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.
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.
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.........
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
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.
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.
sanctuary cities that don't obey the laws and cooperate.
Sanctuary cities do obey the law, and have no legal obligation to cooperate.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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!"
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.
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.
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.'"
"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.'"
"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.