Slashdot Mirror
Patrolling the US Border Via Webcam
The BBC features a story today on a controversial effort to patrol the border between Mexico and Texas by means of 21 hidden cameras, the output of which is streamed online for viewers at home, who can then report suspected illegal border crossings; more than 130,000 people have registered to observe the streams, from as far afield as "Australia, Mexico, Colombia, Israel, New Zealand and the UK."
They're not really hidden cameras if the output is streamed to the web, now are they?
Why is a wholesome, All-American, project to Defend the Homeland(tm) letting dirty foreign IP addresses in?
I read on freerepublic that foreign IPs can carry tuberculosis and communism.
Now if Mexico was registered to monitor the hidden cams..... "quick, duck, I can see you on the webcam"
Could it be that Mexicans have registered for the purpose of locating the cameras?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Ok yes, we see you. We will mark that crossing off our list of possibilities. Ok, a little further...there I can see you...keep going....now I can't, mark that with a flag or something.
Well played Border Control, well played.
If only there were a way for them to stay on their side of the border,
yet still do work on our side of it: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804529/
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
The moment these people are signedup and logged in -- that's when we'll know the locations and capabilities of those cameras.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Really, crowdsourcing a problem like this shouldn't be hard - 21 cameras, lots of geeks, Google Earth? How long will they stay hidden? Let's have a contest to find the things!
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I hope AI is used to bring the webcams which have humans moving on it to peoples attention (rather than having everyone looking at random webcams, 99% of which will have nothing interesting on them).
So instead of lining some contractor's pocket how about we just do as the Romans did and actually patrol the damned border?
Sure boots on the ground isn't as flashy as a web cam but it might be actually effective.
Of course actual patrols might be too effective...
...we would be concerned that the cameras might encourage vigilantism. That people would think they saw an illegal immigrant and then jump in their truck with a gun.
That criticism shows up at least twice in the BBC article, but it doesn't make sense to me. The cameras might attract some people already partial to vigilantism, but I don't believe they flat out encourage vigilantes in general.
What's more, the locations of the cameras are secret; otherwise immigrants and traffickers would learn to avoid all those spots within days. The watchers shouldn't be able to find the camera locations, so this stuff about "jumping into their truck with a gun" isn't even possible.
I don't know whether I agree or not with the program, but the "concerns" quoted here seem a little far fetched. Furthermore, vigilantes present as much danger to law enforcement as to their prey, so I don't believe the Border Patrol or sheriff's offices will continue the program if there's significant evidence of more people hunting illegals.
I wonder if something like this couldn't be used to provide more effective protection than the police currently provide for witnesses, abused women, and others under threat. All too often even when such people get some protection it takes the form of a patrol car driving by now and then or officers posted outside the front door, often for limited hours and not for very many days. Providing really effective protection takes a lot of manpower that is hard for police to provide. And then there are cases where te police are unsympathetic or consider that there isn't enough hard evidence of a threat. If cameras could be set up to monitor building and in some case apartment entrances and exits and streamed to sites where volunteers would monitor them, that could provide a large increase in the manpower available.
I Feel Asleep.....
Karnal
There's already a moat of sorts - the Rio Grande river. I think that only stops illegals who can't swim and have no access to a raft or other boat.
I think we have bigger problems than illegal immigration and trying to patrol the border, which is an arguably worthwhile endeavor, is really not the most effective technique at our disposal. It would help, for starters, if the country they were fleeing wasn't such a cesspool of corruption, crime and poverty. Notice that we don't have nearly as much trouble with Canadians fleeing their country. I can hardly blame those Mexican immigrants for wanting to get the heck out of there.
Second it would probably be more effective if we made it easier for them to come here LEGALLY. Then they could work and live here, with less fear of deportation, and contributing more openly to the society they want so badly to join.
It's a complicated problem, which is why nobody has really managed to solve it. Just ask a Cherokee. If you can find one.
-B-
There is a fairly straightforward way to locate the cameras if you have a bit more time than me. Using the time of the sunrise and sunset (and the length of the day), you should be able to get a decent fix on the location (people use the same technique on whales and sea turtles.)
I believe the term is "crowdsourcing", or in this case, "sponsored crowdsourcing", where the citizens want their border protected, and there is not enough manpower or money for the government to do it.
However, I doubt it will catch on much, unless there is incentive/award to successfully identify illegal crossing that requires a high 'hit ratio' or low rate of false reports to claim a reward.
It is not vigilantism for citizens to assist law enforcement in enforcing the laws of the country. It is responsible citizenship, and it is getting involved, which are good things.
The border is massive, and 21 cameras cannot possibly cover a significant portion.
It's good as a pilot project, but the border is thousands of miles long.
Would-be illegal immigrants will eventually get word about regarding which reasons are "safest" or that they're most likely to succeed at in crossing.
Probably forested most geographically hostile areas, where cameras can't easily be placed, are going to be more favored crossing points.
The low number of border agents places them at significant advantage to catching or outrunning illegal immigrants in geographically hostile areas where vehicles can't ride.
Especially if any of the illegal immigrants have "invisibility cloaks", EMPs, or other technological sophistication involved in their efforts.
If you are so concerned about criminal activity "crossing the border", why not do what that lovely man in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City suggested for florida, build a moat!
Yeah as an Aussie it has long been my belief that you shouldn't be able to be a country unless you have water all the way around. Of course the Panama Canal is sort of a moat, and it is part of the USA.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I think we have bigger problems than illegal immigration and trying to patrol the border, which is an arguably worthwhile endeavor, is really not the most effective technique at our disposal. It would help, for starters, if the country they were fleeing wasn't such a cesspool of corruption, crime and poverty. Notice that we don't have nearly as much trouble with Canadians fleeing their country. I can hardly blame those Mexican immigrants for wanting to get the heck out of there.
Exactly! All this talk of "criminals" and "drugs", calling large swaths of people "illegals"...its a terrible thing! They are still human beings you know...
This idea of having people watching computer screens for desperate people trying to make a new life in another country, its revolting to me. I also feel sorry for those who have grown up on the other side to see these people as a "pest".
---
Glad to hear from an Australian friend, I've long wished that the "ANZAC spirit" were closer, with less of our stereotypes and poor jokes. If you forgive my "fussh und chuups", I'll pass over your "sex/six" difficulties :)
Still, Australia and NZ have had asylum seekers, that ended up being turned away. Really, if some impoverished people want to come to your country, is it such a bad thing for you, as a "rich" person? No matter how "poor" we might feel, we are so much better off than millions, nay, billions, overseas. What a strange situation, where many of our middle class give "a dollar a day" to "starving children in Africa", but we put up walls, fences, MOATS, to keep people out.
Does this talk of "patrolling the border" remind anyone else of the Berlin Wall? Wasnt a Right Wing American known for "tear down this wall"?
---
What we need now is an additional camera every, oh, quarter mile. Figure $250 per camera installation (small ARM network board, camera, connectivity). That'd be a good start.
Then put autocanons on them designed to only shoot south.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
There is an option for citizens who want to be good guys and snitch on companies who employ illegals and are thus tax cheats.
You can turn in illegals, punish employers who exploit both them and Americans who need jobs, and make a profit.
http://www.taxwhistleblowers.org/main/page.php?page_id=2
"Amount of Form 211 Reward
Rewards range from 1% to 15% of amounts collected (including taxes, fines, and penalties, but not interest) up to a maximum of $10 million."
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Why use autocannons? Just link the cameras and guns to an online sniper game and let the crowd do it!
Heck, you could probably charge $1 per shot and make money!
None of them can be seen.
After being on hold for 30 minutes: "Officer, i saw a crossing, 50 miles from any human post.. "
By the time they mobilize, all the cameras will do is allow us to count how many crossed over, for the census.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Really, if some impoverished people want to come to your country, is it such a bad thing for you, as a "rich" person?
Put that way its not really a bad thing but spare a thought for the great number of people from poor countries who do the right thing by applying through channels, filling out the forms and working hard to qualify. Letting asylum seekers through does two bad things IMHO:
I 1997 I visited friends in the US. They had an apartment in Manhattan and during the day I made use of the laundry in their building. The demographics in the laundry and the attached playground were totally different from elsewhere generally in the building. The clothes were being washed and the children were being cared for by middle aged women from central America. It was actually a lot like Malaysia (my wife's native country), where many families have Indonesian servants.
If you want to retain your identity, migration has to be slow. I am sure that India or Sri Lanka could dump enough people on NZ in one year to create a new majority. I doubt that even the past immigrants from those countries want that to happen. And it is a sad fact I think that population pressure has to be used to reduce population growth. Its sad because starvation is implied in that equation.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
So can you show me a country that doesn't try to maintain its territorial integrity?
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
if your from NZ it's obvious why your pro immigration - 1/2 your bloody country has immigrated to aussie!
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I'd like to point out, we handed over the canal to Panama at the end of the last century. Seeing as your an Aussie, your forgiven.
It means that closing borders is a waste of time and energy. It's a pointless drain on the economy to waste tax dollars on a pipe dream. Not to mention the privacy concerns of erecting sophisticated surveillance equipment wily-nily.
Patrolling the Mexican-American border is about as effective as the war on drugs. I thought the economic and social drain of the Berlin Wall was well known.
The point is:
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
TFA says: "the administrators of the site maintain the primary goal of the initiative is to tackle crime, not illegal immigration." In other words, this is about the war on drugs. At a cost of about 4 million dollars, 21 arrests have been made; "Critics say this does not represent value for money."
This is a fascinating proposition. Let's figure out the value-per-dollar supplied by the war on drugs in general, and see if it's better than the value-per-dollar supplied by this program.
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the war on drugs. (The term was first used by Nixon in 1969.) I don't think it will come as a surprise that it's been a failure.
What about the "per-dollar" part? Well, I don't know about your state, but mine (California) spends more on prisons than it spends on education, and the vast majority of prison spending arises from drug prohibition. First of all, you have all the people in prison for buying, selling, or using drugs. Then you have all the crime directly associated with the illegal drug trade; just as the stereotypical Chicago gangster of the 1930's wouldn't have existed without Prohibition, gangs today wouldn't exist without drug prohibition. And then you have all the crime that indirectly arises from drug prohibition. Drug prohibition makes drugs expensive, so people commit crimes to support their habits. So we have all the costs of incarceration, the social costs suffered by the victims of violent crime, etc. It's a lot of money.
So I would estimate that the value-per-dollar of the war on drugs over the last 40 years equals x/y, where x is a number so small that it's controversial whether it's positive or negative, and y is huge.
Find free books.
if your from NZ it's obvious why your pro immigration - 1/2 your bloody country has immigrated to aussie!
and yet our population is growing! Things are only getting better.
---
exactly, I realise that populations change significantly. On the last 60 Minutes podcast I listened to, one of the birthpaces of Christianity has been radically changed, and christians are apparently harassed, the entire region is Islamic now. I dont see it as a "bad" thing.
I'm "New Zealand European" or "Pakeha" or "white. I realise that going into the future, my country will be "less white", who cares? Why should we be afraid of that? That there will be more cultures in our country, I think thats great! It busts stereotypes, "oh, NZers are all just white trash dairy farmers", well, not the Chinese Vegans.
If a hundred years after my death, New Zealand population is mainly Chinese, it doesnt hurt me any! I guess I could fear my history and culture will be forgotten, that "NZ Europeans" will "die out", but really, what are we to do? A pre emptive nuclear strike on China? "fixing" people from large countries, the way we "fix" a dog?
Diversity is almost certainly a good thing, I have nothing to fear if poorer people come here and make a new life, good for them. I wouldnt try and stop them.
""Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!""
How did America move away from its ideals, such as the pursuit of happiness for all?
---
Please. This isn't even slightly tricky. Time the sunset / shadows. That gives you the east-west position (and very accurately, too.) Local noon identifies local midnight (and every other local time) perfectly. So does sunset. Since the cameras are on the border, that reduces the problem to a very small one -- what portion(s) of the border match those times. Then go there (using GPS and holding a pic of the POV of the camera)... walk right up to it, grab it, throw it in the 4WD. Rinse, repeat. If the cameras are observing places where people can go, they're in places where people can get at them.
Also, borders aren't "square miles", they are linear miles. The problem is not as intractable as you want to think it is.
Offer me fifty grand per camera, as well as guaranteed legal immunity, and I'll go down there and hand the vast majority of em to you in a dusty heap in, oh, a couple of weeks or so. It'd be fun. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Second it would probably be more effective if we made it easier for them to come here LEGALLY
I would go further and say the borders of all countries should be completely open. All people have an intrinsic natural right to travel and just because some tyrant drew an imaginary line in the sand at some point in history doesn't justify the abridgement of said rights. No one should be forced to live in poverty or under tyranny simply by accident of birth.
"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves. " ---Henry David Thoreau
Using sunrise/sunset isn't meant to give a precise location, only a general area to search.
Like, say, the border of Mexico?
I don't think between the area not being that wide and slight variations of terrain you are going to have much luck with that sun/shadow thing.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Shaped-charge high explosives filled with shrapnel designed to turn anyone climbing over their fence into a colander.
Mind you, the East German security people were total douchebags. Presumably that is what you want the US Border Patrol to become also. Or perhaps you think they already are.
The East Germans took them down after a while (well before the Wall came down). Even they realized how scummy it was.
I piss off bigots.
Border security? Nada. Why bother? They don't behave in such a way as to piss anybody off.
I piss off bigots.
If the Department of Vaterland Zecurity thinks for one second that people won't find a way of monkeywrenching this, they're even more deluded than they seem.
I piss off bigots.
there was an article in the australian about all our fears being true - the dumber kiwi's are immigrating to australia. it might not be scientific but i think i work with most of them.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Nothing says your serious on border control like a webcam.
I'll comment under the assumption that you haven't thought this out to its many possible consequences. Maybe you could make a case for some intrinsic right of travel, but there are other natural rights (not to mention socially-accepted rights and responsibilities) that would supersede such a right.
Here is an extreme example: If Israel opened their borders, there wouldn't be an Israel, just a bunch of craters.
Here's another: If the US opened their borders (ports, specifically), you wouldn't be able to trust that the antibiotic you're taking isn't actually cyanide or an ineffective knockoff.
Here's another: If there was no barrier to trade in controlled arms and dual-use technology, North Korea and Iran (among others) would already have space-capable nuclear arsenals.
For that matter, take any horrible thing you can imagine, from lethally incorrect medication to radioactive waste to biological and chemical weapons to slaves and make those things available anywhere in the world. Better get out your Geiger counter and make sure your toothpaste wasn't made with reactor-coolant sodium.
There are a lot of things that we get wrong. The mere existence of famine, poverty, and widespread illness are testaments to our social failures. These things do not invalidate what we have gotten right. Some things should be controlled, some things should be validated, some things deserve a chain of responsibility and a means of seeing that responsibility culminate in rational consequences for those that abuse their fellow man.
The real problem is that there is no one solution. Every problem plaguing us today is a trade-off. Drugs are illegal in part because of the collateral damage, in part because some people are just too stupid/irresponsible to have them, in part because it offends some people's morality, and in part because it damages someone's bottom line. Guns, same thing. The 'war on' targets are all like this. Other problems such as poverty, famine, economic collapse; these are due to many factors. Adjust that 'one thing' that seems like it will make everything better and something else collapses, some other unforeseen consequence hits us. We could do nothing and see no improvement at all, but then what would be the point of trying? Besides, different cultures define moral in different ways. There is no one right way.
To bring this back to the original topic, no. We absolutely cannot throw the border open. We may not like our laws, but we are bound to respect them and it is not legal to enter this country without a visa or citizenship. We are not morally obligated to drive our own support systems past the point of collapse solely to appease the guilt-ridden people who feel bad about the terrible conditions across the border or anywhere else. To put it bluntly we're no help to anyone if we can't help ourselves, and we're not doing so hot right now. Maybe it sounds callous to you, but screw the people that drain our social support without giving anything back. If individuals want to donate their time, money, or expertise then so be it but we cannot allow a de facto aid package to be sucked out of our hospitals and food pantries and shelters.
-1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
How does this work? Defending border by webcam sounds like "Stop! Hold it right there! Or I'll start my video feed and show you my genitals". How is that wholesome for that matter?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
the dumber kiwi's are immigrating to australia. it might not be scientific but i think i work with most of them.
Of course, the smart ones know to stay :P
“New Zealanders who emigrate to Australia raise the IQ of both countries." Robert Muldoon
Just ensuring I stay modded down, remember, I was the one saying we need to get over our silly jokes, and come together as ANZAC brothers and sisters. Imagine, the Australasian Union! As long as we keep our coin sizes, $1 should be a smaller coin than $2 :)
---
We may not like our laws, but we are bound to respect them and it is not legal to enter this country without a visa or citizenship.
"Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice." ---Henry Thoreau
"Law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." ---Thomas Jefferson
In short, I don't care in the slightest what the law says.
Maybe it sounds callous to you, but screw the people that drain our social support without giving anything back.
Yes, because the millions of illegal immigrants in this country don't give back by building our houses, cleaning our buildings, growing our food, or mowing our lawns for shit wages with no benefits. You know, all the jobs most Americans would never get off their fat asses to do, but nevertheless need to be done. They do more for America than most of the elected representatives in our own government...
we cannot allow a de facto aid package to be sucked out of our hospitals and food pantries and shelters.
But we can allow the government to spend trillions on war and bailing out rich corporations while continually eviscerating our civil liberties? Illegals shouldn't even be on the radar at this point...
"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves. " ---Henry David Thoreau
I was with you on the first sentence. But there's a problem with the Berlin Wall analogy: the Berlin Wall was designed to keep people in, whereas the US border controls are designed to keep people out.
Find free books.
"That way other workers could report their employer for hiring cheap illegals."
No luck there. First of all, the actual people involved have protection from liability as a business so the business gets fined and nobody goes to jail. Second, in the US the accused has the right to face the accuser. WHO reported the company will be in the paperwork and will also be a matter of public record.
By the way it is already a crime to hire illegals, and to pay them less than american workers, and it is already a criminal affair. The system doesn't work particularly well.
You can anonymously report a crime, but you can not anonymously accuse someone of a crime. No employee is going to lose their job by reporting their employer for anything.
'Really, if some impoverished people want to come to your country, is it such a bad thing for you, as a "rich" person?'
If it were only a matter of rich vs poor then we could have legal crossing day every month and just let them enter legally.
There are quotas on immigration for other reasons. One very important reason is prevent mass immigration from a single place and to spread it around. This prevents people who are loyal to another nation and culture from effectively conquering by immigration. This is a very real and serious concern for the U.S. where legal immigrants can vote and have a voice equal to someone who has lived in and built up this nation their entire lives.
Mexican's in particular have a widespread belief that the American southwest was stolen from Mexico. Illegal mexican immigrants have actually staged protest marches carrying mexican flags.
The problem isn't just that we would have pockets of the U.S. in which people who consider themselves Mexican rather than American would have political power. The problem is that there are Americans living in the places were those immigrants would take over. Americans who would be displaced or submerged within a foreign culture in a short period of time. Aliens in their own country, their own homes, the communities where they were born and raised.
Part of the process of legal immigration is forswearing loyalty to your previous nation and swearing loyalty to the United States. It requires learning rudimentary English and learning some of the basics of American History. And of course it requires finding and keeping gainful employment in the U.S. That's a pretty thin security blanket as it is.
I would support raising immigration quotas somewhat if some sort of placement were applied to spread the immigrants out instead of allowing them to band together. Obviously there would be no such restriction on their offspring or even after they gained citizenship but it would provide a good chance for them to gain some sense of America and loyalty for it.
"""Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"" [wikipedia.org]
"
That is next to Ellis Island where legal immigrants could register when they came into the country. There really isn't much barrier for someone to come here legally. When we set the bar so low, how should we respond to those who enter in violation of our laws so they won't be on the radar when they then proceed to violate the labor laws we have established?
Diversity is one thing, diversity is promoted by controlled diverse immigration. Change over a hundred years is one thing. Opening the border to Mexico outright would hand political control of the entire southwest of our nation to Mexicans, subjecting the entire existing population to their rule. That wouldn't take a hundred years, it might take as much as ten.
I welcome latin integration into our culture. But the latino culture has already been integrated and for the better. I would not want to see the latin culture replace the American culture wholesale.
Exactly, I think we should treat our border with Mexico the same way the treat theirs with Guatemala.
As much as I am against American immigration policy, I fail to see why these webcams are more controversial than just a webcam set up looking over New York downtown ?
On another topic - how many years until mexicans overtake us in population in america ?
Exception Duck - may or may not contain chicken.
Funny how people cavalierly dismiss what the law says...until they need it to protect them. The cops are all pigs and tyrants...until it's your home being broken into, your family under attack, you who needs protection under those same laws from those same "tyrants."
In the absence of law you would see a whole other kind of tyrant. It would be the tyranny of the strong and cruel where the bullies would rise up and take what they wanted without consequences. For evidence of that just look to some of the parts of the world where there is no working system of law. If that's the way you want to live I'm sure you could find a nice place in Somalia, for example.
At least the way it is now we get to choose who has that power and it's those laws you speak of so derisively that keep them at least somewhat in check.
Is our system perfect? No, it's the worst system there is...except for all of the other ones.
-B-
This prevents people who are loyal to another nation and culture from effectively conquering by immigration. This is a very real and serious concern for the U.S. where legal immigrants can vote and have a voice equal to someone who has lived in and built up this nation their entire lives.
That was rather shocking to me. This idea of "us" and "them", of "real all american" and "illegals"....You do realise that once upon a time, not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, America was very different to it is now? It hasnt always been this way, like evolution, its going to keep changing, it doesnt just "stop".
You do know that beneath the little terms that are thrown at them, "illegals" ARE real people too?
I happen to live in a mostly "white" rural part of New Zealand. I sometimes get really amazed by the larger cities, just having larger populations of people from all around the world. Things that people who live their would have grown up with, but that I've never seen before. I'd never seen a mosque before, or been to asian markets such as the ones in the larger centres here. There are advertisements in languages I dont understand, messages signwritten onto cars. I find it to be a cool feeling, this is what city living is about, not isolating yourself to some suburb. Diversity is a wonderful thing.
All the Pledge of Allegiance etc, do you think that all makes someone "good"? I dont think most countries in the world do similar rituals as those. To be honest, it sounds a little scary, I think you can imagine what Im skirting around. I have no problem if someone comes here from an actual "poor country", and DOESNT promise every day that they love this country that gives them a minimum wage job.
---
See, I see it differently. Do you see a tidal wave of "foreign" people about to crash over your country, and "invade" it? I dont. I see some probably poor people who want to make a new life for themselves. I dont think you can keep trying to plug holes in your dam to keep people out!
If 10 people live in a city, then they should have a say about what goes on there, doesnt matter if they have lived their for one generation or ten generations.
Have you ever seen online ads for "green cards"? I have, maybe I only see them because Im overseas. I've always found it upsetting, to say the least, to see these flashing banners. I think Gmail has put up text versions for me before. The idea that "oh, you're from outside of Country X, so you must be desperate to get in". Fact is, Im sure you can agree that a lot more honest, good people would like to move to the USA, and they just cant get in.
I've heard all kinds of stories about arranged marriages and the like, just to stay in the USA. Or, on programs like 60 Minutes, stories of the current American War Widows, who were not born in the USA and are going to be "sent back to where they belong" now that their husband was blown to bits defending his country overseas! Some of them that were featured had plans to be married, "when he got back", but it hadnt happened yet, and without a silly piece of paper saying so, they wouldnt be allowed to stay.
For hells sake, some had children that had been born in the USA, "oh, the kid can stay, but you have to get back to where you belong lady"! Unbelievable, imagine if the child did have to stay behind with family friends, while the mother HAD to leave. Oh yes, I know that currently there must be all kinds of schemes, phony marriages, to allow people to stay in the USA. Surely, if it were easier to belong there, that wouldnt happen?
I'm not for legalising all drugs, although it does seem to work, but when it comes to immigration, I'd be for having looser, if not essentially open borders. If you are for "free trade", then why not for "free borders"?
---
Seriously. Set up a minefield, clearly label it on all sides, and there is no longer a need for all of this wall-building and camera-monitoring. The solution is just, humane, and obvious.
I know most of the liberal Slashdot community will react with "OMG! the children! What would Barbra say!" comments/mods, but really - what is wrong with a nation saying "this is our border, please respect it"?
Advice: on VPS providers
Americans who would be displaced or submerged within a foreign culture in a short period of time. Aliens in their own country, their own homes, the communities where they were born and raised.
You mean, the same situation that indigenous "Americans" were subjected to? The same process that allowed you to be an "American" in the first place? It's pretty pathetic bitching about it, when one considers all of the benefits that you, personally, gained from such a process.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Been to California lately? It's already too late. It has become a hispanic sub-country, culturally and politically.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Yes, because the millions of illegal immigrants in this country don't give back by building our houses, cleaning our buildings, growing our food, or mowing our lawns for shit wages with no benefits. You know, all the jobs most Americans would never get off their fat asses to do, but nevertheless need to be done. They do more for America than most of the elected representatives in our own government...
First, they're not doing those things out of the spirit of giving - we pay them. And yeah, no one built houses or cut grass before the flood of illegal immigrants.
Lastly, now that we're hovering around 20% underemployment, I'm sure many legal citizens would happily build houses or mow lawns.
There really isn't much barrier for someone to come here legally. When we set the bar so low, how should we respond to those who enter in violation of our laws so they won't be on the radar when they then proceed to violate the labor laws we have established?
Let me guess, you're not a lawyer, and are either a US citizen or have never tried to enter the country, right? because if any of those were false, you'd know that the "bar" isn't really set "low". Take it from somebody who knows: it's easier to *live* in Canada than it is to *pass through* the United States.
I've often heard that it was easier to enter East Germany during Soviet rule than to get into the US today, dunno what the Soviets did out there but given the inmense amount of paperwork required just to be allowed to sit on your plane as it refuels in an US airport, I'd say they can't have been too bad.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/06/06/02/1250244/Texas-to-Provide-Online-Bordercams?art_pos=4
Dr_Barnowl writes
"The BBC reports that Texas intends to erect a network of online webcams at its border to Mexico. The intention is apparently to use viewers as a kind of distributed processing network, with a free phone number to report border-jumpers."
From the article:
"'A stronger border is what Americans want and it's what our security demands and that is what Texas is going to deliver,' Mr Perry said. The cameras will cost $5m (£2.7m) to install and will be trained on sections of the 1,000-mile (1,600km) border known to be favoured by illegal immigrants "
Hey, it's working for Britain, right?
Recognizing that an adversary is using a similar tactic to one that has benefited you in the past and preparing to defend yourself against that tactic isn't pathetic.
Doing so without any recognition of that previous legacy is pathetic.
... and then they built the supercollider.
why don't you take a seat over there?
proud caffeine whore
The Berlin wall became an economic divide and some wanted it to stay that way. Although all the politicians said it was a good thing after it came down, the US and many EU countries (such as UK and France), were actively lobbying the two germanys to keep it up.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The Berlin wall was there to seperate people, as are all walls.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Funny how people cavalierly dismiss what the law says...until they need it to protect them. The cops are all pigs and tyrants...until it's your home being broken into, your family under attack, you who needs protection under those same laws from those same "tyrants."
Funny how people cavalierly ignore the context of statements as well. The point of Thoreau's quote is that one shouldn't support laws that are unjust, NOT that laws shouldn't be respected at all. Obviously, a law that protects you from criminals who threaten your family is just and should be supported. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I would think otherwise...
"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves. " ---Henry David Thoreau
they're not doing those things out of the spirit of giving - we pay them.
Likewise, our politicians do nothing for America out of the spirit of giving - we pay them. In fact, not only are they highly paid but they get more state welfare through pensions and healthcare than all illegal immigrants combined.
Lastly, now that we're hovering around 20% underemployment, I'm sure many legal citizens would happily build houses or mow lawns.
I didn't say they wouldn't. Note the use of the word "most" in my post. Even if all 20% did those jobs, my statement would still be accurate.
"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves. " ---Henry David Thoreau
If you are correct, and it isn't possible to have open borders, then how come the American borders were entirely open a couple of centuries ago? People all over Europe could (and sometimes did) jump aboard a ship and a couple of months later start their new lives in America. People in Mexico rode across the border on horses.
Here's another: If the US opened their borders (ports, specifically), you wouldn't be able to trust that the antibiotic you're taking isn't actually cyanide or an ineffective knockoff.
The U.S. borders are effectively already open for trade. If I want to move a shipping crate of goods from China or Europe to the U.S. I could do it with minimal problems. The main factor stopping fake drugs flooding the U.S. market is the rigorous control of supply lines between manufacturers and their distributors.
Here's another: If there was no barrier to trade in controlled arms and dual-use technology, North Korea and Iran (among others) would already have space-capable nuclear arsenals.
I don't see what this has to do with the GP's point about open borders - allowing the free movement of people between nation states (e.g. what already happens in the E.U.) does not mean that there are no barriers to the arms trade. In fact, looking at the E.U. as an example, the arms trade barriers are actually higher than most other places in the world, despite the people having freedom of movement.
For that matter, take any horrible thing you can imagine, from lethally incorrect medication to radioactive waste to biological and chemical weapons to slaves and make those things available anywhere in the world. Better get out your Geiger counter and make sure your toothpaste wasn't made with reactor-coolant sodium.
Wasn't slavery in the U.S. abolished before the introduction of modern immigration controls? Regardless, it is clear that the GP was talking about the free movement of people between borders, not free movement of weapons of mass destruction, so you are just attacking a strawman argument here.
I see, and we're supposed to just surmise which laws you consider unjust? You apparently consider national borders to be unjust. Do you feel the same about personal property rights? Or is it o.k. for a person to draw a line in the sand around their house and decide who does and does not get to come in?
Question: If our borders were "thoroughly opened" do you think there would be anybody living south of Texas anymore? A few in Brazil, perhaps?
-B-
I think there's an important distinction between being on the inside and the outside of a state prison.
Find free books.
Way to Create New Jobs ! Instead of hiring the many unemployed in the country to watch these cameras at, say, $15.00 an hour, our Gov't decides to ask for 300,000 volunteers to do the job for them for free ! Good thinking, that. Does this mean that these volunteers are considered part and parcel of Homeland Security ?
If it has tires or tits, it will give you problems.
Spoken like the stereotypical stupid gringo....
I know I wouldn't live in the US if they threw their borders open, and lost of friends of mine think the same way. You are completely deluded in matters related to your country, thinking it is the greatest country in the world while it goes down the drain.
Instead of posting comments like that, you might try to figure why tourists try to avoid the US, scientific conferences and business meetings occur in Europe if possible and cruise ships sail from Panama, instead. You might find the answer enlightening.
(then again, you should have gotten the gist of it reading this same forum)
GPG 0x1B479C78
"Doing so without any recognition of that previous legacy is pathetic."
It is recognized in the form of casinos and reservations. Or do you think the United States grants native Americans special status because we fear their wrath if we repeal the treaties?
"That was rather shocking to me. This idea of "us" and "them", of "real all american" and "illegals"....You do realise that once upon a time, not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, America was very different to it is now? It hasnt always been this way, like evolution, its going to keep changing, it doesnt just "stop"."
It changes, it evolves, we aren't talking about evolving American culture, we are talking about inviting extinction.
Yes it is us and them. If it weren't us and them there wouldn't be distinct terms for Mexicans and Americans.
"You do know that beneath the little terms that are thrown at them, "illegals" ARE real people too?"
That doesn't make them Americans now does it?
The law effectively IS America. It is the collective voice of the American people. The first act of illegals is to willfully break our law (despite easy legal immigration policies) so they can stay off the radar when they get here and break more of our laws.
This sort of person has nothing to offer the United States.
"Things that people who live their would have grown up with, but that I've never seen before. I'd never seen a mosque before, or been to asian markets such as the ones in the larger centres here. There are advertisements in languages I dont understand, messages signwritten onto cars."
I've spent years living in cities like you speak of and the diversity is great. But American culture IS a melting pot of diverse customs.
See how crazy you are about those other languages when your city is flooded within the span of ten to twenty years with immigrants. Your home which has been passed from family to family for generations is now located within a community in which you have no effective vote. Where local services are no longer offered in your own language.
You can't so much as use the postal service in English anymore. Service staff who are bi-lingual and speak perfect English refuse to help you because they are convinced that your home belongs to them by right.
Finally when you are forced to move from your family home because you can't even a piece of meat cut at the butcher anymore. Then, you can tell me how wonderful an idea mass immigration is.
No, I mean recognition in your original post that the lifestyle you enjoy is because of the same actions in the past. And it's still rather pathetic, because you're perpetuating the same "us versus them" situation. Your side won, and you're living comfortably because of it. So rather than seek a new paradigm of sharing or working on new solutions to the problem, you embrace the hostile approach.
The way you replied in the parent post shows just how clueless and pathetic you are, and how you lack self-awareness.
... and then they built the supercollider.
23 cameras? For the US/Mexico border? Really?
Come on. Deploy twenty-three *thousand* cameras, on rotating stands so they each observe a wider swath, and you might be getting somewhat close to having enough resources to watch a good chunk of the border.
But I'm not sure what you gain by exposing the footage to the internet. If you don't have border patrol agents stationed close enough to each camera to respond promptly if someone is seen crossing there, there's not much point, and if you do have border patrol agents stationed, why can't they watch the (output of the) cameras while they wait for something to happen?
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
I dont really have anything much more to add, just going back to my stance, that "foreign" people are nothing to fear, that we are all people, and to try and erect silly walls will get you nowhere.
:)
I'm not afraid to live in a culture where other languages are spoken, not at all. I've never had a "white" best friend. I appreciate other cultures, I dont try and "lock them out" of my area!
I'm just guessing based on your signature that you live in New Mexico? If you are so worried about "illegals", why live in a place called New MEXICO? Why not move to an area thats more "unified" with people that are the same as you? I'm sure you can find a state (or a few dozen) where English is pretty much the only language spoken.
To end with your final comment about buying meat at a butcher, Im vegan
---
Pretty simple....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Just so you know, people that claim asylum have a right to do so, this is not a gracious concession by the USA, is part of international law and all signatory states of the respective UN charter are legally obliged to offer asylum to people facing prosecution on their respective countries.
Asylum has nothing to do with illegal immigration, bar tickling the sensitive nerves of xenophobes.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
A part of the US that was under Spanish and Mexican rule for around 300 years being predominantly Hispanic in nature.
What a frigging surprise.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Look, we can argue about how the US came to be in possession of all the former Mexican territories until the end of times, the unquestionable truth is that the US expanded from its paltry origins to its current size.The US would be perhaps the first case in history in which such expansion is carried out by other countries voluntarily giving their own riches away to others. If you USians really think this is the truth you frankly need to wake up and smell the coffee.
The fact is that the US took possession of territories that had a strong Mexican and Hispanic character, but what was not realized at the time was that those parts of the country had a very specific cultural landscape shaped for thousands of years by Native Americans and by 300 years more by Spanish and Mexican cultures.
It would be incredibly naive to believe that absorbing territories with such strong cultural heritages would not affect in some way the conquering country.
It is my belief that the US will become a country with an Hispanic majority at some point, and there is nothing anybody cn do about it because the US seeded these changes on its own history by seizing the Mexican territories all those years ago.
Empires never learn, thankfully, since it would not be the first case of a major power being weakened by its own conquests.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
After a methodical reading of this thread to its end, I have come to the conclusion that most of the world, (most of slashdot actually), believe that the US should maintain an open border policy (and be unique in the western world in this respect). That somehow it is immoral to prevent some disadvantaged individual or their whole extended family from entering our country illegally. Tough shit. It is not immoral or unwise to prevent anyone from entering illegally. No one here illegally should be allowed to stay for any reason. Instead of complaining about this web cam project, why not take whatever steps you think prudent to stem the illegal immigration? How are you helping to stop the onslaught? Are you part of the problem?
Of course but try getting into a state prison without going thru the gate and see what happens.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
There really isn't much barrier for someone to come here legally.
Trust me as someone who has researched the options - US is actually one of the hardest countries to immigrate to, at least in First World. If you want to see what "really isn't much barrier" is like, look at Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or Ireland. Even then, a degree is essentially a must (sometimes, you can get away without it, but you need lots and lots of work experience in a field that's on priority lists).
Diversity is a wonderful thing.
Controlled diversity is a wonderful thing. Uncontrolled one has a problem: you invite people of all cultures, and some of those cultures can be quite xenophobic themselves. End result: they will come and settle down across your home, because it's a good place to live, in terms of quality of life etc; but they will treat you like subhuman scum, because, as far as they're concerned, you're one.
Oh, and they get a vote in your country, too. And they will, of course, vote their conscience (which, to remind you, is that people like you are subhuman scum).
Since you're a Kiwi, I would like you to remind of a certain local affair that is sort of relevant (note the implied message there: stoning to death is not okay in this society here and now, but societies change, and there are some out there in which it is perfectly fine).
Speaking more globally, I don't mind mosques at all. I come from a country where Muslims are a significant minority, and have been in that position for several centuries now - and most of them are well-integrated in a sense that, while they keep their faith and their unique national customs, and there are plenty of mosques in regions where they make a local majority, they do not draw the line in day-to-day life. One of my grandparents is Muslim. Some of his children are, too; some are not, like my father - he never pressed the latter to accept Islam, and did not reject them because of their "apostasy".
But when I watch things like this, I can't help but ask myself if there is, indeed, a serious issue with the current stream of Muslim immigrants to Europe. Tolerance is a great thing towards everything, except for intolerance and hatred - and if someone is so willing to draw the line separating them from me, you can be sure that I'll take that line as a de facto demarcation between "us" and "them".