 1

      If they're here illegally they can't have much respect for the law anyway, even if they have a clue what the laws actually are!

      Some are. But the vast majority are just trying to make a better living, send some money home, etc. Staying under the radar is key, so doing things like blatantly breaking laws would be counterproductive. The ones who breaks laws are the citizens who run the operations that bring in the illegals. They're far more likely to disregard other laws, since they're always criminals for assisting illegal immigration. They're also more likely to assert their power over the illegals, and hence employ (force) illegals to take up illegal activities like prostitution and drug smuggling.

      So GP's method would be effective for yet another reason.

      But, if you're going to put them in jail and burden taxpayers with them, you might as well put them to work...picking fruit, for example.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    18. Re:No fence is needed by xhrit · · Score: 0

      >It would only work if we ... use prison labor ... US companies take advantage of the low cost labor.

      They already do. Some states employ inmates in for-profit call centers. Others in factories. Some inmates only get paid 12 an cents hour.

      http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2004/02/62430

      http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tw/2002-03-28/curr2.html

    19. Re:No fence is needed by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      They're not very damned likely to not be breaking any other laws. If they're here illegally they can't have much respect for the law anyway, even if they have a clue what the laws actually are!

      Well, I know of no American that doesn't break multiple laws a day. People treat speed limits and stop signs like jokes. If they don't reaspect those laws, they don't respect any laws, right? And if we didn't want the illegals here, why aren't we doing something about it? We do some window dressing, and make speaches, but to actually stop them wouldn't be that hard. Fences, walls, cameras, and all for the cost of less than a month of war. But we don't care. We like cheap labor. We like a growing populace when the fertility rate is below replacement levels. So we encourage them to break the law and look the other way when they do, then blame them for not respecting our laws when we don't.

    20. Re:No fence is needed by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      $30k/year. See A Letter from Prison. Do you know how much it costs a state for an illegal alien with no driver's license and no insurance to have a head on collision?

      Do you know how expensive it is to lock someone up for 5 years for growing a harmless plant? Let the drug "criminals" out and you'll have plenty of money and space to incarcerate those who really do pose a threat to us!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    21. Re:No fence is needed by sm62704 · · Score: 1
      And the people who elect and line the pockets of those people who run things want to continue to buy crap they don't need at low, low prices.

      Like the old folks used to say, "yeah and the people in hell want icewater, too." That's exactly the reason we need to keep illegals out.

      They really do jobs Americans won't do

      No, they'll do the jobs Americans can't afford to do.

      would either go on welfare (get more money that way and avoid shitty work)

      Tell me, Mr. Journalist, why does it seem that nobody in your profession heard about the welfare reform that happened under the Clinton Administration? The entitlement AFDC was replaced by TANF. It's no longer an entitlement, there is a five year lifetime limit and you can only get welfare for a maximum of two years at a time.

      Going on welfare is no longer an option in the US, unlike Europe. Who bones chickens in Europe?

      You say you'ld bet the farm, you're a farmer AND a journalist? I smell bovine excrement. The longer the coming economic crash is staved off, the more severe and pinful it's going to be when it happens.

      ... or would resort to crime (selling drugs/sex/stolen property).

      They already are. Nothing would change.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    22. Re:No fence is needed by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Come on in here, dear boy, have a cigar, you're gonna go far.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    23. Re:No fence is needed by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      What you propose is what they've been doing, and the the problem gets worse. Mexicans know if they get caught breaking and entering and invading our homeland, all that will happen to them is they'll be sent back to Mexico. There's no penalty whatever for trying to sneak in.

      If they know there's a penalty for being caught, fewer of them will try. If we can afford to incarcerate people for growing a harmless plant we can afford to incarcerate them for invading our homeland.

      Now you want to grant them citizenship? Do you live in Mexico by chance?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    24. Re:No fence is needed by sm62704 · · Score: 1
      all for the cost of less than a month of war.

      A day of war, you mean.

      But we don't care. We like cheap labor.

      No we don't. We like EXPENSIVE labor. In fact we think we should be paid twice what we're being paid, if not even more.

      The only ones who want cheap labor don't supply labor. Most of us work for a living. And most of those who want us to work for starvation wages are in other countries running the multinational corporations we Americans labor for.

      We like a growing populace when the fertility rate is below replacement levels

      Wrong again. The fertility rate is falling but is not yet so low as to be below replacement levels. citation and quote:

      In the United States, the total fertility rate - the number of children a woman has in her lifetime - fell from seven or eight in 1800 to slightly more than two today, says J. David Hacker, assistant professor of history at Binghamton University. And with a five-year $667,237 grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Hacker hopes to find out why.
      And WE don't want a rising population. YOU who want us to work more cheaply do, so you don't have to pay those of us who have to work for a living as much.
      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    25. Re:No fence is needed by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      Mexicans endure great travails to enter this country in the first place. I'd say that being sent back IS a deterrent, considering what they have to do to get here. Many thousands of immigrants die in the barren deserts along the border every year. You try walking 100 miles of desert to get the only job you can find picking tomatoes, and consider what it would mean to get sent back. What if you're here with your family? You, the sole provider, get sent back- what does your family do?

      And I never said that we SHOULD incarcerate people for growing a harmless plant. Nice strawman.

      No, I don't live in Mexico- I live a quick drive from the Canadian border (which I now need a fracking passport to cross).

      I think that it comes down to compassion for other living people. I don't usually have it for people I know, but I can't think of a reason that I could condemn an entire group of strangers to a short life of misery. It may seem like a non-choice to you (a person's life vs your pride), but for some of us it's a subject that deserves some consideration.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    26. Re:No fence is needed by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      And I never said that we SHOULD incarcerate people for growing a harmless plant. Nice strawman

      You misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm saying that if we can afford to incarcerate people for growing a harmless plant (and last I saw something like 70% of our prisoners were there for drugs; a friend of mine just got out or Dwight for her drug use) we can afford to incarcerate people who are here ILLEGALLY. I never said you condoned incarcerating pot farmers. My point was if you release the nonviolent drug offenders you then have more than enough resources to incarcerate illegal aliens.

      It may seem like a non-choice to you (a person's life vs your pride)

      My pride has nothing to do with it. Illegal aliens are doing jobs that US citizens should be doing, and those jobs should pay more than they do. If you have to pay more for Tyson chicken, sobeit.

      BTW, I refuse to buy that brand of chicken since they burned a hundred or so Mexicans alive in one of their processing plants. They had the doors chained shut to keep the minimum wage workers from stealing chicken parts. The plant manager got two years in prison for killing all those people in the name of profit.

      The people who own and run Tyson's are the kind of people who don't want the border closed. They're making money hand over fist exploiting the Mexicans. I'd like to see Mexico do something to raise their citizens' standard of living; you don't see many Canadians crossing illegally. Unfortunately since Mexico has been a defacto one party rule for most of the last century, it's about as likely to raise its standard of living as the old USSR. The US government didn't cause Mexico's problems, the Mexican government did.

      We have plenty of poor people in our own country; I know a lot of them. Poverty is something we as a nation don't need to import, even though its rich people think we do, in fact, not have enough poor people here to exploit. It's supply and demand.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    27. Re:No fence is needed by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      It's a complex issue any way you look at it. I, too, would like to see Americans packing chicken and picking beets. But then the price of those commodities would rise, and more would get imported since it would be competitive to do so. And then the Americans would lose their jobs. You could prevent that by imposing high tariffs on imported foodstuffs, but then you will wind up like france, where part of the reason the cost of living is so high is because people are essentially forced to buy food at uncompetitive prices that can only exist because of the import tariffs.

      Your argument really could apply as much to imported goods as it does to imported labor; you are saying, I think, that goods and services consumed in the U.S. ought to be produced by Americans- in essence, you would like to keep the money inside our economy, right? In addition to the gainful employment of our own citizens, although I think that's secondary here.

      I'm interested in how you would propose to keep the cycle I mentioned in the first paragraph from happening. I for one don't have an answer, other than just letting it be. The market is a strong force that will correct for anything you do to try to force it to change (e.g., black market). Up here where I live, close to the Canadian market, many people travel north to get prescription pills. During prohibition, people found ways to get drunk. Our food today is adulterated with corn byproducts because of corn subsidies. There are always unintended consequences to these things.

      Now I need to go out to eat in a restaurant across the WI border because market forces in MN make it impossible to start a good provencal bistro, from what I can tell.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    28. Re:No fence is needed by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      But then the price of those commodities would rise, and more would get imported since it would be competitive to do so.

      As a worker I'd far rather have imported goods than imported poor people that want my job. Now, when I say "my" job I don't actually mean mine; I retire in a few years. But you get the gist.

      The illegal immigrant can legally get food stamps, the Earned Income Credit and Child Care credit, tax credits where you can get a bigger tax refund than you actually paid. These food stamps and tax credits aren't benefitting the poor, they're benefitting the rich corporations that then don't have to pay these workers enough to live on.

      And then the Americans would lose their jobs

      If a Mexican citizen is going to pick the tomatos, how is an American losing his job if the tomatos are picked in Mexico? At least then he's not getting American food stamps and american tax credits. What about crops that won't grow that far south? What about the cost of shipping?

      You could prevent that by imposing high tariffs on imported foodstuffs

      They already do; little or nothing changes.

      you would like to keep the money inside our economy, right?

      Even more than that, I'd like to see us sell more than we buy. But there are no more "american corporations"; today's corporations are multinational, with stockholders all over the world. In that light, being anti-labor is the same as being anti-American.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    29. Re:No fence is needed by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      I am kind of surprised that it is apparently so easy for illegal immigrants to obtain these benefits. I know several people (single moms working overtime every week to pay for insurance and rent, etc.) who are right on the very edge of being homeless, and they cannot get these benefits. I live in MN where people like to complain about how easy it is to live off welfare forever. I wish it was that simple for the sake of the people who really need it.

      I am also surprised that these workers can even GET tax returns. Don't you need a social security number to get tax returns? A permanent address? How is that even possible? Something smells fishy here. Even the poorest people I know with children and EIC don't make back a significant portion of their taxes- certainly not more than they paid in.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    30. Re:No fence is needed by sm62704 · · Score: 1
      I live in MN where people like to complain about how easy it is to live off welfare forever.

      Those people are ignorant. They changed that in 1996. Welfare as it used to be no longer exists. There is no monthly check. AFDC was abolished in 1996 and TANF replaced it. You can only get it for two years at a time, five year lifetime limit, and you have to be actively looking for work.

      I don't know what the requirements are for food stamps, but you have to be pretty damned poor (or working "under the table" for cash so you can look pretty damned poor) to get them. You have to be WELL under middle class to get the tax credits as well.

      Someone with six kids (or with fake documentation showing six kids that don't really exist) making minimum wage (or simply working for unreported cash) is eligible. They won't even let them be called "illegal", the politically correct term is "undocumented".

      Don't you need a social security number to get tax returns?

      From the linked journal:

      Tami told me she'd cracked the door to tell him "go away" and he'd pushed his way in. She told him she didn't know anything about any documents and yelled at him about the whore he'd been fucking. "I have work in the morning" I told him calmly. "I think you'd better leave."

      "You gonna die!" he yelled.

      "Everybody dies" I replied calmly. "Now get the hell out of my house!"

      "I not leaving until I get my document!" he repeated. I asked "what document?" Tami said "Documents. I think he's talking about his passport and shit." She turned to her husband. "Look motherfucker, the only documents I have are your goddamned fake social security number papers and god damn it cocksucker I'm using them to send your sorry ass back to Peru!"
      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    31. Re:No fence is needed by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Wrong again. The fertility rate is falling but is not yet so low as to be below replacement levels.

      You are wrong again. It is rising, not falling. It used to be below replacement levels, and I hadn't been paying attention enough to notice it increased. Here is my citation and quote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/20/AR2007122002725.html

  39. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd say both sides knew it would never work the way it was intended, but it doesn't really matter. They only have less than a year left anyways. This is another project like Reagan's favorite pet project the STAR WARS DEFENSE INITIATIVE. Good thing we spent shitpiles of money on that. I feel safe knowing that we can knock down all those pesky Soviet missiles. And yes, the Bush administration was responding to what the public wanted - not by coming up with an effective solution, but doing the "feel good" solution that sounds great on paper, but never quite works out in reality. I mean, what company is not going to take a billion dollar contract from the government, even if they think it isn't exactly feasible? They will just end up asking for more money in the end.

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  40. Well, it worked for us by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The south west was taken from Mexico. How did we do it? Not by the alamo and defeating Sanata Ana, but by moving large amounts of Americans into the area. The interesting thing is that many Mexicans fought against that because they felt that once the Americans outnumbered the mexicans, that they would annex it back into America. And we did.

    I am doubtful that the reverse will happen here, but the main reason why they come here is simple; MONEY. W's building a fence is a total joke. Whether physical or virtual, it will never succeed. The ONLY way to stop this is to remove the low end jobs from American AND/OR create jobs in Mexico. Considering that Mexico allows the peso to trade free against both Canadian and American dollars, it is in our best interest to allow jobs to flow to Mexico, and put the cabash on jobs going to China. In addition, we need to automate our agriculture AND construction jobs that we have here. Once we do that, the fence will be immaterial. Interestingly, once the tide nearly stops, then a virtual fence really does make sense.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  41. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Nah. I was trolling. And I got you!

    Ah, but a troll that so closely matches the dimwitted, but frequently tossed-around memes that one sees here, whether a troll or not, requires that rebutal. Otherwise, the rest of the bunch that simply see a rant that dovetails with their world view say, "Yeah, man - tell it like is! The Man..." blah blah. If you're going to troll, you've got to do a much more nuanced job of it. At least invoke the Trilateral Commission, or fake up some money-making scheme that allows Dick Cheney to somehow end up owning the manufacturer of the video cameras that were used. Come on, you can do better than that. This is slashdot. There's no excuse for lame, so-mundane-it-sounds-like-most-of-the-local-demographic trolling. Where's the spice? Where's the theater? Where's the gold plated tinfoil?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  42. Forgetting history == doomed to repeat it by primebase · · Score: 1

    It's called the Maginot Line http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_line folks! That was brilliantly engineered (unlike this) yet incomplete (LIKE this), and it still didn't work. Another few hundred million of our hard-earned tax $ that could have gone towards schools, roads or a really good party pissed away. Is it 2009 yet?

    1. Re:Forgetting history == doomed to repeat it by spooje · · Score: 1

      So then you're saying Mexicans will go through Belgum to get to America??? That doesn't sound efficient.........

      --
      Tea and kung-fu. Life is good. Rising Phoenix
  43. More Google Bomb Damage by Dimitrii · · Score: 1

    a miserable failure If Google hadn't fixed it, this would have damaged the Google bomb. Think about the consequences of your actions.
  44. H1B by gonzalo_diaz · · Score: 1

    Instead of picking on those poor Mexicans, this forum should be concerned about the LEGAL immigration scam that is the H1B program. "Indentured worker", the new slavery. Shame in the USA.

    1. Re:H1B by megaditto · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well yeah, but the problem here is that H1B is pretty much your only option if you need to hire a foreigner.

      If you are a large multinational or your employee is a Canadian, you can use TN and L visas. For all the others, H1B is the only way since green cards take way too long.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
  45. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by EatHam · · Score: 1

    This sounds a lot more like your average software salesperson than it does anything nefarious or political.

    "Can this software do X?"
    :: picture an animation of a squeaky hamster wheel with an arthritic geriatric hamster running it inside a skull ::
    "Absolutely! In fact, it had that in the last version, and this one's even better!"
    "We'll take 8!"

  46. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    So, what are you saying? That the executive branch's boss should insist that a vendor that agreed to perform a certain task actually follow through and do it? Or that the president should personally understand every technical nuance of tens of thousands of technical contracts and subcontracts right down to the third party OTC tools that are being selected? I don't see any indication here that the White House doesn't care that Boeing dropped the ball, and isn't holding their feet to the fire. Do you? Is that what you're saying?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  47. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by Pojut · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The repubs are just better at hiding it.


    No they aren't. It's common knowledge about all the stuff that went on behind closed-doors with our current leaders...repubs aren't better at hiding it, they just don't care that they are doing it. Dems are the ones that try to convince you they aren't lying...Repubs say "hey, here is what I have to say, it's full of shit. You know it, I know it, and we also both know you won't do jack about it."

    There is definitely a difference.
  48. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by sheldon · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't really call Bush the favorite villain.

    He's simply the poster child for incompetent government.

  49. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd say both sides knew it would never work the way it was intended, but it doesn't really matter. They only have less than a year left anyways. This is another project like Reagan's favorite pet project the STAR WARS DEFENSE INITIATIVE. Good thing we spent shitpiles of money on that. I feel safe knowing that we can knock down all those pesky Soviet missiles. And yes, the Bush administration was responding to what the public wanted - not by coming up with an effective solution, but doing the "feel good" solution that sounds great on paper, but never quite works out in reality. I mean, what company is not going to take a billion dollar contract from the government, even if they think it isn't exactly feasible? They will just end up asking for more money in the end. You do know that SDI is where the technology they just used to shoot a broken satellite down came from? You do know that the deployment of SDI in Eastern Europe is what Putin has been complaining about for the last two years? In other words that STAR WARS DEFENSE INITIATIVE is becoming practical at about the time that Reagan predicted it would at significantly less cost than its critics predicted.
    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  50. Oh, the irony. by RealProgrammer · · Score: 1

    Your sig line defines argumentum ad logicam, and your post exemplifies it.

    When has a giant wall ever worked? Ask the Palestinians. Ask the East Germans.

    But not only are you employing ad logicam, but Red Herring, as well. The very reason some people give for wanting a virtual fence is that a physical barrier will not (in itself) prevent border crossing.

    And asking for a "sensible" immigration policy presupposes that we agree on the goals for such a policy, and the standards by which one should be judged.

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
    1. Re:Oh, the irony. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      East Germans? Is there such a thing? The Israeli wall will fall as well.

      Nothing will prevent border crossing. Fighting supply and demand is like fighting the sea...You can put up a wall, but it won't last. Not only does it not solve the problem, but it prevents finding a solution.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    2. Re:Oh, the irony. by RealProgrammer · · Score: 1

      >Not only does it not solve the problem, but it prevents finding a solution.

      How so?

      It seems reasonable that having a physical barrier in place would enhance efforts to use "virtual" methods.

      What gets mixed up in this is that nobody (or almost nobody) wants zero immigration. Most people, self included, like the idea of open borders, "huddled masses, yearning to be free" and all of that. But that mindset is based on people declaring themselves to be loyal ones of us, not mere passers by. That's why I don't like guest worker programs, which seem to me a way to put a legal stamp on a permanent underclass.

      --
      sigs, as if you care.
  51. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 3, Informative

    And you do know that SDI was a pipe dream that tricked the Soviets into a defense spending contest that basically collapsed the Soviet empire and caused the breakup of the USSR? It was never designed to be a working solution. And shooting down one of our own satellites is a far stretch from the "global missile defense blanket" we were promised. From all the test results at trying to take down actual missiles, they had a very poor success rate. And they were talking about using satellite mounted mirrors/laser system to blast down missiles. Where is that? I'd also be willing to wager that advancement in the technology field and computers are more responsible for us being able to hit fast moving targets with our missiles than the SDI research.
    Besides, big deal, China can do it too. Have they been spending billions of dollars since the mid-80s to come up with their success?

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  52. wrong company got the contract by corbettw · · Score: 1

    They should've outsourced it to Jennings & Rall, those guys get shit done.

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  53. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

    And you do know that SDI was a pipe dream that tricked the Soviets into a defense spending contest that basically collapsed the Soviet empire and caused the breakup of the USSR? It was never designed to be a working solution.

    SDI had two purposes. One: win the cold war. Only we could afford to go into space over and over. Two: produce technology for the weaponization of space.

    And they were talking about using satellite mounted mirrors/laser system to blast down missiles. Where is that?

    Uh, do you know the contents of every US military satellite currently orbiting?

    No? I didn't think so.

    The technology, however, is on the way. Being able to do these things from the earth is much harder than being able to do them from space (aside from power requirement issues, which can be solved by spending more money to put up more mass.) If you can fly a 747 with a chemical laser in it and shoot down a missile (done) then you can build the laser anti-missile satellites. Especially since our spy program has taught us so much about optics and tracking.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  54. GLADLY! by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The U.S. for one.

    The NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, MLS, etc all have physically demanding jobs that pay very well, thank you.

    And I know what you meant. 'physically demanding jobs' would mean 'manual labor'.

    Somehow, oil rigs are a good place to find physically demanding work that pays well. The key is that the product or output is valuable...

    We don't want to spend as much on our landscaping as we do on our SAP implementation, because the 'product' of our landscaper is not as valuable. That never will change. And productivity of landscapers is not the issue. The value of the product is.

    So answer me this, /.'rs...

    In Downeast Maine, blueberries used to be picked by the Mic Mac Indians from Canada and Maine. recently, however, the growers started importing migrant and illegal workers from 'wherever', and most were indeed Mexican. Other workes such as high school kids and a fair amount of regulars used to pick as well. I could make $600 a week back in the 60s, which was a darned good sumemr job save for the literally backbreaking work of raking berries out of bushes a foot high at most. bending over, carrying the boxes to the truck, etc was hard, but damn the money was good for a few weeks. But no more, the growers claimed a labor shortage. Truth is, the illegals are even cheaper than the Mic Macs, which is cheap indeed.

    This is not about our 'value' of labor, so much as it is the profit to be gained by reducing cost further.

    Remember Sen. John McCain, also known down here in Arizona as "Senator Lettuce"? He spouted off a couple of years ago (2006?) about how we 'couldn't' do the jobs Mexican immigrants did. In particular he made this statement:

    "If I offered you a job picking lettuce in Yuma for fifty dollars an hour, you couldn't do it, my friend".

    The next day, more than a handful of people showed up with resumes in hand, looking for the $50 an hour lettuce picking job. They were ready. Of course there are no jobs like that. Lettuce isn't worth that much.

    One of the lies is that this is about wages. It is about profits.

    Nobody has a dog in this immigraiton fight except the ordinary citizen:

    - Big Business likes cheaper labor, it equals both profits and lower costs of healthcare and such.
    - Federal government doesn't want to rile Business.
    - Democrats see Mexican immigrants as future Democrats.
    - Republicans dare not offend them, lest they become Democrats.
    - Labor unions see them as future members. Sooner or later.
    - State governments don't want Business to move to another state or overseas, which they will do anyways.

    Don't be surprised that the 'virtual fence' doesn't work. Ineffective measures will be a key component in the federal government's war on immigration. Reagan's '86 (or was it '87?) immigration reform had three main features:

    - Amnesty. This worked, mostly.
    - Securing the borders. No money, no securing the borders. This worked famously.
    - Deportation of undesirables and future illegals. No money. This also worked famously.

    The current plans will be more of the same. Amnesty is crucial, as it bring the Democratic Party new members, aids the labor unions, and gives Business the same workers at pretty much the same pay. Failing to secure the borders ensures continuing supplies of cheaper labor. Deportation is of course pointless if the border isn't secured. In fact, deportation is a free trip home to visit family and educate others on how to 'do it' in the U.S.

    We need change, alright. Arizona's employer law is a start. But I'm not hopeful. We need to vote out the scoundrels. Sadly, all of our Presidential candidates seem to be drinking the same Kool-aid on this issue.

    We also need to stop rewarding moving jobs offshore. We don't need to offer incentives for keeping jobs here, just not incentives for sending them overseas...

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  55. but, but, but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    R0N P4U1!!!!

  56. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1, Troll

    I could be that he was responding to demand from the people.

    There may be a first for everything, but I doubt it in this case. Their 7 year track record of taking from people and giving to business makes it very difficult to agree with you.

    --
    It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
  57. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

    If the US had the technology in their satellites to take down other objects, they would have shown it off long ago, and/or taken down the last one with it and not a land-based weapon. We LOVE to show off our military capabilities. Seeing as most of these fall into the "deterrent" category anyways. Think about it - if any countries really thought we could successfully defend ourselves from a missile attack, their options would be: Attack now before we have the capability, or, Wait until we have it and are invulnerable. So far I haven't seen any attacks. And I am positive that banning weapons in space is something that will be coming soon.

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  58. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by kellyb9 · · Score: 1

    It was actually an instance of unfashionable cynicism in response to more fashionable criticism. This is Slashdot, everything is ultimately blamed on the Bush admin. I was actually making the point that they aren't really different than any other administration doing things for political reasons.

  59. Virtual Fence by joeyblades · · Score: 1

    I have this dog who used to run wild, leaving little goodies in the neighbors' flowerbeds. Now he wears a special collar. I burried a wire around the perimeter of my yard. Problem solved... I don't see why Boeing needs to be involved... I mean, it's not rocket science!

    1. Re:Virtual Fence by AskFirefly · · Score: 1

      The hard part is getting all of those people in Mexico and Canada to wear the collars.....

      --
      I'm not a human, but I play one on T.V.
  60. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by crawling_chaos · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't see any indication here that the White House doesn't care that Boeing dropped the ball, and isn't holding their feet to the fire. Do you? Is that what you're saying?

    Boeing just got another big chunk of my tax dollars to fix the problem of using the incorrect software in their initial system. That hardly sounds like holding feet to the fire. When they are required to refund some of their initial payment, or the process is opened to their competitors, get back to me, m'kay?

    --
    You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
    -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
  61. a great success! by Tired+and+Emotional · · Score: 2, Funny
    It is always nice to see a project meeting the administration's standards of excellence from inception.

    Congratulations!

    --
    Squirrel!
  62. Southern Border by florescent_beige · · Score: 1
    TFA:

    ...secure the entire 2,000-mile southern border...

    I'm so old I can actually remember when the US had borders with Mexico and Canada. Now it's just the "south" and "north". Generic foreign places. Apparently there are only two places in the world, the US, and everywhere else.

    And of course, the US needs to be defended from everywhere else. And of course, only Boeing and General Dynamics can do that. And of course, no cost is too high.

    Who knows, Eskimo terrorists could be preparing a stealth dog sled yellow snowball assault on Minneapolis as we speak.

    --
    Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
  63. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by Murrquan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am positive that banning weapons in space is something that will be coming soon.

    And we all know how good the United States government is at paying attention to treaties and UN resolutions! Or allowing them to get passed in the first place ...

  64. our cheap workers are in prison by SethJohnson · · Score: 1



    Like it or not, we don't have the workforce to fill out those sorts of jobs anymore, and frankly it doesn't make any economic sense to force a decently educated worker into a job that could be filled for much less cost by someone who has no education at all.

    I don't disagree with your point of assigning overqualified workers to menial jobs. I'd like to point out, though, that our native resources for uneducated, impoverished labor do exist. Unfortunately, these potential grape pickers are disillusioned by the cheaper immigrant labor and diminished wages, so they largely end up pursuing more lucrative, illegal wages. So we end up maintaining our own ideal grape pickers in prison (1 in 100 Americans are in prison) or on welfare.

    People will say, "Oh, they don't want to pick grapes." Actually, they don't want to pick grapes for what illegal immigrants will accept as compensation. Many of them would probably pick grapes for what taxpayers are paying to incarcerate them.

    Seth

  65. Re:And the Europeans think we are evil.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd be surprised at how much the Mexicans are disliked by other Latin Americans nationals, my Boss an American National who grew up in Honduras, and her husband a former El Salvadoran consider Mexican a separate language. and the Spanglish that the American Latinos speak in LA with they consider a cross between Mexican and monkey talk. They'll tell you that Bilingual education is a waste of time, they should learn one language first.

    Southern Mexico is a basket case, there is a near perpetual civil war between the leftist gorillas, the bandits and drug smugglers and the federal authorities which make the situation total anarchy. If it were commonly know then it would hurt businesses with plants in Mexico and tourism in the area. The truth is the average American doesn't give a rat's ass about the typical Mexican entering illegally to try and improve his or her lot; what we don't want is the predatory scumbags that are using them as a diversion.

  66. Their call, their responsibility. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    They ignored, at first, all the existing systems and tried to replace them with proprietary technology that would anchor them into govermnent contracts in perpetuity.

    They failed.


    So what? If they can deliver they can do it however they want to. If they don't deliver they need to refund the money. If they didn't think they could deliver they shouldn't have taken the job, unless specifically under a research contract.

    That's how my business works, and I have many fewer reserve resources to risk. Why should Boeing get better terms?

    I mean, aside from the whole corrupt-government thing.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  67. Send in the Robots by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    and frankly it doesn't make any economic sense to force a decently educated worker into a job that could be filled for much less cost by someone who has no education at all

    How about we treat those people as 'just not yet schooled' instead of consigning them to work menial labor until they die or retire and build machines to dismember chickens instead? Sure, it may be a non-trivial task but we're trading in billions of man-hours here.

    Hey, given one round of opportunity, those people could be the ones designing the chicken-o-matics.

    This isn't a zero-sum game, it's one of those rising-tides-float-all-boats things.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Send in the Robots by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      I agree with that, actually. I'm all in favor of vo-tech and job training programs, continuing education, etc, etc, etc. In almost every case, when you have an industry that is getting squashed by foreign competition, it is better to allow the industry to die, retrain the workers, and send them forth to do other things in growing industries. Even in industries that must be preserved to safeguard national interests, its a much better idea to push them to modernize than it is to try and protect them with tariffs. High tariffs ensure a weak and inefficient industry.

      Workers are a resource, and like any resource we should cultivate it, and try to bring it to its maximum potential.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  68. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you so confident that the government would show you everything? Would they even permit disclosure of capabilities for a satellite that can take out missiles? I'm guessing we won't truly know the satellites exist until sometime after it has been operational for a while. Maybe spreading just enough information to leave it as "questionable existence" is enough to make people worry about it.

    Mij

  69. Learn from East Germany! by Heddahenrik · · Score: 1

    USA should do as it did when it tried to go to the moon. Use some Germans! There was plenty of experience of wall-building in East Germany, so why not import some experts from there?

    As a bonus, the wall will work just as well when the flow of people is starting to go in the other direction from the non-free USA to the freedom outside of it...

    Generally the Berlin wall and the other border protections around East Germany is actually the only wall that somewhat worked. All other great walls have been mostly a waste of money compared to what they achieved. A mobile defense is the way to go, which in this case would be to make people in USA to follow the laws (or change them or a combination).

    1. Re:Learn from East Germany! by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      A mobile defense is the way to go, which in this case would be to make people in USA to follow the laws (or change them or a combination).

      Make a race track along the border and make it explicitly clear that no speed limit whatsoever applies. That should be mobile enough.

  70. Sometimes Old Fashioned is Better! by flyneye · · Score: 0

    Think of the Great Wall of China,think of Berlin, Guantanamo Bay Naval Station,farmer Brown's electrified barbed wire pasture even.
    Virtual fences keep theoretical entities at bay statistically speaking. Real fences and walls made dangerous to cross by armed guards,high voltage,booby traps may not keep all illegals from plundering our resources but I'll bet it cuts it down by an acceptable percentage.
    I won't quibble about philosophy or politics,I merely present you with the best possible solution.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  71. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Seeing as most of these fall into the "deterrent" category anyways.

    Once you start blowing up satellites, where do you stop?

    Once you make it clear that you can blow up satellites, how long before someone starts shooting?

    Ever played alpha centauri? :)

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  72. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

    "Once you start blowing up satellites, where do you stop?

    Well, I would say with the utter destruction of everything. The real question is how long will that take us?

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  73. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by Thomasje · · Score: 2, Informative

    In other words that STAR WARS DEFENSE INITIATIVE is becoming practical at about the time that Reagan predicted If you think that shooting down one lone satellite the size of a bus, whose trajectory was known months in advance, is anywhere near being able to shoot down a ballistic missile that launches two dozen separate nuclear weapons on its way down, well, I have a really nice bridge to sell you. The problem with multi-tipped warheads, and even larger numbers of cheap decoys, is and always has been the Achilles heel of SDI, and it's something that no one ever answered satisfactorily. Probably because it's impossible.
  74. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

    I don't know why people are so unhappy. The virtual fence has kept out the imaginary moozlim ayrab terrists in Mexico, it just as a little problem with the real Mexicans. Give it time.

    --
    How ya like dat?
  75. Sounds like an IBM commercial by jav1231 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Someone's been ideating, ala IBM's commercials!

    DHS: So what is it?
    Boeing: It's a virtual border fence!
    DHS: What does it do?
    Boeing: Keeps out illegal immigrants, virtually.
    DHS: As in virtual immigrants or virtual border control?
    Boeing: Yes!
    DHS: Does it control actual borders and illegal immigrants?
    Boeing: Uh no.
    DHS: Fsck it, let's give it a try!

  76. Trying to reinvent the wheel by EntropyXP · · Score: 1
    Did no one in our government really understand what they were trying to do with this project? They created a 28 mile stretch of a VIRTUAL "fence" for millions and millions of dollars.... that is just freaking insane!

    They are trying to reinvent the wheel and develop software for a faulty project. All they needed to do was install a few hundred motion detecting cameras and coordinate that with a dispatch center. Instead, they try to incorporate radar, spy cameras, new software and untested software at that. No wonder it failed. Why didn't they just talk to the British? They've been spying on their citizens locally for years...we could have just borrowed their technology and saved a few million dollars.

    --
    "No one will really be free until nerd persecution ends."
  77. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by inviolet · · Score: 1

    And you do know that SDI was a pipe dream that tricked the Soviets into a defense spending contest that basically collapsed the Soviet empire and caused the breakup of the USSR? It was never designed to be a working solution. And shooting down one of our own satellites is a far stretch from the "global missile defense blanket" we were promised. From all the test results at trying to take down actual missiles, they had a very poor success rate. And they were talking about using satellite mounted mirrors/laser system to blast down missiles. Where is that? I'd also be willing to wager that advancement in the technology field and computers are more responsible for us being able to hit fast moving targets with our missiles than the SDI research.

    The new Block III version of Patriot MIMS is directly derived from SDI's ERINT project. SDI developed the "hit to kill" technology, and Patriot III uses it (as does the Standard missile used to hit the satellite the other day). It is superior in every way to the old blast/frag warheads that earlier Patriots (including those used in Desert Storm) fielded.

    Indeed, the smaller faster nimbler warheadless Block III missiles are one quarter the size of the prior versions, and so a Patriot quad box launcher now carriers sixteen hot rounds, rather than four.

    More generally, your criticism of SDI for a putative absence of direct applications is like criticizing the Apollo project for an absence of direct applications. There is no way to monetize the act of moving the state of the art forward... but this is Slashdot, right? I thought we all understood this.

    --
    FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
  78. post from inside the beltway by scuba_steve_1 · · Score: 1

    Okay...this is my opinion...not my employer's...so take it for what it's worth:

    I have been writing software and building systems for the Federal government for the better part of 20 years...and frankly, these clients set the stage for failure consistently...and the situation is only getting worse.

    Government agencies (yes folks, the Fed is not monolithic) normally send out an RFP for a system that contains a range of requirements that are both vague and contradictory...at times with excessive implementation detail about select areas, but normally with very little detail for what is actually required for the majority of the system. The desire for omniscience and omnipotence as well as infinite flexibility for the future is normally in there somehow...which obviates the need for them to do much groundwork to establish what they really want. Contractors are then stuck trying to scramble to determine what the client actually wants (and/or needs) in the middle of their design cycles...and the government does not acknowledge this reality in their dictated delivery schedules.

    Imagine telling a custom home builder that you want a cool new house that smells like grandma's, has window boxes, and a new modern floor plan...and then saying "go." Hmmm...perhaps we should have first paid an architect to help us better define our requirements, catch things that we have missed, mockup prototypes, and then create a blueprint (with cost estimate) for the final product...and THEN we could decide if we wanted to move forward...and, if so, provide that level of detail to one or more builders as input to their bid. Nah. That takes work. Why then would you bid on something like this? Well, in my area, it's because you either bid on the project or starve...because someone else will if you don't.

    DHS is perhaps the amongst worst. They now issue RFPs for ill-defined projects and the RFP states that your proposal must indicate how you will have an initial system in the field within 60 days. 60 days? Hell, I need longer than that to engage with the client over a series of spiral requirements meetings, document their business processes/domain, generate use cases, and mock something up for additional comment.

    You want something fast? You tell me when it is due? You also tell me how much money I have (and hence, my staffing)? Those are my independent variables and you arrived at them without significant analysis? The only significant variable that I can modify is quality.

    Be careful what you ask for. You may get it.

    $0.02

    -

    1. Re:post from inside the beltway by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      I need one of those shirts that says "FAST|CHEAP|GOOD - Pick any two" ;)

      --
      Loading...
  79. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

    I never stated that SDI had no direct applications. I just believe that it was far more politically motivated than applicable technology driven. And after all it had a great deal to do with the end of the Cold War, which I believe was it's primary objective (and possibly it's only objective).

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  80. Re:BS! its expensive because of labeling restricti by Necrobruiser · · Score: 1

    I disagree. A quick Google search shows at least two Hawaiian farms that claim that labor is their highest cost.
    http://www.konaearth.com/Life/2008/080120/
    http://www.jessecolinyoung.com/farm.htm
    I would suggest that your premise is flawed.

    --
    "I planned within my means and got a fixed rate mortgage, so where's MY bailout?" -cafepress
  81. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The contract isn't for delivering a COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) solution (although there may be significant amounts of COTS in the solution, but integrated possibly in ways not intended by the original vendor). Problems may be encountered during the development and these should have been communicated to the government along with options to resolve the problem(s). Delivering an early pilot allows both Boeing and the government to review progress as well as discovery of problems.

    Were there errors on the program? I'm guessing there were, given statements like "Boeing's use of inappropriate commercial software, designed for use by police dispatchers". The problem may not be solely on Boeings side though as most changes from the original proposal likely need to be reviewed by the contracting officer in DHS. Maybe Boeing was overly optimistic, but still, a trade study should have been done to reduce risks.

    Mij

  82. Re:BS! its expensive because of labeling restricti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what causes that labor to be so expensive? Could it be the location? In my case I live near DC and if I moved to say PA, my pay would decrease for doing the same type of work. My salary is dependent on geography (cost of residence, services, food, etc... are higher in certain locations so salary reflects that increased cost).

    Mij

  83. "Anti-immigration" by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    Be careful with your language. I know very few people who are anti-immigration. I know tons of people who are anti-illegal immigration.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  84. Funny by rimugu · · Score: 1

    As a Mexican working in IT for a US company in US territory after working for other two US companies in Mexican territory plus a Masters from a US university (paid by one of my former employers) I cannot help it but get a good laugh out of this comments. Let me add so you can laugh too.

    If I where to stay beyond my visa I would be illegal, yet with more papers and background checks that any immigrant in history, except others like me in the past 10 years. I would only be illegal because others are afraid of me and want to put restrictions on migration and nothing else. (I have cousins that are American just because my aunt decided to go live in the USA about 60 years ago, and nothing was required then, and they are legal).

    Yet the place I work has a huge rotation with the US citizens, but they have had 0 rotation with foreigners. In the team I work for there are about 4 "natives" (hey that word is funny, it has nothing to be with legal status or nationality or length of stay, so native Americans are not necessary indigenous people if we are strict), three of those 4 are managers or "leaders", then there is one French, about 5 Indians and me (Mexican).

    Why I am still here, two things, personal challenge and lower taxes.

    And by the way, the continent is America (the US is just US not America0, so I am as American as those born in the USA, but lately we don't use that designation much, many negative connotations. Those born in the USA are "Gringos", including my kids, born here because I have health insurance here (even if some people don't like it). And yes, I send most of my income back to Mexico, why? Because there is no reason to leave it here, why buy a House here when I have my own in Mexico (well with the prices and rates as they are is tempting but not). Any day a bureaucrat is going to deny my visa renewal and I will be back to Mexico without being able to live in or even visit my house. Why invest or save here, there are better interets rates and exchange rates outside. I pay the taxes on time each year and try to be a good "resident" (not the legal definition of "resident") and endure my share of racism (when people know I am Mexican, because I am white, light haired and green eyes, so people don't suspect before hand).

    1. Re:Funny by domatic · · Score: 1

      You aren't the sort most of us have big problems with. You mentioned a "visa" after all. The ones that hop the border then fly Mexican flags in protest when they discover we aren't all swimmingly happy about them being here on the other hand....... And don't me started on "La Reconquista" and how reputably Southern Mexicans like to bitch about "Undocumentados".

  85. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by Beefaroni · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't really call Bush the favorite villain.

    He's simply the poster child for incompetent government. man, Jimmy Carter is going to be pissed - that was his gig.
  86. enforce laws on business- no vfence needed by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    They started enforcing the law in oklahoma and arizon and now texas has been flooded with 400k illegal immigrants who left those states because no one would hire them.

    It's that simple guys.

    Enforce the laws against business owners (here is your huge fine or jail time) and we go back to needing a small border force to stop a tiny amount of border crossers (vs the estimated 4 MILLION crossing in 2006 of whom 850k were caught and deported).

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  87. Walls work two ways by geek2k5 · · Score: 1

    I believe I've read somewhere that the Great Wall was more of a way to slow invaders down on the way out, so that local troups could catch up to them. Having a large force to patrol the entire wall would be expensive. But once it it breeched, you have a good idea where they will be leaving.

  88. How about the 42nd and 45th parallel? by aqk · · Score: 1

    I wanna know if this Bushlin Wall will be deployed on the northern US border, to stop any more US citizens from voting with their feet and escaping to Canada.

    We have enough traler-trash here as it is.

    I live near the 45th parallel; I thought I saw an east Germ... uh, an AMERICAN watchtower recently along the agent-orange polluted border (yes, but fortunately for the US, the ground water all flows towards Canada)...
    Anyhow it was just a deer-hunter's blind. So far...
    And please- nore more of this "Mr. Bush! Tear down this wall!" - I'm quite happy as it is, thanks.

  89. Taxes by B4D+BE4T · · Score: 1

    Why not just make the "illegals" US citizens? Honestly, the only problem that I have with illegal immigration is the fact that illegal immigrants do not pay taxes. If they became US citizens, they would be registered with the IRS and forced to pay taxes just like everyone else. This would solve two issues:

    1. Illegal immigrants use public services without paying for them (through taxes).
    2. Illegal immigrants are willing to take jobs at lower wages (as mentioned in the parent post). This is because, without paying taxes, they can afford it more easily than a US citizen who does have to pay taxes.

    And this applies to anyone who wants to move to the US. I don't understand the desire to let only a small group of people into the country each year. What ever happened to "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"?

  90. Low Tech Solution Needed by maz2331 · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it just be cheaper to provide free beer and lawn chairs to some rednecks to sit at the border with their .30/30's?

  91. Re:Stop them.. and why would you ever cogitate? by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
    If strawberry-picker wages rise then the price of strawberries will rise too.

    First, you obviously know nothing of economics, neither classical nor "real world." The cost of labor in agricultural products is infinitesimal, at less than 3%, if that much. Next, there is no operational "free-market capitalism" - that is rank idiocy to suggest such a thing actually exists.

    I don't think recent illegal immigration is messing with wage levels here,...

    Again, it doesn't matter what you think, what matters are the facts, and the facts have shown that illegal immigration has had significant impacts on the lowering of wages, has have bogus "worker visa" programs such as H-1B, H-2B, H-2C, L-1, O-1, P-1, P-2, P-3, etc.

    Costs have indeed been cut when mechanization has taken place, so again you are sadly wrong. In fact, you have been wrong on every "point" you have feebly attempted to make - do you work at McKinsey, per chance???

    This is also of course why the US is increasingly on the wrong side of the WTO.

    "The wrong side" is being affiliated with such a trash and bous gang as the WTO. The only right side is to be outside of that group.

    Put that in your virtual pipe and smoke it....

  92. Speaking as someone who was close to the situation by Elbowgeek · · Score: 1

    I knew a guy *cough* who stayed in the US for a year and took a job as stock/cleaning person at a small convenience store. The Syrian-born owner (who was the coolest boss one could ask for, BTW) said as much: that he was glad to have my *cough* friend doing the dirty work as he found it almost impossible to find locals who would show up and actually do work.

    As for the local situation here in Bermuda, we have a history of importing labour, starting with the Portuguese in the 19th century. This is still the done thing, and over the century and a half that the 'Gees have been coming, they've the absolute pillars of our community here. Our economy wouldn't be half what it is if not for their hard work and intelligence. Of course, the first generation is pretty rough and "peasant", but they've truly become solid members of our community.

    But there is an odd conundrum here, similar to that of the US: The major unions and their members demand that Bermudians fill the most menial of tasks, but at the end of the day don't really want to do the work. Frustrating indeed.

    --
    Who is this delectable creature with an insatiable love of the dead?
  93. Re:BS! its expensive because of labeling restricti by Necrobruiser · · Score: 1

    And what causes that labor to be so expensive? Could it be the location?

    Yes, the location does impact the cost. I would guess that the labor is so expensive because there are fewer farmers from Mexico and points south to come pick the beans cheaply in Hawaii. So it is not, as you claimed, labeling restrictions.
    I also lived in DC for many years. The salaries in DC are not 3x higher than in other places, which is what we are seeing with Kona coffee prices.
    --
    "I planned within my means and got a fixed rate mortgage, so where's MY bailout?" -cafepress
  94. Re:Stop them.. and why would you ever cogitate? by nicklott · · Score: 1

    First, you obviously know nothing of economics, neither classical nor "real world." So you're saying that a rise in production costs won't translate into a rise in the retail price? I can see that you are an economic genius.

    The cost of labor in agricultural products is infinitesimal, at less than 3%, if that much Really? Where did you get that stat? From your ass? If it's such a small percentage why do they pay such shit wages and use so many illegal immigrants?

    Next, there is no operational "free-market capitalism" - that is rank idiocy to suggest such a thing actually exists To quote you back at yourself it: doesn't matter what you think, what matters are the facts

    the facts have shown that illegal immigration has had significant impacts on the lowering of wages Show me the facts.

    Costs have indeed been cut when mechanization has taken place, so again you are sadly wrong Well, duh. The point was they have mechanised so much that labor is now a negligible part of their costs.

    do you work at McKinsey No, I own Mckinsey. Where do you you work? Starbucks? The National Enquirer? Your bedroom?

    "The wrong side" is being affiliated with such a trash and bous gang as the WTO. The only right side is to be outside of that group. That was also my point. The US set up GATT and WTO in order to sell it's stuff abroad. Now that other countries can produce stuff cheaper it wants out.
  95. Cart before horse ... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    How much would the price of [insert product of your choice] increase if the people picking them managed to get minimum wage, health benefits, safer conditions and unions?

    "minimum wage, health benefits, safer conditions" follow from unionisation and collective action. If you want better wages and/or safer conditions at work, join or form a trade union. (I leave the "health benefits" question aside, as in the Civilised World ® they comes from being a human being, not from your employment status or political activism.)
    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    1. Re:Cart before horse ... by Necrobruiser · · Score: 1

      Health benefits come from being a human being? What an amazing sense of entitlement you have in the "Civilised World ®". You can keep the "Civilised World ®" in that case. Meh.

      --
      "I planned within my means and got a fixed rate mortgage, so where's MY bailout?" -cafepress
    2. Re:Cart before horse ... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Health benefits come from being a human being? What an amazing sense of entitlement you have in the "Civilised World ®". You can keep the "Civilised World ®" in that case.
      I'm sure that's a popular opinion in the non-Civilized World ® , at least amongst those who enjoy the entitlements of being a human being. The rest of the humanoid inhabitants, obviously, don't matter.

      Meh.
      Sorry, don't recognise the language. I know it's not English, French or Spanish, and I don't recognise it from the German, Russian or Norwegian I've learned. Translation into a recognised language, please.
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    3. Re:Cart before horse ... by Necrobruiser · · Score: 1

      Yes. In the "non-Civilized World ®", many of us feel that working hard and earning your health benefits is better than getting them just because your parents managed to successfully complete the biological act of reproduction. Many of us also feel that human beings like you who feel they are owed health benefits that are paid for by the hard work of others are not necessarily worthy of the title of "human being".

      Meh is a pop culture reference. It denotes indifference and is often referred to as a "verbal shrug of the shoulders". But I think you know that and are being intentionally obtuse so you would have the opportunity to post a snotty reply. Which is an example of being a "tool". Let me know if the definition of "tool" in this context needs to be explained to you, or translated into a recognised language.

      --
      "I planned within my means and got a fixed rate mortgage, so where's MY bailout?" -cafepress
    4. Re:Cart before horse ... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Yes. In the "non-Civilized World ®", many of us feel that working hard and earning your health benefits is better than getting them just because your parents managed to successfully complete the biological act of reproduction. Many of us also feel that human beings like you who feel they are owed health benefits that are paid for by the hard work of others are not necessarily worthy of the title of "human being".
      You seem to be making the incorrect assumption that you are a working person, while I am not. It might come as a terrifying idea that I've actually been a (relatively) happy tax-payer for nearly 22 years now (with significant tax paid on earnings while still in education in the preceding 6 years). I get a suspicion that from your next comment that I've possibly been paying tax for longer than you've existed. Terrible thing having your prejudices turned over isn't it?

      Meh is a pop culture reference. It denotes indifference and is often referred to as a "verbal shrug of the shoulders".
      Ah, a definition in a comprehensible language. Thank you. That's "pop" as an abbreviation for "popular amongst the people who I talk to, but may not be popular amongst the people you talk to"?

      But I think you know that and are being intentionally obtuse so you would have the opportunity to post a snotty reply.
      No, I simply did not know what the word meant in any of the languages I know, and it's not in any of my other dictionaries. Obviously you've not yet had the pleasure of living and working with people who you don't share a language with. That'll change, and I bet that you won't like the experience.

      Which is an example of being a "tool". Let me know if the definition of "tool" in this context needs to be explained to you, or translated into a recognised language.
      That use of the term is entirely familiar to me, as in the sentence : I'll put this hammer ("tool", in sense of conventional use) through your face, you tool (in sense of "penis").
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    5. Re:Cart before horse ... by Necrobruiser · · Score: 1

      Wow. With the exception of the last sentence, you are wrong in every section of your response.

      Meh.

      --
      "I planned within my means and got a fixed rate mortgage, so where's MY bailout?" -cafepress
    6. Re:Cart before horse ... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Until emergency rooms and other medical service providers can turn you away because you can't pay for their services it's an entitlement here in the US as well. It's just by doing it this way and allowing the insurance providers and drug companies to make ridiculous profits it costs us about twice as much per capita for medical services than in the rest of the "Civilised World ®".

  96. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by eyendall · · Score: 1

    A demand from SOME people. Elected representatives are sent to govern, not to take polls. Hopefully they are selected on the basis of their intelligence and judgement, not their ability to pander. If all the border security fanatics would stand up and say they wanted their taxes raised so that more resources would be devoted to it, more people, more equipment, more frequent patrols etc. etc. they would have more credibility. "No more taxes" doesn't cut it. And beware of unintended consequences.
    But on a more cheerful note, as a devoted /.er I have come up with a brilliant solution to the whole problem. Ask the Mexican Government to declare that it is Communist and loves Fidel Castro. Then all the Mexican migrants are heroic freedom fighters fleeing a despotic regime. They will all be applauded for their courage in taking great risks to cross the border to freedom, and we can go back to watching Fox news or playing video games, and saying how great America is.

  97. Re:Stop them.. and why would you ever cogitate? by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
    No, the primary reason for GATT and WTO wasn't to sell stuff abroad, it was to further the agenda for global monopoly. Nor does the US want out of WTO, GATT, NAFTA, etc. As you should have figured out by the LameStream Media's response to Sen. Obama's remarks on NAFTA, anyone who desires leaving such agreements will find themselves the object of repeated and intense character assassination - if not outright assassination.

    As for the other items, READ A BOOK!

  98. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by sheldon · · Score: 1

    I'm sure Jimmy Carter will not be terribly upset.

  99. Re:Stop them.. and why would you ever cogitate? by nicklott · · Score: 1
    What is global monopoly if it's not selling stuff abroad?

    global: involving the entire earth; not limited or provincial in scope

    monopoly: A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service

    As for the other items, READ A BOOK! Indeed. I can recommend:
    • Necessary Illusions - Noam Chomsky
    • Collapse - Jared Diamond
    • The Wealth of Nations - Adam Smith (an abridged version anyway)
    • to a lesser extent: Critical mass by Philip Ball
    • a bunch of others I can't remember
  100. Hmmm by Valomrow · · Score: 1

    Well gee. Lets take a look. 1. It's a fence. 2. The cameras suck 3. It's a fence. 4. It only goes across part of the border. 5. It's a FENCE, for geep's sake!

  101. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by The+Analog+Kid · · Score: 1

    Good thing we spent shitpiles of money on that. I feel safe knowing that we can knock down all those pesky Soviet missiles.

    The sad part is, there still are people that think Star Wars was the crux of the USSR's collapse, you know widespread corruption or drawn out operations in Afghanistan had nothing to do with it. Those same people probably can't fathom why Russia is moving back toward a strong centralized government and why Putin will still be the leader of Russia even after Medvedev takes office and the probably think that a democracy in Iraq is going to last after US troops pull out.

  102. Re:forced to deliver early, for political reasons by mcpkaaos · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Gotta love those 2 day old troll mods, long after the discussion is dead. I guess my foe list is longer than I thought. ;)

    --
    It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
  103. The Solution by jlanthripp · · Score: 1

    I believe that the following steps, taken in order, will stop illegal immigration while addressing the need for cheap immigrant labor for the shit jobs that pansy-ass modern US citizens just won't do:

    1. Build a double-layered fence along both the northern and southern borders. Make it 15 feet tall, with coiled razor wire along the bottom and top, similar to that seen around maximum security prisons.

    2. Enact and enforce a mandatory $250,000 fine per workday for each illegal immigrant employed in any way by a US company or individual. This includes illegals working as "contractors" on 1099 forms. That is, if you employed 4 illegals for 2 days, you are fined 2 million dollars.

    3. Enact and enforce a mandatory 1 year in prison for each person who knowingly employs illegals for 365 man-days (365 for 1 day, 1 for 365 days, 5 for 73 days, etc.) - if you can show that you made a good-faith effort to determine that the employee was legal, you're off the hook for the prison time, but not for the fine. If the employer is a corporation, all the officers of that corporation get to serve the jail time. And it's cumulative - you employ illegals for a total of 7300 man-days, you get 20 years in prison. You employ illegals for a total of 36500 man-days, you go to prison for 100 years.

    4. Increase the immigration "quotas" and decrease the paperwork hassle and wait time for immigrants who want to permanently move here, so they can more easily come here legally. If the TSA can take my fingerprints and determine within 60 days that I can be trusted to drive a truck loaded with 40,000 pounds of high explosives through a heavily populated area, DHS can fingerprint a prospective immigrant and determine within 60 days whether she can be trusted to live and work in the United States. One of my co-workers is a truck driver from the United Kingdom. He is here legally. He waited 16 years for his permanent resident visa. 16 weeks is a bit long, but reasonable. 16 years is absurd, regardless of what country you're coming from. Keep a reasonable set of requirements, mind you - a good starting place is "no prior convictions for any offenses which are felonies in the United States".

    5. Create a viable program for temporary work visas. I'll leave the details of that one to someone more familiar with the seasonal labor needs of US agriculture.

    6. Round up the border-jumpers who are still here after Points 1-5 have been enacted (there will be far fewer than we have now), and send them back to their nations of origin. If they want to come back, they go to the back of the line and must pay a fine before coming back in, plus meet all the requirements of any other prospective immigrant.

    Mind you, I don't think all this adds up to a perfect solution, but I believe it will address the largest parts of the problem effectively and fairly. And it's feasible. But it won't happen, because any politician who attempts to do all this will have La Raza marching outside his office, and probably won't win reelection. Not to mention having Geraldo Rivera on national TV calling him (and me, and everyone else who thinks a sovereign nation should have borders) racist.

    --
    "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  104. Re:Improper use of link text by McGiraf · · Score: 1

    :)

    wow, that's a nice one.

  105. Actually, That wall served its purpose well... by The_Jeff_79 · · Score: 1

    The purpose of the Great Wall was not to keep the invaders out, it was to keep the loot in... It's easy for a group of pillagers to climb over carrying a few supplies and weapons, but try to climb back out with a few rugs and sacks of gold... much more difficult. The question is not whether illegal immigrants make the cost of fruit a few cents cheaper, but the cost they add to other areas such as healthcare and education. They are abusing the system everywhere. They show up at a hospital, they 'must' be treated, regardless of if they can pay. Their children attend our education system, just look at the school issues in California... We are absorbing the cost of them being here, one way or another... personally, I'd gladly pay 50 cents more for fruit and save 100$ on my healthcare... True Example Here: Ran with an ambulance company, had a call to take a mother and her son to the hospital. In speaking to them: They were not citizens, had no insurance, they admitted it was not an emergency, the son 'had a headache' and that it was cheaper for them to call an ambulance then a taxi... And yes, this kind of abuse happens all to frequently...