Slashdot Mirror


Prank Calls Brought ICE Hotline To a Standstill, Internal Emails Show (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: When ICE launched an immigration crime hotline last year, the Trump administration pitched it as a way to provide resources to victims, but activists saw something else: an attack on the immigrant community. The hotline was part of the Victims Of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) Office, an outfit established in February 2017. When the office first launched a line for its services the following April, protestors flooded the hotline to call in pranks and slow down response times. The plan picked up even more steam as the protestors shared the hotline number online, encouraging others to call in with fake tips.

According to internal emails and documents obtained by The Verge under the Freedom of Information Act, prank calls fully upended the system, leaving operators unable to answer more than 98 percent of incoming calls during the protest as the media relations team attempted to contain the narrative. In reports and emails produced in the first days of operation, ICE officials described an "overwhelming" amount of calls. The day after the launch, the office received more than 16,400. Of those, only a little more than 2,100 were placed into a queue, and only 260 answered. Callers in the queue waited as long as 79 minutes to reach an operator. An official noted that, should the rate of calls continue, they would need an additional 400 operators to field the hotline.

214 of 457 comments (clear)

  1. Enter AI? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Now this sounds like a fun AI voice challenge: something to weed out the protesting trolls and drop them into queues where they think they're tying up the lines, while allowing people who really have a complaint through, using a mix of incoming phone number, question/response with caller and perhaps other input. Same thing with tips.

    1. Re:Enter AI? by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is actually a super-easy fix. Change the call-in to a "leave your number" system. Prioritize calls where the call-in number matches the caller ID. If crank callers want to leave their real phone number, more power to them.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Enter AI? by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

      Not as easy as it may sounds.
      Just leave your neighbor's number. Your move.

      --
      I tend to rant.
    3. Re:Enter AI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is actually a super-easy fix. Change the call-in to a "leave your number" system. Prioritize calls where the call-in number matches the caller ID. If crank callers want to leave their real phone number, more power to them.

      Better yet, fine people making prank calls, use money to build the wall.

    4. Re:Enter AI? by willaien · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Better use of AI: Create an AI that can convincingly sound like an old man angry at his "latino" neighbors. Change the pitch and tone per call to mask that it's an AI, and have thousands of them call and flood the phone systems.

    5. Re:Enter AI? by hdyoung · · Score: 2

      No need to hide your real number. In this situation, distinguishing between a prank call and a real one may be impossible, at least for the first few calls from a number. "Hi ICE, my name is so-and-so. There's a guy working at the local starbucks with skin that's some shade other than pasty white. He has a funny accent. I'm scared he's gonna murder me while I buy my mocha frappe whatever. Please deport him and keep me safe".

      Sincere or not?

    6. Re: Enter AI? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Errr, wha?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    7. Re:Enter AI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There was a time when people at Slashdot would want to use technology to stop thugs, rather than to enable them. The rise of fascism in America is horrifying.

    8. Re: Enter AI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh, stopping them from ever doing this again is the goal, because the hotline is a fascist tool that hurts people. I'm a citizen and I don't approve of these gestapo 1984 tactics.

    9. Re:Enter AI? by mysidia · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Not as easy as it may sounds.
      Just leave your neighbor's number. Your move.

      Prompt them to type in not just their phone number, but also their Driver's License number. Verify the DL number against the DL database before connecting the call.

      Any "protestor" that goes past those two checkpoints and makes an obvious prank call --- criminally prosecute them under the full extent of the law, and make a public example of them (It's a felony to make false statements to a government official).

    10. Re:Enter AI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is no national DL database, every state does it differently. ICE is a Federal agency. I can't imagine the clusterf that would be trying to coordinate ICE's switchboard with 50 different DMV systems that can change randomly. Also every state has different laws with regards to privacy and DL's.

    11. Re:Enter AI? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Make a complaint that is plausible but not actionable. "Some guy with dark skin was laughing loudly outside Home Depot, I think he might be Mexican".

    12. Re:Enter AI? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1, Troll

      Not as easy as it may sounds. Just leave your neighbor's number. Your move.

      Prompt them to type in not just their phone number, but also their Driver's License number. Verify the DL number against the DL database before connecting the call.

      Any "protestor" that goes past those two checkpoints and makes an obvious prank call --- criminally prosecute them under the full extent of the law, and make a public example of them (It's a felony to make false statements to a government official).

      Seems a lot to just shout DEY TUK URRR JERBS which is probably what a lot of the 'legit' calls are about. While you're at it though might as well get them to leave their social security number and bank account details too.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    13. Re:Enter AI? by crashumbc · · Score: 1

      LOL, a 5 year old can spoof caller ID...

    14. Re:Enter AI? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Because the number of people who can spoof a caller ID is vanishingly small compared to the number of people the system can handle.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    15. Re:Enter AI? by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Doesn't matter. The number of people who are willing to use their real phone number to file a fake report with law enforcement is going to be a lot less than the number who think they are being anonymous. And if not, it makes them even easier to track down for their summons. Stupid is as stupid does.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    16. Re:Enter AI? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      That's a fine longer-term fix. I was thinking how to mitigate the problem in the short term.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    17. Re:Enter AI? by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe they can, but they don't and they won't. Getting people to follow a social media meme by dialing a phone number is easy. Getting people to follow a social media meme involving the machinations of caller ID spoofing is not as easy. So your problem set is smaller, and your problem is easier to manage. Don't let perfection get in the way of progress.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    18. Re:Enter AI? by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is no national DL database

      That's not really true anymore. There is RealID, which is pretty much fully implemented at this point. There are a few states with waivers because they haven't given all of their citizens the new IDs yet, but database connections are one of the criteria for compliance.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    19. Re:Enter AI? by JackieBrown · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Try it. I would bet good money that no ICE agent will ever show up if that's all you had to report.

      As racist as you think your opponents are, they really are not.

    20. Re:Enter AI? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I'm not communicating this well.

      Right now the procedure to tie up an operator (or simply tie up the queue) is:
      1. Call the number
      2. Wait in the queue

      To achieve the same effect with a callback system as I propose:
      1. Download caller-id spoofing app
      2. Call the number
      3. Leave fake number that matches you spoofed number

      The number of people who will do the second scenario is much smaller than the number of people who will do the first scenario. Further, the people getting spoofed callbacks from ICE in the second scenario will likely be confused and won't take up much of the operator's time. I'm not suggesting that they eliminate the problem - merely that they mitigated it somewhat.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    21. Re:Enter AI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only rise of fascism in America is the rise in labeling everything you don't like as fascism.

      Like a child repeating a word over and over again, until it becomes meaningless babble, the word "fascism" no longer means anything.

    22. Re:Enter AI? by Wulf2k · · Score: 1

      But if it's a callback system then all you need is one guy willing to write a script that does it a million times.

    23. Re:Enter AI? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      These aren't emails, it is a phone system. There is a non-zero cost associated with phone calls, and huge blasts meant to effectively DoS the hotline would be a felony.

      But if script kiddies did this on a smaller scale, it wouldn't really make a difference. The chances of their script picking numbers where a person on the other end will actually answer a mystery number is pretty low. The autodialer would never connect in a large number of cases, and it wouldn't waste as much (human) time.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    24. Re:Enter AI? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I forgot one more mitigation strategy. If people started scripting fake CIDs, you could just insert the phone-equivalent of a captcha. No one said the adversary won't eventually adapt.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    25. Re: Enter AI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nobody is illegal you dumb f*ck. You just failed your Antifa creed. Your boss will send the thought police to get you now. Run, Logan, run.

    26. Re:Enter AI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Seems a lot to just shout DEY TUK URRR JERBS which is probably what a lot of the 'legit' calls are about. While you're at it though might as well get them to leave their social security number and bank account details too.

      You wouldn't be so smug and dismissive if you lost a child or loved one to an illegal alien, which is what this number was setup to support. You care more about illegal aliens, who have no right to be here, than murdered American children. Apparently, they'd have to be illegal to get you to care.

      By the way, while it's evident you prefer broken English by your support of illegal aliens, the whole "took our jerbs" thing has been repeated by brain-dead liberals a million times now. If you didn't have your head burried in the liberal media's ass, you'd realize this goes way beyond jobs at this point.

      Enjoy the "blue swirl" as your party and your ill-conceived ideas go down the shitter where they belong!

    27. Re: Enter AI? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      You shouldn't be so diligent in your efforts to announce to the world that you are a moron. Trust me ... People already realize this.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    28. Re:Enter AI? by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The whole protest was just to clog the phone lines, not get ICE dispatched. Do try to keep up.

    29. Re:Enter AI? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      However, consider that ICE outsources some of its functions to private contractors, and those contractors are incentivized based upon how they are paid. So let's say this phone service is outsourced to a contractor which is paid based upon the number of calls that they follow up on...

    30. Re:Enter AI? by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Then the protesters helped make a corporation a lot of money. Great job fighting the man!

    31. Re: Enter AI? by schure · · Score: 1

      Good solution. Congrats, good Samaritan, for helping Trump's cause for no gain apart from a small ego boost. Next post on /. will probably read, "Wall too expensive to build, requires engineering breakthrough, internal emails show"...

    32. Re: Enter AI? by rfengr · · Score: 1, Troll

      Ah, but think of the children, if we could save just one life, ONE LIFE of a child killed by an illegal immigrant, we should deport them all. Liberal logic works both ways, jackass.

    33. Re: Enter AI? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Haha, I actually thought about that as I posted it. Fortunately the call center is run by government and they aren't nearly agile enough to make such a change.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    34. Re:Enter AI? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Look, I'm not a lawyer. Maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong. To try it out, call 911 repeatedly and drone on about your constitutional rights and then get back to us if they let you use the internet in prison.

      I certainly wouldn't want to go up against the government in court in what amounts to a DoS attack.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    35. Re: Enter AI? by Type44Q · · Score: 2
      In that case, your pathologically-inflexible mind will really struggle with the fact that classic 'anti-fascist types' are also very much against this "open borders insanity."

      The only ones not against it are Globalists who intend to monetize the dismantling of America's middle class, and naive limousine liberals who'd be diligently working overseas to improve conditions in third-world hell-holes (without also trying to reduce them here) if they actually gave a fuck about helping anybody.

    36. Re: Enter AI? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      1984 bullshit

      How apropos that those who thought the original Red Dawn (a Commie invasion of the U.S. from Latin America) sounded like a how-to guide are also the same mouthbreathers advocating that everyone - except the government - be denied the right to defend themselves.

    37. Re:Enter AI? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1, Troll

      Seems a lot to just shout DEY TUK URRR JERBS which is probably what a lot of the 'legit' calls are about. While you're at it though might as well get them to leave their social security number and bank account details too.

      You wouldn't be so smug and dismissive if you lost a child or loved one to an illegal alien, which is what this number was setup to support. You care more about illegal aliens, who have no right to be here, than murdered American children. Apparently, they'd have to be illegal to get you to care.

      By the way, while it's evident you prefer broken English by your support of illegal aliens, the whole "took our jerbs" thing has been repeated by brain-dead liberals a million times now. If you didn't have your head burried in the liberal media's ass, you'd realize this goes way beyond jobs at this point.

      Enjoy the "blue swirl" as your party and your ill-conceived ideas go down the shitter where they belong!

      If your child is murdered, I would suggest you phone the police, not an immigration hotline. Thanks for trying though.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    38. Re: Enter AI? by stealth_finger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Suddenly not wanting to be raped or killed is fascist now.

      No but blaming all society's ills on a bogeyman class is. In this case, immigrants.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    39. Re: Enter AI? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Why, when ICE is a federal organization with more authority and resources than your local police force?

      Don't you libtards also spew out "Police BAD!" all of the time anyhow?

      So any federal department is now to investigate murders and prosecute the crimes now?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  2. So that's a win, right? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So that's a win, right?

    TFS says Trump's making 400 new jobs with this program...

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  3. I don't get it... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?

    If you are here in this country illegally, you have criminally trespassed. You should be deported.

    That is the current law.

    If folks don't like that, then start to put pressure on your congress-critters and have them change the laws.

    I agree we need to update and fix the immigration laws. It should be fair, and a more simple and less $$ process, BUT, it also should allow for control of who all gets to come in. I think we could look to encourage more immigration from those that are educated and can come to the US and help the workforce and economy right away.

    There will be some lower educated types too, as that all levels are needed, but the ratio needs to be controlled.

    But I just don't get these seemingly increasing number of folks in the US promoting full blown open borders, with no control of who gets in here.

    While it is noble to take our great wealth and resources to help others around the world, we can NOT support the whole world and cannot house or bring everyone and their goat into our country.

    If countries, such as in South America are having such problems,.....we can't bring everyone here, those people need to fix things at HOME and stay there.....

    ICE is the part of the federal government that helps control immigration and deports those that come here illegally. Why do we not support them?

    Hell, one of the few constitutionally enumerated responsibilities and powers of the federal government IS to protect our borders.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      fuck the law.
      fuck those who enforce it.
      fuck this country too.

      I hope there's a new rebellious spirit born in the US and it will look like 1968 all over again.

    2. Re:I don't get it... by JackieBrown · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think with the caravan/army/mob (take your pick) coming, people are going to have to see this as the issue it actually is.

    3. Re:I don't get it... by wbr1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?

      If you are here in this country illegally, you have criminally trespassed. You should be deported.

      That is the current law.

      If folks don't like that, then start to put pressure on your congress-critters and have them change the laws.

      I agree we need to update and fix the immigration laws. It should be fair, and a more simple and less $$ process, BUT, it also should allow for control of who all gets to come in. I think we could look to encourage more immigration from those that are educated and can come to the US and help the workforce and economy right away.

      There will be some lower educated types too, as that all levels are needed, but the ratio needs to be controlled.

      But I just don't get these seemingly increasing number of folks in the US promoting full blown open borders, with no control of who gets in here.

      While it is noble to take our great wealth and resources to help others around the world, we can NOT support the whole world and cannot house or bring everyone and their goat into our country.

      If countries, such as in South America are having such problems,.....we can't bring everyone here, those people need to fix things at HOME and stay there.....

      ICE is the part of the federal government that helps control immigration and deports those that come here illegally. Why do we not support them?

      Hell, one of the few constitutionally enumerated responsibilities and powers of the federal government IS to protect our borders.

      I am liberal. I do not support 'wide open borders'. I do not know anyone that does.

      You do know that most of the problems in central america are US caused. In Hondouras we helped with the coup that created the current shitty government, high murder rate and poor conditions. We push the war on drugs that only enriches cartels in these countries.

      As to illegal immigrants. it is capitalists here that provide the opportunity. They are economically unwilling or unable to hire Americans and pay them a higher wage and taxes and instead hire illegals. Who should be punished in this scenario? The person looking for abetter life, or the businessman, farmer, construction company that exploits their labor to the detriment of citizens?

      Also, this caravan - if it comes to a border point - this is legal asylum seeking. The office of refugee resettlement spends about half a billion per year resettling asylum seekers. Trumps camps cost 2 billion in just a few months. Sometimes it is cheaper just being a decent person.

      This country has PLENTY. The only reason it does not feel like that to most is the artificial scarcity imposed by the oligarchy. This is the capitalism so many her slavishly and uncritically adore.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    4. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think you would find a vanishingly small number of people who would actually advocate for "full blown open borders, with no control of who gets in here" in any country.

    5. Re:I don't get it... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mod parent up -- we made a hell of a mess in Central and South America by supporting Fascists. Who do you think funded the Dirty Wars in South America. Remember Arbenz in Guatemala?

    6. Re:I don't get it... by mrbester · · Score: 2

      On the one hand, I am in agreement that borders should be secure. As such there need to be processes in place to aid that objective.

      On the other, this tip line is an incredibly easy way for any racist bigot who thought that someone looked at them funny, or was "in the wrong place" merely because they weren't white to make malicious calls; it's another form of SWATting, only this time it's government approved.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    7. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      fear, fear, fear

      it's always the same with you folks

      your masters drive you with fear.

    8. Re:I don't get it... by mjwx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?

      Better update the Statue of Liberty then "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" needs to be replaces with "Fuck You, I got mine, go home brownies".

      Perhaps we should ask the native Americans what they think of these "blow ins" from across the sea.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    9. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why do asylum-seeking beggars get to be choosers? How many countries are they passing through before they get here?

    10. Re:I don't get it... by stinerman · · Score: 1

      ...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?
      If you are here in this country illegally, you have criminally trespassed. You should be deported.

      That is the current law.

      If folks don't like that, then start to put pressure on your congress-critters and have them change the laws.

      Paying attention to just that part of your comment, one of the problems is that Congress is so unresponsive to their constituents and fundamentally broken as an institution people are trying to work around it through putting pressure on the courts and executive departments. This is explicitly not the way this was ever meant to work.

      Our institutions have so many veto points that it's impossible to get anything non-trivial done. The system was built on compromise and an assumption that the infighting would be between branches of governments, not political parties. Today, both parties have realized that you are rewarded for blocking the party in power rather than working with them to come to a consensus.

      Politics has become a zero-sum game. Figure out how to not make it one, and we might get around to fixing a lot of the intractable problems we have here in the good old US of A.

    11. Re:I don't get it... by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > That is the current law.

      Except it's not that straightforward. People have the legal right to seek asylum, and even if they are here illegally without seeking asylum they are still entitled to due process and basic human rights under both the US Constitution and international laws.

      What we have here is not law enforcement, it's xenophobia and racism and abuse disguised as law enforcement. The ICE officers are in some ways more criminal than the people they're arresting.

      > But I just don't get these seemingly increasing number of folks in the US promoting full blown open borders, with no control of who gets in here.

      That's because such people do not actually exist. Literally nobody is seriously advocating this. Asking that families not be ripped apart and children as young as 3 years old be made to defend themselves in court without representation is not the same as advocating "open boarders."

      > Why do we not support them?

      For the same reason people should never have supported the Schutzstaffel.
      =Smidge=

    12. Re:I don't get it... by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      ...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?

      What has happened to “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore,”? America is literally built on the backs of immigrants. It's amazing that, as completely screwed up as our country is with political infighting, crumbling infrastructure, horrible and expensive healthcare, lack of adequate social service, and growing ethnic and nationalist sentiments, thousands and hundreds of thousands of people still see the US as the best, safest place to be. You have thousands of people walking 2500 miles for a chance to get into the US. Why wouldn't you want people willing to do that in your country? They'll probably worker harder than most Americans ever would.

      There's nothing wrong with having strong borders, but we should also provide real and accessible ways for people to come to this country legally. The US helped fuck up the Middle East and Central America, yet when people from those regions want to come here because it's no longer safe at home we say "too bad". Allow an actual, meaningful amount of refugees, especially from countries where US supplied arms are killing thousands of people. No "muslim ban" bullshit or overplaying and stoking fears of "gangs". If people want to come here to work, give 'em a 6 month work visa and let them work without having to steal SSNs or get exploited by farmers or meatpackers. They'll still be doing the jobs illegals are already doing but it'll be much more aboveboard. The military is killing for more recruits: you want to become a citizen, sign up, do a term, leave with an honorable discharge, the GI Bill, and citizenship.

      You're worried because people keep wanting to come here. Meanwhile, I won't be worried until people stop wanting to come here.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    13. Re: I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You do have to show some proof that you require political asylum. From wikipedia:

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

      "
      Asylum has three basic requirements. First, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she fears persecution in their home country.[4] Second, the applicant must prove that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group. Third, an applicant must establish that the government is either involved in the persecution, or unable to control the conduct of private actors."

      It's not just a free claim to make... It will eventually have to be backed up by documents, and in theory, vetted thoroughly.

    14. Re:I don't get it... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?

      They do care, that's why it doesn't make sense to you.

      What they want is a system that manages immigration. A system that is humane and gives migrants a path to citizenship that rewards being a productive member of American society. They see that when immigrants are given the opportunity they are often hard working and valuable, and being economic benefits.

      Of course there are some people with ill intent, but the same is true of society in general and it doesn't justify treating everybody badly.

      And of course at the same time they want efforts to be made to improve the situations in the countries that migrants are coming from. Rather than trying to make them pay for a wall, help them fix their problems and build up their economies.

      You may not agree with any of that, but if you can at least understand that they aren't saying just let everyone with no controls or intervention then it would be a better, less polarized discussion. They are actually not that far from you on that point.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The caravan/army/mob is already here.
      It's the late arrivals coming after your great-grandparents that you have a problem with.

    16. Re:I don't get it... by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      ...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?

      If you are here in this country illegally, you have criminally trespassed. You should be deported.

      That is the current law.

      That has always been the law.

      The problem is that it has been ignored for ages.

      I haven't heard anyone complaining when illegal immigrants opened shops, paid taxes and even created jobs. In some agricultural areas the economy wouldn't work without cheap labor from illegal immigrants.

      There is nothing wrong with setting strict immigration rules and enforcing them. But you can't enforce them at will when it's convenient. Yes, you have to start enforcing it at some point, but if at that point you haven't grandfathered in at least people who have been paying taxes for years (they are willing to contribute, that's the people you WANT to be in your country, no matter where they are from) that backlog will block all your ressources you would need to deal with new immigrants.

      --
      bickerdyke
    17. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We can't even deal with all the citizens in a fair and equitable manner today. How would adding more people to the mix improve the situation? As far as I am concerned, all immigration needs to stop. All illegal immigrants need to be rounded up and expelled. Then, as a country, we need to turn inward to help the citizens we have. Only then can we look outward to help others.

    18. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Please point to where Emma Lazarus' poem is enshrined in the Constitution, I must've missed that one in law school!

    19. Re:I don't get it... by willaien · · Score: 1

      I care about the borders, but I also care about the people trying to cross the borders. We're taking people who are seeking asylum and stealing their children away from them to scare them away (locking the kids away in facilities that charge thousands per day to hold them, but provide the barest minimum of services to CHILDREN). These are straight up terror tactics, only government condoned.

    20. Re:I don't get it... by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please point to where Emma Lazarus' poem is enshrined in the Constitution, I must've missed that one in law school!

      Then how about the Declaration of Independence? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." All men, not just Americans. Yet there is a growing portion of this country that seems to think those rights don't apply to people outside the US, that they are less than human.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    21. Re:I don't get it... by sycodon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mean the Great Grand Parents that came over Legally?

      The ones that went through Ellis Island or any of the other legal ports of entry?

      See the difference?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    22. Re:I don't get it... by chill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Determining who is here "illegally" is a -- wait for it -- legal process. People claiming asylum or who have other legitimate, defined by our law, claims have a legal right to due process and have their case heard and a determination made.

      Separating out who has a legitimate claim versus, say, an economic claim, can take time. This is the entire purpose of the Immigration Court system in the United States.

      Keeping in mind you can't make a claim of asylum unless you're actually on our soil. People who have legitimate asylum claims are frequently prevented by their own governments from leaving by normal means, so sneaking across is often their only recourse.

      I'm not even going to go into the history of the politics of the region, where the United States support for brutal dictatorships in many of those countries helped create the disasters they are today. Nor that much of the drug crime in Mexico is a direct result of the insatiable DEMAND side of the equation from the U.S. and the failed war on drugs.

      To sum up, it isn't a disregard for the law on criminal trespass, but a healthy respect for ALL of our laws around immigration and due process. To me, laws regarding due process are fundamentally more important that quickly deporting unwanted migrants.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    23. Re:I don't get it... by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      ...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?

      Better update the Statue of Liberty then "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" needs to be replaces with "Fuck You, I got mine, go home brownies".

      ... and replace the torch with a middle finger. Once aspect of immigration, largely ignored in the debate, is that while in 2013 Central/South America make up about 70% of the group, Asians 15% and Europe / Canada / Africa / etc. the rest. If people started screaming about the 30% as well the argument and dynamics would change.

      Source: https://www.migrationpolicy.or...

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    24. Re:I don't get it... by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      However, certain cultures in south and central america (and I assume others) are far, far more likely to have people who have no interest in becoming citizens and instead want the better life living here gives, while attempting to not integrate with the rest of society.

      So give them an easy process to apply for a work visa that expires after, say, 6 months, and a process and criteria to renew that visa (for example go home for a month between visas, stay out of trouble, etc). They'll still be picking vegetables, working in warehouses/meatpackers, and mowing your lawn, jobs Americans arent doing anyway. Will some people skip out? Sure. Others will jump at that opportunity, won't have to live in fear, can work jobs with reasonable pay and conditions without bosses paying them $5 an hour cash under the table and treating them like animals, don't have to worry about being easy crime victims, etc. Win-win for everyone.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    25. Re: I don't get it... by melted · · Score: 1

      Havenâ(TM)t you heard? Orange man bad. Trump can get dems to oppose literally anything, simply by speaking in favor of it. Heâ(TM)s literally trying to abolish modern day slavery by not letting sub-minimum-wage slaves into the country and dems respond with a âoewhoâ(TM)s going to pick our cotton thenâ message, just like they did in 1865.

    26. Re:I don't get it... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful
      There are two parties committing a crime. And you focus on only one party.

      It is illegal to employ an illegal immigrant. There are people who employ them. All your anger seems to be at the illegal immigrant and not the employer.

      Logically the employer has a business, and has a lot to lose if prosecuted. Prosecution is civil not criminal. If we spend 10% of the resources spent on the border enforcement on the enforcing the criminal who employs these illegal immigrants, the jobs will vanish and the illegal immigration will stop. Cold.

      Just by employing that illegal immigrant the employer becomes criminal. Even if otherwise he/she is running a legitimate business and pays taxes. I am sure you will go through all kinds of justification why the criminal who employs the illegal immigrant should not be prosecuted.

      On the other hand, the life is so bad in their home country, the people are willing to risk death crossing hostile countries, criminal gangs, fatal desert to come to USA. You want to deter these people who have nothing to lose. How? How much effort would it take to stop people who are willing to die in an attempt to come here?

      Compare that enforcement effort with what it would take to round up the employers, fine them, make the cost of employing illegal immigrant not worth it.

      The criminal employers are largely white. Largely affluent. Politically connected. The criminal employees are largely hispanic. Largely poor. Other than the sporadic support from the powerless Democrats they are not much of a political force.

      I just report the facts. You decide if you are a racist or not.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    27. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      usual nonsensical NPC talking points. (enforcing borders is racist, we have infinite jobs money and resources so we don't need borders etc)

      "They're taking our jobs" is really a shallow and dense way of thinking about the issue and shows a lack of thought- just parroting what you hear from ideologues.

      Immigrants wear clothes (someone has to make, design, sell, market). They eat food (someone has to grow food, make phone, package food, sell food, market food). They have many needs- needs are filled by jobs. Teachers need to teach them. Doctors need to heal them. Entertainers need to entertain them. Having a population CREATES jobs. It may not be one for one, sometimes more, sometimes less- but they have all the needs we have. They also tend to take the lower jobs created and the native population tends to fill the higher jobs created.

      In a way there are "infinite jobs" because the more people you have, the more jobs you need to meet the needs of those people. Now- too many people at once can shock economies- but long term immigration doesn't take away jobs.

    28. Re: I don't get it... by Jahoda · · Score: 1

      It is not a criminal offense to be in the country illegally. Stop spreading your fucking bullshit lies.

    29. Re:I don't get it... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If you dont clean up the sugar spilled on the middle of the floor and spend all your time putting ant shield around the house you would be called an idiot.

      But... all the outrage shown by these people against illegal immigration is fake. They want cheap strawberries and cheap fast food and cheap lawn mowing and cheap home construction. If they are really against illegal immigration they will prosecute the employers.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    30. Re:I don't get it... by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ah, 1968, halcyon days...

      On April 4, Martin Luther King Jr was assassinated.

      The Orangeburg Massacre on February 18.

      The Black Panthers emerged, with their own special brand of protests.

      Bobby Kennedy was assassinated on June 5.

      And the Democrat Party National Convention, a festival of peace and nonviolence. Not.

      Yeah, we need more of that like we need a new strain of smallpox.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    31. Re:I don't get it... by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      what has happened

      Nothing. You've been sold a lie as the cause of whatever you perceive to be problems (in an age of a healthy economy and low unemployment to boot.) You think you care, but you don't have a clue as to what your problems are or what's causing them. You just want an "easy" solution that populists can sell you.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    32. Re:I don't get it... by yog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thousands of Middle Easterners and Africans have entered the U.S. via the southern border. What's up for debate is how many of them have ties to terroristic organizations. But the existence of Arabs and other non-Hispanics among the migrants is hardly up for debate.

      It's likely and possible that a handful of the current caravan are of Middle Eastern origin. How can one say for certainty that there aren't, when there is a history of such migrant behavior?

      Regarding the funding and leadership of this group, it is also highly likely that someone with an interest in undermining the Trump Administration would at least be supportive of the caravan if not actively funding and guiding it. The obvious benefit is to create some nasty optics right before the November 6 elections: evil fascist ICE thugs gunning down helpless migrants, separating children from parents, etc.

      The Mexicans have little interest in stopping them, even though actually Mexico has very strong trespassing laws of their own and normally will arrest and hold interlopers in prison, sometimes for years. In this case, they hardly even tried. Clearly, they would like to see the U.S. embarrassed.

      It would appear that the scenario has somewhat backfired; the Republicans have seized on it as an example of Latin America's corruption and Democrat inability to formulate and support effective immigration law.

      https://www.reuters.com/articl...

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    33. Re:I don't get it... by splashd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This smacks more of talking points than true factual rebuttal.

      Any discussion on the correct path on immigration must be directed at the default handling, not exceptions. If we get that right we can fine tune exception handling. For the majority of cases, how is due process being circumvented? Due process can be expeditious, and even near assembly-line efficient (I've been to traffic court).

      The "ripping babies from Mama's arms" narrative is more dramatic than factual. In a majority of cases, the minors were not taken from mothers, but dubious/unverified family members, who, at a minimum, endangered them by force marching them under unsafe, risky conditions and used them as unwitting participants in a crime. Even the Moms did this, intentionally, to their children. The result is that these kids were taken and put into the equivalent of day care and/or foster care, not super-max. We can legitimately disagree, on the way to handle the small number of family of illegal immigrants, caught in the act, but if I witnessed an American mom forcing a toddler to walk through desert sun ill-clothed, underfed and dehydrated for hours or days, I'd likely report them to be taken from such inappropriate care, in any case. Compound that with a parent detained for a crime, and it seems like the best choice in this lesser of two evils. What does not seem reasonable is to reward children-as-a-voucher border crossing to create a catch and release scenario, where the illegal immigrant is basically set free into the wild.

      The common ground I'm hopeful we can find is to bring immigration into the 21st century with simplification, more rapid and effective (by whatever filters benefits the US) processing, and more economic cost. Immigration processing should be more like Amazon Prime, not the DMV.

      --
      technical whipping boy, Occam's Strop (think about it...)
    34. Re:I don't get it... by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      You live in a world of platitudes, not the real world. And a world so focused on the US that you're blind to the rest of the world.

      This country always accepts immigration. But without control it is just chaos. It's no different than the freeway; should we just let everyone onto the freeway when we want? If so, the freeway becomes a jumbled mess. Instead on-ramps have lights letting people on in a measured way, which allows for a more smoothly flowing system.

      We aren't doing "control", we are trying to do "no immigration". The immigration system is broken and causes illegal immigration. And we have every duty and obligation to take in refugees from countries we helped fucked up. If that's too many countries, well, then that's our fault and we need to stop fucking up countries.

      And no one wants to stop coming here. The opportunities and freedoms far outpace the rest of the world. India cannot provide opportunities fast enough to feed it's population; they come here to work in biotech and tech sectors. Chinese want to come here because the government is less likely to intrude on your lifestyle and offers far more acceptance of ambitious Chinese women in particular. Middle-easterners want to come here because they are less likely to be persecuted by one group or the next for following the wrong religion or being the wrong ethnic group. Hispanics want to come here because the opportunities for a better life are far more numerous than they are in South America.

      If we keep on our current path, people will stop wanting to come here. Either because we will have made this place a terrible place for foreigners to live (which means it would be a terrible place for us to live, too), or the US has fallen from it's place and is no better than wherever they are trying to leave.

      No, most Americans who think our country is difficult or racist or whatever simply have no clue what the world is like. This country is a special place precisely because we debate ad nausem things that are ultimately minor; other countries wish our problems were their problems. While we're out debating the MeToo movement and whether Kavanaugh assaulted someone when he was in high school, China kidnapped and disappeared the head of Interpol, Venezuela is on the verge of a civil war while it's people are starving, Mexico had more deaths due to violence than Afghanistan, a US general is shot in Afghanistan, Myanmar is ethnically cleansing an entire race of people, and Italy is on the verge of such a massive bankruptcy that it could topple the entire European Union.

      You're right that this is what is wrong with our country, albeit not for the reasons I think you think. Our current government, and a lot of the people supporting our current government, don't care about any of those things, or the people in those countries. Why aren't we helping the Rohingya? Giving aid to Colombia to help with all the refugees in Venezuela (about the best we could do, getting actually involved in Venezeula would just make things worse)? Stopping the war on drugs here in the US that helps send thousands of guns and billions of dollars to the drug cartels screwing up Mexico? Telling the government in Kabul to get it's shit together and help them retake the half of Afghanistan that's still controlled by the Taliban? Telling China (and Saudi Arabia) they can't just go around extrajudiciously killing people they don't like? Our current government doesn't care, and its supporters don't care that they don't care. We've lost what made us special, and no amount of MAGA'ing will fix it, it will only make it worse.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    35. Re:I don't get it... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I am not melting into the melting pot.

      I came in legally. I will remain distinct. At least Latin America is Christian. I am a graven image worshiping heathen/pagan. But legal. 100% naturalized. I intend to exercise ALL rights granted to me under the constitution. Freedom of Expression,. Freedom of Relgion. And yes, second amendment too.

      America is a salad bowl, not a melting pot.

      English first? Our motto E Pluribus Unum is not English. It is Latin.

      Go back, learn about America and then talk to an immigrant like me.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    36. Re:I don't get it... by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My great-great-great grandparents came, stood in line, and asked for permission to immigrate. Then they found land in a difficult region, farmed, and prospered.

      On the other side of my family they came from England, carved a farm out of the woods, never met American Indians, and convinced the post-Revolution government to honor the land grant they received from the King of England. From then on they farmed hard, lumbered (both sides did this, odd), sent 19 sons and daughters to wars, smuggled booze, were actual sea pirates, and gave the town they lived in land for the town hall, fire station, high school and middle school, church, meeting house, and parsonage. And finally that line ended, 260+ years after they left England to first find success elsewhere, and then to become Americans. Both sides of my family exchanged the flag of their birth for a new one, and became Americans. Indeed, they left their native flags behind.

      And yes, those here before them certainly considered them invaders, eventually. So yes, I see this mob headed north through Mexico, and waving their native flags, and I see them as nothing but invaders. That they don't carry arms doesn't change that, but it will inform our response at the border.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    37. Re:I don't get it... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Better update the Statue of Liberty then "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" needs to be replaces with "Fuck You, I got mine, go home brownies".

      You are not, but you should be aware that the Statue of Liberty poem was a piece of propaganda when it was written. I happen to agree with the poem, but I know what it is.

      Perhaps we should ask the native Americans what they think of these "blow ins" from across the sea.

      The Native American experience is probably the best example possible of why immigration is a bad thing.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    38. Re:I don't get it... by Ogive17 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Who is advocating wide open borders? The only time I ever see it mentioned is on Fox News or at a Trump rally.

      The liberals simply want to see people treated respectfully.

      I've spent a few months in Mexico.. I'd take the average Mexican laborer over the average American laborer every day. They are willing to work harder for less pay and no bitching. Business owners secretly want this as well and this is why massive immigration reform never seems to get done.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    39. Re:I don't get it... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Better update the Statue of Liberty then "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" needs to be replaces with "Fuck You, I got mine, go home brownies".

      Gladly. Remove the plaque. It's an albatross around our neck. The Statue of Liberty was a gift from France and meant to shine out as a beacon to spread the idea of liberty across the world. It was not a gift to make America the dumping ground of the world.

      Perhaps we should ask the native Americans what they think of these "blow ins" from across the sea.

      Yes, ask them. Did they have a choice in the matter? If they could choose, would they have prevented the mass migration? The US has that choice.

    40. Re:I don't get it... by magarity · · Score: 1

      I hope there's a new rebellious spirit born in the US and it will look like 1968 all over again.

      You want Nixon elected presidentt?

    41. Re:I don't get it... by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Regarding the funding and leadership of this group, it is also highly likely that someone with an interest in undermining the Trump Administration would at least be supportive of the caravan if not actively funding and guiding it.

      I'm sure quite a few people that don't like Trump are supportive of the caravan. But that's not what they were arguing, and that's not what their base would hear. And "supporting" something is different than actively funding or guiding something (which is precisely what Republicans have been claiming they are doing). That why you have people shipping bombs to Soro's house.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    42. Re:I don't get it... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Drunk driving being illegal is also the law of your country but you don't seem to care much about it. That is kind of hypocritical, don't you think?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    43. Re:I don't get it... by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So the country should no longer be guided by the very document that first created it? Good to know America has fallen so far.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    44. Re:I don't get it... by Gilgaron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah I don't see why we can't do a French Foreign Legion thing, let them enlist or sign up for a Depression style civil service and fix the infrastructure, get citizenship. There's plenty of work to be done, the robots haven't taken over yet. Certainly cheaper than these internment camps.

    45. Re:I don't get it... by Etcetera · · Score: 1

      fuck the law.
      fuck those who enforce it.
      fuck this country too.

      I hope there's a new rebellious spirit born in the US and it will look like 1968 all over again.

      Hint: You've got a better chance of surviving The Purge if you're a gun-totin' prepper type... not a campus hipster.

    46. Re:I don't get it... by rickb928 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, it's likely there are...

      Which isn't the least unusual, nor new. Trying to argue that any burst of migrants from south of Mexico doesn't include nasty people, like felons or such, is kinda stupid. It's predictable. And it's not even the primary reason to stop them at the border and do the due diligence that is entirely reasonable for a nation with actual borders.

      Remember, this is fortuitous timing for both sides of the debate on immigration. Just keep the popcorn coming, folks.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    47. Re:I don't get it... by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      If you are here in this country illegally, you have criminally trespassed. You should be deported.

      That is the current law.

      "Truth is the law allows migrants to present themselves at our borders & seek asylum" - lawyer Lee Merritt

    48. Re: I don't get it... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "why should people in a one geographic region control who can come and go to said region"

      This idea is similar, superficially, to the concept of controlling who can come into your home, though for similar and still superficial reasons.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    49. Re:I don't get it... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Democrats are in favor of illegal immigration. Indentured servants to the state all too willing to climb over themselves for a free handout; it's a South American mentality. Essentially, solidified one party in power in perpetuity like the CCP is in China. People vote out of fear of the "benefits" being taken away rather then for any particular candidate.

      When you let illigal immigrants in, what you're really doing is inheriting their problem that spoiled their own nations from which they left. They should be at home reforming their own countries, and that involves a revolution, so be it - NOT OUR PROBLEM!!!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    50. Re:I don't get it... by dj245 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you dont clean up the sugar spilled on the middle of the floor and spend all your time putting ant shield around the house you would be called an idiot.

      But... all the outrage shown by these people against illegal immigration is fake. They want cheap strawberries and cheap fast food and cheap lawn mowing and cheap home construction. If they are really against illegal immigration they will prosecute the employers.

      As a concrete contractor who only hires legal workers, I welcome this wholeheartedly.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    51. Re:I don't get it... by Z80a · · Score: 1

      Okay, enjoy being a literal slave to disney.

    52. Re:I don't get it... by avandesande · · Score: 1

      A million people each year is not enough? What do you propose?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    53. Re:I don't get it... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?

      People DO care. A small excessively-boisterous minority of people that respects no rules of civility, and some of whom are being paid to be part of creating the disruption are tyrannizing us as a country.

      These progressives are less than perhaps10% of the population, but they're well-organized and active, being activists is likely their full-time job, And your group doesn't have to have anything close to a majority to use guerilla tactics such as spamming a government hotline with fake calls.

    54. Re:I don't get it... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The Native American experience is probably the best example possible of why immigration is a bad thing.

      Emigration wasn't the problem, being conquered by a foreign government was the problem. It's the best example possible not of why emigration is a bad thing, but of why unification is a good one. If the natives had been able to present a unified front instead of fighting with themselves at the same time that whitey was eating their lunch, they could have presented a rational and effective defense against white colonialist rule. Because they were cut off from the rest of the world, they failed to learn the lessons of ancient Greece, and they fell in short order once people with superior technology and organization showed up.

      The people trying to immigrate to this country do not have superior technology, organization, or numbers. The two situations are not remotely comparable, and conflating them is disingenuous.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    55. Re:I don't get it... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This smacks more of talking points than true factual rebuttal. [...] In a majority of cases, the minors were not taken from mothers, but dubious/unverified family members, who, at a minimum, endangered them by force marching them under unsafe, risky conditions and used them as unwitting participants in a crime.

      You, sir, are a hypocrite. I need no more than the text above to be completely, utterly, and totally sure of this.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    56. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure we fucked over central America in the 80s. That's one of the justifications for the amnesty back then. We screwed up your country so you came here, fair enough. If 40 years later your country is still run by thugs it no longer our problem.

      Asylum is just the word taught to economic migrants so they aren't immediately put on a bus home. I don't belive it for a second and coaching people on what to say does not help convince me it is anything but a political stunt.

      As for plenty l, I worked my ass off for what I have. You have no right to give it away because you feel sorry for our neighbors to the south.

    57. Re:I don't get it... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This is explicitly not the way this was ever meant to work.

      According to what, and to whom? Humans haven't become appreciably smarter than when the constitution was written. Probably the best way to read it is if it were intentional, and not simply produced by an infinite number of monkeys. If the electoral college seems to blunt the power of large states, and to keep voting power out of the hands of the people, then that's probably precisely what it was meant to do. We actually have writings other than the constitution which spell out this fact in so many words, so that's an easy idea to defend. Why would you imagine that any other aspect of the constitution would be different? The system was deliberately set up to keep specific groups of rich white pricks in power, which is why (like Athens) the USA only gave the vote initially to white male landowners.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    58. Re:I don't get it... by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh, citations:

      https://twitter.com/banditelli...

      https://thehill.com/opinion/im... (this article quotes Keith Ellison repeatedly)

      Only two, I know. Like an iceberg...

      Then the implied and explicit support for open borders:

      https://theweek.com/articles/7... ( Zack Beauchamp exchange with a reader, Tom Stephenson, and later Zach states explicitly he is an open borders supporter)

      https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1... (Hillary Clinton 'dreamed of “open trade and open borders” throughout the Western Hemisphere.')

      Hillary seems pretty mainstream Democrat unless you're trying to hide the details.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    59. Re:I don't get it... by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      ...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?

      If you are here in this country illegally, you have criminally trespassed. You should be deported.

      That is the current law.

      Moreover it's the law world wide. Does Mexico allow US citizens to cross the border with no consequences? Of course not. Open borders is such a bad idea that it boggles the mind. Break up the US. Allow some states to kill themselves with bad policies, like California, and others to continue on a more sane course.

    60. Re:I don't get it... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In a majority of cases, the minors were not taken from mothers, but dubious/unverified family members

      Citation very much needed.

      Even if it were true, dubious/unverified by whom? Sounds very much like categorising anyone caught up in a drone strike as an enemy combatant because they happened to be near a bad guy.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    61. Re:I don't get it... by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      We can agree that the US policy in South America has been a mess. There are many issues with settling tons of migrants. There are economic issues yes, we don't have infinite resources or jobs. However there are also cultural issues. Let's start with the basics - do they speak the language? Do they have a skill? These are critical points that should not be glossed over.

    62. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, how many of those "caravanners" are you going to host at your house?

      That caravan is doing nothing but getting larger as it works toward the border. 5K were initial estimates, I've heard some pretty scary numbers being projected for when it gets here. Granted, I realize that most are exaggerations, but imagine if we DID have 40,000 "refugees", mostly from Mexico at this point, busting through the border.

      So, lets assume a worst case. 40K. Let's not call it fear, let's call it "what-iffing". What if 40K hits the border, you OK with that? You OK with heaven knows who or what just pouring through (perfect time for anyone with bad intent to sneak through right)? How many lives will be lost (or have been lost already) in this? How many "refugees", how many border patrol agents, or National Guard, or Marines, or whoever gets put there, how many people who LIVE THERE, lawfully in their houses near the border, how many of those people will die? How many people could die if just ONE, just one, terrorist with the means and capability to carry out just one plot makes it through? Just one...

      Is any number acceptable? I don't think so. And I'm sure that a pretty hefty number have probably already died on the trek from wherever they have come from.

      Anyway, long story short, pull your head out of your ass, think beyond your feelings, and consider that the world is not black and white, it is a dangerous place, and there are bad people out there, and that there are LAWS that should be obeyed.

      Should we have compassion for these people? Sure, the ones that are actually in need of our help. Should we give that help by bringing them here. Hell no. Go give them succor closer to where they live so that they don't waste lives coming to a border that they KNOW they should not be able to cross.

    63. Re:I don't get it... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Soros seems to be the new default conspiracy now that Clinton has faded. Used to be that everything was the Clintons secretly orchestrating things, now it's always Soros.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    64. Re:I don't get it... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      But I just don't get these seemingly increasing number of folks in the US promoting full blown open borders, with no control of who gets in here.

      It's easy to understand if you see it from the Democrat perspective. Uneducated, low skill workers have a number of benefits. They come here, have an "anchor" babies that have birthright citizenship. They're called anchor babies because the mothers are now securely anchored to the country--you can't easily deport the mothers without causing a huge outcry. Those babies (U.S. citizens) now qualify for benefits: free schooling, free health care, food stamps, and eventually, free college. When those babies are old enough to vote, who are they going to vote for, the Santa Claus Democrats who gave them everything, or the Grinch Republicans who want to deport their parents?

      Also, the fathers are often working under the table, usually for low wages, which helps suppress wages in general, and also contributes to unemployment of U.S. workers. That makes even more people dependent on the government. And guess what else? Many of the fathers never marry the mothers. Typically, if you have a child out of wedlock, and the child qualifies for benefits, the state is going to charge the father some amount to help recoup the costs. You can't do that if the father is a migrant worker and can't be located.

      So in a nutshell, illegal immigrants are a boon to Democrats because it results in more people dependent on the government, which translates to more Democrat voters.

      I'm pro-legal immigrant. I think it should be very easy for anyone to become a U.S. citizen, even low educated, low-skill people. For the most part, people who immigrate here are hard working and want the "American Dream" for them and their families. I don't care about their race, their country of origin, etc., but I do think there needs to be some restrictions. They should be able to pass a criminal background check, they should be employable, and they should be able to pass a basic written English exam--enough to be conversational, but not necessarily fluent. That is for the immigrant's benefit. Not speaking the primary language of the place you're living in is a severe disadvantage.

      I think the best solution to the whole mess would be to end all federal welfare benefits and turn those over to the states. If California for instance wants to have 10 million low-skilled, non-English speaking immigrants that will need California tax-payer funded benefits, more power to them.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    65. Re:I don't get it... by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?

      Just a guess, but are you one of those people the flyers coming from the Republican Party delivered to my door are aimed at? The ones that say you can't vote for Jack Johnson (D) because he wants to abolish ICE? The ones that are designed to make people think (actually, they usually say it explicitly) that abolishing ICE means abolishing immigration controls and not putting anything in its place?

      My sincere recommendation to you is read what the people you're arguing against are actually arguing. Relatively few are saying they don't care about citizenship or protecting our borders. What they're arguing is:

      1. ICE is full of inhumane shitheads and cannot be reformed. It needs to be abolished with its responsibilities transferred somewhere else, perhaps to agencies structured as they were before 9/11.
      2. Legal immigration, such as asylum, is being handled inhumanely, for example the permanent child separation policies of the current administration.
      3. Illegal immigration is being handled badly and the laws don't reflect the reality on the ground. People are being deported to places that have never been their homes. Others are being encouraged to enter on the sly by one set of forces and deported by another.
      4. Over-zealous enforcement of immigration laws is making it harder to enforce other laws. Women are being deported because they contacted the police after being beaten by their husbands. Entire communities are refusing to report crimes in their neighborhoods for fear of ICE attention. Local governments, with the support of local law enforcement, who have tried to overcome this by not cooperating with ICE (so-called "Sanctuary cities") have been vilified and, ironically, have been criticized as encouraging crime, when their aim was to prevent a focus on a minor crime from preventing them from taking action against serious crimes.

      The Republicans, who control every branch of government, have had two years to introduce humane reforms. If they believed ICE was reformable they could have done it. If they wanted to create a solution for Dreamers et al, they could have done it. They've refused, ideologically, to do so, with those in control of the executive apparently intentionally enforcing the laws in the most inhumane way possible, and with no attempt to change executive policy by Congress.

      Maybe this is what you want. Or not. But reforms that include abolishing ICE, enshrining Obama's Dreamers policy into law, and placing restrictions on the executive's ability to abuse the asylum process as a way to punish refugees are all important to us on the left.

      This is Slashdot so I'm expecting a response that'll ignore what I've written above, condemn me as not wanting borders or some other BS, and so on, but, hey, at least I tried.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    66. Re:I don't get it... by willaien · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter if a handful of people abuse it - it's law domestically (and internationally) that allows people to initially enter illegally, then seek asylum. That's allowed under our current system of laws. The current administration is treating a relatively minor crime (per the criminal code) as a major thing, then using that as an excuse to steal children away from their parents under the guise of discouraging what's the legal equivalent of a parking ticket. Even for people seeking asylum. This is a domestic and international human rights crisis.

    67. Re:I don't get it... by houghi · · Score: 1

      Just because it is a law does not mean it needs to be enforced. Plenty of laws are not enfourced. Otherwise a lot of different people would be in jail.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    68. Re:I don't get it... by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Well ok, that's a good comment. You are right that the experience of the Native Americans facing immigrants is not the same as Americans today. Let's look at a different place and time, and see if we can't find an analogy that is more similar.

      I think Rome, from the period 200bce to 0 probably matches. They had a Republic, and the rules were fairly well set up for the people living in Italy at the time (it lasted for centuries, after all). Then in the later years, as Rome started conquering its neighbors, they started importing people as slaves, servants, soldiers, and workers. Soon there were a lot of people who didn't understand the point of a Republic, and thought a king would be better. Eventually the influx of many people of a completely different demographic (actually many different demographics, but unified in that they didn't understand the Roman Way) brought the downfall of the Republic.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    69. Re:I don't get it... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Except it's not that straightforward. People have the legal right to seek asylum, and even if they are here illegally without seeking asylum they are still entitled to due process and basic human rights under both the US Constitution and international laws.

      Poverty and economic hardship are not valid reasons for asylum.

      Political oppression and governmental threats to their lives are reasons....and I'm guessing the VAST majority of the 4K+ caravan on the way here, are not being directly politically persecuted by their governments.

      They're coming for money.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    70. Re:I don't get it... by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Funny

      They don't under international law refuges lose their status as soon as they set foot in a nation where they are safe from whatever specific force they are fleeing.

      Unless you want to conceede Mexico is a failed state that cannot be accountable for protecting citizens there; than no non-mexican having passed thru Mexico can arrive at our southern boarder as a legitimate asylum seeker.

      They are therefore simply illegal immigrants. When they are organized even minimally, as they are in this caravan they become invaders! Mexico allowing an invasion force to proceed thru its territory on the way to our boarder is an act of war and it should be treated like it!

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    71. Re:I don't get it... by hey! · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?

      Let me give you a liberal perspective on this: you are raising a straw man. We have no problem with protecting the border, the problem we have is with using scapegoating and scare-mongering, and bullshit waste of resources like building a wall. If you want to see the source of our problems, it's rich guys buying politicians, not Mexicans sneaking across the border to pick crops.

      If you are here in this country illegally, you have criminally trespassed. You should be deported.

      No, "trespass" has a specific meaning in law, and an unauthorized crossing of the border does not match that, even if it feels like tresspassing. And even as it were, the law allows people to enter your land against your wishes under certain circumstances. If a neighbor goes on your posted land to hunt, that's trespass. If he goes onto your posted land to escape a home invader, it's not trespass.

      Treaties the US imposed on other people after WW2 also bind us when it comes to handling asylum seekers. We don't have to help them get here, but we do have to give them due process and administrative help when they get here, even if they sneak across our borders. It's actually the government that is breaking the law by turning asylum seekers away at the border without a hearing, which of course means they sneak across, which makes policing the border that much harder.

      But I just don't get these seemingly increasing number of folks in the US promoting full blown open borders, with no control of who gets in here.

      That was how we did immigration up until 1927. You showed up at Ellis Island, were checked for disease, promised you weren't an anarchist and they'd ship you over to the docks at Battery Park and let you go anywhere you wanted. The 1927 quotas were proposed by eugenicists, who were worried that the influx of Jews was lowering America's collective IQ.

      Now if you were Mexican, you weren't part of the quota system. You could still walk across the border until 1965. That was because business interests needed the cheap labor. What changed in 65 was the rise of the United Farm Workers. Now this *might* just be coincidence, but if you look at how the'65 restrictions were enforced, they did not stem the influx of immigrants, so much as put those immigrants outside the protection of the law and made it harder for them to organize. The government didn't go after farmers hiring Mexicans, they went after the Mexicans. And the Mexicans they deported would be immediately replaced by other Mexicans, because there was a job waiting for them.

      Now restrictions on employers have become stricter, but we still have a system which is dependent upon immigrant labor, but puts those laborers outside the protection of the law. That's the problem with the tip line; it's a tool for payback against people with no rights of due process. This is the problem of immigration in the US: the hypocrisy of the whole system corrupts things that would otherwise be a good idea.

      What good does building a wall do if you can just pay someone to wave you through? And yet the demand for immigration security theater has the agency relaxing screening standards that are supposed to catch cartel infiltrators, in an agency that already has a stunning 5% corruption rate. Immigration security theater undermines national security.

      Now change the immigration so it allows for the immigrant laborers we actually need and keeps the people who've been here for years peacefully

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    72. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This current country was created by the Constitution, not the Articles of Confederation, nor the Declaration of Independence, nor some silly poem on a statue. Do they even teach civics at your high school anymore? They obviously don't teach how to argue without silly appeals to emotion.

    73. Re:I don't get it... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It is not a flood coming in indiscriminately. It is people seeking jobs, the way ants seek sugar.

      Prosecute the employers, who are criminal by the very act of employing illegal immigrants. Simple civil prosecution, fines, make cost of employing illegal immigrants more expensive than hiring legal immigrants and citizens.

      Ahhh. You wont do it. Because these criminals are white and affluent. You would rather fight the weak, poor, people willing work harder than any one for a pittance.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    74. Re:I don't get it... by sootman · · Score: 1

      Well, there are two problems here. (Actually, there are a thousand, but I'll just talk about two.)

      First is the recent problems. You do know that ICE has deported people who are here legally, right? And it has deported people who were TECHNICALLY here illegally but lived here 20 years, paid taxes, etc.? And tore apart families, etc.? THAT is why people are pissed at ICE at the moment.

      And secondly,
      > I think we could look to encourage more immigration from those that are educated
      > and can come to the US and help the workforce and economy right away. ... wow. Yeah, I'm sure all those educated people want to come here and pick lettuce and do roofing and build houses and do all the other shit work that illegals currently do. And I'm sure all the educated citizens here would be happy to pay more for their lettuce, knowing it was picked by educated, legal workers.

      When people say "we need to keep terrorists out!!!!111" what they really mean is "we need to keep brown people out!!!!!11"

      Yes, we should protect our borders. But we don't have to be dicks while we do it.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...

      My father is undocumented but has lived in the United States since 1998. He has raised four children, all American citizens, on income from construction work. He pays his taxes and plays by the rules. He himself has been a perfect citizen -- although, of course, he can't call himself that... My dad wanted to follow the rules. He has been trying to adjust his status with the help of relatives since 2001. [emphasis mine] We filed the correct paperwork, paid the fees and lined up all his references, only for my dad to be dragged out of a little office and locked up. ICE could have chosen to grant my dad his residency, per the suggestion of our immigration officer. Instead, my father, a man who has filed his taxes every year, has no criminal record and is the sole provider for four children, wasn't even put out on monitor or bond. He is still being held in a detention center in Aurora, Colo., and is awaiting deportation proceedings unless ICE grants him the cancellation of his removal.

      THAT is why people are pissed at ICE these days.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    75. Re:I don't get it... by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      Like the Koch brothers that the left throws out?

    76. Re:I don't get it... by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      The statue is French, the poem was added later through a private effort. A decoration is not policy

    77. Re:I don't get it... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Gandhi and MLK perfected the art of non-violent civil disobedience. That's what we need. We can disrupt corporations and plutocrats' comfy lives without hurting people. Block traffic, boycott stores, strike, wake jerks up at 3am with 500 bullhorns. You might get 10 days in jail, but nobody is physically injured.

    78. Re:I don't get it... by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      There is no right to trespass. Trespasserphobia is not a disorder. Pathological altruism is though.

    79. Re:I don't get it... by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      The caravan/army/mob is already here.
      It's the late arrivals coming after your great-grandparents that you have a problem with.

      So you think it's the same thing? Does that mean you feel we should be afraid of them? I mean, how well did the natives do against our "great-grandparents?"

    80. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Thousands of Middle Easterners and Africans have entered the U.S. via the southern border.

      I'll take them over my diabetes-infected red-state fuckhead neighbors with no education and fewer teeth any day of the fucking year.

    81. Re:I don't get it... by crunchygranola · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh, every one of your ancestors came through after 1891. Understood.

      Prior to the Immigration Act of 1891 all anyone (who was not Asian) had to do to immigrate to the U.S. was show up at the border (or any port). And prior to 1875 even Asians could immigrate freely.

      In 1891 the U.S. population was 61 million. Anyone who has even one ancestor who was resident in the U.S. in 1891 is descended from someone who only had to show up to get in - everyone was automatically "legal".

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    82. Re:I don't get it... by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Someone's a Big Fan of the Hound on Game of Thrones.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    83. Re:I don't get it... by sycodon · · Score: 1

      No...just the Great Grandparents the AC mentioned.

      Aren't you paying attention?

      But if you want to talk about all that shit. Just which immigration office should all those people have shown up at?

      Ohhh! That's right. There were none. But now we have them so people need to use them.

      Or maybe your argument is no borders, no immigration laws, nothing.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    84. Re:I don't get it... by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      It used to be that people came to this country in order to integrate and become citizens - "the great melting pot"

      The melting pot happened, but is it really what people were trying to do?

      However, certain cultures in south and central america (and I assume others) are far, far more likely to have people who have no interest in becoming citizens and instead want the better life living here gives, while attempting to not integrate with the rest of society.

      As a native-born white US citizen, I'm not sure that's any difference than my attitude, either. Nobody wants to get assimilated. ST:TNG had a whole villain civilization based on that! And whether you want it or not, the Borg nailed it with with "resistance is futile." It happens, even if everyone tries to prevent it.

      If I could continue to live here in America but without the responsibilities of citizenship and not having to add weird arbitrary cultural baggage to my life, how bad would that be? Some of society I wanna integrate with, but I'm probably like every single other person reading this, in that I'd rather avoid integrating with the other 90% of society. Sturgeon's Law applies. 10% of America is still a big fuckin' country full of a lot of fun, though. Stugeon's Law isn't bad; it's just how things are.

      "the melting pot" made us stronger, what is happening in this situation is dividing us.

      No, this'll make us stronger too. No matter who you are, I bet you anything that 10% of the new people have some great food. And that's how it will start. 100 years from now, they'll be just another cuisine, like Italian and Mexican and like how one of Texas' best-known beers is a .. bock?! (WTF, it might not be a good bock but it's sure as hell not yet another light American lager.)

      Next time you call this a bad thing, I want you to buy a time machine ticket to a 2118 restaurant. You'll see. It'll be fine.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    85. Re:I don't get it... by crunchygranola · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No one before 1875 needed "permission to immigrate" you only needed a boat ticket, and it was only Asians who were excluded then, Europeans just needed that boat ticket until 1891, when the first immigration system was set up. Since you specify ancestors five generations back you are specifying people who came through around 1860 or so.

      So this story you tell is founded on BS. And the bit about "never met American Indians" is fairly astonishing. You know that for a fact? How?

      So you self-justifying story of totally legal and approved ancestors who never did anything wrong is a fairy tale.

      And right, Europeans who came to the U.S. never celebrated their country of origin (cough, cough, NY St. Patricks Day Parade).

      What is that unarmed invading army of women and children (mostly) going to do when they reach the border? They are going to request asylum under U.S. law as they are legally permitted to do once they reach U.S. soil. OMG Invaders!

      Trump has already said he plans on calling out the military to deal with the situation - just as you seem to endorse. I guess rather than taking asylum applications, the plan is to open fire?

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    86. Re:I don't get it... by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      ...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?

      If you are here in this country illegally, you have criminally trespassed. You should be deported.

      That is the current law.

      No, current law is that when they reach the U.S. border they can legally make an application for asylum, and while that is being processes (including extreme vetting by the way, not Trump did not invent it), they are allowed to legally remain on U.S. soil. That is the actual law.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    87. Re:I don't get it... by JackieBrown · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What's your point?

      They came in legally back then.

      How many other 1891 era laws do you want to go back to?

    88. Re:I don't get it... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      The problem is that a hotline doesn't help with that at all. Seriously - if you were a victim of a crime, your probably don't even know the name and address of the perpetrator, much less their immigration status. So call the police - that's what they're there for.

      That means anyone calling the hotline will almost be reporting someone with dark skin and or speaking a non-English language - the vast majority of whom are either legal immigrants or multi-generation Americans.

      If we really want to stop the illegal immigrant problem then we should attack it at its source - the people hiring illegal immigrants. Make it a felony to hire an illegal immigrant, with everyone involved in the process, *especially* the executives , paying stiff fines and probably spending time in prison. The market for illegal immigrant labor would dry up almost overnight, and there would no longer be a compelling reason for illegal immigrants to want to come here.

      That we *don't* do that exposes the real nature of the situation - lawmakers are fine with people hiring cheap illegal labor, but they also want to fan the flames of racism for election points.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    89. Re:I don't get it... by qbast · · Score: 2

      Yes, they are free to pursuit their happiness somewhere else. Could you point to the place where it grants everybody in the world the right to come and mooch from US?

    90. Re:I don't get it... by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      You don't get it because there's a lot of misconceptions in your post.

      If you are here in this country illegally, you have criminally trespassed. You should be deported.

      That is the current law.

      The big stories about things like the kids being caged at the border are people requesting asylum that were arrested before they could make their formal request.

      This happens because the "it's illegal to enter the US without permission" and "you can enter the US to request asylum without permission" are both on the books. And there are several other contradictions in immigration law which allows people to either stay or be deported based on what ICE feels like at that particular moment.

      Law enforcement based on what ICE feels like at that particular moment is not a good system.

      I think we could look to encourage more immigration from those that are educated and can come to the US and help the workforce and economy right away.

      There's actually a large shortage of farm workers. US people won't do the work for the wages farmers want to pay. So poorly-educated and impoverished Central American farmers can help the workforce and economy right away.

      And this is actually the way farming has been done in the US for more than a century. Farmers import undocumented labor and they work the harvests, moving Northward as the year moves on, including into Canada. Then they went back home for the winter. As we ramped up anti-Latino immigration as a campaign tactic, we made it harder to re-enter the country like this. So the workers started staying in the US for the winter.

      Long story short, our economy and food supply have always relied on undocumented workers. There is not a sudden crisis. There is the need to turn out angry white voters for one political party.

      There will be some lower educated types too, as that all levels are needed, but the ratio needs to be controlled.

      Why? Immigrants (from all education levels) end up making far more money and die far wealthier than equivalent US people.

      Think about it: You are willing to leave everything at home and walk 2,000 miles, much of it through desert that will try very hard to kill you. If you are so driven that you do that, you are driven enough that you will bust your ass at any job you get once you arrive. You aren't going to say "Ok, that's done. Time to sit on the couch forever". Because if you're the kind of person who would plop on the couch forever, you won't make it through that journey.

      The thing that made the US great was that we imported all of the driven people who didn't happen to be born well off, and then waited for those people be successful.

      So no, we don't need to control that ratio. The people that are able to make it here will do just fine.

      But I just don't get these seemingly increasing number of folks in the US promoting full blown open borders, with no control of who gets in here.

      That's because it's a caricature designed to turn out votes for Republicans. It doesn't really exist. The proposals that are the most "open border" still require background checks and investigations of immigrants, rejecting the "bad hombres".

      You don't get it because you are not supposed to get it. None of the rhetoric makes sense or is internally consistent. "Those 2-year-olds have to be kept in cages because they're stone cold MS-13 killers who are going to invade your town and kill you in your sleep....while sitting around doing nothing and mooching off public services" (which, btw, they can not get because they can't qualify without an SSN).

      It's designed primarily to make you afraid and get you to pull the lever for anyone with an R after their name on the ballot.

      The secondary goal is to stifle debate on the issue, so that any attempt to discuss reforming this horrific dystopia of contradictory laws where children who can't read yet are suppos

    91. Re:I don't get it... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      Do that. Dont say that anonymously in some website.

      Demand politicians to say it and do it. I dont see of the politicians being strong on employer side enforcement. So I conclude it is all vote gathering technique.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    92. Re:I don't get it... by MooseTick · · Score: 2

      There were literal boatloads of Jews seeking asylum prior to WWII and the US turned them away and sent them back to Germany. This was the law. This was also not a time that the US shined. We can do better, but I fear we probably won't.

    93. Re:I don't get it... by gman003 · · Score: 1

      My personal opinion as someone firmly on the "dismantle ICE" side:

      Controlling immigration and the borders is a legitimate action and responsibility of the government. I am not in favor of open borders with Mexico or other Central/South American countries. (Open borders with Canada would be a different story - though still not unlimited immigration, just visa-free travel for Canadian citizens to the US, and vice versa).

      However, the immigration enforcement currently being done is vastly more harmful than the benefit it brings. ICE has become more about discouraging illegal immigration through violent punitive action than about enforcing the laws. It's about making illegal immigrants suffer. For fuck's sake, they've built concentration camps in the Texas desert. They're separating children from parents. What is the point of that beyond making people suffer? How is that not an intrinsically evil act?

      There's also the consideration on the rights of citizens. As part of the general push towards stricter border enforcement, the Fourth Amendment no longer applies within 100 miles of a border or coast. ICE (and Border Patrol, and the Coast Guard) no longer require a warrant or probable cause to search anyone they suspect of violating immigration or customs laws. That is a pretty big fucking deal! For that to be even remotely worth it, illegal immigration would have to be causing absolutely devastating damage to the US.

      But it is not. Every study I've seen has concluded that illegal immigrant communities have lower crime rates (both general and violent crime) than comparable native-born communities. They typically pay taxes but rarely utilize public services - which stands to reason, since their goal is to remain low-profile. While they have a depressing effect on wages, at least within the region and industry, they have a broadly neutral effect on employment - they provide workers, but also supply demand that creates about as many jobs as they take. That is enough to justify having controlled immigration (rather than unlimited), and to enforce those laws in the same manner as other nonviolent crime. Treating unlawful immigration as a crime comparable to, say, tax evasion, is perfectly reasonable. Treating it as though it were an act of war, not so much - and yet that's what we're currently doing.

    94. Re:I don't get it... by Unnamed+Chickenheart · · Score: 1

      > "If countries, such as in South America are having such problems,.....we can't bring everyone here, those people need to fix things at HOME and stay there....."

      Just wait a few decades for when the climate change hits. U.S. will be a VERY popular place to be! :)

      --
      urd
    95. Re: I don't get it... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "it was only Asians who were excluded then"
      And, so, you dispute your own statement...

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    96. Re:I don't get it... by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      So give them an easy process to apply for a work visa that expires after, say, 6 months, and a process and criteria to renew that visa

      We used to have such systems. Then "fear the brown hordes" became a useful campaign slogan.

    97. Re:I don't get it... by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      The melting pot isn't about you. It's about your grandchildren.

      Immigrants remain somewhat distinct. Their children mostly assimilate but still are a bit of a bridge. Their children completely assimilate.

      Your grandchildren will be indistinguishable from any other American. That is the melting pot.

    98. Re:I don't get it... by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      The only time I ever see it mentioned is by leftists, who seem obsessed with race.

      Believe it or not, we are able to notice you are not talking about "building a wall" to keep out the Canadians. Or Asians (~15% of undocumented workers). Or Europeans (~25%).

      We also notice that the countries that are not "Shitholes" just happen to contain people who are very pale skinned.

      There's a pretty obvious pattern here. Especially when you protest too much when called on it.

    99. Re:I don't get it... by stdarg · · Score: 1

      The melting pot happened, but is it really what people were trying to do?

      Yes, for many of them.

      Nobody wants to get assimilated. ST:TNG had a whole villain civilization based on that!

      Assimilation by the Borg meant giving up your literal identity, your consciousness, to become part of the hive mind. Assimilation in terms of immigration simply means learning the language and adopting the prevalent values of the host society.

      I mean I can't say I'm surprised that someone on slashdot would make a Star Trek analogy, but good lord is it a bad analogy. If THAT actually plays a role in your thoughts about immigration, please reconsider and get a more accurate view of what people who favor assimilation are actually talking about.

      No, this'll make us stronger too.

      Sure it will make us stronger in some areas, like food as you mentioned. It will make us weaker in some areas that I think are far more important, like GDP per capita and quality of schools.

      I like arepas and Peruvian chicken. Sure. But let me ask you, do you have kids? Do you have schools near you where you can see the decline in test scores over the past 20 or 30 years as the percent of FRL (free or reduced lunch, a measure of povert) and ESL (English as a second language) kids has increased? Now that I have kids, I want good schools, the same good schools that I had growing up that are being / have been destroyed by negative demographic change. This is happening all over the country.

      I don't have any problem with immigration. I'm married to an immigrant. Immigration does have to be controlled though for the benefit of society.

    100. Re:I don't get it... by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      > Poverty and economic hardship are not valid reasons for asylum.

      Correct, and as far as I know, nobody has ever cited those reasons.

      Violence and persecution are, however; and that's the reason so many people are trying to escape central America.

      =Smidge=

    101. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ellis Island received more than 250.000 immigrants in April 1907 alone. That seemed to work out ok.

    102. Re:I don't get it... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      If they are refugees, then why are they reportedly waving proudly their country's flag as they march up, and in some cases even burning the US flag? That isn't the behavior of people seeking help from a host, that is a hostile invasion and damn rude.
      It is not indicative of asylum seekers, which, by international law, are supposed to stop at the nearest country for help, not cross over 3 or more borders to get to a target country.

      If you want to believe no one is calling for open borders, go ahead, but here's the evidence to the contrary:

      https://openborders.info/
      https://www.usatoday.com/story...
      https://www.salon.com/2017/03/...

      and those are just for starters..

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    103. Re:I don't get it... by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Why do you assume I'm a liberal? Is it because I try to use common sense and not sensationalist rhetoric?

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    104. Re:I don't get it... by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      > You don't seek asylum at the border, but at the consulate of your home country.

      False. To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States.

      > I don't know what this means. They're enforcing the law. That means forcing people to obey it.

      The difference is enforcing the law according to the law, and enforcing the law with brutality because you can get away with it. Despite what some people would like to believe, it's actually not okay for police officers to beat you senseless - there are actually laws that dictate how other laws are to be enforced. We've unfortunately gotten very bad at enforcing them, though.

      > You just advocated for ICE not to enforce the law

      Incorrect; There is a proper way and an improper way to enforce laws. By way of trivial (and admittedly hyperbolic) example, the proper way to enforce speed limit laws is to issue the offending driver a ticket, not to drag them out of their car and beat them within an inch of their life. Similarly, there are proper ways to detain and deport illegal immigrants, and there are improper ways.

      =Smidge=

    105. Re:I don't get it... by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Unlike the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document.

      The Constitution is our legal code, the Declaration is our moral code

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    106. Re:I don't get it... by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      >The "ripping babies from Mama's arms" narrative is more dramatic than factual. In a majority of cases, the minors were not taken from mothers, but dubious/unverified family members, who, at a minimum, endangered them by force marching them under unsafe, risky conditions and used them as unwitting participants in a crime.

      1) Seeking asylum is not a crime.

      2) The journey to the US was clearly judged to be less dangerous than staying in their home country overrun by gang violence and political unrest.

      3) When you say "more dramatic than factual" does that imply there is some number of dissociated families that would be deemed acceptable? Last I saw it was ~2800 people or so that were affected. How many forcibly orphaned and illegally detained children are acceptable to you?

      > The result is that these kids were taken and put into the equivalent of day care and/or foster care, not super-max.

      Would you take your children to a "day care center" that held kids in chain link fence enclosures with bare concrete floors? That's a dog kennel, not day care.
      =Smidge=

    107. Re:I don't get it... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      But... all the outrage shown by these people against illegal immigration is fake. They want cheap strawberries and cheap fast food and cheap lawn mowing and cheap home construction. If they are really against illegal immigration they will prosecute the employers.

      This line is parroted by people who have no idea what employers have to do to insure an employee you hire can legally work in the U.S. It is impossible for an employer to tell if an employee can work in the country legally. Pick your jaw up off the floor and let me repeat that. The U.S. government provides no way for an employer to tell if a prospective employee can legally work in the U.S.

      When an employer hires someone, we're not allowed to ask race, nationality, country of origin, or legal status. All we're allowed to do is request the employee fill out form I-9 and present the piece(s) of ID required by the I-9. Most people give their driver's license and social security card. A few give their U.S. passport. Non-citizens give a copy of their work visa in lieu of their social security card.

      The employer photocopies these documents, and puts them along with the I-9 in a filing cabinet. That's it.

      You don't submit it to the government. There's no cross-check to verify that the IDs are valid, and not forged. Nobody reviews the info the person wrote on the I-9. If the employer suspects the documents are forged, they can refuse to hire the person. But you're taking an enormous risk since you'll be subject to discrimination lawsuits and fines if it turns out the documents were real. The form and copies of the work documents just sit in a filing cabinet. The sole purpose of the I-9 and the copies of the documentation is to prove the employer did their due diligence and asked the employee to present documents they're supposed to have before they can work. In the event that the employer is raided by INS, the I-9 and documents shield the employer from prosecution for hiring illegal immigrants. The illegally immigrants are still hired, it's just that the employer didn't know they were working illegally.

      When you hear on the news that some company was raided and INS found illegal immigrants working there, that does not automatically mean the employer intentionally hired illegal immigrants. The employer could have, under current law, hired all those people legally, and some of them were still working illegally. As long as the employer has copies of the I-9 and work documents (fake or not), they have done nothing wrong, even if the employee is in the country and working illegally. Most of the stories you hear about employers "caught" hiring illegal immigrants are simply a result of the employer losing or misfiling the I-9, and they can't provide it to INS after a raid which turned up some people working illegally. (I kept photocopies, and also scanned them to avoid a single point of failure.)

      The current system is a joke. With modern technology, it would be trivial for the government to set up a system where the info on the I-9 could be submitted to a government server, which spits out a simple yes/no verification. Or even not tell the employer, and some time later ICE drops by to investigate the person whose I-9 didn't match a known U.S. citizen. Some states have even passed laws making it illegal for employers to report to INS/ICE people who applied for a job but weren't able to fill out the I-9 and provide the requisite documents. It's not the employers who are at fault here. The government doesn't want you to know who is legal or illegal to hire.

      A lot of this leniency stems from the post-Civil War era. A lot of people in the ex-Confederacy tried to make hard for freed slaves to work or vote, by denying they were legally eligible to do these things. So the law was set up to force employers and pollsters to assume the person cou

    108. Re:I don't get it... by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Then how about the Declaration of Independence? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." All men, not just Americans.

      My family immigrated into the U.S. legally. Wait list, visa, green card, then finally citizenship. Treating all men equally means people who entered the country illegally should be booted out, and forced to go through the same process we did.

      You're not asking for equal rights for illegal immigrants. You're asking that illegal immigrants be given superior rights compared to legal immigrants.

      And as an aside, the SCotUS has repeatedly held that U.S. Constitutional protections apply to everyone on U.S. soil, even those who entered the country illegally (heck, they're even counted for the purpose of determining Congressional representation). That was why Bush put a prison in Guantanamo Bay - because it was Cuban soil, not U.S. soil, so he hoped to avoid giving the prisoners there Constitutional rights. So everyone in the U.S. enjoys the same rights and freedoms protected by the U.S. Constitution. The people here illegally just don't get the rights and freedoms associated with U.S. citizenship (mainly, freedom from deportation, and ability to work legally).

    109. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with
      open trade and open borders, sometime in the future with energy that is as
      green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for
      every person in the hemisphere.” Hillary Clinton. [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p.
      28]
      She's referring to an EU-type system for some ideal time in the future. Claiming that she is for open borders now is just dishonest.

      Your other sources are BS also. Some blogger I've never heard of, and a philosophy on a t-shirt. You either are a Russian troll, or someone who has fallen for a Russian troll.

    110. Re:I don't get it... by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Then how about the Declaration of Independence? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." All men, not just Americans.

      My family immigrated into the U.S. legally. Wait list, visa, green card, then finally citizenship. Treating all men equally means people who entered the country illegally should be booted out, and forced to go through the same process we did. You're not asking for equal rights for illegal immigrants. You're asking that illegal immigrants be given superior rights compared to legal immigrants.

      I'm asking for a simpler process. It can take decades for people to become citizens, and we are severely restricting temporary entry such as refugee status, so of course people are going to try and come here illegally. Make it easier for people to come here legally to work and they will come here legally. It's been shown with guns, drugs, alcohol, music/movies, anything: when it's hard to get something legally most people will simply get it illegally. Immigration is the same way.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    111. Re:I don't get it... by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      This current country was created by the Constitution, not the Articles of Confederation, nor the Declaration of Independence, nor some silly poem on a statue. Do they even teach civics at your high school anymore? They obviously don't teach how to argue without silly appeals to emotion.

      Without the DoI we would still have been part of the British Empire so yes, the DoI was the first document creating the entity that eventually because the US.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    112. Re:I don't get it... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
      Have you wondered why is that?

      Republicans own all the branches of the government. Democrats have absolutely no power to stop anything. Why haven't they made it possible to catch the criminal employers of the illegal immigrants?

      I tell why. They want it this way. They want illegal immigrants working for a pittance working the hands to the bone. All the smoke and mirrors about the border wall is to fool the people. The Republicans want illegal immigrants to come in and work for low wages, That is the truth.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    113. Re:I don't get it... by Etcetera · · Score: 1, Troll

      Hint: You've got a better chance of surviving The Purge if you're a gun-totin' prepper type... not a campus hipster.

      Your country has a better chance of not having a purge if its full of campus hipsters vs prepper types

      Any country has a better chance of not having a purge if it's homogeneous, but I don't think that's a proper aim.

    114. Re: I don't get it... by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      "it was only Asians who were excluded then" And, so, you dispute your own statement...

      Errr, no. I think you need to reread the "whole" sentence/paragraph of what the parent said instead of pick and choose only a portion to argue.

    115. Re:I don't get it... by Lynal · · Score: 1

      ...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?

      If you are here in this country illegally, you have criminally trespassed. You should be deported.

      That is the current law.

      I don't know the current law and if what type of deportation it prescribes, but a few key questions are: (1) is the law being applied correctly? (2) is the law the one that "the people" want? and (3) if "the people" don't want the current laws, how do they change them?

      I would suggest considering the parallel between these prank calls and the civil disobedience that Rosa Parks and many others performed in the Civil Rights era. We might get to different answers, but I hope we can agree on the questions.

    116. Re:I don't get it... by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      People fleeing the Republic helped bring about the downfall of Rome:
      Ancient Rome in 20 minutes

    117. Re:I don't get it... by eclectro · · Score: 1

      Who is advocating wide open borders?

      Puhleaze. Democratic Socialist darling Ocasio-Cortez put forth the rallying cry two months ago to abolish ICE - which essentially would be the same as if not directly opening the borders. And a bunch of other Democrats could not stumble over each other fast enough to parrot her. It was cringe inducing to say the least it was so ridiculous.

      Many Democrats have and now are advocating we welcome what has now become an army of thousands of men (really no women) marching here (in any other reality it would be called an invasion force) into the country because we can absorb them.

      I know many people do not bother with mainstream media sources anymore. But you really do need to pull your head out of the sand on this one.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    118. Re:I don't get it... by eclectro · · Score: 2

      Just a thought, maybe the reason that Republicans control every branch of government is because they are listening to what their constituents are telling them.

      Many of which have long wanted effective border enforcement. Which would entail making ICE stronger not abolishing it.

      You're forced to parrot that ridiculous idea because it would be a no-story to say that you agree with the president that the border needs enforcing. After all, Obama was separating illegal immigrant kids from their so-called parents - after they were marched through a deadly desert - far longer before Trump decided to run and make immigration an issue after it had been ignored by all for decades.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    119. Re:I don't get it... by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      The problem is the appearance... Those who were born by the same race parents will keep their race appearance, e.g. Asians. As a result, even they were born in America, raised in America, and have lived all their lives in America, they can still be looked at as immigrants. Even though the melting pot is supposed to be about the culture, there are too many white/black Americans who think that America is only for white and some black. I guess the meaning of the word should be taught early in school in hope that everyone would understand what it is.

    120. Re:I don't get it... by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      The issue with ICE and TSA are that they were poorly enacted responses to legitimate concerns.

      ICE should probably be part of Customs and Border Patrol. If CBP were able to do their job well, we'd know exactly who overstayed visitor visas.

      In parallel to that change, we should be more willing to cooperate with our neighbors and as a country have an easier process to legal immigration. My wife is an immigrant, I know the process. Most people who come here simply want to work hard and have a better life than where they came from. Our "leader" pushes the agenda that immigrants are criminal and it's created a culture of fear.

      That immigrant march.. 1st of all they are in southern Mexico. 2nd of all, they have committed no crimes. Why vilify them? We have processes in place to deal with these situations. Let's let those processes run their course. Hell, I know in my region, they cannot find enough citizens to work in the manufacturing facilities for $15/hr, I bet these immigrants would love that sort of opportunity.

      I am well informed on what goes on not only in the US but also globally.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    121. Re:I don't get it... by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      You are talking of an old verification system which is already out-dated. What employers now need to do is to include E-Verify process at the same the employer is filing the form I-9. The system has been in place for many years already.

    122. Re:I don't get it... by eclectro · · Score: 1

      Let me give you a liberal perspective on this: you are raising a straw man.

      Let me give you an independent swing voter perspective. Obama had eight years of inaction concerning immigration following decades of administrations kicking the can down the road, literally.

      In that light, Trump runs a campaign on fixing immigration, gets elected - and now Democrats are somehow mad at Trump because he actually wants to fix immigration and enforce the borders??

      There comes a point where people look silly. This is one of those times that Democrats really look stupid silly with what essentially amounts to an army of thousands of men marching to the border waving their flags of their countries they are coming from. Then they will demand that they have a right to enter and force their way in - when by any measure of jurisprudence they do not have that legal right.

      You know what in a normal world that would be called?? An invasion.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    123. Re:I don't get it... by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      As a result, even they were born in America, raised in America, and have lived all their lives in America, they can still be looked at as immigrants

      And that applies if they are this poster's grandkids or if they're a 7th generation American.

      The point is the attitude and behaviors of those grandkids will be just like that 7th generation American.

    124. Re:I don't get it... by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      The amount of illegal immigrants in the US rivals the entire population of Canada

      As long as you define "rivals" as "1/3rd". There's about 36M people in Canada. There's about 12M undocumented immigrants in the US. And that 12M includes people who are working through the immigration process (DACA, asylum, etc).

      The US does not have an issue with illegal immigration from Canada

      sO yOu WaNt OpEn BoRdErS!!!!

      Also, we just deported a former US solider to Canada. Damn Canadians and their rampant drug abuse!!!

      You do not have millions of Canadians flowing in flooding the already dwindling manual labour market.

      If this concern was actually a problem, farmers would not be scrambling to find farm workers. They are.

      It turns out, US Persons don't want to do farm labor for terrible pay.

      People protest because they are stupefied by such an asinine statement. Building a wall on the Canadian border would benefit us Canadians more than Americans.

      Whatever you do, make sure you stay locked on that obviously sarcastic part of the post, and skip over the parts where the Trumpkin are not upset at all about European or Asian undocumented immigrants.

    125. Re:I don't get it... by Jahoda · · Score: 1

      LOL... do...do you not understand that those "legal points of entry" were basically your imaginary "open borders" for everyone except the Chinese? BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA. What do you expect from a guy standing up to the oooooooo big scary antifa boogeyman that is totally a real thing.

    126. Re:I don't get it... by hey! · · Score: 1

      Obama deported three million people [source], and although changes in statistics gathering make it hard to compare precisely with prior presidents, that's a lot of people. He also proposed a bipartisan solution for Dreamers, which was torpedoed at the last minute by the Tea Party caucus. That's hardly Obama kicking the can down the road.

      Obama's deportation policy focused on troublemakers and people who commit crimes -- the very people Trump campaigned for throwing out. When Trump came in he took more of a bottom-feeder approach, going for the vulnerable, low hanging fruit and making examples of them (asylum-seekers, parents with children). As a result deportations are down, because immigrant communities distrust law enforcement and minority communities don't want to cooperate with immigration.

      As a result, deportations are down under Trump. So, yes. There comes a point where people look silly, unless instead they look depraved. And speaking of silly, are you still waiting for Mexico to pay for the wall? Isn't that silly?

      Oh, and your caravan "army" is fake news. There are a group of mainly Honduran (about half of them women and children) making their way north, and most of the viral images being shared are of different groups of people altogether and from the past. Caravan members haven't been beating up Mexican police or burning American flags. And in point of fact if they do reach the United States they do, under treaties we wrote after WW2, have a right to have their cases heard. If their cases have merit, we don't necessarily have to grant them residency, but we do have to find something humane to do with them. Why? Because we gave our word to do that.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    127. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      95% of terrorists in the USA are homegrown white right wingers. Why are you so deathly afraid of a brown person who is statistically less likely to commit any act of terrorism than a native white male?

    128. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh, the old "HERE IS YOUR IDEOLOGY" argument.

      I guess all conservatives are skinheads and Westboro thumpers, right?

    129. Re:I don't get it... by JThundley · · Score: 1

      You know, I've thought a bit about the argument "we can't bring everyone here, those people need to fix things at HOME and stay there....."

      Why can't we? Let's say your worst fear is realized and we allow mass immigration from these countries. These people would be here and not there, participating in our economy and not the economy of a corrupt and/or incompetent leader. Isn't that a good thing? Maybe America could buy the land or make them a territory ala Puerto Rico down the road.

      Why is your solution to this problem the only valid one?

    130. Re:I don't get it... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Rome hadn't been a Republic for centuries by the time it fell.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    131. Re:I don't get it... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      btw, just to be clear, even if my previous comment turns out to be correct, I don't think the solution is to stop immigration.......rather some sort of education requirement like "learn basic civics" should be enough.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    132. Re:I don't get it... by stinerman · · Score: 1

      It was never meant to be that executive departments and the courts would have so much power. Congress was designed to be pretty powerful, but for the reasons I mentioned they are not powerful at all.

      The idea that Congress would cover for a criminal and corrupt President was unthinkable. There's a reason the question of whether or not the President could pardon himself never came up. It would be unthinkable. Congress would have him out on his ass before the ink dried on the pardon.

    133. Re: I don't get it... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      The whole of the quote I read:

      "No one before 1875 needed "permission to immigrate" you only needed a boat ticket, and it was only Asians who were excluded then, Europeans just needed that boat ticket until 1891"

      I noted that it was 'only the Asians' who we 'excluded' then.

      I do think I got it. Before 1891 Asians suffered discrimination where other immigrants mostly did not. Most European immigrants weren't really noticed. Later the Irish got quite a bit of discrimination, though that coincided with the Depression, a complication.

      And despite the discrimination Asians came and came, and while they had enclaves much as others did, they thrived.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    134. Re:I don't get it... by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      and not having endless conspiracy theories over a little shooting in Dallas.

      A little shooting? Yeah, whatever.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    135. Re:I don't get it... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      If this concern was actually a problem, farmers would not be scrambling to find farm workers. They are.

      It turns out, US Persons don't want to do farm labor for terrible pay.

      So whats the point of having a minimum wage law? The illegals will do it for half of that! Lets abolish minimum wage!

    136. Re:I don't get it... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should ship some of the poor out of work americans to your region and let them do the work. Why not help our own poor and feeble before we help the rest of the world. Or the people from here aren't important enough to be helped?

    137. Re:I don't get it... by InvalidsYnc · · Score: 1

      Are you a fucking idiot? Who says I am afraid of "a brown person". I have enough brains in my head to know that an uncontrolled border, or a poorly controlled border, or a border that gets overrun will likely have people coming through that mean harm to the country. And that is ignoring the fact that it is FUCKING ILLEGAL what they are doing. And not to mention the fact that allowing anyone to stay that comes across illegally is just throwing it in the face of every single person that did it the RIGHT WAY.

      Oh, and the whole "home grown right wingers", that is a farce as well. Just look at the news, you can see who the unhinged assholes are, thinking that they can harass people in the most absurd ways anywhere they want because they don't have the same political view. Let me spell it out for you. F U C K I N G D E M O C R A T S! Oh, wait, you won't see that, because you watch CNN that has a vested interest in not showing the stupidity of your party.

      There, now fuck off back to wherever the fuck you come from. Jackass.

    138. Re:I don't get it... by willaien · · Score: 1

      Does this administration limit such tactics to repeat offenders?

    139. Re:I don't get it... by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Given this isn't a problem that popped up overnight, why hasn't either party done anything about it?

      If anything, the Democrats should be more against illegal immigration than the Republicans. A huge pool of poor people raises the costs of socialist policies and makes them less politically viable. Universal healthcare and free college sounds great until millions of Central and South Americans swarm in to take advantage of it and you have to raise taxes to pay for them.

    140. Re:I don't get it... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      First off - illegal immigrants don't have access to existing "socialist" programs. What makes you think they'd have access to new ones?

      Because both parties are far more interested in kowtowing to their wealthy masters than promoting their supposed ideologies? It's really convenient to have issues to fight passionately over, without hope of making serious headway. Keeps the proles distracted while both parties work together to carry out their masters' wishes.

      Besides - the Republicans would never allow it. Get rid of illegal immigrants and they'd lose one of their biggest campaign rallying drums. Seriously - take a good hard look at the Republican proposed "solutions". Like this one, or a 2000 mile wall easily defeated by a $10 ladder or rope. They're doomed to failure by design - but what they do accomplish is riling up the proles and/or making it easier to legally harass non-whites.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    141. Re:I don't get it... by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      First off - illegal immigrants don't have access to existing "socialist" programs. What makes you think they'd have access to new ones?

      But they do have access to some medical benefits. Their kids go to publicly funded schools and they receive refundable child tax credits. Then there's the benefits they're not supposed to receive, but do anyways, since the burden of disproving their immigration status lies with the agency that's handing out welfare, and they're not qualified to do so.

  4. illlegal Immigration + no assimilation = invasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Simple math. Some people just donâ(TM)t get it

  5. Easy Solution by BlueStrat · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's a serious felony to prank-call LEAs. Prosecute the prank-callers and put them in prison. As soon as the first wave of prosecutions occur, the prank-calling will all but disappear.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    1. Re:Easy Solution by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      That's what Chinese-based VoIP providers are for... thank G-d for our broken system of Caller ID... :D

  6. So? by wbr1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "And nothing of value was lost"

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  7. Re: Immigrant criminals! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My home extends to my walls -- a country is just a plot of land cursed with a (generally bad) government. I don't see a country as my home, just a political unit that I happen to be unfortunate enough to live under.

  8. Re: Immigrant criminals! by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

    I don't see a country as my home, just a political unit that I happen to be unfortunate enough to live under.

    So you wouldn't mind if people destroyed the roads, for example ?

  9. Re:"prank" calls? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    It's a well established form of protest. Most protest is some kind of denial of service attack, be it temporarily blocking a road as you march down it or peacefully sitting in an area. Other examples include paying fines in pennies and deliberately spoiling ballot papers.

    The correct term is "protest calls".

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  10. Re:"prank" calls? by willaien · · Score: 1

    More like wasting the resources of a poorly thought out institution that serves no real purpose other than to validate bigotry.

  11. Some immigrants are more brazen than others by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    I understand members of the American public are justifiably outraged by the presence in the United States of some particularly heinous scofflaws. Apparently these evil people have managed to anger tens of thousands of upstanding American citizens, who have reported them to ICE repeatedly.

    Chinga-Sue Madray, ICE is coming for you! Afooku Sosumi, there will be nowhere for you to hide! Sookma Har-Dwon, soon you will regret slipping into America!

    You have been warned. Govern yourselves accordingly!

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  12. Re:illlegal Immigration + no assimilation = invasi by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

    Well, that would be Asians that crossed the bearing straight. You know, came from a different continent and was not originally from here. Oh wait, that destroys your whole argument.

    --
    Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
  13. Isn't this also illegal by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

    Isn't this also illegal? It seems like this would be equivalent to prank calling 911 which I'm pretty sure is already illegal in many areas. Calling in and harassing law enforcement or giving fake tips to a crime seems like something that a person should be able to be prosecuted for. I'm all for peaceful protesting and call your congressman by the thousands and complain all you want but law breakers should be prosecuted not cheered. I saw a similar article today about a bunch of graffiti all over Yale and the liberals all cheering them all. We shouldn't be cheering on people who do illegal things whether it is crossing the border, interfering with law enforcement, or vandalism. There are plenty of peaceful non destructive ways to protest that are still very effective. Law breaking protesters should be prosecuted just like anyone else.

  14. Too much talking by petes_PoV · · Score: 2

    they would need an additional 400 operators

    I have done consultancy work on some major call centres. If it takes an agent more than 3 minutes on average to process a call, including wrap-up time after the caller has gone, then there is something wrong with the IT.

    At that rate an agent working an 8 hour shift would be expected to handle about 160 calls. To require 400 agents to field 16,000 calls means they are taking 40 calls per person in a shift. Maybe down to 20 if the call centre is running 2 shifts. There will be peak times when some calls will be lost, but using those numbers as a guide means that the agents are taking far too long handling each call.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  15. A poem by wbr1 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Home, by Warsan Shire (British-Somali poet)

    no one leaves home unless
    home is the mouth of a shark.

    you only run for the border
    when you see the whole city
    running as well.

    your neighbours running faster
    than you, the boy you went to school with
    who kissed you dizzy behind
    the old tin factory is
    holding a gun bigger than his body,
    you only leave home
    when home won't let you stay.

    no one would leave home unless home
    chased you, fire under feet,
    hot blood in your belly.

    it's not something you ever thought about
    doing, and so when you did -
    you carried the anthem under your breath,
    waiting until the airport toilet
    to tear up the passport and swallow,
    each mouthful of paper making it clear that
    you would not be going back.

    you have to understand,
    no one puts their children in a boat
    unless the water is safer than the land.

    who would choose to spend days
    and nights in the stomach of a truck
    unless the miles travelled
    meant something more than journey.

    no one would choose to crawl under fences,
    be beaten until your shadow leaves you,
    raped, then drowned, forced to the bottom of
    the boat because you are darker, be sold,
    starved, shot at the border like a sick animal,
    be pitied, lose your name, lose your family,
    make a refugee camp a home for a year or two or ten,
    stripped and searched, find prison everywhere
    and if you survive and you are greeted on the other side
    with go home blacks, refugees
    dirty immigrants, asylum seekers
    sucking our country dry of milk,
    dark, with their hands out
    smell strange, savage -
    look what they've done to their own countries,
    what will they do to ours?

    the dirty looks in the street
    softer than a limb torn off,
    the indignity of everyday life
    more tender than fourteen men who
    look like your father, between
    your legs, insults easier to swallow
    than rubble, than your child's body
    in pieces - for now, forget about pride
    your survival is more important.

    i want to go home, but home is the mouth of a shark
    home is the barrel of the gun
    and no one would leave home
    unless home chased you to the shore
    unless home tells you to
    leave what you could not behind,
    even if it was human.

    no one leaves home until home
    is a damp voice in your ear saying
    leave, run now, i don't know what
    i've become.

    but i know that anywhere is safer than here. (Painting: Holy Family Icon by Kelly Latimore)

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:A poem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thank you for sharing this, new to me but an instant favorite. Glad to see /. isn't completely overrun, just mostly.

  16. until people stop wanting to come here.... by gDLL · · Score: 1

    Good point !! And have you thought about the various causes that would lead to such a thing ? Hmm? Have you ?

  17. Re: Immigrant criminals! by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

    "Countries are just lines drawn in the sand with a stick." - Enter Shikari

    --
    I tend to rant.
  18. Has been replaced by 1-844-wyt-fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UouJ9HT3WOs

  19. Re: Immigrant criminals! by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

    Because private companies can design and build actual spaceships, but it's literally impossible to lay a thin strip of asphalt on the ground without government!

    Hmmm, you must be a big fan of toll roads then..

  20. Re: Immigrant criminals! by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

    My home extends to my walls -- a country is just a plot of land cursed with a (generally bad) government. I don't see a country as my home, just a political unit that I happen to be unfortunate enough to live under.

    Your thinking is muddled. Am I allow to camp out on your front lawn then? If not, how about the sidewalk in front of your house? Lastly - if it's so bad why don't you leave? Go to where the grass is always greener.

  21. Re:Borders are fine by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    and were fine before ICE. ICE is a new thing. I

    New?

    We've had departments of immigration officers that rounded up and deported illegals for a LONG time.

    Hell, for a good public example of it, look in Cheech and Chong's first movie Up in Smoke where they get caught up in a raid by the "migra" and sent across the border into Mexico.

    This isn't anything new.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  22. Sane solutions by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    It's a myth most Democrats are for "open borders". Most also want to curb illegal immigration, but the current administration is doing it wrong. Walls are too easy to defeat by themselves, and expensive. I propose the following steps:

    1. Hire and train more border guards. Democrats have proposed this before; they are usually not against it. (I say "usually" because, yes, they do play political games, as both parties do.)

    2. Invest R&D in crosser auto-detection. Past attempts failed, but if research is kept up, they'll get better with time.

    3. Audit business payroll and hiring. This will require tax money and will inconvenience businesses. (Businesses lobbying against this is one reason why GOP has been reluctant to act.)

    4. Some sort of amnesty is probably necessary. We don't have the manpower to boot out those already here, and many of them have established family ties.

    5. Try to bring peace to Central and South American countries rocked by violence and drug wars.

    6. Treat people and countries with respect. Insults and harsh treatment of children only make the problem worse.

    7. Have a more flexible temporary migrant worker system.

  23. Re:"prank" calls? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Exactly. They aren't "prank" calls.

  24. Crazy people shipping bombs by huckamania · · Score: 1

    We really need to stop trying to classify each sicko in our society as a political operative. It's ghoulish to take a tragedy and try to make political hay out of it.

    Also, you don't know who is shipping bombs nor their motivation (unless it is you!).

  25. Re:"prank" calls? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Thats great that you think that the ICE is a "waste". Lets just open the borders wide open and see how long you survive.

  26. Re:"prank" calls? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Where did I mention the level of taxation? I just said "taxpayer".

  27. Re:"prank" calls? by willaien · · Score: 1

    Not ICE. While its current marching orders I strongly disagree with, I don't think ICE should be disbanded. I think this call center was a waste.

  28. Re: Immigrant criminals! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    No. At the end of the day, it's just a plot of land (can be nice land) lorded over by a government. Proud cynic here.

  29. Re:An even better use for the revenue by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

    Yeah, or just get rid of citizenship all together and save even more money!

  30. Re:illlegal Immigration + no assimilation = invasi by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    The problem is the second term in your equation is false.

    Just like every group of immigrants before them, it's grandchildren who are fully assimilated.

  31. Re:An even better use for the revenue by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Or help improve poverty in Central America. Illegal immigration from Mexico has gone down and primarily because its economy has been improving. However illegal immigration from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador has gone up because those economies are bad, the police there are ineffective, and the governments are failing. When most illegal immigrants are willing to endure the extremely hazardous desert crossing, then it's clear that a tougher stance isn't going to be much deterrence.

  32. Re:illlegal Immigration + no assimilation = invasi by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

    Here is a thought. Name one fucking nation/origional occupant that DID NOT TRY TO CONTROL immigration to THEIR LAND. No matter what fucking generation.

    --
    Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time