Homeland Security To Scan Citizens Exiting US

An anonymous reader writes "The US Department of Homeland Security is set to kickstart a controversial new pilot to scan the fingerprints of travellers departing the United States. From June, US Customs and Border Patrol will take a fingerprint scan of travellers exiting the United States from Detroit, while the US Transport Security Administration will take fingerprint scans of international travellers exiting the United States from Atlanta. The controversial plan to scan outgoing passengers — including US citizens — was allegedly hatched under the Bush Administration. An official has said it will be used in part to crack down on the US population of illegal immigrants."

Comments

Idiocy

[vux984]

"An official has said it will be used in part to crack down on the US population of illegal immigrants"

Why not just let them leave? And bar them when they try to come back. What is the point of catching someone you don't want in the country when they are leaving it??

Re:Idiocy

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Probably because we don't actually seem to care much.

On the other hand, the fact that a fair few Americans are more xenophobic than they are freedom-loving presents a golden opportunity...

Re:Idiocy

[EkriirkE]

Perhaps they meant emigrate?

Re:Idiocy

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

And so is the continual expansion of State power, particularly at the federal level, in the name of "security". I'd argue that a lot of people are letting their fear of immigrants drive them right into that.

Re:Idiocy

[Stuart Gibson]

I'm more interested in what they're going to do if I refuse? Throw me out of the country?

Re:Idiocy

[Jurily]

Why not just let them leave? And bar them when they try to come back.

Apparently, they already failed at that once. I don't understand this move, but once again it's clear that the US borders are not a privacy dream. Next up: state borders and continental air travel?

I'm so glad I'm not American.

Re:Idiocy

[terraformer]

You need to know when they left after their last visit. So if an illegal visits in Jan 01 and again in Jan 09 after having left in Dec 08. You have no idea if they over stayed their visa on the first trip in order to block them the second time in unless you knew when they left. Also, how can this be about illegal immigrants if they are going to scan US citizens??? Can you say Police State? :-)

Re:Idiocy

[Wrath0fb0b]

It's not a matter of xenophobia. For most people anyway. Illegal immigration is a very real social and economic problem.

I'd like to second this. I'm not xenophobic -- I support allowing a large number of legal immigrants into the country each year under fairly generous terms. I oppose all forms of ethnic quotas and other restrictive immigration policies. I support giving legal immigrants nearly full access to the benefits of citizenship as soon as they arrive and additional services (if they want) to help them in adjusting to a different country. Hopefully, this is enough to convince people that I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination, anti-immigrant.

On the other hand, I am a firm believer in the need to enforce the law with regards to illegal immigrants -- deport them and bar them from reentry. These positions aren't contradictory and, in fact, I see them as complementary -- by increasing legal immigration and throwing out all the illegal immigrants, we will be rewarding those honest people that follow the rules instead of those that decide that they have the right to break the law to get what they want. Those are the kind of people that we ought to be allowing to immigrate. The incentives in our current system are perversely the opposite of this -- it punishes those that want to follow the rules with onerous waits and arbitrary terms while rewarding those that skip in line with amnesty and "safe haven". It's ludicrous, and I blame both the GOP for stymieing legal immigration and the Dems for stymieing systematic attempts to identify and deport illegals and punish unscrupulous employers (only the really negligent, of course -- not every contractor that accepts a forged SSN deserves to get canned, but the ones that intentionally look the other way certainly do).

Such a partisan football is made out of what I thought was just common sense -- it's depressing really. I can't understand it -- I just can't. It's some sort of collective insanity we've entered in this country.

Re:Idiocy

[Penguinshit]

Bzzzt.

Illegal immigrants comprise less than 5% of the US population. Taxes are withheld from the wages of the vast majority of them for services they'll never receive but are available to citizens (social security, etc.). Compare the $millions "lost" to these folks versus the $millions truly lost in prevention or detection schemes which fail to do anything but erode the privacy rights of citizens.

Re:Idiocy

[WindBourne]

So, what nation do you live in that allows ppl, including criminals, to come and go freely?

Re:Idiocy

[WindBourne]

First, we are still better than most nations, but we are certainly heading towards more of a police state similar what other nations have.

As to illegals, I have a sister-in-law who was once illegal. She was able to come and go pretty much at will, even though she was illegal. fake IDs (including passports) made all that TRIVIAL.

Re:Idiocy

[Skillet5151]

I'm gonna have to call bullshit on employers paying taxes for their illegal immigrant workers. Got a source?

Re:Idiocy

[ushering05401]

How about the contractors who accept forged SSNs and then proceed to duly withhold and file all payroll related taxes? My understanding is that this is the majority situation with regards to construction as opposed to agriculture related industries due to the insurance situation.

Long story short, your career as a contractor is over if something happens on a job and your insurance co finds a way out of paying - and provided you have a properly completed I-9 on file you are covered even if the employee involved is not actually legal.

For those who believe all these illegal immigrants are working under the table without paying taxes into the system, it just ain't so... Agriculture is the one industry that is supposedly utilizing fully undocumented workers. Everyone else is paying taxes (ie: all the fast food chains).

Re:Idiocy

[Xaositecte]

this describes a good portion of the EU

Re:Idiocy

[vux984]

So, what nation do you live in that allows ppl, including criminals, to come and go freely?

When the primary punishment for being an "illegal alien" is deportation, what exactly are you going to do when you catch them trying to leave? Make them leave?

Re:Idiocy

[Skillet5151]

Any signatory of the Schengen agreement?

Re:Idiocy

[cyberprophet]

The people who allegedly did the 9-11 attacks had brown skin and are rather indistinguishable from the brown-skinned people south of the U.S border.

Are you really suggesting that you can't tell the difference between someone from Central America and someone from the Middle East?

Re:Idiocy

[gringofrijolero]

No, they're going to throw you into a room, until after your plane leaves. Then you can go buy another ticket and refuse again...

Re:Idiocy

[Wrath0fb0b]

How about the contractors who accept forged SSNs and then proceed to duly withhold and file all payroll related taxes?

Don't care. They knowingly accepted a forged SSN and should be punished for violating a fairly simple and straightforward law. Yes, it's nice that they paid taxes, but my main concern with illegal immigration is not taxes -- it's basic fairness.

It is unfair to the legal immigrants who did things according to the rules to allow those that skipped the lines to have the same benefits.

Re:Idiocy

[Wrath0fb0b]

I don't care if they pay taxes, I care about helping people that follow the rules and not the people that think it's their god-given right to enter a country against the law. Ultimately, that's what it comes down to -- illegal immigrants are breaking the law for their own benefit while legal immigrants (who I support fully and think we should admit much more of) get to wait in line for years. By giving jobs to illegals, you are rewarding criminality and you are rewarding the kind of people that don't respect the rule of law -- the basic cornerstone of the American Republic.

Re:Idiocy

[gringofrijolero]

I don't understand this move...

It's a game played by security consultants and contractors, called, "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?".

Re:Idiocy

[vux984]

Also, how can this be about illegal immigrants if they are going to scan US citizens???

Precisely. My post was that this was an absurd rationalization to pander support. He might as well have claimed it would stop child porn too.

Re:Idiocy

[cowdung]

Why not just let them leave? And bar them when they try to come back. What is the point of catching someone you don't want in the country when they are leaving it??

I think the point is that if you know who left, then you also know who didn't leave.

Re:Idiocy

[Ethanol-fueled]

This has nothing to do with illegal immigration.

If DHS really wanted to deal with illigal immigrants then they could set up random checkpoints in Los Angeles where half a million strong march openly in protest of immigration law. Another idea is to check immigration status with every traffic stop or police call, nationwide.

Re:Idiocy

[E IS mC(Square)]

>> Taxes are withheld from the wages of the vast majority of them for services they'll never receive but are available to citizens (social security, etc.).

I think you are confused between illegal immigrants and those on H1 (and such) visa.

Re:Idiocy

[rzekson]

Aiming at evil people entering the U.S. is impossible in practice, and neither is filtering good people from bad, so of course security measures have to focus on people who live in the U.S., and I'm surprised you don't see that. There is no magic oracle that can tell you whether the person present at the border is a potential terrorist or criminal, or a honest hard-worker. Banning people based on skin color or the country of origin would be racist and against all the principles this country claims it stands for (anyway such profiling is actually taking place, people who look muslim will more often get pulled to the side for a longer check). Filtering people based on whether they have all the paperwork in place is also nonsense. Criminals with a bigger agenda will surely have all the paperwork in place. They will often have green cards, citizenship, or whatever else is necessary. Dozens of other reasons aside, terrorists can simply recruit people who won a green card lottery or who already work in the U.S. Illegal immigrants may be illegal in the sense they violated the immigration law (a stupid, covertly racist, and genuinely redneck-minded law, if you ask me) , but the fact of being illegal in this regard doesn't necessarily make them more of a national security threat. If you really want security, you have to accept that the bad guys are indistinguishable from those honest, hard-working green card holders and citizens with intelligent looks, gray hair, college education, 4.0 GPA, a dog, a house, and a stable job.

Re:Idiocy

[phyrz]

And he's modded insightful lol. If you can't tell the difference between a Mexican and an Afghani you are lacking in insight, to be sure.

Re:Idiocy

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that you are trying to be fescisious

The word you were looking for there is "facetious", Sparky, not "fescisious".

Does your Dad know you're posting from his Slashdot account?

Re:Idiocy

[B Nesson]

Don't worry, I'll think you're racist for a good deal longer than just a minute.

Re:Idiocy

[Grishnakh]

You're kidding, right? While there's certainly individuals in both groups who wouldn't be easily mistaken for being part of the other group, there are definitely individuals in each group whose appearance is more ambiguous.

Besides, there's a lot of Mexicans who look to me just like any northern-European-descended American. Not all Mexicans are directly descended from native Americans, you know. A lot are mostly Spanish, and some are even German. Watch some Spanish-language soap operas on your local spanish-language channel some time: a lot of the people on there don't look much different from Americans, and have rather pale skin.

Lots of people could be easily made to pass as another ethnic group just by changing their clothes and haircut. That's exactly what the Al Queda hijackers did: they cut their hair and shaved their beards. Many middle-easterners don't look that different from many Americans except for their beards. In addition, many Israelis look much like the Arabs who hate them.

Re:Idiocy

[mdwh2]

I'm sure they'll throw you out with the same hospitality that these thugs showed a Guardian journalist. But hey, they say they're not as bad as Iran!

Re:Idiocy

[rzekson]

Suppose you are a politician and the uneducated hard-core conservatives want the competition out; ideally, nobody would ever immigrate. There are two options: you can kick out people whom you can control (those who follow the law), or kick out people whom you can't control (those who enter illegally). The latter option is very difficult to implement: after all, if you can't control or even identify someone, you can't kick them out. So in order to demonstrate that you listen to your voters and do something to protect them from the evil "aliens", you generate all sorts of restrictions on people who follow the law.

Re:Idiocy

[Penguinshit]

Nothing I can link to right now, and don't care to dig. But I have personally handled home loan documentation for hundreds of folks in my local area who used fake Social Security numbers to get jobs which paid for the loans. Paystubs from these folks indicated the same withholding taxes you and I pay.

Fake SSANs are why the IRS created the "EZ Verify" or whatever it's called. Not every employer uses it and most of the people I saw had been employed for years.

BTW: I'm an IT guy not a mortgage broker so don't get your panties in a twist over that with me.

Re:Idiocy

[alexborges]

I beg to differ: both mexicans and afghanis are very mixed. I know plenty mexicans you couldnt tell apart from any wasp and lots of afghanis that look exactly like a spaniard.

Re:Idiocy

[0xdeadbeef]

Jesus, people, learn to use Google:

In 2002 alone, the last year with figures released by the Social Security Administration, nine million W-2's with incorrect Social Security numbers landed in the suspense file, accounting for $56 billion in earnings, or about 1.5 percent of total reported wages.

Social Security officials do not know what fraction of the suspense file corresponds to the earnings of illegal immigrants. But they suspect that the portion is significant.

''Our assumption is that about three-quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes,'' said Stephen C. Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, using the agency's term for illegal immigration.

Re:Idiocy

[alexborges]

Absolute truth.

I concur, Mr Grishnakh

Re:Idiocy

[artor3]

Um... yes? The skin tone and hair color are similar enough that random variations from person to person would make it impossible to tell the difference. It would be like trying to tell an American from a Russian at a glance, or a Jamaican from a Liberian. Sure, there are some general differences, but nothing that would allow to differentiate with high accuracy.

Obviously, as soon as they say something, you'd be able to tell, but visually, we're not all that different.

Re:Idiocy

[Penguinshit]

Nope. I am well aware of the difference. See my reply above.

Re:Idiocy

[0xdeadbeef]

They have a God-given right to live, to work, and to do what is best for their families. Borders were invented by man.

Since you're so hung up on legality, perhaps the solution is the remove the borders.

Re:Idiocy

[__aaclcg7560]

Why not just let them leave?

I used to have a roommate of question legal status (i.e., don't ask, don't tell). Going home to Mexico was the easiest part. Coming back into the country was much harder, depending on how much the border guides are charging. If the government makes it difficult for people to leave by leaving behind a fingerprint that could be use in other ways, that changes the entire dynamic about leaving. This wouldn't be a problem if the U.S. had a guest worker program in place.

Re:Idiocy

[ScrewMaster]

I might be less critical of such actions if it weren't for the fact that "security" isn't being improved or actually even being addressed.

The measure they have taken seem to be aimed more at people who are here in the U.S. legally (like citizens and all) than illegals.

Most of us are justifiably afraid of real terrorism. That's why it's called terrorism.

Most of us are equally justified in being afraid of the people in big government who spend billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars making life harder for everybody but the real terrorists.

That being the case ... what, exactly, are they afraid of?

Re:Idiocy

[ScrewMaster]

I beg to differ: both mexicans and afghanis are very mixed.

A better question would be, what cultures are left on this planet that aren't racially mixed?

Re:Idiocy

[jeff419]

It's simple. If they say it's for the illegals the majority of sheeple will go along with it.

This is a test of a biometric exit visa program.

Re:Idiocy

[ushering05401]

No, they didn't accept knowingly forged SSNs. There is only one legal way to check an SSN prior to hire without violating equal opportunity laws - and that is by paying a background check company to run every potential hire (if you only run one race you are in for trouble according to the auditor I spoke with). And even that only works well if the SSN and name are mismatched.

Once the employee is hired and has been with you across the turn of a tax reporting period (quarterly notices are unusual, W-2 usually triggers contact).

The earliest correspondence related to mismatched SSN/Name pair on W-2 is around 6 months.

At this point the employer is contacted and must update the employee's information with the feds including hours worked/wages/etc.. and sign a form saying they have passed along an informational packet to the employee with an explanation that their SSN and their names are mismatched.

That is the last the employer ever hears about it because the employee usually moves along rather quickly.

In the event that the SSN and name match the employee will most likely not be reported as suspect by the feds.

And for those wondering where the self-check line has wandered off to... the results out of that service were abysmal with false positives all over.

Re:Idiocy

[moosesocks]

Cut me a break. 95% of the time, the folks fighting against illegal immigration are racist as hell, and automatically label any hispanic person as a probable 'illegal'

Is it an economic problem? Definitely. Is it as bad as people are claiming it to be? Probably not.

The solutions aren't great either. Immigration is something we're either going to have to put up with, or commit some pretty severe human rights violations to correct. (Also, are there many native-born Americans who are willing to pick fruit for $3/hour? Like it or not, we've had so many illegal immigrants for so long that the illegal labor force has become an integral part of the economy)

Re:Idiocy

[Penguinshit]

Sorry, that argument gets filed next to "Welfare Queens", in the same drawer as unicorns and leprechauns.

Re:Idiocy

[WindBourne]

Well, I have to agree that our CIA has done a lot of medling. Of course, we learned it from EU, of which EU nations have had the most influence over the world. Even to this day, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, and UK STILL have lots of influence all over the world and THEY MAKE USE OF IT. Amongst nations that they raped and pillaged (such as America, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Panama, China, Indonesia, Libya, Syria, etc, etc. etc.)

Re:Idiocy

[atari2600]

WTF does fescisious mean? Facetious?

Re:Idiocy

[mh1997]

I might be less critical of such actions if it weren't for the fact that "security" isn't being improved or actually even being addressed.

Exactly.. it has always been a republican wet dream to get rid of those pesky Mexicans.. they just piggy backed on the "security" excuse to fulfill their agenda. The same goes w/Iraq.. they wanted to invade it so they presented it as a security threat. All the 9/11 folks entered quite legally into the country. People forget that the US is a country of immigrants.. from ALL over the world. They also forget that opposition to immigration is also a long-held US tradition. And so is racism.

When will we have change that can stop those damn evil republicans. Republicans like President Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Once we get some Democrats in control of all three branches of government nothing like this will ever happen again.

Re:Idiocy

[WindBourne]

If the person has committed crimes, they will be tried first. America's border and our living conditions are far more porous than EU's (in fact, more than just about any other nation), so, we would rather try said person. Otherwise, they will be allowed to leave.

Re:Idiocy

[schon]

So...

It's bad having "those people" in your country, so your solution to them trying to leave is to keep them for 6 months, then send them home?

Wow. Just wow.

Re:Idiocy

[SydShamino]

The Japanese?

Re:Idiocy

[WindBourne]

I spoke of CRIMES (felonies like MURDER; Child MOLESTER), not simple misdemeaners like being illegal. The ones that will be tried will be in prison for 5 to life.

Re:Idiocy

[BigSlowTarget]

Really? Most of us are justifiably afraid of terrorism? Some Americans are not cowards and are not willing to sacrifice the very living ideals that make the country special for the petty illusion of 'being safe.' 0.001% of the US population were killed when the towers fell. That is definitely a cause for seeking justice, might be a cause for preventative actions and could make some call for revenge, but fear? You have a better chance of dying in the bath.

Get real people. YOU ARE MORTAL SO YOU ARE GOING TO DIE. Make your life worth something instead of cowering from shadows. Prove that you're worth the soldiers' noble sacrifices and their exposure to real danger by shouldering just a little tiny bit of the burden. Fight fear and choose wisdom. Don't call for killing American freedom this way and don't support it when it happens.

Re:Idiocy

[Reziac]

Yeah, we need more illegals in our prison system... cuz privately-run prisons are not yet sufficiently profitable, and states pay 'em per warm body.

Seriously... I don't see the point either. Most of the time the penalty winds up being deportation; if someone is already illegal, just skip the middleman and kick them out. If no one wants them -- shoot them. Maybe that'll cut down the crime by illegals, eh??

As to TFA... I'm all too strongly reminded of the exit procedures from the former Soviet Union. And it still croggles me that anyone thinks we need to "secure" the border with Canada. So the occasional nefarious type will sneak in; isn't that better than having to SNEAK OUT if we merely don't want to be tracked by Big Brother??

Re:Idiocy

[tsalmark]

Japanese are three, or more, different ethnic groups. I think only some tribes from Africa and the amazon would count say: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jthSvL5g0ouAeFFsVx_fMxWmCrQw

Re:Idiocy

[Yvan256]

Robots?

Re:Idiocy

[dummondwhu]

Also, are there many native-born Americans who are willing to pick fruit for $3/hour?

That argument is a complete fallacy. Just considering situations of which I have first-hand knowledge, around here, many illegals make about the same as American workers for the fields in question (golf course maintenance, landscaping). Employers are happy to pay them under the table because they save all the associated payroll taxes: unemployment ins., worker's comp, etc. The workers may see slightly lower wages, but they're also not paying taxes in many cases.

Is this true in all cases? Of course not, but the idea that there is a mass army of workers working for $3/hr. is utter b.s. It's virtually impossible to live in the state of NJ at that wage, no matter how they pool their resources. And estimates say there are between 250,000 and 800,000 illegals in this state. They come here because it's worth it. They're not brought here on slave ships.

Re:Idiocy

[clarkkent09]

It is unfair to the legal immigrants who did things according to the rules to allow those that skipped the lines to have the same benefits.

The only problem is that there is no line they can wait in. There is no equivalent of H1B for agricultural workers and various other manual laborers. Yet, there is an enormous demand for them as evidenced by the fact that literally millions are employed in the US illegally. I am not saying it's ok to break the law, but if the US government really wanted to legalize the process there could be some sort of guest worker program (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastarbeiter ). Instead, what's really happening is that the government is turning the blind eye and using the method of tightening or loosening the screw of the implementation of the immigration laws to regulate the flow, which has an unfortunate and unfair effect of keeping both the employees and the employers permanently illegal and vulnerable.

Re:Idiocy

[BitHive]

The culture that brought us the April 15th "tea party" "protests". Whatever it's called. Illiteracy I think?

Re:Idiocy

[Mr. Slippery]

In addition, many Israelis look much like the Arabs who hate them.

And, of course, vice-versa.

Maybe that's the problem: ol' Jehovah couldn't tell which group of Semites he was promising the land to, they all look alike to him after all.

Re:Idiocy

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Really? Most of us are justifiably afraid of terrorism?

Sure. Terrorism is scary. It's false bravado to claim you aren't worried about it to some degree. YOur stat of 0.001% of the US population dying in a single day is quite a bit. I'm frightened of street crime. It's a rational fear.

You have a better chance of dying in the bath.

Not me. I don't take baths.

Don't call for killing American freedom this way and don't support it when it happens.

You seem to have misunderstood GP's post. He said that was also bad, and he thought this was on the wrong side (I also think this action is too extreme).

But it's as stupid to stand up and shout at the wind that no safety conditions are worth any amount of safety as it is to stand up and shout that we all must be enslaved to get safety increased a bit. All of life is a balancing act. Name one public policy where one extreme is always right?

Re:Idiocy

[genner]

That being the case ... what, exactly, are they afraid of?

Sane people voting them out of office.

Re:Idiocy

[genner]

Also, are there many native-born Americans who are willing to pick fruit for $3/hour? Like it or not, we've had so many illegal immigrants for so long that the illegal labor force has become an integral part of the economy)

This is the real problem. Fruit pickers would be getting paid more if it weren't for illegal immigrants.
This applies to several other jobs as well.

Re:Idiocy

[ikkonoishi]

Other countries have their own watch lists, and part of getting them to report to us when watched people head for America is reporting to them when watched people head to their countries.

Re:Idiocy

[wellingj]

I'm going to go with: everything because they are weak individuals, both intellectually and emotionally.

Did I win the prise?

Re:Idiocy

[syousef]

I'm more interested in what they're going to do if I refuse? Throw me out of the country?

Jail. Possibly out of the country (ala Gitmo).

Re:Idiocy

[ScrewMaster]

Really? Most of us are justifiably afraid of terrorism? Some Americans are not cowards and ...

Well, you rather missed the point. In an attempt to avoid a response like yours, I specifically said real terrorism. As opposed to the mere threat of terrorism which we're constantly subjected to by our government and news media, and the tremendous cost of dealing with that (ahem!) "threat." I simply want people to note that our government is generating more fear among the populace than any number of actual terrorists. Also, assuming that the threat is severely overblown, I want to know why they're doing it. Is it just the usual rationalization for a massive power-grab, or is it something else?

Otherwise, I agree with your sentiments.

Re:Idiocy

[nametaken]

Detention. Jail. Who knows... you're not out of the country yet.

Whatever it is, I'm willing to be it ain't good.

Re:Idiocy

[ScrewMaster]

The culture that brought us the April 15th "tea party" "protests". Whatever it's called. Illiteracy I think?

No offense, but ... what does this mean?

Re:Idiocy

[Firethorn]

Illegal immigrants - who really cares?

The only problem that I think this would help is in catching various criminals, of US citizenship or not, attempting to flee the country to avoid prosecution. Plain old illegal? Who cares. One that's committed murder - we care.

Due to custody battles - it now takes BOTH parent's permission for minors to travel overseas - even if the other parent isn't custodial.

Re:Idiocy

[OrangeTide]

I'd argue that a lot of people are letting their fear of immigrants drive them right into that.

History will likely judge our allowance of illegal immigration and the creation of a de facto second class as the greatest travesty against human rights of late 20th and early 21st century. And will likely be compared to height of slavery in the US of the 19th century.

A government is wrong when a they decide that one group of people don't get the same protection from violent crime, the same basic services, or protection from exploitation. Why would anyone pay an illegal immigrant the state or federal minimum wage? While people certainly have a choice to live here, and are, in my opinion, moving here of their own free will, it is hell of an embarrassment for a major democratic free country to offer people second class citizenship. We have created a multi-generation(no exaggeration) second class sub-society by turning a blind eye to the problem instead of revising their immigration and guest worker system. One of the issues I have with uncontrolled immigration is that when violent criminals(organized drug cartels, rapists, thugs, etc) cross the border unchecked they slip into the communities of illegal immigrations and prey on them. For every 99 people that are peaceful reasonable folks that just want to support their family, there is a monster that follows them like a shadow. In a community where crime is horribly under reported, these monsters can terrorize a community and destroy lives. And the police can do little to stop them if they aren't really here.

People should either work here, after filling out the right paperwork, or not. Creating a new underground society because we're pussy footing around the politics and money related to illegal immigration is just shameful. If we can't make a profit in agriculture by paying people minimum wage to do the labor, then we need to explore more efficient means (more mechanization perhaps?) If paying minimum wage means cheap labor isn't available for building homes and tending to our lawns, we will have to adjust. We managed to build houses in the 40s to 60s by paying a relatively decent wage.

Most of the time I feel the illegal immigration debate is dominated by two opposite but equally irrational forces. Xenophobic hard liners that insist that amnesty for illegal immigrants will induce mass immigration who will "steal" American jobs and flood our healthcare system. And a knee-jerk political crowd that labels anyone who discusses the illegal immigration problem as a bigot and racist, and that we need to do more to support the inevitable influx of people, even if they are undocumented. I think I will label the Xenophobic crowd as redneck bigots, and the Politically Correct crowd as racist shills for corporate America.

Re:Idiocy

[ScrewMaster]

I'm going to go with: everything because they are weak individuals, both intellectually and emotionally. Did I win the prise?

Yep. Here you go. It's all yours.

Re:Idiocy

[ScrewMaster]

You have a better chance of dying in the bath. Not me. I don't take baths.

Me neither. I have, however, almost killed myself a few times in the shower.

Re:Idiocy

[dido]

The Japanese. I think they're the only one left, but with the kind of demographic beating they're taking, it's doubtful that they'll remain so for much longer.

Re:Idiocy

[pete6677]

Those withheld taxes are more than offset by emergency room bills that illegals incur but never pay.

Re:Idiocy

[hot soldering iron]

You're exactly right. When I was in basic training the Drill Sargent was droning on about racism not working with the ethnic diversity of the soldiers.
"This soldier is white, this one brown, this one black. We even have a guy from china!"
"Excuse me, I'm not from China. I'm from Laredo, TX." He just had Mayan ancestors!

Re:Idiocy

[pete6677]

Yup, this only happens in America. Other countries have open borders and don't care who comes and goes or what they bring.

Re:Idiocy

[MorePower]

But there is no "line" for your average Jose to wait in. The only legal option for a would-be fruit picker from Mexico (unless they have spouse, child, or parent already legally in the USA) is to just stay in their poor, corrupt country and forget about making a better life for themselves and their family.

Re:Idiocy

[misexistentialist]

If you really want security, you have to accept that the bad guys are indistinguishable

In other words security is impossible without monitoring/restricting/imprisoning everyone. Which is exactly what the governments of the world are starting to do. Usually such governments crumble, but this more gradual and impersonal method of totalitarianism might finally be the solution to creating the Great Dystopia. Technology has advanced to the point where the communication of dissidents (who will be called "domestic terrorists") can be detected and disrupted, and once organized action is impossible so is meaningful resistance.

Re:Idiocy

[sabre86]

There are at least 2 problems with your argument:

1) Everyone in the US breaks the law -- we're all criminals -- and yet it's still a civil society. Clearly, the foundation of country don't rest on the respect of any given law. The American Revolution would be pretty hard to explain then. The country was founded on respect only for just laws and contempt, disobedience and open revolt against unjust laws. You need to show that the law is just. Personally, I'm not sure it is. I'd take your stance that we should admit more immigrants as evidence that you don't believe the law is entirely just, either.

2)

illegal immigrants are breaking the law for their own benefit while legal immigrants

You're assuming it's only "for their own benefit." It's also for the benefit of their children and families. For example, if I'm a poor, pregnant Mexican, what better thing could I do for my child than giving birth to them on US soil? Because we as a country do better at respecting only just laws than most countries, US citizenship is a wonderful gift and may be the best way to protect whatever God given, universal rights one might actually have.

--sabre86

Re:Idiocy

[Rob the Bold]

It's not a matter of xenophobia. For most people anyway. Illegal immigration is a very real social and economic problem.

Assuming that this is true, why then crack down on emigration when one fears immigration? Do the people who find this a "very real social and economic problem" not notice the subtle difference in spelling and pronunciation? Never mind, I guess I answered my own question . . .

Re:Idiocy

[Anonymous Coward]

0.00001% of the US population were killed when the towers fell.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Idiocy

[Moridin42]

Uhh.. you can be justifiably afraid of something and still not panic. You can be not be a coward and still be afraid of something. That said, I'm not terribly afraid of terrorist attacks in the US. They don't happen with the frequency and devestation to spark fear. I am more.. concerned. I am also troubled by the security theatre being put on by US law enforcement.

Re:Idiocy

[Mr. Slippery]

Most of us are justifiably afraid of real terrorism.

Cancer and heart disease have killed somewhere in the neighborhood of ten million people in the past ten years. Over a million people died in accidents in the past decade; about 400,000 of those were killed in motor vehicle accidents.

In the past ten years, about 160,000 people were murdered.

About 30,000 drowned.

Only 2,974 were killed in acts of terrorism carried out by foreign nationals within the U.S.

If you're justifiably afraid of terrorism, you must be justifiably scared shitless of all this other, much more dangerous stuff.

And yet nobody gets all bent out of shape about how we have to suspend habeus corpus to protect ourselves from the dangers of swimming pools, cars, and Big Macs.

So long as we think fearing terrorists is justified, we will want Big Government to protect us. (Never mind that it's the brutal and stupid foreign policy of Big Government that motivates the terrorist's hate.)

Re:Idiocy

[Curunir_wolf]

No, they didn't accept knowingly forged SSNs. There is only one legal way to check an SSN prior to hire without violating equal opportunity laws - and that is by paying a background check company to run every potential hire (if you only run one race you are in for trouble according to the auditor I spoke with). And even that only works well if the SSN and name are mismatched.

Okay, I've lost my mod points, but I had to respond to this so I could correct this misinformation.

Apparently, too few people have heard of "e-verify". This is how employers are supposed to check whether or not a new hire is legitimately allowed to work in the US. It's free, quick, simple, and secure. It doesn't store or maintain any information about who checked what, it just gives the verification. Some SSNs used by illegal workers are shared around and they often have hundreds of names all under the same SSN.

There was an executive order that was supposed to require Federal contractors to use e-verify for all their new hires, but it's been suspended for now, and it looks like the whole system will go off-line at the end of September, because it has a sunset date and the current administration seems to want it to go away, even as a voluntary program.

As it stands now, it looks like about 300,000 of the jobs that the stimulus bill is supposed to create will actually be filled by illegal immigrants. That seems a little unfair, considering they could have gone to some of the Americans laid off, or the many immigrants that are here following the rules, and are probably also struggling in the bad economy.

Re:Idiocy

[LateArthurDent]

Sure. Terrorism is scary. It's false bravado to claim you aren't worried about it to some degree.

Bullshit. I have one or two orders of magnitude greater chance of dying from heart disease, but I still eat greasy burgers. But I don't fear it enough to stop eating greasy burgers. I have a greater chance of dying on a car accident, but I don't fear it enough to avoid getting in my car everyday to go to work. You're telling me I should fear fucking terrorism enough to inconvenience me to take my shoes off at an airport? Fuck that. I don't, and I can't possibly understand how anyone else in the security line can justify it when they had the courage to drive to the airport and eat mcdonalds for lunch. Hell, the chances of their plane crashing from accidental causes is greater.

Terrorism is a non-threat. When you believe otherwise, you're doing the terrorists a favor because terrorizing you is the whole point.

Re:Idiocy

[Swanktastic]

Not fastidious in using the spell check.

Or perhaps a fascicular error between the brain and typing fingers.

I don't think it's an astroturf by a factitious poster.

Re:Idiocy

[BigSlowTarget]

Understood though I did get your original point and I agree with it. My post was not intended to target you, more to question the level to which being terrified by terrorism is justifiable. I don't think it is. You will not die from a terrorist act. Given you aren't in a military occupation that statement is 99.99%+ likely to be true.

Less than 30 years ago we were under much greater threat of widespread death and destruction during the cold war and everyone seemed to understand that giving away all their freedoms wasn't appropriate. Why should it be appropriate now when there is no reasonable scenario that approaches that level of danger and destruction?

Why are they exaggerating the threat? I think its best not to assume a conspiracy where simple laziness and greed can do the job. Fear is a useful tool for politics - it makes people pay attention.

Re:Idiocy

[Onymous Coward]

Hear, hear.

If you think being afraid of terrorism is justifiable, you haven't done the numbers and you're just reacting with your gut.

That's when terrorism works — when you get terrorized, when you freak out and do stupid things that cause you much more damage than the original attacks. Saying "justifiably afraid" is another way of saying "I'm half of what makes terrorism work."

Are people really so fearful that they frantically cast about for ways to be safer? Okay, here's a good, actually effective way: Quit tailgating.

Re:Idiocy

[hazem]

Thank you!

It's disturbed me greatly that the apparent preferred reaction to an attack by people "who hate us for our freedom" has been to give up that freedom and to live in fear. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels that way.

Re:Idiocy

[speedtux]

Most of us are justifiably afraid of real terrorism. That's why it's called terrorism.

It's not "justifiable". We could have a 9/11 once a month, and you'd still be more likely to die from the flu. Or a car accident. Or any of a number of other preventable causes of death.

What you should be afraid of is obesity, stress, lack of sleep. Those will kill you.

Re:Idiocy

[Actually, I do RTFA]

If you think being afraid of terrorism is justifiable, you haven't done the numbers and you're just reacting with your gut.

Fear is not directly, or even indirectly, related to likelihood of death. Hell, every know someone to be scared of a creaking door after watching a scary movie? It's an emotional response based on imperfect extrapolation.

What you are talking about, and what you rightly condemn later in your post, is doing stupid things because you are afraid.

Understanding the distinction is important, because otherwise you end up yelling at people not to be afraid, which they cannot control. And they get pissed and ignore you. Or yell back and it devolves into a shouting match. Whereas, if you addressed it correctly to their reaction, you'd pass less like a ship in the night, and get further along.

Re:Idiocy

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you're being silly.

*If* terrorists blew up one American mall every week, your chance of dying in a terrorist attack is estimated at about 1 in a million (http://www.reason.com/news/show/36765.html). If terrorists could hijack and destroy one US commercial flight per week, your chances of dying would be 1 in 135,000.

Those are big "ifs".

Your current lifetime chance of dying in an automobile accident is about 1 in 83.

So your chance of dying in a car crash is tens of thousands of times more likely than dying due to a terrorist attack. And yet, i'm willing to bet you haven't changed your driving habits (I, on the other hand, have - I can do math.)

Your fear is irrational. Get over it. :)

Re:Idiocy

[noric]

The incentives are straightforward:

The pilot program is only in select locations, so they cannot put people in jail/rooms. This is because the publicity surrounding detention would deter people from exiting the country in say, Detroit.

The pilot, and ultimately any partial coverage (i.e. less than 100% exits gathering prints), will rely on the cost/economics of traveler's inconvenience. People may be willing to drive 100 miles west to avoid being printed, but you can only get printed once (you only care once), and certain things like plane tickets are non-transferable.

Presumably when total coverage is reached, you simply won't be able to leave the country without giving the feds your prints. But, by then, assuming gradual increase of coverage, for the reasons above, it is very likely you already gave your prints anyways =).

There's really only one way to truly solve this idiocy: less federal power (i.e. transferred to states) and better education. Unfortunately these are two long term solutions, and better education requires removal of the public system, so sit back and enjoy the ride.

Re:Idiocy

[lwsimon]

I went to college with a German-born immigrant that constantly got called names and even once had a death threat tacked to his dorm door - he looked very much like an Arab, but wasn't even close.

Re:Idiocy

[lwsimon]

So... uh...

You're speaking from experience, because you showed up at one, right?

No?

Re:Idiocy

[Daengbo]

If Americans have a minimum wage and laws about which taxes need to be paid, these need to be followed. If it has a system for determining who can work and who can't, that system needs to be followed. If people are in the country illegally, they need to be removed or made legal some way. Personally, I all for just opening up the borders in the NAFTA countries the way the EU has, but the US would have to change its laws in order to do that.

Allowing something illegal because your law sucks is idiotic. Change the law.

Re:Idiocy

[Hoi Polloi]

I think we should build a big wall with mines and barbed wire and guards. I hear they have some old plans in a museum in Berlin.

Re:Idiocy

[lwsimon]

My own personal experience is as an electrician in NW Arkansas. It was very difficult to get a job anywhere without fluency in Spanish. That's well and good, but as I came to know the Hispanics around me, I found out that most of them - of the 12 that I worked with regularly, 10 - were illegal. I was eventually laid off from that job, and from the next in the field. This was before the downturn in the economy.

So - call me a racist if you'd like, but based upon my own personal experience, there *is* a good chance that a Latino I meet on the street is in this country illegally. Obviously, 12 people aren't a representative sample, but it was a fair look at the construction industry.

I agree the immigration system should be reformed. The only requirement for entrance into this country should be showing up at the border, at a checkpoint. The mere fact that it is difficult to enter legally does not make it right to enter illegally.

I'm a gun owner, and it is very difficult to purchase a full-auto rifle, for the same reason it is hard to get into the US --- strict laws. If it is acceptable for the immigrant to cross the border illegally, why is it not okay for me to drop and auto-sear into my AR-15?

Re:Idiocy

[I80c51]

Tell it to Apache, Navajo, Sioux and the rest... This is just too good - the society of immigrants complaining of... immigrants. :D Yes! Deport them all!!! :D

Re:Idiocy

[LateArthurDent]

No. Fear isn't all or nothing. It's stupid not to fear terrorism at all.

No, it is not. If you're going to be afraid of things that have almost no chance of ever affecting you at all, you're not going to live your life normally. In fact, we're NOT living our lives normally because of that stupid fear. We're putting up with crap we would never have put up with before 9/11. Get the number of American deaths due to terrorism (any type, including not on american soil) over the past 10 years. Get the number of American deaths due to traffic accidents over the past 10 years. Then tell me the fear is justified.

19 guys were able to do significant damage to the US. They since have successfully operated in Britain and Spain. Isn't that frightening on some level?

No more than Timothy McVeigh's bombing, but nobody seemed to go batshit insane after that (2 people caused ~600 deaths with the oklahoma city bombing vs 19 people caused ~3000 deaths with 9/11...I'm not sure why this is relevant, but your point seemed to be that because only 19 people caused all that damage, this is something that has never happened before, so I guess I should point out that in actually deaths per person responsible ratios were higher with an event of terrorism that happened before). They found out who was responsible, had a trial and that was that.

Look, I'm not saying law enforcement and intelligence agencies don't need to take steps to try to prevent that type of thing, but it's a pure law enforcement problem. It's like gang violence. You don't change your life because some kid on the other side of your town got shot. You don't change your life because some nutjobs are killing people. You worry about things that actually have a chance of affecting you. You don't want to die of cancer, be afraid of smoking cigarettes. You want to avoid dying in a traffic accident? Try to be a more attentive and careful driver. You're afraid of heart disease? Try to eat healthier. Those steps you take will have a much greater positive effect in your life than getting fingerprinted when you leave the country ever will.

I really don't get it. Some crazed American anarchist bombs a building and people react normally to it (there's grief, there's anger, that's all normal. We don't have a fundamental change and start fingerprinting people who enter the proximity of federal buildings). Some crazed religious nutjobs hijack planes and crash them into buildings and everyone freaks out because they're foreign and hold a religion not of their own and people start thinking it's ok to wiretap our phones without warrants, it's ok to fingerprint americans just because they're leaving the country, it's ok to hold people prisoner without trials...

Also, fear is usally not of death. More people are frightened of public speaking than death.

Alright, "fear of public speaking" is a fear, but it's a completely different fear than fear of death. It gives you some knots in your stomach, depending on your anxiety levels it might even cause you to avoid speaking in public at all. If you're genuinely afraid that you're going to die, you're going to do things that you would never do under any other circumstances. People were jumping off the towers because they'd rather die by splatting in the concrete than in the fire. You're not going to jump off a building because you're rather not make that 3pm presentation. This is my entire point, btw...you should be more scared of traffic accidents than terrorism, just like you should be more scared of death than of public speaking.

Fear of violence, uncontrolled violence, is scarier than dynig at an old age in a medical bed

Seriously? Dying a slow, possibly painful, most likely undignified (being unable to go to the bathroom by yourself) death is scarier to you than 2 minutes of panic followed by a quick death?

Bottom line is that

Re:Idiocy

[dbIII]

Are you really suggesting that you can't tell the difference between someone from Central America and someone from the Middle East?

While watching "Seven Years in Tibet" I was very suprised to see the Tibetans looked exactly like Mexicans :)
Hollywood is convinced we can't tell the difference by such casting decisions and a co-worker of Greek descent had a lot of trouble convincing people he was not from Iraq when he was in the US a few years ago. There seriously are a lot of people that will be suspicious of anyone that looks different and won't care if you are born locally.

Re:Idiocy

[BrokenHalo]

YOU ARE MORTAL SO YOU ARE GOING TO DIE. Make your life worth something instead of cowering from shadows.

Well said. I'm not an American, but this snivelling about terrorists is universal across the Western world, and I am very tired of it. Sure, there are people who are out to kill or hurt others, but ultimately they are no different from any other murderer or other common criminal. And we already have a criminal code in place to deal with those individuals.

We certainly don't need to replace this with a system where everybody is treated as a criminal.

Re:Idiocy

[BrokenHalo]

and looks like he is from Egypt. When I asked him where he was from he told me Canada...

Well, why do you all get so wound up about skin colour anyway?

I understand there was supposed to have been some guy by the name of Jesus who is meant to be fairly highly regarded in the US, and I believe he would have had a middle-Eastern appearance too.

Re:Idiocy

[MadAhab]

Racial purity always ends in incest.

Re:Idiocy

[MaWeiTao]

Cut me a break. 95% of the time, the folks fighting against illegal immigration are racist as hell, and automatically label any hispanic person as a probable 'illegal'

95% of the time, huh? Care to back that up with some evidence?

So because I'm against illegal immigration I'm racist as hell. I'm tired of this bullshit argument. I'm an immigrant, not that I had much say in the matter since I came here as a baby. I've had a number of other family members immigrate to this country. My own wife is an immigrant who came here pretty much because of me.

And guess what?

They all immigrated legally, jumped through hoops for the opportunity and paid fairly exorbitant fees to do so. My uncle had to wait at least 7 years because he came up in the lottery with his family. Then he had to wait another couple of years while the paperwork was processed. I don't recall how much we spent for my wife but all told it probably $500 to $1000 from initial application, to green card to finally passport. And we got married overseas.

But then I'm supposed to accept and tolerate that people who don't have the patience or courtesy to follow proper channels somehow have a right to come to the US and take advantage of what this country has to offer. That's the big problem here. We're having to pay for all these social programs but then we're expected to accept that there are going to be people getting a free ride and in large numbers no less. Then there's the fact that these people have basically allowed themselves to be exploited because of how they found their way into this country.

Over the past five years I've been seeing groups of South Americans, primarily Mexicans, standing around in a few designated areas waiting, and hoping, someone comes along to give them work for the day. I feel miserable when I see this because it's clear all they want is to earn some money for their families. But sympathy isn't going to fix the problem. Given them all green cards won't solve the problem either. It might help those already here, but how will the government decide who gets to stay and who has to leave. And how can this possibly not encourage yet another flood of additional illegal immigrants? What are we supposed to do, start giving free green cards to anyone who finds their way into the US?

And as I've mentioned these immigrants have only been arriving in the area in recent years. What's going to happen over the next few decades? Are we going to start facing the problems California and other border states have been contending with for years now? Heavy burdens on social programs, high crime, etc.

I completely embrace immigration. This country wouldn't exist and be the success it's been without immigrants. But that was achieved through legal immigration. This is not to say that I necessarily think it's realistic and sensible to start rounding up illegals and deporting them. But those who are found out should be deported, with one exception, if they're going to school. I think education is invaluable to ensuring people rise out of poverty and I even support educational programs for illegals.

The problem is that most politicans are selfish scumbags out for their own best interests. I'm convinced both democrats and republicans are interested in illegals specifically because they want to build a voter base. They don't want to alienate potential voters, first of all. And many South Americans tend to be religious and skew conservative which is obviously appealing to republicans. On the other hand they also accustomed to social programs in their own countries and expect the same in the US so democrats will bribe them that way. And although democrats love to pretend they represent the working class, let's face facts, nearly all are upper class and in bed with special interests and corporations so the more cheap, uneducated labor we've got the better for them.

But why bother discussing an issue and actually try find solutions when you can just resort to name calling?

Re:Idiocy

[blackraven14250]

The best way, in that case, would be to scan on the way out and then on the way back in. Then you know that person isn't legally here, and can be barred from entering more easily. Definitely against this though. Why would this do absolutely ANYTHING to help us?

Re:Idiocy

[Deanalator]

Illegal immigration has nothing to do with mischievous Mexicans that don't want to play by the rules. If the current immigration laws were fair, do you really think so many of them would be risking their lives to come into the US?

It blows me away that we would turn away people that actually want to come into the US and work. Want to get rid of all illegal aliens at once? Legalize it. Criminal activity occurs when you force people to live outside the law, and don't give them the proper legal protections that they need to live prosperously.

Re:Idiocy

[DigiShaman]

Such a partisan football is made out of what I thought was just common sense -- it's depressing really. I can't understand it -- I just can't.

Actually, it's rather simple. Our politicians (both parties) know the handwriting is on the wall regarding the amount of illegal immigrants in our country. Mainly, south of the border. They're pandering for a potential *huge* voter base.

Does anyone here really think Soyomayor nomination was because of her "qualifications"? Hell no! She's the antithesis to the level SCOTUS should be with regards to judicial impartiality and constitutional interpretation. In fact, the real irony here is there's a case under review by SCOTUS based on her previous ruling. No, it's all about pandering to the hispanic vote. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

Re:Idiocy

[number11]

Most of us are justifiably afraid of real terrorism. That's why it's called terrorism.

I don't know about other places (suspect that mostly it's the case there as well), but in the US there is no real justification for fear of "real" terrorism. You're 100X more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than you are to be killed by terrorist action. On 9/11 about 3000 people died in a terrorist incident, about the same number who died (worldwide) in traffic accidents that day, about the same number as died from diesel emissions in London that year. The 9/11 incident accounted for about 0.06% of the people who died by violence worldwide that year, about one day's US toll of deaths due to smoking, high blood pressure, and obesity.

Now, partly it may be psychological. We seem to be programmed to fear unknown risks much more than we fear known risks. But that doesn't make it "justifiable".

However, driving fear of outsiders is a time-honored way to control a country's population. Governments love that.

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- Hermann Goering

       

Re:Idiocy

[tlaloc58]

New way of wasting taxes. Before they leave they are going to be sent to the already overcrowded jails and after increasing their numbers, a new excuse to request a bigger budget. Genius.

Re:Idiocy

[Ihlosi]

In fact, the real irony here is there's a case under review by SCOTUS based on her previous ruling.

Duh, the SCOTUS reviews lots of cases each year. Apparently, you haven't really done your homework while still wanting to rant against Sotomayor - maybe you should look up all of her cases that the SCOTUS has reviewed and overruled (there's at least one, and I'm sure you can dig it up). Then you could say something more concrete than "the SCOTUS is reviewing one of her cases right now !!!111".

Re:Idiocy

[MadKeithV]

YOU ARE MORTAL SO YOU ARE GOING TO DIE. Make your life worth something instead of cowering from shadows.

I do that, yeah! But I still have to see the last season of BS:G, so I'm really afraid of the terrorists!

Re:Idiocy

[shutdown -p now]

In addition, many Israelis look much like the Arabs who hate them.

Well, both (Muslim) Arabs and (religious) Jews concur that their respective tribes descend from two sons of the Biblical Abraham - Arabs from the elder Ismael, Jews from the younger Isaac. So I don't think they find it surprising.

Then again, given the story of the two brothers, it doesn't exactly help peace...

Re:Idiocy

[VShael]

"what cultures are left on this planet that aren't racially mixed?"

Rednecks? I heard they go big for inbreeding.

Of course, I don't know if you can call them a culture exactly.

Re:Idiocy

[mpe]

So your chance of dying in a car crash is tens of thousands of times more likely than dying due to a terrorist attack. And yet, i'm willing to bet you haven't changed your driving habits (I, on the other hand, have - I can do math.)

IIRC post 911 some Americans who would have previously taken internal flights have decided to drive instead.

Your fear is irrational. Get over it. :)

They probably won't until governments and the media do so. It's more likely that someone will genetically engineer porcines into airline pilots before that happens.

Re:Idiocy

[mpe]

Understood though I did get your original point and I agree with it. My post was not intended to target you, more to question the level to which being terrified by terrorism is justifiable. I don't think it is. You will not die from a terrorist act. Given you aren't in a military occupation that statement is 99.99%+ likely to be true.

In the case of being a soldier the line between "terrorism" and "war" can be a very fine one. However if they were to work in an abortion clinic or somewhere where experiments are performed on animals their risk of terrorism would be several times higher than regular members of the public. Simply because because this is where you find the most terrorists in places like the USA.

Re:Idiocy

[mpe]

It's stupid not to fear terrorism at all. 19 guys were able to do significant damage to the US. They since have successfully operated in Britain and Spain.

Certainly not the same 19 guys. Also both Britain and Spain have previously experienced attacks from far more competent (and dangerous) terrorists. However the British Government and media appear somewhat lacking in a clue. Doing things like warning about the threat of "Islamic terrorists" a couple of weeks after some Irish terrorists killed soldiers on a military base.

Re:Idiocy

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. I don't know why these dim witted slashdotter's didn't figure this out immediately. Non-lethal weapons are going to be used by the military on the enemy. They will be used on you(the Legal US National). And that goes for any fingerprint scan as well. Terrorists, criminals, and illegal aliens aren't going to be fingerprinted. It's going to be you.

You can put this right up there with gun control. The criminals don't care what some fat fuck judge says is law. They are criminals jackass.

Re:Idiocy

[wvmarle]

Like another poster mentioned: most of the EU qualifies.

My residence of Hong Kong also very much qualifies. It has a very relaxed immigration policy, except if you happen to be from China (yes HK is part of China and has most immigration restrictions against mainland Chinese). Unfortunately recently also some Taiwanese were refused entry, it appears arbitrarily and for political reasons. That is very bad.

And for criminals: if they have served their time, and released, they deserve a second chance and should be treated like anyone else in this respect. Criminals (or suspects) on a watch-list will be stopped and arrested at the border (both HK and EU) when they try to enter or leave, and possibly extradited.

No fingerprinting necessary by the way, except that I use my thumb print for automated immigration clearance. Failing the thumb print I can also use the conventional face-to-face-with-an-officer method.

Re:Idiocy

[Znork]

Fear isn't perfectly rational like that.

Irrational fears can be cured.

19 guys were able to do significant damage to the US.

Hardly. They didn't even kill as many as die in traffic every month. Barely a tenth of the number of Americans who die of the of the flu every year.

Isn't that frightening on some level?

Not in the least. If that's the worst some pissant terrorists can do, they're a nuisance, not a threat.

It's an emotion (and a justifiable one).

It's an understandable one, even more so in light of sensationalist media and fearmongering politicians with their own agenda.

But it's not a justifiable one.

Re:Idiocy

[voxner]

Basing security on statistics like .0001% is a very flawed way of approaching the problem. What about the future? What if the terrorists get hold of chemical weapons or nukes. Thats a whole different ball-game ain't it? State has a responsibility to protect its citizens from terrorists. With nukes there won't be many zeros after the dot. And with the passage of time the odds of terrorists getting their hands on WMDs only increases.

Re:Idiocy

[karmatic]

Sure. Terrorism is scary. It's false bravado to claim you aren't worried about it to some degree. YOur stat of 0.001% of the US population dying in a single day is quite a bit. I'm frightened of street crime. It's a rational fear.

No, it's not. I have absolutely zero fear of terrorism, on any level. I have accepted that I _will_ die, and it's possible it may be a car accident, terrorism, a heart attack - any of a number of things. The nifty thing about dying is that when it's over, you're dead - there's not a lot to worry about at that point.

So, suck it up - it's a simple fact of life that nearly every person you will ever will come across could kill you if he or she desired - be it with a knife, a gun, a bomb. It's part of being in a society.

I do not find any evidence for an afterlife, nor have any reasonable reason to believe that there is one. Fearing a judgement would be counterproductive. I do, however, fear life - the concept of living paralyzed, or in intense pain, etc. - those are scary. Death is easy.

Re:Idiocy

[Kjellander]

Most of us are justifiably afraid of real terrorism. That's why it's called terrorism

Then stop being afraid! Terrorism isn't dangerous if you compare it to your normal daily lives, like going in a car. Or eating. Or breathing air. Or having breasts or a prostate.

So be afraid of those things instead. You can't justifiably be afraid of terrorism in the western world. The chance of getting getting killed is slim to none.

And I know. I've been to the top of the WTC, and I was in the building for an hour or so. And given that the towers fell when I was 25 that means that it was a 1/1 000 000 000 chance of me being killed. Was I afraid? No.

And my dad took the subway in London on the day they bombed. Was I afraid that he had gotten killed. Not really. I mean I called him later that night, but that was the extent of my worry,

What am I afraid of? Being in a car. My granddad's brother got smashed by a truck in his car. My dad's new wife was a widow because her late husband died in a car crash, and she was lucky she survived.

Be afraid of things you can justifiably be afraid of.

Re:Idiocy

[WeeLad]

I have a hard time telling where "Americans" are from just by looking at them.

Re:Idiocy

[TheGratefulNet]

A better question would be, what cultures are left on this planet that aren't racially mixed?

republicans. most of them are unfuckable anyway.

Re:Idiocy

[TheGratefulNet]

So long as we think fearing terrorists is justified, we will want Big Government to protect us. (Never mind that it's the brutal and stupid foreign policy of Big Government that motivates the terrorist's hate.)

if you are actually talking about moslem terrorists, they have hated us for decades and have hated non-muslims for hundreds of years.

the american situation has zero - ZILCH- to do with their hate. their hate lives on, entirely on its own. muslim culture enhances hatred of non-muslims and their view is that some day, the earth SHOULD belong entirely and exclusively to them.

this is not an american issue - its a world issue to deal with and has been since, well, hundreds of years ago. the koran tells them that they will be 'awarded' the earth someday and their whole motivation is to ensure that that happens.

any talk about 'palestine' or america is just a smoke screen. get that into your head - and that 'making peace' won't ever happen as long as the koran is in the current state it is (ie, the religion is pig-headed and simply won't accept the west. EVER.)

its not about america. nothing we can do will 'please' them. its about classic old vs new religion. you really think that 'america' is at all relevant when it comes to 'my god vs your god' ? come on.

Re:Idiocy

[daem0n1x]

What's the definition of mixed? If you mix a Dane and a Polish you get a tall, milky-white, blue-eyed, blond person. That would be accepted as a pure white American, but it's a mix of 2 very different "races".

What the fuck is a race? What the fuck is "mixed"? If GP doesn't like mixing, go ahead, get a bunch of "pure" whites and make them inbreed for a few decades. Then enjoy the freak show.

I'm from Southern Europe and everytime I travel to Northern Europe or the USA everybody mistakes me for an Arab or Jew, and I'm neither. And I look just like any other guy in my country, a 1st World, EU country.

Re:Idiocy

[Kazymyr]

There are a few countries in Eastern Europe that are so racially uniform it's not even funny.

Re:Idiocy

[daem0n1x]

Ethnically, they're the same people. Except for the many Judaism-practicer Europeans that emigrated to Israel. Those have no relation whatsoever with the original inhabitants of the "Holy Land".

Arabs and Jews have been living together for many centuries.

Re:Idiocy

[SerpentMage]

Here is an idea... I don't know maybe it is a CRAZY WHACKY idea...

Everybody who works has to show proof of residence in the country. Everybody who attends school has to show proof of residence. Everybody who uses services has to show proof of residence!

In most countries this is a requirement. Those countries are not trying to be bigoted, or racist, they just want to know if you are there to live or visit.

Some in America liked illegal immigration because it brought down prices, and kept things cheap. In other words SLAVES! Now that there are problems in the economy the slaves are not needed and told to go home!

Re:Idiocy

[ScrewMaster]

Well, you rather missed the point. In an attempt to avoid a response like yours...

Dude, you're on Slashdot. There's no point being careful with your language: nobody's going to read your posts anyway, they just scan them for keywords and spout kneejerk rants.

True ... but then again, when they do I get to go all virtuous on them and make them feel bad because they didn't listen. Win-win, any way you look at it.

Re:Idiocy

[CowboyBob500]

First, we are still better than most nations

I beg to differ. From a traveller's perspective even China is more relaxed than the US. For example, I took a photo of the airport I landed in in China (its a habit of mine) and I took a photo of the airport I landed at in the US. Guess which country I was in where I was surrounded by armed men demanding what the hell I was doing, and guess which country I was in where a policeman offered to take a picture of me standing in front of the airport.

Re:Idiocy

[Fred_A]

If you'd read the TSA manual, you'd know that "if it's tanned, put your gloves on and tell it to bend over".
And re telling the difference from a Liberian...
Like TSA employees would know where they'd come from... "yeah, right, like there's a place like Liberion, Ya don't fool me! Bend over mister !"

And just when I thought it was safe to go back (or even switch planes) to the US too...
Well, since I'm blond maybe I'll get through despite my French passport (although French bashing seems to have subsided, outside of web boards).

Don't think the US airport people are the only ones to be clueless though. I travel quite a bit and for some reason, the stupidest they are, the closest to the public they get. It's a worldwide trend. Why would the US be left out ?

Advertisement:
"You have trouble deciphering this text, your friends hate you, you can barely mumble in English ? Have you considered a job in airport security ?"

Re:Idiocy

[Acer500]

First, we are still better than most nations I beg to differ. From a traveler's perspective even China is more relaxed than the US.

For example, I took a photo of the airport I landed in in China (its a habit of mine) and I took a photo of the airport I landed at in the US. Guess which country I was in where I was surrounded by armed men demanding what the hell I was doing, and guess which country I was in where a policeman offered to take a picture of me standing in front of the airport.

Sadly, that's true. I've so far refused to visit the US, even though I'd like to, because it's not worth the hassle (I've been over it, and less than a hundred meters from the US border, and I've still not gone there).

It's also taken some money from US companies (I can't travel in any US airline because you can't even be on transit in the US without a visa).

China wasn't easy to get into (a relative was there last month), but it's far easier than the US, and much more friendlier once you're inside (a lot more if you're doing business :) ), and the cities are far nicer than I imagined (still wouldn't want to live there, but it's getting better).

Re:Idiocy

[identity0]

Oh, yes. There was one math professor I had (Mr. Samardar) who the kids in class would make a game out of trying to guess where he was from. He was darker-skinned than most white people but not really 'dark', and his accent was light and sounded kind of European(to me, at least). Popular guesses included Egypt and Peru.

Now I just looked him up, it seems he was the chair of the local Iranian-American Association. So there's at least one person who couldn't easily be profiled by looks.

Add to that the fact that Latin Americans can range from very European-looking to very native-looking, and you have a lot of chances of misjudgement.

And speaking as an Asian, people from my country often think I'm from another country(because of my clothes or hairstyle, I think), and I know Asians in the US who have been mistaken for Native American.

Re:Idiocy

[dkf]

Terrorism is a non-threat.

That's wrong. Terrorism is a threat. It's just not a very significant one for most people so long as a few simple steps are taken (like not taking random parcels onto planes for strangers) most of which are just plain old common sense anyway.

Yes, have specialist police units watch suspected terrorists. After all we do the same to suspected mobsters and spies too. Also yes to keeping guns and knives out of the cabin (I don't want anyone going postal near to me, and planes are stressful places). But cutting out a bunch of the useless security theater would be a good thing too. In particular, the universal shoe checks and the liquid ban just make people real grouchy. If we could come up with a reliable way of scanning luggage without having to take laptops out of our bags, that'd be even better since then going through security would be a breeze.

(FWIW, the US probably wasn't applying enough security checks before 9/11. But now they've gone the other way...)

Re:Idiocy

[slash.dt]

The Japanese?

A lot of Koreans, Chinese and Brazilians have Japanese passports. Even a few 'westerners' do too.

Re:Idiocy

[LanMan04]

My thoughts exactly. I'm a mix of at least a dozen European nationalities (ancestors immigrated to America in the mid 1800s), but I just look like a "white guy".

Then again, maybe since I'm used to dealing with other American "mutts" my view is also skewed. It's possible that if I were to tour some European countries they could peg me as a foreigner without speaking to me.

Re:Idiocy

[hansede]

Some Americans are not cowards and are not willing to sacrifice the very living ideals that make the country special for the petty illusion of 'being safe.' 0.001% of the US population were killed when the towers fell.

You're absolutely right that there is no reason to be afraid of dying in a terrorist attack. The chances are astronomically low that you will. Yet I contend that the additional security measures taken to "stop" terrorism are actually a good thing. Do you really think for a minute that security experts don't know the same statistics that you do? The point of additional security after 9-11 is not to ACTUALLY protect anyone, the point is to make the American public feel like they're being protected. Just as terrorism itself is theater, so must your response to terrorism be theater. It's a psychological battle. You're right that there is no reason to be afraid, but it's a moot point. After 9-11 there were 300M people who needed convincing, and simply telling them "the odds are 0.001%" is not going to quell panic on that scale. You and I know the additional security is just theater, but in this case theater is the correct response.

Re:Idiocy

[N1tr0u5]

Man, I wish I had mod points. I'm going to have to memorize this post because it's what been going through my head regarding all of this 'terrist' talk and BS patriot act hullabaloo, but just couldn't put it into words. Thanks. Keep up the good fight.

Re:Idiocy

[moeinvt]

"The culture that brought us the April 15th "tea party" "protests". Whatever it's called. Illiteracy I think?"

Try "patriotism". You should be encouraging rather than disparaging the political activism of your fellow citiznes. Quit listening to the mainstream media and their divisive BS.

The people at the tea party protests were sufficiently literate to realize that tripling the annual budget deficit of the Federal government, and doubling the national debt over the next 10 years isn't the best way to get the country out of a depression that was a direct result of massive debt and loose monetary policy. It's not exactly fair to the next generation of taxpayers either. Where are all the "think of the children" people when it comes to saddling the children with debt?

If the people in the U.S. were actually PAYING for the gross excesses of the Federal government through their taxes, I would hope that there would be 10X as many people at these protests. If you're a U.S. citizen and taxpayer, how would you like to see all Federal taxes increased by around 60%? The Federal government is stealing our wealth, and the wealth of the children to pay for wars and bank bailouts, and they're working full time to undermine our civil liberties. If you're OK with that, stay home, watch MSM propaganda and make snide remarks about your fellow citizens who are actually trying to do something about it.

Re:Idiocy

[intheshelter]

Yeah! Like, what if the terrorists got their hands on a mind control ray and turned your children into suicide bombers who will try to kill you? Yeah! What about THAT? Maybe we should take the preventative measures of imprisoning the children so they can't be taken over by the terrorists?

Whew, problem solved!

I actually like his point that in the big scheme this was a tragedy, but not something that justifies the big brother nonsense being used by the US gov't. The government has used cheesy scare tactics to herd the sheep into accepting these bad laws and now we'll be lucky if we can ever get them overturned. If terrorism's goal is to negatively effect the lives of their enemies then they have succeeded. And they have succeeded with the help of the US gov't and people such as yourself you choose to make decisions based on fear rather than reality and courage.

Re:Idiocy

[forgotten_my_nick]

I went to China a couple of years back. I had to apply for a visa (by mail) which took less then a week. When I got to China they stamped the visa document and not my passport. They didn't ask for fingerprints or anything else like that. Likewise when I left.

Last time I was in the US I got treated like I was a criminal. The fact they were treating everyone else the same way didn't make me feel any better.

Just saying.

Re:Idiocy

[d0n0vAn]

Terrorism is the vehicle that the United States government is utilizing to expand its totalitarian powers. This is just another example of a central government knowing where its citizens are each and every minute of every day. Are you behind on your Visa bill? Did you miss a car payment? Do you owe back child support or taxes? Do you write anti-government comments on websites? If so then this program is designed to catch you and put you where you belong. Catch illegal aliens my fucking ass.

Re:Idiocy

[intheshelter]

DAMN YOU and your unassailable logic!!

Well stated, on both the statistical example (whether the numbers were accurate or not) and the observation on our government's historical record of incompetence in foreign policy.

Re:Idiocy

[flink]

America's border and our living conditions are far more porous than EU's (in fact, more than just about any other nation)

I don't know about all of the EU, but having flown into France and Holland, the entry procedure consisted of presenting my passport and smiling. As an American citizen, you're scrutinized more coming home than you are visiting the EU, so I'm not sure what you mean by more porous.

Re:Idiocy

[suman28]

I didn't realize that people that took so many pains entering the U.S. illegally, took planes back to their country so frequently or so easily. "Yeah, it took me 2 weeks of walking the Arizona desert, in 120 degree heat and I almost died of thirst and hunger, and being chased by dogs, vultures, and minute men, but let me go by plane to see my family, and make the same exciting and adventurous trip back". Maybe some people do that, but I can't see how many illegal people would travel this way. This clearly seems to be yet another way of keeping tabs on people, who are in the United States legally, but are not citizens. I wonder how long it will be, before they extend this policy to U.S citizens as well.

Re:Idiocy

[ae1294]

What is the point of catching someone you don't want in the country when they are leaving it??

Because it's a lie and it's not really about getting those damn dirty illegals. I mean how many Mexicans do you think fly back to Mexico?
You know things are getting bad when they wanna know who's leaving a county.

Re:Idiocy

[OhHellWithIt]

Why not just let them leave?

That was sort of my thinking, too. FWIW, TFA now says that only foreigners will have their fingerprints taken, not U.S. citizens. So this plan is even more idiotic: Illegal aliens are already trying to pass as U.S. citizens, so the fingerprinting will catch none of them.

I don't understand U.S. immigration policy. A couple of weekends ago, I had breakfast at a local diner and learned that our Ukrainian waitress was here on a temporary guest-worker visa. This is a job that pretty well nearly everybody can do, in a town where such employment is not seasonal in nature, so how is this justified? In the realm of pushing down wages and inhibiting employment of U.S. citizens, this is no better than an illegal alien who snuck across the border.

Re:Idiocy

[ae1294]

embarrassment for a major democratic free country to offer people second class citizenship.

Sorta like what happens when someone is convicted of a feliony? The whole losing your right to vote for the rest of your life and having to declare it on every job application for the rest of your life? And people wonder why convicts aren't reformed... it's because you have made them into second class citizens fools! Strange that we have one of the largest prison systems in the world isn't it?

As far as illegal immigration goes... Does anyone else ever wonder how millions of illegals can cross a hot desert border every year and not get caught but somehow terrorist can't? I donno I'm not trying to sound all tin-foil hat like but I sometimes wonder about Al-Qaeda inability to operate within our borders.. It's not like they need to bring drugs over the boarder or even bombs.. you can make some pretty nice bombs by going to the local hardware store and truck stop. And it's not like they aren't willing to kill themselves if they get caught. So what's the deal???

All I'm saying is that as a person who has no trailing I could sure kill a lot of people if I was somehow delusional enough to think it would mean I'd get a bunch of virgin's in heaven and god would welcome me with "way to go man!". What about the rest of you? I mean if you where evil like cobra commander couldn't you figure out how to cause a lot more chaos than what we have?

Re:Idiocy

[grahamd0]

But they hate you because of your freedom. If you have no freedom they will no longer hate you, and you will be safe.

...

PROFIT?

Re:Idiocy

[WindBourne]

Legal's vs. illegals. It is trivial for a person to come into America via Canada and live here, ILLEGALLY. In addition, you can come through Mexico, but it will mean a walk in the desert, or paying a coyote for trip through one of the many tunnels here. More importantly, far too many of our laws encourage this. Heck, here in Colorado, our Governor ordered state agency's to not investigate a person's status, and if a major crime is not involved, it means that they will not be turned over to ICE.

Now, as far as a legal person (citizen, or otherwise) coming to America, it IS more difficult. Of course, when Germany, France, etc had the red army faction and other terrorists issues, it also had extreme difficulty. With one or two real attacks from outside, I think that EU will crack down MUCH HARDER than what America does. As it is, EU DOES similar checks to none-citizens who come for visits (not for known businesses), though they do not currently fingerprint. With a single terrorists attack, I am guessing that we will see loads of automatic guns in your streets again like it was back in the early 80's.

Re:Idiocy

[Ihlosi]

Does anyone else ever wonder how millions of illegals can cross a hot desert border every year and not get caught but somehow terrorist can't?

That's because the drug lords don't want anyone to blow up their customer base.

Re:Idiocy

[Wrath0fb0b]

Maybe if they would lighten up the rules a bit there would be fewer people seeking illegal methods of entry.

Maybe you should have read my post in which I offered massive increases in legal immigration as a policy alternative, but only if combined with massive deportation of illegal immigrants. That's my compromise offer.

Re:Idiocy

[WindBourne]

BTW, I have to say that I prefer EU's treatment of illegals over what we are doing here. They count on citizens and agencies to turn them over to be exported. If caught once, they are kept confined for a year. Next time, it is 5 years. Kind of expensive, but it discourages illegals. Here in the states, esp. Texas, Arizona, CA, and CO, we ship them back fairly quickly. Worse, we have not punished the businesses for hiring them. We are even offering to subsidize COLLEGE education for them. Totally insane.

Re:Idiocy

[Wrath0fb0b]

Illegal immigration has nothing to do with mischievous Mexicans that don't want to play by the rules. If the current immigration laws were fair, do you really think so many of them would be risking their lives to come into the US?

I don't think that a foreigner has the right to judge whether our laws are fair and decide, based on that judgment, whether they should be followed. There are many laws that I find unfair, but I follow them because I respect my fellow citizens' right to pass laws that I don't approve of. If you don't understand that very basic concept (that you are not the final authority on the law) then you don't really understand the American system of government.

Like I've said 3 times now, I support massive legal immigration, but only if we get serious about deporting all the illegal immigrants. That's my compromise position.

Re:Idiocy

[ak3ldama]

Next thing you know they would expand this power to the 400 or whatever miles near a border... You are absolutely right, this program is a joke.

Re:Idiocy

[conspirator57]

My father in law can trace his American heritage to both the indigenous population and colonial era settlers. In the early 80s he got death threats from people who thought he was Iranian. (around the time of the Iran hostage event)

My wife got yelled at to "go home" by a motorist at speed on the highway after September 11th. At first she thought they just had something against WV.

Re:Idiocy

[ae1294]

That's because the drug lords don't want anyone to blow up their customer base.

Oooo ok... so sort of like how the mob helped the federal government during world war two protect the ports except that the mob got something out of it where-as the drug lords could get paid from both sides and still make money from the "too scared to leave the house" class of citizens all needing to get that quick xanax fix but without all the expensive and risky medical visits?

If I was an evil drug lord... o god how I wish I was... I would help the terrorist for a price as long as they only targeted US government buildings... Make money and cripple enforcement... sounds good to me... As far as it making it harder to get drugs into the US.. I think most hard drugs come in via sub now and pot gets grown in our national forests now from what I've been seeing on the propaganda box so it's not really gonna hurt them much plus according to the propaganda box drugs pay for terrorism so I.... well... I donno... I'm just very confused...

One more thing that strikes me odd.. So terrorist can't buy a boat and sail their asses over here? maybe hijack some yuppie American couple's yuat or something? I donno it just seems like a well funded group could do better than one attack on US soil every 10 years... I mean... at least send over a few guys and have them break into some houses and find some guns and go shoot some people while yelling "death to America" or something..

Maybe the terrorist leaders are just like our politicians... All talk and no action. I mean if they ever wow and destroyed America what would they do go get day jobs?

Re:Idiocy

[Mal-2]

I had a good friend who came from Iran. We took a trip to Mexico, and everywhere we went, people stared because he looked a whole lot like then-president Carlos Salinas. When we went to the jai alai games, people STOOD UP in nearby areas until they realized it was just a guy who LOOKED like their president.

So yes, I'd say there can sometimes be difficulty telling where a person came from. He was (and presumably still is) Iranian, and even Mexicans thought he was Mexican.

Mal-2

Re:Idiocy

[Golddess]

Ah, but that is one of Jesus's greatest miracles. Despite being born a middle-eastern Jew, He grew up a brown-haired, brown-eyed, Caucasian ;)

I wish I could remember where I first heard that joke.

Re:Idiocy

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

"And speaking as an Asian, people from my country often think I'm from another country(because of my clothes or hairstyle, I think), and I know Asians in the US who have been mistaken for Native American."

Because Native Americans are basically Chinese who immigrated some 5,000 years ago.

Re:Idiocy

[BitHive]

The protesters were 99% illiterate white people.

Re:Idiocy

[Attila Dimedici]

You have been misled by the media. Both the GOP party establishment and the Dem party establishment have attempted to legalize the status of illegal immigrants now, while pushing off efforts to improve efforts to prevent illegal immigration to "sometime in the future". The GOP grassroots (and many independents) has responded by saying "address the problem of ongoing illegal immigration before deciding what to do about the illegals already here."
Quite simply neither Party wants to actually address the issue of illegal immigration. The Democrat Party establishment want to legitimatize the illegal immigrants because they will tend to vote Democrat if they gain the right to vote, but they don't want to increase legal immigration because the Unions oppose that strongly. Additionally, the Democrat Party establishment wants to keep illegal immigrants coming because it provides them with a cheap labor pool (considering that the richest people in the US are generally Democrats).
I have trouble understanding what the Republican Party establishment thinks it gains from the positions it takes on immigration. I suppose it has to do with the cheap labor pool as well. However, one would think that an analysis of risk/reward would indicate that a strong stance on INCREASING LEGAL immigration while cracking down on ILLEGAL immigration would be a winner for them.

Re:Idiocy

[lucifig]

They aren't trying to catch illegals as they are leaving. They already fingerprint incoming travelers but have no mechanism to see who actually leaves the country. By capturing incoming and outgoing immigration information...they can see who is still in the country, and go after them.

Re:Idiocy

[cayenne8]

"Are you really suggesting that you can't tell the difference between someone from Central America and someone from the Middle East?"

Nope. That's quite easy. They all wear very different hats.

Re:Idiocy

[Chosen Reject]

My wife is full blooded Vietnamese. When people ask where she's from she asks them to guess. I don't think anyone has gotten it right yet. Most guess that she is half of one thing and half of another (usually Mexican, white, and/or some some Asian country though rarely Viet) and one lady said she looked exactly like a Brazilian singer. We looked her up and were surprised at the closeness of resemblance. My wife's brother looks very SE Asian, two of her sisters look more Chinese, and one sister looks Cambodian, her Dad looks stereotypical Mexican, but they are all Viet. I'm white and have never been confused for anything else, but I'm very interested to see what our kids will look like.

We knew a full blooded white girl who many thought to be half Korean. A cashier the other day looked fully white, including her eyes, until she looked down at the register and suddenly her eyes looked Japanese so I asked. She said I was the one of the few people who knew she had some Japanese in her.

Re:Idiocy

[kaatochacha]

Nope, not the picture I grew up with tacked to the wall. His eyes were definitely blue.

Re:Idiocy

[Grishnakh]

Yes, I know; I misspoke (miswrote).

My point was that many Mexicans look just as white as most Americans, and could pass for German, which is in the north.

Re:Idiocy

[Grishnakh]

If you don't know what average Americans look like, I can't help you.

Re:Idiocy

[J.R. Random]

I fail to see how fingerprinting people when they leave will stop them from entering in the first place. Although I am opposed to illegal immigration it looks like if I want to cross the border I'll have to do it the way illegal immigrants do - far away from any federales. I was against the creeping facism of Bush and Obama doesn't look any better.

Re:Idiocy

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Irrational fears can be cured.

They can be managed. I'm scared of heights. I can still go up and do work high in the air. Not letting your fears control you is important. "Curing" the fear is a distanct second.

They didn't even kill as many as die in traffic every month. Barely a tenth of the number of Americans who die of the of the flu every year.

Total economic damage was far in excese of that caused by traffic accidents. Also, how did you count long term health damage?

Clearly, because people commit suicide, some things are more frightening than death (for instance, losing all your money... see Window, Stockbrokers and).

Also, I've been in traffic accidents/gotten the flu and survived relatively free of permenant injury. So I'm not terribly worried about it.

If that's the worst some pissant terrorists can do, they're a nuisance, not a threat.

Never said they were a threat. I said they were frightening. In fact, they probably didn't want to do that much.

I'm not saying I'm letting the fear overwhlem my judgement. I'm just saying that it does scare me. You can think that the proposed countermeasures are both ineffectual and too costly (to freedom) to be implemented if they were effectual, without claiming that you're not afraid.

Re:Idiocy

[AK Marc]

First, we are still better than most nations,

Chinese companies prefer to deal with Europe than the US. The US has a habit of approving visas, then revoking them. It may be that the companies filling them out fill out a little too much of what they think the US wants to hear (that's how you do it there) and if something doesn't sit right, it's rejected. But the simple fact is that Chinese companies will hold meetings in Tokyo with US companies, and deal with countries that let them in, like Germany and the UK, rather than the US. Because their employees are unable to travel freely to the US to do business. Anyone coming over here for business must *prove* that they will not overstay their visa. For one, that's impossible. And secondly, it's easier, in practice, for Europeans to get approved than Chinese.

Re:Idiocy

[FiloEleven]

Even if that were the case (instead of being a gross overstatement), shouldn't you be happy that they're actually making their grievance known instead of just sitting in front of the tube or dispensing "wisdom" on the internet? Or has wanting to choose what one does with more of one's own money already become a faux pas after only half a decade of vast government expansion? Or is it simply that Fox News jumped on the idea (first promoted IIRC by Ron Paul's people) and made it somehow illegitimate through their very presence?

Or are you just a troll who fails to recognize that there are different ways to look at things, and so you believe that everyone who doesn't see things exactly as you do must be illiterate?

Re:Idiocy

[webweave]

Didn't your read the article, Bush thought this up. Somewhere in backwards world this makes sense.

Re:Idiocy

[Quikah]

H2 visas exists for manual labor. I cannot vouch for the usefulness of them, they seem to me to be kind of burdensome to get on a seasonal basis.

Re:Idiocy

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Jesus, people need to read what they post:

Social Security officials do not know what fraction of the suspense file corresponds to the earnings of illegal immigrants. But they suspect that the portion is significant. ''Our assumption is that about three-quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes,'' said Stephen C. Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, using the agency's term for illegal immigration.

If you actualyl read the article, you will see that the only FACT stated is that nine million W-2s with incorrect info landed in the suspense file.

Personally, I'll take such statements made in 2005 under an administration that was criticized for being soft soft on illegal immigration with a grain of salt -- especially when they come out to support a stance of being soft on illegal immigration.

Re:Idiocy

[Wrath0fb0b]

So, while I agree with the idea of reforming the system, and then enforcing it, I think it has to be done in that order if you are truly worried about "fairness."

Accepted. We'll increase the amount of legal immigrants allowed in by a factor of 10 and remove all the quotas on Monday. On Tuesday we will deport all the illegals.

Re:Idiocy

[fuzznutz]

I really don't get it. Some crazed American anarchist bombs a building and people react normally to it (there's grief, there's anger, that's all normal.

That's not exactly how I remember it. I seem to remember a panic about weekend "militias", FBI infiltration of these militia groups, and Morris Dees' face plastered all over the news for a while denouncing these new "hate" groups. That's when we also got all those new metal detectors and perimeter barriers around federal buildings and we closed off Pennsylvania Ave.

A new boogeyman just hasn't yet been named to take the place of our terrorist enablers. Rest assured it will happen in time and we can erode some more of our rights. Maybe in the meantime, we can just recycle some from the past. How about the Soviets? Putin's been on a roll lately.

Re:Idiocy

[FrameRotBlues]

+1.

Accepting that we are mortal and that death is inevitable is part of life. For those who don't want to get hurt/be in an accident/die, then don't get out of bed in the morning. Don't get into a car, don't walk outside, etc. The risks one takes for a comfortable lifestyle, ... nix that; the risks one takes for maintaining life involve the possibility of dying. You can't have your cake and eat it too, no matter how much anyone says differently. It bothers me how much people fear death. Entire industries are based off of it. People will spend their entire life savings prolonging their own life or the life of a loved one beyond its expectancy, and for what? Nostalgia? No! The fear of the unknown. The fear of death.

I, too, am more concerned about having to live out my life in a wheelchair or missing a limb than I am of dying. I would still do my damndest to become a productive member of society, but failing that, I think I would rather end my own life than become a drain on everyone else, including myself.

Re:Idiocy

[sumdumass]

Unfuckable, that's all we did in our spare time at our coed young republicans camp. I think there was even some log cabin republicans there too.

I'm not sure where you got that idea from, but some of the hottest women in America are republicans and they get more action then you probably dream about.

Re:Idiocy

[sumdumass]

You might as well add french in there too. France control Mexico for some time before their revolution. In fact, I think they took mexico from spain.

Re:Idiocy

[sumdumass]

What are you smoking?

Jews don't just convert people to their religion like other faiths attempt to. There is also a long standing tradition of marrying within the religion. A practicing jew from europe would most likely be a descendant from the original jews of the holy land more often then not. They might have other mixes in them but they do have connections to the original inhabitants of the "Holy Land".

Re:Idiocy

[sumdumass]

You missing the point of terrorism verses what you have control over.

You see, you have made choices concerning your driving habbits and health risks. This is fine because you found what you thought was reasonable and acceptable. Others, they buy bigger cars and drive slower or they don't eat meat or whatever because they have control over that. Now, what you don't have control over is me walking down the street shooting my gun in random directions, reloading and doing it again.

Would you stand up and proclaim support for my rights to do that or would you find cover and call the police? What if you knew I was going to do it 5 hours before it happened and I have done it in the past so you know I'm not joking? Would support having me harassed and possible have my guns taken away from me? Why, you have balls and think no one should be afraid of terrorism. Would you stand in the same room with me as I did that? Why, because you have balls?

If you answered that you wouldn't be nervous if not afraid nor act in a way to preserver your own life, perhaps the life of someone else too, then you a fucking idiot. But if you answered like a normal person and don't think I should be able to just randomly start shooting in crowded places that you are at. The problem with the airport and borders are that you have no control, your on a plane in a confined space with a great chance of dieing if you leave the confined space mid flight. It's not like you heat gun shots and an explosion and decide to take an alternative way to work, your stuck there and defenseless. This is why people demand certain measures of security to be in place when they have no control of their own safety.

If you don't want to take your shoes off at the airport, then either don't fly or get a private flight. It's really no different then going to McDonald's and not being ble to order a Whopper. If you don't like the situation, find one you do. That is your choice and part of the control of your own safety. but don't sit there and think because you are stupid or brave that everyone else has to give up their expectations of safety and security when entering situations outside their control.

Re:Idiocy

[sumdumass]

That's sort of the problem. There is a gap in technology that requires half backed shortcuts to be implemented which are over bearing and intrusive.

It's really a balancing act of finding the amount of procedures that work but don't leave gaping holes. And usually, a low paid drone who got the job because he was picked on in high school and this gives him power now, that has to fill the gaps which make otherwise reasonable policies seem outrageous. I mean we actually did catch a guy sneaking explosives on a plane in his shoes, which would be more acceptable to you, a chemical detection unit passing within inches of your body giving false positives or taking your shoes off at the airport for a better detection method can be employed? Restrictions of liquids on a plane seem arcane too, but not only is there an explosive threat which chemicals that wouldn't likely be detected by the chemical sniffers, but there is a poisoning threat there two. It isn't hard to wire some 9 volt batteries together in a series, attach some graphite rods and drop it in a saltwater solution in the presence of Co2. Remember, a plane is a confined space that you can't really open windows up on at 35000 feet so the resulting chlorine gas would/could cause some serious issues.

A lot of the times, we don't really understand the why as much as the inconvenience. It would be nice is we didn't have to worry about anything like this but that reality left a while ago.

Re:Idiocy

[ScrewMaster]

Restrictions of liquids on a plane seem arcane too, but not only is there an explosive threat which chemicals that wouldn't likely be detected by the chemical sniffers, but there is a poisoning threat there two.

I'd feel better about that if they didn't just throw all the various containers of potential explosives and poisons together into a big trashcan right next to the security checkpoint. Better an explosion or poison gas cloud when you're on the ground, I suppose. Still, if you're going to have security theater it's best to have some good props.

Re:Idiocy

[ScrewMaster]

Simply because because this is where you find the most terrorists in places like the USA.

Regardless of their motivations or politics, I think calling these people "terrorists" doesn't really describe what they're all about. It's just a generic term for what they do (i.e kill some people and scare a lot more) which is, at best, just a means to an end. In reality, "psychopathic killer" or "mass murderer" probably comes closer to the mark, because that's what they are. The mere fact that murdering hundreds or thousands of human beings is justifiable in their minds, for the reasons they typically offer, indicates a major malfunction. These people are sick. I don't know if the condition is treatable, though, other than by a couple rounds through the head.

Re:Idiocy

[tkw954]

Terrorism is a non-threat.

No. Terrorism is *only* a threat. You don't need any action if you have a credible threat.

Re:Idiocy

[sumdumass]

Well, you just pointed out one of the shortcomings and gaps in the system. However, if the lids are on tightly and people are somewhat making sure of it, the risks go down a little with the exception of delayed reactions where the bottles explode from pressure build up. But even then, there might be some sign that something isn't quite right.

On the ground would be a better place to have one if it was going to happen. The ceilings are higher giving the gasses more places to go as well as escape paths and possible equipment to control the outcome.

However, there is another aspect to doing it that way which might make things a little different. People don't usually get mugged in front of the police. They don't look to break in at the only door with an alarm on it or a camera watching. In other words, criminals tend to minimize their chances of getting caught and it's possible that seeing how the stuff wouldn't make it onto the plane, they would just bypass that approach.

It tought to cover every threat. Some things seem overboard and some things seem insufficient. However, when I fly, I would prefer knowing that they are at least attempting to address the issue rather then ignore it. I just wish they could get the bugs worked out a little better.

Re:Idiocy

[ScrewMaster]

Cancer and heart disease have killed somewhere in the neighborhood of ten million people in the past ten years. Over a million people died in accidents in the past decade; about 400,000 of those were killed in motor vehicle accidents.

BigSlowTarget already made this argument (one that I agree with, by the way.) Still, at the risk of repeating myself, let me point out that I said real terrorism, in an effort to distinguish it from the mongered fear of terrorism to which we're constantly exposed. It also wasn't the thrust of my argument, which was more along the lines of "the Feds have an agenda, and we shouldn't take their claims at face value." I don't know why everyone is harping on my first statement, and missing the real point. Ah well.

Re:Idiocy

[ScrewMaster]

Then stop being afraid! Terrorism isn't dangerous if you compare it to your normal daily lives, like going in a car. Or eating. Or breathing air. Or having breasts or a prostate.

{sigh} No, I'm not going to bother, other than to say I wasn't claiming we should all be afraid of terrorists. Quite the opposite. God, I wish you people could read past the first line.

Re:Idiocy

[Deanalator]

Perceptions of law (to respect or disobey) can change drastically when the only laws that pertain to you are directly engineered to keep you from leading a successful life.

Do a cost/benefit analysis from their perspective. You would be a fool to choose to raise kids in a dangerous slum, rather than a place where they could get a decent education, and a chance at a future.

Most of the people living in poverty in Mexico have no legal path for coming into the US, and no chance of escaping poverty while living in Mexico. If these people had a legal path, and they chose ignore it, then I would be all for deportation. Until that gets fixed, it seems unfair to penalize them for poorly designed US policies.

Re:Idiocy

[ScrewMaster]

Why should it be appropriate now when there is no reasonable scenario that approaches that level of danger and destruction?

Because after a while, nobody really believed that the Russians would bomb us. You can't maintain yourself in an adrenalized state forever. Also, the Soviet Union was a distant, impersonal threat, which by the mid-sixties we had more-or-less grown to accept (remember Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb?) People stopped building bomb shelters in their back yards, quit stockpiling food, water and Geiger counters. Besides, most of us back then believed that if the Reds ever launched on us, we'd take them with us. That was important: we could give as well as we got, we felt our government and our military were keeping us as safe as possible. And that was true, so far as it went. Russia never fired a nuke at us, we never launched on them, nobody ever invaded us.

Terrorism, in and of itself, doesn't terrify people if they don't feel personally threatened. Even the Timothy McVeigh-style bombings didn't scare people that much ... okay, a nutjob set off a bomb, but hey they caught the guy didn't they. Big deal. Nothing likely to affect me.

But the knowledge that there's numerous large, organized groups of Muslim mass-murderers out there willing to die to kill large quantities of the hated Westerners puts a different spin on it for many people. I think most of us intrinsically understand that if a terrorist organization really wants to nail us, they will and there's not much our government can do about it.

Also, realize that an unprecedented number of American citizens are almost completely innumerate and lack even a rudimentary capacity for critical-thinking: they simply can't make a rational decision in such matters. They just don't know how, and terrorism aside, that's a huge problem for our society.

Granted, this doesn't mean you're any more likely to be killed by some Middle Eastern headcase ... but it allows the Feds to much more easily manipulate our collective fear. We're also seeing that it's very, very hard to take these guys down, that there will be no easy resolution, no Empire to collapse to make the world safe, once again.

As if it ever was.

Re:Idiocy

[OrangeTide]

Sorta like what happens when someone is convicted of a feliony? The whole losing your right to vote for the rest of your life and having to declare it on every job application for the rest of your life?

Such is not the case in 48 states. Once you have served your debt to society and are released from prison, your right to vote gets reinstated. The remaining two states are under a fair amount of controversy and it will likely be changed in our lifetimes.

I donno I'm not trying to sound all tin-foil hat like but I sometimes wonder about Al-Qaeda inability to operate within our borders..

It has been openly admitted by the FBI that terrorist cells exist within the borders of the United States. As soon as these groups achieve some success our freedoms will, rightly or wrongly, be reduced significantly by the government.

There are plenty of reasons, other than committing mass murder, for one to look for ways to eliminate a paper trail. You could be an escape prisoner, or you could be a mobster, or trying to get out of the Army Reserves or just trying to get out of paying taxes. If some Mexican farmhands can figure it out I'm pretty sure a lot of other people can figure it out too.

I suspect that many many attempts have been made by the handful of people with the desire and resources to cause chaos on American soil. I think once people start talking to the criminal underground or trying to do things like taking flying lessons then end up on the radar of the FBI. I think it is the reason the US government wants more information exchange between the FBI and CIA so we can dig up people that come in through our very leaky borders. And probably also the reason they wanted warrantless wiretap on international calls. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it, just pointing out the likely reasoning behind it.

Re:Idiocy

[Lost Race]

Aren't they all descended from Abraham? And less immediately, aren't we all descended from Adam and Eve?

Re:Idiocy

[ae1294]

Such is not the case in 48 states.

Really??? When did this all happen? I must be getting old and out of touch or something because I never heard anything about this?

I think once people start talking to the criminal underground or trying to do things like taking flying lessons then end up on the radar of the FBI.

Why do all terrorist desire to to take flying lessons? I mean can't they go buy some pool chlorine and brake fluid and go gas an elementary school or something? Is it really that they are just to crazy that they are incapable of thinking outside their little "crazy terrorist box" or something? I donno but it's all very laughable to me...

God forbid American is ever faced with a real organized terrorist threat.

Re:Idiocy

[Mr. Slippery]

if you are actually talking about moslem terrorists, they have hated us for decades

We've been giving folks in the Middle East plenty of reason to hate the U.S. for decades. It's not like brutal and stupid American foreign policy is a recent invention, it's all tied up with that "Manifest Destiny" bullshit, that belief in American exceptionalism that says the world belongs to us.

...and have hated non-muslims for hundreds of years. the american situation has zero - ZILCH- to do with their hate. their hate lives on, entirely on its own. muslim culture enhances hatred of non-muslims and their view is that some day, the earth SHOULD belong entirely and exclusively to them.

Wow, your ignorance and prejudice and fear of Islam is remarkable.

Islam contains as much diversity within in as any of the major religions. You've got fundamentalists who think heretics should die, sure; you've also got Sufi mystics who love everybody. Most Muslims -- like my veterinarian, or the South African karate students I've trained with -- are just ordinary folks.

its about classic old vs new religion. you really think that 'america' is at all relevant when it comes to 'my god vs your god' ? come on./blockquote>

Religion is a tool used by those would manipulate people for political ends. It works -- look at how well you've been manipulated to fear Islam, for example.

Re:Idiocy

[SydShamino]

But none of those people are Japanese. They are all gaijin, not nihonjin. Passport does not matter. It's an important difference to them.

Re:Idiocy

[scot4875]

This is the real problem. Fruit pickers would be getting paid more if it weren't for illegal immigrants.

You've got that partially right.

Fruit pickers would be getting paid more if orchard owners didn't willingly hire illegal workers to save a buck.

--Jeremy

One step at a time . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

You can see how they take little baby steps. One at a time. In ten years imagine what will be happening.

Re:One step at a time . . .

[vux984]

You can see how they take little baby steps. One at a time. In ten years imagine what will be happening.

Border lineups will be days long, and the government will be suing SAP for promising that it would work, based on a fraudulent tech demo that's gone missing?

Re:One step at a time . . .

[tsm_sf]

You can see how they take little baby steps. One at a time. In ten years imagine what will be happening.

Weird to see a post from 1999 pop up randomly.

Re:One step at a time . . .

[Zapotek]

wooooooooooosh!

Re:One step at a time . . .

[dov_0]

In Soviet Russia, um. Well, actually it's getting pretty similar...

Re:One step at a time . . .

[rotide]

I started to laugh. Then began to realize how sad it is that it's true.

Re:One step at a time . . .

[Frosty Piss]

You can see how they take little baby steps. One at a time. In ten years imagine what will be happening.

Which reminds me of this quote:

How shall the new environment be programmed? It all happened so slowly that most men failed to realize that anything had happened at all.

SRT

Re:One step at a time . . .

[morgan_greywolf]

I'm not laughing. See this? This is me. Not laughing.

Re:One step at a time . . .

[McNihil]

Additionally...

Romania:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securitate

East Germany:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi

Yugoslavia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDBA

WTF happend to USA and the rest of the west?

Is it "There is no freedom but what we make ourselves" ?

When will the thought police come? Or are we already there?

Dissidents repent!

Re:One step at a time . . .

[interkin3tic]

In ten years imagine what will be happening.

They'll be able to make a flipbook of my fingerprint getting droopy as I age?

Re:One step at a time . . .

[Shikaku]

There's no need for thought police.

They put the drugs in the water. Take your depression pills. Either way you are still getting a dose of it.

Re:One step at a time . . .

[gringofrijolero]

Yeah well, I'll betcha our toilet paper is still better.

Re:One step at a time . . .

[dunkelfalke]

Actually, partly even worse. There were no checks for internal flights in the USSR, they didn't even look at the papers.

Re:One step at a time . . .

[Em Adespoton]

In reality, they don't want the Illegal Immigrants emigrating to other countries like Canada, and killing all the innocent baby seals.

Won't somebody think of the seals?

So...

[Steauengeglase]

At this point the only people not recorded are child molesters living under bridges, oh, wait.

Barriers to leaving a country

[ceoyoyo]

All countries exercise at least some control over who can enter, but there's only one kind of country that erects barriers to who can leave. How long until you guys build a wall? Oh, apparently you've started already.

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[nokiator]

Welcome to East Germany 2.0!

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[netruner]

What do you do with people who refuse to cooperate? My assumption must be that they are not allowed to leave. This is not compatible with the American idea of freedom.

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[spooje]

Actually Japan does this all the time. If you're trying to leave and they found out you over stayed your visa they'll arrest, try and imprison you for the maximum amount of time then deport you. I had trouble leaving once because a government agency kept my foreigner card. I had to wait in custody about an hour, making the plane late before they decided to let me go.

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[schwanerhill]

All countries exercise at least some control over who can enter, but there's only one kind of country that erects barriers to who can leave. How long until you guys build a wall? Oh, apparently you've started already.

Huh?

While I agree with the complaint and don't like much of anything about the changes to US Customs and Immigration procedures in the last 7-8 years, the US is one of relatively few countries that doesn't put all passengers through an exit customs and/or immigration check. In all the overseas airports I've flown out of in recent years (in Australia, Chile, the UK, and Spain), you pass through a customs check before entering the international departures area.

This check is pretty cursory, but it's only the US and Canada (in my relatively limited experience) that don't do it.

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[WindBourne]

But that one is not designed to keep ppl in. Anybody can illegally cross over into Mexico with little hassle, just a little walk in the desert. And you will NOT be stopped by American police. OTH, if you are picked up by Mexican police, you wish that you were in American prisons instead.

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[Hadlock]

Whats the maximum duration they can imprison you for? Is this common in eastern European countries as well? I have fantasies of taking my severance pay, flying to Europe and backpacking till I run out of money, and then get deported back to the US. From what it sounds like Switzerland is the best country to be imprisoned in for having your visa expire (having read Catch Me If You Can).

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[ceoyoyo]

It'll be interesting to see, the first time some guy (or girl) has the stones to tell the customs agent to screw off.

Even better, what happens if your fingerprints DO come up as an illegal alien? Do they not let you leave? Give you a completely redundant kick to speed you on your way?

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[ceoyoyo]

Japan is pretty famous for being unfriendly to foreigners. The question is, do they hassle Japanese passport holders as well?

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[ceoyoyo]

The only customs check I've EVER been through when leaving a country is US customs when going to the US: US customs likes to inspect you on foreign soil BEFORE you get to the US. That's for Canada, the US (until now), a bunch of EU countries including the UK and Spain, Morocco and a couple of Caribbean countries.

Are you sure it wasn't US customs you were going through?

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[ceoyoyo]

True. But as the East Germans found out, walls are very dual purpose. They can easily be used to keep people IN as well as OUT.

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[ashitaka]

Really? Once the administration of foreign residents is passed to the Japanese government from the prefectures I might see that happening. Under the current rules the immigration officials at the airport are not required to see anything other than your passport.

I find it unlikely they would detain you for not having your gaikokujin torokusho on your way out of the country unless you didn't have a re-entry permit in which case you are supposed to surrender it to them.

I have never, in 23 years of going in and out of Japan, been asked for my gaijin card at the airport. Being a permanent resident (eijuusha) does help.

What is your status?

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[Cimexus]

GP is mostly correct. Most countries require you to go through immigration both on arrival and departure.

I'm an Australian with an American wife and so travel very frequently between the two countries. Both countries require you to go through immigration and customs on arrival (as you would expect). Australia requires you go through immigration upon departure as well (NOT customs). The US doesn't require that you do anything at all upon leaving, however. Frankly I don't know how they keep track of who is in their country...must be via airline records or something.

Note that the immigration check upon exiting Australia is just so they know who's in and who's out of the country at any given time. Arrivals - departures = possible visa overstayers. For citizens, it's also so they know where you are in case of crisis (e.g. if they know you've gone to country X, and a war breaks out in country X, they will try to contact you and assist you to get back home). It's not a customs check, and they don't fingerprint you or anything. It's just a "my name is X, and I'm leaving".

Hell, Australia doesn't fingerprint you for arrival either. In fact, the only place my fingerprints are on record anywhere on Earth is the AMERICAN DHS. Sorta funny (and scary) that my own government doesn't have my fingerprints, but some random foreign one does...

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[morgan_greywolf]

It'll be interesting to see, the first time some guy (or girl) has the stones to tell the customs agent to screw off.

If Dick Cheney gets his way, it'll be Gitmo for him or her.

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[WindBourne]

How are we using our fencing to keep ppl in? We allow everybody to move around and out. We are simply trying to control our borders to keep illegals out. After all, even Mexico has even more stringent border patrols on their southern borders to keep illegals out.

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[ceoyoyo]

Sure, "yo, I'm leaving", "yes sir, here, let me stamp your passport."

That's not a barrier to leaving a country, and it's not "customs." Requiring you to be fingerprinted is a whole different league. Interesting that this story shows up alongside another today where some cancer patient was detained because they couldn't get a good set of fingerprints off him. I actually just got back from a conference in Hawaii with this guy who got hassled at the border because he climbs and his fingerprints aren't all they could be.

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[ceoyoyo]

I'm not saying you are... yet. It's interesting that your country is building nice big fences and at the same time starting to do things like take your fingerprints when you want to leave. How does that help keep illegals out?"

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[schwanerhill]

Sure, "yo, I'm leaving", "yes sir, here, let me stamp your passport."

Well, yeah, that's what immigration is, most of the time (at least with my US passport). The UK, the US, and Australia give a bit of interrogation at immigration (and the Canadians do to Americans whatever the Americans DHS does to Canadians citizens, entirely justifiably), but Chile and the EU just open and stamp the passport, both on arrival and departure. I can't speak from experience about anywhere else. (And GP is right that I was wrong to call what they do at exit "customs".)

That's not a barrier to leaving a country, and it's not "customs." Requiring you to be fingerprinted is a whole different league. Interesting that this story shows up alongside another today where some cancer patient was detained because they couldn't get a good set of fingerprints off him. I actually just got back from a conference in Hawaii with this guy who got hassled at the border because he climbs and his fingerprints aren't all they could be.

Yes, requiring foreigners to be fingerprinted is a whole different league, something I've written my elected officials to complain about. (The people directly affected can't do, which is why it probably won't change.) That doesn't mean that the exit immigration check that most countries do isn't immigration.

As GP suggested, the US has, until recently, had essentially no idea how many visitors overstayed their visas. I don't see the problem with that old approach, in general. Exit immigration is fairly time-consuming, mostly standing in line.

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[spooje]

You are required to surrender your gaikokujin torokusho on leaving Japan. I left for good. Since there wasn't a return on my ticket they just decided to let me go.

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[spooje]

I'm not sure the max, but they can and do regularly detain people for 23 days, holding them without being allowed to contact anyone (note, demand to contact your embassy they are required to do this if you ask) with or without being charged.

I have no idea about European countries

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[spooje]

No, just foreigners.

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[Hadlock]

The longest they can detain you in the US is 72 hours without charge, one reason why Guantanamo bay prison isn't located on US soil. Even if they charge you they have to bring you to trial in a speedy manner. Unless you've pissed off the judge by not paying fines in > 2 counties and you can post bail, you should be out in less than a week.

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[bleh-of-the-huns]

No idea about other countries, but the US makes you sign a form that states you understand that you stayed beyond the time allowed by the visa. That is kept on record in case you want to return to the US and will be used in the decision on whether or not to grant you a visa again.

My cousin, from South Africa (his brother lives in NY legally and is a citizen now) decided shortly after 9/11 to leave the US voluntarily, as he had been in the US illegally for about 4 years, he only had a 3 month tourist visa. At some point he wants to move here, his brother will sponsor him (or I will), so leaving voluntarily as opposed to being rounded up at some point and deported was his only choice. They basically made him sign a form that he realized being in the US past his visa was wrong, and that it may or not may affect his chances in the future, but leaving of his own volition was his best option.

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[bleh-of-the-huns]

Its probably a two fold or more approach.

While I do not necessarily agree with the whole fingerprinting thing (I personally do not care about myself as my prints are on record all over the place through my work with the gov and my various clearances), it has its place.

The US does have an immigration problem. I, like many others, don't have a problem with the immigrants themselves, come to the country through legal channels, get your visa, abide by the laws and so forth and we will get along just fine (and I am not even talking about taking jobs from citizens at this point). But there is a huge problem involving illegals and crime, when a citizen gets arrested, they get fingerprinted, makes it easier to find them again if they commit a crime. Well, now you have the illegals coming and going, they get printed, if a crime occurs, they will be able to match the prints at the crime to that of an individual who exited who could be illegal, or not.

really its just a way to create a massive print database, which I do not have an issue with, there has to be a way to identify people, and I prefer prints over DNA. Every country has the right to reliably identify the people in the nation, if you can think of a better way, I am all ears.

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[bleh-of-the-huns]

WTF.. modded troll????

What is inflammatory about my above statement...

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[ashitaka]

Then you weren't doing what you were supposed to do and the fault is yours. As I said, if you don't have a re-entry permit and especially if you have a one-way ticket you MUST give them the gaikukjin tourokoshu and if you don't have it they will really want to know why. Consider yourself lucky that they didn't hold you until you were able to get someone to bring it.

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[againjj]

They don't stop you from leaving, they just want to notice you on the way out. Then you are in the database for the future.

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[ceoyoyo]

Lots of countries like to know when you leave... that's what they use passports for. Nobody has a problem showing their passport when they leave. The fingerprinting is the problem. Why do you need to fingerprint? My fingerprints will be linked to the passport I entered with, so what reason would I have for trying to use a different passport on the way out?

Fingerprinting people on the way in can at least be justified as making it harder to fake your identity when entering, but the argument doesn't hold water when leaving. The only realistic reason seems to be building a large, mandatory fingerprint database... of US citizens.

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[ceoyoyo]

All foreigners (except Canadians... so far) already get fingerprinted when they enter the US. So fingerprinting again on the way out really only serves to get US citizens prints on file.

If you don't have a problem with that then why not just have mandatory fingerprinting in order to obtain a social insurance number? Be open and honest about it.

Fingerprinting people on the way out of the country is just a sneaky way of building up a fingerprint database when open and honest is too socially unacceptable.

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[j-beda]

But if he just departed without telling anyone, how would anyone have officially known that he had overstayed his visa? None of the times I have exited the USA have I ever encountered a US official, at either the land border or the airport.

totalitarianism

[u4ya]

it keeps creeping in, step by step, for as long as enough of us remain silent.

Re:totalitarianism

[Dunbal]

is it that bad ? a dictator like obama would be good for the country.

      Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Why?

[sweatyboatman]

"We are trying to ensure we know more about who came and who left," [Michael Hardin] said. "We have a large population of illegal immigrants in the United States - we want to make sure the person getting on the plane really is the person the records show to be leaving."

huh? so the epidemic of people pretending to leave the country on commercial flights by booking flights and sending doppelgangers in their place is finally over! rejoice Americans! we are all now super safe!

Re:Why?

[phantomfive]

I think he is being honest, as weird as it sounds. Think about it, why was the DHS formed? Why does it seem so incompetent?

Originally Bush was opposed to it, but under congressional pressure relented and agreed to its creation. Ever since then it has done almost nothing except......export illegal immigrants. It does that a lot. So I am theorizing that Bush thought, "Fine. They can build the organization and call it whatever they want, but since I'm in charge, it will DO what I want." And what he wanted was to get rid of illegal immigrants. So that's what happened. Besides a few token operations to live up to its name, it focuses almost entirely on getting rid of illegal immigrants. Has nothing to do with security.

Re:Why?

[Ned Fletcher]

"We are trying to ensure we know more about who came and who left," [Michael Hardin] said. "We have a large population of illegal immigrants in the United States - we want to make sure the person getting on the plane really is the person the records show to be leaving."

huh? so the epidemic of people pretending to leave the country on commercial flights by booking flights and sending doppelgangers in their place is finally over! rejoice Americans! we are all now super safe!

"Tell it to Queen Dopplepopolis!"

Re:Why?

[LaskoVortex]

Besides a few token operations to live up to its name, [DHS] focuses almost entirely on getting rid of illegal immigrants. Has nothing to do with security.

Not any more. Why was the DHS at the tax day tea parties in several cities? Here's one example. This is an agency used by the party ruling the executive branch to intimidate supporters of the opposing party. It was used that way under Bush and sadly is apparently used that way under Obama.

Re:Why?

[phantomfive]

You linked to a site sponsored by illuminati conspiracy theorists and homeopathic medicine providers. That's hardly a reliable source. I would trust slashdot before I'd trust that site, and that's saying something.

Re:Why?

[LaskoVortex]

You linked to a site sponsored by illuminati conspiracy theorists and homeopathic medicine providers.

In this case the source doesn't matter, the picture is genuine. DHS had a presence at the tax day rallies. The pictures taken of DHS were taken by conservatives *attending* the rallies, not by conspiracy theorists. The witnesses I know are rock solid conservatives. They listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox news and have voted Republican for 40 years. They gave me pictures of DHS at the rally they went to. It was an Obama bash-a-thon for them. I reveled in explaining that their boy Bush started it. Trust me on this one. Go to a rally on July 4 even if you aren't conservative. You'll see DHS at your favorite spot.

Re:Why?

[phantomfive]

They listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox news and have voted Republican for 40 years.

Wow, great, your sources keep getting better.

But for the sake of argument, lets assume you are correct, and they were at the rally. Because, really, I have no particular reason to disbelieve you. Is there any reason to believe that they were specifically sent there to harass republicans, as you seem to be implying? I mean, did they even harass people, or were they just, there? Because police often show up at rallies. They come to make sure things don't go crazy/violent, and probably because it's more exciting than whatever else they would be doing. If the DHS has become the 'secret police' to spy politically for Obama, then they need to change. If you have evidence of that, it's hot stuff, and would be important to know. There was a president who got impeached for that kind of stuff. But right now, it just looks like they were there, no secret conspiracy or anything.

Re:Why?

[LaskoVortex]

Look, I've got to double reply. Sue me. Take a look at my comments if you want to judge my conspiracy mindedness. You'll see I try to look from both sides of the political fence and reach my own conclusions. And I'll be damned if you see much conspiracy talk there. If you dig enough and know people who went to the tax day tea parties, you will find that DHS was at those parties. There was nothing in the way these parties were organized to warrant its presence--even if you ascribe to the view that they were simply a Fox news put-on.

The DHS was there to do one thing: intimidate. I imagine it had the opposite effect. If you don't get out on July 4, you'll read on July 5 that the parties were measurably bigger than on April 15.

I'm going to a rally myself although I supported and still support Obama/Biden. I will vote that ticket in '12 in all likelihood. (And I'll probably vote HRC in '16.) But The People need to be heard and seen. That's what demonstrations are for--and the people definitely do not need DHS chaperoning their demonstrations.

Re:Why?

[LaskoVortex]

But right now, it just looks like they were there, no secret conspiracy or anything.

1. I'm not claiming a conspiracy for reasons you have eloquently outlined. 2. DHS was there. 3. There was no reason for DHS to be there except. 4. Intimidation. Now if you think that it was to intimidate "bad guys", then please tell me who these bad guys are of which you speak.

Re:Why?

[LaskoVortex]

Because police often show up at rallies.

Because municipal police often show up at rallies.

Corrected that for you.

Re:Why?

[phantomfive]

Sure. Weirdly enough I actually do find you to be more reliable than that crazy website earlier.

The thing I'm not sure about is why you think they were there to intimidate. In all likelihood they stayed in their cars the entire time. It's not very intimidating. If they wanted to intimidate someone, why didn't they arrest people? Surely they could have found an excuse to arrest someone. The way you write (and you may not have intended this, but it's the way it came across), it seems you are saying Obama sent them down to spy and intimidate. I find that pretty unlikely. Once again, if you have evidence of this, I'd like to know, but it seems more likely they were just there to make sure there was no violence, etc. That's a normal police operation, nothing special.

Re:Why?

[LaskoVortex]

That's a normal police operation, nothing special.

We differ in opinion here. It's normal for local police to patrol demonstrations. It's not normal for Federal police to patrol demonstrations. I find the latter creepy. I would hope most others do too. If this practice is a legacy of the Bush era, I'm still waiting for it to change under Obama. If this is new to the Obama administration, then I'm changing parties.

Now if you claim it was a coincidence, then I can't argue. We are talking about the same administration that flew an ensemble of fighter jets chasing a 747 over NYC a couple of weeks ago.

Re:Why?

[phantomfive]

lol that was a pretty hilarious misstep.

So, frankly, I have no idea what the purpose of the DHS police cars are. I'd never even seen them before, we don't seem to have them around here. So I am thinking they are some kind of subsidy to the local police, or something like that. What is there purpose exactly, do you know? Seems like something that should be investigated before jumping to conclusions about intimidation. Once again, if they are actually were trying to intimidate, then they suck at that as much as at everything else they do.

Re:Why?

[gtall]

Nice try, Bush was indeed originally opposed to DHS, but he was actually for guest worker programs and reforming immigration; he took a lot of heat from other Republicans over that stance but I do not recall him ever changing that.

Re:Why?

[moeinvt]

"Wow, great, your sources keep getting better."

Just out of curiosity, where do YOU get your news and information? CNN? Fox?

Alex Jones is every bit as credible as Wolf Blitzer, Bill O'Reilly or any of the other MSM puppets. You may question his conclusions, but if you actually read/listen to what he says with an open mind, he's got some valid points backed up by genuine evidence.

When Jones was talking about plans for the "North American Union" and the "Amero" back in 2004/2005, people dismissed that as just another nutty conspiracy theory. This morning, I see 77.1M hits for that phrase on Google. Tell me, is it still a "conspiracy theory" when it turns out to be the truth?

Re:Why?

[bleh-of-the-huns]

You are completely wrong, the only portion of DHS that has anything to do with illegal aliens, is ICE (Imigrations and Customs enforcement), and CBP (Customs and Border Patrol).

DHS was formed so that the various security, intelligence and law enforcement groups would fall under a central command rather then each doing their own thing, which was a waste of time, money and resource duplication.

You should remove the tin foil hat and do some research before making such blatant statements.

There are over a dozen other groups within DHS who have nothing to do with illegals.

Here is the list...

The Directorate for National Protection and Programs works to advance the Department's risk-reduction mission. Reducing risk requires an integrated approach that encompasses both physical and virtual threats and their associated human elements.

The Directorate for Science and Technology is the primary research and development arm of the Department. It provides federal, state and local officials with the technology and capabilities to protect the homeland.

The Directorate for Management is responsible for Department budgets and appropriations, expenditure of funds, accounting and finance, procurement; human resources, information technology systems, facilities and equipment, and the identification and tracking of performance measurements.

The Office of Policy is the primary policy formulation and coordination component for the Department of Homeland Security. It provides a centralized, coordinated focus to the development of Department-wide, long-range planning to protect the United States.

The Office of Health Affairs coordinates all medical activities of the Department of Homeland Security to ensure appropriate preparation for and response to incidents having medical significance.

The Office of Intelligence and Analysis is responsible for using information and intelligence from multiple sources to identify and assess current and future threats to the United States.

The Office of Operations Coordination is responsible for monitoring the security of the United States on a daily basis and coordinating activities within the Department and with governors, Homeland Security Advisors, law enforcement partners, and critical infrastructure operators in all 50 states and more than 50 major urban areas nationwide.

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center provides career-long training to law enforcement professionals to help them fulfill their responsibilities safely and proficiently.

The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office works to enhance the nuclear detection efforts of federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local governments, and the private sector and to ensure a coordinated response to such threats.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) protects the nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.

United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for protecting our nationâ(TM)s borders in order to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, while facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel.

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is responsible for the administration of immigration and naturalization adjudication functions and establishing immigration services policies and priorities.

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the largest investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying and shutting down vulnerabilities in the nationâ(TM)s border, economic, transportation and infrastructure security.

The United States Coast Guard protects the public, the environment, and U.S. economic interestsâ"in the nationâ(TM)s ports and waterways, along the coast, on international waters, or in any maritime region as required to support national security.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepares the nation for hazards, manages Feder

Re:Why?

[phantomfive]

Alex Jones is every bit as credible as Wolf Blitzer, Bill O'Reilly or any of the other MSM puppets.

Oh right, as if that's supposed to make him sound good. No source is reliable, so don't trust any of them. You'll do way better if you read "Foreign Affairs," however.

When Jones was talking about plans for the "North American Union" and the "Amero" back in 2004/2005, people dismissed that as just another nutty conspiracy theory.

Right, so now the guy defending the site talking about the illuminati and homeopathic remedies (by which I mean YOU) is trying to get me to believe that the North American Union and the Amero are not some nutty conspiracy theory. Way to make the case that you are completely detached from reality. And then as evidence you use the fact that people are searching for it. Really? Are you THAT out of touch with what is real in the world? The fact that people are searching for something doesn't make your conspiracy theory any more true.

Re:Why?

[Nethead]

Maybe they had a tip of some home-grown terrorist action planned. Maybe they even stopped one. You don't know. Did you even try to ask?

Re:Why?

[LaskoVortex]

Maybe they had a tip of some home-grown terrorist action planned. Maybe they even stopped one. You don't know. Did you even try to ask?

I've been treading karma thin ice in this thread, but I'll tread some more. Yes. I do ask these questions. And yes, there was a concocted report that has seen some criticism, mostly from the conservative wing. I'm not from the conservative wing, but my inclination is that this report is a thinly veiled excuse for a DHS presence at the tea parties.

Also, the DHS was there and they were not secretive about it. I am not claiming any such secrecy or conspiracy. I am only claiming that the DHS was "apparently" (see my original post on this for usage of that word) dispatched for political intimidation--mild though it may be.

You may propose that they had some legitimate reason to be there that could not be handled by local police. I propose that a couple of cars cruising around is not my idea of (1) sufficient reinforcement, (2) proper use of Federal forces, (3) cognizant of the political undertones of such a presence.

Also, concerning (3) and our interpretation of Federal activities, I live by this rule: assume the worst.

Re:Why?

[zuperduperman]

I actually always wondered about this. One could easily:

a) travel into the country on temporary visa
b) give passport to American citizen who looks enough like you to pass and exits on your documents
c) American citizen comes back in after a nice holiday on their own passport

At worst immigration might be suspicious because the American citizen is not shown as exiting the country, but they really have no choice but to allow them back in, and the net result is that you have imported one person permanently into the country and immigration have no idea who it is, if they can tell it happened at all.

While I completely disagree with the fingerprinting, I suspect this might be a legitimate problem that they are trying to figure out.

Won't work

[royallthefourth]

None of the illegal immigrants I've ever met have arrived by airplane.

This leaves two options: either these guys are really stupid, or the real goal is different from the stated goal.

Re:Won't work

[Anonymous Coward]

None of the illegal immigrants I've ever met have arrived by airplane

Not necessarily. There may be people arriving legally on student or tourist visas, and then overstaying them (sometimes permanently).

Still, the way the justification was fomulated leads me to believe something was not said.

Re:Won't work

[rubycodez]

those visa people are ALREADY fingerprinted coming and going

Re:Won't work

[cc_pirate]

I've met ones who have.... Not every illegal immigrant is from Mexico and/or poor...

Re:Won't work

[Grishnakh]

However, the ones that really cause problems are the ones who are dirt-poor, not the ones who arrive on airplanes. People who overstay their visas and work in high-paying jobs are not causing problems in this country, it's people with no jobs or low-paying ones and thus don't pay much in taxes, who constantly get in trouble with the law, fill up the prisons, use hospital services without paying for them, etc.

We need immigrants who pay much more in taxes than they take back in services, not the other way around.

Re:Won't work

[Extremus]

I did. Nice to meet you.

Re:Won't work

[MightyYar]

None of the illegal immigrants I've ever met have arrived by airplane.

We must have a different circle of friends... most of the illegal immigrants that I know flew in on a student or tourist visa and then over-stayed it. Then, when they finally get their paperwork in order, they fly back home for a little while and fly back in to the US legally.

Re:Won't work

[bryan1945]

"None of the illegal immigrants I've ever met have arrived by airplane."

Well I'll go one further- no illegal immigrants I've met have ever arrived by leaving on an airplane.

Re:Won't work

[91degrees]

I gather Merlin did. He arrived by leaving on a plane next month, and isn't leaving until 2 years ago before his visa is issued.

Re:Won't work

[VShael]

This leaves two options: either these guys are really stupid, or the real goal is different from the stated goal.

Or both.

Re:Won't work

[goldaryn]

None of the illegal immigrants I've ever met have arrived by airplane.
This leaves two options: either these guys are really stupid, or the real goal is different from the stated goal.

Hey, the two arent mutually exclusive, this is the government we're talking about!

Re:Won't work

[identity0]

More importantly, if they ARE in the country illegally, wouldn't this convince them to stay instead of risk getting caught?

Am I the only one who actually thinks about how people will react to/get around laws that are proposed?

B frankin S

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah this seems like a real efficient way to catch illegal immigrants, I'm sure most of the come to the U.S. to catch international flights from Atlanta and Detroit. That's how dumb the government knows the average person is.

Re:B frankin S

[WindBourne]

Most illegals in AMerica, esp. from Latin America, WILL travel to their nation every couple of years. If our gov can figure out that you are an illegal AND are out of the country, you are NOT going to get out easy. In addition, we have a large number of illegals that have committed heinous crimes here and will actually fly back to Mexico, Panama, Brazil, etc. With the fingerprint, you are not getting out of here if you committed a nasty crime, and was caught at least once.

Passport issue

[actionbastard]

How do you get a U.S. passport if you're an illegal alien? Do they not do their homework when they review applications? I mean, come on. Not only has the application fee gone sky high, but now as a U.S. citizen -with a valid passport- you must be subjected this indignity as well. Honestly!

Re:Passport issue

[actionbastard]

If you add the 'execution' fee -how appropriate- it's $100.00US.

Re:Passport issue

[Runaway1956]

No indignity is to big, or to small, for our loyal subjects - err, CITIZENS!

Re:Passport issue

[Dan667]

I wish I had mod points, this is so true. You cannot fly internationally without a passport so who exactly is this going to catch? Hopefully, it will be reversed as a huge waste of time and money.

Re:Passport issue

[amicusNYCL]

If you add the 'execution' fee -how appropriate- it's $100.00US.

Just out of curiosity, how is that appropriate? Which US passport holders are being executed?

Re:Passport issue

[MaskedSlacker]

That's still $10/year. You can't even eat one dinner in a restaurant for that.

Re:Passport issue

[againjj]

Correction in the article: this does not apply to citizens.

How does exiting = immigrants?

[greymond]

So how exactly does me LEAVING the country potentially flag me as an illegal immigrant?! Shouldn't you be scanning me as I ENTER the country?!

Re:How does exiting = immigrants?

[amicusNYCL]

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but typically illegal immigrants do not enter the country where there is a customs station to scan them.

Re:How does exiting = immigrants?

[91degrees]

Actually, typically they do. Most illegal immigrants arrive legally and overstay.

Free

[Longjmp]

U.S. of A. the Land Of The Free. Sorry, just couldn't resist.

Re:Free

[cptdondo]

No shit. I was born under communism; I vividly recall the grade school lectures about leaving the country being a crime.

We left there to the land of the free. Never in my wildest dreams did I think I would live to see the day when borders in formerly communist nations are no more and Americans must present the proper papers and fingerprints! to leave the country.

Re:Free

[Mashiki]

It's funny, my mother is a East-German child. Grew up the first 15yrs of her life there, and happily tells me tales of what life was like. I read the article, and felt my BP shoot up about 40pts sitting here, the thought of Americans and someone saying "Papers"(or fingerprints) is chilling.

I didn't think I'd live to see such a flip either. This type of shit is insane, so who let what bat-shit nuts go wild down in the US anyway? Afraid of government? Hell you're letting it walk all over you.

I can't imagine

[Jane Q. Public]

why they would want to fingerprint those who are leaving, unless they eventually plan to fingerprint those who are arriving as well.

Re:I can't imagine

[Nefarious Wheel]

Inspired by a superb role model, the US Department of the Interior wants to "index all the world's fingerprints". I mean, why stop at the border? Offer it as a free service that offers paper stars - enough paper stars and you get a pony. A free pony.

Re:I can't imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

They already fingerprint non-Americans entering your country.

Re:I can't imagine

[MartinSchou]

Offer it as a free service that offers paper stars

Can they be yellow? And big and durable enough to be sewn onto your clothing?

They arlready do this to non US residents

[Roy Ward]

As someone who occasionally visits your country (with a New Zealand passport and valid work visa), I can tell you that all non-US citizens are already subject to this indignity, for no better reasons than you will be. It's unfortunately just the next step (I've never been fingerprinted going into any other country, or any other time at all for that matter).

Re:They arlready do this to non US residents

[Chang]

Japan started fingerprinting inbound aliens last year.

Re:They arlready do this to non US residents

[MartinSchou]

While I doubt I'll be going to the USA (how does one answer the single question: "Do you plan on doing anything illegal or immoral while in the US?" if you figure "while I'm in Las Vegas, I might visit one of the legal brothels outside Clark country"? Hell, what if you're planning on having sex with someone you're not married to? Gambling in Vegas? Eating non-kosher foods?) I can somewhat see the point in fingerprinting in- and outbound foreigners.

If you scan them on the way in and connect the fingerprints with the persons visa, you can then make a better system for checking up on those who overstay. Granted, it is obviously possible to leave by different means (private boat-trip to the Bahamas), but I would suspect that you'd get what ... 95% of all visitors checked off that way?

Re:They arlready do this to non US residents

[SydShamino]

Japan started fingerprinting visitors in late 2007 or early 2008, just after I visited. It's a shame, really; I'd like to go back.

Re:They arlready do this to non US residents

[Aceticon]

I've been to the US many years ago, before 9/11 - I still have a US Visa in my passport (not needed anymore).

Since then I've moved countries twice and went on vacations (and sometimes business) to countless countries.

Yet I've never again been to the US - I purposefully refuse to travel there because of things like this and I've even been offered a job in Silicon Valley a couple of years ago.

20 or 30 years ago the USA was a nation admired by the vast majority of people out there - a land of dreams for many, even in other rich nations and amongst well educated people. Nowadays it's just a majorly fucked-up place.

The USA looks a lot like a modern empire on it's twilight years - a bit like ancient Rome when the empire was unraveling.

Many of the greatest ancient empires collapsed due to internal corruption rather than fell to external enemies. What's with the USA now looks a lot like that.

Re:They arlready do this to non US residents

[Acer500]

I've been to the US many years ago, before 9/11 - I still have a US Visa in my passport (not needed anymore).

Since then I've moved countries twice and went on vacations (and sometimes business) to countless countries.

Yet I've never again been to the US - I purposefully refuse to travel there because of things like this and I've even been offered a job in Silicon Valley a couple of years ago.

20 or 30 years ago the USA was a nation admired by the vast majority of people out there - a land of dreams for many, even in other rich nations and amongst well educated people. Nowadays it's just a majorly fucked-up place.

Second the sentiment. I try not to go to the US if I can avoid it (still want to visit it though, preferably when/if it gets saner), and I wouldn't consider a job there if it was offered (and I am qualified enough for some companies to want me).

No finger prints?

[bfmorgan]

So if I have no hands?

Re:No finger prints?

[The Archon V2.0]

So if I have no hands?

You'll be detained for hours while they figure out what to do with you. Because only terrorists don't share their fingerprints.

Re:No finger prints?

[mdwh2]

And this isn't a joke - you're absolutely right: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8064332.stm

"One patient was held by US immigration officials for four hours before they allowed him to enter the country."

As far as the US Government is concerned, if you don't have fingerprints, that means there's something wrong with you, not their fucked up system.

To be fair...

[VinylRecords]

They are scanning them just to make sure they aren't shoplifting upon exiting.

i totally agree with your sentiment

[ClioCJS]

...But I have to ask, is it really true that we're the only one to erect barriers to who can leave? North Korea? China? Hello?

Re:i totally agree with your sentiment

[Chabo]

In all fairness, he did say one kind of country, for which I think he meant "viciously authoritarian", or something similar.

Re:i totally agree with your sentiment

[amRadioHed]

He said "one kind of country" not "one country".

Re:i totally agree with your sentiment

[ceoyoyo]

Chabo is precisely right. Generally when your country starts making it hard to leave it's time to get out. Quick. North Korea, China (to some extent). Let me add examples from the past: the Soviet Union, East Germany, Idi Amin's Uganda.

Re:i totally agree with your sentiment

[MightyYar]

China doesn't erect barriers to who can leave.

Maybe things have changed, but I know my boss had to pay back the Chinese government for the cost of educating her before she was allowed to leave. Fortunately her parents were relatively well-off (professors) and had the money.

What if you refuse?

[jmv]

When you come in to the US, they tell you that you don't have to comply with the checks, but that if you don't you can't enter. So what if you refuse to comply with that one? You can't leave?

Re:What if you refuse?

[phantomfive]

LOL I once met this guy from El Salvador who was in the US illegaly working. After a while, he got sick of it and wanted to go home. Around that time he saw some immigration officers walking down the street, and announced, "I am here illegaly! Send me home!" They laughed and told him to work and get his own ticket. So he gave up and did.

Re:What if you refuse?

[amicusNYCL]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if you refuse this border check, you will *also* not be allowed to enter the US (once you leave, obviously). In other words, you can refuse, but you're no longer welcome in the US. Either that, or they will lock you up for however long the punishment is and then deport you, similar to what other countries (e.g. Japan) do when you try to leave without documentation.

Re:What if you refuse?

[characterZer0]

What if you are a US citizen?

Re:What if you refuse?

[msimm]

No. They'll probably strip/cavity search you, detain you and eventually after making a big show, contact your embassy and let you go.

Re:What if you refuse?

[Hadlock]

I'm assuming you mean for aliens and immigrants. The US can't refuse you entry if you're a US citizen unless they revoke your citizenship (at which point you're no longer a citizen). The only way I know of (off the top of my head) for the state to forcibly remove your citizen status is to convict you of a Felony, otherwise you'd have to willingly surrender it.

Re:What if you refuse?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope -- once granted, citizenship is a right. It can only be revoked for things like fraud on the application (for naturalized citizens -- see John Demjanjuk for a recent example of this) or treason, and usually not even then. They certainly can't yank it for telling some bureaucratic insect to go fsck themselves for impeding your freedom of movement.

Re:What if you refuse?

[Kjella]

So what if you refuse to comply with that one? You can't leave?

You'll be detained by the TSA for additional security checks. Mysteriously, these checks will last long enough for you to miss your plane. And if you ever tried to complain, they'd claim suspicious behavior (read: terrorist suspect) and it'd get nowhere except maybe on the no-fly list.

Re:What if you refuse?

[syousef]

When you come in to the US, they tell you that you don't have to comply with the checks, but that if you don't you can't enter. So what if you refuse to comply with that one? You can't leave?

Yep, you have to stay at the airport for several years and Tom Hanks stars in a really boring film about your time there. Please, comply with the searches so we don't have to sit through another movie like this!

Re:What if you refuse?

[davecb]

The U.S. has been publicly telling their own citizens reentering the country via the U.S. Customs and Immigration post at the Toronto airport that they will require passports to re-enter the country as of this year.

The person at the kiosk beside me asked the guard how they could keep him, a U.S. citizen, out and she said "that's the law".

--dave

Re:What if you refuse?

[srvivn21]

When you come in to the US, they tell you that you don't have to comply with the checks, but that if you don't you can't enter. So what if you refuse to comply with that one? You can't leave?

That's certainly the most likely possibility.

On the other hand, perhaps you won't be allowed to return...

Re:What if you refuse?

[againjj]

Citizens are not subject to fingerprinting (correction in the article).

Re:What if you refuse?

[againjj]

They can't even do that. They can revoke permanent residence for that, but not citizenship. For citizenship, only things like treason will get you -- even lying on the application is not sufficient grounds any longer.

As a Canadian...

[HtR]

As a Canadian, I assume that if I don't comply with Homeland Security's request, I would be deported. But how?

Re:As a Canadian...

[ishobo]

You will most likely be flagged and refused entry the next time.

Re:As a Canadian...

[Cassini2]

Getting deported for not volunteering your finger prints would be an interesting way to get a free trip out of the country.

In practice, I doubt they would let you back in, and you might need a lawyer to talk your way out of trouble. Somehow, I think the U.S. will find a way of making it a costly "free" trip.

Re:As a Canadian...

[BigSlowTarget]

I believe unpleasantly. They would probably tack on an extended stay in an empty office answering boring questions, force you to reschedule your flight (at your expense), trash your luggage and generally make life unpleasant. It never pays to screw with law enforcement - they have too many ways to make your life miserable

What shoudl happen

[EkriirkE]

I would love to see a backlash or movement for when this takes effect to have people install de-fingerprinting kiosks outside the airports... maybe offering a swipe of super glue before entry to the airport. If only a few people do this it wont work so well, but if masses do it...???

Re:What shoudl happen

[misexistentialist]

Mass use of an improved capecitabine would be more decisive. Unfortunately they'd just switch to scanning irises, and I doubt we'll have Minority Report-style eye transplants anytime soon.

what a difference 10 years make

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I'm a Canadian, and ten years ago, I would have voted to join the US. I felt that Americans recognised the value of their freedoms and that they had, and would fight to keep, a more free society than just about anywhere else on Earth. Today, I won't even travel there. It reminds me of all those B movies just after WW2 "Achtung! Show me your papers". How could y'all have just let this happen ?

Re:what a difference 10 years make

[copponex]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs-nHQYY6Fg&feature=related

Re:what a difference 10 years make

[arthurpaliden]

"How could y'all have just let this happen ?"

To see how it happened rent the movie "V for Vendeta". It explains it quite nicely.

Re:what a difference 10 years make

[garcia]

You know, I hate what's going on in America but your cowardly post is bullshit. I traveled to Canada (Winnipeg via North Dakota to be exact) in 2006 and while I had absolutely ZERO issues getting back into the US (I was actually surprised--weren't we trying to keep terrorists out?) getting into Canada was a fucking pain in the ass.

1. We were detained at the border.

2. We were made to wait for 60 minutes next to three shady looking motherfuckers (who fit the racial profile of those the US would detain) while the border agents stood around and talked amongst themselves.

3. The three shady fucks were questioned in the back. Eventually they were all called to the front one at a time. Each was told, "you said you were never convicted but records from the MN State Patrol say foo foo and foo. Don't lie to a border agent. You may enter the country." (all three had some sort of conviction including a DUI which is grounds for being barred from entering Canada and indecent exposure which the guy argued had been expunged). They were free to enter Canada without any further complications.

4. We were also questioned separately. They asked me 20 or so questions about why I was planning on entering Canada (we were going geocaching).

5. We were detained further as they searched our entire vehicle for the next 30 or so minutes (they didn't do this to the douchebags who LIED TO THE BORDER AGENTS). We were finally allowed to pass into Canada after nearly two hours.

---

On our way home they asked to see our birth certificates, IDs, and/or passports. We were asked how long we were in Canada, why, and after explaining what geocaching was in general terms we were on our way. 10 minutes tops.

Yeah, so the US is just so much more scary. Give me a fucking break.

Re:what a difference 10 years make

[SETY]

n=1

Re:what a difference 10 years make

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You know, I hate what's going on in America but your cowardly post is bullshit. I traveled to Canada (Winnipeg via North Dakota to be exact) in 2006 and while I had absolutely ZERO issues getting back into the US (I was actually surprised--weren't we trying to keep terrorists out?) getting into Canada was a fucking pain in the ass.

Do you see him saying Canada is better? If Canada was better, then why did he want to join the US 10 years ago? Obviously Canada sucked then too, just now the US sucks as well.

Re:what a difference 10 years make

[ergo98]

I traveled to Canada

You're talking about being an American traveling to Canada, and how it was harder to enter Canada than to return to the US. This surprises you how? It's generally quite a bit easier to return to your own country than to enter another.

This thread was about the US demanding fingerprints to leave, which is just extraordinary, and is a stop in the very wrong direction. Add that to the "Constitution Free" zones that encompass a good percentage of the US population...the US is truly looking very much like the propaganda we saw about the USSR during the 80s.

Re:what a difference 10 years make

[morgan_greywolf]

Oh, we'll fight for our freedom alright. Just give it a little more time... keep taking away our rights. Watch what happens. All I know is, I don't want any part of it because it's going to be very, very ugly. Don't believe me? Read this wacko. Don't think she's credible? There's a hundred thousand more out there, each with a different agenda.

Re:what a difference 10 years make

[Idiomatick]

Having crossed the border dozens of times (near buffalo) getting into Canada has always been easier. Going into the US by bus they run your bags through a metal detector. I've also seen a US border cop pull a gun on some guy who forgot a bag (they assumed it was a bomb?). Canadian side doesn't even have metal detectors and questioning is about the same for both sides. Oh and on the US side they actually look through your bags they dont going to Canada. And that isn't an example, that is policy.

Re:what a difference 10 years make

[kklein]

Thank you. I had a couple friends (a couple) who were going up to Canada to camp (from Colorado--long trip). The guy is white, the girl, Latina.

They were detained for half a day, subjected to lots of separate questioning... It turns out that for some reason these yahoos got it in their head that the guy had picked up an underage prostitute in Mexico and was fleeing to Canada. The girl was--and looked--27.

After every conceivable search and interrogation, they finally said "You're free to enter Canada," to which the guy said, "You know what? Fuck Canada," and they turned around and went back home.

So that's N=2 now, but I suspect there are a lot more.

Re:what a difference 10 years make

[Richard_J_N]

I totally agree. The DHS should be eliminated, together with all it stands for.

As a British citizen, I won't travel to the USA again - I have fond memories of the times when visitors were welcomed, rather than fingerprinted like criminals. This "security" does have a cost to the USA - our family alone has taken at least 10 vacations elsewhere as a result of the fingerprinting and guantanamo policies. That means at least $100,000 that we have spent in Europe rather than the USA.

Re:what a difference 10 years make

[bcrowell]

It reminds me of all those B movies just after WW2 "Achtung! Show me your papers". How could y'all have just let this happen ?

We let it happen because we didn't believe in our own values. A band of terrorists attacked us, and we reacted by panicking and throwing the rule of law out the window.

Re:what a difference 10 years make

[houghi]

Because even though they have their second amendment they were too lazy to enforce it.

Re:what a difference 10 years make

[Acer500]

You know, I'm a Canadian, and ten years ago, I would have voted to join the US... How could y'all have just let this happen ?

Sadly, Canada isn't that much better. As a Uruguayan traveling to Canada I had to present all kinds of documents to your country to convince them I wasn't staying... and, though they did issue a visa, they made it a one-trip-only visa, which means I'm not going again, as it's not worth it (if the visa issued was for multiple visits, I probably would have gone again).

Re:what a difference 10 years make

[intheshelter]

How is the post cowardly? I'm an American and I would say the post was completely accurate. We've become the new East Germany.

Re:what a difference 10 years make

[the_one(2)]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNDzLYpN_Q8 underlines some of the more relevant parts.

Re:what a difference 10 years make

[QuoteMstr]

As an American, I'd be hesitant about traveling to the UK. You have insane libel laws, CCTV cameras everywhere, the RIP act, and so on. And don't get me started about Australia. It's pretty much the entire English-speaking world that's screwed up.

maybe those who are complaining can explain:

[__aarzwb9394]

"Why do you hate America?"(TM) so much that you want to leave?

Re:maybe those who are complaining can explain:

[msimm]

I can't wait until we can view ads from sponsors during the scanning. Hope you enjoyed your visit! And Drink Pepsi!

Re:maybe those who are complaining can explain:

[MaskedSlacker]

Precisely because of shit like this.

Re:maybe those who are complaining can explain:

[Nethead]

To get to my off-shore bank account.

Ya this is kinda scary

[Sycraft-fu]

Saying who can and can't enter is, well, part of being an nation. I would place it akin to an individual being able to decide who can and can't enter their home. Part of being a sovereign nation is you need to be able to decide who is allowed to come in.

However not being able to leave? Well again I'd say it is like a private individual and while you can tell me I can't come in to your house, once you've let me in you have to let me out when I want to go. Barriers for exit are things that are normally associated with extremely oppressive societies. The USSR had very strict border control and it was more to keep their populace in than to keep foreigners out. Thus I see this as a step down a very bad path.

It also raises some serious legal questions for people like me. I am a citizen of two nations, the US and Canada. I have a right to go to either nation. So is it legal for the US to say "No, you can't go to Canada,"? Who are they to tell me I can't go to my country?

Re:Ya this is kinda scary

[amicusNYCL]

It also raises some serious legal questions for people like me. I am a citizen of two nations, the US and Canada. I have a right to go to either nation. So is it legal for the US to say "No, you can't go to Canada,"? Who are they to tell me I can't go to my country?

Strictly speaking, what they're talking about is not deciding where you can go, but deciding if you can leave at all (presumably, although that hasn't specifically been mentioned). In other words, it's not that they're saying "you can't go to Canada", what they're saying is "you can't leave the US". In reality, they're not saying that at all, all they're saying is that if you *do* leave, they're going to fingerprint you before you go, I don't think anyone's talking about not letting you leave. I would imagine that the punishment for refusing to submit to fingerprinting is that you won't be allowed to return, instead of denying you access to leave.

Re:Ya this is kinda scary

[mokus000]

Perhaps if you don't cooperate they'll let you out, but not back in?

Re:Ya this is kinda scary

[BikeHelmet]

The USSR had very strict border control and it was more to keep their populace in than to keep foreigners out. Thus I see this as a step down a very bad path.

You might be interested in this video:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1294790/

It presents some interesting info on Fascism, and the parallels that have been appearing between the US and Germany(of the past).

Even if you disagree with it (unlikely), it educates on what to watch out for. The rights of the US citizen are slowly slipping away.

Re:Ya this is kinda scary

[Reziac]

It might interest you that someone is pushing a ballot proposition in California that would impose a massive exit tax on anyone moving out of CA. I see this as all part of the same road -- to the wrong side of the Iron Curtain.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#1351
Wealth Tax. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Summary Date: 01/28/09 Circulation Deadline: 06/29/09 Signatures Required: 694,354
Proponent: Paul McCauley
In part: "Imposes one-time tax of at least 55% on property in California exceeding $15 million if single, $20 million if married. Imposes one-time tax (between 36.5% - 54.3%) on income exceeding $10 million when resident dies or leaves California. Imposes additional 17.5% tax on total incomes of taxpayers with income exceeding $150,000 if single, $250,000 if married; 35% if incomes exceed $350,000 if single, $500,000 if married. Creates tax credits. Requires State to acquire shares of specified corporations to influence environmental practices."

This amounts to a Soviet-style assets grab -- no one will be able to cough up that much cash for property taxes (even people who own $15M properties don't normally keep $8M in cash laying around), so these expensive properties will be either sold (and a chunk of the proceeds confiscated under this proposal) or ceded to the state for unpaid taxes.

Re:Ya this is kinda scary

[DigiShaman]

Saying who can and can't enter is, well, part of being an nation. I would place it akin to an individual being able to decide who can and can't enter their home. Part of being a sovereign nation is you need to be able to decide who is allowed to come in.

I agree with you. However, the US Department of States has posted the following regarding dual nationality.

However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there. Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship. http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

Re:Ya this is kinda scary

[CodeBuster]

Who are they to tell me I can't go to my country?

The guys with the guns? Governments are in the business of violence or did you think that they maintained sovereign power by being nice?

Now youll know

[alexborges]

How it feeels.

Re:Now youll know

[TheSpoom]

The sad thing is that a significant percentage of the US population feel the same as the parent.

Re:Now youll know

[alexborges]

I think its sad that I know YOUR constitution and history better than yourself, and probably I think better of it than you do.

I am, and always shall be, a sincere admirer of the liberal values that founded your country. But that is, and has always been, a two headed monster: I like the head on the left. You are but a mole on the other one.

Re:Now youll know

[Builder]

You are but a mole on the ass of the other one.

There - fixed that for you.

Can't wait for the first 'catch'

[superdave80]

Brave Homeland Security Officer: Place your thumb here.
Traveler: Ok.
*Presses thumb to scanner*
Brave Homeland Security Officer: Ah-ha! This says that you are in this country illegally! I've got you now!
Traveler/Illegal immigrant: Sooooo... since I'm not allowed to be in this country, do you want me to get on my plane and leave, or what?
Brave Homeland Security Officer: Yes! And, um, never come back! That'll teach you!
Traveler/Illegal immigrant: Yes, this punishment of being delayed from my flight for 30 seconds has surely made me so uncomfortable that I won't ever sneak back into this country. You win.

Re:Can't wait for the first 'catch'

[Yvan256]

Ok. Now read the whole thing again with Brave Homeland Security Officer being played by Michael Kelso and Traveler being played by Fez.

And now I'm gonna go change my pants.

For regular people.

[copponex]

If a corporation is hurt by a policy, something will be done. If average workers are hurt by a policy, nothing will be done, until the problem can no longer be ignored. It's one of the downplayed societal ills, since illegal immigration has been supported by Republican and Democrat administrations.

Large companies love a huge illegal immigrant population. The state picks up their health and education bills, and the illegal workers accept lower wages that can be used to threaten other workers with.

Re:For regular people.

[phantomfive]

If a corporation is hurt by a policy, something will be done. If average workers are hurt by a policy, nothing will be done, until the problem can no longer be ignored.

That's a really naive view. Especially if you live in California. There are tons of policies that hurt businesses, from weird taxes, to bureaucratic red tape, and nothing is being done.

You probably came to this naive viewpoint because you actually don't understand the issues businesses deal with, and so you don't see all the problems they have. On the other hand, you ARE a normal person, so you easily see the problems of a normal person, even if they don't come before the government. Businesses have problems too, and nothing is done often, you just don't notice. Pay attention and your view of society will not be so distorted.

Re:For regular people.

[Grishnakh]

>If a corporation is hurt by a policy, something will be done. If average workers are hurt by a policy, nothing will be done, until the problem can no longer be ignored.

That's a really naive view. Especially if you live in California. There are tons of policies that hurt businesses, from weird taxes, to bureaucratic red tape, and nothing is being done.

The parent said that corporations will fix problems inside themselves if their own policy is causing problems. He didn't say that governments act like corporations, because they don't. Corporates have a hierarchical structure that lets them easily make changes if the guy at the top says to. Governments don't quite work the same way: there's not really anyone at the top (the Pres. has to share power with the other two branches), plus politicians have to answer to voters who aren't the brightest people on average.

Besides, California hasn't fixed their problems because they've been so successful at luring and keeping businesses there, most famously in Silicon Valley. Businesses have thrived there in spite of the problems you listed above; there's lots of reasons why they thrived that we could write a book about, but until recently with impending bankruptcy, California hasn't had a pressing need to change its tax and red-tape problems. Now that businesses are fleeing the state, they might have to make some changes. But it took a long time for things to catch up with them.

Re:For regular people.

[phantomfive]

Businesses have been fleeing California for a long time. The state is lucky that there are enough other things to keep businesses in otherwise they would be in serious pain right now. Well, more than they are now.

As for the original post, I would agree that what you say might be one possible interpretation of what he said (and honestly a more realistic thing to say), but I really don't think that's what he was saying. Given his sig, I don't think he is likely to say ANYTHING favorable about corporations.

Re:For regular people.

[Grishnakh]

Businesses have been fleeing California for a long time. The state is lucky that there are enough other things to keep businesses in otherwise they would be in serious pain right now. Well, more than they are now.

Exactly; they've kept businesses around in spite of their taxes and red tape, for other reasons such as good weather, lots of skilled workers, the CEOs like it there, or whatever. But they can only ride that wave for so long.

As for the original post, I would agree that what you say might be one possible interpretation of what he said (and honestly a more realistic thing to say), but I really don't think that's what he was saying. Given his sig, I don't think he is likely to say ANYTHING favorable about corporations.

I went back and read his post more closely, but I still thing my point is correct, even if he is a corporation-hater. He's saying that corporations will change any internal policies which hurt them (or more specifically, hurt their bottom line or anything else their executives value highly). He also had to throw in a jab that corporations won't change policies which hurt their workers as long as it's good for profitability, and that's generally true, but irrelevant. But you're the one who brought up California, and I think that's comparing apples to oranges. Thanks to that "democracy" thing he references in his sig, governments (western ones) simply don't work like corporations at all, so it can be very hard to change things (like high taxes) which are hurting the economy, because there's too many chefs in the kitchen, so to speak: too many people with too many ideas, and too many people in power who have to fight amongst themselves to get anything done. In this way, authoritarian governments like China's are actually much better at dealing with change, because their leaders can quickly make decisions. Of course, that's a double-edged sword; if the leader makes the wrong decision, you're in trouble, whereas democratic governments, while slower, tend to make better decisions overall. After all, while China may have an effective government, it's not exactly a nice place to live if you value freedom.

Re:For regular people.

[phantomfive]

OK, sorry for the inconvenience, but we are having a debate about what your comment actually means. Are you saying that government changes for corporations, or that corporations can change themselves internally more easily than government?

Re:For regular people.

[phantomfive]

He says it was both.

Re:For regular people.

[BenJCarter]

Coppo's sig: The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
My question: What makes a Corporation Pure tyranny? Delivering things people want to buy?

Re:For regular people.

[QuoteMstr]

It's not "Democrat". It's "Democratic".

"Democrat" is a conservative frame. It's supposed to make the Democratic Party sound less appealing. Omitting the -ic marks you as someone who gets far too much of his information from conservative rags.

Re:For regular people.

[copponex]

Corporations have the same institutional structure as tyrannies. Notice that there is a big difference between a company and a corporation. The power they wield over their employees and the populace is radically different.

What Chomsky was saying, I think, is that the power structures in the world fear and despise anything that could dislodge them from their positions of prominence. Therefore, they had to abandon the aristocracy of monarchy and attached themselves to the aristocracy of corporate power.

So, when Wal-Mart wants to build a store in a small community that doesn't want the store, do they respect the will of the local populace, or through the power of legislation and bribery, do they muscle their way in? Is this the behavior of a tyrannical entity or a democratic institution that respects liberty? When RJ Reynolds discovered that their products were causing cancer, did they close down their factories and notify their customers, or hide the facts and continue lying to protect their profits?

Again, whatever the institution is supposed to be is irrelevant. The question is, to external entities, how does it act?

Re:For regular people.

[copponex]

If you think the democrat party is democratic, you are someone who gets too much of their information from conservative rags.

Your Papers, Please

[kylben]

it will be used in part to crack down on the US population of illegal immigrants."

The only way fingerprinting could possibly aid in tracking illegal immigrants is if it was used to track every single US citizen and legal alien. Then anyone caught on the street without their fingerprints in the system is by definition illegal. And even that is only useful if people are routinely fingerprinted on the street. I'm pretty sure there's a name for that kind of system.

The more likely use, down the road a (very short) way, is to make emigration illegal, or at least restricted. There's a name for places where that happens, too.

Everybody likes to talk about police states in the past tense, or in the abstract. Nobody expects the Spa... the real dictatorships. They aren't created all at once out of the blue, and they're seldom openly announced as such.

Re:Your Papers, Please

[wakingrufus]

Exactly how i feel. There is still way too much denial in the american public to see that this IS happening. We need to keep educating people about history and how to use critical thinking, so that they can see these patterns emerging for themselves. Until then, people who protest these things will be considered "a vocal minority" and subsequently ignored.

Re:Your Papers, Please

[Reziac]

One begins to wonder what our own Iron Curtain or Berlin Wall will look like...

Re:Your Papers, Please

[dbcad7]

If fingerprinting were in fact tied to all ID.. drivers license passports etc.. it could reduce fraud I suppose.. I really don't have a problem with that.. If that's what we do, then fine.. but just make the decision and implement it beforehand.. no playing CSI at the airport.. and international flights of all things.. I mean you have to have a passport, it's either valid or not, and the picture either looks like you or not.. The only thing fingerprinting could add is to determine if someone somehow obtained an additional passport under another name. I doubt this airport fingerprinting will discover this, but who knows.. maybe like most police activities they're just hoping to get lucky.

Re:Your Papers, Please

[kylben]

One begins to wonder what our own Iron Curtain or Berlin Wall will look like...

One word: TSA.

Airports are about 80% there already.

Re:Your Papers, Please

[Reziac]

Yeah... the moment I heard the term "Homeland Security" I knew we were in big trouble. There's no turning back from that road, short of revolution (or secession, for what good that would do individual states).

And I don't think we've got the balls for that anymore. :(

Re:Your Papers, Please

[kylben]

Who's 'we', Kemosabe?

Some have the balls, some don't. Nature and events will eventually sort them out, one way or another.

I like to refer to it as "The Department of Fatherland Security", at the risk of Godwining this conversation.

Re:Your Papers, Please

[Reziac]

I think that's a better name for it!!

Okay, MOST people no longer have the balls... people cry for protection and get a nanny gov't, then wonder who will protect them from the nanny... I was pleased with the several bills and resolutions recently passed by Montana, which stand up for states' rights and citizens' rights under the Constitution, and bedamned to the Feds trying to say otherwise.

(I grew up in MT; been in SoCal for 25 years; now trying to move back. CA used to be a great place, but is now building the foundation of the New Iron Curtain.)

Re:Your Papers, Please

[kylben]

I grew up in MT; been in SoCal for 25 years; now trying to move back.

I'm looking at Wyoming, myself. The Free State Project's western offshoot is there. I'm looking at Casper or maybe the Big Horn Valley. If the latter, Billings would by the nearest "big" city. I've been up to Wyoming a few times, and I really like the place. Arizona is getting too Californicated.

Re:Your Papers, Please

[Reziac]

Billings is the most "city-like" of MT cities, but still a cow town around the edges. Wyoming has a better tax structure, tho, from what I understand.

Either way -- it's still somewhere that personal responsibility trumps the nanny state.

What's this about the Free State Project having a western offshoot?? Hadn't paid much attention since the northeast is out of the question for me.

Re:Your Papers, Please

[kylben]

Northeast was out of the question for a lot of people, plus the voting was suspicious, so the western folks broke off and chose Wyoming. Its nominally led by the author Boston T Party, and his book "Molon Labe" is loosely based on a hypothetical plan for the FSW. http://www.freestatewyoming.org/ Don't be fooled by it looking dead, hit the forums link (you have to register to see most of it).

Is there a way to send private messages here?

Re:Your Papers, Please

[Reziac]

Interesting, thanks -- I'll give it a read later (just got in the door and am worn out).

Don't know of any way to send private messages here, but you can go to my homepage and use an email link there.

City-data.com forums have private messages, I'm Reziac there too. I hang out in the Montana forums a lot. Check out the thread about "Why are some people so mad?" Also check out the "Montana to secede" thread in the "Politics and other controversies" segment.

Um... guess have 'em here.. http://www.city-data.com/forum/montana/268463-montana-secede-new-post.html and http://www.city-data.com/forum/montana/44408-why-some-people-so-mad-new-post.html

/. identifies the problem and gives the solution!

[pbrooks100]

Time to start taking capecitabine... http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/28/1617225&from=rss

Re:Honestly, what's the big deal?

[ledow]

"So what if they want to fingerprint travelers entering the country? I think this is a good idea"
"So what if they want to fingerprint travelers exiting the country? I think this is a good idea"
"So what if they want to fingerprint travelers changing flights at the country? I think this is a good idea"
"So what if they want to fingerprint travelers flying past the country? I think this is a good idea"
"So what if they want to fingerprint drivers? I think this is a good idea"
"So what if they want to fingerprint cyclists? I think this is a good idea"
"So what if they want to fingerprint pedestrians? I think this is a good idea"
"So what if they want to fingerprint everyone? I think this is a good idea"

It's called "unnecessary feature creep". Providing fingerprints at a border helps no more than providing other, non-biometric, information at the border, whether you've just murdered someone or not. Either you're on the database (and thus can be flagged in an instant by having an A.P.B. put out) or you're not. But unnecessary feature creep paves the way to a surveillance society. 50 years ago we didn't even *have* this technology, now it's being made compulsory if you want to fly, drive, cycle, ... and eventually it's just compulsory.

Plus, that data is *personal* under most country's definitions of personal data. In the EU that means it's subject to the Data Protection Act which means I have a legal assurance (whether it's carried out or not is another matter) that the data will be kept private, not be disclosed except for explicit purposes and that only authorised people will see it. The US does not, and never has, provided such guarantees to visitors (even if it intended to break them anyway once they were on paper)

"Please tell me how this is an infringement on your 'rights'?"

I have the right to pass freely through almost every port in the world without undue let or hindrance. The US just removed that. I also have the right to protect my personal information and to refuse to give biometric data if I so wish. That right was just lost. Just because in America you didn't HAVE those rights in the first place, that's no reason to not understand why other people are upset (and we are by definition talking about international travellers here).

"The DHS/ICE already do biometric scanning of all *permanent* residents when they're entering the country, and I mean fingerprinting all the fingers in both of your hands. People with US Passports, by comparison, are waived through, which I think is a incredibly stupid thing."

Yep. Because you've just scanned the fingerprints of someone that, by definition, you have zero record of anywhere else (because they are not a US citizen until that time). Yet you let known criminals walk through because they have a US passport. That's just STUPID. And another nail in the "we need this" coffin. It's an *unnecessary* measure.

"Besides, the EU has been doing this for quite some time. Get over it."

No they haven't. I am an EU citizen and have NEVER provided my fingerprints EVER for ANY purpose in ANY country - I even have a 10 year British passport, a 10-year British driving license (both with EU-certified RFID etc. in them) and never had to provide anything but an authenticated photo and documentation (for the next renewal in a decade's time it might be more tricky to avoid being fingerprinted if people don't stand up to this crap NOW) - and only last year I travelled through 10 countries in the EU within two weeks on a cruise ship. In fact, that's why I'm not flying to the US ever again - that and the "we need the right to copy your laptop data and not tell you what we did with it" - that's a KILLER for me, because it means I would be breaking the law in my own country by disclosing private, personalised business data.

You're throwing a right away every time you say "I don't see a problem with it, so okay". What you should be saying is "I don't see the need. So why should I?". Whethe

Re:Sounds RACIST - instead only check

[MacColossus]

So followers of The Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy shouldn't travel out of the country? Especially May 25th! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towel_Day

Re:What if you refuse? They subdue you, then

[davidsyes]

copy your fingerprints and then wake you up and ask you, "What is the last thing you remember?"

Maybe all this fingerprinting is to report to Core Control which humans are trying to reach the Mothership?

But, i did not read much that explicitly said that US CITIZENS will be scanned. Sure US-VISIT and biometric passports IMPLY that it will be US citizens, but this has got to be a real smokescreen.

Seriously, though, it is probably a way to index ALL the FUTURE foreign operatives, particularly those who are sent here as students by their respective governments, so the US can either keep tabs on foreign operatives who are rising stars, or to blackmail those whom the US considers fodder or disposable in the brinkmaship the governments play. Really, it is often difficult to trick an astute spy into giving up fingerprints, saliva samples and so on in a restaurant (except the careless ones who mix and mingle in DC and touch dinnerware that is carefully taken to the "kitchen" for scanning/imaging/databasing), compared to just going directly after ALL foreigners who come here for months on end and invariably will slip because it's hard for YOUNG trainees to be perfect ALL the time.

Just my two cents...

Alright!

[unreadepitaph]

Step 1: Fringerprint people leaving country
Step 2: ???????
Step 3: Profit

Maybe just don't fly from those airports? Either way it just makes it more off putting for backpackers to go to the states.

Tourism Fail?

Exit Tax

[copponex]

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97245,00.html

To leave the country, you have to pay taxes for all of your assets, and renounce your US citizenship if you'd like to stop paying the IRS.

I'm actually in favor of regulations against capital flight, but this is probably going a little too far...

Re:Exit Tax

[bleh-of-the-huns]

You can take that one step further, usually whatever country you are moving to will charge you taxes on whatever assets you are bringing into the country if you are emigrating (I know South Africa is like that as I lived there as a permanent resident for a long time before returning to the US - I am a citizen, essentially a State Dep kid)

BTW, you do not have to renounce your citizenship to stop having to pay the IRS, if you have been living outside the country for an extended period of time (16 years in my case when I was growing up after my mother quit the State Dep and settled in South Africa as a perm resident, not a citizen), you do not pay taxes (unless you receive some sort of income from the US while abroad, then you pay the taxes). For the 16 years in SA, my mother never had to pay any taxes, and never had to renounce anything, although I do believe she did file some sort of form (taxes related, but not an actual tax form) to the IRS every year stating we were living outside the US and did not receive any income from any US entities.

Re:Exit Tax

[AK Marc]

Or live in a country with tax agreements with your home country. That way, you pay the greater of the two, but never more than what you would have paid had you lived in the one with the most taxes (excepting things like sales tax).

Re:Exit Tax

[Quikah]

You have to file/pay taxes to the IRS even if you live in another country and receive zero money from the US. However, there are a bunch of deductions, so unless you are making a ton of money you will likely not have to pay anything, but you still have to file.

Movie Idea

[arthurpaliden]

In the early years of The War on Terror, the American city of Cincinnati attracts people from all over the United States. Many are transients trying to get out on the next plane to Canada or even Europe, a few are just trying to make a buck...Two DHS couriers have been killed and the letters of transit they were carrying have gone missing. These letters are blank and represent freedom for two, all the action centers around a cafe ....

Now you know..

[msimm]

we hated the USSR out of jealously. And now look at how swiftly we race to embrace statism.

Re:They already have my fingerprints....

[glavenoid]

Fear not, Comrade. You have nothing to hide. Remember, Suspicion breeds Confidence.

If you refuse?

[KenMcM]

What, then, if you refuse to be fingerprinted? Do they prevent you from leaving the country? Would this not be illegal detention? Must refusal to provide fingerprints be criminalized for this to work?

Take Cancer Medication

[Snarf You]

This is timely news! Anyone who doesn't want to be fingerprinted can start taking cancer medication!

Re:Honestly, what's the big deal?

[MaskedSlacker]

You're telling me that you need to fingerprint the man handing you his passport to verify his ID?

Sure, passports can be forged, so can fingerprints though. In fact, it's likely easier to forge prints than passports.

Re:just cause it was hatched under bush ...

[MaskedSlacker]

He abdicated in favor of Bush.

As a famous terrorist leader once said...

[Anonymous Coward]

>>I might be less critical of such actions if it weren't for the fact that "security" isn't being improved or actually even being addressed.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Of course, this was also said by a major figure of what we would call, today, an insurgent force, fighting against the established government of the country. He spent much of that war in another country, raising funds to support what those who claimed they had a legitimate government considered to be a terrorist action. By recent standards, for the funding part alone, two guys were sentenced to 65 years, just this week.

His name was Benjamin Franklin.

Re:As a famous terrorist leader once said...

[hairyfeet]

I know this will get me marked as flamebait or troll or whatever, but frankly I don't care. You want to know why we have trouble with terrorism and have all this crap going on in the Middle East? Because pretty much our ENTIRE Middle East Policy of the last 50+ years can be summed up in this sentence- "Jesus won't come back! Praise Jesus!"

I really wish I was joking, but sadly I am not. You have one of the most powerful nations on earth basing an entire region's policies on whether or not a 2000+ year old dead guy will be able to walk down out of a cloud. That is pretty fucking scary. Hell look at this where they were putting top sheets on the war plans for Iraq with scripture!

Now I don't care which bloody religion you are, that is fucking scary shit! NO country, especially one with as much devastating firepower as the USA, should be basing their foreign policy on what it will take to ensure some 2000 year old dead guy will float down from the clouds. And Christians, a word of advice- if your God is so weak that the only way he can "come back" is with the backing of the F-18 and the USA giving Israel weapons tech? Then you might want to look up in your good book what it says about a guy named "AntiChrist" because I don't think an actual deity would need the USA to save his ass, or that of his "chosen people" okay? if he can part the Red Sea and turn rivers into blood I think he can take care of himself,okay?

I am not saying the Arabs aren't as much to blame, but to anyone that isn't a Christian this frankly looks like the height of insanity. It also gives Israel a license to do whatever they want because they know the hawks in the USA will scream "Jesus won't come back!" and back them no matter what. Allow me to quote Moshe Dayan describing the events before the Six Day War for an example-"We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was. I did that, and Laskov and Chara did that, and Yitzhak did that, but it seemed to me that the person who most enjoyed these games was Dado"

And the whole reason they could do that was because they knew the USA, being led by the "Jesus won't come back!" brigade, will always back them up. Maybe if we didn't they would have motivation to try to work out something with their neighbors, instead of starting shit. And until we base our Mid East policy on something other than "Jesus won't come back" everyone in the region who is NOT Israeli will hate us. We can't base our entire foreign policy on a 3000+ year old book and whether or not a 2000+ year old dead guy will have a place to land his cloud. Sorry, but that is just fricking nuts!

Re:As a famous terrorist leader once said...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Damn atheist homo-communist. You need a dose of The American Patriot's Bible.

(And no, unlike Landover Baptist, they are totally serious about that one)

Re:As a famous terrorist leader once said...

[OrangeTide]

Fundamentalist Christianity doesn't rule US foreign policy. While these people do exist, and have had some influence in the US federal government at various times, it is not as absolute as you paint it to be.

We're far more about pandering to our base, making uninformed decisions, and using sovereign nations as pawns in domestic politics and PR campaigns.

Re:As a famous terrorist leader once said...

[Eli Gottlieb]

I'm going to be straight up with you. American Middle-East policy doesn't really matter all that much. When Islamists lack genuine grievances against the USA, they either make some up, or go back to attacking America for its support of Israel. The people doing those terrorist bombings are every bit as delusional and crazy as the "Jesus won't come back" fundamentalists.

Re:As a famous terrorist leader once said...

[hairyfeet]

Told you I would get marked troll, and for what? Here you are proving my theory correct. You are saying that it DOES NOT MATTER what Israel does, because a 3000+ year old book says so. Doesn't that strike as even a TINY bit crazy? I mean I can produce 3000+ year old books that say you should sacrifice virgins to the Sun God, but I don't see the USA building any altars to RA lately, do you?

If you would have bothered to read the link I provided, you would have seen the Israeli Prime Minister IN HIS OWN WORDS saying that their WHOLE PLAN on Gaza and West bank was to stir up as MUCH SHIT as possible by snatching land. Then when their neighbors got tired of it and fought back they got pounded by artillery and aircraft, which of course they got from whom? The USA. And the reason they got them is guys like you. I guess that whole "Love your neighbor" line was just a load of liberal BS, huh?

So tell me, when you have the Israeli Prime Minister saying the whole game plan is to snatch as much land as possible while stirring up shit and then use the superior weaponry supplied by the USA to crush anyone who dares to fight back, how exactly is this different from The White Man's Burden? It seems to me you replace "The White Man" with "The Chosen People" and you have the same old shit in a different package. It is just the same damned shit we have pulled in third world country after third world country. Instead of wrapping it in the flag you are wrapping it in bible verses. Still stinks just as bad.

When guys like you ignore the words of the Israeli's very own Prime Minister because of a bible verse is it any wonder they hate us? They would have to be pretty damned stupid NOT to with attitudes like yours. Because according to you, it doesn't matter how many of their heads get kicked in, or their houses get bulldozed, because as long as it is done by "God's Chosen people" it is perfectly alright. So tell me, the difference between this and the Manifest Destiny excuse we used to completely slaughter the natives here in the USA is....what exactly?

Re:As a famous terrorist leader once said...

[Fred_A]

Of course, this was also said by a major figure of what we would call, today, an insurgent force, fighting against the established government of the country. He spent much of that war in another country

Hah, another country, but what country, he left the barely "United" States for Europe, specifically for France with its languid and willing women, its men who would talk of anything (even stuff, *ahem* down there), as opposed to the rational God fearing people back home. So he spent time there eating great food, meeting interesting people and [ THIS SECTION HAS BEEN CENSORED AS BEING TOO GRAPHIC FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC ] and more ! And so, being well integrated, he got the locals to defend his country. But he had lost his soul ! He had to [ SEVEN WORDS REMOVED ] and [ TWENTY TWO WORDS REMOVED ] !
No current politician would dare to do that. Insurgent force ... Hah !

(This post sponsored by Trojan, never leave home without it !)

Re:As a famous terrorist leader once said...

[hairyfeet]

Thank you. What I think is sad is how many are either spouting bible verses or saying"those muzzies don't need an excuse because they'll just blame us for supporting Israel". Uuuhhh...how exactly would we know, when Israel has been stirring up shit almost from the day the Israeli flag first flew and we have been handing them as much firepower as they can carry all the way? That is 50+ years of "White Man's Burden" and you wonder why they hate us there?

Do any of you realize we are talking about 84 BILLION of YOUR money being sent to Israel every year, even when we are broke, so "Jesus can come back! Praise Jesus!"? Being an ally of someone is one thing, bankrolling them to the tune of 84 billion is a whole different ballgame. Stick your head in your 3000 year old book if you wish, but the arabs have a REASON to hate us. It is because American bombs are falling on their heads and they are being shot by American guns. Every year you and your families are getting your share of a 84 billion dollar bill added to your children's future so "Jesus can come back!".

If your God is so damned weak that he cannot keep a little bity country like Israel alive without 84 billion dollars worth of American guns, then I'm sorry, but you really should be looking up the "AntiChrist" because a God would not need you to save Israel. he would be perfectly capable of doing it himself. And I repeat: It is complete fucking insanity to base the Middle East policies of one of the most powerful nations on this earth on whether or not a 2000 year old man has a place to park his cloud. That is just fucking nuts. And handing out 84 billion dollar party favors when we have so many losing their homes and jobs is about as unchristian as you can get. Spend that money on Americans and stay the hell out of other peoples shitstorms!

Re:As a famous terrorist leader once said...

[sumdumass]

I know this will get me marked as flamebait or troll or whatever, but frankly I don't care. You want to know why we have trouble with terrorism and have all this crap going on in the Middle East? Because pretty much our ENTIRE Middle East Policy of the last 50+ years can be summed up in this sentence- "Jesus won't come back! Praise Jesus!"

I wish there were mod levels for "just fucking stupid". You would surpass +5 in no time. The Middle east policy has been broken since the beginning of the country you idiot. Ever hear about a guy named Thomas Jefferson who's first acts as president was to raise a navy, create the marines and invade the middle east? I'm sure you have heard their song "from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli".

I really wish I was joking, but sadly I am not. You have one of the most powerful nations on earth basing an entire region's policies on whether or not a 2000+ year old dead guy will be able to walk down out of a cloud. That is pretty fucking scary. Hell look at this where they were putting top sheets on the war plans for Iraq with scripture!

This makes you look so damn stupid it isn't funny. First, you don't even know what the second comming of Christ is prophesied as. When he comes back, it's the ends of the world completely. It's not some dude walking down from a cloud.

I have to ask though, what policies in specific are based on your incorrect assumption? I'm assuming it has something to do with the support of Israel in which you would be completely incorrect. but go ahead and tell me what policies you think are based around the belief in Christ. the only thing scary here is how ill informed you are and the tripe you make up as if it is real. It a little less scary that others probably believe you but that's another story.

The rest of your post is complete rubbish based on your misgivings already mentioned. There is no real point in addressing that in particular because it's all fallacious until you can support the claim of foreign policy being set because of religion. You seem to have a serious problem with the history of the middle east, the US involvements there and the history of the US in general. Perhaps if you would invest a little time on learning history instead of fearing someone's religion that you fail to understand, you wouldn't appear so damn stupid right now. For instance, your depiction of the 6 day war, the US stayed neutral in that because of a conflict with Russia over it. Eisenhower even warned Israel that they wouldn't get support from the US because of it (Russia) if Israel started the war and expressed fears that American involvement would start another world war with Russia.

It seems that your lack of knowledge allows you to piece bits and pieces of information together and come up with completely fictional events. The world is now dumber because of your post. You should be the poster child for why we need abortion to remain legal.

Re:As a famous terrorist leader once said...

[hairyfeet]

Uuhhhh... how about Donald Rumsfeld plastering reports to the president with scriptures that "supported" his expansionist policies? Is that enough proof that the bible is being used in policy making? Oh and here is Hillary Clinton doing it at home, in case somebody thinks I am picking on republicans. And these took all of 8 seconds worth of yahoo time. if i actually wanted to spend time on it I can plaster a 500 page document from one end to the other with supported links and not run out.

And the fact that we were total bastards during Jefferson's times doesn't really make it right to be total bastards now, does it? After all, you are talking about a guy whose was raping and impregnating slaves. Not really the one I would look to for advice on how to treat non whites. Unless you are one of those true believers I would like to hear your explanation of why we are pumping up Israel to the tune of 84 billion, which I noticed you completely ignored. Explain to me why, when Americans are losing jobs left and right and are economy is a corpse, we should be packing a 747 load of cash and shipping it to Israel every single year? Hell even the Soviets during the bad old days of the cold war didn't prop up any of their puppet states anywhere that high.

So call me names all you want. I have found that those that call names usually do so because they know their arguments don't hold water and therefor have to resort to name calling. But the simple fact is there is NO reasonable explanation as to why we would spend 84 billion a year to prop up Israel if it wasn't for conservative Christians screaming from the pulpit "But Jesus won't come back! No matter what Israel does we must support them to save Jesus a place to land! All praise Jesus!". So we get a bill for 84 billion and climbing each year while our economy tanks and Americans lose our homes, we have most of the middle east that hates our guts because they are having to dodge bombs and get shot at by guns with "Made in the USA" stamped on them, and all because fundie Christians think a 2000 year old guy needs a place to park his cloud. I repeat, that is some seriously scary shit.

Re:As a famous terrorist leader once said...

[sumdumass]

Uuhhhh... how about Donald Rumsfeld plastering reports to the president with scriptures that "supported" his expansionist policies? Is that enough proof that the bible is being used in policy making? Oh and here is Hillary Clinton doing it at home, in case somebody thinks I am picking on republicans. And these took all of 8 seconds worth of yahoo time. if i actually wanted to spend time on it I can plaster a 500 page document from one end to the other with supported links and not run out.

Wow, you are more stupid then I originally thought. You link to _blogs_ which take things out of context and present it in a biased and skewed way. First of all, the bible quote put in the daily briefings were after the war started and was intended to support Bush "spiritually" at a time when casualties were high in Iraq. That does not imply policy was made from them or that they had any bearing on policy other then to aid Bush in reading about the losses our soldiers were suffering. Second, the Jesus quote by Clinton was nothing more then a political tactic intended sway public opinion. It had nothing to do with policy being set, it had to do with gaining support for or against policy already in place. To take it any other way is nothing more then your imagination getting the best of you which is obvious from your postings. I asked for the policies and you give me links to blog posts taking how politicians deal with their decisions and manipulate the public completely out of context.

While I'm at it, why don't you show where this expansion has been? You mentioned expansionist policies yet both Iraq and Afghanistan has been turned over to the people of those countries and only point to blogs expressing opinions that take things out of context. Is there anything in your worldview that is based in reality?

And the fact that we were total bastards during Jefferson's times doesn't really make it right to be total bastards now, does it? After all, you are talking about a guy whose was raping and impregnating slaves. Not really the one I would look to for advice on how to treat non whites. Unless you are one of those true believers I would like to hear your explanation of why we are pumping up Israel to the tune of 84 billion, which I noticed you completely ignored. Explain to me why, when Americans are losing jobs left and right and are economy is a corpse, we should be packing a 747 load of cash and shipping it to Israel every single year? Hell even the Soviets during the bad old days of the cold war didn't prop up any of their puppet states anywhere that high.

You do have a serious problem with context don't you? The comment was about our entire history with the middle east being riddled with issues to some extent and here your focusing on Jefferson fucking slaves and attempting to insult the messenger rather the deal with the subject. Oh well, it's ok, I have dealt with the ignorant before, you just seem to surpass all those who have came before though.

So call me names all you want. I have found that those that call names usually do so because they know their arguments don't hold water and therefor have to resort to name calling.

I called you names because you are being an ignorant ass who can't distinguish between real and make believe. As far as arguments holding water, you seemed to miss all the arguments I made and posted links blogs that completely disregard context in the same way you do.

But the simple fact is there is NO reasonable explanation as to why we would spend 84 billion a year to prop up Israel if it wasn't for conservative Christians screaming from the pulpit "But Jesus won't come back! No matter what Israel does we must support them to save Jesus a place to land! All praise Jesus!"

Actually, there is and your wrong. First, Israel is a democracy and an internationally recognized country in

What's the point ?

[DrYak]

Solution: "- Problem, where are you ?"

Really?

[WindBourne]

So, I can come in there ILLEGALLY and move all over EU and not have a SINGLE ISSUE WITH JOBS or housing? From what I head from some Italians and some illegal Libyans who were in Germany, they said that it was DIFFICULT to find jobs or housing. Had to have paperwork and A NATIONAL ID, which apparently they bought (not legally). Or were they liars?

Re:Really?

[Jurily]

I can come in there ILLEGALLY and move all over EU and not have a SINGLE ISSUE WITH JOBS or housing?

This discussion is not about jobs and housing. But once you are within the Schengen borders, you can move freely. There is no guard at the Germany-Italy border. And there's certainly no fingerprint analysis involved.

Re:Really?

[WindBourne]

Well, lets start making the comparison for REAL.

There are no guards amongst the states either. No fingerprint analysis, etc. And WE CAN MOVE FREELY AMONGST THE STATES (of which AMerica is more akin to EU, then any one nation there). Heck, we can use our state ids in each other state, buy homes, etc and NOT have to ask another state to do this. And just as we have border patrols to guard Canada (not needed), as well as Mexico (which is needed), I believe that a number of the southern and eastern nations of EU ALSO have border patrols against the none-EU nations (esp. those that in economic collapse). Or does EU allow Africans and Russian to come in and go at will without passports and without checking anything?

Re:Really?

[Ihlosi]

There is no guard at the Germany-Italy border.

Yes, there is - we usually call them "Austrian police", but they're usually more interested in whether you paid the road toll than anything else.

capecitabine

[MillionthMonkey]

But if you take that stuff and lose your fingerprints, you won't be able to prove you're a citizen when you try to reenter the U.S. Furthermore, as an illegal alien with no fingerprints, it will be assumed that you filed them off at terrorist training camp (the one with the monkey bars that all the terrorists swing from). They'll detain you for 4 hours.

I would recommend photocopying your fingerprints before taking that drug, so that later on you can show them to DHS and have them scan the photocopy.

Re:capecitabine

[Koiu Lpoi]

-1 Woosh

Ah yes

[xednieht]

The Department of Homeland Stupidity at it's finest. Why not just tattoo and incinerate them to make sure they don't come back.

Re:Living in Detroit....

[alexborges]

Dont worry: They wont apply that to Canada!

Re:They already have my fingerprints....

[Grishnakh]

They take your fingerprints when you buy a gun.

No, they don't. Unless you live in a police state like Illinois or something, but if you live there, you have no business with a gun. If you want a gun, move to a state that isn't so gun-unfriendly. There's at least 40 of them.

Here in Arizona, you can buy all the guns you want with no fingerprints, just the regular Federal instant-check form.

However, if you want a concealed-carry license, you need fingerprints for that.

Re:Honestly, what's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

The probability of the collected information being misused is higher than the probability that I will commit a crime.

And how does this solve it?

[Roger W Moore]

It's not a matter of xenophobia. For most people anyway. Illegal immigration is a very real social and economic problem.

And how does fingerprinting people who are eaving solve it? What happens if someone refuses to allow themselves to be scanned then? Will they be refused permission to leave? If so the US government is going to look like a real idiot since they will be refusing illegal immigrants permission to leave since I doubt many of them will want to submit to a fingerprint scan.

Re:What?!??!?

[interkin3tic]

This has got to be a joke

Homeland security does love a good laugh.

Actually, this is a devious plot on their part.

1. Introduce ridiculously intrusive (yet this side of believable) plan which will do nothing but annoy people, as a pilot program
2. Wait until enough people are annoyed at it or some one in government starts talking about cutting spending on security and doesn't immediately get thrown out of office by voters
3. Announce you've decided not to do it based on feedback/because you don't have enough money to keep america safe
4. ???
5. PROFIT!

Detroit and Atlanta

[oldspewey]

Detroit and Atlanta are both Delta hubs. So you can avoid this "pilot" by choosing a different airline to leave the US ... at least until the "pilot" expands.

Re:Honestly, what's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

They fingerprint you even if you're travelling via, and not visiting, the country. Eg. Ireland to Australia.
So much for the plane side of the gates at the airport still being an "International Zone".

Scan this

[supachupa]

Good. They can scan my middle finger when I leave the US for good.

I love a good flame war fueled by paranoia, but...

[curmudgeous]

Like most of the people posting here, I had the immediate knee-jerk reaction to this story of "OMFG, they is intruding on mine privacy!" However, after thinking about it for a few minutes, I realized this could be nothing more than an attempt to insure the person who comes back from overseas is the same person who left. I can think of many situations where a valid US passport might be useful to someone wanting to enter this country covertly, and I'm sure there is a thriving black market in such documents. This could be nothing more than an extra layer of verification. Go ahead, let the flaming begin. I'm wearing my Nomex moisturizer.

The Real Reason...

[scorp1us]

The US is going to be the place NOT to be in a few years. Hyper inflation and 60% income tax rates are being talked about on MSNBC tonight. The US will have to make people think twice before a mass exodus to new lands because of the ensuing drop in GDP, which will leave America without an economy...

Even if they start with foreigners today, it'll spread to citizens in 10 years.

Re:The Real Reason...

[Fallingcow]

Hyper inflation and 60% income tax rates are being talked about on MSNBC tonight.

Hyper inflation is a (somewhat remote) possibility, but a 60% income tax causing some kind of exodus or panic? Assuming that's a top bracket rate, it's more like a return to normal; our top rate now is unusually low.

Hell, it's been over 90% before (post-WWII, even!) and the country got along just fine.

Re:The Real Reason...

[scorp1us]

The problem with that assessment is 1) No where near the same percentage of american were filing income tax returns, and 2) the income tax did not hit everyone like it does today. If you back it up to historical standards (correcting for inflation) You'd need to make $250,000 before you paid a penny of income tax.

You further fail to understand the cause of the pending inflation. We don't really print money, but we monetize the debt, which means we sell it. The fed has bought the debt, effectively increasing the dollars in supply. This money has 2 places to go: either it is confiscated with high interest rates, or 2 it is left in the economy and causes inflation. If we choose the first, then we shoot ourselves in the foot of economic recovery. (Raising rates kills lending/spending). If we let it in the economy, we can pay our debts easier, but our savings are destroyed. We also have a drastically weaker dollar that will find its way to obsolescence in international trade, meaning that the US economy is no longer the price setter and we fall by the way side.

Re:The Real Reason...

[Fallingcow]

The problem with that assessment is 1) No where near the same percentage of american were filing income tax returns, and 2) the income tax did not hit everyone like it does today. If you back it up to historical standards (correcting for inflation) You'd need to make $250,000 before you paid a penny of income tax.

I haven't checked up on your first point, but everything I can find about the second doesn't seem to support it.

A PDF I found on the Stanford site, for instance, indicates that those making the equivalent of $35,000 (and lower) were paying income taxes in 1950. Their source appears to be the Brookings Institution. Available here.

I found other, less-good sources that said essentially the same thing. Am I reading these wrong? Is there something else I should be looking at?

You further fail to understand the cause of the pending inflation. We don't really print money, but we monetize the debt, which means we sell it. The fed has bought the debt, effectively increasing the dollars in supply. This money has 2 places to go: either it is confiscated with high interest rates, or 2 it is left in the economy and causes inflation. If we choose the first, then we shoot ourselves in the foot of economic recovery. (Raising rates kills lending/spending). If we let it in the economy, we can pay our debts easier, but our savings are destroyed. We also have a drastically weaker dollar that will find its way to obsolescence in international trade, meaning that the US economy is no longer the price setter and we fall by the way side.

I do understand the causes of inflation. I agree that we are likely to have high inflation for a while. I don't agree that hyperinflation is likely. The only way I could see that happening would be if we trailed way, way behind the rest of the world in recovering from the current economic crisis, and I don't expect that to be the case.

Re:The Real Reason...

[Fallingcow]

Actually, here's a site that appears to refute the first point as well.

Their source is the IRS.

Re:The Real Reason...

[scorp1us]

The first point was calculated from from 1913, when the income tax began.

Then in 1942, the federal government passed the unconstitutional Victory Tax Act, and engaged in a public relations campaign to have people pay the tax. Of course, it was a low rate, because people were not about to pay 30% to beat the axis powers in WWII. Then, two years later the VTA was repealed and replaced with a constitutional one which we have to this day. The catch now is that the IRS has names and addresses - a database of taxpayers that it didn't use to have. Then, in the 70s they created the rule that in order to claim dependents they had to have a SSN, which further enlarged the database, and indoctrinated more people into the tax paying system.

Today, illegal immigrants enjoy most of the life beyond taxes.

Throughout the years, the lower limit on who has to file has not been inflation-adjusted.

You should really start your research in 1913, watch it through WWII, then compare it to today because those are its defining moments. Also, August 15, 1971, when Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard and turned our money into currency. Because after that is when most of the inflation occurred. You can use bls.gov for a decent inflation calculator.

Re:They already have my fingerprints....

[Anonymous Coward]

Even in Illinois you don't get fingerprinted for purchasing a firearm. You do require a Firearm Owner's Identification card however. Which costs a whole $10 and can be done by mail. You just need a state issued ID and a recent photograph.

Homeland Security To Scan Citizens Exiting US

[Anonymous Coward]

Next time I leave the US I won't be coming back..so they can scan whatever they like. I've just about had enough of the American police state and will be leaving the country for good.

Small business is what I do.

[copponex]

I've run several small companies, grossing from 500k to 6 million. I know about the red tape. I've also worked in larger corporations, and I know about their internal red tape.

What I've come to realize is that large corporations are inherently tyrannical. Further down another poster makes a salient point about China - it's very business friendly because it totally empathizes with the way they operate. Orders come from above and are not to be questioned. Conformity to this tyranny is a prerequisite to be invited to the party, and if you have a problem with the top rung management, good luck getting an audience with them.

Conversely, small businesses like the ones I prefer are far more democratic. The lowest paid employee often has direct contact with the owner. This makes his impact radically different than serving the function of something that has not yet been automated or outsourced. He has room for creativity, room to make a difference in how the business is run. He is a person instead of a process.

Your sig asks how the powerful became powerful in our country. Since we have moved so far away from the democratic ideal, of the rule of law and men being equals in front of it, to celebrating personalities and the new aristocracy of corporate power, the answer is that money has become more important than values. Those who are powerful in today's America accept that early, and exploit as many people as they can to achieve their wealth. The wealthy pass on the spoils of their exploits to their children, who dutifully try to replicate what their ancestors accomplished.

The problem with this system is that it is totally against free market principles. There is no merit or true value from making money from money. That's why usury laws are so important, and also why they vanished from our country early in the 20th century. That's why taxes were always raised when we went to war, to make sure the powerful weren't so quick to send our children off to die. When money is the only vote, what kind of society do you think you will end up with? Does Bill Gates or Steve Jobs really deserve billions of votes compared to the tens of thousands given to a school teacher? A person given these parameters should not be surprised at what the result is - a society that worships wealth and power, and engages in destroying the only check to that power, which is a democratic government.

But the cruellest of our revenue laws, I will venture to affirm, are mild and gentle in comparison of some of those which the clamour of our merchants and manufacturers has extorted from the legislature for the support of their own absurd and oppressive monopolies. Like the laws of Draco, these laws may be said to be all written in blood.
--Adam Smith

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
--Major General Butler, USMC Retired
"War is a Racket"

Re:Small business is what I do.

[copponex]

Well, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. If by average, you mean well educated white person, I could agree - there's nothing you couldn't do. However, on the whole, and providing for rare exceptions, most people have little chance of success. Let me illustrate with a concrete example, and that is of transportation.

In the vast majority of American cities, without a car you are stuck with terrible and nearly unfunded mass transit. With a vehicle, your average commute is 20 minutes. Relying on local mass transit usually triples your commute time. So, assuming an 8 hour workday and 6 hours of sleep, you lose 10% of your free time to not having the car, assuming that you only leave the house to go to work. Add in trips to the grocery store and the bank, and you're talking about hundreds of hours lost each year.

Lots of little things add up over time. For instance, my grandfather bought me my first computer when I was 12. My grandmother gave me my first car when I was 16. A year later a friend of my fathers needed someone to type things up for him, and knew I was good with computers, and I had reliable transportation. So, I got my first job, where I learned valuable business skills, almost entirely because of the generosity of my relatives and the people I knew.

Someone with my same IQ and innate work ethic may not be so lucky. Maybe their entire family is poor, maybe their parents are dead or their sister is dying from some treatable disease but can't get insurance. I say this because I have known people similar to myself, who were never given the same chance. Some made it, but most did not. And if it comes down to giving a millionaire a bigger tax bill or giving every person the same opportunities, I choose the disadvantaged, because frankly, they are more valuable.

Also, I understand that the only thing worse than debutantes and their trust funds are the brilliantly successful and ethically challenged multi-millionaires who are willing to do anything for power. The people who believe the fact that they have power justifies whatever action they take, who actually complain when there are rules that prevent them from destroying the environment to take a profit, or from kicking out tenants before they have time to find a new place to live.

These are the people who sell cigarettes, who deny valid insurance claims, who sell landmines, who calculate the lawsuits from wrongful death versus the cost of a product recall. Chaplin called them "...unnatural men, machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts."

Or as they are known in America, great businessmen.

The choice is ours. But first we have to recognize what the reality is before we can determine whether we want to choose the same path or start a new one. How do you want to spend a quarter of a million dollars? Is it one day's worth of ammunition in a predator drone, or is it enough to feed a hundred thousand starving children for a month? Should the tax break give the millionaire another statue in his garden, or the tax increase provide a year's education for a child? There is a balance to these questions, but I am terrified that they aren't even being asked anymore.

Re:Small business is what I do.

[phantomfive]

Someone with my same IQ and innate work ethic may not be so lucky. Maybe their entire family is poor, maybe their parents are dead or their sister is dying from some treatable disease but can't get insurance. I say this because I have known people similar to myself, who were never given the same chance. Some made it, but most did not.

This is the American dream, right? Someone who doesn't have all the opportunity can still make it if they work hard. The idea of not being able to find work because you can't find a car is really silly. While I agree that mass transit in the US is generally horrible, there is enough opportunity for people who are willing to work for it. Even in societies that are true monarchies like Prussia in the 1700s had enough opportunity for someone like Moses Mendelssohn to go from complete utter poverty (and being counted along with cattle) to being very wealthy (and even more, influential: he was called the "German Socrates"). If he could do it in those days, what is stopping someone from doing it now? I'm not saying there aren't obstacles: but none of them are insurmountable.

And if it comes down to giving a millionaire a bigger tax bill or giving every person the same opportunities, I choose the disadvantaged, because frankly, they are more valuable.

Good point, agreed. However, I would point out that roughly 40% of Americans pay no federal income tax.

These are the people who sell cigarettes, who deny valid insurance claims, who sell landmines, who calculate the lawsuits from wrongful death versus the cost of a product recall. Chaplin called them "...unnatural men, machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts." Or as they are known in America, great businessmen.

Woah, do you really think every businessman is an unnatural man, with machine minds and machine hearts? That's a bit over the top......

But first we have to recognize what the reality is before we can determine whether we want to choose the same path or start a new one. How do you want to spend a quarter of a million dollars? Is it one day's worth of ammunition in a predator drone, or is it enough to feed a hundred thousand starving children for a month? Should the tax break give the millionaire another statue in his garden, or the tax increase provide a year's education for a child? There is a balance to these questions, but I am terrified that they aren't even being asked anymore.

Yeah, that's what happens when you don't pay taxes anymore. You start not caring where they get spent as much. Which is why the tax code should be simplified and everyone should be required to pay some taxes. When your money is on the line, it gets you more involved. Of course the poor should not have to pay as much, but they should still contribute at least a little.

Re:Small business is what I do.

[Tiro]

Supply chains in Japan, China and Korea are highly dependent on small companies. They can quickly adapt to market conditions. That is how their economies are able to be so flexible despite their mega-corporations.

Interesting that this makes China more free in the economic sense than Korea/Japan.

Re:Small business is what I do.

[copponex]

While I agree that mass transit in the US is generally horrible, there is enough opportunity for people who are willing to work for it. Even in societies that are true monarchies like Prussia in the 1700s had enough opportunity for someone like Moses Mendelssohn... If he could do it in those days, what is stopping someone from doing it now? I'm not saying there aren't obstacles: but none of them are insurmountable.

That's a ridiculous position. Is that what society you want to live in? Hey kid, it's not impossible to overcome all the obstacles we have left in your way, but statistically speaking, there's a 35% chance we will have put you in jail by the time you are 25. Also, good luck working a job at McDonalds and trying to get an education at the same time.

However, I would point out that roughly 40% of Americans pay no federal income tax.

I would point out that the top one percent of the country own over 50% of it's assets.

Woah, do you really think every businessman is an unnatural man, with machine minds and machine hearts? That's a bit over the top......

No, but the most powerful usually are. And anyone in the war industry.

Yeah, that's what happens when you don't pay taxes anymore. You start not caring where they get spent as much. Which is why the tax code should be simplified and everyone should be required to pay some taxes. When your money is on the line, it gets you more involved. Of course the poor should not have to pay as much, but they should still contribute at least a little.

Slaves didn't pay taxes. They didn't have to, because their masters were the ones enriched by the work they performed.

Re:Small business is what I do.

[phantomfive]

That's a ridiculous position. Is that what society you want to live in? Hey kid, it's not impossible to overcome all the obstacles we have left in your way, but statistically speaking, there's a 35% chance we will have put you in jail by the time you are 25. Also, good luck working a job at McDonalds and trying to get an education at the same time.

The society I want to live in is one where everyone is empowered to accomplish great things. When everyone is powerful, then there can be no robber baron types that take advantage of the weak. There will be enough other powerful ones to keep them in check. As for working a minimum wage job and getting an education at the same time, I did that, as did many other people I know. Frankly I can't imagine it was harder than running a fortune 500 company, or even a small company like the ones you run. Being powerful is not easy.

Let me amplify on that. I've spent a lot of time working, living, and talking with poor people in this country and in other countries. They are not stupid, they are not weak, they are not incapable. The limiting factor keeping them from achieving is their lack of belief that they can achieve. They don't know how to pick themselves up out of the slums, and often don't believe that they actually can. Which is 100% false. There is, as my sig says, nothing that the rich have done that they can't do. Some of them are even excellent businessmen, but don't know how to use their abilities outside of their small area. So the solution is education, if they realize they can achieve, then they will be able to, even if it means working at McDonald's at the same time as getting an education.

I would point out that the top one percent of the country own over 50% of it's assets.

That's good, there is plenty of room for competition for anyone wants a cut of that.

No, but the most powerful usually are.

I'm questioning this statistic of yours.....why do you think this? I would guess about an equal percentage of poor people and rich people are coldhearted thieves.

And anyone in the war industry.

Sure, but once again, this is not limited to rich powerful people. People from all classes are willing to work in the war industry.

But things are changing, check this out, I think you'll like it: Movie on youtube and associated website. War is becoming less and less viable as a political solution.

Slaves didn't pay taxes. They didn't have to, because their masters were the ones enriched by the work they performed.

Yes, which is why it's not good that the poor not pay taxes. It helps keep them out of the political loop.

Re:Small business is what I do.

[copponex]

The society I want to live in is one where everyone is empowered to accomplish great things. When everyone is powerful, then there can be no robber baron types that take advantage of the weak. There will be enough other powerful ones to keep them in check... Let me amplify on that. I've spent a lot of time working, living, and talking with poor people in this country and in other countries. They are not stupid, they are not weak, they are not incapable. The limiting factor keeping them from achieving is their lack of belief that they can achieve.

The real problem I have with that sort of sentiment is that it carries the same connotations as organized religion. If an entire portion of society suffers from the same affliction, is that a problem with the society or the individuals affected? Personal responsibility is important, but so is recognizing that societies that organize their government to help people are happier and healthier according to every source that I've looked at. There's no reason Americans shouldn't make the same choice.

I'm questioning this statistic of yours.....why do you think this? I would guess about an equal percentage of poor people and rich people are coldhearted thieves.

Look at how the poor are demonized for tricking people out of money, and the rich are exalted for it. Is this representative of some moral principle I'm unaware of?

Sure, but once again, this is not limited to rich powerful people. People from all classes are willing to work in the war industry.

Do you want your children to starve or are you going to show up to make landmines tomorrow? That's a tough question that should never be asked, and is only asked because of the tyrannical nature of corporations. Only a heavily propagandized group of people would prefer to build weapons instead of something else.

Yes, which is why it's not good that the poor not pay taxes. It helps keep them out of the political loop.

I see your point here, and perhaps it's an ingenious scheme to keep them apathetic. But blaming poor people for their plight isn't very different from blaming native Americans for not fighting back. You blame the people most responsible - the people with the most power. In that group I include myself.

Re:Small business is what I do.

[phantomfive]

Personal responsibility is important, but so is recognizing that societies that organize their government to help people are happier and healthier according to every source that I've looked at. There's no reason Americans shouldn't make the same choice.

YES. Agreed. Any society that does not take care of its weakest absolutely needs reexamining.

Look at how the poor are demonized for tricking people out of money, and the rich are exalted for it. Is this representative of some moral principle I'm unaware of?

No, I don't think so. People who are clever when they trick people out of money are sometimes exalted. Watch "The Sting." Ingenuity is respected in America, but corruptness is not. Think of Bernie Madoff.

Do you want your children to starve or are you going to show up to make landmines tomorrow?

Come on man, this is a false dilemma. There are so many other jobs available in the US, if you don't want to, you don't have to. Ask any Jehova's Witness.

I haven't gone around and interviewed people who worked in the defense industry (war industry), but some of my friends who have absolutely did not need to. It was all about the money for them (or, lack of creativity in finding another job. They were all programmers, in case you're wondering). Lots of people don't mind building implements of destruction and death. I suspect you've probably met similar people yourself.

But blaming poor people for their plight isn't very different from blaming native Americans for not fighting back. You blame the people most responsible - the people with the most power. In that group I include myself.

It's not about trying to find blame, it has to be about finding solutions. Where I feel Noam Chomsky (who I have enormous respect for) goes wrong, is he doesn't respect the poor. He seems to see them as sheep, just as much as the robber barons do, only he believes they are sheep that need to be taken care of.

That is not true at all, they are people with amazing potential, they are merely lost. It's largely a matter of education, all they need is to be set in the right direction and they will take off. There are some things that they need to learn in order to maximize their potential, but that's why it's a matter of education.

As an example, I was talking to this semi-homeless guy a few days ago, explaining to him how I live within my means: I spend less than I earn, and save the rest so I can retire someday. This was a completely new concept to him. It had never occurred to him to even try this: all his life he's spent every cent as quickly as he earned it. He is not an incapable person, in fact he's really good at working with horses, but he has this roadblock that keeps him where he is. There is no need to think of him as a sheep, or someone we have to take care of, he's just someone that needs a little help until he manages to find his own way.

Maybe it's his fault, maybe it's societies fault, but blaming won't help anything. The question is where to go from here.

What's the problem?

[Foobar of Borg]

I mean, after all, we know that no real American would ever want to leave the country!

been there, done that, posted this

[vaporland]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1227963&cid=27894137 It's easy to understand - it's this way because someone profits from it...

Does NOT apply to US Citizens

[adiemus]

TFA seems to be wrong about this including US citizens. While I think fingerprinting anyone, citizen or not, coming into the country isn't something we should be doing, and certainly not when exiting, the bit about fingerprinting exiting US citizens is found nowhere other than in the article from IT News Australia. The actual DHS press release is very specific that this is a planned extension to US-VISIT and, as such, only applies to non-US-citizens:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=AUSASAIR.story&STORY=/www/story/05-28-2009/0005034173&EDATE=THU+May+28+2009,+01:22+PM

Several additional articles all clearly indicating that this applies only to non-citizens:

http://www.fcw.com/Articles/2009/05/27/Web-US-VISIT-pilots.aspx
http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20090528_7835.php?oref=rss

Re:Does NOT apply to US Citizens

[Hays]

Indeed, the original article has been updated with an editor's note now to indicate that it does not apply to US citizens. The summary needs to be clarified.

Re:Does NOT apply to US Citizens

[Nethead]

What? And end this FUD-fest we have going here? The advertisers would never allow that!

Both, actually.

[copponex]

But it still makes sense. A democracy will not be as efficient as a dictatorship in some cases, but it is still better if you believe in certain principles. Similarly, local and democratically controlled resources will not be efficient as a corporation in some cases, but it is still better if you believe in certain principles.

And in our society, where dollars are more important than votes, those with the most dollars have their own needs "most peculiarly attended to" in the words of Adam Smith. If immigration were bad for big business, they would close the border. Just as if the free market were good for big business, they wouldn't demand trade protections while trying to deny the same rights to their foreign competitors.

Re:I love a good flame war fueled by paranoia, but

[fluffy99]

The simple answer to ensuring the returning person is not an imposter is simply encoding the fingerprint into the passport book or card.

I'll stay here.

[delysid-x]

another reason why i'll never cross the border from canada again. canada is a pretty harsh police state, but not nearly as bad as the usa (or britain, it's 1984 there from now on) I used to go down to Bellingham, WA for cheap goods, but I don't think I'm welcome there anymore. I always feel like I'm in danger when I cross the border, like some crackhead is going to shoot me with a handgun. Plus they'd send me to jail for all the BC Bud I smoke heh ;) Nobody I know could take their car across the border without it getting seized.

not idiocy

[taniwha]

the US run really weird borders - getting in they treat you like utter crap, when you leave they do nothing, don't check or stamp your passport, there's not even a guy at a desk when you leave you just wander onto the plane, they depend on the airline getting it right. Anywhere else in the world they check your passport on the way in and the way out.

I visit the US on business a few times a year - I depend on being able to come and go, but if the airline screws up I may find myself detained at the border for overstaying my previous trip next time I show up, I have no way of knowing if they've gotten it right - and there are horror stories from those for whom the record keeping was screwed up - I'm much rather have that exit stamp in my passport

Meet the new boss,

[Schemat1c]

same as the old boss.

electronics

[binaryseraph]

Does this mean that can seize my laptop indefinitely- like they do when you enter?

Editor's Note

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone see the Editor's note? Should probably update the Post.

Editors Note - This story originally contained a representation that the biometrics trial in Atlanta and Detroit included the fingerprint scanning of US citizens. This has since been proved to be incorrect and the story has been modified - only non-US citizens will be expected to provide a biometric record.

Re:Editor's Note

[chord.wav]

Doesn't really matter. Like in chess, you have to visuallize the next move. This is just how it begins.
They'll have 2 lines, one for US citizens and another for the rest. One day, the guy in the US booth will take a lunch brake and never come back. And everything is already in place for they to scan everyone...

Re:Editor's Note

[Ihlosi]

They'll have 2 lines, one for US citizens and another for the rest. One day, the guy in the US booth will take a lunch brake and never come back. And everything is already in place for they to scan everyone...

If you ever went through immigration at a US airport, you've probably noticed that they do have those two lines there for people trying to enter the country. And the booths for each have _identical_ equipment.

The guy in the US booth in your example doesn't need to take a lunch break. He just needs a different set of orders from above.

Re:They already have my fingerprints....

[blueg3]

Yeah, I live in New York state, and we don't need fingerprints or any kind of license for rifles.

Techology is not a good solution

[jandersen]

It seems to me that America is always trying to solve all problems with technology rather than simply learning to avoid the problems in the first place. The problem with technology is that it will always be too easy to circumvent - it is never going to be entirely watertight.

Of course that is not always a problem, if what you are trying to achieve is simply to reduce the size of a problem; but since we are talking Homeland Security, ie trying to stop terrorism, how likely is that to be entirely successful? To paraphrase Terry Pratchett - the terrorists only need to lucky once, but America needs to be lucky every time.

What makes it seem even more futile is that there is a much cheaper and more effective alternative: why not try to be more of a friend to those in need? The biggest help terrorists have is that they can point their finger at America and say "The Big Satan".

Re:They already have my fingerprints....

[Grishnakh]

Sorry, it was just an example. The parent said he needed to provide fingerprints, and I know that's not true in most states including my own (AZ), so I tried to guess at the most restrictive state I could think of. Maybe he's in New Jersey instead; I hear they're even worse.

ERROR IN SUMMARY: THIS IS NOT FOR CITIZENS!

[chainLynx]

From the linked article: "Editors Note - This story originally contained a representation that the biometrics trial in Atlanta and Detroit included the fingerprint scanning of US citizens. This has since been proved to be incorrect and the story has been modified - only non-US citizens will be expected to provide a biometric record."

burning off prints?

[Deanalator]

This brings up an interesting point, does anyone know any good ways to burn your fingerprints off? From the sources I can see on google, physical burning (with an iron etc) fails, and they grow back pretty fast, but more chemical methods, like lye or alcohol etc are pretty effective at permanently removing, or at least obscuring your prints.

Re:burning off prints?

[tfischer]

The answer is "capecitabine". To quote Gizmodo (who quoted ABC News):

http://gizmodo.com/5272243/cancer-meds-wiped-off-mans-fingerprints

A 62 year old man had this very problem recently when he tried to enter the US - he had no more fingerprints, a side-effect of taking the post-chemo drug mentioned above for two years...

tom

Re:burning off prints?

[Ihlosi]

but more chemical methods,

Pineapple juice. In fact, there's already been a "missing fingerprints at immigration" case that was due to the traveller handling lots of raw, peeled pineapple at work.

Re:burning off prints?

[SwedishChef]

Once you burn off your distinctive fingerprints you leave a finger with either no prints or (more likely) several distinctive scars. Since only a tiny number of people have actually done this you would become even more distinctive than you are now. In addition, they'd start to wonder just exactly why you went to so much trouble to hide your identity. I'm pretty sure that the bureaucratic mind would think up all sorts of possible reasons and investigate every single one of them thoroughly.

Won't stamp your hand

[SgtChaireBourne]

Brave Homeland Security Officer: Place your thumb here.
Traveler: Ok.
*Presses thumb to scanner*
Brave Homeland Security Officer: Ah-ha! This says that you are in this country illegally! I've got you now!
Traveler/Illegal immigrant: Sooooo... since I'm not allowed to be in this country, do you want me to get on my plane and leave, or what?
Brave Homeland Security Officer: Yes! And, um, never come back! That'll teach you!
Traveler/Illegal immigrant: Yes, this punishment of being delayed from my flight for 30 seconds has surely made me so uncomfortable that I won't ever sneak back into this country. You win.

It's more than a 30 second delay. Make note that BHSO above didn't stamp TI's hand so he won't be able to get back in.

Reality Control

[pinkushun]

This is plusgood doublethink, it's Ingsoc slowly revealing itself.

Correction: Only for NON-US citizens

[tfischer]

The summary description on ./ is wrong. If one does RFA all the way to the end, one will see the following:

Editors Note - This story originally contained a representation that the biometrics trial in Atlanta and Detroit included the fingerprint scanning of US citizens. This has since been proved to be incorrect and the story has been modified - only non-US citizens will be expected to provide a biometric record.

As a US citizen living in France, and often travelling through Detroit and Atlanta to get to/from Chicago, I'm relieved that I won't be delayed by this hassle. As a human being, I don't agree with the idea of requiring visiters to submit their fingerprints to the the US government - I feel it is infringing on one's human rights and/or privacy, and feel ashamed when I see fellow travellers submitting to this procedure upon entry into the US - but it's too early in the morning for me to formulate a clear and logical argument against the requirement...

Re:Correction: Only for NON-US citizens

[tfischer]

It really is to early. The first two sentences should be:

"The summary description on /. is wrong. If one does RTFA all the way to the end, one will see the following:....

I'm going to have my coffee now...

Re:Correction: Only for NON-US citizens

[tfischer]

"too" early. not to. I'll. stop. posting. now.

Kiss my ass and my dollars goodbye

[Stu101]

Are they trying to deter visitors with $$ from visiting?

My SO is 30 next year and I thought that now Bush has gone etc, I could lift my own personal no visit status of the US. Do it big, splurge lots of cash on casinos, shopping, nice hotels etc

Now there is NO chance I am coming. Why should I give them my fingerprints when I am leaving the place FFS. I wouldn't ne a troublemaker, but its a point of principle. What business does the US gvt have with my foreign fingerprints ? None that is reasonable!

So in real terms (and I am sure any other geeks will feel similar) I am not visiting your ever increasing police state! This means that they won't get our tourism $ and we will just party somewhere else instead and the economys that would have benefited in a time of need, don't.

Unfortunatly, the morons that do disneyland won't care. So the potential effect is minimal, but still noticable.

They want to control everything?

[Nephrite]

I am waiting for them to seize and "scan" ships and aircraft passing by near their shores...

Re:They want to control everything?

[davecb]

They already do random checks of yachts passing near but outside U.S. waters: a colleague from years ago was stopped and searched (politely) by the U.S. Coast Guard on his way from Bermuda back to New Brunswick.

--dave

Re:Honestly, what's the big deal?

[dugeen]

Fingerprinting is traditionally something reserved for criminals and people arrested on genuine suspicion of actual offences. If the state starts fingerprinting other categories of people, they'll resent being classed with crimmos. I know I certainly would.

Re:I love a good flame war fueled by paranoia, but

[curmudgeous]

The simple answer to ensuring the returning person is not an imposter is simply encoding the fingerprint into the passport book or card.

Passports already have photographs as well as other identifying information. It would be no more difficult for a good forger to change the stored fingerprint than it would be to change the photo, so there has to be something outside the passport itself that can be used for verification. Of course, since all this will have to be stored electronically, it's only a matter of time, money and resources until bad guys gain access to the database and change stuff around at will, so we'll eventually be back at the same problem (how to make sure the returning person is the same as the person who left).

unconstitutional

[DragonTHC]

This violates the 4th amendment of the constitution.

This is an unreasonable search. When you refuse, they will help you with an unreasonable seizure.

They have absolutely no probable cause. It's a wide dragnet that is illegal and unconstitutional.

As a famous guerilla leader once said...

[rpervinking]

Ben Franklin was part of a terrorist organization? Gee, not that I'm aware of. I would have said they were more like a guerilla organization. Or was your use of that particular word just flame bait?

Re:As a famous guerilla leader once said...

[vux984]

I would have said they were more like a guerilla organization.

That's what I say about most 'terrorist' groups active today too.

So apparently, the two words are interchangeable in newspeak.

Actualy the number of words that are interchangeable with terrorist these days is surprisingly large. I can probably call you a terrorist if I rationalize it right. (Are you a pacifist? Were you against the Iraq war? Terrorist sympathizer. Did you actually vote against Bush in protest of the iraq war? That's taking action... now your one of them. Or maybe you downloaded a song; the RIAA has claimed that piracy funds terrorism... so you don't have receipts for every track, I'm going to conclude you funded al-quaida...)

Re:Honestly, what's the big deal?

[Acer500]

"So what if they want to fingerprint travelers entering the country? I think this is a good idea" "So what if they want to fingerprint travelers exiting the country? I think this is a good idea" "So what if they want to fingerprint travelers changing flights at the country? I think this is a good idea" "So what if they want to fingerprint travelers flying past the country? I think this is a good idea" "So what if they want to fingerprint drivers? I think this is a good idea" "So what if they want to fingerprint cyclists? I think this is a good idea" "So what if they want to fingerprint pedestrians? I think this is a good idea" "So what if they want to fingerprint everyone? I think this is a good idea"

The UK want to introduce ID cards - first they were going to be optional, then you would have to pay for them, then they would have fingerprint data, then they were remotely-readable, then they were going to be used on immigrants, then they were going to be used for all airport workers, etc.etc.etc. Feature creep. Watch out for it. That's where 1984 is gonna come from.

Actually, I think countrywide IDs are a good thing, in my country we have one, with fingerprints and everything, and it's far safer to purchase anything with a credit card, etc.

It's used for the same things you stupidly use the SSN and driver's license for - you still need some kind of ID for your stuff, why not make a centralised one?. Make it optional if you're worried about privacy (but, good luck conducting business without it)

The fingerprinting at airports and stuff, however, is more an annoyance than help.

Re:totalitarianism, as per the USSR

[davecb]

Well citizen, let's see... I see here you're a member of the National Guard on callup. I'm afraid you can't leave the country without an exit visa signed by the Secretary of the Army. Please return to your base for a free trip to a different foreign country.

--dave

Iron curtain

[Script Cat]

An iron curtain has descended across the continent.

Re:What?!??!?

[suman28]

Come on people. Atleast pretend to read the article. If you did, you would have seen that it clearly states that this is for US-VISIT program which is NOT for U.S. Citizens, but only for visitors. Will it be applied to the U.S. Citizens in the future? Maybe, or maybe not. Just don't try to deceive people my stating that is not accurate.

lawbreakers

[misanthrope101]

People don't like illegal immigrants because by definition those people are breaking the law.

When driving I frequently notice that considerably more than half the drivers are breaking the law by speeding, not using signals properly, not changing lanes properly, etc. Add in jaywalking, littering, etc, and a staggering number of Americans are criminals. Where is the hue and cry over all these criminals? When will THAT wall be built? Why aren't the Minutemen and Sheriff Joe clamoring for these people to be arrested and/or deported? THEY'RE BREAKING THE LAW!!!!!!

Oh wait, that's BS, and we know that Americans are not especially committed to scrupulous adherence to the law. A huge number of Americans break the law every day without any conservative going on any talk show demanding that something be done. So no, it's not just a conscientious committment to following the letter of the law. There is a bit more involved here, and everyone knows it.

Damn. I'm going to miss visiting Canada

[moeinvt]

I'm NEVER going to get any biometric or RF enabled ID, and I'm sure as hell not going to allow them to fingerprint me at the border.

Guess I'll be staying home until we decide it's time to restore our civil liberties. No more hockey games or concerts at The Bell Center, and missing The Montreal Film Festival is totally going to suck.

Oh well, anything for the illusion of a little temporary safety.

Re:Honestly, what's the big deal?

[ledow]

"in my country we have one, with fingerprints and everything, and it's far safer to purchase anything with a credit card, etc."

A misconception. How is it *safer* to buy something using a fingerprint (whether that's used directly or via some sort of remote verification because of some card you hold with one on it)? To be of *any* practical use day-to-day you would need a fingerprint *reader* on every machine that could possibly be used to sell you things. And that means that the hardware is common, and thus usually very easily hacked (fake, hacked and compromised Chip&PIN terminals were doing the rounds within months of its release, if not before, in the UK). Let's not even get into how easy it is to fake a fingerprint *unnoticeably* in front of the casual user. And guess where I can get a copy of your fingerprint? Anywhere you touch, ever, in your entire life. Like those millions of payment machines, posssibly? So I can make a fake ID with your fingerprint, or fake your fingerprint from your ID. It really is a pathetic biometric. I wouldn't trust it to open my garage door, let alone my bank account.

That card you carry, with fingerprint data, is NO better than any other card you carry. I agree wholeheartedly that they should be centralised to be effective (it helps catch fraudsters to do that) but fingerprinting DOES NOT HELP, especially not with the current state of the technology.

The trouble is that a centralised repository of such information weakens EVERY link - it becomes MUCH easier to fake an identity in its entirety from the inside of the organisations controlling it, it becomes easier to attack, it standardises on a format which aids forgeries (especially if that standard is international - make a fake passport for some horrible third-world country where nobody has the capability to even check it's genuine and you can roam internationally on a fake ID).

As a little factette - government statistics revealed last year that there are over 80m unique, official "identifications" (National Insurance numbers, driving licences, passports, etc. issued directly by the proper authorities, NOT fakes) in the UK, and a confirmed population including immigrants, illegal or otherwise, of only 60m; thus every fourth ID that exists is fake, but has official documents to proof their identity and an entry on the database. Large criminals are often caught with dozens, if not hundreds, of officially-supplied ID's in false names. Do you think that comes about through making an accident when filling in a form, or by supplying only actual, genuine documents to obtain them?

My daughter was born not too long ago. The *entire* proof of her existence was a hospital record and a birth certificate - none of which could record her blood group or any other identifying details without my permission. She was never required to be subjected to ANY tests (DNA, blood, fingerprint, etc.). She never left my or my wife's sight during all her time in hospital, for even a fraction of a second. My wife was quite within my rights to remove her from hospital after signing only the birth certificate if she wanted. It contains a name that we gave her, a data and time, an official-looking stamp and a serial number (presumably unique). Somewhere, there is a copy of that information in her medical records and maybe a database.

That's the ONLY reliable evidence that my daughter exists - because even if I didn't sign it, the hospital would file a missing person's report for her the second she left the hospital. She hasn't needed fingerprints, or DNA tests or photographs to prove who she is, and she won't do even when she's 18 (with any luck). My wife and I are both eligible for government tax breaks because she exists. We get government-approved childcare. She gets a guaranteed school place. My wife gets free healthcare until she's a year old. We get *actual cash* from the Government every month because she exists. She even has a bank account (a Child Trust Fund). All on the basis that there's

Re:I love a good flame war fueled by paranoia, but

[fluffy99]

One problem they are trying to address is a US citizen mailing their passport to an illegal friend, who then uses it to enter the US. In that regard, it does make sense to check credentials as people leave. If the passport never officially left, it should not be allowed in without some scrutiny.

The picture on the Passport is not a good identifier as peoples look can change. Another non-changeable identifying mark like fingerprints is desirable. Fingerprints are much easier to automatically identify too - just stick your finger on the button.

Passports do store the picture electronically now, with a digital signature. Just add the fingerprint. Military CAC cards already do this.

Re:Damn. I'm going to miss visiting Canada

[swordgeek]

"...until we decide it's time to restore our civil liberties."

I hate to break it to you, but that's not how it works. You can only TAKE BACK your civil liberties through clear and decisive action. If you want 'em, be prepared to get out there and fight tooth and nail, because the groups in power don't want you to have them.

Time to route around damage?

[anyGould]

Non-American here...

First question - what happens if you refuse? Will they not let you out of the country?

My thought was, just one more reason for me not to visit the US. Why put myself through the hassle and potential risk?

Re:They already have my fingerprints....

[Grishnakh]

Except maybe for a few screwed-up states like NJ, we don't register guns in this country.

Civil Rights

[Peteyo311]

First off most people in the United States do not have their fingerprints on file anywhere. So I think this is just a very sneaky way (since airports already have security measures) to create a record of even more peoples fingerprints. The Problem I have is not that I have is when people will start to be wrongly accused because now their prints are being found at crime scenes of people they know. For example lets say a friend of mines' house was broken into and now because my prints are now in a file somewhere, I get wrongly accused. Or even worse I was working at a Lowe's and was the cashier for someone who purchased fertilizer or other materials for a bomb ; if my prints matched I'm suddenly under suspicion. Sure my alibi (if in fact I have one and was not at home by myself posting comments on some website) would check out but now I'm dragged into a mess I have no buisiness being in. So I'm of the opinion this is just another step towards George Orwell's 1984.

People who leave the country are...

[Trevin]

An official has said it will be used in part to crack down on the US population of illegal emigrants.

Fixed it.

post-soviet russia

[pimpimpim]

I went to russia from the EU last year. It works like this: you pay a company to arrange the visum for you. This costs about 60 euro and takes 2 weeks. In the plane before landing you get a small form in which you fill in your name and in some cases the address where you will be staying, twice. You give this form at the border, they keep half of it, you have to give the other half when you go out. That's all there is to it, and it's not like Russia has different problems with terrorism than the US.

A bet for all takers "threat level" bingo

[RobertLTux]

One thing that bugs me is the "threat level" may go up to Red but never goes down below yellow

So here is my bet we will never see green until a third party president is in office.

But they can't do that either

[Sycraft-fu]

Since I'm a US citizen, they can't keep me out. While you don't have things like a right to privacy at the border, meaning they can search you and your belongings, as a citizen they can't keep you out of your country. They can't say "Nope, you have to go back home," since you ARE going back home.

fuck it

[smoker2]

I spent just about $40,000 the last time I was in the US (In restaurants, hotels and cars and air fares mostly). I was there for less than 4 months. I've not been back since you started treating me like a criminal. I first arrived November 2001. I had less hassle then than now, and that was 2 months after 9/11.

Re:They already have my fingerprints....

[Nethead]

when you lose the ability to overthrow a corrupt regime through use of force,...

We lost that ability about the time tanks and fighter aircraft came out.

Re:They already have my fingerprints....

[Grishnakh]

The Soviets tried to use tanks and fighter aircraft against Osama's Muhajadeen (sp?), who had only light arms, in Afghanistan some time ago, and were defeated.

by now we raised a version ...

[freaker_TuC]

I think we've had v2.0 in beta for 8 years...

Modders are so wierd.

[Jane Q. Public]

My original comment got marked down as "overrated" and "troll"... despite the fact that there are 2 pages of discussion related to it.

Come on, guys! Get with the program.

Really?

[jotaeleemeese]

In which sense?

The social problem is created by artificially driving underground a group of people that would otherwise make a positive contribution to the local economy.

If there are immigrants it is because there are jobs, they are filling an economic vacuum that people settle d earlier don't want to fill.

The problem is not immigration, the problem are the xenophobic, protectionist attitudes of the population established earlier (descendants of immigrants for the most part) that go easy talking about freedom but are more precious when it comes to probe their "convictions" when it comes to real actions.

They come from the Chinese.

[jotaeleemeese]

So try again, but a bit harder.

Re:They come from the Chinese.

[SydShamino]

Centuries ago, and are distinct now. You know, like every other "ethnically distict" group came from African's at some point, and became distinct through cultural and physical isolation.

I am not worried.

[jotaeleemeese]

I took the tube to my office in London the day after the bombings here.

I used my brain and the conclusion was clear: the danger in average was pretty minimal.

People not using their brains are opening the doors to all the fear mongers that are eroding civil liberties in developed countries.

What is the point of the brave stand so many people did against the dark forces of Fascism if a handful of derided individuals has the power to subvert all what is supposed to be precious to people that claim to love freedom and the rule of law?

This is the subthread of non travelers to USA.

[jotaeleemeese]

I could save some money every time I go to Mexico by flying with an US airline from Europe.

I will not do so until the immigration policies in the US return to pre 9-11 levels of sanity (which were bad enough mind you, but not unbearably authoritarian like they are now).

As long as these idiotic policies continue European (and Canadian!) airlines will continue to have my business...

Mexican passports.

[jotaeleemeese]

My Mexican passport has my photograph printed in the paper, so there is no way to replace it , like it was theoretically possible with older passports.

So they look at me, check the picture and let me in if I am the guy in the picture. Passports come with codes and an electronic tag that should ensure it is legit (as we know they are using the wrong technology, but that is the problem with authoritarian people, you can't trust them to run anything efficiently).

So which problem exactly they are trying to solve?

I'll tell you which one: they try to keep their jobs (Homeland Security) byt busying themselves doing something, anything, the more authoritarian the better.