Slashdot Mirror


Europe is Using Smartphone Data as a Weapon To Deport Refugees (wired.co.uk)

Governments are using migrants' smartphones to deport them. From a report: Across the continent, migrants are being confronted by a booming mobile forensics industry that specialises in extracting a smartphone's messages, location history, and even WhatsApp data. That information can potentially be turned against the phone owners themselves. In 2017 both Germany and Denmark expanded laws that enabled immigration officials to extract data from asylum seekers' phones. Similar legislation has been proposed in Belgium and Austria, while the UK and Norway have been searching asylum seekers' devices for years.

Following right-wing gains across the EU, beleaguered governments are scrambling to bring immigration numbers down. Tackling fraudulent asylum applications seems like an easy way to do that. As European leaders met in Brussels last week to thrash out a new, tougher framework to manage migration -- which nevertheless seems insufficient to placate Angela Merkel's critics in Germany -- immigration agencies across Europe are showing new enthusiasm for laws and software that enable phone data to be used in deportation cases. Admittedly, some refugees do lie on their asylum applications.

352 comments

  1. some? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I would say most lie.
    Only Syrians have a legitimate case for asylum right now. Most come from north african failed states for economic reasons.

    1. Re:some? by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Hmm....sounds like one of the first legitimate uses of such tech in the US, like stingray.....

      Rather than use it on law abiding citizens,let's use it to more readily track the illegal immigrants in the US (border hoppers and VISA overstays) and use this to more readily track them down.

      This would go a long way of circumventing the sanctuary cities that don't obey the laws and cooperate.

      I don't have a problem with people coming and migrating to the US to integrate and become US citizens, but if you are coming to the country, at least sign the fucking GUEST BOOK on the way in, and do things legally.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:some? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Rather than use it on law abiding citizens,let's use it to more readily track the illegal immigrants in the US (border hoppers and VISA overstays) and use this to more readily track them down.

      not only track, but also discover safe houses, routes, those who help them ... and who benefit from their exploitation in the US ...

    3. Re:some? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Countries should only admit good-looking immigrants.

      They should be really good-looking too, as in "raise the national average" good-looking. For example, the certain parts of the US and Scandinavia would halt all immigration, because the people are gorgeous and handsome. Europe would severely reduce immigration, except for England, whose gene pool needs much improvement after centuries of inbreeding to preserve so-called "nobility".

      Central & subsaharan Africa would accept everyone except people with deformities and retardation. Asia should follow a similar policy and accept everyone except really ugly blacks and ugly mixed-race people.

      This would make the world a much better place for all the people worth improving it for. The rest are a disgusting liability and a burden.

    4. Re: some? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Even the syrians dont have a legit claim half way around the world. Neighbouring countries, sure. But even fleeing war doesnt give you the right to asylum shop wherever you like best

    5. Re:some? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      sanctuary cities that don't obey the laws and cooperate.

      Sanctuary cities do obey the law, and have no legal obligation to cooperate.

    6. Re: some? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Essentially all are fake, including Syrians. You are not a refugee if you can go to a safe place in your country and there are lots of safe places in Syria.

      Very naturally "right wing" parties will gain in popularity and then send back home illegals.

      And i am all for it.

    7. Re:some? by Alypius · · Score: 2

      There's more to being a refugee than being really really ridiculously good-looking. Even if they are wearing Derelicte.

    8. Re:some? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. They were complicit in Kate's murder.

      Any politician impeding the feds needs to do time in pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

    9. Re:some? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Which law? Their own attempt to circumvent Federal law?

    10. Re:some? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Which law?

      This law.

      Their own attempt to circumvent Federal law?

      Bullshit. Which law?

    11. Re:some? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      An obvious troll, admittedly, but I'd still like to see what the person posting this looked like in real life.

      Spoiler; probably *not* someone who's posting AC nonsense to Slashdot because they're in hiding from hordes of supermodels after them for their aesthetically perfect body and have nothing better to do. :-)

    12. Re:some? by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The federal government is the one who decides who can and cannot enter the country, and the Executive branch is tasked with securing the border and enforcing immigration laws.

      States may not have to specifically aid the feds for certain things, but they cannot actively interfere with their operations. Doing so makes them active participants in crime. And yes, entering the country illegally is a crime. As is aiding and abetting such criminals.

    13. Re: some? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Took that position five minutes after doing a kegstand with a barrel of bleach, I see.

      Either that, or you are a fool.

    14. Re:some? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no room for outliers in the discussion.

    15. Re:some? by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

      What is this?! A country for ants?!

      --
      I tend to rant.
    16. Re:some? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 0

      I would say most lie. Only Syrians have a legitimate case for asylum right now. Most come from north african failed states for economic reasons.

      Do you mean stable, thriving, "rule of law" states like Libya?

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    17. Re:some? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you go back to Shanghai? You obviously know absolutely nothing about U.S. law. The U.S. Constitution does not allow anyone and everyone to immigrate to the U.S. There are other federal laws that explicitly make it clear that a person cannot just decide to immigrate to the U.S. and walk in unasked and uninvited.

    18. Re:some? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      They need to have useful skills too, like juggling. Everyone loves a good juggler.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    19. Re:some? by Raenex · · Score: 2

      Bullshit. Which law?

      Obstruction of justice:

      "Obstruction charges may also be laid in unique situations such as refusal to aid a police officer, escape through voluntary action of an officer and refusing to assist prison officers in arresting escaped convicts."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... :

      "[Section] 507. Officers to make character known; assistance for officers[3]

      (a) Every customs officer shall-- (1) upon being questioned at the time of executing any of the powers conferred upon him, make known his character as an officer of the Federal Government; and (2) have the authority to demand the assistance of any person in making any arrest, search, or seizure authorized by any law enforced or administered by customs officers, if such assistance may be necessary."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... :

      "In the United States, a customs officer is a federal law enforcement officer working to enforce customs laws as well as over 400 laws for other federal agencies. Customs officers enforce these laws for every person or thing that enters or leaves U.S. Among their many functions are detecting and confiscating contraband, making sure that import duties are paid, and preventing those without legal authorization from entering the United States. In the past, American customs officers were part of the Department of the Treasury, the oldest law enforcement agency in the U.S., dating back to 1789. U.S. Customs (CBP) is the second highest revenue collector in the United States through fines, collection of duties, and illegal money seized; only the IRS collects more money for the federal government. Every day, on average, U.S. Customs arrests 135 suspects of different crimes, seizes 2,313 pounds of narcotics, confiscate 196 firearms, intercept 210 fraudulent documents, prevents 54 criminal aliens from entering the U.S., and detains one suspected terrorist. Customs officers need no probable cause to search, detain, or seize anything or any person. Today customs officers work for the Department of Homeland Security within U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of Investigations. They are present at every international airport, seaport, and all land border crossings."

    20. Re:some? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but I'd still like to see what the person posting this looked like in real life.

      Aaaand you just got trolled.

    21. Re: some? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, I mean failed states like Libya.
      Economic trouble is no reason for asylum.

    22. Re: some? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm all for it, let's also use these powers - with identical levels of oversight - to observe any sitting politicians and their associates who are suspected of illegal activity... Wait, that's an overreach, you say? It's a Constitutional violation? Golly Gee, somebody let the refugees know - they have been cleared!

    23. Re: some? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hold on a minute. No country should ever accept my two most hated types of people. I am of course speaking of Norwegians and Egyptians. Or as I call them: sand Norwegians.

    24. Re: some? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words... if the entire male populations of Sweden and Japan were both wiped out be civil wars and the world was suddenly inundated with beautiful female refugees from both countries, then we'd have no debate about accepting them unconditionally. Right?

    25. Re: some? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a little humor wont bite you!

    26. Re: some? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ooh the sheer irony of this!

    27. Re: some? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Why would they be refugees? They might be migrating in search of male companionship but that doesn't make them refugees.

      If anything they'd be perceived as dangerous attackers. Someone killed all those men..

    28. Re: some? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Recent research showed that only 7% is a real refugee...

    29. Re:some? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The federal government is the one who decides who can and cannot enter the country, and the Executive branch is tasked with securing the border and enforcing immigration laws.

      States may not have to specifically aid the feds for certain things, but they cannot actively interfere with their operations. Doing so makes them active participants in crime. And yes, entering the country illegally is a crime. As is aiding and abetting such criminals.

      That's incorrect. There is no Constitutional authority for the federal government to determine immigration.

      The sole authority granted to the federal government is to determine the rules for naturalization (meaning gaining citizenship). The actual implementation of these rules is left to the states. Under the written text of the Constitution, the states are free to allow people to enter the country under their own rules. Only the rules for these people to gain citizenship is legally under federal control.

      Until 1875, there was no federal policy on immigration: the individual states handled everything themselves.

      Current federal law and policy on immigration represents yet another case where the federal government has illegally exceeded it's lawful authority. It's oath-breaking on a massive scale by federal officials. In short, the US federal government is breaking the law on a daily basis. That shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that is paying attention. Bread and circuses have been used to distract people from government criminality for a long time, but anyone that actually bothers to use their brain can figure out what's really going on pretty quickly.

      The really sad thing is that there is an Amendment mechanism by which the federal government could ask the states for the authority to control immigration. There is no need at all for the federal government to be breaking the law. They're just too corrupt and too criminal to care about following the rules.

    30. Re:some? by Contract+Gypsy · · Score: 0

      The federal government is the one who decides who can and cannot enter the country, and the Executive branch is tasked with securing the border and enforcing immigration laws.

      States may not have to specifically aid the feds for certain things, but they cannot actively interfere with their operations. Doing so makes them active participants in crime. And yes, entering the country illegally is a crime. As is aiding and abetting such criminals.

      A politician in CA already did that, she found out ICE was coming in a few days and broadcasted the news to the whole friggin state. If that isn't aiding and abetting, I don't know what is.

      --
      Life is in a state of dynamic equilibrium, it both blows and sucks
    31. Re:some? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      "The Court ruled that the imposition of that obligation on the states violated the Tenth Amendment."

      "Since the act "forced participation of the State's executive in the actual administration of a federal program", it was unconstitutional."

      "The Court ruled that the anti-commandeering doctrine applied to congressional attempts to prevent the states from taking a certain action as much as it applied in New York and Printz to Congress requiring states to enforce federal law."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The federal government is free to enforce its laws as much as it wants but it cannot require the states to do so or aid it.

    32. Re:some? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      They are not actively interfering with anything. They just refuse to spend any of their resources to assist - and that includes state and municipal law enforcement. The feds are not owed any assistance from the latter, so when the states explicitly prohibit their LEOs from cooperating with the feds, it's all perfectly legal.

    33. Re:some? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Now take a look at Printz v. United States.

      No law is above the Constitution.

    34. Re: some? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      I. Don't. Even. Know, Where. To. Start... This isn't even wrong. It's just nonsense.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    35. Re:some? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Now take a look at Printz v. United States.

      Interesting, thanks. Based on that ruling, the Feds can't force cooperation. I know the Department of Justice recently sued California for its "sanctuary" laws. I wish I could find the complaint to see the detailed arguments, but all I could get were press summaries.

      No law is above the Constitution.

      In theory. In practice, the Constitution has been warped to support all manner of Federal powers.

    36. Re:some? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a cow. Cows say moo. MOOOOOOO! MOOOOOO! Moo cows MOOOOOO! Moo say the cows. YOU SEXCONKER COW!!

    37. Re:some? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I'm in CA. I know how awful the state is.

    38. Re:some? by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Hmm....sounds like one of the first legitimate uses of such tech in the US, like stingray.....

      Rather than use it on law abiding citizens,let's use it to more readily track the illegal immigrants in the US (border hoppers and VISA overstays) and use this to more readily track them down.

      This would go a long way of circumventing the sanctuary cities that don't obey the laws and cooperate.

      I don't have a problem with people coming and migrating to the US to integrate and become US citizens, but if you are coming to the country, at least sign the fucking GUEST BOOK on the way in, and do things legally.

      There is a difference between illegal and criminal. If you park your car in a no parking zone and your car gets the infraction ticket, your act was illegal, but not criminal. Ditto if you accidently go through a red-light.

      I'm glad you mentioned "illegal" immigrants. I understand the USA is charging these immigrants as criminals. Your neighbour to the north charges them for being illegal and requiring a court occurrence. More than 95% of the illegals do show up in court and while a good many are invited to return home and reapply formally, they have not got a criminal record marked against them.
      Trump is promoting fear -- And some people believe that the illegals have criminal intent. "They do not". Trump is the fear monger who is raceist , language, color sensitive, and just non-wasp sensitive.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  2. Part of the Plan for a Police State by DatbeDank · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Useful idiots like Merkel just brought on the much needed police state. Once those pesky rapefugees are gone, they'll be using those tools on the native population.

    All apart of the plan.

    1. Re:Part of the Plan for a Police State by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, big difference between finding and removing immigration criminals and citizens.

      Countries have borders and immigration laws. There is no problem using whatever means to locate immigration criminals.

    2. Re:Part of the Plan for a Police State by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Merkel is the one who oversaw in introduction of really strong privacy laws and tried to find a workable, humane solution to the migrant crisis.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Part of the Plan for a Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually you're wrong, there are rights for non-citizens even undocumented or otherwise criminal, and we are a system of laws as you and Trump will soon understand all too well.

    4. Re: Part of the Plan for a Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha... "No Borders"

      So workable!

    5. Re:Part of the Plan for a Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Both she and Obama are true statespeople (statesmen?). However, both are ivory towers, and have zero clue what things are like. Obama pulled out of war theaters, and Merkel decided to offer refugees a chance at a life in arguably the best place the world has to offer, bar none.

      Problem was that Obama and Merkel are Westerners, they do not understand the Arab mindset, or the fact that the Wahhabaist culture of "purity" is immiscable with European culture, and the blowback from the clash of cultures has forced Europeans in general into a far right posture, fearing for their very survival.

      Europe could have done something earlier, before the waves of refugees started. They didn't.

      Had Merkel realized her mistake, she wouldn't be fighting for her political career. However, every time an immigrant does an act of violence, it only feeds the right wing. She should have known better and tried to reverse course.

    6. Re: Part of the Plan for a Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not about a police state per se but about about jewish supremacy by destroying white countries.

    7. Re:Part of the Plan for a Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The US Constitution and Bill of Rights are not global in their scope. Only US citizens and non-US citizens living in the US or US territories can claim constitution protections. The immigration troubles at the Mexican border are easily solved. Allow only US citizens or those carrying a valid password or visa into US territory. Anyone caught crossing the border illegally are immediately delivered back to where they crossed and dropped off on the other side of the border. Asylum seekers can apply at the US Embassies scattered across Mexico or the US embassies in their home countries. The US has embassies providing consular services in every South American country.

      In the ME and South America people are running away from the problems in their home countries. If the Syrian immigrants are unwilling to fight for a better life in their own country than why should they be allowed into Europe? The same thing holds for those wanting a free pass into the US from south of the border. At what point can the US just send the military into Guatemala or Honduras and kill all the trouble makers, build vacation villas, and add a new US state to the map? Europe can handle the Syrian and N. Africa immigration problems any way they want. Although they would be better off just shutting down the immigration pipeline from Turkey and let Turkey and Russia deal with the problems they have had played a large part of creating in the first place.

    8. Re:Part of the Plan for a Police State by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes there are rights for when they are hunted, captured, detained and deported. All that is legal under the law. That has never changed.

      There are laws for refugees. There are laws for immigration.

      You do not advocate the rule of law. That is wrong.

    9. Re:Part of the Plan for a Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      + 4 insightful for someone calling refugees as rapefugees...

    10. Re:Part of the Plan for a Police State by umghhh · · Score: 2

      Not sure if there was a plan. I mean besides 'Merkel is forever' one.
      The fact is however that this was all predictable. But first things first: borders were open before you just had to show a pass, sometimes visa and some such. This is not a closed border. I lived under closed border regime together with Merkel so I can tell. The open border that she and her minions are blathering about is no border - no checks allowed. This goes as far as not to check age of people claiming to be minors - something that in Germany has a significant financial reward for the 'minor'. As for refugees - I would not call all of them rapefugees but the media refusing to address these problems for 3 years now made it impossible to distinguish between those that rape and those that don't. So here we go. A regime that refuses to control borders is at some point forced to install cameras on each railway station and public square and equip it with face recognition software - that is what previous minister of interior started doing after wave of crime (that according to the official statistics does not exist) started making people uncomfortable.

    11. Re:Part of the Plan for a Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem was that Obama and Merkel are Westerners, they do not understand the Arab mindset, or the fact that the Wahhabaist culture of "purity" is immiscable with European culture, and the blowback from the clash of cultures has forced Europeans in general into a far right posture, fearing for their very survival.

      Problem is that you are a Westerner, and you don't understand the Arab mindset.

      Plenty of "Westerners" subscribe to culture similar to the "Wahhabaist [sic] culture of purity" and have a similar anti-reason, anti-enlightened view, and they are coming out in droves voting.

      Unchecked migration sucks for all sorts of reasons, but it is not the "unseemliness" of the migrants.

    12. Re:Part of the Plan for a Police State by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      Obama pulled out of war theaters? I'm sure the people of Syria and Libya will be thrilled to hear that!

    13. Re:Part of the Plan for a Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      those "refugees" has no reason for asylum and all of them should be deported. NO OUT!

    14. Re:Part of the Plan for a Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A tool is a tool, it doesn't care about on whom it is being used.

    15. Re:Part of the Plan for a Police State by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      how much is Putin or the Koch brothers paying now?

    16. Re:Part of the Plan for a Police State by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure her plan was to let in a bunch of refugees who would then turn around and vote for her and her party. Didn't work out so well though.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    17. Re: Part of the Plan for a Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Koch brothers, like you, want illegal immigration so they do not have to pay market rates for wages. Undocumented workers are below minimum wage and tax free...who cares if they live so tightly together it becomes a serious hygeine risk?

    18. Re:Part of the Plan for a Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm confused. I thought the EU was the holy grail when it came to protecting their citizens online data. Even thinking about any government agency access a citizens private data was a crime worthy of execution. They have castigated, fined, and regulated all the social application platforms demanding they keep the user data private but now they are violating peoples privacy and using the applications they had previously dumped on to do it? Wonder if the EU general population ever figured out that it was never the NSA who was rummaging through their data it was the EU intelligence agencies who were actually capturing, cataloging, and storing data on their citizens and providing the data to the NSA or other non-EU intelligence agencies.

    19. Re: Part of the Plan for a Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We aren't kicking out Syrians. We are kicking out north africans pretending to be Syrians.

    20. Re: Part of the Plan for a Police State by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      It is wrong to give Merkel credit for anything because she hardly does anything always hoping that if she ignores a problem for long enough, it will go away. An empty chair would do more.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    21. Re: Part of the Plan for a Police State by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      How so? Only citizens can vote in the federal elections and the path to the German citizenship is, while certainly not impossible, still long enough that Merkel would retire by then.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    22. Re:Part of the Plan for a Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Apart" means "separate". You mean "a part" (two words).

    23. Re:Part of the Plan for a Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the Syrian immigrants are unwilling to fight for a better life in their own country than why should they be allowed into Europe?

      Because of something called the 1951 Refugee Convention. This post of yours tells us quite a bit about you. For one, you don't seem to have much grasp about the real situation in Syria. I'm pretty sure *you* wouldn't stay either if your home town was bombed into oblivion.

      ...and let Turkey and Russia deal with the problems they have had played a large part of creating in the first place.

      What about the U.S. responsibilities for destabilizing the region?

    24. Re: Part of the Plan for a Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I am aware. In the understated arguments *over a long period, various statements made by leadership who were obviously reading what I had stated online, NSA mid managers told me that these people who were claiming to be privacy conscious were actually doing the same thing and spying. It is likely correct that the NSA is bolstered with data on US citizens by intel from these other countries.

      It is ironic that these other intel agencies are in countries whose leadership wants open borders, refuses to allow conversation on the problem of criminals amongst the refugees, even as they rape and knife EU and UK citizens, as well as occasionally commit acts of violence equivalent to school shootings in the US.
      No problem here, we just won't report it in our stats, and we will jail people who report on it (Robinson, etc - journalist and political prisoner) as well as fine and harrass those who mention it on social media.
      Being called Nazi by these people is meaningless as they have no credibility and no care for their own populations' safety, and no sense of justice.

  3. Police enforce laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this even "news?"

  4. Counterpoint. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Europe is using smartphone data as a tool to help repatriate lost runaways.

    1. Re:Counterpoint. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent

    2. Re:Counterpoint. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and join families separated by war ...
      Those poor underage boys 25 posing on 16 .... without mothers, sisters, camels or goats ...
      They need to go home, because they complain that they are provoked by slutty European woman/girls/goats ...

    3. Re:Counterpoint. by blindseer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Europe is using smartphone data as a tool to help repatriate lost runaways.

      Precisely. We want to see families reunited. We know that ripping children from their mothers cannot be tolerated, therefore we should do the best we can to send children back to their mothers. Or at least returned to their motherland and their extended family.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  5. Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Informative

    " Admittedly, some refugees do lie on their asylum applications."

    Who writes this stuff? There is a difference between an asylum seeker and an immigrant and a migrant and an illegal immigrant. To conflate it all is disingenuous.

    1. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Admittedly, some refugees do lie on their asylum applications."

      Who writes this stuff? There is a difference between an asylum seeker and an immigrant and a migrant and an illegal immigrant. To conflate it all is disingenuous.

      you are apparently one of the stupid humans who think that humans use reason to solve problems

    2. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by DutchSter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is a difference between an asylum seeker and an immigrant and a migrant and an illegal immigrant.

      Yes and no. No sovereign nation is obligated to allow anybody but its own citizens in. When you are any of the above people asking a country to admit you, regardless of the reason, you're standing at the gate, hat in hand, hoping that by their grace they let you in. If they tell you to jump, you ask how high.

      If you don't want to follow their procedures and allow an invasive search of your property, then that's fine, ask another country to take you instead, or go back to your home country.

    3. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      Some genuine refugees lie, for a whole variety of reasons. They are still refugees and the system has to recognise that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with what I said? Read it again.

    5. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with anything I said? Apparently reading comprehension isn't strong here.

    6. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. My mistake.

    7. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Sique · · Score: 1

      Sovereign nations aren't even obliged to allow their own citizens in. And if some other country is claiming that indeed, they are obliged to, sovereign nations can just cancel the citizenship of whoever they want. Some nations actually have some wording in their constitution that they won't do so if the citizenship they are cancelling is the last one the person has, but alas -- even constitutions can be amended if national security requires ist.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    8. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some genuine refugees lie, for a whole variety of reasons. They are still refugees and the system has to recognise that.

      As opposed to NOT-genuine refugees? What separates the two? If someone who claims to be a refugee and is lying in order to pull off that fraud, that doesn't make them a refugee, it makes them a liar pretending to be one to scam the system. Tools that help to differentiate the scammers from the real thing are essential, since untold thousands of people continually attempt that scam.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    9. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Depends, you can be all or some of them at the same time. In Europe illegal immigrants can apply for asylum and often do lie in order to get migrant benefits.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    10. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, the system doesn't have to recognize that. Perjury is a crime. You commit a crime, you leave. It's pretty fucking simple. You don't have a right to take from the citizens of another country.

    11. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by TimothyHollins · · Score: 2

      A lie is a lie, whether you're a legitimate refugee or not. All people, not only refugees, have personal responsibility for their own actions, and lying on your application could most certainly be a valid cause for deportation.

      The data from Norway and Sweden indicate that at least 50% of "underage" refugees lie about their age (Norway estimate 50%+ with their more rigorous testing methods, Sweden estimates 66%+ by post-acceptance checks). Should lying about your age not be a valid reason for deportations?

    12. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is also a HUGE difference between an immigrant and an illegal immigrant.

      Guess which word the U.S. news media so conveniently leaves out of stories.

    13. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but they're also people. People with hopes, dreams, lives, and the same love of life you and I have. People with human rights.

      To draw arbitrary distinctions in an attempt to dehumanize is also disingenuous.

    14. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by EndlessNameless · · Score: 2

      To conflate it all is disingenuous.

      I don't see anything being conflated at all.

      The article says Europe will be using smartphone searches to vet and possibly deport refugees. The claim that some refugees lie on their asylum applications is a pretty good justification for the searches.

      It shouldn't matter if someone is a refugee, migrant, permanent immigrant, or the holder of some obscure visa---if you lie to the host state, you should be kicked out.

      I see some potential for confusion because European media uses "migrants" where US media would normally use "refugees", but the Slashdot summary is clear and consistent with its primarily American audience.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    15. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Alypius · · Score: 1

      Entering a country without permission is not a human right.

    16. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Maelwryth · · Score: 5, Informative

      "No sovereign nation is obligated to allow anybody but its own citizens in."

      Actually, there are over 140 countries who are obligated by law to allow entry for certain reasons. For example; The states that signed the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol.

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
    17. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      But what about lying about your name or the town you came from or your former occupation as a sex worker?

      Remember that refugees are fleeing something, and they don't know the system or always make the best decisions. A zero tolerance policy is unfair.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So by your logic, if one of the criteria for granting you asylum was to allow them to (literally) have sex with you, then that would ok too?

    19. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, those things that are most crucial to establishing your status as a refugee. In the real world, the people who lie about their "name or the town you came from or ... former occupation " and age deliberately hiding things that specifically show that they're not refugees. No sympathy.

    20. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And "genuine refugees" need to lie why? You lie to me about why you want in and your entire request is suspect. So no, it doesn't have to recognize that.

    21. Re: Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go on, let 20+ stay at your place and on your dime as you build and spend to accommodate them. And then thereâ(TM)s getting them local language fluent and into work.

    22. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Well now. If you're a refugee (fleeing the town you came from) and you're lying about what town you came from, how in hell is one to make the determination that you're an actual refugee? Same with name.

      Is that zero tolerance and "not fair"? Too friggin' bad, it's incumbent upon the "refugee" to satisfy the curiosity and belay the suspicions of the "host". The host is in no way encumbered with the requirement to ignore deception.

    23. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Train0987 · · Score: 2

      "To conflate it all is disingenuous."

      That is by design.

    24. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Train0987 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are strict criteria for claiming refugee status. Otherwise why would anyone wait through the long legal immigration process if all they had to do was just show up and say the magic word "asylum!"

    25. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But what about lying about your name or the town you came from

      "I am from Berne, and my name is Mr. Bimler ... this is my friend Mr. Hilter and he most recently lived in Vienna.

      Lying about your name prevents validation of your status in the country you are fleeing, including criminal and political. By lying about your name you are deliberately trying to bypass the legal process of asylum, and should be deported. If you are going to lie to get into the country, what other laws are you going to break once you are here?

      Remember that refugees are fleeing something, and they don't know the system

      Are you seriously trying to claim that they don't know they are lying ("don't know the system")? Or that they don't trust the place they are trying to gain entry to? Then why would they flee to that country if they don't trust that country? That's leaping from the frying pan into the fire, isn't it?

      Go somewhere that lying is acceptable and that you trust. Bye.

      A zero tolerance policy is unfair.

      It is quite fair to the people who already live here, and to those who obey the laws to try to gain entry. It is certainly fair to those who are refused asylum for cause when they tell the truth.

    26. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      So are the people around me and I oblige myself to support them over people who's first act is deception.

      And that's not an arbitrary distinction, you just don't want it acknowledged.

    27. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Train0987 · · Score: 0

      By definition these folks don't have any papers or documentation (i.e. undocumented). How do you prove they are telling the truth or lying? That's the problem with the virtue-signal mentality, you will get overrun by those abusing your kindness.

    28. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      What actually matters here? Getting a 100% rejection rate on people who lied or made any kind of mistaken statement, or figuring out who is a security risk but erring on the side of humanity otherwise?

      By the way, taking a hard line in public is virtue signalling, as is complaining about virtue signalling.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    29. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, if you have genuine reason to fear you might be harmed or killed, or that if word of your leaving gets out your family left back home might be targeted...

      How is obeying the rules fair when the rules are gonna get you killed? And why assume the rules are reasonable or fair anyway, when they are clearly designed not to be?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    30. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, if you have genuine reason to fear you might be harmed or killed

      Then go to a different country.

      or that if word of your leaving gets out your family left back home might be targeted..

      Because nobody would notice that you aren't there anymore, right?

      How is obeying the rules fair when the rules are gonna get you killed?

      You leap from "maybe" to a definite statement of fact.

      And why assume the rules are reasonable or fair anyway, when they are clearly designed not to be?

      And now you assume that which you need to prove. I don't assume the laws are fair, I look at the laws and make an informed judgement. If you think that telling the immigration officials at the country where you seek asylum will result in your death, you need to go somewhere else. If you think that lying and committing a crime to be able to enter a country where you will be afraid to live is right, then what other laws will you simply ignore once you are there?

      I think they are clearly designed to be fair. Your opinion differs, and your only argument is that I must be assuming the fairness instead of making my own judgement. Sorry, your argument is seriously unconvincing.

    31. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More to the point, deciding who is and isn't a refugee is up to said nation. The 1951 convention does specify a number criteria, but deciding whether those criteria apply is a matter for the nation. There is no inherent refugee that nations have to let in, and there is no outside organisation or court that has the power to decide who is and isn't a refugee - even though some like to pretend there is.

      In a similar way, while nations are in principle obligated to let in their citizens, and cannot create citizenshipless people, there is no outside organisation or court that has the power to decide which country an individual is citizen of but for the state itself.

      Which is actually the real problem in Europe these days. It's not that people turn up and claim refugee status. It's that those that get turned down are not allowed back in by their own country.

    32. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      "Some people lying about their refugee status" would be correct. Because this is what happens.

      It is interesting, though, that it's apparently mostly young men that manage to escape war areas. Women and kids seem to like it there.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    33. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      By definition these folks don't have any papers or documentation (i.e. undocumented).

      That is not true. It is not "by definition". They may not have any documents on their person, but it is quite possible that they do.

      Further, their status as asylum seekers doesn't mean the source country has no documentation on them.

    34. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by magzteel · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but they're also people. People with hopes, dreams, lives, and the same love of life you and I have. People with human rights.

      To draw arbitrary distinctions in an attempt to dehumanize is also disingenuous.

      I would bet you can distinguish between an invited guest and a squatter in your home without delving into nonsense arguments. You have a right to decide who can enter and remain in your home and for how long.

    35. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think at this point Trump has demonstrated that whatever treaties he or his predecessors signed have a value point somewhere below the cost of the paper to print them.

    36. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 3, Informative

      To conflate it all is disingenuous.

      I don't see anything being conflated at all.

      Under U.S. law, anyway, "asylee" is not synonymous with "refugee;" it's a subset of refugee, with different legal procedures and consequences. See https://www.uscis.gov/humanita... , http://www.alllaw.com/articles... , https://www.dhs.gov/immigratio... , https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... , and--if you want the statute-- https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... .

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    37. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by johannesg · · Score: 1

      " Admittedly, some refugees do lie on their asylum applications."

      Who writes this stuff? There is a difference between an asylum seeker and an immigrant and a migrant and an illegal immigrant. To conflate it all is disingenuous.

      It's our politicians and media that lie continuously by calling everything that shows up at the border a 'refugee'. Many refugees claim to come from countries that are perfectly safe (like Morocco).

      On TV they tell us that we cannot close the borders, "because then all trade will also stop". Talk about conflation... Who is talking about stopping trade? What we, the people, want is to stop the import of poor Africans who will never contribute anything to the economy and only raise the crime rate, but somehow we must believe that a government that has rules for the tiniest minutiae is unable to distinguish between cargo and asylum seekers...

    38. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right wingnuts' reading comprehension is always... lacking. As many other things.

    39. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see anything being conflated at all.

      The article says Europe will be using smartphone searches to vet and possibly deport refugees. The claim that some refugees lie on their asylum applications is a pretty good justification for the searches.

      I haven't really decided if I agree with the conclusion but I definitely do not agree with the reasoning.
      Just because some people are misbehaving doesn't mean that it is justified to do whatever you want to everyone.
      In the same fashion it is not justified to go through every Americans private conversations just because some of them are pedophiles.

      With that said I have nothing against an opt in system where you ask the asylum seeker if you may go through their phone to simplify the process.
      Those who have a legit reasons to not want you to rumble through their phones can keep it private.
      If they cooperate you can process them faster and they will get an approval or denial faster and thus will leave more resources over to process the others.
      If you find anything that might be sketchy and the person is withholding the information you will need to verify that it's nothing bad, well then its their loss really.

      Look, I know that y'all deeply fear that somewhere someone isn't punished sufficiently, but how about not being a dick towards some people just because some other people aren't cool?

    40. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No sovereign nation is obligated to allow anybody but its own citizens in."

      Actually, there are over 140 countries who are obligated by law to allow entry for certain reasons. For example; The states that signed the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol.

      Could you provide the specific article that states this? No? That is because it does not exist.

      The states which have ratified the above conventions are only obliged to provide asylum to refugees _already_ in their country. States can perfectly fine stop asylum seekers from entering their territory.

    41. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is interesting, though, that it's apparently mostly young men that manage to escape war areas. Women and kids seem to like it there.

      It isn't odd at all I you have the faintest clue about what the war areas look like and what the trip out of there entails.

      Just because there is a war going on in a city and people or being shot doesn't mean that you can't live there. You just have a higher risk of being randomly killed.
      You can travel to the next city to visit your relatives. There is a risk that you will be robbed and killed on your way there but the asshats can't be everywhere.
      You typically want to get out of war zones but only if you have somewhere safe to go. If you try to flee randomly only to be turned back you are just increasing your risk to be killed.
      So what you do is you send someone out to find a place to go, and then where they have set up a home the rest of the family comes after.
      If you send a daughter she'll be abducted, raped and sold as a sex slave so you send a son.

      That is why there only is young men coming from war areas.
      If you want the romanticized full family (sans the father) refugee streams you will have to go back to WW2 style warfare.

    42. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tools that help to differentiate the scammers from the real thing are essential, since untold thousands of people continually attempt that scam.

      That isn't limited to refugees.

      Law enforcement would be a lot more efficient if they could just go through your belongings in your home at their convenience and they would catch a lot more pedophiles that way.

      There are many good reasons to not let them do that. None of them has anything to do with you not being a refugee.

    43. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should lying about your age not be a valid reason for deportations?

      Not really, no.
      It should be taken into consideration, but that alone doesn't seem enough to deport someone.

      You are only thinking about the "fake" refugees here and assumes that if they lie about their age they have to be one of them.

      Say that you are a legit refugee, you know that if you are sent back you have a risk of ending up dead.
      If you think that claiming that you are 14 when you in reality are 16 will make it more likely that you are granted asylum you will lie to save yourself.

      So no, just because you found out that someone lied doesn't mean that you automatically send someone back without further consideration.
      It should however be reason to look a bit more closely at the case.

    44. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, if you have genuine reason to fear you might be harmed or killed

      Then go to a different country.

      You don't see a problem with living in a country with laws that makes refugees want to lie about who they are or go somewhere else?

      Are you really OK with seeing other countries being better and saying "Nah, that's fine. I don't want to make the place I live in at least as good as them."?

    45. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Uhm, refugees are given the right to seek asylum. That does not oblige the nation to provide asylum if the nation does not find that the requirements have been met. Seeking asylum implies that you as a refugee are in a place to do so, i.e. the territory of said nation (which includes an embassy for example). That is why it is such a big issue when the EU wants to start screening refugees in third party nations.

    46. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are over 140 countries who are obligated by law to allow entry for certain reasons. For example; The states that signed the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol.

      This! Can we get a +6 informative that makes text auto bold and move to the top of Slashdot and automatically gets read over the speaker at high volume?

      The most idiotic thing I see, is that a large portion of the people complaining that they shouldn't need to let refugees in were actually around when their countries signed on to these conventions.

    47. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Fuck humanity. Humanitarian precepts mandate that I hand 99% of my wealth to people in Africa. It's not going to happen.

      What matters here is assuring that refugees get the protection and support they require, and other migrants get told to fuck off and do it legally.

    48. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Cederic · · Score: 1

      There has been a lot of news and discussion around migrants in their 20s claiming to be under 18. That changes their status and how they're treated, and so finding their correct age should indeed mean deporting their lying arse.

    49. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Cederic · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting distinction. A refugee is implicitly seeking refuge; a migrant is merely migrating.

      As written the headline very much conflates the two and in legal terms that's nonsensical. Refugees need support, migrants need to obey immigration laws.

    50. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Cederic · · Score: 1

      This high risk dangerous journey you describe: Wouldn't it be lower risk and safer if you stopped as soon as you reached a safe haven, instead of further travelling across an expensive and dangerous sea voyage and multiple countries?

    51. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Maelwryth · · Score: 1

      Actually, that is exactly what you can do.

      Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who meet the definition of a refugee but are already in the United States and seeking admission at a port of entry.

      And before you get to upset about it. That same set of laws protects Americans if they decide to bail as well. In 2015 there were 4832 refugees from the United States and that number has risen steadily over the last 15 years.

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
    52. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Your inability to distinguish between someone residing in a country an enjoying the protections of their privacy from warrantless search ... and someone who DOES NOT LIVE IN THAT COUNTRY and asking for the favor of being allowed to enter and become a special protected class with benefits paid for by the country's taxpayers is, well, typical. When you're outside the border and looking for the favor of being allowed in, different standards can and should apply. Nice strawman attempt, though.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    53. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And what makes you think that your whole family should be allowed to follow?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    54. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by houghi · · Score: 1

      And then there are several European countries that let other European citizens in and out and have no way of deporting them, no matter what they do. The only limitation they might have is certain jobs where you need to have the nationality of the country and voting.

      And I also doubt that English (not just British) people are forbidden in any way or form to go to Scotland, no matter how good of an idea that would be.

      I am sure there will be many other exceptions for various reasons.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    55. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by houghi · · Score: 1

      That could well be because they are the ones that are targeted for various reasons. And yes, I understand the difference between a political and economical refugee. Living in Europe you will meet both at different stages in the process and life.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    56. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be so nice if more people would understand and respect this. It would also be nice if more countries would get serious about enforcing it and protecting their actual citizens.

    57. Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is interesting, though, that it's apparently mostly young men that manage to escape war areas. Women and kids seem to like it there.

      That's a Muslim thing: women and children are second class people at best, and their safety will never be a priority for those calling the shots.

  6. Fraudulent asylum applications != Refugees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems the headline is flat out lies, and they are not deporting refugees but economic migrants fraudulently applying for asylum. These people have entered the country illegally and should be deported immediately.

    Of course, about 99% of so-called asylum seekers are illegal immigrants who have destroyed their documentation so they can claim to be from a war zone. It's good that action is being taken to deport these illegal immigrants, but it's rather too late now that millions have already been let i

    The only hope for Europe now are the Visegrad nations. Western Europe is fucked.

    1. Re:Fraudulent asylum applications != Refugees by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You mean those useless sponges that have no problem holding out their hand for EU economy aid and boost but suddenly don't feel like being in an union when it comes to dealing with a common problem?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Fraudulent asylum applications != Refugees by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Illegal migrants have considered such fraud prevention in every nation they could register in. Thats why they don't register in the first safe nation they enter.
      A bank account for payments from a gov linked to photo ID linked to biometric data at a federal level? Avoid that nation with good banking laws.
      A nation that allows an illegal migrant to register under a list of names and has no active reconciliation between gov payments, the ID and banks? Try that nation that will not investigative fraud.

      Someone is offering legal insight to illegal migrants into the enforcement of each nation and directing illegal migrants to nations that do not track their banking systems and photo ID's

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Fraudulent asylum applications != Refugees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the alternative? Leave the EU? Brexit has shown us how spiteful the unelected bureaucrats at the head of it are to people trying to leave (or democracy in general for that matter). Maybe they could vote to propose some laws to change the EU? Oh wait that doesn't work, elected officials cannot propose laws.

      On the plus side at least their countries rulers aren't making sweeping massive unilateral decisions to open the floodgates to millions upon millions of economic migrants to their country, allowing them easy access to the rest of the EU, and then a few years later decides to go around begging people to help them by taking some migrants off their hands after realising even their own citizens don't want this. maybe if Merkel had put her open door policy to a vote in the EU parliament the countries that do not want unending streams of migrants flowing into the EU could've made their protests clear then. But then again that's impossible as the parliament cannot propose legislation.

    4. Re:Fraudulent asylum applications != Refugees by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Nation states acting in their own interest? Fucking hell, stop the presses!

      It's not a common problem anyway. EU fucking law states that refugees should seek asylum in the first EU country they reach, so why the fuck aren't Italy and Greece dealing with this themselves?

    5. Re:Fraudulent asylum applications != Refugees by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Apparently the EU is a union for nice weather when everything's peachy, we all have a big international BBQ.

      When it starts raining, it's everyone for themselves to find shelter.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. Don't give the US any ideas by jfdavis668 · · Score: 0

    Keep the NSA phone database away from ICE.

    1. Re:Don't give the US any ideas by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Keep the NSA phone database away from ICE.

      Why???

      I mean, if these are foreign people inside the US illegally, then this sounds like one of the most legitimate uses of such tech by the NSA and ICE.

      If you didn't sign the guest book on the way in, we are obligated to find you and throw your ass back out of the country.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Don't give the US any ideas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all fine and dandy until they start using that data on their citizens to lock them up for supposed crimes...

      Do you think your guns are going to save you?

  8. OWG under a uniform police state? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was a video series back in the mid-00s that covered a whole plan intended to do this very thing. Destabilize each of the continents/regions, push for police state powers and biometric national identities, then consolidate each region into its own meta-nation, before finally merging them into a whole. While that last phase hasn't been broached yet, the other phases mentioned in the video series seem like they are well on the way.

    1. Re:OWG under a uniform police state? by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      that sounds like some Alex Jones level crazy

    2. Re: OWG under a uniform police state? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems to be doing the opposite in Europe. Britain brexiting due to an anti immigration brexit campaign with pictures of Lybian refugees and claims of millions of turks about to enter the UK used to hoodwink 52% British into voting for something stupid. America, electing a (possibly treasonus) moron based again on anti immigration rhetoric who goes on to piss off all America's allies. Nope, no one world government coming any time soon.

    3. Re: OWG under a uniform police state? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has to be OUR world government...

  9. Migrants by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

    The proper word is "migrants", not refugees.

    1. Re: Migrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps âoeillegal immigrantsâ even better

  10. Somewhat misleading headline by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Informative

    Refugees aren't being deported (unless they have been extraordinarily naughty). You get deported (maybe, sometimes, if officials can be bothered or if you drag out your appeal for so long that they give up, and if you do not make too much of a scene) when your asylum claim is rejected. And plenty of rejected applicants are not deported, they just hang around. Hoping for another mass pardon of illegal immigrants, perhaps.

    Separating actual refugees from immigrants with other motivations is vitally important, to make sure we can financially, politically and socially afford to take in as many actual refugees as needed. It's not unreasonable to ask applicants to provide proof to support their claim, and that includes submitting mobile phone data. As long as it is treated as the highly sensitive data that it is, with only relevant portions being retained and only for as long as necessary.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    1. Re:Somewhat misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this! "Europe is Using Smartphone Data as a Weapon To Deport People Who Falsely Claim Refugee Status" didn't sound as catchy I guess? Who write this stuff anway? This is a *good thing*, yet they try to pin it down as some right wing nonsense with a completely misleading headline. This is what "journalism" has become I guess, yuck.

    2. Re:Somewhat misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And plenty of rejected applicants are not deported, they just hang around. Hoping for another mass pardon of illegal immigrants, perhaps.

      They are deported from some countries very aggressively. I remember reading stories about plain clothed immigration officials hijacking people from the streets, or chemical sedation used to get the deported into planes.

        Mass pardon does not exist in the legal systems of many countries. I can't name a single one that would be able do such a thing under normal circumstances. A special exception to the immigration laws would have to be created, but then that would violate the principle of equal treatment under law.

    3. Re:Somewhat misleading headline by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Mass pardon does not exist in the legal systems of many countries. I can't name a single one that would be able do such a thing under normal circumstances.

      Apparently you've never heard of the United States.

    4. Re:Somewhat misleading headline by johannesg · · Score: 1

      They are deported from some countries very aggressively. I remember reading stories about plain clothed immigration officials hijacking people from the streets, or chemical sedation used to get the deported into planes.

      Bullshit. You're just making up scare stories. The authorities in Europe are too afraid to even stop asylum seekers from breaking the law. Deportation doesn't come into it.

      https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The Netherlands has done it numerous times, the last time in 2007.

      Spain has had no less than 7 mass pardons in 15 years.

      Germany had one in 2007.

    5. Re:Somewhat misleading headline by johannesg · · Score: 1

      ...the second half of the message is about mass pardons, in case that wasn't clear. Somehow the quote-block disappeared :-(

    6. Re:Somewhat misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you expect. Police is much more interested in catching people that make jokes on Twitter / Facebook / Youtube than in catching so called south-asian grooming gangs, moped gangs, or teenagers with knives. People on the internet are, remarkably, less prone to endanger officers in various manners.

    7. Re:Somewhat misleading headline by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Apparently you need a geography lesson. This conversation is about Europe.

    8. Re:Somewhat misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was Finnish authorities that did the deed. The sedation raised quite a ruckus, so they probably don't do it again very often. The people "hijacking" apparently still goes on.
      It was estimated in France that such forced removal of a person costs around 19k EURs, which includes the legal costs.

        Other countries have their peculiarities as well. A Swiss detention center for illegal immigrant comes to mind as one of the most amusing anecdotes. It is as if they had found some Nazi concentration camp blue prints and applied it to a bunker. They did it probably just to cause uproar inside Europe, as the refugees or migrants don't see the cultural significance.

      About the mass pardons, was it done using some special law, and how did they get it through a constitutional oversight the first time? My Dutch is unfortunately non-existing.
      Now they have no option but pardon regularly, if they want to treat people fairly.

    9. Re:Somewhat misleading headline by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Apparently you need a lesson in anti-pedantry. The debate about immigration/refugees extends by Europe, and when the poster I replied to says things like,

      "Mass pardon does not exist in the legal systems of many countries. I can't name a single one that would be able do such a thing under normal circumstances. A special exception to the immigration laws would have to be created, but then that would violate the principle of equal treatment under law."

      it would be myopic and a disservice to the larger debate to ignore what's going on in the United States. Furthermore, what's happened there has been exported to Canada and Europe. Mass migration and lawlessness is the order of the day.

    10. Re:Somewhat misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was about Europe in particular. I should have been more specific, sorry. But now you see why some of those former Mexican immigrants
      are opposed to such pardon for their fellow compatriots, as reported in some international news. "We suffered, so it's only fair that the others suffer too."

  11. Telescreens by jabberw0k · · Score: 1

    Did no-one read "1984" ? Why would anyone willingly carry around, and *pay for*, a constant self-surveillance, self-tracking device?

    1. Re:Telescreens by fazig · · Score: 2

      Didn't you read "A Brave New World"? Maybe we don't design humans outright, but there's enough evolutionary programming in us already that can be exploited.
      Ask yourself why would anyone willingly consume and pay for poisons like cigarettes or alcohol? Consume and pay for unhealthy food, sit in front of that that TV, spent hours a day on the internet on social media looking at pictures and videos of cute animals, funny pictures and videos, and so forth.

    2. Re:Telescreens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Search: Passive Radar. Search: CELLDAR, it's radar for people. They see you moving through walls even w/o carrying a phone and track breathing if you're not moving.

      You are seen. While shitting, fucking, etc.

      Now the question you should be asking is: "Why is there so much crime esp. stuff like human trafficking if govs have had this not-so-secret capability for decades?" The answer will surprise no one who knows anything about anything.

    3. Re:Telescreens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did no-one read "1984" ? Why would anyone willingly carry around, and *pay for*, a constant self-surveillance, self-tracking device?

      It isn't necessarily willingly.

      I don't think we are far from a society where you will be considered odd if you don't have a smartphone.
      If you don't pay for your self-surveillance, self-tracking device and regularly post what you are doing on twitbook then your potential employer might go for someone they feel they know more about.
      Once you no longer have any income you might decide that your private life is worth selling.

      I wouldn't want to say we are approaching 1984 or Brave New World.
      It is more probably to me that we are heading towards the cyberpunk style megacorps that are controlling society.
      Either you get to vote for which corporate representative you want or you get an oligarchy where the major corporations pick a front figure to lead the country.
      Essentially we get a lame version of cyberpunk where the megacorp names are lamer, the tech isn't as cool and cyberspace isn't as immersive.
      Also, no-one can afford a cybernetic prosthetic so you aren't going to pick up a second hand arm in a back alley store.

  12. I thought this was racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When TRUMP deports people it's racist but when Denmark does it, it's progressive.

    1. Re:I thought this was racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta read the small print to know differences.

  13. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  14. The joke is on them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I use a landline, they'll NEVER know where I am!!!

  15. "right-wing" by Tailhook · · Score: 0

    Millions of common people tired of being overrun by economic migrants.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    1. Re:"right-wing" by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      I don't care if they are economic migrants, or asylum seekers. Giving hostile foreign cultures who fundamentally can not assimilate and/or are genetic dead ends a permanent large representation in your nation is insane. Help them, don't make them fucking citizens.

    2. Re:"right-wing" by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      ...and/or are genetic dead ends...

      No, not racist at all, are you?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:"right-wing" by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      Where does he mention any race in his comment? It is no secret that inbreeding is a serious problem in many third world countries these "refugees" are coming from. Marrying first cousins is actively encouraged in Islamic cultures and has been for many generations (arguably leading to many of the societal problems they are fleeing).

      There is much science confirming that inbreeding leads to dramatically higher rates of medical problems , birth defect and aggressive anti-social behavior. This is disastrous to countries offering free healthcare and lack the police states necessary to deal with it as well as greatly diminishing the quality of life of those native cultures and their citizens paying for it.

      And no, Islam is not a race.

    4. Re:"right-wing" by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I personally don't care much for the idea, but I also didn't confuse my personal preferences with expert knowledge, either. Instead, I did some research. And it turns out that there is considerable scientific debate regarding the likely effects of marriages between first cousins on their offspring and, in particular, whether they're sufficient to merit banning such unions, which, I must admit, surprises me.

      And I said nothing about Islam being a "race"--you did. This has little to do with religion in any case, and lots to do with cultural and ethnic groups. Likewise, it seems, with aversion to the practice.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    5. Re:"right-wing" by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      You have got to be kidding...

      "Today, 70 percent of all Pakistanis are inbred and in Turkey the amount is between 25-30 percent (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 "More stillbirths among immigrants"). A rough estimate reveals that close to half of everybody living in the Arab world is inbred. A large percentage of the parents that are blood related come from families where intermarriage has been a tradition for generations.

      A BBC investigation in Britain several years ago revealed that at least 55% of the Pakistani community in Britain was married to a first cousin. The Times of India affirmed that “this is thought to be linked to the probability that a British Pakistani family is at least 13 times more likely than the general population to have children with recessive genetic disorders.”

      The BBC’s research also discovered that while British Pakistanis accounted for just 3.4% of all births in Britain, they accounted for 30% of all British children with recessive disorders and a higher rate of infant mortality. It is not a surprise, therefore, that, in response to this evidence, a Labour Party MP has called for a ban on first-cousin marriage.

      Medical evidence shows that one of the negative consequences of inbreeding is a 100 percent increase in the risk of stillbirths. One study comparing Norwegians and Pakistanis shows the risk that the child dies during labor increases by 50 percent. The risk of death due to autosomal recessive disorders -- e.g., cystic fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy -- is 18 times higher. Risk of death due to malformations is 10 times higher. Mental health is also at risk: the probability of depression is higher in communities where consanguine marriages are also high. The closer the blood relative, the higher the risk of mental and physical retardation and schizophrenic illness.

      And then there are the findings on intelligence. Research shows that if one’s parents are cousins, intelligence goes down 10-16 IQ points. The risk of having an IQ lower than 70 (criterion for being "retarded") increases 400 percent among children from cousin marriages. An academic paper published in the Indian National Science Academy found that “the onset of various social profiles like visual fixation, social smile, sound seizures, oral expression and hand-grasping are significantly delayed among the new-born inbred babies." Another study found that Indian Muslim school boys whose parents were first cousins tested significantly lower than boys whose parents were unrelated in a non-verbal test on intelligence."

      There are dozens of neutral citations for every single claim in that passage here: https://pjmedia.com/blog/the-p...

  16. digital evidence based investigations are the norm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in considering your application they should have the full rights to look through all the evidence available.

    A smartphone holds a lot of info that would prove either way if you are a legitimate asylum seeker or not.

    I also disapprove of the emotive language being used to color the story in a certain narrative direction, that being the word 'weapon'.

    This looks more like a political story wrapped up with a few tech points which makes it hardly worth of discussing in its current context.

  17. About that... by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Useful idiots like Merkel just brought on the much needed police state. Once those pesky rapefugees are gone, they'll be using those tools on the native population.

    All apart of the plan.

    Useful idiots like Merkel just brought on the much needed police state. Once those pesky rapefugees are gone, they'll be using those tools on the native population.

    All apart of the plan.

    Yeah, right. About that...

    It would appear that unrestricted immigration and taking refugees is something the people don't want, both in the EU and here in the US.

    In the US we allow about 1.1 million legal immigrants per year, which is generous in comparison to any other country. That's enough to skew the economy, make jobs hard to get, and puts a burden on the infrastructure. Letting unrestricted migrants in could cripple the country, possibly bring it down.

    Non-citizens can apparently vote, and there's a big push in CA to force the census bureau to remove the citizenship question in the next census.

    After the census is tallied, it means that CA gets 3 [US House] more representatives due to non-citizens, and for all states non-citizens total about 7 house representatives.

    (Question: Is giving non-citizens legislative power like that insane? Asking for a friend...)

    I have no Earthly idea why Merkel and the rest of the EU is so hell-bent on getting more refugees. Refugees are causing a lot of problems, it's clearly something the member states don't want, and there's apparently no end in sight. The whole refugee thing started because of Arab Spring (remember that?), which was 8 years ago!

    My best guess is that being called "nazi" is still a big thing in Europe, and they'll do anything to save face and avoid being called that name. Trash their own country by virtue signalling.

    Anyway...

    The basic problem is that the people really don't want unrestricted immigration. It's something that people can readily see, and that affects them directly. Trump's approval rating actually went *up* during the recent protests.

    When the government does something the people *really* don't like, it's the government that has to change.

    1. Re:About that... by blindseer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      (Question: Is giving non-citizens legislative power like that insane? Asking for a friend...)

      Yes, that is insane.

      We are now seeing Democrats advocating for allowing people in prison to vote. I don't mean allowing people that were once in prison and now out free, I'm talking about people in prison having a polling booth available to them inside the prison walls. That's insane. I could be convinced of allowing convicted felons being allowed to vote after being released and serving out any probation. Letting people that immigrated illegally to get a vote, get a license to drive, get a job, send their kids to school, is encouraging more law breaking.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:About that... by EndlessNameless · · Score: 5, Informative

      Found the political bullshitter with an agenda!

      Non-citizens can apparently vote

      Not really. They cannot vote in federal elections at all per 18 USC 611. (I'd link it at uscode.house.gov, but Slashdot apparently doesn't like the URL. I trust you can find it.)

      Since you mentioned CA in particular, I'll note that they can't vote there at all. Only US citizens can vote in CA, according the California Secretary of State.

      As far as I know, every state requires US citizenship in order to vote. Certainly everywhere I've lived.

      It's OK if you're afraid of immigrants, but it's not OK to lie about how things work in the real world.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    3. Re:About that... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      make jobs hard to get

      Immigrants take jobs, and then spend their wages on goods and services that create new jobs. The preponderance of the evidence is that they create more jobs than they take.

      and puts a burden on the infrastructure.

      They also pay taxes to build new infrastructure.

      Letting unrestricted migrants in could cripple the country, possibly bring it down.

      We used to have unrestricted immigration. The economy expanded rapidly, and living standards soared.

    4. Re: About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putting Merkel in this position was obviously done to put her own tribe in a better position, which btw, essentially implement the Nürnberg racial laws in their own "country" israel.

    5. Re:About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

      Doesn't say citizens anywhere. Why do you hate the constitution so much?

    6. Re:About that... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why shouldn't people in prison be able to vote? They are citizens, and they likely have grievances with the way our government currently functions.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    7. Re:About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Immigrants take jobs, and then spend their wages on goods and services that create new jobs.

      Immigrants are paid a pittance in wages, and what little money they have left over is sent home in the form of remittances.

      Driving down wages never improves the economy. The only reason mass migration is ever tolerated is that it drives down wages.

    8. Re:About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a race to the bottom! Why shouldn't we let 6-year olds vote? Why shouldn't we let Canadians vote? After all, they likely have grievances with the way our government currently functions!

    9. Re:About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, right. About that...

      It would appear that unrestricted immigration and taking refugees is something the people don't want, both in the EU and here in the US.

      This is racist.

      In the US we allow about 1.1 million legal immigrants per year, which is generous in comparison to any other country. That's enough to skew the economy, make jobs hard to get, and puts a burden on the infrastructure. Letting unrestricted migrants in could cripple the country, possibly bring it down.

      This is even more racist. It's a scary screed that racists groups in the past and in the present routinely put forward. It's also completely incorrect and runs counter to everything said by every credible economist, ever.

      The fact that it's presently +4 on slashdot really tells a sad story about this community.

    10. Re:About that... by Train0987 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Illegal immigrants do not pay federal taxes. A Social Security number is required for that. Identity theft is a felony, which many of them commit. Not to pay taxes mind you, but to get jobs that the true owner of that SSN# is on the hook for the unpaid taxes on.

      Once again you conflate legal and illegal immigrants on purpose to somehow brand those opposed to illegal immigration as racists or nazis or whatever. People have woken up to that,

    11. Re:About that... by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As far as I know, every state requires US citizenship in order to vote.

      But can do nothing to verify that the person casting that ballot is a US citizen. Trying to require something as simple as ID is labelled as "racism" and results in lawsuits.

      Imagine a law that says only people older than 20 can drink alcohol, and then not allowing the bars to check IDs to make sure all the people they serve are at least 21. Would you still argue that there is any law against 18 year olds drinking? Any USEFUL law?

      It's OK if you're afraid of immigrants,

      Nothing here shows any fear of immigrants. It shows a disdain for criminals, however. Not every immigrant is a criminal.

      but it's not OK to lie about how things work in the real world.

      Nor it is OK to ignore that prohibiting the enforcement of laws effectively eliminates those laws.

    12. Re:About that... by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      Because it was understood as common f'ing sense that non-citizens not be counted toward representation in government. They'd just finished fighting a war for independence, do you really believe they intended to give British or any other non-citizen who came after a say in that government?

    13. Re:About that... by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      How is it racist when no race was mentioned anywhere? Do you believe illegal immigrants are a race of themselves?

    14. Re:About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'mon. You aren't this fucking stupid, and neither are the people reading this.

    15. Re:About that... by blindseer · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I will agree that prisoners have the right to vote if you agree that prisoners have the right carry weapons.

      I'm fine with felons released from prison being allowed to vote, just as I am fine with them being allowed to carry weapons. Prison is punishment for antisocial behavior, as well as confinement to prevent them from doing further harm to polite society. By putting people in prison we've determined in a court of law that this person has violated the social contract. With rights comes responsibilities. These people have demonstrated that they are not responsible and therefore they lose their rights for a while, and that includes the right to vote.

      That's not saying we remove all ability to voice their grievances. I expect that prisoners would be allowed to voice their grievances by means of letters and phone calls to those in office. I expect them to have access to visits from legal representation, family, religious clergy and laypersons, and others that might offer guidance and means to seek a return to polite society. They can still make their grievances known, I just don't want criminals able to "buy" a shortened sentence from a governor with a promise of a pardon in return for their vote.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    16. Re:About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      make jobs hard to get

      Immigrants take jobs, and then spend their wages on goods and services that create new jobs. The preponderance of the evidence is that they create more jobs than they take.

      and puts a burden on the infrastructure.

      They also pay taxes to build new infrastructure.

      Letting unrestricted migrants in could cripple the country, possibly bring it down.

      We used to have unrestricted immigration. The economy expanded rapidly, and living standards soared.

      Most illegal immigrants spend little in taxes compared to what they get in welfare. Many work for pay under the table (no income tax). Much of the money is sent back to their families out of the country. Who do you think is using the money wiring service at your local supermarket?

    17. Re:About that... by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      I honestly can't tell sarcasm any more on this site. They Left has jumped the shark that badly.

    18. Re:About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I like how you assume a very vocal minority (less than a million) constitutes "most". Most people honestly don't care about immigration, as it typically dilutes the pool of xenophobia that historically has caused countries to collapse out of paranoia. More immigrants = less paranoid xenophobes = everyone is happier (except the paranoid xenophobes, who will never be happy. Remove every last immigrant and they'll start wanting mentally handicapped people euthanized, as history has indisputably proven).

    19. Re:About that... by suutar · · Score: 1

      You're assuming the employer, who has that SSN, is not withholding taxes. Not true in all cases. I cannot speak to what percentage of cases, but it sounds like you can, so I look forward to seeing your sources.

    20. Re: About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      âoeHa ha I was only joking. Silly liberals!â

      Good save there buddy.

    21. Re:About that... by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never had a job. The employee fills out a W4 form when hired that specifies how much is withheld.

    22. Re:About that... by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      Imagine a law that says only people older than 20 can drink alcohol, and then not allowing the bars to check IDs to make sure all the people they serve are at least 21. Would you still argue that there is any law against 18 year olds drinking? Any USEFUL law?

      When people oppose simple logic laws like these, I know they only care about being in opposition. They cry in hysterics that the "man" is trying to suppress people of color from voting as though the laws do not apply to everyone. Democrats had a total shitfit when the Ohio law to remove old data from voter rolls was approved by the Supreme Court. To be removed, you had to fail to vote for at least four successive years worth of elections and ignore notice from the Board of Elections. And if they are purged, they have to - horrors - re-register to vote just like they had to do initially.

      The implication is clear. You're too stupid to figure out how to maintain or reinstate your voter registration, but not too stupid to vote.

    23. Re:About that... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Prison is a punishment. In an ideal world, it would be a punishment for anti-social behavior, but prison is often used as a political tool. For example. a lot of people in prison are there on non-violent drug charges, and a good chunk of those in there for violent charges because the prior drug charges hurt their employment opportunities. These people were unjustly put in the cage by the state, so they certainly need the ability to vote.

      As for your concern about criminals buying pardons, it just doesn't work out unless there is a ridiculous, yet legitimate prison population. El Salvador has the highest homicide rate, at 83 per 100k. If we multiply that over 10 years, that's still only 0.83%, even in the murder capital of the world, easily within the margin of error. If there are enough violent criminals that they constitute a major voting block, your country has far bigger problems.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    24. Re:About that... by suutar · · Score: 1

      yep. Which includes an SSN. And claiming that nothing needs to be withheld is looked at askance by the payroll department. I did that for a few months because I'd been overwithheld for the first 6 months of the year, and they were quite firm about stopping that once it had balanced out.

    25. Re:About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fertility rates are the reason.

      Globalization and women entering the workforce has pushed men into lower-income jobs that don't allow them to sustain a family; men marry women with lower or similar incomes, but women only marry men at similar or higher incomes.

      A lot of school debts don't translate into jobs. A third of women are projected to have bachleors degree's, and CDC statistics show a quarter of those bachleor degree holders will never have kids or marry. What man wants to marry a women with a bachleors in women's studies or arts and $100k in debt they'll have to repay?

      The state has done is taken away control of people deciding what a marriage contract means and that, in turn, has generationally traumatized affluent men who have decided, en masse, to simply not have kids or get married. You now have an entire c-suite of men in their 30's and 40's who don't make family-friendly decisiojns because they don't have families and don't care.

      All of that drops the fertility rate well below .9 or .8 if you check the census and demographics. If it wasn't for immigration, you'd be risking government debt insolvence and risking welfare systems. It is really a very nasty problem to deal with.

      Suffice to say, a majority at this point is unsatisfied with the results.

    26. Re:About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      In Australia, voting is compulsory for citizens aged 18+, otherwise eligible prisoners serving a full-time term of less than 3 years can still vote in federal elections (it's a little unclear on whether you MUST vote, like those on the outside). Serving more than 3 years
      you are ineligible. Rules for state and local level elections vary.

      https://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Special_Category/Prisoners.htm
       

    27. Re:About that... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So much for the theory.

      But in fact, immigrants in Europe have to send the money back home to pay back the debt they have, from taking loans from family and friends to get to Europe in the first place. Never wondered how "penniless" refugees somehow manage to pay traffickers multiple thousand dollars to get smuggled into the EU?

      That money drain is actually starting to get pretty noticeable.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    28. Re:About that... by blindseer · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Prison is a punishment. In an ideal world, it would be a punishment for anti-social behavior, but prison is often used as a political tool. For example. a lot of people in prison are there on non-violent drug charges, and a good chunk of those in there for violent charges because the prior drug charges hurt their employment opportunities. These people were unjustly put in the cage by the state, so they certainly need the ability to vote.

      There was a time that I would have agreed with you that "a lot" of people are in prison for non-violent drug charges. Assuming I agree with that premise I still see a problem. These people in prison had to know the drugs they possessed were illegal, and by possessing them they run the risk of imprisonment if caught. Perhaps they should have considered voting for people to legalize these drugs BEFORE they went about using or dealing them. If they broke the law as a means of civil disobedience then this only works as an act of civil disobedience if they run the risk of imprisonment. Either way they had to know the risks of their drug possession but chose to disobey the law regardless. I'm not going to "reward" what could be an act of civil disobedience with the ability to vote while in prison because, again, if by voting they believed they could overturn the law then they should have just voted and stayed out of prison.

      As for your concern about criminals buying pardons, it just doesn't work out unless there is a ridiculous, yet legitimate prison population. El Salvador has the highest homicide rate, at 83 per 100k. If we multiply that over 10 years, that's still only 0.83%, even in the murder capital of the world, easily within the margin of error. If there are enough violent criminals that they constitute a major voting block, your country has far bigger problems.

      Tight elections can be won with far smaller margins. I recall that an election for POTUS was won based on the margin of less than 600 votes in a district in Florida. I agree it's a small margin of the total vote. Where I disagree is that it does not matter. Let's also consider the logistics on this, should a person in prison vote based on where they lived before being incarcerated? Based on which district the prison is in now? Where their children go to school? What of the security of the vote? Getting impartial observers into a prison to observe the vote will be difficult. Getting the ballots and election workers in and out runs a risk of an escape or some "funny" ballots.

      If what you claim is true, that the voting block of prisoners are unlikely to change the results of the vote then that only means that allowing prisoners to vote gains us little to nothing in determining the outcome. It raises a lot of questions on who votes, how the votes are counted, and all kinds of logistic issues. No, we don't need prisoners voting. They can vote on laws that might get them in prison before violating those laws. As I recall a person can often petition for the right to vote being returned once out of prison, or even in some states those that served their sentence get the right to vote restored automatically. As you say the votes from those in prison are unlikely to shift the vote either way so there's no value in counting them. On top of that I don't want criminals voting in other criminals should the margin be close enough that it might get them past the post.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    29. Re:About that... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      Because it was understood as common f'ing sense that non-citizens not be counted toward representation in government.

      WRONG.

      Article 1 of the US Constitution states,

      Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

      The "other Persons" being slaves, who were definitely *not* considered citizens.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    30. Re:About that... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Most illegal immigrants spend little in taxes compared to what they get in welfare.

      Baloney. I'm pretty sure we discussed this recently and discovered that you have to be able to prove you're in the country legally in order to get most forms of assistance.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    31. Re:About that... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      Perhaps they should have considered voting for people to legalize these drugs BEFORE they went about using or dealing them.

      Okay, so you're too damn sheltered/not paranoid enough to have a reasonable adult conversation.

      Tight elections can be won with far smaller margins. I recall that an election for POTUS was won based on the margin of less than 600 votes in a district in Florida.

      And while Florida has a lot of problems and weirdness, I suspect that a campaign promise of "SETTING MURDERERS FREE" is going to cost more votes than the total prison population. Your fears are rooted in a situation that has no reasonable chance of ever happening.

      Let's also consider the logistics on this, should a person in prison vote based on where they lived before being incarcerated?

      Generally speaking, I'd say that the equivalent of an absentee ballot at their last address would be appropriate.

      If what you claim is true, that the voting block of prisoners are unlikely to change the results of the vote then that only means that allowing prisoners to vote gains us little to nothing in determining the outcome

      Yes, practically speaking, the vote of prisoners is not important to the outcome. It is important in terms of principle and precedent. If you can jail people to keep them from voting, then the law can be utilized to silence your enemies. That is a lot of the reason for the war on drugs, which is responsible for our enormous prison population.

      Most likely, prisoners voting won't drastically change election results, but the threat of disenfranchisement is much more realistic than the threat of violent criminals hijacking our democracy.

      On top of that I don't want criminals voting in other criminals should the margin be close enough that it might get them past the post.

      Then your concern would be with lobbyists, not the prison system.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    32. Re:About that... by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Disenfranchisement of felons is a downhill slope. You punish people unfairly, then take away the only right they might use to help change the system so it doesn't happen to others. We tell prospective citizens that the right to vote is the most important right they have (in fact it is the "correct" answer to a question on the citizenship test) and then we go on to deprive even people who were born here of that right.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    33. Re:About that... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Informative

      ". Assuming I agree with that premise I still see a problem. These people in prison had to know the drugs they possessed were illegal, and by possessing them they run the risk of imprisonment if caught. Perhaps they should have considered voting for people to legalize these drugs BEFORE they went about using or dealing them. If they broke the law as a means of civil disobedience "

      Wow, maybe you should change your signature if you're going to suck fascist cock like that. The laws regarding drugs are abusive to the people. You're not free, you're sitting and licking like a good dog should.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    34. Re:About that... by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Trying to require something as simple as ID is labelled as "racism" and results in lawsuits."

      Only where states create onerous requirements for getting ID. Frankly, no one should pay a fee for something that is for the convenience of the government. It should come out of the general fund and be paid for by taxes. No one should need to pay money to exercise their rights.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    35. Re: About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When convicted of a crime you already lose a number of rights, freedom being the big one.

      I agree that you should regain the right to vote once you have served your sentence.

    36. Re: About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So passports and guns should be free?

    37. Re:About that... by blindseer · · Score: 2

      But can do nothing to verify that the person casting that ballot is a US citizen. Trying to require something as simple as ID is labelled as "racism" and results in lawsuits.

      Here's what's racist about this, assuming minorities are too poor, ignorant, or lazy to register to vote and get an ID like everyone else.

      That said I do have some objection to requiring an ID to vote.

      We should be able to vote based on something like a sworn testimony of the identity of the person casting the vote much like we have done for ages with other legal documents like birth certificates, marriage licenses, licenses to drive, and so forth. Those that sign as witness to a ballot cast under false pretenses should be charged with the same crime as the person casting the ballot. Require the signature of two or three people for those voting without ID so no one person can allow a vote. Perhaps have other controls like the witnesses cannot be registered for the same party, age limits (of course), living in the community, and so forth. Having a person walk in, with no government issued ID, and no one willing to attest to their identity, should be denied a ballot.

      I've seen this happen at Amateur radio license testing sessions. Someone that's under the age of 16 is unlikely to have a photo ID. Maybe they have a school ID but that's not necessarily a legal document. In such cases there's a process of something like both parents showing ID, signing something that the person taking the test is their child, there's three examiners that have to sign off on it (as do all exams, even for adults with proper ID), and this is deemed acceptable by the FCC. There's a paper trail to the examiners and the witnesses by means of noting their identifying details on a document.

      Here's what I heard, and I'm willing to see evidence to the contrary, that voter participation GOES UP when voter ID laws are in place. This happens because now people have greater faith in that their vote actually counts. I don't much care if voter ID laws deny access to voting to some people. If they can't be bothered to get a photo ID to vote then I don't want them voting. I'm not racist enough to think minorities are too ignorant, poor, or lazy to get an ID and register to vote like I did.

      Nothing here shows any fear of immigrants. It shows a disdain for criminals, however. Not every immigrant is a criminal.

      Stop calling them "immigrants" if they have failed to enter the country legally and have no intention of obtaining citizenship. They are aliens. They are illegal aliens. If they do in fact plan to stay but did so by crossing the border illegally then they are squatters, invaders, or perhaps even spies. We used to hang spies, do we still do that? I'm getting real close to thinking we should take a stronger stance on this and declare these border crossings an invasion by a hostile nation. Perhaps even charge a few people with spying. If Mexico won't do their part in stopping this then maybe make an example of a few of the worst offenders and hang them high.

      Again, I'm not saying we SHOULD hang any of these people for spying, only that I'd consider it something that needs to be discussed openly and with representatives from Mexico.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    38. Re: About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      School and social services are forms of welfare paid for with taxes. You saying illegal immigrants don't use these services?

      It's theft, plain and simple. Legal immigrants pay taxes and get to use the services in return. The illegal ones use the services and don't pay.

    39. Re: About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back then they'd probably point to the other laws that allow you to defend your border from invaders, prosecute and hang traitors who promote such invasions from within, and wonder why the fuck this is even a question.

    40. Re:About that... by magzteel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Trying to require something as simple as ID is labelled as "racism" and results in lawsuits."

      Only where states create onerous requirements for getting ID. Frankly, no one should pay a fee for something that is for the convenience of the government. It should come out of the general fund and be paid for by taxes. No one should need to pay money to exercise their rights.

      ID requirements are challenged no matter what the government does. Bringing ID vans to neighborhoods and making it free makes no difference. It will be challenged by testifying that there is at least one person who just can't possibly manage to do it no matter how easy it is. I bet they would manage to make it if you were giving away free cell phones. They would manage if you needed an ID to claim your free cell phone.

      I think it's crazy that some groups would rather spend their resources fighting a voter ID requirement than helping people who don't have an ID get one. In my opinion the only reason to do this is they know the ID requirement will reduce voter fraud.

    41. Re:About that... by blindseer · · Score: 1

      The laws regarding drugs are abusive to the people.

      I agree but that does not mean we should allow people in prison to vote.

      Follow the law. If you don't like the law, then work to change it. Breaking the law means you run the risk of going to prison. So don't break the law if you don't want to go to prison and lose your ability to vote.

      While I can understand that there are laws we should break out of defending a greater justice the drug laws are not one of these laws. Also understand that if you break an unjust law that it still can result in going to prison. People do this all the time, and they willingly go to prison as this is part of what it means to bring down bad law and achieve a more just world.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    42. Re:About that... by kbahey · · Score: 2

      Your post is full of inaccuracies, and therefore much of your conclusions are flawed.

      In the US we allow about 1.1 million legal immigrants per year, which is generous in comparison to any other country. That's enough to skew the economy, make jobs hard to get, and puts a burden on the infrastructure

      Canada had 35 million people in the last census, and admits 260,000 legal immigrant annually. That is 0.74% of the population. The USA has 325 million now, and the 1.1 million you quoted would be 0.33%. As you can see, Canada admits more than double the number per capita.

      Many Americans like to think they are unique and special, but they are not, and they are even less than other industrial countries. Look at health care in the G7 and compare it to the US for just one example.

      The whole refugee thing started because of Arab Spring (remember that?), which was 8 years ago!

      It started in 2011, but it is not over yet in many areas. The Syrian Civil War is what drove refugees from Arab countries in the following year (and that war is still on-going, check what is happening in Deraa, the cradle of the Syrian uprising). Most of the Syrian refugees are in neighboring countries (Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, ...etc). A relatively small fraction makes it to Europe.

      And the Arab Spring is not the largest driver for migrants. There are migrants from Afghanistan (the aftermath of the American invasion, and the subsequent weak governments, Taliban, ...etc.) and Iraq (same drivers). Most of the refugees are from Subsaharan Africa. Desertificaiton, ISIS terrorism, economy, corruption, ..etc., drives people to cross the Sahara and go on boats to Italy, Malta, Spain, ...etc.

      It is going to get worse, as long as we have climate deniers who prevent a world wide concerted effort to mitigate the effects: less arable land, less pasture for live stock, so people will pick up and leave.

      You can see visualizations of migrant and terrorism data by a data scientist.

    43. Re:About that... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I have no Earthly idea why Merkel and the rest of the EU is so hell-bent on getting more refugees. Refugees are causing a lot of problems, it's clearly something the member states don't want, and there's apparently no end in sight

      It's mainly because of compassion, because a lot of those refugees are going to die if they stay in Syria. We don't want them to die. Apparently you don't have compassion for that kind of problem, though.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    44. Re:About that... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      "So don't break the law if you don't want to go to prison and lose your ability to vote."

      Most of the people going to prison for drug offenses are short on opportunity. They don't see another choice. The same system designed to keep a handful of racially and economically privileged men in power is designed to keep them in poverty. Meanwhile, the beneficiaries of that system commit crimes that harm the masses with both regularity and impunity. They do not follow the law, but they are not punished. This is not about the law at all, it's about the status quo.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    45. Re: About that... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Passports should be free. Not guns. Passport requirements are a restriction placed on supposedly free people. But there's no gun requirement. Except in countries where there are, of course... But they DO issue firearms, so no problem there.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    46. Re:About that... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Drugs generally aren't worth punishment, and that's what kind of non-violent offender fills our prisons. As for the violence, I'm talking about the first time they were put in a cage being unjust. The later violence is often hard to avoid, due to the fact that our prisons don't rehabilitate, and the first offense will lead to difficulty finding employment, which leads to more drugs and often, to violent crime. Judging those people doesn't really work with standard moral views, because they are caught up by forces much larger than them. The real problem is systemic, and as people who understand first-hand how the system is broken, they deserve to have their input heard on fixing it.

      Universal suffrage should be considered the norm, and the necessity for excluding a group from said suffrage needs a strong rationale. So long as the majority of the population thinks crime is bad, and a minority of the population is in prison, we don't really risk actual criminals getting extreme leniency. What we do see is amnesty for bullshit crimes, which Obama did quite a bit of, and states are starting to do as well. Blindseer is obsessing over a completely contrived hypothetical.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    47. Re:About that... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      Yeah, people go to jail on purpose to fight against unjust laws, and people getting angry about those laws as being unjust. If you don't get angry, the system breaks down.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    48. Re:About that... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      That's where that whole "democracy" thing comes in. If a politician runs on "murder is a $50 fine" platform, they would probably lose more voters than they would gain.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    49. Re: About that... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Eh? This is kind of a stupid question. People can easily be racist against all the foreigners, not just some specific ones. Matter of fact, that's actually the norm for racists and that particular American racism against just blacks is the exception due to the relatively recent history of slavery.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    50. Re:About that... by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Most of the people going to prison for drug offenses are short on opportunity.

      That's no excuse, and you should know better than to use that as an excuse.

      The rest of your post is an off topic rant, assuming the above is even on topic.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    51. Re: About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a politician runs on "murder is a $50 fine" platform, they would probably lose more voters than they would gain.

      Really? Murder is already legal in the US. You just have to wear a costume and a badge, and claim that you were frightened by the person you murdered.

    52. Re:About that... by johannesg · · Score: 1

      I have no Earthly idea why Merkel and the rest of the EU is so hell-bent on getting more refugees.

      It's all part of the Kalergi plan. Look it up: the man was a european diplomat who dreamed about a unified europe, with its white, culturally strong population replaced by a race of coffee-colored mongrels (his word) who lacked a cultural history and would be easy to manipulate. In other words, it is all about power.

      And really, why wouldn't you destroy _everything_ in your quest for power? :-(

    53. Re: About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What man wants to marry a women with a bachleors in women's studies or arts and $100k in debt they'll have to repay?

      I dunno. Tell me more about this woman. For instance, does she spit or swallow?

    54. Re:About that... by darth.hunterix · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with migrants to EU is that nobody has a clue what to do with them.

      They just show up in a leaky boat with just clothes on their back (possibly smartphone in hand, but that's usually it), long after they get rid of anything that could identify them. No papers, no clue who they are. You say "send them where they came from", but where is it, exactly? You can't prove that they came from country X, so you can't send them there. They don't want to go back, nobody in Africa wants them back either, so EU is stuck with them.

      As for Merkel she kinda backed herself into this corner: when migration crisis started she hoped to use to fix problem with Germany's ageing population. Birth rates among native Germans are way, way below replacement level, and their social security is a Ponzi scheme and requires constant grow of population. So she tried to get young, healthy migrants to fix the problem. And now, after telling everyone that accepting migrants is a good thing she can't just turn around and say the opposite.

      It would be disingenuous to say that the plan failed completely - quite a lot of those migrants actually DO work, pay taxes and pay their share of the Ponzi scheme. I have no numbers to back this up, but I will hazard a guess, that on average migrants pay for themselves. Right wingers vastly overestimate the problems they cause. But left wingers refuse to even acknowledge that the problems exist in the first place, so nobody does anything to fix them.

      In any case, Germany has more than enough migrants for now, Ponzi scheme is gonna work for the next couple of years... but more and more migrants are showing up and voters begin to worry.

      --
      What is best in life? Hot water, good dentishtry and shoft lavatory paper.
    55. Re:About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last time i went to get photo id, i had to visit three different federal government agencies, as well as two different state agencies. Fortunately, the appropriate offices were open, with no prior appointment needed.
      I got the id, but it was provided with extreme reluctance. I don't remember which agency recommended I simply retain a lawyer to drop legal paperwork on each agency, including the one that issues the photo-id.

      IIRC, the cumulative amount spent was US$500.

    56. Re: About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Papers please. Sound familiar? Depends on usage and abuse. Passports for travelling dont need to be "free". Too easy to "lose".

    57. Re: About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      neat hyperbole, as if immigration is a yes or no black-white (pun intended) question.

    58. Re:About that... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I notice you ignore all the parts of the comment that destroy your argument and give that sentence context, just like you always do. That's what it takes for you to feel good enough about yourself to continue living because you are suffering from cognitive dissonance. Someone you respect taught you these things, and now your self-respect is tied up in other people believing that nuclear power makes sense and that following the rule of law always makes a better world. But the law is designed to rubber stamp abuse by those who bought the laws, and the people only accepted the risk of nuclear power on the basis that it would be "too cheap to meter" which turned out to be a bald-faced lie. Repeating lies isn't just what you do, it's all you do.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    59. Re:About that... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      In the US we allow about 1.1 million legal immigrants per year, which is generous in comparison to any other country.

      Is it fuck. That's 0.34% of your population a year; the UK allowed legal immigration of 0.7% of its population last year, and that's reduced from the year before (and doesn't include British citizens returning from abroad).

      Putting it another way: The US accepted twice the number of legal immigrants that the UK did, despite have forty times the space in which to put them.

      Generous my arse.

    60. Re:About that... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that a 0.7% change in eligible voters is going to lead to federally-funded murder? I think you demonstrate quite clearly that a limited ability for abstraction and a poor understanding of statistics is a greater threat than wider suffrage.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    61. Re:About that... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      How about, instead of whining about purely hypothetical complaints, we make sure that we take care of making sure that it's easy and free to get ID before we worry about a form of electoral fraud that has never, ever been prevalent.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    62. Re: About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are ignoring the taxed bit. You Democrats are obviously running your state, California, on undocumented labor which doesn't pay taxes. It is the equivalent of slavery since the wages are so low.

    63. Re: About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We don't want them to die". Then get the hell out of Syria where you don't belong and where I definitely did not give my approval as a citizen in the west, and stop shooting and bombing. Stop supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda through allies like Saudi, Israel, Qatar, and Turkey!

      You are a POS.

    64. Re: About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, given how imbred you English are, it makes sense to increase the gene pool a bit. The US is already pretty diverse. Thank you though.

    65. Re:About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Washington State, we vote by mail.
      In order to get the mailed ballot you must register to vote and when you register to vote you must provide ID proving you are a US Citizen.
      We have also allowed voting registration when getting/renewing your drivers license.

      We are not afraid of having the people vote like some of the Red States who are really afraid of their population.

    66. Re:About that... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I can't hear you. Maybe try to stop licking boots for a few minutes.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    67. Re:About that... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      A single person can't change the system with their vote.

      On the other hand, if you imprison so many people that letting them vote would actually change the result, I don't think such a law could be reasonably described as "punished fairly" in any context.

    68. Re:About that... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Illegal immigrants do, in fact, pay federal taxes.

      For starters, you don't need an SSN - you just need an ITIN, which anyone can apply for, not even a citizen (its whole point is to allow non-citizens to pay taxes when they owe them, but aren't otherwise eligible for an SSN).

      Now it's true that many illegal immigrants get a fake Social Security card, so that they can look for jobs that require one. However, since federal taxes are withheld by the employer, they still end up paying those taxes. IRS has special tracking for that sort of thing - when a tax return comes in that has an SSN that's not in their database, they archive that return separately (but the money still goes into the same fund, and interest from it is used to fund citizens' welfare). Two years ago, they had 340 million such returns on file. Not all of these are necessarily illegal immigrants - sometimes people just misspell SSN etc - but the estimated amount of federal taxes paid by illegal immigrants yearly is over $10 billion. That's just federal - there's about as much on top of that in state and local taxes.

      And the vast majority of those illegal immigrants do pay taxes one way or another voluntarily, because past amnesties often included that as a requirement for eligibility - so the assumption is that any future immigration reform that would include an amnesty would also do the same (esp. if it's a bipartisan compromise).

      The best part, though, is that immigrants are not eligible for any benefits that those welfare taxes subsidize. And not just illegal - if you're an H1B, say, you still pay all that stuff, but you're eligible for none of it.

    69. Re:About that... by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I notice you ignore all the parts of the comment that destroy your argument and give that sentence context, just like you always do.

      Destroy my argument? No, I just realized that this is a thread on searching cell phones of illegal aliens in Europe and you've somehow gone down a path of debating the value of "separate but equal" in the USA. Also, you're just not keeping my interest any more, I'm not seeing you bring anything new to the argument. We're going in circles, gone far off topic, and I'm not going to debate a fool because at some point an observer may not know which party is the greater fool.

      Oh, and calling me a fascist faggot is not an argument. Yep, and myself calling you a fool is not an argument either.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    70. Re: About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A big contributor to the refugee crisis is the Iraq war and resulting ISIS. Another part is destabilized Lybia. Thus the real cause are the wars started for no reasons by the US which are taking zero responsibilities for their action.

    71. Re: About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iâ(TM)ll bet none of you ignoramuses have ever set foot in a real prison.

      I spent 17 years in Walla Walla.

      HINT [for retards]: 95% of the people there are not nice people.

      The other 5% would just as soon tear off your SJW head and shit down your throatâ"after fucking you in your pert little gay ass.

    72. Re: About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, we change the definition of murder by changing the definition of life.

      We donâ(TM)t murder unborn babies by the millions; we terminate pregnancies.

      Clever.

      Oh, but wait (horrors) thereâ(TM)s a child crying at the border. Must not have died in the desert while being hauled to the promised land by a border-crossing criminal.

    73. Re:About that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called civil disobedience, look it up. It's people going to prison on purpose to raise awareness of an unjust law.

    74. Re:About that... by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      I think it's crazy that some groups would rather spend their resources fighting a voter ID requirement than helping people who don't have an ID get one. In my opinion the only reason to do this is they know the ID requirement will reduce voter fraud.

      I think it is crazy to think that in-person voter fraud is a problem we need to solve. What percent of non-citizens would be willing to risk a felony in order to cast 1 vote in an election? According to election officials pretty much everywhere, the answer is next to zero.

      You think an illegal immigrant is going to risk going to jail by voting?

      So, make it harder for millions of citizens to vote by requiring IDs that often cost money, in order to stop a TINY amount of in-person voter fraud.

      I think it is crazy that people don't believe Republicans when the openly admit on camera that voter ID laws are going to help them win. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/07/republicans-should-really-stop-admitting-that-voter-id-helps-them-win/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c6effabb1459

      It has nothing to do with stopping voter fraud, and everything to do with making a few percent of likely dem voters, not be able to vote. In tight races, closing a few voting stations making the lines longer, ID laws, keeping the day a Tuesday instead of a day off for most people, etc. All of this is designed to help Republicans win.

      If you don't see that, you are willfully ignorant.

    75. Re:About that... by magzteel · · Score: 1

      I think it's crazy that some groups would rather spend their resources fighting a voter ID requirement than helping people who don't have an ID get one. In my opinion the only reason to do this is they know the ID requirement will reduce voter fraud.

      I think it is crazy to think that in-person voter fraud is a problem we need to solve. What percent of non-citizens would be willing to risk a felony in order to cast 1 vote in an election? According to election officials pretty much everywhere, the answer is next to zero.

      You think an illegal immigrant is going to risk going to jail by voting?

      So, make it harder for millions of citizens to vote by requiring IDs that often cost money, in order to stop a TINY amount of in-person voter fraud.

      I think it is crazy that people don't believe Republicans when the openly admit on camera that voter ID laws are going to help them win. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      It has nothing to do with stopping voter fraud, and everything to do with making a few percent of likely dem voters, not be able to vote. In tight races, closing a few voting stations making the lines longer, ID laws, keeping the day a Tuesday instead of a day off for most people, etc. All of this is designed to help Republicans win.

      If you don't see that, you are willfully ignorant.

      If you don't see that people need an official ID to function in society, you are willfully ignorant.

    76. Re: About that... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      "No representation without taxation?" Okay, I'm good with that. Get 'em signed up, let 'em pay taxes, and let 'em vote.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    77. Re:About that... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      There was a time that I would have agreed with you that "a lot" of people are in prison for non-violent drug charges. Assuming I agree with that premise I still see a problem. These people in prison had to know the drugs they possessed were illegal, and by possessing them they run the risk of imprisonment if caught. Perhaps they should have considered voting for people to legalize these drugs BEFORE they went about using or dealing them.

      Maybe they did? Maybe they took or grew a drug that was legal in their state and still were arrested? Maybe even because they had a loaded gun in the same room as their hash stash?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    78. Re:About that... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, every state requires US citizenship in order to vote.

      But can do nothing to verify that the person casting that ballot is a US citizen. Trying to require something as simple as ID is labelled as "racism" and results in lawsuits.

      Yes. If you only ask it from non-whites, you fucking racist numb-nut.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    79. Re:About that... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      I have no Earthly idea why Merkel and the rest of the EU is so hell-bent on getting more refugees.

      It's all part of the Kalergi plan. Look it up: the man was a european diplomat who dreamed about a unified europe, with its white, culturally strong population

      So far. so good...

      replaced by a race of coffee-colored mongrels (his word) who lacked a cultural history and would be easy to manipulate. In other words, it is all about power.

      Not replaced by, but ruling over the non-whites in combined colonies of Europe (back when that was still a thing). So yes, about power - but in the way you like it.

      Yes, he predicted that the human of the far future would be a "mongrel", but he did not particularly like that idea, let alone plan it to rule in that far future.

      Stupid Right Wing Conspiracy Theories for 20 cents a dozen, please Alex.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  18. Migrant apologists scream bloody murder in 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The way these idiots go on, it's apparent they care more about foreigners than their native citizens. The idea that mass immigration might be harmful doesn't even cross their minds. Even if it does, they pay it no heed.

  19. Because it's a hyper competitive job market by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and if you're not prepared to take a call for a job interview 24/7 it goes to the next guy. We live in the world we're born in, not the one we want. And for a variety of reasons we're limited in our ability to change it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Because it's a hyper competitive job market by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      Right. Most people have mobile phones in case they suddenly get a job interview.

  20. egad! by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    Using a "weapon" against invaders??

  21. Re:"Some" by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

    This is the same thing that needs to happen in the U.S. And it all starts with being able to control the border, which means a wall.

    I'm a big believer in allowing everybody who isn't a criminal or a terrorist to enter the U.S.. Quotas were an abomination imposed on us by Progressive to keep Eastern Europeans, Jews and anyone not white out of the U.S. It's time to get rid of them.

    At the same time reasonable requirements, such as those listed by that's-so-kash need to enacted as part of the package. We want immigrants who will add to our diversity while still assimilating to our culture, not people seeking to replace our culture with the same dumpster fire they are trying to get away from.

  22. Not the economic migrants that are the problem by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

    it's the ones escaping violence. The actual refugees. The economic migrants come to your country for a better life. They integrate well into society. The refugees are forced out by violence. They don't want to be in your country, they want to go home. So they don't integrate.

    I think it'd be less of an issue without religion and religious differences. Europe's been secularizing for decades and having a huge influx of folks with strong beliefs and a general desire to have everyone think and act like they do is bound to make people nervous. I don't have a short term solution, but long term it would help if I could get my country (America) to stop fucking with the middle east in order to maintain our Military Industrial Complex. Maybe Bernie Sanders will win the presidency and we'll start pulling back. Hopefully Trump doesn't get us in a war with Iran in the meantime.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Not the economic migrants that are the problem by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      The economic migrants come to your country for a better life. They integrate well into society.

      No they don't. Many of them just want free benefits.

    2. Re:Not the economic migrants that are the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, I almost decided to become religious again and joining our old church, just to have a counter religion. But sadly "the people's church" around here that once had 90% of the country as members, are bending over backwards to please these other religions coming into the county with different values than I feel comfortable living among.
      So they are digging their own grave by being so bloody weak that no-one who really wishes to have a religion can take it seriously.
      And it doesn't help that immigration have created a new below working class group of people who have nothing to offer society and so they define themself by religion and some "moral" values that doesn't fit well with our society. They talk a lot about honor, but I don't see the honor in living of other people money via the welfare system, for their entire life. But I guess that is all they have.

      Last night, I went to a gas station to fill up the car, and there were people gathered, yelling and shouting wearing odd clothes. I could not understand one word of what they were saying.
      Where my work is located, there are shootings every week. That were something that used to draw headlines in the paper, now it is everyday.
      It is quite a change, coming from a mono culture 30 years ago.

    3. Re:Not the economic migrants that are the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of them are needed to work jobs that lazy white people like yourself are unwilling to, but still want to reap the benefits of. Moronic Trumpies like you don't understand economics any more than you do diplomacy.

    4. Re:Not the economic migrants that are the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no problem with economic migrants that want to work .... as long as they do it the legal way (which for the most part it is totally possible and significantly less expensive than using a coyote).

      The issue is whey they cross the borders illegally, then demand rights that they don't legally have.

    5. Re:Not the economic migrants that are the problem by Tailhook · · Score: 2

      it's the ones escaping violence. The actual refugees. The economic migrants come to your country for a better life. They integrate well into society. The refugees are forced out by violence. They don't want to be in your country, they want to go home. So they don't integrate.

      The people of Southern Europe are no longer indulging this sort of hair splitting. They can't afford to any longer.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    6. Re:Not the economic migrants that are the problem by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Integration is failed assimilation, it's not something praiseworthy.

      Have you listened to Erdogan lately? The Turks came to Europe as economic migrants (we were told they would be temporary, but it didn't work out like that). Now Erdogan tells them, integrate but don't assimilate. The Turks here respond by waving Turkish flags and voting for him ... because of course they have dual citizenship. Cheering their dictator and booing any national politician who goes against him.

      Turks, a perfectly integrated third column of foreigners who will forever be foreigners and a detriment to our nation.

    7. Re:Not the economic migrants that are the problem by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2
      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    8. Re:Not the economic migrants that are the problem by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      The ones who've assimilated likely didn't bother to vote in that election, even if they retain dual citizenship.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    9. Re:Not the economic migrants that are the problem by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 1

      Free schooling for their kids. Free medical via emergency rooms. Use of community resources - parks, community centers, pools, etc. Ability to call emergency services such as the police - which is a big reason they flee their home (i.e. - violence by thugs, gangs, etc.). Just to name a few.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    10. Re:Not the economic migrants that are the problem by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Oops :)

    11. Re:Not the economic migrants that are the problem by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      None of those things are going to pay for anybody's rent or groceries.

      Ability to call emergency services such as the police - which is a big reason they flee their home (i.e. - violence by thugs, gangs, etc.).

      So, by your own admission, they're not actually "economic refugees" at all. Thanks for playing!

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    12. Re:Not the economic migrants that are the problem by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      Asylum seekers immediately receive:

      " -provide cash, housing, and/or living-expenses assistance
                -help you apply for government benefits and services (such as an Social Security card, refugee travel document, health care, and food stamps)
                -enroll you in English as a Second Language (ESL) classes
                -offer job-training classes, counseling, and job placement services, and
                -provide you with psychological counseling."
      https://www.nolo.com/legal-enc...

      $2500/mo in cash, food stamps and housing allowances. That's more than poor citizens get.

  23. Not for long they will. by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    This collides head on with the freshly implemented EU GDPR and will have Amnesty International legal Teams all over it in 5 minutes or so.

    Unless there's been a crime and police is allowed to investigate. Lying about your status or collection welfare at multiple points is fraud and a crime. Then they can search your ass.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:Not for long they will. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No GDPR issue IMO. Either the section of immigration is exempt from GDPR or the measures fall under "national security" so again exempt from GDPR rules.

  24. Wrong by ruddk · · Score: 1

    They are using it to deport migrants lying about being refugees.
    And I am sure that if you life is on the line, looking at your smart phone can't be a problem.

    1. Re:Wrong by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Except that many if not the majority of them are actually economic refugees, not actually coming from a warzone.

    2. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't call it "Economic refugees". "Economic refugees" are not refugees at all and should not (and are not) treated as such. This is very important to understand, you can't claim refugee status just because you are poor, and you have no right to abuse and take resources from the refugee system in another country. The refugee system is not there for people to move you up the economic ladder.

  25. Oh no, a crisis!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What will Europe do with the looming shortage of rape apes and groping jungle bunnies?

    I suggest we send them Bill Cosby, asap!

  26. Good show! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This seems really smart. Nice work EU!

    CAPTCHA: customs

  27. Re:"Some" by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 2

    The main issue I have with those requirements is the requirement to learn the "native language". The US doesn't have one. Some states have official languages, but even then, you've got more than one - New Mexico declared both English and Spanish official languages. Hawaiian is an official language in Hawaii, French in Louisiana, and Alaska has 21 official languages (most of which are actual native languages).

    I also think that the language issue takes care of itself after the first generation. You're not going to find many second generation immigrants from anywhere who still don't know the main language where they move. The inconvenience of not knowing it far outweighs the difficulty of learning it, so they learn it.

  28. Misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see this as a "weapon", it's more properly attributed "defence against". That's not a hair-thin line, it's a fucking abyss.

  29. How about they NOT BREAK THE LAW!!! by blindseer · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So we have illegal migrants complaining that they have their phones searched for evidence of breaking immigration laws. This is not how people take a case to court, even in the court of public opinion.

    Here's an example for you, admittedly about a different law. I recall a few years ago reading about people being shot in Chicago a week apart with similar circumstances. The person shot was a known criminal that had broken into a home, the homeowner that shot the criminal had done so with an unregistered firearm. In most places in the USA no one is required to register a firearm because that is considered a violation of the rights as protected by the US Constitution. These two homeowners were not charged with having an unregistered firearm, and in fact were not charged of any crime. Why is that? Because people are not likely to put anyone in prison over defending their own home even if that meant they broke several laws to do so. Every time a person goes to court so does the law.

    You want me to be sympathetic on the plight of people having their phones searched? How about finding a person I might have a reason to find sympathy? I don't much care if admitted criminals have their phones searched to find out how they broke the law. We know they came to Germany by overland from somewhere that is not a neighbor. Therefore they are obligated to declare asylum in the first nation in which they are safe. Failing to do so is a violation of the law in most every nation. I agree that searching cell phones to find out which nation that might be is poor form, at best. Searching personal phones for evidence to use against a person is a violation of rights as I understand personal rights. Perhaps I'm merely exposing my US-centered world view but don't like this idea much at all. Here's the thing though, we know they broke the law and all the searching the phone does is expose just how severely they broke the law and/or what to do with the person once the process of proving they broke the law is complete.

    Everyone deserves their day in court if accused of a crime. People should feel secure from unlawful search by a government agent, regardless of the nation. What I'm finding real hard to do is feel sympathy for criminals being searched when we know they broke the law.

    Someone wiser than I pointed out the best way to stop a bad law is strict enforcement. You want that law on searching phones overturned? Then find a police officer that searched the phone of an old lady that was accused of jaywalking. That's going to get people's sympathy. You want the law on requiring homeowners to register their firearms in Illinois overturned? Then charge a person that just killed a home intruder with having an unregistered firearm. The powers that be know this, and so they often deny the ability for someone to challenge a bad law in court by not enforcing the law against someone that a judge and/or jury might find sympathy.

    One more thing... These people are fleeing shithole nations so that they can find a better life elsewhere. I'm fine with that so long as they do so with the intent to "when in Rome do as the Romans do". If they come to Germany, Denmark, or the USA then they need to learn the language of the nation they came to, find a job, and obey the laws. Germany has gained an international reputation for taking refugees, and I believe that this is the compassionate thing to do and a model for all nations to follow. What has happened is that people believe that they can break the law and still get to be a refugee. That's not how this works, and that's not how it should work. Either fix up your shithole nation so you don't have to flee or leave by the legal means as dictated by international law and the laws of the nation you wish to obtain sanctuary.

    If you break the law to get into another nation then I'm not going to care much if the nation treats you like a criminal.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:How about they NOT BREAK THE LAW!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1, truth, or whatever indicates that this post should be mod +5.

    2. Re:How about they NOT BREAK THE LAW!!! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "If you break the law to get into another nation then I'm not going to care much if the nation treats you like a criminal."

      The West is the criminal. It's been raping the rest of the world for centuries. Now it wants to complain about the refugees it's created. Waaaaaaaaaah.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:How about they NOT BREAK THE LAW!!! by blindseer · · Score: 1

      The West is the criminal.

      How?

      It's been raping the rest of the world for centuries.

      How?

      Now it wants to complain about the refugees it's created.

      Created them? How?

      Waaaaaaaaaah.

      I'm sorry if my tone came off a bit harsh, I didn't meant to hurt your feelings. Go and find your "safe space", and come back after you are done crying.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re: How about they NOT BREAK THE LAW!!! by dunkelfalke · · Score: 0

      At first I wanted to answer all these questions. I mean, that is a 8 grade history knowledge. Then I saw your nick and remembered that you are not just ignorant, you ignore everything that doesn't fit into your mental picture of the world, no matter how often you are corrected. Does it actually hurt?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    5. Re:How about they NOT BREAK THE LAW!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The West is the criminal. It's been raping the rest of the world for centuries. Now it wants to complain about the refugees it's created. Waaaaaaaaaah.

      Personally I'd call that a half-truth, but even if we assume that what you say is completely true, why should the citizens of the the west, who are mostly against invading other countries, pay the price? Governments and multinationals screw everyone over and should bear the responsibility of their actions, don't force Joe Sixpack to. We should take a page out of Iceland's book when they dealt with the financial crisis.

      The saddest part is that with so many people migrating to the west in the last 20 years their grudges are coming along with them. Violence between Somali and Iraqi refugees is rampant in some Swedish neighborhoods now, which were some of the problems that the previous generation of refugees were trying to escape. An American example is that you have people that came over (both legally and illegally) to escape MS13 that are being chased across the boarder and murdered. Another problems is that gang violence in illegal immigrant communities is tremendously high because the perpetrators know that the victims will be afraid to go to the police.

      There's a reason that Trump was the most popular republican candidate in decades among blacks and Latinos, and that his approval rating in those groups is only going up.

    6. Re:How about they NOT BREAK THE LAW!!! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "Personally I'd call that a half-truth, but even if we assume that what you say is completely true, why should the citizens of the the west, who are mostly against invading other countries, pay the price?"

      Because they did it in our names and the names of our forebears, and that makes it our responsibility to stop it. Those governments and corporations are made up of people. Same reason every German had to help pay for the actions of the third Reich.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re: How about they NOT BREAK THE LAW!!! by Cederic · · Score: 2

      Where did you go to school, because they're clearly teaching a very distorted view of history.

      I mean, lets consider countries the British strongly influenced. Nope, not seeing refugees from Antigua, Australia, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei, Cameroon, Canada, China, Dominica, Egypt, Fiji, Ghana, Grenada, Grenadines, Guyana, India, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Cyprus, Samoa, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, St Christopher and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent, Swaziland, The Bahamas, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, USA, Vanuatu, Zambia or Zimbabwe.

      So Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Myanmar are the only ones with any recent trouble, one of those was a racial issue unrelated to the UK and one of them is a religious one also related to the UK.

      Meanwhile four of them are nuclear powers, most of them are stable and provide safety for their citizens and in general they've benefited greatly from the British influence into their legal systems and governance.

      Sure, the UK have also influenced places like Libya, Iraq and Syria. All three of them were killing their own citizens in vast numbers first, so don't go pretending the UK caused any of this.

      I'll let people from other western powers defend their own countries.

    8. Re:How about they NOT BREAK THE LAW!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they did it in our names and the names of our forebears, and that makes it our responsibility to stop it.

      No, it doesn't. The premise is that we are against what they did. That they say they did it "in our name" doesn't make it so, especially if those governments and corporations are as corrupt and evil as they're being described. One characteristic of corrupt/evil organizations is that their actions/decisions are not based on democratic will of the people under it.

      Same reason every German had to help pay for the actions of the third Reich.

      Not the same. The reason every German had to help pay for the third Reich is because the third Reich lost and we - the victors of war - decided that's how they would pay. Being victor meant we run the courts to decide these things.

      We don't have that here though. "The west" hasn't lost any war, or lost control of the courts. Our courts have yet to declare that we have to pay, and pay in a way that drags in those of us who are against it.

    9. Re: How about they NOT BREAK THE LAW!!! by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      So basically all the crimes you Brits have done in the past are no crimes, just white man's burden, because some of the countries you have oppressed don't send refugees centuries after the fact? Holy shit, I knew Brexiteers were stupid, but even among these you are quite outstanding.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    10. Re: How about they NOT BREAK THE LAW!!! by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Nice that you throw the term 'crimes' around, and also entirely fucking disregard the activities in the countries before and after the British got involved.

      I mean, it's not as though India was fully of warring warlords, Arabia was full of Turks pushing the natives into a nomadic desert lifestyle, China had centuries of warfare or Africa was full of genocidal tribes.

      Oh, wait.

      But no, lets blame Western countries, because every other part of the world is entirely crime free and exploited. White man's burden is a silly term used by racist fuckwits that seek to deny agency and responsibility to everybody else. Stop it, grow the fuck up and learn about a history that is rich, complex and includes a whole plethora of interesting and reprehensible activities by all peoples.

    11. Re: How about they NOT BREAK THE LAW!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, where did YOU go to school. The majority of the countries you mentioned are actually in the third world and export thousands of "refugees" every year (Malawi, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Tanzania, and many others on your list), the very few "developed" ones are those who basically dumped you (the USA, Australia), finally there are some tiny pirate states that live by laundering money (Malta, St. Vincent). Jesus, if this is the legacy of the "British Empire" I would be ashamed of being British.

    12. Re: How about they NOT BREAK THE LAW!!! by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Do they fuck. They may export migrants but they don't export refugees.

      Fucking Ireland export more migrants than that, if you want to go all first world about it.

    13. Re: How about they NOT BREAK THE LAW!!! by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Nice that you throw the term 'crimes' around, and also entirely fucking disregard the activities in the countries before and after the British got involved.

      Yes, I disregard these activities for the simple reason that they do not excuse British crimes like starving the Irish, poisoning the Chinese, murdering the Zulus, plundering the Indians and so on. Two wrongs never make a right and all of these nations weren't even physically able to do wrong on the same scale the British did, not even close.

      White man's burden is a silly term used by racist fuckwits that seek to deny agency and responsibility to everybody else.

      No shit, Sherlock. But this is exactly who you personally are and what you do just now. You deny the responsibility of your people with the silly reasoning that these countries had some internal problems before and therefore the Brits just brought civilisation to them, and the whole murders and the plundering are just side effects and not important.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    14. Re: How about they NOT BREAK THE LAW!!! by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Again you show your vicious racism. "Oh, those poor undeveloped peoples, they could never have matched the British"

      As for the things you've listed, poisoning the Chinese is something of a stretch, the Zulus had it coming (lets face it, they'd already killed most of the other people in that area) and the Indians got very rich so I'm struggling to see how the word 'plunder' comes into play.

      I've also noticed that three of the four countries you listed became nuclear powers. I guess Britain really fucking devastated them.

      w. You deny the responsibility of your people with the silly reasoning that these countries had some internal problems before and therefore the Brits just brought civilisation to them, and the whole murders and the plundering are just side effects and not important.

      Shit, you forgot to mention the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.

      But lets look at it in the context of non-military violence in India before, during and after British rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Hmm. The only reason deaths aren't substantially and significantly lower during British rule are because the locals couldn't agree how to run their own fucking country and started killing each other.

      I don't have to excuse British actions, I'm merely pointing out that you have a biased, lopsided and racist view of events. Trust me, I'm carrying no fucking burden and I refuse to let you try and load me with one.

    15. Re: How about they NOT BREAK THE LAW!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, you're basically analphabetic, and have no idea where self-proclaimed "refugees" actually come from. Nigeria, Malawi, Bangladesh... I was even too generous saying third world, it's actually FOURTH. Basically most of the scum that arrives in europe through the Mediterranean comes from former British territories. What a wonderful legacy for history books.

  30. Re:It's got nothing to do with the police state by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 0

    This one. Want to stop the immigration wave? So stop destroying and harming the countries where these immigrants are coming from. Pretty simple right?

    Immigrants do not risk their lives trying to enter countries like the US because they "wanted to", the vast majority of them are fleeing from misery or war in their countries of origin, misery and war almost always caused to fatten the bank accounts of a half dozen operators of Wall Street.

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  31. EU "Privacy" by binkless · · Score: 1

    Just another reminder that the EU's supposedly robust privacy protections target (successful American) corporations while allowing government snooping to proceed apace.

    1. Re:EU "Privacy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just another reminder that the EU's supposedly robust privacy protections target (successful American) corporations while allowing government snooping to proceed apace.

      We in the EU, learned from the best... the US (NSA et.al)

  32. Simple solution by aliquis · · Score: 1

    They already throw away they passports.

    Now they will just get rid of the phone.

    Yay.. Big problem. Not.

    1. Re:Simple solution by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yes, big problem. Because that's basically all they have to get information, stay in contact with traffickers and each other and use the internet. A passport is way less useful than a phone.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Simple solution by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      > Now they will just get rid of the phone.

      No you don't get it. Many are millennials.

    3. Re:Simple solution by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The phone has to get the illegal migrants past a lot of nations to the nation they want to register in.
      Real time maps past police, past security services. Someone is selling many nations police information to illegal migrants.
      That information them provides a way illegal migrants can move from safe nation to nation and not have to register.
      That cell phone is the digital link back to corrupt gov officials and corrupt police.
      Someone is ensuring police are not getting to every illegal migrant as they wonder in and move from nation to nation.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Simple solution by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Yeah I'm in and from Sweden.

      All the men are <18 here.
      Because they have no reason for asylum otherwise.

  33. A soldier in the UK working immigration said... by VAXcat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He related that manyl of the refugees he'd come across seemed to have managed to lose all of their identity papers and documents, but all of them seemed to have been able to hold on to their smartphones and selfie sticks.

    --
    There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    1. Re:A soldier in the UK working immigration said... by houghi · · Score: 1

      When I look at the current generation (that keeps walking on my lawn) I am not surprised if that is true.

      That said, many times refugees have to hand over any papers, so the traffickers can get more money out of it. And that is if they have papers at all to begin with. If you are a political refugee, you can not just walk up to the city hall or police station asking for papers.

      So yes, obviously people who cheat will simulate being in the same situation as that results in a better chance not to get caught.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  34. Re: It's got nothing to do with the police state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Bollocks. A lot of the places in the world have always been completely broken.

  35. Illegal migrants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are illegal migrants, not refugees.

  36. The concept of a country is morally bankrupt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just an excuse for the haves in this world to deny the have-nots a fair shake at a better life. Also, some are trying to escape the horrendous condition that exist in their own countries. Why can't we just show a little compassion to these less fortunate folks? Is that so much to ask? Especially when we have so much and they have so little.

  37. They do by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    All sorts of technology is used to select the fake refugees from the real ones.

    So if you claim you come from Neverwereistan, your phone data should not indicate that you really come from Somewherelsistan.

    Also, they really compare the photo on the passport with your face, so be sure they match as well.

  38. Re:It's got nothing to do with the police state by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Last time Sweden destroyed a country was IIRC somewhere in the 1800s. And as far as I remember it was not Syria.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  39. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  40. Bring the numbers down? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 2

    The population of the EU is around 511 million. So far this year, 42,000 undocumented migrants have entered Europe. Compared to the population of the EU, that's a rounding error. The EU can easily accommodate the numbers of refugees coming in. The EU is not overwhelmed or being flooded by migrants and anyone publishing headlines or broadcasting news to that effect shouldn't be considered journalists (journalists are supposed to report facts, their implications, and keep things in perspective). Additionally, every EU country has ratified the UNHCR Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. In other words, EU member countries have a legal obligation to accommodate refugees.

    --
    Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    1. Re:Bring the numbers down? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Yeah it seems to have plummeted exactly because of enforcement.
      https://www.express.co.uk/news...
      Look at 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    2. Re:Bring the numbers down? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Wait? Are they undocumented migrants or refugees? Pick a point and stick with it. In general they are all good points, but when you conflate multiple of them you post ceases making sense.

    3. Re:Bring the numbers down? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      I actually met a refugee in the Canadian consulate in London. He was trying to get himself and his family into Canada. His problem was that the consulate were asking for paperwork from the Syrian government that he simply couldn't get hold of. Even a phone call, to a Syrian govt. agency, was unlikely to get through because of the conflict there. Emails and letters got no response either. What are we supposed to do in that situation? Clearly, if a govt. wants to deny refugees entry, they can invent bureaucratic and "security" barriers to prevent them or just do what the USA is currently doing with the refugees fleeing from govt. death squads in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala (all Washington-back regimes) and simply lump them all in with undocumented migrants. The problem with this is that it won't deter refugees from coming. They're fleeing for their lives and anything, even concentration camps, is better than being disappeared, tortured, and killed.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    4. Re:Bring the numbers down? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      Most of the undocumented migrants are refugees fleeing from the messes that the USA and EU have made and are continuing to make.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    5. Re:Bring the numbers down? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If they were refugees they wouldn't have a problem with being documented.

    6. Re:Bring the numbers down? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      Most people don't have the luxury of time, resources, and a functioning govt bureaucracy in order to apply for the paperwork that might be requested of them by a foreign government while their home town/city is being torn apart by military conflict. They may also have had their documents stolen from them by human traffickers and other criminals.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    7. Re:Bring the numbers down? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you talking about. The documentation requirement is not in your home town, that's just one way of doing it, and it is most definitely NOT the way European migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, etc. have been doing it.

      They may also have had their documents stolen from them by human traffickers and other criminals.

      That doesn't stop them being documented. It just makes it difficult to determine their ages and prove their names. Around the world there a 10s of thousdands of refugees that are documented with unclear details. Heck for a while some bad apples were "losing" documents on purpose so when they go through the motions they can claim they are under 18 and get preferential treatment.

    8. Re:Bring the numbers down? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      You make about as much sense as a bag of angry bigots.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    9. Re:Bring the numbers down? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You make about as much sense as a bag of angry bigots.

      I'm neither angry, not bigoted, and if you think I'm against refugees, migrants, or asylum seekers then you need some English classes.
      But I can see you have nothing more material to say to defend your point of view so I accept your concession.

    10. Re:Bring the numbers down? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      You're the one who has to explain this:

      They may also have had their documents stolen from them by human traffickers and other criminals.

      Your reply:

      That doesn't stop them being documented.

      I stand by my bag of angry bigots response.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
  41. Let us solve this once and for all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are many refugees with made-up dramas, and it is nearly impossible to divide those who really are in danger from those who just want a job and could not get one in their home country because of the uncontrolled population growth. I know one case where a refugee was accepted but always talks about travelling to her home country to visit her family. Refugees in Germany do not get a passport, but a travel document which allows them to travel anywhere but not to their home country - because they are refugees after all.
    To help real refugees I suggest to introduce an EU asylum where the refugees are spread to all member states and cannot choose where to go. If they are in danger of life, they will accept any safe location. If it is only for economic reasons, they will get discouraged. Language skills can be respected, as long as the limit is not reached for a member state - to ease integration. I really want to help people in need, but the first world countries cannot feed all the people coming from huge and poor families, the population growth is exponential. It is better to help with education in family planning and sterilization methods for those unable to control themselves. We cannot continue like this and destroy the last woods, the rainforests, and fill the earth with trash.
    Of course, throwing bombs produces hatred, terrorism and refugees. The countries waging war in the world shall be held responsible and pay for the refugees. I am ashamed about the German aggressions in Syria, we have no right to be there because we are not invited by the president. Not everyone is a follower of Merkel here.

    1. Re:Let us solve this once and for all by darth.hunterix · · Score: 1

      Freedom of movement of people, goods and services is literally the greatest thing about EU. Why do you want deny it to some people?

      And to what ends will you go to keep them in their assigned country? Would violence be acceptable? Lethal force?

      What about the children born in EU? Do they get to travel around, or are they forever condemned to whatever camp you assigned them to?

      --
      What is best in life? Hot water, good dentishtry and shoft lavatory paper.
  42. Everywhere was completely broken at some time by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Lots of places came out of it. Unless you believe the ones that didn't are somehow less human or inferior humans then you're forced to admit that there's another reason why these places are still hell holes while places like Israel are not (calling them out because they're one of the best examples of a middle east nation doing well, and because we heavily support them instead of screwing with them).

    Iran was modernizing until we replaced their democratically elected government with one we approved of in a CIA coo. This is a historic fact. There are pictures from the 50s of girls in short skirts dancing for Christ's sake. For all Saddam's brutality he too was trying to modernize and secularize his country. And he was no worse off than anyone that we put in charge.

    Face it, America needs to stop sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong and build a transportation system that doesn't rely on cheap oil.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: Everywhere was completely broken at some time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...until we replaced their democratically elected government with one we approved of in a CIA coo.

      And a coo-coo-cachoo to you, too. (I know, you meant "coup.")

      There are pictures from the 50s of girls in short skirts dancing for Christ's sake.

      Hubba hubba! Sounds hot! And since they're dancing for Christ, I guess that means they're in some sort of religious cult?

  43. Garbage In, Garbage Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, the possibilities of a decent, principled political position are entirely undermined by presentation here. Just as a sampling:

    "Trash their own country by virtue signalling." Yeah, terrible ain't it? Jesus was big on virtue signaling too, what a jerk!

    "My best guess is that being called "nazi" is still a big thing in Europe..." Let's leave aside the quibble that it's Nazi, not "nazi". What is more alarming is that you feel that outside Europe, being called Nazi is no biggie. Why is that, hmmm?

    "Non-citizens can apparently vote..." Really? Where? Name one.

    "...Merkel and the rest of the EU is so hell-bent on getting more refugees..." followed immediately by "clearly something the member states don't want". These thoughts don't go together. You could have reconciled those statement but you chose not to. Try harder.

    "Trump's approval rating actually went *up* during the recent protests." Yes, because that's the only way to evaluate a leader. All things that cause the base to cheer are good, and vice versa! The Romans knew this as they were throwing Christians to the lions. That's why the Roman Empire persists to this day.

  44. Re:"Some" by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    English, is the native language of America.

    Nobody can say otherwise with a straight face.

    Someone already did, and provided evidence, so you promptly stuck your fingers in your ears and replied with "LALALALALALA-I can't hear you!"

    Thanks for playing, though.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  45. Illegal migrants by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    By the time they are in your nation its too late.
    Lawyers and political activists will be supporting their fake claims that they are all refugees.

    Police forces need to follow the funding and the support that allow illegal migrants to pass entire nations security services.
    Who is allowing illegal migrants to pass any number of safe nations to get to your nation?
    Are hostile nations using a constant flow of supported illegal migrants as a way to weaken your nation?
    Who is ensuring illegal migrants do not register in the many other safe nations but keep moving to finally register in your nation?
    Someone is providing a way around police registration in the first safe nation they are guidedl past.
    Who is not enforcing the immigration laws and protecting your nations borders?
    A person who wonders in should be registered on arrival and then have their refugee claim considered in the first safe nation they walk into.
    Put some CCTV in all your airports, train stations, ports and along roads. Scan every new face wondering up a road from a border.
    Match that face to a passport presented and see if the person has valid papers?
    A tourist? Doing study? Business trip? Got the correct paperwork? A registered refugee?
    Who is supporting people with no passports and no legal papers to wonder around so many nations?
    The new funds to move from nation to nation? Who is giving away the real time maps past police and security services?

    A solution is to create a new security service to ensure all other mil/gov/security service staff are not supporting illegal migrants.
    A random walk in with a request to create fake documents, to buy refugee paperwork, to not register a person, to guide a person past the nations registration?
    See how the police, bureaucracy, official reacts to such offers and who is keeping your nation safe.
    Open to bribes and cash payments to allow illegal migrants to keep moving? Bring in police who are not corrupt and enforce your nations laws.
    Use the smartphone track the hops of the local support networks. Illegal migrants flow past the shift work of some police and some security officials every day?
    Use CCTV to work out who the gov is letting all the illegal migrants walk in and not register.
    Find out why police and security services are not doing their jobs. Who is working hard to find and deport illegal migrants? Who in the police is getting more cash, is spending, is corrupt. Who in the police, gov is spending well above their wage when working with illegal migrants? Smartphone data is great for finding corrupt police/gov too.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  46. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  47. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  48. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  49. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  50. Sadly this world is full of bigoted violent people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Europe is really terrible. Europeans support governments that steal money from the public at large and use further violence to keep people some they don't like from traveling freely. It's wrong to stop a group of people because of the actions of a few. And there isn't even a logical argument for keeping these people out- which demonstrates the bigotry in the polices. The people coming in aren't rapists and murders as is frequently suggested by the bigoted individual who fear these people any more so than your general local population. The violent individuals are those who are supporting policies that assist goons with weapons to steal from those who prefer not partake in there preferred form of socialism. Socialism isn't the problem. It's the violence that backs it in most places that is objectionable. And that violence is government. Get rid of the power and socialism is a worthwhile mission. It's just called charity and you don't have to be a religious nutter to support charity. I'm an atheist and I support charity not violent goons with guns voted into or appointed to steal money and redistribute funds at the whims of politicians.

  51. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  52. Re:Left-Wing Extremism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hitler was a leftist too.

    You must be a recent university graduate, advanced degree no less, from the USA to think that....

  53. Re:"Some" by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Personally I think "speak English" should be a requirement for immigrants. Maybe not on your first try, but after you've been here a while.......

    I don't think they should give up their old culture, but if they are coming to America, learning the language is a minimal token to show you actually like your new country.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  54. Re:Left-Wing Extremism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nazi, national socialism, is not socialism. The use of the term was a sly part of Hitler's plan to unite the unions with industry under the auspice of the state. Some say it was radical centrism. I don't know how you can clearly equate left and right with nationalism, except for the right maybe being more inclined to favour nationalism.

  55. Re:"Some" by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    I have lived in 3 US states that beg to differ, sugar.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  56. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  57. Re: It's got nothing to do with the police state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...because the post WII gains have shifted back to the ruling class.

    You cannot imagine how much time and effort I invested to achieve my high score on Wii golf. Now you're informing me it benefited rich people whom I despise. That's just horrid!

  58. Re:It's got nothing to do with the police state by darth.hunterix · · Score: 1

    To use heavy term "destroyed" I would go back to The Deluge of Poland, 1655-1660, when they sacked nearly entire country and left former local superpower crushed and broken. After that they indeed tried hard for the next 50 years or so, but with less impressive effects. They ceased to be a military power somewhere in 1710s, when they lost badly to Russians.

    --
    What is best in life? Hot water, good dentishtry and shoft lavatory paper.
  59. Re: It's got nothing to do with the police state by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    Because one place has always been broken so all the others must be the same thing, even with the obvious signs of external interference? Your argument is pathetically flawed.

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  60. Re:"Some" by Cederic · · Score: 1

    nor can you have sharia courts in a first world nation. or genital mutilation

    Genital mutilation is not illegal in most countries - including first world countries like the US and the UK. Shit, genital mutilation is extremely common in the US.

    As for Sharia courts, if people want to live their lives by that insanity in my country then they're welcome to do so. They just also have to obey my country's laws and are subject to its legal system; where that clashes with their Sharia rulings is where Sharia stops being law.

  61. Re:It's got nothing to do with the police state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be 1809, when Finland was ceded to Russia. But yeah, Sweden has not been involved in any wars for a long time.

  62. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  63. excellent news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep up the good work

  64. Re:It's got nothing to do with the police state by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    Oh. Some monkey thinks the truth is "flamebait"?

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  65. Dunno. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm indigenous, and our people would love nothing more that to ship all you Caucasians, Negroids, Arabs and Orientals back to your miserable homelands.